Talk:Timeline of Star Trek

World War III

Since there actually is a World War III in Star Trek and there is a section for it in another article on Wikipedia, I thought it would be more appropriate to have the World War III link in the introduction point to that article rather than a generic article on World War III's that could be. ENSSB (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing elements

Missing timeline elements:

1. Voyager crew goes back into the 20th century.
2. Archer and T'Pol go back to the 20th century.

--[[User:Allyunion|AllyUnion (Talk)]] 06:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Voyager goes back into 1997 or 1999.. something like that... of course, it seems kind of odd since nobody seemed to bothered about the eugenics war during that period... - Mattt

What about the Edith Keeler episode? What year was that, 1934 or something? Adam Bishop 01:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the timeline being split as it is, based on the events of Generations. Can we really say that everything since Generations didn't actually happen in the "normal" Star Trek universe? It makes much more sense to assume that Picard's Nexus adventure erased the crew being killed and replaced it with the timeline that followed. -Branddobbe 06:18, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Branddobbe. The Nexus is its own reality. Allemannster

Where does this "The United Federation of Temporal Dimensions" come from?

Also, Missing the New Star Trek Movie, when Kirk and Spock are children —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.238.12.121 (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

At this stage I don't think that there is any one timeline to the Star Trek universe. In Space Seed Spock expressly states "The mid 1990s was the era of your last so called World War."--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

When does Picard become captain of the Enterprise? The event is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.205.187 (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In Assignment Earth, Gary Seven says people were kidnapped from Earth 6000 years previously. 2600:8805:801:A400:1840:3138:53B2:7EF1 (talk) Egyptoid — Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

1st Captain of Enterprise NCC1701

The timeline says Enterprise was launched under Captain Pike. However, the star-trek encyclopedia claims the 1st captain was Captain Robert April, although to my recollection (i dont have the book here) no details are given, shouldnt this be mentioned somewhere though? BFS

The NCC-1701 was not launched under Captain Pike. It was launched under a captain before him, and an Animated Series episode says that it is Captain Robert April. However, TAS is not considered to be cannon. That having been said, there is no evidence that Captain Pike was the first captain of the NCC-1701. --myselfalso 15:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The paperback book titled The Making of Star Trek, which I recall, has Captain Robert April as the Enterprise Captain prior to Captain Pike. There was controversy about using the name, April, and the more masculine name of Chris Pike was used.

Somebody may have to research into this, but it is possible that captain Robert was the Ship yard Captain whose sole responsibility would be to over see the construction of the enterprise. If this is true then Captain Pike would assume command of the vessel only after it is transfered as property of the shipyard and placed into actual service. I am not that famiular with the beginnings so this is all speculation at best. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.49.154.164 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

23rd and 24th Century dates

The dates given for the Original Series and its movies, as well as for the Next Generation era series, are wrong.

In Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan it was stated several times that the film was set 15 years after the original episode, not 18 as this chronology asserts. The fact that this was stated on screen, by both Khan Noonien Singh and Captain James T. Kirk, makes this fact canon and causes it to override any other information stated in the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the "official" Star Trek chronology, or anywhere else. If either of the dates stated by the article is correct, the other has to be wrong: if Star Trek II is set in 2285, then "Space Seed" was set in 2270; if "Space Seed" was set in 2267, then Star Trek II is set in 2282.

In the movie McCoy gives Kirk a bottle of wine that is vintage 2283...meaning that the movie cannot possibly be set any earlier than that year. This rules out 2282 as the year in which the movie takes place, which in turn rules out 2267 as the year in which "Space Seed"--and indeed, all of the Original Series's second season--is set. Furthermore, in response to Kirk's apparent surprise at the year of the wine's vintage, McCoy says, "Well it takes this stuff some time to ferment." That would seem to suggest that the movie takes place considerably later than 2283, though it cannot be set any later than 2293 on account of the very specific date given for the movie Star Trek Generations.

Star Trek Generations further establishes that nine years before the fateful launch of the Enterprise-B in 2293, Kirk was on Earth, retired from Starfleet, having an affair with a woman named Antonia. Given the fact that the second, third, fourth, and fifth Star Trek movies all seem to take place within a few months of each other, and that there is no indication of Kirk having retired from Starfleet between Star Trek V and Star Trek VI (in fact it even seems that he and his crew embarked upon a THIRD five-year mission during that time), this affair could only have taken place between the first and second Star Trek movies--making 2284 the absolute earliest that Star Trek II could have taken place. This fits with both the date on McCoy's bottle of wine and his statement about the wine, though it also means that the first episode of the Original Series could not have taken place any earlier than 2268.

Therefore, while it is plausible that Star Trek II is indeed set in 2285, even so it still means that most of the Original Series was set in the 2270s, not the 2260s. I don't know where the assertion that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is set a year prior to "The Man Trap" comes from, but even if that is the case, the dates for that episode, "The Cage," all three seasons of the Original Series, the dates for the Animated Series, and the date of the first Star Trek movie need to be revised.

Here is one possibility, which makes makes the "some time" during which McCoy's wine was allowed to ferment as long as it possibly can be (three years), and also even takes into account the (unfounded) assertion that "Where No Man Has Gone Before" is set some months before the actual first episode of the original series:

"The Cage": 2259
"Where No Man Has Gone Before": 2270
Star Trek: The Original Series: 2270-2273
—"Space Seed": 2271
Star Trek: The Animated Series: 2273-2274
Final year of First 5-year mission: 2274-2275
18 month Enterprise refit: 2275-2277
Star Trek: The Motion Picture: 2277
Kirk's 2nd 5-year mission: 2277-2282
Kirk's first retirement/affair with Antonia: 2282-2284
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan: March 2286 (Kirk's birthday, on which the events of the movie begin, is said to be March 22)
Star Trek III: The Search for Spock: March/April 2286
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home: June/July 2286
Star Trek V: The Final Frontier: July/August 2286
Kirk's 3rd 5-Year Mission (?): 2286-2291
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country: 2291
Star Trek Generations: 2293/2371

---

I am simply curious about the birth date of Worf. Worf appears as a Colonel in Star Trek VI, taking place 2293. But, then they have him not being born until 2340. What a stud.

Colonel Worf was the Grandfather of TNG Worf. (Apparently, Khitomer was given to the Klingons after the conference, and the family stuck around.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.64.141 (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the only reference to dates in the entirety of TOS is the romulan ale in TWoK (labeled 2283), everything else should be dated from this. For example, let's suppose the ale is one year old (though it could, of course, be much older):

-TWoK would happen in 2284 (I'm not aware that Kirk's birthday month was ever established in canon, so the month is unknown).

-Space Seed happens in 2269 at minimum, so most of the five-year mission would be in the 70's. Apart from this, McCoy's birthdate can be easily deduced from TNG's "Encounter at Farpoint" and "The Neutral Zone": 2227. While Roddenberry's "Writers Guide" for TOS, states that McCoy is 45 (by season one or two). This fits with the five-year mission being in the 70's. Okuda's chronology, instead, would make McCoy a bit too young.

-There's a gap of at least ten years between the end of the five-year mission and TWoK, and it's not known at what point of that gap takes place TMP. The idea that Kirk immediately became an admiral after the five-year mission, and that he took a second mission after the first movie is, to my knowledge, fandom speculation. Kirk could have become an admiral soon after the series, or much later. The film just says he's been an admiral for two years and a half, which is not the same as saying it's been two years and a half after the five-year mission.

-McCoy's been serving in the Enterprise for 27 years by the sixth film. If Space Seed happens during McCoy's first year onboard, that dates the sixth film in 2295 at minimum. But even if McCoy had been onboard two or three years at the time of Space Seed (unlikely, since he wasn't even there in the first episode), this would only push the sixth film's date to 2293. I see no way the sixth film could happen as early as 2291, regardless of what Generations says.

