Talk:Zefram Cochrane

TOS vs. FC/ENT
Let me revile two basic cannon fact, that are not treated as cannon regarding Cochrane. 1. He never met a Vulcan, 2. He invented Warp Drive at Alpha Centauri.

The first comes from the simple fact that he had to ask Spock, "You're a Vulcan Right?" Suggesting he did know what a Vulcan is, but beyond that, he did not have a good grasp of what they looked like. Both First Contact, and Enterprise, would make this comment extremely odd.

The Second has been addressed by paramount that he moved there near the end of his life. The exact line is, "Zephram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri, the Inventor of the Space Warp." It's the equivalent of saying, "The Writer Brothers of Kittyhawk, the first flight". I for the life of me can not name of the top of my head where they were born or died.

Beyond that, Cochrane and Cochrane  are so complete different, I could never see how they could be the same person. Cochrane in does not help fill the gap either.

A few things that had to be said, although out of politeness said here instead of on the main Article.


 * That is indeed true. The TOS version of Cochrane is completely contradicted by First Contact and Enterprise. FC and Enterprise probably make more sense, though. Why would the inventor of humanwarp drive come from Alpha Centauri. That's why we assume he moved there in later life. Ottens 13:12, 20 Aug 2004 (CEST)


 * Furthermore, you have to take into account, that he was artificially rejuvenated by this cloud entity. Moreover, we know that Cochrane left Alpha Centauri with an unknwon destination since . And the fact that he said "you're a vulcan right?" does not imply anything, only that he might not have seen a vulcan in over 150 years. --BlueMars 13:41, Aug 20, 2004 (CEST)

When I talk about Cochrane being different, I am not referring to looks. I am talking about the type of person he is. So if you were on a desert island for 150 years, with the same rejuvenation, and two Americans and a Chinese land on your Island. Could you really see yourself saying "you are a Chinese right?". No, you know the Chinese well enough, that you'd just know it. As for getting to AC, It is obvious from the Woden that DY-500's were upgraded to Warp. Why not Impulse. I see it serving the purpose of Colonizing AC Cochrane was with them. My History of Space Travel suggest the Woden was upgraded to Warp Drive, so that it could bring Lythium Crystals from AC thus Explaining the Woden. The Woden also proves that the First Contact's use of Nacelles is incorrect. where do you get the idea that AC was inhabited before hand? --TOSrules 13:30, Aug 20, 2004 (CPST)


 * Where has it ever been said that the space warp Cochrane invented was "human". Fact is the Alpha Centurians may have come to visit us with their newly invented drive. For all we know nobody had warp drive before the ACs, including vulcans, which I agree Cochrane was less familiar with than is suggested in FC and ENT. --Mark2000


 * Re: Cochrane asking if Spock was Vulcan. It's also possible that Cochrane became aware of the existance of Romulans at some point (perhaps from the Companion).  Therefore he might not be sure which of the two races Spock was (of course that ignores the fact that Romulans on "Enterprise" as well as TNG, DS9 and Voyager all have pronounced foreheads while Vulcans do not, but since TOS Romulans didn't have them either, you might be able to get away with it).


 * That is lame speculation. Cochrane didn't even know how far earth had advanced technologically. The companion was not going off on new reporting missions. Sounded more like he saw a picture once awhile ago but had no personal experience.


 * Perhaps is was thought Spock may have been a Rigellian. They are also Vulcanoid.  Also, should we credit the stand-in whose hand is used for the changed part of the clip from FC used in.

Earth didn't even have contact with Rigel in Cochranes time --TOSrules 00:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What is your source?
 * Considering he had been out of contact with others for around 150 years, he may just not have been unsure what Spock was. --Kitch 01:32, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's because GR did not think Star Trek was going to be here 35+ years later?
 * But if you need an "in house" source how about one of the following:


 * 1. Since Enterprise and First Contact agree with each other, then the events of TOS took place slightly altered (ie. the NCC-1701 had glowing warp nacelle and looked more like the Movie Enterprise? more "advanced" then the NX-01)


 * 2. The Companion did something to Zefram's Mind (Warped it in some way, pun intended)


 * 3. The Zefram in TOS was infact the Zefram Cochrane from FC/Enterprise's Son,a Human born on AC and a Human that created the Warp 7 Time/Space Warp Drive talked about in the Cage, a hinted at in "These are the Voyages..."


