Talk:Star Trek: Enterprise

Plot summary

The plot summary section needs some improvement.

1. There are no references (except one at the very end that doesn't really help verify anything). There are many sentences that start "the producers decided to...", even though there are no sources cited where this information can be verified.
2. The entire section sounds like it was written by that guy who writes the plot descriptions for the back side of the DVD cases. That is an exaggeration/joke, but the plot summaries do seem to be overly emotional and do not seem to be very encyclopedic or concise.

Feel free to comment, but keep in mind that these suggestions are not meant as a direct attack on anyone (except for that DVD-plot-description guy, because he's always wrong about how much I'll love this movie…). — OranL (talk) 11:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Chronology

I've just seen the chronology edited in the infobox, with the 'followed by' changed to TOS rather than VOY. Is the chronology box supposed to reflect the story timeline, or the production order? ῤerspeκὖlὖm ^{in ænigmate ( talk )} 08:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

its production order both here and memory alpha do this but i'm pretty sure you guessed thatMrInhibitor (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Warp Barrier

This article states: "The first two seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise depict the exploration of interstellar space by the crew of an Earth ship able to go farther and faster than any humans had previously gone, due to the breaking of the Warp barrier, analogous to the Bell X-1 breaking the sound barrier." In Star Trek lore, the "warp barrier" had already been broken long before Enterprise took flight. It's claim to fame was actually to have the first warp 5 engines, supposedly making her more able to practically travel to farther distances in realistic timeframes than any previous Earth vessel. Thus, rather than the Bell X-1, the ship is more analogous to the Bell X-1A or Douglass D-588-2 (there's a name that just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?) which broke the Mach 2 barrier or the Bell X-2 (which broke Mach 3 although the pilot, Milburn Apt, was sadly killed on the same flight). Just as these flights really don't ring down through history (quick what was the first aircraft to break Mach 4), all the talk during the series about how important Enterprise was similarly seemed rather hollow - why weren't we following the exploits of the first ship to travel warp 4 for instance. Of course, the real killer for the show as all of the Xindi crap that tried to hook the show into the War on Terror following 9/11 - they would have done much better talking about the discovering new worlds and civilizations and more clearly connecting the dots on the formation of the Federation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 18:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Reception"

Has wikipedia really reached the point where all they'll allow under "reception" is a perfunctory tally of its ratings? Star Trek is a phenomenon that has always aroused great emotion in both die hard fans and critics alike, is there no room to at least briefly summarize what major television commentators have had to say, or some reference to the public's reaction beyond something so cold and quantitative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.26.248 (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I came here to read the critical reception of this show, it is usually a good jumping off point to see the views of a detractor and a proponent of the media, sadly this article lacks that completely. The ratings went down, did the show's quality as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.70.64 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternatively, the pair of you anons could find this commentary and add it! WikiuserNI (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

What does war with dinosaurs mean?

Its in there but im not sure if its spam or not BlackScarabZ (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Controversy

It seems the parenthetical addition of "(which were questioned by some for depicting only American flight and spaceflight advances while omitting historically important incarnations, such as Soviet milestones Sputnik and Vostok 1[28])" is not really needed in this article. The only reference I found about this was the following quote: "TB: Talking about NASA, don't you think some scenes like Gagarin, Mir Space Station or Sputnik are missing from the opening sequence? André Bormanis: It would've been nice to see something from the old Soviet program, which provided so much of the impetus for the American space program."

This doesn't seem to be "questioning" and even if you could interpret it as such it is one sentence in one place, which hardly qualifies as "some". I don't think that injecting statements spun as controversy are needed in an encyclopedia. Is there any objection to removing the quoted section and reference from the article? Iueras (talk) 08:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed and so removed. WikiuserNI (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Season 5

The following seems to be untrue, unverified and unlikely.

Star Trek Enterprise Season 5 Due To Be Released December 6th 2011. 4 of the 6 main characters have been removed from cast. and are due to be returning, news on this upcoming release is not false. A fan made star trek has also caught the eye of a few people and has been brought to be made into a full time series."

As such, I feel it should be removed from the article. Also, I'm new to editing on WP so if I'm not quite doing this correctly, I apologize. Xerobane 04:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC).