Clearly needs to be merged with database and a line item added explaining how it was used in the show - if it was. — Morder (talk) 01:30, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
It was definitely used in the show, acquired in ENT: "Anomaly", referenced in ENT: "Extinction", "Rajiin", "Exile", "The Shipment" and probably more. But there's nothing in this article that would make that article, and I don't feel like writing it now. Setacourse 04:49, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
Clearly I don't think there is that much cause to be hasty. It was a specific database, just like the Vulcan one, or the multitude of other databases we already represent. --Alan 22:04, December 16, 2009 (UTC)
There just is no more information then there now is. Just leave it like this. – The preceding unsigned comment was added byKirk32 (talk • contribs).
There's actually a lot more information that could be added. The Xindi database was a major part of the 3rd season. The article could cover its entire history - where the info came from, when it was used, the loss in "Chosen Realm", the crew's efforts to reconstruct the data etc. I thus restored the pna-incopmlete tag.
I've removed the pna. There's always room for improving the article, but I feel pretty confident that the article does now cover this topic fairly completely. As far as I'm aware, every instance in which the database was mentioned is now included in the article. Basically, it's something that's only in the first half of season 3. After Enterprise does the homing trick with the tainted kemocite, they no longer need the database for its navigation assistance. And after they get the scans from Shran about the weapon itself, they don't need the database for info about the weapon itself. So "Proving Ground" is sorta the last point at which there's anything that could be considered a mention of the database. However, it's arguable whether they're actually talking about the Xindi database in "Chosen Realm" or "Proving Ground". They could just be talking about the Enterprise database in general. In any case, the article now includes this uncertainty, as well as the more definite references. czechout☎✍ <span style="">01:54: Thu 31 May 2012
I think this ambiguity could and should be clarified more in the article, in the bg info (since it's only ambiguous to the viewers' perspective – the characters themselves know what they mean). --Defiant 02:13, May 31, 2012 (UTC)