Talk:Kathryn Janeway

June 9, 2006

Steps to stop a possible edit war

I think I am going to have to step in here and make a comment. I Have been following this artile for a little bit now. I'm not going to agree with the idea that the article was written with Gender Bias, as with most articles I give the benifit of the doubt and presume the editors POV isnt based on that. BUT there is a POV issue here. Petrus4, You have openly admitted to having an Axe to grind and thus should't be editing this article. BUT I must concurr that this hasn't been helped by inflamatory comments which have immediately presumed gender bias, AND posted comments/made changes without a signature/account name. Please, if you want to be taken seriously, let us know who you are, and don't make comments like "A woman in command might be threatening to teenage boys" it just makes things more heated!

To sum. Petrus4's additions, allthough welcome, suffer from serious bias against the character itself. Thus I have to support some change. The anonymous user who allthough says is for NPOV, makes changes such as

"There is also some controversy as to whether the character of Janeway was harder to accept in a position of authority by male viewers"

should cease and disist as well. Thus I am supporting the revert but Removing the majority of the comments in the Controversy Section. --DennyCrane Talk 00:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

June 7, 2006 evening

According to the National Organization for Women:

• Gender Bias - Unfair treatment or denial of rights because of gender or sex; a failure to treat both parties equally because of a prejudice based on gender or sex. For example, there is a common view, propagated by fathers’ rights organizations, that mothers usually get custody (and therefore fathers are being discriminated against and deserve more favorable treatment). In fact, mothers lose a majority of the time when custody cases are contested. While in uncontested cases the parents often agree that the mother should be given custody, when the parents disagree and the case is contested, the father is more often awarded custody by the court. Another indication of gender bias is the use of words to describe the woman such as hysterical, bitch, over-reacts, overly-emotional, tramp, dragon lady, gold-digger, etc.

See the The California National Organization for Women document here: http://www.canow.org/documents/court_watch.pdf

June 7, 2006

Personally, after looking at the Memory Alpha version of this article and the one presented here, I thought this article was pretty negative too. Is it sexist? Maybe, but only because it points out emotional behavior in the female captain while ignoring it in her masculine counterparts.

As far as abuse of power... What is abuse? Abuse of power is probably in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective and varies with frame of reference. IIRC, before Troi could be promoted to command rank, she had to be ready to order a suboordinate to his death against his objections. If that is Starfleet's test for command rank, I suspect that captains may exert quite a bit of authority without it being abuse.

Captain Archer stole a warp drive from an alien vessel, Kirk threatened to use ship's phasers on a planet that would not provide a vaccine, and Sulu was ready to fly his ship apart to assist Kirk while he was a fugitive from justice. Compare Captains Kirk, Sulu, Picard, Archer, and Janeway to the British navy on which the series is based (ala Horatio Hornblower) and abuse of power becomes much more difficult to prove. (Especially, when comparing Janeway to her fellow starfleet captains.) What might be abuse of power on the Loveboat, is perfectly acceptable on a British Naval vessel. Like I said, I think that it is opinion rather than a proven fact.

IMHO, none of the captains are "consistent" either. I think there are too many writers to make that charge stick. The most "consistent" was probably Archer, but he wasn't as popular as Janeway was and he made some morally gray decisions in the 3rd and 4th seasons of Enterprise during the Xindi conflict. (I personally was a bit dissapointed with Archer's decisions during those seasons.)

Was it a "sexist rant". No, but it wasn't what I would call a fair article either. Janeway couldn't have been too bad. She was nominated for a Saturn award three times and won one in 1998.

Sincerely, Destreza TRP

June 7 - Hello petrus4

just looking at the two revs of the article you seem to have a bias and you admit that you despise janeway. maybe it would might be better to let someone else write the article. calling females "emotional" is bound to trigger angry from female readers. maybe that was not your intentions, but it could look like that.

trkfan

June 6,2006

I *have* seen Shatner's acting, but I'm not sure what your implication is. A lot of people have said that Shatner's ability (or lack thereof) as an actor is simply attrocious, which is a position that I don't entirely disagree with myself. He has also been accused of narcissism on at least one occasion by people he has worked with.

In terms of me having an axe to grind, I'll admit it quite openly. I despised Janeway for the most part, and no, her gender was not relevant to the reason why. Abuse of authority is abuse of authority, regardless of which side of the gender line you're on. I've known any number of males who've behaved in a similar way.

As for offering examples of what I'm talking about, I've already done so. In numerous episodes she is shown putting the lives of subordinates on the line in order to persue her own agenda; it's actually one of the major themes of the series. Watch the pilot, and then disagree with me.

Your accusation of gender bias on my talk page to me says a lot more about your own area of focus, (gender equality) than it does about me...the gender issue wasn't something I was thinking about at all. I also actually consider your largely anonymous edit of my talk page cowardly...if it wasn't for Wikipedia's history feature, I wouldn't have been able to reply at all. I'm not making a sexist statement here either; cowardice or the lack thereof are also things I've seen exist on both sides of the gender line.

Petrus4 13:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit:

I've actually reverted the page to the last previous version, because this isn't the first article where I've contributed, only to have all of said material wiped because of the disagreement of a single person. If there's a group consensus on this, then I'll accept it and move on...but I suspect this is simply an issue being had by a single reactive hysteric...so for the time being, I'm going to revert it.

June 4, 2006

This article is probably the most bogus attempt at character assassination I have found in Wikipedia to date. It is clear that the revising author (Petrus4) has an axe to grind and NPoV is politely tossed to the dogs while sexist stereotypes and bias are perpetuated within the text of the article.

If you have ever seen Shatner's acting, calling Janeway an "emotional personality" and "inconsistent" is almost laughable and smacks of a gender-based stereotype. Shatner's performance and the rampant sexism in Turnabout Intruder is enough to make any Star Trek fan breath a sigh of relief at seeing a female captain in command of her own series. I invite anyone that wants to see the Prime Directive trashed and authority abused to watch Kirk in action.

A woman in command might be threatening to teenage boys or to sexist old white men, but for a modern viewer it is long overdue and Janeway takes the series into new ground. (Remember, we didn't see a female captain until the fourth film.)

The comments in the discussion area only confirm what I suspected. My advice is to get over yourselves and move on. For an example of what a NPoV article looks like, take a look at the article on Memory Alpha. It is superior in every way (without the sexism).

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Kathryn_Janeway

I agree completely with this statement, the acts upon which captain janeway performed that saved the crews life many times have gone unmentioned and the admiration and inspiration the character captain janeway has generated have gone unmentioned!

Earlier

I found this statement in the Janeway article this evening,

"Captain Kathryn Janeway is the foundation of the Voyager Crew and is the most generous and selfless person that there ever was"

As that's not a statement that conforms to principles of NPOV I removed it from the page.
JesseG 04:03, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's just a fictional character :) - that sort of statement is the kind you might find in a casting call Dowew 20:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Promotion

"How a captain known for her inconsistency and dis-regard for protocol during the seven years USS Voyager was missing was promoted to such a high level, bypassing several ranks, has never been explained."
Well I've got a pretty good idea.
JesseG 00:35, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I've added in Janeway's promotinos to RAdm (lower half), RAdm (upper half) and Vice Admiral, if anyone has any opinons on this move, please let me know. GoodDay 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Birthdate conflict

There seems to be a conflict about her birthdate: In ST:VOY episode Year of Hell, Part 1 it is day 65 which is on stardate 51268.4. That translates to August 30, 2374, however, it is mentioned in this episode that the date is May 20th! SD6-Agent 00:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Stardates don't map exactly to real-world dates. They're a mathematical convenience created so the crew of a starship (from possibly hundreds of planets with as many different biologies and as many different systems for time) can all be on the same scale; there is no simple integer ratio for any of them. Or at least, that's how they handwave it away. Almafeta 21:56, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lead

Webishtar made a similar edit to the Benjamin Sisko article. In that article's edit summary, s/he said, "By definition, if you appear in the opening credits, you are a lead character, which the characters of Geordi and Uhura both did". Whose definition? Wikipedia'own definition of lead (which, granted, doesn't say TV series): "A leading actor, leading actress, or simply lead, plays the role of the protagonist in a film or play. The word lead may also refer to the largest role in the piece...". Janeway's role seems to fit this definition. But, anyway, I've already reverted that other article three times and don't feel like going back and forth on this one, too. If the hang-up is on the word "lead", then let's find another way to rephrase it, as Janeway being the first female [whateverthehellitis] is significant. --EEMeltonIV 14:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would explain my point further, but I did so in the Benjamin Sisco article, and this one seems to have been edited to a significant compromise. --Wabishtar 15:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

