Talk:List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes

Pictures

There should be a standard size for the pictures, like the TNG, DSN and VGR episode lists, to avoid the annoying length issues that occur with episodes like "Unexpected" and "Sleeping Dogs."

Old stuff

Where is the ratings for each episode being obtained from? -- KJen74

Why is this called Star Trek ENT? The series is Star Trek Enterprise. And is a list of episode names worthwhile? Are you planning on discussing each episode, or are we supposed to just be content with names? -- Zoe

Aren't Star Trek series names all popularly abbreviated with three letters? There's TOS, TNG, and DS9... not sure about Voyager, though. -- Goatasaur

Star Trek VOY is redirected to Star Trek: Voyager. We also have Star Trek: Deep Space Nine and Star Trek: Enterprise. I really think this should be at List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes]]. -- Zoe

I vote with Zoe. Although a big Star Trek fan, I was confused by the term ENT. Arthur 22:50 Mar 1, 2003 (UTC)

Well, if there are other articles with the proper name of the series, it should be kept in the same format. I concur. -- 167.1.128.100

OK, I moved it. But I still question the value of a list of titles. -- Zoe

I have been creating a new article for each episode and adding plot summaries for them. So, I think that having an article that lists all the episodes is really whorthwhile. I would like to add plot summaries for every episode on the list, but I am not sure I have the time. I'll try to add as much as I can. --KJen74

I hear your point, Zoe, but real fans are fascinated by this list. You might be right, though, that the list belongs in the Star Trek: Enterprise article. Then the info is available and included in the encyclopedia, but not a separate (why?!) article. -- Arthur 22:26 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

Story arcs

I added the story arcs to the bottom of the list. By all means check them out and edit as necessary, though I'm pretty sure I got all the arcs.

As for the Xindi arc. I'd have to pay closer attention to the list and/or watch them again, but there might be a few eps that aren't directly involved with the Xindi. However, they all take place in the Expanse so maybe the arc storyline should be changed to "The Xindi/The Expanse" or something. Cburnett 22:12, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and I know there's a few season 3 eps that directly bring in the temporal cold war. Cburnett 22:14, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a good idea and I went in and added a bunch. I also added a note that several arcs overlap (case being the three TCW-related episodes during the Xindi arc). IMO all the season 3 episodes tie into the Xindi arc, however indirectly, so I don't see a problem in listing them all. "Home" is very much the coda of the arc, as well as a prologue to the Vulcan arc, so I added it to both lists. And I added a Birth of the Federation arc list which may include the last 3 episodes as well. What are your thoughts about "background" arcs, as in ones that don't really dominate episodes? T'Pol's development (and occasionally undeveleopment) as a Vulcan has very much been an arc since day one, as has the Trip/T'Pol relationship arc that is coming to the fore now. 23skidoo 01:39, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Should make the existing "Plot arcs" and then create "Character arcs". Both are worthy lists to have. Maybe the Enterprise story arcs merit their own article? From there, a summary of each arch could be given with the episodes it covers. Perhaps a blurb about how the arc is continued in each episode, which would be similar to the episode overview but specifically about how the arc evolves. Cburnett 01:45, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good, though I fear someone might cry "Trekcruft" (a few months back someone tried to get all the episode summaries deleted). But I think some sort of write-up on the different arcs would make for interesting reading. And without giving away any spoilers, many of the major arcs are concluded now since we have a good idea what's happening in the remaining episodes, so this is a good time to do it. 23skidoo 02:13, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Done. List of Star Trek: Enterprise story arcs, feel free to expand like mad. :) Cburnett 04:21, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Story arcs intro

This is not completely true is it?

Star Trek: Enterprise, unlike the other Star Trek television series, has numerous story arcs. The first two seasons had only two story arcs with the entire third season as a single arc. The fourth season has had numerous 2 & 3 episode arcs, which more than doubled the total number of arcs. A number of arcs overlap while some arcs set the scene for later arcs.

