Talk: Endgame (episode)/archive

Maintenance links

MA files from this episode (0)
Episode data module and titles check:

T: `I AM ERROR`
A: `I AM ERROR`	N: `I AM ERROR`	P: `I AM ERROR`	C: `I AM ERROR`	CP: `I AM ERROR`	CR: `I AM ERROR`	CT: `I AM ERROR`	D: `I AM ERROR`	M: `I AM ERROR`	Y: `I AM ERROR`

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.

Please click here to start a new discussion

Icheb

Should it be mentioned somewhere that, aside from a game of kal-toh with Tuvok, this character is omitted from the episode? He isn't present in the future (so one might surmise he's one of the 18 in addition to seven who died) but wouldn't that have been a name worthy of mention by Admiral Janeway to her younger self? --AgentProxy 15:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nah... She may have liked Icheb, but they weren't close. You could very well ask why she didn't name any of the other 18.

Dialogue

Quoted form page: "Chakotay and Seven would get married but that Chakotay would die 3 years from then leaving Seven, now reequipped with emotions, unable to deal with the trauma. She along with 18 other crew members will die in the continuing voyage home."

I just saw the episode and I've put down the dialogue between Admiral Janeway and Captain Janeway:

Admiral: "Seven of Nine is going to die."
Captain: "What?"
A: "Three years from now. She'll be injured on an away mission. She'll make it back to Voyager and die in the arms of her husband."
C: "Husband!?"
A: "Chakotay. He'll never be the same after Seven's death."

Based on this I'll modify the quote.

"He'll never be the same after Seven's death -- and neither will you."

It says in the page that Admiral Janeway asks how she deals with "all of those voices talking at once" without getting terrible headaches. In actuality the Admiral says "You must get terrible headaches," tauntingly after her first observation of the multiple voices talking at once. Nitpick-ish... I know, but after so long, we should have it right, right? --AgentProxy 15:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)AgentProxy

I think we should add "You wish to insure the Wellbeing of your Collective, I can apprecate That... I'll Help you" Spoken By the Borg Queen to Admaral Janeway Refrence starting at 5:15 I think it's a Real Good Quote. – Alexlyoko13 00:11, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add it then add it. — Morder (talk)

Destruction of the transwarp hub

Quoted from page: "As her physical body falls apart and she lies dying on the floor of the Unimatrix, she issues a self-destruct order and the entire transwarp hub complex explodes." I'm very sure the Enterprise fired three torpedos at one of the circles inside the transwarp tunnel, destroying it and creating a chain effect that ends in blowing up the transhub hub. It's never mentioned in the movie that the hub was willingly destroyed by the Queen. Why should the dying Queen give a self destruct issue for the hub? I think this part of the text has to be changed.

Agreed, I'll get to it. And it's Voyager, conduit, and episode. - AJ Halliwell 03:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't this two parts?

I'm getting ready to watch this now and it is definitely two parts. I seem to recall watching it in two parts during original airing as well. Slamlander 17:11, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

IT was originally aired as a one-part telefilm, i believe. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 17:21, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, you are correct. Slamlander 17:29, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Motive is wrong

I just finished watching this. There are two points:

The box for the tape advertises two parts. The contents of the tape is one large telefilm.
The motive for using the virus is different than that posted in the article, as is the nature of the dilema. I will make the minimal corrections required. `Slamlander

On MA, all episodes that were originally double length telefilms then later broken up into two part episodes for tapes and reshowings can be noted as such -- but our article is formatted for the original form of the episode -- before it was broken up. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 22:36, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add that to the part I am editing. I take it that it goes under "Background"? Cannons go "BOOM"! 12:20, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Minor rework turned into major effort (gah)

I certainly didn't intend to do this much work to it but it's done. There are some spelling errors and I am certain that I over-used commas, as usual. I did uncover some stuff about the Borg. I am taking it under advisement as to whether I want to work that much harder. I have a book to finish. Cannons go "BOOM"! 20:27, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Pulaski? ALIVE?

As Janeway leaves Tuvoc when she visits, you can hear a PA in the background. I could have sworn they called for Dr. Pulaski. Can anyone confirm this?

[Reply] I replayed this part of the episode twice, and can confirm that the Doctor called for on the PA was Dr. Pulaski.

