Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise/Archive 1

message: 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.76 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2003
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)
thread_title:  General 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Season 4, Episode 11 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Is this 'seven year run' a Star Trek thing or a US TV thing? DJ Clayworth 18:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Enterprise cancelled 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cancellation is final 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Boston link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Remember NPOV people 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The 9/11 effect 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question (kind of stupid) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Section on Opening Segment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  T'Pol body double 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Infobox Image 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cast Section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Footage cut from Voyager 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nonexistant 5th season 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Lowers the size down to 13k . MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logo 

message: "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)
thread_title:  UPN future 

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

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Remove "Dear Doctor" from the "Controversial episodes" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Right on, Wowbagger.  This is exactly what I was talking about with "being unbiased by being biased."  ~ CZeke 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Killies 

message: The page as it stands is absolutely saturated with weasel words and unsourced statements.  I started added necessary cite tags but eventually lost the will to live, there are so many instances where the supposed opinions of unspecified and unreferenced people like "Some fans..." or "Many critics..." are used to make points. Reliable sources, which do not include message board postings, must be found or much of the article should be culled.  Yikes.--Nalvage 12:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 12:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have anywhere near the knowledge of Star Trek required to know where any of these assertions may have been made by people we can cite.  I'm certainly endeavouring to find out.  Presumably those who added the opinions of "critics" are aware of who they meant, which is why flagging up the need for that extra detail is useful.--Nalvage 13:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  If those people who added the info can't provide a source, your (very unhelpful) suggestiong of "so fix it" will involve deletion of the material.  thanks.  CPitt76 16:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel Words 

message: A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard]] 

message: As may be mentioned in the archives (and what's with all the archiving, BTW?), this article is nothing but fannish complaints about the injustice involved in cancelling the show and all the obstacles this otherwise uncancellable show had to face. In other words, it's an off-topic fannish apologia. At least split that into another article. The only thing relevant to an encyclopedia-type article is 'Show Foo aired from I to J, with a cast of Tom, Dick, and Harry, and produced by Dopey and Sneezy - the season synopses are X, Y, and Z. Done.' I'd tag this with some big whomping tag, but I'm not a wikipedian and don't know what big whomping tag to give it. 74.227.120.238 01:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flagged the offending sections with template:rewrite - .  They are far too verbose, and contain a number of details that are potentially innaccurate, but the rest of the article is largely sound. MrZaiustalk 01:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total rewrite 

message: Should the cast photo be deleted from Wikipedia?  Discussion underway at: Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_31#Image:StarTrekEnterprise_Cast.jpg
Jenolen  speak it! 09:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the cast photo has now been deleted by an admin who believes free content could adequately replace that copyrighted image.  The deletion review is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_15#Image:StarTrekEnterprise_Cast.jpg.  Jenolen  speak it! 00:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where on earth are you going to find a free picture from a copyrighted show? — Mütze 23:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't ask. The inmates have completely taken over the asylum when it comes to images. There won't be any images at all on Wikipedia once they're finished. 68.146.47.196 13:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting the cast photo 

message: Someone should mention Balance of Terror in the Contraversy section, particularly Spock's line about the Romulan-Earth War:
"As you may recall, this conflict was fought,
by standards today,
with primitive atomic weapons
and in primitive space vessels,
which allowed no quarter,
no captives,
nor was there even ship-to-ship visual communication."
Now a war seems like something that people would remember, and considering the Archer didn't know about the Romulans at first, that would imply that the war had not yet happened. But if they had view-screens and phasors before the war, then Spock's line makes no sense.  24.222.183.118 17:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balance of Terror 

message: I have several issues with some of the facts brought up in the whole "Cancellation" area of this page.
I know about a year or so ago, I tried to edit these different areas, but it seemed that the people from TrekUnited decided that the only real facts were facts favorable to them, and to not let REAL facts get in the way of their "good" publicity.
The Los Angeles Times, TrekWeb and SyFy Portal all reported extensively on the "Enterprise" cancellation and the TrekUnited efforts, but those references seem to be missing from this report -- especially where some of the "facts" included in this listing are actually contradicted.
Here are a list of issues that I have in the "Controversy" thread.
Many fans also reported that they chose to watch UPN's weekend rebroadcasts of the series, which were not counted in the ratings. This led actor Connor Trinneer, in an interview with Starlog magazine, to make the unusual request that fans not watch the weekend replay. Another factor cited for the show/franchise's decline was the fact that, as of 2005, there had been continuous Star Trek production for nearly 18 years, and executive producer Rick Berman in part blamed "franchise fatigue" for the show's poor reception.
There is no reference cited for any of these elements, outside of a mention (uncited) with Starlog magazine.
On May 20, 2004, it was announced that Enterprise had been renewed for a fourth season, but that the show would move from Wednesday to Friday nights (traditionally, Friday nights have been considered 'Death Row' for a major TV production; since most viewers are occupied with social engagements and other non-television activities, the viewing audience isn't likely to be the one the show is intended to draw).
This also is missing citation. Also, there is nothing cited for the "Death Row" comments, or why people don't watch on Friday nights. According to Nielsen Media Research for the most recent television year, 91.35 million people watch primetime on Friday nights. Every other day has between 100 million and 110 million viewers (including Sunday, which includes an extra hour of prime time), but Saturday has just 88 million viewers on average. One could easily argue that Friday nights has certainly changed, as some networks put some programs that are popular with viewers on those nights.
Only days later, however, Hart resigned his position and this, combined with the departure or reassignment of other Star Trek supporters within Paramount and UPN during 2004, placed the future of the series in doubt.
This needs a citation as it seems to be highly speculative.
The ratings also continued to be affected by the "rerun effect" when first-run episodes were rebroadcast over the weekend by UPN affiliates in time slots not registered by Nielsen.
For the record, Nielsen registers ALL time slots. However, reruns are generally not included in first-run airing ratings. This may need to be clarified.
Enterprise fans continued to indicate they chose to watch the weekend showing rather than the Friday broadcast, or chose to "time-shift" the program using their VCR or TiVo equipment.
Needs to be cited.
On April 15, TrekUnited revealed it had joined forces with several Canadian film production companies to put forward a proposal to Paramount that would see further seasons of Enterprise filmed abroad (most likely in Canada) and jointly produced by Paramount and these several unidentified production houses.[25] On April 16, TrekUnited revealed it was Canadian producer Al Vinci who had been negotiating with Paramount Network Television President David Stapf on a co-production with established Canadian motion picture and television producers, backed by US$18 million from private investors.
This entire paragraph has been disputed. The TrekToday story that is used as the source is actually nothing more than a rewrite of a press release issued by TrekUnited with absolutely no additional reporting. In fact, the primary (and only) source of the TrekToday story is TrekUnited.
The LA Times, TrekWeb and SyFy Portal all questioned the credentials of "Al Vinci" or if he even existed, and the latter two sites also disputed that there were any negotiations at all with David Stapf (Story from SciFi Wire, based on the SyFy Portal story, is located here: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=4&id=30877). TrekUnited did dispute the report, citing that it was based on an anonymous source, but before this story was released, "Al Vinci" had NOT revealed the name of the person he was in contact with at Paramount. SyFy Portal DID reveal the name, and the circumstances of the so-called "negotiations," which "Al Vinci" later confirmed was indeed the person he talked to, although denied the circumstances reported by SyFy Portal. "Al Vinci" also claimed that Paramount was going to release the fact they had negotiated with Paramount, but such a release never came, and Paramount officials actually told SyFy Portal there WERE no negotiations.
In May 2005, UPN announced that, 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.)
This, like other parts of this section, seems superfluous. SyFyMichael 20:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why substantial articles have a summary at the beginning.  If your interest or attention span doesn't stretch very far, then just read the summary.  End of story for you. Bertport 16:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancellation 

message: In the "Darkling" episode from season 3 of voyager, there is a character in the holodeck named T'paul and described as a scientist by the Doctor. Could it be the same character in enterprise ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.137.77 (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connections to voyager ? 

message: I've assessed this article for WP:TV as requested here. 
I have rated this article as start class because it is a reasonably comprehensive treatment of the subject but has several major flaws and omissions. I have several suggestions for improving the article:
#The introductory sentence is ambiguous - it is not clear that Roddenberry created the show rather than the universe. The lead should also list the creator's of the show.
#The first paragraph is a single sentence long - this should be merged with the paragraph below.
#The lead introduces the concept of the federation and of the enterprise with no context. You should explain that the enterprise is a space craft and what the federation is for the casual reader.
#The lead should summarise more of the article. See WP:LEAD for further guidance.
#The production section uses acronyms for other Star Trek shows that have not been introduced to the casual reader. The first mention of each show should include the acronym in brackets to show the reader what it stands for.
#The production section is very short and is a collection of trivia relating to the production rather than a guide to the production of the series. Where was it filmed? Who are the crew? How was it created? How was it cast? Who handles the special effects? 
#The plot section is listed as being overlong. Its not that bad but it includes a lot more than just plot. Other information should be moved into relevant sections. The plot section includes some unverified speculation on critical response. The article should have a response section which should include subsections for awards (if any), critical reception and ratings.
#The cast section is in table format. For the reader unfamiliar with the show this gives little information. Each character should be introduced to the new reader with the briefest of summaries of their key characteristics and role. 
#The trivia info about the cast remaining unchanged needs a reference or it is original research.
#The crossovers section is unreferenced and original research. There is a sub-section entitled characters and races that includes no information about races.
#The milestones section includes an external link in the body of the text - this should be changed to a citation or moved to an external links section.
#The milestones section reads as a list of trivia. It should be rewritten as prose and the significance of the milestones backed up with verififable sources.
#The theme song section is very long, particularly compared to the production section. There is an uncited sentence about other aspects of the show polarizing fans - if this is not verified it should be removed.
#Once again there are external links in the text of the theme song section - these should be changed to a citation or moved to an external links section.
#Some of the information in the theme song section seems suited to an article about the song rather than the series (e.g. that it was used in an athletics event). Perhaps you could start an article about the song and keep a short summary of its useage on the series here.
#The ratings section is pretty good. As I said above it should incorporated into a larger "Response" section. It could be expanded with reliable third party commentary on the significance of the shows ratings.
#The cancellation section fulfills some of the function of commentary on the ratings. "Playing the blame game" is jarringly out of tone as a section heading for an encyclopedia article on a TV show. This sub-section is unreferenced and seems like original research. Once again there are inappropriate external links within the section.
#The 2004 and 2005 sub-sections are also unreferenced at times and contain sections that sound like original reserarch (e.g. summary of fan reaction on notice boards)
#There are some problems with grammar throughout so a thorough copy edit is warranted.
#The DVD section is unreferenced. TV shows on DVD is a good website for verifying this kind of information.
#The see also section might be better served by using the main article link to link to the episode list in the plot section and using the same to link to the cast list in the relevant section. 
#Some of the referencing uses the cite episode template format and some does not. The referencing should be made consistent throughout the article. Some of the references are not from reliable sources - for example the ratings have been referenced to a message board as well as the ABC website. The ABC website is appropriate; the message board is not.
I have rated the article as low importance because there is little to distinguish it from other articles about television series. These categories are subjective and may be reviewed by any member of WP:TV who feels confident to do so. Please note that a more formal assessment by other editors is required to achieve good article or featured article status. I used criteria from the television wikiproject guidelines here, article about TV series guidelines here and the assessment guidelines here.--Opark 77 15:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: So... it's a pretty big section. We should either trim it way the hell down, or move it to it's own article, because frankly, it has nothing to do with Enterprise that Russell Watson sang a different version at some event somewhere. There's so much non-Enterprise stuff in that section, I feel it needs to go no matter what, but could be made into a decent article about the song in general. Howa0082 (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where My Heart Will Take Me 

