Talk:Stardate

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)

---

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)

---

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.

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 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 along 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)