Talk:2063

Removed note
I removed the following:
 * A computer screen in mistakenly noted the first successful demonstration of warp-based lightspeed propulsion by Zefram Cochrane to have occured in 2061.

There's no contradiction since the computer display said the 2061 event was a demonstration and not an actual manned spaceflight. --From Andoria with Love 06:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The production art reads: "2061: First succesful demonstration of light-speed propulsion by Zefram Cochrane. This became the basis for early warp drive technology, and heralded First Contact with members of the Vulcan race." Dialogue from "Friendship One": "lt was launched in 2067, just four years after Zefram Cochrane tested his first warp engine." the 1 is just a typo they forgot to fix, as first contact could not have been initiated by the 2061 demonstration, as that would contradict canon established in FC. --Pseudohuman 06:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really say that First Contact happened immediately after the demonstration. Your right, it is a production error (one which was not meant to be seen), but it didn't seem to be contradicting to me. As for the Voyager quote... yeah, that's a bit harder to reconcile. I guess we'll have to relegate the 2061 note as only a production error, after all. :( --From Andoria with Love 06:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you know what, the 2061 note doesn't specifically say it was a warp engine he was testing. It says it was the first demonstration of light-speed propulsion which became the basis of early warp drive technology. In other words, he first proved faster-than-light speed was possible in 2061. The actual warp engine was tested in 2063. Does that make sense? --From Andoria with Love 07:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The 2061 demonstration wasn't First Contact. The 2063 manned flight was. They weren't the same event. The 2061 event "heralded" the 2063 event, it didn't BE the 2063 event. The demonstration "became the basis for early warp drive", it didn't BE early warp drive. There's no notable mistake because they were demonstrably not the same event. Can we get rid of this now? TribbleFurSuit 07:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Regeneration
I noticed that in the article, it says the debris from the Borg sphere is discovered on March 1, 2153. As I recall, "March 1" only comes from Archer's log after blowing up Arctic One, which could have been days after. Is there any canon evidence to support that it all happened on March 1? (I removed the date and just said 2153)

Sidebar
Why doesn't every year have sidebar on it like this one?

on the Star Wars Wikia there is an infobox for each year. Just think it would make for better convince if ya ask me. T-888 (talk) 19:59, December 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * One problem is that there are many years for which we couldn't fill any of the template fields. It would just be a blank sidebar wasting space. Come to think about it, even the one you quoted here has its issues. The actual year 2373 probably didn't start with stardate 50032.7 or end with stardate 50984.3, for example - which means that the sidebar breaks the in-universe POV we use. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 20:40, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted. Over on Wookieepedia I am a bit of a stickler for things like this. I due make sure all info is correct before adding something like that to an article. T-888 (talk) 00:57, December 30, 2012 (UTC)