This article was nominated for deletion on 5 September 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Eugenics Wars was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 24 July 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Timeline of Star Trek. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
Since there actually is a World War III in Star Trek and there is a section for it in another article on Wikipedia, I thought it would be more appropriate to have the World War III link in the introduction point to that article rather than a generic article on World War III's that could be. ENSSB (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Missing timeline elements:
--[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Voyager goes back into 1997 or 1999.. something like that... of course, it seems kind of odd since nobody seemed to bothered about the eugenics war during that period... - Mattt
What about the Edith Keeler episode? What year was that, 1934 or something? Adam Bishop 01:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the timeline being split as it is, based on the events of Generations. Can we really say that everything since Generations didn't actually happen in the "normal" Star Trek universe? It makes much more sense to assume that Picard's Nexus adventure erased the crew being killed and replaced it with the timeline that followed. -Branddobbe 06:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Branddobbe. The Nexus is its own reality. Allemannster
Where does this "The United Federation of Temporal Dimensions" come from?
Also, Missing the New Star Trek Movie, when Kirk and Spock are children —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.12.121 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
When does Picard become captain of the Enterprise? The event is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.205.187 (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
In Assignment Earth, Gary Seven says people were kidnapped from Earth 6000 years previously. 2600:8805:801:A400:1840:3138:53B2:7EF1 (talk) Egyptoid — Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The timeline says Enterprise was launched under Captain Pike. However, the star-trek encyclopedia claims the 1st captain was Captain Robert April, although to my recollection (i dont have the book here) no details are given, shouldnt this be mentioned somewhere though? BFS
The NCC-1701 was not launched under Captain Pike. It was launched under a captain before him, and an Animated Series episode says that it is Captain Robert April. However, TAS is not considered to be cannon. That having been said, there is no evidence that Captain Pike was the first captain of the NCC-1701. --myselfalso 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The paperback book titled The Making of Star Trek, which I recall, has Captain Robert April as the Enterprise Captain prior to Captain Pike. There was controversy about using the name, April, and the more masculine name of Chris Pike was used.
Somebody may have to research into this, but it is possible that captain Robert was the Ship yard Captain whose sole responsibility would be to over see the construction of the enterprise. If this is true then Captain Pike would assume command of the vessel only after it is transfered as property of the shipyard and placed into actual service. I am not that famiular with the beginnings so this is all speculation at best. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.154.164 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
The dates given for the Original Series and its movies, as well as for the Next Generation era series, are wrong.
In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan it was stated several times that the film was set 15 years after the original episode, not 18 as this chronology asserts. The fact that this was stated on screen, by both Khan Noonien Singh and Captain James T. Kirk, makes this fact canon and causes it to override any other information stated in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the "official" Star Trek chronology, or anywhere else. If either of the dates stated by the article is correct, the other has to be wrong: if Star Trek II is set in 2285, then "Space Seed" was set in 2270; if "Space Seed" was set in 2267, then Star Trek II is set in 2282.
In the movie McCoy gives Kirk a bottle of wine that is vintage 2283...meaning that the movie cannot possibly be set any earlier than that year. This rules out 2282 as the year in which the movie takes place, which in turn rules out 2267 as the year in which "Space Seed"--and indeed, all of the Original Series's second season--is set. Furthermore, in response to Kirk's apparent surprise at the year of the wine's vintage, McCoy says, "Well it takes this stuff some time to ferment." That would seem to suggest that the movie takes place considerably later than 2283, though it cannot be set any later than 2293 on account of the very specific date given for the movie Star Trek Generations.
Star Trek Generations further establishes that nine years before the fateful launch of the Enterprise-B in 2293, Kirk was on Earth, retired from Starfleet, having an affair with a woman named Antonia. Given the fact that the second, third, fourth, and fifth Star Trek movies all seem to take place within a few months of each other, and that there is no indication of Kirk having retired from Starfleet between Star Trek V and Star Trek VI (in fact it even seems that he and his crew embarked upon a THIRD five-year mission during that time), this affair could only have taken place between the first and second Star Trek movies--making 2284 the absolute earliest that Star Trek II could have taken place. This fits with both the date on McCoy's bottle of wine and his statement about the wine, though it also means that the first episode of the Original Series could not have taken place any earlier than 2268.
Therefore, while it is plausible that Star Trek II is indeed set in 2285, even so it still means that most of the Original Series was set in the 2270s, not the 2260s. I don't know where the assertion that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is set a year prior to "The Man Trap" comes from, but even if that is the case, the dates for that episode, "The Cage," all three seasons of the Original Series, the dates for the Animated Series, and the date of the first Star Trek movie need to be revised.
Here is one possibility, which makes makes the "some time" during which McCoy's wine was allowed to ferment as long as it possibly can be (three years), and also even takes into account the (unfounded) assertion that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is set some months before the actual first episode of the original series:
"The Cage": 2259
"Where No Man Has Gone Before": 2270
Star Trek: The Original Series: 2270-2273
—"Space Seed": 2271
Star Trek: The Animated Series: 2273-2274
Final year of First 5-year mission: 2274-2275
18 month Enterprise refit: 2275-2277
Star Trek: The Motion Picture: 2277
Kirk's 2nd 5-year mission: 2277-2282
Kirk's first retirement/affair with Antonia: 2282-2284
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: March 2286 (Kirk's birthday, on which the events of the movie begin, is said to be March 22)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock: March/April 2286
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home: June/July 2286
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier: July/August 2286
Kirk's 3rd 5-Year Mission (?): 2286-2291
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: 2291
Star Trek Generations: 2293/2371
I am simply curious about the birth date of Worf. Worf appears as a Colonel in Star Trek VI, taking place 2293. But, then they have him not being born until 2340. What a stud.
Colonel Worf was the Grandfather of TNG Worf. (Apparently, Khitomer was given to the Klingons after the conference, and the family stuck around.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.64.141 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Since the only reference to dates in the entirety of TOS is the romulan ale in TWoK (labeled 2283), everything else should be dated from this. For example, let's suppose the ale is one year old (though it could, of course, be much older):
-TWoK would happen in 2284 (I'm not aware that Kirk's birthday month was ever established in canon, so the month is unknown).
-Space Seed happens in 2269 at minimum, so most of the five-year mission would be in the 70's. Apart from this, McCoy's birthdate can be easily deduced from TNG's "Encounter at Farpoint" and "The Neutral Zone": 2227. While Roddenberry's "Writers Guide" for TOS, states that McCoy is 45 (by season one or two). This fits with the five-year mission being in the 70's. Okuda's chronology, instead, would make McCoy a bit too young.
-There's a gap of at least ten years between the end of the five-year mission and TWoK, and it's not known at what point of that gap takes place TMP. The idea that Kirk immediately became an admiral after the five-year mission, and that he took a second mission after the first movie is, to my knowledge, fandom speculation. Kirk could have become an admiral soon after the series, or much later. The film just says he's been an admiral for two years and a half, which is not the same as saying it's been two years and a half after the five-year mission.
-McCoy's been serving in the Enterprise for 27 years by the sixth film. If Space Seed happens during McCoy's first year onboard, that dates the sixth film in 2295 at minimum. But even if McCoy had been onboard two or three years at the time of Space Seed (unlikely, since he wasn't even there in the first episode), this would only push the sixth film's date to 2293. I see no way the sixth film could happen as early as 2291, regardless of what Generations says.
At the end of the day, one either makes the TOS chronology from its own internal data, as vague as it is. Or makes it according to what other series like Voyager have established much later. But they're mutually incompatible. --2A0C:5A87:D000:CD00:84CC:7003:4A75:28A0 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbary (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
The dates for The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager are also wrong, though in that case only by about 7 months. Unlike during the Original Series, the stardates in the TNG-era series progress forward in a seemingly solid direction. Certain episodes would seem to indicate that, in contradiction to what this article as well as the "official" Star Trek chronology claim, each season of each series begins in June and ends in May. This is the only way to explain why, for example, Wesley Crusher appears to be at the end of a school term in the spring in "The First Duty" (TNG), why it is summer in France in "Family" (TNG) and in North America in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" (DS9), and why First Contact Day (April 5, per Star Trek: First Contact) is being celebrated at the beginning of "Homestead" (VOY). Taking this into consideration, the dates for the TNG-era series are:
Star Trek: The Next Generation: 2363-2370 (incidentally, the non-canonical Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual also says that the Enterprise-D was launched in 2363)
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: 2368-2375
Star Trek: Voyager: 2370-2377.
Take into account that Voyager's first season was little more than half as long as the typical season of Star Trek, so most of that season was actually set in 2371. It was clearly stated to be 2371 by the time of "Eye of the Needle," but the Stardates would seem to indicate that Voyager became lost in the Delta Quadrant before the 24th Century events of Star Trek Generations took place. Statements by the Voyager crew throughout the series about how long they've actually been in the Delta Quadrant can be interpreted to be rounding, since Voyager actually spent 6 1/2 years in the Delta Quadrant, not 7.
