Memory Alpha

Talk:Jonathan Archer/archive

Back to page | < Talk:Jonathan Archer

41,674pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page

Archer's biographyEdit

Here's the timeline of Archer's career from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II":

  • Rank at Retirement: Admiral, Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
  • Commanding officer, Enterprise NX-01 2150-2160
  • Ambassador to Andoria 2169-2175
  • Federation Councilman 2175-2183
  • President, UFP 2184-2192

Hi-rez screen caps rock.--Chuckhoffmann 07:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dang right they do! Does this mean that this info. is canon completely, as in at those pages (i.e.: Federation President) we can add that Archer was president from 2184-2192? And so on for Ambassadors, Federation Council, exc? -AJHalliwell 16:55, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I listened to Mirror Darkly, Part II Commentary at and Mike Sussman stated that he included on his Bio a Serial number did anyone see that on their Hi-rez screen caps. Rl3058
Here is the full text of the bio from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" It was posted on the web by episode writer Mike Susman. He went on to say that it was hastily put together and went through no forms of approval by the higher ups. The section in italics was not shown on screen.
  • Serial Number: SA-022-9237-CY
  • Rank at retirement: Admiral, Chief of Staff, Starfleet Command
  • Former Assignments:
    • Commanding officer, Enterprise NX-01, 2150-2160
    • Ambassador to Andoria, 2169-2175
    • Federation Councilman, 2175-2183
    • President, UFP 2184-2192
  • Birthplace: Upstate New York, North America, Earth
  • Parents: Henry and Sally Archer

"Son of famed warp specialist Henry Archer, Jonathan Archer was appointed captain of Starfleet's first warp five starship, Enterprise NX-01. As an explorer and peacemaker, his name is among the most recognized in the Federation, and his pioneering voyages aboard the Enterprise are known to school children on dozens of worlds, many of which were unknown to humans in Archer's lifetime. Historian John Gill called Archer the "greatest explorer of the 22nd Century." Archer earned an impressive list of commendations during his career, including a Medal of Valor, with clusters, the Star Cross, the Preantares Ribbon of Commendation, and the Federation Citation of Honor. Archer was also appointed an honorary member of the Andorian Guard by General Thy'lek Shran in 2164. He's the only Human to have two planets named in his honor: Archer's Planet in the Gamma Trianguli sector, and Archer IV, which orbits 61 Ursae Majoris. Archer IV was the first M-Class world charted by the famous explorer. Although the planet was uninhabitable throughout the 22nd Century due to toxic pollen in the atmosphere, an antidote to the pollen was discovered early in the 2200's. Today, the population of Archer IV numbers more than seven hundred million."
"Archer died peacefully in his home in upstate New York in the year 2245, exactly one day after attending the christening ceremony of the first Federation Starship Enterprise, NCC-1701."

--docdude316 03:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe the rule of thumb regarding on-screen text is that it's canon unless contradicted by dialogue. For example, Geordi's bio in "The Next Phase" gave his mother's name as Alvera K. La Forge but "Interface" established her name to be Silva La Forge.
One major exception to this would be the registry number of the USS Yamato, which was given the registry NCC-1305-E in dialogue in "Where Silence Has Lease" but was given a more consistent registry number on screen readouts in "Contagion". The preceding unsigned comment was added by T smitts (talk).

Johnny's Rank Edit

I thought he was promoted to Admiral when Enterprise returned to Earth. Aren't those Admiral pips on his uniform at the end of TATV? Emerald Knight 03:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

They still refer to him as Captain and there's the line "I've heard he's already been tapped for admiral" which indicates he's not at that rank yet. He still wears four pips in TATV which indicate Captain's rank, though the dress uniform with the high collar does make him look a lot more important, so maybe that's where the confusion came from. Jean Prouvaire 01:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)


Can someone make it clear what it is that neads attention? I am willing to work on the page, If I have an idea what Memory Alpha is looking for. -- User:Terran Officer Sept 19, 2005. 6:48pm EST

I'm sure this could use more info on his tenure as commander of the Enterprise. Also needed is more info on his relationships, including those with his Enterprise crew (and Porthos!) I will probably be writing info for Trip Tucker, the Ericksons, and Porthos in the near future, though. --From Andoria with Love 01:04, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
The recent revision made by an anon needs to be fixed, as it includes some info that can be taken as personal opinions. In fact, the article in its entirety needs work -- grammar, spelling and what not. Some info is also told in the wrong perspective. --From Andoria with Love 16:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just curiousEdit

Did the character Johnathon Archer or the Enterprise he commanded "exist" before Star Trek: Enterprise? The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Short answer, no. The character or Archer wasn't reference before Enterprise, although he has been sort of ret-conned into it. For example, in TNG: "Yesterday's Enterprise", we here of a planet called Archer IV, which we learn in Enterprise, was named for the captain. Also, in Nemesis, we see a okodogram listing the USS Archer, obviously an attempt to make some reference to him. I hope this helps. --Jaz talk | novels 06:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Schenectady Edit

Several references to "Upstate New York" were just changed to "Schenectady, New York", which apparently is a small city in NY state. Is there any canon reference to that city (in that case, cite), or is this speculation based on something (in that case, move to background info), or is it fan-fiction (in that case, remove). I will change those references back to "Upstate New York" if there's no explanation given. -- Cid Highwind 14:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Archer's Wikipedia page claims that Schenectady is mentioned in the section of his biography not seen on-screen but created for "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II", the paragraph regarding his death. --Defiant 14:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
We have a paragraph on this talk page that was not shown on-screen and meets that description, but does not support Schenectady:
  • Archer died peacefully in his home in upstate New York in the year 2245, exactly one day after attending the christening ceremony of the first Federation Starship Enterprise, NCC-1701.
I say it gets removed, unless someone can come up with the actual source. --OuroborosCobra talk 14:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The reference was removed. Never was a specific city or town in New York named as his birthplace. --From Andoria with Love 03:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And it seems to be back... --TommyRaiko 20:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed it again, and before I get accused by someone of too many "reversions" (long story), I am not the person who removed it the first time, Shran was. Since he removed it, no further evidence has been presented to support the claim, therefore I have removed it again. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You did the right thing, Cobra. I'll go ahead and alert the anon who keeps posting the information; if he continues to do so afterwords without a canon, valid source, I'll revert it again and then protect the article from being edited by non-registered users. --From Andoria with Love 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The New York thing Edit

