Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:USS Voyager

37,231pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Revision as of 22:56, March 7, 2013 by 74.69.11.229 (Talk)

Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon
USS Voyager/archive

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.


Reorganizing paragraphs

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 Data

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 contention

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....

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.

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

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)

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)?

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 Template:ShipClass 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

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?

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 ‐ 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

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?

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 long was USS Voyager in the DQ for?

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)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki