Memory Alpha
Memory Alpha
Talk page help
Maintenance links
  • T: Scorpion
  • A: VOY
  • N: 3x26
  • P: 40840-168
  • C: 473
  • D: 21
  • M: May
  • Y: 1997
Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion, please visit Memory Alpha's Discussions feature, or join the chat on Discord.

FA Nomination[]

February 2011, Successful[]

I'd like to nominate this article, having thoroughly researched the episode's making. I was quite impressed by the summary, too, when I read it today. --Defiant 15:59, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. First, I think that there's something screwy with the Acts - Voyager episodes have five acts and a teaser, if I'm not mistaken. More significantly, I have some quibbles about the wording in the background section. While comprehensive, I think it's a bit wordy and repetitive in places. Things like stating "The holographic Leonardo da Vinci was added to the story at the request of Janeway actress Kate Mulgrew" and then quoting her three (!!!) times to that effect. Just because she said it three times, doesn't make it necessary to copy here. Heck, since it's just a simple statement, the quotes didn't really illuminate anything. I removed that example (and a few others), but I think some of what remains could be tightened up. Some of the notes could be more easily stated by paraphrasing several quotes from the same person, then having all the citations at the end. Please don't take this as knocking your (as always) excellent research, but rather as something that would make the article even better for readers.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 09:04, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Also, there are a few page numbers missing from the citations (e.g. in points one and two under the first subsection). These should be added if you've got them.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:47, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Mild Oppose: Though the article is well-written and comprehensive, I echo Cleanse's comments on the act structure. I do not see any problems with the background information, however. It has some interesting points that are thoroughly cited, albeit there are a couple of page numbers missing. Overall, good job! If the act layout is amended and the page numbers added, you'll certainly get my vote. -- TrekFan Open a channel 12:21, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: thanks for the conditional supports and comments, guys. Though I'm quite busy today, I don't see page numbers and acts being problematic (besides finding the time to put them in & make sure they're correct). Maybe someone could double-check the acts thing(?) If not, I'll get to it tomorrow. Although these aren't problematic, I do have several quibbles about the edit you made, Cleanse, and have my reasons for them; for example, the Kate Mulgrew/Leonardo thing – the quotes indicate a different level of involvement in the development of the idea as, in two of the quotes, she says that she "brought them" the idea while, in another, she states that she merely helped them come up with the idea (indicating a lesser degree of involvement). As we weren't there at the time & don't know exactly how big her participation in thinking up the Leonardo hologram was, I do find those quotes quite insightful and important. --Defiant 13:22, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Update: I've now added the requested page numbers. Coincidentally, they both came from page 37 of their respective publications! Feel free to let me know if any more are required. --Defiant 14:02, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: I found where the missing act was and I have amended the article accordingly. Though the summary of Act Two is a little sparse, I still feel the article as a whole is worthy of FA status. If more is willing to be done to that section in the meantime, it could only improve it. -- TrekFan Open a channel 15:00, February 16, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Now that all the nitpicks Cleanse mentioned have been cleared up, I'm unsure why there's still opposition to this nomination. --Defiant 10:27, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think Cleanse has seen the comments on this page yet. Give him some time. I'm sure he'll change his vote once he has read the updates. --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:18, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
  • Partial Support: Well written and comprehensive background etc but the summary section is too long. You might want to consider shortening it a bit and not mentioning every minute detail. People can watch the episode if they want it all.Distantlycharmed 22:26, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I have to politely disagree. It's my belief that an article should be as comprehensive as possible, including episode articles. Yeah, they can watch the episode aswell. But chances are, they won't be reading the article first if they haven't already watched the episode. The summary should contain as much information as possible in an informative and entertaining way. This also allows us to build the web with more links. Aside from that, thoroughly written summaries showcase the expertise and abilities of the Memory Alpha community. We could easily turn into one of those lazy wikis that copies a two paragraph summary from another website, but we aren't and we don't (hopefully!). :) --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:53, February 17, 2011 (UTC)
This is a summary though - not the retelling of the entire script in prose. A summary can still be well written and comprehensive without regurgitating everything and every detail in the episode. We had FA status removed based on excessive episode summary length (or they did not achieve FA status until that was cleared) See "Learning Curve". We dont know why people will read episode summaries but Mr Trek Fan, between two paragraphs posing as a summary and a novel there are a myriad of possibilities begging to make your acquaintance :) (catch the reference there? ;) Distantlycharmed 01:22, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: after editing the summary for length and reasons mentioned above. Distantlycharmed 02:29, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, now that the wording in background has been tightened up a bit.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 08:47, February 18, 2011 (UTC)
Anyone else? We only need two more votes to get this featured! --| TrekFan Open a channel 14:18, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for the reasons above.--31dot 14:47, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else want to add to this? Only 1 more "support" vote is needed for it to be featured! On the other hand, if anyone wants to object to the nomination, also feel free to do so. Whichever way it is cast, another vote would be very helpful. --Defiant 17:36, February 23, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, right! It seems I voted without even being aware of doing so. Thanks both for letting me know about that odd guideline and for your "support" vote. --Defiant 06:43, February 24, 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. I only count five supports not six. Am I missing something? --| TrekFan Open a channel 19:28, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Archived. - Archduk3 08:36, March 4, 2011 (UTC)


