Needs work...Edit

Needs significant expansion. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:21, Feb 4, 2005 (CET)

Along with subsections to sort the information Enzo Aquarius 21:22, 4 Feb 2005 (CET)
I have added subsections and some details to Academy. The Voyager section needs some major work. -=- Enzo Aquarius 21:25, 4 Feb 2005 (CET)


She was promoted to full Lieutenant as early as "The Cloud", or was this a costume error? zsingaya 07:17, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the same problem as on the Chakotay page; Torres was always referred to as "Lieutenant" after her promotion, but her rank insignia clearly shows a rank of Lieutenant junior grade after the rank adjustments of late Season 1. Oddly, that means Carey would would outrank his department head.

I was watching "Parallax" and noticed that she started the episode with junior grade insignia, but had full lieutenant insignia at the end of the episode when talking with Carey, presumably an off-camera promotion to give her rank parity with Carey (though he would still technically outrank her on date-to-rank). --Braindrain0000 05:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Paris marriage toast
The background section here mentions that her actual rank is lt jg, corrected as of VOY: "Faces", and this is confirmed when Torres tells Paris they are the same rank in VOY: "Displaced". Notice her rank insignia shown in a later picture in this article
However, it is possible she was promoted to a full lt and then demoted along with Tuvok and Paris after VOY: "Prime Factors". Carey, though also involved with that plot, is shown in the seventh season as a full lt still. Wangry 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Age when father leftEdit

In the Italic section where it B'Ellana was said to be 5 or 6 when her father left, perhaps we should add the descrepancy between Klingon and Earth years (i believe its 1.5:1 ratio klingon to earth, based on info in episodes (you have to do a bit of math, i think its on the Klingon page). This would be a bit of a leap of faith, but it would explain a continuity error. Not sure how to proceed. Jaz 01:22, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC)

PNA Edit

I added the PNA template because this article (and most of the other Voyager character articles) have a lot of information cluttered together. This info needs to be formated better. --Galaxy001 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


How was a 2349 birthdate for B'Ellana calculated? Or what's the source?--Emperorkalan 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many references in Star Trek Voyager episodes that lead to the conclusion that B'Elanna was born in 2349. When she was 19, she quit starfleet acadmay in her second year. 'Extreme Risk'. In 2376 we know it was 10 years since she entered the acadamy and 10 years since she last seen her mother. 'Equinox', 'Barge of the Dead'. Back track 10 years from 2376. She entered the acadamy in 2366, left two years later in 2368 at 19 'Extreme Risk', back track 19 years, her birth year is 2349.

Disagree. If Torres’ relationship with Burke at the Academy in 2365 took place during her first year she’d have been born 2347 (18 y/o); if it were during her second, 2346. Just because she lost contact with Miral in 2366 it doesn’t necessarily follow that that was the year she quit the Academy. Yes a pattern of ‘dropping out’ is suggested but by no means concrete. Also I can’t quite see her as being born in the same year as Kim as she’s nowhere near as green as he was. Of course this last purely my opinion and nothing to do with canon.--Archer4real 10:10, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Of course this could all go out of the window if she calculates her age to the Klingon calendar. Plus her Klingon DNA also means that she could be younger than Kim but more experienced as Klingons mature faster than Humans (as evidenced by Alexander who was only around 10-12 Human years old when he turned up in DS9, so at 19 Human years she would be around ten years older than Kim although the same age) even though she is only half Klingon it must be a factor. At least enough to give the writers some fudging room.Lt.Lovett 12:59, June 27, 2011 (UTC)


Wonderful section- my cudos to whoever put it up. I did noticed one mistake:

Where it says Enters a deep depression and suffers internal inquiries from high risk holo programs, later treated with help from Chakotay.... I changed inquiries to injuries. If I was in error, and the original author intnded to write inquiries, my apologies. --Jadza 16:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably was a mistake, just like the title of this part. I believe, what has injuries got to do with Chronolgy? I've left it for your answer. – Jono R 20:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Background/Surname problem Edit

The entry states that "Ironically, the etymology of B'Elanna's last name fits her personality. Toro means bull in Spanish, while an -ez or -es suffix is equivalent to the -son suffix in English culture. This may have been a complete coincidence, however."

However, the name Torres is, in fact, derived from the Spanish and Portuguese word for a person who lived around a tower, from the Latin 'turris'.

Here's another interesting note about B'Elanna's name: I have several "baby name" books I collected whilst pregnant, and most of them list a latin name - Bellona - which means Goddess of Battle. --Jadza 16:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Conditional Tense Edit

moved to Memory Alpha talk:Point of view

Transferred from 31Dot's userpage

B'Elanna's Initials Edit

I see you reverted the anonymous edit that put the L in the name, saying that this stood for 'Lanna. That cannot be the case. 'Lanna was part of her first name, B'Elanna. That is a nickname. The Equinox episode clearly established her initials as B.L.T. This means B for B'Elanna, L for whatever her middle name was, and T for Torres. I put it back in. Unless there is a canon reference that establishes that the L was simply for 'Lanna (which would mean the writers did not understand what the hell the term 'initials' means with regard to names), it should stay.– Watching... listening... 22:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It was not established to be the initials of all three of her names(first, middle, last) We don't even know if she has a middle name. B'ELanna Torres. Her mother called her "Lanna" so it would stand to reason that others would use this in creating a nickname for her. I really think it should be changed back. I am copying this over to the page for that article as it does not just involve us two.--31dot 23:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The episode established that B.L.T. were her initials. Not her nickname. 'Lanna was her nickname. A person's initials are the first letters of whatever names they have, be it two, three or ten. A nickname is entirely different.– Watching... listening... 23:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at the context of that scene. Burke called her that at the Academy to be cute and annoying, not because it was her initials. She didn't call Paris "Turkey Platter" because it was his name or initials, she called him that to be cute and annoying. --31dot 23:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I also doubt that L. is the letter for another middle name. I think he called her BLT after the sandwich to fop her. On no one of these images B, L, T is a middle initial visible. And so far I remember I've never heard this theory before. – Tom 00:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a theory. This is canon fact. She herself said that B.L.T. were her initials in the episode, and that Burke coined the nickname BLT (Bacon, Lettuce and Tomatoes) from them.


Torres: Bacon, Lettuce and Tomatoes. It was a nickname.

Paris: Nickname?

Torres: My initials.

You are misunderstanding what was said. Burke coined the nickname BLT from her initials, B.L.T. – Watching... listening... 01:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The BLT was coined from the three most prominent letters in her name, not her first, middle, and last name. Burke was doing it to be annoying, not to reference her name. Just because you would use someone's full name to make up an abbreviation doesn't mean others would, especially in the future. We have no evidence that she even has a middle name. I'm not going to get into an edit war over one letter, but it really does not belong there.--31dot 12:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, as Tom said, this is the first time this theory has come up in the time that MA has been online. I would not say it is a "canon fact" since there is no other evidence to back it up. --31dot 12:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The woman said that they were her initials. The Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines that word, used in this context as "the first letters of a person's names , e.g. John Marshall's initials are J.M. John Westly Marshall's initials are J.W.L." Not the three most prominent letters in a person's name. Plain English language. Canon fact.– Watching... listening... 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Why couldn't B'Elanna consider the B and her L in B'Elanna her initials? It's even possible the B and the 'Elanna are two names merged together, who knows how Klingons make their names. The intent of the writers was clearly to use the most prominent letters in her name. If they had intended her to have a middle name, don't you think they would have come up with one in the six years the show had been on before Equinox? --31dot 02:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know, most of the Human Voyager characters didn't have explicitly stated middle names. That doesn't mean that they don't have middle names, just that they don't use them (I almost never use my middle name, it's on my ID, my birth certificate, and my diploma, but that's about it). – Sara marie 04:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Until we can verify one way or another how the line was meant to be taken (L meaning "Lanna" or an unknown middle name), we cannot state in the article, for a fact, that her middle initial is "L". I have thus removed the middle initial and reworded the background info to allow for either possibility. --From Andoria with Love 08:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I can support that.--31dot 15:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
So do I. I removed this sentence from the background section.
Her middle initial, "L." was given in VOY: "Equinox".
It is already mentioned here in the article. – Tom 15:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough.– Watching... listening... 21:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Round two Edit