 * Number 1 would fix any "tech" issues "fans" have about ENT (2001) being to advanced then TOS (1964);


 * Number 2 is not suported by the script in TOS and is way out in left field;


 * Number 3 would explain alot including the following: Cochrane's Age (looking younger in TOS, then FC), The Time/Space warp factor talked about in the Cage, it is common for Fathers and Sons to have the same name: my name has a II next to it. --sithlord123 00:17, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * We don't know where Cochrane went when he disappeared. It may very well be that he had seen Romulans between his disappearance and his rediscovery on TOS. He might have asked if Spock was a Vulcan out of either fear or surprise that he might be a Romulan. After all, the uniforms would be totally unfamiliar to him. As to the changes in his appearance and personality, you could attribute all of that to the companion. If he was near-death after a crash like he said, then he might have been very damaged physically and the companion reconstructed him based on his self-image rather than what he really looked like. I know I look different in my mind then when I actually look in a mirror and see myself. That could have been the case there. With personality, it could be that between FC and his disappearance, he gave up drinking and became a changed man like many who give up drinking do.


 * Interesting idea... it could be that Cochrane survived WWIII by being born on a colony on Alpha Centauri which was reached with a sublight drive. Once the war broke out, the colony could have been abandoned and the colonists returned to Earth including Zephram. He could have only been living on Earth for a few years before FC.


 * Since Spock is actually Vulcan-Human and not entirely Vulcan, Cochrane's surprised expression could come from his confusion over why Spock has both Vulcan and Human features. (To our knowledge, there was no Vulcan-Human hybrid before 2119.) To reword TOSRule's analogy, it would be the equivalent of someone looking at a Eurasian (like Dean Cain, Sean Lennon, Kristin Kreuk, Brandon Lee, or Ann Curry), and asking with all sincerity, "You're Asian, right?" Egan Loo 11:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous, I can't see any difference between Spock and other Vulcan's, and don't know of a single case where someone could tell the difference. As for 150 years, I don't see why that would affect someone's memory. --TOSrules 03:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't see how 150 years could affect someone's memory? Honestly? As to Cochrane's line, "You're a Vulcan, right?", it's clear to me that he knew perfectly well Spock was Vulcan, but was asking for confirmation out of politeness. People do it all the time.--Moggy 21:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Given how similar most sentient species in Trek look to each other, its quite understandable he might not be totally sure Spock was a Vulcan. Romulans aside, Halanan could also be mistaken for Vulcans, and no doubt many others.  Similarly, in the previous hypothetical situation, it would be rather rude to just assume an unknown Asian was Chinese, when they could just as well be Korean, Japanese, Taiwanese, or any of a number of other nationalities from around the world, really.– Chookhlo 09:25, August 16, 2011 (UTC)

Here's the entire problem with the differences between TOS and FC/ENT. In "Metamorphosis," Kirk said that Zefrem Cochrane (notice the spelling) -- "of Alpha Centauri" not Earth -- was "the discoverer of the space warp" NOT "the inventor of warp drive." To say Zefrem Cochrane was the inventor of warp drive would be like saying Benjamin Franklin was the inventor of the light bulb (and the timeframe would be about the same). GR wanted warp drive to be a relatively recent development, Star Trek time. That way, most of the galazy in Trek's time would have been very much unexplored, opening the way for many potential discoveries (and story lines). He alluded to this fact in "The Cage" (and later "The Menagerie") with Tyler's comment, "And you won't believe how fast you can get back. Why, the time barrier's been broken!  Our new ships can ..." The Archon, the Horizon, and the Columbia, among other ships, did not have warp drive nor subspace communications. They were able to travel between stars by taking advantage of naturally-occurring space warps (presumably of the kind Zefrem Cochrane discovered). But then GR died, the Star Trek archivist was fired, and Rick Berman and Brannon Bragga took over, throwing canon out the window. The "Killer B's" were responsible for far more destruction of Trek canon that what people are accusing J.J. Abrams of. But anyway... It is what it is now -- the damage has already been done. -- 66.21.26.182 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are two things...he could have settled on Alpha Centauri afterwards and considered that his home. Hence the line "OF Alpha Centauri" and not "FROM". Second: He could have discovered the "space warp" and also "invented warp drive" the two can be referencing different things. Space warp is what warp drive uses to travel. Therefore one discovers the process and invents the technology to apply that process to space travel. &mdash; Morder 20:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

But that still ignores GR's desire that warp drive be a recent invention. -- 66.21.26.182 21:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's still no real canon discrepancy that can't be easily explained. Sure the production explanation may fail but in canon nothing really falls apart. Yes, the reference in does seem a bit odd given canon but that episode wasn't aired for many many years and there are a lot of unanswered questions in the episode itself about the crew of the doomed craft, which might have been a sleeper ship for all we know and didn't have warp drive... :) &mdash; Morder 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True that "The Cage" as a stand-alone episode wasn't aired until 1988, but the portion with Tyler's "time barrier" line was aired in 1967 in "The Menagerie Part 1". Spock had asked Captain Pike if the images were actually those of 13 years ago, to which Pike replied "yes" (in the form of one beep).  That pretty much canonized it.  The Columbia probably wasn't a sleeper ship, but a generation ship, as Vina (probably conceived in space) was born nearly as they crashed.  Doubtful that they would place a pregnant woman in suspended animation.  That would suggest a ship without warp drive.  It also used "old-style radio" rather than subspace radio, which itself uses warp technology.  Finally, if Cochrane *HAD* invented warp drive, he would definitely be known for that rather than the discovery of the space warp, especially by the captain of a ship that USES warp drive.  Plus, detail-oriented Spock would have said something about it as well.  One thing that WAS said was this:  COCHRANE: "What's it like out there?"  KIRK: "We cross fantastic distances..."  Why would he say that?  If Cochrane invented the warp drive, he would already know people cross fantastic distances, and Kirk would know he knew. -- 66.21.26.182 17:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sleeper ship: Crew may have been required for this sleeper ship to operate or, for instance, they woke up early, who knows, it's all speculation but it can explain things so there's still no real discrepancy. Cochrane: He is shown in ENT to only commission the warp 5 program and not see it through - going at warp 1 would take a long time to travel the stars. Cochrane may have known about warp 5 but not possibly "warp 8" and so on. Detail-oriented Spock doesn't necessarily have point everything out and nor does he always. So really, it's not an issue. We just have to accept that things don't always make sense and come up with your own explanations for how things may have worked out. :) &mdash; Morder 17:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence that I've seen which suggests the time barrier need be synonymous with warp drive. It's possible for example that Impulse is faster than light capable (as I believe was originally intended) and that for a period after Enterprise, Impulse drive advanced beyond Warp in regards to potential speed because of this barrier on Warp speed (like the time high warp can be held for). Then the barrier was broken and Warp was firmly established as the dominant drive. As far as Cochrane being referred to as the discoverer of Space Warp, I've heard Einstein referred to as the discoverer of relativity. I doubt that if Einstein had developed a 'relativity engine' that everyone would stop saying that. The point is that it's not a major problem. CleverAndKnowsIt 04:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

