I would think this ought to be moved to "Angel One" now that there's no naming conflict. Software won't let me do it, though. --Steve 23:31, 19 Nov 2004 (CET)

Might be better to leave the basic term "Angel One" as a disambiguation between Angel I and Angel One, do you think? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:36, 19 Nov 2004 (CET)
Good point. --Steve 23:39, 19 Nov 2004 (CET)

Holodeck snowballsEdit

In this episode, a snowball thrown by either Wesley or his friend exits the holodeck and hits Worf and Captain Picard. It is my understanding that this should not be possible. Do you think this is something worth noting? If so, where? Also, is this the right place to discuss such a question? I'm new and still figuring this out. - GrilledCheese17 06:16, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Well, TNG season 1 was still sorting things out with technology and terminology. Like Wes being soaking wet after falling in the creek in "Encounter at Farpoint", and Cyrus Redblock leaving the holodeck and slowly dissolving in "The Big Goodbye". But I've read, too, that the writers have justified this, stating that the holodeck uses replicator technology and, iirc, they classic quote I've read is something about not being able to go to the holodeck and eating, then leaving it and having the food leave your stomach -- as being some funky way to diet -- and that things like food and liquids (and lipstick) can exist outside the holodeck because of that. Sorry if that doesn't make much sense. I have a reference somewhere that somewhat clarifys that, its just not on hand at the moment. --Alan del Beccio 06:37, 30 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Page move?Edit

I think that the episode page "Angel One" should be moved here, and this page should be deleted, as it is unnecessary. Both "Angel One" and Angel I link to each other, and a disambiguation page is unneeded for only two articles.--Tim Thomason 18:18, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree. --Alan del Beccio 19:05, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Definitely. If we can avoid a disambiguation page, we should. -- Cid Highwind 19:48, 16 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Holodeck Snowball Edit

The holodeck uses replicator and transporter technology to create inanimate objects based on the situation. Ergo, the snowball was indeed a real snowball. - 05:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. -- Dlc2006 15:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats confirmed. Data says as much during TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint". From the script:
  • Data: Much of it is real, sir. If the transporters can convert our bodies to an energy beam, then back to the original pattern again...
  • Riker: Yes, of course. (indicates) And all these have much simpler patterns.
This also implies that the holodeck can replicate simple life such as flora, due to its simplistic structure (And lack of "apparent" sentience, as a person has. It seems as it would be more energy efficient to actually replicate a chair than to maintain the magnetic fields required if someone was sitting on it for extended periods. Additionally, in VOY: "The Big Goodbye" it is established that even characters do maintain their "physicality" for a short bit after leaving the Holodeck. I don't believe its until VOY: "Projections" that see a hologram end "hard" at the door, in the case of the doctors arm extending past the door in sickbay. As a result, I feel that the snowball could exist outside of the holodeck for the few seconds, so this is not an inaccuracy.-- Kooky 18:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed from article per the above.
  • Later as Lt. Worf and Captain Picard are walking by the holodeck, Wesley throws a snowball into the hallway. Due to the restrictions presented later in the series and following series (more so Voyager) nothing from the holodeck can leave the confines of the holodeck unless emitters are installed.

I disagree greatly. The episodes "Elementary, Dear Data" & "Ship in a Bottle" clearly establish that Holodeck items have no substance outside the Holodeck. While items may maintain their "physicality" for a short bit after leaving the Holodeck, It would not be long enough to cover the distance to where Capt. Picard was, on the far side of the corridor, & it defiantly would not leave his uniform wet. That's the part I have the real problem with. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk). on April 7, 2010 at 04:51 (UTC)

