Talk:Someone to Watch Over Me (Star Trek: Voyager)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Star Trek Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

The article says The Doctor and Seven are "non-human" characters. That's possibly true, but misleading. —Vespristiano 16:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It isn't true. Seven is human, regardless of her Borg implants, and the show makes this very clear. And while it is certainly true that The Doctor is a hologram, his character has achieved the very pinnacle of humanity. As he says in the episode, "Photons and force fields, flesh and blood - why quibble over details?" Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "missing pip" scene[edit]

A little Googling reveals that there was apparently a scene at the beginning of the episode that was removed from its first airing, then subsequently re-instated in syndication and for the DVD release. Supposedly, Janeway and Seven are having a heart to heart talk about romance, and Seven is seen re-attaching a fallen pip onto Janeway's uniform. I am mentioning this because:

1. This scene is not currently mentioned in the article writeup at all.

2. There are a LOT of rumors regarding this scene; specifically, the writers were attempting to hint at a Janeway-Seven lesbian subtext, but the higher-ups put a stop to it. Even if we can't find a source for the rumors, it should still be documented (and identified as an apparently-baseless rumor.) --Lode Runner (talk) 23:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's absurd. Janeway was dressing for the meeting with the Kadi. Furthermore, the context of the scene was purely non-sexual. B'Elanna Torres was very upset with Seven's "fieldwork" monitoring her relationship with Paris, so Janeway gave her a little talking to, as a mother would to her daughter, not her lover. Whomever came up with this idea likely never watched the show or has ever had kids. In a rush, parents will often get dressed (like Janeway did) in front of their kids. Janeway has always been Seven's surrogate mother. Whomever started this ridiculous rumor should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange linking[edit]

Why are intimate relations and sexuality linked in this articel, it looks very strange to me and give the article a very unserious look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.36.50 (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmalion[edit]

The Pygmalion connection is a reasonable thing to point out, and the musical adaptation My Fair Lady seems to be generally better known so it helps reader understanding to mention that too, but strictly speaking it should be backed up by proper references to verify the claim. Ideally if someone could find references from the writers or producers and expand the Production section with more information to confirm it. -- 109.76.205.175 (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's far-fetched, IMHO. The EMH tries to teach Seven about romance, not to be more sophisticated. She doesn't change a bit, either, compared to Eliza Doolittle's total transformation, which is nearly the whole point of the play. Just because something reminds you of something else doesn't mean it merits inclusion in a WP article. – AndyFielding (talk) 04:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]