At the end of the day, one either makes the TOS chronology from its own internal data, as vague as it is. Or makes it according to what other series like Voyager have established much later. But they're mutually incompatible. --2A0C:5A87:D000:CD00:84CC:7003:4A75:28A0 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbary (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The dates for The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager are also wrong, though in that case only by about 7 months. Unlike during the Original Series, the stardates in the TNG-era series progress forward in a seemingly solid direction. Certain episodes would seem to indicate that, in contradiction to what this article as well as the "official" Star Trek chronology claim, each season of each series begins in June and ends in May. This is the only way to explain why, for example, Wesley Crusher appears to be at the end of a school term in the spring in "The First Duty" (TNG), why it is summer in France in "Family" (TNG) and in North America in "Homefront"/"Paradise Lost" (DS9), and why First Contact Day (April 5, per Star Trek: First Contact) is being celebrated at the beginning of "Homestead" (VOY). Taking this into consideration, the dates for the TNG-era series are:

Star Trek: The Next Generation: 2363-2370 (incidentally, the non-canonical Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual also says that the Enterprise-D was launched in 2363)
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine: 2368-2375
Star Trek: Voyager: 2370-2377.

Take into account that Voyager's first season was little more than half as long as the typical season of Star Trek, so most of that season was actually set in 2371. It was clearly stated to be 2371 by the time of "Eye of the Needle," but the Stardates would seem to indicate that Voyager became lost in the Delta Quadrant before the 24th Century events of Star Trek Generations took place. Statements by the Voyager crew throughout the series about how long they've actually been in the Delta Quadrant can be interpreted to be rounding, since Voyager actually spent 6 1/2 years in the Delta Quadrant, not 7.

I keep on trying to correct these erroneous dates anywhere on Wikipedia that I find them, but there are just too many articles that refer to them, and furthermore the changes that I make seem to keep on getting reverted somehow...I'm posting this here in the hopes that somehow, finally, some serious action can be taken to correct these errors. AD69.138.38.49

"Ah, yeah, well, whenever you notice something like that, a wizard did it." Adam Bishop 08:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Making up your own chronology is Wikipedia:Original research, which is why these keep getting reverted. Morwen - Talk 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

March seems too early for ST II. Starfleet Academy graduates in March? Should be more like June, and Kirk's birthday would be in June, too. 153.2.246.30 (talk)

I wouldn't get too hung up on the dates as if you only go by the canon (the TV shows and movies) the timeline is a total trainwreck.--Professor Phantasm (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Phase II?

Should Star Trek: Phase II be added to the series side bar? 24.158.134.254 11:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

New content

I've added a bunch of content explaining the historical development of this timeline as a timeline. I am pondering what sort of timeline we actually want at the bottom. I am tempted to remove some backstory information (in particular, backstory for species which appear only in one episode and have no impact.) Backstory directly relevant to Earth, the Federation or the main characters would stay (although i'm dubious about listing all those random birthdates). Morwen - Talk 18:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I here made such an edit. (I then reverted myself: really only did this to get the diff) How does this look in terms of getting rid of irrelevant backstory from random episodes, whilst leaving the backstory to the actual show? Morwen - Talk 00:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I did this. I also added a lot of episode names and even added some things (destruction of Enterprise-D, that sort of thing). I am pondering whether it might look nicer in a table for the heavily crowded TNG era (column for TNG events, column for DS9 events, column for Voyager events, I am thinking). Morwen - Talk 11:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okuda and 2270

The Okuda timeline currently puts TMP in 2271: since the end of the five year mission was established as 2270 by Voyager; this implies that TMP ought to be moved to 2272. Does anyone know if this has been done in any Okudaish work yet? startrek.com seems to still claim 2271 for TMP. Morwen - Talk 22:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this question was asked 17 years ago, but I found myself wondering the same thing looking at this article, so I thought I would offer my view.

The problem is that sources are contradictory.

In "The Neutral Zone," Data said that the year was 2364. The production team had said that TNG was set 100 years after TOS. So people assumed that TOS, starting from "Where No Man Has Gone Before," must have started in 2264. Okuda's date is presumably based on that. 2264 + five year mission + "two-and-a-half years as the chief of Starfleet operations" would put TMP at 2270.5, and since the five-year mission was unlikely to have started exactly on January 1st, the 2271 date is a good estimate.

Voyager, though, assumed that TOS started aligned with the production of the series, so 1966 + 300 = 2266. Add five years, you get 2270, plus 2.5 = 2273ish.

