
''Star Trek: Enterprise'' was a science fiction television series set in the Star Trek universe. (Until the third season its title was simply ''Enterprise'', and it is often abbreviated as ''ST:ENT'' or ''ENT''). The series followed the adventures of the crew of the Enterprise (NX-01), the first human-built vessel to achieve Warp drive 5. ''Enterprise'' premiered in the United States on September 26, 2001. ''Enterprise'' was a prequel to the other ''Star Trek'' series and movies. The pilot episode, "Broken Bow (ENT episode)", took place in 2151, ten years before the founding of the United Federation of Planets and about halfway between the events shown in the movie ''Star Trek: First Contact'' and the original ''Star Trek: The Original Series'' series. ''Enterprise'' marks several milestones in ''Star Trek'' production: *the first ''Star Trek'' series to be produced in widescreen *the first ''Star Trek'' series to be broadcast in HDTV *the first ''Star Trek'' series to be produced exclusively on digital video *the first ''Star Trek'' series since ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' to debut at the start of a TV season rather than at mid-season *the first ''Star Trek'' series to have a theme song with sung lyrics (the theme to ''Star Trek: The Original Series'' originally had lyrics, but they were never intended to be used) ''Enterprise'' was cancelled by UPN on February 2, 2005 after a run of four seasons and 98 episodes, making it the first Trek series since the original ''Star Trek'' to have been cancelled by its network rather than finished by its producers. Despite the announcement, production of the series was allowed to continue until the end of the season, with the last two episodes on UPN aired on May 13, 2005. Due to the show's cancellation, the 2005-2006 season will mark the first time in eighteen years that a first-run ''Star Trek'' series has not been on the air. ==Plots== :''For plots of specific episodes see List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes'' The first two seasons of ''Enterprise'' depict the exploration of space by a crew who are able to go farther and faster than any humans had previously gone. It presents situations which are not entirely unfamiliar to Star Trek fans, but which allow its characters to face them unencumbered by the experience and rules which have built up over the following years of Trek history. ''Enterprise'' takes pains to show the origins of some concepts which have become taken for granted in Star Trek Canon (fiction), such as Reed's development of force fields, and Archer's questions about cultural interference which would eventually be answered by the Prime Directive. The Vulcan (Star Trek)s are often close by to offer help when needed, but believe that humans are not yet a mature enough species to be exploring the galaxy. This generates some conflict as, in several early episodes, Archer complains bitterly about the Vulcans looking over his shoulder all the time. A recurring theme throughout the first three seasons is the "Temporal Cold War," in which a mysterious entity from the future uses technology to help a species known as the Suliban manipulate the timeline and change past events. Sometimes providing bad information to the crew of ''Enterprise'' and sometimes saving the ship from destruction, the entity's true motives are unknown. A human from Earth's future visits Jonathan Archer occasionally to assist him in fighting the Suliban and undoing damage to the timeline. The fact that Earth is not yet the significant interstellar presence it would later become is underscored in the first two seasons with a running joke: whenever an ''Enterprise'' crewmember says he or she is from Earth, the alien's response is invariably, "Earth? Never heard of it." Low ratings encouraged the series' producers to seek a new direction. The third season changes the series' name to ''Star Trek: Enterprise'' and introduces a new enemy, the Xindi, whose goal is the annihilation of the human race due to fears that someday humanity will wipe them out. The entire third season follows one long story arc, which begins in the second season finale "The Expanse (ENT episode)" in which the Xindi deploy a prototype weapon which cuts a wide, deep trench from central Florida to Venezuela killing seven million people - an event analogous to the September 11, 2001 attacks in real life. ''Enterprise'' is refitted as a warship with the addition of military personel and travels through the Delphic Expanse to find the Xindi homeworld and prevent another attack against Earth. The third season, especially later episodes, has been received more favorably by fans and critics. The episodes "Twilight (ENT episode)" and "Proving Ground (ENT episode)" were popular with fans, as was the arc formed by the last seven episodes of the third season: * "Azati Prime (ENT episode)" * "Damage (ENT episode)" * "The Forgotten (ENT episode)" * "E² (ENT episode)" * "The Council (ENT episode)" * "Countdown (ENT episode)" * "Zero Hour (ENT episode)" Some of these were written or co-written by Manny Coto, a writer who joined the series in its third season. Coto's other scripts, such as "Similitude (ENT episode)" are also considered to be of a higher caliber than earlier stories, which likely contributed to his being promoted to executive producer and show runner for season 4. Season 4 produced a mixture of two- and three-episode arcs, along with a few standalone episodes. The general theme of the season appeared to be a focus on the prequel concept of the series, with many episodes referencing themes, concepts, and characters from past series. Season 4 saw the finale of the "Temporal Cold War" depicted in the previous three seasons. The fourth season also saw the much anticipated return of Brent Spiner (Data (Star Trek) from ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'') as the criminal mastermind Dr. Arik Soong in a three-episode arc ("Borderland (ENT episode)", "Cold Station 12 (ENT episode)", and "The Augments (ENT episode)") involving genetically enhanced superhumans known as "Augments (Star Trek)". Coto has stated that his intent is to push the series towards the eventual founding of the United Federation of Planets. Season 4 also addressed some discrepancies between the Vulcans of ''The Original Series'' and those depicted in ''Star Trek: Enterprise''. The "Vulcan Civil War" arc ("The Forge (ENT episode)", "Awakening (ENT episode)", and "Kir'Shara (ENT episode)") was hailed as among the most interesting and intricately woven plotlines of the series. In it, the characters meet T'Pau (Star Trek) (a character who shows up in ''The Original Series'' in the episode "Amok Time") and the audience sees Romulans trying to undermine the stability of the balance in power between the Andorians and Vulcans. The exploration element of the first two seasons (and previous Trek series) was downplayed in the fourth season, which was informally referred to as the "Solar System Arc" due to the fact that most storylines begin with ''Enterprise'' being assigned a mission from Earth, rather than simply encountering adventure through exploration. While many die-hard Trekkies welcomed the show's focus on introducing concepts from other Trek series, some critics bemoaned the decision to more or less abandon the "exploring strange ''new'' worlds" concept of the early seasons. The creators of the series also made the decision with season 4 to increasingly focus on the three core characters of the series – Jonathan Archer, Trip Tucker, and T'Pol – in lieu of further developing the supporting characters (Hoshi Sato, Travis Mayweather, Malcolm Reed, and Phlox (Star Trek)). This format, based upon the similar "triumvirate" format used for the ''Original Series'' (which primarily focused on the trio of James T. Kirk, Leonard McCoy, and Mr. Spock), began to emerge during the first season and has sparked further criticism from fans used to the ensemble format of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', ''Star Trek: Deep Space Nine'', and ''Star Trek: Voyager'', and other recent SF series. During the fourth season, the supporting characters, particularly Sato and Mayweather, were focused upon less than they had been in previous years. The series cancellation was announced prior to the writing of the final episode of the fourth season, which allowed the writing team to craft a series finale. The episodes before this were welcomed by fans - including a two-parter detailing how Klingons become more human-looking during the period of TOS (as well as showing Section 31) and a two-parter taking place in the Mirror Universe and featuring a starship from the TOS era. The final episode of ''Enterprise'', entitled "These Are the Voyages... (ENT episode)", aired May 13 in the United States, and was one of the most heavily criticised episodes the series ever aired as it doubled as both a series and a franchise finale. The episode featured guest appearances by Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis as their ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' characters William Riker and Deanna Troi. The show took place during the TNG Episode "Pegasus" [http://www.trektoday.com/news/240305_01.shtml]. Brent Spiner, another ''TNG'' veteran who had guest starred earlier in the fourth season, had a speaking role as Data (Star Trek). ==Theme song== The series' theme song, a pop song written by Diane Warren and sung by Russell Watson, was a marked contrast to the sweeping instrumental themes used in all other Star Trek series. It was also the first such theme not to have been composed specially for ''Star Trek'', having previously appeared (performed by Rod Stewart) in the film ''Patch Adams'' (1998). Like other aspects of the series, the theme song polarized Trekkies, with many loving the song and many considering it inappropriate for a Star Trek series. A new, more upbeat arrangement of the theme song was introduced with the third season, but this had no impact on the controversy, except to elicit criticism from some who liked the original one. The song was known by several titles but most commonly "Faith of the Heart" (the title from ''Patch Adams''). However, the official soundtrack compact disc for ''Enterprise'', as well as all releases of the song by Watson, give it the new title of "Where My Heart Will Take Me." Only the first verse is heard in the opening credits; a longer recording by Watson exists and was released on the soundtrack CD. Throughout the show's run, there was extensive internet speculation as to whether the theme song and opening credits would be changed. This speculation was fueled in October 2004 when the official website startrek.com [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/videoview?id=7730&episodeid=6485&count=-1 posted] an opening credits sequence in which Scott Bakula recites a modified version of the famous "Space, the final frontier..." speech (with the phrase "where no human has gone before" in place of "where no man" or "where no one"), accompanied by "Archer's Theme", the instrumental used as the closing credits music for the series. Although there was some internet-based speculation that this was going to replace the original credits, no such decision was made. Around this same time an alternate version of the opening credits using music from ''Star Trek: Generations'' and carrying a "Paramount Television Operations" notation, made the rounds on file sharing networks; this too was never adopted and there are doubts that this version was a genuine Paramount creation. The two-part episode "In a Mirror, Darkly (ENT episode)", which takes place within the Mirror Universe, featured a unique opening credits sequence and music intended to capitalize on the alternate universe setting. Four different end credits versions were created during the show's run, although these were not seen in the original UPN broadcasts. The premiere episode, "Broken Bow" ended with a instrumental version of "Where My Heart Will Take Me" heard on this occasion only. Beginning with the second episode, "Fight or Flight", and continuing for the rest of the show's run, an instrumental piece entitled "Archer's Theme" was heard. The arrangement of "Archer's Theme" as heard in "Fight or Flight" differed from that used in the rest of the series. The two-parter, "In a Mirror, Darkly", reprised that episode's unique opening credits music. ==Controversy== : ''See also:'' Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems Even before it aired an episode, ''Enterprise'' was already one of the most controversial science fiction TV series in history. Many Trekkies were upset by ''Enterprise'', claiming that it violated the canon (fiction) which has been established in previous series and movies. Brannon Braga, executive producer of the series, has gone on record as challenging the fans who make such claims to prove it. [http://scifipulse.net/Trek%20Archive/August03/BrannonBraga.html] See Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems of examples of these concerns and the responses to them. Even before the series premiered, it was controversial, with some vocal fans stating that a prequel to such a well-known and continuity-tight franchise should simply not have been attempted. Others were upset that a widespread rumor that the new Trek series would focus on ''Original Series'' veteran Captain Hikaru Sulu and the crew of the U.S.S. ''Excelsior'' (featured in ''Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country'') also proved false. The final seasons of ''Star Trek: Voyager'' were also unpopular with many fans, and the fact the same production team of Berman and Braga were going to run ''Enterprise'' turned some Trekkies against the series before production began and continued to be the source of complaints throughout the show's run. Cosmetic aspects of the series were also points of contention. In order to make the series distinct from the previous Trek series, the producers chose not to put the words "Star Trek" in the title, in an effort to avoid overuse of the brand name and to make ''Enterprise'' stand apart from its many forebears. This idea backfired, with many fans rejecting the series based on this decision alone. Early in the third season, the series title was altered to include the words ''Star Trek''. Rather than placating fans, this decision instead resulted in accusations of waffling on the part of the producers and there is little indication that it succeeded in winning viewers. The production style of the series also led to conflict amongst fans, with some criticizing the series for not replicating the style of the 1960s ''Star Trek: The Original Series'' while others praised the show for not going for a retro look. Several episodes proved to be flashpoints for fan criticism, for varying reasons. The critically acclaimed first season episode, "Dear Doctor (ENT episode)", was nonetheless controversial due to the ethics displayed by Phlox (Star Trek) with regards to letting a race of beings die in order to save another. The season 2 episode "A Night in Sickbay (ENT episode)" was a comedy episode widely derided by critics and Trekkies, although it nonetheless received a Hugo Award nomination and is often cited by the cast as one of their favorite episodes. These two episodes have often been cited on Internet message boards as "breaking point" episode for fans who chose to abandon ''Enterprise'' due to one or the other. Another season 2 episode, "Regeneration (ENT episode)", introduced the Borg and attracted wide criticism over its alleged breaking of continuity (although the previous series ''Voyager'' had already established that Starfleet was well aware of the Borg before the apparent first contact seen in the ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' episode "Q Who? (TNG episode)"). Some fans liked the idea of this episode as it explained why the Borg were in Alpha Quadrant (The Neutral Zone (TNG episode),The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode)); they were far from their home in the Delta Quadrant and it would have been impossible to travel to Alpha Quadrant from the Delta in one year. The decision to introduce a romance between T'Pol and Trip Tucker in the third season also fanned the flames of criticism, as some critics regarded it as poorly executed or unnecessary. Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) also criticized the development. Supporters of the decision countered that the Trip/T'Pol relationship is generally better handled than similar relationships in past ''Star Trek'' series. This view is countered by those who feel ''Star Trek'' and romance shouldn't mix in any long-term fashion, due to the perception of poor results from similar romantic subplots in previous series. However, the pairing was also criticized by ardent fans who felt that such a relationship should instead have been established between T'Pol and Jonathan Archer, as had been hinted at several times during the first two seasons. T'Pol as a character was a magnet for criticism throughout the series, with complaints being heard regarding her mode of dress, her emotional nature (which the series explicitly established as a major facet of the character), and in particular a third-season story arc in which it was revealed that T'Pol had become addicted to a drug-like substance. For these and other reasons, ''Enterprise'' polarized the Trek fan community and two "factions" emerged within fandom, particularly on the many Internet message boards devoted to the ''Star Trek'' franchise. Initially, the term "Gushers" was used to describe fans who enjoyed the series, while "Bashers" was applied to Trekkers who did not like the show. Each group tends to object to these titles. More recently, the terms have been modified to usually refer to only the extreme fans on both sides (i.e. those who reject any criticism of ''Enterprise'' are called gushers, while those who hate the show and refuse to be swayed are called bashers). The producers of ''Enterprise'' were faced with a controversy of another kind with the 2004 episode "Harbinger (ENT episode)", which included a love scene in which T'Pol's buttocks were briefly shown. Aside from complaints from some fans that such nudity was inappropriate for ''Star Trek'', the episode was also scheduled to air not long after the Super Bowl XXXVIII controversy in which Janet Jackson "accidentally" exposed a breast on live TV, leading to an upswing in censorship in America. As a result, when the episode was finally aired on UPN, the scene was censored. Viewers in Canada, however, saw the uncensored version and it is assumed that the uncensored version will appear on the upcoming DVD release. Controversy dogged ''Enterprise'' to its very conclusion when "These Are the Voyages ..." sparked heated debate and arguments over its appropriateness as a finale. Fandom was split among those who felt the episode was a poor conclusion, and others praising it as a fitting conclusion to the 18-year "modern Trek" franchise. Several ''Enterprise'' actors were vocal in either their opposition or their support of the episode. An ongoing debate among Trekkies is whether or not the cancellation of this series will mark the end of televised ''Star Trek''. In an ironic twist to the years-long fight to bring ''Star Trek'' back to television in the 1970s and 1980s, there are a growing number of Trekkies who feel that the concept has worn itself out and should either be retired, or laid to rest for a number of years. A "Kill Enterprise" movement was created by Poland Trekkies in response to fan-based efforts to save the show (i.e. while the Save Enterprise movement raised money for a newspaper ad and planned rallies in the wake of the cancellation announcement, Kill Enterprise supporters threw parties and sent thankful e-mails to Paramount and UPN). Declaring victory, the Kill Enterprise site designers attempted to recast the site as a [http://www.jmstrek.org/forum/list.php?f=1 forum] for discussing future Star Trek productions and a [http://www.jmstrek.org petition] in favor of the next ''Star Trek'' series being made by J. Michael Straczynski. ''Enterprise'''s producers, as well as Paramount itself, have stated that ''Enterprise'' will probably be the last ''Star Trek'' television series for some years to come, although it is possible the movie franchise may continue as there is already talk of an 11th ''Star Trek'' film. Manny Coto, in April 2005, announced that he was already prepared to pitch a new series idea to Paramount. ==A troubled run== Despite most critics agreeing on the strength of the third season and most episodes of the fourth season receiving near-unanimous praise, the series experienced a continual decline in its ratings. (See List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes for the Nielsen Ratings.) This, along with the poor box office performance in 2002 of ''Star Trek: Nemesis'', cast an uncertain light upon the future of the ''Star Trek'' franchise in general. While some placed blame on the current production staff or on the concept of the series, others blamed its parent network UPN for not promoting the series and allowing major affiliates to preempt it on many occasions for local sports coverage. 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 Trineer, in an interview with ''Starlog'' magazine, to unusually 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. In response to reports that the series was headed for cancellation at the end of its third season, several fan campaigns to save the show were launched: most notably those of "[http://www.enterpriseproject.org The Enterprise Project]" and "[http://www.saveenterprise.com Save Enterprise]". The former purchased several full page advertisements in the ''Hollywood Reporter'' to encourage the network to renew the show. The ads were funded by donations from fans and excess funds were donated to charity in the names of several cast members. 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. Paramount cut its per-episode price and reduced the number of episodes from 24 to 22 so that the series would be more financially attractive to the struggling UPN; it is assumed that one reason why the show was renewed was so that Paramount would have enough episodes for proper Television syndication should it be cancelled (100 episodes are generally deemed necessary for this, although ''Enterprise'''s total output is considered close enough with 98 episodes). This move echoed the rescheduling of the original ''Star Trek: The Original Series'' to a Friday night time slot (see Friday night death slot) for its third season prior to its ultimate cancellation. Paramount Network Television president Garry Hart was quoted in an August 2004 ''New York Times'' article that Paramount and UPN stood by the series and hoped to see it continue for several more seasons. 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. A new co-executive producer, Manny Coto, was brought in for the fourth season. Coto decided to retain the "arc" concept of season 3, but reduce it from one arc for the entire season to several "mini-arcs" of two or three episodes, with a few standalones. In order to attract more viewers, particularly ''Star Trek'' fans who had not found ''Enterprise'' or the previous ''Star Trek: Voyager'' to their liking, the producers brought in Brent Spiner, a veteran of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', to appear in three episodes of the fourth season. In addition, the producers attempted to attract viewers by terminating an unpopular story arc (the Temporal Cold War) and scheduling numerous episodes that served as prequels to storylines from the Original Series and TNG. Beginning in the summer of 2004, and continuing throughout the fourth season, rumors persisted that William Shatner would reprise the role of James T. Kirk in the series, however an agreement could not be reached. The fourth season got off to a slow start in the ratings on October 8, 2004 due to preemptions by local sports in some markets, and by coverage of a presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry in others. 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. ''Enterprise'' fans continued to indicate that 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. In October 2004, it was announced that ''Enterprise'' was the 25th most popular Season Pass on the TiVo television recording system in the United States. In December 2004, it was reported that ''Enterprise'' was the top-rated dramatic program on UPN, although by January 2005 it had fallen behind the law drama ''Kevin Hill'', but it remained ahead of the critically acclaimed mystery series ''Veronica Mars''. (In May 2005, UPN cancelled ''Kevin Hill'' but renewed the low-rated ''Veronica Mars'' on the basis that it better fit the network's newly desired female demographic.) The internet gave rise to near-continuous rumors and speculation regarding the show's future from the earliest days of the series, and this reached a fever pitch as the fourth season began and Nielsen ratings for the show, although an improvement for the Friday night timeslot, still dropped in comparison to the previous season. ===Cancellation and aftermath=== Speculation as to the future of the series came to an end on February 2, 2005, when UPN announced [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/9469.html] that the series had been cancelled and that its final episode would air on Friday May 13, 2005. In the days immediately following the cancellation announcement, the Star Trek fan community remained divided between those who were upset by the news and by those who welcomed it. Some fans, posting to online newsgroups and bulletin boards, blamed Berman and Braga for the cancellation, while others blamed network head Les Moonves, who was identified in the media as the individual who made the decision to cancel the show. During an online chat at startrek.com on February 11, 2005 [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/chat/archive/transcript/9564.html], and later repeated in other media, Scott Bakula stated that the major reason for the show's cancellation is that it no longer fit the profile or desired demographic of UPN (the network's schedule primarily consists of so-called "urban" sitcoms and reality programming). He also said that major changes to the management of both Paramount and UPN during 2003-2004 resulted in past supporters of ''Star Trek'' departing the organization (most notably the aforementioned Garry Hart). Bakula said the series was to have been cancelled at the end of the 2003-2004 season, but support from Hart and others earned the show one final year. Soon after the cancellation announcement, ''Enterprise'' received its fourth consecutive Saturn Awards nomination for Best Dramatic Series. On February 15, 2005, during the ratings period known as "sweeps week", the enterprisefans.com joint group ran an advertisement [http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/16/tv.startrek.ap/index.html] in the ''Los Angeles Times'', paid for by fan donations, exhorting the American Sci Fi Channel (United States) to pick up the show. The ad received wide press coverage from, among other outlets, the Associated Press, British Broadcasting Corporation and CNN. Later that month, a group of fans held a rally in front of the Paramount Studios facility in Hollywood. Around this time, several fan groups including Save Enterprise joined forces to create [http://www.trekunited.com/ TrekUnited.com], and announced a drive to raise money via fan donations to finance a further season of ''Enterprise''. On March 1, Trek United and Save Enterprise announced [http://www.saveenterprise.com/3m_contribution.htm] that three anonymous individuals connected with the fledgling commercial spaceflight industry had pledged $3 million to the cause, although millions of dollars more will be needed in order for this effort to be successful (approximately $30 million US is the goal of the campaign, based upon estimates of the cost for a full season cited by John Billingsley and others[http://www.trekunited.com/faq.php?lang=en]). Critics of the initiative have labelled it unrealistic, but supporters have said that it is a symbolic gesture. Another fan based effort through Trek United sought members of the United States Congress to sign a letter of support for the series which is to be sent to Paramount at a later date. On March 1, supporters of this effort announced that Florida United States Republican Party Mark Foley had become the first Congressman to agree to sign the letter. Production of the fourth season concluded on March 8, 2005, and by the end of the month, Startrek.com was reporting that the ''Enterprise'' sets had been taken down, marking the first time that Stage 9 at Paramount Studios has been without ''Star Trek'' sets since the late 1970s. The website did not indicate whether the sets have been preserved in storage or if they have been destroyed.[http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/9513.html] As of April 13, 2005, Paramount and UPN remain adamant that the cancellation of the series is final and that the studio is not interested in continuing the current incarnation of ''Star Trek'' and Startrek.com revealed that studio officials had actually denied TrekUnited's fund-raising efforts as early as mid-March. TrekUnited officials, however, still claimed to be in talks with Paramount over the future of the series.[http://www.trektoday.com/news/120405_02.shtml] On April 15, TrekUnited revealed that it had joined forces with several Canada film production companies to put forward a proposal to Paramount that would see further seasons of ''Enterprise'' filmed abroad (most likely Canada) and jointly produced by Paramount and these several unidentified production houses. [http://www.trektoday.com/news/150405_01.shtml] On April 16 TrekUnited revealed that 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. Then Trek United announced that the studio had formally rejected the idea and that promised refunds for those fans who had donated to the cause would be issued beginning on April 18.[http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/604/604625p1.html] The website IGN Filmforce, reporting on rumors that Paramount had actually decided to cancel ''Enterprise'' after its fourth season as early as midway through the second year, quoted an unidentified "executive involved with ''Enterprise''" as saying this scenario was "very likely".[http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/604/604625p1.html] Soon after, Scott Bakula, in an interview with Sci Fi Wire, reiiterated his belief that management changeovers at Paramount in 2003-2004 left ''Enterprise'' and the ''Star Trek'' franchise without strong support, adding that as recently as 2004 now-departed management at the studio had expressed interest in developing a feature film based upon ''Enterprise''.[http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=30849] This was later denied by Berman. The local sports preemptions that had plagued ''Enterprise'' through most of its run continued unabated in a number of major markets as its final episodes were broadcast in the rest of the country, including the Boston and New York City UPN affiliates. Boston's WSBK-TV, for example, moved the series to Saturday night beginning in April in order to accommodate local baseball coverage, although it did air the finale on May 13 due to the fact the Boston Red Sox game scheduled for that night did not begin until later in the evening. Several affiliates reportedly preempted the finale for local programming. In May 2005, UPN announced that starting in the fall, ''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 the WWE in 2006, bringing to a close another TV franchise. UPN continued to air reruns of ''Enterprise'' for only a month after the series finale, with the last network-broadcast episode, "In a Mirror, Darkly Part II", airing on June 11, 2005 -- this despite initial announcements that reruns would continue throughout the summer. ==DVD release== In October 2004, Paramount announced that it will release the first four seasons of ''Enterprise'' on DVD in North America during 2005. There was concern raised in fan circles that the announcement of a DVD release, coupled with Paramount advertising television syndication for the series beginning in the fall of 2005, indicated that the series was less likely to be renewed for another season. It has yet to be revealed whether these two developments had any bearing on the decision to cancel the program since ''Star Trek: Voyager'' was offered to syndication midway through its run with no impact on its network status, and Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and ''Voyager'' all saw episodes released to home video during their runs, long before those series ended. The first season DVD was released on May 3, 2005 and includes a nine-minute blooper reel, as well as a selection of deleted scenes – the first time either of these extras has been included with a ''Star Trek'' series DVD release. The second season is currently scheduled for release in North America on July 26, again featuring bloopers and deleted scenes [http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=3274], followed by tentative releases for Season 3 on September 6, and the final season on November 1. ==Cast== ===Main characters=== *Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) *Subcommander (later Commander) T'Pol, a Vulcan (Star Trek), second in command (Jolene Blalock) *Commander Trip Tucker, chief engineer (Connor Trinneer) *Lieutenant Malcolm Reed, tactical officer (Dominic Keating) *Ensign Hoshi Sato, communication officer (Linda Park) *Ensign Travis Mayweather, helm officer (Anthony Montgomery) *Doctor Phlox (Star Trek), the ship's Denobulan physician (John Billingsley) ''Enterprise'' has the distinction of being the only live-action ''Star Trek'' television series that never experienced any changes to its core cast during the duration of its run. ===Recurring characters=== *Admiral Forrest, Archer's superior officer (Vaughn Armstrong), killed during the fourth season in "The Forge", although a Mirror Universe version of the character appeared later in Season 4. *Captain Erika Hernandez, Captain of the Enterprise's sister ship ''Columbia (NX-02)'' and onetime romantic interest of Jonathan Archer. *Soval, a Vulcan ambassador (Gary Graham) *Silik, a Suliban (John Fleck), killed in "Storm Front (Part II)" at the start of the fourth season. *Crewman Elizabeth Cutler, a young, inexperienced crewmember (Kellie Waymire) who appeared several times during the first season, and was briefly a romantic interest for Phlox. Waymire died in 2003, and the character of Cutler was not mentioned again. *Degra, a Xindi-Primate (Randy Oglesby). A recurring character during the third season, murdered in "The Council (ENT episode)". *Major Hayes, leader of the MACO team during the third season, killed in "Countdown (ENT episode)" (Steven Culp) *Shran, member of the Andorian Imperial Guard and an ally of Archer's (Jeffrey Combs). *Crewman Daniels, a temporal agent from the 31st century (Matt Winston), who supposedly died several times. *Michael Rostov, a member of Tucker's Engineering team who has appeared occasionally (Joseph Will). ==Original novels and relaunch== Like the Trek series that preceded it, a series of original novels based upon ''Enterprise'' was launched by Pocket Books soon after the program debuted. During the run of the series, however, only five books were published (not counting episode novelizations), a low number compared to the other series (the sixth original novel, ''Rosetta'' by Dave Stern and scheduled for release at the end of 2005, is the only ''Enterprise'' book release planned for 2005). As explained by Pocket Books editor Margaret Clark, it was decided to scale back the number of books published not due to low sales or lack of interest in the prequel series, but due to the fact that the televised series often covered similar ground and topics planned by the authors. For example, the novel ''Surak's Soul'' by J.M. Dillard, includes as a major plot point the aftermath of T'Pol killing a person during a mission. Before the novel was published however, the TV series aired "The Seventh (ENT episode)", an epsiode with a similar plot point. Later, the novel ''Daedalus'' by Dave Stern, which included flashbacks to the early days of the NX program, needed to be revised slightly to avoid conflicting with the episode "First Flight (ENT episode)". In a May 2005 posting at the TrekBBS, Clark explained that the recent lack of ''Enterprise'' novels was intended to avoid any further potential storytelling "land mines" since "Season Four kept doing stuff we wanted/planned to do".[http://www.trektoday.com/news/180505_01.shtml] However, this may soon change. Also in May 2005, Clark announced plans for a new series of ''Enterprise'' novels that will constitute a "relaunch" similar to that of the literary continuation of ''Star Trek: Deep Space Nine''. Although a publishing schedule for this new series has not been announced, Clark indicated that the books will cover events in the six years between "Terra Prime" and "These Are the Voyages...". [http://www.trektoday.com/news/180505_01.shtml] It is not yet known if ''Rosetta'', the first novel published since the cancellation, will be considered the start of the Relaunch. Similarly the status of the Jonathan Archer segment of ''Tales from the Captain's Table'', an anthology released by Pocket Books in June 2005, has yet to be determined. ==See also== *List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes *List of Star Trek: Enterprise introduction images ==External links== *[http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/ENT/index.html ''Star Trek: Enterprise''] at StarTrek.com * * *[http://www.st-hypertext.com Star Trek episode reviews by Jamahl "Jammer" Epsicokhan] ===Fan sites=== *[http://www.enterpriseproject.org/ EnterpriseProject] *[http://www.saveenterprise.com/ Save Enterprise] *[http://www.trekunited.com/ TrekUnited] *[http://www.startrekfans.net/petition/ ''Star Trek: Enterprise'' Petition] *[http://www.treknation.com/reviews/fiver/ Five-Minute Enterprise] parody episode summaries 2000s TV shows in the United States Star Trek series TV spin-offs UPN network shows Star Trek: Enterprise
