For general discussion on this episode, visit the VOY forum at The Trek BBS.
I reverted an edit placing this episode in October.. how do we know that Endgame comes 30 weeks after October.. did they say the date of Endgame? -- Captain M.K.B. 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- It's probably based on the "standard Klingon gestation period." - AJ Halliwell 18:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine and good, but it is still based on the assumption that we know the date for Endgame. The gestation period was being used to calculate the date of this episode off of Endgame, and since we do not have a date for Endgame (as far as I know), you can't guess at this episode. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- There is still no date for Endgame there. Homestead being two episodes before it does not matter, as episodes can take place months apart, or take place over a period of days/weeks. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- True, but this narrows down the timeframe. Would you agree that "Lineage" takes place in October or later? We are agreed that it takes place in 2377, so that leaves October, November, or December, taking "Homestead" into account. Would "4Q 2377" be acceptable? -- StAkAr Karnak 19:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- We don't have a date for Endgame, therefore we don't have a date for this. You're asking me to speculate, and we don't do that. It could be any of those months. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Doesn't "It could be any of those months" equal "the 4th quarter of 2377"? There is no speculation involved in narrowing it down to a quarter, is there? -- StAkAr Karnak 22:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Appears to be done, removed pna. --Alan 16:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the recently added:
- "In the scene where Paris join Chakotay and B'Elanna on their way to breakfast, Paris' uniform is missing its pips. However, when he and B'Elanna arrive in sickbay in the next scene, the pips have returned."
...for falling into the realm of nitpickery...as in something I would read in any one of my various copies of The Nitpickers Guide to Trek... --Alan 03:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- From User talk:Gvsualan:
I'm curious why you undid the comments about the costuming error I added to Lineage (episode). I saw the episode yesterday and I'm fairly certain Paris's pips were missing. Did my eyes deceive me? It's possible, but I did have one of those "heeeey, wait a minute.." moments and took a long hard look as the scene continued. Or, is there a better spot to add that information to the page?
On a similar note, I wanted to comment on the Doctor's comments regarding adding programming about pediatrics to his programming, because he had already been present for the birth Naomi Wildman. The two comments seem like they should be in the same spot, yes? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Twilder (talk • contribs).
- While your observations may be accurate, but Memory Alpha is not a guide to nitpicks. --Alan 04:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? I see numerous episode articles where the "Background Information" comments on inconsistencies, production errors, or other items that might be deemed "nitpicks". Do a search on the word "blooper" if you don't believe me. Regardless, it seems consistent with what I've been reading after I watch the episodes that air each day. --Tom
Ok, So I read the nitpick section and (more importantly) the discussion section of the MA:NOT page. The comments there seem to say that production errors are permissible in certain circumstances. Several users even cited costuming/rank errors as an example of what should be allowed. I understand that the issue is not entirely clear, but it seems like you're going in two different directions here.
Also, why not create a whole page just for listing nitpicks. Then people can add them if they want and not clutter up the episode articles. Could be a fun read. --Tom
- Because MA was established on the premise of being an encyclopedia. Sure production errors happen, but nitpicking the series is outside the philosophy established when this site was created. Also, this discussion really transcends my one revert, especially where there are those here who spend a great deal of there time almost exclusively removing said nits. --Alan 02:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. I've now read several threads and discussion pages talking about what is and what isn't nitpicking. No one seems to be completely clear on it one way or another. While I'm pretty convinced that my addition was on the side of a permissible production (particularly if you read the discussion on the MA:NOT page to which you referred me, or several of the threads in Ten Forward...), it's not really worth arguing over if someone's just going to go back in and delete it again anyway. So much for trying to add something to the section of the articles I most look forward to reading. --Tom
- I don't know if you've ever read The Nitpicker's Guide for Classic Trekkers, and I am embarrassed to say I own it, but the type of comment(s) we are discussing here are exactly what that book thrives on, and therefore fully fits into my perception (as well as others) of what a nitpick is. Perhaps what Star Trek needs next is a Nitpicker wiki. --Alan 03:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually own several of the books in the series. :-P Thanks for missing my points entirely. --Tom
- A nitpick is pointing out an error in production for the sake of pointing it out. There are just too many errors that happen in each episode and we would then fill this site with nothing but useless information. — Morder 05:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
"Useless" is a matter of perspective (especially considering this site is huge inventory of a fictional universe, but I digress). I still think that the definition of what constitutes nitpicking has not been made entirely clear on the pages that discuss it, and that this falls closer to the side of things that are worth noting on that spectrum. However, since it seems I'd have more success winning an argument with a doorstop and Gvsualan seems on the verge of throwing a fit, I'll drop it. --Tom
- How are you finding the following unclear?
"...while there are a great many nitpicks of Star Trek in existence, these are not considered encyclopedic. Nitpicking is the practice of meticulously searching for minor, even trivial errors in detail, and then criticizing them. These errors, called "nits," are in many cases subjective and up to interpretation of the viewer as to whether they even are truly "nits". Thus, they have no place on Memory Alpha."
- ...seems perfectly clear to me (and the other 4 people that are also involved in this conversation who are agreeing said removal), so really, I see the continuation of this discussion as little more than a reason turn this into some you -vs- me conflict, when the only involvement I had in this was being the first to revert something that someone else would have very likely done. --Alan 21:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Read this. Then this. And then this. These are what I read after you referred me to MA:NOT as I tried to get a better definition in light of the other pages I had seen. While your definition of a nit fits with some people, I still don't see a consensus anywhere. Because of that, I haven't bothered putting the comment back in. The only reasons I keep harping on it is that no one has shown me where a final decision was reached, or that a better definition was adopted and because no one seemed to be listening to my points anyway. As I said, I've dropped it, so if you're worried about a personal conflict, why do you need to keep having the last word?? --Tom
- [jumps in after only reading last comment] The whole nitpicking thing is something we've been working on for a while and while a policy was implemented, there has been some debate about what makes a nitpick. As such, people have just been going through and removing anything that points out any kind of apparent error or contradiction. This probably isn't the best way to go, since some contradictions are very interesting to note. Basically, nitpicking is, by definition, to be critical of or excessively concerned with inconsequential details. So, basically, when adding any kind of background note, we need to ask ourselves how consequential it is – in other words, if the apparent error or contradiction had any bearing or impact on the story or the production or future stories/productions, then yes, I would say definitely add those. But if it's something that was inconsequential to the story or production – a boom mic in the scene or missing rank pips, for example – then those should not be included. These are typically production errors and are almost always irrelevant to the plot or what went into making the episode. Does that make any sense? --From Andoria with Love 22:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Shran about inconsequential nits not being permitted, but I fear(and have seen) that some nitpicks that deal with contradictions between episodes usually end up either 1) explaining themselves away or 2) leading to a long list of possible theories to explain them away. The explanations removed from the Transphasic torpedo page is a good example of the latter. If its just going to explain itself away, then why mention it? Similarly, a list of theories is just that and seems unencyclopedic.
- My personal opinion is that we should either do all or none with nits, preferably none. If we are going to have "consequential" nits, I think we should set a pretty high bar to them to avoid long conversations about how consequential something is, which is a matter of debate.
- Perhaps this conversation should be moved to a forum discussion.--31dot 23:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- If twilder/Tom is no longer pursuing the "magic pips" item but still wants policy clarification, then let's have a Forum or BETTER YET how about Talk:MA:NOT. If twilder/Tom is just trying to understand the "Lineage" item (though he has by now dropped it), I'll say: That is the very picture of nitpicking an inconsequential production detail. It doesn't even impact the in-universe perspective at all. Unless you're one of these people who think that, yeah, the briefly-missing pips must actually be conveying some in-universe import and that this encyclopedia is philosophically bound to invent an explanation BIKAUZ IT CANNON. If you don't know who I'm talking about, it's just as well. Anyway, that might be one of the reasons to ever entertain such a Background note - if a deliberate production decision had yielded some in-universe detail which wouldn't have otherwise become canon. Compare this to a case like Darien Wallace's red uniform, which he wore in one episode because Guy Vardaman's gold one had been altered for someone else. We take that to mean that, in-universe, Wallace had a temp. assignment or something, and the realworld production note is one of these things we like to note because it illuminates behind the scenes of the show. It wasn't a blooper. The "magic pips" is an error. A minor one. An inconsequential one. Nobody wants it noted. It makes us look like fetishists. If we still need to talk about "what's a nitpick", let's take it to Talk:MA:NOT. I don't think it's necessary. I've never seen anyone else really confused and stuck over it. Most people just sort of "get it" when the policy is pointed out. But, that's the place to talk about it. --TribbleFurSuit 01:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you all for your comments, particularly Shran (a.ka. F.A.w/L). It seems, there was another level to this whole issue that I was missing. I was getting a little too focused on the visible vs invisible issue of errors (i.e. missing pips as opposed to "how is that even possible! OMG!!111!ONE!") and neglecting to think about the consequential vs. inconsequential. My apologies for being a bit obtuse on that one. And please, call me Tom. --Tom
D'oh! N00b failure! I'll stick with twilder for clarity. Red and Blue makes me think of that dreadful Superman fiasco in the late ninties. --twilder
I watched this episode tonight on DVD, and Paris is wearing both pips in this scene. His neck is shadowed but they are there the entire scene. 22.214.171.124 06:41, December 29, 2011 (UTC)strangenewland
Deleting DNA sequences Edit
B'Elanna Torres tries to remove Klingon attributes by *deleting* DNA sequences. Don't all members of a particular species have a certain number of DNA/gene sequences, and by deleting some of them, wouldn't that completely change the lifeform?
We know different species can have more or less DNA sequences, such as Species 8472 who has "the most densely-coded DNA sequences" Voyager's EMH had ever seen (see Scorpion, Act Four). Theoretically, Klingons could have more DNA sequences than Humans, which may make sense since their physiology is more complex (with all the redundant systems).
Ironically, I think I'm actually talking myself into how plausible it may actually be to just outright deleting DNA sequences to remove Klingon traits.
However, it does seem strange that B'Elanna, an engineer (however expert and with only a single year at the Academy), would understand genetics so well to be able to know exactly what genetic material is Klingon and can be removed. Also recall that B'Elanna deleted Klingon gene sequences in two visible steps; the first changed her child's hair from dark to blond, and the second removed te forehead ridges. So this suggests that B'Elanna knew enough about Klingon-Human genetics to be able to safely remove only portions of the Klingon sequences, rather than only a basic understanding of genetics, in which case she would have most likely just deleted all the Klingon genes altogether, if that.
In any case, I suppose my point is that there seems to be some inconsistency with either the possibly dubious fact that DNA sequences can just be deleted with little care, and that it doesn't seem likely that B'Elanna would be able to manipulate genetics with the expert skill and understanding one may attribute to Icheb.
Ouizardus 03:26, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
- How do you know she didn't look them up from a reference database? --OuroborosCobra talk 06:35, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Just a note - there's no basis at all for Klingons having more sequences than humans. After all, here's a flower with 50 times the base pairs as humans: http://www.skeptical-science.com/science/paris-japonica-complex-dna/ 126.96.36.199 01:23, December 15, 2011 (UTC)
Please, don't forget that we are dealing with fiction, and that there is apparently no scientific advisor. Especially the amount of medical/biological rubbish in ST Voyager is beyond good and evil and far worse than engineering-technobabble. I don't know what the script writers know about genes or molecular biology in general, but it can't be much.
Genetic Engineering Edit
Isn't genetic engineering illegal? I mean, wasn't Richard Bashir thrown in prison for two years over what B'Elanna wants to do? Why does everyone in this episode act as if its a topic up for ethical debate? There's a law against it. End of story. 188.8.131.52 06:53, November 14, 2012 (UTC)
- B'Elanna claimed that she was correcting a birth defect, which is legal- and anyway she altered the Doctor to make him willing to do it and locked herself in Sickbay to keep others from convincing her or the Doc not to do it. Because of that they had to convince her not to do it; the law was really irrelevant. 31dot (talk) 11:46, November 14, 2012 (UTC)