FANDOM


Talk:USS Voyager

Date of Voyager's return Edit

Explanation: Seeing as this still seems to be a recurring topic, I've condensed all 6 related discussions into one forum to make a single viewing/discussion for future reference. --Alan 21:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

talk:USS VoyagerEdit

As I have commented elsewhere, I have noticed that is is accepted that Voyager returned home in 2377. Where is this mentioned - as in "Homestead", Neelix commented that they were celibrating the 315th anniversary of First Contact - wouldn't that place the year as 2378? The preceding unsigned comment was added by MiChaos (talk • contribs). July 5, 2004

This seems consistent with the Star Trek website. They seem to imply that Endgame crossed into 2378. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.137.57.41 (talk).
Voyager's Season 1 was in [[2371]. Add seven years to that (seven seasons), and you get 2378 indeed. You reference to the 315th birthday of First Contact is good evidence. Ottens 12:59, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST)
Surely it goes like this (remembering that four season two episodes were produced for season one and have season one Stardates, they aired correctly in the UK) - Season 1 - mid-2371, Season 2 - 2372, Season 3 - 2373, Season 4 - 2374, Season 5 - 2375, Season 6 - 2376, Season 7 - 2377. Voyager still follows the TNG/DS9 convention of having the second digit in the stardate increase by 1 every year, and the stardate for Endgame was 54973.4, which is a 2374 Stardate. Alex Peckover 13:07, Jul 6, 2004 (CEST)
2377 stardate actually but I see what you mean. Of course it's possible that the events of Endgame cross over into the 55000 stardates, thereby starting another year. The fact that the anniversary is mentioned in "Homestead" is difficult but perhaps not impossible to rectify.
Or that Series 1 was 2371-2372, S2 was 2372-2373...S7 would be 2377-2378. And the idea that the digits changed every season doesn't necessarily mean the year changes every year at that point, we should all know that stardates aren't consistent! MiChaos 22:26, 6 Jul 2004 (CEST)
I always got the impression that "Endgame" was several months after "Renaissance Man". It would be possible then, that the episode was in 2078.
Now that seems somewhat unlikely. :P Ottens 20:13, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I assume (s)he means 2378. I agree with MiChaos - weebiloobil 16:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, according to the VOY Season 1 DVD extras, they specify the year as 2377 for Season 1. Not sure how that fits with the canon course, but if you load in the extras disk and look at the Janeway Interview, you'll note the interview date (97), and then a year scroll to 2377 for Season 1. Which if true, means the stardate years are 2377 to 2383. DCody 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
It does not work on so many levels. By 2377, there was no Maquis to speak of, they had long since been killed or destroyed by the Jem'Hadar. The uniforms seen in Voyager had been retired pretty much by 2373. We see an Admiral Kathryn Janeway back at Starfleet in 2379. I'm sure there are many more problems, but those are some glaring ones. The DVD extras either say something different, or are flat wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

talk:2377Edit

As mentioned by myself on numerous occasions, "Homestead" is established to be on the 315th anniversairy of First Contact, making it, and subsequent episodes, 2378. How many of these episodes would be in that year, as opposed to 2377? MiChaos 19:56, 12 Jul 2004 (CEST)

talk:Star Trek: Voyager Edit

I know I've commented on this issue too many times, but I think it needs to be sorted once and for all - in what year did USS Voyager return to Earth?

It is, to my mind, obvious that it ended in 2378 - in "Homestead", Neelix comments that they're celebrating the 315th anniversary of First Contact - then clarified as the anniversary of Tuvok's ancestors arrival on Earth. This places the year of that episode and subsequent ones in 2378. However, throughout this site, the events keep being listed in 2377 - what am I missing?

The reason I ask this again is that I'm on the verge of changing every reference to Voyager's return to 2378, but I don't want to if others keep changing it back or if I'm wrong. Help! -- MiChaos 17:57, 14 Aug 2004 (CEST)

You're right though.. we've confirmed that those episodes must indeed take place in 2378, however, many have missed the "Homestead" reference and continue to perpetuate the incorrect date. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 04:55, 15 Aug 2004 (CEST)
What about the fact that each season in modern Star Trek history has been during one calendar year. The stardates begin and end in that calander year as well. I don't see why we should change are assumptions simply because of a single mistake in one episode. Anyone else with me?Ryan123450 08:13, 18 Aug 2004 (CEST)
I disagree. Find me any reference to the idea that each season takes place in one calendar year. I don't think there's anything really supporting that - in fact, starting a new year somewhere mid-season would solve more problems than it creates. This is an assumption as well, of course, but at least we shouldn't call something an "error" just because it doesn't fit our previous assumptions. -- Cid Highwind 10:04, 18 Aug 2004 (CEST)

talk:2378Edit

I don't see how these episodes take place in 2378, as Endgame's stardate is 54xxx.x. As we know, all stardates within one year start with the same two digits. Stardates from earlier episodes in the seventh season also start with 54. Starting from 41xxx in 2364, 54 makes 2377. According to the stardates given, all of season seven takes place in 2377. ExAstris 17:52, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Although we can infer that the Voyager episode "Homestead" took part in 2378, on the 315th anniversary of First Contact, it isn't clear how many of the previous episodes may also have taken place in the same year. -- rebelstrike 18:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I can read, thank you. And that may very well have been in the plot, but it wouldn't be the first time writers make a mistake like that. I would say the stardate certainly takes precendence over any plot occurrences. ExAstris 18:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the stardates DO take precedent. There is no canon explanation to how they work. -- rebelstrike 18:23, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

No argument there. But such an explanation is included in the Star Trek Chronology (1996 edition, appendix I), written by the folks who actually work on Star Trek. Many ages and dates mentioned on the shows have been consistent with the system as laid out in that book, and as such, the stardate VS plot situation on "Homestead" creates an inconsistency at the very least. ExAstris 18:39, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rebelstrike. Although the Chronology might be written by people on Star Trek, that makes the source quasi-canon at best. Canon has to be strictly defined as what is on screen. This quote is, that information isn't.
And I don't believe the 'one year = 1,000 stardates' can work at all. If it did, stardates would have had to come in the 2320's, which clearly it didn't. The stardate system is full of contradictions and inconsistencies, and I believe that assuming the change of the 1,000's doesn't mean the change of a year solves more of these inconsistencies than not.
Simply though, this is an issue which we just simply don't have an answer. But this quote appeared in the episode; I'm inclined to accept it as canon unless someone can give me an on-screen canon evidence to contradict it. What do other people think? -- MiChaos 22:14, 9 May 2005 (UTC).

About starting in the 2320's -- I agree they clearly didn't start then, but the system may have been changed, resetted or adapted or whatever by that time. And as Gene Roddenberry once said, inconsistencies in stardates reflect our limited understanding of our space-time continuum. But perhaps this is a discussion more fitted for the stardate page :) On the topic at hand - I'm willing to accept the plot takes place in 2378, but to me personally, the stardate refers to 2377. We have no on-screen evidence to prove or disprove this, so I guess it'll remain a matter of personal conviction. -- ExAstris 18:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Let us not forget that changes in the stardate may come about due to the relativistic effects of space travel, namely the speed of the vessel and its location in the galaxy. And since USS Voyager is in the Delta Quadrant, thousands of light years away from Federation space, it is possible that the stardate would be different as a result. --Shran 04:30, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But wouldn't this render the stardate system very incorrect and unpractical? If say, a series of vessels meet up with eachother and they have widely differing stardates, wouldn't that lead to much confusion? Everyone would be operating with different numbers. 85.19.140.9 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
This site widely believe in the one year, one season logic, For TNG this is great, not so great for TOS. Anyways, Another assumption is that all episodes of a season take place in the same year. Truth is the years seem to follow a Season more or less. Starting in the latter half of a year, ending in the next year. In TOS they show this in Charlie X a Thanksgiving episode, then the fact that they recently had a Christmas party in "Dagger of the Mind", in TNG we have Data's Day which takes place on October 24th 2367. As the 11th episode of the season that only leaves bout 2 months for the rest of the 15 episodes of the season.
The truth is I believe the year of Data's Day ends between Data's Day and QPid because of the mention of Picard's trip to Risa last year. Unfortunately this even works to saying a season resents on year since "Captain's Holiday" was in the previous season. But even Enterprise works off the season year split theory of mine. The problem with integrating this into Memory Alpha is we don't have enough data to split every season, even the split I brought up with QPid gives you 8 episodes to figure out the split, also knowing that Captain's Holiday takes place in the same year as Data's Day. If you understand that great, if not I can make a calendar. --TOSrules 04:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
someone has recently placed "endgame" into 2378. are we agreed that this is incorrect? Deevolution 08:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much. The episode clearly stated they had been in the Delta Quadrant for seven years, and two episodes prior took place on the 315th anniversary of First Contact (2063 + 315 = 2378). There's really no way anyone can disagree with it since it's canon and since stardates have been proven to be unreliable in telling when an episode is set. --From Andoria with Love 08:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

talk:Fen DomarEdit

  • "According to the non-canonical (but Paramount-endorsed) book Star Trek: Star Charts by Geoffrey Mandel, by 2378 Voyager had traversed almost the entire Delta Quadrant and was only a few light years away from crossing into the Beta Quadrant. From this we can deduce that the Fen Domar are most likely a Beta Quadrant civilization, though their territory still remains quite distant from Federation space.""

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but non-canon sources cannot be used as the basis for such information in articles. This is not only from a non-canon source, but is speculation based on what was said in that source. The reference to the race being from the Beta Quadrant needs to be removed, but a note stating that what the Star Charts said and that the race may be from the Beta Quadrant can remain. --From Andoria with Love 07:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I will change the article to make it clearer that the Fen Domar may be either a Beta Quadrant or a Delta Quadrant civilization. I don't see why it was necessary, however, to change "around 2381" to "a few years after 2378" (I disagree about the date that you're giving for Voyager's return home, but I will post a very long article about that in Ten Forward in due time). It's basically the same thing, if you assume that "a few" means three to five. --Antodav 08:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there's no need to refer to the Star Charts because a map is seen in "Endgame" that shows that Voyager is in fact pretty close to the border to the Beta Quarant by that episode here It's all in the screencap analysis on Talk:Beta Quadrant. --Jörg 08:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
So we have a canon source for Voyager being near the BQ border in that episode. Well that's excellent. I think that justifies putting the Fen Domar in the Beta Quadrant, in that case.--Antodav 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, it's not my date. Alas, the year of 2378 for the final season of Star Trek: Voyager is canon, as "Homestead" (two episodes prior) takes on the 315th anniversary of Zefram Cochrane's First Contact with the Vulcans. That momentous occasion took place on 5 April 2063. 2063 + 315 = 2378. Also, I beleive the final episode specifically states that USS Voyager had been in the Delta Quadrant for seven years at that point; the ship was sent there in 2371. --From Andoria with Love 08:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I will review "Homestead" to see about the exact date when the episode is set. However, if you go by the stardate given in "Caretaker", (which is set before the movie Star Trek Generations, which takes place in early 2371) Voyager was launched in late 2370, not 2371. I've always believed that the ship arrived home around May of 2377.--Antodav 08:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, but stardates are so untrustworthy and not exactly something to go on when trying to tie episodes down to a specific year. Since part of the stardate apparently relies on a ship's location in the galaxy, one might theorize that the stardates there ran a bit differently than they did in the Alpha and Beta Quadrants. One can also theorize that the time between each episode in the series took longer than those of the other series. --From Andoria with Love 08:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well FRELL. Neelix did say "315th anniversary." I can't believe I missed that. That means that my entire stardate system for the 24th Century is wrong. That's really quite ironic, actually, considering that I based it off of "Homestead" in the first place. I'll have to rewrite the whole dang thing. Now it seems like the Voyager crew were not rounding up when they said they had been there for seven years, but actually rounding down. Hopefully I can find a way to keep this from affecting Commodore.--Antodav 08:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Also, why was it necessary for the speculation about Seven of Nine's death to be removed? It was based entirely on canon statements made in the episode, though Janeway was somewhat more specific about Seven of Nine's death than she was about the date of the battle with the Fen Domar. Still, "a few years" could very easily be "three years." I don't see that that is an unreasonable speculation, certainly not any more so than that Carol Marcus is the "little blonde lab technician" or that the Battle of Cheron was the final battle of the Romulan Wars which led to the founding of the Federation. I was under the impression that there was room for reasonable speculation on Memory Alpha, as long as I made it clear that it was in fact speculation, used the appropriate formatting (intented and italicized) and cited my sources. Completely removing the possibility that the away mission Seven of Nine was killed on may have somehow had something to do with the Fen Domar was I think a bit unnecessary.--Antodav 08:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now see, I never thought of that. I suppose that is possible... so, yeah, that part can be re-added, I suppose. For the record, though, there is still no hard evidence that the Earth-Romulan War occured before the founding of the United Federation of Planets. The fact that the war was between Earth and the Romulans simply suggests that it was. Thus far, the only specifics as to when the E-R war took place is an illegible readout seen in "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II", which places the war between 2156 and 2160. Because this readout was simply a few snippets from the first (now obsolete and inaccurate) edition of the Star Trek Chronology and because the readout was never meant to be read, this evidence should be taken with a grain of salt. The wars were never referenced in "These Are the Voyages...", supposedly set after the wars. Also, the an early storyline for Star Trek would have had the wars taking place after the Federation was founded. So, yeah... no hard evidence exists yet, although I, personally, would like to believe it was before the UFP was founded in 2161. --From Andoria with Love 08:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

talk:HomesteadEdit

Does this episode take place in 2377? Neelix says at the start of the episode that they're celebrating 315 years since First Contact - surely that places this ep on April 5th, 2378? -- MiChaos 23:00, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST)

