Forum:Stardates and years

Forums → Hailing Frequencies → Stardates and years (Reply | Watch)

Hey everyone,

I've just been adding a few years on the database, and the year 2322 states "Federation calendar is resynchronised", putting it at, according to that author, Stardate 0000. Now, there is no "canon" information on this, and Tim Pendragon has pointed out there probably would be no Stardate 0000 (that it would start at 1000). I personally don't feel that they "reset" the stardates; we have no proof of this. So should I just eliminate the stardates altogther except from 2364 onwards, when we know it was stardate 41000, etc.?

I thought I would raise the point for everyone to make a comment instead of me just doing it.

Thanks! --usscantabrian 22:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to make the opposite point - the calender does start with 00000, not 10000. Just in the year 2323, not 2322. Not sure how someone came to the 2322 date - any of the stardate calculators online, every source from Memory Alpha to James Dixon acknowledges the TNG stardate system's origin in '23 (that's what you get when you backtrack from 2364). While canonical stardates pre-TNG get iffy, many fanfics/rpgs/whatever, use the system in that vein. --TimPendragon 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

In other words - that original entry in 2322 was in error, and should have been a year later - rather than adjust all the stardates. I'm sorry you went through all that for nothing, and I'm sorry no one caught the misplaced entry earlier. --TimPendragon 00:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes made - should be back to normal. I know you don't think they redid the system - people are free to use the stardates, or not, as they wish. --TimPendragon 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey sorry I read the wrong thing... it was early on Sunday morning and I was trying to repair a Windows Update problem at the same time! Anyway, thanks for fixing that up. It's busy here at work today! Argh! :) Thanks again! --usscantabrian 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)