Talk:11:59 (episode)

PNA
Someone needs to go through the article and fix the tenses. It should be in past tense, not present. The sections should be retitled and it should be proofread for grammatical errors. It's a good article, but, like I said, it needs attention. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:22, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no policy on episodes with respect to tense, so it does not need fixing. 'Retitling the sections' do you mean to 'Act One' etc.., again there is no policy on that either and personally I don't like the 'Act One' sectioning that's why they are different in this article. I do agree on proofreading but to me that does not validate a, at most a request for peerreview. -- Q 20:32, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Don't know where I was coming from with that. I don't know why I thought they should be in past tense; I actually went through a while back and did the exact opposite of what I was asking. Of course, it should still be proofread. My bad. -Platypus Man | Talk 20:58, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * In general all articles about events, persons, objects etc.. are in past tense because MA strives to be a dictionary. The exception seems to be episode summaries which might be in past or present tense. (I know this can be somewhat confusing at times) -- Q 14:35, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * While I would say the tense doesn't need fixing, I was reading through it, and it would seem to me that it would flow slightly better if it were in present tense. But, that's just my $0.02... --umrguy42 18:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tense in episode summaries is entirely up to the author, in general. For everything, else... MA:POV.  :) -- Sulfur 18:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
I think this summary is complete but it needs some grammer checks and proofreading before considering applying it for FA nomination. -- Q 16:43, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * No bad grammer or misspellings, no problems at all with this article, nothing ? -- Q 17:30, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * I like the way it's divided into sections in a creative way instead of "Act 1," "Act 2," etc. Don't have time to read it right now though, sorry. --Broik 17:48, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * The tense changes partway through the story. If the intent is to have the past stuff in past tense, shouldn't the summary revert to present tense at the end? Could use a good going over- I caught several grammatical errors just skimming a couple of paragraphs. Also I think the summary is too long. --9er 17:50, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I tried to keep the VOY action in present tense and the 20th century in past tense. I don't see it as a problem to change tense over the course of the epsiode. Ending it with past tense, well, why not. I would be nice if you could point out some off the grammatical errors, myself being not fluent in English et al. Summary length is not an issue, not to me atleast, there are FA's who have the same length. I do admit the longer the summary the harder it is to write a good one. (summary length also came up at some FA discussions) -- Q 18:26, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)


 * Added some links, references, etc, formatted the table. do the unnamed characters go in Unnamed Humans (20th century) or Unnamed Humans (21st century) ? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 06:32, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Depends on the century they lived in. The passerby should fit in the Unamed Humans 20th century. Don't know the exact reason for unamed humans though. Should it be added to every episode were unamed humans appeared ? -- Q 18:26, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I asked because during the episode doesn't the new century begin?


 * Every episode that has an unnamed character should have an "unnamed" list linked to house info about unnamed characters (Epsilon IX personnel for example) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk


 * Well, I think I've got the most problems solved with this article but I would appreciate a last second opinion. -- Q 20:52, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Follow up
This could be a follow up to. Talking about future historians would surmise about Voyager. But when I mention it on Background Information, someone deletes it. But other episodes which follow up similar premise are not effected.
 * Your example is an extreme stretch. Bring up the others on their talk pages. --OuroborosCobra talk 01:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As the "someone" who reverted it, I can say that even if it was true(which I highly doubt), a "could be" is not sufficient for an article. It must be backed up with evidence, such as a statement from a writer, producer, or anyone involved with making Star Trek.  As Cobra said, if you feel there are similar statements to yours elsewhere on MA, feel free to point them out.--31dot 02:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Year reference
I don't know if there's another place to discuss this here, but doesn't the date of this episode (April 22, 2375) contradict the established method for dating TNG-era episodes? Such a late episode in the season would imply it occurred at the end of 2375 by our current method. Given that this episode was aired in May 1999, it seems the producers were intending episodes to be set around the same time of year as they were broadcast. If all episodes were shifted back by about six months in the TNG timeline (so that the TNG-era episodes take place exactly 376 years after broadcast, and so is set mid-2363), how many date references would be wrong? This would be consistent with, the first time the TNG-date was established, but I think there's a reference later in Voyager's final season that might be inconsistent.Db-intheflesh 16:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe is set in 2364, which would make the date given in the episode is right on the mark. Jaz *** 20:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a problem with the dating here. In, an episode set earlier in the season, it was established that USS Voyager had been in the Delta Quadrant for four years and some number of months at the time. Since it is known that Voyager was sent into the Delta Quadrant in 2371 (as established in ), that means that that "Timeless" did indeed take place in 2375. Okay, that's all fine and dandy. But "11:59", set near the end of the season, takes place on April 22nd. Do you see where I'm getting at here? An episode from early in the season already takes place in 2375. There are 15 episodes between "Timeless" and "11:59", and if the latter episode did take place in the same year, it would most likely be on a later month than the one established. I think this episode actually takes place on 22 April 2376. This would certainly correspond to the final season ending on 2378. --From Andoria with Love 15:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... no comments? Well, then, would anybody be opposed to me changing the last few episodes of this season (from 11:59 onward) to 2376? :D --From Andoria with Love 14:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does the year 2375 comes from, paramount ? If its the official year set by the producers, one can say they probably made an error, or not for that matter. As long as the year stays within the VOY series, I have no problem with it. Mixing the TNG and VOY timelines is a 'no go', as far as I am concerned. -- Q 19:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The episode never stated the year, just the date. The year comes from the common belief that an entire season takes place in one year, i.e. season three in 2373, season four in '74, season five in '75, etc. However, since the early part of season two was still 2371 rather than 2372 and the latter part of season seven was 2378 rather than 2377, it seems obvious that the one year for one season practice is incorrect, at least for Voyager. --From Andoria with Love 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with changing the year to 2376. It fits with the date mentioned in "Homestead" (April 5, 2378), and it does not contradict "Timeless." There is no canon reason (Stardate calculators are not canon!) why Season 5 of Voyager can't occur over sixteen months.
 * @From Andoria With Love: Of course, the only reason the early part of season 2 is still 2371 is because the first several episodes of season 2 were season 1 holdovers.

Inaccurate?
This:
 * The holographic doctor was having trouble with his program, Neelix the cook was low on supplies, Seven of Nine was regenerating and Chakotay was doing fine.

was not what Janeway guessed. Is there some higher purpose to this that I'm just not getting, or can I go ahead and change it? AyalaofBorg 09:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You are correct, somewhere along the line this was changed. I've already changed it back. -- Q 16:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ancestral roles.
I was considering adding something to the Background Information section (although it's more "trivia" than anything), but I figured I'd drop a note here and let someone else who's more familiar with all the various series decide how it should be worded. In this episode, Kate Mulgrew plays two different roles, one of which is an ancestor of the other, only shown in "flashback" sequences. Jolene Blalock did a similar dual role in, playing both T'Pol and T'Mir. The reason I didn't want to jump right into adding this mention is because I don't know off-hand how many other Star Trek "regular" cast members have also done this. If it's only happened the two times, I think it would be a worthwhile thing to mention in the article for each episode. If it's happened three or more times, however, perhaps an article or list should be created for this happening, and each episode could include a link to it. - 24.222.172.137 13:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On top of those two, I can think of Brent Spiner (playing Data as well as the complety "family" consisting of Lore, Noonian Soong and Arik Soong), Denise Crosby (Natasha Yar and her daughter Sela), Michael Dorn (Worf and Worf (Colonel)) and William Shatner (James T. Kirk as well as his brother George Samuel Kirk). There might be more than those... -- Cid Highwind 13:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think he is asking about episodes where the actor played both during the same episode. That counts out Yar and Sela, Worf and Colonel Worf, Arik Soong and his descendants. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  13:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does rule out the first two pairs you mentioned as well as Arik Soong, but with the rest of them (including Data and his kin), it seems like there probably are enough examples to warrant either an article, or at least a category. I just don't know what it should be called, or how it should be constructed (I'm okay at editing but I'm terrible at initiating new items).  And now that I think about it, it might be a little too arbitrary to limit this to family.  I think any episode in which an actor plays multiple roles should be considered, such as Robert Picardo playing both the EMH and Doctor Zimmerman, or the DS9 episode, the only one in which Jeffery Combs played both Weyoun and Brunt. - 24.222.172.137 16:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed comment regarding date
Whether by coincidence or chance, "Ancestor's Eve" takes place on Earth Day.

If we don't know which, it is merely uncited speculation.--31dot 00:41, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

World War Three
11:59 (Episode): Neelix handed her a framed photo of Shannon O'Donnell - Janeway – he said that he had done some more research and told her it was taken around 2050 in a park near Portage Creek, 38 years after the dedication of the Millennium Gate. World War Three: Rising from the ashes of the Eugenics Wars of the mid-1990s, the era of World War III was a period of global conflict on Earth that eventually escalated into a nuclear cataclysm and genocidal war over issues including genetic manipulation and Human genome enhancement. World War III itself ultimately lasted from 2026 through 2053, and resulted in the death of some 600 million Humans. By that time, many of the planet's major cities and governments had been destroyed. (ENT: "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"; Star Trek: First Contact; VOY: "In the Flesh")

How does one explain Janeway's shiny happy family picture during WWIII? --205.188.116.73 15:07, April 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Simplest explanation: WWIII didn't reach Portage Creek. People can still be happy with their families during times of great conflict. -Angry Future Romulan 15:12, April 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] - All speculation, but maybe the "good parts" were all at the end? In the pacific, WWII "started" in the early 1930s with the, so maybe WWIII was a bunch of different wars at first. - 15:17, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Travel distances...
During the scene where the crew is talking about family histories, Ensign Kim mentions that his "uncle" traveled to a nearby star (or what they thought was a star) and that his crew was forced to use stasis around 2210. Paris mentions that this was during the time where distant travel was considered the next star. How exactly is this consistent with Star Trek:Enterprise? They had Warp 5 ships well before 2210 and could travel to nearby stars with relative ease. --Dejackso 05:58, February 7, 2011 (UTC)24.124.56.174 05:14, February 7, 2011 (UTC)Derek
 * Even within Enterprise, that capability was exceedingly rare. By the end of the series Earth only had two starships (Enterprise and Columbia) that could travel at Warp 5. Civilian model vessels, like the J class or Y class, took anywhere from several months to several years to make that journey. Maybe it took a long time for the Warp 5 technology to make it into the civilian sector. --OuroborosCobra talk 05:28, February 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. They never explicitly said that Uncle Jack was a member of Starfleet.  If he was captaining a civilian vessel, he might very well still have an older ship.  However, in ST:Enterprise, there were still many people who had engines that were at least capable of Warp 2 or 3 and didn't need to go into Stasis.  For example, the ship that Travis grew up on had such an engine, IIRC.  I would imagine that by 2210 (which is 60 years later), warp 5 (old scale) ships would be fairly common.  I suppose that is still just me making an educated guess, though --Dejackso 05:54, February 7, 2011 (UTC)24.124.56.174 05:50, February 7, 2011 (UTC)Derek