Talk:These Are the Voyages...

Play nice
I know this episode is an easy target for Berman-bashers for a number of reasons, but please remember that NPOV needs to be maintained. Writing about the pre-broadcast controversy is fine, but let's play nice. BTW advance positive reviews of the finale are already starting to roll in, so while people may argue over the premise of the episode, it sounds like the episode itself is likely to be a good one. I'm playing "wait and see" myself. Manny Coto has stated that that Terra Prime/Demons 2-parter is the actual official finale of ENT, and TATV is a coda to link it to the other shows, and that's the spirit in which I'm approaching the episode. 23skidoo 15:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And after seeing the episode, my opinion of it has, if anything, improved. Remember Wikipedia's NPOV rules, folks. And no reviews - summarize the plot, indicate what people found controversial, and let's keep it at that. For my part I'm staying clear of these articles until the dust settles. 23skidoo 02:29, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 23 skidoo's comments are well worth keeping in mind (and the page as of this date does this well). Now ignoring that I will add that it is better thought of as a coda (as stated on the main page, and above) after the earlier two part stories resolution, it is a bit of a damp squib. Especially as final episodes go, due to the fact that we see it thru (brobdinagnian) NEXT GEN eyes. After all they did in their last season they deserved there own unsullied finale (my own non NPOV view only). Cheers to all who enjoyed the 38+ years journey (a bit of a unique coincidence that Star Wars will be ENDING? its on screen travels by next Thursday too).MarnetteD | Talk 05:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Boy, am I glad they put this sick puppy to sleep.
 * Ugh... I fail to see how is fighting a gang of common criminals an appropriate finale for an epic space journey... Arny 12:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Rick Berman is to Star Trek as George Bush is to the USA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.71.177 (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, but I thought Brannon Braga was that ;) --arny (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

2160 or 2161?
I've noted several articles referencing the events of TATV say it takes place in 2160. However the episode explicitly takes place 10 years after the 2151 launch of the NX-01, and at the signing of the Federation charter which was previously established as occurring in 2161. Is there some official source out there that is contradicting the date, or are people just getting it incorrect? 23skidoo 20:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Borrowed a scene from Menage a Troi...
This was discussed on the Star Trek Wiki, and I am borrowing what wrote there. It's interesting to note that the whole scene was taken out of context...

The entire thing is a reconstruction of Menage a Troi. You can see someone who might be assumed as Picard, a person who should have been in paler in color as Commander Data, and supposely Raitten. You can see a Ferengi sitting down playing, at least from what I can see from my TiVo recording, chess... The person who is sitting down is wearing a red shirt, who should have been Commander Riker. Behind the red shirt, you can see the science officer with the ponytail, like in Menage a Troi, and a supposely half-bald man who looks like a Ferengi but isn't. The man in the grey blocks our view of confirming a grey shirt which should have been Wesley standing next to the person sitting down in the red shirt. Further more, the person we assume as Raitten obstructs our view of the red shirt and what we assume behind him is Wesley.

But we pass by Commander Riker sitting with Counselor Troi, which is very odd... and we can see Riker in the right hand corner of the screen as a Zakdorn walks by in the scene (as we do in the first minute or so in Menage a Troi) We do see the first Ferengi at the bar, and as I mentioned before, the second one sitting down presumely playing chess. (There were two Ferengi in Menage a Troi in 10-Forward.)

But the most interesting about this scene is that is completely out of context with the Pegasus episode. In the Pegasus episode, they were investigating a Quasar or something... Menage a Troi was season 3, and Pegasus was 4 years later. If the Enterprise is supposely investigating a quasar shortly before receiving Admiral Preston, why are there Ferengi on board?

From the replication of the pink drink on the left, and the yellow drink on the right... to the Bartender... just a small inserting of Commander Riker with Counselor Troi.

The tray was apparently red in Enterprise, but what looks like to be orange in Menage a Troi; Riker's stardate was different from Picard's in Menage a Troi, as well. You can see the flowers in both episodes. Counselor Troi is seated in the right place, but Commander Riker replaces Troi's mother in this apparent replication of the scene of Menage a Troi. Furthermore, Troi is wearing a standard Science's uniform in this episode, while in the Menage a Troi, she was wearing that offset Blue counselor's uniform. Anyway... that's what I saw. -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * What scene is this referring to? My guess is the brief Ten-Forward scene. Am I correct? 23skidoo 12:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the brief Ten-Forward scene in the beginning is an almost a complete duplication of Menage a Troi. -- AllyUnion (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * That's actually kinda cool. Probably a lot cheaper to digitally play with a scene rather than rebuild the set. 23skidoo 18:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * On Memory-Alpha, they suggest the set is rebuilt and everyone in there is a stand in. -- AllyUnion (talk) 03:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Re: Trip buying it
I don't have any problem with him dying to save Archer's life... it was just *exceedingly* poorly written how they got to there... clearly *that* was the "we're going to do something to keep you from bringing back the series" move that Berman reportedly alluded to before the airing... and hey, guys? This is *Star Trek*. Trip's *been dead* already. Twice, IIRC. All we have to do is completely ignore that episode, and move along. I'm stickin' with "it's not cancelled until next season starts without it". --Baylink 23:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't have to ignore the episode, either. Tasha Yar came back, after all. Yes, granted, it was an alternate timeline version. But then again Harry Kim and Miles O'Brien both died and were replaced by alternates as well (as was Picard at least once). So the death doesn't bug me. Incidentally, Pocket Books has just announced plans to do a Relaunch series of novels in the future and apparently the wheels are already turning with regards to storylines based upon questions raised in TATV. 23skidoo 00:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that will certainly make my sister happy. :-)  Oh, I wouldn't ignore it completely; I'd just retcon around it.  "The Internet interprets poor judgement calls of TV series producers as censorship, and retcons around them."  ;-)  Anyone for a virtual season? --Baylink 21:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the book writers will do anything with this, but I've heard a few people comment that it looked as if Trip knew what was going to happen to him. Considering the initial time travel-related premise of this series, I could almost see Trip, at some point, learning about his fate through Daniels or whatever. Although a lot of people might argue about the execution of TATV, and fans of Trip may dislike what happened to him (personally I'm glad it was him and not T'Pol who died; about a year ago there was a wildcat rumor Blalock wanted out and they were talking about killing T'Pol off in "Zero Hour") ... the fact is TATV provided a lot of questions that licensed and fanfic writers are going to have a lot of fun with. Not to mention the fact there's 6 years of storytelling to do. As all the books and comics about TOS proved you can fit a hell of a lot of stuff into 5 years! (Actually I hope someone decides to do an ENT comic -- I'd love to see an artist like Jim Lee get his brush on T'Pol and Hoshi! 23skidoo 23:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Poor guy Trip, he has had a child with T'Pol twice during the series and they finally killed him young and with no real children... and his parents lost both children. Boo-hoo... :) Arny 12:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Romulan Wars
