Talk:Similitude (Star Trek: Enterprise)

Star Trek Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Television: Episode coverage Start‑class Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Episode coverage task force.

This episode received an emmy for musical composition [1], and was critically acclaimed. This deserves mention somewhere. (Personally I thought the episode was pseudoscientific and corny, but that's just me ;) --Cnadolski 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, using the link provided I was able to find a copy using the Internet Archive, and added note that this is an Emmmy Award winning episodes. Only took fifteen years for someone to get around to it! (Personally I found the episode a good example of Star Trek posing an interesting moral dilemma, the idea of sacrificing a clone for organ transplant. The convenience of rewatching the episodes in bulk has definitely made me more forgiving of many flaws in the series (but not the opening theme music, it's the worst) and I think this episode was more memorable and thought provoking than most.) -- 109.79.173.253 (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found a good interview with Doctor Phlox John Billingsley, discussing the ethics of this episode. "John Billingsley Explores the Ethics of Similitude". StarTrek.com. I'm not sure how best to use it in the article. Maybe I'll take the easy option and include it as an External link but with more time maybe there is a better way to include it and integrate it into the article in some other way. If editors could find more sources, such as academic works discussing the Ethics, it could be made into a small section of the article? -- 109.76.203.249 (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More sources: Zap2it were talking about the ratings of the show and that the November 19 episode (ie this episode) had the best ratings since February.[2] The daily overnight ratings[3] indicate various shows in the lead, Smallville ahead, Enterprise falling behind. Mediaweek has few words but lots of numbers, it says 2.09 million viewers.[4] TrekToday explains it all in simpler terms, it means that Enterprise is last in its timeslot and behind Smallville by two million viewers. They also say it has the highest ratings since December.[5] -- 109.79.163.21 (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Variety said "strongest numbers since February".[6] -- 109.79.169.104 (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tuvix

The article Tuvix mentions "Seven years later, when writing Star Trek: Enterprise's "Similitude", Manny Coto took pains to write that episode dissimilarly to "Tuvix"(with the reference credited to the DVD commentary at 00:52).

The Reception section already includes a reviewer comparing this episode to Tuvix, if someone with the DVD's could add more details from Many Coto to the Production section it would be an improvement. -- 109.76.135.9 (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]