Talk:Cold Front (Star Trek: Enterprise)

What are the issues with this page?

Those editors who have criticisms of the article in its current form, if they don't care to work to improve it, will need to enunciate their concerns. Dlabtot (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Most articles for Enterprise and Voyager, pretty clearly in comparison to the good articles for the franchise as a whole, lack any sort of notability. The articles exist to reiterate the plot, in too much length. We would be better served by having such articles redirected to a main season page with episode summaries.

Other franchises/projects, have already done so with their articles, for example the Stargate project.

In such a case, improvements are not (IMO) possible to the majority of Enterprise or Voyager articles. A merge is the best option for me, so the tags should stay unless someone can expand the articles. A few months might be a suggestion. WikiuserNI (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think articles should be merged, than you should propose they be merged. If you have specific concerns or suggestions as to how an article should be improved, you should tag it, discuss it, and possibly even consider taking some effort to make the improvements yourself. Just tagging an article and doing nothing more is not constructive. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion is going on over at the project talk page. I have to say that you're not really assuming good faith here, labelling the edits of myself and other editors as "drive by" or "graffitti".

Moves are afoot to have all such articles merged. I can only imagine the outrage if I did go ahead and "fixed it". To assume that I make no effort to improve Star Trek episode articles is, again, an assumption of bad faith. WikiuserNI (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Project pages are fine for discussing projects. Improvements and changes to specific articles require discussion on their repsective talk pages, however. I have no doubt that your are editing in good faith; it's not your faith I'm questioning, it's your methods and their results.

I'd still like to hear any specific criticisms of the article or suggestions for improving it. If you aren't willing to discuss any specifics, I'll remove the inappropriate tags. Dlabtot (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

These are the problems with this article; It needs sources or references that appear in third-party publications, these help provide notability of course. It contains a plot summary that may be too long or overly detailed, we don't need a rambling plot reiteration. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed, perhaps a passerby might manage that? Else I can redirect myself later. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Examples of good tv episode articles here. Shorter plot section, extensive third party sources providing notability. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tim Finch

I restored an edit reverted by User:Doniago but it probably requires discussion and explanation of what I was actually attempting to do.[1]

There are parts of that edit I'd like to keep. Well frankly I'd like to keep all of it but I think the weakest part of the edit and the part that was likely contentious was the sentence in Production section. I made a weak attempt to explain the significance of writer Tim Finch.

I was trying to say was that both writers had previously worked on the same show (which can be relatively easily checked). Seven_Days_(TV_series) I then attempted to explain that the episode was Tim Finch's the sole writing credit on the show (again relatively easy to check). List of Star Trek: Enterprise episodes I did not want to leave state that it was his sole writing credit without attempting to explain what that meant. Admittedly I overreached by then trying to explain that he had 13 co-producer credits, forgetting that I hadn't provided any context to what that actually means. I had recently read article that explained that "co-producer" was a credit given to writers to acknowledge their general contributions, because the article explained the writers worked as a team and many more people would have contributed to or consulted on an episode than are represented by the main writing credits shown on screen.

Even as I attempt to explain this I realize with hindsight that I've wandered well into original research. This would be a simple thing if I actually had a source but unfortunately I don't, so I guess I should remove the bit about Tim Finch until I can find a source. -- 109.78.211.177 (talk)

I removed the sentence from the Production section about Tim Finch.[2] I hope that's enough, if it is not please discuss. Maybe if a source exists I could write something better in the future. Need more sleep, less caffeine. (Might be a few days before I check back.) -- 109.78.211.177 (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That looked pretty good. I've removed the bit about Daniels appearing later from the Plot section; as that section is intended to discuss what occurs in this episode, not what occurs in future episodes. It may be appropriate to add it elsewhere in the article with some real-world context/sourcing, but otherwise, to me, that's too trivial for inclusion. The plot may also be in violation of WP:TVPLOT; if so, I'll see what I can do to trim it down. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The word count requirements of WP:TVPLOT are usually what prompt me to try and deal with fancruft/commentary in the Plot sections. In general, pushing them out into references or {{Explanatory footnote}}s is a quick non-destructive way to reduce the wordcount. If I have more time to work on it, I can probably find a better less trivial way to do it. As you say context is key. The details like the return of a character/actor or revisiting of a plot point might seem like fancruft but can be turned into insightful Production details. If I revisit this I should probably try and add some Casting details to the Production section, where it would be appropriate to repurpose that fancruft and instead mention that Matt Winston appears on the show something like seven more times. -- 109.78.211.177 (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, when I looked at it after leaving my earlier comment it was within the guidelines in any case. :) DonIago (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

A review from Keith DeCandido[3] said they were executive story editors on the first season, which explains what the onscreen credit of "co-producer" actually meant in this case, and that they were on the writing staff even if though they only got one or two teleplay or story credits, so I was able to add that. It seemed like a stretch to further clarify that the show they had previously worked on together "Seven Days" had occupied the same Wednesday timeslot as Enterprise on UPN for the previous three years. Trek fans might be interested to know that Beck also had a writing credit on the 2003 Twilight Zone executive produced (showrunner) by DS9's Ira Steven Behr. That's probably the best we can do for the Production section of this episode. -- 109.79.69.44 (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)