I mean DS9 had several storyarcs that was at least three episodes. Dixon 13:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By all means, figure out how many story arcs DS9 had and we can compare. Cburnett 14:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

DS9 had a few - the Dominion War, The Circle from season 2, and the whole Bajor politics thing. But if we're talking multiple 2-3 episode story arcs, involving consecutive episodes, then ENT was the first to do this on a regular basis. Had the show been renewed for a fifth season there is every indication this format would have continued. I do think the statement in question could be reworded a little, though. 23skidoo 06:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, my point in writing that was that ENT used story arcs much more unlike the other ST series... Of course, reword as you see fit. Cburnett 06:58, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

I gave it a tweak. And the idea that ENT was the first to truly embrace story arcs has been expressed by the likes of Rick Berman and Manny Coto as well. From what I understand (per a statement apparently made on one of the DS9 DVD releases - I'm hearing this second hand) is that Berman and his team actually consider DS9 to be one single story -- a novel for TV is the term I believe they use -- and not a "story arc" per se. 23skidoo 14:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Boston link

The Boston link could do with updating to point to the appropriate Boston article, but I'm not sure which it is. --John 23:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Links to episodes

I am in favour of linking episodes in the form "<Episode name> (<Series name> episode)" (see discussion at Talk:List of Star Trek: DS9 episodes. However, I would like to change the format for Enterprise (and Voyager) episode links from, e.g. Broken Bow (ENT episode) to Broken Bow (Enterprise episode) (and Caretaker (VOY episode) to Caretaker (Voyager episode)). I think TNG and DS9 are acceptable abbreviations because they are the initials of The Next Generation and Deep Space 9 but this isn't the case for ENT or VOY. ENT and VOY are handy abreviations but I don't think they should be used in a title. I am not sure exactly what to do about the original series. We could use TOS episode but I don't think it's that obvious. Perhaps we could just use Star Trek episode. What do others think? Marky1981 10:06, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Can article titles be easily changed? We already have a bunch of articles and probably hundreds of links using the (ENT episode) format. Unless there is some global way of changing them, I think it's more trouble than it's worth at this point as we'll be left with a ton of redirects. 23skidoo 15:48, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Having thought about it, I'd much rather have "TITLE (ST:TLA episode)" since "(TNG episode)" doesn't tell much to anyone outside of Star Trek what it is... Yeah yeah, I know. I proprosed the current format and self-passed it since there were no objections, but I think "ST:" should be appended just to make it more clear.

I agree the abbreviations TNG, DS9 etc. aren't very informative to people who do not know Star Trek well, but I don't think prefixing ST: helps much either! I think we'd have to go for '(Star Trek TNG episode)' etc., which is getting a bit long! Maybe just stick to what we have and be consistent Marky1981 00:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for the question at hand, I think the dab extension (e.g. "ENT episode") should be as short as possible simply to keep human errors down, etc.

I have just moved Broken Bow (ENT episode) to [[Broken Bow (Enterprise episode)] and fixed all the redirects! I am guessing this epsiode will be the most referred to, being the pilot. I think Enterprise is better than ENT as the initials ENT don't stand for anything like TNG and DS9 do. This is the same convention as Voyager episodes, so I think they should be changed slowly one at a time! Marky1981 00:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I recommend checking with the discussion Cburnett posted, below, back in May to make sure there is consensus before going ahead and moving all the articles. There are a large number of links out there so it could take quite a bit of effort to change things. (I assume you are using the Move function to properly retain the History of the articles.) Cheers. 23skidoo 03:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This discussion should really take place at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek#Naming convention. Cburnett 19:24, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Five-Minute Enterprise

I've been including the satirised shortened versions of Star Trek: Enterprise for the first season already. I feel that it gives humourous insight on the show for fans of the show and Star Trek/science fiction in general, and certainly comes from a rather popular Star Trek satire site (originally called Five-Minute Voyager) and used to be transcribed to Trek Nation's episode listings of Enterprise. I'll continue on, unless others feel the inverse... DrWho42 02:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

• The links should include a brief explanation of what the "Five minute" thing is. (i.e. "Five Minute Vox Sola - parody version") otherwise it might just confuse people who are perhaps expecting it to be an episode review. 23skidoo 02:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• That I'll do then... DrWho42 03:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Cool. I didn't realize there were Five Minute Doctor Whos now -- I'll have to check them out. 23skidoo 05:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know which episodes Seth McFarlane appeared in? I'd like to know. Thanks.

Image for Future Tense

The image for the episode Future Tense is from In a Mirror, Darkly. Philip Stevens 10:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions poll

There is an ongoing poll and Request for Comment at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#RfC Episode Article Naming conventions which has direct relevance to how to title the Star Trek episode articles, meaning that based on how this poll comes out, many Star Trek episodes may get moved around. All interested editors are therefore strongly encouraged to participate, to ensure that your wishes are incorporated into the consensus process. --Elonka 22:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Request Move

A Request Move affecting the naming of articles in this list is currently being conducted here. All opinions are welcome. --`/aksha 10:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Episode Numbering

I amended the entries for the episode "Fallen Hero" as per www.tv.com's episode guide, which shows it as episode 23, not 22 as originally shown in wikipedia. However, I then found the episode listing here in wikipedia which shows "Broken Bow" as episode 1, whereas www.tv.com shows it as a 2-episode story, episodes 1 and 2. Which numbering is officially correct, and what is the source for this? Rodparkes 09:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Almost two years too late, but I must ask, why tv.com when you have the official site to use? Alastairward (talk) 23:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings

Where did these numbers come from? I don't want to add citation requests for all of them, but the information needs to be verifiable and should be referenced. The fourth season does have ratings in one of the external links, but none of the others do, so are they correct and does anyone have sources? Phydend 02:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I second that. I searched around but I cannot find the source of these figures. They don't seem to be on other lists of Star Trek episodes either.DJ Barney (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When I'm finished with List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, if there aren't any sources, I'll delete the ratings when I rewrite the listings. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 21:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was I noticed that the season 1 episode articles don't seem to contain much save the plot and standard infobox. It might be an idea to merge the episode articles for each season into a more concise season page, as for Lost (season 1). The individual articles by themselves don't seem to possess notability beyond being articles on episodes of Star Trek. Any thoughts? Alastairward (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I might give them a bit of improvement. Just give me a few weeks to find some free time and I'll have a go. Dave (talk) 23:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there's not much interest in a merge at this time. -- Aatrek / _^TALK 20:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewriting the listings

I'm working to adjust the page to include writers and directors, as well as reworking the column ordering, just like I've done on List of Star Trek: The Original Series episodes. I based my changes on the featured list, List of 30 Rock Episodes. I also rewrote the entire page header, added in DVD release info (along with a picture of the Region 1 DVD set). Comments would be appreciated. Aatrek (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

JUST FYI: The link to this discussion on the proposed merger tag was faulty, linking to the article page instead of the talk page. Corrected just now. 66.102.198.220 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Having looked over the episode pages again, nobody has seemed too moved to improve them any, either that or they can't be. There's precious little other than plot on the vast majority of the episode pages, they would appear to fail to provide much in the way of notability.

Other TV franchises such as Stargate SG-1 have already had their episode articles merged into season lists (example) with a handful of notable episodes having their own articles.

I propose (following discussion on the Star Trek Wikiproject talk page) to merge our Enteprise episode articles that lack any such notability back to this page, with the seasons being branched off into articles for each as and when they expand sufficiently to merit it. WikiuserNI (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give it some more time, myself and two other editors are working on gathering sources for these articles. It is going to take a few months. Consensus has not been reached at WikiProject Star Trek in favor of merging all of them. We agreed to look for references, and if none could be found by the end of 2011 then they wold be merged. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest merging them all, certainly not any notable episodes. Many if not all of the articles for S1 have been tagged for notability already for many months. Merging doesn't prejudice against unmerging and adding content. The end of 2011 is quite a wait BTW.

I tried to knock together a quick season page for Enterprise to see how it would look. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at the project page suggested we go ahead and that it hasn't already been done due to lack of effort, not because the articles deserved to go without merging. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to just delete most of them bar the better articles (like These Are the Voyages... is a good one). What happens is that then the editors work on the few episodes at a time, add a reception section, perhaps viewership. etc etc. Once the episode is acceptable, they can then move onto another episode. This is what has happened before on wikipedia. A lot of pokémon for example used to have their own article, but all the articles were really bad. So they like merged all the articles bar a few into some List of Pokémon articles, and started working on the pokémon a couple at a time. They have subsequently re-added articles for pokémon as they went along. They now have 17 well written articles, as opposed to the heaps of crappy ones they had before. IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

We managed the same with the Animated Series, one or two episodes were quite notable even for that series (Yesteryear and The Slaver Weapon) and were afterwards unmerged and expanded. Most of the rest remain merged, at no apparent loss. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We intend to fix all of them. If they are merged a new image file will have to be re-uploaded. If they are left un-merged and given time then we will not have to find another image. We just need more time. Wikipedia does not have a deadline. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A FRIENDLY WARNING! It seems to me that user:WikiuserNI is treading dangerously close to violating Good Faith with the comment; "A quick look at the project page suggested we go ahead and that it hasn't already been done due to lack of effort..." -- User:Alpha Quadrant has clearly stated that 3 editors are working to correct this issue and unless WikiuserNI is suggesting that this is a lie any effort to declare a "lack of effort" is extremely uncollegiate. If editors are (assumed in good faith to be) working to correct issues then other editors should gracefully allow them to do so, even if the efforts are not immediately visible. It is also disturbing to me that Alpha Quadrant's apparent "begging" for more time indicates they do not understand that articles are never owned by anyone. WikiuserNI and others here should have helped them to understand that rather than letting such a misconception continue to their advantage. 66.102.198.220 (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no assumption of bad faith, a look over the Wikiproject page didn't suggest that there were a trio of editors fixing things other than AlphaQuadrant's comment. There were plenty of voices suggesting a merge.

To merge takes as much effort as to "fix" the article, I'm happy to wait for a bit. Merging can make it easier to assimilate the information regarding each episode, especially if it lacks anything more than the plot and primary actors/director. So it's not as if I'm trying to thwart Wikipedia's goals. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Opposed. I find the episode summaries quite helpful. When I'm confused about something happening in an episode, I come here to look, and I'm always satisfied with the result. Ignore all silly made-up Wikipedia rules and just focus on what's important about an encyclopedia: its usefullness. AkankshaG (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

AkankshaG, the summaries would still be there, just all on one page. For extended plot summaries, there are fan wikis and other reources. WikiuserNI (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I also oppose. Wikipedia isn't a reference tool that just gives you the bare basics and tells you to go elsewhere if you want more than that. If I want a bare minimum, I look at the main episodes page, if I want more detail I click on the episode itself. I don't think Wikipedia's philosophy is "If you don't improve it to standard X by date Y then it gets deleted until you can do so. I for one find the current versions very useful and would be sad to see them go. 207.38.187.110 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's the point through, the episode articles at present don't give you much more than an expanded plot summary. A list of episodes would perform the same task admirably. WikiuserNI (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What? Your proposal would mean we delete all of our Star Trek articles and keep a single list for each Series. Wikipedia is a Encyclopedia not a dictionary or a single sentence plot summary that you could find at Amazon. Wikipedia is not finished either, the Star Trek articles are not finished. Most are unreferenced, we need to fix these articles, instead we are proposing that the whole project be merged in to lists, redirecting people to Memory Alpha, the unreferenced wiki. This is lazy, we should actually try and look for sources, instead we are using excuses like "WikiProject Stargate did it". Well they were lazy, rather than fix their articles, they merged them in to short one-sentence "summaries". Our project has less than five featured articles, why? Because we aren't collaborating to fix the articles. The one Stargate episode the project actually tried to fix 200 (Stargate SG-1) is really good. We could make really good articles if we all worked together. Or we could make 10 or so lists, call it good, and disband WikiProject Star Trek. If we choose the latter why don't also propose the merging of Captain Kirk to List of Star Trek characters. According to WP:NOT wikipedia is not a list. Now I know what people are going to say next, "We aren't going to merge all of them, just the ones with all plot and are 'not notable'." Well if we fixed the article it wouldn't be all plot. What defines notability from one episode to another? How much you personally liked it? Another possibility is a excuse "The reason the Stargate Episode 200 is featured is because it was the 200th episode anniversary and that's what made the difference from normal articles" That may be, but most of the references cited are episode reviews. So when you say episode reviews don't help prove notability you are incorrect. Now I know what's next, you're going to call me a bad editor, not good for Wikipedia, claiming page ownership, and the list goes on, well I am not. I am trying to fix the articles and would like some help. I don't like being criticized because I am fixing the articles. I know the reason you are criticizing me, because if I fix the article with reliable sources then I prove notability, and you want the articles merged, so you don't want that to happen. In the WP:Merge it states that if a article has the potential to become a good article then it should not be merged because it is not currently "good enough". --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You know what I'm going to say next Alpha? So you know in advance I'm going to mention that the 200th episode of Stargate had "won the 2007 Constellation Award for Best Overall 2006 Science Fiction Film or Television Script, and was nominated for the 2007 Hugo Award for Best Dramatic Presentation, Short Form. Richard Dean Anderson also won a SyFy Genre Award for his guest appearance in the episode." Unless every episode of the series was so awarded, then yes, this episode is more notable than the norm.

