User talk:Ritchy/Star Trek

linking

Why did you link photonic torpedoes to photon torpedoes in Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems?--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 21:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

They are diffrent, They both are antimatter torpedoes.. however photonic torpedoes probably have some differences as well as being less advanced.--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 12:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never known an encyclopeadia to ask questions so i did not believe they belong on wikipedia, If you would like to place them back i have no objections.--Matthew Fenton (TALK - CONTRIBS) 06:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

ECON

Hi. I noticed that you added "Of Nations" to the Eastern Coalition. I'm wondering where the citation is for that. Makgraf 19:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been asking around on that discussion page actually but so far no one has confirmation (though they did also suggest the First Contact commentary). It'd be great if there were commentary transcripts up somewhere, eh? Makgraf 04:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been doing some checking around and it seems very unlikely that the "Of Nations" is part of the name (it was orginally added to the Memory Alpha article by an anonymous user and I guess it just stuck).

1. It's not in the movie.

2. It's not in the Star Trek Encylopedia

3. Few acronyms capitalize an "of"

4. Acronyms don't have to track exactly.

Makgraf 02:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If I find any new info on it, I'll let you know. Makgraf 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise Continuity deletion

A big shame about this, Ricthy, you put a lot of work into the article and certain proponents of afd were over-zealous and pedantically determiend to see it go. However if we stripped the article to its bare bones and only compared episodes, we could resurrect it. Crossmr has said he would support such an article. What do you think? Did you keep a copy? Magic Pickle 16:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting - if you look at the current ST ENT article - you find that canon discussion is now creeping into the main article as well. Take a look. It perhaps shows that the continuity errors article was a useful repository for this sort of thing - because now it's quite clear it's bleeding into the main article. Magic Pickle 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Enterprise cleanup

First of all apologies on dumping my version here, I'm not sure where else to put it.

I have really gutted the article - it is a big shame but we have to stop them from hammering us with cries of OR ! OR ! OR! I've had to strip out anything which might be OR. It doesn't leave all that much, but it describes the best/worst continuity gaffes. Magic Pickle 00:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Trek: Enterprise, the latest series based upon the Star Trek universe created by Gene Roddenberry, debuted in September 2001. Even before the series aired, some Star Trek fans began criticizing the show for allegedly violating well-established continuity of previous Star Trek series. As a prequel to the other Star Trek series, Enterprise came under noticeably intense scrutiny from fans.

While some contend that the series cannot reconcile with earlier shows, others respond that most if not all alleged continuity violations can be explained. The number of perceived continuity violations has led to some fans to refuse to accept Enterprise as canon, although it is undeniably so according to Paramount Pictures, owners of the Star Trek franchise. Other fans insist on claiming that Enterprise takes place in an alternate timeline from the other Star Trek series, even though Brannon Braga has declared that it is "of course not" the case. On the other hand, it should also be noted that, whilst co-creator Brannon Braga claims he and his staff were "slaves to the continuity", he concedes that the production team "bent rules" whilst making Enterprise.

To clarify the article, the various Star Trek series will be referred to by their standard abbreviations. The original series is denoted by TOS, "Star Trek: The Next Generation" by TNG, "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" by DS9, "Star Trek: Voyager" by VOY and the new series "Enterprise" is ENT.

{{spoiler}}

Technology
Cloaking
In the episode "Balance of Terror" (TOS), the existence of the Romulan cloaking device comes as a shock to the crew of the NCC-1701,

Invisibility is theoretically possible, Captain — selectively bending light. But the power cost is enormous. They may have solved that.

Yet during its mission over a century before, the NX-01 encountered several races with cloaking technology, and even took possession of and used a cloaking pod from the Suliban.

Weapon technology
According to "Balance of Terror" (TOS), the Earth-Romulan War which took place around the time of ENT was fought using atomic weapons. However, the NX-01 is armed with phase cannons and photonic torpedoes, and the Romulan ships seen in ENT have a similar armament. Furthermore, the Vulcan civil war that raged in Surak's time, in the 4th century, was shown in the episode "Awakening" (ENT) to have been fought using nuclear weapons.

Klingons
In the episode "First Contact" (TNG), Captain Picard described first contact with the Klingons in this manner:

Centuries ago, a disastrous first contact with the Klingon Empire led to decades of war. It was decided then that we must do surveillance before making contact.

However, the episode "Broken Bow" (ENT) results in Archer helping avert a Klingon civil war and being thanked by the Klingon High Council.

First ship to bear the name?
The refitted NCC-1701 recreation room seen in "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" shows a progression of famous ships to bear the name Enterprise, including the pre-Federation aircraft carrier Enterprise and the Space Shuttle Enterprise, followed by the USS Enterprise (XCV 330) Considering the importance of the NX-01’s mission for Earth's survival and the founding of the Federation, it is hard to see how it was not included.

Also, the NX-01 does not feature in the display cabinet of the Enterprise-D, which has a variety of model Enterprises, including pre-federation Enterprises.

Civility

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. --Crossmr 23:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

1. I didn't follow you to that page. I was invited by Magick Pickle as was evident from my first comment there.
2. I never flamed you in the least bit. However you're used profanity, tried to WP:OWN the article by telling me to get out of there, and made insulting comments and falsely accused me of stalking you. Its also an AfD not a VfD and it was months ago. I was noted for my civil behaviour there. if you had a problem then, perhaps you should have raised it.
3. I didn't ignore canon, you've provided no canon to support your argument or a credible source. All I've ignored is YOUR interpretation of canon, which another user also supported.
4. I didn't falsely accuse you of engaging in an edit war. That was a standard civil2 template for the comments you made on the talk page. I highly recommend you cool down before making another more false accusations.--Crossmr 23:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

My communication with MagickPickle is a complete matter of wiki-record. She dropped the Ent Continuity stuff on my talk page (which I moved to a subpage, which is now gone but could be undeleted). I haven't communicated with them outside of wikipedia. It consisted mainly of "Here is the material", "here are my suggestions on what should be changed" and then she left that comment. If you're concerned they mentioend you by name, you'll have to ask them.

If I suggested you need a wikibreak then, you probably do. Your incivility is quite telling. I chose civil2 because I felt your outright hostility was more than civil1 but probably not of the civil3 level. Perhaps you should read what it says again, its an "or", not an "and" it was in no way suggesting that you were engaging in an edit war this second. On the other hand you were making personal attacks by accusing me of false stalking.

You've copied the dialogue. You can copy it all you want. But until the dialogue supports exactly what you're saying, you're putting forth an unsourced opinion. Your opinion is not on that kirk didn't know about those beings but why he didn't know about those beings. If you want to state "Kirk had no idea those beings existed" great, perfect credible source. If you want to further theorize on why he didn't know about those beings, you need a source for it. If kirk turned around and said "There is nothing in the database about these beings ever existing" then you probably have a nice solid foundation for that theory.

Part 2 You raised the point that the invitation was made by name referencing you. I didn't. I simply pointed out that Magickpickle was the one who left that note asking me to go there and comment on OR. That was in response to your claim that I was supposedly following you around.

Regardless of when your incivility manifest, you obviously have a problem discussing this issue civily. I certainly wasn't the one who resorted to profanity and telling the other to get out of the article.

As for Kirk, I've told you what the dialogue supports. It supports Kirk didn't know about those life-forms. It doesn't say why. You're theorizing that the reason kirk didn't know about them is an inconsistency in canon. I was simply saying that there are other reasons kirk might not have known about them and the dialogue doesn't support any specific reason. That is your interpretation of canon and unless you can find a credible source to back it up, its OR. I actually gave several scenarios as to why Kirk might not know about it, I also gave an example of dialogue that would support what you're saying. You haven't provided any. Have a look at this from WP:OR It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; That's exactly what you're doing, and you don't have a source for it. The episode doesn't clearly state the reason Kirk didn't know about it, and your analyzing that in your way without a source.--Crossmr 19:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Canon (Star Trek)

I noticed you took out one of the "see also" links on the Canon (Star Trek) page. I can't quite understand your reasoning though. You said "don't refer to Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles". But the "See also" section is not references, it's links to other relevant pages in Wikipedia. And what could be more relevant to this page then another page on Star Trek canon? -- Ritchy 16:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ritchy, you zarking frood. Take a look at Wikipedia:Avoid self-references - linking to the page on the Memory Alpha wiki is better, I think. Proto::► 16:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)