I just changed the links to this in the Dutch and German versions, and it just now dawned on me that there is an actual animal reference to a scorpion meaning that this page once again needs to be moved to "Scorpion". (The original move was based on the fact that the "Part I" wasn't included in the title, much like "In a Mirror, Darkly"). Anyway, I don't know what should be done with regards to the Dutch and German versions, I lobbed off their equivalent to "Part I", but I really dont want to get bitch slapped again for trying to be thorough in my moving of pages, regardless to how right or wrong I am -- besides I don't know a lick of either language. I would, however appreciate any assistance from those associated with those language pages so that I can straighten out my mess, accordingly...something I can and do intend to do. -- Alan del Beccio 07:55, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Well, it could be that the suffix was not missing in the German version, because it is very uncommon to broadcast an episode together. IIRC it was only done for the original broadcast of the pilots for DS9 and ENT then also only then and never again. So we might need to move it back anyway -- Kobi - (Talk) 08:20, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I already reverted all of my changes on the German pages, with exception of the interlanguage link. Anyway, I'm not sure what you mean by "it is very uncommon to broadcast an episode together" -- in terms of how it relates to this, other than the fact that it's stating the obvious. I know the move here is (or should be) appropriate because of the discussion about the lack of "part 1" suffix on "In a Mirror, Darkly", hence why it isn't "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part I". Nevertheless, I guess my overall point is that the term arachnid links to scorpion as well, which means we either need to change that link to "scorpion (animal)", or move "Scorpion" (minus the suffix) to "Scorpion (episode)" -- which is much more involved, but is also however the common practice around here. -- Alan del Beccio 08:36, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I moved it back for now. I have to sleep, and work yet later today so I will follow up on this later, if anyone is interested. -- Alan del Beccio 09:31, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Should not this quote be moved?[]

As Seven of Nine never appeared in this episode and therefore would not have said the following quote, should it not be moved to VOY: "Scorpion, Part II"?

"I speak for the Borg." - Seven of Nine, to Janeway and Tuvok on Borg Cube

-- Ds093 06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Recovered Borg drone corpse[]

I've added a link to the "Act Five" heading the Voyager episode "Blood Fever" in the "Act One" section of this article, to specify where and when the "Borg drone corpse" the Doctor refers to was recovered by the crew. This was the only time on screen that the crew found any Borg up until this episode, and there was significant concern at the time when the drone was found to assume they took it back to the ship (any time any crew of any series found something Borg, they usually recovered it for study). Additionally, the stardates between "Scorpion" (50984.3) and "Blood Fever" (50537.2) roughly match up to three months' time. If anyone feels this assumption is unwarranted or incorrect, feel free to revert. NthRepublic 13:00, December 20, 2010 (UTC)