Talk:Friendship One (episode)

Does Icheb have nanoprobes?
Background information item about Seven's "momentary forgetfulness" looks like nitpickery, in the absence of any evidence that Icheb personally, or all Borg generally, have nanoprobes. Seven may not be the only Borg who has nanoprobes, but can anyone cite evidence that she's not the only VOY crewmember? And let's not count Neelix. Anyway, I'll remove it shortly. SwishyGarak 15:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point: icheb was an unfinished drone and no longer has his cortical node, so it seems more than plausible that either he can't emit nanoprobes.

Jackoverfull 18:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy didn't ask Seven if there were others in the crew that had nanoprobes, he asked her if there were more "like" her, which the answer can be no because Icheb isn't a finished Borg, and Nelix is Nelix. Volpe42 09:13, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Friendship One/1
Shran mentioned in the latest edit that this article doesn't really need to have a qualifier, since the probe is called Friendship 1, with the number. Shall I go ahead and (1) get rid of the disamb. page, (2) move FO(e) to FO, and (3) ensure all links point to the correct locations? - TerranRich 12:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some portions of the move will need to be done by an admin. I'd suggest as a first step, simply moving the FO to F1, and then slowly working through the links to that.  When that's done, the FO(e) article can be moved (and rd deleted) by an admin, and we're good to go. I'll move FO to F1 for the moment, so that the link shifting process can begin. -- Sulfur 00:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As an aside... the move has been done now. The links to the FO(e) page are primarily (if not completely) using the eplk template, which means that they'll flop over automatically.  It's the other 2-3 links that'll be the annoying ones to find. -- Sulfur 01:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, there were 23 links to FO(e) directly that have all been converted to eplks (or in the case of five of them, corrected because they can't use the eplk template). I also updated the most wanted links, because FO(e) will show up on there tonight. :) -- Sulfur 02:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

PNA
Act structure is wrong - missing a fifth act. -- Michael Warren | Talk 21:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Many fans ..."
Removed part of background note:
 * Prior to this episode, he had not been seen since the first season. Many fans have mistaken Hogan for him, and thought he had died.

The first sentence is just wrong, as the rest of the note (the part I didn't remove) mentions his appearances in "Fury" and "Relativity." The second sentence is just plain annoying, as is any uncited reference to "many fans" think or believe or whatever. - Bridge 05:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Resemblance

 * This episode bears a striking resemblance to a 1975 episode of  ironically entitled "Voyager's Return" about an unmanned Earth space probe sent out many years earlier, which caused destruction on an alien world (guest starring Jeremy Kemp).

I've removed this note. We can't list any and all "resemblances" to other shows and episodes, no matter how striking individual editors think they are, unless we can cite that it was intentional. Otherwise, the episode pages will be clogged with these. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Year
The official star trek.com website gives the year for this episode as 2378, not 2377. Shouldn't we go with that? --70.176.184.44 00:46, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The stardate dictates 2377.  We go with that. :) -- sulfur 01:06, October 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I was watching this episode recently. In it, Tom Paris tells Brin that B'Elanna is going to give birth to their child in a couple of months. Since is set on April 2378, shortly before, could we infer that "Friendship One" takes place in '78? --Delta2373 01:10, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

I caught that to, and obviously the stardates got screwed up somewhere since Homestead - Endgame retains 2377 stardates in 2378. I think Friendship One - Endgame are '78 and everything before Friendship one is '77, and the stardates just got screwed the same way in Homestead.

Nearest Planet Too Far Away
Maybe something for the trivia page. During the episode it is stated that the nearest planet is 136 lightyears (or similar) away, and that a round trip would take something like 1.5 months at maximum warp. Yet as best deciphered in reality a round trip at Voyager's maximum warp would take something like 4 days rather than 45. --Looq 14:41, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering Voyager is described as capable of roughly 1000 light years per year, how are you coming to that conclusion? --OuroborosCobra talk 19:09, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going on the Warp Speed Scale Chart from the Encyclopaedia. Although I admit I got the max speed as warp 9.9976 rather than warp 9.975 so it would be more like 8 days according to that. That said going on the max sustainable speed, its more like 19 days. However now you mention the 1000ly/y it makes for an inconsistency, going on the chart would seem to imply that the the journey across the galaxy at max sustainable would only take about 30 years. The 1000ly/y max speed would work out as about 1.6 months to the planet and back. So forgot about, I guess it just one of those things. --Looq 20:03, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for the discrepency was because of a subspace inversion field in the positron matrix of the dilithium actuator. This caused a Cochrane distortion in the quantum hyperspatial realm, resulting in an EPS fluctuation of 0.47. Due to this, Voyager's warp coils experienced a brief graviton fluctuation pulse, resulting in a time-dilation effect. Of course, this could have been avoided by having the crew simply recalibrating the neutronic reaction gradient, resulting in the creation of a multispectral warp field, but whatta ya gonna do? -Angry Future Romulan 20:10, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Stargate Glyphs
In the scene just after the Delta Flyer lands for the first time, there is a cut to one of the Uxal looking through some sorta binoculars. There is alien writing along the top of the screen which 99%identical to the glyphs/cheverons on the SG1/Milky Way stargates. Has anyone ever noticed that or just me?

Removed from page
(From section "Background information") Reason: Not sure when incite was added, but it has been on the page like that since at least September 2009. -- Cid Highwind 17:37, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Producers came up with a list of recurring crewmen to kill off for this episode. Ensigns Vorik and Samantha Wildman were also among them. incite

Cortical? Cordial?
You undid a correction I made on the page. I have to disagree with your correction as I watched the episode on the day of my edit. You can clearly hear Tom Paris ask for the cordial stimulator, referring to the heart and then he places it on the chest of the newborn infant instead of the forehead, which is the location where a cortical stimulator would go. Cordial (cor=heart in Latin) thus makes more sense. That is the reason I made the edit. Will you undo your correction? Or shall I?. Svanriesen (talk) 21:54, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * It's actually a "cortical stimulator". Check the article that it links to. It's what was seen on screen, and what was in the original script (according to a past contributor). He just can't pronounce things very well. :) -- sulfur (talk) 22:34, January 4, 2013 (UTC)

The picture shown on the cortical stimulator page as the one used on voyager does not correspond with the one shown in the episode. And btw where can I find the reference to the original script? Not finding it on or on cortical stimulator. Not trying to nitpick. Svanriesen (talk) 23:43, January 4, 2013 (UTC)
 * To be honest, both look like similar devices to me from the images. Anyone else? -- sulfur (talk) 04:09, January 5, 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find an official voyager transcript of. However this fanedited transcript speaks of a cardio-stimulator. After reviewing that part of the episode you can hear "Tom" changed the first a into an o in pronunciation. But everything else seems to fit. I guess we'll have to wait until the official transcripts are available as they are with TNG and DS9. Svanriesen (talk) 12:51, January 5, 2013 (UTC)