Can anyone offer any substantiation to the weasely claims in this section? The tag has been atop the article for a while now and no one's touched it. The most meaty part of that section -- the specific Tuvix example -- seems no more a shade of gray or controversial than Sisko's actions in In the Pale Moonlight, yet I don't see anyone hopping over on that article to point out those foibles. Ditto Archer jacking some aliens' warp drive in the Expanse. Certainly there's material to back up Moore's assertion -- I remember reading the interview at TGL and other sites after he left the Voyager staff -- but the rest of that content is...well, not really content. --EEMeltonIV 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's always bad practice to say "well nobody has done nothing about article A so therefore it must be OK in article B" - all that means is that nobody has gone around to it (and it you ARE concerned about the Sisko or archer articles - get stuck in!).

The controversy section as it stands as it stands is chuff. I have deleted the whole thing and have moved it here. Find sources for the statements and then put it back in that can be supported. Remember it's NOT my job to provide evidence why those statements are incorrect but for editors who want them to be included to provide supporting evidence.

This is the section as it currently stands, find supporting material and then re-add it. --Charlesknight 20:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you misread the tone or point of my earlier post -- it's more along the lines of "Well, nobody has put something like this in article A, so it's *not* okay in article B." Regardless, it's secondary to the fact that none of the nonsense in the controversy section was substantiated. I put the tags in as flags for anyone who wanted to offer some meat to back up the various claims; you just beat me to excising the whole section since no one has stepped up to the challenge.--EEMeltonIV 21:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Italic text

Controversy copied from artice for editing and agreement from editors

Janeway was a controversial character among many fans throughout much of the Voyager series' run‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . Occassionally, this criticism was dismissed as merely sexism.

Part of the controversy was percieved character inconsistancies. Janeway's command style is occasionally high-handed, although not significantly more so than any of the other Star Trek Captains. An example of this is the episode "Tuvix", in which a transporter malfunction merges Tuvok and Neelix into one sentient and distinct individual, Tuvix. Although Tuvix refuses to undergo a procedure to separate him into Tuvok and Neelix, Janeway forces the separation. Many fans felt that Janeway "murdered" Tuvix‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  while others considered Janeway justified in doing what she thought was best for the majority‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

DS9 co-executive producer and short-time Voyager writer Ronald D. Moore criticized what he considered to be Janeway's inconsistent command style‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . While Kate Mulgrew's acting on the show was often regarded as superb and generated much critical acclaim‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , there were those who felt that her regal mannerisms too closely paralleled those of Jean-Luc Picard‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› , lending credence to assertions that Voyager became little more than a TNG knock-off during its final three seasons‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

The move to feature a female captain was met with criticism from some elements of fandom, who resented the series' strong female characters and the emphasis on "feminine" values like cooperation over more aggressive, action-oriented storylines‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› . While Janeway was generally a more democratic and empathetic captain than the Trek norm, she was also quite capable of aggression when the occasion demanded and was very definite about maintaining her authority when other characters overstepped their bounds‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

Along with Picard's baldness and Sisko's shaved head, Janeway's hairstyle was the subject of much talk among fans‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› .

Janeway also prefers to be called by the gender-neutral "Captain" (or "ma'am" "in a crunch") even though Starfleet officers, regardless of their gender, are generally addressed as "sir" by their subordinates (Voy: "Caretaker, Part 1").

