Jump to content

Talk:Star Trek: Voyager/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Sir and Ma'am

Does anybody know why in Star Trek, female officers are called "sir"? This has been observed with Janeway, Troi, Kira, etc. Is this a part of Roddenberry's vision that in the future, there will be no gender discrimination? --Gung-ho 14:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the navy (US navy, at least) do this currently? I vaguely remember hearing that they did, but I'm not positive. Koweja 19:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting, does anyone know the reason for this? Maybe someone in the US Navy? --Gung-ho 20:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked into it a bit more, and it seems to depend on the situation and person. "Ma'am" addresses the person and "sir" addresses the rank. So a soldier will always address a female officer of a higher rank as sir unless she says otherwise, but will address female civilians as ma'am regardess of their position. So Janeway would be addressed by all Star Fleet personel as sir. The Maquee and civilians could do either one since they aren't bound by military protocol, but would probably use sir since it would be the most common term on the ship. If the commander was a civilian, such as Weir on Stargate Atlantis, she would be called ma'am by everyone. Or at least that's my understanding of it. Koweja 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
I was in the Navy (enlisted) and we were always told to adress female officers as Sir, period. I don't know how it's done in the other branches but since Starfleet's rank system is naval, then that would be the one that counts, though it is entirely possible that they could've assimilated other services traditions. Wasn't Gene Roddenberry Army? And even if he was Navy that was long before I was in, the fifties or so wasn't it. There weren't many female officers back then at all, so it is entirely possible that all officers were simply sir.
WTF?!? I've been in the US Navy for over 15 years, and it's ALWAYS been really BAD form to call a female officer "Sir" regardless of rank/position. Matter of fact, back in boot camp, I made that mistake once... once. T'was not a good day for me, lemme tell you. Female officers/Company Commanders get really really mad if they're called "Sir." And I'm not just talking about the Navy either... I've been attached to a few Joint Services commands before, including my recent stint in Afghanistan with Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan. NEVER heard ANY female officer addressed as "Sir." 'Course, doesn't mean there's not an obscure regulation or anything regarding it... YMMV.
Supersquid 01:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Vulcans

On the subject of Tuvok being the first Black Vulcan, I'm not sure I can concur. The first Black Vulcan I can ever remember seeing was in Star Trek V where the Midwife who delivered Spock in the flashback sequence was clearly Black. Wasn't there a Black Romulan in an episode prior to Voyager as well?Rayfire 07:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

See the Trekweb.com interview with Tim Russ that's linked to that point. Relevant portion of the interview:
Russ does feel that VOYAGER was different from the other STAR TREK series in some important ways. "I think that what made it stand out in part was the configuration of the cast was unique. We had a holographic doctor, which had never been seen before. We had a female captain and we were in a part of space that was totally and completely unexplored which more or less harkened back to the original series," Russ explained. "So there were three elements there that were very different. And of course my character was a black Vulcan, you'd never seen that before either." Wl219 05:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Tim Russ's thoughts do not necessarily equal fact. Rayfire is right about the midwife in ST:V. CynicalMe 06:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps Russ just meant he was the first black vulcan with a significant role. Koweja 13:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Star Trek V was one of the least popular ST movies(both in reviews and at the box office), so you can understand why some people might not know that. TJ Spyke 06:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether someone "might not know it" or not, is no excuse, the information is wrong. There were dark skinned Vulcans in ST:TMP and ST:3, as well.

I'm pretty sure DS9s Take Me out to the Holosuit had a diverse ethnic group of Vulcans, ie Black and White. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Genevieve Bujold as Nicole Janeway

You have a picture next to the blurb about the Original Captain Janeway, that identifies Bujold as "Nicole Janeway," but when you click on the image to increase it, the tag on the new picture identifies here as "Kathryn" Janeway. So which is it?

Her role would have been Nicole Janeway - the character was renamed when the role was recast. I've changed the image page. Koweja 15:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Janeway's bipolar command style

Can anyone give a few examples to Janeway's bipolar command style? Marky1981 16:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

See Also

Why is there a link to the Ablative Armor article in the See Also section? Surely that is more relevant to the USS Defiant in DS9 than to Voyager? Icthyos 20:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be linked from see also, as a side note Voyager was fitted with ablative armour generators in End Game. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Red Dwarf ripoff?

From the trivia section: "Many belive that Star Trek Voyager is a rip off of a UK Sitcom called Red Dwarf"

Original research? I went to the Red Dwarf page expecting to see a matching entry there. No luck. -- Ben 15:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's just unsourced fancruft. I've deleted it. Koweja 15:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Image obscures text

When this page is viewed with Firefox, the image of Voyager obscures the second sentence of the plot overview. This doesn't happen with IE. Can it be fixed, or is it just "one of those things"? Prometheus-X303- 20:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm using Firefox (2.0.0.1) and don't get the overlap you describe. Don't know if that helps you much, but you might try looking at settings. -- Siobhan Hansa 21:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to add that I am using the Monobook skin (Fx2.0.0.1). I changed to Classic skin, and there was no problem. Prometheus-X303- 21:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Virtual continuations

First off, I think something regarding this subject is worth including, whether it be only virtual continuations, or also include other virtual seasons and non-Paramount approved fan fiction. It it's actually probably best to consider a section on "Fan fiction & virtual continuations" in one section as these are vital to the Star Trek mein. However, the version of this section posted only discussed one virtual continuation project and was unsourced. If it were sourced and included other versions of virtual continuations and info on other fan fiction, I would be more amenable to allowing the section to stand without wanting to discuss or RV it. Can we work through this to incorporate this text? I know, as a Xenite, how important virtual seasons, fan fiction and the like are to a show and the longevity of that show's stories, characters and actors. ZueJay (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Recurring characters and races, guest stars

I've looked at a few TV series featured articles -- The X-Files, Dr. Who and The West Wing (TV series), to be specific -- and they all have limited or no space devoted to these types of characters. This article's recurring characters list seems only to have 2+ appearances as a requirement to appear; however, I don't see anything particularly notable about, say, Ensign such-and-such from Year of Hell. I don't see anything particularly notable based solely on number of appearances (think of Mr. Leslie from TOS); indeed, some of the most significant characters appear only once (think of Scotty and Spock in TNG).

As for the guest stars, I don't see a citation for their notability. Looks to me that they're just actors doing their job, i.e. showing up on a TV set and pretending to be an imaginary character. The appearance of that prince might be an exception, but that can be integrated into a section on production.

I will by the end of the day add a section on cross-Trek characters like Q, Riker, Troi, Barclay, etc.

--EEMeltonIV 13:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought it a bit overwhelming as well but wasn't brave enough to remove 'em. A bit on cross-over characters is really important with regards to Barclay (and Q - who doesn't love a Q). Barclay made more appearances on VOY than his originating series TNG. If folks really want the nitty gritty on most of this stuff, they should jump on over to the STV article at the Memory Alpha Wiki. ZueJay (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. Matthew 15:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Estimated Distance

This is a minor thing that I don't know the answer to. The Voyager page states that they have an estimated 75 year journey while the main Startrek page summarizing each series lists it as 70 years. I don't know the answer to this, perhaps someone could correct one or the other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.143.176.197 (talk) 17:58, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

Dialog in Episode 1 indicates 75 years 60.234.146.201 11:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

criticism section

Without getting into the actual merits of this show doesn't this page need a criticism section. Voyager is, at the very least, a divisive topic among star trek fans. Vegasjon 09:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

A criticism section would have to be from published or notable sources. This would at least attempt to preclude what I find often happens on Wikipedia, where users use it as an opportunity to add their own opinion about the show. "Another thing I hate about Voyager is..."  :-). That in mind, be bold and if you can find the critical source, create the section. Good luck! Docta247 09:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
So far most of what I've found is anecdotal and usually on blogs. A lot of people seem to dislike Voyager, just not too many with credentials to back it up.Vegasjon 10:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Why not just go with what sales and marketing departments go with? The whole Voyager series has been published on DVD for years. Going down to the local stores, some or all the seasons are sitting right there on the shelves. If they weren't selling, they wouldn't be there. Since they are selling, you have to assume that there are well...10,000s of people?...who have their own opinions and who are willing to pop $80 bucks to see it. Voyager is a divisive subject, if I may say so Vegasjon, because people like you are divisive, not because the series itself is. Take a look at yourself.

Voyager Crew List

Can we get a full list of every Voyager crew member mentioned in the series and their position? I'm curious how many crew members were actually named and seen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.145.134 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like an unnecessary trivial laundry list. Memory Alpha might have one -- maybe not a list per se, but a category page? --EEMeltonIV 21:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm of two minds about the whole deal. When Enterprise loses a security guard, they can go to the nearest starbase and restock. It's a bit more vitally important when Voyager loses one, as they cannot. But Memory Alpha has covered it in so much more detail, they got images of everyone who has ever been named and then some. Lots42 05:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Agree that there's a certain fascination in naming the crew of what was mostly a closed community. However I'm not aware of any effort (during initial conception and filming) in any of the Star Trek series to iterate every one of the characters or positions on a ship. I.e., there were some major cast members, some minor ones, guest stars, and all the rest of the actors were extras. There's a tendency find meaning where none existed. (Read "The Making of Star Trek", written in 1968, to see how much and how little there was behind the shows.)
One question about this that sticks in my mind, however, is the feeling that many people were killed on Voyager, yet the ship always seemed fully manned. My "comfort level" is that two or three times as many people were killed in individual episodes than was reflected in the ongoing series. Poetic license, sure. But this ship was in an even more desperate situation than the countdown of humans in Battlestar Galactica. That never shows. 24.6.67.7 (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Themes

This section is entirely uncited OR. While I agree with many of the assertions here, lacking a published source to support them, the material shouldn't be in the article. If you can cite (part of) this material to back up these underlying themes, please re-add. --EEMeltonIV 12:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is uncited, but in the same way as the plot section. That is, these themes are readily apparent to viewers of the show. Given that reason, and because I think they add to the article, I would like to see this section restored. 212.56.88.63 00:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Voyager continues the themes presented in the original Star Trek series and Star Trek: The Next Generation, including exploration of space and the human condition. It also demonstrates democratic principles (peace, openness, freedom, cooperation and sharing), philosophical issues such as the sense of self and what it means to be human, and ethical and moral choices. In the Star Trek series, the examination of humanity is often explored by contrasting non-human characters with human ones (for instance, the Earth-born Kirk and McCoy against the Vulcan Spock). On Voyager, non-humans include the Doctor, a computer program; Tuvok, a Vulcan; Neelix, a Talaxian; B'Elanna Torres, a Klingon-human hybrid; Kes, an Ocampa; and Seven of Nine, a human assimilated by the Borg at age 6 and liberated by the Voyager crew.
Voyager was probably more reminiscent of the original Star Trek series than The Next Generation. Although more technologically advanced than Next Generation, the size of the ship is almost identical to the Enterprise of the original series.[citation needed] Seven of Nine's post also grew similar to that of science officer, as held by Spock in the original series. The show was at times grittier than Next Generation; the members of the thrown-together crew clashed in ways unthinkable on Picard's Enterprise, and they relied on alien alliances and trade relationships. This starkly contrasts with Next Generation's "best and the brightest" feel.
Voyager, at times, ignores the concepts of time, fate, and cause and effect. On many occasions, including the series finale, the crew travels forward and backward in time and between parallel universes or timelines, violating the so-called "temporal prime directive" and causing many temporal paradoxes. Most of these episodes involve death, or the prevention of it. Every regular cast member has died at some point during the series, some more than once.
A common plot theme is the implications of being stranded far from home. Voyager has limited resources and no easy way to replenish them; its crew is cut off from the normal chain of command and institutions of Federation society. Janeway often expresses that though they are cut off from Starfleet, it is still the crew members' duty to live by Starfleet values and regulations. This idealism often brings her into conflict with Chakotay and other members of her crew who are more willing to make compromises in order to get home. Their situation confronts them with difficult choices of necessity versus idealism. Unlike the other Star Trek series, the crew of Voyager cannot stop at a starbase for repair or resupply. They often have to make trades with alien cultures or find new solutions to unforeseeable problems. There is also no crew exchange, which makes for new plot twists — for example, shipboard romances are not discouraged — and it also means that promotions are very rare, leading to some resentment. To overcome their cabin fever the crew relies on the holodeck more than other Starfleet crews, with some of their holodeck adventures becoming ongoing plotlines. This includes the Chez Sandríne bar, a tropical resort, the Captain Proton serial, the Fair Haven village, and Janeway's trips to the home of Leonardo da Vinci and a Gothic mansion. Some of these recurring holodeck stories end up behaving in much unexpected (and sometimes dangerous) ways due to alien interference or holodeck malfunction.
In the concluding seasons, the ship's isolation is partially relieved when Lt. Reginald Barclay at Starfleet Command on Earth develops a means for Starfleet to be in regular contact with the ship.

