Talk:24th century/Archive 1

The dates for the star trek series is rough - based on occasional references. probably can be improved. MrWeeble 20:06, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Predictions
There seems to be some dispute over whether predictions such as: should be in the article. There is a list of these at the moment. In my opinion these are not Verifiable. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and presents FACTS. We can't just put in random predictions without citing a source. There is no reason to believe that these things are true. As I see it there are two options:
 * Matter Teleportation achieved.

1.  Remove them altogether. (I prefer this)

2.  Use Instead: "Joe Blogs has predicted that..." and give a source

To be clear, I am refering to the Scientific Predictions section. By contrast the Astronomical predictions are verifiable. I am going to remove them again but am willing to discus. --Bucephalus talk to me  21:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 451
24th century?

Just wondering
Why do we all these redirects from years to century? ShutterBugTrekker 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek references
I tried to get decent references as much as possible for the character birthdates. I know in some cases I had to go to non-canon sources, but I felt it'd be better to have at least speculative dates than leave holes in the dates. If I can find more solid sources as they might become available, I will place them in in place of the non-canon sources. Please bear with me on this and help out if you can. Leandar (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of having all these character birthdates? It's useless. The page should just say something like "The events of [insert star trek programmes here] took place in this century.", instead of listing a bunch of fictional characters birthdays as if that meets Wikipedia guidelines on notability. I changed it once, but someone reverted it. That sort of trivia is fine to put on the page for that fictional character, but it certainly does NOT belong in a wikipedia page about the century it's set in. That would be like including a section on Wikipedia's "The Milky Way (galaxy)" page that lists star trek characters who lived there. 71.150.248.115 (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I got rid of them. Please don't re-add them or anything, that would be dumb. There's a Star Trek wiki for a reason; as a consolation I put a link to the Star Trek character page, where any really interested person could probably find the info they need. Also put links to the individual series that take place in 24th century. If someone reverts this, be aware that you are both pointless and a giant butthurt nerd. Boo hoo. (the nerd part's okay, but not the butthurt part) 71.207.179.116 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC).


 * I re-added them. No reason given for removal, and, if removed, there would be reasonable justification for deleting the article, itself.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, I gave a reason. They were cluttering the article and don't need to be there. That's Star Trek Wiki material. There's summary and then there's details, and those are details that don't need to be there. WP:IINFO. That's official justification if you REALLY require it, but this sort of thing should be common sense. Please rethink how you approach writing articles for Wikipedia, or consider writing for niche wikis instead. 71.207.179.116 (talk) 02:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Side note: I just noticed that not only was that data useless but someone thought it a good idea to repeat the info about one of the Star Trek TNG movies in the TNG header that used to be there. I didn't catch that before, but that's hilarious. 71.207.179.116 (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Objection!
I personally feel the need to object to the inclusion of events from star trek (2009 film) (Romulus destroyed), considering objectionable plot of the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.231.44 (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, are you a Romulan? Seriously, it doesn't fit in the general Star Trek timeline, but it's still a fictional event with a known date. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Why are some books literature, but others not?
I'm very intrigued as to why books and literature are two separate sections. Surely they should be together, or are we defining some books as literature whilst others aren't? 81.109.65.185 (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2012 (UTC)