Episode talk page
Maintenance links
- MA files from this episode (0)
- Episode data module and titles check:
| |||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contradiction?
- When Janeway, Chakotay and Tuvok discuss how exactly Federation technology had fallen into the hands of the Kazon, Chakotay asks if there were any reports of any missing Starfleet ships. Janeway's answer that there were none that she was aware of, is later contradicted by Voyager's encounter with the USS Equinox in "Equinox", indicating that Starfleet were unaware of its disappearance despite its status as a short range vessel (however, Tuvok had suggested that the Kazon may have possibly obtained Federation technology from another Starfleet ship that was pulled into the Delta Quadrant prior to their arrival and unbenownst to Starfleet.).
Then she clearly wasn't aware of the fact that the Equinox was missing. Stafleet was a large organization and the ships were taken over a short period of time. This strikes me as a bad nitpick. -- unsigned (User:205.237.164.110)
- I agree. You can't expect every starship captain to be so immersed in details that they know the whereabouts and status of every ship. Kojiro Vance | Talk 22:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed, and removed. --Alan del Beccio 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Story arc?
Is it worth having a Seska story arc in the navigation box? Kojiro Vance | Talk
- Except then there are the cases where Seska appeared early in the series that had nothing to do with later arc. --Alan del Beccio 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
EHM vs. EMH
Is there a reason for Emergency Holographic Medical Program instead of Emergency Medical Holographic program in the references? --TribbleFurSuit 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. --Alan 01:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If I apologize for my inefficiency, would you say what the reason is? Your words on the other page don't help either. "Valid redirect; linking the citation keeps it from being orphaned to avoid questions about why it was created." This doesn't explain why the citation exists, it only explains why the redirect exists. Little help? --TribbleFurSuit 02:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Valid redirect = alternative usage --Alan 02:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This still doesn't explain why the citation exists, it still only explains why the redirect exists. Look, I'm not trying to be argumentative. But if you thought you were going to save yourself the trouble of dealing with questions, I'm sorry for you that it didn't work. You might as well just answer. And if efficiency is something you value, I'm here to tell you that your avoidance of the use of complete sentences is less efficient, not more. It's making your problems worse. If this is some philosophical thing about redirect policy, or if it's got something to do with this episode, or if it's just a redlink that you found in the references, why not just say. --TribbleFurSuit 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sounds to me like it's in the references because in the episode the name was used explicitly. Therefore it was used as an alternate name and thus...valid redirect. — Morder 02:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed, I thought I already explained that. The term was used in the episode, hence its inclusion here. That's generally how this wiki thing works. What is/was there left to explain? --Alan 02:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- But since you are so insistent about this we shall refer to the following proverb: "Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish ; and you have fed him for a lifetime." [1] --Alan 02:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
"The term was used in the episode" You didn't explain that at all. --TribbleFurSuit 02:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I did on the other talk page...but apparently I didn't make that point transparent enough. Otherwise, I'm not sure why else I would have added the link to the episode page... --Alan 02:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)