Talk:The Andorian Incident

Request Move
Request Move poll and discussion is located at this talk page.


 * This article was moved from The Andorian Incident (Enterprise episode) to The Andorian Incident. The old page is a redirect pointing to this page. I was thinking of categorising it Category:Redirect-Class Star Trek articles but I'm not sure it necessary, so instead I mention it here as a note in case anything moves again or someone needs to do some other maintenance. -- 109.78.204.126 (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Gaff
I have no clue what "Gaff is", but this section feels out of place

This episode is particularly notable for highlighting the inherent flaw in the definition of "warp drive" on Star Trek as the "cube of the warp number times the speed of light". While containing internal references to one or more preceding episodes, this episode also states an approximate time since the ship left earth at the start of the series. It also states the star the Vulcan Monastery is orbiting. That star would have been just barely attainable at the ship's maximum warp in the given time frame if the ship had travelled directly from earth with no diversions to the locations of the other episodes. Hence, either the other episodes' events did not happen or the ship travelled much faster than its stated maximum warp for a substantial portion of the time.

In actual fact, this is a common underlying problem with Star Trek and the warp drive definition. While it seems adequately high, it's actually woefully inadequate, in all of the series, to have the ship travelling between all the various adventure locations it must encounter in the course of the series' run. The Andorian Incident is a specific, undebatable example of this problem, while the rest are merely questionably unlikely.


 * maybe if you don't know what a "Gaff" is you should reconsider actually deleting a section until you bother to look the term up. It's a very common term used throughout tv and movie culture. In fact, you might consider if you know enough about either to be editing anything in them, if you are unfamiliar with so common a term.
 * It identifies a particularly significant problem with a basic ST concept in exactly the place where it is most blatantly evident. You can look up the star in any stellar catalog, find out its distance from earth, and see for yourself how obviously inadequate the notion of warp drive is in getting the NX-01 to the place it's supposed to be in the time alloted. In no other episode of any version of Star Trek is this inarguably an outright flaw and not an "unlikely" fact
 * OBloodyHell (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We would need a cite for that to have it remain in the article. Even then, it would seem to be more of a piece of trivia. Alastairward (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We would need a cite for that to have it remain in the article. Even then, it would seem to be more of a piece of trivia. Alastairward (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are going to lecture someone, it helps to know what you are talking about first. A 'gaff' is something people use to catch fish.  The word you are looking for is 'gaffe'. And it's not appropriate in this context. Dlabtot (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Plot and notability tags
This article, if kept as is, really needs a much shorter plot length. As it is, it consists of nothing more than plot and doesn't really come up with much in the way of notability (see project talk page). WikiuserNI (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. You've said that you think it needs to be shorter, but you haven't explained why you think that. What do you think should be eliminated?  What unnecessary details does it include? What are your specific objections? Dlabtot (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By comparison with other good articles, there's way too much plot here and precious little else. That's pretty much it. If I have time, I'll trim it. Until then, the tag should stay to encourage other editors to help out. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I think you are wrong about the length of the plot summary. Wikipedia operates by consensus. In order for two editors who disagree about something to reach a consensus, it's necessary for them to engage in discussion.  Are you willing to have a discussion about this?  It's pretty hard to participate in Wikipedia constructively if you aren't willing to talk about your disagreements. Dlabtot (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you wikilawyering me? Just because other, poorly written articles exist, doesn't mean this one has to be equally so. The plot is too long, end of. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that's handy, someone provided examples of good tv episode articles here. Shorter plot section, extensive third party sources providing notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge your unwillingness to either work on or discuss this article. Dlabtot (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't own the article, nor do I owe you a full explanation of every edit I intend to make on wikipedia in advance. I would simply appreciate you not harassing me any more. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't own the article, and I haven't demonstrated any behavior worthy of such an accusation. On the other hand, yes, every Wikipedia editor does have an obligation to discuss their edits, if they want to participate as a productive member of the community. Dlabtot (talk)

Andorian terrorist
For when the article is re-written, here's something I pulled from a magazine while researching Shran; I felt it was more appropriate in this article (though I'm not sure where) than the character piece. —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  20:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC) Before the episode aired, guest star Jeffrey Combs described his character (Shran) as an "Andorian terrorist." In an interview with the Star Trek Communicator, Rick Berman disputed that, describing the character as "more of an Andorian James Bond. He's an Andorian on a very important reconnaissance mission." -

Image needed
The Project Star Trek box above includes an image needed request and I do hope someone will consider resolving that request at some stage. As this episode is called The Andorian Incident and since it (re)introduces the blue skinned alien species to the series, it is essential to proper understanding of the episode to include an image from the show that includes an Andorian. The episode is about the conflict between the Andorians and the Vulcans so it would be good to have an image that included both like one of the images Memory Alpha used in their episode article.

StarTrek.com did include some publicity images on their page for this episode and one of those images    might be suitable. -- 109.76.193.171 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Web Archive copy of the StarTrek.com Media archive of Enterprise publicity photos. List includes many images, and lists seven images from this episode specifically. The archive copies from these links do seem work (five of seven worked for me at least), but the images can be very slow to load and and a small placeholder image is shown first. The image of an Andorian confronting Trip might be a good image to represent the episode (even though if it doesn't have any Vulcans in it, despite what I said above). Using low resolution images that were previously used by StarTrek.com to promote the episode should go some way to help satisfy the WP:NFCC non-free image requirements. -- 109.79.64.54 (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Reviews
I might add a few of these to the article later, but I went down this rabbit hole and I've wasted spent too much time on it already to do it properly now. -- 109.78.194.99 (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Michelle Eric Green TrekNation
 * IGN 3 out of 5
 * IGN's Peter Schorn reviewed the season 1 DVD (2012) and called this "one of the standout episodes of the first season" (he also mentions it was "voted the 2nd favorite episode in a viewer poll", referring to a 2005 poll by UPN. FutonCritic posts press release about the Favorite episode poll, which shortlisted 8 episodes for fans to vote on.)
 * About.com review (and list of other reviews)
 * AICN did not review this episode as far as I can tell. (Reviewer called episode 1.15 "a marked improvement" over this one Season 1 DVD review not in the top 9.)
 * Tim Lynch review at PsiPhi 9 out of 10 (Tim Lynch)
 * Jammer's Reviews 3 out of 4
 * Trek5 Captain Mac review 5 out of 5
 * The Cynics Corner - David E. Sluss 7 out of 10
 * Kate Nagy SciFiGuide grade A- (reviews list)
 * Voyager's Delights Gisele La Roche grade B+
 * Trek47 grade C+
 * SyFy Portal - Michael Hinman
 * Trekweb, 2 reviews: Deus (negative) Perry (less negative)
 * Television Without Pity grade F
 * Full list of TWOP recaps and grades for all episodes of Enterprise
 * Bureau 42 27 out of 42 (yes really, weird scoring system) positive about seeing the Andorians, but negative about uncharacteristic portrayal of the Vulcans
 * TheM0vieBlog.com review (many great quality reviews from this site but it is not worth the difficulty of editors who will unequivocally reject a site with blogs in the title.)
 * Not all of these resources necessarily meet the standards required by Reliable sources but they serve as useful background, and help suggest what what to focus on. I was looking them up anyway so I may as well include them here for completeness. -- 109.79.64.54 (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added an episode commentary with writer Fred Dekker to the External links section. Having listened to the commentary yesterday the things that stand out (aside from the praise for various people) were his reservations about the episode, description of the episode as "languorous" (slow paced), his disappointment with the score (no slight on the composer, it was what the producers intended). Dekker also says the title was originally "The Incident at P'Jem". Maybe it could be linked using the template instead but that seemed unnecessarily overcomplicated. Maybe it could be used as an inline reference (to expand the Production a little bit more), but I much prefer using texts as references if at all possible. -- 109.79.175.77 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)