Talk:Borg/Archive 3

Theories and speculations
These should be the last section (befor external links etc) or a seperate article. Is it really encyclopedic even though it is very interesting. -- Cat out 20:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciations
Some comment is made on the subject of the Borg's varying pronunciation of 'futile'. Given that the variation is simply that between common British usage ('few-tile') and common American usage ('few-tle' - this being the same variance that gives us 'miss-le' as opposed to 'miss-ile'), do we think it's really worth making a fuss about? Different actors, different directors, and so on... It's not really a characteristic of the Borg as such, surely? - Adaru 22:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Urban myths about the Borg
This section, though interesting, seems a bit unencyclopedic and non-NPOV. Some rewriting is in order. Algebra 21:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just removed a part of it, thinking it was vandalism. I was going to post something here, but then I saw this.  Non-POV doesn' seem the correct term for the section.  If anything, quite a lot of it looks like a joke.  I need to get some sleep, but I guess I could try doing it up all purdy and that when I'm rested.  That is, if nobody else gets to it first.  -- JD [ don't talk|email ] 23:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, the "Urban myths about the Borg" section is unencyclopedic and should be removed. Additionally, the section would not even be classified as urban legend.  He is simply stating a debate about a fictional species, "How unstoppable are the Borg?" and giving us his interpretation backed with his selection of examples.  Another person can easily give an opposite interpetation backed by his or her selection of examples.  A long debate could then follow, none of which belongs in this article.  --Evmore 07:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Section deleted. Don't get me wrong, it was an interesting read. I'd have no problem if select portions of it were resurrected and interspersed throughout the article, as some of it is actually supported by real facts, but the phrasing of about 80% of the section was bad, its presentation as dispelling "urban legends" was bad, its "OMFG Star Trek is better! [urgay lol]" fanboy-reeking opening statement was bad, and its disregard for the Manual of Style was bad. I've got better things to do than prune someone's fancruft. EVula 15:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

POV and OR in lead section
The last paragraph of the lead has several points that appear to be POV and OR, as exemplified by the use of the words some, probably, indication and explaining. CovenantD 15:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Inefficiencies of the hive mind?
I always thought that the borg didn't react until somebody did something hostile was because unless they were actively impeding a Borg's progress, they were deemed "irrelevant" by the Collective. I thought that was why the borg drone in Q, who didn't do anything to the crewmembvers on the bridge, and just got data from their computers. As far as I know, it has nothing to do with "inefficiencies". (Borg are all about being efficient).

Edit: I just realized that this was part of the "Urban myths about the Borg" section. There is no evidence of this. I'm removing it.

Requested move
Borg (fictional aliens) → Borg (Star Trek) – to keep like all other dab'd Star Trek related pages —Newnam(talk) 19:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC) (copied from the entry on the WP:RM page)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support --EEMeltonIV 20:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support — JD [ don't talk|email ] 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, consistency and more obvious. --Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, as per nom. – Axman (☏) 09:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I was about to suggest the move myself when I noticed this survey! (Must be the hive mind!) Marky1981 18:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support as per nom. EVula 21:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Resistence is futile. Aye-Aye 22:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Make it so! &mdash; MrDolomite | Talk 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * I think we have enough support votes to move. Marky1981 21:24, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It can't be moved - it needs an admin. That's probably why this vote was started in the first place.  — JD [ don't talk|email ] 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I just asked A Man In Black to take a look at this; as an admin, he could move the article for us. EVula 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Taken care of. In the future, if I'm not around or something, you can always just tag a redirect you need deleted with, as long as the history isn't important for something. (In this case, it wasn't.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! EVula 01:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed section/article: Borg philosophy
I think a section or maybe even a new article on "Borg Philosopy" or "Philosopy of Borg" respectively is important and long overdue. There already exists a paragraph on the former on the Memory Alpha wiki. I think a fair amount can be stated about this specific topic without indulging in any original research. --Amit 17:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it can be done without OR, I'm all for it. EVula 01:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the Borg's ability to adapt
Recently, some anonymous I.P. removed the whole section about the Borgs ability to adapt being unsupported by onscreen evidence. Because this anonymous coward didn't bother to supply a reason for deleting a whole section that other editors appearantly found usefull information, and mainly because I do think it was useful information, I put the whole section back. If someone thinks it should be deleted, relocated, shortened, or whatever, please do join the discussion HERE, don't just delete a whole section with perfectly good info just because you think it's irrelevant... and certainly don't delete it without giving a reason. Greetings, RagingR2 21:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and only a few days after I put that section back, another anonymous IP comes in and deletes the whole section again. Well, you know, I'm putting it back again. Several users spent time on building that section. If you think it's nonsense or you think it doesn't belong here, the least you can do is have the decency to enter a civilized discussion here on the talk page. I personally do think that section was usefull information about the Borg. And if people keep deleting it without a discussion, the only thing I feel I can do is put it back. Oh well, I hope anyone even reads this??? RagingR2 00:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing it as Original Research. CovenantD 00:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, maybe I don't get it. But the whole thing about the Borg not being able to adapt so quickly to attacks as is sometimes stated, that whole section was backed up with a whole list of references to episodes from Star Trek TNG and VOY. How is that original research? It's merely stating the facts, and some very interesting facts at that. Maybe you have some suggestions as to what form we could mold that information in so it *would* be suitable for the article, because frankly, I do think it deserves a place in the article. In several episodes, it is stated that the Borg are able to adapt to any fact quickly. That's a fact. In several (or maybe even MORE) episodes, the Borg appear to NOT be able to adapt quickly to every attack. That's just another fact. How are facts not allowed to be in an encyclopedia article? Oh and just another point; just because you think the section that we're talking about wasn't entirely right... why do you delete the whole section? There was some good info in there that was perfectly suitable for the article appart from the whole original research debate. For instance, the part I added about the explanation that was given in one of the VOY episodes about why the Borg are not able to respond to every attack quickly. Hoping for a quick reply (and hoping for a good solution to this issue), greetings, RagingR2 01:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories.


 * Find someplace where this has been published. Otherwise it's the classic definition of Original Research. CovenantD 01:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I just typed a whole story about why I think not every part of the section you deleted qualifies as original research, and all you can respond with is repeating the definition of original research again. I... don't really what to type now. Maybe I need to repeat what I said: that section was merely stating facts from the episodes. It was not a "theory" that was previously unpublished, they are just hard, solid facts, that everyone who watched the episodes could have seen. That is NOT original research, those are just FACTS. And, do me a favour, come with a reply a LITTLE more specific next time. Otherwise this is just an edit war in disguise. Typing 1-line replies is NOT a decent discussion. RagingR2 01:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And oh, by the way, I'm sorry if you feel your talk page is not the place for me to start a discussion about this issue. I don't really care where we have the discussion, as long as there is place for discussion. There are too many people around here just reverting other people's additions, supplying a short explanation (if any) and then running off to never be heard of again. So sorry if I used your talk page (after all YOU were the one who made the edit) but I just wanted to make sure I got a response from you at all, after all you are likely to see a change in your own talk page more quickly than a change in the discussion page of just another one of the many pages you edited. Greetings, RagingR2 01:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the relevant section of the policy page - What is excluded? An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is, if it does any of the following:


 * 1) It introduces a theory or method of solution;
 * 2) It introduces original ideas;
 * 3) It defines new terms;
 * 4) It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms;
 * 5) It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position;
 * 6) It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source;
 * 7) It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source.