So which to believe? I think you have to go with the year said in Voyager. A production team's statement would seem less relevant to canon than what's written into a script. A good argument could be made either way, though, as the script writer could have been mistaken. No one would have accepted 2285 just because it had been written in a script at some point. 71.231.168.164 (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Space probe timeline

So, we have

• 1969: Apollo XI
• ?: Pioneer 10
• ?: Space Shuttle Enterprise
• 1996: DY-100
• 1999: Voyager VI (Chronology guess)
• 2002: Nomad (Chronology guess)
• 2018: sleeper ships obselete
• 2032: Ares IV, a manned Earth-Mars probe
• 20??: first manned Earth-Saturn probe
• 2037: Charybdis tries to leave the Solar System
• 2063: Zephram Cochrane invents Warp Drive
• c. 2065: SS Valiant launched for galactic rim
• 2067: Friendship 1 launched
• 2069: SS Conestoga launched

Am I missing anything? Morwen - Talk 16:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the term space probe is generally used for unmanned craft. As this is not purely a list unmanned craft, I would stick to space ship.

Kirk originally mistook Khan's ship for DY-500 class ship. Probably too much detail for this list to mention it though.

Historically, Pioneer 10 was launched in 1972. (Not sure if you're looking for adjustments in the timeline to make all the fictional stuff fit.) Enterprise was not a fully functional orbiter (merely a testbed), and rolled out in 1976. Columbia first launched in 1981. --Rindis 17:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not planning on using that wording. Just trying to have what we have established in the timeline until the start of the 22nd century, and what needs adding to the article. I am aware of the real life dates, but I could easily see Star Trek push them backwards or something (the opening credits of Enterprise depicts the Space Shuttle Enterprise doing something it never did, for example). Morwen - Talk 17:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Hadn't known about Enterprise. Looks like the Saturn mission was only specified as 'early 21st century' on air. Don't have my copy of Chronology to hand, so I have no idea what it says. 2037: 'tries to launch the Solar System'? I think there's a typo there. It seems a little odd that sleeper ships would be obsolete when we aren't even sending manned missions to places far enough away to consider them yet.... Don't see anything missing. (Especially now that I look it up, and find that the DY-500 is a 22nd century design....) --Rindis 17:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The timeline of early 21st century spaceships is a mess, basically. Khan's apparently interstellar-capable DY-100 class ship has ended up far more advanced than any of the later stuffs for 50 years (obviously we can invent whatever rationalisations we like for this, and indeed people have). Schneider's website contains commentary on the issue, which I think might be sourceable (obviously, attributed to him in body text). Morwen - Talk 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is Star Trek: The Animated Series?

I know it is not canon! But it's still Star Trek, I am not here to talk about Star Trek: The Animated Series, or TAS, being canon or not (but, it should be!), because I do a lot of that on Memory Alpha, but please lets add on TAS on the Timeline and especially the TV Show sidebar (because it is a TV Series)! --67.170.207.109 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, if we do add Star Trek: The Animated Series on the TV Show sidebar and Timeline, the TV series was from 1973-1974, 2 seasons, 22 episodes, and the the setting of the year is 2269 and 2270. --67.170.207.109 04:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is trying to mirror the Okuda timeline, not invent one of our own. If there is some reliable source which puts TAS between 2269 and 2270 then we can note this. Also, I have reverted your edit about the Okuda Star Trek Chronology. It still, right or wrong, dates TMP as 2271, no new edition has been released dating TMP to 2272 or 2273. Altering the article to make it say that the Okuda timeline gives 2272 as the TMP date is just straightforward wrong. Morwen - Talk 23:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)'

Star Trek: The Animated series IS canon!

And then, I spot even worse edits. The article gave an outline of the Spaceflight Chronology/FASA timeline, and this was changed to put in the Okuda-based timeline! Without changing the text around it. Utter nonsense. Morwen - Talk 23:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If anything, I think Yesteryear deserves a mention. Both the strongest episode, and even referenced in the reboot movie, to a mild extent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.64.141 (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Carbon Creek

I don't think it was entirely clear that the story T'Pol told actually happened - for one thing, she said it didn't. In this case 1957 shouldn't list a Vulcan scout ship as having actually visited Earth. --Dbutler1986 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

She said "You wanted a story, I told you a story". But the end of the episode shows T'Pol as she unfolds the purse her grandmother(?) carried around back in the 50s.79.119.2.60 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

missing stuff?

Good to notice "1969 - Apollo 11 lands on the Moon (real-life)." however non-related to Trek this may be. Still, since you added that, you might consider adding "On 12 April 1961, Gagarin became the first human to travel into space" too.79.119.2.60 (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland

I have changed part of the timeline, it was written here that Ireland was reunified with Britain into the United republic of Ireland & Great Britain, there is no mention of this in any of the TV series & the chronology states the Ireland is reunified through terrorist means nothing more, if anyone knows different please let me know.

Yours Grimm MD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.203.225 (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Star Trek (2009) time line fork?

Since Star Trek (2009) represents a fork in the ST Universe time line, in that we have no idea if events from the ST-TOS onward will or can happen, should Star Trek (2009) and it's subsequent productions be moved to their own column in the grid? (Zentinal (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC))

Agreed, there should be a separate table for the alternate timeline with every event preceding Star Trek 2009 remaining intact and everything proceeding it to be added as new films are released. --Robnubis (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the Paradox - does old spock tell young spock how to succeed in saving Romulus? And if so, that action would restore the original time line. - Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.133.68.241 (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A fork is needed; with the destruction of Vulcan and the crippling of the Klingon empire by Nero, as well as the changes to the Enterprise timeline, the timeline post-2258 is unknown. (Just the same, Spock should provide the Federation extensive debriefing about Borg, Cardassians, Vger, Khan et al.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.244.204.206 (talk) 06:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Cardassians are mentioned in Uhura's first scene (and both Next Gen and DS9 indicate that they were known for some time before a Federation/Cardassian Conflict that happened before TNG, as O'Brian was a veteran of that war.) As for Kahn, I think they should have added one of those post-credit teaser scenes of a derelict ship floating through space, zooming in to a close up of the name,'Botonay Bay'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.41.64.141 (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternate timelines

There are multiple mentions of alternate time lines. The episodes of TOS, DS9, and ENT that examine the "In A Mirror Darkly" time line should be mentioned for how that timeline progressed. Also the episodes "Year Of Hell" (several distortions of time), and "Deadlock"(alternate events onboard 2 seperate Voyagers) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathbybandaid (talk • contribs) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The events of Star Trek: Insurrection?

Have some issues with what the timeline it says Star Trek Insurrection taking place after Deep Space Nine final episode. I believe I remember in the movie they welcoming into a new member into the Federation shortly after they acheived warp drive so they can help out with the war efforts. Also Worf's ability to leave Deep Space Nine doesn't make a whole lot of sense since people often can put in for leave and time off and visit home or go on vacation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.225.238 (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Vulcan first contact

Vulcans contacted Earth in 2065 in the Spaceflight Chronology. I changed it. 153.2.246.30 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Star Trek Online Dates

This is just a quick note that while the box for Star Trek Online gives the year as 2409, that was meant to parallel the year (400 years in the future) of when the beta period began. Actual Stardates given in the game are based on the current year plus 400, which dates it (at present) in September 2411. --Allahweh (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Add Episode Numbers in Ordering of Episode Tables

Could somebody with the necessary time and resources please add an "Episode Number" column to the "Ordering of Episodes" table (section 3.6) in this article? It would make things a lot easier for someone wishing to use the table as a viewing guide.

Thanks.

IsraelZulu (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

order of episodes ... what order is this?

I'm finding the "order of episodes" table incomprehensible.

What order is this table supposed to be in? It doesn't seem to be any logical order I can detect. What am I missing? GreenAsJade (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like Stardate Order for TNG Era. Since Stardates in TOS and TAS were pretty random, they follow common sense and Okuda science that TOS Episodes are in production order and TAS in Airdate order chronologically correct. Hope I could help ya. If you disagree, I didn't make this list, but I think it's pretty good. I'd just leave out the Comics and Star Trek Online at the End of the Timeline and place the new Star Trek in it's own separate "List" (soon ot will be a list, when the sequel arrives). 178.203.22.48 (talk) 11:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur that the list is good, to whomever removed it, please do not. The episodes are simply sorted by star date, the episodes themselves are all correct, and I don't think it needs a reference as it's just a compilation of the entire series by star date. This fits under the topic of a Star Trek time-line. Zeroedout (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The list looked good but when I looked into it it didn't check out. Here is the message I left on User_talk:Bluejuh's talk page. Morwen (Talk) 15:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I have removed the big long list of episodes that are purportedly in chronological order again. I'll explain why.

