Talk:Regeneration (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Comments

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)

Notability

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.Seaphoto^Talk 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 reliable secondary 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Regeneration (Star Trek: Enterprise)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ed! (talk · contribs) 23:43, 19 March 2013 (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.

• I put a link to The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation) in a bracket after that as it was my intention to be a direct reference. As you say, its better to make this clear. Miyagawa (talk) 13:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• "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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Regeneration (Star Trek: Enterprise). 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/20120606094732/http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=cKCQIK3.1khuc to http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=cKCQIK3.1khuc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225024023/http://www.briantyler.com/Site/Star_Trek_Enterprise.html to http://www.briantyler.com/Site/Star_Trek_Enterprise.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041227212549/http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=MPmr4PKrJ.Er2 to http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=MPmr4PKrJ.Er2
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/tv/ratings/cl-et-ratingstext13may14%2C0%2C2535362.story?coll=cl-tvratings

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi,

I just reverted two out the last three edits (good call on the Wolf 359 stuff), as one was a deletion because it was uncited and the other was a deletion of a cited item. Firstly the uncited section was in the lead - which summarised a cited part of the article which was still there after you removed the bit from the lead. Secondly, there was a physical model of the Enterprise-E built, except it was only used for First Contact. This is even cited in the First Contact article here. It was only from Insurrection on that they went all CGI. Miyagawa (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)