Due to recent activity, also known as the reason I even noticed this in the first place, I'm going to reopen the discussion on this, since I also wish to chip in my two cents without adding to an edit war.

That being said, while it was clearly stated by the character herself that her initials are BLT, I don't really have an issue with the article's current title as opposed to B'Elanna L. Torres. I do believe that the note on this should be moved to the background section proper, and reworded to remove the "suggests" part, since there wasn't any suggestion about it. Something like this would better:

The nickname BLT was said to have derived from her initials, however, it is unclear if B'Elanna has a middle name, or if this just reflects the L sound in the second syllable of B'Elanna.

The wording might need a little tweaking, but either way, she did say it. It's sad that the entire show is full of throw away lines and costume errors that cause way to much trouble, but here we are. Let's note the discrepancy, in a prominent place, and be done with it. - Archduk3talk 19:35, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree that her "My initials" statement means what we want it to mean. As I pointed out above, she might consider the L sound in her name part of her initials, we have no way to know one way or the other. However, I don't mind tinkering with the statement that's there now, or possibly moving it to the top of the page.--31dot 19:55, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I'll tweak the wording when the page becomes editable again, and I'll move the note to point one in the background section, with a mention of it where it is currently (and maybe at the top of the page). - Archduk3talk 05:32, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit war (Dates) Edit

Someone's been shifting around the years listed in the article. Can someone with more knowledge of B'Elanna and Voyager (and more time on their hands :P) check and see if these changes are accurate? Thanks. --From Andoria with Love 21:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed someone changed B'Elanna's birthdate to 2346, even tho the evidence to show her real birth year of 2349 is explained. I changed the birth year back to 2349.
3rd May 2008 - Again, someone has changed B'Elanna's birthdate without showing evidence to prove, I changed her birth year back to 2349.
Someone please present here the argument against Fish1941's edits to the effect that she was born in 2346. That is to say, the evidence that she was born in 2349. Fish presented his argument. A response in kind is called for. SennySix 17:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Evidence to prove she was born in 2349 -

In the episode 'Extreme Risk' B'Elanna states that she was 19 years old when she quit Starfleet Academy. She quit the Academy in her second year. In the two part episode 'Equinox' she meets Maxwell Burke, someone she went to the Academy with. That took place in the year 2376, back track ten years, that makes the year she entered the Academy 2366. B'Elanna quit in her second year in 2368, back track 19 years, making her birth year 2349.

In the episode 'Barge of the Dead', B'Elanna states that its been 10 years since she last spoke with her mother. (Although its not evidence, it is also reasonable to assume that she last spoke with her mother before entering the Academy).

Also in 'Extreme Risk', B'Elanna states after she quit the Academy, 'A few years later she was seperated from the Maquis'. The Maquis was founded in 2370, and B'Elanna joined in its early stages after Chakotay saved her life (One). She became seperated from them in 2371 (Caretaker). Going by her birthyear being 2349, the 'few years' between Torres leaving the Academy and being seperated from the Maquis, one can assume those years were 2368 -2371. (I'm not sure how many years 'a few' adds up too, but going from the evidence that she was born 2349, it makes sense.)

Other possible birthdates, based on contradicting evidence in the series -

In the episode 'Author Author', B'Elanna speaks with her father for the first time since she was five years old, ('Eye of the Needle', 'Faces'). That took place in the year 2377. In the conversation her father, John Torres states that its been 20 years since he last seen her. That would make her birth year 2352.

In the episode 'Extreme Risk' however, B'Elanna states that she was six years old when her father left. Going from the evidence produced in the episode 'Author Author' that puts her birth year at 2351. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I think the episode says 10 years since she's SEEN Burke, not 10 years since she MET him. How is it that we can assume that she last saw him at the beginning of her first Academy year? Why not at the end of her second (last) year, or sometime in between, or even some time later, after she left? Seems all we know is that she went to the Academy with Burke (when? UNKNOWN), and last saw him 10 years ago (again, when? UNKNOWN). Eh? Now, I am not arguing here that Fish1941 was right, but I don't see how anyone at all can claim to be, when scripts contradict so much, and when the reasoning depends on assumptions. Plus, "Equinox" apparently was 2275, not 2276. SennySix 02:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no one can argue that the Voyager scripts do sometimes contradict themseleves because they do. But based on the information supplied in the episodes, I still believe that 2349 is most likley her birth year. One thing is for certain, she was definatly in her twenties when Voyager began. It confirms it in the Official Star Trek Voyager Companion.

Ridges Edit

B'Elanna Torres, 2371
B'Elanna Torres, 2376

The number of ridges doesn't appear to change just her hair has changed and covers the top most ridge. You can see the point of the last ridge just under her hairline whereas before there was no point. They are subtler though. – Morder 00:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I count 4 sets of ridges in the top picture, 3 in the bottom picture. I don't see hair growing over ridges. I don't see subtle ridges. I see absent ridges. I think it's absolutely, completely valid to recognize that the prosthetic/makeup has changed. --TribbleFurSuit 01:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I would first say that if it's in dispute, it shouldn't be mentioned until there is a consensus. I would have to agree with Morder, though. The last pictures shows the start of a ridge right below her hairline, and that was not in the picture where she has 4 ridges. I don't think that it was so much a makeup change as a makeup error or adjustment.--31dot 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing screenshots from the 2nd season of Voyager you can watch the transition from the first few episodes where her 4th (top most) gets closer to her hairline finally by dreadnought it's completely gone with just a little bit left of it poking out of her hair. For instance, in "Parturition" the hairline almost melds directly with her top ridge. Then, in "Tattoo" her hair covers her top ridge completely save for the little poke coming out. It's no big deal either way. Whoever added it originally is correct that it's a costume change but I just don't see the # of ridges changing but only the actual number of ridges visible. My point about subtlety is simply that I feel her ridges are less pronounced in the later show. Possibly lighter makeup. Making her a softer character overall as she's not as harsh as she was in the beginning. – Morder 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"So, Ms. Torres, when exactly did you stop shaving your fourth ridge?" Just kidding. So, anyway, maybe the original language, "continuity error! ridges mysteriously disappear!", was not the encyclopedic or even accurate way to note this. Does anyone think it's notable? For curiosity's sake, I looked in Worf's article, because that's what 8120917538 was comparing this to. Turns out, there's nothing in there about Worf's changing appearance either. So maybe it's not notable. --TribbleFurSuit 03:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think it's that notable. Shran & I were talking and he thinks it was just to make the make-up more comfortable for Biggs-Dawson. (It looks like her hair doesn't have to be pressed down in front) It sure wasn't a character defining change and it looks as if it was done over the course of at least 5 episodes (after reviewing screenshots). I vote it's not notable and let's just see how everyone else votes. Majority wins! (unless an admin comes down from on high) – Morder 04:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for joining the discussion this late. Personally I think it is notable while I have to admit that the language of my contribution is disputable - I'm willing to change it if necessary. Anyway I think the change is noteworthy - I did not compare it to the changes in worf's make up in a way that I am referring to the article about Worf (anyway - if no one has yet pointed out the changes in worf's make up in the article we can fix that... because THAT's definately noteworthy...) 8120917538 10:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I support not mentioning it. If her forehead was totally different(as Worf's was early on) then it would be worth mentioning, but in this case it is only a matter of positioning. It's still the same design.--31dot 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion it is still a subject of interesting trivia - but I suppose it's my turn to bow to the majority. 8120917538 00:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I remember reading in Star Trek Monthly magazine back in the 90's that the original forehead makeup was destroyed in a fire on set and a new one had to be made.
It would have to be the template that was destroyed I do remember Westmore losing stuff in a fire it was before 'First Contact' and one of the reasons for the borg redesign. Most explanatins of Worf's make up change put's it down to ageing, as older Klingon's (in TNG onwards) tend to have deeper ridges than the younger ones. The Borg Drone Torres who is bald has four ridges. Lt.Lovett 17:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Miss Turtle HeadEdit

Does this page really need to exist in Memory Alpha? It is just a nickname that is relevant to one person - it has no encyclopedic relevance. Shouldn't it just be incorporated into the B'Elanna Torres article? -- TrekFan 22:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hm, good idear...--Alan 22:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Woof. I mean, merge.– Cleanse 01:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone who knows how to, merge this article with B'Elanna Torres then, because I am not 100% sure? Thanks -- TrekFan Talk 10:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge ---- Willie LLAP 13:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
...or turtle or cranial ridge. Anyway, TrekFan you can do a "manual" merge by just "rewriting" the article on the B'Elanna article and someone can come by and do the "history" merge later, just for those who feel merges don't happen soon enough.... --Alan 15:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I would still keep the note that the insult "turtle head" is encountered with some frequency in non-canon novels. Starfleetjedi 02:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That note too can go in the B'Elanna Torres article as BG info. Merging info with BT article now. Someone will need to do the history though. -- TrekFan Talk 09:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC) I have added the apoc. note to the BG info on the Torres article. The other information was already included in the text. Now, if someone would be kind enough to merge the histories? -- TrekFan Talk 17:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wording on this could be better, it repeats itself. Edit

In 2375, B'Elanna met her old Academy boy friend, Maxwell Burke. Their reunion did nor last long, however, as Burke and his crew killed sentient lifeforms in order to get home faster - a mistake he ultimagtely payed with his life.]] Near the end of that year, she met up with an old flame from Starfleet Academy, Maxwell Burke, who was stranded in the Delta Quadrant on the USS Equinox. The two ships came in conflict when it was discovered that the Equinox was killing sentient nucleogenic lifeforms for an energy source. The Equinox was finally destroyed an Burke was killed by the creatures. (VOY: "Equinox", "Equinox, Part II") – Jono R 20:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Eight or Five Edit

There has been attempts to change references to B'Elanna's birth year and her age to make her three years older. This included an attempt to state that her father left her when she was eight, though "Faces" states that he left when she was five. I'm not seeing a source for the information claiming she is older; I'm hoping it will be posted here, if it exists.--31dot 18:35, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

I dont know how these people who keep changing the dates come up with them but the episodes and all other info in them plus references in canon show her correct year of birth to be 2349. I have gone through episodes and dates several times when I made some of the changes during some of those preliminary reverts a year or two ago, and she was not born in 2346 and i agree with you, anyone changing the date has to show solid sources proving/validating their claim. I noted the entity making the changes right now is anonymous/ip address only Distantlycharmed 19:02, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

A named user, Fish1941, did as well; I posted on their usertalk asking them where they got the info, but have not yet gotten a response.--31dot 23:11, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Birth year redux Edit

User:CRMTrekfan has recently gone through the article changing all of the date references on the basis of a Paramount press release from the series launch which was recently the subject of an article on Such materials are not valid resources for in-universe information, and are only usable in the background section. I have removed the changes to in-universe content, and modified the discussion of the article in the background section to emphasise this point. -- Michael Warren | Talk 09:11, September 6, 2014 (UTC)

Friendship with Harry Kim Edit

This webpage about BElanna makes no mention of her friendship with Harry Kim may I add that section????-- 07:37, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

You do not need permission to make any edits; if you need assistance with editing or citations or any other help, please ask. 31dot (talk) 09:23, April 15, 2015 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.