Preface

Here is a summary of the General Principles upon which the Chronology is
based.

0. It is ultimately up to the reader to decide how much of this
Chronology to accept or reject. There is nothing "official" about it,
as is true for All Trek chronologies since Star Trek's past and future
is always growing and changing to a greater or lesser extent. There are
many inconsistancies and differing opinions about Trek's history which
can forever be argued and debated. Mine are presented here. The basic
rules by which this Fandom Chronology was compiled follows...

1. All Star Trek episodes (live-action and animated), movies (including
"special edition" footage not in the original theatrical release), books
(novels, novelizations, and manuals), booklets (predominately RPG), and
blueprints (excluding the "juvenile" - comic books, young readers etc.)
are considered "fair game" in the compilation of the Chronology. Though
naturally some sources carry more weight than others and are more
reliable. Otherwise, there are no deliberately ignored "apocryphal"
works with the exception of books which claim to be compiled references
for fans (the Okuda Chronology and Asherman Compendium books). These are
(supposedly) accurate guides and are not new adventures about the
characters or Treknical references taking place In the context of the Trek
universe. In the case of Okuda's books, they are predominantly based on
his own assumptions and rules, with considerable self-fabrication poured
in. Here, Treknical works are used and are frequently given more of a
"priority" over information presented in the novels. Why? Because
good tech works are built upon consistency and the technical aspects of
Star Trek--they frequently agree upon established dates and principles
of earlier works, and later works frequently are built upon them.
So if one work states that the Four Years War was from 2246-2250, other
works will most probably agree, or in the least acknowledge the F.Y. War
in passing, one way or another. Novels are written by authors wanting
to tell a story and frequently do not concern themselves too much (if
at all!) with Trek's internal history. Novels are not meaningless or
worthless, even if they are not 100% consistent with other sources
(these days, little is) for they offer background information about
Star Trek usually unavailable anywhere else. They are likewise summarized
and treated as real adventures alongside the summaries of episodes and
films. The only things not included in the Chronology are the billion
fanzine stories. The Chronology's framework was compiled in a linear
fashion proceeding from the earliest works to the most recent works. If
Gene Roddenberry said that the "Enterprise" was some 40 years old in The
Making of Star Trek at the time of the original series, and this was
backed up in many 70s and 80s Treknical publications and books over many
years, sticking to the same consistent dates, there is no reason to reject
it. Then in the 90s, if someone claims that the "Enterprise" was only 20
years old at the time of the original series, I must reject it. Likewise,
I do not care how many times the Reeves-Stevens (acting as ghostwriters
for William Shatner) state that Kirk was born in 2233: earlier and
more reputable sources give 2229 which is quite consistent with the
original Treknical timeline. The Reeves-Stevens blindly accept
every thought and word (and mispellings, too!) of Michael Okuda as holy
writ, regardless of its accuracy and how vague the "basic assumptions"
are. In the 1980s a similar pattern was followed by Diane Carey, but
yielding to the Goldsteins' Spaceflight Chronology book and the FASA
roleplaying game. Where there are timeline conflicts I will support the
original sources while still trying to salvage and preserve all remaining
dates and data presented in the novels as best as possible.

2. There are no big, bold "basic assumptions" at work here. Nothing
is whipped up out of the blue. No dates are based upon adding x to the
airdates. No numbers are picked out of a hat. All theories of my own are
documented within the Chronology and questionable dates (i.e. a stardate
given in a modern episode which is Way off yet considered valid for that
event) are accompanied by a question mark. The actual barebones
dating data comes from the mainstream sources themselves and is at times
supplemented by the novelizations. Priority is given to the earliest and
most widely-accepted timeline pertaining to the original series dates,
from which most all 23rd Century dates devolved: Chuck Graham's Star
Trek Time Line. Additional data comes from many key Treknical
publications. While episodes carry substantial weight they are not
considered infallible, especially in the cases of some truly vague areas
of Trek history. For instance, in "Flashback" Kim romanticizes about the
23rd Century stating that there were no holodecks, no replicators... Yet
there is substantial support For replicators, or fabricators as they
were called as early as the Franz Joseph Enterprise blueprints (sanctioned
by Gene Roddenberry) back in the 70s. Another example: an admiral's
mentioning of the Eugenics Wars occuring just 200 years ago in the
DSN episode "Doctor Bashir, I Presume." Everything else suggests that
they happened in the 1990s, despite current events catching up and over-
riding it (Star Trek's universe is considered to be set in an alternate
timeline by this Chronology). Characters, like real-life people, are not
infallible and can make mistakes. Despite this, the episodes and movies
are generally considered more substantial than any novelizations of such
where there are conflicts. Though most of it is common sense (Uhura is
spelled UhurU in ST VI for instance--clearly a typo), whole novels and
novelizations will Not be rejected on the principle that a few errors
present make the entire source invalid. Most inconsistancies Can and
Are logically explained in this Chronology. It is not a work based
upon exclusion. Simply because an item does not appear in an aired
episode or film does not invalidate it. Nearly 20 years of books have
claimed that Uhura's first name is Nyota. It does not appear in any
episodes or films yet is accepted in fandom and is not contradicted.
There is no reason to reject it. The Chronology is based upon the
principle of presenting the reader with More info than Less info, even
if the More may be somewhat confusing and (at least on the surface)
contradictory, with less emphasis upon individual episode and movie
summaries since the reader should be well acquainted with those.
Details are everything.

