Cryptic, makers of the hit game Star Trek Online, have just released this handy infographic explaining where the video game’s story fits into Star Trek canon, which can get confusing what with six series, thirteen movies, and multiple timelines.
Download the full resolution version here
I love these infographics! Keep them coming!
It would be nice if those who created these infographics spent time on proofreading. Why do the dates have apostrophes in them? Not very professional.
Why so critical?
Because I take pride in my own work. It would be nice to see others do the same.
So basically you think you should criticize another persons effort?
Re: So basically you [Dandru] think you should criticize another persons effort?
It seems obvious that Dandru takes pride in his own works of criticizing others. So, yes?
I didn’t realize he designed it , if that is the case , I sincerely apologize
And if no one pointed out the errors, how would the author ever be able to grow and improve his efforts?
Re:if no one pointed out the errors
Pointing out errors is one thing, but throwing in condescension and derision has absolutely NOTHING to do with promoting the growth and improvement of others, but rather, everything to do with self-stroking the insecure ego of someone who isn’t content with merely having achieved one’s own goals. Such individuals are driven to let everyone else, who likely therefore do not share the exact same priorities and values, know what lesser undeserving beings they are, i.e. not looking to encourage anything but one’s own sense of superiority over the unwashed rabble.
Technically this is not an error.
It is very common to see something that has no specific year, just a loose group of time, such as a decade, referred to as “The 1980’s”. This infographic simply follows the same convention for a century (rather than a decade). So for example it says somewhere in the 2600’s the temporal war occurred. This is considered an acceptable style in various publications. While the use of an apostrophe has started to fall into disuse, you can easily still find it in use today. There is also a bit of a cultural difference, in the USA, the apostrophe with a date was commonly used, while in the Britain it was apparently never considered proper styling.
According to AP, APA, MLA, and Chicago Manual of Style (in other words, the majority of American publishing and academia), the apostrophe is incorrect.
And it hasn’t “started to fall into disuse.” The incorrect way (using an apostrophe) gained ground in the 90s and early 2000s thanks to the Internet, desktop publishing, and the rise of other non-edited (or poorly edited) work by anyone with a computer. While there had been some confusion before, now the apostrophe became common, just like many myths or errors that spread virally.
This infographic uses apostrophes incorrectly, just like people who use “figuratively” when they mean “literally.” It’s common, and it gets overlooked or accepted, but it’s still incorrect. (Sadly, some dictionaries have added figuratively as an alternate meaning for literally, which literally is one of the dumbest things ever done regarding language.)
BTW, StackExchange is a rotten resource. It’s like using Yahoo Answers or asking random strangers on a bus.
Yes I know StackExchange is like using Wikipedia as a source (or worse), but it had some handy links to more legitimate sources if you’d care to follow the links through instead of just shouting “terrible resource” as if I didn’t know it wasn’t to be trusted, they include links and/or excerpts of various books where some say you can use it, and others do not. A source that says an apostrophe may be used includes the New York Times, so to say it is outright incorrect, is just not true, a major publication allows it in their style guide.
So while I agree, since the major style guides say not to use an apostrophe, it shouldn’t be used. However there are also conflicting style guides. So maybe folks can take it down a notch on the grammar teacher shtick?
Either way, that apostrophe was clearly done intentionally (if perhaps incorrectly). So Dandru’s original snarky comment is clearly wrong, someone did proofread it, the apostrophe is used in multiple places. They may have gotten the style incorrect, but wasn’t because Cryptic is too stupid to check their graphic.
Matt, my comment didn’t deserve ANY of the sneering tone and vitriol with which you replied. NOTHING in my comment to you justifies the snide tone of your reply. An apology would be appreciated.
(And I *did* click through the links before declaring StackExchange a terrible source. That’s a big part of *how* I know it’s a terrible resource. So there’s no need for your sneering and condescension on THAT matter, either.)
Yeah, you’re right, probably got too carried away there. Many people do what I’d call “drive by” comments and really don’t take the time to check things out. This is especially prevalent when a person thinks they’ve “gotten one up” on a site, and they think they’ve caught an error. They comment without real thought and then move on.
The New York Times eliminated this use of apostrophes from their date style in 2006/2007. Have they since reinstated apostrophes in this usage? Which edition of their style manual?
It sounds like they eliminated the apostrophe more recently than what I had access to (2002 edition).
Re:It sounds like they eliminated the apostrophe more recently
If it is indeed as PaulB suggests, it would seem prideful grammarists:
“At Tozd, a cafe with a bicycle on the wall, Tito-era ashtrays on the tables and tapas named after 1980’s [ sic ] pop stars …” — ‘Melania Trump’s Ljubljana, Then and Now’; By JASON HOROWITZ; NEXT STOP Column; THE NEW YORK TIMES, AUG. 4, 2016
have bigger fish to fry than po’ lil’ ol’ Cryptic or you.
Re: It sounds like they eliminated the apostrophe more recently
If I am reading this correctly:
Nov. 14, 2011
Matt Wright: The apostrophe is incorrect. There’s nothing “technically” about that. It is not considered an acceptable style. Anyone doing so is in error. It hasn’t started to fall into disuse since it was never the correct style to begin with.
Re:There’s nothing “technically” about that.
As a speaker of the language, I believe that you are entitled to an opinion on the matter. But you have never offered anything in your many peeves here that has revealed yourself to be an undeniable final authority in the matters which are of personal concern to you.
Contrary to your assertion, Matt is correct that THE NEW YORK TIMES supported the apostrophe numerical pluralization construct in the 2002 edition of his NYT STYLE GUIDE. The source for that was none other than their own William Safire, who I and numerous others do recognize as an authority on the matter:
“The big question that faces all of us in these end‐of‐the‐decade thumbsuckers is: does the plural of a number take an apostrophe?
The answer is yes. (If you prefer: The answer is “yes.”) We are not leaving the 1970s, we are leaving the 1970’s — or if you like to abbreviate, as in the “spirit of ‘76,” we are leaving the 70’s. Not the ‘70s. (The apostrophe goes only before a single year, not a decade.)” – ‘On Language Goodbye Girl’; By WILLIAM SAFIRE; NYT; OCT. 21, 1979;
Yes, the NYT supported the apostrophe in the *2002* edition–14 years ago. In 2006/2007, they dropped the apostrophe from decades. That’s just a little bit more recent than (*checks your comment*) 1979. Yes, Safire was an authority and his comment was valid–37 years ago.
This use of apostrophes is incorrect. Current versions of every major style manual say the apostrophe is wrong in this usage. The New York Times has said so since 2006/2007.
So, no, the answer is NOT yes. You are simply wrong on this. The apostrophe is incorrect according to the vast majority of modern American publishing (including the NYT!), so using an outdated-and-replaced 2002 NYT style guide as your source is simply ludicrous (in an already ludicrous thread).
Sure, Dandru is being pedantic and trying to push an argument with Matt, it appears, so Dandru deserves a smackdown, but at least try to be current and accurate in your smackdown.
Re: 14 years ago
That wasn’t the issue for Dandru. He insisted that It NEVER was any other way than the way you and he assert it is now.
And again, as I said to him, I say to you: I haven’t seen anything in your posts to give an indication why I should recognize you as a sole authority on the matter.
Here’s what the University of Chicago Press via their online version of their THE CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE says on the matter:
“Chicago style omits the apostrophe, but the thing about style is, there is no single great arbiter who makes rules that everyone follows. Different houses use different styles. Following a particular style allows a person to be consistent within a given document, but it really doesn’t matter which style you choose.” — THE CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE ONLINE, chicagomanualofstyle.org
You haven’t offered any authority either, so get off your high horse. Of all of us in this chat, I have provided more complete and accurate information than any of all–heck, than all of you combined–so you really need to chill out.
If you’d like, I can provide the links to information for AP, APA, and MLA to go along with Chicago saying to eliminate the apostrophe.
And yes, duh, of course there is no ABSOLUTE ARBITER of the English language. As I’ve been clear to say repeatedly, I’m using the vast majority of current style guides as my guidance. I could mention my 30+ years of professional editing and writing, as well as my three degrees in writing and teaching, as well as my ongoing profession as a college writing teacher. But I don’t need to because you haven’t provided anything to contradict my claims here, so…sorry, you’re just barking up the wrong tree, buddy.
You should get off your high horse and stop trying to condescend to all of us. If you feel a need to continue doing so, leave me out of it.
Re: You haven’t offered any authority either
I have never contended I personally was or that my opinion should be the only thought on the matter, but I have provided links to reputable sources with ideas that counter what’s been bandied about while others merely assert and provide nothing that can be as readily checked.
According to sources I’ve cited, these two observations have no merit:
(Dates with apostrophes in them) “Not very professional.” — NYT which you have mentioned several times as a “professional” resource in the matter still publishes what you call the incorrect plural date constructs in this year’s articles as recent as last month [See my previous cite.] I’m just saying how serious are we supposed to take his “Not very professional.” observation if the reigning professional authority on the matter is still getting it wrong and still hasn’t corrected it in over a month in print and online ten years after you say it was adopted?
“It hasn’t started to fall into disuse since it was never the correct style to begin with.”
You couldn’t be more wrong about what I am wrestling with here or how high a horse I am riding. I couldn’t have made it more clearer when I said, “As a speaker of the language, I believe that you are entitled to an opinion on the matter.”
And I definitely don’t know how my taking issues with ad hominems got turned around to me supposedly taking issue with the change as a valid style shift?
It’s amazing how one man’s small, idiotic criticisms of some thing so completely unimportant turns into such a large thread. I gotta stop reading the comments section.
Dozens of posts talking about an apostrophe. This is why Trekkies are seen as petty nit picking nerds.
It has nothing to do with Trekkies. If you do the following pet peeve search in Google:
You will get around 22 results when duplicates are removed.
If you subtract out all results which mention the word “TREK”:
You get 20.
Clearly those petty nit picking nerds, which concern you so, transcend Trekkies at least eleven to one, and only someone with a chip on their shoulder could twist that spilling over to here as some sort of solely Trek fan marginalizing stereotypical activity.
Disinvited, your logic is flawed. I’m not saying all nit picking nerds are Trekkies, I’m saying many (too many) Trekkies are nit picking nerds.
Your post tends to support my observation.
And yes I have a chip on my shoulder. I tire of reading people who have nothing better to do than complain about apostrophes!
Re:your logic is flawed
No, the issue I was directly addressing was your intimation which you conveniently restated in your reply as “I’m saying many (too many) Trekkies are nit picking nerds.” How can Trekkie nitpicking nerds be “too many” as exemplified by those complaining about apostrophes as you contended, when nitpicking nerds that complain about apostrophes outnumber them at least eleven to one?
I suppose I could follow your lead and take a stab at restating my response too: I don’t see how a proven extreme minority can logically be “too many” and singled out from a far bigger majority’s identical concerns without recourse to an irrational, and therefore illogical, bigotry, i.e. an admitted chip, against their values and priorities not aligning with your own?
Obviously, I do share your concerns about Trek nitpickers being unduly petty. Especially, when they mix valid concerns with ad hominem embellishments, such as in reporting an inaccuracy, which are not just merely offensively petty but themselves demonstrably fraught with inaccuracy to boot.
Re: I tire of reading people who have nothing better to do than complain about apostrophes!
This can be addressed. See my response too sean_skroht in the next message immediately following this one as I post it, but which can be directly accessed by this link here:
if that position changes in the future.
Re: I gotta stop reading the comments section
You don’t even have to do that with the new comments options. If you look at Dandru’s seed comment here:
You will note in its bottom right hand corner the words “Hide Replies ∧”. If you click on that, all replies to that post of his will be hidden from you and you can easily progress to the next post without ever spying a one of them.
Saw this the other day and wondered if it was suggesting that the timeline split happened from the Earth Romulan War rather than Nero’s arrival? Wasn’t sure if it was just the way the graphic was layed out or if it was suggesting something different…would of thought that would be where the two would divide.
Yeah, that part is really confusing and does not make much sense
Yeah I see what you’re saying, but Nero’s arrival didn’t happen in the Prime timeline, so it would also be confusing to propagate the split from there (implying it happened in both timelines and then they diverged).
I consider it Cannon My Self its a great game and great company behind it that takes there players seriously I love Cryptic
You consider it a large-barreled weapon that propels lead balls?