Firstly, the list is not adequately sourced. If I take what your edit comment said literally, that the sources were all 700 or so episodes collectively, well, that is completely impractical for anyone to verify. It would take weeks, even if you didn't sleep, to get all the stardates out of the episodes.

Secondly, the episodes do not actually act as a source for the information about them. If I watch a TOS episode at no point will I be told the original airdate. This information obviously has come from some other source, presumably a programme guide. That would need citing. That's not in itself an insurmountable problem, programme guides do exist.

Furthermore, it says things like "This is the most used viewing order of the Star trek series." Really? There has been a survey about viewing orders of Star Trek series?

But the main problem is the order itself. The TOS episodes are neither in strict airdate, stardate, or production order. Certainly you can't derive that order form the episodes itself. Either it has been taken from somewhere, or it might be someone's original research.

When we come into the Berman-produced shows it looks like it's been sorted by stardate instead ("Progress" is after "Suspicions", even though it aired the previous day, and "Dramatis Personae" which was aired a week after "The Forsaken" is listed before it), and it puts Generations in the 48600s. The Okudas' book, by the way, which is best source we have here, chooses to disregard the stardates for that and put Generations between Meridian and Civil Defence. But then First Contact is placed by the list out of order according to stardates (and release date). I've no idea why it's been put there, perhaps there's a valid argument to be had there, but there's no indication what it might be or where it came from.

I am, of course, open to discussion, and look forward to your reply. Be aware though that the burden of sourcing rests upon someone adding disputed material back, and I've explained to you that citing all 700 episodes of Star Trek simply won't do, even if we do want to maintain a list like this. Morwen (Talk) 10:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response. My apologies for taking so long, but I have been very busy. I see and understand the need for proper citations, it's the only way we can be sure we achieve the truth. However I would really like to see a proper episode order and I think Wikipedia is a great location. I assume the book you refer to is The Star Trek Chronology: A History of the Future. I will be obtaining this book soon; I assume that I can recreate most of the table in accordance with this book? However this only covers until ~1996, so the later episodes of DS9 and Voyager are missing. Are there any notable sources that cover the missing episodes?

P.S. The reason for placing First Contact where it was, is that is synced up with Voyager finding a Borg head on a planet in the Delta Quadrant. There's also a DS9 episode right after that references the Borg and First Contact. Zeroedout (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See, your PS may be true, but Wikipedia isn't here to make judgements like that based on the contents of the TV show. If another reliable source has come to that conclusion, we can cite that, though. As to whether you can recreate the table from that book: well, some of it, probably (I still have no idea what was going on with the TOS stuff). But that doesn't mean you should or that it would be suitable for Wikipedia even if you did. Your sentence "I would really like to see a proper episode order and I think Wikipedia is a great location" implies you want to create some content and are trying to justify putting it here because it's a prominent website? Which I can totally understand, but that doesn't necessarily mean we want it. (Not to say we don't, either. But generally we're past the stage of hoovering up all pop culture information - it's not difficult to find now on the web - and instead are engaged in the long struggle of making actual encyclopedia articles about it.) Morwen (Talk) 15:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the PS, that is a fair comment, I like to detail things through :) Regarding the TOS comment, I'll take your word for it as I have no familiarity with the series. Any new table I create will ignore TOS for the time being. I do not think this merged list of episodes counts as 'hoovering up.' It is not trying to show an obscure plot point or give details on an actor in the series. Essentially, it's taking List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, List_of_Star_Trek:_Voyager_episodes, and List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes and arranging those episodes by stardate (with most episodes also having their own page). To satisfy the citation guidelines I will cite the stardate from Okuda's book (assuming that it contains the data). I can also link each episode to its page on Wikipedia. This table is similar to a musician's album discography. Also, this is not OR as I'm not attempting to advance any position and I can directly cite page numbers from where the data comes from. Do you feel this would satisfy Wikipedia's policies? Zeroedout (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Timeline based on "Miri"

