Writing an articleEdit

Right.. I tried to write an article on the Temporal War, but my head is spinning :D -- Harry 14:09, 24 Dec 2003 (PST)

To be honest, I doubt such an article would be able to be made in any detail until after Star Trek: Enterprise concludes its arc on the TCW. We'd be missing half of the pieces... :D -- DarkHorizon 15:16, 24 Dec 2003 (PST)

==Sphere builders travel time? It might be important to note that there is no evidence to suggest that the Sphere-Builders actually travelled through time to manipulate the Xindi as they have the ability to perceive multiple possible timelines. We know, however, that they do have time travel technology from "Carpenter Street". -- A peckover

Actually, the Sphere-Builders must have some presence in the 26th century because of the weapon piece Archer found-- it was manufactured in 2573. However, it does seem as if they are based in the 22nd century monitoring possible future timelines for the most part. Steve 22:43, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I think, really, they're based 'outside' of time more than anything else. Their primary beachheads into our continuum are the 22nd and 26th centuries - the 26th more than the 22nd, I would say, based on what we know of their assault on the galaxy in that timeperiod. -- Michael Warren 23:53, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
Well, they may be able to perceive, but they still have to get to those timelines... ;) -- Michael Warren 19:41, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
(PS: Could you remember to sign your comments? Use ~~~ or ~~~~ to do so. Thanks.)

The other thing I was going to suggest was mentioning the Not-Reman Nazi Alien from "Zero Hour" but anything on him would be speculation until September. A peckover 19:48, Jun 1, 2004 (CEST)

I've made a brief mention of him/them in ==Other/Minor involvement==, and stated that it may be the work of an existing faction. -- Michael Warren 23:53, 1 Jun 2004 (CEST)
I was just thinking if maybe we should place the Borg from "First Contact" on the faction table. I know they had nothing to do in Enterprise, but they did try to alter the timeline. I'll just leave the decision to you.-B-101

POV issuesEdit

I find this article an interesting POV problem. We mention several different timelines, but none of this could actually be known to Starfleet or any other power after they occured. But does that make this article a meta-trek article? I dont know... -- Redge 15:56, 1 Aug 2004 (CEST)

This would apply to any article referring to an Alternate timeline. I would imagine that Daniels and his cohorts would have knowledge of the various timelines whilst existing outside of time. For the POV of these articles, we should adopt a similar position, being outside of the chronology as we are. And no, it doesn't make it a meta article, since it's still within the Trek universe. -- Michael Warren 20:16, 1 Aug 2004 (CEST)


I think we are obliged to mention that in the episode Storm Front, pt.I they mention that Lenin was killed by a faction in the TCW. But then that would mean Communism wouldn't exist. A key factor in Nazism rise to power.

It would have been more logical to kill Stalin because by then Communism already existed but would not have posed the military threat it did in reality. --Dico 20:34 25 Jul 2005 (GMT)

Moved from Memory Alpha:Featured article nominations Edit

  • Temporal Cold War. This one has all it needs to be featured. --BlueMars 22:18, Feb 2, 2005 (CET)
    • Supported. Perhaps consider in-text references? Ottens 19:46, 3 Feb 2005 (CET)
    • Fully supported. Excellently written. | THOR 05:11, 5 Feb 2005 (CET)
    • Supported. Well written, concise description. -- Balok 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (CET)

Altered timeline WWII Edit

The comment that Lenin's death would prevent communism and thereby nazism from ever happening is a little presumptuous. Germany's defeat in WWI and later economic collapse had more to do with Hitler gaining power than Russia becoming communist. I mean, communists could theoretically still exist. Karl Marx wasn't asassinated. History would just unfold a little differently, with Hitler finding scapegoats elsewhere. He might have blamed the "Jewish Liberal Media", LOL.

The Brotherhood?Edit

I remove the following on suspicion of being non-canon.

