Talk:Stardate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed systems

It'd be nice to have a discussion of several proposed systems of stardates, most of which are covered in the FAQ. Not wanting to duplicate material, perhaps a "lite" version of the systems could be presented. I'd do it myself if I had the time right now, so anyone else who wants to attempt it, please do so! :^) —Frecklefoot 18:03, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

TNG has stardates

Since there is so much disagreement as to how stardates should be implemented, their use was limited to Star Trek: The Original Series and not carried over to the later series, such as Star Trek: The Next Generation. -- TNG has stardates -- Tarquin 18:06, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

My mistake, I stand corrected. Thanks, Tarquin. :^) —Frecklefoot 18:38, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

you're welcome :) AFAIK, in TNG, one digit is the number of the season. -- Tarquin 18:43, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

We may want to include that info in the article. But we may want to get some verification on it first. —Frecklefoot 19:26, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, it's true. First season eps have stardates 41xxx.x, and second season eps have 42xxx.x. (with the 4 originally symbolically chosen for the 'twenty-fourth century'). Of course in Voyager and DS9 this has wrapped round to 5xxxx. -- Morwen

I think you're right—I remember reading something about that in the FAQ. Want to integrate it into the article somehow? —Frecklefoot 20:37, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Stardate FAQ

I'm the author of the stardate FAQ linked from this article. I've just added some more discussion of TNG stardates and a bit about theories of stardates. For some time now I've been looking for something suitable to do with the stardates FAQ, which I no longer have time to maintain. I'm happy to put some of its material into Wikipedia, but its entirety would certainly not be suitable as an encyclopedia article. Any suggestions on which parts should be wikified? And, incidentally, is anyone interested in taking over maintenance of the FAQ? 81.168.80.170 17:56, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Hi :) I used to hang out on rec.arts.startrek.tech ages ago. I think as a first step we need to increase the amount of information about the stardate anomalies - eg the Dark Page stardates that don't fit with either system - that sort of thing (didn't Identity Crisis also break like that?). Um, hmm. Morwen - Talk 20:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spacetime

It should be noted that spacetime is implied through using the stardate. One's time depends upon one's position. It's 7:00 AM in Los Angeles, 10:00 AM in New York, and 3:00 PM in London all at the same exact moment.

What we call "time" is a construct to organize or lives. The numbering system we use to quantify time has little relation to what's actually happening.

And more - the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia all have different calendar systems. You'd be hard pressed to get them all to use the same one. And how many planets do we have in the "federation"? ManyFireflies

You're confusing time zones (different places on earth) with spacetime (cf. theory of relativity). Since Star Trek obviously doesn't follow the theory of relativity (at least as we know it today), since it doesn't allow FTL travel, spacetime is irrelevant here.

Time zones are also not a big problem. Today we can use UTC to deal with different time zones. Stardates could be based on UTC as well (when applied to earth).

Different calendar systems on earth differ mainly in their systems of weeks and months or comparable concepts (which do not appear in stardates), and their beginning point and possible cycles. The latter two are different from all existing calendars in stardates, so that could be some kind of compromise. The bigger question is why stardates would be related to the length of the year or day (in different issues) on one particular planet (earth).

The idea of location information keeps popping up again, but there is no reasonable explanation how it could possibly work. Some proponents propose "very rough" positional data, but what should that be? A GPS location on earth typically takes some 8-18 digits, and it doesn't even include the third dimension (altitude). Star Trek sector numbers need at least 3 digits, etc. Each sector contains several stars, many planets, and a lot of empty space between them. And unknown areas of space don't even have fixed sector numbers yet. There's just no way to fit even a reasonable part of this information in a stardate, along with the time information for, say, just the timespan of one show, with a day's resolution.

As we all know, the real reason why stardates jump is that the writers haven't been too careful about them. Searching for fictional reasons without any evidence on the show, is just speculation. Such speculation may seem reasonable due to the abovementioned confusion between spacetime and (earth's) time zones, but as explained, it doesn't make sense here. In any case, speculation doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article.

And also the actors/characters make mistakes. On a few occasions, a digit was omitted, or two digits obviously swapped. Does this mean we should develop a theory that has a four-digit stardate in the middle of a five-digit period, or contains a sudden jump that just happens two make two digits swap? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Since stardates most often are spoken by a human to the computer, not by the computer (which is strange enough in itself), it's clear that mistakes will happen.

OR, as has been demonstrated many times, Star Trek writers are fantastically lazy and just don't give a rats arse about logic, continuity, or most times, even good storytelling (hence the heavy reliance on the holodeck). 59.38.32.5 (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Original research

While I find the section on "stardate analysis" to be quite interesting, I don't think it falls within the guidelines of what Wikipedia is intended to be. See WP:OR. This seems to be something more suited to a fan website than an encyclopedia. Neil916 06:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ack. Wikipedia is not for theory finding. The Stardate FAQ develops some theories, and it can be linked to, but its speculations shouldn't be repeated here.

Again: "... so it is necessary to determine their reason for being" -- perhaps, but not here. If theories are developed elsewhere, we can point to them here.

And again: "... so that known real-world factors affecting stardates such as production order and carelessness can be translated into as-yet unknown in-universe factors" -- that would be more speculation and fiction than anything. It might be a nice starting point for a fan novel, but it's nothing to do with what Wikipedia is. 84.57.86.248 17:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Stardate Analysis

"... but we cannot be satisfied with real world reasons when explaining in-universe matters" -- deleted. This is not a fictional Trek wiki. It's a real-world encyclopedia that talks about a fictional matter. We shouldn't forget this and not write as if we were part of the fictional universe. 84.57.86.248 17:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What Wikipedia is not

Someone is trying hard, again and again, to add his speculative theory finding here. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not! This is not the place for original research!

Since there are no established theories to explain the real-world errors with in-universe reasons, this whole issue does not belong here! Could you please stop that nonsense? 84.57.92.209 19:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Factual approach

My attempt is not to develop a speculative theory as in "stardates are based on periodic oscillations of a pulsar first observed in 2164", but rather to collect solid observations and create the simplest theory to fit those observations. The analysis section at this time also doesn't go into any real conclusions on what stardates are, but is very much fact-based when discussing the Gregorian calendar and should probably be integrated into the observations section in my next edit. I will make the appropriate revisions to that effect when I get to that.

That said, stardates shouldn't be treated differently from any other aspects of the show. We would say that Tasha Yar was killed by the tar creature, not that this was an error because the actress wanted to leave the show. Or we would say that the Excelsior class starships are used in TNG, not that this is an error because the producers didn't have money to build new ships. Likewise, we observe that stardates can decrease with time, not that this is an error because the producers couldn't keep their scripts straight. They obviously allowed stardates to behave in a manner they wouldn't have allowed Gregorian dates to behave (13 June -> 10 June -> 19 June) because they recognized that stardates are sufficiently undefined that a decrease with time can be accepted, so the decrease with time becomes an intended, continuously observable property of stardates.

I'm fine with analyses springing up elsewhere unless they inevitably follow from the verifiable facts, but so far the encyclopedia should at least ensure that it has its facts straight and not merely rely on out of universe data or the plain incorrect statements such as 1 year = 1000 stardate units. Otherwise we could stop talking about Tasha Yar and have merely a section on Denise Crosby.—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by 82.202.0.96 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC-7)

Even "the simplest theory" is still a theory, which is non-canon.

WRT the comparison with Tasha Yar: That she was killed by the creature (in one timeline), is a fact directly from the show, without any speculation or theory about it. Same as saying that episode 42 takes place on stardates so and so. But speculating why the creature would kill Tasha and not someone else, perhaps because it prefers females of a certain age, or persons from Turkana IV, or something like that, would be speculation and doesn't belong here.

In this case they gave a clear in-universe explanation (Tasha killed) for a real-world issue (Denise leaving the show), so Wikipedia (being fact-based) can mention the former, but (being real-world) can and should then also mention the latter.

As for stardates decreasing, only the real-world issue is clear. AFAIK, there are no canon sources to support any of those stardate theories. (If you have any, please cite them.) The airing sequence of the episodes doesn't mean much in this regard, because it's stated nowhere that the sequence always corresponds to increasing fictional time. It often does, and often doesn't. (Time-travel stories and ENT are the most obvious cases where it doesn't.) Also in other shows that play in current times, using the Gregorian calendar, it sometimes happens that episodes are aired out of (fictional) sequence. So only if you have two points in the show with decreasing stardate *and* increasing Gregorian date, or some other form of proving their fictional sequence, this would be evidence for backwards running stardates.

And even that only modulo errors of the characters etc. You might dislike considering character errors that are not elaborated in the show, and have no meaning to the plot, and which may be discovered only by such an analysis. However, a (sometimes) backwards running date is such an odd concept that almost any alternative explanation seems more likely than this, and this includes our main characters (or even the enterprise computer) making a single mistake. Which means that, in absence of substantive evidence on the show, or statements from the writers, both of which would have to be cited, there is no basis to assume the existence of a theory, leave alone trying to develop such a theory here.

By the same comparison, you could try to develop theories for other simple errors. E.g., in some Trek episodes, like in many other shows, glasses jump from being more to less full and back, when cutting from different takes, which is a typical continuity problem. You wouldn't try to develop a theory to describe how fluids in glasses can suddenly increase their volume, would you? Or that Data's cat, Spot, is sometimes referred to as male and sometimes female. Surely Data wouldn't make such a mistake (of course, it was the writers who did), so we need a theory of gender-changing cats. ;-)

As for the 1000 units/year, for TOS that's clearly not the case. For the other shows, it might have been the intention of the writers (if so, citation needed). But these calculations often don't work out, indeed, that's a fact that can be shown in several episodes when both stardates and Gregorian timespans are mentioned, and the article can point this out. But that's it. Anything beyond is speculation, without strong evidence, as said above.

That's why I pointed to the Stardate FAQ again. That's a place where speculations can be developed, and WP can link to it. (And if you don't like its theories, you can develop your own and publish them, but not here.) WP should concentrate on facts, and fact is that there is no satisfying explanation for the observed errors.

A reader might search for this article exactly because they want to know whether these problems are simple errors or have a deeper meaning (that's why I originally read this article, BTW), and in an encyclopedia he deserves to find the actual answer which is that there is no (canonical) explanation. Further speculations can be interesting and entertaining (I liked to read those in the FAQ), but they just don't belong here, leave alone instructions for theory finding ("a theory must do this and that").

If you want to keep the list of observations, I'd prefer an introduction such as: "These are facts observed in some episodes. The real-world reason for inconsistencies are mistakes on part of the writers, for all that is publicly known. In-universe, some observations can be explained with character errors, some with speculations based on other observed facts, and some might not have a satisfying explanation, just like other real-world mistakes in this and other shows cannot always be explained in-show (cf. Retcon). The Stardate FAQ gives some rather elaborate speculative theories, but many other exist."

The reader can see the list and draw their own conclusions whether to regard them (in-universe) as errors or something else. Unless and until official statements by the writers or a new show address the issues, this question remains undecided, and thus WP shouldn't try to decide it on its own. 84.57.82.202 23:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not confuse bloopers and complicated issues. Bloopers are those things that simply cannot be explained no matter how hard you try. They are one-off deviations from an otherwise clear standard observed in the majority of instances. Stardates never had a policy stating they begin at date X and increase at X units per day, in which case we could argue that occassional deviations from the standard are errors if they cannot be rationally explained.

Evidence: there is a clear note in the Phase II writer's guide reproduced in the Making of Phase II book (and although I don't have it reports say the same was copied from the original series writer's guide) instructing the writers to pick any four digits for the stardate! The statement only suggests that writers should try to keep stardates going in order within a particular episode. The reason they increased with more regularity in TNG is that Eric Stillwell would assign proper stardate ranges to episodes, so that was an intentional change. It's one thing if you have a clear policy of increase but mess up once in a while, but a completely different matter if you deliberately let stardates get out of order because you're making up the rules for them anyway so any accusations of "error" can be waived off by saying "stardates are affected by XYZ."

That said, there is also sufficient evidence proving that it's not just a matter of episode order. Star Trek III has Spock die on stardate 8128.78, yet the previous movie begins at stardate 8130+. Once can give a huge number of such examples, which should be provided in the observations section. It may be odd that dates behave in this manner, but then again it's also odd that there is no evidence of units based on multiples of 10, or that stardates exhibit all kinds of irregularities such as changing rates.

I agree on providing verifiable evidence, but let's avoid making unsubstantiated allegations of error where certain behavior is the result of a clear policy.

--82.202.0.96 05:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to the "explained no matter how hard you try" bit. You can try hard to explain things for yourself, but again, that's not what an encyclopedia is for. Only if other (reputable) sources publish such tentative (or even official) explanations, WP can write *about* them.

Indeed, "Stardates never had a policy". But that doesn't mean that (in and out of universe) errors can't happen there as well.

The writer' guide, instructions, and assignment in TNG that you mention, that's interesting information and sheds some light on what's actually happened. Please put it in the article (preferable with citation, of course).

As for conclusions from it: (a) For TOS the implication to me is clearly that there simply is no in-universe reason. If stardates are picked at random, that's it.

(b) That there is an intentional and drastic change between TOS and TNG is a well-established fact, no problem here. No serious description or speculative theory denies this, and the article should, of course, state it.

(c) For TNG, assigning ranges shows at least the intention of making stardates more systematic and (I suppose) generally increasing. You say: "... if you deliberately let stardates get out of order". Well, that's yet to prove with some evidence. Again, if episode A aired after B, but has an earlier stardate, that doesn't prove backward running time. Another explanation is that A is actually set after B. A likely real-world reason for that is that airing and/or production order was changed after the stardate ranges were assigned. This can happen for various reasons (time constraints, last-minute changes to the story, etc.). When parts of the scenes have already been shot, it would be much effort to edit the stardates mentioned in those scenes, so it's understandable to keep the original ranges. In-universe we don't need any reason, because nothing unusual happened; the characters don't know when we watch their adventures. ;-) So only evidence that the order of the episodes in the fictional world is contrary to the stardate order would prove that they're out of order. And I've also not seen any evidence so far that they let the stardates get out of order *deliberately* in TNG.

Date units not based on powers of 10 are not so odd at all. Our current Gregorian calendar is entirely this way. It's based on 60, 24, 7, 28-31 (not counting 365-366 which is the only of these numbers which is given naturally). The different stardate rates are somewhat odd, but it's mainly two major changes. They can be explained with some imagination (experiments with a new system, bureaucrats in charge, mostly in military use thus limited effects on the population). Even though not exactly obvious, it's still far less outlandish than sometimes-backward-running time which is contrary to the very concept of a date as we know it. So I hold that you'd need far stronger evidence to support the latter instead of the less strange alternatives (which are also speculative, sure, so they shouldn't be pursued here, but it doesn't mean you can just dismiss them in favour of an even more speculative theory).

As for errors, I agree that not every problem is an error. For TOS, as you described, there's no error, there's simply no rules. Episodes shown out of order are also not an error, it simply happens, as in other shows (but we shouldn't draw unjustified conclusions from that -- it's just the airing sequence, nothing else). But it doesn't mean that there are no errors ...

E.g., the Spock case you mention, to me that's a typical case of a writer's error, not a mysterious theory. Apparently I'm not alone with this opinion. A quick Google search turned up this IMDb page http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088170/goofs which lists it as a "continuity goof", plain and simple. The same page lists several other "goofs", among them two more time- (but not stardate-)related ones. By the same logic you'd have to assume that Gregorian years behave strangely, and minutes stretch, etc. This list is for one movie only, and not necessarily complete. Given the number of mistakes here, and the number of movies and episodes, it's no surprise that overall quite a few stardate-related mistakes are to be expected.

BTW, I'm not saying that everything can (or should) be explained by episode order, or everything by writer's errors, or everything by characters' mistakes, or everything with strange stardate policy. But there might be a bit of all these effects, all together accounting for the observed irregularities. A reasonable theory should look for the most likely (or least strange) reason for each perceived problem first; and an encyclopedia should not do any of this, but simply report what others have found out or theorized. 84.57.73.217 04:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Article structure and etc

I removed the section Article structure because it has no place in an encyclopedia article. Structure should speak for itself - if you need to explain it, make it self-explanatory by reorganizing it. Also, it'd be very nice if the anonymous IP people would register. Rarr 19:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's see if people can stick to it. What I wanted to avoid is a structure like "stardates have often been observed to decrease -- but let me say right here that this is certainly an error, even if I don't have any :evidence to that effect, even if it keeps happening over and over again. I just know because it's common sense." I want to keep the two separate, so that someone can look at the first section and start thinking about :ways to explain stardates in a scientific manner -- deriving the theory with the least terms required to explain all the observations in the show. Because in the end we want stardates explained, as do writers and :producers. Everyone is happier when the system without rules is given a solid explanation, such as Star Wars blaster bolts being invisible lightspeed beams with a slower-than-light component to them (so the :invisible beams can destroy an object before the bolt reaches it in order to correct for apparent real-world errors where items would explode before the bolt hits them). However, that's outside the scope of an :encyclopedia, so we're sticking to observations based on multiple evidence in the show which cannot be dismissed as speculation because that's what happened, it's right there on the screen. Saying that the stardate :decreased with passing time is the same as saying that Tasha Yar was killed by the tar creature in another encyclopedia article.

The other section is where people can put their backstage evidence of how things are supposed to be in an ideal world (well, in an ideal world writers wouldn't even invent stardates because they clearly ended up :being useless in terms of covering up the date for all practical purposes). However, even here I don't want to see speculation about this or that being an error. It's often not, one has to support it with actual evidence. :For example Ron Moore flatly said that stardates do not make sense and shouldn't be examined closely -- that's different from saying that stardates do make sense and one has made an error. Gene Roddenberry :didn't say that decreasing stardates are an error, but that they actually compensate for effect Y. And even so the above approach is more fun and consistent with the way people normally watch the show (they don't :collect information about X being an error, they see X and think it's not an error -- especially after seeing X being repeated numerous times).

--82.202.0.96 21:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not primarily about having fun. It'd be nice if it can do both, apparently not here ...

Actually, many people collect information about errors on the show. A simple google search will find many Trek (and other shows) error lists. It's actually so well-known that it's been parodied in The Simpsons ::several times. Of course, WP shouldn't become a Trek error list, but you can't dismiss the fact that some people see errors as errors.

As for your examples, I replied to the Spock example already. The other one is even more bizarre IMHO. Two points from two unrelated episodes. Probably the writers just mixed up something, or just noone kept ::a calendar encompassing those times, so they missed this contradiction.

If you really believe such things should have in-universe reasons, then please explain the strange behaviour of Gregorian dates listed on the IMDb page above (age of Enterpise)!

"Saying that the stardate decreased with passing time is the same as saying that Tasha Yar was killed by the tar creature in another encyclopedia article." And it's the same as saying that Gregorian times run slower ::and faster, that glasses can magically fill and empty, that cats can change gender, etc., etc. It's the same insofar that all of those can be observed on the show. 88.65.68.114 18:44, 28 June ::2006 (UTC)

Exactly, except that you're not phrasing it in such a way as to avoid making speculative conclusions. Sex change is a conclusion that has an alternative (another cat named Spot). Let's leave speculations about something being an error or else outside and report on Data calling spot "he" in one episode and "she" in another. If a writer says X is an error backstage, we report that the writer said X is an error in the other section.

--82.202.0.96 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

So let's also report on some character referring to this event having taken place on this stardate in one episode, and another character referring to that event having taken place on that stardate in another episode, without conlusions or speculations, such as backward-running stardate, when plenty of alternative explanations are thinkable. Yes, we should report what a writer said, that's why I added your comments from the guide and from Ron to the article, BTW. 88.65.68.114 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the likeliness of alternative explanations, another cat may be an option, though I suppose there may be statements in the show to rule this out (perhaps Data or someone else once mentions that Data has had the cat for so long, or refers to a previous event in relation with the cat when it was male). I'm not gonna watch all relevant episodes again now just to find such a statement ... Anyway, I'm curious to hear plausible alternative explanations for the other "goofs" I've cited (and I could cite many more). Let's start with the "age of the Enterprise" one, as it also relates to dates. OTOH, as I said before, a sometimes backward-running calendar is directly opposed to the fundamental concept of a calendar, so if anything, this is the unlikely alternative, and any other explanation is more likely. Oh, you said that's common sense, and common sense should not be applied, but you're always applying common sense, otherwise you couldn't interpret a show at all. 88.65.68.114 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The first part addresses stardates from an in-universe perspective, providing observations about their behavior on the show, similar to the way appendices to "Lord of the Rings" provide "non-fictional fictional" information about the universe. However, information in this section cannot be fan-fiction, speculation, or anything other than statements supported by multiple canon facts. For example, a valid statment would be that stardates can locally decrease with time because it is supported by observations from the show. An invalid statement would be that 1000 units = 1 year, because there is no evidence onscreen to support that statement, and multiple pieces of evidence that this is not the case.

--82.202.0.96 21:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is speculation, it can be cut out. People watch recent changes like hawks, so bad edits rarely survive. I think the organization speaks for itself, and anything that doesn't fit in one section can be easily moved :::or removed. A division between the two sections is perfectly sensible - but many, many other articles face the same problems as this article and don't require an article structure section. That's all I'm saying here. My apologies for adding the indentation to your comments, but it's much easier to read for everybody that way. Rarr 20:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

jabberwocky article?

Cant we just reducte the whole articles to its really conclusion. "Stardate are a fictional time scaling system in the series of startrek. The numbers are completely random, at best every author of every season made another logic out of it, but often even violated that. Thats it. 1000 Stardate units are not a year, and 1000 Stardate units are not a 1000 days." --Jestix 15:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Stardate is a perfectly valid article - it is a long-running component of Star Trek, and many other fictional concepts have articles. If this were a print encylopedia, then of course this article would not even come close to making the cut for importance, but we have all the space we need to create an informative encyclopedia. Rarr 17:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Im not arguing about validity of the lemma in general but about the article in special... a lot of talk... containing only a minimum of information, since stardates are at total really mostly just random numbers by author it seems. --Jestix 17:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They were only random in the original series, and even there they typically rose logically. Since TNG they are a mostly reliable system of dating. I was saying that this article in specific (not this 'lemma', whatever that is) is valid. While your 'version' of the article is to the point, there is more to Stardates than just that. That's like going to the War article and putting War is where people kill each other. Yes, it's technically correct, but you're losing a lot of side information. Rarr 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In the TNG 1000 star units are a season... But even inside a season there are errors in stardates going forward and backward regardless of the plot time line. So still a lot of babble with only a few of information.--Jestix 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)