The fact that we exclude something does not necessarily mean the material is bad — it simply means that Wikipedia is not the proper venue for it. We would have to turn away even Pulitzer-level journalism and Nobel-level science if its authors tried to publish it first on Wikipedia. If you have an idea that you think should become part of the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet, and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner."


 * Look closely at #5. That is exactly what you are trying to retain. Again, all that is needed to make this section acceptable is to find a published source for this that meets reliable source criteria. CovenantD 01:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As an outsider who has never even looked at this article before, I feel I should chime in on original research. RagingR2, while you may have linked to good sources for examples, the conclusion is still yours, which is why it is invalid for Wikipedia. I am sure if you dig, you can find someone from a reputable source with the same theory. Remember, both of you have the best interest of the article at heat, even if you currently disagree. If you remain civil through this disagreement, you may find you are in agreement on other issues. It's happened with me. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 02:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I get your point. I really am not trying to dump my own original theories here. However, have any of you both seen the Episode(s) Scorpion Part 1 & 2 from ST:VOY? The conclusion which you suppose is mine (well actually not just mine, since I didn't write the entire section in dispute here, but oh well), is actually pretty much literally in those episodes. Chakotay and B'Elana literally say something like "The Borg can't understand what they can't assimilate, which is why they couldn't assimilate species 8472, because they have such an advanced immune system." I could find the exact quote if you wish, but anyway, I just thought this was valuable information, added to the overall general assumption that's in the "Overview" section of the article: about the Borg being able to respond to any attack quickly. And that isn't my writing; but maybe that should be regarded as an original research conclusion that isn't backup up by any sources. Maybe we could agree on just adding those quotes from the Scorpion 1 & 2 to the Trivia section or something like that? You know, without any added conclusions or other user-made additions; just the quotes as cold hard facts. If the overall statement that the Borg is generally able to addapt to attacks quickly is allowed to be in the article because this is stated in several episodes of the series/films (and is thus not original research), than in my opinion, so is the sidenote to this general conclusion as it is stated in the Scorpion episodes. The only difference is the number of episodes it is featured in, but it's both valuable information about the Borg that does deserve a place in the article. And oh well, maybe the fact that the Borg can't always quickly addapt to an attack isn't in very many episodes, so maybe it isn't really *that* important to the overal general picture of the Borg throughout the whole franchise... that's why I am proposing to add it to the Trivia section or something like that, somewhere towards the end of the article.
 * (Oh and guys, you both thanks for replying by the way, I'm very glad we can have decent talk about this.)
 * Greetings RagingR2 10:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What you propose sounds like a good compromise (at least until somebody actually does publish an analysis). The Borg have been portrayed many different ways depending on the whims of the writer - no dispute about that. It was always about the Original Research aspect. CovenantD 16:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand. It was never my intention to publish anything that's a subjective personal analysis. Well, okay, seems like we could solve this. Let's see. Now that I look at the rest of the article, doesn't this info belong to the (already existing) section about Assimilation? We could add a few sentences to the end of that section, maybe something like this:
 * "Asimilation is the main way for The Borg to gain information about a "new species", i.e. a species of which no individuals have been previously assimilated by The Borg. The Borg are less skilled in "investigating"; gaining information about species before they are assimilated (source: Episodes "Scorpion Part 1 & 2" from ST:VOY). Moreover, because of the way the assimilation works, species with an extremely advanced immune system such as Species 8472 are able to withstand assimilation; their immune system destroys the nanobots before they can do anything."
 * Tell me what you think. :) Greetings, RagingR2 16:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd lose the quotation marks and italics. The reference needs cleaning up, but that's easier done in place. I'd change the last sentence to something like this -
 * Because assimilation depends on nanoprobes, species with an extremely advanced immune system such as Species 8472 are able to withstand assimilation.

CovenantD 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, sounds good. Well, I'll add this to the article then. I just noticed there's a separate article for the "Assimilation" too. I'll check if I can add this new info to that article too in some way or another. Greetings, RagingR2 23:49, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the Borg - the various theories
This has been tagged for a while now. Unless citations are provided soon, I'm going to start deleting the more outrageous bits of uncited Original research. CovenantD 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do. --OuroborosCobra 13:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't even hesitate. This article needs some heavy and merciless pruning [b]<-- RESISTANCE IS FUTILE[/b]. Chris Cunningham 14:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So I got bored of staring at such abject nonsense. I've removed most of it. With any luck I can wreak as much destruction elsewhere in the article. Chris Cunningham 14:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Good luck, this article is so filled with personal opinions and unverifiable "facts" ("the Borg harbor no ill will to anyone" or "..the two-part episode "The Best of Both Worlds", widely considered among Star Trek’s best episodes." and yes, "Given the high technical sophistication of the Borg and her apparent destruction on numerous occasions, the Borg Queen may be some sort of unique multidimensional creature who can be in many places and times at once and/or is multiply-redundant ".) that your task seems almost impossible Chris.

@#@#@#

This whole part needs to remove, it a joke. Who cares what William Shatner thinks!

"William Shatner and Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens postulated a different base of operations for the Borg. They had the Borg "homeworld" as a planet totally converted into circuitry over millennia. The Borg Planet itself is the Queen/Hive Mind Center and it is lonely, and looking for another mind similar to itself. They also explain Borg "inconsistencies" as colonies out of direct contact with the Borg Planet, but still answering to the Hive Mind. The Borg home planet is eventually destroyed by Kirk.

No, it doesn't. It's semi-canonical. Also, I believe in one of the Dark Mirror books that Shatner wrote also mentions of the easy defeat of the Borg by the Human/Vulcan alliance in the mirror universe not too soon after first contact. --The Manator E 22:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The books are non-canon, and that last bit has specifically been contradicted - the Mirror Universe didn't establish a Human/Vulcan alliance at First Contact, In a Mirror, Darkly (Enterprise episode) showed us that the Humans stormed the Vulcan ship, and subjagated them. --Mnem e son 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought that the people behind the writting of star trek already resolved this,

V'Ger created the Borg end of discussion. Star Trek Legacy and the books already explained the borg's origin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DBZ Bane (talk • contribs) 09:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

