Talk:Faces (Star Trek: Voyager)

copyedits

Extended content

@Aoba47: and all interested parties, I did some minor copyedit on the article (these 8 typos) and had some small issues with the plot section that could use a closer look by someone more familiar with the subject matter. Easy ones first: There are non-breaking spaces around the second instance of Voyager in the third paragraph. Nothing really wrong with that, I'm just wondering why? I have corrected this, thank you! the Starfleet Academy — The the doesn't sound right to me, and it doesn't show up in the article on Starfleet Academy. I went ahead and cut the the but if it's actually stated in the episode's dialog it should probably go back. Thank you for the correction. I agree that "the" should have been cut, and Starfleet Academy is more accurate to say. I'm probably over-thinking this — Chakotay, disguised as a Vidiian guard with the help of Tuvok and The Doctor (Robert Picardo), breaks into the Vidiian facility — Is this saying that Tuvok and The Doctor helped Chakotay disguise himself, and Chakotay then broke into the facility? Or that Chakotay (who was disguised) broke into the facility aided by Tuvok and The Doctor? Depending on the intended meaning, this might benefit from rephrasing. I agree with that each sentence should be as clear as possible. The sentence should mean as follows (Tuvok and The Doctor helped Chakotay disguise himself, and Chakotay then broke into the facility). If there is any way that the meaning could be made clearer, I am open to suggestion. I was over-thinking that one, whether it needed another comma which would have changed the meaning – it didn't. - Reidgreg The second sentence of the plot section is giving me a bit of a disconnect. I'm guessing that the first sentence describes the episode's teaser, the second is exposition (possibly from a voice-over), and the third picks up with characters on the Voyager. I find the shifting point of view a little confusing, and I'm wondering if it couldn't be simplified. The "search party" doesn't come into the plot again until the third paragraph, so maybe it would be best to cut some of that and keep the focus on the planet? Thank you for your suggestion! I have altered the first paragraph, but let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve this section. I was an old-school Trekkie and thought I'd try my hand at this, but for FA you'll probably need someone with more experience. - Reidgreg (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC) @Reidgreg: Thank you for your comments! I expanded the article over the course of roughly a day so there is a lot of mistakes that need to be corrected so I greatly appreciate your input. It would be great to get this up to the FA level (as this would be the first FA for a Star Trek: Voyager episode, at least to my knowledge), but it will still take a lot of work to get there. And it is great to hear from a Trekkie. I have only seen Voyager so far (it was a big part of my childhood, and I would to continue working on Voyager-related articles), and I am watching the other parts of the series. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2016 (UTC) @Aoba47: good rewrite of the plot section. In fact, really quite a good article. I fixed a couple more typos but there's very little wrong and rather find myself searching for tiny, nit-picky things that might be improved. So please excuse me for going into minutiae. Thank you! I greatly appreciate that you took the time to review this as the small details are the most important sometimes. ...and forced to dig tunnels as part of slave labor. — there might be a bit of redundancy there. I understand this establishes the Vidiians are using systemic slave labour, but is that important to the plot or the article? Could probably cut part of or the last five words. Agreed, I added in the last part "as part of slave labor", but I agree that it is very awkwardly constructed so I have removed it. Sulan examines the Klingon Torres as she experiences extreme agony from the Phage. — Might consider restoring the paragraph break before this, it's a little long. True, I was experimenting around with paragraph length, and I agree that a paragraph break here would be good. In the writing section, I had some concern there might be confusion between the similar names Biller and Piller. But I see you've paid attention to link their full names on first mention, adjacent to their titles on the show, so if a reader does get a little confused they can easily glance up to the first paragraph of the section and spot the blue names. Good job! Thank you. I tried to make it as clear as possible. I will double-check to make sure I did not get the names confused. Biller expressed that he had difficulty with portraying Sulan as a sympathetic villain to the audience — portraying is often used for an actor's performance. For a writer, perhaps this could be better stated as depicting or characterizing or simply writing (dropping with and possibly to the audience)? Thank you for your suggestions, I have altered this section. "get it out of the way right now" — for conciseness right now might be cut. Done looked to producer Gene Roddenberry's approach for portraying antagonists in the Star Trek franchise. — Does this need further explanation? What was Roddenberry's approach? How did this guide Biller? Possibly cut the producer title in the context of a Voyager episode. I clarified this with the quote and cut the "producer" title. LaBelle clarified that his friendship with LaBelle did not influence his casting — I believe one LaBelle should be Biller. The wording of that paragraph could probably be tightened up a bit, once the meaning is clarified. Oops, that was a very silly mistake. I have tightened the wording for this. Dawson reasoned that "[she] was able to delinate these two sides that up until then were just metaphors" — Does [she] refer to Dawson or the character B'Elanna? If Dawson, she should be outside of the quotes. If B'Elanna, consider replacing she with B'Elanna Clarified. Ross clarified that "The Human" — Should Ross be [Roxann] Dawson or is this someone else? It should be Dawson. Thank you for the correction. Biller identified the episode as one of his favorite out of the three scripts — It looks like favorite should be plural; but if it is, the statement becomes a bit meaningless (one from among his 2+ favorites of a group of 3, which doesn't rule-out the possibility of it being his least favorite). Might cut that sentence. Biller identified this episode as his favorite from the three scripts he wrote for the first season. I have revised the sentence to better reflect this, but let me know if you believe it should still be taken out. I didn't understand the earlier phrasing; it's much better now. I'd say to keep it - Reidgreg He viewed the scenes in which Torres' realization that she was human and Sulan's transplant of Durst's face onto his own as the best from the episode. — I suspect in which could be better as depicting Revised! Skye Dent, who had to helped with the original development of the Vidiians — this could be had helped which is relatively neutral or had to help which suggests a more crucial role Agreed. Changed to "had helped". Hope that helps. I may be off a day or two, but will check back. - Reidgreg (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC) @Reidgreg: Thank you for your help! I have addressed all of your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC) @Aoba47: Looks good, I like the Roddenberry quote. I went ahead and put the full name B'Elanna Torres on first mention in the Plot section. Some say to do that: full names and link on first mention in the lead and first mention in the body of the article, but aesthetically there's enough blue and I didn't want to overlink. BTW, the Guild of Copy Editors will be doing a requests blitz Oct 16-22 so there's a good chance a more experienced editor will take a look. - Reidgreg (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC) @Reidgreg: Sounds good to me. I agree that it is always best to be careful with overlinking, and I thought the Roddenberry quote was very helpful in this context so I am glad that you liked it. Thank you again for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 16:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC) @Reidgreg: Hello again! Just wanted to ping you to ask if you would be interested in helping with the FAC for this article? Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Hi! I don't mind giving it another look, but I mostly work on old, neglected articles and I'm not sure my prose is up to Featured Article quality. I'll run through it after I finish another copyedit. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Separation-image