Is the only reference to Archer being born in New York the above-quoted Sussman-written graphic from "In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II"? If so isn't it made non-canonical by the "Broken Bow" dialogue in which he flatly tells Phlox that he's lived in San Francisco all his life? CzechOut | 13:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. I know people born in England that were brought up in Canada. They state that they've lived in Canada all their lives... even though that's not precisely true. -- Sulfur 14:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Found the exact (dialogue) source of the claim ("North Star"); changed article slightly to make it more clear. As the pilot, "Broken Bow" tends to loom a little larger than a mid-3rd season episode, so it's probably helpful to some users (and certainly to me) to make it absolutely clear the NY thing isn't just a Sussman pen-scratching in the waning days of the program. CzechOut | 01:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Archer also said he was from upstate New York in "Storm Front, Part II". --From Andoria with Love 02:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Opening quoteEdit

I added an opening quote to this page, which I feel is appropriate, but I am, of course, open to suggestions if anyone thinks there's a better quote that can be used. -Angry Future Romulan 16:37, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Removed uncited background infoEdit

I've removed the following uncited bg info as I'm unable to find sources for them:

Bakula stated (half-jokingly) that he thought that Archer's middle name was Beckett. This is a reference to Dr. Sam Beckett, a character that Bakula is well known for having played in the television series Quantum Leap prior to taking up his role on Enterprise.
Archer's first name was originally to have been "Jackson", but eventually the name was switched to "Jonathan", as research turned up exactly one person with the name of "Jackson Archer."

-- TrekFan Talk 16:20, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Peer reviewEdit

General Peer Review CommentsEdit

Moved from Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles.

I'd like to put the article, Jonathan Archer, up for nomination simply because it's a very well-written article and fully comprehensive. As far as I can tell, it includes everything about the man aswell as a nice background section. -- TrekFan Talk 15:38, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

  • Objection: Some of the background notes require citations. --Defiant 16:10, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I've removed the uncited info and placed it onto the article talk page until we can find sources for the points mentioned. I was unable to locate anything after an internet search. -- TrekFan Talk 16:22, January 21, 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It is interesting as I was going to make some serious edits to this article as I didnt think it adhered to our standards. For specific objections see below:
1) The Contents table looks disorganized and too long. We jump from Year One and Two, to Klingons and then Delphic Expanse and then Moral Conflicts and then Homecoming. Yes, the Xindi were in the Delphic Expanse but the main point of that arc was Xindi, not Delphic Expanse. The header should reflect that. Moral Conflict also doesnt belong right before the return home, it is a personality trait issue and not a sub-section to duties/events on Enterprise.
2) The "Moral Conflicts" section needs an expansion to include, for example, the wraith they met on "Rogue Planet" and the dilemma he faced with respect to saving them.
3) The "Relationships" section need some organizing. His dog is listed in there. I think Porthos should have a Header of his own right above relationships or something, not right next to Trip Reed and T'Pol. He had a special relationship with his dog, his buddy, but it is a pet and not en par with friendships he developed with people. Also, some of these "relationships" listed are essentially summaries of one episode (see "The Ericksons" which is just a synopsis of "Daedalus" or A.G. Robinson - "First Flight"). Those people, while relevant to Archer, appeared in one episode only and a summary of who they are and how they influenced him belongs into the "Early Years in Starfleet" or "Early years" sections or something on his life prior to Enterprise. Not every person he knew needs to be listed in that section separately.
4) The "Romance" section is entirely too long and unnecessarily so. There is no need to list and mention every woman who breathed on him as a romantic interest (like Keyla who wasnt even romantically interested in him but wanted info on the Suliban. Or Rajin: so she touched him to figure out his anatomy. She did the same thing with T'Pol. Can hardly call it romantic interest. Or Navaar who got his hormones going and manipulated all men on the ship, not just Archer etc). These sections are not only already mentioned in the text before, but they also dont qualify as separate "Romance" sections for reasons mentioned above. They are essentially one liners or episode summaries (see Navaar).
5) There is also no need to have two T'Pol sections - one for romance and one for friendship. They can be merged and his brief attraction to her mentioned accordingly. They were friends and colleagues.
6) It's lacking an Apocrypha section
7) Arguably, the Appearances section is unnecessary. He appeared in every episode but ok.
8) Misses a Personal Interests section
9) Misses a Alternate realities and timelines section. That stuff is thrown into the text somewhere, but should have its own section for completeness and better overview.
10) The headers need to conform to MA standards (only first word in caps etc) and some, like homecoming should be rewritten to more appropriate names.
11) More images needed. The latter half of the article is empty of images.
12) Overall, many sections need copy-editing. As mentioned, the article is not very well organized, has questionable choice of vocabulary and grammar (too much to list individually).

So in summary, I disagree that this qualifies as the "best work of MA". We have done better, much better and this article needs some serious improvement. No one is asking it to be perfect, but an FA needs to not seriously lack so much. It needs some reorganizing, rewriting, expansion and editing. – Distantlycharmed 18:27, January 21, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I've worked on points 1), 2) and 3) though I don't believed Porthos should have his own complete section; I believe he seems to fit in the "friends" bit albeit this could require a bit more expansion. I will work on the other sections and post back here. -- TrekFan Talk 14:37, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Note: Item 6 (apocrypha) is not required for any article on Memory Alpha and its existence or lack thereof should in no way reflect on its featured status. Also, an appearances section is a good thing to have, since it immediately indicates to the reader that, yes, Archer was in every episode (although, strictly speaking, he wasn't in the mirror episodes). Oh, and mentioned in the new movie too. -- sulfur 15:10, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I have now added the alternate realities and timelines section to the article and expanded the Porthos section too. Archer's personal interests are in his "Early life" section in much the same way Jean-Luc Picard's are in his "Personal life" section so I do not believe we should need a separate section for that. A couple more images have also been added. DC, would you like to comment on the article now? -- TrekFan Talk 15:32, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Note: The format as presented by DC isn't required per se either, since there is no real established standard. A number of articles do use that format, but that just makes it a standard, not the standard. That said, this article was/is in need of some reformatting, but we neither need, or want, every article to be a cookie cutter formula affair, since not all sections would make sense depending on the subject. - Archduk3 15:41, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I understand that, but I did agree with some points DC raised if not all of them. Is there anything you believe should be added/changed with this article, Archduk3? -- TrekFan Talk 15:56, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Trek Fan let me re-read and I'll comment. Keep in mind that the question here is: does this article represent the best work of MA and the answer is no it does not - for obvious reasons. It could use a rewrite of some sections/recognizing etc. to represent the best work of MA. I also disagree with the Apocrypha section not being needed. On the one hand you argue that an Appearance section is needed for a series regular, but the Apocrypha section where briefly non-canon works and the fate of a character are mentioned, is not needed? Especially in a character page? Someone who reads about a character might be interested to know what happened to them in non-canon works. Yes, they can go to MB for that, but that's not the point, is it? The point is to get it all here and for more go to MB and other sources. Anyway, an FA needs to stand out and be complete. This is not a race. It reflects on us as MA if we take an article in need of serious copy editing and reorganizing and feature it as our best work. If you are going for the "what's the minimum required to pass" kind of attitude - which is what I am seeing in sulfur's and especially Duke's comment - then you might as well FA 20,000 articles on MA because they all minimally adhere to what is required. – Distantlycharmed 16:51, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
All of this commentary suggests that this should be a peer review rather than an outright nomination. -- sulfur 17:25, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: sulfur: agreed. @ TrekFan: I noticed writing the friendship section of Trip that it ends with "Cogenitor". Nothing about what happened to the two men after season 2 (i.e. during xindi attack and season 4 with Trip leaving the ship etc) is mentioned. The same thing is true for most of the friendship sections, they need expansion. It says, for example, he "opened up to Travis" but doesn't say how and why. Stuff like that. It definitely looks better than before - especially the organization of the sections and renaming of the headers, but I would suggest going through each section - one by one - re-reading it, expanding and/or rewriting/copy-editing where needed - and it is needed. I unfortunately dont have time to do it all, or it wouldnt get done as soon as you'd like it, but I can try if i find the time. – Distantlycharmed 17:26, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Well, in that case, perhaps this should be moved to a peer review? I would be up for doing that before re-nomination. DC, if you could work on those areas you think are missing/incomplete and let me know when you have done so, I can go through it again and try and add some more references to areas that are lacking? -- TrekFan Talk 17:35, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: RE:TrekFan, mainly some basic reformatting, which is mostly done already, and further detail, not the removal of, for sections and what not. The point I was trying to get across was that covering the subject well in canon is more important than laying out the article in some supposed required format. That said, I'm just going to move this whole thing to a peer review article, since we have already covered far more ground than most peer reviews. - Archduk3 17:56, January 22, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's a wise thing to do, Archduk3. Some things have been pointed out here and do need working on before it goes up for re-nomination. I agree that detail is more important than layout, though I also have to agree with DC's first point that some sections were laid out a bit confusing. I believe the layout is better now, though. If there's any more detail that needs to be added to the article, I'm sure we can work on that here. -- TrekFan Talk 18:54, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

Relationships section Edit

I have expanded Trips section considerably and also added more images to it. I will work on getting more info for the other characters in the relationship part aswell. I don't foresee theirs being as long as Trips though. I'd appreciate any comments. -- TrekFan Open a channel 03:06, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

There's room for improvement with Hoshi's section, as there are either details missing or glossed over. Also, {{ENT}} is not a valid reference for the Porthos section. - Archduk3 19:35, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to work on each of the relationships in turn when I get time to do so, that is, if no-one beats me to it. As for the Porthos thing, all I can say is "oops!", I must have forgotten to put an episode in there. My bad. -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:09, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Romance sectionEdit

I removed most of the people from the romance section, except for Hernandez. Let's face it. Archer's life was his mission and he just didnt get involved with anyone in all these 4 years. I wish he had, but he didnt. So, I moved some of his earlier acquaintances to "Early life" - as some if it were flings it seems or just mere memories of a random person. I dont think they require separate sections as they were not part of his present or major Trek/series characters. However, if you think they should, by all means. Also, Rajin and Keyla etc were not romantic interests or even flings by any stretch of the imagination. Keyla didnt evne like Archer. So just something to keep in mind. Please feel free to edit accordingly Distantlycharmed 18:53, January 26, 2011 (UTC).

I think that works, actually. The minor romances are mentioned in the early life which fits fine, and yes I think you were right in placing Erika as the main person in the romances section. -- TrekFan Open a channel 19:06, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
We are not here to judge what is important enough or not, we simply report what is known. If we don't include everybody in at least some manner, there's no point in having this section at all. - Archduk3 19:35, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
What I think DC means is, the "romance" between Rajiin for example wasn't really a romance at all, whereas Erika Hernandez was explicity stated to be. The "crushes" he had in his early life have been placed into the early life section as they aren't two-way romances either. -- TrekFan Open a channel 19:44, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Erika is only being given more weight because we saw some of it on screen, and that breaks our POV. Archer dated and asked a women to marry him, which sounds a little more serious then some fling he had with Erika, but it isn't covered because it was a one way crush he had? That wasn't what was said in the episode, or even what the article says happened. As for the others, just because some is using you doesn't mean that there wasn't some romantic feelings on his part, and Archer is the focus of the article, not our preconceived notions on what qualifies as a romance. - Archduk3 19:57, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I see your point on the woman he asked to marry him. By all means, that should definately be in there. As for the others, they are mentioned in the body of the article, but I guess the issue is we need to discuss whether they should definately be put back in the romances section? -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:07, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm asking what the point is of a section that says it covers romance while selectively not covering said content. There's no guideline that says we even need a romance section, so if we aren't going to actually cover it, why have the section at all? It's not like briefly mentioning everyone is hurting when we strive to be as "complete" as possible. - Archduk3 20:19, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, Archduk3. How would you propose we strucute this section? Do we put everyone he's ever had feelings for, or only substantial ones (i.e. his supposed wife and Hernandez)?. -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:29, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Archer didnt have any romantic relationships in these four years, so we are sort of digging through the gravel to get something out to put in the obligatory romance section - a division, Duke, which you stated last time above is not necessarily needed as you dont like the "ccokie cutter approach". Now we are doing away with the cookie cutter approach, and you still complain it isnt enough? No one did away with the fiancee from the past, if you noted, it is in the text still but not under a separate Romance rubric. It was early on in his life and we routinely place such information in the Early Life section of a character's profile page. So in short, that info wasnt omitted it just is not enough to warrant an entire section devoted to it imo. It's like giving AF, the girl whose initials Picard carved on a tree while in Starfleet Academy and on whose account he almost failed O-chem, her very own section under "Romance". It is not necessary and overkill. It becomes a matter of style at some point. We shouldnt just do random information dumping. Finally, there is no question about Rajin and Keyla (and the Orion girl) not being romantic interests - unless you call sexual arousal romantic interest. Archer hoped to have a fling with Keyla who used him for info and then drugged him and Rajin turned him on but also touched T'Pol the same way she touched Archer, and she doesnt get a separate romance section in T'Pol's profile page. There was no Romance. They were women, he is a man who likes women. This would go under a "Sexual Attraction" section. Maybe we should insert Hoshi Sato. I remember there was that one time he touched her like he wanted her... Distantlycharmed 20:29, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

