|WikiProject Star Trek||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Fictional characters||(Rated Start-class)|
The 'backstory' section needs cleanup. The references to incidents in the shows need to be better explained, and the distinction between fan conjecture and the official story needs to be better emphasized. --Saforrest 20:43, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)
He was, at one point, demoted down to Ensign. I have edited the article to reflect this. Kevin W. 00:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
It's not true that in the TNG episode that Locarno never repented. In the episode all 4 surviving cadets were going to be expelled until Locarno pleaded with the tribunal that he convinced them to go along with the stunt and then cover it up, and he convinced them to only expel hin. That sounds to me like someone repenting for what they did and similar to what Paris did. TJ Spyke 19:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
That's a very simplistic reading of the episode. Locarno had elevated loyalty above duty and truth; he "fell on his sword" to demonstrate the loyalty he'd expected from Crusher when he'd asked Crusher to back up his lies about the other cadet's death. "Showing up" Wes Crusher after Crusher decided his "first duty" lay with the truth is hardly repenting; it is clearly indicated that Locarno would have persisted in his lies if Crusher had not told the truth. The entire thrust of the episode concerned Picard's efforts to get Wesley to see that Locarno's twisted definition of honor had no association with the other higher virtues of truth, duty, or justice.
- Don't talk nonsense. First off, Locarno did repent because he finally told the whole truth (i.e. that he was solely responsible for the accident and coverup). By your reasoning, Wesley didn't repent, because he would have persisted with his lies had Picard not blackmailed him into confessing. Secondly, even if you don't regard Locarno's behaviour as true contrition, it certainly doesn't make his character "irredeemable", as suggested in the article - one could easily imagine him becoming Tom Paris. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
In my view, Locarno showed no contrition. He accepted full responsibility, but did not make any statements that indicated he felt the team should have told the truth. I agree with the other commenter that he was demonstrating his value for protecting them team, not a value for revealing the truth. In my view, Wesley was conflicted. He wanted to be loyal to the team, in particular he did not want to throw Josh under the bus...and he was agonizing about the lying. I don't believe Picard was blackmailing Wesley, J-L was behaving like a father figure, in essence: either you do the right thing, or I will make you, to save you from yourself. Picard wanted the truth out, and he wanted Wesley to learn the important life lesson that men with character tell the truth even when they don't benefit from doing so. Wesley wasn't blackmailed, he heard Picard's message and made the right choice.
I think something should be added about Paris reaching warp 10 and subsequent "evolution" as it seems to me to be notable both in Paris's character background and the Star Trek universe at large. In the episode, it's said he's the first to break this barrier, is this officially confirmed? -Emperial 23:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
- I concur that the Warp 10 Barrier note should be added. This would ultimately affect the shuttlecraft
and Transwarppages as well. Transwarp page already notes this event. I mean, if Zefram Cochrane is noted for breaking warp 1, Tom Perris should be credited with Warp 10. -Evin (Currently unregistered) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The 'Trivia' section
Seems to me the trivia section could be easily renamed to something like 'Backstory' or 'Creating The Character'.
Lots42 23:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
- Paris was never an official nurse, and was deemed the term "medic" as I can recall. The tag doesn't really apply as it is misleading to official nurses in fiction, not ones that have performed the duties periodically that may perhaps be nurse duties. Ejfetters (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Considered for a replacement for a doctor doesn't mean a nurse. I just don't think he was a nurse. He was a medic. Theres a difference. I'd be hard pressed if you said Kes was a nurse, she too was a medic I believe. They both were far more than nurses on the ship, they performed duties over the title. Ejfetters (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
- Probably sometime After Kes leaves the ship in "The Gift". 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)Evin (currently unregistered)
*In the second episode of the first season, "Parralax."
Star Trek materials online have long been thought of as...obessed, insane ramblings of fans that wish to BE in the show wish to be a part of the events of the show. In universe style notices on alot of articles will not do anything to displace that...I honestly don't know this character, or any other Voyager character that well, my favorite, and most watched show is The Next Generation. However, I'm asking any help that can be given to remove the in universe tag be given, so that this article, its contributors, and the people that will access it, do so in the best interest of knowledge possible.--188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Pardon? First you insult fans, say you know little about Voyager then encourage everyone to improve this article? I doubt your motives. Lots42 (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Spoiler ala Google
I don't know if this is something that can be fixed by rearranging the Wikipedia entry, but the google search results for "voyager cast tom paris" blew a HUGE spoiler (his marriage to B'Elanna Torres) for my friend, with no warning (angry face).
If a change to the wiki entry *can* correct this, then once the GoogleBot re-indexes the page it will save a lot of frustration for the people trying to introduce their friends to Voyager in timeline order. If not, well then "Google + bad luck = sucks for them". 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not one hundred percent sure what you are getting at, but Wikipedia never concerns itself with spoilers. Never has, never will. Lots42 (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- As stated by Lots42, Wikipedia does not care about spoilers, see Wikipedia:SPOILER. Nothing should be re-arranged in the article beause of spoilers. The solution for your friend is obvious: if he wants to avoid spoilers about Tom Paris, he must not perform Google searches on Tom Paris. --Law Lord (talk) 11:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)