I keep on trying to correct these erroneous dates anywhere on Wikipedia that I find them, but there are just too many articles that refer to them, and furthermore the changes that I make seem to keep on getting reverted somehow...I'm posting this here in the hopes that somehow, finally, some serious action can be taken to correct these errors. AD69.138.38.49
Making up your own chronology is Wikipedia:Original research, which is why these keep getting reverted. Morwen - Talk 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
March seems too early for ST II. Starfleet Academy graduates in March? Should be more like June, and Kirk's birthday would be in June, too. 153.2.246.30 (talk)
Should Star Trek: Phase II be added to the series side bar? 24.158.134.254 11:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added a bunch of content explaining the historical development of this timeline as a timeline. I am pondering what sort of timeline we actually want at the bottom. I am tempted to remove some backstory information (in particular, backstory for species which appear only in one episode and have no impact.) Backstory directly relevant to Earth, the Federation or the main characters would stay (although i'm dubious about listing all those random birthdates). Morwen - Talk 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I here made such an edit. (I then reverted myself: really only did this to get the diff) How does this look in terms of getting rid of irrelevant backstory from random episodes, whilst leaving the backstory to the actual show? Morwen - Talk 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The Okuda timeline currently puts TMP in 2271: since the end of the five year mission was established as 2270 by Voyager; this implies that TMP ought to be moved to 2272. Does anyone know if this has been done in any Okudaish work yet? startrek.com seems to still claim 2271 for TMP. Morwen - Talk 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
So, we have
Am I missing anything? Morwen - Talk 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If anything, I think Yesteryear deserves a mention. Both the strongest episode, and even referenced in the reboot movie, to a mild extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.64.141 (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it was entirely clear that the story T'Pol told actually happened - for one thing, she said it didn't. In this case 1957 shouldn't list a Vulcan scout ship as having actually visited Earth. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Good to notice "1969 - Apollo 11 lands on the Moon (real-life)." however non-related to Trek this may be. Still, since you added that, you might consider adding "On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first human to travel into space" too.79.119.2.60 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I have changed part of the timeline, it was written here that Ireland was reunified with Britain into the United republic of Ireland & Great Britain, there is no mention of this in any of the TV series & the chronology states the Ireland is reunified through terrorist means nothing more, if anyone knows different please let me know.
Yours Grimm MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.203.225 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Since Star Trek (2009) represents a fork in the ST Universe time line, in that we have no idea if events from the ST-TOS onward will or can happen, should Star Trek (2009) and it's subsequent productions be moved to their own column in the grid? (Zentinal (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC))
Agreed, there should be a separate table for the alternate timeline with every event preceding Star Trek 2009 remaining intact and everything proceeding it to be added as new films are released. --Robnubis (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's the Paradox - does old spock tell young spock how to succeed in saving Romulus? And if so, that action would restore the original time line. - Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.133.68.241 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
A fork is needed; with the destruction of Vulcan and the crippling of the Klingon empire by Nero, as well as the changes to the Enterprise timeline, the timeline post-2258 is unknown. (Just the same, Spock should provide the Federation extensive debriefing about Borg, Cardassians, Vger, Khan et al.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.204.206 (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The Cardassians are mentioned in Uhura's first scene (and both Next Gen and DS9 indicate that they were known for some time before a Federation/Cardassian Conflict that happened before TNG, as O'Brian was a veteran of that war.) As for Kahn, I think they should have added one of those post-credit teaser scenes of a derelict ship floating through space, zooming in to a close up of the name,'Botonay Bay'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.64.141 (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
There are multiple mentions of alternate time lines. The episodes of TOS, DS9, and ENT that examine the "In A Mirror Darkly" time line should be mentioned for how that timeline progressed. Also the episodes "Year Of Hell" (several distortions of time), and "Deadlock"(alternate events onboard 2 seperate Voyagers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbybandaid (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Have some issues with what the timeline it says Star Trek Insurrection taking place after Deep Space Nine final episode. I believe I remember in the movie they welcoming into a new member into the Federation shortly after they acheived warp drive so they can help out with the war efforts. Also Worf's ability to leave Deep Space Nine doesn't make a whole lot of sense since people often can put in for leave and time off and visit home or go on vacation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.225.238 (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Vulcans contacted Earth in 2065 in the Spaceflight Chronology. I changed it. 153.2.246.30 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
This is just a quick note that while the box for Star Trek Online gives the year as 2409, that was meant to parallel the year (400 years in the future) of when the beta period began. Actual Stardates given in the game are based on the current year plus 400, which dates it (at present) in September 2411. --Allahweh (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Could somebody with the necessary time and resources please add an "Episode Number" column to the "Ordering of Episodes" table (section 3.6) in this article? It would make things a lot easier for someone wishing to use the table as a viewing guide.
Thanks.
IsraelZulu (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm finding the "order of episodes" table incomprehensible.
What order is this table supposed to be in? It doesn't seem to be any logical order I can detect. What am I missing? GreenAsJade (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Looks to me like Stardate Order for TNG Era. Since Stardates in TOS and TAS were pretty random, they follow common sense and Okuda science that TOS Episodes are in production order and TAS in Airdate order chronologically correct. Hope I could help ya. If you disagree, I didn't make this list, but I think it's pretty good. I'd just leave out the Comics and Star Trek Online at the End of the Timeline and place the new Star Trek in it's own separate "List" (soon ot will be a list, when the sequel arrives). 178.203.22.48 (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I concur that the list is good, to whomever removed it, please do not. The episodes are simply sorted by star date, the episodes themselves are all correct, and I don't think it needs a reference as it's just a compilation of the entire series by star date. This fits under the topic of a Star Trek time-line. Zeroedout (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The article says, "However, in the episode 'Miri', it is said that 1960 was around 300 years ago, pushing the show into the 23rd century." But it was Miri's civilization for which 1960 was 300 years in the past, not Earth's. Earth's 1960 could have easily been 100 years later. Therefore, it seems to me that the episode is not relevant to the Star Trek timeline. And, as mentioned just prior to the quote, the episodes "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" and "Space Seed" both place Star Trek about 200 years in the future (from the late 1960s, of course), not 300. Ignoring "Miri" for timeline purposes therefore eliminates one inconsistency. The article should be modified to reflect this. Betaneptune (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of Star Trek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The article states that this explicitly includes "...the three newest J.J. Abrams alternate reality films, or 'Kelvin Timeline'...". - SummerPhDv2.0 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
"The newly refit USS Yorktown (NCC-1704) is renamed the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) and is launched on its maiden voyage." Should the Yorktown reference (which is uncited) be included as a) This is never confirmed on screen & b) other articles give the Yorktown registry number as NCC 1717 - eg see here. Dunarc (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The image available suggests that TNG films happen in sequence. That's not the case. Generations, for example, has a stardate that puts it in the middle of the events of Voyager and DS9 and Insurrection occurs just after the end of the Dominion war. By the way, a couple of labels (in the image) are in German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianmariot2 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of Star Trek's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Tapestry":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
On the timeline first contact with the Ferengi is listed as being around the same time as first contact with Q. This however seems absurd to me due to the fact that Ferengi and Humans seem to already be verry familiar with eachother at the time when TNG and DS9 take place.
Another issue is that in a Star Trek: Enterprise episode we clearly see Ferengi taking over the ship and coming in contact with Humans in around 2151 to 2155.
We could also list the first contact year as 1947 but this is a bit of a stretch considering that by this logic first contact with vulcan would also be around that time. Cvkoning (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
Need to add Star Trek: Prodigy Season 1, which takes place between 58900 and 63999.
Holo-Janeway uses stardate 63301.1 in ep. 10. 2600:1700:228:1040:BC1D:208E:5188:BA9D (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
And let me tell you why ... :-)
Is there a way in to adjust the table (on demand would be fine) so that all the TV shows are (properly, IMHO, including TAS and the new stuff people love to hate) listed together and that ignores the Kelvin stuff (at least until such time as the production crew can sew that back into the Prime timeline) and the books, which I don't think anyone believes are cannon (as he ducks ...).
In any case, in it's present form, it seems to reflect a pretty TOS-centric view of things, with only some shows in the first column and others relegated to 3rd place (behind the books???). plaws (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Quite interesting. You did ALMOST A GOOD JOB. Where you failed, as so many TREKKERS do, is you failed to bridge The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. You never included the television series STAR TREK: MERCY POINT. Better luck next millennia with your fact checking. 208.125.160.250 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to find information on the years that the Temporal War came from, just before the Burn from Discovery right? Is there a reason that time travellers from Voyager and TNG are included but not from Enterprise? Greg (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)