NO where else to put this: Years ago I wrote that the "Borg Queen" was in invention for the movie, a nemesis for Picard and a "love interest" for Data. A WIKINAZI deleted that. The DVD commentary by the writers Braga and Berman clearly state in their own voices exactly that. The Borg "Queen" violates the collective nature of the Borg and should be ignored. The "Royal Protocol" comes closest to reconcile the difference, since as I stated years ago, ANY Borg would be "leader" in an emergency. All Borg are at once, "leader" and "drone" to suit the circumstance. That idea plays directly into the "horror" of assimilation and loss of free will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.91.104 (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The above paragraph is correct. I watched an interview with Jerri Ryan and she said she was told to watch all the borg episodes before playing 7 of 9, to better understand the race, and to ignore the Borg Queen. Ms.Ryan stated (on camera) that she was told by the producers to ignore the Borg Queen, as it was an 'anomaly' (her words) and was to be ignored (sounds like the Borg Queen is non-canon). On a side note, there is a ton of info on DVD extras that should be included in the wikipedia articels; I don't have time to watch DVD extras but I'd love to read the text of them here on Wikipedia. Since DVDs are published sources, the info would not be original research. The Borg Queen is of course ignored by the staff writers on Star Trek, as if she had never existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.93.100 (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at this article to verify whether or not it was wikipedia where I found this... Maybe it was since it appears http://sajun.org/index.php/Borg which is almost certainly mirrored from this article sometime in the past: "Though not in formal continuity a 'Speculation' story in the recent short story anthology Strange New Worlds VI offered a theory of their creation. It stated that the borg came about on a world suffering a devastating plague. One of the victims was the female grandchild of the planets ruler and he forced the scientists treating the plague to try a new treatment on her. Nanotech was introduced into her body which eliminated the virus and restored her. Unfortunately the nanotech was programed not to make her as was but to make her perfect. Since she was naturally imperfect they changed her body and brain augmenting with technology and creating the first borg queen. Naturally the ones who changed her were put to death by her Grandfather, and he tried to kill her with gas. Her body adapted to this removing the need to breathe and allowing her to introduce her nanobots into the wall of the room holding her, melting it and allowing her to escape. Fighting her guards she accidentally put the nanotech into one of them creating a link and changing him. And so the first borg were born. Assimilating their homeworld the borg went to the stars and the rest is history..." Too much speculation? Non-canon? Darkpoet (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing the episode listings
They take up tons of space and don't seem to be adding a lot to the article. Any objections? Chris Cunningham 15:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * They are available at the first External link, so I agree that they can be removed here. CovenantD 20:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is really beginning to look promising. Chris Cunningham 08:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the name "Borg"
Under the headline overview it says that the name "Borg" is a short version of cybernetic organism. I would just like to know if this is a fact or if this is an opinion about the origin of the name. I thought that the word Borg was a "name" of the "species" itself.

--While never directly stated, the name "Borg" is simply a short version of "Cyborg" which in effect, is a short version of "Cybernetic Organism." The Borg do not have a species, nor have they created one. One way to think of it, is another nationality. Americans refer to themselves as Americans, but that is not their Race. It is simply easier than saying "Chinese, Japanaese, Native American, British, Canadian, etc...Human". So, rather than say a bunch of species names, they simply call themselves the borg. It's just a bunch of species that only have the fact that their thoughts are given to them, and cybernetic additions in common. Kasha4890 01:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must disagree. In the very first episode the Borg announce themselves with "We are the Borg." It is unlikely they would choose a name for themselves that is a short form of a human word, even one that would be appropriate 74.14.102.216 (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Gamma

--It's called a universal translator. Who knows what the borg's(plural of borg is what now?) actual language is? =O When they came up with the borg, were they thinking in terms of human words vs. whatever other language would be used? No. They were thinking, "Hey, let's make a robot race. We can call them cyborgs!" "No Gene, too obvious. How about...Borgs." "Brilliant!" =P Kasha4890 (talk) 04:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No references section
Why does this article have no references section? If nobody responds within the next day or so I will assume it's ok to add one. (And, yes, I do have a reference to put in it.) Sfaiku 09:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You can add it now if you want; you don't need permission make constructive edits to articles. JDtalk 11:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Communism
Isn't there some argument that the Borg are a satire on ideas of Communism - they first appear during the Cold War Wikiman, 19:14, 27 January 2007
 * They are nothing like communists. The creators have stated that they are about technology gone awry, a fear that people had in the 1980s with such events as robots replacing workers in different industries, Chernobyl, etc. --OuroborosCobra 20:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as they weren't introduced until after the fall of the Berlin Wall anyway, the argument is plainly specious. Chris Cunningham 09:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The Borg is one collective being. In their collective state, they're one organism. The ships and drones are extensions of that organism. DBZ Bane 09:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "They are nothing like communists"? The Borg do have many striking similarities to Communism and Fascism depending on whether they are hive (Communist) or rogue (Fascist). I took a very detailed course on Communism (and another on Fascism) and how it affected the individuals under it and I was astonished by the amazing number of similarities between the Borg and Communism and Fascism. Especially when one looks at the words the Borg use. So many of them can be interpreted in Communist and Fascist terms. On a purely symbolic level the hive Borg especially scream Communist in many areas, likewise the rogue Borg are easily representations of racist, genocidal Nazi Germany. And just because the Borg were created after the Cold War ended doesn't mean they can't serve as a allegory for the two ideologies. In fact the Borg are wonderful personifications of them, regardless of what the creators of the Borg intended them to be. Of course one can also read them as embodiments of cultural imperialism, corporations, etc. but I like the Fascist/Communist interpretation best.Ubiquitous101 03:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they were clearly communist early on, as they evolved and had a "queen" this would be more in line with fascism..


 * You goddamn ignorant kids. You have no idea what Communism is. Borgs are not fascist, communists or anything alike.-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not that I think that the Borg were alluding to either, but by definition, the Borg are communist. They all work collectively and for a common cause, and the wealth (information, in their case) is distributed evenly.  For fascist, not so much; fascism requires thinking minds to be manipulated, which the Borg lack.  BlueCanary9999 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)BlueCanary9999

Borg aren't a satire of communism. Borg are a utilitarian collective organism, everything they do is for the purpose of reaching technological perfection. Equality, conquest, the lack of culture, these are all things that Borg seem to do in order to clear the way for the sole purpose of achieving technological perfection. Communists have no such desires. We must understand that communism was an ideology sprung from harsh living conditions, starvation, in other words very limited resources. This origin of communism shapes its objectives, survival for all (not for any utilitarian purpose), and equality (also not for any utilitarian purpose). If communists were anything like Borg they would have ignored equality and culture because these are obstacles in the accumulation of technology (perfection). It doesn't matter how many courses you take in communism or fascism (Ubiquitous), the ability to draw analogies comes from knowledge+creativity, not just knowledge. And by the way, some people major in political science, so I would put that course back in my pocket if I were you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.157.12 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Borg Queen
The article suggests the Queen was introduced in First Contact, thus seeming like an illogical plot device. The writers have always intended the Borg to have an insect-like hierarchy

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Borg_Queen "To counter this, and to expand some on Gene Roddenberry's original notion of the Borg as an insect-hive type of race, they created the Queen as a focal ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.17.82 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Earlier Encounters With The Borg
The second paragraph of the history section... am I the only one who thinks this is totally wrong? From what I understood of Regeneration, the ship that was found was the wreckage of the Borg Sphere destroyed over Earth in Star Trek: First Contact. The First Contact page states this in the trivia section.

And as for the subspace thing... the Borg have transwarp portals. Note that Voyager was able to travel back to the alpha quadrant much quicker than they could actually send a subspace radio transmission.

mattbuck 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I reverted to an earlier version. It seems that User:CaptainDigness added the misinformation. Gdo01 20:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User:CaptainDigness reverted it, I just reverted it back... goddamn him. mattbuck 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:CaptainDigness keeps on insisting the Borg are from the past but the production report clearly states that these are the Borg who survived from First Contact. Gdo01 19:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we use production reports as ways to resolve these issues? Now to me it is quite clear that these are the surviving Borg from First Contact but there is no dialogue or indication in Regenerations that they are the same.  Which takes precedence, the wishes/fantasies of the production team or what is actually on screen? Mmm commentaries (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply from User:CaptainDigness
This is Captain Digness speaking.

The reason I have kept on editing your work should be rather apparent. If you say these borg came from the future why is their technology limited i.e. They are weaker than a pre-Federation starship. What is more is that I personally spent hours researching this subject before I made such claims. Do the research; all the evidence supports my claims. Check for yourself.


 * Please read the policy on original research. We aren't here to apply our own research to articles.  We're here to report on research that has already been done by reliable sources. Your claims may be correct, but you need to provide a source that agrees with them. --Onorem 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright I too agree. I will do research and bring it to you personally the results and I realize that I was right about the subspace factor and the Borg traveling pre-trans warp due to the fact that they would no doubt have used to evade the Enterprise rather than being destroyed. The fact that they did not suggests they did not have those capabilities at the time. In fact they went the other direction than where the subspace sorridor was located. If you look this up you will see that I am correct. However if you need proof I will bring it to you also by the end of this week. And I request of you to defend against my statement that if the Borg technology is more primitive than that of first contact how are they from first contact. Unless you can answer this with substantial proof I will continue my editing until someone or something puts an end to this.


 * Any edits you make that constitute Original Research or uncited claims will be removed. CovenantD 18:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As will yours! CaptainDigness
 * You do see the production report link above. Here it is again. The official Star Trek site says these are the Borg from First Contact. Gdo01 05:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This is captain DBZ Bane 09:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC) speaking.

The Borg only learn by assimulation, thats why species 8745 (or whatever that number is) did so much damage to them in star trek voyager in the episode title scorpion, this was all explained then. Maybe they couldn't assimulate anyone in the future and V'Ger brought them here. DBZ Bane 09:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Noooo.... V'Ger didn't happen for another 200 years. mattbuck 09:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * V'Ger had the ability to travel to different planes of existance, it can probably travel through time with easy. DBZ Bane 09:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now we are entering the realms of flights of fancy. Let's stick to the facts please.Mmm commentaries (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * flights of fancy... stick to facts, about the Borg!!! This is the funniest thing ever. Methusedalot (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC).

Other Species
Why is it that no other major power has been threatened by the borg? The only encounter that the Romulans seemed to have with the Borg is mentioned in The Neutral Zone and then, only outposts were destroyed. The Federation seems to be the only entity that is outright attacked by the borg. The same goes for the Dominion. The Dominion is such a huge territory, I find it hard to believe that the Borg have no interest in it. The technological level of the Dominion is not that much greater than the Federation either, if at all. Again, I think it is unlikely that the Borg would have no interest in the Dominion. Rajrajmarley 21:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum. Only stuff about improving this article should be here. Gdo01 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It makes for a better plot if the attacks happen to the federation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DBZ Bane (talk • contribs) 09:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

look in Borg in games i know for in Armada the borg go after the Dominion for tech. and they trun on the Romulans for omega. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.31.15 (talk) 03:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Voyager features other species assimilated by the Borg, keep this for discussion of the article itself Alastairward (talk) 15:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

HR Giger?
Is it just me, or does the interior of the Borg ships look an aweful lot like the works of HR Giger? I'm just curious if there is any basis in his works; either official or otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.17.168 (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Borg Children on Voyager
I am not knowledgeable enough to write it myself, but someone should maybe include the Borg Children like Mezoti and so on in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.237.52.56 (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

Borg as Cybernetic vampirs.
I'm not trekkie but I've been reading this entry and what strikes me is this. No one notes the likeness between the Borg and Vampiers. Like vampiers the Borg don't simply kill their enemies, they take them over, adding to their strength. This stealing of people, technologies or 'powers' is a very big advantage to simply destroying them and triggers a very powerfull response.

This trick is often used in games. One opponent can steal your guns. And as a response the player goes after the thief first, all the others can wait. Usually the thief leads you into big trouble.

Amrypma 13:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Borg weren't originally supposed to be that way. In Q Who, they were only interested in the Enterprise, and not its crew. In The Best of Both Worlds, Picard was assimilated by the Borg in order for them to have a representative when they conqured the federation, as well as to make abosolutely certain that they had adapted to all Starfleet technology. Note that he was the ONLY one assimilated, and that the crew was quite surprised that the Borg would care about assimilating an individual being into their culture. By First Contact and Voyager, what had once been a plot twist had now become a cliche. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.190.6 (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. In "Q-Who", the Borg were introduced as a completely alien, unstoppable force to be dreaded. A new level of enemy for the complacent Federation. But by Voyager, they had become the "knuckleheaded zombies" of Trek, a laughable shadow of their original intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.251.157 (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Borg Maxims
When I was on this article recently, there was a section entitled Borg Maxims and it included famous Borg speeches. I can't find it now. Is there a reason it was removed? I thought it was a very interesting section. Sir Akroy 14:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. First, it contained no citations for what makes the various iterations "famous." The most significant and well-known part of their whole bit -- "resistance is futile" -- is already covered in the intro. Yes, you may think it's interesting, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a rationale for keeping something in the article. Add a citation establishing how each of those different versions of essentially the same bit is notable -- and/or how their progression/changes are significant -- and I'd be fine with it returning. --EEMeltonIV 19:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if this has been mentioned already. The explanation for the Queen's ability to exist in multiple places is simple. The female body is merely a hardware body for the collective's software mind. The body itself is probably cloned/built. Perhaps there's a few queen bodies on every borg ship and they just activate one when they need to. Neil R, 5th June 2006.

automata
Are they really automata? They all think one thought simultaneously, and by definition, this would mean they think independantly. --Teamcoltra 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term automata in the context of the Borg collective consciousness suggests the notion that as individual drones they function only to serve the will of the hive-mind rather than meaning independant units. The term may also suggest that they are independant in terms of their self-sufficiency and nothing futher.

It does not seem reasonable to assume that all Borg think one thought simultaneously as this would be in-efficient especially considering there are Borg scattered throughout the entire Milky-way galaxy and inter-dimensionally. It is more likely that all Borg experience NUMEROUS thoughts simultaneously, or that groups of Borg (or uni-matrices) depending on their inter-spacial context have different thoughts based on the will of the collective drive to assimilate other races, technology and information and that an awareness of their actions rather than that specific unimatrix's actual thoughts are permeated throughout the collective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaneo26 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The return
This has probably already been covered, but just in case, Shatner wrote in his novel The Return that the Borg programmed V'ger, as there are other book plots mentioned in this article should that not be mentioned also? I'm unclear as to the canon-non-canon boundaries so best to leave it for someone who knows (unless it is in there and I'm just blind) SGGH speak! 20:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Emblem
At memory alpha, it shows a Borg emblem. Since when do the Borg have an emblem?
 * Maybe you should go to Memory Alpha, and find out. Specifically where it has already been discussed. --OuroborosCobra 23:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Endgame
In the Voyager finale, the borg Queen, unicomplex, and transwarp network were destroyed and a "neurolytic pathogen" spread throughout the collective. Were the Borg destroyed, or temporarily defeated?

they purposefully left it vauge. I don't know why, maybe a future series/movie? swat671 (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't understand much of Endgame as it was, but didn't Janeway do something to create some time paradox to prevent her future self from making that sacrifice? Kasha4890 (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wording
Shouldn't the first sentence read The Borg are a race of cyborgs in the fictional Star Trek universe, first introduced in the Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series instead of The Borg are a fictional race of cyborgs in the Star Trek universe, first introduced in the Star Trek: The Next Generation TV series? As it stands, does it not read that the Borg are fictional within Star Trek? 128.253.228.176 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. I've changed it per your recommendation.  Next time, be bold and edit it yourself!  --Dan East 13:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Strogg
This question has most likely be addressed multiple times but I wonder if the Strogg from the Quake series were inspired or even directly designed from these Borg creatures. I've not watched much Star Trek in my life, and I haven't played alot of Quake either, and I even though I see some big differences between the two, I look into their histories, appearances, motives etc., they're very similar. Could be a coincidence but since I've noticed alot of sci-fi material is directly tributed to, or inspired by the Star Trek series, I can't help but wondering if that's where the entire concept of the Strogg come from. And for the record I have no intention of modifying the article, but I'm tossing out the possibility of the connection, and where there's a possibility of connection, there's a possibility of sources. ~ Saibot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.216.9 (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

On Endgame
There are two reasons that the Pathogen would be rendered essentially not applicable. One, the temporal stuff. Think about it. Admirl Janeway introduces the pathogen, allowing Voyager to get home. Because Voyager gets home, the timeline is altered, and the Admirl Janeway who introduced the pathogen would no longer exsist, therefore the Pathogen would not have been introduced. Confusing, isn't it? Janeway herself tells Kim to not even try when dealing with Temporal Mechanics. Second, think about it in a cenimatic point of view. Had the Pathogen completely destroyed the collective, it would have effectivally wiped the most deadly and most versitile adversary off the face of Star Trek, meaning that they could not be used again. That would just make no scense to the producers. So because the Borg survive due to cenematic stuff, now we deal with the transwarp hub. The Borg still have 5 left, and they could build another, because they originally had to build them. On the unicomplex, however, we see that the think is HUGE!!! They can probably rebuild it, but it would take a lot of time and resources. Also, on the first subject, if the Borg were completely, it would conflict with probably all of the Computer games involving the Borg. We know from Armada that a main Borg complex was destroyed by a de-stabilistation of an Omega Particle. We cannot place that event before or after Endgame, but if Omega destroyed it, the the Pathogen couldn't of. Also, on the Box of Armada 2, there are 2 Intrepid Class ships. That means that at least Intrepid and Voyager, the first two Interpid class ships, were produced at that time. Mabye even Voyager had gotten home by then, meaning that Endgame would have had to happened. And in Starfleet Command 3, Picard states that Voyager has gotten home, but the Borg still show up. Because these games deals with the Borg, I think its safe to say that the Pathogen did not completely eliminate the Borg and that the Borg would have gotten back up on their feet after the destruction of Unimatrix one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.166.253 (talk) 03:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While I tend to agree that the Borg have not been wiped out, one must remember that games are non-canon, and often directly conflict with canon. --OuroborosCobra 04:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand that some people want to believe in CANON so much that they want it to be real, in life. Never forget that all TREK is fiction, an accepted lie, and is NOT REAL. Let the people make up their own minds! WIKINAZIS be damned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.91.104 (talk) 17:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the utterly useless post and insult. Guess what, you can still choose to believe whatever you want REGARDLESS of what is written in the Wikipedia article. We haven't implanted you with the mind control chip that forces your devotion to WP and forces you to edit 6 hours a day. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Vs Cybermen
I think this section should be removed. There is no connection noted between Doctor Who and the Cybermen in the article and the original Borg concept was for an insect race (hence the Queen introduced later) The budget allowed only for "robot looking things" and allegedly there were costumes left over from the production of the film Dune that could be used. The whole thing reads like fannish original research and so I'll take criticism of its removal quite happily here in the talk section Alastairward (talk) 10:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Borg as a cultural allusion
Another section that seems unnecessary, especially given that only one sentence of the whole thing refers to any cultural allusion. I suggest removal Alastairward (talk) 15:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. But the one line that does note an allusion is good.  We oughta keep that somewhere.  BlueCanary9999 (talk) 22:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article takes an almost in-universe style (possibly deserving a tagging for that) so we're not left with anywhere in particular to drop the reference. Really there should be a section on the creation of the characters, it would go well in there Alastairward (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Borg Queen...
This article states the borg queen is species 125...Shouldn't a hive queen have always existed? If so, why isn't she from species 1? =P Is this an error, or just a problem in the show itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasha4890 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Her being a member of Species 125 is stated in the episode "Dark Frontier". This isn't an error. It is only a problem with the show if you choose to identify it as such. For all we know, the Borg hive mind did not always have a queen, and it was an addition made after a peak size was reached that required more central organization (odd, since the Borg are supposed to be inherently decentralized), the original queen could have been a member of Species 1 and Species 125 was found to be better suited to the role, or any number of other possible reasons. If you choose to take it as an error in the show, then you are adding preconceived notions that have not been explained or stated in the show. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Something more logical is that the disruption Hugh caused allowed this "Borg Queen" to assume control just as Lore did.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Assessment
I have added a quality assessment rating and importance rating to this article. Feel free to change them as the article improves! Also, feel free to add more issues to the list below, and strike them out ( strike ) when they're completed. — OranL (talk) 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Notable issues

 * The article is missing a lot of referencing and citations, which makes the reader feel as if the article is original reserarch. It may all be true, but it needs verifiable sources.

