1. Having shrinking ships
2. Having people that age backwards.

This is James Dixon's Chronology. Read past his rabid anti-Okuda stance and glean some useful stuff from the notes at the end (after the main body of the Chronology -- i.e., the last dated entry). His dating system makes a lot better sense and better use of available data than the "official" timeline, though...

"In my understanding Kirk remained captain from the end of TMP (2271) to the beginning of TWOK (2284). But there simply is no additional canon information to prove any theory either way."

BZZZT! Generations establishes that Kirk retired from Starfleet at some point shortly before TWoK.

"Any information before the installation of Pike on the Enterprise has to be seen as conjecture... Because: Captain April was never a canon character --"

*grr* Considering how much of TAS HAS been incorporated into "canon", and considering April is in the Encyclopedia...

"-- although I'd very much like the idea that the Enterprise was indeed commissioned in 2244, with April taking command for a period of 10 years. After which Pike takes over in 2254-55 for another ten years (two 5 year missions). Then Kirk becomes captain 10 years after that......"

The bulk of material from 1964 to 1990 places the Enterprise's launch in 2220, and probably recommissioned after April gets promoted in 2245. But either way, the overwhelming mass of Trek history gives us an Enterprise that is NOT a new ship when Kirk gets it.

"BUT. It was cleary stated in 'The Search For Spock' that the Enterprise was to be retired because it was then 20 years old. This was in 2285, meaning the Enterprise was commissioned in 2265, right at the beginning of Kirk's reign, but this can't be true at all, because of Pike. So maybe this 20 year figure relates to the last refit? But this can't be correct either as the TMP refit took place only 14 years earlier. So what the hell this statment means I can't guess. But I'm nitpicking here, though it still throws the whole thing into a bit of doubt."

The properly-researched timeline places TMP in 2267 and TWoK/TSfS in 2287. In this case, Morrow's line would seem to refer to the refit Enterprise's lifespan...

And I have read some of James Dixon's comments on defining a time-line for Star Trek. Though I agree with the author on a few selected points, I feel that he is a man yelling against the rapidly approaching floodwaters. His 'community'-the old Fandom-is being replaced by a younger, less observant generation. This generation works hard with less money and more stress. They want to come home and have an hour of escape with their Star Trek program of choice.

And, furthermore, we are responsible for this change in Star Trek that we have witnessed since Roddenberry's death a decade ago. When each and every one of us buys a Star Trek product that has the seal of approval from Paramount, that purchase says that a fan supports the quality of that merchandise and wants more. That quality is seen to be the standard for all S.T. products-magazines, books, episodes, etc. What is that quality? The materials are manufactured with a lack of originality, a slew of errors, and limited research. I like the pictures that I have seen from these publications. However, I don't like the text. I don't want summaries. I have summaries in the episodes and the films, the Okuda reference materials, and so on. And, furthermore, the price for this material is prohibitively expensive and is very marked up. The studio knows there is an audience who will accept most of anything that is Star Trek for their devotion and faith is that strong. The relationship between the studios and the fans is abusive.

And this is one of the selected items that I agree to when I read James Dixon's critiques of modern Star Trek-the studio doesn't care about quality as long as there are people who are willing to pay $8.00 or more for a glossy picture book or watch a sci-fi show that is lacking in the necessary requirements for a good drama.

[ May 29, 2001: Message edited by: targetemployee ]

"In my understanding Kirk remained captain from the end of TMP (2271) to the beginning of TWOK (2284). But there simply is no additional canon information to prove any theory either way."

...meaning 'In my understanding...', in that I was unaware of any specific mention of Kirk retiring before TWOK. Call me an ignoramis if you will, and I will happily adjust my beliefs and make a full retraction if you could provided the exact dialog/scene that establishes this.

"Any information before the installation of Pike on the Enterprise has to be seen as conjecture... Because: Captain April was never a canon character --"

"-- *grr* Considering how much of TAS HAS been incorporated into "canon", and considering April is in the Encyclopedia...--"

What the hell are you talking about. Since when was TAS OFFICIALLY REGARDED AS CANON? I think most Trekkers would agree TAS was a cute 70's Trek cartoon, and nothing more. What anybody says about a change to the TAS canon situation is talking rubbish. GENE RODDENBERRY de-canonized it. Who the hell has the right to turn round and challenge him, he who invented Trek and its universe? No-one.

And I can only think, that if he had been buried in a grave he'd been spinning outa control with all this Enterprise nonsense which threatens to throw this carefully crafted universe he created right out of whack. If it goes belly up like I cynically expect it will, I wish he was here to kick Berman and Braga very hard up the butt.

" -- The bulk of material from 1964 to 1990 places the Enterprise's launch in 2220, and probably recommissioned after April gets promoted in 2245. But either way, the overwhelming mass of Trek history gives us an Enterprise that is NOT a new ship when Kirk gets it.--"

Granted, I already knew this, and never at any point suggested the Enterprise was new when Kirk inherited it. But as for it being commissioned in 2220.... What bulk of material suggests this? Please clarify....

" -- The properly-researched timeline places TMP in 2267 and TWoK/TSfS in 2287. In this case, Morrow's line would seem to refer to the refit Enterprise's lifespan...--"

Nothing in the Chronolgy suggests this, and I wouldn't give one second of attention to some self-rightoeous Star Trek fan who thinks he can make up his own canon and spout off with it as if it's official. Again, my arms are in the air. What 'properly researched material' are you referring to? And this was reserched by whom? When? What show/ movie suggests any of this?

Let me make something clear about canon: Star Trek is a television show, with movie spin-offs. What is mentioned and portrayed is canon. What is not, is either made up and/or speculated. This is why I said in my initial post, 'in my mind' 'in my understanding' 'I'd like the idea of'.... etc etc. I do not intend to ever make arbitrary comments that suggest 'I think it happened this way', 'the Enterprise was launched on this date,', or 'the excelsior had this number of torpedo tubes'. All this stuff may be carefully speculated and deduced, but at the end of the day it isn't canon. period.

Again I reiterate, and I quote from my original post..:
"-- although I'd very much like the idea that the Enterprise was indeed commissioned in 2244, with April taking command for a period of 10 years. After which Pike takes over in 2254-55 for another ten years (two 5 year missions). Then Kirk becomes captain 10 years after that......"