I think it goes without saying that there are probably more than one Dr. Pulaski in the Star Trek universe and probably several in Starfleet. Unless the page gave her full name it's probably, at best, just a little homage the writers threw in. --Maestro4k 19:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not Dr. Pulaski. If you think it is you must provide proof before it is placed in a wiki. 8.23.58.18 13:44, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

"As this discussion is old, further comments on this issue should be at the newer discussion on this subject at the bottom of this page. 31dot (talk) 22:24, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

Needs of the Many, Out Weigh The Needs of the Few

Didn't I hear Tuvok say this quote also? --Shane 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Never mind.. http://www.chakoteya.net/Voyager/722.htm --Shane 05:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Death of the Borg Queen

I think the Queen has died four times (or at least her body has been destroyed) that we know of. The first time was at the end of TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds" (supported by Picard's line in Star Trek: First Contact), then again at the end of First Contact (when she disolved). She also was killed at the end of "Dark Frontier" when the Borg Diamond she was in was destroyed when Voyager imploded the transwarp Conduit for a light year, and then again in this episode, ""Endgame"". The only way to avoid this is to say that the queen didn't really die because her conscious is separate from the body - but then this would mean that she has never died at all! I don't think it's justifiable to say that she only died when we actually saw her die - after all, the only time we actually saw her dead body was at the end of First Contact. And this logic would mean that no characters die unless we actaully see them dead (such as Fred Durst), and I don't see how holding this standard for the Borg Queen but not for other characters can be held. If no one objects, I'll adjust the background info for this episode to reflect this.--Tiberius 03:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Queeny was not on the diamond. Not on the Cube in Both Worlds.

Yes She Died in in end game.

And the movie there was either another queen or maybe they were using TIME TRAVEL.

In the episode with the temperal bomb, Seven stated that she new about First Contact

and maybe we should assume that thej borg took steps to ensure that the Queen didn't die. I think. --– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.202.104.13.

That doesn't jibe with what we already know. Picard specifically stated that this particular Borg Queen from First Contact was the one on the cube at Best of Both Worlds, for example. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all we've watched her die, on screen, at least twice. It is arguable weather or not she was actually on the Diamond that chased the Delta Flyer through the trans-warp conduit or not. It is even more debatable that she was on the Cube in Best of Both Worlds. (As far as that instance goes, just because Picard was aware of her "presence" didn't mean she was physically there. The Queen spoke to Data -before- her body was assembled in First Contact. That means, to at least some degree, her consciousness is stored by means beyond simply her physical form.)

She definitely "died" in First Contact. I also think there's a consensus that her form was destroyed in Endgame. The unicomplex exploded and her body literally came apart. We even saw her torso "disconnect" from her skull and spine. Was anybody arguing that for someone to truly be dead one must see them die on screen?

--AgentProxy 15:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would seriously question that she died in "Dark Frontier". There's nothing to suggest she was on the ship that pursued the Delta Flyer, she doesn't really seem the type to go in for micro-management so she probably just sent some drones. Certainly, no-one seems the least bit surprised when she turns up against in "Unimatrix Zero", although it's possible they'd been primed about her apparent unkillability by Seven. I'd say it comes under speculation at best. – Skteosk 14:55, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Reunion setting

Inside a hotel, the ten year reunion is taking place.

That's not a hotel. It's Admiral Janeway's apartment, the same one to which Dr. Joe pays her a visit later and the one in which she's watching TV in the teaser.

Grandfather paradox

There's a major "grandfather paradox" problem with this episode. By changing the past, Admiral Janeway was effectively erasing or overwriting her own timeline, such that the individual she was, with all her experiences and motivations, would not exist in 2404. Thus, whatever Kathryn Janeway exists in 2404 would have no motivation, let alone any need, to travel into the past to change Voyager's future. I have seen similar "plot discrepancies" discussed in other episode articles; shouldn't this be mentioned here? As a side note, suppose Admiral Janeway's plan had worked the way she anticipated, that she went into the past and guided Voyager through the transwarp hub into the Alpha Quadrant. What was then supposed to become of her? Was she going to live out the rest of her life in her past/Captain Janeway's present?