Original research tag
The article is already tagged as needing additional citations, I don't see the merit in adding a separate gloabl OR tag. If there are specific pieces of OR these should be specificaly tagged in line or section wise, but if the global tag is being placed as above merely on suspicison due to lack of references, I suggest it is redundant with the presence of a global citations needed tag. MickMacNee (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your reasoning. I will remove the tag. — OranL (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, no way. This needs to go back on. There's original research basically throughout the article; it needs serious review from the bottom up. "Borg behavior resembles that of vampires and zombies"? "The Borg were a concept born out of necessity for Star Trek to feature a new antagonist and regular enemy that was lacking during the first season of The Next Generation"? "Prior to the movie Star Trek: First Contact, there seems to be no evidence of a hierarchical structure within the Borg collective"? I'd have to plant fifteen or so tags on this to replace the current one. The top template should go back on pending review. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the global tag is back, despite the examples above being fixable through adding citations. I shall now a attempt a mind meld to discern what the other fifteen or so examples of OR are, given the complete lack of any other constructive pointers (like more helpful inline tags). MickMacNee (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to try to work on this myself, but it's a big job; the last time I did heavy work on this article (serious reworking from the ground up) was eighteen months ago, and it's difficult to keep atop articles like this one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the article may be completely correct. All of the information contained in it might be true, but, according to WP:V, all information must be sourced. While the sources may be included in the prose, the sources are not obvious at first glance. They should be completely obvious so that readers can feel completely comfortable in the reliability of the information contained in the article. The best way to do this, in my opinion, is to use the  tags with Wikipedia-style in-line citations. Using these tags also helps compile a reference list, which readers may then use to do further research on the topic and easily create a Works Cited or Bibliography page. — OranL (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Biotechnological Critique deleted
The Biotechnological Critique is a total mess. It contains, as its primary problems, an alarming number of uncited opinions that appear to be original research, hard-to-read run-on sentences with points that go around in circles, practically off topic references to other works of science fiction, and, overall, a complete irrelevance to most of the article. Some of the points made could be briefly used in another section as long as they are properly referenced. But this section itself is so sloppy and unnecessary that I decided to completely delete it. Abodos (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Good call. What a mess that was. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the section was written like a personal essay, but it wasn't that hard to read. It has some save-able points if re-written from a factual basis, for example the fact that most collective organisms found in nature do not go on the relentless attack as the Borg are portrayed. While nobody in a source may have said that, it certainly isn't personal opinion, and it's not original research as it doesn't make any claims. MickMacNee (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's not OR then it's a complete non sequitur, this not being the article on other collective organisms. It's an observation, made in the context of the Borg, which has not been advanced by a secondary source. This makes it unsuitable for inclusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The secondary source argument is frankly over used in Wikipedia when referring to factual information. As for relevance, I am not aware of any other fictional collective organism as famous as the Borg, so it can be argued that this is a fair piece of information for this article, notwithstanding the creation of fictional cybernetic collective organism as a general topic. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the deleted section carefully. Then come back here and tell me, with a straight face, that the section was usable in any way, shape, or form. — OranL (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I already gave a specific fact that in my opinion could be mentioned. Given the idea this is meant to be an out of universe article about the Borg, then comparison of their depiction/characterisation with that of the real world example of collective organisms is quite valid for an encyclopoedic article. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not when all such comparison is original research. As for "the secondary source argument" being "frankly over", once upon a time I thought the war against Pokécruft was unwinnable, but even that seems to have been changing recently. I'm sure that there are plenty of existent secondary sources which could be used to write a similar section in future without all the general horridness of the presently-deleted one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you actually read my replies? I said "over used", not "over". And I was not advocating keeping the current version, the idea is to edit it per my above reasoning. Comparing the portrayal of the Borg to nature is not original research as it advances no opinion/argument. MickMacNee (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Without sources, this section is not valid for Wikipedia. Wikipedia documents the facts; it does not accept uncited, unpublished synthesis for inclusion in an article. The section begins with "But, as many life scientists and cyberneticians have pointed out, [no reference] the Borg should not have been as monstrous as they appeared, and could have in fact been a very attractive race.", and ends with, "The Borg thus are a disappointment in many ways, and scientifically as well as psychologically no more than fear inducers at best." Both are conclusions, and both are unsourced. The rest of the section follows that example and uses phrases like "The best guesses are…" and "Both theories are equally unprovable…". These are not facts, and they do appear to be published opinions. There's no doubt in my mind that this section doesn't belong on Wikipedia. — OranL (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As above, did you read my replies? I was not advocating keeping the current version at all, the idea is to edit it per my above reasoning, to extract the useful facts, making no conclusions or asserting no opinions. I'm frankly getting tired of this talk page being used as a battleground with every editor semmingly assumed to be an OR/SYNTH/POV pushing idiot who doesn't know the wikipedia policies. MickMacNee (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Calm down. Nobody's accusing you of trying to push OR - there's legitimate disagreement over whether a comparison consistutes OR if it isn't made by a source, that's all. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're saying that we should add facts about a different subject into the article, comparing the two subjects without drawing any conclusions? How would you propose doing that? — OranL (talk) 23:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Borg are portrayed as an aggressive fictional collective organism using assimilation for the goal of improvement. It is notable that by contrast, no actual collective organism in nature acts in this way, and they merely act to survive. Or something along those lines. But it's moot anyway, don't worry, I won't even be attempting to add anything to this article, as it's clear what the current working environment is in here. MickMacNee (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Q Who Borg ship on its way to Earth?
The text mentions that the way to explain the disparity of the Enterprise episode Regenerations also explains why the Q Who Borg ship was already on its way to Earth. Nowhere in Q Who is it indicated in any way that the Borg ship is heading to Earth. Q threw the Enterprise close to a Borg ship in that part of the galaxy. I think this needs to be changed. Mmm commentaries (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cybermen: 'these too are genetically-modified humans'
The Borg are not just modified humans, so I'll change this but will wait a few days for reactions from other wiki-ists. Are the Cybermen actually all modified humans, by the way? Not according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberman they are modified humanoids from the Earth's twin planet Mondas (NOT REALLY, OK, THIS IS FICTIONAL!). So I'll change that too in a couple of days, but will wait for Wiki-ers reactions...151.49.219.153 (talk) 13:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've just removed the paragraph about the cybermen, which was unreferenced synthesis. It isn't stated anywhere that the Borg were the first of this type of creature in science fiction. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Cute hat, Chris (in your user page picture). 151.49.219.153 (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep comments relevant to this conversation, and direct personal comments to user talk pages. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Borg Computer Technology
I believe this section can be cut, or certainly drastically reduced. Certainly, I would suggest that the sub units on each kind of technology can be cut away or summarised very briefly. The Star Trek encyclopaedia, or the Star Trek wiki, would be suitable places for this but I don't believe it is appropriate here. It is almost all original research and in-universe writing anyhow. SGGH ping! 13:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Photo's
What in the world happened to all the photo's in this article? Dumaka (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's still two of them. What's wrong? -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 00:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There use to be photos of the ships but now they're gone. I guess those images were not free to be posted in this article.Dumaka (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you find a diff with them in and I'll figure it out? I couldn't see them after a quick look in the article history. -- Thejadefalcon Sing your song The bird's seeds 20:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Redundancy / article detail creeping into the Abstract
Since the last time I looked at this article, it seems the once-brief Abstract paragraph at the beginning has become ever-increasingly clogged with (redundant) detail from the article's body. There is copious information on "nano-bots" and the bee-like nature of the Collective, etc. that just shouldn't be up there.

I believe conventional style guidelines suggest the Abstract (or lede) be a brief synopsis, with the details residing down in a Body section.

I also don't believe you "extricate" and "implicate" knowledge, but I gotta check that out before making any grand pronouncements. (Although the K.I.S.S. maxim does come to mind...) Longer, more arcane words are rarely an improvement over simpler copy.

I would love to hear other opinions about this before I take any action.

&mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Name
Am I really seeing the page's title as MediaWiki talk:Star Trek/Borg? Tb hotch Ta lk C. 03:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was temporarily placed there to import really old edits which we'd lost . But I trust you see it's back now. :) Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you. Tb hotch Ta lk C.

germanic people?
Did the creators of the borg model them after the germanic people? Since the writers shortened cyborg to borg for no apparent reason and the name borg is germanic. Also that the borg never invent their own technology but aquire it from other groups seems to reference the mainstream anti-germanic historians claims that germanic people have never invented anything on their own but stole technology from other groups. It seems that there are alot of similarities between the borg and germanic people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.132.30 (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The similarity of the Internet to the Borg is frightening. LSOs, Local Shared Objects, aka Flash Cookies, assimilate the Local Host netbook, Smartphone, Desktop computer, terminal etc into the Remote delta Quadrant Server done by the programming Object cf. Object Oriented Programming, which shares whatever the intelligence in the programming Object determines, between the Server and the Local Client computer. The intelligence of the software Object has been set by the remote Flash programmer/writer. How much cross influence existed between CyberEarth (my name for the Internet) programmers and Star Trek writers. Conclusions R self evident. 120.16.246.146 (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Borg comes from cyborg, CYBernetic-ORGanic, a relatively ancient scientific and sci-fi concept. Star Trek writers commonly utilise the (tediously obvious) device of naming alien races after their essential characteristics. (Vulcans, a quiet exterior with suppressed volcanic emotions; Romulans, Roman Empire imperialists; Binars, binary minds, ... &c &c.)

