Talk:Bride of Chaotica! (episode)
From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference
[edit] Episode talk page
[edit] Maintenance links
- MA images from this episode
- Template:Titles/Bride of Chaotica! yields Bride of Chaotica! (VOY 5x12)
Contents |
[edit] Fire story?
What is the source for the fire story? --Tired_ 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- The Star Trek: Voyager Companion, for example, but many other sources at that time as well. --Jörg 08:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nitpick
- Tuvok is mistakenly referred to as a lieutenant when Tom introduces him to the photonic lifeform.
Removed it's a mistake. – Morder 22:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Also removed as a nitpick by Golden Monkey- posted here for the record: Continuity error: When Harry and Seven inspect the numerous newly opened subspace rifts that are attacked by Chaotica's Death Ray, his fortress is seen on the viewscreen entirely intact while just some seconds ago on the holodeck it was seen partially destroyed.--31dot 23:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Unimpeachable
The Doctor's quote "My performance was unimpeachable," may have been an oblique reference to President Clinton's Impeachment Trial (1998-1999), which was ongoing during the production-airing of this episode.Then again, it may have simply been a random joke about any president's being subject to impeachment, which would have been appropriate no matter what was going on in the real world at the time and would have been perfectly in keeping with the Doctor's sense of humor. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.168.151.241 (talk • contribs) .
- Quite correct. Unless there is some evidence that it was an intentional reference, it shouldn't be there. I'm removing the comment.--31dot 00:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- hmm...guess i won't remove it... :) — Morder 00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I guess you will. :) --31dot 00:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I figured I would have gotten an edit conflict...yay me :) — Morder 00:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Quite correct. Unless there is some evidence that it was an intentional reference, it shouldn't be there. I'm removing the comment.--31dot 00:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