Would it be ok to use it in the B'Elanna Torres article as well? The episode is mentioned in the text, and it is a little iconic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thank you for your message. I do not believe that would be a good idea, in my opinion. The separation image is a non-free image and Wikipedia policy discourages the use of non-free images unless there is a clear way in which they further illustrate the material beyond the text itself. I do not see how this image would better illustrate the article beyond the text. There is already an image of Torres in the infobox, which shows her Klingon make-up and appearance. This is up to you (I do not have any plans on working on that particular article), but if you do really want to add the image, then I would find a stronger rationale than that one. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. As you say, the article have a Torres-pic, so adding another would be mostly WP:ILIKEIT. Still, it would be a good fit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• It really is up to you on that decision, but I still believe that it would not necessarily be a good fit as it does not add anything more to the article. I would only add that image if further discussion from the episode was included on that page (which I would caution against to avoid giving undue weight to a specific episode rather than the character's complete arc and development). Thank you for your response. Aoba47 (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Episode & production numbers

Stop changing the episode numbers because you watched this on Netflix, Netflix is not the owner. Netflix lists all episodes as (n), but the makers and current owner CBS lists all episodes as (n+1), because the first episode is considered as episode 1 & 2. CptBearguy (talk) 20:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• The episode number for this article has remained consistent. I have not noticed any edit warring or any edits really focused on this so I do not know what you referring to with this post. Aoba47 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
• But I agree with you (at least I think) that the pilot episode ("Caretaker") is considered episodes one and two for Voyager because it is a two-part. That is even reflected in reliable sources like the Star Trek Voyager Companion which references "Caretaker" as episodes one and two. Aoba47 (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)