Jump to content

Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good articleStar Trek: Enterprise has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 13, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
August 26, 2016Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 8, 2016.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Scott Bakula was the only actor considered to play Jonathan Archer in Star Trek: Enterprise?
Current status: Good article

Porthos?

[edit]

What, no mention of the Captain's best friend? 92.5.241.222 (talk) 12:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What, you mean like this: The Beacon Journal of Ohio interview with Berman and Braga "`Star Trek' heading to new space territory".

Although fan passion can lead to raging debates over the smallest Star Trek detail, reaction to the first part of Enterprise has for the most part been good, Braga said.

``We were really worried about the dog, said Braga, referring to Archer's dog, Porthos, who travels with him. ``We loved the idea of the dog because it was one of those myriad elements that humanize this crew. But we were worried that people would think, `Oh, look at this obvious ploy for sympathy.... '

``We were overwhelmed how positive people were toward the dog, he said. ``It's really astonishing. Everybody loves this dog.

I found that while looking for other sources, so maybe you or some other wikt:cynophilist could find someplace appropriate to add it ... or maybe the dog just isn't notable. -- 109.76.142.97 (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is information about Porthos on the character page for Jonathan_Archer. -- 109.77.204.50 (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn’t like the dog’s acting.

Incorrect math in Intro

[edit]

In the intro the article states that the end of ST:E marked an 18 year hiatus of no new star trek episodes. This math is incorrect, as the drought was from 2005 to 2017. I have attempted to rectify this mistake but have had my edits removed due to vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImagineColours (talkcontribs) 11:55, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly that sentence could have been clearer but User:ImagineColours somewhat misinterpreted the sentence. If you read it carefully you will hopefully see was trying to explain that the show had been running continuously for 18 years (TNG, DS9, and VOY overlapped, and ENT continued the 18 year long run) and then there was a gap. The positive point about a long run for the franchise was being emphasized, not the gap. (Tangent: speaking of long running shows the TV franchise Law and Order has been running for 30 years, the original ran for 20 seasons!) -- 109.76.130.202 (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saved by syndication?

[edit]

In a March 2022, Scott Bakula expressed his belief that Enterprise would have run for a full seven years if it had been in syndication like other Trek shows. He said it in a podcast interview but it was also reported by [1] It seems like something that might be worth mentioning, not sure where best to add it though. -- 109.77.207.247 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the edit with a reference here. I also removed the one liner that was just a link to this article. I appreciate the addition to the article; in the future, try to type at least a sentence about it. Users like to read the wikipiedia in context. Dillard421♂♂ (talk to me) 00:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]