I suggest the other primary characteristic of the Borg, as the ultimate enemy of the Federation (representing us so-o-o nice friendly Capitalists), is that in every way, they are The Ultimate Communists ! Darkman101 (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletionism
I can't help but notice that the Deletionists on Wikipedia are extremely similar to the Borg in terms of philosophy and behaviour. Should the undeniable similarity be noted in the article? --86.141.153.209 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph two: "the Borg voluntarily submit to cybernetic enhancement" Paragraph three: "This is achieved through forced assimilation,"

Could we get this consistent?

And a question that's always bothered me. With all the great makeup for different aliens, I've never seen an assimilated Borg that was other than human. What gives (gave). TNX —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.6.141 (talk) 21:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if it's any consolation, there are novels that mention Borg of other races. Spider like beings, all-sorts of other things. I can't remember the books' titles right now, however they are out there. There are no non-human-Borg in the movies of course, but the extended universe has more info. Quite an interesting read. There probably has been a large focus on the human borgs, since we humans are so human-centric in our thinking, so that most of the time, other species-borg seems less interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.63.103 (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Subvocal_recognition
Shouldn't perhaps Subvocal_recognition be mentioned as a real-life communications technology that is similar to what is used by the borg ? 81.242.234.114 (talk) 10:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I find that the usage of the term Resistance is futile is only applicable to the Borg from Star Trek. I have noticed that the page also includes a small section about The Master from Doctor Who mentioning it. The terms usage in popular culture doesnt mean it should have its own article as it would be perfectly suited in the Borg article which can still mention its usage outside of the Star Trek universe. I am also aware that it is a very notable phrase, However any search for it should still show up as being on this article, Therefore people will still be able to find its origins and what it means. Having a whole page for it is unnceccisary. Bailo26 (talk) 04:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This article is very short, and everything contained herein is perfectly relevant to the Borg article. There's no reason that the Dr. Who reference can't be mentioned in the main article, and that seems to be the only thing here that's not already in the main article. Klopek007 (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Borgspace
There is a large collection of comedic Borg fanfic, collectively called "Borgspace". The majority of it is by one author, Maija Meneks. It can be found here - http://bspace.freeshell.org/ There are nine "seasons" of short stories, usually following a connected story arc. There are also two books, a mini series, background stories about how main cast members came to be assimilated and some guest writer stories. The main plot of them all is about exploratory cube #238, a small cube staffed with the "imperfectly assimilated". They're drones who for various reasons have an incomplete or dysfunctional connection to the collective and traits of their original personalities not fully suppressed by assimilation. Thus the collective only keeps a tenuous link to the cube and keeps the entire crew "offline" most of the time, awakening them when there's an especially nasty job that needs doing and which might possibly, hopefully, result in the destruction of the whole lot of square pegs. To avoid spreading their imperfection, #238 is not allowed to assimilate anyone or anything. In the event they do, they are directed to only administer the initial nanite dose then keep the assimilated suspended pending transfer to normal drones to finish the job. Naturally those directives get broken many times, usually because the drone in charge of the assimilation subsection has nothing to do and is constantly bored and lonely. ;) Bizzybody (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the Borg
In the Startrek Destiny series, There is a race called the Caeliar. They have super human powers due to being made up of particles called Catoms. One of these Caeliar uses her catoms to "assimilate" 2 stranded starfleet officers in order to survive. This is the formation of the Borg caeliar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.209.235 (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It might be worth mentioning this. However it would not be considered canon.  B a i l o 26  15:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

On origins, it could be interesting to note that the Bynars happen to resemble a culture that would be one possible precursor to that such as the Borg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.161.116 (talk) 10:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevent comparison
"no hierarchical command structure, instead using a structure similar in principle to the internet with no control center and distributed processing" isn't really a valid comparison, as the internet has a hierarchical command structure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.23.146 (talk) 09:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

My edits
Hopefully I have done this article a few favours be moving the Origins sec. to the top where it belongs; also I have removed references to how many times and how many people have said, "Resistance is futile" because such information is irrelevant and certainly insignificant.-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 21:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have done what I can thus far. I know Alpha will help when I go astray. This article has all the right components but it is really badly written. Some of it reads like a homework assignment.-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Rescinding the redacted statement; the sec. has been moved to its proper place now.-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The Queen's death(s)
From the Borg Queen sec.: "Picard finishes her off by rupturing her spinal column. Another Queen is destroyed in the Voyager episode "Endgame" as well." Is there no source to check for the storyline of the Queen? It is obviously the same queen and intended to be understood as the same, yet Picard destroys her years earlier than the elderly Janeway in "Voyager". That has always puzzled me. Must be some storyline in between the "two" queens who are really the same, one and only Queen.-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 20:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a real problem if we stick to "the canon": the television and cinematic films. In the canon, Picard with Data's assistance kills the Queen, who is an obvious individual surviving in a specifically cybernetically enhanced way.


 * She then reappears without explanation in "Voyager" and in the series finale, "Endgame", the future Admiral Janeway returns to the past and kills this same Queen. There is no point, canonically, in saying "The Borg Queen has been killed many times," or, "There is more than one Queen," because that is not referenced in the canon. It is one and the same Queen, even played by the same actress in the most important moments (such as both her deaths, though I admit certain appearances were played by other actresses).