If the chronology fits, this episode should be set after the Earth-Romulan Wars which was supposed to be a devestating conflict that costs hundreds of ships, thousands of lives, and ended at the Battle of Cheron. Does the episode mention the war? if not, that is g laring contradiction and should be mentioned in the article. I havent seen the episode yet, so I dont know. -Husnock 03:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The episode does not make mention of the war, however I personally feel that this was the smart thing to do because had they been mentioned it would have required the episode take a detour and explain the wars and all that, possibly fouling up Star Trek XI which is rumored to take placing during the War. It has long been established that the founding of the UFP was a direct follow-up to the Wars (an obvious parallel to the UN being formed after WWII) so for the diehard fans watching, it was something that need not be mentioned. The war ended about a year earlier, so it's not a conflict to have the NX01 doing non-War related things prior to the UFP ceremony. The general assumption has always been (and I believe Coto has confirmed this) that had ENT continued the war would have probably formed the major arc towards the end of the series (my guess probably another season-long arc like the Xindi). 23skidoo 04:02, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I removed the Plot Holes section. It was simply too POV. The fact the Wars was intentionally not mentioned is one of yet another point of controversy for this much-maligned episode so I acknowledged it in the Controversy section, but Wikipedia is not a review site. 23skidoo 12:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Voyager, age, etc.
Harry Kim remained as an ensign throughout all seven years of Star Trek: Voyager, for example. - This is not that relevant, as the Voyager was in deep space anyways. Few promotions would have taken place because of that. ... As well, Riker and Troi are noticably old in the episode, compared to their age in the corresponding TNG episode. Very distracting. 24.76.141.128 04:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would the presence of Voyager in deep space not be relevant? In Twilight Trip gets promoted to Captain even with the complete absence of Earth. As far as Riker and Troi, well that can't be helped. Had the plan to have a pre-Generations Kirk appear on the series worked out, we'd have seen the same thing. 23skidoo 12:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Trip was promoted in that episode out of the complete abscense of a (useful) captain. If critical positions on voyager had deaths or something, the officers would have been promoted in the same way. They didn't usually. Enterprise wasn't so far (other than the Xindi season) that promotions wouldn't take place normally. 24.76.141.128 21:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * And I wasn't all that serious about the age thing. It's not that big an issue, I'm just making an observation here. 24.76.141.128 21:14, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I was actually stunned when they mentioned it has passed ten years from the launch, since they all looked just the same as in the "Broken Bow". C'mon, they should've tried harder, do they really expect people to buy that? Even Porthos was still alive and well :) Arny 12:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Chef
Not a complaint, just a comment. I did hear some buzz about the use of the unseen character Chef as Riker's holocharacter. I believe there was a comment that he might open his own restaurant (in the Hamptons?). As the character was never seen or named, I hoped Berman would somehow indicate that maybe Chef's real name was Sisko. Maybe "he is going to open a restaurant in the French Quarter in New Orleans". Ties in to DS9, the origin of "Sisko's" and might give a plot for a story between 2155-2161 that explains why the Wormhole Aliens/Prophets later chose that family for the Emissary of Bajor.
 * The Chef was a bit of an ongoing gag that sadly the show never had a chance to really capitalize upon. The idea of him being an ancestor of Sisko was mooted when Chef was seen in "The Catwalk" (body, not face) and it was pretty clear that he was white and male. Before that there were rumors that maybe Chef was Guinan. Bill Shatner apparently pitched a storyline that would have had Chef being an ancestor of Kirk. I also heard rumors that a some stunt casting might have been attempted, with Emeril or someone like that playing Chef. And there was a short-lived rumor that the Chef would turn out to be Q doing some undercover work a la Daniels. That said, I don't mind Chef remaining a mystery because it's fun to guess who he is. Same with the identity of Future Guy. Some people complained about Future Guy never being revealed, but 36 years later people still enjoy debating who Number 1 is in The Prisoner, so there's nothing wrong with leaving some loose ends, IMO. 23skidoo 20:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I missed "The Catwalk", so didn't realize a glimpse of Chef had been seen. I agree, loose ends are one of the fun things about fictional worlds. The idea of Emeril playing Chef did cross my mind, though.