No.

Original.

Research.

Learn it, live it. If it isn't reported in the press, it doesn't

Exist.

kthxbye.

Jtdunlop (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Jtdunlop (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Jtdunlop (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Jtdunlop (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Seska

Should there be a bit on Seska in the overview. She was a pivital character in the first season, and could even be recognized as a regular. Was the actress' name in the opening credits? 208.203.4.140 (talk) 23:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This could be 100% wrong, but Seska seemed like a character who went through three "plans" of how to develop her character. She seemed roughly on the status of Wildman (senior) at first. Then it looked as though she'd been "killed off". Then finally, it seemed that someone had decided she'd done an exceptional job as a villain, and brought her back a couple times. To me, she's the most chilling villain who appeared on any Star Trek. I can barely stand to watch her. THAT'S acting.
So there might be quite a lot that could be unearthed about her, who knows? I'll help with Seska, but I don't have any special references / resources.
She and Wildman Jr. merit their own pages, if brief.
Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 00:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Seven's Status

Seven's status needs to be changed. She does not die in the series (only mentioned that she would have died if the crew did not get home in endgame).--88wolfmaster (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series

I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Critical reception

This article could do with a new section on the series's critical reception. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The following study by the EPU critises voyager as a series which prefers violance for solving conflicts.

Serious contradiction

This article has some "dos" and "undos" about the contradictionary fact, that 75,000 lightyears can be reached in 3.5 years with Warp 9.9 (despite 75 years). This calculation is based on crew member statements during episodes and a very interesting contradiction, because it aims at the fundament of the whole storyline. I think this should find it's way into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.141.54 (talk) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Trek universe, ships cannot sustain Warp 9.9 due to stress on the ship, energy required etc. Check out Star Trek Next Generation Technical Manual (which is essentially the 'Bible' for Trek scripts & shows). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.87.242 (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a copy of episode 1 or 2 handy, but if I recall correctly it is explained in one of these that Voyager is a new class of starship with new technology (part of which is the gel packs and postdates tech in the Next Generation) and is capable of sustained warp 8 without damaging subspace. Warp 8 is approximately 1000*C which results in a 75 year journey.
Is it possible Paris just states Voyager can do warp 9.9 as against sustained warp 9.9. At [1] it states that Intrpid class can sustain warp 9.975, so there is still a contradiction either in the warp speed formula or explanation of why only warp 8 can be sustained long term.
Furthermore, [2] in reference to the variable geometry warp nacelle pylons on Voyager states that "The goal of the these pylons is to improve engine efficiency by optimizing field stress when the ship travels extended journeys at warp 8+ velocity." and "According to the unpublished VOY Season 1 edition of the Star Trek: Voyager Technical Guide, by Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda, it was suggested that because of the variable-geometry pylons, warp fields may no longer have a negative impact on habitable worlds as established in TNG: Force of Nature."--60.234.208.121 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You cannot cite a source which is not published... There is no verifiable record of a voyager technical manual ever being planned other than at the wiki located at www.memory-alpha.org. The existence or state of this work is unkown, and attempting to use anything from its potential contents is mere speculation. Additionally the entire section in dispute appears to have been copied word for word from This section was lifted almost word for word from http://www.memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Variable-geometry_pylon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sao123 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

David Ogden Stiers

Unless I am mistaken, didn't he appear as a guest in one of the episodes in Voyager? (Apologies, I cannot remember the exact episode. He was Charles E. Winchester III in M*A*S*H if that helps) Erikster (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 

   EDIT: Oh, it may actually be TNG. Never mind

dates

I've seen dates change regarding the years that Voyager ran. After I checked several sites, I noticed that the confusion comes from production dates vs. air dates. I haven't figured out yet how to add it to the article, but production started in late 1994, but the first show "Caretaker" aired early in 1995. Suggestions? Ched (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

star trek voyager je veoma kul serija i ima mnogo dobrih epizoda,mada su neke previse dosadne. ja sam cak odlucila da pisem u casopaisu o njima veoma su kul. recimo kad god je o borgu rec i susretu sa borgom ja se uvek najezim. pisacu vam. cao —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.169.223.208 (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations...

