# Talk:11001001

Is it safe to say that this spacedock is not the same used in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock?"  I know that Paramount reused footage from the movie for this episode, but Enterprise-D is a lot bigger than the "original" Enterprise.  (Sorry, I don't count Archer's ship.)--BigMac1212 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Relative to Starbase 74? --Sage Veritas (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Given that the original spacedock was orbiting Earth and this one is not? Yeah, not the same spacedock. Doniago (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm not sure what the issue is (either). It's not supposed to be the same space dock, plot-wise. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

A link I submitted yesterday to this page was removed even though it does comply with the guidelines.  It is not a promotion or an advertisement.  The link was to a Professional review of this episode of Star Trek: TNG, which is on tor.com. Bonnie83 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it's appropriate to include reviews as external links. It would be better to create a Reception section and include any pertinent information from the review there. Doniago (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought the episode title was related to the four Bynars? They are named 00, 01, 10 and 11 (binary representations of the first four numbers in a computer sequence) and when you combine that, you get the title.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.129.186 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC) 

Interestingly, but probably a coincidence, 11001001 are the 1st 8 digits of pi in binary. 11.001001.... 136.49.140.9 (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
An alternative (equally unsourced, but far more subtle) explanation for the title is that '11001001' is the binary representation of the Zilog Z80 'return' opcode. And the Bynars are trying to 'return' home.  DrVxD (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You know what's sad? I looked at the title and immediately thought "that's C9 in hex" followed shortly by "... the 8080/Z-80 opcode for return." I'm such a pitiful geek. Fool4jesus (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
same here. And I would bet a million dollar that this is no coincidence.
"Return" is very fitting for the plot. 174.29.115.8 (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't really matter unless you have a source. DonIago (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:11001001/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Retrolord (talk · contribs) 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Your articles are always fairly quick to review, I'll take this so you don't have to wait too long. ★★RetroLord★★ 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Well assuming I don't find anything else i'll pass this article tommorow. Thanks ★★RetroLord★★ 12:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 11001001. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120617184902/https://www.filmscoremonthly.com:80/notes/box05_disc02.html to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/notes/box05_disc02.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

On my page, Doniago said that this was "original research" and wondered how it is relevant to the episode. He then reverted my change. This is not original research, as any EBCDIC table on the Internet will tell you (and there are plenty) that 11001001, or C9 base 16, is "I" in the EBCDIC code system. I don't think the "I" is in itself relevant, but the fact that a computer code was used for the title links the Binars to computers, and thus to boolean logic. Look also at the names of the four Binars: zero one, one zero, zero zero, and one one, the four possible combinations using two bits. --Tim Sabin (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

If any EBCDIC table on the Internet has this information, then it should be easy enough for you to cite it. However, you haven't made it clear how it's pertinent to the episode title beyond being coincidence. We need some indication that the creators of the episode chose that number for that reason, or at least that a secondary source noted it for some reason. Otherwise it doesn't appear to be anything more than coincidence and consequently WP:TRIVIA. DonIago (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
It's interesting that 11001001 in decimal is 201, because the original air date according to my cable television provider was 2/01/1988. Also, the first two Bynar names mentioned are 10 followed by 01. In decimal, that would correspond to 2/1 as well. Were the writers making references to the date the episode was to air? Yes, 11001001 represents the names of the four Bynars but why in an order that makes 201? Maybe someone with better internet search skills can find a source or two for this if it is not mere coincidence. 2602:306:B866:5510:D21:3647:3483:4F83 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It's not EBCDIC, it's an encoded warning. Reverse it to get 10010011: 1001 is binary for 9, and 0011 is 11. 9/11, you see? Creepy indeed.  2001:9E8:4612:7300:B578:229F:D82:21DA (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 11001001. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304050852/http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/notes/box05_disc02.html to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/notes/box05_disc02.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)