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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I'm going to remove the Update tag, as I read through it and think it's up-to-date. JG of Borg 06:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Wasn't Seven of Nine put in a "Borg maturation chamber" to speed up her growth process? That means the events of the Raven didn't occur as early as the article establishes.
I believe it would be more appropriate to remove the term "Borg" from all of the page, exception to the bracket explanation, and leace it as strange beings, as the Borg are not mentioned in the episode and from that point were not considered. TNG set the name. - I did not edit the page as I wish this up for discussion.- Aleeproject
Archer mentions a speech made by Cochrane in which he claimed that cybernetic people from the future came to stop First Contact. This is pretty close to a "mention" of the Borg. Evercat (talk) 00:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The trivia section states "In the Star Trek timeline, this episode represents the first appearance of the Borg." As far as I know, this is not true, as the first chronological appearance of the Borg would be in First Contact, when the Borg Sphere travels back in time. Fan speculation has it that the Borg vessel discovered in this episode is the wreckage of that same Borg sphere from First Contact, which the Enterprise-E shot down. Sandwich 22:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This article has been tagged to question it's notability, while the other 90+ episodes of this series have not. When I removed that tag, it was promptly reverted, leading to the question, why this one article? Either most of the episodes (you can always make a separate case on any series for the pilot, a few individual episodes, and the finale) should be tagged, or they should not. Tagging just this one is inconsistent.
My thinking is that episodes of any major television series should be inherently notable. I know the synopsis are certainly useful, and of course the source documentation is the media itself and easily verifiable. Obviously other editors disagree.SeaphotoTalk 20:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I tagged (and re-tagged) this article for notability concerns because it does not show evidence of having "received significant coverage in reliablesecondary sources that are independent of the subject". Why haven't the other episodes of Enterprise been tagged? I can't answer for that as I haven't read and/or evaluated those. For what it's worth, inconsistency isn't a concern with regards to notability or plot-centric articles. You'll find a prime example of this at the list of Stargate SG-1 episodes, where those episodes which meet the Notability guideline have been spun out into articles while those which have not are summarized in the list of episodes (LOE). As for "inherent notability" for TV series' episodes, this is a highly contentions issue with no consensus that such inherency exists; I don't fight on one side or the other so much, only following the guidelines and policies that are in place and constitute the general site-wide consensus for all content. — pd_THOR| =/\= | 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Easily my favorite ENT episode. —Ed!(talk) 23:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
"Archer and Reed's phase pistols are ineffective due to Borg personal shielding." -- I believe the name "Borg" was never specifically mentioned in the episode. Maybe the plot section should also do that?
That was my intention, but one snuck through! I've removed the Borg reference. Miyagawa (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"Archer is not comforted as he believes they've only delayed the invasion until the 24th century." -- The foreshadowing here is pretty clear, might want to add that.
"Filming took place between February 27, 2003 and principle photography completed on March 8." -- I assume this means filming took place from February 27 to March 8, but it isn't absolutely clear.
Made a copyedit for clarity to link that and the following sentence together better, as the principle photography completed on March 8, but the B shoot didn't finish until the 11th. Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Might be good to note that Brian Tyler scored the episode.
Added with a cite from his website. It was one of only two episodes he scored for the series (and Star Trek in general it appears). Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
"Michelle Erica Green reviewed the episode for TrekNation, and was concerned by the continuity issues that the events in the episode presented." -- Any specific potential continuity errors mentioned?
Added it - she specifically stated the fact that Picard didn't have a record when he later met the Borg. After all, it would take take Data about two seconds to search the alien database for the keywords "cybernetic implants" and "assimilation". Perhaps he told the computer to exclude searches for nanite using aliens and so the Borg of the TNG series period didn't come up in the search. Darn those Access databases! Miyagawa (talk) 18:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate links, dab links, and external links all check out fine. I see no problems with article stability or neutrality. There are no images presented, so no licensing problems.
Placing the article on hold to wait for your responses. —Ed!(talk) 00:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Great work! Passing the GA. —Ed!(talk) 21:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)