The time travel reverses causality, effects can "cause" the cause, and observed before the cause. (cf. VOY: "Parallax") On a side note, the grandfather paradox doesn't really stand up, if someone has the ability to time travel (eg, 1985 to 1885) then, all they have to do is displace an equal mass from the 1985 with that of 1885, and once the person is back in 1885, everything will follow the laws of physics like normal (ie, putting a bullet in your grandfather will kill him), afterall a person doesn't have to be born to exist, killing your grandfather have no effect on the particles that make up you. Time travelling to the past (causality is reversed, the effect "precedes" the cause, although there really isn't an absolute direction for which precedes which in the timeline now given that this kind of time travel is possible.) --72.75.51.62 21:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply: In Star Trek Time doesn't cling to people. When Time traveling youre written in to that timeline. And arn't affected by changes in your own time.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.202.104.13.

What really bothers me is that the queen herself says that if the voyager is destroyed admiral Janeway will not be able to infect her and everything will change. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Jackoverfull 23:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Does chronexaline have something to do with it? I think it acts like the temporal shielding from Year of Hell. Dave^{Subspace Message} 03:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Is it posible that That's How time intende it to Happen?, That's Why The Temporal Intergity people did not interfere, As for the Queen, She May Have Been Confused, form the dying thing... – Alexlyoko13 02:17, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

if you look closesly at the episodes Relativity, you can see that in manny cases some universes part from each other like in Year of Hell. You clearly see the different outcomes of reforming the universe.

Bason on that the grandfather theory is impossible.

Janeway can only help herself if she goes the same way as her older self did.

the point of paralel universes is that Janeway can exist in both ways because they are not in eachothers way.

A>>B>>C>>D

say A is the younger selve of Janeway and D the older one

A+D>>E>>F

Making the story a totally different one, B and C get lost in the proces – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.182.136.230.

Tea thermos

The tea thermos Reg hands to Admiral Janeway before her departure bears a striking resemblance to the container of warp plasma Torres gave to the Automated Unit in "Prototype". Can anyone verify this? --Skyler 20:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, they are identical, only difference is the colour of the metal. The warp plasma container was golden, the tea thermos is blue, but the same prop was used. --Jörg 11:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that must be powerful tea! ;-) --Skyler 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Production # Clarification

Shouldn't the production number for the feature-length version of this episode be listed as "828" (as given in the Voyager DVDs)?

Holes in Summary

There is a rather sizeable chunk of missing information between Janeway hatching a plot with Barclay and stealing the chrono deflector. Was this done on purpose? Was it because the flashbacks and flashforwards made it difficult to summarize? There is no mention of Tuvok's illness and other character changes during these scenes. -Topher208 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Date Redux?

Some anon changed the date of this "Homestead", "Renaissance Man", and this episode to "21 November 2377", "13 November 2377", and "21 December 2377" respectively from "2378". They had previously edited the BG notes of "Homestead" 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)

There is none - the idea that a "stardate-delta" of 1000 equals exactly one year is speculation, and the idea that stardate XX000 corresponds to January 1st in the human calendar even more. :) -- Cid Highwind 09:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the Homestead talk page, I don't think the anon user checked the talk page there and saw the link to the forum discussion about the year. I agree with the results of that discussion — since Neelix's comment places "Homestead" in 2378 then it's 2378 from there to the end of the season. I'm all for changing their edits back. --Maestro4k 12:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Transwarp plothole?

As I'm sure has been noted by many of the great minds here at Memory Alpha, the convenient exit point of an established Borg transwarp conduit less than a lightyear from Earth is a bit of a plot contrivance. -If it had been there for any length of time, why didn't the Borg throw a fleet at our planet? (Do they prefer to send lone Cubes on the "Scenic Route" through the Neutral Zone?) -And if (as you may argue) it was a recent addition to the Borg's galactic roadmap, in preparation for an imminent attack on such a scale, wouldn't that attack have occurred (to devestating effect) by 2404?

Just one of the many examples of lazy writing on the part of Berman & Braga on this episode (need I mention Transphasic torpedoes, or the absence of the Century26 Temporal Watchdog Committee?).

Also worthy of note was the colouring of the Transwarp conduits - they looked exactly like a Quantum Slipstream Eddie. -- Destructor 20:47, 15 April 2007 (GMT)

Nitpicks don't belong on episode pages (thanks for leaving it out of the article), and this isn't a place for episode discussion. Discussion pages such as this one are for discussing what should or shouldn't be on the page. If you have a legitimate question, please ask at the Reference desk, otherwise it is more appropriate for a Star Trek discussion board.--Tim Thomason 21:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Of those the only thing with any real validity is the transwarp conduit color (and that was likely a production error), the others can be explained with in-universe explanations. (For example, the future Star Fleet time-line folks didn't get involved because this was supposed to happen in the correct time-line, the same way the time incursions in previous series were.) --Maestro4k 20:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: Very Clever But Since Admiral Janeway Already Knew About this, We can assume

That the Borg Faild. But With many losses.– The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.202.104.13.

"Warning, regeneration cycle incomplete."

The article says that the computer normally doesn't say Warning. However, in Child's Play the computer says it twice. Once when Mezoti can not sleep due to Icheb leaving and again when Seven of Nine is awoken by Mezoti. 74.229.215.99 12:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Significance of Stardate

What is the significance of the Stardate that Tuvok keeps repeating (53317)? Perhaps some explanation could be given in the trivia section? Thanks! --72.75.51.62 20:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the dialogue from the episode that referes to that stardate:

EMH: Stardate 53317. If my memory files are accurate, that was the day Captain Janeway was abducted by the Kellidians. Is that who you're talking about, Tuvok? Captain Janeway?

TUVOK: Her disappearance remains a mystery.

EMH: No, you solved that mystery, Tuvok. You rescued the Captain and brought her back to Voyager safe and sound. Remember?

Apart from that, we know nothing. --Jörg 20:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Know nothing, yes, but I may as well throw what makes sense onto the Talk page: Tuvok showed that he's fixated on dates, when he asserted that Admiral Janeway wasn't really Janeway, because she visited on the wrong day of the week. Best guess is she didn't show up when she was supposed to, and Tuvok's failing memory fixated on the last time she went missing. Seems like a way of saying that even the mentally impaired know that Janeway's doing something she shouldn't be. Izkata 06:46, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Endgame Phaser ???

Hi,

in some shops, so called Endgame Phasers are being offered for sale.

Perhaps I'm just blind, but where the heck does such a phaser appear in Endgame?

Thanks!– Cmdr. Wernersson 10:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The redesigned phaser only appeared ina deleted scene of "Endgame" and wasn't seen in the actual episode as broadcast. Here's more info about the Nemesis/Endgame phaser. --Jörg 11:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Ending

I removed the following:

* Two endings for the episode were filmed. The unused ending had Voyager come out of transwarp space back in the Delta Quadrant and continuing its long journey home.

Cite please. --Jörg 15:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Year

The future year the article gives, 2401, is wrong.

Voyager returned to the Alpha Quadrant in 2401. But in the episode, the news announcer says that Voyager returned after 23 years in the Delta Quadrant. The transmission is in celebration of the 10th anniversary of Voyager's return..
Reginald Barclay gives at toast in the episode, and says: "This is the Voyager family, 33 years later. Bigger... but also diminished." This shows that events of the future timeline, including Janeway's going back in time to 2378, occured 10 years after Voyager's return in 2401.
2378 + 23 + 10 = 2411. This is the correct future year and I intend to change it to that.
– Watching...^listening... 11:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone who isn't me has already changed this, but I think it bears explaining here. Your math is somewhat flawed. If Voyager returned after 23 years in the Delta Quadrant, then that would include the first seven years of their journey (2371-2378; the years we saw on the series). In other words, they got back 16 years after 2378 (7 + 16 = 23 years in the Delta Quadrant). Add 10 years to that and you get 2404. 2378 + 16 + 10. Or, to make this much simpler, it's 33 years after they were first lost in the Delta Quadrant. They spent 23 years getting home and now it's 10 years later. 2371, the year they were lost, plus 33, also equals 2404. The mistake is in counting 23 years from the end of the seven-year journey instead of the beginning. - Bridge 08:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Yes. I see. I am indeed in error. Thank you.– Watching...^listening... 21:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Beltran's rolling eyes