RE:TrekFan - Since all the information in the romance section is already covered, or should be, in the article proper, and there just isn't much info there to begin with, the section should be removed completely. The only reason to have it here is to summarize what's in the article anyway, since unlike other characters the section will not be going further in depth, since there isn't any depth to go into; therefor, we don't need it and shouldn't have it, unless we include everyone. - Archduk3 20:44, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
If it's going to cause a debate, I suggest we do remove the section entirely and place the information in the relevant sections within the article? Surely, that's a good compromise? And the info is still there. -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:48, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

What is this 8th grade? Unless everyone gets a piece of candy, no one is? Lighten up. We should go by common sense. Hernandez is just about the only one he had significant screen time with and with whom he rekindled his relationship. That should be mentioned. You cant say that unless every hormonal jump brought on by the opposite sex is documented in a separate section, no one can be documented. Now if i had said there should be a romance section for everyone, I bet you would have argued there shouldnt be. Distantlycharmed 20:50, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Hey DC, I can see merits of both points of view. What I'm saying is we incorporate the references into the main article to avoid further debate as a compromise. The information would still be there. -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:59, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that if it is in fact what the majority wants, I just dont like the "I am going to oppose you out of principle cause i dont like you" attitude I am seeing here. That's completely uncalled for and just creates a lousy culture. Distantlycharmed 21:11, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

DC, I have never said I don't like you. I was just proposing a compromise to satisfy both points of view. -- TrekFan Open a channel 21:16, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, didnt mean you...Distantlycharmed 21:27, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

This clearly is all about DC, didn't you know? Nothing here has anything to do with writing an encyclopedia. We, and by "we" I mean the admins who are nothing but a homogeneous group of unrestrained bourgeoisie who spend all their spare time unfairly persecuting her, the proletariat in this little masochistic fantasy, clearly set up this website five years ago to do nothing but belittle people like, and in particular, her. It doesn't matter what supposed subject we are discussing, "we," clearly, are always wrong and are only arguing with her because we are very bad people. It also doesn't matter that "we" have said things clearly to the contrary, things must always conform to this, the only scenario. No one here hates DC, "we" do admire her dedication to this fantasy though, since she clearly won't give it up until it stops being a fantasy and becomes reality. I'm sure a few more months of pointless soapbox posts about how "we" are just a bunch of jerks will make a good number of the regular users "hate" her, as much as anyone can hate words on a screen, but NONE of this has ANYTHING to do with the article at hand, but clearly something must be said.
So for the record, I feel nothing for DC, since I'm an adult reading words from someone I'm never going to have to deal with in real world. I start every "discussion" with her, and pretty much everyone here for that matter, as a new interaction. We, and by "we" I mean everyone who will ever read this, have to keep having this discussion because she won't or can't understand that none of this is personal.
With that said, can someone let me know when we can we get back to the actual topic at hand, since I don't have any more time to waste on DC's insecurities and problems. - Archduk3 21:56, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Dont patronize me. You know exactly what I am/was talking about and your attitude and behavior toward me. So do some other folks, by the way, who have noticed certain attitudes around here but lucky for you, have just been too polite to point it out. Some of the stuff I see happening here - especially attitudes towards newbies or when they express their opinions etc. - is seriously lacking. Just a few weeks ago you blocked a well meaning, regular user for no apparent reason (no real policy violation I could see) in favor of your friends and couldnt give any reasons as to why and in fact turned snide and sardonic when asked to justify it. You said something like "that's how it is, deal with it it". So dont act like it's all in my head. I am quite capable of discerning when someone is making objective comments on something or when they say something just to have said something - mainly because they have a personal issue with someone. So forgive me if I find you lack objectivity when it comes to me. Finally, the issue at hand is resolved. We will remove the Romance section as suggested above. Distantlycharmed 22:34, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

I believe it's OK that the separate "Romance" section has now been removed (stubby as it was) - but the way the various romances have been moved to other parts of the text is less than optimal. For example, there's a section titled "Early Years in Starfleet", which starts with detailing two different relationships that have nothing at all to do with life in Starfleet. That needs to be fixed (copyediting is more than just moving text around...). -- Cid Highwind 16:55, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I re-added the Romance section because as Cid mentioned, whatever romance he did have is sort of misplaced in the text on his early Starfleet life and unless it has a designated section, it will just drown somehwere in there. I re-added but without the pesky and unnecessary division by name since we really only have very little info about them - like he got drunk at a bar one night etc. This way it is all in one place and no one love is discriminated against or viewed as less relevant. Distantlycharmed 18:11, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

This is not what I was getting at. The information wasn't necessarily bad where it ended up, allowing for a more natural flow of the prose. It was just the headline that no longer matched the information contained. -- Cid Highwind 18:24, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
Also, you've now managed to remove "early starfleet" material (the Titan mission) to the romances section... -- Cid Highwind 18:33, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

The information is good where it is now. Under the appropriate header of romance. The Starfleet things was just fixed too. Distantlycharmed 19:24, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

OK, let's just summarize what has happened here. First it was suggested (by DC) that good parts of this section be removed. Then it was suggested (by Archduk3) that the stubby remainder of the section does not need to stay, with TrekFan giving in to that and DC stating "I am fine with that if it is in fact what the majority wants". Then the section was removed - and then, when I, too, stated that removing the section was OK (with absolutely no majority for the opposite view at the time), it was reinstated, with DC now stating that "the information is good where it is now". Can anyone else see the problem here? -- Cid Highwind 19:56, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

