Wikia

Memory Alpha

Talk:Jonathan Archer/archive

37,582pages on
this wiki

Back to page | < Talk:Jonathan Archer

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 StarTrek.com 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.
  • STARFLEET PERSONNEL FILE: Archer, Jonathan
  • 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)

PNA?Edit

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 65.191.46.213 (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)

Scotty and Archer's Beagle Edit

I made a note that the incident with Archer's beagle was in the alternate reality since the article didn't make that clear. My only other concern is that Scotty only says "Admiral Archer" and at this point in time Archer had stepped down as President of the Federation. Nowhere is it stated that he rejoined Starfleet and he would have been called "President Archer" since that was his highest position. It is possible that this is one of his descendants or another admiral who happens to be named Archer. Should the fact that it is not explicitly stated to be this Archer be noted? Also, Scotty was born in 2222 so his birthday wasn't affected by the alternate timeline and he was 11 when the Narada changed the timeline so the beagle incident would have been after the timeline change.IndyK1ng 23:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Which is why i removed the ref altogether, seeing as "Admiral Archer" is mentioned in the top disambig on the page. Honestly, we can only speculate, but the namedrop (in combination with the beagle ref) is too close to be a coincidence. Unfortunately it would seem that unless it was stated in dialog or by the writers as being intentional, then it is a different person. --Alan 23:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that the reference shouldn't be mentioned in the in-universe portion of the article, I think the reference is clear enough to go into the "Background" section. We don't know in-universe whether Archer is Jonathan Archer; however, it's quite clear that out-of-universe, the combination of "Archer" and "beagle" is a reference (direct or indirect) to Enterprise's captain. —Josiah Rowe 03:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I found a quotation from Kurtzman and Orci confirming that "Admiral Archer" is an Enterprise reference. [1]:
Alex: Admiral Archer gets referenced.
Bob: That's Enterprise.
Hope that helps. —Josiah Rowe 05:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A reference does not mean it is the same Archer. See this article's background section and the section in the article on Admiral Archer.IndyK1ng 05:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that. I wrote some of those sections, and I'm not advocating moving the text to the in-universe sections of the article, or merging Archer with Jonathan Archer. I was just pointing out that the writers had confirmed that it was an intentional reference. —Josiah Rowe 05:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, upon reflection, I think we could treat this the same way that we treat Picard's remark about having met Sarek at "his son's wedding" in the Spock article. We didn't create a separate page for "unnamed son of Sarek" based on that line; we accepted the writers' expressed intention that Picard was referring to Spock, and mention it (with a caveat) in Spock. Why can't we do the same here? —Josiah Rowe 20:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
It just seems ridiculous that Scotty could have met an Admiral Archer who was actually Jonathan Archer in the timeframe we are discussing. At the time of Scotty's birth in the early 23rd century, Archer would already have been about 100 years old, having been born in the early 22nd century. By the time Scotty would have been able to operate or modify a transporter, even as a young man, would make Archer well over 100, approaching 150 even. Even if Scotty got a hold of his dog after Archer's passing, Archer was mentioned to be a former President of the Federation in his 23rd century bio in the ENT finale, making it odd that he would be referred to as "admiral" rather than "president". This is different from the Sarek case in that it was fully possible for Spock to be that unnamed son of Sarek (especially since we knew Sarek to be quite old and Spock's only brother to be deceased), this one is more unlikely and thus makes it more difficult to accept as an assumption. -- Captain MKB 21:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Was it Jonathan Archer? Maybe. Was it Porthos? No. A dog living for a century? That's a bit unlikely even for Star Trek. I kinda think it was Archer's kid, but if it was the same dog probably not.- JustPhil 21:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's highly improbable that the dog was Porthos. But barring Archer's presidency, it seems quite possible that the admiral was Archer. Was Archer's presidency mentioned in the ENT finale? The article suggests that it comes from "In a Mirror, Darkly". I haven't seen either episode since their initial broadcast, and I don't recall whether the detail about Archer becoming president of the Federation was from dialogue in either episode or from the biographical display. If the latter, it can be put aside, the way we put aside the details of Archer's death. If the former, then that presents more of a problem for identifying Scotty's admiral as Jonathan Archer. —Josiah Rowe 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
The detail about Archer's presidency is from the bio screen, so yes, it's "secondary tier" canon. Additionally, Scotty's use of the phrase "prize beagle" instead of "pet beagle" could suggest that Archer became a breeder of beagles, after Porthos. --TimPendragon Hail 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Right, then. If the presidency comes from the info screen, which Mike Sussman himself said wasn't necessarily canonical, I think we should go with something said on screen rather than something from an info screen.
Heck, maybe the timelines diverge earlier than we thought. Perhaps in the "prime" timeline, Archer became President of the Federation in 2184, but in the new timeline he never served in that post. After all, the Defiant came from the "prime" timeline, and Scotty beamed the beagle in the new one... but now I'm being speculative and silly.
Seriously, I think that given the writers' stated intent, this is the same as the "Sarek's son" situation. Which means that Archer should be merged back here. —Josiah Rowe 04:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: in the United States, former presidents (and vice-presidents) properly revert to their previous titles. So it's entirely reasonable that Archer would revert to "Admiral" after his term as Federation president was complete. Powers 03:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Bones was 137 and healthy in "Encounter at Farpoint". —Scott (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? I have never heard anyone refer to George HW Bush as "Lieutenant Bush", but have heard him called "Mr President" many times since 1993. Dangerdan97 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


I think it's unlikely that "Admiral Archer" is a descendant of Jonathan Archer. Why wouldn't a spouse or children be listed in his biography read by Hoshi in "In a Mirror Darkly?" Also, the appearance of a Romulan ship that makes quick work of a Federation starship and then disappears would no doubt change Archer's plans, regardless of his age. He would want to help in a 'hands on fashion' meaning he'd likely reactivate as an Admiral in Starfleet rather than become a politician. With the writers explicitly stating that it is a nod to Enterprise, the fact that the last name is used, and that a beagle is what get's transported... I mean how much more does one need? Agent Xu--24.113.223.154 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


Proof. — Morder 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


That's all you're going to get. Even if they identified "Jonathan" Archer in the movie, people would speculate it was Jonathan Archer II or Jr. What you want is for the scene in the movie to say, "Admiral Jonathan Archer's beagle, the same Jonathan Archer who commanded the NX-01" and that just isn't going to happen. They gave as overt a subtle nod as they were able. To speculate further beyond what the writers acknowledged out of universe seems... futile." Agent Xu--24.113.223.154 02:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if this similar to the "Sarek's son" situation, I think common sense tells us that this should not flatly be treated as being Jonathan Archer and the dog should definitely not be the same Porthos. At the very least, this should not be included in the body of the article without caveat. I don't think "Admiral Archer" deserves a separate article, but I don't think the reference is definitive either. --Praetor Neral 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Robert Orci has already stated it is indeed Jonathan Archer therefore there's no need to continue this. — Morder 22:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal (from Talk:Archer) Edit

The link demonstrates that K&O intended this Admiral Archer to be Jonathan Archer from Enterprise. So surely the pages should be conflated? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim Smith (talk • contribs).

Hm. I can see both sides of this. On the one hand, a "reference" (out of universe) isn't necessarily an "identification" (in universe) — even if "Admiral Archer" were a different character with a fondness for beagles, it could still be a reference to Jonathan Archer. On the other hand, the writers' intentions do seem to be that this is Jonathan Archer.
Upon reflection, I think that we have a precedent for this: Picard's remark about having met Sarek at "his son's wedding". This could be a reference to someone other than Spock, but the writers' intentions were that it was Spock, so we mention it in Spock, rather than having a separate page for "Sarek's son". By that precedent, this should be merged into Jonathan Archer. But I don't feel that strongly about it. —Josiah Rowe 16:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't Jonathan Archer be referred to as "President" Archer, as that would be the highest office he ever held? Dangerdan97 20:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why I think the Archer that Scotty mentioned was a decedent of Jonathan Archer.JustPhil 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
if he isn't Jonathan ! are you sure is he a Human ? if he is a decedent, maybe is an hybrid or maybe a female or a maybe both female hybrid !!! (???) "category:Humans" isn't sure for me ! C-IMZADI-4 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
As discussed at Talk:Jonathan Archer#Scotty and Archer's Beagle, Jonathan Archer as President of the Federation comes from an on-screen graphic, which is on a lower "tier" of canonicity than dialogue. Plus, Mike Sussman, who wrote that on-screen graphic, said that it wasn't necessarily canonical. —Josiah Rowe 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
No. If the Federation President is anything like the President of the United States, then after his time in office has ended, Archer should be referred to by his highest title prior to becoming President. Referring to a former American president as "Mr. President" or "President Such-and-such" is technically incorrect, as the title does not follow them out of office. If you were to address George W. Bush, for example, you should call him "Governor Bush" instead of "Mr. President." If you were to address Barack Obama after his time as President is over, you should call him "Senator Obama." – Randy1012 01:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
That's not true. Former presidents are always referred to as "Mr. President". - Brandon Rhea (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the Federation uses different conventions than the US. Maybe Scotty screwed up on Archer's real title. Maybe Jonathan Archer (if it was him) preferred to be called "Admiral". Point is, I don't think the whole "Admiral" vs. "President" thing really helps us.– Cleanse 09:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

US Presidents are traditionally referred to as 'Mr President' after they leave office, but this is convention only. George Washington preferred to be referred to as General Washington in both correspondence and person after he left the Presidency. One of the White House tapes from during the Cuban Missle Crisis features Eisenhower telling JFK to call him General in order to avoid confusion (IIRC Truman is also on the line!).

Back on topic, I think the principle of ockham's razor is useful here (as it is in the 'Sarek's son' or 'Captain Sulu' questions); there's no need to create multiples. K& O say it's an Enterprise reference, there's a character called Archer who later becomes an Admiral in Enterprise. There's no other plausible candidate for who it is referring to. Ockham's razor says Jonathan Archer. – Jim Smith 09:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've put up a formal merge proposal. There's also a discussion at Talk:Jonathan Archer, but I think we should continue it here.
I support a merge.
  • We assume "Cadet Vader" is the same guy/gal as Vader
  • We assume that "Chapel" is Christine Chapel
  • We have a quote from the writers that this was an Enterprise reference.
  • We know Humans can live that long in the Star Trek universe.
  • This Archer is fond of beagles. Jonathan Archer is fond of beagles.
Together, I think it is quite clear that we should follow the obvious as just say it was Jonathan.– Cleanse 10:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually I don't think we had assumed anything because it was stated (by the writers?) that they were intended to be the same. — Morder 10:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, we have the writers confirming that this line was a reference to Enterprise. Really, I don't think that it's worth quibbling over the meaning of "reference". I'll support the merger, with the caveat that there should be an indented and italicized note with the info, like there is in Spock at the discussion of his wedding. —Josiah Rowe 17:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I was a little torn about this, but if the writers stated that they intended this to be a reference to Jonathan, I think it's reasonable for us to merge here, given the other precedents.--31dot 18:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
if Archer was the 1st UFP President in 2163, he might have taken office before the charter was signed, in ...these are the voyages (ent: last ep) Archer is signing the charter but why should a Starfleet Captain sign a charter that creates a new government as big as the UFP? maybe he already said yes to "being tapped as Admiral" as Reed said and if so maybe he was the "UFP Fleet Admiral" a rank equal to CinC of the all military forces like the US President is, the fact that the UFP was just created when Archer would have become president maybe the title was not yet worked out (Vulcans had a council as it leadership not one person, Andoria and Tellar might have a ruling body as well and not one person) from 1776 - 1789 the US Constitution that governs it today did not back then
Maybe Archer and his beagle took an unexpected time-travel into the future? - 216.189.208.114 19:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Oppose merge, for now. Although in the real world it was meant as a reference to Jonathan Archer, we do not know if, in-universe, it is the same man. It's the same deal with the Captain Sulu mentioned in VOY: "Tattoo". We just can't assume anything. For all we know, it's Jonathan Archer's son and he picked up his dad's affinity for beagles, possibly having lived with them while growing up. Now, if Orci and Kurtzman were to say, specifically, that the line was meant to refer to Jonathan Archer in-universe, that would be another story. At the moment, though, all they said was that it they meant it as an in-joke homage to Archer and Porthos; they have not explained what the reference means from an in-universe perspective. And why we're assuming Cadet Vader and the dead Vader from "Sub Rosa" are the same person, I'll never know. --From Andoria with Love 22:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Why? We use a similar source for Nyota as the first name of Uhura Prime... — Morder 22:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
...which has production resources stating clearly that they decided on the name of Nyota. Here, the writers have just stated that it's a reference to Enterprise, not that it was the same person. Having said that, I'm not going to make a big deal out of this; to me, it really is the same person, I would just like a bit more verification that it was meant to be the same person. So... meh, whatever, support merge. :-P --From Andoria with Love 22:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should merge the Sulu's together. I separated the page years ago because there was some disagreement (in non-canon sources) on who that Sulu was. This Admiral Archer is the exact same situation with Captain Sulu, in that the name was a reference to another character, although it wasn't explicit. I have no problem either way, although we should absolutely not have a 107-year-old Porthos.
At Memory Alpha, btw, there is no such thing as "secondary tier" canon. We'd just have to assume Archer was a "General Eisenhower"-like figure and didn't like his Ambassadorial and Presidential titles.--Tim Thomason 23:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Bob Orci has confirmed that the line was a reference to Jonathan Archer, so article has been merged. From the comments section here:

"...Admiral Archer is a reference to the Archer we all know and love, and yes he would be over 100, which is a likely life expectancy in a futuristic space faring race of humans (as depicted by McCoy's (Deforest Kelley) in THE NEXT GENERATION."

So, there ya go. :) --From Andoria with Love 07:50, 19 May 2009 (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)


RemovedEdit

  • 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 ...mmmK..so...what 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)

Incites removed Edit

Two of the "incites" I added to the article were just removed, without either the change to the article or the edit summary explaining anything, really. So, I'm restating my question here:

In the sidebar,

Where, in Star Trek (which is now mentioned as the source of all this information) is it stated that the Archer mentioned there is this Archer? And, even if we assume that Admiral Archer from ST XI is this Archer - where's the information from that Archer is now longer in retirement but has instead been "reinstated"? If this is based on the fact that Archer managed to put Scotty on that lousy planet - that might have been him "pulling some strings" out of retirement. He has apparently been the President of the UFP, after all - surely some people still active in the chain of command would still like to do him a favor. -- Cid Highwind 11:41, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

My mistake; you're right – there is no info about Archer's current status in the alternate reality. I've included another citation for his rank, however – one that proves it's author intent that they're one and the same Archer. --Defiant 12:11, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

It's news to me that we're now accepting "author intent" on a par with information that is really from the show. In the past, we've gone out of our way to not do that. Which policy/guideline do you base that on? -- Cid Highwind 12:30, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

It'd be purely idiotic not to accept author intent, especially when backed up by the production itself! This entire site is based on the supposition that each Star Trek episode is not set in a different alternate timeline from each other. How do we know that's not the case? Common sense, probability and author intent – the same exact methods we can use to determine that the "Admiral Archer" referenced in the film is the same as the Jonathan Archer from Star Trek: Enterprise. Stop nitpicking for the sake of it; obviously, author intent matters! --Defiant 12:45, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. Use common sense. Suppose the writers created "Ensign Bob Fletcher" in one episode, then referred to a "Lieutenant Fletcher" in another. In this hypothetical, the writers confirm it's the same person. Furthermore, in canon there's no reason the Fletchers have to be separate characters. Common sense would indicate that we follow the writer's intentions and note in Bob's article that he got promoted. Jon's situation is exactly the same.
Memory Alpha articles would be thrown into chaos if we suddenly demanded references to characters to use their full name to be valid. Is the "Dr. Lucas" mentioned in "Dear Doctor" really Jeremy Lucas of the Augment arc? Or did Phlox have two Human friends named Dr. Lucas? That's pretty much what it's come down to.
I'm not really sure why this has suddenly all become controversial again. This was already discussed above under "Scotty and Archer's Beagle" and "Merge proposal (from Talk:Archer)".–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 13:02, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Cid, it'd be a different matter if author intent alone was to be counted as canon, or if the author intent contradicted the canon evidence, but this does neither; the probable on-screen evidence is backed up by the author intent. Therefore, it's acceptable. --Defiant 13:12, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, we're already at "idiotic" now? Great... I'll tell you what I think is idiotic, then - for example claiming to be be a "canon" encyclopedia while adding information that clearly isn't. Especially if it would be so easy to keep that information without resorting to fanon cutesy, by just adding it to some background section. Claiming "common sense" when talking about a 150-years old President that came back out of retirement to be an Admiral again, and who even still had his 110-years old dog (give or take some years) is great stuff, too. Last but not least, please don't try to suggest that I have ulterior motives here, thankyouverymuch. I'm not "nitpicking for the sake of it", but I'm really convinced that this article (and, by extension, this encyclopedia) loses if assumptions are added as facts. -- Cid Highwind 15:09, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you took personally that sentence "It'd be purely idiotic not to accept author intent", as it wasn't meant as a personal comment – I doubted you were actually doing that, which was why I used "it'd be" rather than "it's." Can you can cite a policy/guideline that states that probable on-screen evidence, corroborated by author intent, isn't canon? I'd be interested, as my ultimate goal is to improve the article - not to get into any petty squabbles (and I'm not suggesting, by any means, that the latter is true of you, Cid). --Defiant 16:16, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