dood, Zefram Cochane was from EARTH!! the article says he is OF Alpha Centuari, not FROM. This suggests that he moved to Alpha Centuari and he made it his home, like the article says. Another thing is the fact that he asked Spock if he was Vulcan. This DOESNT IN ANY WAY imply he didnt meet one, it means he is asking him if he is Vulcan, he might not have recognised one for a long time, he was gone for like 150 years lol. Besides, even if he did encounter the Romulans, he wouldnt have been able to tell the difference and he wouldnt know about the war. So therefore, the question in question is either sarcasm, or the fact that he noticed Spock had pointy ears and frownyer eye brows, like a Vulcan was, he might have been checking. THIS DOESNT MEAN HE NEVER ENCOUNTERED THE VULCANS! it means that FC and ENT were perfectly adiqute in establishing the character from the TOS episode. Ooiue 22:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cochrane's Age
Shouldn't it be noted somewhere the explaination of why Cochrane looks so old in First Contact, when he's supposed to be 31 years old? I believe I read it somewhere about him looking older due to radiation, either from the missile his team was converting into Phoenix or from World War III itself. --Kitch 01:32, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * I was wondering about the above as well, but I also noticed that this version of MA states that Zefram Cochrane was born in 2032, while the german version and states that it was in 2030. Anyone any thoughts about this?
 * --Patricia 20:31, 25 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Perheps He just drunk too much --Mancubus 21:54, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason for this mismatch happened because the people who casted the actor for Cefrem Cochrane failed to check information on him. That's why they cast an actor who was at least 20 years too old. --Maxl 13:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Starfleet historical archive
The Starfleet historical archive File:Historical archive, Starfleet (production resource).jpg shows he was born in 2030 (not 2032) and left Eart in 2117 (not 2119) - Philoust123 13:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, this goes against information established in "Broken Bow", which stated that Cochrane's "Where no man has gone before" speech at the Warp Five Complex was recorded 32 years prior to the episode, set in 2151. 2151 - 32 = 2119. also stated Cochrane was 87 years old when he disappeared. 2119 - 87 = 2032. The problem is that some of the chronology seen on the graphic was copied from an early version of Star Trek Chronology; however, the folks who put it together didn't really bother to change things to account for details established since that book was published. In term, there are some incorrect dates, i.e. 2061 being used as the date for Cochrane's first warp test flight, when  revealed this occured in 2063. Basically, the info on that graphic that contradicts more "concrete" evidence is generally accepted as a mistake and ignored. --From Andoria with Love 14:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cochrane's First flight date / age
I'm interested in locating files that indicate the birth year of Zefram Cochrane, and / or the time that the first warp flight was completed. I have a memory of seeing a jpg. possibly a screencap of a monitor readout.

That file had some inconsistencies though, and the contributor of the file wished to 'remain anonymous'. It is my intention to cast that document into disrepute if it was inaccurate. – Vivec 10:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's here. --Bp 10:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll move the rest of the discussion to that file's talk page. – Vivec 12:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think the contributor is anonymous any longer as the file can now be found on his web page. For the record, though, we only accept things on there as canon that have not been contradicted in dialogue. Cochrane's age and his test flight have been contradicted; for example, the production graphic says Cochrane was born in 2030, but dialogue places his birth as 2032. Information on other things that have not been contradicted, however, such as Kirk's birthdate and the Earth-Romulan War dates, are regarded as canon until otherwise contradicted. --From Andoria with Love 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. So if a contribution contains at least one canon un-contradicted item it qualifies as being worthy of inclusion? For example, if Cochrane's birth date were actually 2032 then his age during the inaugural warp flight was 29. Yet, how can we reconcile that with what we see in First Contact unless Cochrane suffers from some form of advanced-aging disease? I'm wondering if I can make the case that since the graphic File:Historical archive, Starfleet.jpg wasn't actually legible onscreen, (unless you have HDTV?) and it was submitted by a third party, that it can fall under suspicion. That would mean facts such as Kirk's birthday, the first warp flight, the date of recovery from WWIII, and the incorporation date of the UFP must be validated elsewhere. Another possible interpretation: since this item comes from a 'mirror universe' story, somehow the crossing-over altered the timeline? – Vivec 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We note any apparent discrepancies in canon in background, although given the high-amounts of radiation Mr. Cochrane was likely exposed to during his lifetime (he was alive during World War III and the resulting nuclear holocaust, after all), the age thing isn't really a discrepancy any longer and hasn't been for some time. As for the image being suspicious, it isn't, and technically it wasn't submitted by a "third party"; the image was given to me from a person close to the production and who has ties to Memory Alpha, and it has been confirmed that he is who he says he is so there's no worries. You'll just have to trust me and the other administrators on this one. As for the crossing-over thing, no, that doesn't really seem plausible; the information came from the computer banks of the USS Defiant which had been pulled from our universe to the mirror universe. There's no real reason to assume that such a cross-over altered information in the computer. You are right, however; it was not seen on-screen – and was not meant to be – so it's canonicity is shaky at best. Nonetheless, what has yet to be contradicted can be used in the main article space; if it's contradicted later, then the info from the graphic can be pushed to the background. And I'm typing this in a rush so I hope you understood all that... if not, please let me know. --From Andoria with Love 01:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: We seem to be holding the same discussion in two different areas now, so please post any further responses or comments here. Thank you. --From Andoria with Love 02:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The headroom of the flight on a starship
this first flight must ahve altered the brain viuals and neuron activity of the brain causing the stimulation to surge forward in thought and performance by approximately 100 years alone the funtional enginering of the date must be prevalent in the cerebral consciuos of us all...
 * What? --Alan 09:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe 66.212.79.246 may be referring to some kind of character change caused by the experience of the flight. If you make a comparison with Neil Armstrong, who never flew in space again after visiting the Moon, hardly ever makes public appearances and never signs autographs.  Many of the Apollo astronauts will say that their experience, and the fame it brought them, changed them.--Indefatigable 22:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Continuity Issues?
An anon recently added the following to the Apoc section of the article (note: some minor changes made to some of the format):


