Help icon

Maintenance links

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the VOY forum at The Trek BBS.

Article titleEdit

Could this be moved to Demon (episode)? There are a few mentions of demons in TNG and DS9 episodes, such as "Thine Own Self", "What You Leave Behind" or even Lwaxana Troi calling a Ferengi "Demon Tog" in "Ménage à Troi". The Iconians being referred to as Demons of Air and Darkness could be added, as could the demons of Gre'thor from Star Trek Nemesis. -- Tough Little Ship 21:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I see we now have Demon. Does it need to be moved? -- Tough Little Ship 15:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. I'll hit up working on the links, and we can see if we can't get an admin to do all of the shifting for us. -- Sulfur 16:00, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I moved the episode to "Demon" and the disambiguation to just Demon. Can you clean up the resulting links to the disambiguation page? Also, the disambiguation page itself needs to be cleaned up. If no one else does, I'll do it when I find the time. I'm not going to move "Demons" though - since that one doesn't have the same natural title, it probably shouldn't be a part of the disambiguation. You might want to add a link on top of the page, though - we have Template:disambiguation and Template:disambiguate1 for that. -- Cid Highwind 16:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm working through the lk fixing. Hopefully I'll be done by next summer. :) -- Sulfur 16:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
And I think that I've gotten 'em all now. Yay. -- Sulfur 17:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


What's up with the stardate? It currently says "ca. 51725*". The asterisk doesn't link anywhere. Is there a stardate given in the episode, or is this somehow derived by backtracking from "Course: Oblivion"? -- StAkAr Karnak 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no stardate given in the episode. Personally, I would rather have it listed as "unknown", rather than us speculating. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is a matter of opinion; if it isn't in the episode or specifically stated in another, it isn't canon and shouldn't be listed. -- StAkAr Karnak 03:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me ;-) --OuroborosCobra talk 03:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The only stardate-related facts we have is that this episode took place "ten months, eleven days" before stardate 52586.3, which is mentioned in "Course: Oblivion". --Jörg 09:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Deuterium Edit

I would like the criticism I added about Deuterium put back into the article (or if someone else can word it better, that's fine too), I think it's notable. It's a television show, so it's frankly expected that there's going to scientific mistakes, but this is a very large and glaring one that many reviews I've read comment on, and when talking with other fans we always get a small laugh out of it; and then of course there's sites that point out mistakes in Star Trek which have field day with it. --DrGero49 00:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

While it was a glaring error, it was decided by the community that we do not want nitpicks and similar errors on the site, as it was decided that they would be "un-encyclopedic". --OuroborosCobra talk 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Deuterium - Do they obtain any Edit

Does voyager get enough deuterium at the end of the episode? Is it not made clear and the silver blood is a lifeform so it would be unethical to extract it. This has similarties the method in equinox where onw spieces is used for the advancedment of a ship. Maybe a comment should be made addressing this issue.

The duplicate Tom and Harry mine 20kg of it while they're on the surface, and at the end of the episode Voyager is able to lift off and continue on its way, so I guess that means they get enough. Maybe 20kg is plenty, or maybe the silver blood gave them some voluntarily. Little Fuzzy Cygnet 01:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ensigns Kim Edit

This is a bit mundane, but still interesting to me. At 37:20, Tuvok says "It is Ensign Kim, or at least one of the Ensigns Kim". I thought it was kinda strange that he says Ensigns Kim instead of Ensign Kims. Which one is the right way to say it? -- Suso 02:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ensigns is correct. Like Birds of Prey. --- Jaz 03:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

4 EV Suits Edit

  • This episode features the rare sight of four EV Suits in the same shot, without slight of editing (one more EV Suit than was shown on screen in Star Trek: First Contact).

removed because it's not really the 4 of the same ev suits seen in first contact. One of them is not a real EV suit, but we should add it back if we can get confirmation. Probably from Jorg who notices this stuff. Talk:Day_of_Honor_(episode)#Four_EV_Suits_Were_Seen_at_OnceMorder 10:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Story Edit

The story seems to have many analogys to Sanislav Lem's novel Solaris. 21:14, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

That's nice, but without evidence that the writers were aware of that and/or made a deliberate effort to be similar to that work, such a statement cannot be in the article.--31dot 21:17, January 23, 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Nicely phrased, 31dot! :) --Defiant 22:50, January 23, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really. Maybe that's the reason why I wrote it on the discussion page. I thougt maybe anyone else might know if there's any source of evidence or where to find one. If not, skip it. 14:04, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

It has been (and is being) skipped. If there's a source for it, the information should be added then. There's little point in making note of something for which the person making the note has no source, such as has been done here. --Defiant 14:14, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
That is certainly a valid reason to post here- I was just stating why it shouldn't be there right now. Also, if you wish to use a username, please register it- IP users cannot use a username unless they do. If you do not wish to register, simply sign with your IP address.--31dot 14:15, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
Defiant, though he didn't make it clear initially, the edit does concern changing the article, a valid use of talk pages.--31dot 14:17, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. It's on-topic and everything, which is good. :) --Defiant 14:29, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I only wanted to say that I see many analogys between the novel Solaris and this episode so that we can discuss if there is prove for that idea or not. I apologize for annoying you and assure you it wont happen again.

-- 14:36, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry about it – you haven't annoyed me. I just think adding something to a page with a source and a citation of that source is a lot more productive and less time-consuming than bringing something up without a source. But there's no harm done, per se. --Defiant 14:37, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

I did'nt add anything to your article nor did I say that I want anyone to add anything without prove that the analogys are not only a coincidence. I just said that I see some analogy between this episode and the novel solaris and thougt it might be of interest for you so I wrote it on the discussion page. It wont happen again. -- 15:12, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Please do not post a username unless you are registering it. It will be removed if you do.--31dot 15:25, January 24, 2012 (UTC)
I think what Defiant was saying was that if you make such a suggestion you should make it clearer that you are seeking proof for your claim with an aim to add it to the article in the future. Otherwise it just seems like general discussion, which is discouraged on talk pages. I don't think he found anything "wrong" with your suggestion; it's just not what he would have done. --31dot 15:43, January 24, 2012 (UTC)