message: In the "cancellation" section, there's a lot of hurrblurr going on about what fan groups have done (which is nothing) and what people have said (which is close to nothing). I personally don't think it's really needed, at least in the amount of it there is. But, before I go delete-happy, I'm fronting my plan. I want to more or less get rid of it, since I think this article should generally be only about the series itself. Having a self-serving section about a bunch of fans who wanted to raise money and came nowhere near the mark is pointless and kinda fancrufty, really. Now, if they had raised the appropriate amount, but still failed to get a new season, I'd be all "Hey, put that in there, man!" But they didn't. So I'm not. Howa0082 (talk) 15:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the information about the fan groups' action can be documented by a citation from a reliable source, it should be included.  But I think that most of this information will be unreferenced, so that information should be removed. — Val42 (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fans Being Fans 

message: I would like to say that I'm not in anyway claiming the adding of all these references as mine. If the retrieval dates get changed while I update the templates, feel free to imagine that those are merely verification dates, since I have pretty much been checking each link to see if it works or not anyway. If you feel I've stepped on your toes, fellow contributors, well, I don't actually care, but am giving fair warning. Ta. Howa0082 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Upon its review on January 13, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:
contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, , , , , etc, or large numbers of , , , or similar tags
thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. The tag under "Cancellation" has been there since long before this article was nominated. I also note that even a cursory glance at this article shows lots of uncited facts and sections, not just the "citation needed" tag under "DVD releases", which means this article could not pass as a Good Article even if the tag that this article is being quick-failed for was gone. I suggest ensuring that all facts and sections are properly referenced and cited before renomination. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed.  Thank you for your work so far. Cheers, CP 17:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Quickfail 

message: This is 67.148.120.103 (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A bit of an irony 

message: This article was recently quick failed and the issues have not been addressed (citation needed tags remain, for example). Additionally, the article has a lot of unreferenced material. The general writing and presentation of the article needs improvement as well. Please take a good look over the good article standards. The Manual of Style and the article writing guide may both be useful in providing guidance towards improvement. Vassyana (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As examples of areas lacking citations, see the "Theme song" and "Original novels and relaunch" sections. As examples of organizational and writing issues, the "Production" section has more to do with the run up to the program than the production of the show. Another example of both is the "Cast" section which is completely unreferenced and makes trivial comments like Reed's fondness for pineapple. As a general point, the article fails to address the thematic and stylistic uniqueness of Enterprise among Trek shows. These are but a few examples of the improvement needed in this article. Overall, it requires a large amount of referencing and effort to bring it up to good article standards. The links provided above will provide general guidance and advice towards improving the article. Vassyana (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA quick fail 

message: I am writing an article about all of the series which are in the same shared reality as this one through spin-offs and crossovers. I could use a little help expanding the article since it is currently extremely dense and a bit jumbled with some sentence structures being extremely repetitive. I would like to be able to put this article into article space soon. Any and all help in writing the article would be appreciated, even a comment or two on the talk page would help. Please give it a read through, also please do not comment here since I do not have all of the series on my watch list. - LA @ 16:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for help writing an article about the spin-offs and crossovers of this series 

message: I am certain that Wikipedia used to have a list of the images used in the opening titles of the program. What happened to it, where can I link to it, and why remove it. GBC (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visuals in opening titles 

message: So were humans the least technologically advanced of the species that founded the Federation? They seem to be technologically inferior to every major race that they've encountered that have survived to later series. Even the Klingons had photon torpedoes before humans even had photonic torpedoes. Is there any information available on when Humans became techological equals because all of those races seemed to be equal by the time of the Original Series. Rajrajmarley (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be that other star-faring civilizations suffer from Not Invented Here, whereas the humans picked up from wherever they could. Pure original research though. — Val42 (talk) 20:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would seem to me that, because in the series humans had only really just started exploring that galaxy, that any less developed species would play a very minor roll in the series, a possible example would be the telarites (sp? the pig guys) i guess, but IANAT --UltraMagnus (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level of technology of Humans 

message: ...in all the episode synopses that have a Stardate listing. Since there was no such thing as a Stardate yet, it makes more sense to have it as 'inapplicable'. It's a very minor edit, but since I had to do it over about 80 articles... HalfShadow 02:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have changed the 'stardate' listing from 'unknown to 'inapplicable'... 

message: The plot summary section needs some improvement.
# There are no references (except one at the very end that doesn't really help verify anything). There are many sentences that start "the producers decided to...", even though there are no sources cited where this information can be verified.
# The entire section sounds like it was written by that guy who writes the plot descriptions for the back side of the DVD cases. That is an exaggeration/joke, but the plot summaries do seem to be overly emotional and do not seem to be very encyclopedic or concise.
Feel free to comment, but keep in mind that these suggestions are not meant as a direct attack on anyone (except for that DVD-plot-description guy, because he's always wrong about how much I'll love this movie…). — OranL (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: I've just seen the chronology edited in the infobox, with the 'followed by' changed to TOS rather than VOY. Is the chronology box supposed to reflect the story timeline, or the production order? ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate ( talk ) 08:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: This article states: "The first two seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise depict the exploration of interstellar space by the crew of an Earth ship able to go farther and faster than any humans had previously gone, due to the breaking of the Warp barrier, analogous to the Bell X-1 breaking the sound barrier." In Star Trek lore, the "warp barrier" had already been broken long before Enterprise took flight. It's claim to fame was actually to have the first warp 5 engines, supposedly making her more able to practically travel to farther distances in realistic timeframes than any previous Earth vessel. Thus, rather than the Bell X-1, the ship is more analogous to the Bell X-1A or Douglass D-588-2 (there's a name that just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?) which broke the Mach 2 barrier or the Bell X-2 (which broke Mach 3 although the pilot, Milburn Apt, was sadly killed on the same flight). Just as these flights really don't ring down through history (quick what was the first aircraft to break Mach 4), all the talk during the series about how important Enterprise was similarly seemed rather hollow - why weren't we following the exploits of the first ship to travel warp 4 for instance. Of course, the real killer for the show as all of the Xindi crap that tried to hook the show into the War on Terror following 9/11 - they would have done much better talking about the discovering new worlds and civilizations and more clearly connecting the dots on the formation of the Federation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Got to agree with this, Cochrane's flight was 'breaking the warp/light barrier (Warp 1 being light speed).  Can someone with real world knowledge make a better comparison? groovygower (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warp Barrier 

message: Has wikipedia really reached the point where all they'll allow under "reception" is a perfunctory tally of its ratings?  Star Trek is a phenomenon that has always aroused great emotion in both die hard fans and critics alike, is there no room to at least briefly summarize what major television commentators have had to say, or some reference to the public's reaction beyond something so cold and quantitative?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.26.248 (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alternatively, the pair of you anons could find this commentary and add it! WikiuserNI (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reception" 

message: Ratings were in actuality FAR HIGHER than they could have imagined. A hundred million online viewers. Now as the years pass, my show is cut short. The perpetrators should be tried for "cultural crimes", and imprisoned for not less than 20 years hard labor.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.234.159 (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Online viewing explains the "low ratings" 

message: Its in there but im not sure if its spam or not BlackScarabZ (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does war with dinosaurs mean? 

message: It seems the parenthetical addition of "(which were questioned by some for depicting only American flight and spaceflight advances while omitting historically important incarnations, such as Soviet milestones Sputnik and Vostok 1[28])" is not really needed in this article. The only reference I found about this was the following quote:
"TB: Talking about NASA, don't you think some scenes like Gagarin, Mir Space Station or Sputnik are missing from the opening sequence?
André Bormanis: It would've been nice to see something from the old Soviet program, which provided so much of the impetus for the American space program."
This doesn't seem to be "questioning" and even if you could interpret it as such it is one sentence in one place, which hardly qualifies as "some". I don't think that injecting statements spun as controversy are needed in an encyclopedia. Is there any objection to removing the quoted section and reference from the article?
Iueras (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and so removed. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unnecessary Controversy 

message: Substituted at 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: The following seems to be untrue, unverified and unlikely.  
"Star Trek Enterprise Season 5 Due To Be Released December 6th 2011. 4 of the 6 main characters have been removed from          cast. and are due to be returning, news on this upcoming release is not false.  A fan made star trek has also caught the eye of a few people and has been brought to be made into a full time series."
As such, I feel it should be removed from the article.
Also, I'm new to editing on WP so if I'm not quite doing this correctly, I apologize. Xerobane 04:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you did it fine and you were right to remove it, especially as it is unsourced. Welcome to Wikipedia! ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate(talk)(spy) 21:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 5 

message: The interview linked here. Basically just watch the video, clearly stating "Brannon Braga Suggests Netflix Could Bring Star Trek Enterprise Back For Season 5", "The best possible thing the fans could do is, if they want to see another season of Enterprise, is watch it on Netflix…My neighbor produces Arrested Development, and they’re making a new season of Arrested Development. I recall him telling me that it’s because for that show, they know they’re gonna get… they have data! They know a certain number of people are going to watch that show. I’ve heard rumors in town that the CBS show Jericho might get another season, because the numbers on Netflix are big! Watch Enterprise!". --Ronnie42 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 5 may return if the series becomes popular on netflix 

message: At first glance on Netflix the unpopularity of the Xindi story arc had to do with the T'Pol/Tucker relationship. It was forced and contrived to make a calculated and unnecesarry change in the series. Sexing up of Enterprise was mistake to Trekkies because it was out of character for both characters rem486
:Please keep in mind that this area is meant for discussion of improvements to the article. Not a general discussion area of the topic, per WP:NOTFORUM. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still not sure what you're attempting to do. What changes are you wanting to make to the article? I don't see any mention of the Xindi story arc being unpopular. It says it was written to replace the Temporal Cold War storyline, because that was unpopular. But, again, if this is just speculation on the series, and not a discussion of how to improve the article, then this is not the place to discuss it. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpopularity of Xindi story arc 

message: I could swear that I watched the very first episode of Enterprise in HDTV from the D.C. area UPN affiliate WDCA.
Could anyone else confirm this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.194.10 (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  HDTV 

message: I don't think the article goes into whether people (public/critics) liked it or not. It's like an endless stream of text about how many people watched it. Even the Reception section contains 0 information about whether people think it was any good or not. You would think that at least somewhere in the article, something would be mentioned about this. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  So... did people like it or not? 

message: I just wanted to add a public thank you to everyone who has copyedited this article since I did a full replacement a few days ago. This version has been sitting in userspace for quite some time, far longer than any other I've ever created in this manner. Because of this I just wasn't seeing any issues with it (and partially I was pretty sick of seeing it in userspace!!). It's far better to have it out here in the open where more eyes can result in a better result, after all that is what Wikipedia is. Miyagawa (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive thanks 

message: The article states, "A website entitled TrekUnited.com was set up to raise funds for a fifth season,[106] but failed to do so with the money refunded after the unsuccessful campaign.[107] A total of $32 million had been raised.[51]". I thought they raised $3.1 million. $32 million sounds like what they needed. The statement has a citation, but the source is a magazine and there is no hyperlink, so I can't check the source. Can anyone else verify what the source says? Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article for season 4 states, "The website sought to raise $32 million to pay for a full fifth season of the show, but failed to get close only gaining some $87,000 from general donors plus $3 million of anonymous donations from investors who work in the American spaceflight industry." The source for that statement refers to the web archive at  but it does not print the entire article. I would edit this article to correct it, but I don't think I should since I can't verify what the sources actually say. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Money raised for a fifth season