OK, so, in "Homestead", Neelix says that that episode takes place on the 315th Anniversary of the Vulcans' First Contact with Earth. According to Star Trek: First Contact, that event occured on April 5, 2063. Therefore, it is canon that that episode takes place in the year 2378. Numerous Paramount-authorized and approved materials do contradict this, including Star Trek: Star Charts by Geoffrey Mandel, but those sources are not canon. So, unless "Homestead" takes place in some sort of bizzare timewarp, there's absolutely no way to get around the fact that on April 5, 2378, Voyager was still in the Delta Quadrant.
The problem with this is that it ruins the entire TNG-era timeline.
If "Homstead" is set in 2378, then "Caretaker" is set in (late) 2371. If "Homestead" is set in 2371, then according to the stardates Generations is set in 2372. This means that First Contact is set in 2374, Insurrection is set in 2376, and Nemesis is set in 2380 (assuming that the length of time between the release dates of the movies is the same as the amount of time that passed between the movies themselves). It also means that for more than an entire year, from May 2370 until January 2372, we have no idea what the crew of the USS Enterprise-D were doing. There's an entire 8th Season now of TNG that is unaccounted for.
That much I could live with, even if it means that Worf was away for an extremely long time before finally joining the crew of Deep Space 9--were it not for the fact that it also messes up the stardate system. We know that passage of approximately one year is indicated in a stardate by adding 1 to the second digit from the left of the stardate (and thusly, that the passage of a decade is indicated by adding 1 to the first digit of the stardate). The stardates, however, do not allow for a missing year; TNG Season 7 ends on Stardate 479xx.x, and Generations, as quoted by Picard, is set on and around Stardate 48650.1. that indicates the passage of less than a year.
This could be resolved by shifting the entire TNG timeline forward by one year, meaning that "Encounter at Farpoint" took place in 2364, not 2363...however, if we do that, then "The Neutral Zone" suddenly takes place in 2365, not 2364, as Data specifically said it did--and Data can't be wrong. Furthermore, the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual also lists 2363 as the year of the USS Enterprise-D's launch. Of course, the TNG Tech Manual isn't canon.
There are two ways I can see to resolve this dillemma:
  • 1) Neelix was an idiot, and he said "315th Anniversary" when he meant to say "314th". He's not human, after all, or even a citizen of the Federation...how much does he really know about Federation history? Of course, there's the problem then that no one bothered to correct him...maybe they were all too drunk to notice he'd made an error, maybe none of them knew their own history too well either, or maybe they were all just willing to let it slide to save Neelix the embarassment...but the fact that even Tuvok didn't correct him is quite surprising.
  • 2) Data was malfunctioning in "The Neutral Zone," suffering from whatever virus caused him to say that he was part of the "Class of '78" in "Encounter at Farpoint." Again, though, why Picard and Beverly didn't correct Data and immediately have him taken away for a diagnostic is beyond me. Then again, Riker didn't seem to wonder what the heck Data meant in "Encounter at Farpoint" either.
I'm more inclined to believe that Neelix was wrong than that Data was wrong. One of these two "canonical" dates however has to be thrown out. Either Voyager returned home in May of 2377, or the Enterprise-D was launched in 2364; there's no way to have both here. If you can come up with a better solution than the one I just described, please do let me know. --Antodav 10:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
As explained above, stardates are not a good way to pin down an Earth date due to the incongruities inherent in the system. Lastly, we're not here to argue with what is or is not canon or to speculate as to what is correct or is not. We're here to state facts as presented in Star Trek and simply note (apparent) errors where we find them, giving the breifest and most plausible possible reason for them if necessary. Data said in "The Neutral Zone" that the year was 2364, therefore the year was 2364; Neelix said in "Homestead" that it was 315 years after First Contact, therefore that year was 2378; Picard stated in Star Trek Nemesis that Riker had been his first officer for 15 years, therefore that film was set in 2379; Icheb said in "Q2" that James T. Kirk's five-year mission aboard the USS Enterprise ended in 2270, therefore it ended in 2270. As I believe is stated in our canon policy, everything stated by the characters is the truth until later contradicted, after which we note the errors. Speculation as to why these errors exist, if at all needed, should be believable, to-the-point, and very brief. And that's... pretty much it. So, yeah, there's no need to rant about when the series or movies take place; that's already been answered. There's no getting around that. Not on Memory Alpha, anyway. --From Andoria with Love 19:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't ranting. But I will move the discussion to a different forum. --Antodav 20:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, 15 years from 2363, the year that the USS Enterprise-D was launched, is 2378. If we go by Picard's statement in Nemesis then that is the year that movie takes place, not 2379. --Antodav 21:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I just automatically call anything longer than a few sentences ranting. Nothing personal. As for the 15 year thing, Picard hadn't taken command of the ship until 2364, when "Encounter at Farpoint" is set. Riker became his first officer in that episode, as well. 2364 + 15 = 2379. --From Andoria with Love 05:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
We can also imagine that Voyager's stardate system is not updated like the starships in the Federation. In TNG: "Cause and Effect", the Enterprise-D had to update its starbase system with a time-base beacon because of a temporal loop, so you can imagine the divergence for the Voyager who did not contact such Federation beacon for a few years. In that way, even if the Voyager crew perceived 7 years, 8 years could have passed in the Federation. Contact was established with the Federation in 2375, so they could know the exact earth dates, but correcting 7 years of false stardates would be more confusing for the specificity of Voyager who's lost in the Delta Quadrant, and it could be subject to many updates in the future, so they would rather not have updated the stardates, even if they know the exact Earth date. - From Cardassia with pain 12:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced that "Homestead" and beyond took place in any other year than 2377.The stardate scheme, while completely random at times, has been consistent in each series with Stardate 41xxx.x = year 1 of TNG or 2364, and Stardate 54xxx.x = year 14 of TNG or 2377.
Based on Riker's logs, the best stardate that corresponds with Battle of Wolf 359 is Stardate 44002.3-- which is less than 6 days into the year 2367. However, in "Second Sight", Sisko states that the day prior to Stardate 47329.4 "was the fourth anniversary of the massacre at Wolf 359." Now considering Wolf 359 took place less that a week into 2367, this would indicate that "Second Sight" actually took place 'less than a week into' 2371, yet we still recognize it as 2370, along with the rest of DS9 Season 2.
Now consider the following: the reason why "Homestead" is mistook as taking place in 2378 is because of Neelix's line, "In honor of the 315th anniversary of his ancestors' arrival on Earth." The verbage is nearly identical, and as a result we've deemed this and subsequent episodes as taking place in 2378, rather than the same year that the rest of VOY Season 7 takes place in. This seems to contradict our approach or reasoning with Sisko's reference above and why that is instead overlooked as being "inconsistent." (Oh, and it should also be noted that the month of April was never uttered in this episode.)
It too should be noted that this episode took place on Stardate 548xx.x-- nearly 4 years after Star Trek: First Contact apparently took place-- Stardate 508xx.x. This leads me to surmise (okay, maybe speculate) that the writers may have mistook the referenced stardate in ST:FC as being the general stardate-time frame of First Contact, and that time travel is some sort of lateral move through time...Stardate 508xx = April 2373 <--> April 2063.
Whatever the case may be, we either need to return "Homestead" and those episodes that follow it back to 2377 or we bump Second Sight and all those episodes that follow it up to 2371. Either way, we need to be consistent and not set ourselves up for having "double standards." --Alan del Beccio 09:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the pure hard fact is that "Homestead" – and thus, the few episodes following "Homestead" – are canonically established to have taken place 315 after 2063. So, there's not really anything we can do about those (i.e. moving them to 2377) without going against canon, which would be a violation of this site's goals. At present, however, "Second Sight" is currently listed as taking place in 2370 when the dialogue states that it takes place four years after "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II", set right smack at the beginning of 2367. Therefore, either the date for "Second Sight" and the following episodes must change or the date for "BoBW" and subsequent episodes must change. That's gonna cause quite a bit of chaos, but we've dealt with chaos before and if we want things completely accurate, one of those two ways will have to be the way to go. --From Andoria with Love 04:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps Jake and Ben had lost some years traveling at near relativistic velocities? It seems to be a common problem that people end up experience time faster than others -- remember also that Molly O'Brien aged a year or two extra at certain points also?
Perhaps the whole deal was the result of a runabout-time portal collision :) -- Captain M.K.B. 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC) -- Captain M.K.B. 05:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a distinct possibility, but alas, speculation. ;) As for my above rant, Alan brought up a few good points last night on IRC; one of them is that fact that what this essentially comes down to is moving 18 DS9 Season 2 episodes back one year or moving 3 VOY Season 7 episodes up one year. Given that, I think I prefer the latter.
Now about that time portal idea... :D --From Andoria with Love 19:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Some anon changed the date of "Homestead", "Renaissance Man", and "Endgame" to "21 November 2377", "13 November 2377", and "21 December 2377" respectively from "2378". They had previously edited the BG notes of this episode to add:
  • "However, this appears to be a continuity error, as the stardate of 54868.6 roughly corresponds to November 13, 2377, and all other stardates in this season begin with the digits "54", corresponding to the year 2377."
What's the justification from this exact stardate to date correlation? -- Sulfur 08:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing they didn't check the talk page nor read the forum entry noted near the top of this page about the date. I'm all for changing it back myself. --Maestro4k 12:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ReduxEdit

In Star Trek: Star Charts the route of Uss Voyager page has the last year as 2377.Memory Beta as the date of Voyager's return to earth as December 2377. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Typhuss Nerys (talk • contribs).

In that case I will refer you to the above section. Simply put, that's not a canon source, something MB thrives on. --Alan 00:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

In Star Trek: Voyager books Homecoming,The Farther Shore, Spirit walk book 1 old wounds and spirit walk book 2 enemy of my enemy takes place in 2378,that would mean Voyager returned to earth in 2377. User:Captain Typhuss Nerys

Books are not canon here, please review our canon policy before making any more changes (based on your sources) or continuing this discussion.--Alan 01:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
While Memory Beta allows (and focuses) on non-canon sources such as novels, Memory Alpha does not. My statement should not be construed as saying one is better or worse than the other, simply different (and complementary, in fact). --OuroborosCobra talk 01:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


use your fingers,2371,1st year,2372,2nd year,2373,3rd year,2374,4th year,2375,5th year,2376,6th year,2377,7th year.user Captain Typhuss Nerys

There is a LOT of conversation, if you look above, that isn't as childish as finger counting, and has far more canon basis. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

2371 is the 1st year,right,2372,is the second year right,2373,is the 3rd year right,2374,is the 4th year right,2375,is the 5th year right,2376 ,is the 6th year right,2377,is the 7th year,right The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Typhuss Nerys (talk • contribs).

You're missing the point. It was explicitly stated in "Homestead" that the date of that episode marked 315th anniversary of first contact. 2063 + 315 = 2378. --Alan 01:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

in the star trek voyager episode the disease,harry said i have served on this ship for 5 years,the year in the episode is 2375,Voyager would only be in the delta quadrant for two more years,Voyager would get home in 2377.

Obviously Voyager was in the Delta Quadrant for more than two years after that point. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You win,i don't care if it was 2377 or 2378,i'm done. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain Typhuss Nerys (talk • contribs).

This, of course, isn't taking any consideration for 'rounding'... which would still allow "The Disease" to fall within the "finger count" timeline. This of course all goes without saying that this "canon" approach contradicts our "other" approach on Sisko's timeline comment in "Second Sight"...which is following the finger counting system rather than the "canon" approach. --Alan 02:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Stardate YearEdit

Well, according to the VOY Season 1 DVD extras, they specify the year as 2377 for Season 1. Not sure how that fits with the canon course, but if you load in the extras disk and look at the Janeway Interview, you'll note the interview date (97), and then a year scroll to 2377 for Season 1. Which if true, means the stardate years are 2377 to 2383. DCody 07:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It does not work on so many levels. By 2377, there was no Maquis to speak of, they had long since been killed or destroyed by the Jem'Hadar. The uniforms seen in Voyager had been retired pretty much by 2373. We see an Admiral Kathryn Janeway back at Starfleet in 2379. I'm sure there are many more problems, but those are some glaring ones. The DVD extras either say something different, or are flat wrong. --OuroborosCobra talk 09:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Voyager's route home? Edit

This article might be a good home for a geographical survey of the Delta Quadrant and Voyager's route through it, as discussed here. It wouldn't need every planet visited, but a list of the major areas might be useful. -- Josiah Rowe 03:10, 14 Feb 2005 (GMT)

I think "Regions visited by Voyager" might be a decent idea for an article. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 11:49, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

USS Voyager prototype Edit

Shouldn't the information from USS Voyager prototype be moved here and the page deleted? It's all background info and doesn't exist in canon Trek! --Defiant | Talk 12:00, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I think it falls under background information -- if we are creting pages for other facets of the craft (directors, performers, composers -- then we should start with some info on costumes, sets, props and models -- the prototype page is waiting some more sibling articles about the other models built for the series, and a top level page to list all of the above. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:04, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree with the creation of these "prototype" articles. I think there's a big difference between people that have lives outside of Trek and models that were built specifically for Trek. For instance, the Voyager prototype is much more related to Voyager, it was built purposefully for that reason and no other, than Jeffrey Combs is related to Shran, he only played the Andorian and has other functions, both in Trek and outside. Prototype information can easily be displayed on starship articles, but where does information about a director, actor or composer go if they have appeared several times in Trek? Obviously, the option that will give most space is if we create behind-the-scenes personnel pages and use the relevant starship pages for "prototype" info. Also, is there a third option? Is it possible that we could do both - create new pages for prototypes but also display the information on the relevant starship pages. I realize my response may be seen as a "personal attack" (just about anything can be seen as that, these days!) but I'm only trying to help find the best solution for MA. I hope other Archivists realise this. --Defiant | Talk 14:36, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Crew Complement Edit

Ah, the red shirts just keep appearing. While it gives the exact numbers given on two separate dates, In my opinion I think it should say "~150" or approximately 150 some how. Cause the idea of Voyager's crew was always 150, they always mentioned it. But when ever they needed an exact number, it'd vary (147, 141, 153) And they were always different, rarely actually accounting for red shirt deaths. Well, I suggest 150. Any disagreements? - AJHalliwell 11:12, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I've got no problems with "c. 150" or "~150", because the number did fluctuate quite a bit. In fact, it changed so often that a website cropped up to keep track of it, which. -- Miranda Jackson (Talk) 08:07, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)
As of Stardate 50912.4, Voyager's compliment was 148. VOY: "Displaced" -- Kooky 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

We come in peace (shoot to kill, men) Edit

Where is it stated that Voyager made first contact with some 400 species? That number seems like a bit of a stretch. I know since the Delta Quadrant was unexplored territory that there were likely to be many first contacts, but 400? I dunno about that... --From Andoria with Love 04:22, 18 Nov 2005 (UTC)

In 168 episodes, where they could not have met more than one or two new species in each, there is no chance that there were 400. Especially since they met no new species in many episodes. Mr.gn
Irrelevant, there have been numerous mentions of them meeting new species in between episodes, as well as "cantina style" episodes like "Tsunkatse" where they meet up to a dozen unknown aliens at once. -- Captain MKB 02:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that section is entirely uncited and I would be interested in the quote. 400 is alot, but easily possible as the number of new species "catalogued" or whatever by the Voyager crew over a seven year period. I looked everywhere I reasonably thought of in the last ten minutes, and couldn't find it. It's already PNA'd, so I won't mess with removing or inciting anything (nothing is cited) but it definitely needs to be rewritten and have any unsure material removed to the talk page.--Tim Thomason 05:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Voyager mentioned in DS9? Edit

Can anyone help? I seem to remember hearing that at some point during its run, Voyager was mentioned in DS9, around about the time that Janeway made contact with Starfleet (Series 4 Voy/Series 6 DS9). Does anyone know the episode of DS9 where this is mentioned, as I have never seen it? --Teestee 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that it ever was. The closest thing that I could think of was Sisko saying in "The Maquis, Part I" that "a few ships have been lost" in the Badlands, but that was before Voyager had aired(and served to lay the groundwork for it). DS9 was mentioned a few times on Voyager(usually when talking about where they departed from before going to the DQ)--31dot 13:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculation Edit

I removed the following:

  • It is a possibility that Starfleet succeeded to perfect the travel at quantum slipstream speeds, and they we're probably very interested in Voyager's armor technology, because they needed it to perfect their resistance to the Borg. It is a possibility that this armor will be upgraded onto newer ships in the sake of defense.

This is idle speculation that could be added as background info, but since there is no such evidence in subsequent Star Trek projects (namely, Star Trek Nemesis) to suggest how the technology was used following Voyager's return, it seems unnecessary to me. However, it's here if anyone wishes to discuss it. --From Andoria with Love 03:16, 31 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • The vessel was presumably decommissioned in 2378 when the ship returned to Earth after 7 years in the Delta Quadrant.
pfft...possibly - show it — Morder 21:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

More specifics Edit

There can be more added to this article (e.g. schematics, in the Delta Quadrant). If USS Enterprise-D article is as big as it is, why can't Voyager be? They explored a totally different region than the Enterprise. --Galaxy001 05:44, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Jaz 05:59, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Casino? Edit

Voyager had a casino on deck 2? I'd be interested in the reference for that. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Galileo (talk • contribs).

It did not. Jaz talk | novels 04:17, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Then why is it listed? MrPsychic 05:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Its non-canon. Probably speculation. If non-canon, it can be gotten rid of (if it already has not).  :) Galaxy001talk 06:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
*g* this isnt speculation. it is a translation error. i take this table from the german version of the article. our offical german translation called the mess hall as casino. *gg* --Shisma 09:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

LandingEdit

  • ... Voyager also had the capability of landing on the surface of a Class-M planet, then returning to space. The USS Voyager was the first starship capible of doing so.

Idle speculation or was this mentioned in an episode? -- Captain M.K.B. 01:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

This ability was demonstrated in VOY: "The 37's". During an interview I once saw about the making of Voyager, I'm not sure exactly where anymore, they (several staff members) spoke about how they wanted to have the ship consistently land on planet's surfaces, but opted for use of the transporters due to the visual effects techniques and budget costs. They then stated that, when the show was actually in production and airing, it would be occasionally feasible due to an improved budget and increase visual effects techniques. During that discussion, one person had stated that this was the first ship in Star Trek history capable of doing this. So you could say the producers can confirm this ability.--Gravydude 01:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The note about its place in Star Trek history is misplaced then... the article should be written from the POV of the Star Trek universe, where no known ship has been able to land. A note could be placed in the background section, where we talk about Star Trek 's history, as opposed to the Federation's. -- Captain M.K.B. 02:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We still do not know if it was the first starship capable of landing on a planet's surface; we know there are at least 2 other Intrepid class starships, and we can assume all Intrepid class starships could land (why would Voyager be any different?). An interview/documentary is not considered canon! - weebiloobil 17:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For all we know, there could have been a dozen other designs that could land in the 23rd and early 24th centuries -- the fact about Voyager is that is the first ship to have its own series that could land. -- Captain M.K.B. 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The space shuttle is a space ship that can land on an M-class planet. It is part of the star trek canon, too. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ant6n (talk • contribs).

Tom Paris Edit

I just want to make sure that I am accurate in my assumption before making any changes, but isn't Tom Paris a Lieutenant and not a Lieutenant Junior Grade. In Caretaker, Janeway grants a field promotion to Lieutenant, and his pips on the collar indicate that rank. I ask this because if you read from StarTrek.com, they indicate that he holds the rank Lieutenant until he is reprimanded and reduced to Ensign.

The following link goes to StarTrek.com and describes Tom Paris as a Lieutenant. [1]

Thank you for helping me double check this..... The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bnewell (talk • contribs).

Actually, as you can see in these images, he wears the grade of Lt. J.G. This is a similar problem as Lt. Commander Chakotay. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

But if you watch in the first season episodes, he wears the rank of Lieutent not Lieutenant J.G. --Brad 01:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly the best choice of pictures... as the image of Paris shows him as an "Ensign" (on another note, that image is wrong, it's from 2376) before his promotion in [{e|Unimatrix Zero}}, and he wore standard Rank pips, not a maquis bar. - AJ Halliwell 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Blaah, finally found a pic of his pips. (On the brightside, we finally found someone whose headshots are always facing left :P) For the first five years he was a full lieutenant (seen here in Ex Post Facto) and was demoted to Ensign in "Thirty Days." He was then promoted to Lieutenant junior grade a year later in "Unimatrix Zero, Part I" and spent the last year as a Lt. jg (TrekCore in "Drive"). - AJ Halliwell 01:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh well, I thought the picture looked a little funny. I just thought it was an odd angle. Thanks anyways for answering the question. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

SidebarEdit

[[|200px|USS Voyager]]
Original configuration
Affiliation: Federation Starfleet
Registry: NCC-74656
Class: Intrepid-class
Mass: 700,000 metric tons
Launched: 2371
Decks: 15
Max Velocity: Warp 9.975
Refit: 2378
Crew Complement: 141 (2371)
146 (2377)
Status: Active
[[|200px|]]
Armor refit configuration

Old sidebar moved here. Some information might need to be re-included, eventually cited if it hasn't already. Also see Template talk:Sidebar starship. -- Cid Highwind 15:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Deckplan stuff Edit

I added notes to the talk page for, I think, Intrepid class decks, or something like that. That page might need to be merged or at least the info I put there added here. -- Lt. Washburn 18:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That suggestion has already been brought up (Talk:Intrepid class decks) and rejected. --From Andoria with Love 04:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph, Bio-neural SystemsEdit

I just began a plan to bring the article up to the same level as the other main ships of the series', and already, i stubled into a problem. The artacle says that Voyager was the first ship to have Bio-Neural Systems, but arn't those common to all intrepid-and-later ships?– 7th Tactical 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe so. I don't know. But I think Voyager was the first Intrepid. --68.124.23.146 03:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence of that, and in fact evidence to the contrary in the USS Intrepid. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Looked it up. Second, not first. --68.124.23.146 03:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it's an old argument, but I remember that when they find the replicator in the wreckage of a Kazon ship when Seska gave them the tech. They say that there are bio-neural fibres in the remnants of the replicator. Janeway says that no other Federation ship would have them. I would be surprised if the Intrepid didn't, but that's certainly what the line suggests. Tim 79.73.73.166 18:55, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

We know that there can be differences from ship to ship within a class, see the USS Excelsior and the USS Enterprise (B) (differing in the area around the navigational deflector) or the USS Enterprise (d) and USS Venture (additional phaser arrays on the warp nacelles), the USS Phoenix and the USS Farragut (different pod mounting). The bio-neural gel packs could have been a development first implemented on Voyager. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:37, September 15, 2009 (UTC)

Warp Core Edit

Was there any mention of why Voyager's warp core was the way it was? Most other warp cores consisted of the two tubes converging at the dilithium chamber and having the rings of light converging there as well. But in Voyager's core, there was no such thing, it was more like floating shadows in liquid. Rajrajmarley 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Voyager warp core is not unique in this respect. Take a look at the NX warp core, the Constitution warp core, the Constitution refit warp core, the Constellation warp core, the Nova warp core, and possibly some others. In fact, the Intrepid warp core pretty closely matches the Constitution refit one. While it is mostly fanon speculation, many consider the two classes of ships to be pretty near each other in size, so it may be that is the reactor style used in ships of this size. Fact is, of the warp cores we have seen there seems to be about an equal number that use the "rings of light" to those that do not. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Distance traveled Edit

I notice that in the list of events that shortened Voyager's trip home, the following paragraph concludes:

  • "Furthermore, it is safe to say that Voyager must have been very close to the Beta Quadrant, and might have even already crossed its borders during the last months of its journey."

This last sentence seems particularly speculative to me. I'm willing to grant the original math (100K LY diameter of Milky Way = 50K LY side length for a quadrant, 43.1K+ additional LY travelled to whatever Voyager could cover on her own normally... but we just don't know how close to the Beta Quadrant they got. They could have (and probably did) have to take a more circuitous route home than just a straight line, having to go back occasionally, things like that. (It comes to mind that depending on the positioning, they might have had to make more of an arc to avoid crossing through the center of the galaxy, for example - meaning that while Earth was 70K LY away by a direct path, they would have to go further than that since they couldn't *take* a direct path.) I would also argue the speculative conclusion in the following in the beginning paragraph:

  • thus, we can conclude that the Caretaker's Array and Voyager's starting point was on the far edge of our galaxy, not that far away from the border of the Delta Quadrant to intergalactic space.

--umrguy42 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for anyone to speculate or calculate what distance Voyager traveled, what route it took, where it started out from, etc. As there is a perfectly clear and canonical map from the background monitor graphics in astrometrics of the route of Voyager, prior to "Endgame" [2] see the last image on this page. And we know they got as far as the delta quadrant borg transwarp hub before coming home. Position was depicted here [3]. I dont know how far off the conjectural calculations are from the canonical depictions on the page, maybe someone wants to check that out though. --Pseudohuman 13:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I calculated 54,000 lightyears roughly based on the information supplied on the "voyager's journey", discounting Q's course correction suggestion and Seven and Harry's one, it comes to just under 50,000 lightyears travelled. Where did 48,000 come from? Is there a citation or did someone do the maths themselves? - 15.195.201.88 04:15, March 8, 2010 (UTC)
  • I noticed that if Voyager was 75,000 light years away and it was calculated that it would take 75 years to get home using normal means, that means on average Voyager should go 1000 light years per year, so Harry and Seven' five year shortcut should be 5,000 light years. Since the show lasted Seven years, and each year seemed to be treated as a year in show time as well. so we can assume around 6-7000 light years during the course of the show. -AgentExeider 24:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

What is up with Voyager's shield strength?Edit

We've seen it a dozen times: Voyager will come under enemy fire. However, every time they are, it seems their shield strength will drop immensely from full power to something like 40% or something really low with just 1 or 2 shots fired at them. If I was a Starfleet captain in the Delta quadrant, frankly, I'd be embarrassed. Why is it that on TNG, and DS9, the Starfleet ships that come under fire never seem to have as weak as shields? You would think that Voyager being one of the most advanced ships in the fleet, it wouldn't have such poor shield engineering. Even being designated a Science vessel, Starfleet should have the decency to give Voyager (or Intrepid class vessels) a little more defensive capabilities for encountering the unknown.

An in-universe theory I have on why Voyager seems to have such weak shields might be that ships in the Delta quadrant pack more weapons-fire punch that those found in the Alpha quadrant. Since no other Starfleet vessel has ever encountered enemy fire in the Delta quadrant before, the power of weapons in the Delta and Alpha quadrant are not on the same scale. Which quadrant you were in would determine how strong your ship's weaponry was; think of it simply as a relative scale.

One more reason that seems plausible is that Voyager is a tiny ship compared to a Sovereign or Galaxy. Surely this definitely has some aspect on how much enemy weapons-fire its shields can handle. -- Viaesta 07:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How do we know the shields are weaker? --OuroborosCobra talk 08:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

How do we know the shields are weaker? They may not in actuality be "weaker" per se, but they do not appear to be able to withstand as much weapons-fire as a Galaxy-class or Sovereign-class, needless to say those Starships are more powerful, but at least with Voyager being one of the fastest/advanced ships in the fleet, you would think that its shields would be up to par with those big ships. When watching TNG, the Enterprise will come under attack and when Picard asks for status report, you would hear "Shields at 90%, or shields are holding" etc. You hardly see the bridge exploding all around. Voyager comes under attack, and everytime, it seems she is being banged up big time; bridge exploding all around, Tuvok saying shields are at something really low like 30% or something, you get the idea. -- Viaesta 19:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

In every Star Trek episode/movie ever produced, the ships technical specifications (which includes shields, weapons, and most frequently, transporters) remain, or fail precisely as long as the dramatic narrative requires. This is in no way exclusive to Voyager, and you're giving too much dramatic credit to TNG to pretend the Enterprise-D wasn't brought to a standstill by two Klingon Bird-of-Prey's, captained by Ferengi no less ("Rascals"). Or destroyed out right by another 80 year old Bird-of-Prey crewed by Klingons (Star Trek Generations). The alternative is for Voyager to have walked through the Delta Quadrant without ever having an altercation. This isn't a Voyager phenomenon, its a Star Trek norm, and a dramatic necessity. – Hossrex 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm in much agreement with your comment. To have Voyager stroll through the Delta Quadrant like a big bully would give the narration frail character conflict. -- 128.200.210.140 23:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it is still disappointing to see it getting owned in the Delta Quadrant time and time again. Viaesta 23:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You sound like a Robert Beltran sympathizer. He thought it was real weak, too. Enjoy the interview 99.163.51.166 00:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It could very well be that weaker shields were substituted for heavier armor. More specifically ablative armor. Perhaps Voyager was designed to "armor tank" rather than to "shield tank". Of course one could also suggest in that case that the ship's systems needed more power than could be afforded and therefor a weaker shield was substituted for better armor. See Armored Voyager http://outalance.battleclinic.com/Models%20Please/ship.php?id=3727

--Jalespe 06:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Voyager didn't get ablative armor until after getting their shields knocked out a hundred different times. The enhanced armor was brought from the future at the end of the series. So Starfleet's design never was about armor "tanking". Let's note that the hypothesis of "dramatic requirement" is not contradicted here either. 76.247.105.88 17:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It could be a factor also that while Alpha Quadrant ships have regular tune-ups, replacements and refits available, Voyager did not, also Voyager was on a skeleton crew which left less people to do maintenance and repairs, and like previously mentioned, Delta Quadrant weapons technology is different. 70.188.130.152 04:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Jason

In-universe: New aliens, new guns. All these new people they meet every week don't all make their weapons the same way, Tuvok has a line in "Ashes to Ashes" about needing to study a new ship before they can have a effective response (this didn't help them too much in that episode when three ships started going at them though). In the Alpha Quadrant, we're dealing with the same species who have been around the block with us a few times before, we've seen their stuff, and even their new stuff is based on the old, so the shields are designed to take those hits. But put them up against some new stuff from the Delta, or even the Gamma Quadrant (the first few times shields did squat against the Dominion), and things don't work out so well. This is the only thing I can think of that makes a tiny ship like Voyager able to take on any Borg ship without it being over at the second shot. Take enough hit from the same people, and you know what to expect. - Archduk3 11:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say more a dramatic cop out than necessity. That is, talented and caring writers w could both move the plot forward AND maintain some technical consistency. Sometimes they do, sometime they follow Braga and don't bother....--just sayin'...The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.102.164.214 (talk).

Computer Rating Edit

We have no idea what the clock speed of the computer is, or if indeed their computer even uses a central clock for processing, we only know how many calculations per second it can perform. I think the processor rating should be in FLOPS not PHz because there are plenty of processors that may take mulitble clock cycles for a single opperation, and others which, by use of parralel processing, achieve multible opperations in one clock cycle. 24.30.50.182 11:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The line in "Concerning Flight" is "Simultaneous access to forty seven million data channels, trans-luminal processing at five hundred seventy five trillion calculations per nanosecond." --Bp 12:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That would make it 5.75e+20 operations per second, or in modern terms, 57,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 flops, or 57,500,000,000,000,000 megaflops, or 57,500,000,000,000 gigaflops, or even 57,500,000,000 teraflops. In contrast, the fastest computer today, the IBM Roadrunner at the Los Alamos National Laboratory has a rating of 1.026 petaflops, or 1,026,000 teraflops. Unless my math is off. :P--97.104.58.44 00:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Dilithium chamberEdit

Where is the dilithium chamber of voyager's warp core, sometimes, B'elanna says to vorik to go to control the chamber but how can he reach it? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.8.72.208 (talk).

It could be below main engineering, maybe accessed through that door next to the ladder? --Nero210 09:08, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Warp core ejectionEdit

I noted that in the CG video of the ejection of voyager's warp core, the antimatter injector is larger than the hole on the top of the second level of the engineering. There are two possibilities:

  1. The injector seems larger but it isn't;
  2. The hole in the engineering can be automatically enlarged.

What do you think? The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.8.72.208 (talk).

No, the core itself easily fits though the ejection port. Keep in mind that the support pylons do not get ejected with the core, just the "cylinder" and the base (hidden from view while in engineering.) ---> See in these pictures... the pylons are visible at the base, but notice in the ejection image, they are missing.Jlandeen 11:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate room! Edit

Holodeck 1, on the floor plan here, seems to be on both decks 10 and 14, both claiming to be referenced from "Darkling". Can someone confirm which is right? --Gaeamil 20:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Deck 6 contains both holodecks as reflected by the information currently in the article.Jlandeen 11:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

PNA-cite Edit

The section regarding "first contacts" needs numerous citations. Most especially, the claim that it made more first contacts than any ship since the original Kirk era Enterprise, and the claim of over 400 species. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The "most especially" part is probably the easiest, it was from "Friendship One":
  • Hendricks: "You've made first contact with more species than any captain since James Kirk."
  • Janeway: "It helps being the only Starfleet ship within 30,000 light-years."
The 400 species part is discussed above. --Alan 21:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks like, frankly, vandalism. An anon changed it from 50 on 11/17/2005. --TribbleFurSuit 02:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Number of Warp Core's Edit

Someone I was talking to on another site has mentioned that the Intrepid Class has a back-up Warp Core and used an image of the MSD as a base for that. The MSD has what looks like a second Core at the back of the ship, is really it another Core? [4]Fadm tyler 19:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen the same image. On paper, I'd say it's there based on that image (although technically apocrypha as technical manuals aren't considered cannon). But according to the series, nope. There have been several episodes where Voyager has lost their core VOY: "Renaissance_Man" for instance, and they were dead in the water. If they had a back up, there wouldn't have been a problem, or a major plot device. -- Cygnis 19:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
So technical manuals cannot fire cannonballs? Good to know. -- Captain MKB 20:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Cannon, canon, Canon™... you've seen one, you've seen them all. ;) -- Cygnis 20:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I just re-watched the entire series over the last few weeks, I have a few shows left but I know that Voyager / Intrepid class has only 1 warp core. I can be sure of this because of the many situations where the Core went offline and they never even once suggested switching to a backup core. Also they ejected the core 3 times so far, and were left without a core until they retrieved the original.71.241.193.136 03:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It could be that Intrepid's do have a small backup core to get them back to a starbase for example, but Voyager didn't have one since her first assignment was only supposed to last two weeks. --Nero210 20:37, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Voyager's weight Edit

According to The Doctor in an 2nd? season episode, Voyager weighs 80 000 metric tons. He makes a remarkk about Tom Paris flying "an 80 000 ton starship" in the german version. --80.121.7.127 21:48, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

It was 700,000 metric tons. --Nero210 22:27, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits Edit

With the article in a state of flux recently, I thought it would be prudent to post a link to a comparison of the changes, seen here (Hope that works). Most of the information was reworded and reorganized, but some of the interesting tidbits seem to have been lost in the shuffle. I'll give it a few days before adding any back in to see if they are still in flux somewhere. - Archduk3:talk 23:05, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

These edits were by me. I didn't think that this article was up to the same standard as for example the Deep Space 9 article or the Enterprise-D, so I did reword, reorganize, and add to in a lot of places. If I accidentally deleted something relevant it wasn't intentional. I'm done with the major revisions to this article. --Nero210 22:27, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Added the information I thought was "worthy" to the Intrepid-class article, since it should have been there in the first place. - Archduk3:talk 05:54, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Removed Edit

A fifth torpedo tube is seen firing in VOY: "Resolutions", however this is most likely a VFX error as the torpedo tube is in the same position as the aft tractor beam emitter.

The second part was removed recently, just leaving a log. - Archduk3:talk 05:22, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


Reorganizing paragraphsEdit

As mentioned to Nero210:

I have rearranged the paragraphs so that they actually make some sense chronologically and contents wise. There is a certain order and common sense to be applied to how this is structured. The "structure" he employs is

1) Conflict with the Kazon 2) Voyager and time travel 3) Dealings with the Borg 4) Contact with Starfleet 4.1) The Equinox 4.2) The Pathfinder Project 4.3) Official assignment 5 Getting home 6 the Journey of Voyager

Somehow getting home is mentioned at first and THEN he gets back to "technical data" and finally starts over with "The Journey of Voyager"?

Also, why would you remove the subsection I put under "The Journey of Voyager" such as "Time travel", "the Equinox", "the Pathfinder Project" etc. They all fall under "the Journey of Voyager". I am puzzled as to why you dont see that.

Finally, for some reason you (Nero) keep editing out and deleting all the additions I made to the section about "Technical Data" and the "Maquis" and you just leave half of the information that is important and that was expanded into the sections by me out. Why? This wiki is to improve and complement articles, so why would you just delete off info that supplements them?

And last, B'Elanna Torres did NOT drop out of Starfleet after a semester, but in fact after a couple of years (at the age of 19). See (VOY: " Parallax"). But you somehow keep this misinformation in and keep deleting the correction I put in there. The same goes for punctuation etc. Please stop reverting the article back to that non-chronological, disorganized version you had. – Distantlycharmed 23:40, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wow that's one hell of a rant. Let me explain a few things:
1. I have no problem with what you have ADDED to the article, I just don't like how you've organized it. A lot of important information has been moved towards the bottom of the article, where it is out of place and less visible. If you look at articles such as Deep Space 9 and the USS Enterprise, you'll see that HISTORY comes before TECHNICAL DATA, since (in the ships case at least) technical data is gone into depth in the appropriate class article (I.E. the Galaxy class).
2. "The Journey of Voyager" section is just a listing of the large "jumps" the ship made during its journey home, in all honestly it probably should be written as background information considering the way it is worded.
3. Why the hell are you talking about B'Elanna Torres? I have done NOTHING with any information about her, so why are you even bringing her up?
Finally, I'd like to point out that I worked hard on this article and quite frankly am a little offended that you've described it as "non-chronological" and "disorganized." If you actually READ it all the way through I think you'll find it quite organized. I'm not saying they're probably isn't a typo or punctuation error somewhere (forgive me for being Human), but I was quite thorough. Did you ever stop to think that maybe YOUR version is disorganized? --Nero210 00:24, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


1. The fact that you dont even recognize that you have - obviously without reading - removed actual content from sections that I added, such as "the Maquis" and 'Technical Data" is evidence of how little attention you have paid to my edits. Under the sections in the "Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant", for example, there is a line about B'Elanna that I had edited - along with the content of that section - and you just reverted it back. Had you actually read it, you wouldnt have just edited it back to the version you insist should be the only one.
2. I have not removed any information you put in there - I merely reorganized. Since when is moving sections up and down removal of anything? You are free to add even more info if you wish. And what do you mean "it is less visible". This is a small "table of contents". Coming first on the table doesn't mean the information is more relevant than what comes down the table or that people will not see it or that your sections are worth less...come on.

3. I can appreciate the fact that you worked hard on this article, but you should note that in a wiki you do not hold copyright or write protection to the things you add here. They can be edited and expanded as desired and required by members - as long as they do not violate standards and policies. You should not take it so personally and as an attack to your character. I have fully read your edits and I have also spent a lot of time rearranging and expanding them in a way that honor your edits to the extent possible. From what you are telling me above, however, it seems like you havent read my edits.

Even the article on the USS Enterprise lists first contacts, crew and technical data on top and then the bulk of the article is spent on individual encounters, experiences and milestones for the Enterprise. The top, just offers a summary of the seven year mission and fate of Enterprise before things are fleshed out. This article just gets into the individual experiences right away. Incidentally, the Enterprise article - unlike this one - does not appear disorganized at all.

Finally, I dont understand why you think it makes sense that you put the end ("getting home") before the "journey of voyager" and why you think that somehow all of Voyager's journeys and special experiences (equinox, pathfinder, borg etc) should be put under separate headers while the actual section "Journey of Voyager" is as a standalone at the very end. I'm getting confused just writing this. My version has very much organization to it and it is in such a format that the reader can logically go through it and find information. How Voyager got home should really not be before its Journeys and Crew and Tech information.

If the header for The Journey of Voyager is a mislabel, then it can be easily integrated into the info you put up there - or serve as the Main Section Header followed by subsections such as "Equinox", "pathfinder Project" and "Official Assignment." The content in the current "Journey of Voyager" section, can also become its own subsection if you like, so that way your articles "stay on top". But as it currently stands it is confusing. – Distantlycharmed 01:06, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Okay well about the whole B'Elanna thing, unfortunately I reverted the whole page back, which meant removing whatever you added about her into the Voyager article (curious as to why it has to be here and not in her article) was just a side effect and was not intentional.
When I re-wrote this article I followed the format seen in the Deep Space 9 and USS Enterprise articles - and that's the format I intend to keep using on this article (I'm probably going to re-write it again from scratch when the lock is lifted) - "History;" which covers the construction, maiden voyager, conflict with the Kazon, dealings with the Borg, contact with Starfleet (which would cover the Pathfinder Project, the Equinox, and the ships first official assignment), and finally the return home. After the history, THEN you move onto "Technical Data" and "Crew." As for the "Journey of Voyager" section, I already explained that in my last statement, it is worded more like background information and as such I'm likely going to move it there (all it is is a listing of Voyager's jumps throughout the Delta Quadrant). Any relevant information that's in that section would be moved to history, but either way it would still be in the background section.
So with that said, here's my proposal for the format:
History
Construction and Maiden Voyage
Conflict With the Kazon
Dealing's With the Borg
Time Travel
Contact With Starfleet
The Pathfinder Project
The Equinox
Official Mission
The Return Home
Technical Data
Crew
Background Info and References

--Nero210 02:05, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


Ok, but the Enterprise article does not go into individual details about their encounters and milestones (with their own subsection headers that is) right in the beginning though. All that follow the Tech Data and Crew etc info with their own headers which makes finding a specific encounter easier. Anyway, not that anywhere it says that all ship articles have to follow the Enterprise template to the dot. The nature and type of Voyager's experience was unique. Also, rewriting the articles might result in edits (and like i said, you have to get used to the idea that they will be in a wiki). Here is what I propose:


Construction and launch
The First mission
Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant
Conflict with the Kazon --> since that was such an integral part of their journey - that's why it is only a subsection.
First Contacts
Technical Data
Overview
Weaponry
Physical arrangement
Borg enhancements
Astrometrics lab
Embarked craft
Crew
Command Crew
Maquis
The Journey of Voyager (with that blurb that is currently under that header (the chronology).
Voyager and time travel
The Borg
The Equinox
The Pathfinder Project
Contact with Starfleet
The Return Home
Voyager references
Appendices (with background, references etc).

Distantlycharmed 02:35, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Dude you're missing the main point I'm trying to say. Putting "Technical Data" between "Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant" (which is a historical section) and "The Journey of Voyager" (another historical section) is just creating more disorganization. The historical sections need to be TOGETHER, unified.
I just looked at the USS Defiant article, and to be honest I think we can go in a similar fashion as that by ditching the "Technical Data" all together, and replace it with "Unique Characteristics." We have an Intrepid class article that goes over all of the technical information on the Intrepid-class, so having a "Unique Characteristics" section would be more logical and time saving, as Voyager was modified enough to warrant this section. Also, ditching "Technical Data" would ensure that the disputed technical stuff on the Intrepid-class page isn't drawn here as well.
My Formula:
History
Construction and Maiden Voyage (which would cover "Caretaker" and what "Relativity" depicted about Voyager's launch).
Conflict With the Kazon
Dealings With the Borg
Time Travel
Contact With Starfleet
The Pathfinder Project (definitely qualifies as Contact With Starfleet and belongs under this section).
The Equinox
Official Mission
The Return Home
First Contacts (I forgot about that section in my last format).
Unique Characteristics
Borg Enhancements
Astrometrics Lab
Crew
Embarked Craft
Background Information/References, etc.
--Nero210 03:53, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


Technical Data and specs is such a standard way of referring to a ship's ...well...technical information, that i would not leave that out for something exotic like "Unique Characteristic". I do like the "unique characteristics" section too - but not in lieu of tech data, but rather as a subsection to Tech Data (see below). See, there are many class ships in Star Trek and many have unique characteristics and/or were prototypes etc so calling this "Unique characteristics" in place of tech data is confusing and a reader who might really wanna know about just the tech specs of the ship, will be looking forever and having to work through the entire article to find it - which is not the point. The information should be intuitive and accessible for readers to find info. Also, this info is about the Voyager. There is no evidence that other Intrepid class ships might not have different configs, so we cant just assume that and say "look at intrepid class starships for more info about Voyager".

"Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant" merely talks about the beginnings of Voyager - i.e. destruction of caretaker's array, fusing of the two crews, and battle with the Kazon which led Voyager to be marooned on a planet etc. It is important and mentioning that at the beginning of the article might be useful since unlike most starships, Voyager is stranded in a far off place and its beginnings might be relevant to the knowledge about the ship. Their encounters with other species etc, are mentioned under the Main Header of "Journeys of Voyager". I dont see why you cant just add "equinox" and "pathfinder" etc under these Journeys section - because it really is a journey and all those things are part of Voyager's journey and experiences relevant to them and that shaped them.

I do like the idea of astrometrics as a separate section, though, and I would put that one under "Technical Data" since it is something that was created and enhanced by Borg technology (or as subsection to "Borg Enhancements").

I think the key should be to keep it simple and easily accessible. I do not find the way you did it above - with "unique characteristics" in lieu of tech info and their experiences and encounters all over the place - as clearly organized and grouped. Why are "tech data" and "crew" separated anyway - they are part of the ship's specs and description so to say.

So I stand by my general proposal above (with astrometrics added, "unique characteristics" added to refer to Borg mods, and "Journey" moved up (see below) - so your articles on history are "higher above" or whatever.


Construction and launch
The First mission
Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant
Conflict with the Kazon --> since that was such an integral part of their journey - that's why it is only a subsection.
First Contacts
The Journey of Voyager (with that blurb that is currently under that header (the chronology).
Voyager and time travel
The Borg
The Equinox
The Pathfinder Project
Contact with Starfleet
Technical Data
Overview
Unique characteristics
Borg enhancements
Astrometrics lab
Weaponry
Physical arrangement
Embarked craft
Crew
Command Crew
Maquis
The Return Home
Voyager references
Appendices (with background, references etc).

Distantlycharmed 04:25, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to have full tech specs in the Voyager article as well, but that would mean importing a lot of stuff from the "Intrepid class" article. I don't know if you've seen it recently, but it's a mess, and a lot of details are disputed. As it stands right now I think getting too in depth with the technical details will invite those same disputes to migrate to the "Voyager" article, especially regarding weaponry (which is pretty heavily disputed at the "Intrepid class" article. If there is to be a full "Tech Data" section, it'd have to be a little ambiguous to avoid migrating the "Intrepid class" debates, so much that it may not be worth it, but I guess that's a bridge we can cross later.
"The Pathfinder Project" MUST stay under "Contact With Starfleet." The Pathfinder Project is how contact with the ship was maintained, and much of the information on that project comes from scenes set in the Alpha Quadrant, not on Voyager. "Pathfinder" was Starfleet's project to establish contact, and therefore is 100% justified being under "Contact With Starfleet."
When you look at the "History" section, it becomes clear that there is no need for a "Journey of Voyager" section. Since 99% of Voyager's history is about it's trip through the Delta Quadrant, having that headline seems like just a waste of space.
Remember, ALL HISTORICAL paragraphs should be grouped TOGETHER, and any technical stuff AFTER. That's how ALL ship articles are set up. Having historical stuff separated by tech stuff is just bad organization. Does it really make sense to you to read about "The Pathfinder Project" in the history section and then have to scroll down past "First Contacts," "Tech Data," etc. to get to "The Return Home" (another historical section)? I've said multiple times we need to keep the historical stuff all together, not separated by tech sections and first contacts, etc. and I'm not budging on that. Therefore, here's my proposal:
History
Construction and First Mission
Early Years
Conflict With the Kazon
The Vidiians
Dealings With the Borg
The Hirogen
Time Travel
Contact With Starfleet
The Pathfinder Project
The Equinox
Official Mission
The Return Home
First Contacts
Technical Data
Overview
Unique Characteristics
Borg Enhancements
Astrometrics Lab
Crew
Overview (things like the list of senior officers, etc.)
The Maquis
Embarked Craft
Background Info/References
--Nero210 06:17, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


You can't leave out "weaponry" and "physical Arrangement". These are important things that anyone looking at an article for the ship Voyager would want to know. In fact, I was looking for those things only to find you had deleted them off completely (such as physical arrangement) and that shouldnt happen. In fact, the tech info contained in the Voyager article is not extensive at all and no one is going into painful technical detail. A listing of what is on what deck and weaponry is hardly boring, repetitive stuff.

I dont think a special section for the Hirogen is needed, as the Hirogen, unlike the Kazon and Borg, didnt have detrimental, long-lasting effects on Voyager. They were just another species they encountered and that gave them grief. So I would leave that out. I dont know why you say that the pathfinder project MUST stay, as I have not objected to it being there in the first place. I think your grouping is unnecessary. All that stuff can fall under "Journey of Voyager" - which is a nice way of grouping their voyage through the Delta Quadrant. Finally, I say it again, you cant object to people expanding on this article and unilaterally decide that tech info should be left out and then revert edits everytime someone adds them in there. Anyway, here is what I propose which does take your changes/suggestions into account:


Construction and launch
The First mission
Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant
Conflict with the Kazon --> since that was such an integral part of their journey - that's why it is only a subsection.
The Vidiians'
First Contacts
The Journey of Voyager (with that blurb that is currently under that header (the chronology).
Voyager and time travel
The Borg
The Equinox
The Pathfinder Project
Contact with Starfleet
The Return Home
Technical Data
Overview
Unique characteristics
Borg enhancements
Astrometrics lab
Weaponry
Physical arrangement
Embarked craft
Crew
Command Crew
Maquis
Voyager references
Appendices (with background, references etc).

Distantlycharmed 15:15, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I said "The Pathfinder Project" must stay under the "Contact With Starfleet." Whether or not "Contact With Starfleet" is under "Journey of Voyager" is a different story, but the Pathfinder Project is how Voyager kept in touch with the Alpha Quadrant. I don't understand how in your mind that doesn't qualify as contact with Starfleet.
I also didn't say NOT including weapons or physical arrangement at all, I said leaving weapons details ambiguous. Saying something like "Voyager was equipped with phasers and photon torpedoes" instead of "Voyager was equipped with 13 phasers and 4 photon torpedo tubes," since there is a great deal of debate on whether or not any of the additional torpedo tubes or phasers seen are "real" or VFX errors. At least leave it like that temporarily until these issues are figured out, there's no rule that says we can't come back later and re-edit the page.
Either way, we're not getting anywhere with our format proposals. I'm sticking by what my last one was, and I'm sure you're standing by yours, so maybe we should let some other people chime in and get a vote on which format to use. --Nero210 17:31, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


Ok then have "Journeys of Voyager", then sub-header "Contact with Starfleet" and then another sub header "pathfinder project". It is rather annoying but whatever. If you had your heart set on it...I think I been cool with quite some modifications of yours, but you seem to want it exactly, to the dot, as you want it and no deviation from that whatsoever. What's it to you if the physical arrangement or weapons info is in there. If it's not made up - leave it in. That stuff pertains to Voyager. People will be interested to know what kind of weaponry the USS Voyager had (even if they dont know the exact number) as opposed to USS Enterprise-D etc.

If you ever go through a table of contents for anything, most of the time - unless its a dissertation - people try to keep it clean, neat and simple and use a common sense approach. I mainly see clutter in yours and confusion and you arent willing to budge an inch. It has to EXACTLY be like you want it, or you'll start an edit war. What's wrong, for example, with having a "Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant" in there (since it was so crucial what happened to them at first and betrayal by Seska with Kazon etc) and then bring up "First Contacts" and then venture into Borg, Pathfinder, Equinox and what have you and conclude with tech specs, crew etc. And what's wrong with "Journey of Voyager". Heck they did have a journey and everything that you list as history is part of that journey. With the way these things are organized, you sort of start big and with the essentials and then venture into detail and expand and elaborate. It's simple really. – Distantlycharmed 18:08, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

You don't get it dude. You're trying to have technical stuff in the middle of historical stuff. I've told you this many times but you don't seem to understand that. Also you appear to be misconstruing the majority of what I am trying to tell you. I don't have a problem with physical arrangement, or technical stuff, as long as it's organized so that it comes AFTER the historical sections. Not before. Not in between. After, just like EVERY OTHER SHIP ARTICLE ON THIS SITE. If you had been reading what I was typing you would get it.
As for a "Journey of Voyager" section, honestly it sounds like a good idea but when you consider having a "History" section that details all of Voyager's history, a "Journey of Voyager" section just becomes pointless. A "Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant" is covered by the "Construction and First Mission" and "Conflict With the Kazon" so that makes that section useless and/or repetitive. A "Contact With Starfleet" subsection is perfect to describe "The Pathfinder Project," "The Equinox," and the ships first official mission in the Delta Quadrant. I'm not talking out of my ass, I've thought all of this through but you seem to be oblivious to that and are hell bent on having this article stray from the standards of every other ship article on this site.
Seriously, look at Deep Space 9, USS Defiant, and USS Enterprise. ALL of them group the historical stuff before the tech. There's more that follow the same formula, just like how this one needs to. LOOK FOR THEM. --Nero210 20:39, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is now venturing into nit pick and scrutinizing and splitting hairs. I dont think "Construction and First Mission" does their beginnings in the delta quadrant justice. As I have explained before, every ship and crew has their unique experiences and using a cookie cutter approach to all of them doesnt work. Construction and first mission worked for Enterprise and the nature of its mission, but for Voyager trapped in the delta quadrant something else works. There is also nothing repetitive about my sectioning: it is a logical, common sense format. I am also closely actually following the Enterprise model as I switched over the "Return Home" etc. thus accommodating your edits. You, on the other hand, seem to be having some entitlement issues to this article which, as i told you before, are completely unfounded. This is not YOUR article or your baby. And again, for the record, the USS Enterprise article you cite, does follow my formula (or i follow its). And if anything, except for a quick run through Enterprise's most relevant tasks/encounters/milestones, it lists its HISTORY AFTER the tech Data. As in, NOT before it. If anything, all your little projects such as "pathfinder" and "equinox" etc should be going after technical data (like the Enterprise article) and not before it (which I did above yet you still complain).


Enterprise
History
Construction
Picard's seven year mission (--> quick run through their main points - nothing fleshed out - no encounters mentioned under subheaders)
Destruction of the Enterprise
List of first contacts
Technical Data
Physical arrangement
Weaponry
Shipboard life
Ship's directory
Crew
Commanding officer
Command crew
Alternate Enterprises [--> HISTORY FLESHED OUT AFTER TECHNICAL DATA. THIS SECTION IS CALLED HISTORY in detail]
Encounter with sentient whirlpool-like anomaly
Encounter with Enterprise-C
Crusher's static warp bubble
Barash's illusory future
etc, etc
Appendices

Distantlycharmed 21:50, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

"Alternate Enterprise's" is only detailing exactly what the title says, ALTERNATE ENTERPRISE'S. It has nothing to do with the actual history of the prime universe Enterprise. You'll notice that the history is first. My God dude get your facts straight and pay attention. Also, I doubt you've looked at the DS9 or Defiant articles (like anything that comes from my keyboard I take it) that also conform to the same standards. So sorry dude, but your format doesn't match what other articles have. Grow up and get over it. This article isn't YOURS either.
My final format when I rewrite this article after the lock is lifted.
History
Construction and First Mission
Conflict With the Kazon
Dealings With the Borg
The Hirogen
Time Travel
Contact With Starfleet
The Pathfinder Project
The Equinox
Official Mission
The Return Home
First Contacts
Technical Data
Defense Systems
Physical Arrangement
Unique Characteristics
Borg Enhancements
Astrometrics Lab
Crew
The Maquis
Command Crew
Embarked Craft
Background Info/References, etc.
I'm done talking about this with you. That's how I'm going to rewrite the article and when you see it I'm sure you'll find it adequate and up to the standards of the Deep Space 9, Defiant, and Enterprise-D articles (all 3 of which are featured articles by the way). If you even are reading what I'm typing to you (which I honestly don't think you are), then you either don't understand, are choosing to ignore, or simply don't care about the points I'm making and why articles are organized like this. --Nero210 23:15, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
Ok whatever, And I'm going to chose to make edits. I have no desire to continue this dead-end debate with you either. I still think that beginnings in the Delta Quadrant is a relevant section, as well as Journey of Voyager. Why in the world you would not want that in there I dont get. Your incessant opposition to that section is bizarre. Also, nowhere does it say you HAVE TO adhere to DS9 or Enterprise articles, but since you do insist that it should, I copy and paste you Enterprise's organization and you STILL dont get it and call the entire section coming after tech data as basically irrelevant to Enterprise's realhistory...err...ok. I could live with mentioning Voyager's history in the beginning, but you still leave out "Weaponry" and dont want any of the headers changed, which is utterly ridiculous as you have no exclusive rights to this article...oh and why the Hirogen. Why are they so relevant and deserving of a sub-header as opposed to species 8472 or Vidiians or the Malon or pick any of the other dozen species that they encountered...
History
Construction and launch
Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant
Conflict with the Kazon
First Contacts
The Journey of Voyager (with that blurb that is currently under that header (the chronology).
Voyager and time travel
The Borg
The Equinox
Contact with Starfleet
The Pathfinder Project
Official Mission (--> probably superfluous and can be condensed into the intro to "Contact with Starfleet"
The Return Home
Technical Data
Overview
Unique characteristics
Borg enhancements
Astrometrics lab
Weaponry
Physical arrangement
Embarked craft
Crew
Command Crew
Maquis
Voyager references
Appendices (with background, references etc).

Distantlycharmed 00:45, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the crazy coot who got on earlier in the year and accused our Wiki of too much "metainstability". We all had a good laugh, but this may be one of the things he was pointing to (not this persay but the constant back-and-forth).--Obey the Fist!! 15:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "Overview" from Technical DataEdit

I deleted this section from the page due to the fact that it had many problems:

  1. It was written in present-tense format (should be past-tense).
  2. Poor grammar, spelling, and format.
  3. The section is mostly useless rambling and the information that it contained is in the "Construction and Launch" and "Physical Arrangement" sections. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nero210 (talk • contribs).
A couple of points:
  1. Could have been rewritten into past tense.
  2. Could have fixed that.
Just noting. -- sulfur 18:59, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but I figured since most of the information in that section was already in the article somewhere and the section was in poor condition anyways, might as well just throw it in the bin :). If someone does disagree and can rewrite the overview section so it doesn't ramble on uselessly and format it right then I won't fight it. --Nero210 19:03, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I didnt see that information in the article elsewhere (not all of it) and yes, it would have then just been a matter of rewriting it in the correct tense and fixing spelling and format etc. That section contains valuable information that cant just be deleted because you personally dont like that it isnt what you want it to be exactly. There is also nothing wrong with summarizing some of the tech specs squattered throughout the article in an "overview" section. Distantlycharmed 23:03, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Distantlycharmed you obviously didn't read what I typed (again). I said if it can be fixed in the proper format I wouldn't fight it. It's fixed so I'm fine with it being there. --Nero210 03:06, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Points of contentionEdit

To both Nero210 and Distantlycharmed, please list what the current points of contention are, with a brief reason why. Please refrain from writing a paragraph about these or referring to why the other person is wrong. Having a synopsis on this page is much easier that reading everything about this, which is currently on at least four talk pages, and should help expedite community involvement. - Archduk3 17:02, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

As I understand, the latest revert happened when I inserted the "Journey of Voyager" into the whole thing. The current version - as it currently stands (block active) as of 6/28/10 is fine by me. See here...
1. History
1.1 Construction and launch
1.2 Voyager's First Mission
1.3 Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant
1.3.1 Conflict with the Kazon
2. The Journey of Voyager
2.1 Voyager and time travel
2.2 The Borg
2.3 Contact with Starfleet
2.3.1 The Pathfinder Project
2.3.2 The Equinox
2.3.3 Official Mission
2.4 Shortening the Journey
2.5 The Return Home
The "History" begins summarizing Voyager's first mission and assignment, its launch, how it was catapulted into the delta quadrant and the initial struggles they had with the Kazon and crew member defecting to their side and betraying them etc. After that, I think that creating a header or category that summarizes their Journeys past that initial point, to be very useful. I liked the subheader "Shortening the Journey" as that actually gives the title "Journey of Voyager" even stronger meaning and definition and just makes sense - since they did embark on a journey unlike any other. Their encounter with the Borg, The pathfinder Project, Time Travel, The Equinox, Official Mission (or whatever else someone might wanna add later) - all fall under the Journey that Voyager has embarked on. Creating such a separate category gives a nicer overview and organization of and to the article and separates it from Voyager's beginnings. I do not see anything in this version either diminishing either Nero's work or the organization of the article itself. If anything, I find it gives the article a nice structure and overview for readers who get on the page and want to learn more about the USS Voyager. It makes it look clean, polished, and is quite intuitive as opposed to just putting all that info under "History" and then counting down from 1.1 to 1.10.
I am also not sure why the "Equinox" is under "Contact with Starfleet" - since this wasnt actually Voyager having contact with Starfleet per se, but contact with a Starfleet vessel. Maybe that's what Nero means - which isnt obvious at first and a bit confusing. But that's a side note which will become relevant later probably when someone edits it, so we might as well address it now. (I'm sorry this was a bit longer than you expected). – Distantlycharmed 21:16, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
You're correct about why the "Equinox" is under "Contact With Starfleet," I do understand it doesn't qualify 100% as contact with Starfleet back home, but it was contact with another Starfleet vessel and in my view that justifies its positioning there.
The only thing I want changed about the current layout is to have all of what is listed on "The Journey of Voyager" section to be moved back to "History." Since the "Journey of Voyager" is going over Voyager's history in the Delta Quadrant, all of the information in that section will fit into "History" just fine. There is no need for a "Journey of Voyager" section when you take that fact into account.
So now that we have both presenting our points it's time for the community to chime in. I don't want to hear a retort from Distantlycharmed and I'm sure he doesn't want to hear from me afterwords - lets just get the community's input and settle this once and for all. --Nero210 23:02, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
A reminder (to both of you), Archduke suggested that you refrain from writing paragraph long responses. DC, with your first response, you did just that. I think one of the reasons no one else has gotten involved in this debate is because the two of you are together among the most verbose and easily heated editors we have. Generally speaking, neither of you can say anything in under 2K-5K novellas. Now I know I've talked to you, DC, about this in the past. It results in us ignoring most of what you have to say, not in winning your argument. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:10, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I kept mine as short as I could. --Nero210 23:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to get into any "tsk tsking" (yeah, that's a phrase now) about how silly this sounds when you break it down, since I've been known to get into some silly format discussions myself. That said, I purpose this:

1. The journey of Voyager
1.1 Construction and launch
1.2 Voyager's first mission
1.3 Conflict with the Kazon
1.4 Voyager and time travel
1.5 The Borg
1.6 Contact with Starfleet
1.6.1 The Pathfinder Project
1.6.2 The Equinox
1.6.3 Second official mission
1.7 Shortening the journey
1.8 The return home

Renaming "History" to "The journey of Voyager" seems prudent in this case. There is no reason we have to use the heading "History" beyond it being the generic term that can, and is, used on most pages of this type. With the exception of the first two sections, it's all about Voyager's journey home anyway, and the first two are about how she started said journey. This layout also has the added benefit of combining both your ideas without letting anyone win, except me of course. ;p - Archduk3 05:27, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think I could live with Archduk's suggestion. --Nero210 05:32, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Archduk, that looks ok to me too kinda but, why would you leave out the section about Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant? It contains valuable info and "sets the stage" so to say. It initially looked something like that (see below) before the History header was added. I guess having the Journey up there as the main header would be just the same. Seems more like personal preference at this point to be honest.
1. Construction and launch
2. The first mission
3. Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant
3.1 Conflict with the Kazon
4. The journey of Voyager
4.1 Voyager and Time Travel
4.1.2 The Borg
4.1Contact with Starfleet
4.1.1 The Pathfinder Project
4.1.2 Second official Mission
4.2.3 The Equinox
5. Shortening the Journey
6. The Return Home
Distantlycharmed 20:14, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
The Journey of Voyager will replace history - so that won't work. Also my only "personal preference" request will be changing "The Borg" section's name back to "Dealings With the Borg" (I like that name better). --Nero210 21:31, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
Journey will replace history - ok. So which one of my points are you referring to? Plus i believed I asked Archduk. I dont think "Dealings with the Borg" sounds very professional. What's wrong with a simple, concise "the Borg"? May I also add the "Equinox" under "Contact with Starfleet" issue (if others want to comment on this too please). It is one of those things that makes sense to you, which is great, but is not quite intuitive to everyone looking at this and wondering why the Equinox encounter is categorized as a Starfleet contact when in fact it was just the ship and not Starfleet they had contact with. Why would you even want to introduce such ambiguity to the article? This isnt a poem where people are expected ot decipher the deeper meaning you know. I'd like to see more people than the usual two please comment on all this. Getting the opinion of one other person is hardly community involvement. – Distantlycharmed 21:47, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I would hardly call two short paragraphs, both of which could be in either the section above or below, important enough to warrant a section on its own, especially one that would have a problematic name, since "Beginnings in the Delta Quadrant" sounds like it should be under a section entitled "Delta Quadrant", and that would cover everything else in any version of a history section for this article. As for the Equinox and Borg sections, I don't see a reason to move the former or change the name of the latter.

Also, since no one has suggested placing all the information in chronological order, I'm doing just that. This way, there's no reason for all this pointless bickering over what goes where, which so far seems to prove that this format isn't working, as far as this article is concerned. - Archduk3 22:51, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Wow Distantlycharmed, I wasn't even trying to start anything and you come off with a paragraph long rant about The Equinox and why you can't deal with renaming the Borg section back to "Dealings with the Borg"? You seriously have some issues I wasn't even trying to start a fight but you have once again decided to mouth off to me and treat me like dirt for voicing my opinion. Get bent. --Nero210 23:58, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


I think this has really gone far enough. In pages and pages of text nothing new has come up, and unless there is some compelling reason not to, we should implement Archduk's suggestion of a chronological order and finally end this pointless discussion.--31dot 00:07, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
MASSIVE SUPPORT for implementing Archduke's suggestion. This has gone on long enough. This single discussion is now longer (at 40K) than all previous discussion of this article combined (only 35K) spanning 4+ years. They're both just talking at each other, and completely ignoring any advice from administrators or other users in how to defuse this and actually get anything done. For just that, we should go with Archduke's, but his is also an attempt at making sense. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:17, June 30, 2010 (UTC)
SUPPORT for implementing the chronological order (if it has not already been done). The page, as it looks now, is perfect and actually...pretty good for maybe a FA candidacy. I hope that Nero and DC have learned from this becuase guess what you two, it's EVERYONES right to edit wiki pages. Maybe the mods can use there discourse to teach newbies how not to act. It's great that you both had your points of view but this is a community and not an autocrity. Anyways, leave the page as is and the only addditions should be that - additions or GRAMMATICAL edits.--Obey the Fist!! 12:36, July 1, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. No more fighting, puhhlease. Just let it be as is, as suggested by Italianjt, and move on. The article looks obviously fine enough. – Distantlycharmed 15:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Reluctant to weigh in, but.... Edit

Hi.

Ok. I am aware there's been a great deal of discussion about the formatting of this article. I don't want to rock the boat, especially now that a consensus exists. This is my only point of puzzlement/confusion: there exists a very large section on VOY and Time Travel. In fact, it jumps right into that after the Kazon Conflict thing. I would've expected to look here to find after the Kazon thing a brief history describing its "voyage" – such as it's alien encounters as it wandered into Borg space (which deserves its own separate section) and after. I'm thinking of Vidiaans, the Swarm, the many anomalies, fuel shortages/energy rationing, the Voth, Nekrit Expanse, the Malon, dangerous trips through many species' space (a list such as the Swarm, Bo'mar, Devore, Krenim, and various others. Not fully fleshed-out, but just a short reference to this significant annoyance with links to the species.

I know Time Travel was a significant part of their journey, but I'd think a listing of their circuitous route and the encounters they had along the way (eg, the two "voids", the Hierarchy, the pestering Hirogen) should have its own section. I came expecting to read a section of a chronological summary of their voyage and brief blurbs of their more interesting/significant encounters/hardships. And I expected it to directly follow the Kazon thing, with the Time Travel, Borg, etc., sections, coming after as a somewhat prologue/background into these highly important events.

But what do I know? Really, I understand and appreciate the hard work that went into organizing the article! :)

Best regards, --Cepstrum (talk) 13:23, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the time travel section is a bit long, but we can thank the Voyager writers for abusing time travel for that one. There already is a Borg section that I think fits in nicely considering how many dealings Voyager had with them, but if there's anything left out that needs to added I'm not going to stop anyone from doing so. --Nero210 14:16, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
Cepstrum, I think those are some good points you are making so feel free to add the appropriate sections and make the appropriate edits to improve the article etc. Dont feel that it is banned from editing or anything :) – Distantlycharmed 05:22, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, both of you. I'm hesitant to add anything, however, for my edits often end up (very) quickly being reverted; I'm even told I don't use article talk pages correctly. So while this article isn't "banned" or locked from editing, I almost feel I am! (But that's entirely my fault.)

Thus, I feel too constrained/discouraged to work on adding anything as large as what I mentioned. I think just making the observation and letting you (or another) implement anything would be better. Besides, you two especially (though others have been involved) have worked very hard on this article, as well as considered its content far longer than I. Leaving it in your capable hands seems best.

Do what you feel is best for this article wrt adding things. I had thought it'd be nice to have an additional section, say right after the Kazon thing, that briefly mentions some of Voyager's more notable alien encounters/physical anomaly run-ins/energy shortages that are currently absent. Obviously we can't include everything (that's why episode summaries exist!), and I believe there's already a list of all of Voyager's alien encounters. But it seems a few stand out and/or were either recurring or recurring themes. I'd think any alien species they ran into more than once would at least be included (such as the Hirogen, Hierarchy, Vidiians, Talaxians, Vaadwaur, and Malon, or even the nice bit of continuity regarding their run-in with the Ferengi from TNG: "The Price") or The Doctor's personal development into an accepted, autonomous crewmember (something that clearly distinguished Voyager from other EMH-equipped vessels) or even the enourmous amount of time the crew spent on the holodecks (and the chief recurring programs) for their only place of reliable R&R.

I don't know. Maybe it's best as-is and readers should instead read the articles about the above topics. There still could be a section that briefly mentions such encounters and contains a bunch of "see X" in a list to avoid duplicating material.

Good luck. :) Feel free to leave a message on my talk page, for I am a big VOY fan that you can use to bounce ideas off of (and I'm a disinterested party regarding the earlier article layout discussion and would remain one should further disagreements arise.)

Best regards to all (including to the ever-vigilant admin who so often has to correct me or point out my errors/gaffes!), –Cepstrum (talk) 12:44, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Update: Revised and shortened. I had rambled. Sorry! :( --Cepstrum (talk) 18:09, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Copy edits needed. Edit

Hi again.

As good as this article is, it yet needs a significant amount of copy-editing. So much so, that if I were to do it, I'd need to put an "in use" tag, edit the thing offline in a text editor (the iPod touch can't handle editing all that at once without crashing), and require a little time with the article being otherwise untouched until I upload and save it. I wouldn't be making additions, just correcting the many little things that inevitably creep in on articles of such length and with several editors working on the important things.

I'd be willing to do this unless anyone objects or would prefer to handle it. I'll leave it at that for now. I mainly wanted to draw attention to this need.

I'll see if anyone weighs in. I might go ahead and do it; I'm unsure. But if anyone sees the "in use" tag, that would probably be me trying to take care of this.

--Cepstrum (talk) 18:23, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Update/note: I'm going to go ahead and make what copyedits I can – offline. I added the "in use" message and will upload the changes soon. --Cepstrum (talk) 22:52, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Further Update: this is going to take a little more time than I initially thought: it's fraught with things I didn't expecf to find, eg., so many bad links (ie, links to redirects instead of piped links.) Please allow me a little extra time. Thanks! --Cepstrum (talk)

Update/Status Report Edit

Hi again. Here's where things stand:

  • I've been making some significant changes to the prose, which I'm hoping will improve readability and cut down on the article's massive size both by eliminating superfluous words and rephrasing.
  • I am finding quite a bit of "improper" links; eg, links to redirect pages instead of the actual page with a piped link. Fixing these (and related link bugs) has increased the needed time.
  • I have come across a few (what I believe are) factual missteps. So even though I initially planned to make cosmetic changes, I'll be making a few "corrections" as well. Feel free, of course, to change things back!
  • No matter how far I've made it, I'll make my last changes. I'll upload whatever I have, remove the "in use" tag, and stop hogging the article to allow others the chance to keep making great edits.

--Cepstrum (talk) 01:42, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to link to redirects rather than piping the links. In fact, in many cases, it helps figure out how things are coming into pages, and what is linking where and how. Keep that in mind as you're changing all of these "incorrect" links (which are not incorrect). -- sulfur 01:46, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Sulfur,

Thank you for correcting my misunderstanding. I've gotten in trouble for not using piped links before, so I assumed it would be good if the links here went to the actual pages. As usual, I'm wrong again. Rats.

Well, at least it will save me a lot of time checking every last link to see whether it actually goes to the intended page or a redirect! I just hope you're not going to require me to go back and change the links I already have (I've only made it through the intro and first section, so the vast majority of the links remain unchanged.) Still, it'd be quite laborious to undo all the link changes! (I'm doing them as I'm modifying the prose.)

At least there's this silver lining: if, after I upload my prose revisions, fact fixes, and grammar tweaks, and people end up preferring the original version, someone can erase all I did with a simple revert!

I'll try to wrap up my changes soon and upload.

Best regards,

--Cepstrum (talk) 13:48, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

Finished (for now) Edit

Hi.

It was taking me longer than I had anticipated, so I stopped at the end of the Kazon Conflict section, uploaded my changes, and removed the "in-use" tag (it bothered me to keep others from editing it.)

I must have copy/pasted something wrong, for my upload broke an image and the main sidebar. I was too tired to try to figure it out at the time, but I see Sulfur has already fixed them both. Thanks! :)

My changes were fairly drastic in style (though I also corrected many typos, grammar bugs, and factual errors). My aim was to simplify and clarify the prose. Doubtless I, too, made typos etc. (though I hope not many!). Feel free to change things in small ways or even completely revert if you don't like it. (I do think you should keep certain fixes, such as changing "—" to "–", ie, "&ndash", and "voyager" to "Voyager".)

If it turns out the changes I made to the beginning few sections go over well, I might later try working on the rest of the article. But for now I'm "unfreezing" it and leaving it wide open for others to pick apart/edit/revert.

I've appreciated your patience with me on this.

--Cepstrum (talk) 12:48, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

PS Anyone know of a way to check page size (in either characters, words, or bytes)? I'd like to know if I indeed did simplify things.

Should I continue "copyediting" (revamping prose, correcting grammar and factual errors)? Edit

As noted above, I finished going through the first part of the article (up to and including the Kazon Conflict section), making rather substantial alterations to the prose, correcting grammar and factual bugs, and adding/modifying some links. (I'm sure I made typos of my own; in fact, I've already noticed at least a couple minor things I'd like to change/correct.)

But I'm wondering if anyone objected to it, liked it, hated it, etc. If anyone thinks it worthwhile, I could go ahead and gradually do the same for the other sections. I hesitate to invest further time if people don't like what I've done so far and are planning to revert it completely. I would not put the "in use" tag next time: if I see anyone has made any substantial edits, I'd try to incorporate/merge them with mine.

And again, I'm not interested at all in restructuring the article, adding/deleting content, etc. I'd only do things similarly to what I already have.

I'll wait and see what the consensus is.

Regards,

--Cepstrum (talk) 23:34, November 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ceptrum I'll be honest with you, I've re-written this article twice and I'm still not satisfied with it, so maybe a fresh pair of eyes would do it some good. Go nuts! The only thing I'd like to see remain as-is is the "Defense Systems" section (having it organized like that keeps the weapons debate in the Intrepid-class article out of this one, besides what more can you say other than "Voyager had phasers/torpedoes and shields"? :) ). Other than that, I'd like to see what you do with it. The Voyager article never seemed to be up to the standards of the USS Enterprise-D, USS Defiant, or Deep Space 9 articles... --Nero210 00:44, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Nero210!

Ok then, I'll continue pressing forward. I'm sorry to disappoint, but I'm not planning to "go nuts" :) with the article: I really haven't given thought to its structure and content, especially vis-á-vis those other ships'/stations' pages. I really only plan to rewrite/reword things according to the present layout. You certainly needn't worry about any significant content changes! Plus, I might be a little slow getting to it, given current time constraints. But thanks for the encouragement!

--Cepstrum (talk) 14:39, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Reversions to my prose Edit

Hi, again.

I noticed Distantlycharmed reverted [changed] quite a few of my prose changes. That's perfectly fine and within her right; I have no problem with that. I believe, however, that the changes undo the essence of my improvements. Phrases such as "had gone missing" are, in my opinion, not good prose style. So, if she plans to do that for any subsequently sections I edit, I won't bother to take the time to attempt to improve the prose any further.

This is not a slight against you, Distantlycharmed. I accept that what I believe is superior prose could be wrong, after all! :) But I'm not going to take the time to make any further edits. Nothing personal, I just haven't the energy for it.

Good luck with the future of this article! I'm sure you'll do a fine job.

--Cepstrum (talk) 16:59, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

I didnt revert anything, I made edits. If i had reverted, it would have just been done with a hit of a button. As you can see, sulfur came in after me and made fixes, which is absolutely fine; everyone misses something. Cepstrum, people (admins, contributors...) around here have told you this before: if you make edits to an article with the expectations that no one will touch it again and then when they do, you take it personal (and you always do) and complain about it, you will have a very hard time and not able to enjoy it. Let me also tell you this with only the best of intentions: stress is the number one killer of health. I am saying this because you said you have a lot of health issues and it seems like editing is causing you lots of undue stress, which it shouldnt. I liked your idea of adding Voyager's encounter with various other species, such as Hirogen etc, to the article. But if for every edit you do, which then someone might touch, you will end up unhappy like this, write 20k of text asking everyone to justify their edits or apologize to them or just plain comment on it, I think that defeats the whole purpose for you and everyone else for that matter. – Distantlycharmed 18:06, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

(Note: I have condensed the following to remove extraneous content; see here for the original, which was posted 12:44, November 13, 2010 (UTC))

Hi, Distantlycharmed! Glad to see a dialogue form on a talk page.

I'm sorry my prior post suggested I was upset at you for editing some of the changes I'd made. I am not, actually, and as I stated, I think your edits were "perfectly fine", and that my notion of good style could (obviously) be wrong. It's nice to see someone else is interested in trying to get the article in good shape. I think I just didn't word things to match my intended meaning.

I'll be too exhausted dealing with health issues to continue the daunting task of rewriting the prose further or even discussing the minutia of how to phrase things. Perhaps later I'll revisit it.

--Cepstrum (talk) 18:36, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm simply going to tell you two to cut it and take this conversation elsewhere. DC, I'm sick and tired of seeing you involved in one way or another in massive multi-kilobyte long post debates. It happens a LOT with you. Cepstrum, learn to take other people editing your content without getting upset, and for the love of god DON'T post 5.5 kilobyte long posts about personal issues and general editing issues on article talk pages. We aren't here to look at novellas and probably won't read posts that long, and it has little to nothing to do with the article we're supposed to be discussing.
This page is NOT going to be dominated by you two arguing at Homeric length. Take it elsewhere, and get back to discussing the article in a concise and friendly manner. One that assumes good faith. Both of you. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:36, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I resent this. I did not start this debate, I am not the one who wrote long-ass essays and instigated all this nonsense and bickering and whining and i am not going to be held responsible for another person's neuroses. I suggest you inform yourself a little bit more about Ceptrum's concerns before barking at me Cobra. He keeps posting on my talk page and leaving long comments on everyone's talk page after every edit. That is not my fault and i am not going to be sitting here and be held responsible or yelled at for another user's actions. – Distantlycharmed 16:54, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
I don't give a damn whether you resent this or whether you started it. You have complete control over your own actions whether someone else starts something or not. Just like you do with Nero any time you decide to get involved in a spat with him. You could assume good faith and realize sometimes people don't always remember to log in, but instead you have been intent on elevating your war with him and go straight for accusing him of sock-puppetry. I'm not going to watch this go down in flames the same way. Cut it, the both of you. I don't care who started it, both of you are going to end it. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:59, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
And I dont give a damn that you feel the need to bud in, without knowing anything, to comment about an issue involving another user. We are not talking about Nero. I gave ONE response on this discussion page. The rest is all Cepstrum whining and going off etc. So if you are having a bad morning and are looking for someone to yell at, dont take it out on me and most certainly dont order us around or tell us what to do when you bud into debates you have no idea about. Speaking of escalating issues. – Distantlycharmed 17:10, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, speaking of "escalating issues" - have all the fun you want, but do it without any personal attacks. Calling the actions of one user to be "whining", and his posts "long-assed" and "nonsense" is more than just borderline that. So stop that, now and all of you. -- 84.135.42.218 17:38, November 13, 2010 (UTC) (which is Cid, who got logged out and can't log in again for some reason.)

Guys, I am really sorry; I neither intended nor thought at all I was creating a conflict. I meant no disrepect to Distantlycharmed. I regret that despite my efforts to try to be civil and friendly, I came across as "whining" or, as OuroborosCobra put it, "getting upset" when someone edits my stuff. As I said, I had no problem with it.

I feel terrible for inadvertently starting a conflict. I take full responsibility for both initiating it by stating I decided to back off editing the rest of the article and then for responding with an over-long mea culpa. I had wanted to ask an admin how I should handle it/extricate myself but unwisely didn't do it until after my attempt.

I am new at using article talk pages. Clearly I was in error. I will stop trying to smoothe things over, for I will abide by the instructions to cease. I don't know of any other venue to apologize to everyone but here: so I apologize to all. I'm sorry and am really confused about what happened. :(

--Cepstrum (talk) 21:13, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Let's get back to the original issue- discussing the edits- if this can be done without attacks and long posts, please.--31dot 23:14, November 13, 2010 (UTC)

Suggest move? Edit

In the interest of damage control, and because the entire ill-advised thing was my fault and mostly unrelated to the article (except to notify others that I had decided to hold off further edits for now), could we move this entire subsection to my talk page? I have no idea if that's appropriate, but I'd hate to have an editor come to this article, look at the talk page, and see the results of my gaffes. Again, I had (obviously) no clue how to handle things; the only thing that seems clear is that this section I started was foolish and irrelevant. I badly wish I could do it over again. But perhaps one solution would be to move it. I don't know how to do that or if it's proper. I'm just trying to ameliorate it (if it's not too late). This should probably be my last act on MA before I end up fouling things up any more &dash; I might need to be blocked/banned. I will also make this my last post about my poor behavior here and let further discussion get back on topic. --Cepstrum (talk) 13:21, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Galley Edit

One unique aspect of the ship's layout was the addition of a galley (Neelix's kitchen), which no other contemporary ship had. I see that the article on USS Bellerophon says that ship also has a galley, but what is the source for that? Voyager only has one because they have limited energy and Neelix added it, so I do not think that article is correct. ▫ JohnnyMrNinjatalk 05:25, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

The source for that is the DS9 episode the Bellerophon appeared in, "Inter Arma Enim Silent Leges", which had scenes in the mess hall. The real-life reason for that is simply that the Voyager sets were reused, and they did not remove the galley. While no reason for this was given in canon, I would speculate that perhaps the galley was an available reconfiguration of the ship that Neelix discovered while on board and that apparently the crew of the Bellerophon used as well. I would suggest that in the future an issue with an article be discussed on that article's talk page, not that of a related article. :) --31dot 10:24, July 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well that makes sense. My intention was that this be added to this article under the "Unique" section, as a galley is unique to this ship, but apparently it is not. ▫ JohnnyMrNinjatalk

Actually, looking at the screencaps from the episode, it does not appear to me that the Bellerophon has a galley. It has an eating area comparable to Ten Forward in the same area that Voyager uses for the Mess Hall, but it doesn't seem to be galley. Look for the areas where Neelix would be cooking and you'll notice that area of the set looks quite different from VOY, and shows no signs of cooking equipment. --OuroborosCobra talk 12:30, July 7, 2011 (UTC)
Compared to the extra two replicators that should be there if the captain's dinning room was intact, like it was on Voyager in "Caretaker", something else clearly has been done to the area. It's most likely a bar on the Bellerophon, based on the few seconds the area was seen in the episode, but since none of the shots show anything below the counter, we can't say it wasn't a galley, nor can we say it was definitively a galley either. All we can say is that a "galley style" counter was used, and that there wasn't a separate captain's dinning area back there on the Bellerophon. - Archduk3 18:20, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

How many medical staff are there? Edit

I'm confused by the number of Medical staff on voyager after they get trapped in the delta quaderate, in some stories it appears there is only the doctor, and Paris (and for a while Kes) but in others like Thresold and Flesh and blood it shows at least two or three others helping him, if they already had then why did they need a flight controller to help out? And how many do they have? --General MGD 109 08:50, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure no answers to your questions were given in canon. --31dot 09:18, August 22, 2011 (UTC)
The general idea from most of the episodes is that it is indeed just The Doctor, Paris (and early on, Kes). There is plenty of dialogue to this effect. I think the writers just "forgot" this in the two episodes you mention. :-)–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:39, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

No, I think Paris was the principal medic and back-up chief medical officer, but I think the other blue-uniformed staff (also seen in "Latent Image") were scientifically-trained personnel to back up the Doctor and Paris. The reason Janeway assigned Paris as a field medic in "Parallax" was because he had two semesters of biochemistry at the Academy. Surely there were other personnel on "Voyager" (like the ones seen in "Latent Image", "Threshold", "Flesh and Blood" et. al.) who were at least trained in biochemistry, anatomy, etc? I know no one BUT Paris was SPECIFICALLY referred to as a medic on the show, but logically there were others, based on the scenes in the above episodes. 74.69.11.229 22:56, March 7, 2013 (UTC)

How far can the tractor beam reach on Voyager? Edit

How far does the tractor beam reach on the starship voyager? Thanks! --99.198.32.36 17:56, January 21, 2012 (UTC)

How long was USS Voyager in the DQ for? Edit

How long was Voyager in the DQ for? By my calculations, Voyager had been in the DQ for 8 years come the final episode of the series, not 7 as people make it out to be.

Rjd1983 09:08, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Caretaker is set during stardate 48315.6, Endgame takes place around stardate 54973.4. That's less than 7 years, actually. You should have brought this up for discussion here before making the changes. I have reverted both articles to "seven-year journey". --Jörg 09:43, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

TechnobabbleEdit

So much technobabble. I think the amount of technobabble in this entry offers a very meta commentary on technobabble in general and Voyager in specific. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.152.91.112 (talk).

The article simply reflects what was shown in permitted resources. If you have suggestions on improving the article, please offer them. 31dot (talk) 02:46, August 30, 2013 (UTC)

From Talk:Regions visited by Voyager Edit

PNA-incomplete Edit

Needs some major expanding. --Alan del Beccio 01:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge Edit

Sad list article with POV problems, also covered with actual text at USS Voyager. If we need this list, it could just be added to the page about the starship. - Archduk3 04:05, August 22, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this article needs at least a good copyedit, possibly including a rename to a less problematic title. I wouldn't mind a merge as suggested, but in that case would prefer a history merge (keeping the current content of USS Voyager as is) instead of actually adding the list as a new section to the Voyager article. If this content was added in its current form, then rewritten and completed, we might end up with a list section that is far too long for the article and would need to be split again. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 15:49, October 19, 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure we need this list. All the important regions can be found at the article about the USS Voyager. The other regions are listed in the episode articles. I think a deletion would be more appropriate. Tom (talk) 00:16, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the outcome of a deletion discussion would just end up with what Cid suggested, a merge of the page histories. I think the list could be better formatted to not be displayed as long as it currently is, but it might simply be better to just put most of this information in Delta Quadrant somehow. - Archduk3 00:32, March 7, 2015 (UTC)

I've added the missing info to the article Delta Quadrant and merged the article with USS Voyager. Tom (talk) 14:44, May 11, 2015 (UTC)

Top speed Edit

In "Relativity" they Voyager's top cruising speed was Warp 9.975. Shouldn't this be noted in the article? 99.6.9.145 08:46, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

No. The information is already on the appropriate article, Intrepid-class. Tom (talk) 08:53, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

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.