 * Additionally, the film's novelization presents a much more plausible birthdate for Cochrane than the one found in the Okuda chronology &mdash; 2013, as opposed to 2032 &mdash; which is far more consistent with James Cromwell's real-life age (to say nothing of physical appearance) in the film. Cromwell was 56 years old during the filming of Star Trek: First Contact, and the novelization's birthdate of 2013 handily solves nearly all of the major continuity problems caused by the Okudan dating.

I'm curious though... what are the continuity problems caused here? Until those are explained, I've removed that portion of the addition. -- Sulfur 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably the main continuity issue arises from Cochrane's physical appearance in the film, James Cromwell's age during principal photography, and from Michael Okuda's "explanation" for the upwards-dating of Zefram's birthdate &mdash; there's no real evidence in the movie which connotes a firm date one way or the other, and Okuda sticking religiously by the "2032 AD" birthdate is curious, despite the fact that Cromwell was actually twice that age.


 * Also, there's never been any real-world scientific evidence to suggest that radiation exposure "ages" a person to any extent (Okuda's sole rationale for reconciling Cromwell's age) while also simultaneously failing to diminish their physical energy-levels, and with the "victim" not exhibiting any other associated radiation-sickness symptoms and extreme debilitation ten years after the fact (Cochrane dancing around in the movie, for example).


 * That's simply junk-science, and doesn't touch base with reality at any two contiguous points. I think that J.M. Dillard, when writing the novelization, realized this, and postulated a birthdate far more accurate and sensibly-derived than Okuda's, even though it conflicted with his second Star Trek Chronology edition.


 * Now, prior to First Contact's script development, I certainly would've agreed with Okuda on the 2032 call, since before November 1996, it seemed that World War III occurred much later in the Trek timeline than 2053 (congruent with "Encounter at Farpoint") &mdash; however, the eighth feature film changed this, but Okuda's thinking on Cochrane's age did not, to the detriment of internal consistency. Hmmm...I dunno. I suppose the 2032 AD date is something we have to live with for the moment, but the 2013 date (despite appearing in an "apocryphal" novelization) is still closer to the spirit of the law, if not necessarily the letter of it.

