Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part 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 Trek Portal
TV This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, which collaborates on television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] General

The split infinitive "To boldly go . . ." was "corrected" to "To go boldly . . ." by Zefram Cochrane, the Creator of the new warp drive, in the first episode.

wasn't that a quotation from First Contact?

I don't know about anyone else, but i really like the theme tune.

I agree with thee. The first time I heard the opening song it had an emotional impact on me. Despite my general negativity regarding the future of humanity, what with the population crunch upon the ecosystems, various groupings of humans desiring nukes, etc. there is something about the song that causes my soul to stir with hope, hope that we as a species can overcome our troubles and soar like a starship!!! Sniff. Guess I'm just becoming a sentimental old coot.

I don't like it all that much, but never mind... If "Star Trek:" is not part of the series title, shouldn't this article be moved? I'm not very good at thinking up new titles for things, but I can come up with Enterprise (television), Enterprise (series), Enterprise (Star Trek), Enterprise (Star Tek series), and so on... Any suggestions? -- Oliver P. 14:28 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. Enterprise (television) would match the usual disambiguation format best. Shall we go with that? -- sannse 19:13 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

No. Because, as of mid season 3, the title of the series *is* "Star Trek: Enterprise". Redirect pages from other ambig titles are probably the indicated fix. Baylink 03:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Less Shitakki, good - but needs more excitement

I love to hate the theme tune.... I think its really cheesy, but I find myself singing along to it! Its got a good hook; even though I totally disagree with the sentiments of having "faith" in technology and mans "strength" of character.

The main weakness of the series is its constant reworking of the "mistrusting alien species." That we humans are the peace makers of the universe, constantly acting as ambassadors and delegating alliances.

This is becoming old and tiered. It makes the thought of Star Trekking tedious and boring. Ok, yes, the series has to cover this in order for the series to fit into the over all theme and history of the Star Trek universe. But its really tedious, and its only the Starship battles that give the series excitement. The aliens are better in appearance, mind you. They look less like a man with a couple of Shitakki mushrooms stuck on his face.  : )

But in conclusion.....the series needs to be exciting.

I like the ew theme song as well and I don't think it's patriotic. The scenes being shown while it plays are patriotic but the tune is about personal conviction IMHO.

There are a lot of folks who feel the song is actually from T'Pol's point of view. 23skidoo 18:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't Enterprise (series) or Enterprise (television series) be a better title? Enterprise is a series not a television after all. --mav 05:38 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I used (television) because that seemed to be the most usual way of disambiguting TV programs, but looking closer I found we are using at least four versions: Bottom (television), V (television series), Hercules (TV series), Jeremiah (series). I think "series" is the least used, and perhaps the least informative. I think maybe "televsion series" or "TV series" are better options. Shall we go for one of those? -- sannse 09:25 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
"televsion series" is a lot to type. "TV series" doesn't look right -- Tarquin 09:30 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
So what is your preference Tarquin? "series", "television" or other? -- sannse 09:41 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I still think "series" is enough to disambiguate but this isn't that important of an issue to argue much about. --mav
Agreed, and sorry if it sounded like I was arguing. OK, if you think "series" is clear enough, let's go with that. Regards -- sannse
Done. No apology needed since I didn't mean to insinuate that you were arguing ; I just didn't want to get into an argument about it. :) --mav
"series" isn't enough. What about shows that have been series both on radio and television? CGS 22:12 22 Jun 2003 (UTC).
Then one would be at (television series), the other at (radio series) and the (series) page would either be an article introducting both or a disambiguation page. We only add enough disambiguation text to distinguish one thing from another. That is why we only add the year to parens of movies when there are more than one movie with the same name. Thus we have Titanic (1997 film) since there were more than one but we have Platoon (movie) since there was only one movie by that title. And we don't have parenthetical disambiguation at all for unique movie titles, such as You Can't Take it With You. But this is all academic since Enterprise was never a radio show. --mav
I think it likely that a standard convention should be proposed. Baylink 03:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump for a more general discussion -- sannse 19:14 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I hadn't heard of Berman and Braga being referred to as "The Disaster Duo" and "The Wonder Twins of Bad Writing." But I think it's an accurate description. Lately, Star Trek is becoming a train wreck of sorts. I can't bear to watch these guys butcher Gene's vision of the future, but at the same time I can't turn away!

JesseG 01:19, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The addition of an "Apparent continuity problems" listing is interesting. I made some edits to it, adding explanations and rationalizations. I removed part of one section, however, because it violated NPOV by labelling those who try to justify or explain alleged violations as "rationalizers" which I felt was used in a derogatory sense much as the words "basher" and "gusher" are used to describe those who hate Enterprise and those who don't. I was pleasantly surprised to find that most of the items on the list could be explained either by "rationalizing" (dirty word though that may be), actually watching the source material, or by making a clear definition between fanon and canon references. 23skidoo 03:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the topic of continuity problems, I was wondering whether it would be noteworthy to include a passage elaborating on some liberties the writers took in the Star Trek timeline. Namely this: the fact that it's a prequel to all the other shows would present a significant limitation to the writers inasmuch as they simply couldn't "invent" new alien species. I mean, species such as the Denobulans are understandable, since the allied species that eventually would join the Federation are numerous and one could claim that Denobulans and others just hadn't been focused on in other installments. That does not go for the Suliban or the Xindi however. The problem is that those species were never mentioned in any other shows, which theoretically take place in the future, and that strikes as odd: how can two species that posed a real threat not only to the then future Federation but also to humankind itself simply "disappear in the dust of time". They don't exist in the 23rd and 24th centuries and aren't even mentioned by the people living in those centuries. Picard kept mentioning the dark times in human history. How could he never have mentioned the Xindi attack that killed over 7 million people?! Or the fact that the same Xindi were bent on erradicating humans altogether?? That's the trouble with prequels: limits are much more strict, but the writers of "Enterprise" decided to ignore them and create a whole new universe in the past that amazingly had little to no impact on the future of humankind and the Federation. Shouldn't that aspect of the continuity issue go in the article? Regards, Redux 03:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In some respects a prequel should never have been attempted because Star Trek is considered a religion to some people and to try and insert new material is likely to get the same reaction as if you decided to write a prologue to the New Testament. When we talk about the Middle Ages that doesn't automatically mean we have to run off a list of Kings and warriors of the time. And TNG rarely made reference to the many races Kirk and Co. encountered. The Guardian of Forever was never mentioned again despite the fact it would have been an easy fix for a number of storylines in the "modern Trek" era. Just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. The TNG storybook isn't closed completely yet, so a future movie could still make reference to Archer's mission (beyond the minor reference in Nemesis). 23skidoo 17:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
one thing that has always bothered me about the "canon" is that the characters are treated as being all knowing in the Star Trek franchise. Especially when it comes to having knowledge of previous events, races, technologies, ect. As Star Fleet is a military organization why is it never assumed that some of the events happening in Enterprise were not deemed classified and not widely known, even a century or 2 later? If I was running Starfleet the existance of Suliban cloaked ships would definatelybe classified need to know, especially since that technology comes from the future. Same with first contact with the Ferengi- classified until we figure out where their homeworld is, what their government is like, ect...--Blkshrt 13:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Starfleet is not a military organization, at least according to Roddenberry. It is a multi purpose exploratory and scientific organisation also responsible for defence. Magic Pickle 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the Continuity Problems list to Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems in order to shorten the main article. 23skidoo 19:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That was a good idea, moving the continuity problems to a separate article. I don't entirely agree with Blkshrt though. I believe you didn't take into consideration how different the society that is supposed to exist in Star Trek's 24th century is from ours. In our context, governments and in some instances even individuals limit the access to information for reasons usually regarding industrial secrets or national security. In the Star Trek universe, there would simply be no need to do all that. Money no longer exists and the pursuit of wealth and personal gain is no longer the driving force of the human psyche, in fact humankind is ofter referred to as "enlightened" – there was even this episode in which, after travelling back in time for the 1000th time, a character states something like "in my time no human being would dream of atteining personal gain at the cost of other human lives". Furthermore, Earth, as apparently is the case for every other planet in that Federation, is no longer divided in political units (countries). In short, it's the exact opposite of what we have today. In this suggested universe, the military would need not hide information from their own members, especially the high ranked ones, and in fact not even from the general public. There would be no harm in people knowing that someone brought technology from the distant future and that almost ended life on Earth centuries ago, since no one would use this information to cause any harm. Sure there are enemies, but being as they are from other species and live in whole other planets, the risks and the logistics of information management would be utterly different from our conception. And on that subject, does anyone else think that Enterprise uses a little to much the time travel topic? I mean, in what season hasn't the main threat not come from the future? It looks like the universe would be a very peaceful place in the 22nd century if it were not for those time travelers. I guess the writers just couldn't resist the temptation of the "known future" (I mean, every single threat from the future is aimed at stopping humankind from reaching the point where it would be in the times of Picard). Regards, Redux 20:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker and Bush

Some viewers claim that Trip Tucker and George W. Bush share a similar facial appearance

I don't see how an anonymous opinion is relevant to this article. Furthermore, the opinion is in error. There is no similarity between the faces of Tucker and Bush. I am going to remove this content. --Viriditas | Talk 05:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there is no relevance for this piece of trivia here. Good call. 23skidoo 06:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Strangely enough, a flame war erupted at the TrekBBS a few days ago over this same claim. Connection? 23skidoo 16:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What was the consensus on the matter? --Viriditas | Talk 21:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there was one. It looked like the discussion disintegrated into a Republican vs. Democrat battle and I think the moderators closed the thread. 23skidoo 23:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I looked for the thread but I couldn't find it. Was there any substance to the claim that Tucker and Bush had something in common? It sounds like a troll to me. --Viriditas | Talk 08:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Funny. I can imagine someone saying that about Archer, because, TBH, he could easily be the manifestation of all anti-American stereotypes (arrogance, most importantly), or at least so in some dubbings (I felt that he came off quite arrogantly in the German dub but have never seen the original version so I can't tell if it's a voice acting thing -- also him taking his stupid dog (sidenote: I'm a cat person) along for the first mission to an unknown planet and thus probably introducing a crapload (sic!) of foreign biosystems into an unknown system... aw, hell).
Along with the whole Americana in the intro (the song may not be patriotic, but it's very sentimental and sentimental music + American-centric clips of the history of space voyage IS disgustingly patriotic), I guess this may have ticked some people off and made them look for similiarities where there are none.
As a fan of TNG (despite the "lesson we learned today" dialogues everytime Wesley Crusher appeared in some of the earlier episodes) and -- to some degree -- the other "conventional" seriesses, I have to say I too felt strongly repelled by the sudden "patriotism" in the new series. The other ones worked nicely because they felt more like a "we, humans" thing, especially with the mixed ethnicities of the crew. Apart from the Neelix-esque doctor and the least Vulcanian Vulcan ever, it just felt too streamlined (I know that some of the crew members weren't "white Caucasian", but even if you remove Spock TOS would've felt more heterogenous) and the intro entirely ruined the mood.
Anyway. For some reason or another Archer's German voice actor reminded me of Dubya Bush, but that's probably because of the reasons above. I'm really wondering how anyone could see any resemblance between Tucker and Dubya, though. Other than having stupid nicknames. -- Ashmodai 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Season 4, Episode 11

You know, they make a very small reference to MacGyver. Hoshi says, "duck tape and a pocket knife" -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise cancelled

As of Feburary 2 2005, Enterprise has been cancelled.

Friday, May 13, 2005 will be the airing of the last episode. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What does "the first Star Trek cancelled" mean? Aren't all shows cancelled when they go off the air? DJ Clayworth 16:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. Many series are allowed to end by their own planned means. Cancellation means the series was ended by corporate executives who don't think a show is pulling in enough ratings. The Original Series was cancelled for poor ratings. The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager ended by their own planned means. Enterprise was cancelled by the network for poor ratings. It is said that the Star Trek franchise is suffering from "franchise fatique". I think it's a result of fans who keep griping about the show not going the way they want it to, citing that it strayed from canon or "Gene's Vision". That's really lame. Half of what older Star Trek fans take into account for their own personal Star Trek chronology is what is written in many campy Star Trek novels. If we went by the novels, we'd still be calling NCC-1701 a "constellation" class starship instead of a "constitution" class. Mirlin 03:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it means its the first Star Trek that never completed the traditional seven year run since ST:TOS -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, specifically it means that the *network* yanked it, instead of the production company giving up on it. --Baylink 03:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is this 'seven year run' a Star Trek thing or a US TV thing? DJ Clayworth 18:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A Star Trek thing. All the modern-day spinoffs: TNG, DS9 and Voyager, received 7-year runs and were not cancelled, rather the producers chose to end the shows then. TNG could have run for another 5 years given its popularity at the time it left TV. Enterprise is the first Trek series since TOS to have the plug pulled by the network. 23skidoo 18:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Gene Roddenberry included the 7 year mission thing because traditionally shows at that time ran for 7 years. But this is not the case anymore. -- AllyUnion (talk) 02:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When did he ever do that? TOS was a 5-year mission and at the time he died, no Trek series had ever gone 7 years. I'm curious. 23skidoo 05:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seven years is the traditional term for a US television series because that's the maximum term in the state of California for a personal services contract -- something to do with anti-slavery laws I was told. So, after year 7, you *have to* renegotiate your contracts with your actors, and this can get pricey... --Baylink 03:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I also suspect, though I don't have any actual evidence, that the "five year mission" might have been because, if I remember, actors in a new show signed five year contracts. DJ Clayworth 21:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I was watching a Trek video (one of the documentary ones; don't recall the title), and I believe that it mentioned that seven years is enough of a syndication package for a network to consider picking up, but it's not so big that the execs get 'overwhelmed' by the show. DarkMasterBob 10:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
It's actually 100 episodes that's considered the magic number, not 7 seasons as a lot of shows don't go that long yet are still syndicated. Enterprise had 98 episodes, which was considered close enough. (Not that a show can't be syndicated with less -- see TOS for the best known example -- but it's considered a rule-of-thumb). 23skidoo 15:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Issues

