New TNG Stardate Math

[DSG2k]

Yes, a stardate thread. This is a little different, though, in that there is a specific question.

The traditional understanding was 1000 stardates per year, making an easy reference for 2364-2379 dates as matching TNG1 through Nemesis.

However, in the thread about "Friendship One"[VOY7], folks were assigning the episode as year 2378 and doing math off of that. I had referred to 2377, using the typical standard. It's a 54XXX show and TNG1 was 41XXX so 2364 + 13 is 2377, right?

However, it seems Memory Alpha is using an anomaly-based reunderstanding of stardates. By "anomaly-based" I refer to those instances where a calendar date is suggested that doesn't match the traditional understanding. In the case of Voyager, a reference to the 315th anniversary of First Contact Day in "Homestead" is being used to reimagine the whole seventh season calendar.

There are, of course, other anomalies. "Second Sight"[DSN2] puts the anniversary of Wolf 359 at 473XX, which makes no sense by the 1000 stardate/year standard.

Historically, folks tended to handwave the anomalies since there are numerous occasions where the standard is clearly used, but MA folks have clearly planted their flag.

So, question: when did MA folks decide this, and why is it accepted? Has there been any effort to fully recalculate TNG-era dates around the anomalies?

 

[DSG2k]

(For reference, there was a previous thread with this specific post noting how well this works:

Just for the Hell of it...

"Second Sight" (DS9) - Stardate 47329.4 --> Fourth Anniversary of Jennifer Sisko's death.
"Emissary" (DS9) - Flashback to Stardate 43997 --> Jennifer Sisko dies.

47329 minus 43997 equals 3,332.
3,332 divided by 4 equals 833 stardates per year.

"Homestead" (VOY) takes place on April 5th, 2378 on Stardate 54868.4.
According to Data, "The Neutral Zone" (TNG) takes place supposedly in 2364 on Stardate 41986.0... but let's see.

54868 minus 41986 equals 12,882.
12,882 divided by 833 equals 15.46 years.

Nope! Sorry! That would put "The Neutral Zone" in October 2362.

I guess stardates progressing "unevenly from XX000 to XX999" means exactly that.

Looks like a nightmare to me.)

 

[Lord Garth]

My rule of thumb is basically:

1) Try to figure out how it can work. The less forced, the better.
2) If it doesn't work, then write it off as a mistake.

Since the vast majority of TNG Stardates work, I treat the isolated incidents as exactly that. So, I'm still going to stick with 1,000 stardates per year.

 

[DSG2k]

Since the vast majority of TNG Stardates work, I treat the isolated incidents as exactly that. So, I'm still going to stick with 1,000 stardates per year.

I consider that the safe default position . . . not to mention the sheer horror of trying to go back and modify every bit of timeline math done prior to deciding to follow this.

To be sure, inertia alone is not sufficient cause to avoid correction if there's a modification that would serve as a correction. I'm certainly enough of a contrarian to be willing to go with some asinine-looking improvement if it better fits the facts. (I'm the guy, after all, whose first edition of the Star Trek Chronology featured corrective dates pencilled in because, well before Generations came out, I still remembered the 1987 ad campaign suggesting that 78 years separated TNG from TOS, not 100 years as Okuda went with. There are, I imagine, not many people who almost clapped at the "78 years later" from Generations.)

However, I'm not certain that a correction that better fits the facts exists here, because there are many times where the writers did use the "Default 1000" concept.

I've found and done a preliminary review of this "Memory Alpha Timeline Reference Project", and am not entirely convinced it constitutes an improvement over the "Default 1000" position. For one, it includes timeline references from the Discoverse, which I believe to be a fundamental flaw. Second, they seem to read too much in to certain examples, while completely missing others.

For example, the Timeline Reference Project warps TNG around a Barolian video of Pardek from "Unification, Pt. I"[TNG5]. There's a stardate and time marked at the bottom of it, and Data specifies that the video is of an event four years prior. The stardate, however, is much less than four years ago. Based on the assumption that the stardate is, in fact, the same as the date of the event, rather than, say, the date of acquisition or transmission of the short video, they declare the "Unification" episodes to be set in 2370 rather than the Default 1000 year of 2368. Fortunately, this hasn't been forced on the main pages . . . yet.

Meanwhile, they totally miss that on Stardate 45236.4 from the same episode, Picard's log entry notes it was "barely a year ago" that he mind-melded with Sarek, an event which occurred between Stardate 43917.4 and 43920.7 . . . a difference of about 1315 stardate units. That's well over a year by Default 1000, and I would expect the phrase to better apply to a time period extremely close to 365 days.

There are tons of such relative date references to identifiable stardates or stardate ranges. Most happily work in Default 1000, give or take.

Ah, crap . . . as I just waded through the MA project's Talk page, I see @Yaroze86. No insult intended.

 

[Yaroze86]

This is so far the biggest supporter of 1000(ish) to specific date I know of.

https://www.juliensauctions.com/en/items/1842702/star-trek-voyager-harry-kim-garrett-wang-endgame-starfleet-academy-diploma-prop

There are some that MA takes as hard dates that IMO should be treated as RETCON. Things like Seven of Nine's dates. Those dates changed as the seasons progressed. Barolian video of Pardek should be ignored as its just not reliable.

The Stargazer's commissioned date IMO should also not be set in stone as I feel this is either a recommission date. It doesn't fit it being old nor match registry scheming to date.

Also, this is worth note: From Unification episode, stardate at start of the episode: 45233.1 and intelligence picture of Spock on Romulus taken 2 days prior: 45231.2

No offence taken btw.

 

[DSG2k]

This is so far the biggest supporter of 1000(ish) to specific date I know of.

https://www.juliensauctions.com/en/items/1842702/star-trek-voyager-harry-kim-garrett-wang-endgame-starfleet-academy-diploma-prop

See, with rare exception (basically only the 2245 Enterprise 1701 date), I wouldn't even touch what isn't readable on-screen.

Barolian video of Pardek should be ignored as its just not reliable.

Correct.

Also, this is worth note: From Unification episode, stardate at start of the episode: 45233.1 and intelligence picture of Spock on Romulus taken 2 days prior: 45231.2

The image was taken, but was the stardate on screen as taken or as received? There's the rub. If I'm watching a YouTube video of the Kennedy assassination, even an old upload would be dated in the wrong century entirely.

One has to be careful with assumptions, and, at least amongst the 2009 commentaries, they often aren't. I'll grant that the First Contact Day thing is messy, as is Sisko reflecting on the Wolf 359 anniversary, but one must be careful not to trash known data over a couple of one-offs.

I'm open to a solid argument, I just haven't seen it yet. They should've simply made the 2378 claim as a footnote on existing VOY7 pages until the project is complete, with no data gaps.