3. Chronological order depends upon the source material:
a) Original series episodes are arranged in production order.
b) Animated series episodes are in Alan Dean Foster's "Log"
series order (to account for supplementary material).
c) Movies are presented in order of release, with Next Generation
movies naturally picking up after the Next Generation episodes
in the 24th Century.
d) Next Generation, Deep Space Nine, and Voyager episodes progess
in their original aired order, coupled with stardate ordering
in the case of concurrent series broadcast (i.e. Next Generation
and Deep Space Nine, and Deep Space Nine and Voyager). See the
section on dating for further details. While modern stardates
are not perfect, they are far more consistent than old stardates
and are significant in the arrangement episodes of two or more
series set during the same year.
e) Novels are chronologically arranged by their complex context
and in the case of many 24th Century adventures their stardates.
See the section on Novels for a more in-depth analysis.

4. More specific dates of generalized events in Trek history are often
supplied by Treknical publications. For example, Kirk states in his log
entry that the U.S.S. "Horizon" cruiser visited Sigma Iotia II a hundred
years ago in "A Piece of the Action." Yet in the U.S.S. Enterprise Heavy
Cruiser Evolution Blueprints a complete class listing is given, including
dates of ships being laid down, launched, and commissioned. The prints
are referenced and expanded upon by Ships of the Star Fleet and the
Federation Reference Series, are quite reasonable and consisted with the
mainstream episode, and are therefore considered valid by the Chronology.
Much of Trek's rich background history is therefore filled in by these
sidestream sources. Obviously specific dates are not always available and
the exact relative date is used. Unless specifically specified as an
exact relative date (x years before an episode), events occurring well
over a million years ago are rounded. In certain highly questionable
areas, I have resorted to wording it as "During this era..." or "About
this time..." If a source claims that an event happened "over x years
ago" it may be rounded down to the next year if the source was set early
in the year. Arbitrary dates I have tried to avoid.

5. Alternate timelines/universes are documented alongside the "real"
timeline events and noted as such. While alternate timelines are truly
acknowledged in Star Trek, using them to explain away certain conflicting
novels is considered a cop-out by this Chronology--with a couple notable
exceptions: the novels "Federation" and "Spock Must Die!" The reasoning
behind both are fully documented in the Notes section. Specific conflicts
of events are otherwise either ignored or noted in the entry as such
(i.e. "According to another account..."). The biggest arguments are
discussed in the Notes.

6. All years, unless specified, are expressed in the Old Earth Calendar
A.D. system (unless B.C.) and it is assumed that in the future the system
of leap years will not change. Other dates are included when available,
including all stardates ("official" or otherwise)--their sources are
fully documented in the Stardates section of the Chronology. It is
assumed that all characters are speaking in terms of Solar or Standard
(Earth, 365 day) Years unless stated otherwise, perhaps with the help
of the ever-present Universal Translator. My own attempts at
converting non-Terran dates (Vulcan, Alcawellian, Elasian etc.) are fully
documented, and questionable 24th Century stardates are enclosed in
braces. They are up to the reader to accept or reject, especially the
extrapolated months and days derived from modern stardates which are not
100% consistent.

7. Contemporary events ("real history") and dates are only sited if
referenced by the sources above. Therefore if Albert Einstein is
mentioned in an episode, re-created in a holodeck adventure, or
plays a significant role in a novel, his date of birth will be noted
in the Chronology. However, if the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is not
mentioned anywhere in the Star Trek Universe--yet is a contemporary event
--it will not appear in this Chronology. Yet should Captain Picard
speak of it in the next movie, it will.

8. IDIC is strength, or the I-like-to-have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too rule.
If at all reasonably possible, where there are two or more conflicting
sources, they are acknowledged. For instance, Technical Fandom has
long said that the original name proposed for NCC-1701-A was the
U.S.S. "Levant." FASA claims it was the "Atlantis." Mr. Scott's Guide
To The "Enterprise" says it was the "Ti Ho." The ST:TNG Technical Manual
gives the name "Yorktown." Rather than just choose one and invalidate
the others, all have been noted (and documented) since they are just
names proposed for the then-unnamed "Enterprise." Similarly, some may
say that John Ford's Klingonese used in "The Final Reflection" and
FASA gaming is invalidated by the later Klingon language developed by
Marc Okrand for the movies and beyond. Just as there are many different
Human languages there should be many different Klingon languages, and
Okrand even states that with the change in each emperor the Imperial
language can change. "The Final Reflection" is set some 40 years prior
to the films. I see no conflict here. Speaking of Klingon emperors,
a TNG episode had a Klingon state that the Empire has not had an emperor
in 300 years, seemingly invalidating more Klingon lore than can
comfortably be quoted here. Solution: perhaps Emperor is a poor choice
of titles in Federation Standard but a title nevertheless associated
by non-Klingons with the head of the Empire (Empire: Emperor). I have
found that most conflicts of this sort Can be easily rationalized without
tossing anything out. Unfortunately many fans today don't want to make
the effort and would rather hastily accept the "official" explanation
despite how badly it may tear-up long-established Trek lore. I am
willing to live with compromises.

9. Formal statements regarding Legality:
a) 'Star Trek' is a trademark of Paramount Pictures. No infringement
of copyright is intended. Likewise for the many sources referenced
within.
b) I have not made one cent off of this project. Conversely, I have
thrust a great deal of money into collecting and researching
the Star Trek Universe.
c) YOU ARE FREE TO DISTRIBUTE THIS FILE to your heart's content
provided that it is not altered in any way, and that it is done
free of charge. In fact I urge you to distribute.