Talk:Good Shepherd (Star Trek: Voyager)

Regarding the Continuity Section
The section dealing with the quarters assignment fails to mention that Harry Kim is a commissioned officer and a department chief, while the crewmen are in fact enlisted personnel and not even non-commissioned officers (ie: petty officer), which would require them to bunk with at least one person as their low rank befits. --NCC-1701 (USS Enterprise) 10:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What episode(s) established this? I don't recall any mention that he is a department chief (which department?), or that the other three or non-coms. Nightscream 16:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That the other three are non-coms is frequently referenced in the episode, aside from clearly visible on the uniforms. At some point, Harry Kim was made Operations Manager, and we often see him filling the Captain's Chair during third shift. Drsruli (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any seondary source or dialogue in any episode, that indicates that Harry is an Operations Manager, or the bunking rules you describe. The lack of such sources is why that section was removed some time ago. But if you know of any source that support this in a way that does not violate WP:SYNTH, feel free to supply them, and we can restore/add that material. Nightscream (talk) 22:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A Selection of Secondary Sources (at least some unacceptable) Referring to Ensign Harry Kim as "Operations Manager" Aboard USS Voyager

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Harry_Kim

https://wiki.starbase118.net/wiki/index.php/Ops_(Duty_Post)

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/93137/why-is-harry-kim-senior-staff

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Ensign-Kim-a-senior-officer-onboard-the-USS-Voyager

https://www.reddit.com/r/startrek/comments/52iym8/question_was_harry_kim_in_voyagers_senior_officer/

https://www.reddit.com/r/DaystromInstitute/comments/98wndp/lets_talk_operations_officer_duties/

https://wiki.fed-space.com/index.php?title=USS_Voyager,_NCC-74656

https://www.hollywoodsoapbox.com/interview-celebrate-25-years-of-star-trek-voyager-with-robbie-duncan-mcneill-garrett-wang/

He was the senior Operations Officer, therefore, the Operations Manager. Drsruli (talk) 05:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The bunking arrangements are variously explained and discussed on these pages, some with specific reference to this episode:

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Quarters

(also evident in TNG: Lower Decks)

https://www.trekbbs.com/threads/ensign-crew-quarters-on-voyager.147432/

https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/77529/why-are-quarters-on-the-enterprise-d-so-spacious

https://www.quora.com/Do-all-crew-on-Enterprise-in-Star-Trek-have-their-own-quarters

Drsruli (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * All of those sources you listed for the issue regarding crew quarters are blogs, discussion forums, and wikis, which are not reliable sources, per WP:IRS in general, and WP:USERG in particular. Nightscream (talk) 13:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Not all of them. (And even the others, point to the dialogue in the episodes.) There's also the ship blueprints which indicate the bunks. Drsruli (talk) 16:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Incidentally, is it sufficient for this discussion to demonstrate that Harry Kim is "Senior Staff"? Drsruli (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Which sources were not? Nightscream (talk) 18:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The Hollywood Soapbox Interview? Drsruli (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, we can see that it's a common perception. (And that perception stems from Harry Kim as "Senior Staff". Harry Kim being recognized as Senior Staff is really the crux of the original point in this discussion (regardless of "why" he is Senior Staff).) Drsruli (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The Hollywood Soapbox interview does mention that he was operations manager, but not the bunking rules you mentioned.


 * Perception is subjective, and not a basis for inclusion, in light of WP:NOR. Nightscream (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Unless one is trying to make the case that a common perception exists. (I think that I've shown that it does.) Drsruli (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The fact that you are trying to make the case that a common perception exists does not mean that it becomes a basis for inclusion.


 * Mention of a common perception, if relevant, can only be included if reliable, secondary source cover it, and the sources you have provided do not qualify, as explained above.


 * I recommend an in-depth read of the pertintent policies and guidelines (WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:SELFPUB, et al). Nightscream (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TalTelfer.jpg
Image:TalTelfer.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GoodShep2.jpg
Image:GoodShep2.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 ensure 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)