That's because things have developed that required a change/adjustment. You said above that the romantic interests people are in the wrong place under his Starfleet career. You were right. So by reassessing the situation I realized that we could create a Romance section without subdividing by each person. This way, we do have the appropriate section (ROMANCE) and all the people he was romantically involved with. Duke had a problem with the Romance section IN THE FIRST PLACE because he said that it was not fair to only mention Hernandez instead of all of his romances. NOW THAT THE OTHERS ARE MENTIONED AS WELL, the Romance section is appropriate. This is a work in progress and will change according to new information and concerns presented. Does that make sense? So let me ask you, what exactly is it about the current format that bothers you Why shouldnt we have a romance section there now that the issues have been resolved? What's wrong with it? Distantlycharmed 20:19, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I think I also said that we should still mention these events in the article proper, so mentioning them again in a separate section is redundant if there's nothing else to say. - Archduk3 20:31, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean article proper? The body of the text? Like First Year, Second Year etc? So? We do that all the time. There is bound to be some redundancy and overlap. In fact, many profile articles have such overlaps. It's like saying, we dont need an "Appearacnes" section because in the body of the text people can see all the episodes he appeared in. I dont see a problem with the Romance section as it currently stands. All pertinent information has been added and it is in one neat place for overview and none's been left out. So if someone wants to know about all his romantic interests, they can read it up there. Distantlycharmed 20:40, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'm telling you, for the third time now, that this is not what I said - it's not necessarily the info that is in the wrong section, but possibly just the wrong headline for what is a good combination of different facts. That's because there's no rule that a character article absolutely needs to have an "early career" section, just like it doesn't need to have a "romance" section - not if, as has been pointed out, we really don't have too much "romance information".
More generally, though, my main problem with this chain of events is how "you reassessed the situation" and then "you realized" something and finally, you changed the article against some forming consensus. Your actions, and even your statements about your actions, are all about "you", "you", "you", while the process we're having is clearly called "peer review" (as in: many people working together to come to an agreement). So, if you now want to unilaterally change the article to something that "you" think is best, please do - but, in that case, expect the next Featured Article nomination to fail just as the last one, because you will have circumvented the peer review process. -- Cid Highwind 20:41, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

So basically you are doing all this because you have a problem with ME. Not necessarily with the article but with how I approached it and interpreted it and because it was me who did it, distanlycharmed. Because that really must step on your ego? How dare I. Great. Can we now move away from how i make you feel and to the article? Let me make this clear. I did not circumvent the peer-review process. I just followed the conversation closely instead of being distracted by my personal grudges for someone. The Romance section was removed because Duke said that it is only about Hernandez. Now THAT IT IS NO LONGER ABOUT HERNANDEZ BUT ALL HIS INTERESTS, the section can come back again. That is not circumventing policy, that is common sense. Again, please tell me, aside from your personal dislike for me, what it is about the current way it's represented that you dont find fitting? Distantlycharmed 20:55, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

This gets tiresome fast, so for the last time: the problem is not about how "you approached" it, but about how "you approached" it. Had it been anybody else who circumvented a community process like this, my response wouldn't have been different. -- Cid Highwind 20:59, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I did not circumvent anything. The facts changed upon which the "consensus" had been reached earlier, so I adjusted accordingly. In fact, I did so because I did take Duke's points about the romance section only being about Hernandez into account. He was right. It shouldnt be just about Hernandez, which would make the section superfluous, but have all his interests in there so that is what I did. Distantlycharmed 21:10, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

"Since all the information in the romance section is already covered, or should be, in the article proper, and there just isn't much info there to begin with, the section should be removed completely. The only reason to have it here is to summarize what's in the article anyway, since unlike other characters the section will not be going further in depth, since there isn't any depth to go into."
  • The "article proper" would be a chronological history of what we know about the character, this being everything before "Moral conflicts." Information shouldn't be removed completely from this section just because it's covered in a supplement. It's easier to understand things in the order they happened in.
  • Supplement sections would be where events talked about in the article proper can be expanded upon. It would be confusing to keep talking about Trip in detail every time their friendship came up. Noting they are friends and detailing it elsewhere is the easiest thing to do, both for the writer and the reader.
  • We don't have any detail to go into with any of these women, since what we know always is a sentence or two worth of info; therefor, we are simply reiterating what was already said.
  • We don't need to reiterate, but the only reason to is that this supplement wouldn't require you to read the whole article for just this information.
Comprehensive breakdown of what I did say, minus the part about mentioning everyone, which everyone now agrees should happen if we need to mention them again anyway. - Archduk3 21:31, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Now you want it removed because the info is already in the body of the article? If we strive to be as comprehensive and complete as possible, why would you do that? I oppose removing the section as it currently stands as it is a neat way of informing the readers of Jonathan Archer's romantic involvements. We have sections and headers for a reason. Maybe a reader just wants to know about a character's romantic involvements throughout the series. They shouldnt have to to go through all the text to find that out. They should be able to access that info in one place. Distantlycharmed 21:41, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

There's no "now" about it, I've had the stance that we don't need to mention this twice, since all that information should be in the article proper. If we do mention it again though, everyone should be included, as they now are. - Archduk3 21:54, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Right. And you said "we don't need it and shouldn't have it, unless we include everyone". Now we have everyone, as you pointed out above. Anyway, slight redundancy and overlap shouldnt be a reason to leave sections out. There is no harm to having the Romance section in there. It doesnt cost you money or personal space and neither does it take away from the quality and value of the article. It is useful information summarized in an appropriate manner. Not to mention that 6 months from now, some user who isnt aware of this debate, will probably go in and insert a romance section of some kind anyway as by leaving it out, there would be something lacking. You and I might know the shows in and out, but most average readers will not. Distantlycharmed 22:10, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

These are two statements I absolutely can't agree with:
  1. "We need a romance section so that a viewer can find all information in one place." The question then is - why only the "romance" section? Why not two dozen other section I could easily think of? If we arranged all information in any number of section that might be of special interest to some reader, we'd be duplicating the whole article several times, each time with a different arrangement. All information should be in the articly - yes; but, all information needs to be grouped by section - no.
  2. "Duplicating information [more than just a bit] doesn't take away from the quality and value of the article." - of course it does. A good article is not just an information dump, but one that is also interesting to read. A separate section that contains only duplicated information, simply because the available information is not detailed enough, is not interesting to read. -- Cid Highwind 22:48, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia aimed at providing readers and others information about and on Star Trek in the most comprehensive and complete way possible. While I do agree that random information dumping would be inappropriate, adding the Romance section is hardly that. Redundancy is slight. Yes, users can find the information in the body of the text. They can also go researching everything else for that matter by clicking on mere links so we might as well not bother and just have people click on links to figure it all out. But that is not the point and it wouldnt make for a good encyclopedia and reference. As to your first point: please stop distracting from the current discussion by referencing all possible outcomes in the universe. Yes, there are a myriad of ways articles can be written, organized and worded etc. But we are not holding a conference or principles debate on the significance of sections in a wikia. We are talking about the "Romance" section for Joanthan Archer. If you wish to add other sections that you believe would present the information in a neater way to the reader, please do so. But dont argue against this section by talking about the merits of all sections in the world in all possible combinations. As I said, a reader might just want to know about his romantic liaisons. They shouldnt have to go through the whole text to pick it out. That is bad organizing and bad writing. This is not an essay people read. Often information is accessed based on interest in particular aspects. Also note that the Romance section is not huge, thus overlap minimal. hardly text dumping. If you are worried about "word by word" duplication, we can rephrase. And to ease your mind: I did not FA nominate this article, but TrekFan did. In fact, I opposed. Distantlycharmed 23:19, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "distracting the discussion" (or whatever you want to call this debacle). I'm arguing against a blanket statement you made in that discussion, to supposedly support your point. We don't need a "romance" section that doesn't contain any additional information of value, just as we wouldn't need an "favourite sports" section. -- Cid Highwind 23:48, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Of course you are distracting from the issues at hand by appealing to generalizations about the meaning of sections and how you could theoretically make sections on everything. You are acting like 10 kb of information is - word by word - copied and pasted from the body of the text into the Romance section (which would make your objection valid) and that is simply not true. There is nothing wrong with the Romance section as it stands, MA articles (even FAs) are full of unavoidable redundancies - it is just part of the nature of such articles of such scope, and the Romance section does not take away anything from the article; it does not hurt it, nor does it lower its quality. In fact, it is useful. I recommend that instead of being all caught up in how DC words things - and then wasting time to "rebut" me based on my phrasing and word choice (which is not adding to the argument but distracting), you focus on why you really think adding the Romance section would constitute such an aberration to this article. Would you oppose this as vehemently if it came from another user? In fact up there you were not able to tell me why you opposed this section and kept saying you didnt like my approach. Then I responded to Duke and you came in, took my "statements" (that you absoulutely hate just like my approach) to make a point. I think it is mostly me you are opposing and not so much the Romance section. Distantlycharmed 00:24, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

First: None of the information in the romance section is currently in the article proper, and when it was it was copied directly from the article, so Cid's objection is valid, by your own standards. Second: If you want to continue this farce that we hate you, you will be doing it elsewhere. You are actively opposing consensus building with this bullshit, to the point of trolling or flaming, depending on your wording, and this disruptive behavior has sidelined this discussion for the second time in as many days. It is clearly you who hate us, and quite frankly, "we" don't have to stand for it. - Archduk3 00:51, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, I think everyone needs to take a break. This is a huge discussion that seems to be nothing but arguing. Let other people rewrite stuff and *then* we can look at this again. — Morder (talk) 01:06, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Of course, someone objecting to the way you treat them must be a troll right? Speaking of bullshit. How very insincere of you to come here and after everything that's been written and said up there (and elsewhere) to still pretend that you have absolutely no issues with me whatsoever and that your objections are completely objective. Implying that this is all in my head is insulting. This isnt the first time you and Cid ganged up on me on issues and people have pointed out to me the belittling and flat out rude attitude of you guys towards me. When someone's argument is based on scrutinizing the way I word things and my approaches, rather than on the merits pertaining to the article, I feel compelled to point it out. Too bad that offends you. Maybe you should stop treating people like shit and so dismissively, so they dont feel the need to point it out. Finally, I made some very solid arguments here pertaining to the Romance section, which was NOT copied and pasted from the body of the text. If anything, it was taken over from the original Romance section that was removed and some of it I personally expanded. Last week or so you two were arguing with me how a series regular really does need an "Appearances" section and how such information "wouldn't hurt the article" etc., - now i am asking the same question pertaining to the Romance section of a character, and you say it is not needed. Without the input of the community, the two of you then went ahead and just decided that the issue was resolved regarding adding "Appearances" sections to all series regulars articles and then went right ahead to suggest the merge\split of the Main character non-appearances page. Had any other person objected, you would have awaited community input first, but in my case - since you dismiss me up front - you decided meh whatever, let's suggest the merge and now require that all articles have an "appearances" section. So forgive me if I find it suspicious when everything I propose is categorically objected by you two primarily. It is really annoying and it is truly distracting and it does create a bad atmosphere and I'm sick of it. Seriously. FINALLY, how about we agree to disagree on the Romance issue and await to see what other people have to say. Distantlycharmed 01:29, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I have not been involved in this discussion- but I will say, DC, that you should learn to be more concise with your responses. Your several thousand character(and more) rants on this page are bordering on disruptive, if not there already. Take issues not having to do with the article elsewhere.--31dot 01:57, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Apocrypha Edit

I have added an apocrypha section with a couple of references to Archer. If anyone knows of anymore, please do add them. -- TrekFan Open a channel 19:45, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Memorable Quotes Edit

Being a major character in the Trek universe, I have added a quotes section, on par with Jean-Luc Picard. There's a few quotes I think reflect Archer as a person, but if anyone has anymore, add them! -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:11, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

Boasting in introduction Edit

"Legendary officer", "greatly expanding", "most important human", "widely credited"... on Wikipedia, this introduction would be sprinkled with comments like (Says) Who?, Original research or Weasel term. That whole paragraph needs to be rewritten to remove all those superlatives, unless each single one can be cited. -- Cid Highwind 16:44, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

This has now been partially rewritten, but "Considered by some historians as ..." is not much better. Who are these "some historians"? - name them, or if that isn't possible, leave that our completely. -- Cid Highwind 10:36, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

I have changed that bit to include the quote by historian John Gill as it says in IAMD. -- TrekFan Open a channel 16:46, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

"Early Life" section Edit

In the paragraph starting with "Tragically, in 2124,...", the second sentence does not seem to logically follow from the first, so it should not start with "However". Some more explanation connecting those two fragments should be added. -- Cid Highwind 16:51, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

"Commanding Enterprise" section Edit

This whole section is basically a retelling of the Enterprise mission - it should probably be placed on the article about the ship itself, and be drastically shortened here. It's certainly not FA material if an article talks about topics that would better be placed elsewhere.