content and resource policies, specifically section "Production and reference materials" states that "Background information from the production staff" (#3 of that list, giving "interviews" as an example, which basically is "author intent made explicit") "may be referenced in Trek universe articles, but should be formatted as background information". -- Cid Highwind 16:37, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

But that doesn't say anything that I find appropriate for this particular case, as it says nothing about "if backing up probable on-screen evidence", it should be bg info or not. It doesn't seem appropriate. --Defiant 16:46, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
The information does not belong there in the sidebar. Nowhere in the movie does it say anything about Jonathan Archer having been reinstated to Admiral. That "reinstated" term itself is completely made up by whoever inserted that information into Archer's sidebar. If it was taken from the author, it belongs in a background note at best, just as we have done with lots of other similar items. Use common sense, yes, but that doesnt mean you make up stuff as you go along. The only on screen information we have on Archer is the random musings of Scotty on Delta Vega stating he was put there because he messed around with Admiral Archer's prized beagle. And that is all we go by. How you take that as meaning he was reinstated and presently active in Starfleet is beyond me. That info is wrong, inappropriate where it currently stands and non-encyclopedic and the author's intend, if so contradictory with common sense (i.e. Archer's and his dog's age) belongs in the background note. Distantlycharmed 17:02, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

The same policy also contains (in the section "Citations") the requirement "that all statements of fact be supported by reference to identified source material that is a 'valid resource'". If something is just "probable" (and to be honest, I think the assumption of a 150 years old admiral is less than that), it means that it is not properly referenced - otherwise it would simply be the case, not "probably". -- Cid Highwind 17:06, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Made a few changes, including the sidebar, complaints welcome; though think this has the least amount of "presumptions" based on bg info. - Archduk3 17:49, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I couldn't find a reference to the 2233 retirement date, either. It is claimed to be from IAMD2 here and on the date article, but the on-screen biography (which is quoted at the top of this talk page) doesn't mention any of it. In fact, it states that he retired from presidency in 2192 and doesn't contain any later references to any type of assignment. -- Cid Highwind 18:05, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

@Distantlycharmed, I don't think there's any debate about the "reinstated" portion; that seems to be settled as being speculative. It's the fact that he is referred to in the film Star Trek that's under debate. It's proven, confirmed fact that he is, yet some people apparently don't want to accept that. --Defiant 19:21, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
I'd just like to throw in my 2 cents here. The writers obviously intended this to be the same Jonathan Archer and Porthos so I think this should be in there. We have no idea that he was 100-odd years old by this time, perhaps he was frozen in stasis, perhaps he travelled through time and couldn't get back? There's a hundred different sci-fi technobabble explanations for that. On other articles which have inconsistencies, we have always gone with what is mentioned in canon along with any background/production info to come to a conclusion. I don't see how this is any different. I thought I our job was just to document the occurance, not explain how or why it could be him? -- TrekFan Open a channel 19:28, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
We know that he was referred to, but a retired military person is referred to by their rank at retirement. It doesn't mean that he was reinstated. A 100+ year old dog? That's definitely BG info noting the stupidity :) -- sulfur 19:32, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

But explicitely stating as a fact that Jonathan Archer was definitely alive and well, and also had enough influence (whether retired or not) to have Starfleet personnel moved around, at that point in time, is not just "documenting the occurance". It is much, much more... -- Cid Highwind 19:43, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Although CidHighwind stated "to be honest, I think the assumption of a 150 years old admiral is less than [probable]", in actuality, the odds very much support the possibility that Admiral Archer is the same as the Jonathan Archer from ENT. For example, he would actually be only 146 years old, which is merely nine years older than the 137-year-old Leonard McCoy in TNG: "Encounter at Farpoint" (a fact cited by Roberto Orci himself, when he stated, "yes he would be over 100, which is a likely life expectancy in a futuristic space faring race of humans (as depicted by McCoy’s (Deforest Kelley) in THE NEXT GENERATION)"). Furthermore, remember that one has to account for the odds of not only another Archer serving in Starfleet but also the odds of the same Archer having a beagle and reaching the rank of Admiral. In conclusion, "common sense" firmly states that they are one and the same. MA's policies and guidelines instruct to "use common sense," so this is what I'm doing, and what we should do here. As TrekFan stated, "we have always gone with what is mentioned in canon along with any background/production info to come to a conclusion." Why should we suddenly change that practice here? --Defiant 20:17, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
I propose we just vote - yes or no - on this tiny piece of info being in the sidebar. If we vote then so be it, if we vote no then it can always go in the BG info? -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:27, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Strawman argument: We're not "suddenly changing practice", because the practice that has been described is not the practice that we've been following all the time. Also, your aging logic is backwards. Someone being 137 years old in the 24th century is not proof for someone being able to become 10 years older more than 100 years earlier - and even if it was proof for the possibility, it still wouldn't be proof for this actually happening in Archers case. Last but not least: Valerie Archer. -- Cid Highwind 20:28, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