==General== 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. ---- 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? -- User:Oliver Pereira 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? -- User: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. User:Baylink 03:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ---- I like the ew theme song as well and I don't think it's patriotic. The scenes being shown while it plays are patriotic but the tune is about personal conviction IMHO. : There are a lot of folks who feel the song is actually from T'Pol's point of view. User:23skidoo 18:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ----- Wouldn't Enterprise (series) or Enterprise (television series) be a better title? ''Enterprise'' is a series not a television after all. --User:Maveric149 05:38 14 Jun 2003 (UTC) :I used (television) because that seemed to be the most usual way of disambiguting TV programs, but looking closer I found we are using at least four versions: Bottom (television), V (television series), Hercules (TV series), Jeremiah (series). I think "series" is the least used, and perhaps the least informative. I think maybe "televsion series" or "TV series" are better options. Shall we go for one of those? -- User:Sannse 09:25 14 Jun 2003 (UTC) : "televsion series" is a lot to type. "TV series" doesn't look right -- User:Tarquin 09:30 14 Jun 2003 (UTC) ::So what is your preference Tarquin? "series", "television" or other? -- User:Sannse 09:41 14 Jun 2003 (UTC) :::I still think "series" is enough to disambiguate but this isn't that important of an issue to argue much about. --mav ::::Agreed, and sorry if it sounded like I was arguing. OK, if you think "series" is clear enough, let's go with that. Regards -- User:Sannse ::::Done. No apology needed since I didn't mean to insinuate that you were arguing ; I just didn't want to ''get into'' an argument about it. :) --mav ::::: "series" isn't enough. What about shows that have been series both on radio and television? User:Cgs 22:12 22 Jun 2003 (UTC). ::::::Then one would be at (television series), the other at (radio series) and the (series) page would either be an article introducting both or a disambiguation page. We only add enough disambiguation text to distinguish one thing from another. That is why we only add the year to parens of movies when there are more than one movie with the same name. Thus we have Titanic (1997 movie) since there were more than one but we have Platoon (movie) since there was only one movie by that title. And we don't have parenthetical disambiguation at all for unique movie titles, such as You Can't Take it With You. But this is all academic since ''Enterprise'' was never a radio show. --mav :::::::I think it likely that a standard convention should be proposed. User:Baylink 03:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Village pump for a more general discussion -- User:Sannse 19:14 23 Jun 2003 (UTC) ---- I hadn't heard of Berman and Braga being referred to as "The Disaster Duo" and "The Wonder Twins of Bad Writing." But I think it's an accurate description. Lately, Star Trek is becoming a train wreck of sorts. I can't bear to watch these guys butcher Gene's vision of the future, but at the same time I can't turn away! :User:Jesster79 01:19, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) ---- The addition of an "Apparent continuity problems" listing is interesting. I made some edits to it, adding explanations and rationalizations. I removed part of one section, however, because it violated NPOV by labelling those who try to justify or explain alleged violations as "rationalizers" which I felt was used in a derogatory sense much as the words "basher" and "gusher" are used to describe those who hate Enterprise and those who don't. I was pleasantly surprised to find that most of the items on the list could be explained either by "rationalizing" (dirty word though that may be), actually watching the source material, or by making a clear definition between fanon and canon references. User:23skidoo 03:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) :On the topic of continuity problems, I was wondering whether it would be noteworthy to include a passage elaborating on some liberties the writers took in the Star Trek timeline. Namely this: the fact that it's a prequel to all the other shows would present a significant limitation to the writers inasmuch as they simply couldn't "invent" new alien species. I mean, species such as the Denobulans are understandable, since the allied species that eventually would join the Federation are numerous and one could claim that Denobulans and others just hadn't been focused on in other installments. That does not go for the Suliban or the Xindi however. The problem is that those species were never mentioned in any other shows, which theoretically take place in the future, and that strikes as odd: how can two species that posed a real threat not only to the then future Federation but also to humankind itself simply "disappear in the dust of time". They don't exist in the 23rd and 24th centuries and aren't even mentioned by the people living in those centuries. Picard kept mentioning the dark times in human history. How could he never have mentioned the Xindi attack that killed over 7 million people?! Or the fact that the same Xindi were bent on erradicating humans altogether?? That's the trouble with prequels: limits are much more strict, but the writers of "Enterprise" decided to ignore them and create a whole new universe in the past that amazingly had little to no impact on the future of humankind and the Federation. Shouldn't that aspect of the continuity issue go in the article? Regards, User:Redux 03:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::In some respects a prequel should never have been attempted because Star Trek is considered a religion to some people and to try and insert new material is likely to get the same reaction as if you decided to write a prologue to the New Testament. When we talk about the Middle Ages that doesn't automatically mean we have to run off a list of Kings and warriors of the time. And TNG rarely made reference to the many races Kirk and Co. encountered. The Guardian of Forever was never mentioned again despite the fact it would have been an easy fix for a number of storylines in the "modern Trek" era. Just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. The TNG storybook isn't closed completely yet, so a future movie could still make reference to Archer's mission (beyond the minor reference in Nemesis). User:23skidoo 17:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::one thing that has always bothered me about the "canon" is that the characters are treated as being all knowing in the Star Trek franchise. Especially when it comes to having knowledge of previous events, races, technologies, ect. As Star Fleet is a military organization why is it never assumed that some of the events happening in Enterprise were not deemed classified and not widely known, even a century or 2 later? If I was running Starfleet the existance of Suliban cloaked ships would ''definately''be classified need to know, especially since that technology comes from the future. Same with first contact with the Ferengi- classified until we figure out where their homeworld is, what their government is like, ect...--User:Blkshrt 13:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) I have moved the Continuity Problems list to Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems in order to shorten the main article. User:23skidoo 19:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) :That was a good idea, moving the continuity problems to a separate article. I don't entirely agree with User:Blkshrt though. I believe you didn't take into consideration how different the society that is supposed to exist in Star Trek's 24th century is from ours. In our context, governments and in some instances even individuals limit the access to information for reasons usually regarding industrial secrets or national security. In the Star Trek universe, there would simply be no need to do all that. Money no longer exists and the pursuit of wealth and personal gain is no longer the driving force of the human psyche, in fact humankind is ofter referred to as "enlightened" – there was even this episode in which, after travelling back in time for the 1000th time, a character states something like "in my time no human being would dream of atteining personal gain at the cost of other human lives". Furthermore, Earth, as apparently is the case for every other planet in that Federation, is no longer divided in political units (countries). In short, it's the exact opposite of what we have today. In this suggested universe, the military would need not hide information from their own members, especially the high ranked ones, and in fact not even from the general public. There would be no harm in people knowing that someone brought technology from the distant future and that almost ended life on Earth centuries ago, since no one would use this information to cause any harm. Sure there are enemies, but being as they are from other species and live in whole other planets, the risks and the logistics of information management would be utterly different from our conception. And on that subject, does anyone else think that Enterprise uses a little to much the time travel topic? I mean, in what season hasn't the main threat not come from the future? It looks like the universe would be a very peaceful place in the 22nd century if it were not for those time travelers. I guess the writers just couldn't resist the temptation of the "known future" (I mean, every single threat from the future is aimed at stopping humankind from reaching the point where it would be in the times of Picard). Regards, User:Redux 20:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Tucker and Bush== ''Some viewers claim that Trip Tucker and George W. Bush share a similar facial appearance'' :I don't see how an anonymous opinion is relevant to this article. Furthermore, the opinion is in error. There is no similarity between the faces of Tucker and Bush. I am going to remove this content. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 05:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) : I agree that there is no relevance for this piece of trivia here. Good call. User:23skidoo 06:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) :: Strangely enough, a flame war erupted at the TrekBBS a few days ago over this same claim. Connection? User:23skidoo 16:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::What was the consensus on the matter? --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 21:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::I don't think there was one. It looked like the discussion disintegrated into a Republican vs. Democrat battle and I think the moderators closed the thread. User:23skidoo 23:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::I looked for the thread but I couldn't find it. Was there any substance to the claim that Tucker and Bush had something in common? It sounds like a troll to me. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 08:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Season 4, Episode 11 == You know, they make a very small reference to MacGyver. Hoshi says, "duck tape and a pocket knife" --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 14:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Enterprise cancelled== As of Feburary 2 2005, Enterprise has been cancelled. : Friday, May 13, 2005 will be the airing of the last episode. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 08:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) What does "the first Star Trek cancelled" mean? Aren't all shows cancelled when they go off the air? User:DJ Clayworth 16:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) : I think it means its the first Star Trek that never completed the traditional seven year run since ST:TOS --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 16:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) : Well, specifically it means that the *network* yanked it, instead of the production company giving up on it. --User:Baylink 03:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Is this 'seven year run' a Star Trek thing or a US TV thing? User:DJ Clayworth 18:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::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. User:23skidoo 18:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::: 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. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 02:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::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. User:23skidoo 05:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::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... --User:Baylink 03:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::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. User:DJ Clayworth 21:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Link Issues== Some anonymous users seem to have a vendetta against any pro-Enterprise links in the External Links section. Several times now I've had to revert edits that deleted legitimate links related to the show. User:23skidoo 21:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) :There's no vendetta. There is still ONE link to a site which supports the show, and ONE link to a site which doesn't support the show. User: 81.153.215.57 :: But... why delete any of them unless the links are dead??? Can you give a good, sound reason why you deleted these links? I'm reverting your edit once again. If necessary I'll take the case to Peer Review and have an Admin decide. Incidentally, the saveenterprise.org site is notable as it has been featured on radio and TV coverage of the cancellation and was also credited as helping win renewal last year. User:23skidoo 00:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Because there is already a pro-Enterprise site link. Why would you need more? And a petition link too? It's overkill. I am being fair and reasonable to believe that each side has one link regarding their opinions for or against. saveenterprise.org may be notable but I did not remove their link. I will have to remove those links you provided. I will leave one pro-Enterprise link and one anti-Enterprise link which I believe is fair. If people wish to add to the petition, saveenterprise.org has all the information they need. A seperate link to the petition is not necessary. If the Admin wishes to make a final decision on which links can remain, then fair enough. User:81.153.215.57 ::::There is nothing wrong with the links that have been added. Stop removing them. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 01:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::Like I said...fair enough. User:81.153.215.57 ::::::I'm not an admin. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 02:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::::I'm sorry, I thought you were. I've removed the three links and left the Save/Kill Enterprise links on the article page. User:81.153.215.57 ::::::::And in the process, you have violated the three revert rule. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) I *DID* ask, when I reverted back in links that no one had had any problems with before the show got cancelled, that we *not* have an r-war on them. Do I need to go get an admin, and start spanking people, or can we just admit that the links are pertinent to people interested in the topic of the page, and quit taking them out? Clearly, there's need for further discussions, and, IIRC, the proper protocol in such situations is "leave the original state of the page during discussions." --User:Baylink 03:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :So the Admins have decided that those three links must stay on the page? User:81.153.215.57 ::The links have nothing to do with admins, although your violation of the three revert rule does. Please read the information I left on your talk page. It explains how to add your sig. To indent, just add a colon. When you don't add your sig or indent, it makes the discussion difficult to follow. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Yes, I apologise over the Three Revert Rule issue, I wasn't aware of it. I am sorry about that. But what is to be done about these links? I still feel it's fairer to just feature one pro and one against, regarding links to Enterprise sites;User:81.153.215.57 ::::This isn't an issue of *fairness*. It's an issue of information. Nothing need be 'done; about these links. --User:Baylink 05:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::Well, information on the campaign to save the show is featured clearly on the Save Enterprise site. I don't think it's necessary to feature links to sites which provide the same information. One site should be enough. Save Enterprise is the most comprehensive site regarding the campaign. It has all the information a supporter of the show would need. Anyway, that's just my opinion. I won't bother pressing this matter anymore.User:81.153.215.57 ::::::Sorry, I'm new to this article, can someone articulate what the problem is here? Is the anon poster concerned that the links are not presented in a "Pro/Con" fashion, or just that the links presented are biased? I myself don't feel that this is a controversial enough topic to warrant a "balancing" of links, but in the past, for controversial articles, links have been divided into "pro" and "con" sections. However, as most of these links are informational, and some even contain reviews that are negative for several episodes, it's difficult to classify them as distinctly "pro". I was a little concerned that some of the links have an extremely low Alexa rank, but the content seems fine. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 18:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) :::::::I'll try to articulate it, based on anon's last posting: he's a Save Enterprise partisan. There was some annoyance and mildly bad blood between the SE people and the TEP people early on, and some people from each group still aren't happy with one another. I'm sure said anon will be unhappy with me about this comment and deny what I accuse him of here, but hell, he's anonymous. :-) --User:Baylink 23:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::::I'm not too sure of the reasoning for deleting them either, even after reading this discussion. The fact is the links deleted were notable, in particular Save Enterprise which has been getting some press. Lots of pages have links to official and fan websites. This isn't a political or controversial topic, really, so I think they all deserve to be there. Question: what is "Alexa ranking"? I've seen it referenced at Votes for Deletion but have never heard of it before. User:23skidoo 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::::::It's essentially a website http://www.alexa.com/ that gives a ranking to Internet websites based on how many hits (how many people go) they recieve. It's fairly accurate. - I agree the links should stay btw, I see no reason to remove them even after reading this discussion. User:K1Bond007 04:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Is there any point in keeping the [http://www.killenterprise.org Kill Enterprise Link] - esp. considering that the webpage is one paragraph saying that there is no need to continue now that it is cancelled. I'd remove it myself but I don't want to step on toes since I know link removal is controverial User:Graniterock 06:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::Gone. Having a link to a one-paragraph website does not add to the article. User:Cburnett 06:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) Kill Enterprise is more than simply "one paragraph". That's just the first page. It does also have a forum. The layout for the Kill Enterprise site is very simple, but it's still valid. The link to that site should be reposted, and BTW the "Enterprise Fans" link simply leads to the "Save Enterprise" site, which means two links are to the exact same site. The "Enterprise Fans" link should be removed and the "Kill Enterprise" link added.User: 81.153.215.57 :No. I disagree. Apparently you haven't been to the website to read the one paragraph. The first sentence states: "Star Trek: Enterprise has been cancelled, so we don't see any other reason for this site to continue." - It further continues to say that the forum is going to be moved in the near future. Theres nothing more to that site and doesn't add anything to article whatsoever. I do however, agree with your second part about the redirect. That should be removed. User:K1Bond007 05:06, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) Yes, the site has been slightly altered. The Kill Enterprise forum is now here: [http://www.jmstrek.org/forum/list.php?f= Kill Enterprise]. That is the new link. User: 81.153.215.57 :And for what reason do you believe that its needed? I assume this is why you're linking the forum here? Wikipedia is not an open directory for every site, fan site, non-fan site etc to post their link. By the way, getting your friends to change the paragraph or sentence that I quoted will not help "your cause". According to the guidelines of Wikipedia, the external link should be of high-content, which this site is obviously not. Just FYI. User:K1Bond007 06:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) :: Not sure how a webforum is relevant to an encyclipedic entry. Not sure what criteria we want to adopt for links but I might suggest a couple broad ideas to apply to all links: :: Relevency - Is it an official webpage? Is it talked about in the article? Content - How much depth and / or breadth does the page offer. Is it comprehensive or is it only of interest for a significantly small number of people. Is it citing a source? :: Expectations - If you were a person who knew nothing about the topic - how would you interpret that link or content. Would its purpose confuse you or seem counter-productive. Remember people who click on links usually want a deeper understanding of the topic or want to check out the sources. :: Diversity or Uniqueness - How unique is the content of the page you are sent to in relation to the others. If there is overlap, is this acceptable? If not, does one page offer things the other page does not? :: Self-Promotion - Links to your own website, or one that you are more than peripherally involved should not be posted by yourself. Discuss it in the Talk page and if other people agree it is useful / relevant, they will post it. Sometimes we are all too close to our own pet projects. :: That's my two cents for now.. I gotta run.. .feel free to add / debate. User:Graniterock 19:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) ::: I'd have to dig up the policy, but an external link should expand upon the article. So it must be relevant to the article; not be advertisement; fan-sites should be very limited (if any); further expand on the article; and WP is not a links directory (see google). A web forum only brings a discussion (of fans?) so I think it would fail to meet these rough guildlines. if you want a forum for discussion, hit google and find it since WP isn't here to provide links. And since I doubt there's just a single forum, it would be playing favorites. User:Cburnett 19:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'll tell you why the link to Kill Enterprise should be added. To provide a sense of balance. Three links are featured under the title "fan sites", so if those are posted, why not Kill Enterprise? It does provide an opposing view to the three sites which support the campaign to save and fund the show. The members on that site are also Star Trek fans and the site is related to the TV show "Enterprise" so it should be added.User: 81.153.215.57 :Because theres nothing there and because of that it's nothing more than a blatant advertisement, vanity, and self-promotion for a small group of ex-fans that wish the series (although it's cancelled) to be cancelled. What don't you get you about this? If it was actually a website then hey maybe things would be different. A discontinued single page on the Internet is hardly worth noting in an encyclopedia. Please do not attempt to add it again. This has become borderline vandalism. User:K1Bond007 21:07, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) I've made no attempt to add it again. I've vandalised nothing. I don't believe it's any more vain or self-promoting than the Save Enterprise or Trek United sites. It's not just about wanting the show to remain cancelled. Kill Enterprise offers an opposing view to the funding campaigns since any such dissent is removed from the SE and TU sites. The link to the petition has been added (not by me), so why not add the forum link? Since it expands on some of the reasons why people are signing that petition. Would it really hurt you or anyone else to have the Kill Enterprise link added?. The campaign to save and fund that show is still ongoing, so the opposing view should also be mentioned on the link section because not every fan feels the same way about the show and the campaign.User: 81.153.215.57 :What is notable about a link to one page that says nothing or a link to a forum? Nothing. Please think about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Know this first. It is not an open directory. In response to your question, would it kill you if the "Kill Enterprise" link was left off? What does it matter to ''-you-''. Enterprise was cancelled. I never liked the show either and there are some here who can vouch for that, so really my involvement in this issue is an unbiased one. User:K1Bond007 22:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) If "Kill Enterprise" is not added to the link list, then "Save Enterprise" and "Trek United" (which is simply an off-shoot of "Save Enterprise" anyway) should not be included either. They are merely fan sites for that show, whereas "Kill Enterprise" is a site which opposes what they are trying to do. They are not connected to the show itself. There is nothing notable about those two sites either if you use that argument for "Kill Enterprise". What does it matter to me? Nothing, and I do realise this is an encyclopedia, but if you (not you personally) post links to site which represent one segment of the fan "community" then a link to a site representing opinions of the opposing segment should also be posted. It would not be much effort to simply place a link to the "Kill Enterprise" forum under the title "Other" like the petition has been posted. Then, once the entire campaign to save and fund the show is over, then they can all be removed if necessary.User: 81.153.215.57 :Dude, I'm seriously getting sick of discussing this. This will be my final attempt to make sense of the situation afterwards you better seek an admin or mediation to support your opinion. 1) Save Enterprise and Trek United, while fan sites are permissable by Wikipedia. They have high-content and notability - I'm sorry you feel otherwise. 2) Kill Enterprise is merely one page with only a blurb that the site is discontinued. It has no notability whatsoever and its laughable that this one page with nothing on it for some reason makes you believe that it brings some sort of balance to the article. If you would actually -READ- the article you would see the article is fairly balanced and mentions "Kill Enterprise" and the reason for their ''-former-'' existance. 3) Wikipedia is not an open directory for links to forums and nonsensical websites, etc. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. User:K1Bond007 00:59, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) :Whomever you are, 81.153.215.57, you're apparently new here and do not understand wikipedia's policies. Looking at the contributions from your IP address, you're done more in arguing here than editting articles. The ''only thing'' you've done here at wikipedia is argue and delete. When you learn more of WP's policies and general practices, please come back and make an argument. User:Cburnett 01:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) "Kill Enterprise" has not been discontinued, it is still a functioning website. The message on the first page refers to the fact the original purpose of the site has been accomplished. But a new purpose has emerged. That being to counter the "save and fund" sites and I have proven that WITH A DIRECT LINK showing that discussions are still taking place. "Kill Enterprise" is still there to offer a option for those who do not agree with the "Save Enterprise" and "Trek United" campaigns and as such the new link I provided SHOULD be added to the link list. Once their campaign is over, THEN the "Kill Enterprise" link, along with the "SE/TU" links will serve no further purpose and can be deleted. Listen, if an Admin comes on here and says "The links can't be altered or changed" then I'll accept that with no further protest or discussion, and I haven't touched the article or links at all since the "Kill Enterprise" link was removed. I'm just offering an opinion. You do indeed mention "Kill Enterprise's" new role, but there's no link to the new "Kill Enterprise" forum. That's all I ask. The new role of that site comes DIRECTLY from the old one, but it still relates to "Star Trek Enterprise".User: 81.153.215.57 : I did another revert on the basis of the POV header that was added. "Pro Star Trek/Anti-Enterprise sites" just does not work, because Enterprise is Star Trek, whether you like it or not. "Other" is the best way to describe these sites, rather than other terms that could be used such as "Anti-Star Trek sites", "Anti-Rick Berman sites", "Basher sites" or some other inflammatory term. If this revert war continues we should ask an admin to lock this article. PS. is it too much to ask for the user who keeps adding the K.E. links to register for an account? It's free. User:23skidoo 13:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) I just did yet another revert, except this time the nameless poster got snarky about it and had replaced all the fan sites with non-fan sites. Does anyone know if it is possible to lock just the links section, preventing any further edits, but leave the rest of the article open for editing (especially in light of some drive-by user plopping a "clean up" tag on it)? User:23skidoo 16:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Blocked for a while. Erasing links and replacing them with anti-Enterprise links is vandalism, simple as that. User:Silsor 19:48, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) : Much obliged. I reported the IP on Vandalism in Progress, but since this is being handled, should I erase the report? I'm not sure of the protocol in these matters. User:23skidoo 20:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::I added the Kill Enterprise links to the paragraph about the site. User:Ausir 06:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :::Given that the series is over, I don't see a problem with the link being included in historical context; that petition of theirs is a bit silly, though. Personally I don't believe JMS would do any better a job than anyone else on Trek. There are a lot of people who hate Babylon 5, so we'd just see a "Kill Series VI" contingent form wanting to see Joss Weadon make Star Trek, or Dan O'Bannon... it'll never end. User:23skidoo 14:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC) == 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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_Enterprise&diff=10280464&oldid=10280311 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? User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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? User: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. --User: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? User: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. User:23skidoo 19:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Cleanup posted by Alexwcovington == Waiting for User:Alexwcovington to come and explain what needs cleaned up. User: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. :) User:23skidoo 19:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Nonetheless, I want to give alexwcovington a chance to explain himself before I delete the notice. User: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 --User:Alexwcovington (User talk:Alexwcovington) 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. User: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. User: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. User: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. --User:Alexwcovington (User talk:Alexwcovington) 05:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::Just chimming in that I'm not offended, just curious why. :) User: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. :-) --User: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. User: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. User:K1Bond007 00:17, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) ::Sounds fine to me. User: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 ;-) . User: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. User:K1Bond007 01:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) : I agree the spoiler box looks terrible. User: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. :) User: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. User:K1Bond007 19:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) ::::Wow...half? Shows up as a half-indention for me. :) You running this on windows or *nix? User: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". User: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 ":)". User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User:K1Bond007 23:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::They are default on mine as well. User: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 User: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. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 22:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) :::::[http://k1bond007.shackspace.com/Wiki/spoiler.jpg Here], like I said it's because of the image. User: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. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 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. --User:Jp347 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. User: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. User:23skidoo 02:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC) ==Controversy== It may be best to make all contraversies a seperate article. --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) These are the voyages info belongs to these are the voyages episode info article. --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 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. User: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. User:K1Bond007 01:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Star Trek series
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Star_Trek:_Enterprise:
Star_Trek:_Enterprise
Star_Trek:_Enterprise
Star_Trek:_Enterprise
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_Alleged_Continuity_Problems
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_characters
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_episodes
Star Trek: Enterprise
''Star Trek: Enterprise'' was a science fiction television series set in the Star Trek universe. (Until the third season its title was simply ''Enterprise'', and it is often abbreviated as ''ST:ENT'' or ''ENT''). The series followed the adventures of the crew of the Enterprise (NX-01), the first human-built vessel to achieve Warp drive 5. ''Enterprise'' premiered in the United States on September 26, 2001. ''Enterprise'' was a prequel to the other ''Star Trek'' series and movies. The pilot episode, "Broken Bow (ENT episode)", took place in 2151, ten years before the founding of the United Federation of Planets and about halfway between the events shown in the movie ''Star Trek: First Contact'' and the original ''Star Trek: The Original Series'' series. ''Enterprise'' marks several milestones in ''Star Trek'' production: *the first ''Star Trek'' series to be produced in widescreen *the first ''Star Trek'' series to be broadcast in HDTV *the first ''Star Trek'' series to be produced exclusively on digital video *the first ''Star Trek'' series since ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' to debut at the start of a TV season rather than at mid-season *the first ''Star Trek'' series to have a theme song with sung lyrics (the theme to ''Star Trek: The Original Series'' originally had lyrics, but they were never intended to be used) ''Enterprise'' was cancelled by UPN on February 2, 2005 after a run of four seasons and 98 episodes, making it the first Trek series since the original ''Star Trek'' to have been cancelled by its network rather than finished by its producers. Despite the announcement, production of the series was allowed to continue until the end of the season, with the last two episodes on UPN aired on May 13, 2005. Due to the show's cancellation, the 2005-2006 season will mark the first time in eighteen years that a first-run ''Star Trek'' series has not been on the air. ==Plots== :''For plots of specific episodes see List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes'' The first two seasons of ''Enterprise'' depict the exploration of space by a crew who are able to go farther and faster than any humans had previously gone. It presents situations which are not entirely unfamiliar to Star Trek fans, but which allow its characters to face them unencumbered by the experience and rules which have built up over the following years of Trek history. ''Enterprise'' takes pains to show the origins of some concepts which have become taken for granted in Star Trek Canon (fiction), such as Reed's development of force fields, and Archer's questions about cultural interference which would eventually be answered by the Prime Directive. The Vulcan (Star Trek)s are often close by to offer help when needed, but believe that humans are not yet a mature enough species to be exploring the galaxy. This generates some conflict as, in several early episodes, Archer complains bitterly about the Vulcans looking over his shoulder all the time. A recurring theme throughout the first three seasons is the "Temporal Cold War," in which a mysterious entity from the future uses technology to help a species known as the Suliban manipulate the timeline and change past events. Sometimes providing bad information to the crew of ''Enterprise'' and sometimes saving the ship from destruction, the entity's true motives are unknown. A human from Earth's future visits Jonathan Archer occasionally to assist him in fighting the Suliban and undoing damage to the timeline. The fact that Earth is not yet the significant interstellar presence it would later become is underscored in the first two seasons with a running joke: whenever an ''Enterprise'' crewmember says he or she is from Earth, the alien's response is invariably, "Earth? Never heard of it." Low ratings encouraged the series' producers to seek a new direction. The third season changes the series' name to ''Star Trek: Enterprise'' and introduces a new enemy, the Xindi, whose goal is the annihilation of the human race due to fears that someday humanity will wipe them out. The entire third season follows one long story arc, which begins in the second season finale "The Expanse (ENT episode)" in which the Xindi deploy a prototype weapon which cuts a wide, deep trench from central Florida to Venezuela killing seven million people - an event analogous to the September 11, 2001 attacks in real life. ''Enterprise'' is refitted as a warship with the addition of military personel and travels through the Delphic Expanse to find the Xindi homeworld and prevent another attack against Earth. The third season, especially later episodes, has been received more favorably by fans and critics. The episodes "Twilight (ENT episode)" and "Proving Ground (ENT episode)" were popular with fans, as was the arc formed by the last seven episodes of the third season: * "Azati Prime (ENT episode)" * "Damage (ENT episode)" * "The Forgotten (ENT episode)" * "E² (ENT episode)" * "The Council (ENT episode)" * "Countdown (ENT episode)" * "Zero Hour (ENT episode)" Some of these were written or co-written by Manny Coto, a writer who joined the series in its third season. Coto's other scripts, such as "Similitude (ENT episode)" are also considered to be of a higher caliber than earlier stories, which likely contributed to his being promoted to executive producer and show runner for season 4. Season 4 produced a mixture of two- and three-episode arcs, along with a few standalone episodes. The general theme of the season appeared to be a focus on the prequel concept of the series, with many episodes referencing themes, concepts, and characters from past series. Season 4 saw the finale of the "Temporal Cold War" depicted in the previous three seasons. The fourth season also saw the much anticipated return of Brent Spiner (Data (Star Trek) from ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'') as the criminal mastermind Dr. Arik Soong in a three-episode arc ("Borderland (ENT episode)", "Cold Station 12 (ENT episode)", and "The Augments (ENT episode)") involving genetically enhanced superhumans known as "Augments (Star Trek)". Coto has stated that his intent is to push the series towards the eventual founding of the United Federation of Planets. Season 4 also addressed some discrepancies between the Vulcans of ''The Original Series'' and those depicted in ''Star Trek: Enterprise''. The "Vulcan Civil War" arc ("The Forge (ENT episode)", "Awakening (ENT episode)", and "Kir'Shara (ENT episode)") was hailed as among the most interesting and intricately woven plotlines of the series. In it, the characters meet T'Pau (Star Trek) (a character who shows up in ''The Original Series'' in the episode "Amok Time") and the audience sees Romulans trying to undermine the stability of the balance in power between the Andorians and Vulcans. The exploration element of the first two seasons (and previous Trek series) was downplayed in the fourth season, which was informally referred to as the "Solar System Arc" due to the fact that most storylines begin with ''Enterprise'' being assigned a mission from Earth, rather than simply encountering adventure through exploration. While many die-hard Trekkies welcomed the show's focus on introducing concepts from other Trek series, some critics bemoaned the decision to more or less abandon the "exploring strange ''new'' worlds" concept of the early seasons. The creators of the series also made the decision with season 4 to increasingly focus on the three core characters of the series – Jonathan Archer, Trip Tucker, and T'Pol – in lieu of further developing the supporting characters (Hoshi Sato, Travis Mayweather, Malcolm Reed, and Phlox (Star Trek)). This format, based upon the similar "triumvirate" format used for the ''Original Series'' (which primarily focused on the trio of James T. Kirk, Leonard McCoy, and Mr. Spock), began to emerge during the first season and has sparked further criticism from fans used to the ensemble format of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', ''Star Trek: Deep Space Nine'', and ''Star Trek: Voyager'', and other recent SF series. During the fourth season, the supporting characters, particularly Sato and Mayweather, were focused upon less than they had been in previous years. The series cancellation was announced prior to the writing of the final episode of the fourth season, which allowed the writing team to craft a series finale. The episodes before this were welcomed by fans - including a two-parter detailing how Klingons become more human-looking during the period of TOS (as well as showing Section 31) and a two-parter taking place in the Mirror Universe and featuring a starship from the TOS era. The final episode of ''Enterprise'', entitled "These Are the Voyages... (ENT episode)", aired May 13 in the United States, and was one of the most heavily criticised episodes the series ever aired as it doubled as both a series and a franchise finale. The episode featured guest appearances by Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis as their ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' characters William Riker and Deanna Troi. The show took place during the TNG Episode "Pegasus" [http://www.trektoday.com/news/240305_01.shtml]. Brent Spiner, another ''TNG'' veteran who had guest starred earlier in the fourth season, had a speaking role as Data (Star Trek). ==Theme song== The series' theme song, a pop song written by Diane Warren and sung by Russell Watson, was a marked contrast to the sweeping instrumental themes used in all other Star Trek series. It was also the first such theme not to have been composed specially for ''Star Trek'', having previously appeared (performed by Rod Stewart) in the film ''Patch Adams'' (1998). Like other aspects of the series, the theme song polarized Trekkies, with many loving the song and many considering it inappropriate for a Star Trek series. A new, more upbeat arrangement of the theme song was introduced with the third season, but this had no impact on the controversy, except to elicit criticism from some who liked the original one. The song was known by several titles but most commonly "Faith of the Heart" (the title from ''Patch Adams''). However, the official soundtrack compact disc for ''Enterprise'', as well as all releases of the song by Watson, give it the new title of "Where My Heart Will Take Me." Only the first verse is heard in the opening credits; a longer recording by Watson exists and was released on the soundtrack CD. Throughout the show's run, there was extensive internet speculation as to whether the theme song and opening credits would be changed. This speculation was fueled in October 2004 when the official website startrek.com [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/videoview?id=7730&episodeid=6485&count=-1 posted] an opening credits sequence in which Scott Bakula recites a modified version of the famous "Space, the final frontier..." speech (with the phrase "where no human has gone before" in place of "where no man" or "where no one"), accompanied by "Archer's Theme", the instrumental used as the closing credits music for the series. Although there was some internet-based speculation that this was going to replace the original credits, no such decision was made. Around this same time an alternate version of the opening credits using music from ''Star Trek: Generations'' and carrying a "Paramount Television Operations" notation, made the rounds on file sharing networks; this too was never adopted and there are doubts that this version was a genuine Paramount creation. The two-part episode "In a Mirror, Darkly (ENT episode)", which takes place within the Mirror Universe, featured a unique opening credits sequence and music intended to capitalize on the alternate universe setting. Four different end credits versions were created during the show's run, although these were not seen in the original UPN broadcasts. The premiere episode, "Broken Bow" ended with a instrumental version of "Where My Heart Will Take Me" heard on this occasion only. Beginning with the second episode, "Fight or Flight", and continuing for the rest of the show's run, an instrumental piece entitled "Archer's Theme" was heard. The arrangement of "Archer's Theme" as heard in "Fight or Flight" differed from that used in the rest of the series. The two-parter, "In a Mirror, Darkly", reprised that episode's unique opening credits music. ==Controversy== : ''See also:'' Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems Even before it aired an episode, ''Enterprise'' was already one of the most controversial science fiction TV series in history. Many Trekkies were upset by ''Enterprise'', claiming that it violated the canon (fiction) which has been established in previous series and movies. Brannon Braga, executive producer of the series, has gone on record as challenging the fans who make such claims to prove it. [http://scifipulse.net/Trek%20Archive/August03/BrannonBraga.html] See Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems of examples of these concerns and the responses to them. Even before the series premiered, it was controversial, with some vocal fans stating that a prequel to such a well-known and continuity-tight franchise should simply not have been attempted. Others were upset that a widespread rumor that the new Trek series would focus on ''Original Series'' veteran Captain Hikaru Sulu and the crew of the U.S.S. ''Excelsior'' (featured in ''Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country'') also proved false. The final seasons of ''Star Trek: Voyager'' were also unpopular with many fans, and the fact the same production team of Berman and Braga were going to run ''Enterprise'' turned some Trekkies against the series before production began and continued to be the source of complaints throughout the show's run. Cosmetic aspects of the series were also points of contention. In order to make the series distinct from the previous Trek series, the producers chose not to put the words "Star Trek" in the title, in an effort to avoid overuse of the brand name and to make ''Enterprise'' stand apart from its many forebears. This idea backfired, with many fans rejecting the series based on this decision alone. Early in the third season, the series title was altered to include the words ''Star Trek''. Rather than placating fans, this decision instead resulted in accusations of waffling on the part of the producers and there is little indication that it succeeded in winning viewers. The production style of the series also led to conflict amongst fans, with some criticizing the series for not replicating the style of the 1960s ''Star Trek: The Original Series'' while others praised the show for not going for a retro look. Several episodes proved to be flashpoints for fan criticism, for varying reasons. The critically acclaimed first season episode, "Dear Doctor (ENT episode)", was nonetheless controversial due to the ethics displayed by Phlox (Star Trek) with regards to letting a race of beings die in order to save another. The season 2 episode "A Night in Sickbay (ENT episode)" was a comedy episode widely derided by critics and Trekkies, although it nonetheless received a Hugo Award nomination and is often cited by the cast as one of their favorite episodes. These two episodes have often been cited on Internet message boards as "breaking point" episode for fans who chose to abandon ''Enterprise'' due to one or the other. Another season 2 episode, "Regeneration (ENT episode)", introduced the Borg and attracted wide criticism over its alleged breaking of continuity (although the previous series ''Voyager'' had already established that Starfleet was well aware of the Borg before the apparent first contact seen in the ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'' episode "Q Who? (TNG episode)"). Some fans liked the idea of this episode as it explained why the Borg were in Alpha Quadrant (The Neutral Zone (TNG episode),The Best of Both Worlds (TNG episode)); they were far from their home in the Delta Quadrant and it would have been impossible to travel to Alpha Quadrant from the Delta in one year. The decision to introduce a romance between T'Pol and Trip Tucker in the third season also fanned the flames of criticism, as some critics regarded it as poorly executed or unnecessary. Jolene Blalock (T'Pol) also criticized the development. Supporters of the decision countered that the Trip/T'Pol relationship is generally better handled than similar relationships in past ''Star Trek'' series. This view is countered by those who feel ''Star Trek'' and romance shouldn't mix in any long-term fashion, due to the perception of poor results from similar romantic subplots in previous series. However, the pairing was also criticized by ardent fans who felt that such a relationship should instead have been established between T'Pol and Jonathan Archer, as had been hinted at several times during the first two seasons. T'Pol as a character was a magnet for criticism throughout the series, with complaints being heard regarding her mode of dress, her emotional nature (which the series explicitly established as a major facet of the character), and in particular a third-season story arc in which it was revealed that T'Pol had become addicted to a drug-like substance. For these and other reasons, ''Enterprise'' polarized the Trek fan community and two "factions" emerged within fandom, particularly on the many Internet message boards devoted to the ''Star Trek'' franchise. Initially, the term "Gushers" was used to describe fans who enjoyed the series, while "Bashers" was applied to Trekkers who did not like the show. Each group tends to object to these titles. More recently, the terms have been modified to usually refer to only the extreme fans on both sides (i.e. those who reject any criticism of ''Enterprise'' are called gushers, while those who hate the show and refuse to be swayed are called bashers). The producers of ''Enterprise'' were faced with a controversy of another kind with the 2004 episode "Harbinger (ENT episode)", which included a love scene in which T'Pol's buttocks were briefly shown. Aside from complaints from some fans that such nudity was inappropriate for ''Star Trek'', the episode was also scheduled to air not long after the Super Bowl XXXVIII controversy in which Janet Jackson "accidentally" exposed a breast on live TV, leading to an upswing in censorship in America. As a result, when the episode was finally aired on UPN, the scene was censored. Viewers in Canada, however, saw the uncensored version and it is assumed that the uncensored version will appear on the upcoming DVD release. Controversy dogged ''Enterprise'' to its very conclusion when "These Are the Voyages ..." sparked heated debate and arguments over its appropriateness as a finale. Fandom was split among those who felt the episode was a poor conclusion, and others praising it as a fitting conclusion to the 18-year "modern Trek" franchise. Several ''Enterprise'' actors were vocal in either their opposition or their support of the episode. An ongoing debate among Trekkies is whether or not the cancellation of this series will mark the end of televised ''Star Trek''. In an ironic twist to the years-long fight to bring ''Star Trek'' back to television in the 1970s and 1980s, there are a growing number of Trekkies who feel that the concept has worn itself out and should either be retired, or laid to rest for a number of years. A "Kill Enterprise" movement was created by Poland Trekkies in response to fan-based efforts to save the show (i.e. while the Save Enterprise movement raised money for a newspaper ad and planned rallies in the wake of the cancellation announcement, Kill Enterprise supporters threw parties and sent thankful e-mails to Paramount and UPN). Declaring victory, the Kill Enterprise site designers attempted to recast the site as a [http://www.jmstrek.org/forum/list.php?f=1 forum] for discussing future Star Trek productions and a [http://www.jmstrek.org petition] in favor of the next ''Star Trek'' series being made by J. Michael Straczynski. ''Enterprise'''s producers, as well as Paramount itself, have stated that ''Enterprise'' will probably be the last ''Star Trek'' television series for some years to come, although it is possible the movie franchise may continue as there is already talk of an 11th ''Star Trek'' film. Manny Coto, in April 2005, announced that he was already prepared to pitch a new series idea to Paramount. ==A troubled run== Despite most critics agreeing on the strength of the third season and most episodes of the fourth season receiving near-unanimous praise, the series experienced a continual decline in its ratings. (See List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes for the Nielsen Ratings.) This, along with the poor box office performance in 2002 of ''Star Trek: Nemesis'', cast an uncertain light upon the future of the ''Star Trek'' franchise in general. While some placed blame on the current production staff or on the concept of the series, others blamed its parent network UPN for not promoting the series and allowing major affiliates to preempt it on many occasions for local sports coverage. 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 Trineer, in an interview with ''Starlog'' magazine, to unusually 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. In response to reports that the series was headed for cancellation at the end of its third season, several fan campaigns to save the show were launched: most notably those of "[http://www.enterpriseproject.org The Enterprise Project]" and "[http://www.saveenterprise.com Save Enterprise]". The former purchased several full page advertisements in the ''Hollywood Reporter'' to encourage the network to renew the show. The ads were funded by donations from fans and excess funds were donated to charity in the names of several cast members. 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. Paramount cut its per-episode price and reduced the number of episodes from 24 to 22 so that the series would be more financially attractive to the struggling UPN; it is assumed that one reason why the show was renewed was so that Paramount would have enough episodes for proper Television syndication should it be cancelled (100 episodes are generally deemed necessary for this, although ''Enterprise'''s total output is considered close enough with 98 episodes). This move echoed the rescheduling of the original ''Star Trek: The Original Series'' to a Friday night time slot (see Friday night death slot) for its third season prior to its ultimate cancellation. Paramount Network Television president Garry Hart was quoted in an August 2004 ''New York Times'' article that Paramount and UPN stood by the series and hoped to see it continue for several more seasons. 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. A new co-executive producer, Manny Coto, was brought in for the fourth season. Coto decided to retain the "arc" concept of season 3, but reduce it from one arc for the entire season to several "mini-arcs" of two or three episodes, with a few standalones. In order to attract more viewers, particularly ''Star Trek'' fans who had not found ''Enterprise'' or the previous ''Star Trek: Voyager'' to their liking, the producers brought in Brent Spiner, a veteran of ''Star Trek: The Next Generation'', to appear in three episodes of the fourth season. In addition, the producers attempted to attract viewers by terminating an unpopular story arc (the Temporal Cold War) and scheduling numerous episodes that served as prequels to storylines from the Original Series and TNG. Beginning in the summer of 2004, and continuing throughout the fourth season, rumors persisted that William Shatner would reprise the role of James T. Kirk in the series, however an agreement could not be reached. The fourth season got off to a slow start in the ratings on October 8, 2004 due to preemptions by local sports in some markets, and by coverage of a presidential debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry in others. 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. ''Enterprise'' fans continued to indicate that 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. In October 2004, it was announced that ''Enterprise'' was the 25th most popular Season Pass on the TiVo television recording system in the United States. In December 2004, it was reported that ''Enterprise'' was the top-rated dramatic program on UPN, although by January 2005 it had fallen behind the law drama ''Kevin Hill'', but it remained ahead of the critically acclaimed mystery series ''Veronica Mars''. (In May 2005, UPN cancelled ''Kevin Hill'' but renewed the low-rated ''Veronica Mars'' on the basis that it better fit the network's newly desired female demographic.) The internet gave rise to near-continuous rumors and speculation regarding the show's future from the earliest days of the series, and this reached a fever pitch as the fourth season began and Nielsen ratings for the show, although an improvement for the Friday night timeslot, still dropped in comparison to the previous season. ===Cancellation and aftermath=== Speculation as to the future of the series came to an end on February 2, 2005, when UPN announced [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/9469.html] that the series had been cancelled and that its final episode would air on Friday May 13, 2005. In the days immediately following the cancellation announcement, the Star Trek fan community remained divided between those who were upset by the news and by those who welcomed it. Some fans, posting to online newsgroups and bulletin boards, blamed Berman and Braga for the cancellation, while others blamed network head Les Moonves, who was identified in the media as the individual who made the decision to cancel the show. During an online chat at startrek.com on February 11, 2005 [http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/community/chat/archive/transcript/9564.html], and later repeated in other media, Scott Bakula stated that the major reason for the show's cancellation is that it no longer fit the profile or desired demographic of UPN (the network's schedule primarily consists of so-called "urban" sitcoms and reality programming). He also said that major changes to the management of both Paramount and UPN during 2003-2004 resulted in past supporters of ''Star Trek'' departing the organization (most notably the aforementioned Garry Hart). Bakula said the series was to have been cancelled at the end of the 2003-2004 season, but support from Hart and others earned the show one final year. Soon after the cancellation announcement, ''Enterprise'' received its fourth consecutive Saturn Awards nomination for Best Dramatic Series. On February 15, 2005, during the ratings period known as "sweeps week", the enterprisefans.com joint group ran an advertisement [http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/16/tv.startrek.ap/index.html] in the ''Los Angeles Times'', paid for by fan donations, exhorting the American Sci Fi Channel (United States) to pick up the show. The ad received wide press coverage from, among other outlets, the Associated Press, British Broadcasting Corporation and CNN. Later that month, a group of fans held a rally in front of the Paramount Studios facility in Hollywood. Around this time, several fan groups including Save Enterprise joined forces to create [http://www.trekunited.com/ TrekUnited.com], and announced a drive to raise money via fan donations to finance a further season of ''Enterprise''. On March 1, Trek United and Save Enterprise announced [http://www.saveenterprise.com/3m_contribution.htm] that three anonymous individuals connected with the fledgling commercial spaceflight industry had pledged $3 million to the cause, although millions of dollars more will be needed in order for this effort to be successful (approximately $30 million US is the goal of the campaign, based upon estimates of the cost for a full season cited by John Billingsley and others[http://www.trekunited.com/faq.php?lang=en]). Critics of the initiative have labelled it unrealistic, but supporters have said that it is a symbolic gesture. Another fan based effort through Trek United sought members of the United States Congress to sign a letter of support for the series which is to be sent to Paramount at a later date. On March 1, supporters of this effort announced that Florida United States Republican Party Mark Foley had become the first Congressman to agree to sign the letter. Production of the fourth season concluded on March 8, 2005, and by the end of the month, Startrek.com was reporting that the ''Enterprise'' sets had been taken down, marking the first time that Stage 9 at Paramount Studios has been without ''Star Trek'' sets since the late 1970s. The website did not indicate whether the sets have been preserved in storage or if they have been destroyed.[http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/9513.html] As of April 13, 2005, Paramount and UPN remain adamant that the cancellation of the series is final and that the studio is not interested in continuing the current incarnation of ''Star Trek'' and Startrek.com revealed that studio officials had actually denied TrekUnited's fund-raising efforts as early as mid-March. TrekUnited officials, however, still claimed to be in talks with Paramount over the future of the series.[http://www.trektoday.com/news/120405_02.shtml] On April 15, TrekUnited revealed that it had joined forces with several Canada film production companies to put forward a proposal to Paramount that would see further seasons of ''Enterprise'' filmed abroad (most likely Canada) and jointly produced by Paramount and these several unidentified production houses. [http://www.trektoday.com/news/150405_01.shtml] On April 16 TrekUnited revealed that 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. Then Trek United announced that the studio had formally rejected the idea and that promised refunds for those fans who had donated to the cause would be issued beginning on April 18.[http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/604/604625p1.html] The website IGN Filmforce, reporting on rumors that Paramount had actually decided to cancel ''Enterprise'' after its fourth season as early as midway through the second year, quoted an unidentified "executive involved with ''Enterprise''" as saying this scenario was "very likely".[http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/604/604625p1.html] Soon after, Scott Bakula, in an interview with Sci Fi Wire, reiiterated his belief that management changeovers at Paramount in 2003-2004 left ''Enterprise'' and the ''Star Trek'' franchise without strong support, adding that as recently as 2004 now-departed management at the studio had expressed interest in developing a feature film based upon ''Enterprise''.[http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire2005/index.php?category=0&id=30849] This was later denied by Berman. The local sports preemptions that had plagued ''Enterprise'' through most of its run continued unabated in a number of major markets as its final episodes were broadcast in the rest of the country, including the Boston and New York City UPN affiliates. Boston's WSBK-TV, for example, moved the series to Saturday night beginning in April in order to accommodate local baseball coverage, although it did air the finale on May 13 due to the fact the Boston Red Sox game scheduled for that night did not begin until later in the evening. Several affiliates reportedly preempted the finale for local programming. In May 2005, UPN announced that starting in the fall, ''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 the WWE in 2006, bringing to a close another TV franchise. UPN continued to air reruns of ''Enterprise'' for only a month after the series finale, with the last network-broadcast episode, "In a Mirror, Darkly Part II", airing on June 11, 2005 -- this despite initial announcements that reruns would continue throughout the summer. ==DVD release== In October 2004, Paramount announced that it will release the first four seasons of ''Enterprise'' on DVD in North America during 2005. There was concern raised in fan circles that the announcement of a DVD release, coupled with Paramount advertising television syndication for the series beginning in the fall of 2005, indicated that the series was less likely to be renewed for another season. It has yet to be revealed whether these two developments had any bearing on the decision to cancel the program since ''Star Trek: Voyager'' was offered to syndication midway through its run with no impact on its network status, and Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, and ''Voyager'' all saw episodes released to home video during their runs, long before those series ended. The first season DVD was released on May 3, 2005 and includes a nine-minute blooper reel, as well as a selection of deleted scenes – the first time either of these extras has been included with a ''Star Trek'' series DVD release. The second season is currently scheduled for release in North America on July 26, again featuring bloopers and deleted scenes [http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=3274], followed by tentative releases for Season 3 on September 6, and the final season on November 1. ==Cast== ===Main characters=== *Captain Jonathan Archer (Scott Bakula) *Subcommander (later Commander) T'Pol, a Vulcan (Star Trek), second in command (Jolene Blalock) *Commander Trip Tucker, chief engineer (Connor Trinneer) *Lieutenant Malcolm Reed, tactical officer (Dominic Keating) *Ensign Hoshi Sato, communication officer (Linda Park) *Ensign Travis Mayweather, helm officer (Anthony Montgomery) *Doctor Phlox (Star Trek), the ship's Denobulan physician (John Billingsley) ''Enterprise'' has the distinction of being the only live-action ''Star Trek'' television series that never experienced any changes to its core cast during the duration of its run. ===Recurring characters=== *Admiral Forrest, Archer's superior officer (Vaughn Armstrong), killed during the fourth season in "The Forge", although a Mirror Universe version of the character appeared later in Season 4. *Captain Erika Hernandez, Captain of the Enterprise's sister ship ''Columbia (NX-02)'' and onetime romantic interest of Jonathan Archer. *Soval, a Vulcan ambassador (Gary Graham) *Silik, a Suliban (John Fleck), killed in "Storm Front (Part II)" at the start of the fourth season. *Crewman Elizabeth Cutler, a young, inexperienced crewmember (Kellie Waymire) who appeared several times during the first season, and was briefly a romantic interest for Phlox. Waymire died in 2003, and the character of Cutler was not mentioned again. *Degra, a Xindi-Primate (Randy Oglesby). A recurring character during the third season, murdered in "The Council (ENT episode)". *Major Hayes, leader of the MACO team during the third season, killed in "Countdown (ENT episode)" (Steven Culp) *Shran, member of the Andorian Imperial Guard and an ally of Archer's (Jeffrey Combs). *Crewman Daniels, a temporal agent from the 31st century (Matt Winston), who supposedly died several times. *Michael Rostov, a member of Tucker's Engineering team who has appeared occasionally (Joseph Will). ==Original novels and relaunch== Like the Trek series that preceded it, a series of original novels based upon ''Enterprise'' was launched by Pocket Books soon after the program debuted. During the run of the series, however, only five books were published (not counting episode novelizations), a low number compared to the other series (the sixth original novel, ''Rosetta'' by Dave Stern and scheduled for release at the end of 2005, is the only ''Enterprise'' book release planned for 2005). As explained by Pocket Books editor Margaret Clark, it was decided to scale back the number of books published not due to low sales or lack of interest in the prequel series, but due to the fact that the televised series often covered similar ground and topics planned by the authors. For example, the novel ''Surak's Soul'' by J.M. Dillard, includes as a major plot point the aftermath of T'Pol killing a person during a mission. Before the novel was published however, the TV series aired "The Seventh (ENT episode)", an epsiode with a similar plot point. Later, the novel ''Daedalus'' by Dave Stern, which included flashbacks to the early days of the NX program, needed to be revised slightly to avoid conflicting with the episode "First Flight (ENT episode)". In a May 2005 posting at the TrekBBS, Clark explained that the recent lack of ''Enterprise'' novels was intended to avoid any further potential storytelling "land mines" since "Season Four kept doing stuff we wanted/planned to do".[http://www.trektoday.com/news/180505_01.shtml] However, this may soon change. Also in May 2005, Clark announced plans for a new series of ''Enterprise'' novels that will constitute a "relaunch" similar to that of the literary continuation of ''Star Trek: Deep Space Nine''. Although a publishing schedule for this new series has not been announced, Clark indicated that the books will cover events in the six years between "Terra Prime" and "These Are the Voyages...". [http://www.trektoday.com/news/180505_01.shtml] It is not yet known if ''Rosetta'', the first novel published since the cancellation, will be considered the start of the Relaunch. Similarly the status of the Jonathan Archer segment of ''Tales from the Captain's Table'', an anthology released by Pocket Books in June 2005, has yet to be determined. ==See also== *List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes *List of Star Trek: Enterprise introduction images ==External links== *[http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/ENT/index.html ''Star Trek: Enterprise''] at StarTrek.com * * *[http://www.st-hypertext.com Star Trek episode reviews by Jamahl "Jammer" Epsicokhan] ===Fan sites=== *[http://www.enterpriseproject.org/ EnterpriseProject] *[http://www.saveenterprise.com/ Save Enterprise] *[http://www.trekunited.com/ TrekUnited] *[http://www.startrekfans.net/petition/ ''Star Trek: Enterprise'' Petition] *[http://www.treknation.com/reviews/fiver/ Five-Minute Enterprise] parody episode summaries 2000s TV shows in the United States Star Trek series TV spin-offs UPN network shows Star Trek: Enterprise
Star Trek: Enterprise
==General== 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. ---- 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? -- User:Oliver Pereira 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? -- User: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. User:Baylink 03:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ---- I like the ew theme song as well and I don't think it's patriotic. The scenes being shown while it plays are patriotic but the tune is about personal conviction IMHO. : There are a lot of folks who feel the song is actually from T'Pol's point of view. User:23skidoo 18:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) ----- Wouldn't Enterprise (series) or Enterprise (television series) be a better title? ''Enterprise'' is a series not a television after all. --User:Maveric149 05:38 14 Jun 2003 (UTC) :I used (television) because that seemed to be the most usual way of disambiguting TV programs, but looking closer I found we are using at least four versions: Bottom (television), V (television series), Hercules (TV series), Jeremiah (series). I think "series" is the least used, and perhaps the least informative. I think maybe "televsion series" or "TV series" are better options. Shall we go for one of those? -- User:Sannse 09:25 14 Jun 2003 (UTC) : "televsion series" is a lot to type. "TV series" doesn't look right -- User:Tarquin 09:30 14 Jun 2003 (UTC) ::So what is your preference Tarquin? "series", "television" or other? -- User:Sannse 09:41 14 Jun 2003 (UTC) :::I still think "series" is enough to disambiguate but this isn't that important of an issue to argue much about. --mav ::::Agreed, and sorry if it sounded like I was arguing. OK, if you think "series" is clear enough, let's go with that. Regards -- User:Sannse ::::Done. No apology needed since I didn't mean to insinuate that you were arguing ; I just didn't want to ''get into'' an argument about it. :) --mav ::::: "series" isn't enough. What about shows that have been series both on radio and television? User:Cgs 22:12 22 Jun 2003 (UTC). ::::::Then one would be at (television series), the other at (radio series) and the (series) page would either be an article introducting both or a disambiguation page. We only add enough disambiguation text to distinguish one thing from another. That is why we only add the year to parens of movies when there are more than one movie with the same name. Thus we have Titanic (1997 movie) since there were more than one but we have Platoon (movie) since there was only one movie by that title. And we don't have parenthetical disambiguation at all for unique movie titles, such as You Can't Take it With You. But this is all academic since ''Enterprise'' was never a radio show. --mav :::::::I think it likely that a standard convention should be proposed. User:Baylink 03:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Village pump for a more general discussion -- User:Sannse 19:14 23 Jun 2003 (UTC) ---- I hadn't heard of Berman and Braga being referred to as "The Disaster Duo" and "The Wonder Twins of Bad Writing." But I think it's an accurate description. Lately, Star Trek is becoming a train wreck of sorts. I can't bear to watch these guys butcher Gene's vision of the future, but at the same time I can't turn away! :User:Jesster79 01:19, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC) ---- The addition of an "Apparent continuity problems" listing is interesting. I made some edits to it, adding explanations and rationalizations. I removed part of one section, however, because it violated NPOV by labelling those who try to justify or explain alleged violations as "rationalizers" which I felt was used in a derogatory sense much as the words "basher" and "gusher" are used to describe those who hate Enterprise and those who don't. I was pleasantly surprised to find that most of the items on the list could be explained either by "rationalizing" (dirty word though that may be), actually watching the source material, or by making a clear definition between fanon and canon references. User:23skidoo 03:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC) :On the topic of continuity problems, I was wondering whether it would be noteworthy to include a passage elaborating on some liberties the writers took in the Star Trek timeline. Namely this: the fact that it's a prequel to all the other shows would present a significant limitation to the writers inasmuch as they simply couldn't "invent" new alien species. I mean, species such as the Denobulans are understandable, since the allied species that eventually would join the Federation are numerous and one could claim that Denobulans and others just hadn't been focused on in other installments. That does not go for the Suliban or the Xindi however. The problem is that those species were never mentioned in any other shows, which theoretically take place in the future, and that strikes as odd: how can two species that posed a real threat not only to the then future Federation but also to humankind itself simply "disappear in the dust of time". They don't exist in the 23rd and 24th centuries and aren't even mentioned by the people living in those centuries. Picard kept mentioning the dark times in human history. How could he never have mentioned the Xindi attack that killed over 7 million people?! Or the fact that the same Xindi were bent on erradicating humans altogether?? That's the trouble with prequels: limits are much more strict, but the writers of "Enterprise" decided to ignore them and create a whole new universe in the past that amazingly had little to no impact on the future of humankind and the Federation. Shouldn't that aspect of the continuity issue go in the article? Regards, User:Redux 03:04, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::In some respects a prequel should never have been attempted because Star Trek is considered a religion to some people and to try and insert new material is likely to get the same reaction as if you decided to write a prologue to the New Testament. When we talk about the Middle Ages that doesn't automatically mean we have to run off a list of Kings and warriors of the time. And TNG rarely made reference to the many races Kirk and Co. encountered. The Guardian of Forever was never mentioned again despite the fact it would have been an easy fix for a number of storylines in the "modern Trek" era. Just because it isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen. The TNG storybook isn't closed completely yet, so a future movie could still make reference to Archer's mission (beyond the minor reference in Nemesis). User:23skidoo 17:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) :::one thing that has always bothered me about the "canon" is that the characters are treated as being all knowing in the Star Trek franchise. Especially when it comes to having knowledge of previous events, races, technologies, ect. As Star Fleet is a military organization why is it never assumed that some of the events happening in Enterprise were not deemed classified and not widely known, even a century or 2 later? If I was running Starfleet the existance of Suliban cloaked ships would ''definately''be classified need to know, especially since that technology comes from the future. Same with first contact with the Ferengi- classified until we figure out where their homeworld is, what their government is like, ect...--User:Blkshrt 13:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC) I have moved the Continuity Problems list to Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems in order to shorten the main article. User:23skidoo 19:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) :That was a good idea, moving the continuity problems to a separate article. I don't entirely agree with User:Blkshrt though. I believe you didn't take into consideration how different the society that is supposed to exist in Star Trek's 24th century is from ours. In our context, governments and in some instances even individuals limit the access to information for reasons usually regarding industrial secrets or national security. In the Star Trek universe, there would simply be no need to do all that. Money no longer exists and the pursuit of wealth and personal gain is no longer the driving force of the human psyche, in fact humankind is ofter referred to as "enlightened" – there was even this episode in which, after travelling back in time for the 1000th time, a character states something like "in my time no human being would dream of atteining personal gain at the cost of other human lives". Furthermore, Earth, as apparently is the case for every other planet in that Federation, is no longer divided in political units (countries). In short, it's the exact opposite of what we have today. In this suggested universe, the military would need not hide information from their own members, especially the high ranked ones, and in fact not even from the general public. There would be no harm in people knowing that someone brought technology from the distant future and that almost ended life on Earth centuries ago, since no one would use this information to cause any harm. Sure there are enemies, but being as they are from other species and live in whole other planets, the risks and the logistics of information management would be utterly different from our conception. And on that subject, does anyone else think that Enterprise uses a little to much the time travel topic? I mean, in what season hasn't the main threat not come from the future? It looks like the universe would be a very peaceful place in the 22nd century if it were not for those time travelers. I guess the writers just couldn't resist the temptation of the "known future" (I mean, every single threat from the future is aimed at stopping humankind from reaching the point where it would be in the times of Picard). Regards, User:Redux 20:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Tucker and Bush== ''Some viewers claim that Trip Tucker and George W. Bush share a similar facial appearance'' :I don't see how an anonymous opinion is relevant to this article. Furthermore, the opinion is in error. There is no similarity between the faces of Tucker and Bush. I am going to remove this content. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 05:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) : I agree that there is no relevance for this piece of trivia here. Good call. User:23skidoo 06:19, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) :: Strangely enough, a flame war erupted at the TrekBBS a few days ago over this same claim. Connection? User:23skidoo 16:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::What was the consensus on the matter? --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 21:00, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::I don't think there was one. It looked like the discussion disintegrated into a Republican vs. Democrat battle and I think the moderators closed the thread. User:23skidoo 23:52, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::I looked for the thread but I couldn't find it. Was there any substance to the claim that Tucker and Bush had something in common? It sounds like a troll to me. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 08:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) == Season 4, Episode 11 == You know, they make a very small reference to MacGyver. Hoshi says, "duck tape and a pocket knife" --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 14:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Enterprise cancelled== As of Feburary 2 2005, Enterprise has been cancelled. : Friday, May 13, 2005 will be the airing of the last episode. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 08:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) What does "the first Star Trek cancelled" mean? Aren't all shows cancelled when they go off the air? User:DJ Clayworth 16:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) : I think it means its the first Star Trek that never completed the traditional seven year run since ST:TOS --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 16:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) : Well, specifically it means that the *network* yanked it, instead of the production company giving up on it. --User:Baylink 03:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :Is this 'seven year run' a Star Trek thing or a US TV thing? User:DJ Clayworth 18:02, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::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. User:23skidoo 18:52, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::: 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. --User:AllyUnion User talk:AllyUnion 02:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::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. User:23skidoo 05:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::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... --User:Baylink 03:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::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. User:DJ Clayworth 21:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) ==Link Issues== Some anonymous users seem to have a vendetta against any pro-Enterprise links in the External Links section. Several times now I've had to revert edits that deleted legitimate links related to the show. User:23skidoo 21:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) :There's no vendetta. There is still ONE link to a site which supports the show, and ONE link to a site which doesn't support the show. User: 81.153.215.57 :: But... why delete any of them unless the links are dead??? Can you give a good, sound reason why you deleted these links? I'm reverting your edit once again. If necessary I'll take the case to Peer Review and have an Admin decide. Incidentally, the saveenterprise.org site is notable as it has been featured on radio and TV coverage of the cancellation and was also credited as helping win renewal last year. User:23skidoo 00:40, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Because there is already a pro-Enterprise site link. Why would you need more? And a petition link too? It's overkill. I am being fair and reasonable to believe that each side has one link regarding their opinions for or against. saveenterprise.org may be notable but I did not remove their link. I will have to remove those links you provided. I will leave one pro-Enterprise link and one anti-Enterprise link which I believe is fair. If people wish to add to the petition, saveenterprise.org has all the information they need. A seperate link to the petition is not necessary. If the Admin wishes to make a final decision on which links can remain, then fair enough. User:81.153.215.57 ::::There is nothing wrong with the links that have been added. Stop removing them. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 01:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::Like I said...fair enough. User:81.153.215.57 ::::::I'm not an admin. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 02:01, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::::I'm sorry, I thought you were. I've removed the three links and left the Save/Kill Enterprise links on the article page. User:81.153.215.57 ::::::::And in the process, you have violated the three revert rule. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) I *DID* ask, when I reverted back in links that no one had had any problems with before the show got cancelled, that we *not* have an r-war on them. Do I need to go get an admin, and start spanking people, or can we just admit that the links are pertinent to people interested in the topic of the page, and quit taking them out? Clearly, there's need for further discussions, and, IIRC, the proper protocol in such situations is "leave the original state of the page during discussions." --User:Baylink 03:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :So the Admins have decided that those three links must stay on the page? User:81.153.215.57 ::The links have nothing to do with admins, although your violation of the three revert rule does. Please read the information I left on your talk page. It explains how to add your sig. To indent, just add a colon. When you don't add your sig or indent, it makes the discussion difficult to follow. --User:Viriditas | User_talk:Viriditas 04:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::Yes, I apologise over the Three Revert Rule issue, I wasn't aware of it. I am sorry about that. But what is to be done about these links? I still feel it's fairer to just feature one pro and one against, regarding links to Enterprise sites;User:81.153.215.57 ::::This isn't an issue of *fairness*. It's an issue of information. Nothing need be 'done; about these links. --User:Baylink 05:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::Well, information on the campaign to save the show is featured clearly on the Save Enterprise site. I don't think it's necessary to feature links to sites which provide the same information. One site should be enough. Save Enterprise is the most comprehensive site regarding the campaign. It has all the information a supporter of the show would need. Anyway, that's just my opinion. I won't bother pressing this matter anymore.User:81.153.215.57 ::::::Sorry, I'm new to this article, can someone articulate what the problem is here? Is the anon poster concerned that the links are not presented in a "Pro/Con" fashion, or just that the links presented are biased? I myself don't feel that this is a controversial enough topic to warrant a "balancing" of links, but in the past, for controversial articles, links have been divided into "pro" and "con" sections. However, as most of these links are informational, and some even contain reviews that are negative for several episodes, it's difficult to classify them as distinctly "pro". I was a little concerned that some of the links have an extremely low Alexa rank, but the content seems fine. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 18:22, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) :::::::I'll try to articulate it, based on anon's last posting: he's a Save Enterprise partisan. There was some annoyance and mildly bad blood between the SE people and the TEP people early on, and some people from each group still aren't happy with one another. I'm sure said anon will be unhappy with me about this comment and deny what I accuse him of here, but hell, he's anonymous. :-) --User:Baylink 23:58, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) :::::::I'm not too sure of the reasoning for deleting them either, even after reading this discussion. The fact is the links deleted were notable, in particular Save Enterprise which has been getting some press. Lots of pages have links to official and fan websites. This isn't a political or controversial topic, really, so I think they all deserve to be there. Question: what is "Alexa ranking"? I've seen it referenced at Votes for Deletion but have never heard of it before. User:23skidoo 04:34, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) ::::::::It's essentially a website http://www.alexa.com/ that gives a ranking to Internet websites based on how many hits (how many people go) they recieve. It's fairly accurate. - I agree the links should stay btw, I see no reason to remove them even after reading this discussion. User:K1Bond007 04:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Is there any point in keeping the [http://www.killenterprise.org Kill Enterprise Link] - esp. considering that the webpage is one paragraph saying that there is no need to continue now that it is cancelled. I'd remove it myself but I don't want to step on toes since I know link removal is controverial User:Graniterock 06:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC) ::::::::::Gone. Having a link to a one-paragraph website does not add to the article. User:Cburnett 06:55, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC) Kill Enterprise is more than simply "one paragraph". That's just the first page. It does also have a forum. The layout for the Kill Enterprise site is very simple, but it's still valid. The link to that site should be reposted, and BTW the "Enterprise Fans" link simply leads to the "Save Enterprise" site, which means two links are to the exact same site. The "Enterprise Fans" link should be removed and the "Kill Enterprise" link added.User: 81.153.215.57 :No. I disagree. Apparently you haven't been to the website to read the one paragraph. The first sentence states: "Star Trek: Enterprise has been cancelled, so we don't see any other reason for this site to continue." - It further continues to say that the forum is going to be moved in the near future. Theres nothing more to that site and doesn't add anything to article whatsoever. I do however, agree with your second part about the redirect. That should be removed. User:K1Bond007 05:06, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) Yes, the site has been slightly altered. The Kill Enterprise forum is now here: [http://www.jmstrek.org/forum/list.php?f= Kill Enterprise]. That is the new link. User: 81.153.215.57 :And for what reason do you believe that its needed? I assume this is why you're linking the forum here? Wikipedia is not an open directory for every site, fan site, non-fan site etc to post their link. By the way, getting your friends to change the paragraph or sentence that I quoted will not help "your cause". According to the guidelines of Wikipedia, the external link should be of high-content, which this site is obviously not. Just FYI. User:K1Bond007 06:00, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) :: Not sure how a webforum is relevant to an encyclipedic entry. Not sure what criteria we want to adopt for links but I might suggest a couple broad ideas to apply to all links: :: Relevency - Is it an official webpage? Is it talked about in the article? Content - How much depth and / or breadth does the page offer. Is it comprehensive or is it only of interest for a significantly small number of people. Is it citing a source? :: Expectations - If you were a person who knew nothing about the topic - how would you interpret that link or content. Would its purpose confuse you or seem counter-productive. Remember people who click on links usually want a deeper understanding of the topic or want to check out the sources. :: Diversity or Uniqueness - How unique is the content of the page you are sent to in relation to the others. If there is overlap, is this acceptable? If not, does one page offer things the other page does not? :: Self-Promotion - Links to your own website, or one that you are more than peripherally involved should not be posted by yourself. Discuss it in the Talk page and if other people agree it is useful / relevant, they will post it. Sometimes we are all too close to our own pet projects. :: That's my two cents for now.. I gotta run.. .feel free to add / debate. User:Graniterock 19:10, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) ::: I'd have to dig up the policy, but an external link should expand upon the article. So it must be relevant to the article; not be advertisement; fan-sites should be very limited (if any); further expand on the article; and WP is not a links directory (see google). A web forum only brings a discussion (of fans?) so I think it would fail to meet these rough guildlines. if you want a forum for discussion, hit google and find it since WP isn't here to provide links. And since I doubt there's just a single forum, it would be playing favorites. User:Cburnett 19:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I'll tell you why the link to Kill Enterprise should be added. To provide a sense of balance. Three links are featured under the title "fan sites", so if those are posted, why not Kill Enterprise? It does provide an opposing view to the three sites which support the campaign to save and fund the show. The members on that site are also Star Trek fans and the site is related to the TV show "Enterprise" so it should be added.User: 81.153.215.57 :Because theres nothing there and because of that it's nothing more than a blatant advertisement, vanity, and self-promotion for a small group of ex-fans that wish the series (although it's cancelled) to be cancelled. What don't you get you about this? If it was actually a website then hey maybe things would be different. A discontinued single page on the Internet is hardly worth noting in an encyclopedia. Please do not attempt to add it again. This has become borderline vandalism. User:K1Bond007 21:07, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) I've made no attempt to add it again. I've vandalised nothing. I don't believe it's any more vain or self-promoting than the Save Enterprise or Trek United sites. It's not just about wanting the show to remain cancelled. Kill Enterprise offers an opposing view to the funding campaigns since any such dissent is removed from the SE and TU sites. The link to the petition has been added (not by me), so why not add the forum link? Since it expands on some of the reasons why people are signing that petition. Would it really hurt you or anyone else to have the Kill Enterprise link added?. The campaign to save and fund that show is still ongoing, so the opposing view should also be mentioned on the link section because not every fan feels the same way about the show and the campaign.User: 81.153.215.57 :What is notable about a link to one page that says nothing or a link to a forum? Nothing. Please think about what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Know this first. It is not an open directory. In response to your question, would it kill you if the "Kill Enterprise" link was left off? What does it matter to ''-you-''. Enterprise was cancelled. I never liked the show either and there are some here who can vouch for that, so really my involvement in this issue is an unbiased one. User:K1Bond007 22:53, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC) If "Kill Enterprise" is not added to the link list, then "Save Enterprise" and "Trek United" (which is simply an off-shoot of "Save Enterprise" anyway) should not be included either. They are merely fan sites for that show, whereas "Kill Enterprise" is a site which opposes what they are trying to do. They are not connected to the show itself. There is nothing notable about those two sites either if you use that argument for "Kill Enterprise". What does it matter to me? Nothing, and I do realise this is an encyclopedia, but if you (not you personally) post links to site which represent one segment of the fan "community" then a link to a site representing opinions of the opposing segment should also be posted. It would not be much effort to simply place a link to the "Kill Enterprise" forum under the title "Other" like the petition has been posted. Then, once the entire campaign to save and fund the show is over, then they can all be removed if necessary.User: 81.153.215.57 :Dude, I'm seriously getting sick of discussing this. This will be my final attempt to make sense of the situation afterwards you better seek an admin or mediation to support your opinion. 1) Save Enterprise and Trek United, while fan sites are permissable by Wikipedia. They have high-content and notability - I'm sorry you feel otherwise. 2) Kill Enterprise is merely one page with only a blurb that the site is discontinued. It has no notability whatsoever and its laughable that this one page with nothing on it for some reason makes you believe that it brings some sort of balance to the article. If you would actually -READ- the article you would see the article is fairly balanced and mentions "Kill Enterprise" and the reason for their ''-former-'' existance. 3) Wikipedia is not an open directory for links to forums and nonsensical websites, etc. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned. User:K1Bond007 00:59, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC) :Whomever you are, 81.153.215.57, you're apparently new here and do not understand wikipedia's policies. Looking at the contributions from your IP address, you're done more in arguing here than editting articles. The ''only thing'' you've done here at wikipedia is argue and delete. When you learn more of WP's policies and general practices, please come back and make an argument. User:Cburnett 01:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) "Kill Enterprise" has not been discontinued, it is still a functioning website. The message on the first page refers to the fact the original purpose of the site has been accomplished. But a new purpose has emerged. That being to counter the "save and fund" sites and I have proven that WITH A DIRECT LINK showing that discussions are still taking place. "Kill Enterprise" is still there to offer a option for those who do not agree with the "Save Enterprise" and "Trek United" campaigns and as such the new link I provided SHOULD be added to the link list. Once their campaign is over, THEN the "Kill Enterprise" link, along with the "SE/TU" links will serve no further purpose and can be deleted. Listen, if an Admin comes on here and says "The links can't be altered or changed" then I'll accept that with no further protest or discussion, and I haven't touched the article or links at all since the "Kill Enterprise" link was removed. I'm just offering an opinion. You do indeed mention "Kill Enterprise's" new role, but there's no link to the new "Kill Enterprise" forum. That's all I ask. The new role of that site comes DIRECTLY from the old one, but it still relates to "Star Trek Enterprise".User: 81.153.215.57 : I did another revert on the basis of the POV header that was added. "Pro Star Trek/Anti-Enterprise sites" just does not work, because Enterprise is Star Trek, whether you like it or not. "Other" is the best way to describe these sites, rather than other terms that could be used such as "Anti-Star Trek sites", "Anti-Rick Berman sites", "Basher sites" or some other inflammatory term. If this revert war continues we should ask an admin to lock this article. PS. is it too much to ask for the user who keeps adding the K.E. links to register for an account? It's free. User:23skidoo 13:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC) I just did yet another revert, except this time the nameless poster got snarky about it and had replaced all the fan sites with non-fan sites. Does anyone know if it is possible to lock just the links section, preventing any further edits, but leave the rest of the article open for editing (especially in light of some drive-by user plopping a "clean up" tag on it)? User:23skidoo 16:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) Blocked for a while. Erasing links and replacing them with anti-Enterprise links is vandalism, simple as that. User:Silsor 19:48, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) : Much obliged. I reported the IP on Vandalism in Progress, but since this is being handled, should I erase the report? I'm not sure of the protocol in these matters. User:23skidoo 20:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::I added the Kill Enterprise links to the paragraph about the site. User:Ausir 06:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC) :::Given that the series is over, I don't see a problem with the link being included in historical context; that petition of theirs is a bit silly, though. Personally I don't believe JMS would do any better a job than anyone else on Trek. There are a lot of people who hate Babylon 5, so we'd just see a "Kill Series VI" contingent form wanting to see Joss Weadon make Star Trek, or Dan O'Bannon... it'll never end. User:23skidoo 14:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC) == 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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Star_Trek:_Enterprise&diff=10280464&oldid=10280311 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? User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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? User: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. --User: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? User: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. User:23skidoo 19:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Cleanup posted by Alexwcovington == Waiting for User:Alexwcovington to come and explain what needs cleaned up. User: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. :) User:23skidoo 19:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Nonetheless, I want to give alexwcovington a chance to explain himself before I delete the notice. User: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 --User:Alexwcovington (User talk:Alexwcovington) 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. User: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. User: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. User: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. --User:Alexwcovington (User talk:Alexwcovington) 05:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::::Just chimming in that I'm not offended, just curious why. :) User: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. :-) --User: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. User: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. User:K1Bond007 00:17, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) ::Sounds fine to me. User: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 ;-) . User: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. User:K1Bond007 01:00, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) : I agree the spoiler box looks terrible. User: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. :) User: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. User:K1Bond007 19:03, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) ::::Wow...half? Shows up as a half-indention for me. :) You running this on windows or *nix? User: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". User: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 ":)". User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User:K1Bond007 23:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::They are default on mine as well. User: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 User: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. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 22:15, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC) :::::[http://k1bond007.shackspace.com/Wiki/spoiler.jpg Here], like I said it's because of the image. User: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. --User:DropDeadGorgias User_talk:DropDeadGorgias 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. --User:Jp347 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. User: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. User:23skidoo 02:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC) ==Controversy== It may be best to make all contraversies a seperate article. --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 23:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC) These are the voyages info belongs to these are the voyages episode info article. --User:Coolcat User talk:Coolcat 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. User: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. User:K1Bond007 01:06, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Star Trek: Enterprise
Star Trek series
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
S
SB | SC | SD | SE | SF | SG | SH | SI | SJ | SK | SL | SM | SN | SO | SP | SR | SS | ST | SU | SW | SX | SY | SZ |Words begining with Star_Trek:_Enterprise:
Star_Trek:_Enterprise
Star_Trek:_Enterprise
Star_Trek:_Enterprise
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_Alleged_Continuity_Problems
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_alleged_continuity_problems
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_characters
Star_Trek:_Enterprise_episodes
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
