Talk:Timeline of Star Trek

message: 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)
thread_title: World War III

message: Missing timeline elements:
#Voyager crew goes back into the 20th century.
#Archer and T'Pol go back to the 20th century.
--AllyUnion (Talk) 06:05, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Missing elements

message: 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)
thread_title:  1st Captain of Enterprise NCC1701 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  23rd and 24th Century dates 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New content 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Carbon Creek 

message: 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)
thread_title:  missing stuff? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Star Trek (2009) time line fork? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alternate timelines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The events of Star Trek: Insurrection? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Star Trek Online Dates 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add Episode Numbers in Ordering of Episode Tables 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Timeline based on "Miri" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Timeline of Star Trek. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article states that this explicitly includes "...the three newest J.J. Abrams alternate reality films, or 'Kelvin Timeline'...". - SummerPhDv2.0 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Kelvin Timeline" is included 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2286 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TNG Films innacuracies 

message: 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: 
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Timeline of Star Trek]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First Contact: Ferengi Alliance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Prodigy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I don't like this ... 

message: 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)
replies: text: What the hell is Star Trek: Mercy Point? Rcarter555 (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Almost a good job 

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