Talk:Stardate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Star Trek Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Problems with the article

The article isn't so bad as to warrant such sweeping warnings at the top. If you see an unfounded assertion or original research, please point it out in the text of the article. The point of this article should be to collect as many tiny facts about stardates as possible in order to illuminate aspects of their usage. For example, collecting as many "offbeat" TNG stardate samples as possible is useful in hammering home the idea that not even TNG stardates can be predicted using a stardate calculator. PointDread (talk) 14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Stardate discrepancies are due to relativistic effects"

It seems wrong to refer to the incorrect "stardate discrepancies are due to relativistic effects" explanation as "[urban legend]", since there's nothing particularly legendary about it. There's no story, plot, or characters -- it's just an incorrect explanation. Matthew Miller

OK, I was using urban legend in an informal sense. The only "legendary" thing about it seems to be that it keeps popping up again. But we agree it's an incorrect explanation (and, as I may add, only from fans; AFAIK, this was never officially claimed or even hinted at). WP can explain this myth, without claiming other myths as fact. 84.57.80.62 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This woulbe be in either ways classified as fancruft. Wikipedia is not also the place to lift or fight fancruft urban legends. See in WP:NOT --Jestix 21:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW: recently some days ago for example the german wikipedia deleted "Stardate (Startrek)" alltogheter because consisting just of fancruft, meaning containg information nobody might be interested in, until he is a *real* startrek fan. --Jestix 21:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Where does WP:NOT say anything about not clarifying myths or common misconceptions? Also, ISTM that they are common enough, also outside of die-hard fans, to be worth addressing, if only by saying "What Stardates are not ..." 84.57.83.168 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all Wikipedia:No original research, as nobody really seams to know anything really concrete about stardates most of this is speculation. These sepculations about stardates are cleary Fanfiction. This also regards: Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball

Additionally according to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) I challenge the notabilty of stardates at all, as they do not have any "major" function in the series and it just some more or less random number the captains say when they talk to their logs. --Jestix 07:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Full ack WRT no OR, as I've been saying all the time. However, stating that there is no systematic isn't OR, as well as e.g. the quotes (Roddenberry, Moore, Guide) which essentially confirm this. They might not be major, but apparently common enough that people keep wondering or fantasizing about them. Perhaps it should be merged into another article with redirect. The main Star Trek article isn't suitable, but perhaps another article with minor ST topics. 84.57.84.50 22:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Relativity

Oh no, not again this relativity myth! Please understand the Theory of relativty first before claiming such nonsense. Adding a section to disspell it, which should be the job of an encyclopedia rather than spreading it. 84.57.72.54 21:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DL54020 changing the article

DL54020, while this is a wiki, and you have every right in the world to edit articles, the version you keep changing it to violates the Manual of Style guidelines. You keep changing it to say how stardates are used in Star Trek without first explaining what stardates are. This is mandatory requirement for a Wikipedia article. You must state A is a B and then you can go onto say more about A.

Furthermore, however, you immediately start pooping on stardates and stating how much they suck. This is completely POV and counter to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Plus, you don't cite any of your statements: you just give them and expect everyone to take them at face value. If you have a valid point, you should be able to find some references that back up the prose.

And a criticism of the system shouldn't be the first thing the reader sees. If you want to put your stuff (properly cited, of course) in a "criticism" section, that's fine. But don't start the article by ranting about it. Please don't just revert the article again—address these issues before adding your stuff to the article again. Please discuss any concerns or questions here—that's what this page is for. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's not confuse style with substance

I've clarified the opening statement to state what stardates are, and I've tried to rewrite points that might be perceived as criticism, but the wording is very important here. Saying that stardates are a dating convention invites the implication that it's a simple calendar that can be converted into other calendars. Therefore I've said it's a means of specifying absolute dates, which is consistent with what we see in the show. We don't want to make any unwarranted statements.

The idea is also not to criticize writers (even if that's what you perceived from the style), but rather to make it clear that they deliberately let stardates be undefined and therefore created a complex onscreen system that is a canonical part of the show--not a huge blooper across dozens of episodes. Yes, they are more complex than a planetary calendar system needs to be -- if that is not immediately obvious, you can look up Julian dates and realize that a planetary calendar system can work with a day count if necessary. Yes, the Gregorian calendar is used without ill effects in Enterprise. I'm being extremely careful not to speculate on exactly why stardates behave the way they do, but it's important to avoid the incorrect perception that stardates are supposed to be a day count or even an extremely irregular, yet still normal planetary calendar (why would an advanced society create such a complex planetary calendar?) and the writers just made tons and tons of errors over the years, and if you're deriving conversion algorithms you're just supposed to ignore a number of datapoints which don't fit.

The truth is that they let stardates be random (I'm saying this without criticism), and thus created an onscreen, canonical system which is more complex than a planetary calendar, which only partially replaces a Gregorian calendar, and all of that for unknown reasons. I'm not sure what references you're looking for in particular, but I've tried to make sure that all the statements are supported by evidence in a lot of episodes and backstage references by writers. DL54020 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)DL54020

My biggest point still stands. Reading your reply above, you introduce a great deal of original research, forbidden here on Wikipedia. If you can produce references for your assertions, then they're fine to appear in the article. Otherwise, it is all original research and not suitable for an article.
I won't revert it again (there is the 3 revert rule to keep in mind), but you really need to try to conform to Wikipedia's quality standards. For example, one very simple device you overlooked is bolding the subject of the article like this. Look at your talk page for some links helpful for new editors. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
As for the style, I see that there are people quickly adding links and making such minor fixes, so I choose not to focus on that aspect too much, although I do try to make sure the basics are there (for instance I'd added links to the Julian day number). As for the signature, what's the point of requiring everyone to sign their names, but not enforcing the requirement in software? Especially since the software later actually does enforce it by saying that the unsigned comment was added by me. Why not just make it automatic, the way all forum software has done since the age of the newsgroups?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by DL54020 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC).
There are efforts on wikipedia, to make discussions to forum like, like you explained it. It was one of the 2 Summer of Code Projects 2006, but don't know what happened to it see at [meta.wikipedia.org]. The way it is now has historical reasons, when wikipedia started programmers concentrated on making an encyopedia, and the software therfore, and did not put much energy into extra discussions. The quick and simple way, was to treat discussions like normal wikipedia pages in software. However what once was an necessity for limited ressource now has become already a religion for some ;) For the software in wikidiscussions its not easy to autosign, since it doenst know where to. The "The preceding unsigned comment was added by ..." signature, was not done automatically by software, but a fellow wikipedian.--19:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
However, this is of little consequence since I can no longer be involved due to this "original reserch" policy, and you can delete everything but the backstage section (funny the length of time the "observed stardate properties" section has remained, even though you won't find an official source with that information--that's because the statements are obviously true to anyone who has seen a lot of Star Trek). Fan-fiction theories are definitely not reliable sources, neither are statements in the novels, so one could only reproduce the theory by Gene Roddenberry, basically, which is inconsistent with the show. My time would be better spent publishing original research with such "groundbreaking" statements as "stardates, which decrease with time or increase with time at different rates, are much too complex to be a planetary calendar". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DL54020 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The purpose of stardates

If you think this deleted paragraph got any *real* information, please tell us here. (instead of just reverting all the time) --Jestix 07:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph is saying what stardates are not. It must not speculate on what they are, since speculation doesn't belong here. Also, you keep confusing out-of-universe and in-universe observations. In-universe, Tasha Yar dies. Out-of-universe, the actress leaves the show. In-universe, stardates are used for a reason -- the characters don't make them up. Out-of-universe, the writers make them up. The second half of the page is out-of-universe, the first half is in-universe. Some Sherlock Holmes stories are set in the late 19th century -- you can't say that they are not set in the late 19th century because the stories are fictional. Stardates are used for a reason in-universe.

Also, the person who made the textual corrections completely screwed up the titles -- they begin with a lowercase letter. If you check the Star Trek Encyclopedia, you'll see that stardates are spelled lowercase -- it's a mundane, common term, same as calendar date. The easiest way to fix that is to revert back -- if the person can actually finish the job of "correcting" the text, I'm not going to revert.

82.202.0.96 19:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)82

This paragraph doesn't nevertheless add anything to the topic. Look Roddenberry never thought deeply into what stardates are about. Really its just that he thought they sound cool... On the 1st season it was really random. Do you get that? The storrytellers did them random! Point. Next seasons they changes the system from season to season. So in the later seasons the 1 stardate = 1 day is pretty common. But additionally storryteller just made errors. Now what you guys to try, is to see something "in universe" that is not there. The startrek universe doesn't have anything that the storrytellers and creators did not put inside. There is no continous system behind stardates, it just changes over seasons. There is no deeper sense in it. To constuct it is soooo complicated, that it makes any sense we just get, is a) wrong b) even if true, its original research, therefore unfit here. Its the very same with ever changing of warp speeds meaning how much lightyears are traveled per hour at warp X. It constantly changes between the seasons and even within. But maybe its just so complicated no human in this universe sees the deeper system. *rollseyes*--Jestix 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Of taken from above: but rather to collect solid observations and create the simplest theory to fit those observations.

Even if you can do something, wikipedia is NOT your place. Wikipedia does not host creation of any new theories, as wikipedia does not do original research. I hope this is now cleared. --Jestix 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you had actually bothered to check the result of that discussion you quoted, you would have noticed that in response to that discussion I had removed theories and replaced them with simple observations, which ended up sticking to this date without objections. The Purpose paragraph likewise isn't speculation, it's saying what stardates are not. It's not trying to guess what they are. It says they are too complex to be a planetary calendar. That is a mathematical fact. Therefore, historically, all Earth calendars have been simpler than stardates.

