Lorian and Karyn Archer Not Listed in Family Profiles?Edit

I'm interested in understanding why Lorian and Karyn Archer were not listed in Jonathan Archer, T'Pol', and Commander Charles Tucker III's profiles? Also, several other Enterprise members had their descendents named or mentioned (Phlox's 9 children, Hoshi Sato's 2 kids, etc.) in the E2 timeline. Where are they?

After all, if a binary clone (created from adult cells of Tucker and T'Pol, rather than gametes) like Elizabeth Tucker gets a mention under the category of children, her big brother, created through sexual (merging of two gametes), if artificially manipulated, reproduction, should also get mentioned. Perhaps it could read 'Son in Alternate Timeline' or something. In addition, the ending of E2 left the issue vague, as the ultimate fate of the second Enterprise was left open, supposedly due to the producers wanting the option of someday bringing them back, if it ever fit in with their plans. To this end, I submit that they deserve a place in their paretns and great grandparents profiles, especially considering there was no definative proof that they had been temporally erased from existance. That was merely Archer's theory. The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aeverett (talk • contribs). 3 June 2007

I agree. Even if they had been erased, there are articles that talk about and include details from erased timelines or events, like "Yesterday's Enterprise" or "Timeless" or "Twilight". IT IS GREEN 04:13, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Cause of temporal shift Edit

Some articles on memory alpha state that Enterprise went back in time due to a damaged impulse manifold. This is not what was stated in the episode.

Prior to the second attempt, it is true that Lorian warns that elder T'Pol's manifold modification may become damaged causing Enterprise to go back in time again. However, the historical account Lorian gave of the first incident did not mention any damage to the manifolds. For this reason, I omitted this part of the account until someone finds a passage that proves otherwise.

Undamaged manifolds would cause a temporal shift, due to the impulse wake. This is why T'Pols modification was necessary. -Mak 20:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No Rigelian Parrot Edit

I deleted a reference to "Rigelian Parrot". Phlox was to have mentioned this pet- being surprized it was still alive after 117 years, but the scene was deleted. -Mak 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As a deleted scene, shouldn't that be included under another section? I know several other episode articles have "Deleted/Extended Scenes" sections... Izkata 19:41, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it should. Make it so.--Brumagnus 06:37, January 18, 2011 (UTC)

Removed Edit

intentional citation required. — Morder (talk) 05:30, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

"Half" a character Edit

  • "E²" has the shortest episode title in Star Trek, beating "Q2" by half of a character.

The problem with this statement, and probably the reason for why it was changed in the first place, is the simple fact that it lacks a proper definition of what exactly a "half character" is. Does something like that even exist? I don't think so, and couldn't find anything by skimming Wikipedia:Subscript and superscript - so, as unimportant as this discussion may be: unless the superscript "2" is defined as less than a full character somewhere, that statement is wrong and looks like unnecessary cutesy. -- Cid Highwind 08:47, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth: added there and removed here. -- Cid Highwind 08:52, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

I too think the "half a character" description is silly, because surely you can't really have "half" a character? A character is a character, however large or small it is in relation to the rest of the text. I personally think the other sentence that says it ties with Q2 is more accurate. -- TrekFan Open a channel 14:22, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
Silly? What are you blind!? The two in "E²" is clearly only using half the vertical space as the two in "Q2", so it clearly is only half a character, just like little people are only half a person! ;)
Seriously though, I've never heard of half characters, and the only thing close I can think of is the argument that "E²" really only has one character, but that doesn't pan out either. - Archduk3 16:26, January 26, 2011 (UTC) are funny, Archduk3! But like you said, you can't have half a person or half a brain for example (though I can think of a few people!) so how can we have half a character? -- TrekFan Open a channel 19:20, January 26, 2011 (UTC)
From a more geeky standpoint, the '²' also takes twice the bits of 'E', so it could also be said that this episode's title is 3 "char"s long. Izkata 01:30, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+