Talk:The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager)

reverting to past editions

simply reverting to past edition as you may not agree with some edits, note you also revert to the wiki note:" This Star Trek-related article or section describes an aspect of Star Trek in a primarily in-universe style. Please rewrite this article or section to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective.

The plot summary in this article or section is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the article.

Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. (November 2007) "

Virtuoso

Virtuoso is an episode in which the Doctor has the focus of the story. It should be included in the list of episodes in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuoso_(Star_Trek:_Voyager) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah (talk • contribs) 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the point of listing every single episode that focuses on the Doctor. Lots42 (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

So people can go through the list and watch every episode if they need to know a lot about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xilliah (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I have no idea what I'm doing so I'm tucking this in here. Just wanted to point out that in Season 6 ep 12 "Blink of an Eye," (the episode just before this one) the Doctor mentions that he had a son while on a three year away mission (actually a much shorter time—hours or days) to a planet that existed in a sped up reality. I assume the boy was adopted, but little more was mentioned of it. I'd say this is worth putting in the main article since is talks about his relationships and eventual wife. JPhilipW (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge??

Should this be merged with Emergency Medical Hologram?--Sonjaaa 04:04, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

• Go for it. Psychonaut 04:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with merging completely. Cburnett 15:27, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think they should be merged, either. If there weren't enough information about EMHs in general at that article, I'd be in favor of merging, but when both topics are well-developed, a merged article would be awkward. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Well we could keep both articles, but make them a bit more distinct. Moving all the "history" of the various incarnations of the program over to The Doctor (Star Trek), seeing as it's basicaly all the same "person", remove the Star Trek character stamp from this article, and just leave it a clean technical article explainingn what the Emergency Medical hologram technology is, without going into the "life history" of all the known incarnations, if you know what I mean. Likewise all the technical stuff about the EMH should be moved from The Doctor (Star Trek) to there. That would be my suggestion anyway. Make one article only about the EMH technology, and the other only about the character known as "the doctor" (and just put a "see also" link between them) who just happen to be a EMH, much like Tuvok just happens to be a Vulcan without going into detauls about what a Vulcan is in the same article, or giving the life history of all known Vulcans in the Vulcan article. Hopefully this "rant" makes enough sense to get my opinion across. --Sherool 18:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I agree with Sherool...more concise, remove duplicate information, wikilink the two articles. --MikeJ9919 06:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
          • I can agree with swapping content as apporiate and having two more specific articles. Cburnett 05:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
            • I also disagree with merging. Emergency Medical Hologram is the technology, but The Doctor has evolved into a unique character that, in my opinion, ought to be separate. --Kitch 16:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
              • I was about to remove the edit flag, but someome beat me to it (got a edit conflict when I clicked save). I do however think the Emergency Medical Hologram need a bit of editing to remove most of the "doctor" references (unless they serve a purpose). I'll see if I can find the time one of these days (unless someone beat me to that too :P). --Sherool 17:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If the articles are not merged, the information about the EMH in Star Trek: First Contact does not belong in this article, and should instead be in the EMH article instead, as the Voyager Doctor, though the same in appearance, is characteristically distinct from Robert Picardo's role in First Contact.--Jeffro77 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: I removed Sherool's comment on this talk page and pasted his bit from the other talk page so that discussion is happening in only one talk page. Cburnett 05:54, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Disputed

The article states about "Please state the nature...":

"His program was later modified so that he was no longer forced to say this phrase when he was activated, though for a time he kept using it anyway because he could not think of anything better to say, and he did not like the awkward silence while he waited for people to tell him why he had been activated."

I got the impression that he was always programmed to say this, but as his higher faculties came online he was able to will the phrase to stop--as his personality developed, it became more likely he would want to do so. Which is correct? Alksub 17:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I remember an aside in either season one or season two where the Doctor is activated, and says the phrase and a crewmember (I think B'Elanna) says something like "I thought we made it so that you didn't have to say that any more". I'll rewatch seasons one and two if nobody else remembers this piece of dialogue. Furby100 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

In "The Cloud" B'Elanna asks why he always says it, states that she knows a bit about holoprogramming and offers to reprogram him not to say it (around 21 minutes and 20 seconds into the episode). In "State of Flux" the Doctor is activated by Chakotay (around 38 minutes and 30 seconds into the episode) and does not say his catchphrase. When he is activated in "Projections" (right at the start of the episode) he does say it, so this could be when he decided to change it back. However, this occurs in what is essentially the Doctor's dream, so may not 'count'. In "Tattoo", the Doctor is activated by Kes (about 12 minutes and 25 seconds into the episode), says the phrase and then Kes asks him why he still says it when 'we' changed his program so that he wouldn't have to say it any more. He then says that he restored it because he became uncomfortable thinking of new ways to 'break the ice'. Since Kes refers to the Doctor's program being changed and B'Elanna talks about holoprogramming, I think the article is correct as it stands. If there are no objections, I shall remove the disputed statement template and refer to "the Cloud" and "Tattoo" in the article.Furby100 16:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"I'm a doctor, not a X"

It'd be fun to put together a complete list of references to "I'm a doctor, not a X", by not only The Doctor but also all of the other Trek doctors. joo-yoon 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There is one of those at Memory Alpha's page, "I'm a doctor, not a..." Mr. Granger 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Backup Copies of the Doctor?

I was thinking this section could be rewritten, after all there was technically only one backup copy. And it did take place 700 years in the future (or to be technical, even further then that, according to the last few minutes).

So the fact the backup copy was real was only due to a story being presented to people living far, far in the future. Can the backup copy really be considered canon at all?

I propose 'In episode Such and Such, a backup copy of the Doctor was a vital plot device but blah blah something something, potential future'.

Lots42 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's (another...) misunderstanding by the writers. What happened when the mobile emitter was shut off away from Sickbay? The program wasn't lost. What I think was meant was, the master file was a sole copy, & when Doc went into the emitter, it was copied; IIRC, the worries were what happened if all power was lost. And many of those worries were expressed by the Doctor: "What happens to me if the emitter is destroyed?"--i.e., am I dead? Or do I reboot from my last bookmark? (Which, BTW, would've been a really interesting story angle...)

Name "Canon"?

The article says, "In the series finale, one future is shown where he has chosen the name "Joe." The events of that episode involve changing history, however; thus this name cannot be considered canonical." Clearly, one cannot say that the Doctor's name is Joe throughout the series, but I don't see any problem with the alternate future being in canon.

Alternate futures are by their very nature, not canon. However...if Brannon Braga or Jeri Taylor or somebody with power says in an interview 'Yeah, such and such was always canon' then that is different. Lots42 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Backup Copies

The 'Backup Copies' section as it is seems to be original research. Or maybe I am completely misunderstanding it...it definitely needs citations of -some- sort; it's just that it's vey difficult to understand it. Limited memory? What? Lots42 (talk) 09:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like I discussed this topic in the past and had forgotten it, but my concerns still stand. Saying 'Voyager never reproduced the doctor because of limited memory' just does not make sense. Lots42 (talk) 09:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

A Friendly Note

The Doctor on the Star Trek: Next Generation movie is not the same character as the Voyager Doctor. Lots42 (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It has to be. According to the episode where the Voyager Doctor meets his creator, all other EMH's using his appearance work in mines now. --86.87.28.191 (talk) 19:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

??? But they are not the same entity. Though the same actor plays them both, Captain Kirk is not the same as his mirror-universe counterpart, both are different characters. Lots42 (talk) 00:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

edits

• This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (July 2008)
• This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail which may only interest a specific audience. The article could be improved by integrating relevant items and removing inappropriate ones. (January 2009)
• This Star Trek-related article describes an aspect of Star Trek in a primarily in-universe style. Please help rewrite it to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective.
• The plot summary in this article is too long or detailed compared to the rest of the content. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot. (November 2007)

I understand the desire to post as much detail as possible however maybe we should try to keep this an easy read for the general public; especially considering the above notes. In depth, excessive and heavy details are better suited at memory alpha. When someone just backs up to an early edition because they do not like being edited or disagree, it returns the article to, according to wiki, an undesirablly intricate, heavily detailed and redundant piece. "Its an article not a documentary" ;-) 66.229.212.172 (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposing Enemies

IIRC, there was an episode where Paris and the Doctor faced intruders. The Doc was having an ethical conondrum because he didn't want to hurt the intruders, yet wanted to save his friend. Someone came up with the idea of him simply sedating the intruders and it worked wonderfully. If I am remembering this correctly, I think this is worthy of being added in. Lots42 (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Other EMH's?

This is the redirect target for Emergency Medical Hologram as well. I think there should be 1) References to other EMH's, like the one on the Prometheus and the one based on Dr. Bashier, etc. or 2) Break out a disambiguation page of the various EHM's, with this page referring strictly to the EHM Mark 1. Nutster (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no need to direct all the EMH info here. As is clearly established, the Doctor's EMH is clearly his own character. Heck, he has civil rights and everything while the other EMHs do not. Lots42 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jetal

As I understood it, the problem with Ensign Jetal is that the Doctor chose a -person- to die. Not that he chose Harry because he was more of a friend. I hope I am making myself clear. Lots42 (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you could have watched that episode and come to the conclusion you have. It is explicitly stated several time that it is because Harry was more of a friend. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, your conclusion would be completely out of character for the Doctor. But Voyager has done bad writing (in my opinion) before. Lots42 (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

“Species”

Surely the “Species” of such a character should be ‘Artificial Intelligence’, or something along the lines of a software algorithm, rather than the mere physical manifestation (holography is only the means of presentation/appearance)? One reason for retaining this distinction is to differentiate between other AI characters which are not holograms (Holly (Red Dwarf) comes to mind) — Lee Carré (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Doctor (Star Trek) → Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) – The title 'Doctor (Star Trek)' is too ambiguous. Eladkse (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Doctor" is excessively ambiguous , "The Doctor" is highly ambiguous referring to Star Trek. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Suggest instead EMH (Star Trek) or Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager), as that is much more clear, since there's only one major EMH character in Star Trek, whereas there are several Doctors, and they are frequenly called "Doctor" or "The Doctor". There is only one major character by this moniker on Voyager however... 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Reply There have been many EMH's, and although this article also covers them, it is not about EMH in general, so it should not be called "EMH (Star Trek)". Eladkse (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
  • New suggestion I agree with specifying Voyager, so I now suggest "The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager)". He is definitively not called just "Doctor" - that is only used when talking directly to him. When referred to in third person (even when he is part of the discussion) he is called "The Doctor". Eladkse (talk) 09:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support "The Doctor" refers to a person, whereas "Doctor" refers to the occupation. Ng.j (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Generally "The" is only used when referring to works (see for instance WP:THE). There's a precedent for not including the with articles like Joker (comics), Doctor (Doctor Who), etc. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Change Have changed the request to 'Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager)'. It clarifies who we are talking about, even if 'The' cannot be used. Eladkse (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support as he appears 'only' in that ST series. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
• SupportThis is a difficult one to work as idealy 'The Doctor(ST:V)' would do fine as then everyone is sure who we mean but as said above we cant use "the"...which complicates matters slightly. However maybe we are just all being far too pedantic. I think the majority of people would understand it as 'Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) as it is now being proposed to be changed too. Bailo26 01:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support There are many "Doctors" in Star Trek (McCoy, Crusher, Bashir; each one being "the" doctor at the specific series), but only one in Voyager. Cambalachero (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed redirect

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Redirecting 'The Doctor' to Doctor Who's 'The Doctor' about that thing it says in the link, and to link to this Doctor in a hatnote. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 8 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 12:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) → The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager) – Per Talk:The Doctor (Doctor Who)#Requested move 20 April 2015 - this character is known as "The Doctor" too. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC) Unreal7 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment EMH can certainly be considered to be "the Doctor" within the context of the "lost in space", so to speak, Voyager spaceship but, I would imagine that, when the Voyager crew got in contact with another civilisation with medical facilities, he would be generally regarded as another medical doctor. He is one of many starfleet doctors al-be-it a long way from home. The web address reads: https://www.startrek.com/database_article/the-doctor but the text reads: "STARFLEET BIO-FILE: "Doctor""

GregKaye 19:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Support as per what I have seen of script exerpts at: site:www.chakoteya.net/voyager/ doctor. GregKaye 19:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support this article is about the Voyager's EMH, not some generic doctors from the TV show, so "The" will indicate this isn't about "doctors from STV" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support Is there a The Doctor in the house? The Doctor would then appear from thin air. And per Greg Kaye. Randy Kryn 4:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Doctor Who RM. SnowFire (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Similar to the Doctor Who issue, this is about a particular character, not the general concept of a doctor. WP:THE says that we should include "the" when the inclusion of the term affects the meaning, and it does in this case. —BarrelProof (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
• Support per above. Egsan Bacon (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Doctor (Star Trek: Voyager). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141129021803/http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/chat/archive/transcript/1245.html to http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/chat/archive/transcript/1245.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Voyager absences

Prime Factors Non Sequitur Resistance Day of Honor Goojrr (talk) 05:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

- REPLY to Goojrr's comment:

(sorry, the reply button seems not to work)

I do not understand what Goojr tried to say, could someone explain?

Grech papers

There's a comment after the notability clean-up template that says "N.B. Template added before reference to Grech paper, so now unnecessary?". However, according to Retraction Watch, there have been expressions of concern about Grech's Star Trek papers and many of his other papers too (article), with one about The Doctor being officially retracted. Considering the description of the journal under Grech as "something of a vanity press" by Retraction Watch (same article), I'm not sure those papers should go towards establishing notability. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 13:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Side note - right after posting this, I changed the comment to point to this thread. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 13:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)