Talk:Regeneration (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: I'm going to remove the Update tag, as I read through it and think it's up-to-date. JG of Borg 06:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Archer mentions a speech made by Cochrane in which he claimed that cybernetic people from the future came to stop First Contact. This is pretty close to a "mention" of the Borg. Evercat (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: This article has been tagged to question it's notability, while the other 90+ episodes of this series have not. When I removed that tag, it was promptly reverted, leading to the question, why this one article?  Either most of the episodes (you can always make a separate case on any series for the pilot, a few individual episodes, and the finale) should be tagged, or they should not.  Tagging just this one is inconsistent. 
My thinking is that episodes of any major television series should be inherently notable.  I know the synopsis are certainly useful, and of course the source documentation is the media itself and easily verifiable.  Obviously other editors disagree.SeaphotoTalk 20:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tagged (and re-tagged) this article for notability concerns because it does not show evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".  Why haven't the other episodes of Enterprise been tagged?  I can't answer for that as I haven't read and/or evaluated those.  For what it's worth, inconsistency isn't a concern with regards to notability or plot-centric articles.  You'll find a prime example of this at the list of Stargate SG-1 episodes, where those episodes which meet the Notability guideline have been spun out into articles while those which have not are summarized in the list of episodes (LOE).  As for "inherent notability" for TV series' episodes, this is a highly contentions issue with no consensus that such inherency exists; I don't fight on one side or the other so much, only following the guidelines and policies that are in place and constitute the general site-wide consensus for all content.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Regeneration (Star Trek: Enterprise). 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/20120606094732/http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=cKCQIK3.1khuc to http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=cKCQIK3.1khuc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225024023/http://www.briantyler.com/Site/Star_Trek_Enterprise.html to http://www.briantyler.com/Site/Star_Trek_Enterprise.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041227212549/http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=MPmr4PKrJ.Er2 to http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=MPmr4PKrJ.Er2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/ratings/cl-et-ratingstext13may14%2C0%2C2535362.story?coll=cl-tvratings
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi,
I just reverted two out the last three edits (good call on the Wolf 359 stuff), as one was a deletion because it was uncited and the other was a deletion of a cited item. Firstly the uncited section was in the lead - which summarised a cited part of the article which was still there after you removed the bit from the lead. Secondly, there was a physical model of the Enterprise-E built, except it was only used for First Contact. This is even cited in the First Contact article here. It was only from Insurrection on that they went all CGI. Miyagawa (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits