Talk:Stardate

message: 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)
replies: text: Just because you don't like the explanation, does not mean it should be removed from an encyclopedia.  Star Trek is fiction.  If the author wishes to use fictitious science to extract dates, that's the author's prerogative and should be discussed in the article.  I am, however, open to a sentence that explains the difference between Gene's Relativity and Einstein's.
Jmgariepy (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use in Tcl 

message: 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)
replies: text: Although this comment precedes the date of the current warning at the top of the article, I just read it, and it is, in fact, brimming with original research. This article would be 1/3 of the size were all the non-cited and OR phrases omitted. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the article

message: "One hour aboard the USS Enterprise at different times may equal as little as three Earth hours" seems a strange thing to say. If he'd said "One year... it would make more sense. 81.158.2.171 (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That line's been around that long? Blehhh... but I don't know what the canonical value should be. — LlywelynII 23:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just checking... 

message: I believe that the creators of ST meant for the star date to signify Sol or earth time in relation to distance of the destination using the light year as measurement of time but traveling much faster. For instance, star date 2300.07(23rd century and 7 months) plus distance to Proxima Centauri, 4.05 light years added to 2300.07 = 2304.12. star date is now 2304.12; Let's say you stay at P.C. for a year, that equals 2305.12; now you wanna go back to Sol, so you take 2305.12 and subtract 4.05 Light years = Sol star date 2301.07, of course adding a few of months to be precise. This is how I believe the star date is calculated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stargazer2oo (talk • contribs) 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Calculating a Stardate 

message: Since the article has been negatively tagged for so long, without a clear plan for what needs to be fixed, I've decided to rewrite it from scratch focusing primarily on behind-the-scenes information, since that kind of information does have solid references. I did that for the Memory Alpha article originally, although this article won't be a copy/paste of that one, being geared a little more toward the general reader. Still, it can be expanded with further detail as required. SD1312.4 (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The article implies that the Star Trek Online dates are arbitrary.  But, in fact they are not only a continuation of the Star Trek TNG system adjusted for the date of the game, but they are also calculated from the current date, plus 400 years.  There are stardate calculators available that can infer a stardate from a given Gregorian calender date (which doesn't involve any of the calculations mentioned in the above message by stargazer2oo), which in itself may be worth mentioning.  In a nutshell, extensive research can determine the apparent duration of a single stardate and then one can estimate the starting date of the system, which can then be used to calculate any gregorian date after the start date (it is a simple matter of counting the stardates linearly, no more fancy math then calculating a date in any standard calender).  The calculator in STO works on a similar script. For example, today's date (adjusted by 400 years) is calculated to be 89559.7 by the game.-Jcwilder (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the implication that they are arbitrary; just the opposite.  The stardate was set for 2409 during the beta in 2009,  and has progressed in real time since then.  Yes, the virtual date is exactly 400 years after real time.  It is clear that they are based on the same algorithm as the TNG stardates used by TrekGuide.com before it was changed last year.  Stardates progress 1000 every 365.25 days, starting from 00:00 UTC on May 25, 2322. (1922, actually)  I don't know what calculator you're using however, because it's off by 7 months.  Check your logs in the game.  It's actually 90166.12. STO Academy has a calculator which is off by less than a day.  (My own matches the game exactly.) I will clarify the article, though. --Nike (talk) 05:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

text: All the information necessary to calculate STO stardates is already in the article now. If you want me to go through the math, links and other research I've done, why don't you post a note on my talk page? We don't want to spam this page with personal discussion. --Nike (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

text: My initial calculations worked out almost exactly, but new data shows the algorithm diverged a few minutes, so I changed the wording back to be less precise. My STO logs only go back a few weeks, so it might take a whole year to gather enough data points to reverse engineer the exact algorithm, unless I can get someone else's logs who's been playing longer. --Nike (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek Online dates correction 

message: I’m sorry for all the unsightly  flags added to the Star Trek Online section, but it seemed to be full of claims that were either sourced from a fansite or weren’t even referenced at all in the cited source. And I think the “stardate 90000.00” claim was both trivial and WP:OR, even if a calculator on an official website (which it wasn’t) was used to do the OR. —Frungi (talk) 04:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe delete everything but the first line.  But I think that just one cn flag for the whole paragraph would have been sufficient. --Nike (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn’t want to immediately remove information that may well be true and verifiable just because it was poorly sourced. Personal editing preference, I guess. You have a point about the CN flags, but I think what I did was insert them as I deleted poor refs. —Frungi (talk) 23:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems in ''Star Trek Online'' section 

message: The Memory Alpha article has sources and more thorough treatment where they're needed or wanted. Particularly, the current article doesn't even mention Julian days. — LlywelynII 23:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It does now. The JD reference was one I discovered and posted on Memory Alpha recently.  Most the articles there are probably more thorough than Wikipedia, because it's a Star Trek wiki, and WP is a general encyclopedia.  That's why there's a link to it at the bottom of this article.  Much of the minutiae would likely not be appropriate here. --Nike (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Article expansion and sourcing

message: It was probably in David Gerrolds book, but as far as I can recall, the real reason "stardates" were invented and allowed to be all over the place was to avoid viewers noting/grumbling that episode X took place after episode Y because the stardates were later, even if they were aired Y then X.
So they came up with a load of psuedobabble as to why "stardates" don't follow regular Earth time.
And if that reason is here, I didn't espy it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.234.99 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  All this talk, and no one knows the real reason ?