"... Janeway's hairstyle was the subject of much talk among fans" LOL. After I had seen a few episodes, one of my correspondents at the time (early 1990s) asked if I was watching it. I said, yes, I'd seen it, and I was still trying to figure out if Janeway's hair was real. I don't know if there are good references about this, but I think we should realize that this was a topic of discussion. But controversy is too strong a word. Maybe, amusement. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Rank Inconsistencies

I should like to note that during at least one ST:TNG episode (which I'm currently searching for), Janeway (played by Mulgrew) appears on a screen talking to Picard. At this point she has the rank of Admiral (of some sort at least). So I'm not sure how she went from Admiral to Captain to Admiral again. Once I find the episode I shall post it. - Shipton

Hey Shipton - that wasn't a TNG episode, it was the final (probably) TNG movie, Star Trek: Nemesis. Janeway gave orders to Picard to go to Romulus. Before Voyager, Mulgrew had never been on Trek before. --Mnemeson 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's the film and please sign your posts. --Charlesknight 21:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

According to http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Kathryn_Janeway Janeway was captain then Vice-Admiral, point being the scene from Nemesis was in fact after the voyager series, which doesn't make sense but is a fact. Tresmius 14:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"Key" episodes

I seems to me that identifying them as "key" is WP:OR -- can anyone cite a source that identifies these as key episodes? Is the term "key" itself non-npov? Certainly some of the entries seem superfluous and arbitrary. And if these episodes are so "key," why are they just listed rather than being integrated into the article text? Anyhow, I'm moving toward suggesting that this section be axed. --EEMeltonIV 02:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just the term 'key' that you are unhappy with? In that case, perhaps we could think of a better heading. It is just meant to be a list of episodes and a brief description on their importance in relation to the character so a reader could glance at the list and if they wanted, could look up the episodes. If we integrated it into the main article text, it would still contain the same episodes, which then implies they are the key episodes, so how would that do away with any perceived POV? Marky1981 19:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed a fact tag

Hi, I've removed a fact tag for the part that refered to Janeway's first major task being to unite the two crew's of Startfleet and Maquis. It is not needed to reference this as it is within the episodes of ST:V itself. You only need to have a citation if the point in question is outside the episodes themselves (such as a fanzine, article etc...) Thanks, Fr33kMan 86.31.147.48 19:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the autocratic revert, but having done it manually though it would still stand. All information must be cited from reliable secondary sources; see WP:RS and WP:V.—pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty bogus, IMHO, but I have added a reference to the paragraph in question:

Her first major task is integrating the surviving Maquis and Voyager crews. Chakotay, captain of the Maquis ship, succeeds the deceased Lieutenant Commander Cavit as her executive officer. She also grants convicted criminal, former Starfleet officer and accomplished pilot Tom Paris a field commission and makes him Voyager's helmsman.

Okuda, Michael & Denise (1994,1997,1999). The Star Trek Encyclopedia. New York City: Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-03475-8. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

BTW, if you're so intent on WikiLawyering, then the two other sentences in that paragraph also require citations, in which case you are welcome to paste <ref name="Encyc" /> after each of the periods, but I refuse to dignify such an absurd request by doing it myself.

This is just pure, weapons-grade Oscar Mayer bolognium ... I mean, we're talking about the fictional history of fictional characters on a television series, and you're screaming "WP:No original research" about something that anyone who has seen the 2-hour pilot episode knows and remembers ... but since the series itself is a primary source, it's just not acceptable to you, so there's your WP:Reliable source to satisfy WP:Verifiability, unless you feel that there is a WP:Conflict of interest issue about its use because of having been written by someone affiliated with the Star Trek franchise, in which case you are welcome to find every other article in Wikipedia that cites any book written by Okuda or his wife as a reference, and replace every instance with a {{fact}} tag.

Don't you think that your energy would be more constructively utilized by posting "see WP:RS and WP:V" on the Talk pages of editors listed on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for violating WP:Autobiography by posting unreferenced articles about themselves, instead of on articles about fictional characters?

Now I think that it is time for me to MOVE ON before I find myself in violation of WP:Civility ... Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 10:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for Promotion

I removed this from the article:

During (Star Trek: Nemesis) Captain Picard is seen talking with Janeway who has been promoted to vice admiral. Her promotion was for political reasons. After Starfleet reviewed her records of Voyager's journey through the Delta quadrant they were appalled by what they had discovered. Janeway had on numerous occasions broken the Prime Directive in order to get her ship and crew home to the Alpha quadrant. This was unacceptable to Starfleet. Since Janeway was considered a hero in the Federation, Starfleet could not discharge her from service. To keep her from commanding a ship again, they instead promoted her to vice admiral. While it appeared to the public to be a promotion due to outstanding performance of duties, it was in fact a promotion to make sure Janeway never caused Starfleet any trouble ever again.

