Talk:Star Trek Abbreviated History

Needs work
This page at minimum needs work to bring it up to standards. It also seems to be mixing a real world and in-universe POV- we should pick one or the other.

This seems to currently be original research- what one person deems to be the highlights of historical events in the Trek universe. If we decide to keep a page like this the entries on it should be decided on by the community.--31dot 20:55, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * To make this page, I chose (from the Federation History page) all the major events (which means almost every single referenced event in that article) and bullet-ed them with dates. I'm not sure which parts are from a real world perspective (except the intro, which was done on purpose to serve as an explanation of this page). Feel free to edit, but note that all the info on this page has already passed inspection (indirectly). -Ramerez- 21:00, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

The use of the series titles as section dividers is a real-world aspect of the article, as well as the opening sentence. There is already on the Fed History page a summary of events much like what you are attempting to create here. I could potentially envision putting the summary on its own page, but I don't see any appropriate title page that people would easily find- if people want to know about Federation history that's what they'll use the Search bar for- and it will lead them to it. Putting the summary on a seperate page would make it harder to find.--31dot 21:11, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that it should be linked to the Fed History page because it makes that page shorter and cleaner. Therefore, it should still have its own page. Putting it on the Fed page would seriously clutter that page with redundant information (after all, this is a summary of that page). -Ramerez- 21:16, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect information
I just did some work to this page, and when I did so, I noticed a bit of information that didnt seem quite right. This is what looked wrong:
 * The solution to the Coup d'etat in DS9:Paradise Lost. It says that the solution was caused when it was discovered that there were only 4 changelings on the planet. Wasn't it solved when Sisko arrested Leyton?
 * The second Khitomer Accords are in here around or after The Next Generation. I had always assumed that they had taken place in or around the Original Series. Am I right?
 * The only other problem I noticed was the paragraph on The Battle of Sector 001 (First Contact. It said that the entire fleet had been destroyed in the Typhon sector or something similar. However, in the movie, When the Enterprise arrived there was still a good number of ships, including the USS Defiant which looked like it had been fighting from the begining.

Hope we can get this straightened out NX-74205 03:36, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

The Khitomer Accords (both the first and the second) are correct as far as the wiki goes (a real date is never given, but it is suggested that the second accords were signed in the 2340s).
 * I corrected the Battle of Sector 001 to reflect what you pointed out about the fleet.
 * I do not know the answer to the Coup d'etat (I have not personally seen DS9) but change it if you think it is wrong.

I'll be slowly editing this over the month. -Ramerez- 12:28, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll change the coup d'etat when i get a chance. NX-74205 16:25, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * If this thing is going to take you a month to "create", and seeing that this is some sort of personal project, why don't you work on it as a subpage User:-Ramerez-/Star Trek Abbreviated History rather than leaving it a tempting target in the main for deletion. --Alan 16:34, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

I said a month because I don't have much time to work on it, but all that needs to be done is add hyperlinks. The meat of the work has already been done. I have a personal copy, and put this one up for the benefit of the community (for people like me that have trouble understanding the time-line). I'll link it in all the main history pages, but it would be a real loss if it was deleted because it was redundant (it simply shows the same information as the Fed history page in an easier to scan format). Hope that helps to clarify. -Ramerez- 21:30, February 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with linking it from elsewhere at this point is that it is in the wrong POV. If not in the headers on the page, in the title of the article itself.  These things need to be sorted out before it can be used in the context of MA. -- sulfur 22:59, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

I put in references, and took out the intro that was in the wrong POV. I think that stating the start and end of the series is in the wrong POV, but I'm leaving it in there because (correct POV aside for a moment) it is useful information to show. I don't know how the change the name of an article (I'm assuming that you need to be an admin to do that), so I'll leave it be for now. -Ramerez- 00:49, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you just click "move" and say where. --Alan 17:58, February 22, 2010 (UTC)