Talk:Jonathan Archer

February 2005
Added season 4 information about the character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.162.207 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 19 February 2005 (UTC)

Schenectady
As is being discussed on the Memory Alpha, who ever keeps putting this city in the article please STOP. Mike Sussman, the writer of the episode and the display in "In a Mirror, Darkly Part II" put the original graphic used to make the screen on his website and has said himself that they used Upstate New York, never giving a real city. - A.J. 22:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That bio of Jon Archer on that last link you posted has different writing on it than the actual bio on-screen from the episode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blade82 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

August 2006
If Archer IV is named after him, then who is Archer I, II and III named after?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.68.235 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Trek lore seems to name planets sequentially from the named star -- so, if the star's name is Bob, then the first planet is Bob I, the second Bob II, etc. So, the star is named after Archer, and the first planet is Archer I, then Archer II, etc. --EEMeltonIV 22:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first planet is Archer Prime, then Archer II, etc. I think the only time "I" is used is in Angel I, which the title card reads Angel One. Also, remember that Ceti Alpha VI exploded and changed the orbit of Ceti Alpha V. SilverWoodchuck47 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Knowing Archer, those planets were probably destroyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.236.254 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Memorable quotes
I removed this section. "Quotes" is a bit vague -- certainly this isn't an exhaustive list of all her quotes. What're the criteria for inclusion? It looks like this might more aptly be called "Memorable" quotes or "WP:ILIKEIT quotes" -- but that's subjective/non-NPOV. "Notable" quotes would be more significant, but lacking a citation about what makes them memorable, that doesn't work either. Lastly, straight-up quotes should be over in Wikiquote. If someone wants to move them over there, by all means... --EEMeltonIV 11:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Babel One (ENT episode).jpg
Image:Babel One (ENT episode).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 00:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Xindi (ENT episode).jpg
Image:The Xindi (ENT episode).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 this Wikipedia article 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 06:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge Porthos here
The dog doesn't have any real-world significance. It would probably be more appropriate to put the dog, briefly, in this article. Thoughts? --EEMeltonIV 10:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am a fan of Star Trek, and the show, and I for one don't believe his dog should get his own article.  Keiko O'Brien for example, doesn't even have her own article, and she's a bit more important to the show than Porthos, hehe.  I say merge the articles, but I don't even think that he needs his own section on the article, just a mention.  Same goes for Spot and Data.  Ejfetters 07:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that Porthos should continue to have his own page. As the Porthos page points out, Porthos has a much stronger presence in the series than Spot (referenced above). An entire episode focused on Porthos, and he appeared on the show quite regularly. I'm not sure what "real-world significance" means in the first entry, but for many viewers, especially children, Porthos is a source of much amusement and curiosity and a stimulus for Web exploration and learning. In fact, Porthos' page is the one and only page we've ever visited among the Enterprise entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cfwrites (talk • contribs) 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it is a notable fictional dog. No reason why it shouldn't have its own article. Also this article is loaded (contains a lot of material) which makes a merger improper. -- Cat chi? 16:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * hahahahahahahahaha. -- Ned Scott 06:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Porthos (Star Trek) is up for deletion. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And re. this article being "loaded" -- it is loaded with plot summary more apt for Memory Alpha; this page, too, needs an overhaul/keel haul. --EEMeltonIV 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support — A sentence or two here seems appropriate; a whole article on a non-notable fictional dog does not. --Jack Merridew 11:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Porthos has a whole section for itself, wow. Considering how annoying and uninteligent Archer's character was (and they gave him a ship), that was only matched by Tucker's simple-mindedness and accent (he should have been a truck driver), the dog does indeed earn this.. but why stop here? Hell, make a wikiporthos. There's so much to tell.Hah, Porthos' entry is longer than Archer's 'place in history'. Put some more data and it will start to look like the dog was at the helm of the whole thing.Also, i wonder what Porthos' mirror universe counterpart was like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.60.236.254 (talk) 04:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Porthos: weather or not he has an article or a section or a footnote Hoshi Sato was never Portho's caretaker that was Phlox's job. Try watching Star Trek before writing Star Trek articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.96.139.42 (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In the 2009 film directed by JJ Abrams, Scotty remarks that his stationing on a class n planet is perhaps the result of a failed long-range transporter experiment involving 'Admiral Archer's' beagle. It can be presumed that Scotty killed Porthos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.128.41 (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah he is talking about Archer, but you can't assume it is Porthos. 71.68.49.116 (talk) 07:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No reason that it can't be Porthos. For all we know, Porthos had a few time travel adventures or something. For that matter, if Porthos is stuck in a transporter beam, that means he might turn up somewhere in the 24th century but on the other side of the alpha quadrant, this is assuming that transporter beams travel at the speed of light. Or possibly, a transporter malfunction beamed him into an alternate universe where there's better acting and scriptwriting than there was in the '09 Trek movie. 199.36.12.25 (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I replaced some weasel words claiming that viewers are "led to believe" that this can't be Porthos but "one of a long line of pet Beagles in Archer's life." We have no evidence that there is a "long line of pet Beagles". Maybe (assuming it wasn't Porthos) it was his only other beagle. The argument that is making some people assume that it can't be Porthos goes exactly like this: "Porthos would be over 70 Years old by the time Scott was born. In the real world, dogs don't live that long. Therefore, Porthos from Star Trek can't live that long." Hope this clears everything upMr. ATOZ (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

USS Archer NCC-44278
I'm watching Nemesis right now, and I noticed that one of the starships in Star Fleet Battle Group Omega (group awaiting Enterprise at sector 1045) is USS Archer. Scene is about 70 minutes into the movie. Is there any information about this ship? Could she be named after Cpt.Johnatan Archer? Mchl 18:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In-Universe
I don't know how this can be written in anything other than an in-universe style. Surely we don't need a comment after each sentence reminding people that someone who lives in the 23rd century is a fictional character! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.155.206 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Image for Porthos
I feel that Image:Porthos-where no dog had gone before2.jpg is better than Image:Archer with Porthos.jpg as it shows the actor "acting" rather than posing therefore it better identifies the "character". -- Cat chi? 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The only reason I prefer the other image is because it is more of a close up. If you can find one that can entail both images that would be preferrable. Ejfetters 22:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * We can crop it a bit. The thing that bothers me a bit is that there were at least 3 different dogs acting the role. The one with the Ferengi may also be a good image. -- Cat chi? 00:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Space Pirate?
Should Archer be added to the category Space Pirates for his act of piracy in "Damages"? JCDenton2052 (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In short, no. I explained in more detail on your talk page. Categories are there for the basic, most notable characteristics, not for every detail. A single episode makes up about 1% of the series. Furthermore, since there is no mention of that episode or "space pirates" in the article, adding the category would fail WP:V since users would not be able to verify the space pirate claim.-Andrew c [talk] 15:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Archer and April
So both Archer and Robert April have been referred to as the first captain of the starship Enterprise by people working with the series. This is quite contradictory. I wonder if there's ever been any kind of "official statement" saying that Jonathan Archer is really the first captain of Enterprise, sort of an admission of retconning?

Either way, I suppose they're both the first captain of Enterprise. Archer's the first captain of Enterprise as a Starfleet vessel, and April's the first captain of the United Federation of Planets starship Enterprise. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 19:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Different Enterprises. Archer commanded NX 01 the first Starship Enterprise. April commanded NCC 1701, the first Constitution class starship a hundred years later. As an aside, in one of the novels, Kirk and his father were passengers aboard NCC 1701 under April. Dloh cierekim  03:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Coincidence??
This character shares the first name of one, and the surname of another former British Conservative MPs who were both jailed (on unconnected perjury related convictions) not terribly long before this TV programme was made, i.e. Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken. Is this a coincidence? It seems remarkable if it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.124.128.229 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You can find the following at IMDB, and there are a few online articles that back this up. I was rather surprised there was nothing about it in the article, as that was the sole reason I looked it up.The first name of Captain Archer was initially to have been Jeffrey. While the (American) producers of the show didn't see any problems with this name, UK fans pointed out the link to disgraced author, actor and politician Jeffrey Archer after learning of the name over the Internet. The name was changed to Jackson, but there was exactly one person in the country named Jackson Archer. To avoid lawsuits, Jonathan was chosen for a name because there were 20 Jonathan Archers. Livingston 06:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sources confirm they had at one point intended to name the character Jackson Archer. I find it difficult to believe they ever considered naming him Jeffrey Archer, Google was already widely used by 2001, but contemporary sources also suggest that was true. -- 109.79.180.133 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Empress Sato
I've reworded the sentence about Hoshi's theft of Defiant and the throne from Darkly Universe Archer. In the episode, she claims the throne, backed by Defiant's superiority. According to Memory Beta, she becomes empress and has name sake successors. Dloh cierekim  05:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Production
Casting of Bakula was apparently "a wish list choice that worked out."

That might be useful if anyone is willing to start a Production section to add real world details to this article. (I've other articles I'm trying to improve so I'm unlikely to ever get around to doing it myself.) -- 109.77.204.50 (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

“8th-best Star Trek captain”
The section is pretty dumb, particularly the first paragraph. In every ranking of the captains that's referenced, Archer places dead last (except for the one where he's ranked above the two captains who turn out to be evil). But this article phrases it as "nth-best captain", which is misleading, to say the least. That said, I don't think we should change it to "ranked last", because he's still regarded rather positively. Honestly, I'm tempted to just delete most of the section—is it really informative to readers if The Wrap says he's the "29th-best main cast character"? —  Will • B  [talk] 23:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)