the latest edits introduce a lot of speculation and even more blatantly wrong facts. I will be by around 9:30 EST to restore my stub version i originally wrote and expand from there.

Go for it! I dunno where a lot of this stuff came from. (And don't forget to sign.) Steve 00:40, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Isn't most information about stardates speculative? I was thinking that

I could put a link to the wealth of information at, however most of that is speculative and non-canon. --Lenonn 15:56, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)

Stardate DilemmaEdit

I've never thought much of Stardates in TOS. I think of them as almost irrelevant to figuring out dates. Yet I conceder how could one bring reason to Stardates. My current theory is that, not all TOS logs, were logged during the Episode. Some episodes like "The Enemy Within" Kirk actually refers to events in the past tense and facts that Kirk just did not have at that time. Like in "The Man Trap" "Unknown to us at this time, we were all seeing a different woman" or something to that effect.

I propose adding to the Stardate descriptions, "Some Stardates were logged after the Event, sometimes at the request of Starfleet, or to help fill details to other reports filed" also, "At times these Logs were done from a prospective of it being done during the event, despite being logged sometime after."

The best way for one to know, if a Log did occur during the Episode is if you see the persons mouth moving. I know this does not fix everything, but it is a Start. TOSrules 01:37, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Stardates (moved from: Memory Alpha:Ten ForwardEdit

While reading the 30th Anniversary Special Collector's Edition Star Trek book, I noticed some information on the Stardates that is not included in Memory-Alpha's "Stardate" entry. It mentions that the the digit following the decimal indicates one-tenth of a 24-hour period, logic dictating that a single unit is equal to one earth-day. This seems somewhat incongruous with the fact that the 3 digits preceding the decimal from 000 to 999 reveal the progression of a single earth year (although the book indicates that those 3 digits progress unevenly). Could someone else amend the Memory-Alpha entry to account for this info, despite its incongruities, I don't trust that I could improve the entry myself.

Books are not canon. 16:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite Edit

I reverted the following rewrite as it is in the wrong POV and speculative. --From Andoria with Love 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Information was removed by original author.

You can remove it from history also if you want. This site is obviously far too conformist and uninquisitive. You seriously believe the official theories are not speculative with respect to canon?

Yes, we can be conformist in regards to our policies, but we are not uninquisitive. The problem with your additions is that it was an extensive amount of personal speculation which was added to the article as information which has been established in a Star Trek episode or movie. What is written here is the official explanation as given by Gene Roddenberry; any other explanation in regards to canon is irrelevent, although other possibilities may be explained briefly in the background section. Come to think of it, though, Gene's official explanation hasn't been established in any episode or movie either and should probably be moved to background, as well. Anyways, I hope this clarifies matters. --From Andoria with Love 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

one-tenth per day?Edit

I seem to remember a TNG ep where someone (Riker and Crusher IIRC) are watching a security recording. They notice a date stamp that is one decimal place off from what it should be, and Crusher makes a comment of "One day Later?" Does anyone else remember this? Ssaint04 10:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds vaguely familiar, although if that was the way she explained it, I really would recommend noting it in the background and simply stating ambiguously in the main article that Crusher deduced whatever-it-was from the decimal places. As we've seen time and again, stardates have very complex methods of calculation, which are far beyond the grasp of weak-minded 21st century Human beings. :P That or the writers have better things to keep track of. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 10:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh wait, it's already been mentioned above but cited as coming from the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Someone else can deal with the information though as I don't recall the episode and am not in the mood for a headache. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 10:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Let's not forget "Second Sight", which takes place on the fourth anniversary of the Battle of Wolf 359. However, the episode is set on stardate 47329.4; the battle took place on stardate 43997, according to "Emissary". --From Andoria with Love 13:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I was more concerned with finding that specefic episode reference. As far as I know, it is the only episodic reference to how a stardate is calculated.Ssaint04 23:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Vfd Edit

Combat date Edit

This article is entirely italics, describing a small aspect on an alternate timeline (from "Yesterday's Enterprise"). Since it appears to be the alternate timeline version of stardate, I suggest that it be merged with stardate, and then made into a re-direct to stardate. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. Just because something took place entirly in an alternate timeline, doesn't mean it shouldn't be kept. Andrew Kim, for example, hasn't been merged with Kes and Harry Kim. - AJ Halliwell 04:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Merges" (=no real deletion involved) don't need to be brought up on the "Votes for deletion" page, so if that is the suggestion, it doesn't really need to be discussed here. However, I agree with the comment that we don't need separate articles for basically the same thing with different names. Merge & Redirect is the best solution in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Since this was a merge suggestion and is not really up for deletion, I'll go ahead and merge/redirect this as well as Military log below. --From Andoria with Love 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


I am of the opinion that the "Stardate" is no different from any other Calendar. Take the "Old Roman Calendar" that started on the day that the city of Rome was founded, April 21, 753 A.D. Since the Federation was founded in 2161, it could be suggested that the "Stardate" began in the year 2161. --<George E. Pierson III>

While an interesting idea, there is absolutely no canon evidence of it, and probably evidence to the contrary. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that there would have been any canon evidence, I was just pointing out a logical probability. If there is any actual evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.

And, minor nit (yes, I love to nitpick), Rome was founded 753 *BC*, after all, the Roman Empire was very much alive and well (and arguably at its zenith) at the time of Christ.  :) (Whereas, in 753 AD, it either had fallen, or was very much a shadow of its former self) --The Time Traveller 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Woops. I solumnly sit corrected. I have no idea where I got the date of April 21, 753 A.D. I just looked up [Rome] in Wikipedia. It states "Rome's early history is shrouded in legend. According to Roman tradition, the city was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus on 21 April 753 BC."
Not too long ago, I bought seasons 1-3 of the original Star Trek and I placed each episode that had a star date in numerical order. I also included the cartoons and the movies. I discovered that when I included the years that each episode was to take place, there were some serious inconsistencies. If you would like to see the list, I could post it for your concideration. -- 03:30, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
I know that it would be speculation. But it would be worth looking at for a while. -- 03:30, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
This is not the forum for our personal speculations, as posts on talk pages need to be relevant to changing or improving the article. In your case, such a compilation would be original research, which is not permitted.--31dot 09:53, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

time dilationEdit

accoridng to the article on the warp drive, time that passes when a ship is in warp is the same as time outside of the ship due to the ship 'surfing' the warp bubble so to speak. however this article says that star dates are computed using the ships speed ect.. so this is a bit of a contradiction. however im not so bold as to change it myslef.

It is probably talking about starships traveling at impulse, which can be relativistic. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Longest stardate Edit

Regarding the stardate from "The Child", I was wondering what the context was in which it was given, was it from the captain's log or did it appear on a viewscreen, etc. I don't recall this fact, and can find no references for it. However, I do find references for stardate 49123.5621 in VOY: "Relativity", when Seven was sent back in time, so 42073.1435 was not unique in its length. I do seem to recall other instances where more digits were displayed on viewscreens, although I don't remember the specifics. --Nike 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference for the time being. However, a note that stardates in the 24th century extend at least four numbers after the decimal point could be added. --From Andoria with Love 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Also note the comments I left at talk:Personal log, Donald Varley. --Alan del Beccio 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that article link. I knew that I had seen this, but could not recall where. (Guess I should check out what links here.) I had noticed that the decimal related to the time, just like Julian Dates or Lotus/Excel serial dates. I would also point out that there was one episode (TNG: "Code of Honor") which had two digits right of the decimal in the captain's log, twice; I believe that this was the only episode to have more than a single digit in the captain's log. However, the logs indicate that (.32 - .25 = 0.07) units was "over a full day", which contradicts (.01 = 00:14:24). YATI --Nike 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha Edit

Kopachris added:

In the book Where Sea Meets Sky, Captain Christopher Pike has to use conversion formulas to convert stardates to the Gregorian Calender for his friend "Nowan" from the bar "The Captain's Table".

My understanding of the content and resource policies is that this can only be mentioned under Apocrypha, if at all. Even then, I'm not sure how useful this is. It would be pointless to simply list every mention of stardates ever made, especially those which are not canon. --Nike 09:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stardates per year Edit

Kopachris added:

If 1000 stardates equal one year, then the decimal places should represent the time between two 8 hour, 45 minute, 57.9456 second periods.

I hate to nitpick, but if you're going to add a figure with a precision of hundreds of microseconds, it should at least be accurate. 1000 times 8h45m57.9456s is exactly 365.254 days. What sort of year is this? The Gregorian year averages exactly 365.2425 days.[1] The Julian year, as used by astronomers, is exactly 365.25 days. The mean tropical year is just under 365.2422 days. The sidereal year is about 365.2564 days and the vernal equinoctial year is about 365.24238d. There are also other year lengths, but I cannot find one of 365.254d. Moreover, there is no canonical reference identifying exactly which year-length is used with stardates. It could be any of these, or none. And calculating it according to canonical references suggests that it may not even be an exact earth year. Therefore, the figure should have less precision, and would more properly be stated as approximately 8 hours and 46 minutes. This works for most definitions of a year. Since there is some uncertainty even about that, we might say that one stardate unit is about 9 hours, or a little less. In any event, we certainly should not claim that there are exactly 31557.9456 seconds per stardate without any evidence. --Nike 12:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. Fix it, if you haven't already... :) -- Cid Highwind 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I have. And on re-reading Andrew Main's stardate FAQ, I see that he gives several canonical references which he uses to calculate possible ranges, in one case a year works out to between 704.4 and 954.4 units, in another 807.8 to 974.4 units, and another 832 to 834.75, suggesting that there are actually 833 units per year, but then he says that there are many more references indicating 1000 per year, which is believable, although he does not list them. In any event, I don't think we can be very precise. --Nike 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on a mean tropical year of 365.242199 days, 1/1000 of a year would be equal to exactly 8.76581277 hours. For use in my nerd-blog, instead of using Gregorian dates, I use "stardates" assuming stardate 0000.0 was on January 1, 2000 at 12:00 AM EST. So I calculate the number of hours since that time (harder than it sounds, leap years, etc) and divide that by 8.76581277 and round to one decimal place. That give me a rough "stardate" for my blog. That means I'm posting this on Stardate 7580.5. Redshirt Bob 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I worked out from actual episode data that 1 Gregorian year is approximately 713 stardate units, but I used 365 days for the year to come to this figure. Maybe this could be the source of Andrew Main's '704.4' figure? If anyone would like to make a more accurate attempt, here's how I came to my conclusions:
- In "Data's Day", Data mentions that 'it has been 1550 days (i.e. 4 years, 90 days) since the Enterprise (presumably D) was commissioned. Prior to this comment in the same episode Data gives the stardate as 44390.1.
- The dedication plaque gives the Enterprise-D's commission as 40759.5 and this wiki claims it was constructed in 2363 (see: Enterprise-D page; original source not quoted).
This means that the period between 40759.5 and 44390.1 (or thereabouts) is roughly equivalent to 4 years and 90 days. So, 1550 days is more or less equivalent to 3030.6 'stardays', indicating that one year is approximately 713 stardate units. Crispy 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes from script Edit

In copies of the final draft script for TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint", dated 13 April 1987, stardates range from 42353.7 to 42372.5. It is possible that they were changed to 41153.7-41154.2 after the idea arose to make the second digit the season number, apparently sometime between this date and the shooting date.[2][3] I was thinking about adding this to the background, but want to see if anybody knows more about this. --Nike 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

TOS The Naked Time Edit

I'm not sure if it has any relevance, but in TOS: "The Naked Time", the remastered version shows a chronometer that has the stardate next to the time. The time was being read in a 24 'earth standard' time, as we see the seconds go by the seconds when they move forward

Now, when they were traveling back in time, the first shot showed the time to be 00:13 (hrs, mins) and the stardate to be 1705.0. The next shot showed a time of 22:36 and the stardate of 1704.9.

