Forum:Five year mission in three seasons?

Forums → Ten Forward → Five year mission in three seasons? (reply • watch)

I noticed that the three seasons of Kirk's original five-year mission on the Enterprise are covered as five years in his character biography here rather than three. How were those three seasons used to cover five years up to the point of the show's cancellation? Globular Cluster

Basically, each season overlaps two years. The first season covers years 1 to 2, the second season covers years 2 to 3, the third season covers years 3 to 4, and the Animated Series covers years 4 to 5. -Angry Future Romulan 18:28, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply, but the figures you give don't appear to be substantively accounted for, but rather seem arbitrary, and if you review the character's biography at startrek.com, this period of his life is more vaguely covered. Also, I don't believe the Animated series is generally considered to be canon, nor by the studio. Globular Cluster

Well, MA does consider the Animated Series canon (although I personally don't). As far as the years, it's basically the same as any other TV show. Since a regular TV season runs from Fall to the following Spring, a single season overlaps two years. As you can see, the second year of Kirk's mission is covered both in Season 1 and Season 2, due to this overlap. Admittedly, you're right, it is a bit arbitrary, since specific years were never actually given in TOS, but it's the best we have. -Angry Future Romulan 18:41, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the seasons overlap from one year to the next; however, a full season, even back then, spans less than a year, and if the show hadn't been canceled prematurely then each season would have been viewed as covering one full year. I don’t consider the Animated series to be canon either by the way, but the reason this comes up is because of the problem TMP poses, with only about three years of time being accounted for in the film's dialogue even though a full decade had passed in the real world, and the extent to which the actors had aged over that decade was quite obvious. If there were still two years left on Kirk's original five-year mission however, then combined with the dialogue in TMP we'd be looking at the passage of about five years rather than three, which makes the actors having noticeably aged in the film more acceptable. And whether you consider the Animated series to be canon or not, it's a bit immaterial on that point --one can include them or not, it makes little to no difference either way. Globular Cluster 18:57, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

What does any of this have to do with James T. Kirk and changing just this article? TAS is canon, and TMP is after the five year mission; the only point of contention is if there is another five year mission between the two, not if each episode in TOS was spaced one week apart in universe, which we know isn't true. - Archduk3 19:16, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I just gave you the answer to your initial question in my last response, except that it affects not James T. Kirk but rather all of the characters in general. Also, obviously each episode does not necessarily cover "a week", which I never said here. But five seasons would have been viewed as five years if the series had actually lasted that long regardless of how much time had passed from episode-to-episode. And whether you think this article should be changed or not can be chalked up to your own personal point of view on the matter. I'm just giving you my reasons as to why I think it should be adjusted, and as I said, the biography Page for the character at startrek.com is vaguer when it comes to this period of his life. But I do think that if you're going to break his history and the history of the crew down so that three seasons covers five years, you should have something more concrete to go on in asserting that as being the case. Globular Cluster 19:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Retain your indent, see Help:Talk pages. Also, again, TAS is canon here, so it's 4.25 seasons for five years, not three, and in case it was somehow unclear before, any changes to dates wouldn't effect just this article, so this isn't the correct place to discussing this. You can try the timeline project or the year you have a problem with in the timeline. Any of those places should also provide the "something more concrete" you're looking for, provided you can leave your personal point of view out of it. - Archduk3 20:38, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

The difference between my own personal point of view and yours, aside from what is evident and what my eyes tell me is that contrary to you I haven't codified it. You on the other hand have codified yours, or have seen it codified, and this really didn’t need to be a contentious exchange except for the fact that apparently you wanted it to be. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised though, since this is usually what happens when one dares to challenge orthodoxy, at least as it pertains to this particular web site. Oh, and as for the canon status of the Animated series –that is something that has been debated for decades, with more often in the past the prevailing view having been that it was not canon –a view expressed and held by none other than Gene Roddenberry. It wasn’t until the studio finally released that series on DVD that they finally decided to change their tune on the matter. And it really shouldn’t have mattered much where I brought this issue up either by the way, since as you say, if the history were to be revised it would be a sweeping change affecting more than just James T. Kirk. However, his biography here is what made it an issue and is why I saw fit to bring it up here rather than somewhere else. Globular Cluster 23:07, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the page here, since it concerns more than one page. Let's try to focus on the substance of the discussion and not a back-and-forth. 31dot 00:22, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth I'd take issue with the startrek.com timeline too. It states under Kirk's character biography (http://www.startrek.com/database_article/james-t-kirk) that the five-year mission of the Enterprise ends in 2269, but then goes on to also state that the V'Ger incident occurs in 2271, just two years later when even the dialogue in TMP doesn't support that chronology, not to mention that the characters/actors had noticeably aged a decade from where the television series had previously left off. Globular Cluster 03:38, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

On a canon point of view, VOY: "Q2" indicates "Finally, in the year 2270, Kirk completed his historic five-year mission". For TMP, discussions were made to know if it occured in 2272, 2273 or even later : {From year notes} "There is some controversy over the dating of Star Trek: The Motion Picture. The earliest the film could take place is late 2272 (based on information from VOY: "Q2", which stated that Kirk's first five-year mission ended in 2270, and information within the film that Kirk had not "logged a single star hour in two-and-a-half years." The latest the film could take place is 2277, since the Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan style uniforms are in use by 2278. (TNG: "Cause and Effect"). Pocket Books officially places the film in 2273."

For your questions about the years of the five year mission, Canon policy states : "Also, dates for certain events in the Trek universe (such as 2285 for Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan) 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." If I'm correct, episode years are derived from "Star Trek Chronology" and other reference books, which also gives the year 2271 (obviously wrong).

For your concerns about TAS, there are different variants of the canon [1]. Memory Alpha has always considered TAS as part of the Canon, even before Paramount's change of mind. - From Cardassia with pain 00:54, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative reply, but unfortunately we are left with some apparent ambiguity about specific dates concerning the career of James T. Kirk and the five-year mission of the Enterprise, and thereafter, once he had been assigned to captain the vessel.

And from a personal standpoint, I wince whenever I see "Voyager" or "Enterprise" being used as a means of codifying the history of the Star Trek universe. In the case of "Voyager" it is because the show was so often so bad, and with respect to "Enterprise" as a prequel, it's due to the fact that it botched so much of previously established continuity set down in the original series. I have also never viewed TAS as canon, unless one cares to refer to them as a summary source of other missions, wherein there are certain gaps as to just what occurred in those incidents. In that sense I wouldn't have a problem with it, but regardless of what D.C. Fontana, David Gerrold, and others associated with the production of that animated series have argued in its defense, the quality simply can't be considered as being in any way on par with the live action television show, or the movies that followed later.

But in any case, as to exactly what year the V'Ger incident occurred has not been dated correctly in several different places, which is something of a problem obviously. Things like this shouldn't be so difficult to nail down except for the fact that no one in a position of authority has sat down and bothered to do it based on available information.

I would also point out that there is a notable gap in time from where TMP leaves off and TWoK picks up, for whatever it's worth. It's true that the actors hadn't really changed all that significantly in the aftermath of the first film to where the sequel then picked up, but we get the sense that more time than just a year had passed from one film to the other. Some have even questioned whether a second five-year mission for the Enterprise with Kirk and the original crew had actually taken place during that interval.

Ultimately what we're left here with concerning the exact year of the V'Ger incident is our own best guess in a sense based on fragmentary available data, which is a bit annoying. Globular Cluster 05:31, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that you can believe whatever you wish as to which shows were good or bad or which ones you think should count and which don't; but we consider them all canon and as such all can and will be used to justify things. You'll have to get used to it. 31dot 10:27, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of that response is other than to state the obvious and be snarky. It's hardly news to me that the five live-action Trek shows are and have always been considered canon here, or even that the Animated Series was viewed in that context as well. I was simply giving my point of view on the matter based on the quality of the shows on a separate individual basis. And there's a reason that Voyager's television ratings were consistently bad, and that it would have been canceled if it was anything other than a brand name 'Star Trek' series; or that Gene Roddenberry didn't care to consider TAS as canon material. What's been at issue here from the get-go, however, is the timeline as it concerns the original players in particular and the history of their universe. And it would have been nice to have seen that pinned down better, although I wouldn't point a finger of blame at anyone here who had anything to do with documenting the chronology, especially when the official Trek site has made it a point of documenting matters incorrectly as well. Globular Cluster 18:32, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

You seemed to be arguing that we should subscribe to, or at least consider, your personal views of what is and is not canon(such as saying "The difference between my own personal point of view and yours, aside from what is evident and what my eyes tell me is that contrary to you I haven't codified it. You on the other hand have codified yours...." above) If that's not what you were doing, I apologize, but that's the impression I got; I was only pointing out that our personal views are not relevant, no more, no less than that. 31dot 18:47, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

You’re welcome to quote me, but note that at the time I was responding to another unnecessarily snarky reply aimed in my direction.

And in having pointed out my personal view of what is canon, that too came in response to someone else referencing “Voyager” as a means of verifying a year in the chronology that presents obvious problems pertaining to the original cast of characters from the first television series and films and their history. It’s been shown to be inconsistent in a number of different places. As I said, I tend to wince at such examples being cited from a later series that I didn’t particularly care for, and while that is a personal point of view on my part, I don’t see anything wrong with making that known here, since the main purpose here is to discuss such matters. We may be obligated to put our personal feelings aside in order to accurately ascertain and establish something of note in the chronology, but being upfront here on the discussion board about a bias doesn’t stand to affect what is determined and established one way or the other if it can be shown to be definitively accurate. I was simply laying my cards on the table for anyone interested to look at because it is how I feel. And if one wishes to assert that 2270 is the year the five-year mission of the Enterprise under Kirk’s command ended because it was stated in one of the show’s, regardless of which show it is, and that it’s therefore canon, then the incongruities between what has been said elsewhere should also need to be addressed because obviously then there’s a problem.

So just to be clear, for what it’s worth, my only real concern here thus far has been with respect to a specific period in the chronology as it relates to the original cast of characters because there are evident issues related to accuracy regarding it. I think that’s something we should at least consider looking into and working on if at all possible, although I’d also be interested in looking at the dates as laid down in the "Star Trek Chronology" reference book first so I have a better idea as to just what is or isn’t written there since it’s considered an "official" source. Globular Cluster 23:41, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not here to "discuss such matters" like what you personally feel should be canon, we are here to document canon material as covered in canon policy. If you what to discuss Star Trek, there are plenty of other places you can do so, because this is not "a discussion board".

You've been pointed to the locations where if you were interested in contributing or understanding the reasoning behind the current dates listed, you could, and I know for a fact that there are both text and visual representations of the timeline with none of the problems you keep alluding to. In fact, for all the words you're using very little is actually being said. Verbal diarrhea is not a virtue here, it's something to be avoided, and I have yet to see you get to the point and clearly state what your problem is with the current dates, beyond that you have issues with TAS and VOY, and that people age.

If you feel this is the "orthodoxy" coming down on you rather hard, just remember that the "codified" canon here, which covers the things you've mentioned, is far more inclusive than you are, and Star Trek is about being inclusive. You have yet to make a good point for why we should be less inclusive than we currently are, since Gene Roddenberry himself "sort of decided that some of The Original Series wasn't canon either...that he now thought of TNG as canon wherever there was conflict between the two" (see full quote), which pretty much covers everything you're mentioned in thousands of characters where a few hundred would do. - Archduk3 01:15, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

You opened with: “No, we are not here to ‘discuss such matters’ like what you personally feel should be canon”, but that's not what I was saying. I was talking about the fact that there are apparent inconsistencies with the dates documented and that that's worthy of further discussion and examination, with my bias being nothing more than a personal aside that I have no qualms about being upfront about here even though it’s not really relevant to what’s documented so long as it’s accurate, and hopefully, consistent with everything else. It’s as though you read the first four sentences of my last response and decided to read no farther, so don’t try and preach to me about inclusiveness because that’s a crock.

You claim I ‘haven’t gotten to the point’ with respect to my problem with dates, even though my problem is obviously the apparent inconsistency with them, which by the way, was what prompted me to bring it up in the first place. And it was only after bringing it up that I realized the much broader extent of the problem.

Furthermore, this exchange was originally started on the James T. Kirk Discussion Page, but was then moved here to Ten Forward, which I had nothing to do with, and even though the dates in question focused on the events in the life of the character directly. But I’d be more than happy to move it to the timeline project provided I don’t have to deal with you anymore. Your "verbal diarrhea" and lousy attitude is not something I should have to be bothered dealing with. Globular Cluster 07:37, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Too bad, you will be. All the "points" you have made are irrelevant, and if you had read the canon policy you would know that. TAS and VOY are canon, the actors aging doesn't factor in at all, 2270 is when the original five year mission ended, and TMP can be anywhere from 2272 to 2277 since we can't rule out a second five year mission. You claim there are "apparent inconsistencies" we've been too lazy to deal with, so stop talking around them and just tell us what they are. - Archduk3 12:04, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

"Too bad, you will be."

