Talk:Stardate/Archive

Speculation

the latest edits introduce a lot of speculation and even more blatantly wrong facts. I will be by around 9:30 EST to restore my stub version i originally wrote and expand from there.

Go for it! I dunno where a lot of this stuff came from. (And don't forget to sign.) Steve 00:40, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Isn't most information about stardates speculative? I was thinking that

I could put a link to the wealth of information at http://trekguide.com/Stardates.htm, however most of that is speculative and non-canon. --Lenonn 15:56, 21 Mar 2005 (EST)

Stardate Dilemma

I've never thought much of Stardates in TOS. I think of them as almost irrelevant to figuring out dates. Yet I conceder how could one bring reason to Stardates. My current theory is that, not all TOS logs, were logged during the Episode. Some episodes like "The Enemy Within" Kirk actually refers to events in the past tense and facts that Kirk just did not have at that time. Like in "The Man Trap" "Unknown to us at this time, we were all seeing a different woman" or something to that effect.

I propose adding to the Stardate descriptions, "Some Stardates were logged after the Event, sometimes at the request of Starfleet, or to help fill details to other reports filed" also, "At times these Logs were done from a prospective of it being done during the event, despite being logged sometime after."

The best way for one to know, if a Log did occur during the Episode is if you see the persons mouth moving. I know this does not fix everything, but it is a Start. TOSrules 01:37, 21 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Stardates (moved from: Memory Alpha:Ten Forward

While reading the 30th Anniversary Special Collector's Edition Star Trek book, I noticed some information on the Stardates that is not included in Memory-Alpha's "Stardate" entry. It mentions that the the digit following the decimal indicates one-tenth of a 24-hour period, logic dictating that a single unit is equal to one earth-day. This seems somewhat incongruous with the fact that the 3 digits preceding the decimal from 000 to 999 reveal the progression of a single earth year (although the book indicates that those 3 digits progress unevenly). Could someone else amend the Memory-Alpha entry to account for this info, despite its incongruities, I don't trust that I could improve the entry myself.

Books are not canon. Mr.gn 16:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Extensive rewrite

I reverted the following rewrite as it is in the wrong POV and speculative. --From Andoria with Love 11:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Information was removed by original author.

You can remove it from history also if you want. This site is obviously far too conformist and uninquisitive. You seriously believe the official theories are not speculative with respect to canon?

Yes, we can be conformist in regards to our policies, but we are not uninquisitive. The problem with your additions is that it was an extensive amount of personal speculation which was added to the article as information which has been established in a Star Trek episode or movie. What is written here is the official explanation as given by Gene Roddenberry; any other explanation in regards to canon is irrelevent, although other possibilities may be explained briefly in the background section. Come to think of it, though, Gene's official explanation hasn't been established in any episode or movie either and should probably be moved to background, as well. Anyways, I hope this clarifies matters. --From Andoria with Love 11:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

one-tenth per day?

I seem to remember a TNG ep where someone (Riker and Crusher IIRC) are watching a security recording. They notice a date stamp that is one decimal place off from what it should be, and Crusher makes a comment of "One day Later?" Does anyone else remember this? Ssaint04 10:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It sounds vaguely familiar, although if that was the way she explained it, I really would recommend noting it in the background and simply stating ambiguously in the main article that Crusher deduced whatever-it-was from the decimal places. As we've seen time and again, stardates have very complex methods of calculation, which are far beyond the grasp of weak-minded 21st century human beings. :P That or the writers have better things to keep track of. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 10:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, it's already been mentioned above but cited as coming from the Star Trek Encyclopedia. Someone else can deal with the information though as I don't recall the episode and am not in the mood for a headache. --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 10:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's not forget "Second Sight", which takes place on the fourth anniversary of the Battle of Wolf 359. However, the episode is set on stardate 47329.4; the battle took place on stardate 43997, according to "Emissary". --From Andoria with Love 13:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I was more concerned with finding that specefic episode reference. As far as I know, it is the only episodic reference to how a stardate is calculated.Ssaint04 23:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved from Vfd

Combat date

This article is entirely italics, describing a small aspect on an alternate timeline (from "Yesterday's Enterprise"). Since it appears to be the alternate timeline version of stardate, I suggest that it be merged with stardate, and then made into a re-direct to stardate. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 20:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Just because something took place entirly in an alternate timeline, doesn't mean it shouldn't be kept. Andrew Kim, for example, hasn't been merged with Kes and Harry Kim. - AJ Halliwell 04:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm gonna have to say keep this one, since they're really two different things (unlike, say, Natasha Yar and the former Natasha Yar (alternate)). --From Andoria with Love 11:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Merges" (=no real deletion involved) don't need to be brought up on the "Votes for deletion" page, so if that is the suggestion, it doesn't really need to be discussed here. However, I agree with the comment that we don't need separate articles for basically the same thing with different names. Merge & Redirect is the best solution in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 11:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since this was a merge suggestion and is not really up for deletion, I'll go ahead and merge/redirect this as well as Military log below. --From Andoria with Love 02:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Theory

I am of the opinion that the "Stardate" is no different from any other Calendar. Take the "Old Roman Calendar" that started on the day that the city of Rome was founded, April 21, 753 A.D. Since the Federation was founded in 2161, it could be suggested that the "Stardate" began in the year 2161. --<George E. Pierson III>

While an interesting idea, there is absolutely no canon evidence of it, and probably evidence to the contrary. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:29, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that there would have been any canon evidence, I was just pointing out a logical probability. If there is any actual evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it.

And, minor nit (yes, I love to nitpick), Rome was founded 753 *BC*, after all, the Roman Empire was very much alive and well (and arguably at its zenith) at the time of Christ.  :) (Whereas, in 753 AD, it either had fallen, or was very much a shadow of its former self) --The Time Traveller 00:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Woops. I solumnly sit corrected. I have no idea where I got the date of April 21, 753 A.D. I just looked up [Rome] in Wikipedia. It states "Rome's early history is shrouded in legend. According to Roman tradition, the city was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus on 21 April 753 BC."

time dilation

accoridng to the article on the warp drive, time that passes when a ship is in warp is the same as time outside of the ship due to the ship 'surfing' the warp bubble so to speak. however this article says that star dates are computed using the ships speed ect.. so this is a bit of a contradiction. however im not so bold as to change it myslef.

It is probably talking about starships traveling at impulse, which can be relativistic. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Longest stardate

Regarding the stardate from "The Child", I was wondering what the context was in which it was given, was it from the captain's log or did it appear on a viewscreen, etc. I don't recall this fact, and can find no references for it. However, I do find references for stardate 49123.5621 in VOY: "Relativity", when Seven was sent back in time, so 42073.1435 was not unique in its length. I do seem to recall other instances where more digits were displayed on viewscreens, although I don't remember the specifics. --Nike 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the reference for the time being. However, a note that stardates in the 24th century extend at least four numbers after the decimal point could be added. --From Andoria with Love 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also note the comments I left at talk:Personal log, Donald Varley. --Alan del Beccio 01:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that article link. I knew that I had seen this, but could not recall where. (Guess I should check out what links here.) I had noticed that the decimal related to the time, just like Julian Dates or Lotus/Excel serial dates. I would also point out that there was one episode (TNG: "Code of Honor") which had two digits right of the decimal in the captain's log, twice; I believe that this was the only episode to have more than a single digit in the captain's log. However, the logs indicate that (.32 - .25 = 0.07) units was "over a full day", which contradicts (.01 = 00:14:24). YATI --Nike 06:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha

Kopachris added:

In the book Where Sea Meets Sky, Captain Christopher Pike has to use conversion formulas to convert stardates to the Gregorian Calender for his friend "Nowan" from the bar "The Captain's Table".