Zefram Cochrane's age
How can Zefram Cochrane be 31 when he made first contact with the Vulcans? It says he was born in 2032, and first contact was in 2063, making him 31. James Cromwell was 56 when he played Zefram Cochrane in Star Trek First Contact. Not only does he look 56, but that means he was born in 2007 and is one year old.
 * Several discussions here, even under a very similar topic name. :) --Alan 05:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Further on-screen dialogue suggests 2030
I was just watching and based on dialogue spoken within that episode, I calculated his year of birth as 2030 as I was watching it. I'm surprised this hasn't been brought up already, but since it's already been established that the 2nd season of TOS takes place in 2267, this episode should be 2267. Cochrane stated that he was 87 years old when the Companion pulled his ship down. Cochrane also stated that happened 150 years prior to that episode. 87+150=237. Thus he was 237 years old in that episode. 2267-237=2030. This would match the production graphic seen in, yet contradicts the dialogue in  (both discussed above). So I guess the ultimate question is, how to decide which is more accurate? What is MA policy concerning this? --deepspace93 01:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If I'm understanding this right, the 2030 date is clearly more accurate, as it both appears in and can be calculated from, whereas the 2032 date is calculated only from . Furthermore, the "ninety years" figure given in "Broken Bow" may just be an approximate estimate, whereas the UFP data screen in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" is much more likely to be accurate and, if it gives the actual date on-screen, we should also use that. I realize I may be running the risk of commenting on a long-forgotten post here, though deciding how to date Cochrane's birth still seems to be problematic. --Defiant 17:05, May 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * (2267) : "Zefram Cochrane died 150 years ago." / "Mr. Cochrane, you say you were brought here 150 years ago?" / "Your relationship with the Companion has for 150 years been emotionally satisfying," / "I was 87 when I came here."


 * (April 2151) : "I think we should listen to his own words... from the dedication ceremony for the Warp Five Complex, 32 years ago."


 * : "2030: Zefram Cochrane is born. His work makes such an enormous contribution to space exploration that universities and planets are one day named after him." / "2061: First successful 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."


 * With these elements, I would say it is easily reconcilable.
 * 2030 is a fixed date. => So 2030 + 150 (approximation) + 87 (age as he lands on the asteroid) = 2267
 * 2032 is a mathematical calculated date => 2151 - 32 = 2119 If we assume he left that year Apha Century at 87 = 2032
 * If he was born in December 2030 (2029,9) + Age 87 and a few months (87,8) = 2118 (2117.7) + 32 years and a few months (32.6) = April 2151 (2150.3)
 * The 2161 reference doesn't talk about the flight of the Phoenix but about a "successful demonstration" of light speed. To my mind, he and all those engineers at Bozeman work to build the Phoenix, because they knew they can achieve "the basis for early warp drive technology" as they logically make concluding tests. Personally, I would even go further by saying that tests where made with multiple unmanned vehicles probably even the Bonaventure (C1-21) (credited with the "discovery of space warp"). So in 2063, the Bozeman team was able to build the Phoenix. - From Cardassia with pain 19:32, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

I was a bit stumped by the evidence that he was still around in 2119, apparently contradicting the evidence that his disappearance was in 2117. But then, I thought, "Why couldn't he be in two places at one time?" It is science fiction, after all, so there's actually a wealth of possible explanations for this discrepancy (which, therefore, isn't even necessarily that). Off the top of my head, some potentialities are that he faked his death with a clone or hologram, that his appearances in 2119 were actually those of a ghost or something akin to that, or that they were an illusory duplicate that the Companion made appear. All we know is what history recorded, which is what is now on the page – the facts, minimizing the speculation. --Defiant 23:39, June 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * So far we have tried to maintain MA articles as free from that type of complicated fan speculation logic as possible, and keep it consistent with how we interpret the producers of Star Trek want the viewers to see things. Sometimes that requires us to ignore some less prominent canonical facts. So my edits are based on that policy. If there are disagreements, lets have a discussion here first. --Pseudohuman 19:33, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say that firm dating established in the defining, introductory episode that establishes the character is a bit more than "less prominent canonical facts." The way I wrote the page, before your inconsiderate changes, is (as I've said) completely without speculation, presenting only the evidence as established on-screen. None of the evidence is contradictory, as I've pointed out; it's only problematic as long as we try to make it problematic. That's impressing our wants on the evidence, not the desires of the producers. Also, remember that somehow intuiting what they want without evidence is also speculative, so I'd like to see the evidence you apparently have.... --Defiant 19:43, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