 * Yeah, you see Chef in "The Catwalk"; he's up on a platform so his face is out of the shot (though I think you could see from his hands that he was white, thus not Guinan or a Sisko).

Too much Riker
I mean, literally too much of him. The Starfleet uniform was rather unkind to Frakes' middle-age spread...apparently there is no South Beach Diet in the 23rd century...
 * It's amazing how 'during the Pegasus' incident, Riker aged quickly & got pudgy, then for the rest of TNG, he was younger and slimmer. But seriously, having an actor (Frakes) reprise a role (Will Riker) in a past timeline (TNG era Riker, played by Post-TNG Frakes), is very difficult to pass off. Perhaps this could be mentioned in this article. GoodDay 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Trip revived in a novel?
Okay, two things: A) Trek novels are NOTORIOUS for not being canonical in any way whatsoever.  Another point: we were all complaining that Mayweather and Hoshi should have higher ranks or something now, right?  Or even if not (I mean a helmsman is always going to have a low rank) the bigger complaint was that NO mention of what Mayweather, Reed, and Hoshi DID with their lives the past 6 years was addressed at all.  So the trek novels....decided to write a book "explaining why their rank was lower in the finale"....DUDE, just admit that this episode made a lot of stupid mistakes! Don't reinforce it like that. But my second point, B) That's the stupidest novel idea ever. I mean weren't we all thinking that if Trip's death gets reversed, it's because Riker's holodeck experience was ITSELF in a holodeck and not "real", or the timeline gets fixed, or something? Instead...."Trip faked his own death"...how the FRAK can you possibly explain that no one knows about him in the future as surviving? Yes, you can make up some SILLY explanation...I mean a GOOD explanation. Oh well, just remember; books have never counted and are usually junk.

It could be that the holodeck thing was just a 'holo novel', and not actually the replay of 'actual' events

Do we really need the NCC-1701-D errors section?
I know it's become sport to trash this episode, but is there really anything notable in listing minutae like this? Please, someome, give me a good reason why this section shouldn't be deleted and/or condensed into a single line: "Some fans criticized the fact the recreated NCC-1701-D didn't match the original TNG version in every little detail". 23skidoo 16:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I know people want to bash this episode forever, but some of the points brought up in this section are either a) just plain silly or b) so minute that no one cares, and have been deleted. The straw that broke this camels back was the purely POV and unrealistic comment regarding Troi and Riker as this was a so-called "error" that could simply not have been avoided. 23skidoo 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I say keep the errors. It shows how little the producers cared about the fans, that they know look at stuff like this
 * Please sign your statements. This attitude only goes to demonstrate how the section violates NPOV and why IMO it should be removed. 23skidoo 08:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've copied the section to Memory Alpha. The Wookieepedian 02:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Novels section
The bit about Pocket Books contradicting the episode is a bit too substantial to be a trivia item, so I've given it a section of its own. I made some revisions, though, to remove a bit of POV and also have made note that not everyone is pleased with the decision, while also emphasizing the fact that the novels aren't considered canon so they really don't matter in the grand scheme of things (I didn't say that exactly, mind you - too POV!) .23skidoo 05:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "These are the Voyages" episode is framed as a circa 2370 holoprogram being run 200 years after the events of 2155-2161, so it is canon insofar as it is historical holoprogram subject to that holoprogram author's interpretation/spin of events and any source material the program is drawing from. Clearly within the holoprogram much of the interpersonal interactions had to be extrapolated by the holoprogram unless we are to believe that the UFP is such a big brother society that it records the personal conversations in every room of the ship, including personal areas such as crew quarters. Pocket Books' "The Good That Men Do" is similarly framed as a holoprogram, this time being experienced in the 25th century in table top version by an elderly Jake Sisko and Nog and based on material allegedly declassified long after Riker's playback in 2370.  The "The Good that Men Do" tells the story of Nog and Jake reviewing and comparing the differences between the new holoprogram Nog has pieced together versus the version generally accepted by the public (e.g., the "These Are the Voyages" holoprogram). Even if "The Good That Men Do" had been made into an episode, it would be on the same shaky footing that "These Are the Voyages" is on with respect to canon, both being framed as holoprograms based on holoprogram author's interpretation of events centuries after the events took place, and would be challenged to the same degree as present day historians are to piece together the personal life of figures such as Benjamin Franklin.  2602:306:380F:8DB9:CC49:7BA:B39B:F80D (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Reactions & Controversy section needs serious rewrite
The entire thing is unsupported accusations with a heavy coating of weasel statements. Where are these opinions coming from? What 'some fans'? Is there an official publication, an internet message board, usenet, or is everybody who had an opinion on this episode simply leaving their comments and qualifying themselves as 'Some fans'?


 * I entirely agree --Charlesknight 18:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thirded, should some of the uncited parts start getting taken out? Alastairward 18:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:These Are the Voyages... (ENT episode).jpg
Image:These Are the Voyages... (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 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 02:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Chef Trivia
I am removing the bit from the trivia section about this being the first episode in which Chef is shown as a person rather than just mentioned (even if it was Riker). This is not true. Chef appeared as a person in the Season Two episode "The Catwalk" when he dispensed meals to Hoshi, Travis, Malcolm and Trip. His face was never seen, just his lower body and torso, but he still appeared, and was specifically acknowledged by Hoshi when she said "Thanks, Chef". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.50.151.8 (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies section removed
More than 18 months ago I stated that I was unconvinced that the inconsistencies section was necessary. Last month the section was also flagged as being unverified. And I am going to agree with this assessment. There are no sources cited, and it comes off as being completely OR. The fact they didn't get every detail right can probably be covered by linking to an online review or an article on the episode, but as it stands now the information provided appears to be completely OR. I am posting the information below so it is not lost. I am not opposed to it being put back with a source, but without sourcing I object to it for the same reasons I stated back in 2006, that it just seems like an excuse to bash the episode and its creators and that violates WP:NPOV. 23skidoo (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise-D remake inconsistencies
The episode includes several inconsistencies in its re-creation of Star Trek: The Next Generation sets.


 * Ten-Forward:


 * The camera-panned footage of Ten-Forward was taken from "Ménage à Troi" and edited so that Lwaxana Troi is replaced by William Riker, causing him to appear twice.
 * Lights under the two steps from the bar area to the seating area are visible in "The Pegasus", but these lights are absent in "These Are the Voyages...".
 * Two officers are wearing early TNG uniforms (which have a lower collar). These uniforms do not appear beyond the third season, yet "These Are the Voyages..." takes place during the show's seventh season.


 * Corridors


 * While the ceiling lights are a match, there is an error where the ceiling meets the wall: there is a gray panel in "These Are the Voyages..." with light coming from behind it. In all TNG episodes, the panels themselves are a light source.
 * The turbolift that Troi walks into after finishing with Riker does not look anything like an Enterprise-D turbolift. It is, in fact, from the Enterprise-E.


 * Observation lounge


 * The doors in "The Pegasus" are gray, not orange, and do not have a label. This error stems from the use of Enterprise-E doors, which are orange and labeled.
 * Next to the entrance at the end opposite from where Troi and Riker sit, there is a tree and some type of wall art. Neither of these appears in "The Pegasus".
 * The chairs in the conference room are slightly different: the chairs in "The Pegasus" have three creases running below the headrest and three buttons under the headrest, and the chairs are upholstered with a different fabric.


 * Holodeck


 * The door operates with the regular door sound in Enterprise finale, rather than with the "heavier" sound used in TNG.
 * Despite frequent examples of TNG-era characters wearing costumes for holodeck adventures, Riker is shown to have a holographic uniform during the episode's teaser.


 * Exterior


 * An exterior shot of the Enterprise-D shows its saucer impulse engines running. Throughout TNG's entire run, the saucer engines are seen running only during saucer separation scenes; otherwise, they are inactive.
 * Throughout the entire run of TNG there were no other exterior illuminations apart from the warp bussard collectors, grills and running lights, saucer running lights, impulse engines and windows. However, in Enterprise finale the ships name and registry are illuminated a la Enterprise, Voyager, Deep Space Nine etc.
 * Exterior shots show additional running lights on the saucer next to the saucer's impulses engines, throughout TNG's entire run there were never any blinking white, red and green running lights there.

Appearance changes
Are the apperance changes indeed caused by the passed time, or because of incorrect Holodeck representation of the characters? Should the section in the main article citing that there were style changes due to passed time be marked as citation needed? -- MemBrain00 (talk) 03:41 CEST May 31 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by MemBrain00 (talk) • contribs 03:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Source check...
I was asked to check the sourcing on this article, and looking at it as a potential FAC, I'd have to question the following sources: http://www.treknation.com/, http://www.ifmagazine.com/index.asp, and http://trekweb.com/. (I'm not watching this page, so feel free to reply on my talk page.) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Source check II
Some of the source pages no longer exist - see for example ref 16. Any ideas how to solve this kind of problems?

User:CPauloF 08 July 2009 (GMT)
 * Generally you can add an archiveurl to archive.org or similar, as I've done with ref 16. Any others? -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section: not all reviewers were scathing
So, I added the following paragraph to the criticism section:


 * The episode was not, however, without its defenders. IGN reviewer Christopher Monfette called it one of the series' "best - or at the very least, the most memorable." DVD Verdict reviewer Adam Arsenau called it a "solid" episode, adding "hardcore Enterprise fans were dismayed at the heavy screen time given to cameos by Riker and Troi, but the point is moot, since there weren't enough of them to keep the show on the air anyway." While The National Post's Alex Strachan gave the episode low marks, he opined that "diehard Trekkers" would enjoy it, and said that the Next Generation cameos reminded him of "better Star Treks from the past", as compared to the frequent "bad acting" of such recent franchise entries as Enterprise. And in 2007, fans voting at startrek.com selected it (along with "Judgment") for inclusion on the "Captain's Log Fan Collective" DVD.

In response, David Fuchs rv'ed it, wrote that I was "adding misinformation, unreliable sourcing, unreferenced facts, and making substantial changes that should be discussed on talk." Well, here I am. Where are the dubious sources and misinformation? Does anyone else object to this language being added to the article? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC) (Edit: in my second revision, I accidentally omitted the Monfette footnote, and have just reinstated it.)
 * First off, selectively quoting Strachan is disingenuous; he doesn't mean "hardcore trekkies will like it" in a good way as evidenced by the context. Furthermore the Next Generation comment wasn't towards the episode itself but that the episode reminded him how much better old Trek was. Fans votes mean nothing and shouldn't be mentioned, as there's no way to figure out what that means. With the Monfette quote you're applying a general statement towards a single episode--also disingenuous. Finally DVDVerdict does not meet our stringent requirement for high-quality reliable sources for FAs. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Criticism in third paragraph: bias?
It flat out SAYS reception was negative. I think this should be at least "mixed" or something similar. I for one enjoyed it, as did many reviewers and fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.168.112 (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Preemptions
The background section, which discusses the challenges the series had in the ratings, is missing a key fact: that many UPN stations frequently preempted the series during its run for sports events, etc. And UPN also re-aired the series during its final season on I believe Saturday night, leading Connor Trinner to, in a front-page story in Starlog magazine, ask people to watch the original broadcast, because at that time the ratings did not take into account time-shifting or alternate-night broadcasts. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 05:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving "Series Cancellation" Section?
Does this section really belong on this page (which focusses on an individual albeit final episode), or should it be moved/integrated to Star_Trek:_Enterprise_(season_4) with other relevant comments? Jabberjawjapan (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The section primarily serves to contextualize the episode and its reception; the information could be fleshed out in the Season section but I don't think the detail is inappropriate here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on These Are the Voyages.... 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tv.com/shows/star-trek-enterprise/these-are-the-voyages--400668/recap/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=43a43f1175dcc&amp%3BtopBrowse=all
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110073155/http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=3755 to http://www.the-trades.com/article.php?id=3755

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) 20:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on These Are the Voyages.... 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/20100111021654/http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/9469.html to http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/news/article/9469.html

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) 20:18, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on These Are the Voyages.... 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://www.webcitation.org/6edAx3fQi?url=http://www.tv.com/shows/star-trek-enterprise/these-are-the-voyages--400668/recap/ to http://www.tv.com/star-trek-enterprise/these-are-the-voyages-%E2%80%A6/episode/400668/recap.html?tag=episode_tabs%3Brecap

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) 05:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Split Reception section
The Reception section includes a lot of responses from the Cast and Producers, which is great but Reception sections are usually more about responses from Critics. I think it would allow for improvement if the section was split to separate the insiders from the outsiders, put the cast and crew in one subsection and critics or other reliable sources from the outside the show in another. This would give greater clarity to Critical response from critics and any other reliable sources with information specific to this episode. The information about the proposed films and what happened after (Legacy) might also be separated out or reorganized.