Some anonymous users seem to have a vendetta against any pro-Enterprise links in the External Links section. Several times now I've had to revert edits that deleted legitimate links related to the show. 23skidoo 21:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There's no vendetta. There is still ONE link to a site which supports the show, and ONE link to a site which doesn't support the show. 81.153.215.57
But... why delete any of them unless the links are dead??? Can you give a good, sound reason why you deleted these links? I'm reverting your edit once again. If necessary I'll take the case to Peer Review and have an Admin decide. Incidentally, the saveenterprise.org site is notable as it has been featured on radio and TV coverage of the cancellation and was also credited as helping win renewal last year. 23skidoo 00:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because there is already a pro-Enterprise site link. Why would you need more? And a petition link too? It's overkill. I am being fair and reasonable to believe that each side has one link regarding their opinions for or against. saveenterprise.org may be notable but I did not remove their link. I will have to remove those links you provided. I will leave one pro-Enterprise link and one anti-Enterprise link which I believe is fair. If people wish to add to the petition, saveenterprise.org has all the information they need. A seperate link to the petition is not necessary. If the Admin wishes to make a final decision on which links can remain, then fair enough. 81.153.215.57
There is nothing wrong with the links that have been added. Stop removing them. --Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Like I said...fair enough. 81.153.215.57
I'm not an admin. --Viriditas | Talk 02:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought you were. I've removed the three links and left the Save/Kill Enterprise links on the article page. 81.153.215.57
And in the process, you have violated the three revert rule. --Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I *DID* ask, when I reverted back in links that no one had had any problems with before the show got cancelled, that we *not* have an r-war on them. Do I need to go get an admin, and start spanking people, or can we just admit that the links are pertinent to people interested in the topic of the page, and quit taking them out? Clearly, there's need for further discussions, and, IIRC, the proper protocol in such situations is "leave the original state of the page during discussions." --Baylink 03:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So the Admins have decided that those three links must stay on the page? 81.153.215.57
The links have nothing to do with admins, although your violation of the three revert rule does. Please read the information I left on your talk page. It explains how to add your sig. To indent, just add a colon. When you don't add your sig or indent, it makes the discussion difficult to follow. --Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I apologise over the Three Revert Rule issue, I wasn't aware of it. I am sorry about that. But what is to be done about these links? I still feel it's fairer to just feature one pro and one against, regarding links to Enterprise sites;81.153.215.57
This isn't an issue of *fairness*. It's an issue of information. Nothing need be 'done; about these links. --Baylink 05:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, information on the campaign to save the show is featured clearly on the Save Enterprise site. I don't think it's necessary to feature links to sites which provide the same information. One site should be enough. Save Enterprise is the most comprehensive site regarding the campaign. It has all the information a supporter of the show would need. Anyway, that's just my opinion. I won't bother pressing this matter anymore.81.153.215.57
Sorry, I'm new to this article, can someone articulate what the problem is here? Is the anon poster concerned that the links are not presented in a "Pro/Con" fashion, or just that the links presented are biased? I myself don't feel that this is a controversial enough topic to warrant a "balancing" of links, but in the past, for controversial articles, links have been divided into "pro" and "con" sections. However, as most of these links are informational, and some even contain reviews that are negative for several episodes, it's difficult to classify them as distinctly "pro". I was a little concerned that some of the links have an extremely low Alexa rank, but the content seems fine. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
I'll try to articulate it, based on anon's last posting: he's a Save Enterprise partisan. There was some annoyance and mildly bad blood between the SE people and the TEP people early on, and some people from each group still aren't happy with one another. I'm sure said anon will be unhappy with me about this comment and deny what I accuse him of here, but hell, he's anonymous.  :-) --Baylink 23:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too sure of the reasoning for deleting them either, even after reading this discussion. The fact is the links deleted were notable, in particular Save Enterprise which has been getting some press. Lots of pages have links to official and fan websites. This isn't a political or controversial topic, really, so I think they all deserve to be there. Question: what is "Alexa ranking"? I've seen it referenced at Votes for Deletion but have never heard of it before. 23skidoo 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's essentially a website http://www.alexa.com/ that gives a ranking to Internet websites based on how many hits (how many people go) they recieve. It's fairly accurate. - I agree the links should stay btw, I see no reason to remove them even after reading this discussion. K1Bond007 04:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Is there any point in keeping the Kill Enterprise Link - esp. considering that the webpage is one paragraph saying that there is no need to continue now that it is cancelled. I'd remove it myself but I don't want to step on toes since I know link removal is controverial Graniterock 06:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Gone. Having a link to a one-paragraph website does not add to the article. Cburnett 06:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kill Enterprise is more than simply "one paragraph". That's just the first page. It does also have a forum. The layout for the Kill Enterprise site is very simple, but it's still valid. The link to that site should be reposted, and BTW the "Enterprise Fans" link simply leads to the "Save Enterprise" site, which means two links are to the exact same site. The "Enterprise Fans" link should be removed and the "Kill Enterprise" link added.81.153.215.57

No. I disagree. Apparently you haven't been to the website to read the one paragraph. The first sentence states: "Star Trek: Enterprise has been cancelled, so we don't see any other reason for this site to continue." - It further continues to say that the forum is going to be moved in the near future. Theres nothing more to that site and doesn't add anything to article whatsoever. I do however, agree with your second part about the redirect. That should be removed. K1Bond007 05:06, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)


Yes, the site has been slightly altered. The Kill Enterprise forum is now here: Kill Enterprise. That is the new link. 81.153.215.57

And for what reason do you believe that its needed? I assume this is why you're linking the forum here? Wikipedia is not an open directory for every site, fan site, non-fan site etc to post their link. By the way, getting your friends to change the paragraph or sentence that I quoted will not help "your cause". According to the guidelines of Wikipedia, the external link should be of high-content, which this site is obviously not. Just FYI. K1Bond007 06:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
Not sure how a webforum is relevant to an encyclipedic entry. Not sure what criteria we want to adopt for links but I might suggest a couple broad ideas to apply to all links:
Relevency - Is it an official webpage? Is it talked about in the article?

Content - How much depth and / or breadth does the page offer. Is it comprehensive or is it only of interest for a significantly small number of people. Is it citing a source?

Expectations - If you were a person who knew nothing about the topic - how would you interpret that link or content. Would its purpose confuse you or seem counter-productive. Remember people who click on links usually want a deeper understanding of the topic or want to check out the sources.
Diversity or Uniqueness - How unique is the content of the page you are sent to in relation to the others. If there is overlap, is this acceptable? If not, does one page offer things the other page does not?
Self-Promotion - Links to your own website, or one that you are more than peripherally involved should not be posted by yourself. Discuss it in the Talk page and if other people agree it is useful / relevant, they will post it. Sometimes we are all too close to our own pet projects.
That's my two cents for now.. I gotta run.. .feel free to add / debate. Graniterock 19:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'd have to dig up the policy, but an external link should expand upon the article. So it must be relevant to the article; not be advertisement; fan-sites should be very limited (if any); further expand on the article; and WP is not a links directory (see google). A web forum only brings a discussion (of fans?) so I think it would fail to meet these rough guildlines. if you want a forum for discussion, hit google and find it since WP isn't here to provide links. And since I doubt there's just a single forum, it would be playing favorites. Cburnett 19:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you why the link to Kill Enterprise should be added. To provide a sense of balance. Three links are featured under the title "fan sites", so if those are posted, why not Kill Enterprise? It does provide an opposing view to the three sites which support the campaign to save and fund the show. The members on that site are also Star Trek fans and the site is related to the TV show "Enterprise" so it should be added.81.153.215.57

Because theres nothing there and because of that it's nothing more than a blatant advertisement, vanity, and self-promotion for a small group of ex-fans that wish the series (although it's cancelled) to be cancelled. What don't you get you about this? If it was actually a website then hey maybe things would be different. A discontinued single page on the Internet is hardly worth noting in an encyclopedia. Please do not attempt to add it again. This has become borderline vandalism. K1Bond007 21:07, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've made no attempt to add it again. I've vandalised nothing. I don't believe it's any more vain or self-promoting than the Save Enterprise or Trek United sites. It's not just about wanting the show to remain cancelled. Kill Enterprise offers an opposing view to the funding campaigns since any such dissent is removed from the SE and TU sites. The link to the petition has been added (not by me), so why not add the forum link? Since it expands on some of the reasons why people are signing that petition. Would it really hurt you or anyone else to have the Kill Enterprise link added?. The campaign to save and fund that show is still ongoing, so the opposing view should also be mentioned on the link section because not every fan feels the same way about the show and the campaign.81.153.215.57

What is notable about a link to one page that says nothing or a link to a forum? Nothing. Please think about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Know this first. It is not an open directory. In response to your question, would it kill you if the "Kill Enterprise" link was left off? What does it matter to -you-. Enterprise was cancelled. I never liked the show either and there are some here who can vouch for that, so really my involvement in this issue is an unbiased one. K1Bond007 22:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

If "Kill Enterprise" is not added to the link list, then "Save Enterprise" and "Trek United" (which is simply an off-shoot of "Save Enterprise" anyway) should not be included either. They are merely fan sites for that show, whereas "Kill Enterprise" is a site which opposes what they are trying to do. They are not connected to the show itself. There is nothing notable about those two sites either if you use that argument for "Kill Enterprise". What does it matter to me? Nothing, and I do realise this is an encyclopedia, but if you (not you personally) post links to site which represent one segment of the fan "community" then a link to a site representing opinions of the opposing segment should also be posted. It would not be much effort to simply place a link to the "Kill Enterprise" forum under the title "Other" like the petition has been posted. Then, once the entire campaign to save and fund the show is over, then they can all be removed if necessary.81.153.215.57

Dude, I'm seriously getting sick of discussing this. This will be my final attempt to make sense of the situation afterwards you better seek an admin or mediation to support your opinion. 1) Save Enterprise and Trek United, while fan sites are permissable by Wikipedia. They have high-content and notability - I'm sorry you feel otherwise. 2) Kill Enterprise is merely one page with only a blurb that the site is discontinued. It has no notability whatsoever and its laughable that this one page with nothing on it for some reason makes you believe that it brings some sort of balance to the article. If you would actually -READ- the article you would see the article is fairly balanced and mentions "Kill Enterprise" and the reason for their -former- existance. 3) Wikipedia is not an open directory for links to forums and nonsensical websites, etc. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. K1Bond007 00:59, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
Whomever you are, 81.153.215.57, you're apparently new here and do not understand wikipedia's policies. Looking at the contributions from your IP address, you're done more in arguing here than editting articles. The only thing you've done here at wikipedia is argue and delete. When you learn more of WP's policies and general practices, please come back and make an argument. Cburnett 01:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Kill Enterprise" has not been discontinued, it is still a functioning website. The message on the first page refers to the fact the original purpose of the site has been accomplished. But a new purpose has emerged. That being to counter the "save and fund" sites and I have proven that WITH A DIRECT LINK showing that discussions are still taking place. "Kill Enterprise" is still there to offer a option for those who do not agree with the "Save Enterprise" and "Trek United" campaigns and as such the new link I provided SHOULD be added to the link list. Once their campaign is over, THEN the "Kill Enterprise" link, along with the "SE/TU" links will serve no further purpose and can be deleted. Listen, if an Admin comes on here and says "The links can't be altered or changed" then I'll accept that with no further protest or discussion, and I haven't touched the article or links at all since the "Kill Enterprise" link was removed. I'm just offering an opinion. You do indeed mention "Kill Enterprise's" new role, but there's no link to the new "Kill Enterprise" forum. That's all I ask. The new role of that site comes DIRECTLY from the old one, but it still relates to "Star Trek Enterprise".81.153.215.57

I did another revert on the basis of the POV header that was added. "Pro Star Trek/Anti-Enterprise sites" just does not work, because Enterprise is Star Trek, whether you like it or not. "Other" is the best way to describe these sites, rather than other terms that could be used such as "Anti-Star Trek sites", "Anti-Rick Berman sites", "Basher sites" or some other inflammatory term. If this revert war continues we should ask an admin to lock this article. PS. is it too much to ask for the user who keeps adding the K.E. links to register for an account? It's free. 23skidoo 13:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just did yet another revert, except this time the nameless poster got snarky about it and had replaced all the fan sites with non-fan sites. Does anyone know if it is possible to lock just the links section, preventing any further edits, but leave the rest of the article open for editing (especially in light of some drive-by user plopping a "clean up" tag on it)? 23skidoo 16:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for a while. Erasing links and replacing them with anti-Enterprise links is vandalism, simple as that. silsor 19:48, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Much obliged. I reported the IP on Vandalism in Progress, but since this is being handled, should I erase the report? I'm not sure of the protocol in these matters. 23skidoo 20:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I added the Kill Enterprise links to the paragraph about the site. Ausir 06:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Given that the series is over, I don't see a problem with the link being included in historical context; that petition of theirs is a bit silly, though. Personally I don't believe JMS would do any better a job than anyone else on Trek. There are a lot of people who hate Babylon 5, so we'd just see a "Kill Series VI" contingent form wanting to see Joss Weadon make Star Trek, or Dan O'Bannon... it'll never end. 23skidoo 14:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources needed

There are several statements that need sources to back them up. Such as:

Brannon Braga, executive producer of the series, has gone on record as challenging the fans who make such claims to prove it.

and

One newspaper writer has compared Star Trek's hawkish shift with the advent of the War on Terrorism.

Otherwise they need to be deleted. Cburnett 06:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can't help you there. I've never seen the Braga quote anywhere before. The "hawkish shift" (a term I've never been comfortable with) should be deleted as POV (I don't know why I never cut it before). The 3rd season Xindi arc was indeed inspired by 9/11 and the War on Terror, and it has been acknowledged by the producers that elements of both it and the fourth season Vulcan arc also reflected on the search for WMD. But as it currently sits the line in the article implies the whole series follows the War on Terror when isn't true since half the first season had been filmed when 9/11 happened and I can't think of any direct reference to it in season 2. I support these two statements being deleted if they can't be sourced. 23skidoo 13:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are others and those were the two that stuck in my mind when posting here. Probably should have kept track, eh? Oh well, it would only take another read. Cburnett 14:51, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There are a few instances I've added of "critics say" and "fans respond" which were done to maintain NPOV (lest the article be accused of either bashing or gushing), and these are generalities gleaned from reading multiple BBSes and articles, so to put an individual source is not feasible. But when it comes to a direct quote, in the case of the Braga statement, a source has to be given otherwise it's a copyvio. The "hawkish shift" subject matter could be rewritten to be more specific to season 3 since it has been acknowledged in newsgroups and interviews by the powers that be that the current political situation in the US inspired the Xindi and Vulcan storylines. 23skidoo 15:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Still, if the critics or fans can't be cited then it should be scratched. If it was said on an online chat then link to a transcript or something. At least one or more citations should be easy to do if it's a sweeping opinion of critics or fans. The more citations the more solid the "critics say" becomes. As of now, it looks like weasel words. Cburnett 18:22, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Maybe, but the problem is doing so will remove 90% of the arguments on both sides of the issue (virtually the entire "alleged continuity violations" article would have to be purged, including edits made by producer Mike Sussman). As a supporter of the series, I would love to see more of the negative comments regarding the show eliminated since they, too, have no sources (again using the "fans say" and "critics say" citations), so IMO this would be a good thing. But in the spirit of fairness and NPOV, we have to acknowledge both sides. In the Internet world, it's becoming more difficult to cite sources since chat links are deleted and websites go down. Any use of "fans said" etc. comes from 4 years of reading Internet discussion and online reviews and debates. To try and track down reference to each one would be impossible. 23skidoo 20:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. What do you mean when you say you've never seen the Braga quote anywhere before? You deleted the Braga quote six days ago in this edit. The external link gave the source of the quote as issue 108 of Star Trek Monthly magazine. Do you mean you haven't seen any other source aside from that scifipulse link? AlistairMcMillan 19:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I cut the quote because the article exceeded 32Kb and just as in newspapers, quotes are the first things to be cut. I assume someone must have put it back. Maybe it's time for me to be confused. Cburnett, were you referring to the quote in your original statement, or just the comment that was made to replace it? If so, the Braga statement could be linked (and therefore cited) if you go back in the history a ways, as Alistair notes. 23skidoo 20:38, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
First, if it's too long then I think it should be broken up. Removing content to meet a space requirement is rather lame for a purely electronic encyclopedia.
Second, all I'm saying is that "critics say", "fans agree", "Braga challenged", etc. need to be backed up with citations--otherwise they're weasel words and are unfit an encyclopedia. If a direct quote is included or not, it still needs to be cited. Cburnett 21:27, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The quote that was cut could be put into Braga's article, perhaps. Or maybe added to the "alleged continuity violations" article (actually that's not a bad idea). It's still in the history if someone wants to do that. Given the Wikipedia mantra "Wikipedia is not paper" I don't understand the rationale behind a 32Kb limit. It's silly. 23skidoo 00:04, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Restored the link for the Braga challenge. Don't think we need the actual quote though. This is getting off-topic, but I think there is very good reason to have a 32kb limit. When people ignore the 32kb limit you end up with long rambling articles like Mozilla Firefox, which I'm sure just puts people off. I'm interested in the subject but I can't even be arsed to read all that. AlistairMcMillan 01:16, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding including spoilers for the finale episode

Early rumors regarding the finale are coming out on the various Internet chat boards, and some of the details are reportedly causing controversy (but then this series has never been able to burp without people getting up in arms about it). I'd like to suggest, however, that such spoilers not be included in this article for the time being, since there are many rumors abounding and things could get a bit nasty. I think we're OK with mentioning the speculation about Riker and Troi appearing, but other rumors regarding the regular characters, etc. should be held back for now. As an alternative, I recommend those wishing to post spoiler-related information about the last episode do so by starting the article on the episode itself (see the List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes article for a redlink to the as-yet unwritten article). I'd hold off until we're certain about the title. Right now it is either "There Are the Voyages" or "These Are the Voyages ..." with an ellipse at the end. Thoughts? 23skidoo 22:11, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Concur, strongly.
It shouldn't be on this page unless it is canon, and it is not canon until it has aired *on the network*, preferably in all US timezones, but at the very least, end-of-show EST. --Baylink 02:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It is a shame that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have spoiler code similar to that used at TrekBBS (which renders text unreadable unless you scroll over it). There are some interesting (not to mention wacky) rumors going around regarding the finale that are worth reporting under the "aftermath" segment. But there's no real way of doing "spoiler code" here. I wonder if it might be worth putting a temporary "No Spoilers" notice in the article itself? 23skidoo 06:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since Paramount has now confirmed elements of the final episode (guest stars, for example), I think it's safe to start a finale subsection. I put a spoiler warning up, but we should keep an eye on this to make sure detailed spoilers don't start appearing. Or, for that matter, snide remarks. I considered adding the fact that the episode has been criticized already, in particular with Blalock being quoted as calling it "appalling" but none of the coverage I have seen in regular media has suggested why Blalock thinks it's appalling. Unless someone can find an article in which she itemizes what she doesn't like about the episode, or if a published source (rather than Internet rumor or bash vs. gush argument) can be found discussing the episode, I suggest we leave it out until such sources actually become available. There will be plenty after May 13. 23skidoo 19:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup posted by Alexwcovington

Waiting for User:Alexwcovington to come and explain what needs cleaned up. Cburnett 16:33, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Once things settle in terms of Trek United, the future of the show, etc., the section on the "cancellation and aftermath" can probably be condensed, as can the controversy section. And the link situation is annoying. But other than the usual tweaks and adjustments I personally don't see a reason for this article needing to have a clean-up tag, personally. I'm going to give the page a once-over when I have a moment, but right now I don't have a moment. :) 23skidoo 19:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nonetheless, I want to give alexwcovington a chance to explain himself before I delete the notice. Cburnett 19:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article is a lot more long-winded than the articles for the other Star Trek series, and there's a lot of current events coverage, speculation, and whatnot that seems to have been accreting to the article. Mostly it's a time consideration - someone will have to go through and condense out a lot of stuff, and I'd prefer if that were someone who was following the article more closely than I have. Even the talk page is cluttered and needs archiving --Alexwcovington (talk) 00:29, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I honestly don't believe that this article and the reasons you stated warrant the use of the cleanup tag. Granted the page needs work, but a lot of what is written is based on an ongoing event. As 23skidoo said, once things settle down the sections and the article as a whole will be condensed. K1Bond007 03:19, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Alexwcovington that the discussion page needs archiving, though I believe it's against the rules to delete postings on the Talk page, so any sections archived cannot be regarding current discussions (such as the links and spoilers issues). As K1Bond007 says, there are elements of the main article that simply cannot be condensed until things resolve themselves. (Though, of course, there is always room for revision.) I'd almost support the addition of the "ongoing event" tag, though I think that would be a bit pretentious for an entertainment-based article. Of course it's longer and more complex than the others because, for the time being, Enterprise is the current series. Had Wikipedia been active when Voyager was on the air, I'd bet it would have been just as complex. My main disagreement regarding the use of the clean-up tag here is that in most cases that I have seen, the tag is placed on articles that don't have a lot of editing going on. This article, OTOH, is extremely active (not always in a good way, I'll grant, with the recent revert war) but it's not as if it has been abandoned or anything. 23skidoo 04:44, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You can archive a talk page for any article similar to archiving your own talk page. Tons of pages do it. See more heavily visited pages like George W. Bush. Heh, it has 19 archives. K1Bond007 05:21, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
It was not my goal to offend anyone by placing the tag - just to bring some attention to the situation. I hope it would lead to some progress before the tag is removed, but if it's more annoying than useful, hack it out by all means. --Alexwcovington (talk) 05:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just chimming in that I'm not offended, just curious why. :) Cburnett 06:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It appears that Alex's primary argument is that there's a lot more material and most of it is current events related. Well, ST:E *is* a current event, and that, IMHO, justifies both of these facts. While I think the article needs a *little* bit of copyediting, I too don't think that the cleanup tag is called for, and I'm therefore gonna Be Bold and hack it out.  :-) --67.78.146.86 19:12, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cancellation is final

Now that Paramount says the cancellation is final (though I really think they'd change their minds if offered a billion or two to do it), what should be done with the respective section? Nothing? Just fueling some discussion now that it *is* over and done with. Cburnett 23:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The reality is they aren't and were most likely never going to bring it back. That said, the section should be condensed to a smaller section on fans attempting to bring it back through donations. Keep the notable stuff, but every minute detail doesn't need to be there. Changes throughout the article should be made to state that it isn't coming back, not ifs and maybes. I'd do it myself, but this is just (I)MHO. K1Bond007 00:17, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Cburnett 00:27, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of taking an axe to the Future and Cancellation sections. I retitled the Future section "A troubled run" which I felt was more appropriate however feel free to use a better title. I trimmed quite a bit while still keeping a few notable things such as the "rerun effect" (which is a legitimate concern voiced by Trineer in a magazine interview), the newspaper ads, and a few other things. I cut most of the William Shatner stuff except to acknowledge the attempts to sign him, and I also trimmed some discussin re: the new format for S4 which is covered better elsewhere. If I cut anything someone thinks is vital, it's still in the histories if you want to dig it out. I did not go through the whole article, so some of the stuff K1Bond007 mentions above may still need to be addressed. Now I'm off to watch my new Sledge Hammer DVD ;-) . 23skidoo 04:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler box

The spoiler box looks awful in Firefox, FYI. It's because of the images. Personally I'd rather have the regular Template:Spoiler. It's less obtrusive and if reading back and forth between what is deemed as a spoiler and what isn't, then things need to be better organized with perhaps a reduction in spoilers. For a television show, perhaps breaking the section up by season would solve this. If I've seen Seasons 1 and 2, I might not read for fear of treading into Season 3 etc. Just a thought. K1Bond007 01:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the spoiler box looks terrible. 23skidoo 03:50, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Really? It looks fine in Mozilla...then again I'm not sure what "awful" & "terrible" exactly means. :) I just thought it'd be nice to demarcate the spoilers for someone who wants to skip them. Maybe we need a Template:spoiler_done for the bottom that doesn't use a box???
Though, it probably would be a good idea to read through and see about consolidating spoilers by season or something.
Go ahead and go back to the old spoiler provided this convo continues to find something better. :) Cburnett 04:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Awful and terrible means that Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape etc scrunches the box from the full width of the page (seen in IE) to only half. I also think it's more stand-outish than it's original intent, which is to hide the spoilers. Anyway as I previously said, the plot section should probably be broken up per season and once the series finale airs that section should be merged with season4, this should fix just about any problems involving spoilers. K1Bond007 19:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Wow...half? Shows up as a half-indention for me. :) You running this on windows or *nix? Cburnett 19:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
I'm on Windows with I.E. and it looks pretty awkward, plus, as noted, it draws attention to itself. That's my main issue with it. It's also unworkable IMO in articles that slip back and forth between spoiler and non-spoiler information. In theory complete articles could end up being boxed, so what's the point? I agree the finale information can be moved later, though right now it's still part of a "developing story" of sorts. Once it airs, plot information, etc. should be saved for the article that will be written about the episode, and for the season list. When that happens, it can probably be condensed into a couple of lines at the conclusion of "cancellation and aftermath". 23skidoo 20:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Stop. I told you flat out, if you don't believe me get Firefox and test it out for yourself, but don't keep questioning me like I'm idiot and I don't know what I'm talking about ":)". K1Bond007 21:57, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
No, seriously, I'm curious. I've ran both mozilla and firefox and I get a half-indent on both sides....do you want a screenshot or something to prove it? I admit that I'm rather confused here to your hostility....
I'm not arguing to keep it included or anything, just curious what the problem is. I'm also not questioning you like an idiot or that I don't believe you....I'm just plain curious what the problem is. How is asking about how a page renders and being surprised at massively different renders on the same browser...treating you like an idiot? I'm honestly purplexed here. Cburnett 22:17, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Whatever I'm not going to argue it. Intentional, unintentional, it doesn't matter. I'll take it as the latter. K1Bond007 22:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
The problem was your window width and text size were different than mine. Good lord, was it worth it to take offense and get pissy over that? Excuse my curiosity! Sheesh. Cburnett 23:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
My window width and text size are default btw. I'm sorry the default alluded you! I don't see why there has to be a problem here. I dropped it. You should have to. On top of that I even ceded that it was most likely unintentional. Unfortunately, I'm regreting that. K1Bond007 23:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
They are default on mine as well. Cburnett 00:52, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Then I imagine, given that you're saying text size and width, that it's your resolution. 800x600 probably looks fine. 1024x768 does not K1Bond007 00:57, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, can someone who's having issues with this box upload a screenshot of what their spoiler box looks like? I'm using Firefox 1.0.1 on Windows XP and I don't see any formatting issues. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Here, like I said it's because of the image. K1Bond007 22:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't realize you guys were talking about an old version. Yeah it looks terrible on my browser too, ditch the non-standard spoiler box. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:39, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boston link

The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging finale and plots

IMHO, these two sections need to be merged now that it has been aired. I don't see a real reason to have an entire section devoted to it when theres an entire article devoted to it. Theres no section for All Good Things, What You Leave Behind... (+whatever else) on their articles. K1Bond007 02:18, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Remember NPOV people

OK, I get it. Some people loved the finale (I certainly did) while others hated it. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a forum for reviewing this episode. Please keep POV out of it. Thanks. 23skidoo 02:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

It may be best to make all contraversies a seperate article. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

These are the voyages info belongs to these are the voyages episode info article. --Cool Cat My Talk 23:56, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we need to make a separate article about the controversies. Doing so, in my opinion, would be POV unless we were to make similar Controversy articles regarding Voyager, DS9, and TNG. We're pushing it as it is with the article on the alleged continuity violations which I and others have taken great pains to keep as balanced as possible. The controversy section can probably be shortened since a lot of the things people were complaining about are moot now that the show is over. We need to include a little bit of TATV information because it was an important milestone for the show, and we don't need to make the readers who need barebones information do another mouse click. 23skidoo 00:26, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I totally agree with the final episode information being removed, merged into episode article or merged into "Plots". It doesn't make any sense to have a sub-section on its own. I actually proposed this weeks ago, but got no feedback on it, hence Merging finale and plots. K1Bond007 01:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The 9/11 effect

In a recent interview, Brannon Braga discussed how the atmosphere of science fiction has changed since 9/11 (this with regards to his new series, Threshold). I have read in several places that the relative failure of Enterprise has been blamed on the changes in the emotional climate of America following 9/11, and the fact ENT didn't address this until the third season was cited as a reason why people didn't like the series. Indeed, one thing Trek has never had and ENT certainly never had, was irony - and this is what has permeated science fiction and TV shows in general since 9/11. The closest thing Trek came to doing this before 9/11 was in the introduction of Section 31 in DS9 which was wildly controversial if you'll recall. Anyway, the reason why I'm mentioning all this is I think a discussion of the effect of 9/11 on ENT should be added to the article, because there's no denying there was an effect and it may or may not have been a contributing factor in its inability to gain an audience. However I cannot provide sources at this time, and to add the section without sources would probably violate both NPOV and the No Original Research rules. But I thought I'd propose it here in case anyone else can provide sources with which we can begin the section. I have heard second-hand that Joss Whedon has basically said as much, but again I can't provide a source so it's heresay otherwise. 23skidoo 17:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

    • While a good idea, I don't see how such a section could be written without original research. --The_stuart 19:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That's the challenge. I am certain I have seen references to this in articles on SF and the state of the Trek franchise, so all we need is to find one or two of these and it no longer becomes original research, just reporting comments made by others. 23skidoo 19:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry I think it had little to no effect on the fortunes of SF. Enterprise failed for numerous reasons. Terror attacks surely feature at the bottom of a long list.Magic Pickle 22:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UPN is officially dead

When Enterprise was cancelled, a lot of fans (me included) predicted that UPN would be dead within a year. A lot of that was just knee-jerk reaction. But guess what -- UPN is going to cease operations in the spring! Apparently CBS and WB have signed a surprise deal that will create a new network combining UPN and The WB. See this link. I guess our predictions turned out to be correct after all (and yes I know this isn't a result of Star Trek going off TV -- at least one assumes not -- but still...) 23skidoo 16:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Theres a world of difference here. Nothing to do with Trek whatsoever. K1Bond007 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I know that, but with the flood of predictions of UPN's demise within a year of cancellation, there is no little amount of irony here, not matter what the cause. (Although it is an interesting academic question to consider whether Enterprise might have fared better under the proposed CW model than under UPN. The way things look, CW seems like it might actually be able to score Top 10 shows, which UPN and WB seemed physically incapable of doing... 23skidoo 05:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that the demise of "Enterprise" contributed in any way to the demise of UPN, except that it probably should've been demised sooner. =P Syfymichael 23:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Try telling that to all the posters at TrekBBS and TrekWeb who are jumping for joy! ;-) 23skidoo 01:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well they're pretty stupid. That's all I can say. This isn't a demise. This is a merger. Completely different. They weren't forced into this. If anything they'll only do better profit wise now that they lack competition from their usual rival, The WB. UPN's "demise" just made them the 5th major network without question. Anyone who would jump for joy over this in relation to Enterprise knows absolutely nothing about this. Sorry to be so frank about it, but that's seriously how it is. K1Bond007 03:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The bottom line is both UPN and WB were dying, with UPN dying faster. It was pointed out that UPN did not experience a great resurgence in viewers after dropping Enterprise, and critically acclaimed shows like Veronica Mars and Everybody Hates Chris were tanking ratings-wise. The WB wasn't much better. Everyone seems to love Smallville but do you think it could get a single episode into the top 50 yet alone the top 10? The CW is going to be a gamble that could result in failure ... or it could be just the thing that keeps the two networks (now one) afloat. Certainly UPN does not have a good reputation, not just among Trek fans, but TV fans in general. The WB seems to have a better rep. So combining the two could work. What's making some people a bit ticked is their well-stated plans to boycott UPN now create a quandry for those who love Smallville... 23skidoo 03:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
That's okay -- they're counter-balanced by the fans boycotting The WB due to the cancellation of Angel.
Davidkevin 18:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question (kind of stupid)

Hi, I can't think of where else to ask this. You know that episode where they found that spaceship that was bigger on the inside than on the outside? The question is, is that a real thing, like the Dyson Sphere? Did someone somewhere at some time postulate about a thing that could have more interior space than the exterior appearance would suggest? Thanks! --Bobcat 18:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the episode was "Future Tense". I can't speak to the science of it, but the ship was an homage to the TARDIS from Doctor Who. 23skidoo 18:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


A good place to send your question is Nitcentral This site is a very large set of discussion boards started by the person who wrote the Star Trek Nitpicker's Guides.

I have another question which I hope isn't stupid, but I wonder about the syndicated reruns. The local stations have been showing the same episodes from the fourth season repeatedly, some more often than others, and there are about seven episodes which have not been shown at all. I realize Paramount decides which episodes will be shown on a particular weekend. But what they're doing just seems strange. Has anyone at Paramount commented on this?

NotWillDecker

[edit] Section on Opening Segment

Instead of having a section only on the theme song controversy, why not just have a section dedicated to the entire opening segment?

Wasn't there once a separate article on the opening segment? In answer to the question, the folderol over the theme was a major part of the controversy so I can't really see it being separated from the rest of the whining about the show. 23skidoo 04:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Excelsior fan campaign

Does anyone have a link to a webpage or other source that discusses the fan campaign re:Excelsior? I've heard everything from it being a flat out rumor to, as noted in a recent edit, an organized fan campaign. It would be helpful for the sake of NPOV and accuracy to have a source for this one way or the other. 23skidoo 02:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The campaign for a Star Trek: Excelsior was run by the International Federation of Trekkers. The website for the campaign is no longer up.
Davidkevin 09:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] T'Pol body double

Once in awhile the rumor pops up that a body double was used for T'Pol's love scene in Harbinger. But the only place I've ever seen that mentioned is on BBS discussion forums. Blalock has certainly bared her backside for film cameras before (see Diamond Hunters) so I personally don't see why she'd need a double unless she has a big Angelina Jolie tattoo back there or something. I echo the edit summary - can anyone provide a source that a body double was used for the scene? 23skidoo 04:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox Image

Wouldn't it be more appropriate for the image to be that of the title sequence for the series rather than that of its starship? I presume there's already an article on the NX-class already, and if not, then on Ex Astris Scientia.. DrWho42 04:48, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess so, but it would be problematic to use the series logo in this case because, unlike the other Trek series, the show changed its title. Therefore there may be difference of opinion as to whether the Star Trek: Enterprise logo should be used or the Enterprise logo. (Granted the same argument could be applied to the title of this article, since the series technically used the Enterprise title for more episodes than the new title. 23skidoo 04:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section

Be prepared to retool this section a bit as it seems the continuity problems article is about to be deleted at WP:AFD. 23skidoo 18:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the section was violating WP:NPOV by taking a stand regarding the episode "Dear Doctor". I've balanced it out. There was also a tangent involving ANIS being a bottle show which was totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand; it's been bugging me for awhile so I took the opportunity to slice it as well. 23skidoo 03:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the displayed criticism of "Dear Doctor" states (arguable) opinions for facts. It claims the writers misunderstood evolution theory without pointing out the actual misunderstanding and how that contradicts evolution. Furthermore it compares compares Phlox's action with the eugenic programs of the 30s or not treating inherited (diseases) such as diabetes. That however is is rather questionable claim, since the episode is about about 2 different (potentially competing) species on a different planet and phlox decides not to intervene on the behalf of any of them (as a precursor/his personal version of later is supposed to become the prime directive).The eugenics scenario differs from that as it takes place within a species and is without 2 competing groups. It is about putting (questionable) group advantages over the well being or life of an (unfortunate) individual, which is not really related to Phlox situation at all.

Unless reputable sources are cited, Wikipedia's WP:NPOV rules prevent us from just out and saying this. This material also violates WP:NOR as well. If sources criticizing Dear Doctor on these grounds can be cited, by all means include them (though the actual article on the episode is a more appropriate place for this level of detail; for the series overview article it's sufficient to say Dear Doctor ticked some people off and leave it at that). 23skidoo 18:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the absence of the continuity errors article means users are now putting their continuity/canon arguments into the main ENT article instead. Oh dear. Magic Pickle 13:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that was one of the reasons why I created that spin-off article in the first place. But AFD saw it differently so now we're going to have to continually deal with an NPOV tug-of-war both from supporters and opponents of the series (since - and I say this as a fan - it's obvious that this is the most hated television series ever produced. Maybe if enough situations like this occur we'll have grounds for an appeal of the deletion decision. 23skidoo 13:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you, but the AFDers will simply say 'just because people are now breaking no OR on Enterprise main doesn't mean we should tolerate OR on another article' - but I really wish they'd considered this before just deleting the canon article - ENT is a magnet for continuity discussion. I'm a sceptic of the show - I do get some enjoyment from it, although I do think it violates canon (or bends it to a ridiculous degree), I also think some 'fanon' is perfectly reasonable and shouldn't have been ignored. Therefore I think a balanced view can be taken on a canon discussion article - we need to get one back up. Then such discussions can be speedily deleted from the main article. Magic Pickle 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cast Section

Since I've watched maybe 40 episodes of Star Trek across the entire series, I'm not going to be the one to touch it. But I just wanted to point out that the cast section has an error; the ending of the cast section and the rest of the article has been accidentally stuffed into the Core Cast table. Arrow 23:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footage cut from Voyager

In case anyone is curious what I meant in my recent edit by referring to footage cut from the -premiere of Voyager, I was referring to the footage of Genevieve Bujold as Janeway. 23skidoo 23:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nonexistant 5th season

I remember reading an article from TrekToday concerning what Manny Coto would have wanted for Star Trek: Enterprise's 5th season.. Would that be good to insert into this article? DrWho42 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a fine addition - if nothing else could be in a trivia area if folks don't think it's worthy enough for it's own section on the page (which I think it is). Dopefish 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

Why is this [1] being used on the article? I dont remember that ever being used on screen. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't even remember seeing that on any TV commercials. I haven't the slightest idea. Feel free to replace it with the proper logo. 23skidoo 15:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I've capped it and uploaded it, however it could do with replacing as i dont have a better source to hand. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
That images was from the syndication advertisements, but I suppose that the current one is somewhat more appropriate.ChunkySoup 06:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Just a note that if you want to see past versions of a file click the date. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the information. I updated it with a slightly sharper cap from the DVD so that there is no UPN logo. ChunkySoup 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Lowers the size down to 13k . MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UPN future

"In May 2005, UPN announced starting in the fall, WWE SmackDown!, its longtime professional wrestling series, would move into the same Friday night timeslot vacated by Enterprise, a move coinciding with reports that UPN does not plan to renew its contract with WWE in 2006, bringing to a close another TV franchise. (However, in January 2006, it was announced UPN would merge with The WB to form a new network, CW, and SmackDown! was announced as one of series scheduled for the network's inaugural 2006-2007 season.)" -I'm afraid I don't understand how this has importance to Star Trek, and should be deleted.

    • Please sign your comments. It is self-explanatory: UPN (at the time) was planning to shut down its only other long-running franchise, demonstrating that Enterprise's cancellation wasn't unique and that UPN was preparing to euthanize Smackdown the same way as Enterprise by putting it into the Friday Night death slot. However the second sentence indicated that these plans were changed when The CW was announced. It's more a reflection of the state of network politics that corresponded with the show's cancellation. 23skidoo 13:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Digital video

"the first Star Trek series to be produced on digital video [2]" - TNG, DS9 and Voyager were all shot on 35mm film, but the post-production was done on digital video for the majority of these series (I think the first 3 seasons or so of TNG were done on analogue video). So, should this line be removed from the article? I say yes. Davhorn 13:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps changed to "the first Star Trek series to be filmed using digital video [2]"? Koweja 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Changed. Davhorn 22:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove "Dear Doctor" from the "Controversial episodes" section

"Dear Doctor" was not a controversial episode. Every online critic loved it. Critics were constantly pointing to it and going "why aren't more episodes like this one"?--->In short, I think NPOV rules are being violated: one or two wikipedians disliked the episodes scientific basis (which was only in the backround to support the ethical point of the episode) or disagreed with it, and keep saying it "divided" fans. I was on practically every major messageboard during the run, read every critic obsessively: I saw no evidence of widespread fan polarization over this. Wikipedia is based on evidence: can anyone provide *evidence*, that this was controversial? Otherwise one or two people that didn't like it are beating a dead horse and violating NPOV. I'm formally asking for a vote or administrator arbitration to finally settle this.

"Every online critic loved it"? If you were really on every major messageboard at the time, you can't have been paying much attention. Plenty of viewers had a problem with what Phlox and Archer did. I still do -- it was unconscionable. (Or would have been if it had actually happened, anyway.) By all means take satisfaction in the fact that a lot of people agreed with you, but if that's not good enough for you... too bad. Dissenting views existed whether you like it or not. ~ CZeke 15:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Dear Doctor was one of the few season 1 episodes to receive widespread critical acclaim. However to say "every online critic" is an unverifiable and probably untrue statement. Take any classic episode of Star Trek (pick a series) and you could not prove that. I hate the Tribbles episode and for awhile I was an "online critic" insofar as I regularly posted reviews of ENT episodes to the TrekBBS until I gave it up. However, although I personally feel people took the episode waaaaay too seriously, the fact it was controversial is verifiable. Hell, every episode of Enterprise was controversial. It was (and remains) the Rodney Dangerfield of Star Trek ... the series that got no respect. 23skidoo 04:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think not every episode of ENT was controversial. Some were verifiably bad and universally reviled. Who here gave "Precious Cargo" a 10/10?  ;) But I see your point--and, IIRC, "Dear Doctor" did receive a lot of praise. In fact, even I liked the show a great deal, even though I found Archer's actions a debasement of the ideals of Star Trek and the Prime Directive. It was a moral dilemma show of the highest caliber, even though the characters got exactly the wrong answer in the end. I think the section is true, as written, in just about every respect, but the whole thing needs citations. --BCSWowbagger 05:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The thing is, Archer's actions were not a debasement of any Prime Directive because the entire point of the episode -- including the ultimate decision at the end -- was intended to illustrate the reason why the Prime Directive was created in the first place. One of the most-cited criticisms of the episode is Archer's rather obvious line "Maybe someday there will be a directive to help us avoid this in the future" (or something to that effect). People who criticized the episode on the basis of Prime Directive-related matters missed the entire point of the episode. There was no Prime Directive, and that's why Archer and Phlox found themselves in a Catch-22 where no one could win. 23skidoo 11:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that was no Catch-22, and, if that's the reason for the PD (and yes, I did get that), then it only justifies my long-standing opinion that it's a cheap excuse to avoid acting ethically. When I say it was a debasement of the PD, I'm saying that it warped the ideal of the PD that it was prototyping (just as TNG did before it, in such ridiculous shows as "Homeward") from the very simple, and not exactly ironclad, rule that first appeared in "Bread and Circuses." But Talk pages are not discussion forums; you want to take this up at the TrekBBS?  ;) PM me; I'm known as Wowbagger there. --BCSWowbagger 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killies

There's a whole paragraph, more or less, on the Kill Enterprise movement--a movement which existed almost exclusively within the boundaries of the StarTrek.com message boards (Sinister Six, anyone?), and which can no longer be found through a simple Google search for "Kill Enterprise", mostly because their main website, JMSTrek.org, had seven members (one of whom was me, and I was only there to keep an eye on them), existed, towards the end, almost exclusively as a reaction against the [www.TrekUnited.com TrekUnited] movement, and went totally inactive weeks before the series actually ended. So, on grounds of notability, I propose that all mention of the Kill Enterprise movement be excised from the paragraph about the future of Star Trek. --BCSWowbagger 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Right on, Wowbagger. This is exactly what I was talking about with "being unbiased by being biased." ~ CZeke 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Citation of a TJI article. I'll have to remember to file that under Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Assuming I actually exist, of course, which, IIRC, that article disputed.  :D ... Hey, waitaminute! That article said that FMES4 would be going up in 2005! *gives CZeke a ten second head start* Anyhow, ignoring my rambling, thanks for the commentary. Now I can legitimately and retroactively claim consensus. --BCSWowbagger 22:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/t/a/Talk%7EStar_Trek%7E_Enterprise_0d62.html"