  • " The Brotherhood (21st 22nd and 29th centuries). Not much is known about this temporal power, only thing that is known is that they are not believers in the temporal acords and are involved in the Temporal Cold War. The timepod found by Enterprise NX01 during itis trip in the expanse is said to be a Brotherhood time pod, and the fact it has a federation registry, this suggests it has and or still works with the Terranical sect,Section 31. A picture of this time-pod is available at:
  • "It is also belieed that the Tholians are members of the Brotherhood faction,because they destroyed the Vulcan science ship the Enterprise NX01 was to give the timepod to, in oder to aqquire the technology themselves.

I recall no mention of this ever being made, nor any proof that Daniels was a member of Section 31. --Alan del Beccio 19:04, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • You're right, there was never any mention of a "Brotherhood" nor is there proof that Daniels was a member of a 31st century Section 31 (although that is an interesting suggestion). This is all just fanboy speculation. --From Andoria with Love 21:43, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Info removed Edit

The following background information was removed by an anonymous user without a proper explanation. I place it here rather than reverting because it does border on the lines of "nit-pickery", speculation, and opinion. What do ya'll think? --From Andoria with Love 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be a mistake by the writers because one of the main reasons the Nazi party came to power in Germany was the German people's fear of becoming a Communist Dictatorship. So without Vladimir Lenin, the Nazi party would not rule Germany (1933-1945).
It seems that it would be more logical to assassinate Joseph Stalin, this way the Communist regime would still exist and thus the Nazi party would come to power. But the large military build-up enacted by Stalin would have never occured, meaning the Nazis could turn their focus to the the west.
  • Seeing as i added it i'll defend it. It's not speculation. It's exactely what happened historically. If Stalin had been killed then the USSR wouldn't have became the SuperPower it was. It should remain. Jasca Ducato 12:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I won't revert your re-addition of the info, but in the future, please wait until a consensus agrees whether or not information that was removed should be re-added. Thank you. --From Andoria with Love 13:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If Vladimir Lenin was assasinated and the communits never took power and yet the Nazis did, Moscow would ignored in favour of the Actual Imperial Capital which was St Petersburg Jimbo on Wales

--- --- --- --- ---

The comments made about the 'writers mistake' are presumptous and should be removed. Sweeping assumptions are made about historically contentious issues, for example:

Hitlers rise to power was based on many factors, not just fear of the threat from Communism. Hatred of racial enemies, wounded pride and general economic stagnation were all equally important. To say that the Nazi's wouldn't have existed without Lenin ignores the complexity of the time period.

Killing Lenin wouldn't necessarily have meant there was no Russian Revolution. Russia was already on the verge of political collapse by 1916. Even if Lenin were killed, the socialist movement was well established and a successor would have quickly come into the limelight.

Would Stalin's death have been a bad thing for the USSR? True he did enact a large industrial and military buildup (which could have happened under ANY Russian/Soviet administration - but he also wiped out most of Russia's military elite in a series of paranoid purges.

I dont believe that the opinions of one view about alternate timelines belongs on an encycopedia. Particularly when the issues discussed are by no means resolved by the historical community. Can we remove these comments?

Since it is one fan's opinion regarding what should have taken place and since opinions have been deemed unencyclopedic, I have removed the above info. --From Andoria with Love 07:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Federation Edit

Is there actually any canonical evidence that Daniels was working for the Federation, or that the Federation was one of the Temporal Powers? -- Sci 23:36 20 NOV 2006 UTC

I don't think it was ever canonically said, although it was obviously heavily suggested. The strongest evidence would be Daniels hailing from 31th century earth, but that doesn't prove anything, earth could have broken away from the federation, being conquered, or being part of a Federation successor power. Furthermore federation involvement seems to go against the temporal prime directive. I suggest noting that in the article, unless someone knows of some better proof. Capricorn 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Tandar PrimeEdit

Tandar Prime is mentioned as a proxy faction, shoudn't that be just "the tandarans" or something? To my knowledge it was never suggested that they were a single-planet species, and Tandar prime might as wel be part of an unnamed Tandaran alience or Tandaran Empire or whatever. Capricorn 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who's Time War Edit

Would it be appropriate to have a "see also" link to the Wikipedia article on Time War (Doctor Who)? The concepts are quite similar, and the Time War was introduced as part of the backstory of the new Doctor Who series in episodes filmed in 2004, well after the Temporal Cold War was introduced in Enterprise. On the other hand, I don't know of any official source that's made the comparison (although it was noted in reviews, like this one at AirlockAlpha (formerly SyFyPortal)). Interesting parallel, or too tangential? —Josiah Rowe 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. For a start, "see also" links are intended for related articles on Memory Alpha. Secondly, unless a production source makes the connection, it's not a relevant association. -- Michael Warren | Talk 19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. That's why I asked. —Josiah Rowe 05:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternate timeline created though Nero's incursionEdit

Will/Is/Has (delete as appropiate) the temporal time war happen/happening/happened given the changes made to the timeline in the new star trek film. With parts of it occuring before and after the incursion made by Nero. I assumed Daniel's timeline was a continuation of the prime timeline but now am not so sure.-- Guest 06:41, 8 June 2009 (GMT)

It is my understanding that the events of the Star Trek reboot of 2009 happened after the history depicted in ST:Enterprise, so two divergent time lines could have been affected by by the events of Daniels and his "faction". TzarBorisII (talk) 08:15, July 27, 2015 (UTC)

Removed Edit

Although it is plausible that the Starfleet of the 29th century would be involved, they are never mentioned or seen in ENT.

We should not state things which were not mentioned in the episode- there is no end to that. It is also plausible that 29th Century Klingons were involved, or the Q, or anyone else. Saying that Daniels worked for the UFP, which was never said although he did work which assisted them, is as far as we should go.--31dot 18:54, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

Production POV information?Edit

This is a featured article, but there's not any behind the scenes / production POV information behind this story arc/theme.

Is that because there's been no 'Enterprise' behind the scenes book written yet?

I'd be way curious about what the writers had to say about why this was the number 1 thing they started Enterprise out with. 05:32, April 20, 2010 (UTC)Chad

There we go. Not sure how coherent Berman's comment is (he said it as one sentence in the special feature!), but it's what I could find on the subject. There's more stuff that could be added; Wikipedia has some regarding Manny Coto, but their references lead to dead links. Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 10:17, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Removed speculationEdit

I removed the following:

It remains unknown exactly what the motivations of the different factions are, although it seems clear that the Temporal Prime Directive has been rescinded (at least partially) by a future Starfleet for the duration of this conflict.
It is quite possible that the war is now over, though it must be understood that the word "now" is largely meaningless when applied to a war fought by time travelers. Also, the repercussions of this conflict on the "normal" flow of time are incalculable. Some of the damage may leave open unalterable paradoxes through history.

Sounds like a whole lotta speculation to me. -Angry Future Romulan 20:19, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Am also removing this, for the same reason:

Because Daniels' death was reversed as a result of Archer's actions in restoring the timeline to its normal flow, it seems likely that Silik's death may have been prevented, as well, although no evidence yet exists to suggest this.
-Angry Future Romulan 20:40, April 27, 2010 (UTC)

Bigger idea for TCW-based series?Edit

I always had the feeling that "they" were going to have done more with the Timeship/temporal-cold-war idea with a spin-off series "Star Trek: Aeon" or something. Either a spin-off sixth series spun off from Enterprise, or "morphed" somehow from Enterprise - maybe a temporal explosion of some kind and the Enterprise crew from the 22nd century gets stranded and joins a crew from the 29th and another from the 31st. Is there any evidence from the producers of any ideas like that?

That is, if they hadn't managed to rather destroy Enterprise's long-term story-arc structure - and if people still had an appetite for long-arc-based sci-fi like DS9, Babylon 5 (definitely, but complicated as heck), Stargate (maybe), Battlestar Galactica (I guess - never cared for it myself), Stargate Universe (?? - it lasted less than a year, so it might count even if it was arc-based) Jswitte (talk) 21:14, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

Read the background section for pretty much all that's known on this subject :) - talk pages aren't really intended for these kind of questions. -- Capricorn (talk) 03:20, October 31, 2012 (UTC)