Talk:Yesterday's Enterprise (episode)

Nomination
Nominated mainly for its great summary of a great episode. -- Dan Carlson 22:33, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Obviously second. :) -- Michael Warren 22:36, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. Great work. Ottens 19:55, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. Very well written. -- Redge 21:43, 12 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Still featured ?
I think this article no longer fulfills the criteria for an featured (episode) article. It certainly did so when it became featured, but I think a new standard for episode articles has been established (Teaser, Act One etc.) Unless someone brings up a good point why not, I'll nominate this article for removal. Kennelly 15:26, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Removal
A shorter article than most of the other featured articles, especially considering it is an episode article. --Defiant | Talk 02:15, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Unsurprisingly, oppose. I have drastically expanded the Background Information section to detail the rather unique creation of this episode, and added some more images to the article. In addition, I dislike that episode summaries must now contain a blow-by-blow account of every single movement and gesture that is seen on screen. This is by no means a slight on your work, amongst others, Defiant, but such is really antithetical to the point of a summary, which is to distill the information presented, not catalog it verbatim. As such, this summary is concise, detailed, and complete. Just because it's shorter doesn't necessarily mean it's worse. -- Michael Warren | Talk 14:48, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not a fan of the Act 1/2/3 etc sections of many episode summaries. This summary is succinct and to the point. Tough Little Ship 14:52, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say oppose as well because, although I do like the five-act system, this article currently has such a wealth of information that I couldn't justify removing it. I also agree about the novelizations (and I mean that word as a compliment, because I think they're very well written) being overboard on episode summaries. --Schrei 20:10, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This article is very well written, and contains thouroughly researched background information. Jaz 21:05, 15 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As DH said, "Just because it's shorter doesn't necessarily mean it's worse". The background information on the episode is superb and I think it'd be a shame to remove the article's featured status.--Scimitar 23:52, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's a wonderful article. IMHO, it should be held up as an example of what the episode pages should be like. The deep background information is fascinating and the story synopsis is well written. I too dislike the Act 1/2/3 sections in some other episode pages. Weyoun 20:07, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitely oppose. The summary is still a little too long for my personal tastes, but the background and production info is excellent and shows the potential for episode FAs. Logan 5 20:59, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think the summery is "too long" in any way, neither is it too "short". Along with the recently added background material, I, in fact, think this page is what an episode Featured Article should look like. Ottens 16:56, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose as well and archived --Memory 23:22, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Renominated while still a FA
I feel that we should revisit this episode as a FA candidate. The summary is in-depth but not minute and it is not a pulp-fiction soap opera like some other episode summaries that I have run across. The article as a whole is well written and has little grammatical faults with it.--Obey the Fist!! 18:40, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Reconfirmation
Easily one of the best TNG episodes, and a FA since 2004. Haven't read it yet, so not sure either way just yet. - 18:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to still be one of the best articles we have. - 08:39, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, still seems good. 31dot 10:13, May 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Well written and very detailed. Tom 08:47, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, in agreement with the other users' assesment--Sennim 15:04, June 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've always thought this article is a bit too over-hyped, as there are lots of missing citations in the bg info. --Defiant 09:27, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

Where? - 09:33, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically everywhere! There's lots of uncited observations, the likes of which have been removed elsewhere on this site (such as the comparison between Landru and the Borg, during the Landru page's own reconfirmation). This page's first section should probably be cited more than it is, as I don't remember any quotations in the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion (but possibly I'm misremembering). Also, as far as I can see, all the publications cited don't have any page numbers, so the article could still be improved in that respect. --Defiant 10:01, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer if you actually mark what parts you have a problem with instead of just saying everywhere and eluding to an issue without using the text itself. You don't have to prove why there is a problem before saying what it is. I only see a couple of paragraphs cited to the same book, which I don't own and therefor can't check, and self evident observations. Some of that may need to be reworded or cut, but I can't make the case for you. As for the page numbers, if someone with the book has the time do add them, that would be a big help. I would like to think this page hasn't been sitting here for nearly two weeks for nothing. - 11:20, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added the page numbers for the books I have. I have checked, and the quotes Defiant mentions are indeed in the Next Generation Companion on pp. 116-117. The first section does seem to reflect the Companion.–Cleanse ( talk 11:27, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's good. I'm quite busy today, and won't have computer access for the next few hours. There's bg info on the Surak page about this episode; it requires a citation, which when I looked at this page was not available from it, unfortunately. There's also some info in an issue of Star Trek Magazine which I'll try to add later in the day. I don't see the FA reconfirmation of this page being opposed even with these changes that could be made, though. --Defiant 11:42, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a supporting citation to the first section so it isn't so reliant on one source. I also added a couple more RDM quotes (TM). I think that's all the info I've got.–Cleanse ( talk 11:47, June 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I've just looked at the summary section and found it could definitely use some improvement too, so oppose. The summary is one of those that reads more like a novel, IMHO, with big blocks of text that are unappealing to read and difficult to get through. Also, I really think the bg info could use some more help than just chucking citations at it. All in all, the page needs a lot of work. --Defiant 09:53, June 8, 2012 (UTC)

This page has four support votes, one opposed, and in two days will be striped of featured status. This is the last call if anyone intends to do something to address Defiant's problems. - 03:01, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

Amount of dialogue?
How much of the actual dialogue am I able to transcribe in the summary? Obviously, I'm not planning to simple repeat the script as broadcast, but, as already demonstrated, transcribe plot-crucial statements and/or brief conversations. How much would be too much?

Additionally, would it be OK to, for example, link to Dan's copy of the draft script (which was freely distributed by Paramount on their TNG Companion CD-ROM, and now in the public domain, thanks to Dan...). --DarkHorizon 12:57, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)


 * Well.. seeing as the scripts are actually (probably) not quite public domain, complete reproductions would be a bit iffy. And if you want to link to Dan's scripts, it would be easier to do so at Star Trek: The Next Generation. Saves you the work of putting links in all the summaries :) One suggestion, though: you could make some more links in the summary text. Doesn't matter if they exist or not. -- Harry 14:27, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)

My primary concern was actually getting the summary up. Now that it is, I'll start going through and linking. -- DarkHorizon 14:32, 7 Dec 2003 (PST)


 * The scripts are NOT in the public domain... they remain the property of Paramount, as I understand it. They're still under copyright -- it's just possible to distribute them under "fair use" because Paramount's not selling them anymore.  It's a thin reasoning, and if anyone complained I'd just take them down, but they're there for the time being.


 * Regardless, I don't think that using quotes from the script is something we want to do on a regular basis, at least in the format you're doing it, Michael. I understand what you're trying to do, but I don't think it's in the format of an encyclopedia.  Short, inline quotes inside a paragraph is one thing, but putting in blocks of script text is a bit different, IMO. -- MinutiaeMan 07:20, 8 Dec 2003 (PST)

Understood about the scripts, Dan. If you want to go in and pare down the dialogue I've put into the summary, go right ahead (after all, isn't that the point? :D). It was just a trade-off between essentially doing it in the summary or letting the words speak for themselves. Plus, I doubt I'd be able to do something on this scale for any other episode... (the problems of having one favourite episode that you know too much about, I guess... :)) Perhaps a 'Memorable Quotes' section may be appropriate? -- DarkHorizon 08:22, 8 Dec 2003 (PST)


 * Good article. Two points, however: why have you uploaded the (audio?) file in .OGG? And second: please make Links! I've started making Links now, but it would be so much easier if you would make them while writing the article. :) Ottens 22:14, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Basically because it's the only non-propietary media format. There is a page dealing with it on Wikipedia.

As for the links, I started the article over six months ago... -- Michael Warren 22:30, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * Real One Player and Windows Medio Player can't seem to open it... Well, that explains why there weren't any links ;-) Ottens 09:56, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * I've opened up a thread in Ten Forward about the issue of MP3 versus OGG formats. Let's continue the discussion there, since it's appropriate to the entire wiki. :-) -- Dan Carlson 15:01, 11 Jun 2004 (CEST)


 * I just read we missed the decapitation of Wesley Crusher in this episode. Too bad. :P Ottens 16:25, 23 Aug 2004 (CEST)

The Neutral Zone
In "The Neutral Zone" is states it had been 50+ years since the Federation and Romulans had contact; yet here there is an encounter with the Enterprise-C (in both timelines). How is this explained?


 * I would assume that the 50 year thing referred to offical communication. Its quite possible that the Enterprise-C, in responding to a distress call, went straight into battle and didn't communicate with the attacking Romulan ships (until some of them were captured obviously). As the Enterprise-C didn't return from that battle, and Starfleet listed it as lost, theres no record of direct contact until 2364 anyway.


 * Well, Starfleet did not simply record it as lost. They knew of the battle, as this quote from illustrates:
 * PICARD: "The Enterprise C? It was lost...at the battle of Narendra Three...while defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans."
 * Picard knew of the battle, and so did Starfleet. The point of contact in terms of communication still holds water, though. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  22:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember that Tasha went back with the C so the timeline had been changed. In the new timeline, the battle was known about. In the old one, it was lost. The Neutral Zone takes place before Yesterday's Enterprise, before the timeline was altered.


 * There is a possible in-universe explanation for this discrepancy. In the altered timeline, Data corrects Ensign Wesley Crusher's claim that the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C) was "destroyed with all hands over twenty years ago."  Data states:  "Presumed Destroyed.  The Enterprise-C was last seen near the Klingon outpost Narendra III exactly 22 years, three months, and four days ago."  The ship had, in fact, journeyed to the future, never making contact with the Romulans, and effectively disappearing.


 * In the original timeline it is unknown if the Enterprise-C ever made any communications stating it was under attack by Romulan Warbirds.


 * Similar occurrences are demonstrated on several occasions during the DS9 Dominion War. When Captain Benjamin Sisko and his crew are informed that a ship is "missing" they often take this as an indication it has been destroyed in combat.


 * Though the Enterprise-C had indeed encountered Romulans at Narendra III, Starfleet and The Federation may not have known. Thus, at the time of  in the original timeline, to Data and Starfleet's knowledge, it had been over 53 years since The Federation had shared contact with the Romulans.


 * In the restored timeline, Captain Picard states of the Enterprise-C: "It was lost at the Battle of Narendra III, defending a Klingon outpost from the Romulans."


 * All events that take place after 2344 are now in a "restored" timeline in which events are slightly different from those in the first 61 episodes of TNG. Natasha Yar had joined the crew of the Enterprise-C and her actions (or the actions of a crew who had been to the future and knew the outcome of the battle they were about to fight) may have lead to successfully contacting Starfleet with the information about the Romulans.


 * It is therefore unknown if Data ever made any remarks in the restored timeline pertaining to how long it had been since The Federation had shared contact with the Romulans. If he had, it stands to reason he would have stated it had been 20 years etc.


 * It is possible that a predestination paradox exists in which Tasha Yar had been aboard the Enterprise-C the first time the Battle of Narendra III was fought, nullifying this argument. But, since the nature of temporal mechanics in Trek is largely inconsistent, nothing can be proven.  – Kylestrahm 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Generations Connection
Did anyone notice the similatities between the Engineering scene in Yesterday's Enterprise and Generations, when La Forge is reporting a containment failure and a cooliant line burst?-- Captain Montgomery 21:41, 8 Febuary 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, there were several episodes where Geordi's warp core breach scene is mirrored to the one in Generations, in fact, in one episode, they even go so far as to have him do a roll/dive under the blast door that lowers in Engineering like he would eventually do in the film. --24.5.145.146 02:33, 21 July 2007 (PDT)

Wesley Crusher
Can anyone explain what he's doing on the 'Military' Enterprise? As a warship, it wouldn't have had families, so he wouldn't have come on board with his mother, so what's he doing there? 84.67.89.208 19:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Likely, he went to Starfleet Academy, proved himself during his time there, and was posted aboard the Enterprise where his mother just happened to be posted (or perhaps because she was posted there, who knows). --From Andoria with Love 05:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. He was wearing a regular uniform. He seemed to be a full ensign, not an acting one. --OuroborosCobra talk 06:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Meh, it's rather implausible that people from our timeline would happen to be assigned to the same ships in the other timeline in the first place (and even if you assume they had, how did every one of them happen to survive to that point?). :-) In addition, I believe Wesley was born after the point of divergence, so it's improbable that he'd even EXIST in the first place Nik 07:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See, right there is when you are taking it all too seriously. It is a TV show, a creation of writers to be entertaining. It wouldn't be that entertaining if they had to follow all the rules, have nothing be at all the same, etc. Fans need to stop being such idiots about this, and remember it is a TV show. --OuroborosCobra talk 07:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That was my point, actually. Since the whole thing's implausible (like, well, most of Star Trek), why worry about a little thing like Wesley Crusher being on board? Though, I do think it would've been neat if they'd gotten different actors, and maybe kept one or two characters ... maybe even a reference to "the previous captain, Jean-Luc Picard ..." :-) Nik 07:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: gotten different actors.. interesting comment considering they devised the whole scenario in order to facilitate putting Denise Crosby at tactical for an episode, rather than their usual Michael Dorn, who was excluded.. -- Captain MKB 08:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Because The Federation had been on the losing side of a bloody war for years, it is likely they needed all the manpower they could get. Similar circumstances were present when Nog was promoted to ensign during the Dominion War.   – Kylestrahm 07:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of the deleted scenes (or was it written and not filmed) in the 2009 Star Trek was Old Spock telling Kirk that the timeline tries to correct itself. Which is how the TOS crew all ended up back on the Enterprise. The same could be true in this Episode, it tried to get everyone back together as best it could. 71.15.123.3 04:01, May 15, 2013 (UTC)

Winning instead of losing?
Ever since I saw this episode (one of my favorites in TNG, I might add), I've kept wondering about two things:

When Picard confers with Garrett aboard the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-C), he reveals to her that "the war is going very badly for the Federation" and that "defeat is inevitable". These circumstances obviously made both Picard and Garrett very eager to defer to Guinan's judgment and send the Enterprise-C back. However, this little dialogue raises two questions:

1. What if the Federation would be on the winning side of the war, with the final blow to the Klingon Empire only months away? In that case, would they send the Enterprise-C back as well, to prevent a crushing defeat of a long-standing enemy? I don't think they would.

2. Another thing: apparently the "inevitable defeat" was unknown to most people in the Federation. But how could Starfleet Command have kept this a secret? If hundreds or thousands of starships are destroyed by the Klingons, and casualties reach into the billions, then people, in- and outside of Starfleet, should start realizing what's really going on, shouldn't they? Have people really become that naive in the 24th century? ;) --Mr. Tuvok 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Memory Alpha isn't the place for this kind of discussion. These talk pages are for discussion on changes to the article itself. I would suggest going somewhere like TrekBBS for something like this. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Strange Padd
What was the strange PADD like object that was handed to Picard just before Guinan entered the bridge? It looked like plastic with a strip of paper attached to one side, but Picard tapped it like a PADD. Any ideas? -- Wheatleya 19:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I hate to respond with a generic answer but it looks like that timelines version of a PADD. There's another version of the same PADD in sickbay just before Picard talks to Garret and another black one when Yar is talking to Richard. Best guess is that it's supposed to be a specialized version, maybe for specific situations. Or simply something else the creators just decided to make to differentiate that timeline from the default one. – Morder 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Those PADDs were seen all the time in the first 3-4 seasons of TNG, even before the regular modern PADDs were created. They were first seen in TMP and are the first update pf the TOS clipboard PADDs. So, nothing special about them appearing in this timline, they are also using the "normal" PADDs (Doctor Crusher does in the sickbay scenes). --Jörg 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely background trivia
I removed:
 * "In The Searchers, John Wayne frequently says "That'll be the day" when someone suggests a highly unlikely event happening. This film caused the expression to enter common usage. Picard's use of it is almost certainly a tribute."