No, I don't think so. You may be an Administrator here but you're acting more like a goon, and I couldn't care less about your pointed threats. If you don't want to deal with me, then don't deal with me. Problem solved. Let me deal with someone else instead. You claim the topic shouldn't have been addressed where I first brought it up, then it gets moved here to Ten Forward by someone in a position to do it, and yet you still have a problem with it being in any way discussed. And now instead of just letting it be moved to the timeline project, where you asserted it would be better discussed early on, you threaten to follow me there just for the sake of being a ball-breaker apparently. Well, if you have no interested in the topic, then here's an idea --don't pay attention to it. Let someone else deal with it.

"All the "points" you have made are irrelevant, and if you had read the canon policy you would know that."

The canon policy cites conciseness as being a principal objective.

"TAS and VOY are canon"

And I have been abundantly clear that my personal view of those two shows is my own personal view. If that didn't come across earlier on it's certainly been made abundantly clear well prior to now.

"the actors aging doesn't factor in at all"

Age was an obvious issue in several of the films --you can write it off as a subjective observation, but that doesn't mean it was any less apparent, or that it shouldn't be pointed out, especially when the timeline is what's been at issue.

"2270 is when the original five year mission ended"

The more official source, startrek.com, cites 2269 as the end of the first five-year mission.

"and TMP can be anywhere from 2272 to 2277 since we can't rule out a second five year mission"

Exactly --and that's a five-year gap, which is significant obviously. The 'canon policy' may deem it not worthy of concern, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be contemplated as to whether it can be pinned down a little better.

"You claim there are 'apparent inconsistencies' we've been too lazy to deal with,"

No, I never said "too lazy" --those are your words, and if you're alluding to where I stated "Things like this shouldn't be so difficult to nail down except for the fact that no one in a position of authority has sat down and bothered to do it based on available information", I was actually referring to the official PTB, not anyone having to do with what's listed on this website.

"so stop talking around them and just tell us what they are."

With your attitude, why would I even want to bother at this point? Honestly. Nevertheless, I'll point to what isn't sitting well with me, nor have I been talking around it. For one thing, as previously pointed to, the year that is listed on this site for when the first five-year mission ends is 2270, whereas the more official site, startrek.com, shows it to be 2269. It may be a minor discrepancy, which is also arguable, but it's still there, and it's noticeable.

Also, when more precisely does the V'Ger incident occur: in 2271, 2272, 2273 or 2277? Why not try to pin it down more ‘concisely’ if at all possible? And if that can't be done, I don't see how it's a crime to at least question whether it's worthy of some closer scrutiny so as to establish a more precise answer. While there may be some reluctance to assert clear-cut specific dates here in certain instances, that's also tantamount to telling everyone to use their own best guess, which in itself is a bit silly, especially if you're pointing to those things as canon. If the history of the first crew/cast of characters that kick-started this universe can't be laid out rather definitively at this point, with their missions having been consigned to the history books, with their no longer being in a position to add anything to it, then why bother recording anything at all here? To give people an idea of when something occurred? Well, it seems to me that it may well be possible to do a little better than that at this point, so feel free to shoot me if you must even if I'm wrong on that point. I'm wondering it aloud, and I'm questioning it aloud. Yes, I'm daring to do so.

As for canon policy, since you're so big on it, before you cite it the next time perhaps you should consider actually reviewing it for yourself. Your attitude and tone leave much to be desired, especially when taking into account that the second paragraph of the policy states "This policy is not intended to mandate a single way of viewing the Trek universe, and does not exist to promote any particular critical judgment on the various series and movies; it exists to permit an orderly cataloging of data into manageable categories with a minimum of conflict and a maximum amount of fidelity to the episodes as shown. With that in mind, archivists should at all times be tolerant and respectful of other viewpoints, opinions, and conclusions."

Have a nice day. Globular Cluster 17:40, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the actual problem is here but I'm going to suggest that both parties take a 24 hour break from posting on this page, as a cool down period. I could protect this page, or worse, block the two of you, but I would rather not do that. Let's calm down and stick to the issue at hand, if there actually is one. 31dot 20:47, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Hi

I have read the whole of this thread and have found the attitude of Archduk3 to be totally out of line. The guy who lobbied the question has a valid point from my limited knowledge of the Star Trek canon and feel that in many ways he has come across something that should be answered to the best of the source material available.

He is quite clear in stating what is personal opinion and canon fact...He is also respectful of this and it does seem that Archie has a personal issue with this question – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.181.19.3.

Globular Cluster I advice that you read the article on warp drive. Not to get too involved, it boils down to the reality that when one travels at or beyond the speed of light time changes. The classic example is that a person leaves Earth for Jupiter and returns to Earth. The round trip is made at or beyond the speed of light. When the individual returns she will discover that the clocks show a time prior to her departure from Earth. This can explain why dates vary. Another explantion, found in the same article, is that the writers did not pay too much attention to dates, either within a single show or between shows. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ElizabethTlesTucker (talk • contribs).

Thanks to the last two posters for the unsolicited moral support and the article suggestion that followed.

Elizabeth, if dates vary, then wouldn't they vary with respect to virtually everything? We're probably better off just avoiding that prospect altogether.

As for the period I've been focused on, I haven’t gotten to look at the “Star Trek Encyclopedia” or the “Star Trek Chronology” as yet, but I would like to see what’s listed in those two sources for the end of the first five-year mission under Kirk and when the V’Ger incident supposedly takes place.

Of course, this is all problematic because the dates don’t appear to be consistent from one source to another on either of those points. It’s also difficult to say that startrek.com has the chronology right when it states that the five-year mission ends in 2269 and that the V’Ger incident occurs in 2271 given that the dialogue in TMP doesn’t really stand to support that without it being a bit of a stretch. (Wikipedia also states that the V’Ger incident occurs in 2271 under their “Timeline of Star Trek” Page, for what it's worth: [Template fetch failed for https://community.fandom.com/wiki/Template:Timeline_of_Star_Trek?action=render#23rd_century: HTTP 404]

There is less controversy between sources about the first five-year mission ending in 2270, despite a few places showing it as 2269 instead. The incident with V’Ger is more problematic apparently. As someone mentioned here, Pocket Books states that incident occurs in 2273, which is also the date that Memory Beta gives for it under Kirk’s biography (James_T._Kirk). Other sources are vague about it, with here being one of them. “Star Trek 101”, which is not a great source for the chronology, also says only that TMP takes place in the 2270s, for instance. That’s rather sketchy obviously. Speaking just for myself, if it can be universally established that the first five-year mission ends in 2270, then the V’Ger incident occurring in 2273 is probably about right. I’m inclined to go along with the Pocket Books and Memory Beta date for that occurrence. And since TAS accounts for two of the years otherwise not seen in the original series, that covers a good five years in total by the time TMP rolls around, which is not perfect with respect to the players having noticeably aged between the TV series and the first movie (I know, “irrelevant” despite its obviousness), but it’s acceptable enough I guess all things considered. At any rate, my personal feelings about the actors and characters having aged a decade between the TV series and the first film aside, I think it’s beneficial to more precisely establish here the year TMP takes place, and if possible, elsewhere, and that it be universally accepted as established canon based on the available data. One source shouldn’t be saying it happens in 2271, whereas another cites 2273, and yet another says, ‘well, anywhere from 2271 to 2277’. It happened; it’s over and done with, so why not try and accurately nail it down as best we can for posterity? Globular Cluster 00:25, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Because there is nothing in canon that nails down the precise year. We've done the best we can do with what is available in canon. So, unless you can find something else valid, then this entire conversation is a waste of time. -- sulfur 02:01, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Well, we know the Enterprise underwent and eighteen-month refit and that Kirk became Head of Starfleet Operations following the five-year mission, was promoted to Admiral, and didn't log a single star hour for two and a half years by the time of TMP. So including TAS, in all likelihood, we're talking roughly five years after the live-action TV series ended.

And it's certainly easier buying into that than it is nearly a decade and a half passing between "The Motion Picture" and "The Wrath of Khan".

Also, if this is "a waste of time", then perhaps mapping out the chronology to any extent was a total waste of time as well. Need I point out here that the original series relied on Stardates, which had no basis in reality, and there was very little in the original series, or the first six movies, that served as much of a chronological guide, and if anything, both "Space Seed" and "The Wrath of Khan" put a serious crimp in your timetable, to say the least. Globular Cluster 03:51, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

The key word there is "roughly". We don't know exactly, and likely the refit and Kirk's 2.5 years planetside occurred at the same time, which would make it much less than five years. We just don't know exactly with what we can prove in canon; you're not saying anything that we don't know already. 31dot 09:17, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

"Roughly" applies to most dates in the chronology, which is why you guys date the five-year mission as ending in 2270, whereas other sources show it as ending in 2269.Yet you've set most of what has been recorded here in stone, declaring it canon. Also, for the sake of clarification, since TAS is considered canon here and is listed as the last two years of the five-year mission, that accounts for two years. In other words, it's a given that the five-year mission was completed, and that two of those years weren't shown in the live-action TV series. Add two-and-a-half years to that, which accounts for the eighteen-month refit of the Enterprise and Kirk's two-and-a-half years "planetside", and you get four-and-a-half years, which was why I said "roughly" five years. Globular Cluster 19:05, April 27, 2012 (UTC)

The episode dating is effectively established as "roughly" (based on official sources) because there are no other ways. We "guys date the five-year mission as ending in 2270" because the episode VOY: "Q2" clarifies and established this date "in stone" / in canon (we even don't know if it ended January 1st or December 31th of 2270).

Most other sources list 2269 as the end and 2271 for TMP, because they use, without checking, the dates of ST Chronology (written by Michael Okuda in 1993) and all the official derivative sources, which is partially wrong.

Memory Alpha use the official dating on a "roughly" base as long as it doesn't contradict with other facts, Okuda has given us a base but he made some errors also. Why did he put "Where No Man Has Gone Before" as the sole 2265 episode, why did he put one particular episode in a specific year => We don't know, but we use his official work as a base.

The 22 episodes of TAS are set in the five-year mission after TOS and are listed here as taking place in 2269/2270. we don't know how much time between the last TOS episode and the last TAS episode : 6 months, 2 years... nor between the last TAS episode and the end of the five-year mission.

"Kirk's two-and-a-half years planetside" enables us to give a minimum between the end of the five-year mission in 2270 (January? December?) and the events of TMP. We don't know for example if Kirk did command another vessel after the five-year mission. - From Cardassia with pain 19:40, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I’m aware of most of the things you mention in your reply by this point, but thank you for taking the time to respond. As you point out though, Okuda states that TMP takes place in 2271 while also pointing out in that book that it’s based on the dialogue in TMP, which could be deemed as less than totally specific, which I would agree with. Nevertheless, he dates the events in the film as 2271 while allowing for the possibility that those incidents could occur sometime later, without significantly affecting the timeline. That information is also provided in the “Star Trek Encyclopedia”, which was updated more recently back in 1999 by the way. However, as you point out, Okuda apparently made mistakes; he referenced the 18-month turnover time for the refit of the Enterprise as the basis for when he dated the events in the film, while making no mention of the longer two-and-a-half year period in which Kirk did not log a single star-hour (in other words, while he was planetside). How he could have missed that is beyond me.

Other things have also come to my attention in researching this that bother me just as much, if not more. For instance, the eighteen-year gap in the timeline from the events in “Space Seed” (2267) to when Kirk and Khan have their next encounter (2285 supposedly), and yet it is clearly stated in the film by both Kirk and Khan in different scenes that the two men hadn’t seen each other in fifteen years, which corresponds with the real-world time that had also passed by that point from television episode to sequel movie. I’m inclined to go with the amount of time specifically stated by both characters, which is without question clearly canon. Yet we see in the chronologies an eighteen-year passage of time instead. Why? Well, one reason apparently has to do with the fact that the Romulan ale that McCoy brings Kirk for his birthday was dated as being produced in 2283, so it’s kind of hard to say that the events in TWoK occur in 2282, a year before that bottle of alien alcohol was even produced, and which leads me to the obvious conclusion that the stated years of the five-year mission, 2265 to 2270, must also be wrong. And yet we have “Voyager” affirming the end-year of that mission (and which also brings me back to why I cringe when I see later Trek shows being used to validate what occurred with the original characters, either in TOS or the TOS-based movies).

So what should be done? Well, that’s entirely up to you guys obviously, but I would say provide a specific year as to when the events in TMP take place with the same advisory that the Okudas provided in their Encyclopedia, although instead of dating it as 2271 I would be inclined to go with 2273. I don’t expect you to do it, but in having reviewed the data, that’s what appears to make the most sense to me, and it would also be consistent with the end-date cited in “Voyager” as 2270 being the end of the five-year mission. Globular Cluster 21:11, April 28, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say that Okuda missed this 2.5 years reference, and he indeed didn't missed this point when dating TMP (STC page 70 - Editors' Note of the 2271 entry). He referenced 2269 as end of the five-year mission => 2269 + 2.5 years = 2271 or 2272. He also put many notes about his "conjectural" work.

Excerpts STC page 38-39 :

2264 - Captain Kirk, in command of the USS Enterprise, embarks on a historic five-year mission of exploration.

Date is conjecture : Assumes 'Where No Man Has Gone Before' took place 13 months and 12 days into the mission, per one conjectural theory for stardates. (The episode was set on stardate 1312)....

I don't understand what you finally really want "I would say provide a specific year as to when the events in TMP take place ... I would be inclined to go with 2273". Have you really read what has been done in the articles 2271, 2272 and 2273 and all the ambiguities note included in many articles about this dating ! - From Cardassia with pain 00:28, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I was referencing what Okuda says in this passage in the Star Trek Encyclopedia: "Kirk accepted a grade reduction back to captain when he regained command of the ship to meet the V'Ger threat in 2271." He then states later in the same paragraph: "On the other hand, the 2271 date for 'Star Trek: The Motion Picture' is itself somewhat conjectural in that it is based purely on the 18-month refit time for the Enterprise." ~Pg. 242

He specifically references the refit time for the Enterprise and doesn't point to Kirk's two-and-a-half years planetside at all there, which was the longer period of time obviously. Add to that, that 18 months can easily overlap to two years later. If the five-year mission ends in December of 2269 for instance, eighteen months later for the refit would translate to midway through 2271, so it wouldn't necessarily point to two-and-a-half years. And I didn't say that you said he made mistakes in those specific areas by the way, but you did say he made mistakes, and this appeared to be one of them to me. Bear in mind also that I haven't gotten to look at the "ST Chronology" book that he also put out and am going by what I see in his Encyclopedia.

As for the fact that a year-range is given here regarding the events in TMP, if you look at Kirk's biography Page, you'll note that it states that TMP takes place "In the early 2270s", whereas the timeline chart indicates it could be anywhere from 2271 to 2277, and if it's more toward the latter, then it wouldn't be "the early 2270s", but rather the mid-to-late 2270s. This is why not pinpointing a specific year can tend to be problematic. Also, the timeline chart boxes TMP in from 2271 to 2278 rather than from 2271 to 2277, even though it's pointed out under year 2272 that "The latest the film could take place is 2277" because of the uniforms change that occurs in 2278. I'm not sure if it was a mistake that the chart extends TMP to 2278, but it looks that way more than it doesn't.

I think using a year-range is a loose approach and that it should be possible to pinpoint a likely probable year that the events in TMP take place (2273 IMO) while still providing an advisory that it may not be precisely accurate. As previously discussed, Okuda cited 2271 as the year and stuck with it despite his own advisory concerning it. You assert on the site that the year he gave can't be right because of VOY: "Q2", but then don't commit to a specific year, opting to keep things more general and vague instead. That's my issue, but as I pointed out to you in my last reply, the discrepancy pertaining to the year-range between "Space Seed" and "The Wrath of Khan", which came to my attention later on, is just as egregious, if not more so (well, there's less of a range in the latter, but it's still an eyesore), so whether it's worth trying to address these matters is what's open to question. Maybe it isn't worth the bother after all, but I'm still inclined to think that singling out a specific year for TMP is the better way to go. Globular Cluster 20:36, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

And the point that everyone is trying to make is that, by canon, we cannot do that. -- sulfur 23:42, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Look, don't do it if you don't want to, but don't fall back on canon as your excuse for not doing it. "Voyager" gives you an end year for when the five-year mission of the Enterprise ended and the dialogue in TMP gives you a canonical basis to point to 2273 along with a footnote, so you certainly can do it, but choose not to, and there's a clear difference between can't and won't. At any rate, I'm beyond caring at this point either way. Globular Cluster 03:13, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

TMP gives an approximate date. Not precise. Therefore, cannot. -- sulfur 12:41, April 30, 2012 (UTC)