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.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the ENT forum at The Trek BBS.
Similarities to 'Unexpected' Edit
Would it be reasonable to add:
"This episode shares several similarities with the episode "Unexpected": The ship needs repairing by the crew of Enterprise, specifically with Trip's help; both ships use Optronic technology (Trip mentions having encountered optronic technology on the Xyrillian ship); Trip has the possibility of romance; both races are able to project holograms, though with different applications; and again, both ships have a form of stealth technology, namely the dampening field in use here, and the cloak on the Xyrillian ship."
in background information? Or is it irrelevant and virtually like saying they have similarities because they both involve warp drive and alien races? --AnonyQ 11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's irrelevant unless there is evidence that such similarities were deliberate, such as a statement from a writer or producer.--31dot 13:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
The page for this episode on IMDB lists Cynthia Uhrich as appearing uncredited as a Starfleet Officer in this episode. Can anyone confirm this? If so, she should be added to this article. Also, what other episodes of ENT does she appear in? — Greg (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
83 crew membersEdit
This is the first time, that I recall, that we get the exact crew complement. Trip says there are 83 people onboard, including Phlox and T'Pol. Where can this be inserted? --220.127.116.11 20:42, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
A general note on spoilers Edit
These episodes that feature regulars from other series' in a guest appearance get visits from those who haven't yet seen the show. Please, as a courtesy, keep the plot spoilers in the long-form text, and not in prominent locations that ruin the episode for those just skimming the page. e.g. The framed image caption of Rene Auberjonois should not give away the ending. Thank you. 18.104.22.168 20:04, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- As I said on your page, the picture coincides with the plot description. Since we include information from all aired episodes, if you haven't seen the episode you probably shouldn't be looking at its page if you want to be surprised.--31dot 20:06, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
I have a talk page? ... anyway, what if (after watching the episode) I change the description (to something equally descriptive (based on the plot (not the actor?))) so that it does not give away key plot-points? Would that be acceptable? Or is this no longer a wiki, and simply a dogmatic enterprise (pun intended)? 22.214.171.124 20:11, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- There should be a blue box saying "You have a message", but here is the link: User talk:126.96.36.199. I would be open to seeing what you intend to change it to, but as a general policy on this wiki we do not restrict "spoilers" of aired episodes. --31dot 20:14, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Please review Memory Alpha:Spoiler policy for more information.--31dot 20:18, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
It's not a restriction, it's a consideration. Are you (31dot) trying to restrict usability? I suggest that you are. 188.8.131.52 20:20, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- The picture goes with the plot description of the episode, as such the caption should have something to do with that. It shouldn't be what you were changing it to, if it needs to be changed. As I said, I would be open to a different wording, but the caption needs to be related to the plot description of the episode. --31dot 20:23, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
Relating to the spoiler policy There are direct links strewn throughout wikipedia en and no spoiler warnings are ever seen using those links ... case in point I have been using memory alpha for years now, and have NEVER seen a mandate to spoil and give no warning. I know enough to skim, and with that in mind I am suggesting a bit of polite discretion in the placement of the (shall we call it) higher-level spoilers. Relating to your undo Please, include a summary explanation when undoing non-vandal edits. 184.108.40.206 20:26, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I provided you with an explanation. Using the rollback button does not allow for providing a summary, which is why I posted on your page. Further discussion not related to changing this article should take place there.
- Since you want to change it, please suggest a change, considering what I said above.--31dot 20:30, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
Understood. But just to clarify, I'm referring to the 'Summary' bar, the contents of which serve as an explanation of edits (or undos) for the History. Please, view history to see what I mean. Un-titled undos bot-count as vandalism. Thank you for your time. 220.127.116.11 20:37, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I get it just fine- there is no Summary bar when using Rollback.--31dot 20:38, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
Roolback must be an admin feature then, cause I can only use the "undo" button from "View History" ... how about "Ezral (played by Rene Auberjonois), the chief engineer of a Kantare supply ship that crash landed years prior."? 18.104.22.168 21:13, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- The caption shouldn't mention Auberjonois- that's what the Ezral link is for. It would be a nice caption for the Ezral article- but doesn't have much to do with that part of the plot.--31dot 21:19, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- If it needs to be changed(which I'm still not convinced of) I would suggest "Ezral is confronted with his lies".--31dot 21:22, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
I'll concede the actor's name is unnecessary. Should a mention of his responsibility for the crash be mentioned? He explains it towards the end of the episode. "Ezral ,chief engineer of a Kantare supply ship who claims responsibility for its crash landing years ago." His adoption of holograms aren't lies so much as an illusion made real, all the while others perceive them as phantoms ... i.e. their nature is suspect and should be avoided in such a prominent position such as an image caption. Also, the timeline of the crash is called into question and should only be mentioned vaguely when not fully explained (as in the body of the article). 22.214.171.124 21:30, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
- It would be better to word it as simply "Ezral claims responsibility for the crash landing years ago".--31dot 21:45, March 10, 2011 (UTC)