Was Carey killed at some point in time during Voyager that I missed? The writers of Voyager seemed to like to use Carey to signify that they had gone back in time, such as in VOY: "Relativity", and VOY: "Fury". Carey never shows up past season three of Voyager, except for in episodes where they go back in time. --BMS 04:32, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)

They brought him back in VOY: "Friendship One"--in the seventh season--for the sole purpose of killing him off. -- SmokeDetector47 05:00, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)
They seemed to like bringing back characters in those past episodes. "Fury" also showed Sam Wildman, even though there was no reason they couldn't use her in a "present" episode, especially since they were using Naomi all the time. -- Steve 05:20, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)
Is there no production commentary on the character's death? I imagine someone commented at some point on how it was pretty heart-wrenching to see a minor character come back after several seasons of absence only to get killed - and only a matter of weeks before Voyager's return to the safety of earth. Always thought it was odd that this is barely acknowledged. Obviously I get that it was for the dramatic effect of seeing an established crewmember die when the audience knows Voyager is likely to get home by the end of the season, but some production discussion of it would be nice. 17:11, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Typo? Edit

Was he a Conn officer or Tactical? The picture says the later but the article the former. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keras (talk • contribs).

It should be tactical....(unless conn stations were temporarily situated to allow officers to stand)...--Joel1975 05:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Merging unnamed characters with named ones?Edit

Oh, should we really start to do this? This is a pretty big assumption! Just because "Unknown Relief Tactical Officer (2364)" looks like "Joseph Carey (2371)" (because they were played by the same actor, obviously), should we merge these pages? This adds a history to the Carey character that was actually not intended by anyone during production, and as such is probably as "non-canon" as it gets. -- Cid Highwind 23:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cid. Just because the two characters were played by the same person does not make them the same character. Sure, the unnamed guy could be Carey, but we just don't know. As Cid said, it would be giving Carey an unneeded and unintended history. I say we move them back. -Platypus Man | Talk 23:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
I just thought I would try it with these two characters, who alot of people see as the same guy. But the thing is it seems hypocritical. Eddie Paskey has made many unnamed appearances, we all assume most are Leslie. The same with many other background characters, Ayala, Kashimuro Nozawa, Jae, Broik, Diana Giddings, and numerous unnamed personnel. There are some exceptions (Dennis Madalone), but I think if a character plays a named character one time, and a few unnamed characters a few more times, then all of the unnamed characters, who are of the same species and age/location, could be assumed to be the same. I thought that we could shorten some of the unnamed characters pages and lesson the "hypocrisy" (my word, stated in jest, no offense). You can easily revert both articles, and I won't object, but I do ask for maybe some explanation on the supposed inconsistency.--Tim Thomason 23:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Leslie, Ayala, and those other examples were on the same ship, in the same situation. It is just logical that they would be the same person. It would not change the history of the character drastically to assume that it was the same person. "Leslie stayed on the Enterprise and did more things" is easier than explaining that Leslie may have left and an identical twin came aboard or something of the sort. It gets to be essentially impossible with Ayala, as he couldn't have left Voyager, so it must have been him. I say we use Occam's Razor here: the simplest answer is usually the correct one. If it is simpler and more plausible to keep it as the same person, then do. If making it the same person would introduce an unitended history (as it does here), keep them seperate. Basically, if you need to explain how he got from point A to point B in this situation, he never went. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I think "it seems as though Carey may have served on the Enterprise-D earlier in his career" could be better -- and more objectively -- expressed as "it is possible that the unnamed crewman in 'Justice' was in fact Carey." If we're going to get into this sort of thing we might as well say that Commander Sirol from "The Pegasus" took off his wig, bobbed his ears, joined Starfleet, and became Ensign Hayes in Star Trek: Generations. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Redux Edit

We could solve this several-year-old argument by putting the section about the "unnamed Tactical Ensign" in a Background Info box. Unlike most coincidences with named and unnamed characters, the two characters are the same species, in the same department; there were two promotions in the intervening seven years (ensign to Lt. j.g., Lt. j.g. to full Lieutenant). Two is a coincidence, more than that is a pattern. I, personally, believe it's worth mentioning, but not necessarily in the main body of the article. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

The part about the unnamed Ensign should not be removed only to be relegated to Background, if we are saying that we don't know that they are the same. The current status of each having a note that they might both be the same person is sufficient. 31dot (talk) 20:10, May 19, 2013 (UTC)

Chatting up Seven of Nine Edit

In an alternate timeline while Voyager was still in drydock, Carey was working in Engineering when he met Seven of Nine, who had been sent back in time by Captain Braxton. Carey tried to ask her out, but Seven excused herself by saying she was temporarily assigned to Voyager from Utopia Planitia.

That's a supposition. He was engaging in small talk with her and trying to get to know her, but there's no evidence he was trying to "ask her out" in the conventional romantic sense. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Although I agree (because I seem to remember him being married) he did say something along the lines of "maybe we can have lunch sometimes." - AJ Halliwell 23:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No one said we couldn't have players in space. Jaf 03:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Jaf
Er, maybe Carey just liked eating lunch with other people. I mean, what else could he be interested in from Seven? ;) - Intricated talk page 03:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Layout issues?Edit

This article has been changed 3-4 times in the last couple of days attempting to deal with layout issues. I've removed the table of contents (since it was 3/4 down the page and listed 3 sections), and shifted an image to the left side because the "Appearances" section was shoved down quite a distance when the image was placed below the sidebar (and suddenly totally irrelevant to the text associated with it). An anon has complained "Oi cowboy, stop doing a rush job, you're leaving a gap between the "Fury" and "Friendship One" Paragraphs, LOL", but I made a point of using preview on that and checking it with both FF and Safari on a Mac, and don't see that issue at all. Can someone that has that issue take a screenshot of it so that some sort of workaround can be attempted? -- sulfur 22:11, March 16, 2010 (UTC)





It's definitely broken in IE6, but Wikia has been broken in IE6 for some time now. I posted something in the forum some time ago about this. Everyone should be using Firefox or Opera with adblocking. It's too bad we cant be sure that visitors are doing that... this is the first experience people have with Memory Alpha. --bp 22:45, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
It's not much better in IE8. --bp 23:59, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me Edit

I apologize for my error in the edit summary- I got things backwards and simply meant to suggest that the picture should be discussed here instead of being swapped over and over. --31dot 20:31, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Just another "the latter image should be on top." - Archduk3 20:35, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, but not what I said. :) Though I personally agree, I have been told there is no set policy in this area. --31dot 20:39, May 5, 2010 (UTC)