Talk:Good Shepherd (episode)

in use
Hey, I'm going to write a full, in-depth summery of this episode, but I'm gonna finish it tomarrow (i've started it). I don't know if I'm saposed to leave the "inuse" on, or take it off, so I'm just going to leave it on for now. -AJHalliwell 04:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry! I made an edit w/o realizing that the inuse was still posted.  I hope I didn't foul up anything you (whomever placed the notice) were working on!  —  THOR 22:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Featured article discussion (nomination successful on 6/22/05)

 * - Self-nomination. This is another episode article, but I think I covered all the information, and got some great pictures. I leave my fate unto you. -AJHalliwell 19:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Well done.  Jaz 19:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I would oppose the nomination due to low quality of some of the images, but I don't know if that counts. The rest of the article seems fine, and I would support the article if these nominations are judged solely on the text. --Defiant | Talk 19:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Images can be a matter for objection, however I think the quality of images is not a fair reason to oppose. Ottens 21:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid back when I started doing this page, I hit "Refresh Page (Full Quality)", so when ever I go there they come up really nice quality pics, and I can't see how they normally look. Do you know a way to better their quality? -AJHalliwell 22:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I could upload similar images taken from the DVD, if you want. The quality would be slightly better then. --Defiant | Talk 22:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose nomination - I've just learned that the article also needs full wiki formatting, there's still a section at the bottom of the page that needs to be formatted. --Defiant | Talk 22:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Took care of that. I don't see how such an insignificant detail is a reason for objection, and I don't see why you couldn't take the 30 seconds yourself to fix it, but it's wiki-formatted now. Ottens 14:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support, I've corrected most of the spelling and grammatical errors. Definitely a worthy candidate, IMHO. --Scimitar 21:41, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. --Defiant | Talk 01:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Support AmdrBoltz 18:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

404
404s are an HTTP code, not a Microsoft error message. Additionally, I'd be surprised if the on-set video was Windows as everything I've seen, the art department had a tendency to use Apple PCs. The displays on Enterprise were run of a cart of Apple Cube computers, I think. Besides, I don't even see a 404 in the image displayed. Can anyone confirm this? - Lt. Washburn 18:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I just watched the episode; it was not, in fact, a 404 error (as that's an Internet error meaning a page is missing). Based on the odd L-shape of the window on the biobed screen, it appears that the "error" is actually a contextual menu, probably for Adobe Flash or Shockwave.  Likewise, the mouse pointer that appears in the escape pod LCARS display is a black, leftwards-pointing arrow with a white outline--the standard pointer for Apple OS X. --208.120.199.56 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good points. But unless they were using the early server version, it would have been a previous version of the Apple OS...I don't know what they called it, OS 9? Lt. Washburn 03:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This? - V. Adm. Enzo Aquarius 03:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily--OS X was originally released in 1999 as Mac OS X Server 1.0, which would fit the production date of this episode. Regardless of the operating system, I think it's accurate to say that it is definitely a contextual menu. 208.120.199.56 05:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Starship divisions
This list with Voyager's starship divisions is seen in the episode. Makes it clear,which subdivisions belong to command, science and engineering. Found this pretty intersting, maybe it can be of use somewhere. --Jörg 14:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Starfleet divisions is a good start. :) --Alan del Beccio 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PNA
The summary appears to be missing an act - VOY episodes are five acts, rather than four. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Only appearance of Deck 15
Well this isn't correct. In they were on Deck 15 I think repairing the hull breach although in this episode the Deck was a normal corridor and not those weird things like in the Good Shepard Episode --Ensign Joe, 87.180.68.26 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

nitpick
Removed nitpick &mdash; Morder 19:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two computer errors are visible on screen in this episode. When Telfer is put in the biobed, a very 20th century contextual menu floating over the okudagram can be seen on the biobed display. Later, when Harren is in the escape pod, another 20th century mouse-pointer can clearly be seen scrolling around the LCARS panel he's working at.
 * Forgot the corresponding image. --Alan 02:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is the nitpick removed? Just curious. Cygnis 20:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Read this for more information. &mdash; Morder (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it actually, but thank you. It wasn't actually very clear where that page was, however... I kept going to MA:NOT which says nothing about it. And the current Editing guidelines doesn't mention it either (despite the fact the nitpick page is listed as an editing guideline). Good thing to know, nevertheless. Cygnis 20:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another odd appearance...
...might be the moving mouse pointer on the LCARS-Display in the Escape Pod at the end.. At least I don't remember having seen one anywhere else in a Star Trek episode or movie. --88.152.76.2 15:55, July 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * There really ought to be a "Bloopers" section in the episodes, for just this sort of thing. I even screenshotted that very mouse pointer.--63.227.179.227 22:06, August 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * We do not cover nitpicks or bloopers. 31dot (talk) 02:44, September 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * Why not? 92.236.110.233 23:58, August 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Please review the linked policy; but it was decided by the community some time ago that nitpicks and bloopers were not encyclopedic, as many of them involve judgement calls, can be explained away, or are minor technical issues. There are also existing websites to catalog nitpicks. 31dot (talk) 09:35, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Title Origin?
Is it perhaps worth mentioning where the story of the Good Shepherd (which Janeway tells Seven and from which this episode derives its title) comes from? The actual phrase "Good Shepherd" comes from the Christian Bible, the book of John, verse 11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:11&version=NIV

The story is a parable told in the book of Luke, verses 4-6 "Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home. Then he calls his friends and neighbors together and says, ‘Rejoice with me; I have found my lost sheep."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+15&version=NIV

ThetaOrion 02:05, November 29, 2010 (UTC)

Age of the universe
Early in the episode, one of the characters mentions that the cosmos is sixteen billion years old. We currently know this not to be true: the universe is roughly thirteen point seven billion years old. As science advances, we're probably going to be able to make this more accurate, adding digits to the end of the number; we'll figure out it's 13.721 billion or something. Sixteen billion, though, is already ruled out. And it was already ruled out when this episode was written.

Think of it like the shape of the Earth. Ancient Greeks (the educated ones, anyway) knew the earth was a sphere. Some of them came up with surprisingly close estimates of its diameter. Over the years, we figured out more and more, and now our idea of the dimensions of the earth is that it is an oblate spheroid -- a slightly squashed sphere -- whose dimensions we know to very great accuracy indeed:12,756.32 kilometers at the equator. A story written in 2000 that stated that the diameter was 13,200 kilometers would be similarly wrong.

So is this an error?


 * Either it was a simple error, or the writers were intending to imply that, in the future, our estimate as to the age of the universe will be revised based on as-yet undiscovered information. -Angry Future Romulan 14:46, October 2, 2012 (UTC)