Also, what gives you the right to declare that stardates are irrational and shall not be examined? A lot of people had declared that Klingon foreheads are irrational, saying the makeup changed, yet "Enterprise" eventually explained them the show. You have no basis for declaring that some subjects must not be addressed, because you don't know what will happen in the future. And explaining stardates is actually not what I'm trying to do here, since that would be theorizing. Therefore, this page is only stating verifiable observations.

How is it speculation or a theory for someone to state that stardates are much too complex to be a planetary calendar? Planetary calendars, especially those of an advanced society, do not need to have dates go up and down in an unpredictable fashion. They just need to increase with regularity. Therefore, stardates really are much too complex to be a simple planetary calendar. That's a mathematical fact. One possibility eliminated, without stating what stardates really are, which would be speculation at this point. 82.202.0.96 21:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)82

you have no basis for declaring that some subjects must not be addressed, because you don't know what will happen in the future.

I *have* an basis for declaring things that must not be addressed on wikipedia! If something extraordinary happens in future, you can still add it to wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia an therefore does not do orginal research. Nor does it add things that *might* become notworthy, it adds things *when* they become noteworthy.--Jestix 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely noteworthy that stardates are not a simple calendar. A lot of people have been trying to convert them with simplistic formulas, and it's important to say that that's not possible.

How about tring to say it in a non-bloated sentence, just like you did now? --Jestix 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How is it speculation or a theory for someone to state that stardates are much too complex to be a planetary calendar? Planetary calendars, especially those of an advanced society, do not need to have dates go up and down in an unpredictable fashion. This is absolut total specualtion. This article does not address theories what calendars future societies might use. It adreses some fancy markup in a fiction series called startrek. --Jestix 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about Star Trek societies, not hypothetical societies. Star Trek societies live on planets orbiting suns. Have you actually seen the planets in Star Trek? They orbit their suns. There are no tachyon fields altering time around them on a regular basis. Vulcan, Andor, Romulus, etc, etc. They adhere to laws of physics.

Well there are double-sun planets. So especially you siad this is a "mathametican"
It says they are too complex to be a planetary calendar. That is a mathematical fact well it is not. There are often extraordinary things in startrek, so why not a 7 sun planet system? Its defintely not a mathematical fact. Its just YOUR observation about the planet system YOU have seen, and you say it cannot be a planetary system. --Jestix 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it? It might be the calender of a planet swinging around 7 suns, where this seven-solar system is hold stable with tachyon emitting stabilator appliances.... --Jestix 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It could be. Nobody would hold it against me for saying what I said because things you described are so inconsistent with our knowledge of astrophysics and physics of all planets observed thus far that I would be perfectly justified in saying it's not a planetary calendar given the understanding of a planet in the English language.

Look telling what it everything is NOT, does not add anything valuable to the topic. Its also not a system used to cook eggs, its not a system to calculate woman periods, its not a system my cat uses to determine her food times, its not a system of a moon, its not a system of an astroid, its not a system of a black hole, its not.... Well can I add this everything to the article? It are facts after all.--Jestix 22:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're completely blowing things out of proportion. I'm saying it's not a simple calendar. I'm not stating what they are obviously not, I'm stating that which is not as obvious to countless people trying to convert them with simplistic formulas.

Therefore, this page is only stating verifiable observations.

No. This page is about stating verifiable, NOTEWORTHY obversations. Please read some wikipedia basis guidelines. --Jestix 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It is absolutely noteworthy that stardates are not a simple calendar. It responsibly shuts down all attempts to come up with simplistic stardate converters.

Work on a simple version of this propostion then. The way it is now is just not encyclopedic style... and its just a heavily bloated proposition that could be done in one simple sentence. This way its just "much too complex to be ..." .. anything of use. --Jestix 22:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh an please sign your posts! and PLEASE use ':' to make insertion, this is not readable so :( --Jestix 22:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
To summ it up, the wording "is much to complex to"... implies that there is a hidden deeper sense in the stardates just not viewable by us, where there isn't. Just try to say, attempts to make any deeper sense into stardates has been proofen futile. :) --Jestix 22:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
there is no "in-universe" reason that isn't original research, again don't put more into the subject than there is. The storytellers didn't put much thought into it, and thats it. sigh. --Jestix 07:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Use in Tcl

The Tcl programming language includes a stardate formatter for times. It is probably not accurate according to any scheme; it exists as a joke and (as I understand it) for testing certain gnarly aspects of date handling. -- Donal Fellows (talk) 09:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)