Warp ErrorEdit

Apologies if this is the incorrect place to post, but isn't it an inconsistency that during the episode Data calculates the time remaining before having to leave to reach the Neutral Zone at maximum warp and at the end Picard only orders warp 6? 22:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this one was on tonight and my boyfriend noticed that too. (I'm still new to the series and tend to automatically tune out anything resembling technobabble, so I wasn't really paying attention.) Anyone else care to weigh in? 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss the show - only to discuss the article in question. Thanks. — Morder (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
It's a continuity error and should probably be listed in the article. I suggest the following phrasing:
Although Data's estimate, of the time remaining before the the Neutral Zone outpost could not be reached in time, was based on "maximum warp;" when Picard actually orders the Enterprise to begin that journey, he selects Warp Six. 04:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Review by Wil Wheaton Edit

This episode has been reviewed/summarised by Wil Wheaton here. I don't know if this should be included in MA, though.– Pesky 22:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Site-to-Site Transport Edit

The comment on the first Site-to-Site Transport in this episode is incorrect. The first Site-to-Site Transport was done in Encounter at Farpoint(Part 2) when Troi, Yar and La Forge are investigating the underground of the station, Troi starts to sense pain. Riker orders him and Data to be transported down to their location underground. --jason3fc 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

That checks out. the transport in encounter at farpoint does meet the definition of Site-to-site transport . i'll remove that background note in a day. ...Vince47 talk

Confusion in Background Information Edit

There's something wrong with the (citation-less) discussion of script development in this section. This section discusses disagreement between Roddenberry and writer Michael Rhodes. However, Michael Rhodes was not the writer; he was the director. I don't know whether "Michael Rhodes" throughout this section is a mistake for "Patrick Barry" (the actual writer) or whether the conflict was indeed between Roddenberry and Rhodes the director. In any case, unless someone can provide a citation and illuminate the correct story, this section should probably be deleted. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Here's the removed text for future reference:
  • Writer Michael Rhodes ran afoul of Gene Roddenberry when he wanted to create more conflict in the script for "Angel One". Roddenberry ruled out conflict as a dramatic device. Rhodes, who came to this one-shot Star Trek: The Next Generation assignment from scripting episodes of the series Fame, enjoyed working on the show, despite the disappointing quality of the episode as filmed.
  • Rhodes whimsically agreed that the episode was sexist, and recalled how oblivious to this Roddenberry was. When Rhodes suggested that the episode be used to examine the unconscious vestiges of sexism that might, perhaps, still linger in the enlightened twenty-fourth century minds of Picard and his crew, Roddenberry dismissed the notion out of hand, and admonished a surprised Rhodes that there was no place for conflict in Star Trek. Nevertheless, Patrick Stewart later observed that there was still considerable sexism in the script for The Next Generation, a fact that disturbed him. Eventually he and Jonathan Frakes protested, along with Marina Sirtis and others.
  • Rhodes, perplexed, could not quite fathom how to create interesting drama without some sort of conflict. Still, his memories of working on the show, especially with the cast, were generally pleasant. There is no denying, however, that the creative process was undergoing some peculiar distortions during the first season of The Next Generation, which became extremely evident in "Angel One".
Cleanse 01:10, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
It's from the source listed at the bottom of the page: Van Hise, James, Trek: The Unauthorized Behind-The-Scenes Story of The Next Generation (1992) --Alan 18:01, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

The VirusEdit

The first to contract the virus were on the field trip to the holodeck (including Wesley). Dr. Crusher quarantined them first. How can the holodeck be the source of a virus? Vern4760 15:40, February 9, 2010 (UTC)

Very good question. My guess, because the show was new, & "rules" hadn't been written for the writers as to what could & could not happen. See above about the Holodeck Snowball. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Is replicating a virus, which is essentially just a strand of proteins and acids, any different from replicating food? It is possible that the things we see by the time of Voyager are changes in the Holodeck made precisely because of incidents like these. At any rate, I don't find it to be too much of a suspension of disbelief. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

First mention: Romulans? Edit

Was this the first episode to mention Romulans on TNG? I thought the very first episode did. Picard asked Q, "Is this a Romulan plot or ploy?" (no username) The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

That's actually from "All Good Things...". A quick check of the transcripts suggests the note is correct.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:15, March 2, 2011 (UTC)