Talk:Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Trek Today?

• Is this a valid source for references?[1]. It appears in Google news results, not just a regular Google search.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• This one too[2].--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TrekToday is a valid reliable news source. It is a widely used news source. <sarcasm> The deletionists will probably agree fully.</sarcasm> --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 21:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The article is credited "By Lisa" with a dead link to the bio page.<sarcasm>Of course to the fancruftians, that is a valid source.</sarcasm> Active Banana (^bananaphone 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is TrekToday listed in Google news searches if its not a good source? Does listing in Google news mean anything, as it certainly excludes blogs and most everything else. We must have a discussion about this somewhere.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as with any source we evaluate its appropriateness based on the context. googlenews does a great job of filtering out most of the unsuitable online postings, but a googlenews hit is not an autopass for "yes it meets wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines" Active Banana (^bananaphone 15:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Trektoday is just fine, despite some less than civil comment above (no, the "tags" don't really matter). That particular article though simply reiterates the plot, which, as ever, is already cited by watching the episode. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I figured the additional sourcing is proof of notability.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly saying something in many sources doesn't make it notable. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that premise. If a local news story is reported only in the, say, the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal, its not notable. But if that same story is covered by every major news outlet in the world, the case for notability goes much higher. We are talking a much more minor scale with TrekToday, but the fact that it posted an article about an individual episode seems worthwhile to note.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 16:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional sources

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Some additional sources at links above. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fight or Flight (Star Trek: Enterprise). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717102631/http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=AzTB5ocHMBgPw to http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=AzTB5ocHMBgPw
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204160941/http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=4278edc00783b to http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=4278edc00783b

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Episode sequence

This episode is listed in the introduction as Episode 2. However, technically, it is Episode 3. A few of the other episodes in the season make this same error, so I'm going to change them to match the rest of the articles that follow the sequence on the 1 episode page. — ★Parsa ☞ talk 02:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Ratings

Zap2it Nielsen ratings for this episode [3] -- 109.76.142.197 (talk) 04:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Note the above link is the weekly ratings, Tuesday Oct 9, 2001, not to be confused with ...

Zap2it Nielsen overnight or daily ratings, Thursday Oct 4, 2001 [4]

As I understand it, the overnight ratings are based on a much smaller sample of households, and the weekly ratings are more accurate report based on a much larger survey by Nielsen, and it is the latter we should include in the article. The hard part is including meaningful explanatory prose, and the articles about the daily ratings highlight useful context, like the fact that the episode was up against a special episode of The West Wing.

TrekToday also had a summary of the ratings[5] which lead me to an article from Variety about ratings for that week.[6] (via Yahoo) [7] (Variety.com) which notes the drop in ratings between the pilot and the second episode was slightly less than dropoff experienced by Voyager.

If anyone wants to add this to the article, please do. I'll try to come back around to it eventually. -- 109.79.163.21 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Sooner than I expected I've added ratings and some explanatory text to the Reception section. The mix of different ratings and different demographics is confusing so I've tried to keep it simple and stick to the final ratings and not be overly specific about the claimed percentage drop from the first episode. If others think they can present it clearly there is still some more information in the references. -- 109.79.168.149 (talk) 21:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Reception

The Reception section included a strange attempt to contrast two reviews from two entirely different authors both of which were printed at TrekWeb, which I have made a small attempted to clean up.[8] It especially strange that someone felt the need to quote a review of an entirely different episode to say something nice about this one. The review for the episode Detained, mentioned this episode in passing as one of several of the better episodes that happened to be space based episodes, and the reviewer thought managed to evoke a sense of wonder about exploration. The season 1 DVD retrospective review was not positive about this episode. TrekWeb did actually publish two reviews of this episode[9][10], and both of the contemporary reviews were fairly positive, so it is strange that those were not contrasted against the later review. It will probably still need further rephrasing and cleanup.

As is this was only the second episode I'm still hoping I will be able to find reviews from from mainstream publications, rather than having more than one review from TrekWeb. -- 109.78.208.111 (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

VFX

Star Trek magazine interviewed VFX supervisor Mitch Suskin https://archive.org/details/startrekmagazine03unse_9/page/42/mode/2up and this episode got a few mentions, for example the grappling hooks and torpedoes shown in this episode. Might be worth adding something to the production section. There is other information that might be useful to other season 1 episode articles. I might do it myself eventually but I was looking for other things when I found this, so for now I am simply making a note here and continuing to look for other sources. -- 109.76.195.193 (talk) 03:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)