...for whom there is no proof whatsoever that she reached the rank of admiral, had a "prized beagle" nor, for that matter, whether she even existed! I agree with TrekFan – we seem to be arguing semantics here, as the "Admiral Archer" in the movie is clearly, IMO, Jonathan Archer. I support this. --Defiant 20:38, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Then it's only good that voting still doesn't circumvent our core policies... -- Cid Highwind 20:40, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

I also support keeping the info for the reasons above. It's just common sense and it's not our policy to explain away information. -- TrekFan Open a channel 20:44, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
@CidHighwind: On the contrary, voting is a large part of the policies and guidelines. How do you account for all the featured articles having become featured, if voting had no bearing on proceedings?! --Defiant 20:49, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, we're really reaching now... "Featured Article nomination" is a specific process where our rules specifically state that (something similar to!) voting is the right thing to do. It's "reaching consensus" mostly anywhere else, and even then not any arbitrary, rule-breaking consensus. -- Cid Highwind 21:00, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Cid, I don't mean to be rude, but what is with the sarcastic attitude? We're doing the right thing by trying to discuss this and come to a logical conclusion, something which can be respected by the whole community here on MA. We could easily have started an edit war, adding and reverting information, but we're discussing it, taking into account both sides of the coin in an effort to come to a conclusion. There's no need for the attitude. -- TrekFan Open a channel 21:04, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I find it quite patronizing to be referred to as "we", when I am a single user; it's like dismissing my individuality. Also, I don't know how you can say this is "rule-breaking" as, when I asked you, you were unable to come up with any valid rule that is "broken" (per se) by accepting the reference to "Admiral Archer" as being to Jonathan Archer. --Defiant 21:13, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

@TrekFan: Please, try to read through this discussion again with a neutral mindset. Among other things, I was asked to provide pointers to rules for something that should actually be common sense (as in: "We're a canon encyclopedia, so perhaps we should only list strictly canon things, and not things that might probably be canon.") in the first place. I did, and presented parts of a policy that ruled out the reason that was given for inclusion of the info that we're discussing about. Strangely, I was then just told that this rule "doesn't seem appropriate", and I was asked to provide a better one. I did, and it was from the same policy page (a page that could, at least by then, have been read by all involved here). That second quote was not even addressed, but completely ignored. Instead, we got some ramblings about the exact probability of "probably" and the odds of other things, which was later topped with stuff that is even less related to the situation here (like completely incomparable circumstances under which we allow some sort of voting - although not even majority voting as has been suggested here). If, at that point, I added some sarcasm to my replies, I can't really say I'm sorry for that. -- Cid Highwind 23:19, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I too would welcome someone with "a neutral mindset" to add to the discussion; as CidHighwind keeps specifically attacking me (despite the guideline No personal attacks), I think we could definitely use some mediation here. He doesn't seem to be willing to adhere to the widely-accepted policy of using common sense, despite the number of users who have stated and/or implied that they believe that interpreting "Admiral Archer" as an acceptable canonical reference to "Jonathan Archer" is using common sense. --Defiant 23:39, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
As an uninvolved party I might suggest everyone take a breather for a bit, to get some time to refocus on the issue. --31dot 23:42, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I'm feeling quite threatened here, to the degree that I've seriously been considering leaving MA if it continues. I'll take some temporary leave. I'd like to work out a solution with you, Cid; ideally, one that we can all be happy about, but I understand that may take some time. --Defiant 23:48, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I had the following typed up prior to a couple of edit conflicts, so let me post it first.
Cid - the following are allowed, and have always been allowed under our policies. These are not strawmen - these are exactly analogous situations dealt with in the past. The second sentence would show what would happen according to you:
Also my Dr. Lucas example above. You would require a separate page for "Lucas" from "Dear Doctor" and "Jeremy Lucas" from the Augments arc.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:51, January 29, 2011 (UTC)


Cleanse, he was called McCoy up there and it is HIM pictured (even the same actor) and there was no speculation and contradiction whatsoever as to who he is, like there is now with Archer. Did you see Archer pictured in ST 11? NO. Also, Cid is not the only one opposing this here and he has made some very valid points, as did sulfur. I didnt see any threats emanating from anyone. What is going on here? Anyway...
  • Maybe it makes sense that Archer would be 147 years old based on the fact that McCoy was 137, that doesnt explain why they would be able to extend the life expectancy of a canine by about 5 or 6 times the canine's average life span. The equivalent of that would be a 500 year old human. Magic bullets anyone? A 115 year old dog. Give me a break. That is ridiculous - speaking of common sense. Orci and Kurtzman seem to have put this in there for the "let's refer to something fans can pick up on" measure - and as with the rest of their "science (fiction)" didnt think it through obviously to make sure that it is scientifically consistent - even if it is sci-fi. Hence Oric's response "likely life expectancy in a futuristic space faring race of humans." They probably thought, "Bakula, Archer, Scotty, dorky, funny...hahaha..let's make the reference it will be fun."
  • As Cid correctly stated, "Someone being 137 years old in the 24th century is not proof for someone being able to become 10 years older more than 100 years earlier." Different times, different technologies, different levels of advancement. Mr. Orci was not sensitive to these details and thought - as he stated - space faring civilization can extend lifetimes of everyone so put it in there, we'll explain it away later. And he did.
  • The dog is never referred to as Porthos by the way. It says beagle. In my book, that could mean a clone of the original Porthos or maybe his offspring or whatever. No one ever says Porthos - it says beagle and we dont know if Archer had one pet beagle or many throughout his life. Saying it is the same dog in the main portion of the text is again speculation of sorts. If it is what the authors intended, but it is not seen or obvious on screen, then it belongs in the background section.
  • On that note: Author intent it not grounds for including the information in the main part of the article or side bar as part of canon. It is background. We've always done it like that on MA. I dont get why you want to change that all of a sudden.
  • We dont know how long Scotty was on Delta Vega, when the event with the dog occurred, how long it took to "prosecute" him and if Archer is alive at the time he is on Delta Vega or when he was active or maybe he died. We would have to speculate to make that point, which is not what we do. Let's put it in the background.
  • Military folks are often referred to by their rank even after retirement. We dont know that Archer was either reinstated or even active in Starfleet. Again, speculation. So sorry, it doesnt belong there as fact in the side-bar. We don't know anything about his whereabouts. Where does it say in the movie that Archer was an Admiral active in Starfleet? Nowhere. Author intend moves it in the background.
Bottom line: there seems to be just too much speculation and many possibilities here to play with to state his rank and time he held it, and his status in Starfleet with certainty. Based on the facts represented above, we simply cannot say with certainty that he was in fact well and alive at 146 with his 110+ year old dog and active in Starfleet ordering people around. Again, there is too much contradiction and speculation here to state as undisputed fact. We dont do that. Move it into the background. So strongly oppose keeping this info in. Very encyclopedic and entirely too speculative. Distantlycharmed 23:57, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Uh, McCoy was never referred to by name in "Encounter at Farpoint". Not even in the script. That was my point. Nor was Sela in "The Mind's Eye" (by the way played by a body double). Actors are irrelevant, since the same character can be played by the different actors. And vice versa, an actor can play different characters.
We don't have to prove that Archer could live. You're the ones who have to prove that he couldn't have lived. You have to show there's some contradiction in canon which prevents them from being the same character. You guys are actively going out of your way to try to prove the writers wrong. We're just saying - hey - maybe they wrote the line and knew what they were referring to.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:13, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
A couple of notes:
1) we don't know when this incident happened.
2) we don't know if this beagle was Porthos or the latest in the line of Archer's beagles.
3) we don't know what status Archer has at this time. He would be ex-pres and likely ex-admiral, so it's likely just a shitload of pull. The other question here is, why is he "Admiral Archer", not "President Archer".
4) we know that the writers (BO and AK) intended Archer to be Archer.
5) we know that this Archer is in the alternate reality.
So, what do we get out of that?
Nothing that can be used in the sidebar. Lots that can be used in bginfo. Should any be used in the main text? That's debatable.
Wait a sec... what about the separation between prime universe and alternate reality? Aren't those supposed to be split? That would suggest that we shouldn't even really use it in the main text, since we have no idea what would've happened to Archer if the Narada hadn't changed so much crap.
Those are my "common sense" thoughts for the day, and the last of my input. -- sulfur 00:22, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Eh, I'm just going to give it a break for awhile per 31dot's advice. I apologise for continuing the conversation past that point. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:30, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Fine, he wasnt referred to, but it is DeForrest Kelley. Had Scott Bakula shown up there in movie 11, the information about him being "active as of 2258" would be valid. Right now, you dont know anything about Archer's whereabouts and activity and Starfleet liaison etc based on Scotty's "Archer's prized beagle" line. Whatever we do, can go in BG. Also, I think a 146 year old active admiral and a 110+ (!) year dog is "contradiction in canon which prevents them from being the same character." Please re-read my points above but but let me restate this one: simply because in the 24th century there was technology and advancement that could allow McCoy to be 137 years old, doesnt mean that about 100 years earlier that technology existed as well to allow for the same level of life-extension. So really no, he couldnt have lived. Even if he was maybe frozen or whatever- something the "The Neutral Zone" said was a "fad in the 20th century" and thus unlikely and which Orci himself is not suggesting as he says that he is that old because space fsring civilizations can make it happen, it still does not explain his 110 year old dog. Moreover, - we still don't know anything about Archer's status in Starfleet to mention it in the side-bar as undisputed fact. And referring to your last point, frankly, I doubt that they knew what they were referring to and I genuinely believe they made it up as they went on and then explained later, thinking in the world of sci-fi (or Star Trek) magic bullets can be used to explain away everything. Star Trek never does that. But that is beside the point: the point is, is this info about Archer factual enough and mentioned in canon and non-contradictory that it would warrant mentioning it in the sidebar as undisputed fact? and the answer is no. The only thing I am saying is that stating anything about Archer's rank, activity status, relations with Starfleet or status in Starfleet etc. as part of canon is speculative and contradictory to established facts. We dont know enough and the contradictions, not to mention the massive amount of speculation I see that needs to be done to justify it there, speak for themselves, requiring it not be treated as canonical and/or fact. Distantlycharmed 00:56, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Personally, the only thing I'm arguing for is the link between "Admiral Archer" and Jonathan Archer – they're the same person, and that's firmly confirmed fact. The circumstances in which he is in at the time of the movie, his rank and status at that point are all unclear; I agree with that. I actually also agree that there is insufficient evidence to say that the "prized beagle" is Porthos. The age issue has been brought up again, but I really don't understand this argument about, just because McCoy reached 137, doesn't mean that the same technology existed 100 years earlier. While this is true, it doesn't negate the extreme possibility that it did. You seem to be working from the faulty conjecture that McCoy's age of 137 was about the oldest he was gonna get, even though there's nothing canon to support that. --Defiant 10:18, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