Such as:- ST:VGR, ST:VOY, ST:V, VGR, or VOY. Does Voyager have this special connection to abbreviation? Does recognition of the Voyager series go hand in hand in any way with abbreviations? These are all quite good abbreviations, but, as the only connection to the series is the miracle of human jibber jabber, I will have to come back in a few days and wipe them off unless somebody has some very relevant issue about the myriad of abbreviation possible to play on the words...? Exapmle: Wikipedia, often abbreviated as Wiki, WP, WikiP, and.. does it affect the price of corned beef ? Unlikely! ~ R.T.G 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Despite your..."eloquence", I agree with your overall point. I'd say removing "ST:V" is appropriate as I've never seen that used before and can find no such usage to reference it now. I think we can also remove either ["ST:VGR" and "ST:VOY"] or ["VGR" and "VOY"] as they're each a redundancy of the other. I'm more inclined to leave the one's with "ST:–" prefix as they're more thorough in their abbreviation. However, they are both used extensively without the "ST:–" prefix, so this would ignore general usage and practices. I say we leave it up for debate before Mr. RTG makes a unilateral removal. I think we should also consider the possibility that it's appropriate to keep all four legitimate abbreviations, despite the fact that this is a lot of abbreviations; if they're generally used, there's no reason not to have them.
However, I do think "ST:V" can be removed without debate. DKqwerty (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Friend, I will remove all you have to say if you can't be decent and admins will block you out, idiot or not. Look, I am saying that the abbreviations, any abbreviations, are no big deal and little importance to the topic (don't belong there without a good reason). Your idea that we should 'keep the ST: one's 'cos it sounds good in my head', that doesn't give us a good excuse for putting even one abbreviation. Maybe I want to colour it all in black and purple 'cos I think that is the star trek colours but then my thoughts would have made me rich long ago. (find it abbreviated somewhere outside the wiki and debate that, do the creators, major fans or the TV channel abbreviate it in some notable way or do we just wipe them all off now?) ~ R.T.G 14:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I think ST:VOY and VOY should stay since VOY redirect here, it would give a explanation why VOY is redirected. All other abbr. can be removed. --RayYung (talk) 18:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why VOY would redirect to this article, so I fixed the problem. The abbreviations should stay unless you have evidence that they were not used by any major publication over any period. For example, if they just come from someones blog, they should be removed. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I think we all agree "ST:V" can go. Also, I suppose the "ST:–" prefix is redundant, so those two can probably be removed as well. I will cite the StarTrek.com page as evidence that "VOY" is indeed a practiced abbreviation; I can add more references if more than one is preferred. Now, regarding the "VGR" abbreviation, I cannot find any reliable sources which use that abbr. However, there are a plethora of usages on fan and torrent pages, so it is indeed in use by some. Also, Memory Alpha lists it as an abbr. Now, I know that Wikis are not generally reliable sources as anyone can edit them, however, I seem to remember seeing something about them being acceptable if they're specialized and well-maintained, which Memory Alpha certainly is. I would also submit that since this is not about verifying fact, only usage, that a user-maintained site such as that would stand as evidence of it's accepted usage. However, I don't not want to overtly violate Wikipedia policies. Please let me know if what I've said is legitimate. DKqwerty (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we are supposed to prove that the things are relevantly used, not to prove that they are not relevant. I could say Kathryn Jane has cooties and if you couldn't prove she didn't have them... just wouldn't work like that, lol. Redirecting VOY here wouldn't surprise me until a valid article should be named VOY but abbreviations are not really a subject of even minor importance to the series are they? That's why I would just delete them. We can abbreviate it later without losing anything. Like someone said above "If they are generally used..." but I think the general use is "Voyager Series" ~ R.T.G 19:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't beleive that the external wiki was a good enough ref. and startrek.com just uses "Voyager". Usually the page would say VOY redirects here to inform about redirects at the top of the page. I don't know if that applies to articles. ~ R.T.G 17:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ok, that's a week ago now so I will make the edit. ~ R.T.G 18:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Onica Hansen Seven of Nine

On startrek.com Seven of Nines human name is spelled Annika Hansen. On the actual series on many many episodes the name is mentioned and every time (yes every one of them) she is called Onica and not Annika. Every time a person is fresh from watching some of the series and reads "Annika" they are going to want to change it including myself who made the change and reverted it and the most recent change which was reverted to "Annika". Is it up to us to check the series and go by the name given rather than the spelling mistakes on startrek.com? Please anyone feel free to watch the whole series again and chronicle each mention of Onica Hansens name. There is no deviation and even Borgs and all use it. ~ R.T.G 22:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming her name (Annika) is Swedish or Norwegian (the surname would seem to suggest it), then the correct pronunciation is indeed the one used in the series. Offliner (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
What is means Borgs? Don't you mean Borg? Borg is singular and plural. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Why don't you turn the closed captioning on the episode and see how it is spelled? Who are you or anyone to say that startrek.com has it wrong? There are probably inumerable spelling differences on names, seeing as it is in the fictional world, and over 300 years from now. I would go by the closed captioning and startrek.com, and Memory Alpha.. if they all have it Annika then it is Annika. Ejfetters (talk) 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. We should definitely write Annika in this article, and not what some American viewers think her name sounds like. And like I said, it's almost certainly a Swedish name (her parents also have Swedish first names), and then "Onica" would be the correct pronunciation (or at least much more correct than how I think Americans would pronounce her name if it was American.) Offliner (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Odd, I always heard it as I would expect Annika to be pronounced (Scandinavian friends growing up). And certainly you would expect the official website to spell it properly. (Yes, I'm a trekkie...). BTW, closed captioning these days is done by computer voice recognition, it's not necessarily copy-edited. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  21:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
I just gotta say as an American viewer I knew how to spell it the moment I heard it so its not being American that makes you not know how to spell it. It is ignorance in a non insulting way -209.181.16.93 (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There's more than one way to pronounce the letter a. If you're going to pronounce things weird... Didn't you notice is Jean-Luc Picard is not spelled how it sounds? Doesn't it looks like you should say Jean-Luck Pickard? You must consider the numerous sources spelling it Annika... the Star Trek Encyclopedia, the Star Trek: Voyager Compendium, Memory Alpha, about fifty of the Pocket Books publications... And you know the Pocket Books publications are going off the writer's guide, because the first book calls the EMH Zimmerman, which was originally going to be his name before they decided against it.
But to summarize: I'll go through every source I find and will cite the spelling of Annika fifty times if I have to.
P.S.: Not to discount any argument, but startrek.com doesn't seem to be a good source for the spelling of names becuase it spells Okmyx from A Piece of the Action wrong here.
P.S.S.: I'm an American viewer, and I think it's spelled Annika.
BAPACop (converse) 23:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
"Jean-Luc Picard" is a poor example, the French don't pronounce anything phonetically as written. Well at least that I've run across. :-) VЄСRUМВА  ♪  00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That's my point: not all words are pronounced how they're spelled, especially names from different languages. BAPACop (converse) 01:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we could just say... (pron. same as Onica) ...? Then nobody would be changing it and reverting it so much? ~ R.T.G 02:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no source anyone has provided that it is Onica. Ejfetters (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
(od) Sigh, is no corner of WP safe from controversy? It seems to me the proper way to resolve this is to find out how the name is spelled in a script, not change the article to read "Annika" sounds like "Monica" without the "m" (since "c" can be either a "k" sound or a "s" in English). This is an encyclopedia, and that is not an encyclopedic solution to the issue. Yes? And to the other point, there are virtually no Google matches on the "Onica" variety and none which aren't just random people editing. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Generally speaking I frown on using Google to settle arguments. However, if you search books.google.com you find the following:
  • ALL Star Trek books use the spelling "Annika Hansen"—there's also a real Annika Hansen on a completely different topic
  • NO books contain "Onica Hansen"
On that basis I think we can consider this closed. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