 * Even fans are frustrated about this stupid and unexplained paradox. There is simply no way to reckon it within the canon, and the Queen has been an overplayed hand in the non-canonical garbage that is out there. Thus I explain in the article, a minor change, that the same Queen... not "another Queen"... is inexplicably alive and is killed by Adm. Janeway.-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 21:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The queen is actually destroyed three times in the series. Once in The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation), Star Trek: First Contact and in Endgame (Star Trek: Voyager). It is canonically explained by the queen in First Contact. She is not a single entity, but a construction that represents the entire collective. When destroyed, she is recreated by the Borg. As the Borg is a collective, her memories are not lost. I agree that should be better explained in the article. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Alpha, though I trust your post, I question the statement because I recall no such explanation from her in First Contact. Can't accept it without the quotation. My WP:OR and my POV suggests that in altering the timeline by returning, Adm. Janeway kills the Borg Queen before Picard gets to it... presumably before Picard encounters her. Yet it makes no sense, since Voyager is clearly set roughly after the time period in which Picard encounters and kills the Queen. However, it is the best I can do. Perhaps someone will find something canonical, such as star dates, to support my theory. Otherwise there is no sense in killing the Queen at all if she's simply going to pop up again immediately! Also, canonically, they ensure she is the same Queen.-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 21:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Best of Both Worlds is set in 2366. First Contact is set in 2373. Endgame is set in 2378. In first contact, the queen has a discussion with Picard, which makes reference to Best of Both worlds. (source) * Borg Queen: What's wrong, Locutus? Isn't this familiar? Organic minds are such fragile things. How could you forget me so quickly? We were very close, you and I. You can still hear our song.
 * Jean-Luc Picard: Yes, I... I remember you. You were there all the time. But... that ship... and all the Borg on it were destroyed...
 * Borg Queen: You think in such three-dimensional terms. How small you've become.
 * So the queen explains, or rather implies, that her body is merely a shell of her existence. However, because it is not blatantly stated, we need to be careful about over-analyzing the context so that we don't use original research. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  22:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Am glad you give the three major dates... they sound correct but I'd have lost my mind trying to find one or another of them. Still a problem with all this. From the film: "You think in such three-dimensional terms. How small you've become." Alpha, you then say: "So the queen explains, or rather implies, that her body is merely a shell of her existence." The Queen has explained nothing, and this is mere POV.-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 23:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Also Alpha, a strictly date-oriented query. VOYAGER "Endgame", the series finale: I think this is set 10 years after Voyager comes home from the Delta Quadrant, after 23 years' travel getting home. Lt. Barclay says this in his toast. This means Voyager is first stranded in DQ in 2345? And old Admiral Janeway then presumably visits them, what, circa 2352? Making that death of the Queen circa 2352, and Picard kills her in 2373. Correct?-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 23:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Voyager takes place directly after Deep Space 9, so 2371. Admiral Janeway comes back in time (2378) from the future (2404). Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  00:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, not according to the "Endgame" timeline combined with the timelines you've just given! And that is my point. I do not believe the Queen's deaths can be rationally explained, other than the dialogue you quoted from "The Best of Both Worlds". Then again, if Voyager is advanced in Picard's future, it doesn't answer how the Queen was magically present for Adm. Janeway to kill her. So the Queen gets killed at least twice without explanation, let alone reincarnation.-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 16:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alpha, 2370 + 33 years total = the year 2403, "Endgame" has to be set in 2403 because it is the 10th anniversary of Voyager's original return, after 23 years gone (in the year 2378 they have already been in space 7 years, meaning they were first stranded in the Delta circa 2370). Is this in error? How does this realignment match up with Picard's timeline? I am so bad with dates and math. -- Djathinkimacowboy  what now?! 17:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is only one year off in the timeline, 2370 should be 2371. Otherwise I think you've got it OK. Still, we have no solid, intelligible answer for the Queen's multiple deaths. This is all relevant, because we may be able to somehow incorporate this into the Queen's sec.-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * A proposal: Alpha Quadrant, how if we work the fruit of your correcting my stupid errors here, into the Queen's section of the article? You have all the years right and we need only add the year 2371 as the year Voyager first landed in the Delta Quadrant. We could then add some of the facts in your posts about the different Queens, perhaps adding the lines of dialogue you quoted. I think there ought to be a sub-sec. called "The Queen's deaths". What say you?-- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 18:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is enough coverage to support the section, then that would be a good idea. I won't have the time to do research today, but I might have time in a few days. As for the dates, you might find this to be of use. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that link, I love it. I'm a bit 'iffy' about TV episodes as citations (are they allowed, seems to be some controversy?) and I have no books about Trek at all. Love watching, hate reading. (Unless it is Diane Duane's Spock's World.) Hey I noticed a question about Tom Paris' reduction in rank on that page... I know the answer, do you?

Anyway, regarding beefing up the Queen's details, I'm not certain there is much in publication... can't be many magazine articles but I'll bet there are plenty of perfect citations online. During my last search, I just kept bumping into cites that steal Wikipedia's articles. If anyone can get citations, it's you - frankly I don't see the need for more than one citation or two plus a quote to cover the significant details.

One final thing: in my opinion, we need to be very careful we do not slip into POV when discussing whether or not there is more than one Queen, or her reincarnation or anything. It is apparent we can quote what has been said canonically and that is all; should be sufficient. I know there's nothing else to support those speculative ideas, unless Berman or Braga stated them in interviews. I don't think they ever did. I'll look and do what I can, but I won't make any major changes to the article until I hear from you. No sense going to warp right now.... -- Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Main image
Just happened across this article and was surprised by the main image, totally unfamiliar to me. Now I admit I haven't seen every episode of Voyager, so I've probably missed something, but is the logo actually used anywhere within the series? If not, surely a more iconic image of an actual Borg drone would be better there? WormTT  · &#32;(talk) 14:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My goodness, it's there in TNG episodes... Still not sure it really is the best main image though, but starting to think it's just personal preference.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its a shame you found it i was about to have fun pulling out my star trek encyclopedias and DVD's to find you examples before i read your second comment. But yes..they are all there.  B a i l o 26  00:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Resistance is Futile
Many fans of Star Trek recognize the phrase "Resistance is futile," yet the phrase - though popularized by the introduction of the Borg - did not originate in Star Trek. I can not claim where it was first uttered in books or media, but it does exist before the inception of Star Trek: The Next Generation. The phrase is uttered by the arch-nemesis, the Master, to the fourth generation of Doctor Who in the third serial of the fourteenth season (November 1976, "The Deadly Assassin", written by Robert Holmes). It may not be the first occurrence of the quotation, but it might serve to be noted that it did not originate with the writers of Star Trek TNG series.Stuart M Klimek (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of the definite article
I corrected the Wikipedia page but was overruled and my statement was removed.

Fine - that's up to you - leave the page with incorrect statements if you wish; it is your page, after all, so I won't waste any more time trying to correct you.

I corrected the Wikipedia page by pointing out that the definite article (which, for the benefit of the apparently less than literate editor, is a term meaning the word 'the') was quite specifically NOT used in the original film statements and that this was important.

The Wikipedia page states that the phrase "We are the Borg" is used. The term was never used. The phrase was "We are Borg". It was never, "We are the borg".

I joined Wikipedia to correct this error, but it appears to have been a waste of time.

The response to me suggested this page was more appropriate for my comment, so here it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Stedman (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia thus retains the reputation of not being trustworthy or reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Stedman (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken, the phrase does include the definite article every time I've heard it (which includes First Contact and Voyager). For example, a quick youtube search gave me this (start listening at 3:29): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yokaRFrTIic 82.139.86.180 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The argument posed that "We are the Borg" being unused in the series Star Trek: TNG is valid.

The phrase is first used within the televised series or movies in the movie "First Contact". The quotation given as credited to Star Trek: TNG - "We are the Borg. Your biological and technological distinctiveness will be added to our own. Resistance is futile." - does not occur in the series or the movie "First Contact," though similar words are used. In TNG's "I, Borg", the quote is "We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." Note that the indefinite article is not used. The first noted use of "We are the Borg" occurs in the film "First Contact". In "First Contact" the quote is "We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile." In Voyager's episode "Scorpion, Part II", the phrase is given as "We are the Borg. Existence as you know it is over. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Resistance is...". (I can not attest to any quotes in Part I). Still, the quoted phrase may occur somewhere in the Star Trek: Voyager series, as the Borg (excluding Seven-of-nine) appear in an additional twelve episodes for that series. The quote may also occur in one of the many Star Trek novels, but it does not occur in the televised TNG series.Stuart M Klimek (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The books: STAR TREK DESTINY
Should this be included.


 * I think not. Many Trek novels contradict each other, as well as later episodes and/or films, and are considered "non-canon." RobertLovesPi (talk) 11:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Borg (Star Trek). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100306081425/http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/44609139.html to http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/44609139.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You are the chattiest bot I have encountered. RobertLovesPi (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Borg starships
Borg starships and Borg cube both redirect to Borg (Star Trek) but apparently aren't really mentioned there in any depth. Should these redirects be deleted? – Tea2min (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Borg (Star Trek). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930210514/http://www.moviequoter.com/actor/jeff-coopwood/ to http://www.moviequoter.com/actor/jeff-coopwood/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Borg cubes
The article never actually explains that the Borg use cubical spaceships. Instead, it seems to assume the reader is familiar with Star Trek and takes the term "Borg cube" for granted. An explanation of what Borg cubes actually are should be added. J I P &#124; Talk 12:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's a fair point. I've had a first draft, based on material taken from the now-redirect Borg cube.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)