“Call not me slanderer; thou, and thine, usurp
The dominations, royalties, and rights,
Of this oppressed boy: This is thy eldest son’s son,
Infortunate [ sic ] in nothing but in thee;
Thy sins are visited in this poor child;
The cannon [ sic ] of the law is laid on him,
Being but the second generation
Removed from thy sin-conceiving womb.” — KING JOHN, by William Shakespeare, PLAYS OF WILLIAM SHAKSPEARE [ sic ] , p 210 – 211
Aha I see what you did there!
You used sarcasm to describe Cryptic in the exact opposite of how they really are ;)
The thing to keep in mind with STO is that it just a video game. Meaning: everything that is actually canon, realistic and plausible in the Star Trek universe, is all thrown out the airlock.
Here, Starfleet officers in the 25th century fly in ships from the past, ships from far in the future, ships from the JJ-verse, ships from all kinds of alien races and fire every kind of weapon except phasers.
In the article title, the word “canon” is used to describe how the game’s story ties in to actual Star Trek on-screen canon. While the devs are real Trek fans and the content they put out is very trek-knowledgeable and can very entertaining, the game itself is in no way, shape or form, canon.
It is however fully vetted by the franchise owners, licensed, and approved at every step by those owners.
Wrong name of Dyson sphere
They have 2 Dyson Spheres in the game, the Jenolan Sphere where Scotty crashed in the USS Jenolan & the Solanae Sphere, near New Romulus.
While I totally understand setting the TNG spinoff (DS9) on a space station near a wormhole, it would have been fascinating to have had a series set entirely within the Jenolan Dyson Sphere. With that amount of ‘class M’ landmass, there’d be decades worth of stories to tell. The whole concept of a Dyson sphere is mind blowing!
Beautiful graphic — so informative!
I don’t play the silly game so for me it doesn’t fit in any where.
Why are you even on this thread in the first place if you consider it “silly?” Get a grip.
Anyone has noticed a two more timelines?
My guess is that one of those phantom timelines is the one featured in “Yesterday’s Enterprise” (TNG), and the other is the pre-Temporal Cold War/TMP timeline. I say this because, in TMP, when Decker was showing Robo-Ilia around the Recreation Area, there isn’t an NX-01 “Enterprise” among the other ships named “Enterprise”. I always felt that ENT was the result of a temporal incursion, but, unfortunately, that plot point was never fleshed out.
I have played this game and spent money on it. Love the ship to ship combat. Great game. Unfortunately, I can’t get it to work anymore. Bummer.
If you own an Xbox one or PS4 they recently launched STO there, doesn’t have everything from the PC version yet but if your PC can’t handle the game anymore it might allow you to get back into playing it by going that route.
Rodden and McCartney
Well, so long as we’re playing the backseat-copyeditor game (for the record, I *am* a professional copyeditor in a large corporation, and assuming Cryptic even *has* a stylebook for STO, I appreciate the difficulty of getting all staff to adhere to its strictures)…
1. For the solanogen-based aliens from subspace who abducted Riker et al, who reappeared in the “Star Trek: Titan” novel _Sight Unseen_ (2015), and who get a Dyson sphere in STO … the novel and game use spelling “Solanae” (see: http://sto.gamepedia.com/Solanae) but the infographic is mis-spelled twice as “Solane.”
2 and 3. Left side: Most, but not all, of the TV episodes are labeled with season and episode. Both exceptions appear under “Klingon War.” There’s an (unavoidable?) inconsistency that the movies are numbered only through “VI,” whereas the four TNG films aren’t sequenced.
4. Right side: Most, but not all, of the events use sentence-casing, e.g., “2258 Vulcan is destroyed … 2393 Bajor gains full Federation membership” vs. “2293 First Khitomer Accords Signed … 2344 Tasha Yar Captured by Romulans.”
In all my years of enjoying trekmovie.com, yours was the most professional contribution that I have ever seen made in a comment chain addressing such issues. While I haven’t concerned myself directly with raising my own concerns on some other posted article that may appear, to me, to require, if not an emending, at least another once over, you certainly put the pale to my own past feeble attempts to so do.
Re: assuming Cryptic even *has* a stylebook for STO
Drawing on my personal experience in coding and working with teams to that end, I can’t imagine Cryptic putting something together like STO without recourse to some sort of guide from at least the code writing side of it. I suspect their infographic might have its root origins leaning more to service that end, over, say, merely “Wouldn’t this be a cool thing to do?”