Talk page help

Maintenance links

  • T: Data's Day
  • A: TNG
  • N: 4x11
  • P: 40274-185
  • C: 191
  • M: January
  • Y: 1991
Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the TNG forum at The Trek BBS.

Hindu Festival of Light

"Data's Day" Brings up the "Hindu Festival of Light", I did a little research and collected the dates of that festival, for the years of 2266, 2267, 2268 just to cover all that bases. The date given, is based off your year, and the Cannon evidence from Data.

Where did you find the dates for the festival? Ryan123450 02:34, 29 Aug 2004 (CEST)

I contacted a Hindu Organization and asked them what the dates of the festivals are for those years. --TOSrules 03:31, 29 Aug 2004 (CEST)

2267, 2268, and 2269 or 2367, 68, and 69?

Also I'm not disputing your date but isn't the Festival of Lights usually in October? Does the date change every year and it's only in October currently?Ryan123450 23:58, 29 Aug 2004 (CEST)

This is what I was told 03-11-2366 Thursday (Monday August 6, 2362), 24-10-2367 Tuesday (Saturday July 24, 2363), 11-11-2368 Monday (Friday August 14, 2364). Remember the Hindu had there own calendar, one that might have bit errors causing changes in the date over time. --TOSrules 02:18, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST)

Error on my part, it is October. July 24th 2363 is the launch date of the Enterprise D, that is why I made the mistake. i had forgot that the dates in parenthesis is not the date of the episode but projected dates of the Enterprise's Commissioning as given by Data. --TOSrules 02:29, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST)

OK, great! That fits in pretty well with the dates I've been talking about at Talk: Timeline.Ryan123450 08:13, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST)
Is it sure that Kevin Thorley alias Mot appeared in this episode?Because neither on nor on he is listed for this episode.The Bolian barber in this episode was apparently V'Sal, played by a different actor. Kennelly 16:16, 20 Feb 2005 (GMT)
The TNG Technical Manual (Sternbach/Okuda) gives the commissioning date of the Enterprise-D as "4 October 2363". It very well could be that the writer who worte the episode was not aware of the fact that the commissioning date had already been established, and that the line in question may conflict with that date. Roundeyesamurai 03:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Ya'll do of course know that if this episode was set late in the year, the year was most likely 2366? Think about... the last episode of Season 1 was set in 2364; the last episode of Season 2 would then be 2365; Season 3's last episode would be 2366; and Season 4's would be 2367. This episode is in the middle of the season and set on a month late in the year. The year would probably become 2367 about three episodes afte this one. The problem with this is that it would mean that the Enterprise-D was launched around August of 2362 and the first part of the first season would be set in 2363. This means Nemesis, which takes place 15 years after Picard first assumed command of the Enterprise, would be set in 2378. So, I dunno; chances are there are time differences between Earth and the starship crew due to the effects of faster-than-light space travel, so for all we know it may be November in one episode and March in the next. --From Andoria with Love 05:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a good idea Shran, except for one thing: That generality only applies to relativistic (i.e. near-light-speed) travel. The concept behind FTL "warp" drive is that there is no time dilation effect. It's covered in the TNG TM- with a specific statement about the need to reset onboard chonometers after exccessive use of high *impulse* speeds. I'm still chalking it up to a writer screwup. Roundeyesamurai 06:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Ahh, I see. I thought they probably would have thought up of a way to prevent time dilation effects. I have the TM, but I haven't read anything in it yet on the nature of warp drive. I guess that'll be the next thing I check out. :)
Having said that, is it possible that "a celebration of the Hindu Festival of Lights" could have taken place without it actually being set during the Festival? In other words, maybe they were just celebrating the occasion but it wasn't actually time for the Festival. Kinda like celebrating a person's life although it's not that person's birthday or anything, like a tribute. Is it also possible that the dates on which people celebrate the holiday were changed in the future for some reason? --From Andoria with Love 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That would make the most sense, Shran. Roundeyesamurai

Hindu Festival of Lights

I couldn't make sense of any of the information above. Could somebody find out when the Festival of Lights would be held in the year 2367, when this episode is apparently set? --From Andoria with Love 14:43, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I guess it must be October 24th... --From Andoria with Love 14:44, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

You know, if this episode took place in late October/early November of one year, it is highly unlikely the rest of the season would take place within that same year. There would probably be maybe four or five more episodes, then it would be a new year. I just thought I'd point that out.... just an observation. I think it's more likely that this episode took place in November, 2366, though, because, when backtracking, that's the one that works out to a year of 2364 for "The Neutral Zone". If it were October, 2367, then "The Neutral Zone" would be set in 2365. Knowhatimean? --From Andoria with Love 17:20, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

That is one thing this site does not take in account. Season did not begin one year and end at the end of that year. A Trek year is probably closer to the dates of the season itself. Season 1 TOS shows that clearly, the first 10 episode were in one year and the rest another. The Last season of Voyager also pans this out too. This is only another example of this fact. This is one of the most solid dates I've seen in TNG. The next year probably starts before the episode Q-pid as we are told that Picard's vacation to Risa was last year. --TOSrules 00:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, if this took place in 2366, that means "Best of Both Worlds" took place in '66, which would make sense since "Second Sight", set in 2370, takes place exactly four years after the Battle of Wolf 359. So things pretty much come together... maybe. Alas, it's all speculation... if we were to do this based solely on canon information, we'd have to say this episode took place in the 2360s rather than giving an exact year. --From Andoria with Love 08:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I was not saying using only canon sources, but Canon sources ALWAYS trump other sources. The year of each season should be more like it's airing schedule where the year ends when the season goes into the next year. Which also means that the first part of Season 1 was in 2363. Same applies to the commission date of the Enterprise. Also if the date of Data's Day is 2366 that changes the date of the Festival of Lights. --TOSrules 02:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Question About Extras

Does anyone have a source for information on who played certain extras in any particular episode? I'm curious as to who played the female security officer on the bridge (whom Riker was telling the joke to). Didn't she have a speaking part in another episode? Roundeyesamurai 03:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was Jae played by Tracee Lee Cocco. Jaz talk 05:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I checked the episode, it is not Jae.

This redheaded female tactical officer is seen in many episodes but she never gets a name and never speaks a word. She is often seen talking to Commander Riker on the bridge or in a corridor, so they seem to be friends. She is in a shuttle with Worf in "Darmok" and is present in the shuttlebay when Captain Picard comes aboard the ship for the very first time in "All Good Things...", she is also a guest on Worf's birthday party in "Parallels", holding a balloon. But as she never spoke a word, she is never credited so we don't know the name of the actress. --Jörg 13:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think she and Riker are more than friends, given what was transpiring during the joke scene. Remember, the events of the episode were moments of the day which Data chose to memorialize in his letter to Maddox- and he chose the instance of Riker telling the joke to that particular woman (and one or two other officers) to comment on Riker's success in relationships with women (particularly female crewmembers), and Data's supposition that humor may be a component of this success. Look at the exchange of glances between the two of them afterward, as well.
BTW- I have this episode and several others in .avi format. Anyone who would like it, send me an email.Roundeyesamurai 19:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I finally identified her, she was played by Cameron and is called Ensign Kellogg. --Jörg 15:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you may be right, Jorg. I don't have any of the other episodes that Kellogg appears in, so I can't verify it. Unfortunately, since Cameron doesn't appear to have a surname, Googling more photos of her is proving exceedingly difficult. Roundeyesamurai 03:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm going to go ahead and remove the October 24th date in the sidebar. For one thing, I believe the Hindu Festival of Lights is celebrated over a few days, so we don't know exactly which day it is. Secondly, we don't know exactly under what circumstances the celebration is being held: it might just be a celebration to honor the holiday, not an observation of the holiday itself. Also, we don't know if circumstances prior to the episode (the Battle of Wolf 359 comes to mind) caused the celebration to be delayed to this point in time. Lastly, the month of October in the current accepted chronology just doesn't work, because the season would most likely end in the year 2368, and the having a date that may or may not be the real date is just too confusing. So, it go bye-bye. --From Andoria with Love 23:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Look at the stardate. The Enterprise-D was launched (or comissioned; does that necessarily have to be the same thing?) on 40749.5 - which would be October 1st, 2363.– Michael riber jorgensen 16:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, 40749.5 wouldn't be October 1st... although that would be nice if it were. Unfortunately, it's never been revealed in canon that stardates are so perfectly aligned (for lack of a better word) with Earth dates. --From Andoria with Love 05:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The tap dancing

Does Gates McFadden actually have tap dancing skills or was all that tap dancing just good editing with a double?

Two quotes from the Gates McFadden page to answer the question:
McFadden also directed the TNG episode "Genesis" and choreographed the dance routine in "Data's Day".
Gates McFadden is an accomplished dancer and puppeteer; she worked on several Jim Henson productions as a choreographer, most notably in the film Labyrinth. --Jörg 21:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed passage

Removed the following:

  • Data states in the episode that "Vulcans are incapable of lying". Vulcans are indeed reluctant to lie, but they are capable of lying. The correct phrasing should have been "Vulcans do not lie."
as MA is not a nitpicking site, however, if this sort of quote is OK, please restore it. 31dot 15:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Similarly, " One possible explanation [for possible discrepancies in Enterprise-E's possible commissioning date] is that an actual vessel commissioned into a government service goes through three cermonial "births." The first is when the ship is "christened" (that is, officially given a name by which she will be known). This is typically done shortly after the ship is "launched" (placed in the water for the first time), and sometimes these are done in two different ceremonies. There is also usually a short ceremony in which the government operator (Navy, Coast Guard, etc.) officially "receives" the ship from the builder who constructed her. At this point, the ship receives the prefix "PCU" before her name (Pre-Commissioned Unit), and is assigned a PCO (Prospective Commanding Officer). Finally, at a purely naval ceremony, the ship receives her "commission" (legal authorization to serve as an active unit within the particular service). The ship's prefix again changes (in the case of the US Navy, to USS) and the PCO becomes the "CO" or Commanding officer, after giving the official order to "Man the ship and bring her alive!" The two conflicting dates given above may in fact be dates referring to her Christening/Launch followed by her actual commissioning" gets the ax as MA is not for personal speculation. --TribbleFurSuit 15:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I can see how my explanation may be overly verbose, but I don't think it should be eliminated entirely. After a careful read of the above, you'll note that I don't draw *any* conclusions, based upon speculation or otherwise. All that I do is offer one possible explanation for a discrepancy already noted as pertanent in the article. Since the existance of the discrepancy (and the two possible results it may yield in terms of commissioning dates) is given considerable treatment in the article, I think it makes sense to describe a possible explanation, as we do in many, many other cases. I'll reinserting the text just to give us something to work with, but I warmly invite any edits which might make the paragraph clearer or more understandible. But, overall, since there's no conclusion drawn or advocated, I don't think the paragraph should be voided as a speculative conclusion. Best, SwordandScales 03:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
One problem is that it becomes speculation. Any possible explanation is such. We're an encyclopedia. We simply present facts. That's all. -- sulfur 03:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, things like "one possible explanation" is exactly what MA:NOT is talking about under "Personal Speculation". To wit: "if we don't know, then leave it blank." It IS speculation to say that something is possible without any evidence that it's actual. --TribbleFurSuit 04:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Now, I'm not going to re-revert this again myself because it smacks of revertwarring. The next interested party who comes along and thinks like Sulfur and myself do can take care of it. I bet it won't even be very long. --TribbleFurSuit 04:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Swords - I believe that one possible explanation is that data was malfunctioning or that what actually happened is that there are *two* enterprises each commissioned on a different day. or maybe he exists in a phase between multiple dimensions and didn't know which one he was currently in to give the correct information. - see that's why speculation, even what you believe isn't speculation, is not allowed - too many theories as to what may have been but no facts - and then we have every yahoo on this site adding their own little "what ifs" - that's why we have a policy against this sort of thing. Please don't add it back. — Morder 04:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll certainly accede to the opinion of the majority in this case, but I'm hoping someone can help me understand why this policy isn't uniformily applied. For example, in the MA article on the USS Prometheus (Prometheus Class) there is discussion on how the vessel's registry number found on internal displays differs from the registry number found on the CGI model of the hull. This is followed immediately by the suggestion that perhaps starfleet changed the registry number as a means of keeping the project "classified", and/or that they'd updated the internal displays, but just hadn't gotten around to repainting the hull yet. I'm a bit confused as to why that sort of conjecture is acceptable, whereas the text I've offered is not. (And let's keep it friendly, gang. It's just an article. :-) ) Best, SwordandScales 08:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC) posted this on my talk page as well...let's keep the discussion in one place. Well, the policy was written after many many articles have been added. I (We) remove them when we see them. — Morder 08:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if the double posting caused any confusion or inconvenience. I'd thought posting on the talk page might make it easier for you to see responses. I'd be happy to keep further postings here on this page. Again, please accept my apology for the amaturish mistake. I think the lesson I'm taking from this particular exchange is that there isn't really a uniform sense in the MA community on what sort of speculation is acceptable, as I've noticed several featured articles with speculative references similar to the one I noticed in the entry on the Prometheus. It seems that each individual article has its own sub-community of contributors who have their own particular feelings on how strictly to enforce the policy (sort of how various US Circuit courts sometimes rule differently on the same issue). So, I suppose the best thing to do is to just continue to allow the community to deal with it on a case-by-case basis. In this case, since the majority of commenting contributers to this article would rather not include the additional text, I'll certainly abide by those wishes. As an unrelated aside, I do hope you allow the background info in the Prometheus article to remain. Speaking only for myself, I was pretty confused by the discrepancy in the registry numbers on Prometheus, and was very glad to know that I'd likely find some sort of explanation for it on Memory Alpha. More information seems preferable to less, if there can be found an apporpriate place to provide it. Is such discussion permitted on the talk pages of articles? All the best. Looking forward to contributing with you in the future. Best. SwordandScales 13:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
As noted above... we're trying to clean stuff up. It's a slow process.
As an aside, please indent to a consistent level when you respond. According to talk pages, when you respond with an indent of three levels, you should respond with that indenting each time you respond in that conversation. Thanks. -- sulfur 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "More information seems preferable to less", quite right, but it has to be verifiable information, not opinion nor what one person imagines to be a "possibility".
Regarding "Is such discussion permitted on the talk pages of articles?", absolutely, yes, that's exactly what Talk: pages are for, discussing an article's contents, potential or otherwise. One could ask, "I'm thinking about this... [quote example], is it OK to add or does any known info support it?" Sometimes another contributor might actually have some actual information which the original speculator does not. In these cases, working together, a speculation-free item for the article can be drafted, and a disagreement over a cleanup can be avoided. Far more often than not, however, there's no such obscure information waiting to come to light, and the speculation isn't supported by anything. In such cases, everyone feels better about resolving such on the Talk: page first instead of via multiple reversions and confusing edit summaries. --TribbleFurSuit 16:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Parallel with Dear Doctor?

Does anyone think that there is a parallel between this episode and "Dear Doctor" from that respectively Data and Dr. Phlox are both discovering what it means to be human?

--RomulanHand 02:16 EST on the 15 of January 2008

As Dear Doctor is filmed after, then it's probably a reuse of a storyline which is quite common on Star Trek. – Jono R 22:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Unless someone who wrote or worked on either episode stated that there was a deliberate similarity, it's merely a coincidence, which we don't put in articles.--31dot 22:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


"This was the first occasion when more than one Romulan warbird was shown on screen at any one time except for the third season episode "The Defector" where two warbirds are clearly seen in front of the Enterprise."

Right, so... more commonly referred to as the second occasion. Who says "Well, that's the first time this has happened, except for that time when it happened before"? --DiscoJustice 17:17, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed. Since there's no real point in saying what essentially amounts to "this is the second time x happens" when x happens quite a number of times throughout Star Trek, I've removed the line. -Mdettweiler 17:32, January 26, 2010 (UTC)
My guess is one person initially added the note thinking this episode was the first time, and then someone else corrected them. Still, probably not all that notable even if it was the first time. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:11, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Question About Bridge Protocol

When the ship arrives at the Neutral Zone, Data enters the bridge, notes Riker flirting with a female crewman at Tactical, and then begins commenting on a possible connection between humor and sex - something that would explain Riker's success in both areas. Riker approaches the conn station, Data states their position, and Ricker summons Cpt. Picard by saying "Picard to the bridge".

This seems like a continuity error - summons always use rank/title before name (Commander Worf, Commander Data, Counselor Troi, etc.). It seems very odd that the XO would say "Picard to the bridge" instead of "Captain to the bridge" or even "Captain Picard to the bridge".

I looked for mention of this in the Continuity section of the article but it was not there. Should it be? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Omegacron (talk • contribs).

A bit late, but this would be a nitpick, so should not be included.
In any event, Riker is only human and may have just misspoke.--Cleanse (talk) 05:49, April 26, 2020 (UTC)

More Removed Notes

There is an insect seen crawling in Spot's food. Also, when Data replicates the food there appears to be barely more than a spoonful in the dish, yet when he puts it down seconds later, the dish is more than half full.
When Data is speaking to Troi about marriage, a house fly is seen buzzing around his head.

Both clear nitpicks.--Cleanse (talk) 05:49, April 26, 2020 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.