Re: The entry in Background Information which suggests Robert Beltran supposedly rolls his eyes (in shot) when taking the helm during the final scene. I was very curious after reading this to see if he does actually get away with it. Having watched the episode recently however, I feel that this entry should be removed. It may be in keeping with Beltran's well documented criticism of the show in its final years, and certainly makes for a nice little anecdote, but it doesn't actually happen. The look he gives is a staple look Beltran uses throughout the latter seasons of the series, characterised by a slightly open-mouthed smile with a look to his left. It could be argued that by this point, Beltran was completely disenfranchised and was simply going through the motions. Certainly the humour and engagement with the character Beltran brought to the role in so much of the first three seasons has long since evaporated, and so his performance perhaps conveys his own personal boredom and frustration at times, but the physical rolling of the eyes simply does not happen.

entry amended following time to allow for responses. --Teestee 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I too was watching this scene closely after first reading about the supposed "eye roll". Not having a big-screen TV or anything prevented a really good look, but it seems that what (Teestee?) said Beltran actually gave, "a slightly open-mouthed smile with a look to his left", was exactly what was given. Beltran may have internally rolled his eyes (and I'm sure finding his actual feelings during the shooting of that scene won't be difficult), but, on camera, Chatokay didn't. --The Time Traveller 23:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Paradox

*This episode is a great illustration of the "Grandfather Paradox" of time travel. Since Admiral Janeway travels back in time to make sure that Voyager gets home early and succeeds, the events leading up to Janeway's reasons to travel back in time no longer occur. That means that Janeway will not travel back in time, meaning those events will now happen, causing the original timeline to occur again.

Removed as it's unnecessary? --Morder 00:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I seem to remember some episode where Janeway (or someone else) even whined about temporal mechanics making no sense anyways. I see no reason for us to make sense out of what they won't on the show. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 00:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured Article?

I don't know what everyone else thinks but I think this deserves to be a featured article. There's lots of description of the episode, lots of quotes and background information. I don't think much more can be added to it. I'm only fairly new to MA so I was wondering how I go about nominating it for FA status and if anyone would back this up? Thanks, TrekFan 15:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Joe

I removed the following.

Joe, the name chosen by the doctor, is the name of Robert Picardo's character on the show Home Improvement.

Unless it was intentional, it doesn't belong in this article. --From Andoria with Love 01:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Successful FA archived (11th June, 2008)

I would like to suggest that this article be put up for nomination as it has a detailed summary, lots of quotes and a relevant background information. There doesn't seem to be much more that can be added to it. TrekFan 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT (Provisionally): There are three red links in the co-star section. I think the main body of the article and the sub-sections should all link to existing articles (note that this does not include the references section at the very bottom which also has several red links). I support this so long as those three red links are turned towards existing articles, even just stubs. -FC 22:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT. It is refreshing to have a Featured Article nomination that isn't a self-nomination. I have been watching this article for over a year since I made a comment on the talk page and it has come a long way in that time. I have fixed the links as Fleet Captain suggested. Definitely deserving article! – Topher 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

SUPPORT I wrote the summary. I'm very glad it meets with such approval. I thank those who have contributed further to it. – Watching...^listening... 02:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WHY ARE WE ALL SHOUTING! :-p. Support. Nice summary, nicely illustrated, nice quotes, detailed background info with citations. In regards to red links, I don't think that the existence of these in an article should be a bar to being FA. Unless it's a link that needs fixing (admittedly like one here) or is inappropriate, it reflects absolutely nothing on the quality of the article itself. On the contrary, if the article becomes an FA hopefully more people will see the red links and fill in the gaps.– Cleanse 02:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, only one more support required to feature. I'd hate for this to lapse with 4 votes.– Cleanse 10:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it only needs one more vote. Please support this article! Thanks. TrekFan 10:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Support. I fixed a small bit of formatting (removed an extra set of parentheses). Other than that, it is a great article. ---- Willie^LLAP 12:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

FA article nomination considered successful and archived. All points resolved. TrekFan 18:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Christian Maguire

According to IMDb, Christian Maguire played someone named "Ryder" in this episode, but she's not listed in the credits here. Anyone know why? Is this another error on IMDb's part? --From College with Love

Hey Shran. I've already started a talk page for Maguire here. ;) – Tom 15:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, good to know. Thanks! :) --From Andoria with Love 15:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed

Removed the following nitpick:

Note: When the Rhode Island intercepts SC-4, the view of the interior of the shuttle shows that the armor is still deployed (you can see the honeycomb plates against the window), yet the external view shows the shuttle without the armor deployed.--31dot 03:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the following:

In the last scene of the episode, a Galaxy Class and an Escort Class vessel are seen escorting Voyager to Earth. This may represent the three main ships of the TNG series. The USS Enterprise-D, the USS Defiant and USS Voyager.
If one looks closely at the fleet attacking the Borg Sphere, you will notice there is also a Constitution Class Vessel in the Fleet. This may pay some small tribute to the Enterprise-A
The USS Prometheus, introduced in the episode (VOY: "Message in a Bottle"), is also with the final fleet attacking the Borg Sphere.

In order: Speculation, need screenshot to verify along with speculation, and is only a Prometheus-class vessel, not the actual ship (unless it can be proven otherwise). - Archduk3:talk 04:19, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about in the episode, but in the game Elite Force II, where the first level takes place during the events of Endgame and the return to Earth, a refit Constitution class is part of the fleet at Earth. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 16:04, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

On the Prometheus Web Page, the image you use to show the Prometheus is actually taken from the episode Endgame Part II, as well, the first picture in Endgame Part II on the website shows the Galaxy Class and Escort Class on the Left and Bottom Center of the picture. I am almost absolutely sure it is paying homage to the three ships of the TNG series. This youtube video shows the final scene of Voyager http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8e8EieU8M8 At time index 6:40-6:41, the FIRST ship to appear onscreen in the fleet is the backside of the Prometheus and the same shot as on your other page. As for the constitution class vessel, it may be too small to make out, but at time index 7:03, their are four ships in the bottom right corner that make a diamond shape. However, the ship at the North end of the diamond as a too small engineering section to be an Excelsior Class Vessel or a Galaxy class, but the ship is shaped wrong to be an Akira or Nebula class, the ships engineering hull also appears to be circular, indicating it may be a Constitution Class Vessel. - Anonymous 19:13 November 9, 2009

Regardless unless it can be cited as intentional it's just speculation. — Morder (talk) 00:31, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

While youtube is not the best resolution to check this at, I would say the ship in question could be a Constitution class vessel, but I don't have the season 7 DVDs, so I can't get a "decent" (like any of mine are) shot of it. The same can be said of the Prometheus class vessel, since part of the name is visible (maybe twice), but unreadable at youtube's resolution. - Archduk3:talk 01:09, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

The following was removed by TheHYPO:

This episode is chronologically the latest Star Trek episode to appear on television, with the exception of previous episodes and certain episodes in Enterprise that show events taking place after in the far future.--31dot 08:37, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

In this episode, Ensign Miral Paris meets with a Klingon man who provides her with the technology that Admiral Janeway needs to go back in time and effect Voyager's early return from the Delta Quadrant. Perhaps coincidentally, in TNG: "Firstborn" a version of Alexander Rozhenko from the future tells Worf that he met with a man in the Cambra system to acquire the means to travel back in time and change the past. It is unclear if the same man provided the technology to both of them, or even if the man who provided it to Alexander was Klingon, but judging from statements in both this episode and "Firsborn", the two encounters did occur around the same time (the early 25th century).

We don't note coincidences, only deliberate similarities.--31dot 22:18, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Took a screencap of that YouTube clip: [[1]] – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.34.176.15.

A note on the future tech brought back by Admiral Janeway

I'm noting this here in the bg only as it is a bit too vague to include to any article. It has caused much speculation among fans that when Janeway brought back in time the SC-4 and shared all the anti-Borg tech with the crew, why was this not prevented by anyone from the future. I thought it is worth noting that there is a line in the episode, suggesting that the anti-Borg tech was in fact invented by the crew of the Voyager in the original timeline not long after the transwarp hub encounter. Admiral Janeway says "I know, you don't want to hear too much about the future, but let's just say I ran into the Borg a few more times before I made it home. If I hadn't developed technology and tactics that could defeat them, I wouldn't be standing here today." this might explain why the "tech sharing violation" was more along the lines of holding up the integrity of the timeline. As bringing Voyager home in advance would not have allowed the crew the time to develop the anti-Borg tech on their own during the journey. --Pseudohuman 00:41, February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Validity of source for Robert Beltran quotes

