Talk:Stardate

Notability
"we do not note the mere appearance or use of something in STO"

Why do we note the mere appearance or use of the same thing in Star Fleet Technical Manual and novels, but not STO? --Nike (talk) 22:53, July 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * Those instances are not just noting their use; the Tech manual note is explaining that they were different and were used by StarTrek.com as well as others. The novels explain the significant detail of converting from a Gregorian calendar and the "hyperdimensional distance averaging". The STO note was simply that stardates were continued from the TNG era- i.e. their mere use in STO- without providing some significant revelation about them.  We use that requirement because virtually every page here could have "This appeared in STO" in it.
 * The intricacies of how stardates in the game compare to real world time in STO are not germaine to this site, as we are not the STO wiki. 31dot (talk) 02:04, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I added that part about StarTrek.com at the same time I added the STO section. But I take from your statement that if I gave some significant revelation about them, such as how they actually differ from TNG (they were only "roughly" continuous) then it would be OK? --Nike (talk) 05:56, July 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * I might suggest that it would be better to put your energies into improving Memory Beta's article on stardates(as they do better cover content from non-canon works like games) but if there is some major, significant difference about them that doesn't just have to do with their continuance from the TNG era (such as noting when a particular stardate is reached) and isn't just noting how the game itself works(which, again, is outside of our mission) it might be OK. 31dot (talk) 09:39, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

FASA and Google
I thought I'd get feedback ahead of time before editing the article. FASA used "reference stardates" like Franz Joseph and StarTrek.com. However, they prefixed a digit and a slash to represent the century, starting with the year 2000, so January 1, 2000, was 0/0001.01 and the Organian Peace Treaty was signed on 2/0801.24, or January 24, 2208. (This system was introduced around the release of TMP, before the current chronology was established.) Preceding centuries are negative, so "Where No Man Has Gone Before" aired -1/6608.22 (The day my sister was born) and the Declaration of Independence was -3/7607.04. I know that this was a licensed work, but so was Joseph's book.

Google Calendar uses stardates based upon the ideas of Andrew Main. Each day covers 5.00 stardates, 10000 stardates (2000 days) make up an "issue". Issue numbers are prefixed in brackets. TOS was issue [19], [0]0000 was January 4, 2162, (when he speculated the Federation was founded) and today started at [-28]7155.00. --Nike (talk) 01:39, August 10, 2012 (UTC) SD 0/1208.09, [-28]7160.33


 * The Google thing should not be on this page; it could be mentioned on Star Trek parodies and pop culture references. The FASA reference could go under Apocrypha, as it is a licensed work. 31dot (talk) 08:41, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Out of order Stardates
The article mentions several inconsistencies concerning stardates however it fails or neglects to address a most obvious one, namely that Stardates sometimes appear to go backwards. This is especially noticeable in TNG season 1. If someone watches the episodes in stardate order, Wesley Crusher is on the bridge before Picard makes him an acting ensign, while Yar returns from the dead in 2 or 3 episodes. I think this phenomenon would deserve at least a mention, and I am really curious whether any licensed source addressed it eg. that stardates are non-linear or sometimes are reverted. Does anyone else share this opinion? MoffRebusMy Talk 18:52, October 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * If nobody objects I am adding a reference. MoffRebusMy Talk 09:13, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Stardates in Star Trek (alternate reality)
2233 0 4 = 2233.04 = .04*365 days after January 1, 2233. That would be January 15, 2258. If the digits after the decial place were going to be days in the year, the stardate would have appeared as 2233.004 for January 4, 2233.

2259.55 would be July 20, 2259.

Tedpronj (talk) 05:38, June 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * All we know is that Orci has said the additional 0 "could have been an error" and that the intention was that days are from .1 to .365. So that is what we go with. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:49, June 7, 2013 (UTC)