Talk: Rachel Garrett

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rachel Garrett article. For general discussion, go to Memory Alpha's Discussions or Discord. Click here to start a new discussion on this talk page.

Wild Guess...[]

Somehow, it seems quite fascinating to me, like the name Rachel Garret sounds similar to Majel Barret considering the other eastereggs its an interesting coincidence... Anything known about it? – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.131.253.20

Female Ent Captain[]

I know it was an alternate timeline, but T'Pol did command the NX-01. So, isn't the note about Garrett being the only female Enterprise captain technically incorrect? --Kevin W.^Tlk 20:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

For one, T'Pol never commanded the NX-01, she was first the second officer and later the first officer. Second, that's the ISS Enterprise... the note on Garrett's page states she was the only canonical female captain of a USS Enterprise. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind about the first point, I thought you were talking about "In A Mirror, Darkly" for some reason. Yes, in "Twilight", she did command the NX-01, but that still wasn't a USS Enterprise. ;) --From Andoria with Love 00:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

nor was it in the "real timeline" --Alan 02:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I missed the "USS". Bleh. --Kevin W.^Tlk 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

2300[]

How does a birthdate of 2300 indicate an early admittance to the academy? --88.117.76.113 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that she would be eleven upon her entry in 2311.Both dates from the novels, of course --OuroborosCobra ^talk 15:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek Continues[]

In Star Trek Continues Episode 7 "Embracing the Winds" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMasSzFXaKQ , there is a Garrett that declares one day there may be a Garrett that Captains the Enterprise. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by RobLoach (talk • contribs)

Fan fiction. So... not really all that relevant. -- sulfur (talk) 16:43, September 8, 2016 (UTC)

Split Prime and Alternate timelines[]

Should this be split into 2 sections? Also in prime timeline she would have been presumed dead in 2344 as the events of the alternate timeline was closed, correct? ‐ Yaroze86 (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I think the time travel is so integral to what happened that splitting it would negatively impact readability (especially since "Yesterday's Enterprise" doesn't mention her at all in the prime timeline parts). As for her status, we don't put down assumptions. If canon doesn't tell us, we leave it blank. -- UncertainError (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

After Section 31 comes out, we can revisit this discussion if her movie story becomes more detailed than Yesterday's Enterprise. -LauraCC (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

So now that we have Prime and Alternate, do we justify the split? IMO, the Prime stuff needs to be in the prime or what we "know" as prime and everything else needs to go into the Alt section. ‐ Yaroze86 (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I oppose it, since we didn't learn anything new about the events of "Yesterday's Enterprise" so my concerns still stand. -- UncertainError (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

While it might be convenient to do so this is not (from my browsing) uniform with other articles. Look at Natasha Yar#Second_life article and how her second life happened without going into the Alternate timelines section. (Again, another instance where we should split Prime and Alternate Timelines into separate articles IMO). I think we can edit it, so the events are happy to be in both sections sort of like this:

Prime timeline events. Everything we learned from Rachel about the events prior to its distress call can be inferred as Prime timeline.

By 2344, Garrett had obtained the rank of captain and was given command of the USS Enterprise-C. The Enterprise responded to a distress call from the Klingon outpost at Narendra III, which was under attack by four Romulan Warbirds. Garrett ordered the Enterprise to engage the attackers. While defending the outpost, the weapons discharges resulted in the creation of a temporal rift, through which the badly damaged Enterprise drifted momentarily into. (TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise")

Then what we know is:

The Enterprise-C returned to the same time it left its timeline. It engaged the Romulans and was eventually destroyed. In the aftermath of the battle, the Klingons were deeply impressed by the act of self-sacrifice by a Starfleet crew to protect a Klingon outpost, and the Enterprise's ultimate legacy was reinforcing the relations between the Klingon Empire and the United Federation of Planets, leading to a close alliance of peace. History books would list Enterprise-C and her crew, including Captain Garrett, destroyed and MIA/KIA in 2344. It would not be until 2368, Starfleet would learn the true fate of the Enterprise-C and some of her crew. (TNG: "Redemption II")

Everything in-between should be in the Alternate timeline section. ‐ Yaroze86 (talk) 01:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)