Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 |
Archive 2
| Archive 3 →

Contents

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)