Talk:Star Trek: Voyager/Archive 1

Recurring Character: Barclay
I am putting Barclay in as a recurring character, on the basis that he was in more episodes of Voyager than he was of Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is considered his 'home' series. Matthew Platts 00:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

'United States Ship' Voyager, Enterprise?
Image:Startrek phonex.jpg This file makes not calling USS Voyager not United States really silly essecially when Future's End part 2 tackles it. I could do a video, but i decided vorbis version would be smaller. Renegadeviking December 21, 2006
 * They are in the past in Futures End, and at that time period (and the present) US Naval Ships and what not are prefixed with USS. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * San Francisco, Cal, United States is the Fleet Academy headquarters. The shipyard is alos located in USA. The crew still mention states in Future's End pt 1 before they went into LA. United Federation of Planets is a union of states, right? Paris would be captial of Earth and state of France. Janeway calls LA, North America probably to avoid the obvious. Plus in First Contact the Pheniox rocket used to break Earth's atmosphere had a US Airforce logo on it. Renegadeviking December 23, 2006


 * Your Point? The fact of the matter is USS does not mean United States Ship in the Trek Universe.  As for your shipyards Voyager was built at Utopia Planetia orbiting Mars (according to Relativity (Voyager episode))  Mars is certainly not in the US.


 * As for the phoenix, of course it will have US Air Force on it.  It was long before the federation, a retrofitted Air Force Nuclear missle.  (Star Trek: First Contact) Hope this helps.  EnsRedShirt 07:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the Phoenix was the USS Phoenix than maybe all federation ships are using USS as traditional dating back to 2065 or whenever humanity went warp 1. Mars was conquered by the USA astronaut in "One Small Step" episode in Voyager. Renegadeviking

USS possibly means "United Federation of Planets Starfleet Starsghip. A little convoluted, but much shorter and neater than "UFPSS" or something. --206.116.45.18 06:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I am pretty positive it stands for "United Star Ship" or "United Space Ship". It's been stated in a fair amount of TOS episodes. I'd refer you all to Memory Alpha's wiki article on the subject: http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/USS. The Trekkies/Trekkers over there have given a more in-depth detailed explanation as to where it originates and a list of specific episodes where it has been referred to as either "United Space Ship" or "United Star Ship". I'd also read their discussion page on the matter.

Also, this section of http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/fic_trek.html reads: "On my behalf, Bjo Trimble interviewed set designer William W. Thiess and we discovered that the "United Space" flag was three unequal stripes of cloth, dark blue, white, dark blue stapled together.* These were draped and placed on the pole so as to simulate a draped horizontal tri-band flag. Attached to the top of the staff were two (one each) trapezoidal "streamers", one red and one white.

Long time watchers of the show will recall that "United Space" was an early term for the "United Federation of Planets", perhaps even the fictional political entity which preceded the UFP."

So wouldnt a ship in "United Space" be a "United Space Ship"? --Imperialconqueror 08:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Stronger Female Characters?
The article indicates that Voyager's female characters are stronger. Stronger than who or what? In what way are they stronger? Could whoever wrote that line clarify the meaning in the article? --Nephandus 15:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I changed the statement that said Janeway was the first female captain in "Trek", to now read that she was the first female character to star in a Star Trek series in the role of captain. Female captains have appeared in TNG (Yesterday's Enterprise, Conspiracy) as well as in Star Trek 4. I believe there was a Romulan female captain in the original Star Trek series, back in the 60's.

I question whether or not the female captain thing is really all that important in the same sense that stereotypes had been smashed by the original Star Trek series. By the time Voyager appeared, women had been featured in power roles and as leads in many different series, and had done so for years. --Nephandus 19:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important. When Voyager came on the scene with their pilot, the people at Paramount balked and didn't like the idea of a female captain; they wanted a male one to connect better with their core audience. The writers stood up for a female captain and won; it represents what Star Trek is about. --Seath 14th of Setember 2006

End the suspense
This article should document how the series ended (i.e. the plot of the last episode). Tempshill 21:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no lcue why this should be. Many articles on wikipedia have plot and endings. Voyager should be no acception because you feel it would spoil it. The show ended a while back and people probably already know the end.Pony trekkie 18:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The ending stank and made little to no sense... why upset everyone all over again? --Imperialconqueror 09:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personal opinions should not affect the inclusion of information in a Wikipedia article. Lots42 16:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Chakotay: Cmdr. or Lt. Cmdr.?
Hi there! This note is a request to clarify Chakotay's rank. I know he was popularly referred to as a commander, but his rank pip was actually that of a provisional lieutenant commander. It's interesting to note that his predecessor (first officer) on Voyager, Cavit (who was killed in "Caretaker"), was also a Lt. Cmdr. Also, Tuvok suffered similar 'rank/pip' confusion, though he was of Starfleet through and through. Lastly, on extension, even Data, a Lt. Cmdr., and other characters were referred to as commanders. Thoughts? Merci! E Pluribus Anthony 02:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand your confusion. Calling a lieutenant commander by just "commander" is common practice in Starfleet and the navy.  It happens all the time, as it is shorter than saying "lieutenant commander" every time you wish to summon the person's attention.  The same happens with "lieutenant colonel" and "colonel" in other branches of the military.  It's just a simple time saver.  Eric 03:06, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I though Chakotay's provisional rank insignia was of a Commander (three full stripes) GoodDay 21:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This was odd as well. It was said in the Relaunch area that Paris was promoted from Lt. Jr Grade to Lt. Cmdr, which would be a promotion of two ranks (full Lt. in between, which is what he started the series at -- note the two full pips).  A promotion from Ensign to Lt. is also a two-grade jump.  It looked like Chakotay had a Lt. Cmdr. pip at launch (ref: closeup in s1e03 while Janeway was chewing out Chakotay).  Finally, Tuvok clearly has the pips of Lt. Cmdr. (two pips plus a hollow pip) at launch, all of the first season, and then is promoted to Lieutenant Commander in (IIRC) season 5.  I noticed this discrepancy when re-watching season 1 again, and everyone addressed him as Lieutenant. Robert Paveza 06:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall him ever once being called Lt. Cmdr... however I did not watch his pips closely... Sethie 06:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Characters in every episode
One line in the trivia section says "Kate Mulgrew (Captain Kathryn Janeway), Robert Beltran (Chakotay), Tim Russ (Tuvok), Robert Duncan McNeill (Tom Paris) and Roxann Dawson (B'Elanna Torres) are the only actors to appear in every episode of the series." If I recall correctly, Torres was missing from at least one episode (The Omega Directive, when she was pregnant. I may be wrong though! Anyone know for sure? Marky1981 22:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Torres WAS present in the Omega Directive. After the teaser, Torres, 7 of 9, Chakotay and I think Paris were in Engineering. Chakotay was giving them mission orders, and Chakotay asked "What have you heard?" and Torres responded- "Oh, that the Captain's been locked in her ready room for [a certain amount of time] and something about an Omega Directive.", which caught 7 of 9's attention, and she responded- "Omega?" and then Chakotay stopped all the speculation. Sorry, I know the dialgue isn'tr verbatim, but I am certain Torres was in that episode. Paathogen 14:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Janeway wannabes
I think the Bujold incident needs a bit more play than just being tucked away as a trivia item. The search for Janeway was quite interesting and involved a large number of well-known actresses, many of whom had SF street cred on their own (i.e. Buck Rogers' Erin Gray, Doctor Who's Nicola Bryant, and I think SeaQuest's Stacy Haiduk might have also tried out but don't quote me on that one). I remember reading that Paramount even tried some male Janeways as possible alternatives to having a female captain (Gary Graham I know for sure was one). Does anyone know of a printed or online source that lists the candidates for the role? My source re:Erin Gray was the actress herself when I interviewed her in 1997 for a newspaper story; Nicola Bryant came from a Doctor Who Magazine article ages ago, and Gary Graham came from an interview he did for a SF magazine. I also recall hearing Lynda Carter was considered. But it would be nice to have citable sources before going too much in depth. Were any names mentioned on the DVD? 23skidoo 09:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Plot section
Hindsight is believing. I find, 7 years on, that ST Voyager featured the best, most consistent writing of all the ST spinoffs (with DS9 being the worst in my opinion, and TNG compromised at times by the very uncompelling Crushers, among others -- in contrast, there isn't a main character on Voyager, after the exit of Kes, that I don't find interesting). I'm catching myself re-watching episodes despite remembering them quite well from their first run, much like the original ST. More tellingly, ST Voyager seems to be gathering steam with new viewers now that it's in widely-available syndication, based on my workday "water-cooler" conversations. I suppose the plotline precludes a full return of the cast in a feature film (can't toss them all back to the Delta Quadrant), but what a show. ((Aaron, 23 Jan 2008))

I added in the s1 header since eventually we will have summaries of each season here. I will work on this, and anyone who feels the pull to, please do! Sethie 19:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I restored the original text, without the sentence concerning "overused borg [sic] potential" which "underused it at the same time". The statement was too esoteric for an entry of this nature, and if it made sense at all, it would only make sense to a Voyager fan. --Nephandus 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--Nephandus 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)==Reactions Section Not Balanced==

I realize many people might not think that ST Voyager was that great, but that doesn't justify a reactions section which is almost exclusively negative. Seriously, why focus the section on people who rarely watched the show or watched it only because they had nothing better to do; why not focus the section on those of us who thought that Star Trek Voyager was a gift from God, who've watched ten episodes a day, and believing passionately that there is nothing better this world has to offer, suffer from minor depressions at the end of each and every beloved episode? Tell our story, tell the story of the Voyager addict who is inspired beyond hope, empassioned beyond compare, and would like nothing more than to be stranded in the Delta Quadrant with a bunch of cool people, all because of this beautiful show called Voyager. Philolexica 04:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Philolexica, there is EXTREME bias against the show in the reactions section, especially the last quote from RDM about the show being "not true". He has no room to talk given the inconsistencies found in Galactica. So the crew of Voyager cant scrub the ship up and make it shine between episodes, but the Galactica can keep getting extra Vipers out of nowhere after every Cylon battle? The multiple authors of Wikipedia who constructed the "Reactions" section have spent several large paragraphs trying to make it seem like Voyager sucks because it's inconsistent. ALL of the Star Trek shows and movies have multiple inconsistencies within them and between each other. To say that there was no character growth after Season 4 is an outright lie. The ongoing relationship between Belanna and Tom, the growth of Seven's character and her humanity, Seven's relationship with the Captain, and the list goes on. It was also completely untrue to say that there were little story arcs and often the show wouldn't revisit old storylines. The Vidians, the Kurzon, the Borg, Q, Species 8472, the Hirogen. The whole section is too bias and should be revised. I will contribute when I have the time and I would encourage others too as well. --Matt72986 09:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I've gone in and done a considerable rewrite of the article to try and make it a little more balanced. I'm a fan of the show myself and perhaps erred on the side of making it TOO positive, but I took a lot of the more repetetive criticsm and tried to balance it with more positive stuff. Multiverse 02:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Multiverse

"Balanced" is irrelevant. It was a terrible show and the reactions posted are an accurate portrayal of what most people thought - that is, the ones who noticed it at all. You can find fan communities for literally every crappy show on TV - no matter how bad a show is, it will have its own fansite and community that loves it. In this case, that's you.

I'm likely going to remove the unsupported accussation about Janeway critics being sexist. The accusation itself is sexist. Janeway was an underdeveloped one-note character - female or not. It's not exactly like Voyager was blazing any new trails anyway - I have no idea why so much is made of the "female captain" - since female leads had been on TV for a long time prior to Voyager. Roseanne? Alice? Murphy Brown? Cagney and Lacey?T

I've also deleted the claim that the show emphasized "feminine" values like cooperation over aggressive action oriented stories. That was simply wrong - the producers had gone on record noting that VOY had more "action scenes" than any of the other Trek series (they just weren't very impactful). "Cooperation" instead of fighting can hardly be said to have been introduced by VOY - it's pretty much been the defining quality of Star Trek since its original 60's incarnation, and this was taken to a further degree in The Next Generation. And Janeway - of all the captains depicted in the franchise, was certainly the most tyrannical or autocratic. "Democratic" is not a word I would use to describe her - especially in comparison to Picard. In fact, this was one reason for the decline in Beltran's commander Chacotay character - by the end of the series, much of the dialog consisted of Janeway barking orders with a crew saying "Yes Ma'am."

I feel that the reaction section is unfairly biased towards the show as it maintains mostly negative aspects of the show. There were a few techincal problems as there were in the next generation series but there is no mention of specific technical problems (or any technical problems for that matter)in the article on the next generation, however the show was able to last for seven seasons despite these "low" ratings and not conforming to its premise. As well many of the characters such as captain Janeway have became an ispiration towards other people alike. Perhaps, you should take into account these certain aspects and more. --Nephandus 18:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what Wikipedia is about. This site isn't about posting your own personal review, it's supposed to be as unbiased and close to the facts as possible. The part about the show emphasizing "feminine" values wasn't my opinion and it wasn't the opinion of the writers of the show, it was a persistent criticism of the show, online and in print. (I can remember one online critic complaining that a "goddamned skirt" was running the ship.) I suppose it is editorializing on my part to label such critics sexist, so I've reworded it. Yes, there were female leads on TV before obviously, but Janeway was the first female captain in a Star Trek series, and it got plenty of publicity and there was definite resistance to it from plenty of male Trekkies. In any case, I'm not trying to make the article a rave for the show, I'm trying to take it away from being purely negative. If you have such intense dislike for the show, there are plenty of other sites online where it would be more appropriate to write that stuff. Multiverse 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Multiverse

I think you're talking about WP:NPOV Crazynast 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been on the forums throughout Voyager's run, and I have never encountered anyone stating anything about "feminine values" pertaining to Janeway, nor did I ever hear a complaint from anyone other than a 13 year old on a BBS about a female captain. As I said, it was old hat by then in TV land, unless the only show you watched was Star Trek. If you differ, then please cite the comments - you defend them as written in the article - so support them. I have encountered an interview with Beltran commenting on Janeway's increasingly tyrannical POV, and the infamous Cinescape Ron Moore interview also points out much the same. Janeway, as written, was not about feminine values and she certainly wasn't democratic - likely the least democratic of all of them.

As for my opinion of the show, I've kept that to here in the editing talk, and I've included it only as far as to point out that it is normal to expect a bad show to have scathing criticism. It's not evidence of some pre-existing bias. It's a fair portrayal of what's there. I don't have a problem with you trying to include positive comments in there - just make sure they are warranted and accurate. --Nephandus 17:12, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you call it a "bad show" is in itself your own opinion. As was mentioned before, you can have your own opinion but Wikipedia is not supposed to be a "I got here first, so my opinion is what everyone will read" forum. There's a reason there are several points in the Reactions section that say "Citation needed." Overall it is very loosely written and very negative. Believe it or not, there were many fans of the show who enjoyed Voyager throughout the entirety of the series, from season one to season seven. Were there parts and aspects of the show that I wish were done differently? Do I think it could have lived more up to its potential? Of course, but there are many positive points to the show as well. Even so, I wouldn't plaster a Wikipedia article with my own praisings of the show. That's what informative writing is about. That section is largely persuasive writing. This isn't an editorial, and your idea that "balanced is irrelevant" is questionable at best. By the way, as for the "behind the scenes" crap that went on between the directors and producers, etc, I don't even care about that. Hell, I didn't even know Jeri Ryan was "romantically involved" with Brannon Braga until 3 years after the series ENDED. Even if I knew before, would I care? Not really. I care about the finished product on screen, and what I saw I generally enjoyed. You can't ignore the "reactions" of the people who did so.--Monsterat22 05:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The reactions, as it currently stands, seems to be overly positive. More time is given to the 'praise' than to the criticism. - Monsterat, your point would have merit if I had written that it was a bad show in the article. I didn't, which makes your rant somewhat irrelevant. And I have no feelings on whether or not Braga was involved with Ryan whatsoever. I'm not sure exactly what you are responding to there. --67.69.15.154 19:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Confused
I'm a bit confused by the following text:
 * In addition, Aliens that Voager encountered thousands of light-years ago would reappear on the show. For example, in the seventh season episode entitled "Homestead," Voyager encounters a Talaxian colony deep in the Delta Quadrant. The Talaxians claim they fled the war that tore their planet apart and created this colony. However, their homeworld is 40 thousand light-years away from the colony, meaning it would have taken them forty years to travel that distance. However, it only took them about five.

Is this supposed to be referring to how long it would have taken the Talaxians to arrive or Voyager? If it refers to the Talaxians, was their any indication they're ship travelled at Warp 8 (NB, if it did travel at Warp 8 they would have arrived in just over 39 years, assuming they never stopped or slowed down)?If it was Voyager, were Voyager really travelling at an average speed of Warp 8? (Admitedly, it would be impossible for them to reach the Talaxian colony in 5 years even if they travelled constantly at their maximum warp (over 6 years) which clearly wsn't the case)Nil Einne 16:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If the episode takes place in 2378, and Rinax was taken over in 2355, so they would have actually had something like twenty years, wouldn't they? I can't remember that well, I haven't seen that episode since it aired.128.61.79.83 18:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Alien Races
Request removal or revamp of the episode table in this section. It is inaccurate and while it may serve a purpose, in its current state it does not fulfill that purpose. EnsRedShirt 07:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering which criteria the original editor used to create this table. Can it be possible to list and/or thoroughly explain them? --LordKenobi 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Voager spinoff of DS9
I thought that both DS9 and Voager were spinoffs of TNG. i.e. that Voy wasn't a spinoff of DS9 just TNG. Thoughts? Crazynast 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, TNG, DS9, and VGR were all spinoffs of the original series, though it was the popularity of TNG that cause DS9 and VGR to be created. There are a few TNG characters to make guest appearences in DS9 and VGR, but TNG isn't really the basis for the shows. Koweja 20:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, should we change the intro to reflect this? Crazynast 20:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it should be changed, but you should wait a bit to see if there is any disagreement on this issue first. There may be different interpretations of what constitutes the origin of the spin off. Koweja 20:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The credits say "Based on Star Trek", and the definition of a spin-off is "a television series based on a pre-existing one", so I would say it's a spinoff of the original show. TJ Spyke
 * Well, of course all Star Trek is based on Gene Roddenberry's original.  However, I think some mention of the direct connection to DS9 is appropriate.  The entire premise of the show derives directly from events on DS9 (as prefigured by events on TNG), whereas it's only really "set in the same universe" as TOS.  While there are obviously some minor connections between TOS and Voyager (species traits and the like), I can't think of anything about the core premise of Voyager, or even a single episode of Voyager,  that directly ties to TOS.    Of all the shows, in fact, it's the one that is most dependent on modern Trek, and least deferential to TOS.  Failing to mention the TNG Cardassian arc in TNG, the TNG episode "Journey's End ", and most importantly, the DS9 episode "The Maquis", would be to deprive the reader of this article of noteworthy information.  You could have Voyager without "City on the Edge of Forever".  You absolutely could not have it without "The Maquis".  In my opinion, Voyager comes much closer to being a spin-off of DS9/very late TNG than it does of TOS.
 * As to whether it's more appropriately a spin-off of TNG than DS9, well, that's a more problematic question. Surely, the Cardassians, as a species, were a slow burn on TNG.  They're integral to the Maquis concept, and they were increasingly well-developed over time on TNG.  However, "Journey's End", which is really the formative kernel of the Maquis, first aired less than a month before the DS9 episode, "The Maquis".   Voyager's first episode was aired about 8 months after that.  Though I'm not sure I could site a source, the timing was doubtless deliberate.  Maquis were a hook, wholly developed within the Braga/Piller Trek-verse, to be shared across their varying shows.  But it was clearly a concept that TNG, to the degree it was involved, was gifting to the remaining ongoing series, from the last throws of its final season.  CzechOut 01:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with TJ because the credits indeed say its based on Star Trek (read TOS).--Rockfang (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words
Who did this, why? Crazynast 19:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean who put the flag at the top of the page? Don't know. But it's because of the Reactions section, which uses words like "fans thought this" and "critics said this" implying that everyone in that demographic felt the way of the writer of the statement, and it was done without citing sources. Koweja 20:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just moved the tag to the Rections section since the problem is localized. Koweja 20:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just added to the reactions section, hopefully that should clear things up. Crazynast 20:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to make it clear that I'm not trying to weasel here, I've followed Crazynas' usage of on my edits to the Reaction section. I remember there was some controversey surrounding the addition of the Seven of Nine character, just have to dig up my old magazines for a citation. For the reset button issues, there was a lot of talk about that on TrekBBS.com if someone can help me do a search. Finally, the last sentence about Braga is lifted from his Wikipedia bio. Wl219 09:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ratings
Voyager had the highest ratings of any Star Trek series? Huh?! --Postbagboy 06:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that TNG had the highest ratings overall. In anycase it directly contradicts the first statement in the reactions section. Koweja 12:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. TNG definitely had the highest ratings. Voyager had some pretty bad ratings, especially near the end. Even DS9 and ENT beat it out, I believe. It is second only to TOS in bad ratings. Whoever added that Voyager had the "highest ratings overall" probably has no idea what they're talking about and are just a bitter Voyager fan ;)

