Jump to content

Talk:Borg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 82.139.86.180 (talk) at 18:09, 19 July 2013 (→‎Use of the definite article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spore

Please note that in the PC game spore the villains are like the borg and look like them. http://spore.wikia.com/wiki/Grox I m not sure if someone should add this or not.

The Queen's death(s)

From the Borg Queen sec.: "Picard finishes her off by rupturing her spinal column. Another Queen is destroyed in the Voyager episode "Endgame" as well." Is there no source to check for the storyline of the Queen? It is obviously the same queen and intended to be understood as the same, yet Picard destroys her years earlier than the elderly Janeway in "Voyager". That has always puzzled me. Must be some storyline in between the "two" queens who are really the same, one and only Queen.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 20:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a real problem if we stick to "the canon": the television and cinematic films. In the canon, Picard with Data's assistance kills the Queen, who is an obvious individual surviving in a specifically cybernetically enhanced way.
She then reappears without explanation in "Voyager" and in the series finale, "Endgame", the future Admiral Janeway returns to the past and kills this same Queen. There is no point, canonically, in saying "The Borg Queen has been killed many times," or, "There is more than one Queen," because that is not referenced in the canon. It is one and the same Queen, even played by the same actress in the most important moments (such as both her deaths, though I admit certain appearances were played by other actresses).
Even fans are frustrated about this stupid and unexplained paradox. There is simply no way to reckon it within the canon, and the Queen has been an overplayed hand in the non-canonical garbage that is out there. Thus I explain in the article, a minor change, that the same Queen... not "another Queen"... is inexplicably alive and is killed by Adm. Janeway.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 21:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The queen is actually destroyed three times in the series. Once in The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation), Star Trek: First Contact and in Endgame (Star Trek: Voyager). It is canonically explained by the queen in First Contact. She is not a single entity, but a construction that represents the entire collective. When destroyed, she is recreated by the Borg. As the Borg is a collective, her memories are not lost. I agree that should be better explained in the article. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha, though I trust your post, I question the statement because I recall no such explanation from her in First Contact. Can't accept it without the quotation. My WP:OR and my POV suggests that in altering the timeline by returning, Adm. Janeway kills the Borg Queen before Picard gets to it... presumably before Picard encounters her. Yet it makes no sense, since Voyager is clearly set roughly after the time period in which Picard encounters and kills the Queen. However, it is the best I can do. Perhaps someone will find something canonical, such as star dates, to support my theory. Otherwise there is no sense in killing the Queen at all if she's simply going to pop up again immediately! Also, canonically, they ensure she is the same Queen.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 21:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Best of Both Worlds is set in 2366. First Contact is set in 2373. Endgame is set in 2378. In first contact, the queen has a discussion with Picard, which makes reference to Best of Both worlds. (source)
So the queen explains, or rather implies, that her body is merely a shell of her existence. However, because it is not blatantly stated, we need to be careful about over-analyzing the context so that we don't use original research. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am glad you give the three major dates... they sound correct but I'd have lost my mind trying to find one or another of them. Still a problem with all this. From the film: "You think in such three-dimensional terms. How small you've become." Alpha, you then say: "So the queen explains, or rather implies, that her body is merely a shell of her existence." The Queen has explained nothing, and this is mere POV.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 23:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Alpha, a strictly date-oriented query. VOYAGER "Endgame", the series finale: I think this is set 10 years after Voyager comes home from the Delta Quadrant, after 23 years' travel getting home. Lt. Barclay says this in his toast. This means Voyager is first stranded in DQ in 2345? And old Admiral Janeway then presumably visits them, what, circa 2352? Making that death of the Queen circa 2352, and Picard kills her in 2373. Correct?--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 23:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voyager takes place directly after Deep Space 9, so 2371. Admiral Janeway comes back in time (2378) from the future (2404). Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not according to the "Endgame" timeline combined with the timelines you've just given! And that is my point. I do not believe the Queen's deaths can be rationally explained, other than the dialogue you quoted from "The Best of Both Worlds". Then again, if Voyager is advanced in Picard's future, it doesn't answer how the Queen was magically present for Adm. Janeway to kill her. So the Queen gets killed at least twice without explanation, let alone reincarnation.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 16:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alpha, 2370 + 33 years total = the year 2403, "Endgame" has to be set in 2403 because it is the 10th anniversary of Voyager's original return, after 23 years gone (in the year 2378 they have already been in space 7 years, meaning they were first stranded in the Delta circa 2370). Is this in error? How does this realignment match up with Picard's timeline? I am so bad with dates and math. --Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 17:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is only one year off in the timeline, 2370 should be 2371. Otherwise I think you've got it OK. Still, we have no solid, intelligible answer for the Queen's multiple deaths. This is all relevant, because we may be able to somehow incorporate this into the Queen's sec.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 18:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal: Alpha Quadrant, how if we work the fruit of your correcting my stupid errors here, into the Queen's section of the article? You have all the years right and we need only add the year 2371 as the year Voyager first landed in the Delta Quadrant. We could then add some of the facts in your posts about the different Queens, perhaps adding the lines of dialogue you quoted. I think there ought to be a sub-sec. called "The Queen's deaths". What say you?--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 18:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough coverage to support the section, then that would be a good idea. I won't have the time to do research today, but I might have time in a few days. As for the dates, you might find this to be of use. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, I love it. I'm a bit 'iffy' about TV episodes as citations (are they allowed, seems to be some controversy?) and I have no books about Trek at all. Love watching, hate reading. (Unless it is Diane Duane's Spock's World.) Hey I noticed a question about Tom Paris' reduction in rank on that page... I know the answer, do you?

Anyway, regarding beefing up the Queen's details, I'm not certain there is much in publication... can't be many magazine articles but I'll bet there are plenty of perfect citations online. During my last search, I just kept bumping into cites that steal Wikipedia's articles. If anyone can get citations, it's you - frankly I don't see the need for more than one citation or two plus a quote to cover the significant details.

One final thing: in my opinion, we need to be very careful we do not slip into POV when discussing whether or not there is more than one Queen, or her reincarnation or anything. It is apparent we can quote what has been said canonically and that is all; should be sufficient. I know there's nothing else to support those speculative ideas, unless Berman or Braga stated them in interviews. I don't think they ever did. I'll look and do what I can, but I won't make any major changes to the article until I hear from you. No sense going to warp right now.... --Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 20:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

Hopefully I have done this article a few favours be moving the Origins sec. to the top where it belongs; also I have removed references to how many times and how many people have said, "Resistance is futile" because such information is irrelevant and certainly insignificant.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 21:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have done what I can thus far. I know Alpha will help when I go astray. This article has all the right components but it is really badly written. Some of it reads like a homework assignment.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rescinding the redacted statement; the sec. has been moved to its proper place now.--Djathinkimacowboy what now?! 18:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Main image

Just happened across this article and was surprised by the main image, totally unfamiliar to me. Now I admit I haven't seen every episode of Voyager, so I've probably missed something, but is the logo actually used anywhere within the series? If not, surely a more iconic image of an actual Borg drone would be better there? WormTT · (talk) 14:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, it's there in TNG episodes... Still not sure it really is the best main image though, but starting to think it's just personal preference. WormTT · (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its a shame you found it i was about to have fun pulling out my star trek encyclopedias and DVD's to find you examples before i read your second comment. But yes..they are all there. Bailo26 00:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the definite article

I corrected the Wikipedia page but was overruled and my statement was removed.

Fine - that's up to you - leave the page with incorrect statements if you wish; it is your page, after all, so I won't waste any more time trying to correct you.

I corrected the Wikipedia page by pointing out that the definite article (which, for the benefit of the apparently less than literate editor, is a term meaning the word 'the') was quite specifically NOT used in the original film statements and that this was important.

The Wikipedia page states that the phrase "We are the Borg" is used. The term was never used. The phrase was "We are Borg". It was never, "We are the borg".

I joined Wikipedia to correct this error, but it appears to have been a waste of time.

The response to me suggested this page was more appropriate for my comment, so here it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Stedman (talk • contribs) 13:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia thus retains the reputation of not being trustworthy or reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christopher Stedman (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken, the phrase does include the definite article every time I've heard it (which includes First Contact and Voyager). For example, a quick youtube search gave me this (start listening at 3:29): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yokaRFrTIic 82.139.86.180 (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Borg&oldid=564955093"