lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Fusion (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: The Continuity section enhances the notability of the article, by showing that it was not a one-off story but contributed to a later episode -- and one that attempted to address real-world issues. Please don't remove it without discussion here. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity 

message: Star Trek Communicator magazine has interview with Blalock and notes on this episode. The Internet Archive magazine rack has a copy that can be read online: https://archive.org/details/star-trek-communicator-issue-137/page/n35/mode/1up?q=Fusion -- 109.79.180.133 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Trek Communicator 137 

message: Archer says he dreams and sometimes even in color. 
I found that statement curious and figured it must be a reference to something else. Apparently some people dream in Black and White:  Also there was a British singer called Bill Nelson who had a song called "Do You Dream in Colour?" in 1980. 
I was thinking about maybe adding a footnote to explain it but although I did find the above NYTimes reference, I wasn't able to find a source to specifically tie it back to this episode. It was a great line though. -- 109.79.176.128 (talk) 02:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream in color
Talk:Ampara District

message: The section Buddhist Historical Sites was previously a long list of L3 subheadings, but that was flooding the TOC so I changed it to a list with bolded intros.  RJFJR (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Talk:Judgment (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: The Star Trek website offered free audio commentary downloads for several episodes including one for Judgment, but the links went dead. Unlike some of the other commentaries it was not included on any of the DVD or Bluray releases. 
TrekCore saved it from the memory hole and in 2014 made a copy of the podcast available for download in MP3 format. The commentary podcast featured writer David A. Goodman with editor of StarTrek.com Tim Gaskill. 
I haven't listened to it myself yet, I'll probably get around to it eventually, but it seems like it would be very useful to anyone interested in improving this article. 
Since it is free it might be worth including it using the  template or linking to it in the External links section. -- 109.76.132.93 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free audio commentary
Talk:Hambantota

message: A number of information is deleted by a user who logged using an IP address and I am unable to retrieve as many of the new edits have been done over it. Please, if anyone have time retrieve the information. CoolGin (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 
Talk:Vox Sola

message: Hmm: I assume the Kreetassans do not like watching others masticate in public. --204.4.131.140 (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas we mostly consider public mastication perfectly acceptable. This could be an instance of attitudes "swapped" with those toward...the other thing... (The Kreetassans were thought to have said, though the translation was uncertain, "You eat like you mate"; perhaps what they were actually trying to convey was "You treat eating as if it were mating" — or possibly the more specific "self-mating", as in, something more appropriate for public display.) 2601:545:8201:AB7A:0:0:0:5F65 (talk) 07:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Trekweb discuss the overnight fast ratings/preliminary numbers for Enterprise "keeping UPN squarely in the fourth place position ahead of Fox's sit-coms"  which were reported by Zapt2it. 
Trekweb explains the final ratings and that the show was getting better ratings than the wrestling "for the first time in a quite a while".
(Note1: They used The Hollywood Reporter as their source but I coudln't find a copy of that, but the final rating of 3.4/6 it matches what we know from TV Tango link and the audience of 5.4 million, matches what we can see from the LA Times links #82 Enterprise 5.40 million. 
Note2: Trekweb mention a column called "Programming Insider" from MediaWeek, but the archive URL for that is no use either, because the column was published at the same URL each week and there was no Archived copy captured for that week specifically.) 
Among sci fi or fantasy genre shows that week X-Files was top (7.78 million), Alias, Dark Angel (season 2 finale, ultimately the series finale), Smallville, then Enterprise, followed by Charmed, Buffy, blah blah etc. 
Trekweb also note that Enterprise was particularly strong with certain demographics, it jumps to 3rd place ahead of Smallville if you look only at adults in the 18-49 demo, and in the males 18-49 demographic it was in first place in "beating all networks with a 3.3/11 rating." Variety said the same thing: "UPN’s “Enterprise” won the 8 o’clock hour in men 18-49 (3.3/11)" but without all the necessary extra explanation for it to start to make much sense. 
 
From reading all this and articles from Variety Smallville would seem to be a notable competitor to Enterprise, as the WB and UPN networks jockey for 4th place, but it is not a like-for-like comparison and Smallville was on Tuesdays, and Enterprise on Wednesdays so viewers could watch both if they wanted. Anyway I did the digging but still nothing in particular jumps out as important to highlight or provide context alongside the Nielsen ratings for this episode Vox Sola, but I include my notes here in case I maybe I want to revisit it later, or anyone else wants to dig into it. -- 109.78.201.237 (talk) 06:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratings
Talk:Mackenzie Calhoun

message: The mirror universe Calhoun section is Huuuuuuge. Is the mirror character really that noteable? Lots42 (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No. it's all a plot summary of a minor variant of the character that has appeared in like two published works. It's entirely in-universe and utterly undue. I'm just going to delete it. oknazevad (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirror universe
Talk:Marauders (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: In a feature article in Script magazine writer David Wilcox
talks about Enterprise. He worked on First Wave (TV series) before this, and creator Chris Brancato recommended him to Enterprise. He discusses all the pitches he made. This is the first episode he wrote based on the story from Braga and Berman.
Maybe there is something there, one line even, that could be added to the production section? Leaving it here for now, will try to come back around to it eventually. -- 109.79.67.53 (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Script
Talk:North Star (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: Ain't It Cool News said he enjoyed North star and called it an "intriguing cowboys-and-aliens extravaganza". 
That was in his review for "Similitude" but as far as I can tell there was no separate standalone review for 3.9. There were reviews for episodes 3.8, 3.10 no Enterprise reviews until 2.23. 
That the show wasn't being written about regularly even in a publication as nerdy as AICN also tells you something. -- 109.76.133.190 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews
Talk:Oasis (Star Trek: Enterprise)

message: I was trying to find more information or context for episodes ratings. Variety.com mentioned this episode in the weeks ratings overview, noting that it achieved 5.6 million viewers This week it was (a lead-in for and) paired with a rerun of a show that UPN had brought over from CBS called Wolf Lake (and the remaining 4 (of 10) episodes of Wolf Lake would aired alongside Enterprise season 1). Kellie Waymire who had a recurring role on Enterprise also happened to have a recurring role on Wolf Lake. More context, but still part of the overall pattern for the season, with the three big three ahead in the ratings and UPN following behind. (I should have stopped there but I wasted even more time and kept looking.) Zap2it reported the overnight ratings for Wednesday April 3, 2002 and noted that Enterprise was in fourth place, ahead of two comedies on Fox and Dawson's Creek (season 5) on the WB. Zap2it say Enterprise it was a rerun, but that seems to be a mistake, all the other sources are clear that Oasis was first aired April 3, 2002. So nothing seems stands out or provide contrast, and this note will serve mostly as a reminder to me not to go down this rabbit hole again, at least not for this episode. -- 109.77.206.34 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Among genre shows that week Enterprise was in third place, behind Alias and the X-Files, but ahead of Dark Angel and Wolf Lake (pilot, rerun). -- 109.77.206.34 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also Enterprise at #81 was ahead of Futurama #87(which if I'm not mistaken was the episode A Leela of Her Own). -- 109.78.197.10 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Ratings

message: Under "Reception", I suppose it'd be considered impertinent to say something like, "Most viewers using TV antennae reported a clear signal." After editing so many TV articles, though, I felt entitled to say it on at least one Talk page. And so, as the Emperor said in Amadeus: "Well! There it is." – AndyFielding (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get your point. Sometimes an encyclopedia has to spell out the obvious to the point where it might seem facetious. I understand (and usually appreciate) the efforts of AndyFielding to make the prose less plodding, but I don't see anything out of order here in the Reception section of this article. This seems no worse than most Star Trek episode articles, better than most television articles in general. But if AndyFielding feels there is something else that needs work besides the functional but mediocre writing then please go ahead and make your complaint. I can't promise I'll do anything about it but I'd appreciate knowing what problems you see with this article in particular or the Reception sections of television articles in general. -- 109.77.197.187 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception
Talk:Past Prologue

message: keeps removing the  tagging from this article despite its failing of both the general notability requirements and the specific dictates of the television episode notability guideline.  Both removals have been without comment, and on the second instance the user added unreferenced in-universe information while simultaneously removing the  tag.  I have now again re-added the tag as appropriate without reliably sourced real-world evidence of notability.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 03:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to put it up for deletion if you'd like, but I doubt it will get deleted.  I'm going to continue to remove the notability tag.  The info I added shows why this was an important episode.  Rockfang 04:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  (EC) I'd rather afford people the opportunity to improve/contribute to the article in an effort to bring the episode up to muster.  After some time w/o sufficient improvement, I'll redirect this page to List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes#Season 1 (1993).  The info you added may be pertinent in-universe information, but as I said above: the article needs real-world evidence of notability, not more plot.  Read up on the Wikipedia pages about notability, reliable sourcing, television episodes, and writing about fiction.  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I added some references to top section.  If you have any suggestions for further additions, please let me know.  Rockfang 04:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reliable sourcing alone though isn't the primary concern here, and while that is certainly necessary, the overarching concern is a lack of real-world notability.  From Wikipedia:Television episodes: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.  [...]  Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance."This article doesn't have any of that, it's effectively an extended in-universe plot summary, something that can be easily summarized in another more apropos article (probable: List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes#Season 1 (1993), as I aforementioned).  —  pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability 

message: The statement made in the article that the Yangtzee Kiang appears in this episode for the first time is not correct. It appeared previously in the second half of "Emissary" when used by Major Kira, Dax, Dr. Bashir and Odo, as they attempt to follow Sisko into the wormhole. I will correct this. In general, it might be a good idea to remove this information from this article altogether and to move it to the article about the runabouts. Ruebezahl (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yangtzee Kiang
Talk:Power Play (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

message: ...over the south polar region? How can that be?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.235.36 (talk) 07:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Synchronous Orbit
Talk:Q Who?

message: In the section about the possible play on this episodes title with Doctor Who, it also says that the episode "The Neutral Zone" includes a Doctor Who reference. But, when you click on the link, that article has no such mention of the reference. I have not seen this episode since I became a Doctor Who fan so such a reference never jumped out at me. If someone knows the reference in question please add it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Neutral_Zone_%28TNG_episode%29 68.226.118.115 10:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contiunity/Trivia link Error
Talk:Shadows of P'Jem

message: This episode included a sight gag where Archer and T'Pol are tied up, try to get up, and she falls on top of him. I thought this was a strange detail to highlight in the episode article, until I few a found sources that mentioned it. Then I found more sources, and it was even the topic of conversation on The Daily Show when Scott Bakula talked to John Stewart. The article probably has enough sources on it already, so I mentioned it here instead because I thought it was WP:UNDUE emphasis at first but it seems as if people really did make a big deal of this at the time and it did get a lot of attention. -- 109.79.85.218 (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sight gag
Talk:The Dauphin (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

message: I'm removing the second sentence of the reception section as the article being cited is from the blogging platform Medium by an anonymous source, which goes against best practices for verifiability This is not a published article for a legitimate publication.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scwalsh (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiable sources

message: After typing 'the Dauphin' into the search field, and seeing that the first entry in the autocomplete box was NOT the Star Trek episode (that was second in the list), I was taken to this page anyway.  I can tolerate wikipedia's 'geek bias', but this is taking things a little too far, considering how far down the list TNG is on the disambiguation page.  Given the fact that this page requires the clarification '(TNG episode)' in the search box, I propose that the default result should be the French court title.  Thoughts? --86.152.88.234 (talk) 12:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The MOS calls for eschewing articles (e.g. "The") from the beginning of article titles unless they're part of the actual, emphatic name. Of the entries on the disambiguation page, this is the only one with "The" as part of the concrete title -- hence, BTW, the removal of the "(TNG episode)" disambiguation text. I think the "For other uses, see Dauphin (disambiguation)" text at the top of the article is sufficient. --EEMIV (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: There is no way in the world "The Dauphin" primarily refers to this Star Trek episode. The redirect bot will be fixing the double redirects shortly, so in the mean time nobody should change the redirect target page to the dab, otherwise all the links will break. I also believe just "Star Trek" should be fine for parenthetical dab because of WP:CONCISE.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: A "dauphin" is male, the female version is "dauphine". Should it be mentioned that this is the first Trek episode that openly displays homosexuality?
Also, we all knew that Wesley was gay so it's not much of a surprise. 
17:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only homo but also trans. 2001:9E8:4616:2800:C09A:D2B7:94B0:3455 (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexuality
Talk:The Search (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)

message: Why was this episode listed under Romulan episodes? It seems to contain mainly Jem-Hadar and Dominion people, rather than Romulans. 58.7.80.125 09:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Romulans provide the Defiant's cloaking device, and a Romulan appears in both parts of the episode. --EEMeltonIV 09:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Not sure how no one has noticed this . . . The Search is a two-parter, and this is the only page that exists for it.  But the plot synopsis covers only the first part.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnanninga (talk • contribs) 20:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete 

message: The link to the list of binge-worthy episodes on geek.com is broken. I think, this link https://mashable.com/article/star-trek-deep-space-nine-condensed-how-to-watch-the-most-story-driven-trek-1613741 should replace it. I'm not experienced enough to correct this myself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.133.255.112 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link #5 broken
Talk:Time Squared (Star Trek: The Next Generation)

message: Putting aside the issue of the trivia section, I'm wondering if the Transparent Captain is really some sort of goof. I mean we got two Captain Picards wandering about and one eventually does fade from existence. Maybe the transparent bit was -meant- to happen as forehsadowing or showing a problem or both.
Lots42 14:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: The Transparent Captain 

message: Was a body double used when the scene requires 2 Picards in it?--BigMac1212 (talk) 03:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: probably split screen although that wiki article doesn't talk about this technique. See   etc. You just have to lock down the camera.--Sbwoodside (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picard's Double
Talk:Attenborough railway station

message: I am surprised there is no mention of the connection with the COD (as opposed to Chetwyn Barracks). For some years, the signs on the platform included a comment along the lines of 'For Chilwell Ordnance Depot'. I think I am correct in thinking that that there was a theory that the station's proximity to the COD was probably one of the reasons why the station stayed open immediately post-Beeching. Longfinal (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection with the Chilwell Ordnance Depot (COD)
Talk:Sidney Harris (cartoonist)

message: Harris is also virtually the patron saint of science textbooks published in the past 20 years.  There are few topics that he hasn't done at least a cartoon or two about, and textbook editors love to slip in a few to keep a book from looking unrelentingly grim.   Asat (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  And then a miracle happens....
Talk:Kattankudy

message: {A city of Excellence and a historical place in srilanka which have around 1200 years of old history} Afraslee (talk) 06:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Orvilletalk 13:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2019 
Talk:Inland Line

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
I hate to point this out, but the official English name of the railway line is 'Inland Line', according to the Swedish Transport Administration  (see page 3), who owns the line. This also created an internal consistency with all other Swedish railway line namings on Wikipedia. The web site referred to above is merely the site of a company which runs trains on the line. Arsenikk (talk) 11:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

text: Indeed, and it introduced a needless "(Sweden)" disambiguation suffix where previously none was required.  Based on the reading of outcome of the above (there was no consensus for the move) and the downsides of having moved it and the advantages of the shorter, more concise name it can probably be restored to its previous name without concern.  —Sladen (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move
Talk:Morgenbladet

message: Just a quick note about the COI above: I was not aware of the rules regarding this, and would of course have made this a requested edit if I knew. The edit contains lots of changes of technical nature (circulation etc.), but also some additional information on the history of Morgenbladet. I believe these to be well documented and uncontroversial.  Say (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Talk:Kitulgala

message: After doing a search on google, a place called Kitugala lies about 30/40 miles north of here. Are these correct then?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.252.214 (talk) 11:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinates 

message: "Nevertheless, it comes alive in the first three months of the year, especially in February, the driest month." 
So what happens in the other nine months? I mean, I get that it rains heavily, but does everyone leave town? AuntFlo (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a influx of visitors, both Sri Lankan and foreign, during what passes for the dry season in Kitulgala. Jimfbleak -  talk to me? 05:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaning?

message: The following coordinate fixes are needed for
Coordinates shown are 31 miles away from actual town.
—198.178.28.202 (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . Coordinates emended. Deor (talk) 05:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinate error
Category talk:Punjab

message: It's fine for :Category:Punjab (India) to be a subcat of :Category:States and territories of India. But this category (like Bengal), is not one of those - it is a historical region now divided between two countries. Asia seems a bit short of "region" categories compared with America, for example, but there is :Category:South Asia - and going in the "world" direction there is :Category:Divided regions. I think it should be in both and not in :Category:States and territories of India.  Robin Patterson 14:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should not be a subcategory of anything purely Indian