Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 General 2 Less Shitakki, good - but needs more excitement 3 Tucker and Bush 4 Season 4, Episode 11 5 Enterprise cancelled 6 Link Issues

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.67.76 (talk) 13:20, 1 February 2003

I agree with thee. The first time I heard the opening song it had an emotional impact on me. Despite my general negativity regarding the future of humanity, what with the population crunch upon the ecosystems, various groupings of humans desiring nukes, etc. there is something about the song that causes my soul to stir with hope, hope that we as a species can overcome our troubles and soar like a starship!!! Sniff. Guess I'm just becoming a sentimental old coot.

---

I don't like it all that much, but never mind... If "Star Trek:" is not part of the series title, shouldn't this article be moved? I'm not very good at thinking up new titles for things, but I can come up with Enterprise (television), Enterprise (series), Enterprise (Star Trek), Enterprise (Star Tek series), and so on... Any suggestions? -- Oliver P. 14:28 Feb 28, 2003 (UTC)

I came here to say the same thing. Enterprise (television) would match the usual disambiguation format best. Shall we go with that? -- sannse 19:13 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

No. Because, as of mid season 3, the title of the series *is* "Star Trek: Enterprise". Redirect pages from other ambig titles are probably the indicated fix. Baylink 03:39, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Less Shitakki, good - but needs more excitement

I love to hate the theme tune.... I think its really cheesy, but I find myself singing along to it! Its got a good hook; even though I totally disagree with the sentiments of having "faith" in technology and mans "strength" of character.

The main weakness of the series is its constant reworking of the "mistrusting alien species." That we humans are the peace makers of the universe, constantly acting as ambassadors and delegating alliances.

This is becoming old and tiered. It makes the thought of Star Trekking tedious and boring. Ok, yes, the series has to cover this in order for the series to fit into the over all theme and history of the Star Trek universe. But its really tedious, and its only the Starship battles that give the series excitement. The aliens are better in appearance, mind you. They look less like a man with a couple of Shitakki mushrooms stuck on his face.  : )

But in conclusion.....the series needs to be exciting.

---

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. 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. --mav 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? -- sannse 09:25 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"televsion series" is a lot to type. "TV series" doesn't look right -- Tarquin 09:30 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

So what is your preference Tarquin? "series", "television" or other? -- 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 -- 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? 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 film) 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. Baylink 03:40, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump for a more general discussion -- 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!

JesseG 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. 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, 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). 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 definatelybe 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...--Blkshrt 13:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Starfleet is not a military organization, at least according to Roddenberry. It is a multi purpose exploratory and scientific organisation also responsible for defence. Magic Pickle 13:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the Continuity Problems list to Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems in order to shorten the main article. 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 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, 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. --Viriditas | Talk 05:12, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is no relevance for this piece of trivia here. Good call. 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? 23skidoo 16:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What was the consensus on the matter? --Viriditas | Talk 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. 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. --Viriditas | Talk 08:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Funny. I can imagine someone saying that about Archer, because, TBH, he could easily be the manifestation of all anti-American stereotypes (arrogance, most importantly), or at least so in some dubbings (I felt that he came off quite arrogantly in the German dub but have never seen the original version so I can't tell if it's a voice acting thing -- also him taking his stupid dog (sidenote: I'm a cat person) along for the first mission to an unknown planet and thus probably introducing a crapload (sic!) of foreign biosystems into an unknown system... aw, hell).

Along with the whole Americana in the intro (the song may not be patriotic, but it's very sentimental and sentimental music + American-centric clips of the history of space voyage IS disgustingly patriotic), I guess this may have ticked some people off and made them look for similiarities where there are none.

As a fan of TNG (despite the "lesson we learned today" dialogues everytime Wesley Crusher appeared in some of the earlier episodes) and -- to some degree -- the other "conventional" seriesses, I have to say I too felt strongly repelled by the sudden "patriotism" in the new series. The other ones worked nicely because they felt more like a "we, humans" thing, especially with the mixed ethnicities of the crew. Apart from the Neelix-esque doctor and the least Vulcanian Vulcan ever, it just felt too streamlined (I know that some of the crew members weren't "white Caucasian", but even if you remove Spock TOS would've felt more heterogenous) and the intro entirely ruined the mood.

Anyway. For some reason or another Archer's German voice actor reminded me of Dubya Bush, but that's probably because of the reasons above. I'm really wondering how anyone could see any resemblance between Tucker and Dubya, though. Other than having stupid nicknames. -- Ashmodai 23:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Season 4, Episode 11

You know, they make a very small reference to MacGyver. Hoshi says, "duck tape and a pocket knife" -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:28, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enterprise cancelled

As of Feburary 2 2005, Enterprise has been cancelled.

Friday, May 13, 2005 will be the airing of the last episode. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:04, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What does "the first Star Trek cancelled" mean? Aren't all shows cancelled when they go off the air? DJ Clayworth 16:26, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. Many series are allowed to end by their own planned means. Cancellation means the series was ended by corporate executives who don't think a show is pulling in enough ratings. The Original Series was cancelled for poor ratings. The Next Generation, Deep Space Nine and Voyager ended by their own planned means. Enterprise was cancelled by the network for poor ratings. It is said that the Star Trek franchise is suffering from "franchise fatique". I think it's a result of fans who keep griping about the show not going the way they want it to, citing that it strayed from canon or "Gene's Vision". That's really lame. Half of what older Star Trek fans take into account for their own personal Star Trek chronology is what is written in many campy Star Trek novels. If we went by the novels, we'd still be calling NCC-1701 a "constellation" class starship instead of a "constitution" class. Mirlin 03:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it means its the first Star Trek that never completed the traditional seven year run since ST:TOS -- AllyUnion (talk) 16:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, specifically it means that the *network* yanked it, instead of the production company giving up on it. --Baylink 03:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this 'seven year run' a Star Trek thing or a US TV thing? 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. 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. -- AllyUnion (talk) 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. 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... --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. DJ Clayworth 21:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I was watching a Trek video (one of the documentary ones; don't recall the title), and I believe that it mentioned that seven years is enough of a syndication package for a network to consider picking up, but it's not so big that the execs get 'overwhelmed' by the show. DarkMasterBob 10:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually 100 episodes that's considered the magic number, not 7 seasons as a lot of shows don't go that long yet are still syndicated. Enterprise had 98 episodes, which was considered close enough. (Not that a show can't be syndicated with less -- see TOS for the best known example -- but it's considered a rule-of-thumb). 23skidoo 15:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

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. 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. 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. 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. 81.153.215.57

There is nothing wrong with the links that have been added. Stop removing them. --Viriditas | Talk 01:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Like I said...fair enough. 81.153.215.57

I'm not an admin. --Viriditas | Talk 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. 81.153.215.57

And in the process, you have violated the three revert rule. --Viriditas | Talk 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." --Baylink 03:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So the Admins have decided that those three links must stay on the page? 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. --Viriditas | Talk 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;81.153.215.57

This isn't an issue of *fairness*. It's an issue of information. Nothing need be 'done; about these links. --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.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. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 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.  :-) --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. 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. K1Bond007 04:49, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Is there any point in keeping the 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 Graniterock 06:32, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Gone. Having a link to a one-paragraph website does not add to the article. 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.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. K1Bond007 05:06, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the site has been slightly altered. The Kill Enterprise forum is now here: Kill Enterprise. That is the new link. 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. 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. 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. 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.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. 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.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. 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.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. 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. 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".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. 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)? 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. 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. 23skidoo 20:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added the Kill Enterprise links to the paragraph about the site. 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. 23skidoo 14:15, 23 May 2005 (UTC)