I presume this corosponds to show that every shipboard 24 hours. This is supported by Sulu saying that, on Stardate 1702, they were three days ago. 1705-1702 is equal to three.

If not atleast for all of Trek, this does provide Cannon support that each Stardate corosponds to 24 hours.

Any other views on this...--Nmajmani 12:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani

That's the same chronometer which is shown in this article. I also noticed when watching the episode that the stardates corresponded to the time represented as a fraction of a day. However, the original episode did not display stardates on the chronometer, so the question is, which version is canon? FWIW, I have observed a general one-to-one relationship between stardates and times in TOS, such as you observed, e.g. in the Captain's log he'll say that six days have elapsed, and the stardate will be six more than the previous. However, at other times this does not seem to apply.
Perhaps some dedicated person could sit through all 740 hours or so and tabulate all stardate references. If you don't sleep or do anything else, you can watch them all in a month. Actually about 100 less, since stardates weren't used on Enterprise. --Nike 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How stardates and the 24h day correspond Edit

Well, at least on the later series (and now also on TOS remastered, whenever the ship's chronometer is seen) they correspond perfectly. From stardate 40000 to 40001, exactly 24 hours pass. That would mean stardate 40000.5 equates to 12.00 pm. From 40000.0 to 40000.1, exactly 24/10 (2,4) hours pass, equalling 144 minutes. Now is there proof for that on the episodes? Plenty! Whenever a stardate and a time of day are seen at the same time, it matches perfectly. Some examples:

  • "Contagion": Several stardates with a matching time of day are seen. Donald Varley records a log entry at stardate 42605.57 at 13:40:23. That time of day is exactly 820 minutes (13 hours + 40 minutes) after stardate 42605.00. From 42605.00 to 42605.01 144/10 minutes pass, 14 minutes and 24 seconds. If you multiply 14 minutes, 24 seconds by 57 you get 820 minutes, which matches 13:40 perfectly.
  • "Time Squared": The scrambled log from the future Enterprise shows a stardate of 42592,72 with a corresponding time of day of 17:16. 14 minutes 24 seconds multiplied by 72 is 1036 minutes. 1036 minutes after midnight (stardate 42592,00) is 17:16. Perfect match.
  • "Night Terrors": Captain Chantal Zaheva records a log entry on stardate 44673.9, the corresponding time is 22:30:59. Stardate 44673.9 began at 21:36:00 and ended at 23:59:59 - another perfect match.
  • "Identity Crisis": Logs of the USS Victory were recorded on stardate 40164.7 at 17:29:46. Stardate 40164.7 began at 16:48:00 and ended at 19:12:00. 17:29:46 fits in perfectly.
Later log entries still show a stardate of 40164.7, but a time of day of 19:29 and 22:15, though. The stardate wasn't modified according to the progress of time.
  • "Unification I": A recording of Pardek shows a stardate of 44623.9 with a corresponding time of day of 22:26:09. Again, this fits perfectly into the timeframe of a XXXXX.9 stardate: from 21:26:00 to 23:59:59.
  • "Schisms": Riker wakes up at stardate 46154.4 at 10:37:41. Stardate 46154.4 lasts for 144 minutes, as mentioned above. Those minutes are from 09:36:00 to 11:59:59. 10:37:41 is right in the middle of that, matches perfectly.
  • "The Galileo Seven" remastered: The following stardate with macthing time of day is seen: 2823.6 and 16:23:00. Stardate 2823.6 takes place from 14:25:00 to 16:48:59, again. 16:23 matches perfectly.

--Jörg 10:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

great job finding all of that! I have not the ability to see TOS-remastered, i am living in europe. But i really think we can it to the article. :-D ! --Rom UlanHail 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Stardates and Years Edit

the Battle of Wolf 359 seems to be six days after 43997. stardate 47329.4 ist exactly four years and one day later. one year cannot exactly be 1000 stardate units long. what do you think?--Shisma Bitte korrigiert mich 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

MA/en long ago (I think even before I joined up in May 2006) decided that it could not rely on Stardates for years, including the accuracy of the 1000 per year thing. It just doesn't hold up in canon, as you demonstrated. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ah, cool. we should do it the same way. then this should be delated from the "Inconsistencies" section :)--Shisma Bitte korrigiert mich 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek movie stardates Edit

Is it just me, or do the stardates in Star Trek XI oddly correspond to the year dates we use in the real universe? If so, we should add something about it here. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