I don't remember a reason ever being given for Janeway's promotion, so this would be considered speculation and not allowed in Wikipedia articles. ~ Anya Prynn 23:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Beginning article with, "Captain Kathryn Janeway"

Before offering my 2¢ on whether or not the article should begin with, Captain Kathryn Janeway, I decided to see what Wikipedia articles used for the other members of the group known as the "Five Captains" of the Star Trek franchise (one for each TV series):

• James T. Kirk - no rank, known as Admiral (Star Trek) in all of the films
• Jean-Luc Picard - Captain (Star Trek), although seen as a retired Admiral in the series finale
• Benjamin Sisko - no rank, spent the first half of the series as a Commander (Star Trek)
• Jonathan Archer - no rank, infobox includes Admiral (reference to such rank during scene(s) set in his future)

As a sanity check, I looked at real historical figures of flag rank (Hyman G. Rickover, Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., "Bull" Halsey, "Amazing Grace" Hopper, Douglas MacArthur, Omar Bradley, Dwight D. Eisenhower) and found that "some have it and some don't"; "Hap" Arnold does not, even though he was the only General of the Air Force (five-star) in history.

Next, I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), and it referred me to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), neither of which discussed military ranks ... OTOH, MoS:NAMES#Honorific prefixes does say,

Note that in the case of some historic people, an honorific is so commonly attached to their names that it should be included. Thus, in the U.S. in the 1930s, "Father Coughlin" (Charles Coughlin). Likewise, include the honorific for Father Damien, the missionary in Hawaii; Father Divine, an American religious leader; Father Joseph, in 17th-century France; and Mother Teresa, a 20th-century humanitarian.

In other words, Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines neither forbids nor discourages the use of military ranks (unlike some honorifics and academics, e.g., "His Holiness" or "Her Majesty," and "Doctor" or "Professor") ... neither are they required or encouraged (like Sir or Dame for Mick Jagger, Anthony Hopkins, and Helen Mirren) ... consequently, their use is optional at the individual contributor's discretion.

IMHO, after reviewing the policies and precedents:

"Either remove Captain from Jean-Luc Picard as well (for consistency), or else add it to both Kathryn Janeway and Jonathan Archer; all three will be promoted later in their careers, but this is their rank for the overwhelming majority of their on-screen presence ... James T. Kirk and Benjamin Sisko are both know through half of their canonical history as Admiral or Commander respectively (Kirk was even demoted back to Captain for a while), and should remain without rank because of this ambiguity in their popular identity."

Personally, I have neither the interest nor the inclination to do either, i.e., "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" ... but I wanted to leave this here as documentation to help avoid future revert wars over the subject.

On a slightly related note, "It should be the highest rank that they earned," is a specious argument; many Admirals and Generals are awarded their star on the day of their retirement as part of the severance package, so that their benefits will be based upon the higher rank ... for fictional characters, one should always use the rank by which they are most commonly know, or else avoid the use entirely, as with Kirk and Sisko.

Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to introduction

I have made a Major Re-write to the introduction of this article, based on the format of the articles for Benjamin Sisko, Jonathan Archer, Benjamin Sisko, and others … I was tempted to add something like,

She was Captain of Voyager from 2371 to 2378, after which she as promoted to Vice Admiral.

but decided to avoid the whole canon time-paradox conundrum, i.e., the series finale ("Endgame") asserts that

"In the year 2404, Earth is celebrating Voyager's tenth anniversary of its 23 year journey home."

However, the whole premise of that episode is that she went back in time in order to help get them home sixteen years sooner, which would make it 2378 (2304 - 10 - 16) … but that's all just too confusing, and way too much of a spoiler for the intro.

I also removed the reference to her appearance in the film, Star Trek: Nemesis from the intro, and cleaned up the reference to it later in the article.

Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 21:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Images

Before you remove images that were previously removed, you might want to see that the new image is not the same as the old promotional image. I see someone deleted the new image that I placed in lieu of the promotional image that got deleted. So does this mean if someone uploads a different image with the same name as the previously deleted image, no matter if they tag it or not, it is to get deleted? The new image I uploaded was not improper. Ejfetters 02:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Death

Kathryn Janeway is officially killed in the novel "Before Dishonor." The article should reflect that status until further notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.28.91.127 (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-canon information

I feel that all non-canon information should be removed and at best should be relegated to a separate article. I am not familiar with any non-canon stories, but I can only assume that such storylines can be in conflict with one another and are at best works of fan fiction (despite being published, they are not sanctioned works by the show's creators).

I will remove this information in the coming days if no serious objections are raised. DKqwerty (talk) 03:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Canon/Non-canon is a spilt made by the studio, it's not one we make. If (for example), Pocket publish a book that says that Janeaway dies, that's as good to us as the series - fan fiction is a different matter unentirely. Broadly we only care that something is a) sourced and b) the source is reliable - that's it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Fan fiction is not authorized by Paramount. The licensed material is. Nightscream (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Vice Admiral?

Are we sure Janeway was promoted to Vice Admiral? I haven't seen Nemesis, but this seems extraordinarily odd to me. This is a three-star (or pip) Admiral. The next rank up from Captain would be Rear Admiral, Lower Half.

It's a little hard for me to swallow. This would be like promoting an Ensign to Lieutenant Commander. I'm not even sure this has ever happened in real life. The highest rank you can be commissioned with in any US uniformed service is two stars, and that's in theory -- I don't know if it's actually been done. What do you do to skip two ranks entirely? Give birth to the Messiah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.119.25 (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead a ship seventy-five thousand lightyears back home in a tenth of the time they'd originally expected, bringing back information on hundreds of new and intriguing alien races and useful information and technology to beat up the Borg? Sounds like cause to make her Admiral of the Fleet to me... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

If you find the promotion so unusual, then I would not recommend you watch Star Trek (2009), in which an officer cadet about to be expelled ends up instead promoted to Captain (naval): a,what, six-pip progression? Which occurs over the course of about a day. Further to this, James T. Kirk (in the original continuity) was promoted to Rear Admiral after only 5 years as Captain. We can assume that Starfleet promotes people very quickly (I believe in one episode of Voyager, Harry Kim commented that, if he were serving on a ship in the Alpha Quadrant, he could have been a lieutenant commander after 7 years of service). So, to wit:

• Kirk: 2-grade promotion, 5 years
• Janeway: 3-grade promotion, 7 years
• Kim: 3-grade promotion, 7 years (expected)

Ignoring the 2009 incident, it seems that Starfleet officers expect a promotion every 2-3 years. It also seems that promotions that can accumulate while the officer is on a mission.

--Anon, 19:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.42.214 (talk)

Let's not let this degenerate into a message board-type discussion of the merits or even the probability of whether Janeway could become a Vice Admiral, since that is not what Talk Pages are for. This discussion should be restricted to discussion whether she did achieve that rank by that movie, and the sources that establish this: The movie, the script, approved tie-in products like the novelization, etc. Nightscream (talk) 01:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No. 98.218.119.25 made some valid comments regarding the content of the article. There is no source provided for the claim that she holds the rank of "Vice Admiral". The nearest source merely describes her as an "Admiral" (which, strictly speaking, would make her a 4-star Admiral). 98.218.119.25 further elaborates that the claim is unlikely and provides a more likely alternative (after all, a Rear admiral (lower half) would still be addressed as "Admiral"). There are, however, sources from the narrative that indicate that such a promotion is feasible (to wit, Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Nightingale (Star Trek: Voyager). Pointing out that this "issue" follows the established guidelines within the narrative via these sources is hardly "message board-type discussion".--Anon, 03:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.210.153 (talk)

Again, whether ideas are "likely" or "unlikely" or "feasible" is not something we're empowered to go into in the article. We're restricted to what sources specifically state. Nightscream (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's hilarious that you wrote that, really. Perhaps you should actually read what was said, as you clearly haven't. --Anon, 15:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.210.153 (talk)

Bad english

This is under "casting": ...was not prepared for a television schedules demanded by series television... Who wrote that? What does it mean? I mean, can't we demand better english? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtanic (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

We certainly should. The passage is fixed. Thanks for pointing that out. Nightscream (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)