Talk: James T. Kirk

Removed ambiguity[]

I removed:

"...never canonically established, but it was widely accepted by fans..." Need I say more? Unsupported hogwash. --Alan (talk) 20:21, December 17, 2019 (UTC)

Kirk Trivia[]

• Kirk had three natural children: 1 unborn son killed with Kirks common law wife "The Paradise Syndrome"; a son Eugino from the slave woman Drusilla (The Autobiography of James T. Kirk); and Dr. David Marcus.
• Kirk only had a "normal family life" when he had amenisa "The Paradise Syndrome"; the longest romantic relationship Kirk had was the 71 years with Antonia in the Nexus Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.49.111.8.

What is your point? Unborn babied don't count (even for the tax credit), the autobiography is not canon, and Kirk didn't experience that amount of time in the nexus. --Alan (talk) 22:08, January 9, 2020 (UTC)

Removed section[]

"There was then the issue of the dates on the gravestone. Considering that the stardates used in "Where No Man Has Gone Before" were chronological, with 1087.7 being the earliest stardate mentioned (Gary Mitchell's birthdate) and 1313.8 the latest (the last stardate of the episode), then 1277.1 would fall within this range, being much closer to 1312.4 – the stardate on which the episode began – than 1087.7. This would imply that Kirk was born later than Gary Mitchell. The "C" which preceded 1277.1 was not defined further; one interpretation was that it could mean captain as "C" was an abbreviation used for captain in occupation and positions. [1]"

I removed the preceding section because I feel it was not adding any information to the article and was in fact made it more confusing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but stardates are not consistent across different places, so unless both Gary and Kirk were born in the same place it wouldn't be possible to compare their birth dates using stardates. Not to mention the fact that if this were true it would mean Gary is more than three times older than Kirk, and Kirk would only be 35 "days" old. Regarding the "C" in the date, I'm certain it stands for "circa", meaning "approximately" this is common to see on dates the exact time of which are uncertain, such as Gary would be uncertain of exactly when Kirk was born, but would have a good guess. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hunter12396 (talk • contribs).

2252[]

The article states that Kirk started the academy in 2252. This bothers me because he would be turning 19 in March of 2252. Shoreleave is where he states that he was a plebe at the academy 15 years ago. If we take the star date of shore leave of 3025.something - then it seems its at the start of 2267. What if he was refferring to his 2nd semester of his first year at the academy so January of 2252 - that means he would have entered in the Fall of 2251 when he was 18 which seems more likely. --Sam - fellow nerd.

Stardates are taken with a grain of salt. Everything else is generalize based on a lot of little bits of loose information fitting into big empty slots. --Alan (talk) 13:02, August 21, 2020 (UTC)

Info box gone[]

Yes, I finished editing a fair portion of the article, but when I saved it, the info box (the box with all of Kirk's stats) is gone; only his serial number is left. The info box is, however, visible when you edit the article.

I tried amending the problem numerous times to no success. What is going on? What happened?

If it means anything, it was NOT my intent to vandalize the article.

I think it's because you used the Visual Editor which messed up the code. I've copied and pasted the infobox from an older version of the article. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Tiberius[]

The article says the name "Tiberius" originated from David Gerrold, and this is marked "citation needed". Evidence to the contrary is presented in a facttrek article (look for "Tiberius" in the article, including footnote 12, and also the link to the recording, go to 20:35). My suggestion is to remove the Gerrold claim. -- HLachman (talk) 12:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's the Gerrold reference in question. –Gvsualan (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The facttrek article links to that (in footnote 12). That's why Gerrold's claim doesn't hold water, because "Tiberius" had already been selected prior to the event Gerrold cited. My suggestion stands. -- HLachman (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Rather than removing a reference, I've added the second reference. -- Sulfur (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

OK. I added some clarification. I believe it to be accurate and balanced. -- HLachman (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

And how exactly was the date of the audio recording verified? Also, are we forgetting Roddenberry used the name in his prior series, The Lieutenant? –Gvsualan (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It might be an equally fair question, how was Gerrold's version of events verified. Regarding your first question, perhaps you can find out via the "Contact" link at the top of the facttrek article I mentioned, as I have no further information beyond what I got from that article. Regarding your second question, no, this is not forgotten. It's covered in footnote 12 of the article. Regarding "a third case can be made" (your addition to the article text), it may be compatible with the second case (as Fontana didn't claim to have invented the name), so I'm not sure that's a separate case. Beyond that, I have no further suggestion about what to put in the article (maybe just that Gerrold's version should be noted as being his own personal account). In any case, as long as the source information is available, people can make of it what they like. -- HLachman (talk) 17:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point we have a third party stating a "date" that may or may not be true or verified, vs. an equally questionable reference that is at leasta first person account supported or published by verified sources. –Gvsualan (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what "verified" means in this context, nor do I know what degree of verification is needed for inclusion in the article. Again, my suggestion is to keep the source information available and let people reach their own conclusions. I'm not sure I have anything further to add. -- HLachman (talk) 22:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your question about the date of the recording, aside from the above-cited facttrek article, more information is online here. I have no further information on that... just a messenger! Also, I made a few copyedits to the current text, which I think are reasonable, e.g.: it was only Fontana who referenced the name (the prior text said Fontana and Barrett both did), and I added "to the public" because that's all the recording suggests (it does not provide any indication whether Fontana was the first to mention the name universally, like in the office). -- HLachman (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

We aren't here to interpret contradictory information. We are here to present it and let the reader either come to a conclusion (which could be that memories are poor, that the audio recording is misrepresented in terms of date, or even that it's from the prior series and was decided well before anyone else mentioned it). The facts that we know are all sourced and presented as best we can, and there's no further down that hole that we should go ourselves. That's not our place. We're an encyclopedia, not an investigative journalism site. :) -- Sulfur (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the above is my position as well (as I think I've stated). I'm OK with the article as-is (while remaining open to further inputs, of course). -- HLachman (talk) 14:16, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

(Possible missing) references[]

We don't keep lists of every time someone's name was spoken, especially when these lists are the only reference to that episode on tbe entire page. These make it too easy to be lazy and sloppy. Add the reference to the article with the context, that's how encyclopedias work. --Gvsualan (talk) 02:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is next to nothing from Star Trek: The Animated Series to fill between the end of TOS and TMP. –Gvsualan (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Death age[]

Currently, the infobox lists Kirk dying aged 138. What? Kirk may have been born in 2233 and died in 2371 but he certainly wasn't 138 years old in 2371. He had essentially time traveled, as Guinan said he had just gotten to the Nexus from his point of view when Picard found him, and the two certainly didn't spend 78 years making breakfast and riding horses, to say nothing of the lack of aging in the Nexus. He was 60.

Is there not a better way of saying this information? Maybe "biologically aged 60" or "chronologically 138"? There are a lot of problems using the chronological example alone. The way it is now makes it appear to those unfamiliar with the events of Generations that Kirk was just very longevous, which is not the case. We can't be sticklers for "the year equals the age" either, the infobox for Spock gives a correct, biological age for the time of his death rather than saying he died old and grey while aged 33 because of the year. What of characters that time travel to years before their birth and then die there? Are we to assume Cristóbal Rios dies aged "negative 300" years old?? Chronological age derived from years of birth/death alone clearly doesn't work across the board.

I'll make it say 60 for now. Anyone with better reasoning or ideas, do sound off. TanookiMike (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

You raise an interesting point.

Two questions: is there a) a page where character age policy is listed, and b) a template way to format disparate ages?--LauraCC (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC) - LauraCC (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

No and no, and I don't think we need either. Ages should be obvious, and I don't see how a template could help (although feel free to explain what you mean, if you have a specific idea). 🖖 Mr. Starfleet Command ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

a) Not a page devoted to that, but a catch all that explains how each section of a character template should be filled out (not what it says, but format - I know, self-explanatory, but still). Characters that live in different times after a time travel or a long sleep/stasis, we could have a math calculator code thing that determines years lived/experienced, as opposed to including years passed over/skipped by them. -LauraCC (talk) 18:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)