There's a paragraph about this in the "Background" section. —Josiah Rowe 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
RE ST XI's stardates, SPOILERS AHOY, why does the page say it's unclear what Robau meant by 2233.04? Within the system listed that read perfectly plainly to me as January 4th. Did the writer feel the zero was unnecessary to state (people often add leading zeros to dates especially if they have to deal with computers on the matter) or are we just freaked out that it wasn't March 22? Personally I think this is indicative of Winona Kirk going into labor prematurely in the reboot universe. -jmtorres, 2009.144
Because it could mean something else, that's why it's unclear. Just because you think it's January 4th, doesn't mean that the writer intended it to be :) — Morder 04:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, what else could it mean? obvs the article itself is not the place for that speculation but can you enlighten me over here on the talk page? Jul 06:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
There are probably many possibilities but one is that the 04 means the month rather than the day and he was just being very general about the current stardate. It could also mean 4/10ths of a year which would be late april early may...Although it's intended to be a specific day he might have also meant the 40th day of the year because of the lack of 2 prepending 0's and the lack of a 0 at the end. Anyway, these talk pages aren't for speculation so i'll leave it at that. :) — Morder 06:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, while the writers have stated the attack did indeed cause premature labor, I find it hard to believe it sent her into labor nearly three months ahead of schedule. The writers also stated that the Kelvin was on its way back to Earth when it intercepted the black hole. Had the Kelvin made it back to Earth, Winona would have given birth "on a farm in Iowa." I think the writers simply ignored the March 22nd birthdate, since its canon status was questionable, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 04:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC) (originally added to wrong section of talk page)
As the (re)writer of this section, I can certainly say that I'm not sure - perhaps 2233.4 is obvious, but then why the single "oh", since a day of the year can go into three digits? Why not .004? Or is it perhaps .040? It's probably not .400, unless we totally ignore Orci's explanation about the day of the year. By no means will I artificially try to shoehorn March 22nd into this, though. Someone should ask Orci what they had in mind with the "oh", but maybe the script will make it clear when it's published. – NotOfTheBody 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The Captain says "twenty-two thirty-three ZERO four". Perhaps sometimes they informally skip the period. This could mean that Kirk was born January 4th. Since the Kelvin was attacked on its way back to Earth, it's possible his mother went into early labor from the attack. Kirk Prime was born in March, so it's possible.- JustPhil 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right, I just checked one of the clips, but it's definitely "oh-four" in ADF's (non-canon) novelization, which is interesting - either way, it doesn't change the basic argument, and as I said, I'm not discounting any possibility on the grounds of March 22nd (given that there were so many other changes, while this date was only shown on a screen in "Enterprise"?). January 4 is a possibility, as is the 40th day of the year. The later movies will probably give us more evidence to work with. – NotOfTheBody 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The novelizations are based directly from the screenplay. When filming, they add a little flair by not following the script to the letter. Is your argument that the stardate should have been zero-zero-four or just four, as they follow the 365 calendar days?- JustPhil 14:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we don't know if the script wasn't being followed to the letter, changed in a later draft or if ADF himself altered the line a bit; we'll have to wait and see. Yes, that's my argument - why add only one placeholder zero, unless they were incorrectly following the two-digit precedent of 2258.42, or maybe they came up with this explanation afterwards. We don't know, so we shouldn't make any assumptions in the text yet. – NotOfTheBody 15:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know how exactly "Nero's Incursion" affected the way the Federation Calendar system works? It seems that Nero has been used to excuse every inconsistency and disregard to canon... Joeloveland 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone knows and it would be useless to speculate, especially here. (If someone does know, I want to hear it, of course.) – NotOfTheBody 17:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Robau's use of the calendar stardate was from his own knowledge, of a system in use before Nero arrived. The Vulcan ship from 2387 also was not affected by Nero's incursion, it was from the original unaltered TNG era. So basically, the inconsistencies between Trek's stardates and the movie's stardate have nothing to do with Nero...

The writers chose to disregard the randomized TOS/TNG dates to introduce an ordered system that would make sense with their plot. no explanation for the incocnsistency from the POV of Star Trek's universe, simply an altered premise. -- Captain MKB 17:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, the writers do try to link changes to the incursion (unfortunately), as you can see from their interviews. In order to explain Robau's stardate, they could say that stardates had the form of <calendar year>.<day of the year> in the prime 2230s, since we haven't exactly seen a lot of older pre-TOS stardates (1277.1, 1089.5, 1087.7, anything else?). They could rationalize these pre-TOS stardates as being part of later system revisions. Because of the incursion, however, stardates are now going to remain in the form of <calendar year>.<day of the year> for technobabble/cultural reason XYZ. As for Jellyfish, there was plenty of time for the ship to contact a local timebase and provide alternate Spock with a familiar stardate. – NotOfTheBody 07:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Complex calculations using stardates Edit

Once or twice, I've tried to use stardates and dates/times mentioned on screen to try to pin down an event to a specific date. For instance, when Dr Bashir was replaced by a Changeling, using the stardates given in several episodes and a reference to 37 days I came up with a possible timeframe, only to have it decried as 'speculation'. Is there a way that it can be done to try to pin down specific dates and times? --Indefatigable 23:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Within canon, no. There was never a canon explanation given for how the stardate system worked, as it was largely used at the whim of the writers. Attempting to work out specific times for specific events would be difficult at best, and speculation since such an explanation was not given.--31dot 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Tuvok Birthdate Edit

"In VOY: "Unimatrix Zero, Part II", set during stardate 54014.4, Tuvok mentions that his date of birth is stardate 38774. Assuming the generally accepted rule that 1,000 units equals one year, this would mean that he was fifteen years old at the time of the episode."

Could this not mean he is 115 years old and that stardates simply go back to the start when it reaches 99999.9.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

It could mean that, however there is no factual basis for such a statement. Based on solely the facts we know what was stated. Anything beyond that is speculation.--31dot 23:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I dont think the inconsistancy here is in the "generally accepted rule", but with the fact that the date of his birth was in 2264, during a period when all other known stardates are four numbered, beginning with 1. (such as Joran Belars birth in 2260=1024.7, Where no man has gone before in 2265=1312.4) One would rather expect Tuvok's birthday to be something like 1274.0 --Pseudohuman 01:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Tuvok was on the bridge of the Excelsior during the Praxis explosion on Stardate 9521.6 (date given by Sulu in a log entry at the beginning of TUC).--Indefatigable 00:41, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
Tuvok is obviously a fan of Captain Robau-prime: stardate 3877(.)4. This is the most likely explanation unless there is good reason to think otherwise, but MA should just note the SD and move on. Can someone check the DVD subtitles? How is this stardate written out there? – NotOfTheBody 05:35, September 6, 2009 (UTC)

Similar problem as is with warp factors Edit

I'm noticing that this page somewhat supports the similar problem we have with warp factors. Namely the overflow of fan speculation. In the case of warp factors fans want a warp factor to always be a certain multiplication of c. Why? because they havent read the whole bgsource manuals that state subspace physics change everything, so there are no contradictions when a certain factor is something else from time to time. Same seems to apply to stardates, subspace physics allow a certain point in time to correspond to completely different stardates. But fans want a system (like the one we now have with the alternate reality) that there is a universal progression of years and days that can be calculated from stardates. Which the bgsources say there is not (at least wasn't before the STXI stardate retcon). Perhaps the whole inconsistencies section should be removed for this reason. --Pseudohuman 09:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I have to agree. While it would be permissible to note inconsistencies between given facts, we don't have that here. We don't know much about how the system worked.--31dot 09:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that the inconsistencies shouldn't be regarded as production errors to be dismissed by fans of simplistic explanations, but rather as an integral part of the canon whenever possible, regardless of real-world intention, it is still important to note whenever one or two stardates deviate from the vast majority of others, because they can tell us something new about this means of expressing time.
Stardates in TOS increased or decreased with time at various rates...but they still increased by about 4000 units over the course of three years, whereas 1277.1 was over 30 years ago, and 1089.5 was 21 years before the second pilot. We don't know why, but it's a relevant observation for the background section; at the very least, it indicates that stardates apply as far back as the time of Kirk's birth. When we suddenly hear a stardate of 4124.5 in "Datalore", it is a definite deviation, even if it only means that Riker misspoke.
Most of these observations are not simply due to fans reading more into stardates than they should have, but rather due to production people actually being slightly careless with respect to their latest idea on how stardates should behave onscreen. That said, even carelessness becomes part of the canon and shouldn't be dismissed without an extremely good reason, which is hard to find in case of stardates because their purpose and structure remain mysterious. – NotOfTheBody 20:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That is true, perhaps we could have a table of known stardates along with known corresponding gregorian dates in the canon section of the text, without stating anything to be an inconsistency, we have a similar list in the warp factor page. Something like...

Stardate Gregorian calendar date Reference
1277.1 / 2233.04 2233, March 11 TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before"; Star Trek
2258.42 2258 Star Trek
38774 2264 VOY: "Unimatrix Zero, Part II"
1312.4 - 1313.8 2265 TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before"
1329.1 - 2817.6 2266 Star Trek: The Original Series
2124.5 - 4202.9 2267 Star Trek: The Original Series

and so on... could be useful to our readers. And also remove "what was stardate 0 in the gregorian calender" speculations. --Pseudohuman 17:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggested the same thing. However, under no circumstances is there to be any speculation or original research on Memory Alpha, the Lord High Fearless Leader commands it. LONG LIVE FEARLESS LEADER -- 04:57, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Lists arent speculation or original research. --Pseudohuman 10:29, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

If you can cite a source that says "2124.5 = 2267" and "4202.9 = 2267", then it isn't... Otherwise, it might be. :) -- Cid Highwind 11:26, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

We already say that in the episode pages. lol. --Pseudohuman 15:44, April 23, 2010 (UTC)


1329.1 - MUDD'S WOMEN 2266 A.D.
1513.1 - THE MAN TRAP 2266 A.D.
1533.6 - CHARLIE X 22 November 2266 A.D.
1672.1 - THE ENEMY WITHIN 2266 A.D.
1704.2 - THE NAKED TIME 2266 A.D.
1709.2 - BALANCE OF TERROR 2266 A.D.
2713.5 - MIRI 2266 A.D.
2715.1 - DAGGER OF THE MIND 2266 A.D.

2124.5 - THE SQUIRE OF GOTHOS 2267 A.D.
2821.5 - THE GALILEO SEVEN 2267 A.D.
2947.3 - COURT MARTIAL 2267 A.D.
3012.4 - THE MENAGERIE, PART I 2267 A.D.
3013.1 - THE MENAGERIE, PART II 2267 A.D.
3018.2 - CATSPAW 2267 A.D.
3025.3 - SHORE LEAVE 2267 A.D.
3045.6 - ARENA 2267 A.D.
3141.9 - SPACE SEED 2267 A.D.
3192.1 - A TASTE OF ARMAGEDDON 2267 A.D.
3196.1 - THE DEVIL IN THE DARK 2267 A.D.
3198.4 - ERRAND OF MERCY 2267 A.D.
3372.7 - AMOK TIME 2267 A.D.
3417.3 - THIS SIDE OF PARADISE 2267 A.D.
3468.1 - WHO MOURNS FOR ADONAIS? 2267 A.D.
3478.2 - THE DEADLY YEARS 2267 A.D.
3497.2 - FRIDAY'S CHILD 2267 A.D.
3541.9 - THE CHANGELING 2267 A.D.
3614.9 - WOLF IN THE FOLD 2267 A.D.
3715.3 - THE APPLE 2267 A.D.

3619.2 - OBSESSION 2268 A.D.
3842.3 - JOURNEY TO BABEL 2268 A.D.
4040.7 - BREAD AND CIRCUSES 2268 A.D.
4211.4 - A PRIVATE LITTLE WAR 2268 A.D.
4372.5 - ELAAN OF TROYIUS 2268 A.D.
4385.3 - SPECTER OF THE GUN 2268 A.D.
4513.3 - I, MUDD 2268 A.D.
4657.5 - BY ANY OTHER NAME 2268 A.D.
4768.3 - RETURN TO TOMORROW 2268 A.D.
5121.5 - THE EMPATH 2268 A.D.
5423.4 - THE MARK OF GIDEON 2268 A.D.
5431.4 - SPOCK'S BRAIN 2268 A.D.
5693.2 - THE THOLIAN WEB 2268 A.D.
5710.5 - WINK OF AN EYE 2268 A.D.
5718.3 - WHOM GODS DESTROY 2268 A.D.

1254.4 - THE MAGICKS OF MEGAS-TU 2269 A.D.
4187.3 - THE SLAVER WEAPON 2269 A.D.
4978.5 - MUDD'S PASSION 2269 A.D.
5143.3 - THE SURVIVOR 2269 A.D.
5221.3 - 5221.8 - BEYOND THE FARTHEST STAR 2269 A.D.
5267.2 - 5267.6 - THE TIME TRAP 2269
5373.4 - YESTERYEAR 2269 / 2239 A.D.
5483.7 - THE LORELEI SIGNAL 2269 A.D.
5501.2 - THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER 2269 A.D.
5554.4 - THE INFINITE VULCAN 2269 A.D.
5591.2 - ONCE UPON A PLANET 2269 A.D
5683.1 - THE JIHAD 2269 A.D.
5725.3 - THE LIGHTS OF ZETAR 2269 A.D.
5818.4 - THE CLOUD MINDERS 2269 A.D.
5832.3 - THE WAY TO EDEN 2269 A.D.
5906.4 - THE SAVAGE CURTAIN 2269 A.D.
5943.7 - ALL OUR YESTERDAYS 2269 A.D.

3183.3 - THE PRACTICAL JOKER 2270 A.D.
5275.6 - 5276.8 ALBATROSS 2270 A.D.
6334.1 - THE PIRATES OF ORION 2270 A.D.
7403.6 - BEM 2270 A.D.




-- 17:46, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the article? Edit

Morder just noted that "this whole document is turning into a lot of original research rather than just referencing production information", so I'm interested in what he or other contributors see as remaining problems with the article (I need specific sentences, paragraphs or sections). I've added little-known facts with sources, removed some obviously non-canon technobabble from the canon section ("This system of time allows planets and outposts that are light years apart and starships traveling at near-relativistic velocities to keep track of a unified time base despite local and unforeseen changes in the speed at which time passes.") and so forth. I think the article is much better now, but I'd be interested in any comments people have. – NotOfTheBody 16:38, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Well, a few things off the top of my head. The quotes by Sam and Stephen at the beginning could be summarized with a link. "At present, no canonical information exists on how the stardate system works or exactly why it is needed, although certain regularities can be observed in some of its incarnations." That's a rather useless statement as if it was canonical it'd be in the article. There are a lot of missing citations which make me wonder about the text. The first paragraph of the TNG era section, for instance. "Obviously, this demonstrates that the number 4 doesn't stand for the 24th century in-universe..." statements like that are non-encyclopedic. "In addition, it has been suggested by some sources that the final digit of a stardate (following the decimal place)..." that whole paragraph is non-cited. What are "some sources"? "Although the vast majority of stardates are given with only one digit following the decimal point..." that paragraph is also unnecessary. I'd almost state that the "Inconsistencies" section is bordering on nitpicking. Though we have allowances for continuity errors these are written more like nitpicking rather than just stating fact. — Morder (talk) 16:50, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. The TMoST quote cannot be linked to since I transcribed it directly from the book, and I didn't want to look for a long-lived site that could be referenced and check its transcription word-for-word. The link to the other quote isn't likely to go away any time soon, but both quotes are also fairly important and hard to summarize, since they contain meaningless technobabble - a summary runs the risk of leaving out important parts or making unwarranted conclusions. The previous writer had essentially "summarized" the TMoST quote by only slightly rewording some of its sentences ("stardates specified, in a log entry for example,...", " order to give a meaningful reading when read back"). (Why "when read back"? It's just padding.)

I haven't checked citations for every sentence yet, but that's a good idea. The "Inconsistencies" section contains some interesting information (e.g. the unusual dates 1087.7, 1089.5), but also some regular day-to-day deviations that are not so interesting; the Tasha Yar case isn't anything special, since stardates didn't start their regular increase in production order until Season 2. (With maybe one or two deviations, I think they remained in order until the end of TNG at least.) I would incorporate this information into the text where appropriate, rather than group it all together.

The paragraph about the number of digits after the decimal point is a necessary observation, since it indicates that there is no everyday use for multiple decimal digits. If we go through Jörg's examples above, the most likely reason is that the time of day takes their place (why bother with stardate 41223.33421 if you can just as well write 41223 or 41223.33, followed by hours, minutes, seconds, milliseconds etc.?) Obviously, Mike Okuda's team was strictly following the series bibles and their unambiguous stardate-is-a-day rule when creating those displays (despite the inconsistency with 1000 "days" per season in the TNG era, or the irregular increase between episodes in the TOS era). A conclusion such as this shouldn't be in the article since it's analysis and part speculation, but the fact about the number of digits is relevant and should be mentioned. – NotOfTheBody 09:06, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the inconsistencies, you claim they are but you don't know how the stardates might have changed over the course of the use of stardates. the most obvious example of why we don't know anything is the addition of the 5th digit over the course of just 80 years. The other possible canon-like explanation is simply that because of the affects of warp drive starships have to constantly update their internal clocks with that of a federation master clock (which isn't affected by warp). Bam! Inconsistencies explained which make the inconsistencies section more like nitpicks than valid complaints (which is fairly unencyclopedic to begin with). If we're going to keep them we should just keep the facts rather than state opinions. — Morder (talk) 20:24, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
In TNG: "Skin of Evil" where Tasha Yar is killed, the stardate of 41601.3 is given. In the previous TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom", a stardate of 41798.2 is given, and Yar is still alive and well, most likely due to a production error related to the fact that those two episodes were filmed out of order.
In TNG: "Datalore", Riker dropped one of the numbers in his log, stating "Stardate 4124.5".
In DS9: "In Purgatory's Shadow", Captain Sisko gives mention to the "recent Borg attack" depicted in Star Trek: First Contact. However, in the very next episode, DS9: "By Inferno's Light", the stardate of 50564.2 is given. In First Contact, the stardate of 50893.5 is given, suggesting that it takes place months after "In Purgatory's Shadow".
In TOS: "Where No Man Has Gone Before", the stardates within the episode progress by 1.4, from 1312.4 to 1313.8, in what could not be more than a few days, yet the birth stardates of Gary Mitchell, Elizabeth Dehner and James T. Kirk are given as 1087.7 (onscreen dossier age: 23), 1089.5 (onscreen dossier age: 21) and 1277.1, respectively. Kirk's birth is only 35.3 units before his first captain's log, about one for every year of his life, while the other two dates apparently use this rate as well, even if their values are much lower than Kirk's stardate of birth.
Those are all nitpicks. They're all simply production or actor errors and we don't note any other types of errors why would we do it here? The last one is fairly nitpickish. Maybe rewritten but even then it's still original research.
In VOY: "Unimatrix Zero, Part II", set during stardate 54014.4, Tuvok mentions that his date of birth is stardate 38774. Assuming the generally accepted rule that 1,000 units equals one year, this would mean that he was fifteen years old at the time of the episode.
That one is simply fan speculation...the generally accepted rule? no - these should just be removed. — Morder (talk) 20:25, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write the entire Inconsistencies section or revise it yet, and as I said above and in a previous section of this talk page, I agree that it should be dropped in its current form ("Inconsistencies" isn't the best word for it), although extreme deviations from the norm should be mentioned in the text, such as 4124.5 (dropped digit), 1089.5/1087.7/1277.1 (a stardate increases once a year, is this an early production concept?), and the Tuvok date, which could be 3877.4 with a dropped decimal point, we don't know (I don't like the "he was fifteen" line either, obviously he wasn't so why bother mentioning it?). On the other hand, some of them really are uninteresting, such as the Tasha Yar case, because such deviations occur all the time. The main reason for listing those is to show just how unpredictable stardates can be canonically. As I noted in a previous section above, wherever possible, deviations must be viewed as canonical properties of stardates, not as production errors. – NotOfTheBody 21:09, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Stardate/real dates?Edit