I think the additional point that has been brought up in the meantime is an important one: typically, we separate information from different timelines - and especially in the case of Star Trek with its possibility to become a new "parallel timeline basis" for further spin-offs in the future, we did explicitly decide to do that - either on different pages or, if there's not enough information, at least in separate sections. So, even if we want to include information about "alternate-Archer" (let's ignore our differences about that for a moment), it should not be mixed up with information about "prime-Archer", but separated. That would mean to create a section for this other Archer, and fill it with the information we know - but, as has been stated above, what information would that really be? Surely nothing about Porthos, not the fact that he is active (again) in Starfleet, not even the fact that he is still alive at the time of Star Trek (but just within a "reasonable" timeframe of it - which would bring up the next question: what is "reasonable" here?). Basically, anything we could say about this alternate-Archer is that he got into contact with Scotty eventually and lost a dog during that contact. At that point, I'd really like to know whether it wouldn't be easier to just put that information in a background note on this page - which would mean that no information is lost while the initial issue of "less-than-certain-canonicity" is circumvented nicely. -- Cid Highwind 15:05, January 30, 2011 (UTC)

How about (something like):
In 2258 of an alternate reality created by Nero's incursion, Archer was known of by Montgomery Scott, who – shortly after being met by James T. Kirk, Keenser and Ambassador Spock, in a small and almost-forgotten research outpost on Delta Vega – mentioned Archer, referring to him as an admiral. According to Scott, Archer had owned a prize beagle and Scott had attempted to prove theories he had formed about interplanetary transporting by beaming the dog, which had unfortunately never been seen again. As a result of the beagle's disappearance, Scott had been exiled to the Delta Vega outpost. (Star Trek) --Defiant 20:10, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
If we're going to say that the Archer in Star Trek is this Archer, the info should be included in a "in-universe" section of the article, but maybe in it's own section with the bg note on the interview and such, so what Defiant wrote would work in my book. If we're going to say that the Archer in the film isn't this Archer, or isn't enough for us to say either way, then that info should not just be in a bg note here, as we would then need to create another page entitled Archer (alternate reality), or something to that effect, because we would still have canon information saying that there is a Archer who was an admiral in the film, a la Rura Penthe and Klingon prison planet. I'm for saying we have enough info in this case to say this is this Archer, just like I think we have enough info to say that the Klingon prison planet was Rura Penthe, but that's just me. - Archduk3 21:36, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
Where exactly would you incorporate that info? In the "Alternate realities and timelines" section of his profile? Cause that is the only place I could see it work. What I dont understand is how - if we are going to assume that the Archer in the film isn't this Archer, as you wrote - we would still be justified to create an article of "Jonathan Archer (alternate reality)". I mean, when they are not the same people, why create an alternate reality article on the same person, thus pretending they are the same people? That doesnt make sense. Anyway, I am fine with Defiant's note in the background section or the "alternate realities and timelines" section. Either way though I dont think we would be justified to create an "alternate reality" article of Jonathan Archer for reasons mentioned above. Let me add that I would mention in Defiant's note the age Archer would be by 2258, that there was no mention of his role in Starfleet and whether was still active and that the beagle, if it was meant to be Porthos - which no one ever said - would be something like 110+ years old and include Orci's quote on that as I still believe that there is too much contradiction in canon which prevents them from being the same character. Distantlycharmed 05:13, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
You're right; I purposely missed out any "additional details" section, but I'm not suggesting that such details not be added – I just think they should be separated from the in-universe section and thought it might be confusing for readers if I suggested an outline of both, here. You're also right about thinking this was meant for the "Alternate realities and timelines" section – it's specifically written from the perspective of 2258 in the alternate reality, so there's the least amount of humming-and-hawing over what prior events did or did not occur in whichever reality, etc. Archer redirects here and, if "Admiral Archer" is not Jon Archer, one of the few other details we know about him, for sure, is that he was known in the alternate reality. What would you like instead? Archer (prized beagle owner)?! --Defiant 10:37, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
If you want to create an article that says Archer (alternate reality) (sorry I just noticed it doesnt say Jonathan but just Archer), then it makes sense. My bad. I just automatically read Jonathan Archer. However, I am not sure what info you would put in there other than the "prized beagle" stuff and background note by Orci. I certainly dont oppose an article being created on just Archer, alternate reality. I think what you proposed previously can be put in the "alternate realities and timelines" section (if we agree they are the same character) or background section (if we dont want to create an alternate Archer article). Distantlycharmed 22:31, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
I'd personally be opposed to restricting all info to the bg info section(s). The question (at least, in my mind) becomes: does anyone still oppose the proposition I made here and/or the idea that "Admiral Archer" refers to Jonathan Archer, which both common sense and bg sources confirm? --Defiant 23:23, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, even if I was able to "tolerate" this (still being unconvinced) - I would definitely bring this up to oppose any future FA nominations, because declaring an article "the best we have" while it contains statements that we can't be absolutely certain of would be whitewashing the issue too much in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 23:47, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

As the saying goes, "Never say never...." Anyway, I myself don't see this article meeting FA criteria any time soon, either; there's just too much of a "disputed content" issue going on. While you clearly feel that the evidence for "Admiral Archer" being a reference to Jonathan Archer is insufficient, I strongly believe the opposite. Even though I don't agree with your opinion on this matter, though, I still absolutely respect it. --Defiant 00:06, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
How is a 146 year admiral and a 110+ year dog that contradicts canon "common sense"? I honestly don't get it. And how could anything be said with certainty on his status and role and activity in starfleet based solely on Scotty's "Archer's prized beagle" comment? If it wasnt for Orci's "clarification" afterwards trying to rationalize it, we really would not have even this tiny shred of supposed "evidence" that these two are one and the same people. Anyway, I wonder if it has ever occurred to people that Orci/Kurtzman, maybe, but just maybe, could be wrong and that's why we face all these issues? The reason we even have this debate in the first place is because of the inadequate, superficial research they have done into Star Trek and then translated into the movie, as evidenced by comments like oh yeah we'll they are a space farcing civilization so we can totally assume they can do kind of stuff. This is not gonna go away and we are going to face this issue with upcoming projects (by these two) where they'll throw in stuff like that for shits and giggles (literally) and then try to rationalize it away later. The "it's the future and they are advanced" line seems to be sufficient for them to explain away everything, which makes me question how the Abrams reboot is ever going to really fit into 4 decades of established canon - alternate timeline or not. Anyway, I am fine with some variation of Defiant's proposed note in the background but with a notation stating that Orci intended for the Admiral mentioned in the movie to be John Archer and that given age and other isues it is inconclusive/contradictory to established canon. I dont see a reason to "filibuster" this FA nomination because of that. Distantlycharmed 00:57, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
"If the goal of Memory-Alpha is to be an encyclopedia of Trek material looked at as authoritative, trustworthy, and accurate we *have* to treat the material in Trek consistent with the intention of the production staff." - AHolland, quoted by Cid via Alan.
While the USS Melbourne debate was a different beast entirely, I still think that quote holds true here. Fans watching the film expect the Archer mentioned to be this Archer, not some other random Archer, and the writers confirmed it.
To quote Cid directly: "This expectation should not be contradicted if we don't have to - and in fact, no valuable information is completely lost if we don't have two articles instead of one."
We don't know of any other Archer active during that time, so there's no reason there to believe that the Archer mentioned isn't this Archer. Even the problem with his age isn't impossible, though it does seem improbable, but there simply is no contradiction in canon there either, since we have nothing saying that he couldn't live that long. Noting the appropriate bg info after the film reference in the article should be more than enough for any reader to make a informed decision - Archduk3 01:31, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
I completely agree, but I'd also state that this isn't the place to launch into a diatribe/review of the film Star Trek; there's plenty of other sites that are better suited to that kind of stuff, Distantlycharmed, as well you should know! --Defiant 01:41, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
First of all, who is AH Holland? Second, with all due respect but how about some independent thinking instead of relying on how other people have interpreted things in the past so you can repeat their interpretations here over and over without reassessment? Treating the material in Trek consistent with the intention of the production staff is good and fine but not with so much contradiction within canon and inconclusiveness and speculation. Fans are not stupid. They can put two and two together and realize that while maybe it could be Archer's descendant the movie is referring to, it could hardly be THE Archer, even if Orci thinks so. Talking to other fans, frankly, the fact that they actually implied that this was the same Archer from like 150 years ago, is laughable and ridiculous to most of them (though i am not claiming them to be representative of ALL fans, it wasnt a clinical trial i conducted). Moreover, stating that because we dont know of any other Archer active and alive at that time it then must unequivocally mean that he is Jonthan Archer for a fact is a total fallacy. What makes you think there is and only always was one Archer in all of Starfleet since its foundation and that any references to Archer must mean Jonathan Archer? Canon certainly doesnt support it or a 110 year old dog, who doesnt evne have ot be Porthos, he never says Porthos. All this massive speculation I am seeing is based on three little words by Scotty. If the authors think they are the same, fine, put it in the background. Last but not least, bringing up the issue and underlying cause for this is important and whether people like it or not, or ignore it or not, it will remain an issue and debates like this will ensue as a result. Maybe this particular debate is not the forum for it, which I can see, but I think it really will require of us, as the new Abrams' franchise develops, to think how we are going about this new timeline born out of Hollywood greed, lack of creativity or whatever else people call it. Distantlycharmed 02:30, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
You definitely seem to be straying far from the topic at hand, DC. Can we please keep this on-topic, which is about Archer and not about your trivial opinion of the film? I don't have time to waste on trying to decipher such vast generalizations and having to sift through your stubborn opinions of whatever you think is likely or not, written in such dyer spelling and without backing up your opinion with facts. The odds of such posts being constructive are nothing or next to it! --Defiant 03:32, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, yeah - because quoting from 2.5 years old discussions without proper context will surely help this discussion. :) For what it's worth, the comments Archduk3 repeated here are from Talk:USS Melbourne, where we were talking about a ship (or "ships"?) called "Melbourne" in a single battle and whether we need to create a second article just because a second model was used, basically invisible to the viewer. Here, we are talking about situations a hundred years and a universe apart, so just picking the raisins out of what I and others said there while ignoring the context it was stated in is at least a little misleading. -- Cid Highwind 09:43, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks, for the explanation, Cid. Here's a quote from DC's post: "Stating that because we don't know of any other Archer active and alive at that time it then must unequivocally mean that he is Jonathan Archer for a fact is a total fallacy. What makes you think there is and only always was one Archer in all of Starfleet since its foundation and that any references to Archer must mean Jonathan Archer?'" I don't think this was suggested. The fact that Jon Archer was the only Archer known to be active in Starfleet and alive at about that time implies probability that he is "Admiral Archer". We know he is because of author intent, which must be taken into account. It proves the connection, regardless of your feelings about the authors themselves and/or their work. As the connection can be proven, it is a fact. --Defiant 11:02, February 1, 2011 (UTC)
I don't see anything misleading about using those quotes, since I did point out that they came from a completely different discussion about the USS Melbourne. If anything, it would have been disingenuous to say the same things without quoting them. That said, I don't think the change in context changes anything with AHolland's statement, and I'm still of the opinion that the audience's expectations should not be contradicted when we have a source stating the writers intent quite clearly, and there's no canon contradiction. - Archduk3 20:15, February 1, 2011 (UTC)

Loque'equeEdit

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)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki