Talk:Civilization (Star Trek: Enterprise)

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

Star Trek Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that a picture be added to this article.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by AmandaNP, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 November 2010 [1].Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Notability[edit]

If you can't understand the tags added to this article mean, then quite simply, it's comprised of nothing that couldn't be summarised in a simple article on this particular season of the show. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't you propose a merger, since that seems to be what you want to happen? Dlabtot (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that editors are free to edit as they wish, not at the demands of others. The project page for Star Trek articles is hosting a discussion of this. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, editors are free to participate in the process, they are also free to act disruptively, ignore questions, etc.

Why didn't you propose a merger, since that seems to be what you want to happen? Dlabtot (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, free to ignore someone who dismisses other people's edits as "graffitti". You don't own these articles remember.

Why don't I do this, why don't I do that... whatever. If you have nothing productive to say, why bother pestering me on my talk page. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of good tv episode articles here. Shorter plot section, extensive third party sources providing notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't dismiss anything, however I did disagree with you. I apologize if you are offended by my opinion that it is not constructive to tag articles without being willing to discuss them or work to improve them. However, it remains my opinion. I'm having difficulty understanding why you aren't willing to engage in a consensus building discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, for example, are you unwilling to answer my simple question: If you think the article should be merged, why not propose that the article be merged? Dlabtot (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok here we go again. Notability is not determined by simply having something mentioned in another source. Notability is proven by the existence of significant coverage in third party sources. Simply sourcing the plot (which is already done by watching the episode) does not show any sort of notability whatsoever.

I also object to the fact that the notability tag has been removed rather sneakily, with little to no edit summary or attempt to justify its removal. A lot of TV episodes aren't notable, there's nothing wrong with saying that. WikiuserNI (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There's nothing currently in the article establishing the subject as notable, and removing the notability tag without providing an explanation would be a violation of WP policy (as is any unexplained template deletion). I'm willing to give people time to establish notability before taking any extreme action such as proposing deletion, but if people are going to show bad faith by trying to bypass policy, maybe stronger measures are necessary. Doniago (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was not bad faith, I was removing a redundant template. User:WikiuserNI was tag bombing and I removed one of the redundant tags. I have also stuck out the rude bad faith comment above by User:WikiuserNI. It was not sneaky, I simply removed a redundant tag. I was editing the article so it would not need to be merged, and changed the tags. There is nothing wrong with that. The problems with the article changed, so I changed the tags. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You would be well-advised to undo the edit to WNI's note, as refactoring others' Talk page comments is a serious WP policy violation. Doniago (talk) 06:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Under Construction?[edit]

If this article is undergoing revision, the editors handling it would be well-advised to place an under construction or in use template on it until they're done and the article can be reevaluated. Doniago (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sussman article[edit]

In an interview from the Star Trek Magazine here], Sussman states that the aliens in this episode were the same race wiped out by the NOMAD space probe in "The Changeling" from TOS. Miyagawa (talk) 18:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Episode sequence[edit]

This episode is listed in the introduction as Episode 8. However, technically, it is Episode 9. 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.

That happens quite a lot, thanks for fixing it. This is counted the 9th episode because the first episode was a double. Also the production code is 40358-009 for the record. -- 109.78.204.126 (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Robert Bianco of USA Today highlighted the episode "What's on TV: Wednesday" (November 14, 2001).
This week on Enterprise (UPN, tonight, 8 ET/PT), those wacky earthlings disguise themselves as locals to investigate a troubled civilization. Let's hope it goes better than their bumbling visit to a Vulcan sanctuary or last week's near-fatal exploration of a comet. Enterprise is one of my favorite new series — but really, the crew needs to start showing signs of competence. Right now, it's like they're doing McHale's Navy in Space.

It is more a short preview introducing the episode than an actual review. Maybe it could be added to the reception section of last week's episode instead? -- 109.76.142.30 (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs picture[edit]

The template at the top of this page includes "needs picture" request. If anyone ever gets around to it and are considering what image to choose it might be helpful to see the original publicity images. Three images were posted on the StarTrek.com website for this episode,[2] showing the cast in disguise[3][4][5] As these images were already used for publicity image and are very low resolution, they might be an easier choice to ensure the WP:NFCC requirements are met. -- 109.79.64.54 (talk) 04:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]