  • Pilot epsiode/Pike was 11511.76
  • First Star trek/Kirk was 1312.4
  • Last Star Trek/Kirk was 5943.7

What would these stardates be in real time? DID the Enterprise away for 5 years during its 3 seasons? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

We don't know. No conversion was ever stated. And 5 years in 3 seasons? Maybe. Who knows. -- sulfur 19:52, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
MA interpretation is that second pilot was the only mission to take place in mid-2265 when the first year of the five year mission begins, seasons 1-3 are a little over the three following years, the animated series seasons 1-2 mostly make up the remaining one and a half years, ending the five year mission in mid-2270. --Pseudohuman 22:22, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alternate reality dates questionEdit

Regarding this passage: "...stardate 2387 (the date given as the manufacturing origin of the Jellyfish, which does not establish beyond doubt whether the system was also used late in the TNG era, since the ship was already in the alternate reality and had sufficient time to ask a local timebase about the calendar)."

Is it just me, or does this smack of speculation? It seems to me that accessing a Federation time beacon wouldn't be necessary as the ship's commission date would be in the ship's computer. Even so, I seem to understand (and maybe I'm wrong, wouldn't be the first time lol) that Memory Alpha policy is that we're not supposed to speculate in this manner? So it seems to me that unless it's just a goof, wouldn't it make this kind of stardate canon in late 24th century prime reality?  ??? leandar 03:23, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is speculation. Or rather a case of fans conjuring up a fanon explanation for a simple writers retcon. The new film's stardate systems I think is just another case of "deviation from production norms". --Pseudohuman 16:28, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
I didn't want any such passage, but I finally added it because people would keep jumping to conclusions about those stardates being used in 2387, even though there is no proof one way or another. That is all the line says - we don't know. We can remove it, but I am pretty sure that another editor will show up saying this one line from a supposedly flexible computer is undeniable proof that those stardates were in use in 2387, and there is absolutely no way that the Jellyfish computer could have reconfigured its calendar. – 21:52, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

Relativity speculation Edit

I removed the following since it is obviously speculation and the usual kind of simplistic halfway hypothesizing which doesn't bother explaining all the other increasing/decreasing at various rates or why we never _see_ relativistic effects on starships. Just putting it out here because of the usual formality - it's a lot of text:

This can be reconciled with the notion that 1,000 stardate units are equal to one season of the show, if the effects of special relativity and time dilation are considered. For example, in a frame of reference where one year equals 1,000 stardates (one television season), an a person would experience approximately 8 hours and 46 minutes per stardate, or roughly 52.6 minute per .1 stardates. However, a person onboard the Enterprise would experience 24 hours. On the other hand, the Enterprise is not constantly moving at relativistic velocities. Also, the people on starships seem to age at the same rate as people on planets. 07:23, June 5, 2010 (UTC)

Nitpicking? Edit

As noted earlier, the idea behind qualified statements is to prevent certain editors from jumping to conclusions, since many of them don't read the discussion page before sharing their exciting new conclusion with the rest of the world. I've already had to revert several edits which assumed that 2233.04 = January 4 or that the Jellyfish date of 2387 proves the use of this system in the late TNG era. However, if I explain in the article that 2233.04 may or may not be January 4 because of the single placeholder zero, or that 2387 may be nothing more than a result of automated calendar synchronization with a local timebase, it will prevent such simplistic edits. In fact, I haven't had to revert such changes for a long time.

We can allow such edits to continue and be reverted, of course, but since they're so subtle, they may not be reverted immediately unless I catch them, which contributes to the spreading of myths. One such myth is the famous year 2323, stardate zero of simplistic stardate calculators, and I'm afraid that January 4 is well on its way to becoming a fanon date for Robau's death. – 08:42, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Our job in writing this encyclopedia is to do so based on facts, not using speculation or "qualified statements". It is pure speculation to state that the ship communicated with a timebase, as there is nothing in the movie to base that on. The other part is also speculation unless you have evidence, either from within the movie or from production sources. We must assume, absent other evidence, that the information given in canon is true, so the 2387 must mean such a stardate system was in use in the original reality.
It is not our job to fill in the missing pieces of factual information using our own speculations. I realize the intention is to prevent the spreading of myths, but part of the business of this site is to present the facts and let people decide how to interpret them. That does mean occasionally people will add such intepretations to articles, but this will happen anyway regardless of any explanations, so the only thing we can do is be vigilant.--31dot 10:47, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

No, the only fact in this discussion is that the Jellyfish computer stated stardate 2387. Your idea that it was used in 2387 is merely another bit of speculation (you said it: an assumption), because I can counter it with my own, namely that the stardate could've been based on a local timebase. There are _two_ hypotheses here, neither of which must be taken as fact in this encyclopedia until we obtain more information. A fact does not equal a hypothesis which hasn't been disproved.

I mean, seriously, if you found someone's laptop which was using the Hijri calendar, would you feel free to assume that he's Muslim and write a public encyclopedia article about it (!), or would you hesitate until you obtained more information, since the person could've been merely experimenting with calendar settings?

That is all my "nitpicking" was pointing out to potential editors - not that the timebase hypothesis is correct, but in fact that we don't know. So if a good-intentioned editor was about to enter one of the hypotheses as fact, the pointing out of various possibilities would stop him from doing that, even if he didn't read the discussion page. I think it was working, since I haven't had to revert any simplistic assumptions for a while. – 15:01, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we do know where it came from, and even if we didn't from canon evidence, we have production information stating that the intention was to use that date. Since it is the original Spock that was piloting the craft, it is not a fantastic assumption/speculation that the craft was from that date. It is reasoning, not an assumption. It is one, however, to assume there was contact with a timebase or whatever. Nothing in the movie indicated that there was any sort of contact with any bases, certainly not one to adjust its time.
As to your analogy, I would assume that the evidence in front of me is correct unless presented with evidence to the contrary.(Such as, someone telling me the settings were switched.) That's what we do in many places on this site. --31dot 15:11, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

What production information do you mean? The craft was from the year 2387 AD, which is "stardate 2387" to Young Spock in the alternate reality. There's no dispute about that. What is disputed, however, is whether the ship's future builders used "stardate 2387" themselves, or whether they normally used TNG stardates in the 64xxx range or so. I'm saying that we can't know, since the Jellyfish computer could've just as well reset its calendar, sort of like Google automatically switches search engine language depending on the country.

And as for my analogy, no, you can't assume that. If you were a journalist and it turned out you didn't consider the possibility that the calendar settings were a mere experiment, you'd be in trouble for reporting false information. It is our duty to shoot holes in every simplistic hypothesis until the evidence is overwhelming, meaning I'd have to see, for example, those scientists from the Vulcan Science Academy record log entries with "stardate 2387". – 15:38, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

btw. according to "Cause and Effect" and "Clues", the contacting a federation time beacon and changing the chronometer procedures on a 24th century starship are not automated events. In fact contacting the beacon and reseting the chronometer were specifically ordered by the Captain in "Cause and Effect", and in "Clues" it was stated that adjusting the chronometer was prevented by security programs, only the chief engineer and science officer were even capable of accessing the chronometer. --Pseudohuman 15:43, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I can, and I do. This isn't reality, or a courtroom- this is a world of fiction, and we assume that what we see in canon is the truth unless told otherwise. This prevents articles from being loaded down with people's personal explanations of hypotheses. We are not here to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every minute fact seen in canon.
If the ship's computer saying so isn't enough to convince you of when the ship came from, then I don't know what would. What the ship "could have" done is irrelevant, we use what it said. That's what was said in canon, that's what we use. We certainly don't speculate about nonexistent contact with timebases.--31dot 15:45, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

But we don't see this in the canon. We see only the computer stating stardate 2387, but we don't see it used in the TNG era. That is just your speculation, while my speculation is that a local timebase was contacted (and who knows how the calendar would've been reset on the Jellyfish or whether the same procedures apply as in TNG - it's a totally different type of ship, though it's nice to know the info provided by Pseudohuman). It is quite possible to agree not to report either hypothesis, the only difference being that we'd have to keep reverting edits which go one way or the other without evidence.

Remember, if we allow simplistic hypotheses to enter the articles, then Memory Alpha becomes no different from James Dixon-style fanon, since that's how it works in fanon - pick a reasonable hypothesis, use it in your creative publication, and if it is accepted by consensus and spreads out into other publications, it becomes "fanon fact". Obviously, we can't allow that in a canon-based encyclopedia. – 16:04, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

So where did Spock Prime come from? The Mirror Universe? Of course the ship came from that era. Even if the canon evidence wasn't enough, the writers stated that's what they wanted. This isn't a "simplistic hypothesis" or speculation. --31dot 16:08, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. Of course the ship came from that era, but after it came, my hypothesis is that the calendar system used by the computer was reset from TNG-style stardates to JJ stardates, either automatically or due to an intervention from Nero's people. Kind of like changing the timezone on your computer when you go to a different country, which is why the computer said the ship was commissioned on stardate 2387, instead of stardate 64xxx. The "Countdown" comic isn't canon of course, so it doesn't prove anything, but everyone in 2387 is using stardates in the 64xxx range, not "stardate 2387". – 16:17, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

We don't know much about how stardates are used. Maybe there are different, parallel systems that people use based on their own personal preferences. That's speculation too, and is as equally invalid as saying that the computer reset itself somehow, as there is no evidence for either line of reasoning. The only thing we know it what was said by the computer. We don't need to say any more or any less than that. It is not up to us to attempt to forestall people from jumping to conclusions, people are free to do so as long as they don't post them, and they will no matter what we do.--31dot 16:26, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I said several times that both interpretations are speculation/hypotheses (why would you think that I consider mine to be fact?) The question is how to best prevent contributors from posting them in the article proper. If we remove this "nitpicking" from the article, I'll just have to keep reverting simplistic conclusions again and again, instead of preventing such edits by making the potential editor aware that he's not the first to enter such a hypothesis and why we can't accept it as fact. – 16:34, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

You can't prevent it- people will do it, no matter what we do. I could even see people posting those very same explanations you wish to prevent, and then saying they are doing so to prevent others from doing it(which is what you are saying)--31dot 16:36, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but at least it will stop well-meaning contributors whose natural reaction would be, "Oh, I see, I didn't think about that possibility, but now that I've read the article, I won't make my intended edit." I believe they are in the majority, as opposed to those who can't tell the difference between hypothesis and fact. – 16:49, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+