FA status Edit

FA nomination (July 2005, Success) Edit

Self nomination. I think I've turned what was once a run-on single paragraph into a fine example of a Memory Alpha article. Not only does it cover all the onscreen facts, and is there by "Complete", but I believe it is worthy of the grand title of Featured Article. - AJHalliwell

  • Support - I've corrected the spelling and grammar errors so pedantry won't get in the way of support for this article. Wonderfully written and exhaustive with a good choice of pictures to supplement the article.--Scimitar 22:28, 19 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - temporarily. The citations should be placed in the article with the corresponding paragraph/sentence so the reader can identify the source with the content rather than a vague list at the bottom of the page of episodes they appeared it. Having not seen a majority of ENT season 3, I cannot make said changes. Otherwise I was in the process of giving it status when I made this observation. --Alan del Beccio 07:27, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I cited the ep's, but should it get into redundant citing? As most of what we learned about the Aquatics come from the same 4 episodes or so, so to accurately cite each paragraph (or so) it'd get the same things over and over. - AJHalliwell 08:21, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Only listing them at the bottom of the page, rather than within the article would be considered "redundant", if that is truely your concern. Otherwise, citing the episode with the corresponding blcok of information is a much easier for the reader to know precisely where the information is coming from. There are so many examples of this, I'm surprised I have to post an example, but for the sake of clarity, check out how Orion is referenced. --Alan del Beccio 08:58, 28 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Status? Edit

Do FA's need five supporting votes in order to be an FA? This one only seems to have one... DaveSubspace Message 21:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It has three actually. And no, 3 1/2 years ago, the criteria was not yet set at five "Support" votes. --Alan

FA removal (03 Mar - 14 Mar 2011, Success) Edit


Lacking an "appearances" list, I'd say this article, which was granted FA status when only 3 votes was considered ample, is incomplete. It also doesn't have much bg info and some of the other info could be more relevant to the topic, as in the case of one paragraph in the "history" section that doesn't contain any info about the Aquatics whatsoever! --Defiant 14:03, March 3, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support for all those reasons. The background note under Physiology is particularly lame compared to today's standards (It's essentially "Oh, look it up yourself if you're interested"). Also, Defiant, since you added it back in 2005, do you have the citation for the Curry interview? :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:48, March 3, 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Haha! You expect me to remember a minor incident more than 5 years ago?! I can hardly remember yesterday!! Lol! Suggestions are that it might be from ENT Season 3 DVD or the magazine cited, Star Trek: Communicator issue 49, but probably from the DVD. --Defiant 00:08, March 4, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: It simply isn't up to the standard, IMO. --| TrekFan Open a channel 23:26, March 14, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons stated especially the background section, I know that there is a considerable section regarding this on the Dexfiles[1](X).--Sennim 09:12, April 12, 2011 (UTC) - This comment has been added after the discussion had been archived. -- Cid Highwind 09:13, April 12, 2011 (UTC)


Question? if The Xindi-Aquatic language is not dissimilar to that of the humpback whales as it states then why did Kirk and Crew have to travel back to 1986 in ST: IV The Voyage Home? are the Aquatics Extinct by the 23rd century? (saying because the Aquatics are not yet thought of is not a good point, since the Klingons look like the bumpy types in ENT and not in TOS, and ENT fixed that issue)

  • Japanese sounds similar to Korean, but they probably wouldn't be able to understand each other. Thought it should probably be changed to "they sound alike", but the languages themselves are probably far different. - AJHalliwell 00:42, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Male-Female mix-up Edit

It seems that there is a problem with the male and female Xindi-Aquatics. The article in the Star Trek Communicator, cited at the bottom of the page shows the two different Xindi-Aquatic CG-models and labels the smaller one as female, the larger one as male.

We never learned anything about the sexes of the two Xindi Aquatics until "Countdown", so until then, everyone assumed, that the larger councillor, usually swimming in the foreground, was the male Aquatic.

In "The Council" however, when Degra identifies the council members and talks about them to Archer, we see short shots of the respective aliens. When he mentions Kiaphet Amman'sor however, we see a shot of the Xindi Aquatic that is identified as male in the article.

It seems the larger Aquatics were originally meant to be male (as stated in the article in the Star Trek Communicator), but when they needed a shot of the female Kiaphet Amman'sor for "The Council" they used a shot of the Aquatic previously assumed to be male. I'll change the screenshots and the text accordingly. --Jörg 13:57, 13 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Is it possible? Edit

Is it possible the Cetacean Ops or Aquatics Lab mentioned in the enterprise-d were used to house Xindi-Aquatics? It hasnt been said canonically but its safe to at least theorize and put out there that, seeing as NX-01 was considerably more limited in range than the Enterprise-D was, and the fact that Xindi served on the Enterprise-J, that it would not be so farfetched to say the Xindi were already a member of the Federation by the 2360s.

I'd say it's possible but doesn't belong on the site as it's pure conjecture. The Xindi may not have joined the Federation until the Enterprise J was built. Or maybe only a handful of Xindi are part of Starfleet, similar to there being only one Klingon, or one Ferengi starfleet member. We just don't know... --Morder 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Its a shame none of us could write for star trek. There would be no canonical errors ever.
Or more than ever. Watched the fan productions lately? Not that this is a canon error at all, the Cetacean Ops was described what, more than a decade before the Xindi were even conceived? Then it is simply not mentioned. There is no error, just a question you want answered. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

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.