The background section currently contains a number of quotes, allegedly by Robert Beltran, in which he comments negatively upon the production experience of this episode. When I went to the cited source, however, it turned out to be just some fan site, which failed to give any citation for the quotes. How do we know that Beltran said exactly these things? The webmaster claims in his section on Enterprise that his reviews will not spend time on the good points about the ENT episodes. He flatly states he has an interest in talking up only the bad he sees in Star Trek. Why is it not possible, therefore, that he fabricated these quotes (if indeed they are actual quotes) by Beltran?
czechout ☎ ✍  <span style="">20:28: Sat 19 May 2012

If the source of the quotes is biased, that may warrant removing them, though we should give it some time to see if there are other sources for these quotes; Beltran was known to be outspoken about the show and his character. 31dot 20:33, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

I've tagged the section with a pna. 31dot 20:37, May 19, 2012 (UTC)

Chronologically last appearance of the Borg...

I noticed that some of the backround info is innaccurate. The backround info says "Chronologically, though, this episode marks the final appearance of the Borg, although they went on to make an appearance on ENT: "Regeneration"." This is incorrect, as "First Contact" featured Vice Admiral Janeway, whom probably belongs to our timeframe, meaning that the Borg last appeared in "First Contact". Now, the Janeway from the future is a Vice Admiral, but I doubt first contact would show us an "incorrect" timeframe, plus she should have looked a bit older than she did if she had spent 23 years in the Delta Quadrant. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.26.249.72.

Janeway actually appeared in Star Trek Nemesis, set in 2379. Star Trek: First Contact is set in 2373, and this episode is set in 2378, so the note is accurate.--Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 03:04, June 30, 2012 (UTC)

Removed sentence

I took the liberty of removing the following sentence:

"In an interview on his website, Robert Beltran says that he requested the inclusion of the relationship [between Chakotay and Seven of Nine], in order to give him something to do."

Not only is this note missing a citation, but no such interview can nowadays be found on Beltran's website. Therefore, it's uncertain if the interview was ever on that website. --Defiant (talk) 12:14, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Every interview I've read from Beltran, he stated the specific opposite to that. -- sulfur (talk) 13:41, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Pulaski and Endgame

The name paged is not Pulaski. It is Dr. Velasquez. I replaced that part multiple times and would be happy to upload an audio clip. 214.27.58.1 11:13, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I and others have also watched the episode and can hear her name; Pulaski and Velasquez do not sound anything alike. Unless you have evidence that it isn't Pulaski, like the script or Trek staff stating it isn't Pulaski, I see no reason to remove it. 31dot (talk) 11:16, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with 31dot. I believe it to be Pulaski aswell. Though if you could provide some evidence to the contrary, I'm sure we can change it? --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 20:45, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is either one, but it seems to me, that those who believe it is Dr. Pulaski should be called upon to prove it before adding it to the page. Then again, looking at the history, the admins want it on there, so it will never change, they will simply lock the page if anyone changes it. 107.194.218.9 23:37, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind removing it if it isn't correct, but I believe it is correct by simply watching the episode and listening to it. The page is locked to prevent edit wars, not to endorse a certain view. I'm perfectly willing to change it if there is evidence, so please assume good faith in any motives here. It was on the page already, thus the page was locked in the pre-war state. All that said, one could argue that even if we hear the name Pulaski, it could be a different one if her first name was not used(I'm sure there's more than one Dr. Pulaski in the UFP) so as a compromise we could make it a background note. 31dot (talk) 00:10, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - protected page

Please add the following to the References section -- Sunday, Wednesday and Thursday. I have updated the respective pages with the information from this episode. ProfessorTofty (talk) 19:48, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Done. 31dot (talk) 20:35, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! ProfessorTofty (talk) 20:40, February 14, 2014 (UTC)

Request for unprotect

Please change this back to being an unprotected page. I personally have some notes I'd like to add to the bginfo and the protection status seems to have been from a dispute which took place in February this year (i.e., months ago). --Defiant (talk) 15:12, August 15, 2014 (UTC)