Talk:Jonathan Archer/alternate reality

Merge

For reference, the past discussions merging the original version of this to Jonathan Archer, and the discussion that somehow resulted in recreating this page.

Since almost the entire Jonathan Archer page can and, according to past discussions on the subject, should be included here, since all common information should be on both pages, this page should just be included on that page with a redirect to the section, to avoid the near complete duplication. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 02:40, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

I thought the alternate reality stuff was being kept separate because it was becoming too cumbersome to keep the information organized properly, and among other thinks (and pardon my language), it was making the sidebars a clusterfuck. --Terran Officer 02:56, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

In this case, keeping it separate would result in a near duplication of an article, with this article requiring an update whenever the "prime" article was changed. The simplest solution IMO to all the problems, including the ones mentioned elsewhere, is to move this to a new section on Jonathan Archer, with this as the redirect, and create a second sidebar there, like at USS Defiant. Thus the separation between universes is retained, without the need for all the overhead and duplication. - Archduk3 (on an unsecure connection) 03:09, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: it may be true that this article, in its current form, duplicates information from Jonathan Archer - but, as the discussion linked to above shows, it's an open question whether we even want to make the assumption explicit that this Archer is that Archer. I personally do not. As an alternative, I suggest the following:

• Rename/Move this page to Archer (admiral) (or some other disambiguated variant of Archer)
• Remove anything that is duplicate information from Jonathan Archer, leave only the information from Star Trek.
• Add a background comment, stating that this "was a hint at Jonathan Archer" (or some similar phrasing)
• Add a similar background comment to the JA-article as well.

That way, we'd achieve the least amount of speculation while still being as informative as possible. Let the reader beware and let him draw own conclusions, instead of enforcing one specific interpretation of several possibilities. -- Cid Highwind 09:19, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Let's just leave the article as is, where it is. I see no need to include Jon's pre-AR info here.

I don't really want to rehash previous discussions, so I'll just say that I support how the article currently deals with the "Jonathan" issue.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 09:57, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I might be just stating the obvious here, but can't this information just be included in the "Alternate realities and timelines" section of the Jonathan Archer article since there's next to no information on this alternate Archer anyway? To me, this seems to make sense. --| TrekFan ^{Open a channel} 10:02, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Support merge given only one bit of information is different(the experience with Scotty and the Dog). Also without rehashing old discussions, I believe this should remain at this title if the pages are not merged.--31dot 10:58, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

It is hard to discuss this with people who basically state that, "yep, there has been a past discussion about this topic - but let's just ignore the points that have been brought up there". If that is a proper way of dealing with things, I'm sure no one will mind if I just start changing random pages where a consensus is more than, say, 3 months old...

One problem of re-merging this to the "main" JA article in form of a separate section with its own sidebar is that doing so would not solve the problem of content duplication that has been brought up here. On the other hand, removing all duplicated content from the second sidebar would create one that is nearly empty - and should not be a sidebar in the first place. Combined with the still valid issue of "less-than-certain canonicity", merging these pages should result in a background note about a one-line mentioning of some "Admiral Archer" which was supposed to be J.Archer according to producer intent, but about whom we know nothing else (especially not that he had been "reactivated" or similar). -- Cid Highwind 08:47, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Addressing only the insinuations in your first sentence: I was just saying I didn't feel like going around in circles again. I never said to ignore previous discussions; rather it was that I stand by my previous comments in the other discussions. Honest, intelligent people can disagree about things without one side being clearly wrong. I have one view on interpreting our canon policy, you have another.–Cleanse ^{( talk | contribs )} 10:31, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, do not mistake not mentioning previous discussions for not wanting to talk about them- if you want to, we can- I just didn't think it necessary to repeat, especially to a regular contributor like you or me. I think this guy is the same character as Jonathan Archer and that there is enough evidence and precedent elsewhere to back it up.--31dot 10:45, April 12, 2011 (U

• Oppose: for reasons mentioned by Cid above and because of the million kb debate we had on Archer's discussion/peer review page already and reasons mentioned therein. Why are we bringing this up again anyway? Why cant we just add it as a background note to the Archer article and state that in whatever ignorant-about-Star Trek, delusional state Kurtzman and Orci were, they said it is the same Archer even though all evidence and canon information point to the opposite. Anyway, what Cid said; see also debates and arguments made on the discussion page/peer review page and thus oppose merging/pretending they are the same people. Distantlycharmed 19:59, May 11, 2011 (UTC)

Original/Alternate?

I've read many things above about whether this article should be merged or not. I do not have a direct oppinion because I don't know how the film should fit.

It is stated that the film is a reboot of the franchise by altering time. This happens because Nero travels back in time and changes things. However, he travels to 2233, which is approx. 78 years after the events of Enterprise, which means those events still happened in the reboot-universe (or Abramsuniverse) up until Nero's arrival.

I do not know if the events of Enterprise is considered canon in the reboot, but if it is, then this Archer is the original Jonathan Archer, up until Nero's arrival, if he's still alive, which is actually impossible as he would have been over a hundred years old. Nivaoo (talk) 14:32, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but you're not saying anything that hasn't been said here and elsewhere. 31dot (talk) 15:52, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Archer 2009

Star Trek 2009 only states that it was an Admiral Archer, not that it was Jonathan Archer, given the information from "In the Mirror, Darkly" that said he became the Federation President at one point Scotty would have said President Archer's prize beagle (his most senior position) if he was talking about Jonathan Archer, right? (we say President Eisenhower, not General Eisenhower), even if the Writers stated in an interview that it was Jonathan Archer, onscreen information is canon interviews are not Chasemarc (talk) 06:09, June 2, 2013 (UTC)