Talk:Seven of Nine
|WikiProject Star Trek||(Rated C-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Fictional characters||(Rated C-class)|
- 1 Feminist
- 2 Claudia Christian
- 3 Album name
- 4 Who says Seven is credited with preventing a cancellation?
- 5 Image
- 6 Error
- 7 Last recorded data on the Hansens
- 8 Categories
- 9 name
- 10 References
- 11 Photo
- 12 Image
- 13 "After Star Trek: Voyager"?
- 14 Spelling of Annika Hansen
- 15 Not trolling: her big breasts
- 16 In-Universe?
- 17 Trivia?
- 18 Full name
It would be interesting to see some feminist readings of the character Seven of Nine within Star Trek as a television programme.
- They'd probably write about having a female as captain instead. Aowpr 21:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The Triva section of the page claimed that Claudia Christian also auditioned for the role of Seven of Nine. I personally asked her about this at United Fan Con in October 2006, and she told me in no uncertain terms that this was absolutely incorrect. Thus, I have removed that entry from the web page.
Brent Simon has released an album called Seven of Nine. I think it should be noted in the trivia section. If you don't know who he is just search him on google... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dallin Tanjo22 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Who says Seven is credited with preventing a cancellation?
- "if true, it was a successful gambit as the introduction of Seven of Nine is credited with saving the series from cancellation."
This website Star Trek Ratings contains seasonal averages for each season of Voyager. The ratings continued to fall after the introduction of Seven. I'm not aware of any cancellation talk in season 3 either (and the series kept going anyway after the post season 3 drops), so I'm going to trim it. Also, the show always skewed to a male audience - before and after the introduction of Seven. This is normal for SF television. --Nephandus 02:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there any way to fix the image? It's all pixellated due to the template used. --Liface 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
The article states that Data never uses contractions - yet in the Generations TV series, he can be heard to use contractions - though this is most likely either an error on the script writer's or Brent Spiner's fault, it still occurs. Since this is a goof, it is Unlikely to be regarded as canon.
Therefore, I am adding the words "According to Canon" to the claim, for the sake of accuracy.
Only when he adds a program with phrases including contractions... ☻wilted☻rose☻dying☻rose☻ 21:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
He can use them, and he does so just as often as other cast members. The episode datalore is where it is established that he has trouble sometimes with it, not an outright inability. here is what is said: Lore: "Haven't you noticed how easily I handle human speech? I use their contractions. For example, I say can't or isn't, and you say cannot or is not. (sings) I say tomato, you say tomahto. I say potato, you say potahto. (laughs) A very old joke. But then you also have trouble with their humour. Am I right?"
Data: "Quite true. I keep trying to be more human, and keep failing." Followed by this:
Wes: "I'd suggest you forget imitating him. If you'd said we've been using the sensors, instead of we have, I might have suspected you were Lore."
Lore (pretending to be Data): "Yes. I do use language more formally than Lore."
- No, he can't use contractions, which is explicitly stated repeatedly. Dlabtot (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Last recorded data on the Hansens
Acorrding to the episode "Raven" The starship Voyager un the command of Captain Kathryn Janeway located the USS Raven and found personal logs of the Hansens. Therefor the last known records of the Hansens were what were found above the Raven.
I put the categories of "hibryds" and "hybrids in star treks", but I not sure it is currect because she is essencially a cyborg. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC).
- I think the cyborg cat is most appropriate. Hybrids imply multi-species breeding - she's pure Human with cybernetic (Borg) enhancements. ZueJay (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I do not think Seven of Nine qualifies as a hybrid. She is a human with Borg technology throughout her body, which does indeed make her a cyborg. Once you take away all of that metal, you get Annika Hansen, a full Human Being from the planet Earth. However, B'Lanna Torres is most definetly a hybrid (Klingon mother, Human father.)Jason Keyes 16:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC) Oops.. As it turns out she is not from Earth, but she is still fully Human. Jason Keyes 16:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
any info about where "annika" came from? sounds to me like an homage to anakin skywalker--getting sucked into evil and getting mechanical parts... and no i'm not poking any ST v SW debates, which get tiring. but the names are similar 188.8.131.52 20:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
'Seven of Nine', if we remove word 'of' whats remain is 'Seven Nine'. Considering Myth_of_the_nines we have that she is on in a 10 million. Better name should be 'Eight of Nine' ( in in a billion ) or 'Eleven of Nine' ( in in a trillion ). --1&only (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed. --EEMeltonIV 00:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to have a settlement on which photo to use. It seems the options switch between Image:Seven_of_nine.jpg and Image:7of9_cargobay_mug.png. Both are non-free and cannot be uploaded and then not used. I uploaded the latter but have no attachment to it. I will say, though, that I think it looks more like the way she dressed for most of the series than the former. What do other people think? I could get another one entirely, too. -- Techtonic (talk) 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
- IMO both should be included, the first one represents what she was (in)famous for in the series, the second represents what she like after they decided to tone things down a bit. Plugwash 20:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
"After Star Trek: Voyager"?
