Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
Is Daniels Starfleet? If so, shouldn't his uniform style be included in the page which shows the various uniforms worn in starfleet? zsingaya 20:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
- It might be an unique uniform only for certain people. I'm not sure, but I know the uniforms on the timeship USS Relativity from the 29th century are much more like 24th-century uniforms than they are like Daniels' uniform. They might have undergone an EXTREMELY DRASTIC redesign in those 2 centuries, but I doubt it, if they remained roughly the same for the 500 or more years before then. My theory is that Daniels' uniform is more like a spacesuit for time-travelers than it is a uniform. But then, it could just be the producers of Enterprise ignoring continuity and being stupid like they always do. --Malimar 03:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- We really don't know that he works for the UFP, though. We're assuming it, because he seems like a nice fella and a helpful one, but that isn't a known quantity by any means. -- Sci 20:13, 31 August 2005 (EST)
- Unless you count the fact that he was determined to stop Archer from killing himself so he could play his part in founding the Federation and was quite bothered by the fact the the Federation had been removed from the timeline. It is quite likely he does represent the Federation. – Fadm tyler 03:50, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Daniels from an alternate timeline? In his timeline the Battle of Procyon V happened and the destruction of the Spheres didn't happen. Yet in 'our' universe, the Spheres are destroyed and there is no Expanse in TNG, DS9 etc. Also, his people had no idea about the Xindi weapon destroying Florida and Venezuela so he must be in an alternate timeline. Why then does he appear at the end of Storm Front, surely he shouldn't have existed after everything had been corrected, the Spheres et al.?
- I can see why you might think he belonged to an alternate timeline, but the writers would seem to have us believe that he actually belonged to 'our' timeline. After 'our' timeline was altered by the Xindi attack and what-not, Daniels in effect became a part of that timeline, although it took some, um... time. As Daniels stated in "Carpenter Street", the changes in the timeline caused by the Xindi & the Sphere Builders would take a while to "ripple" through the timeline and reach the 31st century. We're supposed to assume that change happened by the time the Battle of Procyon V was shown, and Daniels was now integrated into the "changed" timeline, which was now 'our' timeline, so in effect isn't an alternate timeline. And if that made any sense to you, then please, feel free to explain it to me sometime. :P --From Andoria with Love 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, it's magic! Seriously, I think Daniels explains it better in Shockwave, Part II where he tells Archer he's "treating time-travel like some H.G. Wells novel," and it's not. So in effect; all of the paradoxes we see come from what limited understanding we, from the early 21st century, have of how time works. Much like how Newton could never predict the effects of relativity (time and distance dilation with a massive increase in momentum due to change in mass) from near-light speeds (i.e. greater than 90% light speed is when such effects get extremely pronounced). Did that help Shran? -Lord Hyren 07:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
second picture Edit
Shouldn't it say thirty-first century under the second picture instead of 2154 because he's from the future and it eas taken in the future. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk).
- Actually, he wasn't in any year... he was within the time stream. --From Andoria with Love 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's how he appeared to Archer in 2154, so... I don't know. I don't really think it matters one way or another. :/ --From Andoria with Love 05:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Iconian gateway speculation Edit
The following speculation was removed from the article. --From Andoria with Love 02:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- Judging from the fact that Captain Jonathan Archer and others have traveled to different points of space and time instantaneously just by walking through a doorway, it is possible that in the 31st century, the Federation has access to a temporal equivalent of the Iconian gateway technology, where they can make an invisible gateway appear wherever (and whenever) they set it to and then set the destination to where they want the travelers to go to.
I'm taking this out,
Sounds like speculation to me. -Angry Future Romulan 21:24, April 27, 2010 (UTC)
for the same reason. -Angry Future Romulan 16:32, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
In ENT: "Cold Front", Archer explicitly asks Daniels if he's human. Daniels says something like, "More or less." For his species, then, shouldn't it say either "near-human," "human hybrid" or "unknown"? Something along those lines? -Randy (talk) 19:29, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
- I think "Near Human" would be best, maybe with a footnote in the background section. -- Compvox (talk) 21:33, November 20, 2014 (UTC)
- If there are no objections, I'm going to change it to "Near Human". -- Compvox (talk) 10:19, December 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Replaced "Milamber3" with my current handle "Compvox". -- Compvox (talk) 11:45, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
Is "Daniels (Crewman)" really the best title? He only posed as a crewman very briefly before revealing himself as being a temporal agent. I feel like "Daniels (Temporal Agent)" would be more accurate, and more likely to be what people would look for over Crewman. Dystyyy (talk) 14:02, December 10, 2015 (UTC)
- To be honest, they'd likely look for "Daniels" in the search bar. See "temporal agent" right near the top... and go for that, which would lead them to... here. The disambiguated "daniels" all come under that in the search. -- sulfur (talk) 14:05, December 10, 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I completely understand your point. Wouldn't having the direct title of the article be what they would be looking for be more efficient than them having to use a disambig page? Dystyyy (talk) 02:04, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
- "Daniels" will exist as a disambiguation page because there are multiple ones with the same name.
- If someone searches for "Daniels", the disambiguation page comes first, then "Daniels' database", "Temporal agent", then the various disambiguations of such.
- Any of the first three takes a person to this page one step away. Also, "Crewman" is how he introduced himself and was generally known. Finally, "Crewman" is a much shorter disambiguation than "temporal agent" (which is what it would be).
- That's really my point there. -- sulfur (talk) 02:43, December 12, 2015 (UTC)