Dude what are you talking about? Enterprise had the absolute LOWEST ratings of an ST series, not even close. If you don't know for sure, don't put it on here. "I believe", is not reason enough for you to put that statement on here.


 * That was a shame too because Voyage was a much better series than TNG. Part of the problem is that it aired on UPN, which severley limited it's potential audience because it took several years before UPN was available to a large amount of the public(and it's still not available in as many markets as the other networks). TJ Spyke 06:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you also but if it had equal public marketing to TNG, it would have done greatly better and in my opinion better than TNG Pony trekkie


 * I'm not sure comparative ratings for the series can be established as absolute fact.  The problem is that the two series were rated in two totally different ways.  One was fully a syndicated show; the other was a network show.  TNG's ratings got to include the cumulative ratings for every broadcast of the show within that broadcast week.  Voyager's only got to count that initial broadcast in it's "normal" network time slot.  This was despite the fact that the "network" was at best a loose confederation of basically independent broadcasters, which didn't cover the entire nation.  There were many localities--for instance the state of Hawaii--where viewing, even on the initial broadcast, didn't add a jot to UPN's ratings, simply because the local affiliate wasn't a "full" UPN partner.  I'm really not sure an objective count of Voyager's true first-run audience was therefore ever done.  Even if it were, those ratings would not be measuring the same thing as those done for TNG or DS9.


 * Now, you can see a trend of decline in Voyager's own ratings which suggest a loss of popularity in the concept over the years. However, even this conclusion is not absolute, because what was happening simultaneously was a decline in the number of UPN "full partner" stations.  Thus, gradually, the number of localities that "counted" towards ratings decreased.  Was Voyager's ratings slide therefore something of its own making?  Or was it that the rug was being pulled out from under them?  I think it would require some very sophisticated statistical analysis (in which you pulled local ratings from major metropolitan areas who were always being counted throughout each of the seven years) to actually determine any objective truth on the matter.


 * I don't think it's particularly controversial to say that the average American viewer was more likely to have seen an episode of TNG than Voyager, but that's the cause of a number of factors, not the least of which being that the market was simply less crowded when TNG was on than when Voyager was. That's miles apart from saying that Voyager was less successful than TNG, given the changed market expectations, and the ability for ratings, given the tricky UPN situation, to measure Voyager's ability to meet those expectations. CzechOut 00:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Malon
The Malon should be added to the aliens section. Wl219 09:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)