Talk:Endgame (Star Trek: Voyager)

Fair use rationale for Image:ST-VOY 7 26.jpg
Image:ST-VOY 7 26.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)✅previously, not by meChed (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

added cast:(will look up parts on missing characters soon)Ched (talk) 07:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Jan. 05, 2008 edit
recent edit has the following posted:

It is surprising that after 26 years Barklay is only a commander while Harry Kim who was 2 ranks below, is now advanced one rank above to Captain.

Ranks of all of the Star Trek series have always been inconsistent.

While not quite vandalism, it's not really the way to improve the article either. I don't have a problem with data being entered, but 1. it should be sourced, and 2. it should be stated in a more encyclopedic manner. I didn't just delete, I'll try to figure a better way to incorporate, but it doesn't belong as is. Ched (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of secondary timelines stuff
I removed this section because it was uncited original research and plot trivia. I imagine there are third-party sources that have covered the timeline-related implications of the episode, and if so it would be futile to resist assimilating them into the Reception section. --EEMIV (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)