Talk:A Night in Sickbay

Analysis
I've changed the "analysis" section back, to reflect a more neutral POV. I understand that it can be difficult to keep personal opinions out of these things, but the whole point of Wikipedia is to try and be objective. If you can cite some specific examples of these fan complaints please do so.Multiverse 23:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed the analysis section to be more factual and removed online survey. There have been loads of online surveys, and citing one makes no sense, especially as a link to ratings (when the survey is not about ratings, but about a small group of people feel about each episode). Complaints remain uncited and not factual.

Screen shot
I added a second screen shot to this episode's article. This image shows Archer at the climax of the Kreetassan apology ritual.

I had intended to give this image file a name referencing the Enterprise series and the episode number, but something went amiss while I was uploading the screen shot, and I couldn't figure out how to rename it afterwards. If anyone else would like to give this file a more appropriate name, please be my guest.

Also, I realize that some people might object to the idea of having more than one screen shot per episode. In that case, I would propose that this picture of Archer doing his apology to the Kreetassans is more representative of the episode than the other picture of Archer and Phlox, holding nets, trying to catch a loose bat in Sickbay. But I'd be perfectly happy to see both screen shots stay.

Richwales 03:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Enterprise - S2E05 - A Night in Sickbay.jpg
Image:Enterprise - S2E05 - A Night in Sickbay.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
I think the criticism section should be deleted entirely. This is not a blog. I enjoyed that episode. This doesn't mean I can insert that into the article.

Also, if the caption is going to describe Archer tending to Porthos, I think the picture should portray this. Besides, Porthos is cuter then butterfly nets.

Lots42 00:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Beagle picture
I've added a generic image of a Beagle as there isn't one of Breezy who mostly played Porthos during this episode. However, if anyone has an image of Breezy then please swap out the current Beagle image with that. The one current there is simply better than nothing at all. Miyagawa (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

SF Debris
Pinging User:Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici - I note that your recent edits have cited the website SF Debris. I do not believe that the website meets the reliability criteria and instead actually meets the description set out at WP:QUESTIONABLE as there appears to be no editorial oversight - simply put, it appears to be a self published website with no reasoning why it should be considered reliable. Because of this, the text you've previously inserted is tantamount to original research. Also, I note that you cited through to the Enterprise episode list - you shouldn't cite other articles in articles per WP:CIRCULAR. Could you possibly explain how SF Debris meets the reliability criteria and we can clear this whole thing up. Miyagawa (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * SF Debris is a prominent Star Trek reviewer...to the point that when he described the main villain of Enterprise Season 1 as "Future Guy", it became an internet fan nickname and - as it turns out - Berman and Braga didn't have an official name for "Future Guy", and actually adopted SF Debris' fan-nickname, beginning to refer to him as "Future Guy" themselves.


 * That being said, I'd like to use the quote from SF Debris that "the ratings sank like a stone" after this, but it is not a requirement. I simply want to point out that a glance at the ratings list demonstrates this trend - but that might be "original research" on my part.  So yes, SF Debris is a fairly prominent Trek reviewer - he's famously the person who named "Future Guy" - but I may need to cite him to avoid original research.


 * You see, SF Debris point was succinct and obvious: ratings don't drop the week of a bad episode, as if viewers quickly reach for their remotes to change the channel.  Ratings drop off after a bad episode, the week after, as a reaction to the immediately preceding one.  The result was that the Enterprise writers tried to wave off any direct correlation between the disaster of "A Night in Sickbay" and the subsequent - subsequent - ratings drop.  Simply looking at a list, it becomes obvious that *the ratings dropped like a stone* after ANIS and never recovered.  This is one of the most clear-cut correlations between ratings and a bad episode we've seen.


 * Thus the point isn't reading into it that much: ratings were strong the weak it aired, because WHEN in history do people flip channels halfway through?  Rather, watching this episode start to finish made people give up on the franchise.  I was there:  it was confirming that all of the problems in Season 1 would never be fixed - sophomoric sex jokes, inconsistent characterization, simply bad writing - but indeed, the writers shoved it in at high levels.  Maybe the network was more to blame, I'm not sure.


 * I digress: it isn't much original research to point out that ratings dropped after this, but even if Original Research, in that case we should cite SF Debris, who IS a fairly major online Trek reviewer whom even the writers have referred to (even adopting some of his nicknames for characters - as explained on Memory Alpha).  And SF Debris' point was succinct, not particularly "opinionated" - a massive ratings drop began immediately after this episode aired, so logically, it became the "high water mark" of Season 2 by default.  I...hope this is enough to include the citation.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Memory Alpha isn't a reliable source either - the claim that SF Debris was the source for Future Guy is uncited there too and so it doesn't ascertain the notability of the review. Miyagawa (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I should say though - that actually saying that the ratings went down after this episode wouldn't be original research as long as it can be cited - although the season article might be a better place to give the whole picture. Miyagawa (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting observation about the ratings drop by SF Debris and I took another look to see if I could find more sources but the week directly after this episode was a rerun (of Shockwave part 2). Ratings drop by about half for reruns. (We can complain about too many reruns and the show being preempted another time, perhaps in the season article rather than in the episode article) The next new episode was Marauders (Star Trek: Enterprise) two weeks later and the drop in numbers was small, and described positively. The ratings showed a gradual decline, and there are too many other sources showing that to accept the more colorful interpretation that they "dropped like a stone" -- 109.79.65.173 (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * For anyone looking back at this and in need of context, the Ratings column in the season 2 table List_of_Star_Trek:_Enterprise_episodes shows that the ratings decline was gradual. (The were two lowpoints, "Vanishing Point" was a predictable low due to Thanksgiving, and as for "Horizon" I haven't done a deep dive on why the ratings were so bad that week but I'd bet that being preempted by sports was the most likely factor, or Easter holidays, or a combination of both.) -- 109.79.70.46 (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on A Night in Sickbay. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131223163808/http://www.performinganimaltroupe.com/dogs/breezy.html to http://www.performinganimaltroupe.com/dogs/breezy.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130925203213/http://joelharlowdesigns.com/index.php/portfolio/image-galleries/characters to http://www.joelharlowdesigns.com/index.php/portfolio/image-galleries/characters
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041228181302/http://www.trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=vRKci6IVZ8qRs to http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=vRKci6IVZ8qRs
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5yVVI8r8Z?url=http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2003-hugo-awards/ to http://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-history/2003-hugo-awards/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:13, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Inside A Night in Sickbay
There is a DVD featurette called "Inside A Night in Sickbay" which includes at least a couple of details that might be worth adding to the Production section but I'm not sure how to properly reference it. It is 11 minutes 17 seconds long, and (from about 3 minutes to 5 minutes 30 seconds) VFX superviser Ron B. Moore talks about getting CG artist Bruce Branit to do the Bat. (At about 7 minutes) Bakula talks about the costumes, the material used for the surgical scrubs looked great but was very noisy and all the dialog had to be rerecorded (or "looped"). Including details about the VFX and the costumes would make for a more complete Production section, but again I'm not sure how best to reference DVD special features. -- 109.79.73.200 (talk) 23:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)