Really? So you feel you could have done better then?
The Star Trek Encyclopedia getting first update since 1999!
- Thread starter ScottDS
- Start date
Really? So you feel you could have done better then?
As someone said earlier, they could have fixed mistakes from the 3rd Edition. How much time does it take to alter a registry number or a class name or get the correct ship image? (The Federation attack fighter is still shown as a Starfleet Academy trainer.) They said the book was completely revised. If there are mistakes from earlier editions in the current edition, then they have not completely revised the book. Memory Alpha could have helped with some of these mistakes because of its strict canon policy.
Don't the more active members there do exactly that?
It's very easy to slip stuff through. Some wrong info sits around for years before someone notices, and some great info gets removed because it had no source indicated. Some fans are pedantic over NCC numbers, others over stardates, or spellings of names. But not every member/editor is actively looking at every change.
And sometimes typos create longterm changes that no one intended. At one point, the tie-in comics and novels were told to use the Encyclopedia as the authentic source for spellings. I recall the previous volumes of the Encyclopedia had made typos with "Catualla", instead of "Catulla", and "ShirKahr" (which even made it into an episode!) instead of "ShiKahr".
Why wouldn't they just look at the canon itself? If you're writing a new article about black holes in Encyclopedia Britannica, you don't look up Black Hole in World Book, you talk to Stephen Hawking.
Well, they did, of course. But sometimes "the canon" is unclear, and sometimes it can be at odds with itself.
For the starship entries, I damn well could have.
Mr. Okuda, I've always been a great fan of your work, but when the next version of this Encyclopedia comes out and you have no interest in updating any ship info since the sixth season of DS9 to the present, give me a call. I'll do that in one hour, for free.
Last edited:
Ditto for timeline issues! But really people have complained about small errors in the Okuda's work since the very first Encyclopedia, so this is nothing new.
IIRC, the Okudas announced they were updating the info quite a while ago and fans were welcome to contact them with corrections/suggestions.
If that's true (first I've heard of this), then they either ignored everyone or no one sent them anything. The only ship info I could find that was updated were the previously unknown classes of three ships from the "Star Fleet Battle Group Omega" from Nemesis:
U.S.S Archer NCC-44278 is now an Excelsior class.
U.S.S. Nova NCC-73515 is now the prototype for the Nova class, even though its registry is higher than the other two known Nova class ships.
U.S.S. Valiant NCC-75418 is now an Intrepid class.
Last edited:
Hello everyone (and especially ryan123450),
Since it’s something that I’d have done first anyway, here’s my look at how the new Star Trek Encyclopedia revises and extends the last version of the Star Trek Chronology. This isn’t intended as a nit-pick or criticism of the new book, and it’s not a detailed transcript of all the available information. I’ve only had time for a brief look, but here goes:
The new timeline is very brief, running to three pages. Most major events are dated. Star Trek: Insurrection is in 2375, and Star Trek: Nemesis is in 2379. The last date is 2387, for the Hobus supernova. Whether this means that the “Prime” timeline is subsequently “overwritten” by the new course of events isn’t stated, but the first date is 1957, so I doubt that’s the intention.
The really major innovation is that each season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space 9 and Star Trek: Voyager are listed as extending into the following year. For example, the first season of TNG is assigned to 2364, but a note in brackets says that it continues into 2375. Obviously, the seventh season of VOY starts in 2377, but continues into 2378. How that applies in practice isn’t clear. In general, the entries in the main body of the text seem to support the old exact correlation between each season and a calendar year. As far as I could see, the only changes seem to be ones where it don’t involve too much editing (although that’s only a guess on my part). “Shades of Gray” now falls in 2366, although “Peak Performance” is still dated to 2365. “In Theory” is dated to late 2367, and the whole of “Redemption” Parts 1 & 2 are in 2368.
Most notably (and frustratingly), the departure of Neelix in “Homestead” and the return of Voyager to Earth in “Endgame” are dated to 2377, quite specifically.
I think the only way that the questions this all raises could be answered would be with a revised edition of the Star Trek Chronology. I certainly can’t guess at what decisions the Okudas would make if they constructed a detailed timeline (or why they’ve made the decisions they have in this book). Although it’s a book I’d really like to see, I’m not sure I can afford another lavishly-produced (and priced) new version, even though the Encyclopedia is a really lovely-looking book.
As for the shortcomings to it (and there are certainly some whoppers in just my brief chronological investigation), I don’t see that the Okudas are any more likely to have “magic answers” than anyone else. If something doesn’t work, then it just doesn’t work. (To totally digress: if you put “Homestead” in 2378, then it’s difficult to see how “The Best of Both Worlds” can start any later than 2367. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine runs into problems if it doesn’t start in 2369, but it’s supposed to be “three years” later. If there’s a good answer to that, I can’t find it, and that’s before you add “Second Sight” into the mix.)
Where mistakes have been carried over from previous books, that can be because of factors outside their control. If the publisher said that modifications to the text from the previous editions had to be kept to the absolute minimum, then the choices are limited. If you think I’m giving the writers too easy a ride, remember that last edition? I doubt anyone other than a publisher would think that re-issuing the exact book that people already have with a magazine-sized supplement tacked onto the end and calling it an “updated and expanded edition” was a good idea. On that basis alone, this is a major improvement.
As far as I’m concerned, TAS occupies an awkward place in Star Trek, and the decision to omit it isn’t always straightforward ignorance. (Although I admit I dropped it from my own timeline mainly because I just couldn’t fit it in plausibly. That could easily be because I’m lazy and insufficiently clever to make it fit, though.)
In the end, this book is likely to be the “go-to” source for Star Trek writers, like the earlier editions. That there are mistakes is a pity, but unavoidable. At least the errors will be more consistent.
Best wishes,
Timon
Since it’s something that I’d have done first anyway, here’s my look at how the new Star Trek Encyclopedia revises and extends the last version of the Star Trek Chronology. This isn’t intended as a nit-pick or criticism of the new book, and it’s not a detailed transcript of all the available information. I’ve only had time for a brief look, but here goes:
The new timeline is very brief, running to three pages. Most major events are dated. Star Trek: Insurrection is in 2375, and Star Trek: Nemesis is in 2379. The last date is 2387, for the Hobus supernova. Whether this means that the “Prime” timeline is subsequently “overwritten” by the new course of events isn’t stated, but the first date is 1957, so I doubt that’s the intention.
The really major innovation is that each season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space 9 and Star Trek: Voyager are listed as extending into the following year. For example, the first season of TNG is assigned to 2364, but a note in brackets says that it continues into 2375. Obviously, the seventh season of VOY starts in 2377, but continues into 2378. How that applies in practice isn’t clear. In general, the entries in the main body of the text seem to support the old exact correlation between each season and a calendar year. As far as I could see, the only changes seem to be ones where it don’t involve too much editing (although that’s only a guess on my part). “Shades of Gray” now falls in 2366, although “Peak Performance” is still dated to 2365. “In Theory” is dated to late 2367, and the whole of “Redemption” Parts 1 & 2 are in 2368.
Most notably (and frustratingly), the departure of Neelix in “Homestead” and the return of Voyager to Earth in “Endgame” are dated to 2377, quite specifically.
I think the only way that the questions this all raises could be answered would be with a revised edition of the Star Trek Chronology. I certainly can’t guess at what decisions the Okudas would make if they constructed a detailed timeline (or why they’ve made the decisions they have in this book). Although it’s a book I’d really like to see, I’m not sure I can afford another lavishly-produced (and priced) new version, even though the Encyclopedia is a really lovely-looking book.
As for the shortcomings to it (and there are certainly some whoppers in just my brief chronological investigation), I don’t see that the Okudas are any more likely to have “magic answers” than anyone else. If something doesn’t work, then it just doesn’t work. (To totally digress: if you put “Homestead” in 2378, then it’s difficult to see how “The Best of Both Worlds” can start any later than 2367. Star Trek: Deep Space Nine runs into problems if it doesn’t start in 2369, but it’s supposed to be “three years” later. If there’s a good answer to that, I can’t find it, and that’s before you add “Second Sight” into the mix.)
Where mistakes have been carried over from previous books, that can be because of factors outside their control. If the publisher said that modifications to the text from the previous editions had to be kept to the absolute minimum, then the choices are limited. If you think I’m giving the writers too easy a ride, remember that last edition? I doubt anyone other than a publisher would think that re-issuing the exact book that people already have with a magazine-sized supplement tacked onto the end and calling it an “updated and expanded edition” was a good idea. On that basis alone, this is a major improvement.
As far as I’m concerned, TAS occupies an awkward place in Star Trek, and the decision to omit it isn’t always straightforward ignorance. (Although I admit I dropped it from my own timeline mainly because I just couldn’t fit it in plausibly. That could easily be because I’m lazy and insufficiently clever to make it fit, though.)
In the end, this book is likely to be the “go-to” source for Star Trek writers, like the earlier editions. That there are mistakes is a pity, but unavoidable. At least the errors will be more consistent.
Best wishes,
Timon
Do they actually call it the Hobus supernova? That name's from the Countdown comic and Star Trek Online.
King Daniel Beyond,
That's definitely the fastest reply to a post I've ever had. I've had a careful look, not just at the timeline entry, and you're right. It's just "a supernova" and the name Hobus isn't anywhere in the book.
Timon
That's definitely the fastest reply to a post I've ever had. I've had a careful look, not just at the timeline entry, and you're right. It's just "a supernova" and the name Hobus isn't anywhere in the book.
Timon
The chronology has Kirk's mission beginning in 2264 and ending in 2269, with TMP in 2271. This contradicts the canon information. which places the end of the five year mission in 2270 and the events in TMP occuring at a minimum two-and-half years later.
Hobus is non-canon, so they did not include it in the book. Yet, again, they included non-canonical info for the Titan. On Hobus, in the podcast I heard, the Okudas consider briefly naming the timeline the Hobus timeline. The problem was that the name came from a source that was not known to most people - the Countdown comics - so they shelved that idea and decided to name it the Kelvin Timeline.
Hobus is non-canon, so they did not include it in the book. Yet, again, they included non-canonical info for the Titan. On Hobus, in the podcast I heard, the Okudas consider briefly naming the timeline the Hobus timeline. The problem was that the name came from a source that was not known to most people - the Countdown comics - so they shelved that idea and decided to name it the Kelvin Timeline.
When in cannon are these things stated non-ambiguously?
VOY: "Q2" says the 5-year mission ends in 2270. TMP says it's been 2 and a half years since Kirk logged "a single star hour"
Right. Even before "Q2," it was strange that the Chronology put the end of the 5YM in 2269 and TMP in '71 -- that would only be possible if the mission had ended in the first half of '69 and TMP had been in the last half of '71 (for example, March '69 to September '71, or June '69 to December '71). So it's possible, but it seems oddly restrictive.
But given what "Q2" established, it's impossible for TMP to be any earlier than mid-2272, so it's astonishing that they failed to update that for the new edition.
And the thing is, I could understand doubting the veracity of silly-sounding things that TAS includes, but stuff like xenylon (though perhaps considered lazy - slap on a "xeno-" or "exo-" to everything new) and life support belts aren't beyond the realm of possibility.
FWIW mine should arrive today.
Similar threads
