2053 [from Star Trek: First Contact] was recently superceded by 2026 [from...errr...either Demons or Terra Prime]. Is this going to be recognised?

Likewise, the end of the war is now 2053, and not 2079, although the data FROM 2079 [the post-atomic horror from the nuclear fallout] is still valid.--Stripey 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why are you changing article information if you're not even sure what the source of your information is, let alone if it's accurate?? --Seventy 19:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you often criticise me? I criticise no-one. I DO know the data's accurate. As for the source, it's either Demons or Terra Prime, so I've put both. No biggie. Give me a break for once.--Stripey 19:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the 2026 date was from an illegible Okudagram in "In A Mirror, Darkly," that people are only acknowledging because it was leaked to the web. That same Okudagram was full of other historical errors, and it wasn't reflected in dialog; further, even Mike Sussman himself has said that things like that shouldn't be taken as canon. I don't accept it as authoritative, and I see no reason to regard it as superceding the 2053 date from The Sundered. -- Sci 04:57 31 DEC 2006 UTC

We don't really know when the war started, or if there were several precursor conflicts that snowballed into "the" WW3 (the varying death counts argue for some dispute as to what conflict(s) "count" as WW3). I agree that not everything on an Okudagram should be considered canon (considering how many gag items he stuck in them), but the truth is all we really know is when it went nuclear. That's not really an argument for 2026, but it is one for a rewrite that is a little less definitive as to start date of the war.--Emperorkalan 05:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)