It's just getting ridiculous! Maybe we should start with the first point; tell me what contradicts his year of birth, as I can't find anything canonical whatsoever to contradict 2030, yet two sources state that exact year. --Defiant 19:48, June 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * "a hundred and fifty years" in "Metamorphosis" is not what i would call an exact figure it was just interpreted that way by the writers of the Chronology and afterwards copy-pasted to an illegible viewscreen graphic. What contradicts is that Cochrane was however exactly 87 years old when he was brought to the planet. This was after 2119 an exact year. So 2030 doesn't fit anymore. unless we get creative and we don't get creative like that, USS Melbourne is a precedent on these types of issues. --Pseudohuman 22:06, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. :) I did think the timeline screen from ENT was totally readable, but then I've just checked my HD copy of the episode and it's barely legible. Also, you're right about the "150 years" number not being an exact figure, so I'm happy with the way the page currently is. --Defiant 10:38, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Q really the first person to use the word Trek?
This article attributes the first use of the word "trek" to Q, but I really wonder whether that's true. I think we need a little more citation for that than simply the episode in which he says it. It's a fairly common English word, so saying that he's the first to use it is tantamount to saying, "it's the first that can be recalled by this editor". Researching every single previous episode for an instance of the word would be extremely tedious, so maybe it would be better to simply note that he's the first character to use the words "trek" and "star" in the same sentence: "...trek through the stars".  Czech Out  ☎ | ✍  04:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He may very well be. Other than "First Contact" the word "Trek" did not appear in any of the films. It also didn't appear in any TOS or most TAS episodes (I checked the transcripts). Now, TNG, DS9, VOY, ENT and are another story and still need to be checked. I think the reason "Trek" didn't appear much is that the writer generally avoided making corny self-references.--Tim Thomason 04:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever the case, it certainly is not notable. --Alan 12:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is notable. --- Derekbd 21:51, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

From Alpha Centauri
Forgive me for beating a dead horse, but the italicized note in the biography section says that the episode "Metamorphosis" says he was from Alpha Centauri. But isn't the actual line "Zefram Cochrane of Alpha Centauri"? Lawrence of Arabia wasn't from Arabia, and Scott of the Antarctic wasn't from Antarctica. So that little italicized note should be changed or removed.--Moggy 17:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And in the movie, he was earthborn, when no1 else from anywhere on galaxy was visited earth, exept without the first contact. --JHawx 08:44, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Title right???
Wasent he engineer rather than scientist? maybe call him even pioneer? Just wondering. --JHawx 08:43, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically, he's a scientist I think. In order for him to create warp drive, he'd have to do some research and stuff. He could'nt just get up one morning and say that he's going to create a warp ship. The article says "he and his team of engineers began developing the warp drive". That sounds to me like he did the main research/development, but he had engineers working under him that helped. Maybe a blend of engineer and scientist would be more appropriate. As for Pioneer, he definitly was one, but if you're referring to occupation, I doubt pioneer counts. NX-74205 21:19, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Cochrane and Roddenberry
I have a vague recollection of an interview with (I think) Ron Moore, in which there was some discussion of whether the portrayal of Zefram Cochrane in was based on Gene Roddenberry (in particular, the tension between the way he's seen by the Starfleet people as a visionary and the reality of a man interested in money and women). But I can't find any reference to this online (except a passing mention at TVTropes which says that the filmmakers denied basing Cochrane on Roddenberry). Does anyone know anything more about this? Obviously, without a source we can't mention this in the article, but if we can find a source it would make for an interesting background note here and at Gene Roddenberry. —Josiah Rowe 03:29, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Removed
It is also puzzling that, in "Metamorphosis", Kirk and McCoy agree that the TOS version of Cochrane looks familiar, despite the fact he looks entirely different from James Cromwell's performances in the part.