A prince of Thailand, son of Taksin, was called Onica and I only searched Wikipedia for that info. The important thing is that it is pronounced unusually to any other word in the English language which should be Abvious, there is a name pronounced the same that is spelled different, Onica, and people keep changing from Annika to Onica. The question is, are we clever enough to unconfuse these readers? If so how and do, we? ~ R.T.G 21:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, I'm sorry. startrek.com says Annika, Memory Alpha says Annika, Wikipedia has always said Annika, all books say Annika, closed-captioning on the episodes say Annika, Star Trek Encyclopedia says Annika. I have just given 6 sources that say its Annika, which are very reputable. Please present a reputable source that says its Onica Hanson... not the prince of Thailand.Ejfetters (talk) 21:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
And I am highly highly doubtful that any readers are going to mistake Seven of Nine, a fictional Borg character in Star Trek for the Prince of Thailand. Ejfetters (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
We dont care what else it is wether it is Swedesh, if it is Onica, if it is your name, nobody cares. We don't want anything confusing to the average reader especially if they keep changing it needing constant supervision (getting this?). This one is certainly confusing to the average reader and just to reinforce that fact editors are continually changing the letter to an O so fixing it that the article wasn't half the time saying 'O' would be the only thing to do. We do not want the article to say Onica for one second if the correct spelling is Annika so explain it and fix or don't and complain. ~ R.T.G 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If the article keeps being changed and vandalized then it should be listed for protection. It hasn't been protected for some time. I don't see what is confusing. It is fine the way it is. What confuses people? Ejfetters (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed the edit history for this article back to July 1, it has been changed only twice. Policing article for vandals and incorrect information is a necessity across the millions of article on Wikipedia, that can't be helped. I have it on a watch list and will revert it and explain to editors why it was changed back. I will list this debate on the Trek page here as well. I don't really understand what else you would like done. Ejfetters (talk) 22:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Why don't we just add a <!-- message pointing editors to the sources? It would at least stop the changing of the name in the article. BAPACop (converse) 22:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That's fine by me. I would point it to this talk page as well so editors can review the discussion and the outcome as well. Ejfetters (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok BAPACop, I have done this. I have listed all the sources for the correct spelling, but I placed them on the Seven of Nine talk page where it seems more suitable. I have added hidden comments to this article and the Seven of Nine article to see the talk page before making changes. This is sufficient I would think. I have also listed this for discussion at the Star Trek project discussion page as well so other professionals can weigh in if need be. I have listed a total of seven sources for Annika Hansen. Furthermore, I searched Annika Hansen on Google and immediately got countless hits for the Star Trek character, albeit others too with the same name, but that is expected. I also searched Onica Hansen on Google, and came up with a total of one, yes one hit for Star Trek, and it was a fan-created quiz. I hope this will suffice. If we need more than seven reputable sources, I will find more. Ejfetters (talk)

Page 659 of the expanded ST Encylopedia, "Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan). Borg drone who left the collective...in early 2374. ...was born a human female named Annika Hansen in 2348 at the Tendara Colony on stardate 25479. Annika's parents, Erin Hansen and Magnus Hansen, were noted scientists...". What more do you need? ISBN 0-671-03475-8, revised hardcover 1999 Pocket Books, a division of Simon & Schuster. Darrenhusted (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just another to chime in from the request at the ST wikiproject talk page: per multiple licensed publications, it's Anika. Anyone vociferously suggesting publishing otherwise strikes me as going out of their way to foment needless disagreement. It's fine to ask for a double-check, but suggesting this kind of zany alternative brings to mind the freakish nitpickers from that William Shatner "Get a Life" skit. --EEMIV (talk) 03:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Nitpickers? Vandals? Oh go stick your head up your hole. What matters if the way we spell things here do not relate correctly to the way we pronounce? We are more worried with the lettering in Star Trek books than clarifying the simple stuff for readers because that would be too simple (clarifying everything, simple you know). If that causes people to innocently "correct" a word or two, let's have their heads for vandalism or nitpicking! This is a very long difficult communication. Is that picking a nit? You keep that nit for yourself then. If someone can demonstrate a word or name in the English language pronounce and spelled like this Annika you folk are on to something. If not you are just peculiarly ignorant with a preparedness to safeguard and cultivate such ignorance. You add all the info you have to hand or you don't. It is as simple as that and entirely up to us. Quote mr Trekkie here:- "It's fine to ask for a double-check, but suggesting this kind of zany alternative brings to mind the freakish nitpickers from that William Shatner "Get a Life" skit" You said it. GN ~ R.T.G 09:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Please keep this Civil. Ejfetters (talk) 07:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
TL;DR. Glad to see the article has the correct spelling. --EEMIV (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Yeah...no, it's Annika. Never seen it spelt/used/stated as 'Onica' or even pronounced that way. Reliable sources also say it's Annika, and there seem to be no Reliable Sources that say otherwise. Can we get onto more important things now? Skinny87 (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Skinny87, I have the series right here. It is pronounced Aw-nicka, same pron. as Onica, not Ah-nicka so you are spouting rubbish about the pronounciation. You pick out the scence the name is said and it is not pronounced that way. Anneka Rice it is core culture in British entertainment. It is pronounced Ah-nnicka. Look, it was simple and sensible. A drove is out to say "Nobody wrote a book about it." Good luck with that. ~ R.T.G 22:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh... I think you're both on the same side, and you just don't know it. Now, are there any more arguments against the current spelling, or are we going to keep repeating the same things over and over some more? BAPACop (converse) 23:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Look, all Reliable Sources state it is spelt Annika. How it is pronounced is frankly none of wikipedia's concern; people can pronounce it how they like. Essentially, that's an end to it, as anything else would be WP:Original Research in lieu of any Reliable Sources saying otherwise. Skinny87 (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Pronounciation is none of Wikipedias concern? Who are you? I have the whole 7 series and yet have no reliable source? You are just adding to this for the sake of it. Nothing more than adding to talk pages without motive to improve the article. There is a name for it like monkey see monkey do where they repeat what others are doing but without the same motives. The thing confuses people. To fix it would be no big deal. Who wants a serious talk about wether adding pronunciations is suitable or as important to source as a fact like a name, a date or an occurence? ~ R.T.G 10:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If a pronunciation guide is given in a reliable source, then by all means add it. If it's only because you personally find the way the name is pronounced on the show incongruous with its spelling then it isn't worth adding. That is the entirety of what needs to be said on the matter. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but possessing the Voyager series isn't enough, as in this respect they aren't reliable sources because you're using your own judgement as to how the word is pronounced, which is Original Research. I might watch the dvds as well and believe that it's pronounced an entirely different way. Look, might I suggest we drop this, as it's an extremely contentious but ultimately minor and pointless matter, and ask that those interested in Voyager concentrate on trying to improve this article? David Fuchs is about to put Star Trek: First Contact to FAC, as he has with other films in the series, and I think it would be excellent if Voyager could rank alongside it. Skinny87 (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(od) Why are we caring about how we think the name is being pronounced and WP:OR using that for spelling? It is unequivocally clear with regard to published sources (not blogs, et al.)—per books.google.com:

  • "Annika Hansen" appears in over two dozen published Star Trek books (there's also a "real" Annika Hansen)
  • "Onica Hansen", including variations of two n's, k instead of c, etc. appears in no published book. On any topic, anywhere.

I can't believe we're still at this. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

And P.S. on pronunciation, "a" pronounced with a darker (non-American English) inflection gives us the sound of the supposed "discrepancy". There is no discrepancy. There is no spoon. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  13:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
If you'll look at the article, you'll notice that no character has a pronounciation guide. In fact, there's not a single pronounciation guide anywhere on the page! We shouldn't add one for a single characters just because we think it needs it. And the only way you're going to find the "official" pronounciation is maybe if you can get your hands on the Writer's Guide or scripts they actually used on the series, which might just have a pronounciation guide in them the first time they say the name. Honestly, we've determined the name is correct, why are we still talking about this? BAPACop (converse) 18:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, it is an unusual name. It starts "Anni" but sounds "Awnni". Somebody would say it one day. It was me. Obviously you are all too weird to be acknowledging. That is OK. We all feel fine. Good Night. Forget about it. It didn't make much difference one way or the other. The merits of the fact are petty. It either goes in or not. End. ~ R.T.G 06:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not unusual in Scandinavia. :-) I take it we're done here? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, is it not? Is that the area the name would be generic too? ~ R.T.G 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Annika a common Swedish girl's name. And Hansen is a common Swedish surname. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
To be more precise: Annika is a common Swedish girl's name (and is also seen in Denmark and Norway). Hansen is a common Danish and Norwegian surname (the Swedish equivalent being Hansson). Lettonica (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh it's Swedish. I see what you mean ya. ~ R.T.G 15:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I just read this 'discussion'.. and then started scaning.. and all I can think is this - why the heck don't we just put in an IPA spelling, like is common for all sorts of other words - such as the (to many apparently) tongue-twisster 'Molybdenum'?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.143.231 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Map

I think that the map of voyager's route is the only thing that can be related to by fans/people who want to know about it. Also, It has been produced in the Star Trek Encylopedia's (Not sure which ones right now). Please let me know any reasoning for it to be removed. I think we may need more of a consenus before this is removed also. MWOAP (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of a busy, low-resolution in-universe Okudagram does not substantially add to our understanding of the topic; its removal, similarly, does not substantially hinder our ability to understand the topic. The image's inclusion here wholly fails to meet WP:NFCC #8 and should promptly be removed. (In general, with non-free content, the burden of proof isn't "Why should it be removed?" but rather "Why should it be added?" "It's interesting" and even "it's useful" is insufficient reasoning.) --EEMIV (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the above; does little to add to the article, and violates NFCC anyway, which is the primary reason for removal. Skinny87 (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if this is really what it has come down to we can delete it. I think this contributes to the users understanding of where everything was, like the wormhole in DS9 (it shows why they didn't go that way). I just thought there should be a little more discussion before we removed it. I am offically going to remove it now. FYI image last time I checked is at File:VoyagerMap.jpg. MWOAP (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Notable guest stars

Before I muck with it...

  1. any reason the list is not in alphabetical order by last name?
  2. any reason it's missing Ray Walston?

 PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  00:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Broadcast format

The info section states that voyager was broadcasted in 720p (HDTV). Is there a source for this? I couldn't find any proof .. furthermore there is no 720p release on DVD or Blue Ray Disk as well. 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.20.93.162 (talk)

Book Relaunch Section

Is it okay if I expand and possibly create a new page for the Book Relaunch Section? There is a lot of information missing there and a lot apperad to have happened since the text was first created. I'm also thinking about writing about the books that were released during the series' original run! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Partyface (talk • contribs) 12:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Actor/Character crossover fix

It listed Tim Russ' Star Trek Generations appearance as being on the Excelsior. Any other trekkie/trekker find this, well, odd? I've corrected it. whoever wrote that had the gall to put:

Particularly on Generations, where he was shown as human on the USS Excelsior (at the time Russ was an extra portraying what was thought to be a minor character), the Voyager episode 3x02 "Flashback" retcons this disparity with Tuvok's past on the Excelsior by having him shown as a Vulcan."

Yes. It says he was on the Excelsior. In Generations. To those who don't know, the episode Flashback placed him on the Excelsior's crew during Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country, particularly during the praxis incident from the beginning of the film. Anyone noticed other errors like this? -82.42.48.163 (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If something is incorrect, fix it (preferably with a citation, too), but do so without the all-caps or name-calling that you used in your edit summary and without the expressions of outrage about the "gall" of others. This is not a fan site, and it's the rule that we assume good faith (WP:FAITH) around here, and even if something's been deliberately tampered with, we don't resort to name-calling. Thank you.--TEHodson 22:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reception

No info on the critical reception of the show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.153.153 (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Classic/Great Themes

Before the series started, the PR ads said that the series represented "the journey home," one of the classic "great themes" that all stories could be boiled down to. I think something like 8 were cited. What are/were some of the other 6-7 themes (the literary equivalent to Wonders of the World). 192.94.65.52 (talk) 17:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Captain Katherine Janeway casting history (missing- plz add)

I am amazed that this article mentions absolutely nothing of the fact that Kate Mulgrew at first was not actually cast as Katherine Janeway; It was some French-Canadian actress, and she actually even filmed an episode which can be found on youtube; she was fired due to 'creative differences' with the directors and writers (she thought that Captain should be icey and cold and very quiet, which the writers strongly disagreed with) AND she also cited that she had too much trouble memorizing all the 'science-tekkie-mumbo-jumbo' words as she called them . Oh, and she also cited inability to keep up with the very demanding scheduling (all in all, she was really awful, and I personally am REALLY glad that they chose to cast Kate Mulgrew instead, not just because I really like her, but also because..well she just IS Captain Janeway. Anyways, all of this information (err..aside from my personal opinion, that is) is verifiable and can be referenced and cited. I believe it most definitely should be included in the article, especially since a considerable part of the article is about the cast and gues-stars and even contains information on which actor/character crossed over from which other ST series and the history of some of the cast. I cannot be bothered to do this myself (just too lazy and not enough time) . I really really hope someone would take care of this. If not, then I guess at SOME point I will. Other than that, I think the article is great! Cheers! :-) Ammau (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC) (Ammau (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC))

Geneviève Bujold, a stunning actress who gained note in the 1966 King of Hearts. It was a bold try; it's unfortunate that she didn't work out, but Mulgrew worked fine. 192.94.65.52 (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Nit pick, characters name is Kathryn Janeway. Katherine is a re-direct to Kathryn. - 220 of Borg 18:37, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

VHS / DVD releases

A section on home video release should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.202.201.5 (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to go ahead and make that happen. Ckruschke (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

EEH (Emergency Engineering Holographic program)

The Emergency Engineering holographic program would be just like the EMH in that in the event of the chief engineer not being present or worse dead, the EEH (Emergency Engineering holographic program) would supplement the absent/or dead chief engineer until a replacement was found. The EEH would have all the knowledge of warp mechanics and the necessary knowledge for any and all other events engineering related. Andrew.estes27 (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Are you making a request? There is no EEH mentioned in Trek lore outside of Star Trek Online. Certainly not in any Star Trek: Voyager episode I know of, which is what this article is about. So I don't see how it could be added. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - I was really scratching my head when I saw the thread title - I've seen every episode and there isn't an EEH. Ckruschke (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

lead section

The opening section claims "The show ... begins on the far side of the Milky Way galaxy, 75,000 light-years from Earth." Actually, it begins in the Alpha Quadrant, near Deep Space 9, before going to the Badlands where it is grabbed by the Caretaker and taken to the far side of the galaxy. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 02:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Yes. But I think it begins on Earth however, as most Star Treks do (all of them maybe? I believe so except DS9 maybe) in Spacedock, preparing to launch a new and advanced ship. Maybe it should say something like, "In the first episode the Voyager ends up on the other side of the Milky Way Galaxy," or "Voyager ends up on the other side of the Milky Way Galaxy almost at the start of the first episode..." but I think it takes twenty minutes or half an hour... :) ~ R.T.G 20:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I can confirm that Voyager begins with Chakotays ship under attack from cardassians in space, in the badlands. ~ R.T.G 12:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
They get zapped to the Delta Quadrant, then the credits roll, and the show continues with Voyager in Spacedock. ~ R.T.G 12:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Reception

The reception section is heavily incomplete. There is no mention of critical response or response from the fans. This needs to be addressed. Due to its incompleteness it is heavily biased, which compromises the sections neutral point of view. I do not believe, however, that the section's bias is enough to compromise the entire article's neutral point of view. 161.31.231.168 (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

word tenses in cast section

Hello, I am interested in helping with this article. I looked at the notice just before the cast member section and saw a warning about word tenses. I looked the section over and it looks like it is compliant in that regard. I thought I would leave a note here and suggest taking out that warning box?

Cityside189 (talk) 22:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

done...Cityside189 (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The lede

Why does the lede start with what fictional year this is set rather than the actual years of production? Surely for an encylopedia the real world should come first? --86.175.40.240 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Star Trek: Voyager. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Critism of Star Trek Voyager

There was a paper on European Peace University in Stadtschlaining which is now defunct on its page which did some research on peace resolution in Voyager and compared it with other aspects during that time. It was written by Leigh Doyle and you can still find it in the web archive. No clue if you are interested in but i give you ppl the link here it is --Japan01 (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Should The Rock be in the "non-actors" cameo list? Should we even have a separate non-actors cameo list?

Should The Rock be identified as an "actor" or "non-actor" for this article's purposes? Our article on him describes the beginnings of his acting career thus: In his first television acting job, in 1999, he played his own father in an episode of That '70s Show called "That Wrestling Show". Nearly a year later, he appeared in the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Tsunkatse" as an alien wrestler who fought popular character Seven of Nine. Obviously, he was known as a "professional wrestler", and not an "actor" at the time. Yes, professional wrestlers are actors in a sense, but it seems kind of weird to make claims like this in an off-handed manner in a list of cameos.

Honestly, I'm wondering what the relevance of splitting the list into actors and non-actors, when we only list two non-actors even is.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that separating the list is kind of silly; by definition, someone who appears in a television or film role is an actor. I think the 'non-actor' list can be removed on that basis. 70.66.215.159 (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Alternative Timelines

Episode “11:59” is not an Alternative Timeline Episode. Janeway and the crew are relaxing & sharing stories about their ancestors, and Janeway mentions Shannon O’Donnell, an astronaut and engineer during the period when humans started sending crewed missions to Mars, who was also instrumental in the building of The Millennium Gate, a self sustained biosphere that mimicked many of the conditions astronauts would have to deal with when living in enclosed habitats on Mars. Paris informs her that part of his extensive knowledge of history includes all the early Mars missions & no one named Shannon O’Donnell participated in the early crewed Mars missions. Janeway is upset, because she credits this ancestor with her desire to be in Starfleet. She begins research to see if what she believed about her ancestor was right or wrong. Interspersed throughout the episode, we see what really happened in O’Donnell’s life, with Kate Mulgrew playing Jameway’s ancestor. There is no time travel in this episode.

The Alternative Reality episodes of Voyager include “Year of Hell I & II, Future’s End I & II and Relativity. SiobhanElizabeth (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You're right. The passage needs to be rewritten. SonOfThornhill (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

'Plot element – Getting home' section

I am not sure that this actually needed. While some of the material may be useful, does a breakdown of episodes where Voyager's journey is shortened really need to be in the lead article about the series? Also there are no citations for this and so there could be an argument that this is (at least in part) original research. Dunarc (talk) 19:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Warning: Major spoilers: The episodes where they found shortcuts could be used as sources. The article states, "These jumps decreased the time needed to return by ~40 years. Counting elapsed time, by the end of the seventh and final season, assuming one year elapsed per season, Voyager was 28-35 years' travel from Federation space." I don't think the figure of 28-35 years can be sourced. The last episode took place around 2377-78 and an alternate timeline they arrived on earth around 2393-94, which means they were 16 years away from home, not 28-35. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 15:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sequence in sequel list

Star Trek Voyager is the third sequel of the franchise not the fourth.

The sequence is:

Star Trek (Original series) - not a sequel of anything.
Star Trek Next Generation - First sequel.
Star Trek Deep Space Nine - Second sequel.
Star Trek Voyager - third sequel.

There is no series between the original and Next Generation as one user has claimed (identified as 'TAS'?). The article Star Trek doesn't mention it and there is no article for it. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The article is at Star Trek: The Animated Series. It does have a section at Star Trek. MrOllie (talk) 15:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Not mentioned in the 'list of television series' in Star Trek. And no proper Star Trek fan would consider its inclusion anyway. 86.140.67.152 (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
No true Scotsman. - MrOllie (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
I must agree with MrOllie. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It's always a little weird to proclaim editing expertise in an area like this and then state you have no idea what "TAS" is referring to. Agree with MrOllie and FilmandTVFan28. Grandpallama (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes. As stated before, The Animated Series is canon wether you and other people like it or not. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a particular dog in this fight, but it is entirely relevant that a check of the Star Trek article shows that the animated series was deleted from the list of Star Trek sequels over four years ago. With the fairly high foot fall there (including at least one of the protagonists here) nobody has restored it, which strongly suggests that the regulars there agree that it does not belong. The only significant edit to the list of TV productions since that deletion was to merge the list of sequels into a single list with the original series (edit made just over two year ago).

As I said: I don't have an opinion as to whether it should or should not be included, but the edit history suggests that this dispute has been going on for some while and involves more than one editor on both sides (unless I have miscounted, I make it three on each side so it is entirely reasonable to say that opinion is divided). Given the edit history of Star Trek, and the apparent tag team toing and froing of reversions, this is obviously going nowhere. This should stop and a proper consensus should be obtained here as to the most popular opinion.

An alternative approach might be a good old fashioned compromise and state that Voyager is the third sequel but add a parenthetical note that it is the fourth if the animated series is included (or vice versa). That, hopefully, should satisfy everyone. -RFenergy (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

RFenergy, can you clarify what you mean about it being deleted from the Star Trek article? It's clearly Section 3.2 at the article. Grandpallama (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It's also prominently mentioned in the lede as the first series to air after the original series was canceled. Grandpallama (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

NB: RFenergy has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and the IP who was edit warring is almost certainly another sock. Grandpallama (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Star_Trek:_Voyager/Archive_2&oldid=1219235739"