Talk:The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager)

reverting to past editions

simply reverting to past ediition as you may not agree with some edits, note you also revert to the wiki note:" This Star Trek-related article or section describes an aspect of Star Trek in a primarily in-universe style. Please rewrite this article or section to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective.

The plot summary in this article or section is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article.

Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. (November 2007) "

Virtuoso

Virtuoso is an episode in which the Doctor has the focus of the story. It should be included in the list of episodes in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuoso_%28Star_Trek:_Voyager%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of listing every single episode that focuses on the Doctor. Lots42 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So people can go through the list and watch every episode if they need to know a lot about the subject.

Merge??

Should this be merged with Emergency Medical Hologram?--Sonjaaa 04:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Go for it. Psychonaut 04:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with merging completely. Cburnett 15:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think they should be merged, either. If there weren't enough information about EMHs in general at that article, I'd be in favor of merging, but when both topics are well-developed, a merged article would be awkward. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well we could keep both articles, but make them a bit more distinct. Moving all the "history" of the various incarnations of the program over to The Doctor (Star Trek), seeing as it's basicaly all the same "person", remove the Star Trek character stamp from this article, and just leave it a clean technical article explainingn what the Emergency Medical hologram technology is, without going into the "life history" of all the known incarnations, if you know what I mean. Likewise all the technical stuff about the EMH should be moved from The Doctor (Star Trek) to there. That would be my suggestion anyway. Make one article only about the EMH technology, and the other only about the character known as "the doctor" (and just put a "see also" link between them) who just happen to be a EMH, much like Tuvok just happens to be a Vulcan without going into detauls about what a Vulcan is in the same article, or giving the life history of all known Vulcans in the Vulcan article. Hopefully this "rant" makes enough sense to get my opinion across. --Sherool 18:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with Sherool...more concise, remove duplicate information, wikilink the two articles. --MikeJ9919 06:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I can agree with swapping content as apporiate and having two more specific articles. Cburnett 05:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • I also disagree with merging. Emergency Medical Hologram is the technology, but The Doctor has evolved into a unique character that, in my opinion, ought to be separate. --Kitch 16:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • I was about to remove the edit flag, but someome beat me to it (got a edit conflict when I clicked save). I do however think the Emergency Medical Hologram need a bit of editing to remove most of the "doctor" references (unless they serve a purpose). I'll see if I can find the time one of these days (unless someone beat me to that too :P). --Sherool 17:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the articles are not merged, the information about the EMH in Star Trek: First Contact does not belong in this article, and should instead be in the EMH article instead, as the Voyager Doctor, though the same in appearance, is characteristically distinct from Robert Picardo's role in First Contact.--Jeffro77 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I removed Sherool's comment on this talk page and pasted his bit from the other talk page so that discussion is happening in only one talk page. Cburnett 05:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

The article states about "Please state the nature...":

"His program was later modified so that he was no longer forced to say this phrase when he was activated, though for a time he kept using it anyway because he could not think of anything better to say, and he did not like the awkward silence while he waited for people to tell him why he had been activated."

I got the impression that he was always programmed to say this, but as his higher faculties came online he was able to will the phrase to stop--as his personality developed, it became more likely he would want to do so. Which is correct? Alksub 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember an aside in either season one or season two where the Doctor is activated, and says the phrase and a crewmember (I think B'Elanna) says something like "I thought we made it so that you didn't have to say that any more". I'll rewatch seasons one and two if nobody else remembers this piece of dialogue. Furby100 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In "The Cloud" B'Elanna asks why he always says it, states that she knows a bit about holoprogramming and offers to reprogram him not to say it (around 21 minutes and 20 seconds into the episode). In "State of Flux" the Doctor is activated by Chakotay (around 38 minutes and 30 seconds into the episode) and does not say his catchphrase. When he is activated in "Projections" (right at the start of the episode) he does say it, so this could be when he decided to change it back. However, this occurs in what is essentially the Doctor's dream, so may not 'count'. In "Tattoo", the Doctor is activated by Kes (about 12 minutes and 25 seconds into the episode), says the phrase and then Kes asks him why he still says it when 'we' changed his program so that he wouldn't have to say it any more. He then says that he restored it because he became uncomfortable thinking of new ways to 'break the ice'. Since Kes refers to the Doctor's program being changed and B'Elanna talks about holoprogramming, I think the article is correct as it stands. If there are no objections, I shall remove the disputed statement template and refer to "the Cloud" and "Tattoo" in the article.Furby100 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm a doctor, not a X"

It'd be fun to put together a complete list of references to "I'm a doctor, not a X", by not only The Doctor but also all of the other Trek doctors. joo-yoon 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is one of those at Memory Alpha's page, "I'm a doctor, not a..." Mr. Granger 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Backup Copies of the Doctor?

I was thinking this section could be rewritten, after all there was technically only one backup copy. And it did take place 700 years in the future (or to be technical, even further then that, according to the last few minutes).

So the fact the backup copy was real was only due to a story being presented to people living far, far in the future. Can the backup copy really be considered canon at all?

I propose 'In episode Such and Such, a backup copy of the Doctor was a vital plot device but blah blah something something, potential future'.

Lots42 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's (another...) misunderstanding by the writers. What happened when the mobile emitter was shut off away from Sickbay? The program wasn't lost. What I think was meant was, the master file was a sole copy, & when Doc went into the emitter, it was copied; IIRC, the worries were what happened if all power was lost. And many of those worries were expressed by the Doctor: "What happens to me if the emitter is destroyed?"--i.e., am I dead? Or do I reboot from my last bookmark? (Which, BTW, would've been a really interesting story angle...)

Name "Canon"?

The article says, "In the series finale, one future is shown where he has chosen the name "Joe." The events of that episode involve changing history, however; thus this name cannot be considered canonical." Clearly, one cannot say that the Doctor's name is Joe throughout the series, but I don't see any problem with the alternate future being in canon.

Alternate futures are by their very nature, not canon. However...if Brannon Braga or Jeri Taylor or somebody with power says in an interview 'Yeah, such and such was always canon' then that is different. Lots42 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Backup Copies

The 'Backup Copies' section as it is seems to be original research. Or maybe I am completely misunderstanding it...it definitely needs citations of -some- sort; it's just that it's vey difficult to understand it. Limited memory? What? Lots42 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I discussed this topic in the past and had forgotten it, but my concerns still stand. Saying 'Voyager never reproduced the doctor because of limited memory' just does not make sense. Lots42 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A Friendly Note

The Doctor on the Star Trek: Next Generation movie is not the same character as the Voyager Doctor. Lots42 (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)