It's puzzling that this was added since the canon policy specifically addresses this, therefor, this is a nitpick. - 22:49, June 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I always interpreted that as meaning that such notes aren't acceptable for basing in-universe info on, but can be added as bg info, as the guideline doesn't seem very clear. I'm happy with either way, though. --Defiant 23:05, June 6, 2012 (UTC)

Sectioning off statue info
I'm considering whether it might be a good idea to portion off the info about the statues made of Cochrane, or if this will be too difficult. Just a thought.... --Defiant 11:45, June 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I am against such a split. The information is now at the right article. Additional information can be added to the statue article. Tom 22:07, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * Split is okay, doesn't need to be placed in the statue article IMO since the Horga'hn for example has a page of its own, like this would be. --Pseudohuman 02:23, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is split off, it should be to it's own page. Zefram Cochrane's statue seems fine enough to go into detail, as "Statue of Zefram Cochrane" seems like a formal name rather than a descriptive one. - 00:49, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I think it might help if more users commented on whether they believe it should be split or not. --Defiant 10:51, June 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Having perused through the article, I'm not entirely convinced of the need for a splitt-off. Comparison between the Horga'hn statue and this one does not entirely apply here IMO, as the former is a special purpose symbolic representation and the latter is an homage and, again IMO, better situated there where it is supposed to be an homage for. My two cents for what it is worth--Sennim 11:12, June 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I support a split. Conceptually, its a different topic - the statue is a piece of art, whereas this article is about a person. And there's more than enough information to justify a separate article.–Cleanse ( talk 12:07, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that it's suitable in a sub-section here, but a redirect from something such as "Zefram Cochrane's statue" to the sub-section seems appropriate. -- sulfur 12:36, June 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually like Sulfur's suggestion, it's a very subtle solution--Sennim 12:57, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I also favor it. Thanks very much for contributing such an excellent idea to this discussion, sulfur. :) --Defiant 17:50, June 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * Since the statue in Bozeman, and the small statuettes based on it, aren't Cochrane himself (the statue isn't a Human or a Scientist, but is Art, like Cleanse already mentioned), we should build the web and have a page for it, not keep it here. It should be mentioned here of course, but the guidelines on this are pretty clear. 21:38, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I agree that effigies of 'the man' are obviously not Cochrane himself. But neither is the legacy that he left behind. --Defiant 21:46, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I've actually had second thoughts about supporting the idea sulfur suggested, due to the use of images (they would probably be all clustered together, making this page seem a bit cluttered). Still, thanks for the suggestion. Having the info either as is, or on a separate page, would be personally preferable. I'm currently seeing arguments for both sides. Archduk, what are the clear guidelines you refer to? --Defiant 22:01, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to favor the creation of a separate page, as this will potentially allow for a list of appearances for the statuette from Archer's quarters, something we don't have appropriate space for here. I would still like to know what the relatively "clear" guidelines are that were earlier referred to, though. --Defiant 22:35, June 20, 2012 (UTC)


 * I would think that you should already know what guidelines I'm talking about, and I do look forward to you making the case that physical objects should be treated as nothing more than legacy from now on, since that seems to be the point you were suggesting there. I guess the USS Chekov needs to be merged with the man, since it seems apples are now oranges.
 * Of course, there is this from the canon policy : "Generally, everything seen or heard in any Star Trek episode or movie can be used as a resource for an article." and "Subjects can include events, objects, or anything mentioned". There's more of course, but common sense should be able to cover it from here, and while we do sometimes merge articles if there is little to no content, the real question we should be asking here is: "If someone had already created a page with all the content we do, or shortly will, have on the statue, should it have been merged here?", because having a separate page is the established default. I would think that would have gone without saying. - 22:46, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

It obviously does for myself, but what you've now stated also helps clarify things for other readers who don't/won't necessarily know these things (you seemed to be suggesting that the info was available from the "build the web" page, which would have been less helpful for them), so thanks for that. --Defiant 22:58, June 20, 2012 (UTC)

Just for posterity's sake, I'd like to note that I've now created the split, moving the info about the statue and statuette to Zefram Cochrane statue. --Defiant (talk) 18:22, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Birth/Death
Date of birth is 2030, and he is listed as "Alive" in 2267? Surely this is a mistake!


 * I'd suggest you read the end of the Biography section of the article, and/or watch the episode . 31dot (talk) 16:55, August 1, 2012 (UTC)