She might "now" wish to be called Anika, but she didn't in 2375, which is the Seven that images shows, complete with implants intact. --8of5 04:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's more encyclopediac to use her formal name if that is how the character wishes to identify herself. -- Sci 04:13 13 DEC 2008 UTC

But it is inaccurate to the image, which shows the character who wishes to identify herself as Seven of Nine, we do not have an image of the character of wishes to identify herself as Annika Hansen yet. And this encyclopaedia records information from every part of her life, not just the latest appearance. --8of5 04:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that makes a whole lot of sense. It's the same character either way, and "Annika Hansen" was always her legal name. At the time of that image, the character may have self-identified as "Seven of Nine," but that doesn't mean that the captain is bound to go by the character's wishes at the time of the image; a captain is supposed to be as accurate and current as possible. An accurate image of Lincoln wouldn't say, "President Lincoln poses for a photograph," it would say, "The late former President Abraham Lincoln poses for a photograph in 1864." -- Sci 12:32 13 DEC 2008 UTC

That is quite absurd, how is it accurate to label an image with inaccurate information? If there was a photo of Lincoln in 1864, when he was president, then a caption to accurately describe what the image actually showed would be something along the lines of "President Abraham Lincoln poses for a photograph in 1864", as that image does not show a former president, but a president.

And that's an interesting double standard you're trying to justify, she now wishes to be called Anika so we should call her Anika, but when she wishes to be called Seven we should ignore that because it's not her “legal” name?! And how exactly are you determining the legality of a Borg designation, I'm quite sure the Borg's records would identify her officially as Seven of Nine just as much as her birth certificate in the Federation will give Anika Hansen. --8of5 21:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Who cares if she had wanted to be called "Seven" when that image was taken? She doesn't anymore, and it was never her legal name in the first place.
2. This wiki is written from a Federation POV, so, naturally, it's going to place emphasis on the character's Federation legal name. That's why his article is labelled "Jean-Luc Picard" rather than "Locutus of Borg."
3. It's not inaccurate information. Picture captions should always be written from a present-day POV with regards to their image subjects. "The late former President Abraham Lincoln poses for a photograph in 1864" is not inaccurate information, because the reader knows that Lincoln is dead and is no longer president, and knows that it is not depicting Lincoln as having been a former president at the time of the photo being taken. That's also why you might see, "Then-President Abraham Lincoln (18xx-1864) poses for a photograph."
4. Given that, how's about we compromise and label the image, "Annika Hansen, then calling herself Seven of Nine, aboard the USS Voyager in 237x?" -- Sci 23:01 14 DEC 2008 UTC

1. Seven cares, for all but the last moment of her recorded history to date she has been adamant that she should be called Seven. And for all we know she did adopt it as her legal name, we don’t know what kind of official ID stuff she might have had to fill out upon her return to the Alpha Quadrant, and we do know she consistently went by the name Seven for years after her separation from the collective. To try and just brush that period of her life under the carpet because of perceived legality is utterly ignorant of the history of the character.

2. This wiki is written from a Federation bias because most of Trek is chronicled from the point of view of the Federation. That does not been we should ignore the fact a character continued to use her Borg given name for years after becoming a Federation citizen. Picard never wanted to be called Locutus, Seven did.

3. I'll admit some of these examples will rely on context but: Would we label a picture of the young Doctor Crusher "the future Beverly Crusher", or describe what it shows in the image "Beverley Howard in whatever year". Would you label the young Kirk a lieutenant or needlessly point out his future career and an image that shows his past and describes his as a future captain or admiral? Should the HMS Bounty be forever labelled by it's final name or be marked IKS B'rel when an image show's it before Kirk's command? Should early images of the Excelsior note it's registration will one day become NCC-2000 rather than NX-2000, or just describe what the image actually shows?

And you do know that MB effectively has no present, everything is in the past from the MB point of view, so should we note every character image as showing the late whoever...

4. The wording and the fact you've moved the name Seven of Nine to the aliases section completely downplays the means of Seven's name to Seven. As far as she and everyone who knew her at the time are concerned her name IS Seven in that picture. --8of5 18:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


According to Memory Alpha's canon article, Seven was born on stardate 25479.

Where do we derive the day and month from? Hopefully we have a licensed source, and remember that a stardate's placement in the year doesn't always follow some rational pattern that some fans and fan fiction sources might assume? (unless there is a licensed source that translates stardates?) -- Captain MKB 18:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've not read them, but aren't there a couple of short stories, such as "A Ribbon for Rosie" cited on the page, that deal with the young Annika and Hansen family, maybe from there? And again not read them myself, but do Pathways or Mosaic deal with any of that sort of thing? --8of5 18:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I hate to bring a user's pattern of edits into this, but the user who was reverted has a history of adding bogus birthdates to character articles -- most often based on actor's ages. I've had to revert many of those. Just wondering if this might be the case. I'd ask the user, but said user has stated that no questions will be answered, effectively stonewalling me from verifying whether or not some of the information this user adds is accurate. -- Captain MKB 18:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The birthdates isn't a recent addition though is it? The revert I made removed an odd note comparing MA and MB's given birthdates, but MB already had the date on the page for some time. --8of5 18:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose not -- while I have rooted out inaccuracies with the way stardates are used and inaccuracies in fan-theorized dates, I am by no means an expert on Voyager literature. Given this user's attitude also, I just assumed the date might've been an occurrence of such, and it is best for others to sort this out. -- Captain MKB 19:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah and I hate to be a stickler, but according to Alpha Memory, Annika was born year 2350. She's about a year younger then B'Elanna Torres. 06:36, February 19, 2014 (UTC)Lehane

Memory Alpha is not a valid source to cite data to. this discussion is about what sources specify seven's birthdate. -- Captain MKB 07:06, February 19, 2014 (UTC)

and another note, she was head of Astrometrics. I don't know WHAT your titles for her even mean 07:06, February 19, 2014 (UTC)Lehane

ah... sorry sorry, I don't mean to insult you with my remarks or anything. if that's what it seems like 07:09, February 19, 2014 (UTC)Lehane

Endgame Future Tuvok having Tuvan's Syndrome? Edit

Do we have any evidence for this: 'In another alternate timeline in which Voyager took twenty-three years to return to Earth, Seven married Chakotay at an unknown time and died some time between the wedding and their return to Earth. Grief over her death caused Chakotay's own death in 2394. It was these events, along with Tuvok's insanity caused by Tuvan Syndrome, which caused Admiral Janeway to go back in time and bring Voyager home in 2377.'

If so, why isn't there any mention on the Tuvan's Syndrome page? Or indeed, Tuvok's own page? --Pauldarklord (talk) 02:25, May 22, 2020 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.