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.


Out of interest, what was the reference to Deep Space 9 in this episode about? Rebelstrike2005 05:00, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)

Barclay said: "I've been going over the interstellar phenomena forecasts from Deep Space 9. They are predicting a class B itinerant pulsar will pass within four billion kilometers of the MIDAS array in three days." --Gvsualan 06:56, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)
Would that mean DS9 is near the MIDAS array? Rebelstrike2005 07:12, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)]
If you want to make that assumption. Or you could just say: 'On such and such stardate Starfleet Communications received data from DS9 that predicted a blah blah pulsar will pass within range of the midas array.' For all we know DS9 is just passing along data or reports, or their interpretation of data or reports, or who knows. Maybe Dax or Bashir were bored and were looking over astrometric data for fun and came up with the prediction on their coffee break!? Obviously all the comment was was a blatant reference to DS9, just like the rest of the episode was a blatant reference to TNG. But when it comes to making assumptions on the location of something just because its associated with something else we recognize, means at most to "tread lightly" before making any gross speculations. It would seem however, that the Midas array is located N or N-NE of Earth on the flat map of the galaxy, especially if its aimed towards the Delta Quadrant whereas DS9 is more to the N-NW of Earth, as far as i know, which isnt a lot (except not to speculate too much). --Gvsualan 07:26, 24 Mar 2005 (EST)


Holy crap what a horrible episode. Everyone forgot that they already knew who Barclay was from when the Doctor hallucinated him, and how could you mention Barclay's medical history without mention of Barclay's Protomorphosis Syndrome?! -<unsigned>

So "Pathfinder" was a horrible episode because of an apparent continuity flaw and not mentioning a disease from a truly awful episode of TNG which the production staff would rather forget? By the way, you are aware that Barclay being labeled as one of the Doctor's holo-engineers was only mentioned in the simulation, right? Also, you are aware that the only people besides the Doctor who could have known about the events of the simulation was Chakotay and maybe some engineers who were paying more attention on ending the holoprogram than watching it play out? Also, the Doctor never said he didn't know him, just that he took the liberty of researching his file for the crew and noticed various medical maladies, listing some that stood out. The two he mentioned – holo-addiction and transporter phobia – were two that plagued Barclay the most, so of course those are the ones he's going to mention. Lastly, have you stopped to consider that maybe some of the Doctor's memory circuits were damaged enough, either in "Projections" or later on, that he truly didn't recall the scenario? So yeah, there are many ways to explain apparent inconsistencies; all you have to do is use your imagination, which is something these shows are supposed to promote rather than spoon-feeding you every ounce of story. So if you think this episode was horrible simply because of a few easily-explained continuity errors that occured within the last five minutes of the episode, I really do feel sorry for you. --From Andoria with Love 10:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Is there any significance to that Y2K item in Trivia? I read that and think, "So?" Gonk (Gonk!) 21:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. It said this was the last episode to air in the 20th century, but the 20th century had another year left in it. -- Heath 22:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


How does Barclay know that Chakotay, Torres, and Neelix have become part of the Voyager crew? This only happens when they are already in the Delta Quadrant. -- 09:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

By the time of this episode, Voyager had already made contact with Starfleet in "Message in a Bottle". --OuroborosCobra talk 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Patient confidentiality nit Edit

Had to remove this based on our policy that we are not a nitpicker's guide. --From Andoria with Love 10:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently patient confidentiality doesn't exist in the 24th century, or at least in the Delta Quadrant. Not only does the Doctor check Barclay's medical records without cause, he announces his various problems to the crew in the mess hall.

"Neelix" at the endEdit

That bit when Neelix the Cat jumps up and interrupts Barclay and Troi in the very ending moments of the episode, was that in the script (very well-trained cat in that case), or was it something the cat "actor" just did and they decided to leave it in? Xavius, Envoy of Fluidic Space 21:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Deanna Troi's Accent!??Edit

Hasn't ANYONE noticed the fact that Deanna Troi (Marina Sirtis) was speaking in an English accent (because she is from England) in this episode, when it should have been slightly Greek? I know it's a weird topic to come up, but still... --[[Ben10Joshua]] 20:30, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Deanna's accent is in a constant state of flux, compare her first season dialect to All Good Things. Sirtis wanted to create an 'alien accent' but the other Betazoids didn't bother with it so she phased it out. Basically the lighter her hair is, the less you should expect that sort-of-Greek accent.The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Starfleet's Extrapolation on Voyager's LocationEdit

So, I just watched this episode and the one previous to it, The Voyager Conspiracy, where they jumped forward 3,000 lightyears in a couple hours. I don't know how large a sector is, but this seems like it (and possibly other such events?) would have jumped them closer to Earth than Starfleet's extrapolations could have predicted. Any ideas, anyone? Just an oversight on the writers' part? Izkata 06:32, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Considering that there were several "jumps" that brought Voyager closer to the Alpha Quadrant since "Message in a Bottle", I would say it most likely is just another example of sloppy writing for the show. Of course, thee are a few episodes where Voyager could have been going the 'wrong' way, or not making any progress at all, so it could have evened out in the end. Personally, I explain away problems like this by simply assuming that they spend weeks at a time replacing hull plates to keep the ship looking brand new all the time. - Archduk3 15:05, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I added a note in background info. -- 19:00, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Removed projection noteEdit

  • Harkins' projection of Voyager's location is obviously flawed, accounting for an average speed of warp 6.2. It is uncertain how the attempt to contact Voyager was successful, in spite of the many shortcuts and technologies Voyager had used, including the graviton catapult from the previous episode "The Voyager Conspiracy", which hurtled it across 30 sectors of space and the Borg transwarp coil from season 5's "Dark Frontier" which propelled it an additional 20,000 light years.

I have removed the above note from the background info, primarily because it's just a nitpick, but secondarily because the projection isn't "obviously flawed" at all. Voyager experiences at least one wild leap 10,000 light-year forward (in "The Gift") _before_ communicating with Starfleet in "Message in a Bottle", which means Starfleet would already be aware that Voyager does encounter opportunities to skip sections of space and might figure some probability of that into their projections. Combine that with the fact that due to their various adventures Voyager might not have travelled in as straight a line as Starfleet projected in the time since "Message in a Bottle" -- particularly while being catapulted uncontrollably or while chasing the Borg at transwarp -- and it is within the realm of possibility that the projections could be in the correct ballpark via two opposed errors cancelling each other out. 13:59, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I have reworded it to remove the "flawed" statements and simply note that his projection could not have taken those things into account; as MA:NIT does allow noting factual contradictions in information. 31dot 14:04, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with its inclusion. Nothing in the episode contradicts the notion that occasional leaps forward could be figured into the projection in addition an the assumed average speed of Warp 6.2. Any projection would assume an average speed: that needn't be intepreted to mean that were _no_ other variables involved. That wouldn't be a very complex projection. I feel the info as it is presented is just speculation based on an unnecessarily simplistic interpretation of the nature of Starfleet's projection, but you're obviously on patrol here and you prefer this nitpick to stand, so I'm not going to dispute it any further. By the way, isn't it standard practice to debate it further rather than playing revert-tag? 14:15, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Please keep your indent consistent throughout this section. I did not "revert tag", I made a change to what it had been before; if I had simply restored what had been there before, then yes, that would be "revert tag". Given the average speed and saying Voyager is in one of three sectors, that would seem to not take into account leaps of thousands of light years, as sectors are not that big. 31dot 15:02, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
As for "no other variables" being included in an average speed, we can only work with what we are given, if they don't mention any other variables, then we must assume there aren't any. 31dot 15:05, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Removed nitpicks and speculations Edit

I've removed the following uncited nitpicks:

  • "The holographic Harry Kim asks Barclay to teach him how to play velocity, but in actuality Kim was captain of the velocity team during his time at Starfleet Academy. Barclay would have had enough information to not have made this error in his program."
  • "The photo of Tom Paris on Admiral Paris' desk [...] is initially a reversed shot of him (showing the com badge on the wrong side), but during a close-up, the image is still reversed but the comm badge has been moved to the other side."
  • "Harkins' projection of Voyager's location, which assumed an average speed of warp 6.2, did not take into account the many shortcuts and technologies Voyager had used, including the graviton catapult from the previous episode, "The Voyager Conspiracy", which hurtled it across thirty sectors of space and the Borg transwarp coil from season 5's "Dark Frontier" which propelled it an additional 20,000 light years. However, somehow Barclay was still able to direct his message close enough to be picked up by Voyager. That Voyager was considerably closer to the Alpha Quadrant than Starfleet expected is never mentioned."
  • "Although Starfleet has adopted their new-style uniform for three years during this time, people can be seen outside Starfleet Headquarters wearing the late-2360s style uniforms. This is due to the fact that it's actually a recycled shot from DS9: "Homefront"."

I've also removed these uncited speculations:

  • "On Barclay's holographic version of Voyager, the Maquis crewmembers do not wear uniforms but instead have continued wearing casual clothes. This may be a reference to an original notion for the show (which was championed by Michael Piller who was overruled) where the Maquis crewmembers would not wear Starfleet uniforms while serving on the ship."
  • The Doctor's "failure" to mention having encountered a holographic version of Barclay "may be due to The Doctor's personal memories being lost after those events, in "The Swarm"."
  • "In Starfleet's Communications Research Center, where Reginald Barclay activates the MIDAS array, a 'blinking machine' can be seen at work. A very similar looking device is present in Noonian Soong's work area on Omicron Theta in TNG: "Datalore"." --Defiant (talk) 16:57, January 30, 2017 (UTC)
That last one could be verified with a couple of images...--LauraCC (talk) 16:59, January 30, 2017 (UTC)

Not really; it's subjective. They might look similar, but a source is still required to say they were actually the same. Otherwise, there's not really much point in having the note in the article. --Defiant (talk) 17:16, January 30, 2017 (UTC)