|11001001 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.|
|11001001 is part of the Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1) series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.|
|Current status: Good article|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Is it safe to say that this spacedock is not the same used in "Star Trek III: The Search for Spock?" I know that Paramount reused footage from the movie for this episode, but Enterprise-D is a lot bigger than the "original" Enterprise. (Sorry, I don't count Archer's ship.)--BigMac1212 02:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Relative to Starbase 74? --Sage Veritas (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- Given that the original spacedock was orbiting Earth and this one is not? Yeah, not the same spacedock. Doniago (talk) 19:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I'm not sure what the issue is (either). It's not supposed to be the same space dock, plot-wise. --Fru1tbat (talk) 19:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Adding a Review Page
A link I submitted yesterday to this page was removed even though it does comply with the guidelines. It is not a promotion or an advertisement. The link was to a Professional review of this episode of Star Trek: TNG, which is on tor.com. Bonnie83 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe it's appropriate to include reviews as external links. It would be better to create a Reception section and include any pertinent information from the review there. Doniago (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I thought the episode title was related to the four Bynars? They are named 00, 01, 10 and 11 (binary representations of the first four numbers in a computer sequence) and when you combine that, you get the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
An alternative (equally unsourced, but far more subtle) explanation for the title is that '11001001' is the binary representation of the Zilog Z80 'return' opcode. And the Bynars are trying to 'return' home. DrVxD (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
- You know what's sad? I looked at the title and immediately thought "that's C9 in hex" followed shortly by "... the 8080/Z-80 opcode for return." I'm such a pitiful geek. Fool4jesus (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- This review is transcluded from Talk:11001001/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
|1. Well written:|
|1a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct.|
|1b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.|
|2. Verifiable with no original research:|
|2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.|
|2b. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.|
|2c. it contains no original research.|
|3. Broad in its coverage:|
|3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.|
|3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).||
"It was the first occasion where actor Jonathan Frakes had the opportunity to play the trombone on the series" This is as far as I can see the only problem, is this neccessary to the article?
|4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.|
|5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.|
|6. Illustrated, if possible, by images:|
|6a. images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content.|
|6b. images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.|
|7. Overall assessment.|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 11001001. 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/20120617184902/https://www.filmscoremonthly.com:80/notes/box05_disc02.html to http://www.filmscoremonthly.com/notes/box05_disc02.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
Title in EBCDIC
On my page, Doniago said that this was "original research" and wondered how it is relevant to the episode. He then reverted my change. This is not original research, as any EBCDIC table on the Internet will tell you (and there are plenty) that 11001001, or C9 base 16, is "I" in the EBCDIC code system. I don't think the "I" is in itself relevant, but the fact that a computer code was used for the title links the Binars to computers, and thus to boolean logic. Look also at the names of the four Binars: zero one, one zero, zero zero, and one one, the four possible combinations using two bits. --Tim Sabin (talk) 01:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- If any EBCDIC table on the Internet has this information, then it should be easy enough for you to cite it. However, you haven't made it clear how it's pertinent to the episode title beyond being coincidence. We need some indication that the creators of the episode chose that number for that reason, or at least that a secondary source noted it for some reason. Otherwise it doesn't appear to be anything more than coincidence and consequently WP:TRIVIA. DonIago (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)