Memory Alpha talk:User projects/Timeline project

Living Witness
I'm just going to leave this here:

Since no date, or stardate, was given in, the only thing that dates the episode is Seven of Nine, placing "Living Witness" sometime after. That and the Kyrians are 60,000 light years from Mars.

Not really sure where to put that, but it may fall into a window of time if we get some other distance figures from other episodes. - Archduk3: talk 04:27, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in that episode that will ever lead to accurate dating, unfortunately. It could take place after the events of (in the timeline where voyager didn't make it to the alpha quadrant until years later.) &mdash; Morder (talk) 04:31, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * We should just leave that alone for the sake of simplicity. --Nero210 04:49, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

The distance figure should allow us to place it into a window, and maybe the a year, if it came be proven to have happened in the same year as "The Gift". The date on the episode already notes it is an approximation, and actually links to the 31st century page, which is consistent with cannon. (I don't think it's speculation to run with the idea that episodes take palace in the same universe/timeline unless otherwise stated. So all other episodes involve Voyager returning to Earth during "Endgame".) - Archduk3: talk 05:03, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the trouble, there is no timeframe you can divine from the episode at all. Because none of the episode takes place in the actual Voyager timeline and all takes place in the future the events depicted in the holographic recreations could be from any point in voyager's history. &mdash; Morder (talk) 05:05, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't we take production order (albeit as a last resort) into consideration when placing episodes as well? --Nero210 05:14, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only when the episode takes place in the normal timeline - in this case none of it does. The recreation never gives a timeframe and thus could take place during any time period. (Even production order doesn't always cover items such as ) &mdash; Morder (talk) 05:19, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Not entirly true, we know that it takes place after "The Gift" (Seven), and Voyager was around 60,000 light years from home (referenced in dialog), so if there is an episode that references a distance shorter than that, we have our window. If it's an episode after "The Gift" and the distance is longer, we look for an episode after the new one with a distance shorter than 60,000, and we get a window. If those episodes have solid dates, we have a solid window of time that the EMHBM had to be stolen in. We also know that the episode takes place around 700 years from that point, so we get at least a century. - Archduk3: talk 05:22, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I hesitate to say it you could just give the general 2370s as a year since it must take place during Voyager's run but, as I stated above, it could have been during the alternate timeline where Voyager took decades to get home. I'm not sure when the episode took place
 * It's still speculation, Archduk3 because even if we have a window it could be up to two years. Though if you find evidence I will support it but for now there is none. &mdash; Morder (talk) 05:24, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Timeless takes place 4 years, 2 months, and 11 days after Caretaker, according to Janeway in that episode, which puts it in early 2375. --Nero210 05:28, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Stupid me not previewing. For some reason my edit got cut. Basically I stated that if you take into account the "Timeless" timeline then it must have happened before that. But if you consider that the particular timeline was reverted then it could have taken place after. There's also the two "Endgame" timelines to take into account. That's why this episode's year might never be known as it may have also take place in any of those timelines - without a stardate in the episode it's really only speculation otherwise. &mdash; Morder (talk) 05:33, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Message in a Bottle
takes place before and after the  uniform change. Was a distance for the Hirogen communications network given, as it could help with the above discussion. - Archduk3: talk 05:45, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently the 51xxx = 2374 is consistent. In Kes states that she'll leave Voyager in 3 years. Since that episode mostly takes place in Voyager's first season (2371) and 2371 + 3 = 2374. The Doctor gives a statement in  that the events of Scorpion took place a few days before. Additionally,  is stated to take place 9 months after . So from what I can tell based Voyager's first and fourth seasons the previous method of interpreting years from stardates (XX000 = Jan 1st) is consistent up until Voyager's fifth season, then everything gets screwy. --Nero210 06:16, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Voyager Season Five dating
Okay onto other matters. Taking into account the evidence I presented on the project page regarding, I believe there's enough evidence now to conclude that and the subsequent episodes of the fifth season are set in 2376. Either that or all of Voyager's fifth season only covers a period from January to April 22, 2375; with a sudden (large) jump to December for. --Nero210 05:42, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible that the entire fifth season only lasts a few months. &mdash; Morder (talk) 05:44, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on the evidence you've given everything from episode 6 to episode 23 takes place in the first few months of 2375. &mdash; Morder (talk) 05:45, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

That is EXTREMELY unlikely and VERY problematic. Look at for example, that ONE episode takes place over a thirty day period (hence the name, obviously). C'mon be smarter then the show... --Nero210 06:02, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Morder will NEVER speculate. EVER. He is must be Vulcan. :) - Archduk3: talk 06:06, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Maybe but...seriously...ALL of season five from January to April, with one of those episodes taking up a whole month!? We know takes place over a week-long period as well, if that will help anything. Sorry but it's just far to overwhelming now that season fives last four episodes are set in 2376. --Nero210 06:09, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah but this is a canon wiki and therefore the information must be presented from canon. By your own explanation we have information that states the entirety of season 5 (save for a few episodes) takes place sometime before april 22nd. That's canon fact and can't be changed just because we don't believe it could happen that way. &mdash; Morder (talk) 06:14, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a canon contradiction, which I don't think there is; but man would that be a fun road to go down. - Archduk3: talk 06:20, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

You just contradicted yourself as well, because 11:59 doesn't state the year, only the date. So now YOU'RE speculating that season five is only 2375. --Nero210 06:19, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong and that's fine - it was all based on your statements and not mine. &mdash; Morder (talk) 06:23, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly, if there are two or more possible explanations based on canon (especially when one doesn't fit with what you think is right) then neither one is correct and should not be included as it will be considered speculation or put them both in with a background note. If there is no year available then that's something we, as a canon encyclopedia, have to live with. As I've stated before, it is not necessary to make everything fit within a date. Put it in a decade if you have to and nothing will be lost. &mdash; Morder (talk) 06:36, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

If anything my statements give more evidence that the fifth season crosses into the next year just as the seventh does. How else can I break this down? Lets see: - Takes place over a week period - Takes place over a thirty day period - Janeway states that she had been helping the Varro for 2 weeks at the start of the episode - Takes place over AT LEAST a weeks period of time Just those four episodes alone add up to a 2 month period of time. The entire fifth season covering three months isn't possible. --Nero210 06:41, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see nothing I say will be taken seriously. Thirty Days shows that he was punished for 30 days but the episode takes place over a long period of time than that. We clearly have no definite information how long each episode takes. Nor do you know how much downtime you'll encounter between episodes. This is the problem with speculation. If we don't know then we don't post. Adding up all the dates to come to a number (that will always be a guess) constitutes original research and also isn't allowed. As long as you refrain from speculating you'll be fine and your additions welcome. Continue to post your thoughts to the project page but anything that can be debated should not be changed until those items are clarified with the community. (I've noticed you've already made changes so just hold your changes until the project is completed and verified). &mdash; Morder (talk) 06:53, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Apparently nothing I say can be taken seriously either. I only made changes that had hard, canon evidence. I've been holding further changes since this whole debate started. Also how can "original research" not be allowed? Anyone can look at the evidence I just presented and come to the same conclusion, including yourself. --Nero210 06:57, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your changes seriously - you just need to understand that star trek & the real world don't always mix and can't fit in reality at times. It happens with a lot of episodes. Retcons are a major problem in star trek. I just want to make sure that you understand that not everything you want to do can be solved that will meet the requirements set by this site's policies. Any assumption can not be used as evidence. Even if you think you're absolutely right someone else can have contravening information that shows other possibilities. Let's just stick to the facts and not extrapolate and everything will be fine. &mdash; Morder (talk) 07:03, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

That's sort of part of the time line problem. Yes this site is supposed to be a canon encyclopedia, that's great and exactly what it should be. But one of the goals of this site is to provide information on a general level and to people who don't know all of the technical jargon and stardate interpretations like we (the hardcore fans) do. Having the years in here help make that possible. We should be able to extrapolate based on canon, and that's exactly what I'm doing to make sure that the time line is as accurate as we can make it. --Nero210 07:14, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that but we're about facts only and not extrapolation. I know what you're saying but we all have to live by the rules. Thanks for understanding and following our policies. If you have a problem with the policy there is a way for you to discuss those but we can't avoid them as long as they exist. &mdash; Morder (talk) 07:17, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen if used many times, but where is the policy on original research, as I didn't find it in the canon policy. Also, this:


 * "...dates for certain events in the Trek universe (such as 2285 for ) that were derived from official reference materials may be used, but these are not strictly canon. This is to prevent labeling a number of episodes or movies as being set in the 2260s, 2360s, etc. A background note explaining where the source was derived from should be provided and, as with the naming rule above, are to be ignored should they be contradicted on screen.


 * Which means any dates listed for episodes in the approved by MA, can be used to date episodes, as long as we leave a note about it in the background section. This includes information from StarTrek.com. -  Archduk3: talk 07:40, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine. Regardless I am done with this. Other users can deal with this issue as I'm the only one who seems to care about maintaining canon information instead of speculation. At some point in the future someone else will come along and create their own reasons for such and such year and we'll be right back where we started. Sure a lot of years might be fixed but there will be those that won't so good luck. &mdash; Morder (talk) 08:08, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's your call, but it would be a help to the project if you popped in and kept us on the level. I also want canon dates, so we don't have to do this again,ever, but I'm not fine with leaving a good chunk of the 24th century in limbo if some background material we have would allow us to place a date on it. - Archduk3: talk 08:20, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Archduk3 on this one. Memory Alpha's going to have Gregorian dates (in the form of years) so we might as well do our research and make sure that they are correct. --Nero210 08:36, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * "Research" (I'd prefer to call it fact-collecting, to avoid the connection to "Original Research") is why we have this shiny new project page in the first place - but, research takes time, and should not be circumvented by some quick&dirty fix here or there starting one day after this page has been created. If this is your solution, we might as well delete this page and go back to just changing the articles directly and see who has got the biggest staying power.
 * Just as a reminder - the current dating scheme has grown in over 5 years. That doesn't mean it's perfect - but it does mean that changes to it should be considered thoroughly. Exchanging one speculation for another is just not good enough. -- Cid Highwind 09:54, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting a quick fix, I'm just saying if no date can be found in canon, we have other MA approved options. - Archduk3: talk 17:35, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * Archduk, here's the answer to your question: Memory Alpha:What Memory Alpha is not. I love this part: "We will continue to add to this list as we discover interesting new ways of not writing encyclopedia articles." SennySix 06:08, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

What We Can Salvage From the Old Dating System
I'm talking about in the form of the stardate system in use for most articles (stardate XX000 = Jan 1 - XX999 = Dec 31). From what I can tell, this system remained consistent until Voyager's fifth season. For example the year is still given as 2371 in with a stardate of 489xx (can't remember exactly off the top of my head). Additionally is a 419xx stardate and still gives a year of 2364. Any ideas/imput? --Nero210 08:41, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * You're speculating again. That's not helping with the project. The whole "XX000 = Jan 1 - XX999 = Dec 31" jazz is all conjectural; it is not based on canon evidence and therefore should not be used on this wiki. If the date system on MA is changed to follow canon and remove speculation, then we will only be using stardates except in cases where a year is specified within a film or episode. There will be no attempts to calculate years using stardates, as they are not a reliable way to tell the passage of time. There will be no Earth dates listed unless they were given in the film or episode. We cannot use a timeline that is based on fan speculation and original research. It must be based on solid, canon information. Nothing more. --From Andoria with Love 20:50, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, Shran is correct in that we can not use stardates to confirm the year. Second, this is not about changing the system, it's about confirming what is, and what isn't, canon when it comes to our current dating system, as in listing known stardates and then listing the year (48975.1 (2371)). The  specifically states that background sources can be use to determine a date if none is given in canon. Either way, this project is about removing all user speculation. -  Archduk3: talk 21:30, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Removed Entry
I removed the listing for TNG's All Good Things from the 47xxx portion of the timeline, as it is already covered under TNG Season 7. --Nero210 02:51, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

I've once again removed this note. It is not necessary to list episode stardates specifically, since we already have the series and season listed under each stardate. --Nero210 05:03, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * , stardate 47988.0, said by Worf, twice.
 * You just don't get it. We're archiving every thing, Season 7 may fit under the timeline but what specific stardate does the episode take place and what dialog supports it. That's what this project is for - do not remove it again. &mdash; Morder (talk) 05:06, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Correct. If we hope that the outcome of this project is a better understanding of how stardates are spread across the Gregorian calendar (and vice versa), we need as many facts as we can get. This includes stardates that were really stated in an episode (instead of being just copied from the notoriously wrong StarTrek.com webpage, for example). I just added a table to the top of the project page, which should contain only facts, and not more speculation and discussion, like what has already creeped into the now second part of the page. Can we try to keep at least the table clean of those things, please? -- Cid Highwind 10:57, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Okay maybe I need to clear a couple things up. First of all I'm not stupid and I know what the point of this project is, but if you feel it is that important to list every single star date then I'll just leave it. Second, I don't rely on StarTrek.com for facts, I know the site has a few details wrong, but it gave a statement that was backed up in canon so thats one reason why I cited it. In anycase the end result didn't even matter so lets just drop it. --Nero210 18:36, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

The Table
Is there an easier way of editing it? It's getting frustrating. --Nero210 18:57, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Nemesis and Star Trek
I wasn't precisely sure how to add any of this (I think this whole ordeal of the dating is just going to screw everything up, but whatever), but I think it'd be safe to say that takes pace at some point in 2379 (most say late 2379 at that), because when the two are saying good bye to each other, I remember Riker saying to Picard something like "It has been an honor serving under you for the past fifteen years..." Perhaps I am wrong here on that line, if if that's the case using math with Data's mention of 2364 in TNG season one, it fits. As for Star Trek, I believe Spock specifically mentioned he came from 2387. In anycase, I believe that the line in Nemesis could at the very least provide 'bookend' dates of roughly when the bulk of the franchise takes place (baring accounting for time travel, and TOS, ENT and most of the movies). --Terran Officer 19:50, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

Logs
Maybe a stupid question, but better to check first. Would the community consider our record of logs accurate enough to be raided for stardates, or do we want to confirm them first? - Archduk3: talk 04:47, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Well, I take that as a yes. Also, this will help Memory Alpha:Episode data project/basic timeline order. - Archduk3: talk 16:39, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn someone had answered this, anyways considering that most of the times, the logs were when the stardates are spoken (if at all), I would think that they would be acceptable. After all, even if they are often times spoken in the past tense, they are spoken on screen/within the episode/film. --Terran Officer 18:58, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

???
So did this project just up and die? --Nero210 05:45, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * A project of this magnitude takes time and involves watching every single episode. It could take months so just be patient or contribute to finishing the project. &mdash; Morder (talk) 06:09, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Well, just another day at the office then lol. --Nero210 06:24, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Considerations...
First at all, I want to say that I totally disagree with this new project promoted by Nero210 and that I still consider the old date system the right one, even if not perfect. It's in use from years now, and many official (yes, not canon, but anyway licensed works) Star Trek releases use it (books, encyclopedias, games, the official site, etc.). Now suddenly we want to change everything? I think this wiki is becoming everyday more and more outdistance from what is my idea and vision of the Star Trek universe. Anyway, this is only my personal judgment, so, in my future edits, I'll accept the new rules that Memory Alpha will adopt, even if I disagree with them.

Now. after this preamble, I want to make a proposal. Until the completation of the timeline project, can we continue to use the old date system? For example, there are articles like Benjamin Sisko with dates moved from 2375 to 2376, and others (the great majority) who still use the 2375 date for the same events (like, or even the 2375 page). I tried yesterday to correct the Benjamin Sisko article, but my edit was rolled back.

So, can I suggest, until we settle down the timeline project, the use of the old system? I think is the best thing to do, because the differences I noticed in those articles can create only confusion in people visiting Memory Alpha (and it seems the project will take a long time to be completed). When the project will be completed and accepted, then we can do all the modifications required. But, until then, we can use the old system. What do you think?

Sorry for the bad english ;)--Sid-Vicious 09:09, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * The dates should remain as they are until all dates can be confirmed and verified by others. Just because it was in use for years does not make it right. There is no point in changing the dates "back to the old system" if that system is broken so any date changes will be reverted until such time as this project is complete. For the record a lot of dates might be replaced with stardate versions as a lot of dates are pure speculation. &mdash; Morder (talk) 09:48, November 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I have to disagree with Morder in this case. As far as the specific example from above is concerned, I think it would be the worst solution to have different dates for the same event, on different pages. Consistency throughout the database is what we want to achieve with this project - so the project being unfinished should not be the reason for any blatant inconsistency. -- Cid Highwind 10:29, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually misread that statement to mean something else. That's what I get for staying up late. The dates that differ though are probably a result of recent changes that haven't been reverted. :) &mdash; Morder (talk) 10:33, November 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree with Morder and Thomas Paine in that we shouldn't just keep using a broken system, but as Cid said, that is no reason to leave the system as broken as it is. So I don't see anything wrong in using the old system to reinstate some consistency until the findings of this project take effect. - Archduk3: talk 18:48, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, back to the old system on the pages until this can be resolved, I can understand why this is being done (and I myself, have tried to date things before), but it needs to be one way or the other. Old system, or new system but not half and half within the articles. --Terran Officer 18:55, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Deep Space Nine Dating
I watched a couple episodes of Deep Space Nine yesterday, and was going to wait before I posted this, but then figured...why? It's not like I can't add more later on... Without further ado... I hope these can help, and I tried not to include all the in depth things I had written down, keeping it more on par for things needed for year placement. --Terran Officer 19:16, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Call to Arms (Season 5 finale)

 * Fifth Dominion convoy in five weeks (not necessarily important to the placement of a year per se, but it might give an idea of the timespan)
 * Kira and Odo have avoided each other for "weeks", Kira mentions she discovered Odo's feelings "last month"
 * During Sisko's log, a convoy is due in five days
 * Sisko mentions the Dominion offered Bajor a nonagression pact "weeks ago"
 * Before combat begins, Dukat says he has been waiting for this moment for "Five years" (probably the most important line needed for this project)
 * During his speech (prior to his departure), Sisko mentions it's "five years later" since he had taken command (and not wanted to have been there)(Contributions by --Terran Officer 19:16, May 26, 2010 (UTC))

Favor the Bold (Season six episode)

 * Rom has been in a holding cell for over a week (according to Kira)
 * Zyial says she hadn't seen Kira in "weeks"
 * Sisko says he has known the message curior for fie years and trusts him (Morn)
 * Dukat remarks that Weyoun had been pressing him for "months" to take down the minefield. (Contributions by --Terran Officer 19:16, May 26, 2010 (UTC))

= From Timeline references in Star Trek =

Forum:Time... time... what is time?
Currently, on several forum posts and talk pages, there is a discussion on the fact that our timeline, based on the no longer accepted Star Trek Chronology, is incorrect in various places and internally inconsistent. If we were to "correct" our timeline exactly, it would have statements placing all of TOS/TAS vaguely between 2265 and 2270, TNG before and after 2364, and DS9 and VOY, and the TNG films some years after 2364, with at one of the last VOY episodes in the year 2378 (Neelix should've stuck to his own history).

I half-propose, and this is tricky, that we should accept the Chronology dates at face value, the ones for the series (TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY) at least, and work in references made to other events that are relevant from the episode date. We can note the inconsistencies on the page, in background, and link to a page describing how Star Trek kept the timeline vague for bla bla reasons, so Memory Alpha currently did this.

According to the Chronology:
 * TOS takes place, roughly, 200 years from the airdate.
 * TNG takes place from 2364 to 2370, with every 1000 stardates covering a year (41000s cover 2364, 42000s cover 2365, etc.)
 * The same applies to DS9 and VOY (although both series have episodes indicating another time, these should be noted)
 * takes place in 2271 (This was prior to the conflicting reference). We should peg this down to 2272 or 2273 (I prefer the latter). This is a debatable point.
 * and take place in 2285 (Star Trek II takes place in March, because of Kirk's birthday).
 * takes place in 2286 (although this may have to be changed based on the later discovered birthday for Kirk).
 * takes place in 2287 (err... um...)
 * takes place in 2293.
 * The TNG films are placed according to their stardate.

We don't have to use the Chronology for every date (especially heavily inconsistent ones like the movies), but once we pin down a reasonable "chronology" for the episodes, we should "stick to them" and centralize them somewhere.

So basically, we should stick to the Okuda stardate rule (almost) no matter what the episode said, and work out the TOS and TOS film ones.--Tim Thomason 20:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with that. In fact, that's how I suggested dates to be handled in the, but that part was never officially accepted; basically, it was a test addition to the policy. Or... something. Yeah. Anyway, I think just going based on the Chronology is fine for now until some canon dating comes along... if it ever comes along. --From Andoria with Love 01:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How do we know that Star Trek II and Star Trek III are both set in 2285? Khan says that it has been 15 years since he was marooned by Kirk, which would set it in 2282. Can someone explain it to me? Thanks. --24.65.161.244 05:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that in Star Trek II, Kirk is given a bottle of Romulan ale, dated 2283. Why a Human year would be on a Romulan drink is beyond me, but people basically take that to mean that the film must be set after 2283 on the Human calendar. 2285 was chosen by the Star Trek Chronology because in, James T. Kirk – still believing he was living in 2293 – stated he had returned to Starfleet nine years prior (2284) after some absence. The Chronology therefore speculated that Kirk had been retired from Starfleet sometime between the events of and , that he returned in 2284, and that the events of Star Trek II took place the following year. So, there ya go. I don't really buy into that whole thing, but that's what the Chronology did and that's what we've been going by... until recently. Now, we're trying to figure out whether or not to accept the dating in the Chronology on MA, as you have seen above. So... there ya go. :) --From Andoria with Love 17:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've got everything from TNG S6 to Nemesis in order by Stardate and then by episode number when a stardate is not given. See my "Complete Episode List?" thread over at the reference desk.--Cyno01 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)--
 * What does that have to do with this discussion? --Alan 04:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Apocrypha section
Apocrypha often references Earth years and can be included in its own section to contrast with canon. Some works that reference Earth years include Star Trek: Early Voyages, the Starfleet Academy and DS9 young adult novels, The Kobayashi Maru novel, the games Star Trek: Legacy, Star Trek: Tactical Assault, Star Trek: Conquest, Star Trek: Klingon Academy, etc.


 * Are you proposing such a section for this article? --31dot 20:28, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Merge
I think this should be merged with the Timeline project until we're completed it. - 02:06, November 11, 2011 (UTC)