Talk:Galactic quadrant

Needs massive expansion

This article requires a lot of work. There's so much from DS9's "galactic-political" theme that could be incorporated here. There's also alot of supposition present at the moment, eg. the Klingon Empire was established as an Alpha Quadrant power in DS9, not a Beta Quadrant one. And what's with all the clock allegory? Can't we just label the quadrants as north-east quarter, south-east quarter, etc.? I'll try to revamp this when I get time, but is there anyone else who could have a go in the meantime? Ben Hawkins 23:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

-

I agree, the article does need a lot of work. I just made some corrections and standardized some of the language so that the article as a whole is more uniform. Also, I added a new category 'Trivia' in which I placed a note someone had written about quadrants in general (the note had been placed under 'Delta Quadrant'). FractaL 12:14, 01 August 2006 (GMT)

Milky Way

Has every episode in every ST series been confined to the Milky Way galaxy? Would the "center of the universe" in ST 5 still be in the Milky Way?

No, they've gone beyond tha galaxy, at least twice in TOS, and I think once or twice in TNG. Cyberia23 17:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The didn't go to the centre of the Universe in ST5, they just went to the centre of the Milky Way. Branfish 03:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Distance from alpha

How can the delta quadrant be the furthest away from the alpha quadrant? According to the description, it should be equally as far as the gamma quadrant, no? That's discounting wormholes, of course, which I think is only proper. --Yamla 20:37, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Sorta, I guess. The center of alpha is fartherst from delta. Cburnett 20:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'll attempt an answer. Technically, the Alpha Quadrant never touches the Delta Quadrant except at the very core of the galaxy where the corners of each Quadrant meet. To get to the Delta from the Alpha, you will have to travel through parts of the Beta or Gamma Quadrants to get there since travel thorugh the center point is very dangerous. Not only are there a ton of stars in your way, but also a massive blackhole (Sagitarius A) lies there. So in a sense, the Delta Quadrant would be the most distant from the Alpha Quadrant. Cyberia23 17:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but did you consider that Space has three dimensions? No, I didn't think so. It is actualyl possible to go over or around the 'centre of the galaxy', and still not go into either the Beta or Gamma Quadrants.

The problem is that the current article says the Delta is the furthest from Earth, which it also says lies on the line between the Alpha and the Beta. So the Gamma and Delta are equally far from Earth. 172.168.47.165 03:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but Earth is considered by Star Fleet to be part of the Alpha Quadrant, even though it lies at the border of Alpha and Beta. So, it's the farthest by quadrant reference only. Physically, yes, both Delta and Gamma are the same distance away from it if you wanna get technical. Cyberia23 01:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this confusion comes because Voyager was supposed to have ended up much further away from "known space" than even the Dominion (the Gamma Quadrant). In fact, of course, the Quadrants are certainly big enough for the Dominion to be nearer the Earth than the Array was, even though the Quadrants as a whole are equidistant.

BTW, it's interesting that Earth is a sort of galactic Greenwich, I suppose that's a perk of founding the Federation 8-).Daibhid C 00:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the episode "Year of Hell", we see a map of the milky way displayed in Astrometrics on the viewscreen. When Harry/Seven plot the new course home, it shows that the ship will pass through the Beta Quadrant. MitchellO 17:02, 20 September 2006 (AEST)

Earth in α and β quadrants

If the line separating the α and β quadrants starts at the center of the Milky Way and runs through the center of the solar system, then Earth spend 6 months of each year in the α quadrant and the other 6 months in the β quadrants. Yet the dialog that I vaguely recall seemed to imply that Earth was in the α quadrant. --Gerry Ashton 03:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Earth is only ever described as being in the Alpha Quadrant. Maybe it is in the Beta Quadrant during the summer when the show isn't on? :P MitchellO 08:57, 03 October 2006 (AEST)

LOL. Maybe the galactic meridian has little zig zags in it around worlds it would otherwise cut through, like the prime meridian on Earth so that places cut in the middle by it have decided what side of the boundary their entire nation lies on. Earth apparently decided to be in the Alpha Quadrant. Cyberia23 08:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

fact and fiction?

I don't quite understand the fact and fiction template on the page. The first sentence says that this information about something fictional, so one would assume that nothing of the following is scientific. --84.178.83.107 21:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well the other users on this page are trying to apply science to the fiction. But since the writers write what they feel like writing, without consulting a university staff of astronomers and astrophysicists, they come up with immense errors. Star Trek is about the stories, this fiction, and the science would be secondary. Don't take my word for it though-- ask the people who wrote it. The next generation technical manual clearly states the writer's position on it in the forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.127.68.125 (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

TODO

Need to check the Encyclopedia to see what it says. I gather it explains how the thing with the meridian running through Earth was made up in order that lines like "but we are the only ship in the quadrant" still vaguely work. Also, when did Alpha/Beta/Gamma/Delta Quadrant usage start? Mid-TNG, I expect - I was watching a season 1 episode and it was using "quadrant" in the sense "an area smaller than a sector", which was the TOS usage. Also, Star Trek Star Charts (attribute this in text), see what we can get from the episodes. Could we find a source noting the discrepancy between DS9's portrayal of Klingon/ROmulans as Alpha-quadrant powers with the Encyclopedia/Star Charts maps, which show them in the Beta quadrant? Are there any on-screen references to Klingons/ROmulans as being in Beta quadrant at all actually? (possibly implied in Star Trek VI). Morwen - Talk 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

nb also some interesting memos in POe's Voyager book from Mike Okuda saying the show should be set in the Delta quadrant. Morwen - Talk 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did a rewrite per this. Note Encyclopedia and Star Charts actually contradict each other over the position of the Romulans/Klingons. Can't find a source about DS9's use of the term Alpha Quadrant. Morwen - Talk 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's probably fair to assume that the term "Alpha Quadrant powers" was used simply as a shorthand to distinguish it from the Gamma Quadrant Powers. I don't recall precisely, but I'm pretty sure that in the episode, the term was used to encompass the Federation, Klingons, Romulans, and their minor allies, and since it was initiated by the Federation (most of which is located in the Alpha Quadrant) they got to name it. Also, since "our" end of the wormhole is located in the Alpha Quadrant, most of the staging posts and rallying points were located there, which could be another reason why they were designated so. Obviously I'm speculating here, but I'm doing so only to make the point that the description of the Klingon and Romulan Empires as being in the Beta Quadrant is not necessarily inconsistent with their being grouped in with the "Alpha Quadrant powers". Branfish 03:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Borg

The article states that the Borg have space in the Beta Quadrant as well as the Delta. Can anybody cite a source for this? If not, I'll remove it. Branfish 03:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Star Trek Quadrant Map.jpg

Image:Star Trek Quadrant Map.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

New image

The new lead image (File:Galactic Quadrant.PNG) blatantly contradicts the text, which clearly says that Earth (and thus the Sol system) is on the Alpha-Beta quadrant border. Powers ^T 16:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No Longer fiction

New info that changes everything: Apparently the division of the galaxy by quadrants is not an entirely trekky thing. I just did a Google book search and found hundreds of professional astronomy texts using the term galactic quadrant, though referring to them by 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th rather than Alpha, Beta, etc. More importantly, a source seems to confirm that they are refering to the same system of dividing the galaxy by degrees and that it was inspired by Star Trek! Now this article has historical and independent substance. I'm going to notify WikiProject Astronomy, but as I do that I recommend you guys reorganize the article to note the astronomical significance. —CodeHydro 21:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

As we decide how to incorporate the new material, I have made a sandbox version of the page, User:Codehydro/Sandbox/Galactic quadrant, as a proposed version. Anybody working on it really ought to take a look at it and make improve on the sandbox version since it is not quite ready to replace the actual article (since I've filled it with WP:OR and a bit of (educated) BS just to see how it would look. ;) Who knows, my guesses might not be far from the truth.... now where are those folks from the Astronomy Project that I called? —CodeHydro 00:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

In case this article is deleted

• Some sort of page is needed here, as many pages link to it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Well it was deleted briefly, though it's back now. A lot of material was cut out, particularly from the Bajoran wormhole. I pointed redirects to the Bajoran wormhole to the gamma quadrant section instead. I guess if trekkies want more information, they'll have to go to Memory Alpha or look at the Old revision of Galactic quadrant from before the material was removed by AfD. —CodeHydro 19:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

In-universe

This article still quite a bit of trivia in it from its pre-AfD state. I tagged this with {{in-universe}}, because constructs like

Most of the information about the Delta Quadrant and its inhabitants comes from the series Star Trek: Voyager. This quadrant is largely unexplored by the United Federation of Planets, apart from the voyages of the USS Voyager, the USS Equinox, the USS Raven, briefly the USS Enterprise NCC-1701-D, and the Federation citizens assimilated or de-assimilated from the Borg. The Delta Quadrant is home to the Borg Collective,[14] the Kazon, the Vidiians, the Talaxians, the Ocampa, the Hirogen,[citation needed] and the Malon.

are not encyclopedia-worthy simply because of the qualifier "in Star Trek Voyager". Memory Alpha exists for plot points which aren't examined by sources independent of Star Trek; until the excess material is removed or independent sources found which examine it from a real-world context then the section should be re-tagged. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; it remains ridiculously focused on plot summary and trivia. --EEMIV (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence is largely non-fictional. The third sentence is descriptive of the inhabitants of the quadrant. The second sentence is somewhat irrelevant and the only real weak point of the paragraph, though I can see its purpose in providing linking to other articles. Considering that 7 years worth of shows take place in this quadrant, a length of 3 sentences is amazingly short already. Nonetheless, if something must go, it is the second sentence. —CodeHydro 00:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the entire section. --EEMIV (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether seven years of the show takes part in the quadrant is irrelevant so long as the real-world importance of that aspect of the show is not covered in reliable independent sources from a real-world perspective. Our sole consideration should be how much treatment a topic is given in the real world. Remember, this is (supposedly) an article on the concept of dividing the galaxy up; it's not supposed to be a coathanger to allow Wikipedia to bang on about what Star Trek calls the Delta Quadrant, and the AfD did not conclude as a keep on that basis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 08:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Might we be better served by leaving information on these fictional Star Trek quadrants in the List of Star Trek regions of space article? It seems perfectly suited to it. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and moved it all already. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Another editor would like some of the Star Trek information to stay. Personally I would like to see it all go, but I may as well see if there's any other opinion. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The move was probably a good decision, though I think a brief mention of fictional appearances here is fine. Also notice how the only parts kept are directly related or compared to the non-fictional perspective. By the way, you forgot to move a few parts, like the section image. —CodeHydro 16:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I forgot the section image, but the bit on the Galatic Core seemed to be mentioned already in the List.. article. But now that the material has been saved as it were, it can be edited with more of a perspective on the fictional aspects in it's new location.

Worth remembering though that it's a minor bit of terminology in Star Trek. Even if adventures are listed as happening in such and such a quadrant, they'd be written/shot as happening on a planet/moon/nebula anyway. That there is a fictional system of galactic mapping is not that relevant to this article. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The star trek system of mapping and labeling the quadrant is not fictional in itself. It's at least as valid as the galactic coordinate system, albeit somewhat less impractical, to divide the galaxy as Star Trek does. Indeed, the star-trek way is the less-geocentric way of doing it. —CodeHydro 17:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Star Trek method, having been devised as part of a fictional universe, is distincly fictional. I sense a bit of in-universe creep going on here, with examples of the use of the term in a pop quiz being used to push its notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable features

As far as I am aware, this table of "notable features" could go on for some time. Currently it could be used to fit every Messier object or entry in the Herschel 400 Catalogue. If it is being used to tabulate editor's opinions of what is "notable", then that would to me represent a little bit of OR. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting seems a rather silly way to deal with that issue. I have move the list to List of celestial bodies by galactic coordinate system. —CodeHydro 15:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting it from this article was quite appropriate. It has kept a creeping list that would have certainly sprawled over this entire article from stifling the rest of its content. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing it from the article was appropriate. Removing it without moving it to a new location was simply wasteful. —CodeHydro 12:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

There is absolutely no obligation on my part to do so. I could counter argue that the addition of the list to Wikipedia at all is wasteful. WikiuserNI (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Eight quadrants

Why does this article go to some lengths to explain that there are four galactic quadrants and then list eight of them in the table? Presumably NGQ and SGQ stand for North Galactic Quadrant and South Galactic Quadrant, but I'm not seeing that anywhere in the article, only in the baffling table. SpinningSpark 00:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The constellations table--two fixes and an (I think) improvement

I made a change in the arrangement of the table of constellations by Galactic quadrant.

• I thought it made more sense to arrange the north and south portions of each quadrant together, rather than the earlier arrangement of the four north portions followed by the four south portions.

I made two actual fixes. The total numbers of the constellations in each half-quadrant added to the correct 88 constellations, but things started breaking down a bit when I actually counted them:

• SGQ2 said it had 10 constellations, but 11 were listed; NGQ3 said it had 9 constellations, but only 8 were listed. I worked under the assumption that the constellations were listed in the correct half quadrants, and edited the numbers to 11 and 8 respectively.
• Then I had a problem with SGQ4. It said it had 22 constellations, but I kept counting only 21 (which made the grand total come to 87 instead of 88)--then I realized that "Mensa Tucana" is not a constellation! So I stuck in the needed comma.

Uporządnicki (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)