I know this was made a Featured article, but that was in 2009 and there's certainly room for improvement. -- 109.76.146.37 (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Comments from Trinneer and Keating 15 years later . -- 109.76.146.37 (talk) 12:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Eh, if anything I think it makes more sense to condense down the cast and crew comments than to split it out. In general people badmouthing stuff the fans universally hate isn't really a brave or popular decision, so it kind of feels like navel-gazing to give them that much attention. The stuff on legacy likewise starts veering a bit more out of scope of the episode itself and might make more sense somewhere else. It's on the to-do list to look over this article at some point in the near future. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 17:29, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we at least broadly agree in principal that there is room for some reorganization and cleanup, you might be more wiling to delete or remove things than I would be. I might take a shot at it soon (but there are episode articles in greater need I'm trying to improve too). If I do I will cautiously and keep reminding myself that 'this article should be about this episode as far as is possible.
 * My intention was to add a bit more weight to the tv critics, at least that's the plan. Having said that, in the article I linked above, Keating said this about Scott Bakula "he didn’t complain about anything. So, when he does say something like that you know that really got to him" in reference to Bakula airing his grievances at the 10-year reunion. So that is something I'd consider adding if I can get more specific details.
 * Hard to believe we're close to 20 years since the first episode of Enterprise aired. Only a matter of months. Thanks for taking the time to comment. -- 109.76.146.37 (talk)
 * If/when I eventually come back to this I'd sure like to be able to reorganise and make some space to include Connor Trineer saying what he thought about his characters death. -- 109.78.194.208 (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Worst lists
Since this is a Featured article I thought it was probably better to check before any changes, bold or otherwise. Can we include Worst of lists?

I don't want to include lists indiscriminately but list compiled by CNET at the 50th anniversary Star Trek convention in particular seems significant. The fans attending the convention in Las Vegas voted for the 10 worst episodes of all Star Trek, and two Enterprise episodes featured on the list, with "Precious Cargo" in 10th-worst place and "These Are the Voyages..." in first (worst of the worst) place.

Also CBR included TATV 4th on its worst list.

Would it be acceptable to include Worst of lists, specifically the CNET list? -- 109.76.201.161 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My thinking on best/worst lists is you're best off summarizing them, like "CBR, blah-blah, and blah-blah-blah listed the episode as one of the franchise's worst." Otherwise it just turns into repetitive "X ranked it Y" stuff. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 18:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. If I do eventually get around to including my intention would absolutely be to add a WP:PROSE summary, and do all I can avoid creating an ugly list. (I read the reply shortly after it was written, and it was what I needed to hear, a further reply didn't seem necessary at the time. This response is really only intended as clarification of my point of view in case anyone else is interested in adding it before I do.) -- 109.79.169.92 (talk) 00:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I was being cautious and wanted to only add lists if they were particularly good quality and notable.
 * I wasn't even going to suggest watch list guides but another editor went ahead and added a watch guide list. I do not think the list from James Whitbrook at io9 was a good quality or notable list. It does not even recommend the episode: "in some ways, you have to see what might be the worse final episode of a Star Trek series ever." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.200.100 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Does the ellipsis in this page's title need a preceding, non-breaking space?
MOS:ELLIPSES indicates ellipses on Wikipedia (in running prose) should be offset from the preceding character by a non-breaking space. Does this apply to page titles such as this one? If not, the ellipsis in this page's title, when included in another article, would not be consistent with the ellipses found in said article's running prose. Señor Spock (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think it really should apply to specifically-named titles, although the guidance doesn't really speak to that specificity. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 16:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)