My understanding of the Memory Alpha:Canon policy is that this can only be mentioned under Apocrypha, if at all. Even then, I'm not sure how useful this is. It would be pointless to simply list every mention of stardates ever made, especially those which are not canon. --Nike 09:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Stardates per year

Kopachris added:

If 1000 stardates equal one year, then the decimal places should represent the time between two 8 hour, 45 minute, 57.9456 second periods.

I hate to nitpick, but if you're going to add a figure with a precision of hundreds of microseconds, it should at least be accurate. 1000 times 8h45m57.9456s is exactly 365.254 days. What sort of year is this? The Gregorian year averages exactly 365.2425 days.[1] The Julian year, as used by astronomers, is exactly 365.25 days. The mean tropical year is just under 365.2422 days. The sidereal year is about 365.2564 days and the vernal equinoctial year is about 365.24238d. There are also other year lengths, but I cannot find one of 365.254d. Moreover, there is no canonical reference identifying exactly which year-length is used with stardates. It could be any of these, or none. And calculating it according to canonical references suggests that it may not even be an exact earth year. Therefore, the figure should have less precision, and would more properly be stated as approximately 8 hours and 46 minutes. This works for most definitions of a year. Since there is some uncertainty even about that, we might say that one stardate unit is about 9 hours, or a little less. In any event, we certainly should not claim that there are exactly 31557.9456 seconds per stardate without any evidence. --Nike 12:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You're probably right. Fix it, if you haven't already... :) -- Cid Highwind 14:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I have. And on re-reading Andrew Main's stardate FAQ, I see that he gives several canonical references which he uses to calculate possible ranges, in one case a year works out to between 704.4 and 954.4 units, in another 807.8 to 974.4 units, and another 832 to 834.75, suggesting that there are actually 833 units per year, but then he says that there are many more references indicating 1000 per year, which is believable, although he does not list them. In any event, I don't think we can be very precise. --Nike 22:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Based on a mean tropical year of 365.242199 days, 1/1000 of a year would be equal to exactly 8.76581277 hours. For use in my nerd-blog, instead of using Gregorian dates, I use "stardates" assuming stardate 0000.0 was on January 1, 2000 at 12:00 AM EST. So I calculate the number of hours since that time (harder than it sounds, leap years, etc) and divide that by 8.76581277 and round to one decimal place. That give me a rough "stardate" for my blog. That means I'm posting this on Stardate 7580.5. Redshirt Bob 21:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I worked out from actual episode data that 1 Gregorian year is approximately 713 stardate units, but I used 365 days for the year to come to this figure. Maybe this could be the source of Andrew Main's '704.4' figure? If anyone would like to make a more accurate attempt, here's how I came to my conclusions:

- In Data's Day, Data mentions that 'it has been 1550 days (i.e. 4 years, 90 days) since the Enterprise (presumably D) was commissioned. Prior to this comment in the same episode Data gives the stardate as 44390.1.

- The dedication plaque gives the Enterprise-D's commission as 40759.5 and this wiki claims it was constructed in 2363 (see: Enterprise-D page; original source not quoted).

This means that the period between 40759.5 and 44390.1 (or thereabouts) is roughly equivalent to 4 years and 90 days. So, 1550 days is more or less equivalent to 3030.6 'stardays', indicating that one year is approximately 713 stardate units. Crispy 15:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes from script

In copies of the final draft script for TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint", dated 13 April 1987, stardates range from 42353.7 to 42372.5. It is possible that they were changed to 41153.7-41154.2 after the idea arose to make the second digit the season number, apparently sometime between this date and the shooting date.[2][3] I was thinking about adding this to the background, but want to see if anybody knows more about this. --Nike 07:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

TOS The Naked Time

I'm not sure if it has any relevance, but in TOS: "The Naked Time", the remastered version shows a chronometer that has the stardate next to the time. The time was being read in a 24 'earth standard' time, as we see the seconds go by the seconds when they move forward

Now, when they were traveling back in time, the first shot showed the time to be 00:13 (hrs, mins) and the stardate to be 1705.0. The next shot showed a time of 22:36 and the stardate of 1704.9.

I presume this corosponds to show that every shipboard 24 hours. This is supported by Sulu saying that, on Stardate 1702, they were three days ago. 1705-1702 is equal to three.

If not atleast for all of Trek, this does provide Cannon support that each Stardate corosponds to 24 hours.

Any other views on this...--Nmajmani 12:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)Nmajmani

That's the same chronometer which is shown in this article. I also noticed when watching the episode that the stardates corresponded to the time represented as a fraction of a day. However, the original episode did not display stardates on the chronometer, so the question is, which version is canon? FWIW, I have observed a general one-to-one relationship between stardates and times in TOS, such as you observed, e.g. in the Captain's log he'll say that six days have elapsed, and the stardate will be six more than the previous. However, at other times this does not seem to apply.

Perhaps some dedicated person could sit through all 740 hours or so and tabulate all stardate references. If you don't sleep or do anything else, you can watch them all in a month. Actually about 100 less, since stardates weren't used on Enterprise. --Nike 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

How stardates and the 24h day correspond

Well, at least on the later series (and now also on TOS remastered, whenever the ship's chronometer is seen) they correspond perfectly. From stardate 40000 to 40001, exactly 24 hours pass. That would mean stardate 40000.5 equates to 12.00 pm. From 40000.0 to 40000.1, exactly 24/10 (2,4) hours pass, equalling 144 minutes. Now is there proof for that on the episodes? Plenty! Whenever a stardate and a time of day are seen at the same time, it matches perfectly. Some examples:

• "Contagion": Several stardates with a matching time of day are seen. Donald Varley records a log entry at stardate 42605.57 at 13:40:23. That time of day is exactly 820 minutes (13 hours + 40 minutes) after stardate 42605.00. From 42605.00 to 42605.01 144/10 minutes pass, 14 minutes and 24 seconds. If you multiply 14 minutes, 24 seconds by 57 you get 820 minutes, which matches 13:40 perfectly.

• "Time Squared": The scrambled log from the future Enterprise shows a stardate of 42592,72 with a corresponding time of day of 17:16. 14 minutes 24 seconds multiplied by 72 is 1036 minutes. 1036 minutes after midnight (stardate 42592,00) is 17:16. Perfect match.

• "Night Terrors": Captain Chantal Zaheva records a log entry on stardate 44673.9, the corresponding time is 22:30:59. Stardate 44673.9 began at 21:36:00 and ended at 23:59:59 - another perfect match.

• "Identity Crisis": Logs of the USS Victory were recorded on stardate 40164.7 at 17:29:46. Stardate 40164.7 began at 16:48:00 and ended at 19:12:00. 17:29:46 fits in perfectly.

Later log entries still show a stardate of 40164.7, but a time of day of 19:29 and 22:15, though. The stardate wasn't modified according to the progress of time.

• "Unification I": A recording of Pardek shows a stardate of 44623.9 with a corresponding time of day of 22:26:09. Again, this fits perfectly into the timeframe of a XXXXX.9 stardate: from 21:26:00 to 23:59:59.

• "Schisms": Riker wakes up at stardate 46154.4 at 10:37:41. Stardate 46154.4 lasts for 144 minutes, as mentioned above. Those minutes are from 09:36:00 to 11:59:59. 10:37:41 is right in the middle of that, matches perfectly.

• "The Galileo Seven" remastered: The following stardate with macthing time of day is seen: 2823.6 and 16:23:00. Stardate 2823.6 takes place from 14:25:00 to 16:48:59, again. 16:23 matches perfectly.

--Jörg 10:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

great job finding all of that! I have not the ability to see TOS-remastered, i am living in europe. But i really think we can it to the article. :-D ! --Rom Ulan^Hail 16:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Stardates and Years

the Battle of Wolf 359 seems to be six days after 43997. stardate 47329.4 ist exactly four years and one day later. one year cannot exactly be 1000 stardate units long. what do you think?--Shisma _{Bitte korrigiert mich} 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

MA/en long ago (I think even before I joined up in May 2006) decided that it could not rely on Stardates for years, including the accuracy of the 1000 per year thing. It just doesn't hold up in canon, as you demonstrated. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 19:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

ah, cool. we should do it the same way. then this should be delated from the "Inconsistencies" section :)--Shisma _{Bitte korrigiert mich} 19:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek movie stardates

Is it just me, or do the stardates in Star Trek XI oddly correspond to the year dates we use in the real universe? If so, we should add something about it here. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.172.49.225 (talk • contribs).

There's a paragraph about this in the "Background" section. —Josiah Rowe 16:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

RE ST XI's stardates, SPOILERS AHOY, why does the page say it's unclear what Robau meant by 2233.04? Within the system listed that read perfectly plainly to me as January 4th. Did the writer feel the zero was unnecessary to state (people often add leading zeros to dates especially if they have to deal with computers on the matter) or are we just freaked out that it wasn't March 22? Personally I think this is indicative of Winona Kirk going into labor prematurely in the reboot universe. -jmtorres, 2009.144

Because it could mean something else, that's why it's unclear. Just because you think it's January 4th, doesn't mean that the writer intended it to be :) — Morder 04:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, what else could it mean? obvs the article itself is not the place for that speculation but can you enlighten me over here on the talk page? Jul 06:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

There are probably many possibilities but one is that the 04 means the month rather than the day and he was just being very general about the current stardate. It could also mean 4/10ths of a year which would be late april early may...Although it's intended to be a specific day he might have also meant the 40th day of the year because of the lack of 2 prepending 0's and the lack of a 0 at the end. Anyway, these talk pages aren't for speculation so i'll leave it at that. :) — Morder 06:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, while the writers have stated the attack did indeed cause premature labor, I find it hard to believe it sent her into labor nearly three months ahead of schedule. The writers also stated that the Kelvin was on its way back to Earth when it intercepted the black hole. Had the Kelvin made it back to Earth, Winona would have given birth "on a farm in Iowa." I think the writers simply ignored the March 22nd birthdate, since its canon status was questionable, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 04:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC) (originally added to wrong section of talk page)

As the (re)writer of this section, I can certainly say that I'm not sure - perhaps 2233.4 is obvious, but then why the single "oh", since a day of the year can go into three digits? Why not .004? Or is it perhaps .040? It's probably not .400, unless we totally ignore Orci's explanation about the day of the year. By no means will I artificially try to shoehorn March 22nd into this, though. Someone should ask Orci what they had in mind with the "oh", but maybe the script will make it clear when it's published. – NotOfTheBody 20:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The Captain says "twenty-two thirty-three ZERO four". Perhaps sometimes they informally skip the period. This could mean that Kirk was born January 4th. Since the Kelvin was attacked on its way back to Earth, it's possible his mother went into early labor from the attack. Kirk Prime was born in March, so it's possible.- JustPhil 23:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I just checked one of the clips, but it's definitely "oh-four" in ADF's (non-canon) novelization, which is interesting - either way, it doesn't change the basic argument, and as I said, I'm not discounting any possibility on the grounds of March 22nd (given that there were so many other changes, while this date was only shown on a screen in "Enterprise"?). January 4 is a possibility, as is the 40th day of the year. The later movies will probably give us more evidence to work with. – NotOfTheBody 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The novelizations are based directly from the screenplay. When filming, they add a little flair by not following the script to the letter. Is your argument that the stardate should have been zero-zero-four or just four, as they follow the 365 calendar days?- JustPhil 14:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we don't know if the script wasn't being followed to the letter, changed in a later draft or if ADF himself altered the line a bit; we'll have to wait and see. Yes, that's my argument - why add only one placeholder zero, unless they were incorrectly following the two-digit precedent of 2258.42, or maybe they came up with this explanation afterwards. We don't know, so we shouldn't make any assumptions in the text yet. – NotOfTheBody 15:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know how exactly "Nero's Incursion" affected the way the Federation Calendar system works? It seems that Nero has been used to excuse every inconsistency and disregard to canon... Joeloveland 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

This section has been moved to Memory Alpha talk:Point of view...