Ummmm... This article is about Seven of Nine, according to canon? The "After Star Trek: Voyager" section describes non-canonical events in Seven's life. Additionally, it only describes a few books. I suggest that the section either be removed or that a new article about the aforementioned events be created. Comments?
I fully agree, this whole section has no business being on here, none of the books are canon, I propose deletion rather then rewording, since there is no "after voyager" at all, thats the end of appearances by seven. Smitty1337 (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Spelling of Annika Hansen
The correct spelling is Annika. Sources are as follows:
- startrek.com - 
- Internet Movie Database (IMDB) - 
- Memory Alpha (a canon Star Trek wiki) - 
- Memory Beta (a non-canon Star Trek wiki) - 
- Closed captioning for Star Trek: Voyager episodes
- Star Trek: Voyager relaunch novels
- Page 659 of the expanded ST Encylopedia, "Seven of Nine (Jeri Ryan). Borg drone who left the collective...in early 2374. ...was born a human female named Annika Hansen in 2348 at the Tendara Colony on stardate 25479. Annika's parents, Erin Hansen and Magnus Hansen, were noted scientists...". ISBN 0-671-03475-8, revised hardcover 1999 Pocket Books, a division of Simon & Schuster.
- I would have taken the first as sufficient citation for the name, given that it is the official Star Trek franchise website. Alastairward (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Not trolling: her big breasts
Seriously, why did someone add a picture of her to this article but not include her gigantic breasts in it? I know this comment might seem trollish, but ask anyone - even a geek - about her (body) characteristics and they will (laughingly) mention her breasts. If you type her name in Google, then the first three things of the query expansion are: actress, pictures, breasts. Jyte added a poll to see who agree that her outfit was designed to highlight her breasts and it literally says "Nobody disagrees". --184.108.40.206 (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- It's the Internet. Topics related to sexuality always rise to the top in search rankings. That in no way obligates us to follow suit. Powers T 12:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
What "effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info" does this article make? Please say so we can included the allegedly omitted info and remove the tag. Dlabtot (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
To Cameron Scott: I'm not arguing for putting back all the stuff you wiped out, but it's usual to stop first and say something on the Talk page beforehand, to allow those who thought it was important to have a chance to find references, and to, you know talk, about the decision. None of it was put in by me, by the way, but expect that those who did write it all may just come back and revert your edit. It might be a good idea to start the discussion now, explaining your reasons for wiping out half the article.--TEHodson 07:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It's really straight forward:
1) Don't write about this stuff as if it's real, treat the characters as the object of a narrative and write your prose in that way.
2) If something you want to add is simply a plot detail and it's never discussed by anything but a primary source, then it's frankly either not encyclopedic or not important to start with. More simply, if nobody outside the show gives a shit, then neither do we. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think you understood my point. I am not arguing to keep it in, and I know the guidelines. I'm just saying that it's courtesy to talk here before you wipe out other people's work, whether that work is bogus or not, and you took out a huge piece of the article. When one fails to start a discussion ahead of time, then those whose stuff you're objecting to often come right back and revert, or re-write it all, then you get into edit wars, etc. And maybe they have sources for some of what they wrote, but didn't understand the need to put them in, or maybe they think the character's background is important, but don't know how to write it. In any case, I'm just pointing out that you skipped a step--telling people what you were about to do rather than just doing it. What you did, whether right in principle or not, is generally considered on the rude side. The Talk page is here for a reason. That's all.--TEHodson 08:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The full name of the character is Seven of Nine Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero One and I am minded to put this in the article - any objections? Darmot and gilad (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- As it's long, cumbersome, and completely in-universe information, I don't see the point. What is your reason? If you do it, you'll have to explain what all of that means, as otherwise it lets the article in for an "in-universe" tag.--TEHodson 01:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Obviously there's no rational reason why stating a character's name in that character's article would be characterized as making an(y) effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info so the suggestion that it could be a violation of in-universe is ludicrous. Dlabtot (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)