The article says, "However, in the episode 'Miri', it is said that 1960 was around 300 years ago, pushing the show into the 23rd century." But it was Miri's civilization for which 1960 was 300 years in the past, not Earth's. Earth's 1960 could have easily been 100 years later. Therefore, it seems to me that the episode is not relevant to the Star Trek timeline. And, as mentioned just prior to the quote, the episodes "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" and "Space Seed" both place Star Trek about 200 years in the future (from the late 1960s, of course), not 300. Ignoring "Miri" for timeline purposes therefore eliminates one inconsistency. The article should be modified to reflect this. Betaneptune (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Timeline of Star Trek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061111162848/http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/series/ENT/episode_list_season.html to http://www.startrek.com/custom/include/series/ENT/episode_list_season.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Kelvin Timeline" is included

The article states that this explicitly includes "...the three newest J.J. Abrams alternate reality films, or 'Kelvin Timeline'...". - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

2286

"The newly refit USS Yorktown (NCC-1704) is renamed the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) and is launched on its maiden voyage." Should the Yorktown reference (which is uncited) be included as a) This is never confirmed on screen & b) other articles give the Yorktown registry number as NCC 1717 - eg see here. Dunarc (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've only been able to find a reference to Yorktown being renamed Enterprise-A in anything that could be considered a "primary" source in the AMT/Ertl Model kit documentation. That's apocrypha, though. Other apocrypha has other stories. "Mister Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" said it was renamed Enterprise-A from Ti-Ho (p. 114). Really I think this passage should just be stricken altogether. All we have are contradictory pieces of apocrypha to pull from. But if we have to choose, I'd prioritize a book over a model kit, personally, even if Yorktown may make more sense. 71.231.168.164 (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

TNG Films innacuracies

The image available suggests that TNG films happen in sequence. That's not the case. Generations, for example, has a stardate that puts it in the middle of the events of Voyager and DS9 and Insurrection occurs just after the end of the Dominion war. By the way, a couple of labels (in the image) are in German. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianmariot2 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Timeline of Star Trek

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Timeline of Star Trek's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Tapestry":

• From List of Star Trek Starfleet starships: "Tapestry". Star Trek: The Next Generation.
• From List of Star Trek planets (R–S): TNG: "Tapestry"
• From List of Star Trek planets (M–Q): TNG episode "Tapestry"

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

First Contact: Ferengi Alliance

On the timeline first contact with the Ferengi is listed as being around the same time as first contact with Q. This however seems absurd to me due to the fact that Ferengi and Humans seem to already be verry familiar with eachother at the time when TNG and DS9 take place.

Another issue is that in a Star Trek: Enterprise episode we clearly see Ferengi taking over the ship and coming in contact with Humans in around 2151 to 2155.

We could also list the first contact year as 1947 but this is a bit of a stretch considering that by this logic first contact with vulcan would also be around that time. Cvkoning (talk) 23:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Prodigy

Need to add Star Trek: Prodigy Season 1, which takes place between 58900 and 63999.

Holo-Janeway uses stardate 63301.1 in ep. 10. 2600:1700:228:1040:BC1D:208E:5188:BA9D (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't like this ...

And let me tell you why ... :-)

Is there a way in to adjust the table (on demand would be fine) so that all the TV shows are (properly, IMHO, including TAS and the new stuff people love to hate) listed together and that ignores the Kelvin stuff (at least until such time as the production crew can sew that back into the Prime timeline) and the books, which I don't think anyone believes are cannon (as he ducks ...).

In any case, in it's present form, it seems to reflect a pretty TOS-centric view of things, with only some shows in the first column and others relegated to 3rd place (behind the books???). plaws (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Almost a good job

Quite interesting. You did ALMOST A GOOD JOB. Where you failed, as so many TREKKERS do, is you failed to bridge The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine. You never included the television series STAR TREK: MERCY POINT. Better luck next millennia with your fact checking. 208.125.160.250 (talk) 10:33, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

What the hell is Star Trek: Mercy Point? Rcarter555 (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The guy was just trolling. Mercy Point is a TV show from the late 90s, unassociated with Star Trek. That it aired on UPN is its closest association. 71.231.168.164 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Temporal war?

I was trying to find information on the years that the Temporal War came from, just before the Burn from Discovery right? Is there a reason that time travellers from Voyager and TNG are included but not from Enterprise? Greg (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I see it's in the written timeline (27th Century) but not in the table. Greg (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)