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.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the VOY forum at The Trek BBS.
"The Doctor has previously shown that he holds a strict interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath, and he will not cause any harm, even for the greater good (re: Tuvix). This interpretation would hold that his ethical subroutines would not have allowed him to infect Chellick in order to save other lives. The assertion that they were therefore in perfect working order is therefore an unlikely one." --- Request modifying "unlikely" to "curious" or some synonym. It seems doubtful the ethical subroutines being in perfect working order was a blooper.
- I don't think this is a blooper either. At the end of the episode, the Doctor asks Seven to check his ethical subroutines to see if he was malfunctioning. She then tells him that they're not. I think the fact that they weren't was meant to be an evolution of the Doctor's program. So I'm not sure if the above Background Info should be included in the article either (unless it's somehow stating the "evolution of his program"). --Hawku 02:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Once again, since nits are not suitable for an encyclopedia (as agreed-upon here), the following nit was removed:
- When the Doctor's program is integrated to the holo-emitters on Level Blue, he is constantly transferred to other patients. During each transfer his mobile emitter is transferred along with him. This should be impossible, since his emitter isn't a hologram.
People sure love pointing out mistakes and giving their opinions about them. Oy! --From Andoria with Love 05:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I totally do love doing that. :-P --Hawku 09:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The hockey note seems to be a nitpick, followed by speculation. DhaliaUnsung 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Most of the notes are nitpicks, why single this one out, especially when it was actually a pretty serious error. Also, I'm not sure what speculation there was in there - There's no guard position in hockey. That's not speculation.18.104.22.168 01:03, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Note that the post you are responding to was made in 2009, and there is no hockey note in the article. If you see other nitpicks per MA:NIT, feel free to suggest them for removal.
- The note was removed in 2009, posting here for the record:"On their way from a hockey game, Kim refers to a Nausicaan guard, but there is no "guard" position in hockey. Considering, however, that centuries have passed it is possible that the names of positions or even the rules of hockey have changed."--31dot 01:13, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see why that needed to be removed from the article, unless it's just because if you're not in the right clique, you can't add to this website, which seems to be the case.22.214.171.124 13:00, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Anyone can contribute. If you have reasons the comment (which, again, was removed two years ago) should be included, then post them here instead of using the straw man argument. As a community we made the decision that nitpicks were not something that we wanted to include here, such as comparisons to the real world.--31dot 13:06, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah sure, anyone can contribute, but it just gets rolled back unless you're someone of importance. I once edited a post for grammar - FOR GRAMMAR! - And it was rolled back. It's obvious why this passage was deleted, and it has nothing to do with the content of the edit.126.96.36.199
- 188.8.131.52, I can't find any other contributions under that address (or under 184.108.40.206, if you're the same person). If you could point out where you made an edit was rolled back for merely editing grammar I could see if it was a genuine mistake, or whether the edit violated some policy. You should first post on the talk page of the user who reverted you, as they would be able to give you an explanation.
- I just got into this conversation, but I don't think this has anything to do with the issue at hand and more to do with how very few people can contribute to this page. It's why I never edit anything anymore. I also don't see how the age of the edit is important or why this rather amusing correction is considered a nitpick when there are hundreds of others just like it on the site. I also don' know why you consider it speculation when you consider that the hockey page made a nonsensical leap when it decided what they realy meant when they said 'guard' was 'goalie,' especially when you consider that they aren't equivilent nor does a goalie do any of the things described. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk).
- The age is important because a user came along and criticized it as if it was done recently. In over two years no one else had an issue. The criticism also ignores that it was removed in accordance with our policies. If you don't like the policies, feel free to say so, and convince us to change them, but they aren't intended to keep people from editing. If they do so it frankly is not our fault.
- It's speculation because we don't know what happens to the game of hockey in 300 years. Rules and positions change. The NFL changed a lot of rules this year, for example.--31dot 21:51, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
- If you have an issue with the Hockey page, please discuss it there.--31dot 21:53, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
Citation needed Edit
- Recycled sets and props from both other "modern era" Star Trek series appear in this episode. The turbolift and medical ward aboard the medical ship are redresses of the mess hall and transporter bay sets from the USS Defiant; Chellik's desk terminal is a DS9 computer terminal. Wall panels seen in the Level Blue treatment ward are recycled from the science lab set of the USS Enterprise-D.