![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's not clear to me, were the Omega particles stable or weren't they? If it's a case of don't know, why would the Borg be so exicted given that they would have assumingly did the same thing (destroy them) since unless they knew they were stable they would have assumingly followe their Omega Directive..... Nil Einne 01:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Were any reasons ever given for actually having a total blackout on the existence of Omega Particles? Or was it just a plot device for introducing a new bit to the "science of star trek"? Crispin Giles 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- User:EmperorJake 2011-06-02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.77.91.78 ( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The episode says a single molecule generates as much power as a warp core. A warp core generates more power than humanity has ever generated in it's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.22.11 ( talk) 10:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The conversation in this episode explains that this particle is a molecule, not an element. But in the text the word element is a link to the periodic table to elements. Molecules are composed of elements. Molecules are not elements. 87.228.254.141 ( talk) 17:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Omega:
This would make sense, as the Federation sees it as a destructive force, an ending, while the Borg see it in a more religious manner. I know this qualifies as original research or the like, so it doesn't belong on the article, but I wanted to point out what I noticed. - Platypus Man | Talk 07:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:ST-VOY The Omega Directive.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd fix it myself but I need sleep...the chronology of this episode is all out of order. Subtly, but still wrong.
Lots42 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This episode has been discussed as a particularly notable example of Religion in Star Trek. Perhaps the Reception section could be expanded to examine this? Production information about the intent and development of the episode could also be interesting. -- 109.76.132.42 ( talk) 14:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It's not clear to me, were the Omega particles stable or weren't they? If it's a case of don't know, why would the Borg be so exicted given that they would have assumingly did the same thing (destroy them) since unless they knew they were stable they would have assumingly followe their Omega Directive..... Nil Einne 01:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Were any reasons ever given for actually having a total blackout on the existence of Omega Particles? Or was it just a plot device for introducing a new bit to the "science of star trek"? Crispin Giles 13:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- User:EmperorJake 2011-06-02 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.77.91.78 ( talk) 02:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The episode says a single molecule generates as much power as a warp core. A warp core generates more power than humanity has ever generated in it's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.22.11 ( talk) 10:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The conversation in this episode explains that this particle is a molecule, not an element. But in the text the word element is a link to the periodic table to elements. Molecules are composed of elements. Molecules are not elements. 87.228.254.141 ( talk) 17:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
According to Omega:
This would make sense, as the Federation sees it as a destructive force, an ending, while the Borg see it in a more religious manner. I know this qualifies as original research or the like, so it doesn't belong on the article, but I wanted to point out what I noticed. - Platypus Man | Talk 07:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Image:ST-VOY The Omega Directive.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd fix it myself but I need sleep...the chronology of this episode is all out of order. Subtly, but still wrong.
Lots42 06:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
This episode has been discussed as a particularly notable example of Religion in Star Trek. Perhaps the Reception section could be expanded to examine this? Production information about the intent and development of the episode could also be interesting. -- 109.76.132.42 ( talk) 14:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)