Also, the subsection headlines seem very random to me (especially "Year two: first contact"). Capitalization issues aside, these could perhaps be removed completely if the whole section becomes shorter. -- Cid Highwind 17:03, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be focusing on Archer rather than just retelling what happened to Enterprise. As in, how did that particular mission affect Archer as a captain or person etc. Distantlycharmed 18:19, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

If we know that without speculation, Yes. Since we probably don't in most cases, it should not be a complete listing of all episodes/"missions". -- Cid Highwind 18:27, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Im not saying speculate, i am saying just describe. Like that one episode where he had to perform the ridiculous ceremony with a chainsaw and how annoyed he was with them saying he will piss on their tree if Porthos dies. Stuff like that. Pertaining to him. No speculation.Distantlycharmed 19:23, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Basically, what we already have as the "Moral conflicts" section. Obviously, all of those "moral conflicts" happened while Archer was "commanding Enterprise" (because we didn't see him do anything else) - and, the other way around, his "moral conflicts" are a major part of what really makes sense to describe of his time "commanding Enterprise" (because that's what a CO has to deal with, mostly).

One way or another, it doesn't make sense to keep these two sections separate. The "Moral conlifcts" section should be used as the basis of a section (to be expanded with further bits of information that are sensible to mention) that will then replace what we currently have under "commanding Enterprise". -- Cid Highwind 12:01, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Since his moral struggles werent anything out of the ordinary, or unexpected given a man in his position, I agree it does not need a separate section unless someone can find an awesomely eloquent way to summarize it such that it is appealing and enjoyable to read. Sort of a summary of his values or something Distantlycharmed 18:52, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Sidebar images Edit

Both images in the sidebar are basically the same: Starfleet uniform with open collar, serious expression, looking slightly off-camera, nondescript background. If the haircut wasn't (slightly) different, it would be hard to believe those images are not from the same scene. Having both images in the sidebar is not sensible - one of them should either be replaced with one that is different enough, or be removed. -- Cid Highwind 23:21, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

I already did something similar for the Hoshi Sato article, so finding a different image shouldn't be too hard. - Archduk3 23:27, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
Done, sort of. - Archduk3 23:37, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
Does MA have a feature in which images can be searched by name? As in all images, not just images by category. Distantlycharmed 00:28, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
Special:AllPages. - Archduk3 00:38, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
Does anybody think that Archer's making a bit of a funny face in the new main image? I'm biased, because I uploaded the one that Archduk just changed, but I think it was a bit more appropriate for a sidebar image. If I'm the only one who thinks that, though, I won't press the issue. -Angry Future Romulan 03:19, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

He does, yes... but what's more important, that's the only thing that has changed from the image before: uniform with open collar - check; looking off-camera - check; blurry background - check. Also, the fact that the two images are only four years apart makes me wonder whether a second one is useful at all in this case. To be useful, one should be as different from the other as possible - perhaps we can get one from his NX-Alpha time, or alternatively from the time he held the "Federation speech" in 2161? What about an image that shows him in other clothing, either civilian or at least in the black dress uniform? Anything would be better, really :) -- Cid Highwind 10:34, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

We've gone out of our way to not have the 2161 versions in the sidebar, since those are holograms and not the "real" characters. Also, the uniform always has an open collar, and he's looking at the camera in the one in question, at least as much as any actor looks at the camera, since we should be talking about the 2155 picture, not the one from 2151, since that's the one Blair2009 was talking about. To answer his question though, yes, he is making a bit of a face. I did that on purpose, so one would be early, optimistic Archer and the other would be jaded, angry Archer. I also actually choose that image before realizing that it had already been uploaded. That said, I'm always going to be for having two images in this sidebar, as Cid certainly knows, and I'm not to worried about the minutiae so long as one is from 2155 and the other is from 2151 or earlier. - Archduk3 15:51, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
Both pics look alike because Archer or Bakula really did not change all that much looks-wise in just 3 1/2 years. In fact, Bakula seems to look better as he gets older so I doubt we'll find a picture where he will look dramatically different than what he looked like in season 1 unless it is a close up and with a neat profile angle. Distantlycharmed 18:20, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
Also, the current profile picture does not look like an appropriate image. He is making a "funny face" in this one, as Blair mentioned. A profile picture shouldnt be like a candid snap shot where someone sports an untypical look. What was wrong with Shran's version? That was the best profile shot of him as yet. I will re-upload and see what people think.Distantlycharmed 18:28, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
That image is already in the history of the file we are using, it doesn't need to be uploaded again, as the current image can just be reverted to that version. - Archduk3 18:36, January 28, 2011 (UTC)
Yes i saw that. My bad. I got mixed up there for a minute and thought I had to re-upload instead of reverting and then edited the profile at the same time you deleted the picture. Distantlycharmed 18:40, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Porthos in alternate timelineEdit

In the background section it says that Orci and Kurtzman confirm that they are talking about Archer's beagle. But clicking on the references, I do not see that anywhere. In the interview with Abrams nothing of that sort is confirmed, neither is there anything in the QA session. Maybe I missed it? Can someone else please check and see. Distantlycharmed 01:03, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the interview, but the novel confirms it. -- sulfur 01:05, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Well in the QA part there is a user (among hundreds of users) calling himself BOBORCI and he is, sort of outside of the official QA they had with them all, confirming this. But how do we know this is really Robert Orci? Has his identity been verified? Anyway, seems kind of questionable to me - especially in terms of putting that up as a solid answer on here. If it was in the novel, the background note can reflect that. Distantlycharmed 01:14, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

That is Bob Orci. It has been confirmed. -- sulfur 01:18, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Err, wow. He actually said that. Preposterous. So I guess info stays. Thanks for clarifying. Distantlycharmed 01:29, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Further objections? Edit

Since the sidebar issue seems to be resolved (hopefully!) and the romance section has been sufficiently expanded, does anyone else have any further objections on this article? -- TrekFan Open a channel 00:00, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The relationship sections and the "Year one" and "two" etc sections need (partial) expansion and copy-editing and addition of some details. Will take a bit. Distantlycharmed 17:19, February 3, 2011 (UTC)


  • In the Quantum Leap episode "A Leap For Lisa", Sam leaps into his holographic friend Al, who is on trial for murdering the wife of an officer in the US Navy named Commander Riker. Commander Riker is also the name of Captain Picard's first officer on The Next Generation. This episode also guest stars Terry Farrell, who later went on to play Jadzia Dax on Deep Space Nine.

--> I dont see the relevance in this statement. How is that Riker related to WT Riker and whats the connection? Also, the Terry Farrell appearance (I dont recall seeing her in that quantum leap episode but whatever) is/should be mentioned in her profile as Archer's profile page is not the appropriate place. Distantlycharmed 00:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this should be mentioned on Scott Bakula, Terry Farrell and Jonathan Frakes. I don't see the significance of it being on the character page. -- TrekFan Open a channel 00:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

The first part of the statement is some sort of round-about absurd connection kind of thing. Like he was called Riker just like Picard's first officer and does that have to do with Archer? No one he knows was called Riker and Al got nothing to do with any of it. Distantlycharmed 01:06, January 29, 2011 (UTC)


Jonathan Archer was a Human - he was born as a Human and lived as one, is from Earth etc. He is homo sapiens sapiens. Can we really say in his vital/stats info section that he was Loque'eque based on a viral infection, an illness? His species is Human and Phlox had to find an antidote to remove the viruses, i.e. cure the illness. I guess I am wondering if it is very encyclopedic of us to say he was his illness. Distantlycharmed 05:39, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

It's also one of those facts that just doesn't help anyone in the sidebar, without further explanation. So, yeah, let's keep it away from the sidebar. -- Cid Highwind 10:49, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
I thought that the main point of this wiki was to be as complete and comprehensive as possible. For a brief period of time, he became a member of another species, as confirmed by Phlox numerous times in "Extinction," and later repeated in "Raijin." It doesn't matter that it was due to a virus, all that matters is that his physiology changed and he was no longer Human. We list all of his occupations and affiliations, why should we make an exception for his species? QuiGonJinnTalk 11:36, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, any "further explanation" that needs to be there can be done via a link, such as we already have for the retirement info. --Defiant 11:45, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
But the meaning of "comprehensive" includes "understandable on its own" and "as not misleading as possible", right? I believe listing a temporary species membership (I must admit I don't really remember that episode) in the sidebar is misleading - it's not the meaning that the average reader would take away from that sidebar alone. Perhaps he would rather think of hybrids, which we seem to note in at least three different ways in sidebars, each one very similar to this. Listing something that is not true for 95%+ of the time we see that character - which is not typical for the character - is, in my opinion, the opposite of "comprehensive". -- Cid Highwind 11:54, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
I don't really know what the problem is here: the side-bar clearly states this was a temporary situation, that Archer was only "briefly" (using the side-bar's own term) Loque'eque. That's clearly understandable on its own. The circumstances of the transformation would be extra info, optional to the reader. If that weren't the case (and I believed that the extra info was required for understanding the side-bar info), then I'd agree on removing the side-bar fact. --Defiant 12:08, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Part of the problem is that I wasn't even answering you, but QuiGonJinn who implicitly postulated that leaving out some comparably tiny (and potentially misleading) fact from the sidebar would instantly mean "not being comprehensive". That is a statement I did not agree with, and which I was replying to.
There's more to say about Archer "being" a Loque'eque. I just checked a transcript of the episode, and apparently, nowhere was it stated that Archer (or the others) already was one - just that they were in the process of becoming one. Presumably, if he already had become a full Loque'eque, there would have been nothing Human remaining, so that no cure could then still be applied. If this is wrong, please provide a proper citation from the episode so that we can check that. -- Cid Highwind 12:39, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
If this is added to the sidebar, please note that the Paris, Janeway, and La Forge sidebars (at a minimum) will have to be updated to reflect the fact that they became (or started to become) something non-Human for a period of time. -- sulfur 12:41, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the question of Archer's full transformation. In "Rajiin", while treating Archer in sickbay, Phlox quite explicitly states: "You were transformed into a different species. Don't expect to recover over night." QuiGonJinnTalk 13:08, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
But in Extinction itself, Phlox states: "If I don't complete the antivirus within the next two hours, it'll be too late. There won't be enough of their original genome left to resequence." This means that the transformation process would become irreversible at some point - and since it still was reversible, it must not have been completed yet. -- Cid Highwind 13:14, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Cid, sorry for misunderstanding you earlier. As for changing any sidebars (including the Paris, Janeway, and La Forge ones), I reckon this should only be done if it's absolutely certain that the character became another species, and was not only becoming the alien species. --Defiant 13:20, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, okay then. Though Phlox's line in "Rajiin" is still rather misleading. If we go by this logic, I guess La Forge's transformation in "Identity Crisis" doesn't count as well as there was a similar situation. QuiGonJinnTalk 13:33, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
That transformation might still count as a separate "Appearance" on the actor article, which is something completely different, though - but that should be discussed there, not here. -- Cid Highwind 13:43, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

If you wanna go by DNA, well, if the transformation wasn't complete, he wasnt completely Loque'eque, hence the info would be misleading as well as wrong. It is not very encyclopedia to state that Archer was his illness. What defined him was being homo sapiens. We dont include possessions by random aliens (that also kinda transform you) and quasi DNA transformations in the side-bar just like that. Even saying "briefly" doesnt do it (not to mention that if he wasnt completely transformed, he wasnt even Loque'eque "briefly"). That info about him is already appearing in the body of the text. Distantlycharmed 22:17, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Removed pop culture notes Edit

I removed the following:

  • In the episode "Star Mitzvah" of the television sitcom Frasier, Noel Shempsky (played by Star Trek: Voyager guest actor Patrick Kerr) asks Dr. Frasier Crane (played by Star Trek: The Next Generation guest star Kelsey Grammer) if he could possibly obtain Scott Bakula's autograph on a picture of Captain Archer.
  • In the Futurama movie "Bender's Game", Bakula's preserved head appears, piloting a very stylized model of the Enterprise NCC-1701 in a demolition derby. He squares off with the head of George Takei, who is piloting an equally stylized model of the Enterprise NX-01. Takei yells, "Way to kill the franchise, Bakula!" before ramming Bakula's ship.

Both of these notes seem more suited to the pages about pop culture references to Star Trek. --Defiant 10:32, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki