Talk:Oasis (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Ratings
I was trying to find more information or context for episodes ratings. Variety.com mentioned this episode in the weeks ratings overview, noting that it achieved 5.6 million viewers This week it was (a lead-in for and) paired with a rerun of a show that UPN had brought over from CBS called Wolf Lake (and the remaining 4 (of 10) episodes of Wolf Lake would aired alongside Enterprise season 1). Kellie Waymire who had a recurring role on Enterprise also happened to have a recurring role on Wolf Lake. More context, but still part of the overall pattern for the season, with the three big three ahead in the ratings and UPN following behind. (I should have stopped there but I wasted even more time and kept looking.) Zap2it reported the overnight ratings for Wednesday April 3, 2002 and noted that Enterprise was in fourth place, ahead of two comedies on Fox and Dawson's Creek (season 5) on the WB. Zap2it say Enterprise it was a rerun, but that seems to be a mistake, all the other sources are clear that Oasis was first aired April 3, 2002. So nothing seems stands out or provide contrast, and this note will serve mostly as a reminder to me not to go down this rabbit hole again, at least not for this episode. -- 109.77.206.34 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Among genre shows that week Enterprise was in third place, behind Alias and the X-Files, but ahead of Dark Angel and Wolf Lake (pilot, rerun). -- 109.77.206.34 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also Enterprise at #81 was ahead of Futurama #87(which if I'm not mistaken was the episode A Leela of Her Own). -- 109.78.197.10 (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Reception
Under "Reception", I suppose it'd be considered impertinent to say something like, "Most viewers using TV antennae reported a clear signal." After editing so many TV articles, though, I felt entitled to say it on at least one Talk page. And so, as the Emperor said in Amadeus: "Well! There it is." – AndyFielding (talk) 07:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point. Sometimes an encyclopedia has to spell out the obvious to the point where it might seem facetious. I understand (and usually appreciate) the efforts of AndyFielding to make the prose less plodding, but I don't see anything out of order here in the Reception section of this article. This seems no worse than most Star Trek episode articles, better than most television articles in general. But if AndyFielding feels there is something else that needs work besides the functional but mediocre writing then please go ahead and make your complaint. I can't promise I'll do anything about it but I'd appreciate knowing what problems you see with this article in particular or the Reception sections of television articles in general. -- 109.77.197.187 (talk) 20:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)