I won't address the rest of your complaint against me, it being I believe, a heap of straw men. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

And merging all articles would be against the purpose of a list, to help users navigate between articles, not becoming the articles. Lists have no substance, and merging all Star Trek articles would be against policy Wikipedia:LSC#Lead and selection criteria. It states, if the articles on the list are not notable enough to have their own articles, they the list isn't notable enough to have, unless the list has significant sources. Which this list does not, so I guess if all of the articles are merged here then the first criteria fails, and since we don't have sources here we fail the second criteria. SO it appears we will likely be deleting most all of our articles. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

All we need to do is apply Wikipedia:Manual of Style (television) Support merging any episode article where an "allplot" tag has been applied and no changes have been made for a significant period of time (say, 3 months). If someone wants to read episode summaries, there are other resources for that, and that content isn't encyclopedic and fails to demonstrate that the episode is notable. Doniago (talk) 19:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe I had linked on the Wikiproject page to a season list (not just a simple list of episodes) for Enterprise that I had created in my userspace (here we are) that would be more than a simple list. Other TV series have such pages, why not Star Trek? WikiuserNI (talk) 10:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Deletionistic Vandalism Comparison of the stated reasons for this proposal with the results would tend to indicate, at best, magical or wishful thinking about article improvement. The proposal is in practice not a merger proposal but a wide scale deletion of articles rationalised with various hocus pocus group dynamic theorising, wishful thinking, intellectualised rationalisations and perhaps worst of all a presupposition that an individual editor can credibly justifify unilateral deletion of content in its entirety based upon a misrepresentation of the character of the change (merging rather than wide scale deletion) and a flimsy appeal to misapplied standards. A merger, by definition, would involve substantial reproduction of content from the source article to the target article, this has not occured, in fact article content has been simply deleted and replaced with redirects. In law the predicable consequences of behaviour can be taken as a sign of intent as can the actual results. In this case the content of the articles has not improved, in fact it has simply been deleted. Judging by the evidence of the actions of the main proponent and the resulting articles then in practice the results vary from the stated justifications only in that content has not improved but simply been deleted. If the intent of the proposal were to improve article content as claimed rather than delete it then it has not achieved that goal and the ensuing deletions and redirects should therefore be immediately reversed and remain that way. --Theo Pardilla (talk) 04:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're failing to AGF here, especially given that the proposal originally came up in June and no changes were made until practically October. There was plenty of time for article improvement to occur, and from the few I monitor, no significant changes occurred, particularly in terms of establishing notability. In any case, it's not at all appropriate to call Good Faith edits Vandalism, and if you had such problems with the changes I'd be curious as to why you waited until now to express your opinion. Might I ask how you would have gone about improving the individual articles? Doniago (talk) 07:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• 'Oppose merger There is no reason to merge. You don't get to eliminate an article, simply because you don't like how it is written. Dream Focus 12:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - Just because they are written poorly doesn't mean they require merging. There was no consensus for merging it was split 50/50. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait upon recounting the consensus was 2 in favor and 5 against. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 14:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The rationale for merging was put forward sometime ago and there was ample time to discuss and improve the articles. While discussion took place, nothing was done to improve the articles in that time. Those who support stand alone articles have promised work that has not appeared, have promised sources that have not been cited and have complained about brief episode summaries that are more than taken care of by Memory Alpha.

There is no real rationale to keep standalone articles other than to look upon consensus as a simple head count. The editors who popped in and said no steered clear of the articles after that time. Alpha Quadrant, the most vocal of those editors, contributed by adding cites that reiterated the plot of one episode and nothing more. Other editors simply complained and removed the notability tags without addressing them. WikiuserNI (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, this was a good merger. The "usefulness" of the plot summaries isn't particularly relevant. Per various other TV series wikiprojects and overall discussion on characters and episodes: individually notable episodes (e.g. pilots, cliffhangers, others for which there is significant real-world information) are appropriate to stand alone; otherwise, this kind of list is great. --EEMIV (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• After doing some searching I found that some of the episodes had been nominated and even won Emmy awards. Added in that information in for the season one episodes. Dream Focus 04:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd doubt the notability of a mere nomination (I'd go so far as to doubt the notability of a hairdresing award too). From what I can see, it's not every episode too, so that could be very nicely added to the season page. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Different episodes were nominated for best makeup(for the aliens), best hair, and best visual effects, they winning some of them. Dream Focus 23:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the awards to the season page, two episodes, two wins and two nominations. I hadn't even merged one of those episodes (Broken Bow) either, in anticipation that a series première would have more of a critical response to write about. So that's two episodes then.

Is there anything with something notable that actually needs an article page to expand upon the notability? Something like the TOS episode The City on the Edge of Forever, which wasn't just award winning, but has extensive coverage which would be missed on a simple list. In comparison, there's not much to say about an Emmy won for hair dressing is there? WikiuserNI (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support the merger of all episode articles that can't make any claim to notability/real-world specialness after a while (e.g. three months). Episodes with major award nominations should be given more time (e.g. a year), and I wouldn't mind if award-winning episodes or very special episodes for other reasons (there should not be more than a handful of them) get allowed to stay for years. That's what worked for merge proposals for the episode wiki coverage of many other TV shows here. It's not an option to keep policy- and guideline-violating episode articles around forever; either interested editors start improving the articles significantly now and continue doing that (this still doesn't seem to be the case), or they'll have to allow other editors to clean this up in faster ways (i.e. merging). – sgeureka ^t•c 08:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose merger per the recent consensus at AFD that the article be kept. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

A keep at an AfD doesn't preclude a merge of that or indeed any other article on the proposed merge list. There were quite a few merge votes on that AfD too remember. WikiuserNI (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: I also oppose merger per AfD close and closing statement, "Significant comments from multiple editors assert and have shown there is enough reliable secondary source coverage to retain, and improve, this article." BTW, OT: if anyone can help me find a picture of Jacob Hyer, I would appreciate it, I think its a good DYK candidate I just put together.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 15:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Broadcast dates

Why are many air/broadcast dates listed as "unknown" when they are given in the episodes' separate articles.

Since they're given/known there, why aren't they given/listed here?

Seems rather dumb. 2600:8800:785:9400:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 09:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In-universe dates

There are a lot of episodes with a date listed as "Unknown".

Some of these episodes are not blank slates. For instance, episode 4 contains dialogue along the lines of "3 weeks in deep space, and..." implying that this episode occurs on approximately May 7, 2151. How should this sort of approximate information be recorded?

I propose

No. overall	No. in season	Title	Date	Directed by	Written by	Original air date	Prod. code	U.S. viewers (millions)
4	4	"Strange New World"	c. May 7, 2151 (2151-05-07)	David Livingston	Story by : Rick Berman & Brannon Braga Teleplay by : Mike Sussman & Phyllis Strong	October 10, 2001 (2001-10-10)	40358-004	7.81