it was already common usage before the searchers. Jesus Chriced 14:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Nitpicks
Removed the following nitpick:

--31dot 12:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "There is a discrepancy regarding time lines between this episode and . In that episode, we are told that the last contact the Federation has had with the Romulan Empire was 53 years, 7 months and 18 days prior to that episode.  In this episode, we are informed that the Enterprise-C engaged several Romulan ships in battle before being destroyed at Narendra III only 22 years prior to this episode. However, this can be explained by the fact the cause of the disappearance of the Enterprise-C was not known to the Federation as being the Romulans (although the Klingons and Romulans may have known about it, but presumably never told the Federation)."


 * This episode contains one of the best-recorded bloopers in the series: during the final scene between Guinan and La Forge (set in the restored timeline), La Forge is still wearing the uniform from the alternate timeline. (Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion) Additionally, while the Enterprise-D crews are repairing damage to the Enterprise-C, Lt. Yar refers to Lt. Cmdr. La Forge as "Lieutenant," not as "Commander."
 * I removed this since, even with a reference, it's worded as a nitpick, and attracts others. - 06:11, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Comment
From the comment: I removed: If it references Riker's standing at tactical, this is also makes no sense because Tasha Yar is not in that film.
 * "The chairs at the command deck were removed, and replaced with a single command chair for Picard. As a result, Will Riker joined Tasha Yar at Tactical. This change was put in later, albeit with all three command chairs intact, for Star Trek Generations."
 * "This change was put in later, albeit with all three command chairs intact, for Star Trek Generations." In the original wording, it makes no sense.  I basically said "They took away the chairs, but they left the chairs."


 * Removed:
 * The name "Rachel Garrett" sounds suspiciously like "Majel Barrett."
 * As I found a cited note that "Garrett" was actually a reference to a pizzeria in Christopher Ganino's hometown.– Cleanse 02:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Quotes
I removed these quotes as I felt they weren't memorable. I think Guinan's "No", Picard's "Attention all hands...", and Guinan's last line could also be removed if there are space considerations as they're currently in the plot summary verbatim, but I decided not to remove them as Picard's is definitely memorable and Guinan's are arguably so.

"Enterprise-C sending out distress call sir, audio only."

"Uh huh."
 * - Tasha Yar and Picard in the alternate timeline

"This is Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the Federation... of a Federation starship."
 * - Jean-Luc Picard in the alternate timeline, not wanting to reveal to the crew of the Enterprise-C that they have traveled into the future

"They should know better after the pasting we gave them at Archer IV"
 * - Riker in the alternate timeline

Setacourse 19:56, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect novel reference
From the "Apocrypha" section:
 * "A very similar, if not almost identical, timeline appeared in the novel Q&A, in which the Enterprise-E had still been built, but where the Klingons had completely destroyed the Federation. Picard was the only known Human left after his entire crew had been killed, and he was chained to the bottom of his command chair as a sort of trophy of war."

I've never read Q&A. But the Memory Beta article on Q&A (which I cannot actually link, because this wiki's safeguard against linkspam is completely fucking broken, and ignores correct captcha entries) does not bear out the summary contained in this article at all. In fact, there are no commonalities. Is this just made up, or did an editor reference the wrong novel? If this is referring to an actual novel, would someone care to correct the reference? 63.237.221.227 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, this is bizarre. I can't see this section on the actual talk page, but it does appear in the history with no intervening edits (before this one) and here in the edit window. What is going on here? 67.188.212.34 01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (but actually same as above)


 * I'm not really sure about your techincal problems, sorry. And the link seems to work: Q & A.


 * In response to your question, yes, this did happen in the novel. Picard jumps between several different Enterprises in the same fashion Worf did in, and one is the Klingons-taken-over-the-Federation one described.– Cleanse 01:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok. That makes sense, I guess. 67.188.212.34 05:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

bloopers
Well then. Shall we discuss? As I replied to 31dot, "According to the policy, nitpicking is "searching for minor, even trivial errors in detail, and then criticizing them" and nits are generally "subjective and up to interpretation of the viewer". However, the okudagram in question is prominently shown on screen for several seconds where the "captain's log" error is legible even without freeze frame. Therefore, it is a rather major error in detail similar to the phaser/photon torpedo error in "Darmok" (where the error is pointed out) and not a minor nit. Further, the way I wrote it is objective, not critical." Unless folks want to seriously enforce this policy by purging every episode/movie article of this stuff, there's no reason to delete the okudagram error here. Ask yourself, would you have deleted my edit if I hadn't called it a "nitpick" in a moment of bad word choice? If so, then you should be consistent with policy and start purging. If not, then you should allow it to stay. Starfleetjedi 23:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First, you shouldn't make edits to make your point –.
 * Anyway, so you don't have to read my talk page, the fact that a graphic does not agree with the dialog happens quite frequently and is not a "major error".--31dot 23:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "pointing" in the Wikipedia sense when I made the first edit. If anything, the reverts (and I admit, my own reverts included) are pointing. But that's neither here nor there. The issue is the blooper/nitpick policy and its inconsistent definition and enforcement. If graphic errors are not major errors but in fact minor nitpicks, then not only should we start purging the episode articles of nitpicks but also the ship articles whenever there's a note about inconsistent NCC numbers and whatnot because that's usually only shown on screen and not spoken in dialogue at all. Starfleetjedi 23:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A policy is not "inconsistent" just because it is not immediately implemented. If you look at past edits(including mine) you will see that we are starting to weed them out.  This takes time.
 * The policy is more relevant to episode pages. In my opinion, (and others might explain this better) noting inconsistent NCC numbers on a ship's page is very different.  Such information is relevant to the background of the ship.  It isn't relevant to the episode.  We are trying to avoid nitpicks and errors drowning out the rest of the information.--31dot 00:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think pointing out apparent continuity errors (i.e. elements of a production's story which contradict other in-universe facts) is fine, but pointing out production errors (i.e. film equipment in the camera, costume errors, typos on okudagrams) might be a bit much. If the error is glaring (like the captain ordering rear phasers being fired but the effects shows front phasers being fired), then we might be able to make exceptions. I don't think an okudagram error is really worth mentioning... but that's just me. For the record, though, the okodagram note, as currently written, is not a nitpick, it is a blooper, which I don't think the policy covers just yet. That is a discussion for the policy's talk page, though. --From College with Love 2:47PM EST

Michael Piller added a final polish to the script, but agreed to be omitted from the credit to meet Writer's Guild rules.
Alright, what retarded rules would mean not giving credit where credit is due. I say abolish these rules. Theys houldn't have to follow dumbass crap like that


 * While unfortunate for Piller, a comment on a talk page on a Star Trek wiki isn't going to change the rules. ;-) This page is for comments on the article itself; see Help:Talk page. Thanks, – Cleanse 07:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed quotes
"Sir, the Klingons are flanking us, attempting to draw us away from the Enterprise-C!" "Hold course, Mr. Crusher! Continual fire, all phasers!"
 * - Wesley and Picard in the alternate timeline, as the Enterprise-D makes her last stand

"They're not even troubling to cloak themselves." "They shouldn't be so confident after the pasting we gave them on Archer IV."
 * - Picard and Riker in the alternate timeline

"Mr. Castillo?" "Yes, Captain?" "Inform the crew - we're going back!"
 * - Garrett and Castillo in the alternate timeline

"The Romulans will get a good fight! We'll make it one for the history books." "I know you will, Captain."
 * - Garrett and Picard in the alternate timeline

"If she's right, we might not even be in an alternate timeline." "Who knows if we're even dead or alive?"
 * - Crusher and Geordi in the alternate timeline, as Tasha Yar considers

"You're aboard the Enterprise, Captain. 1701...D. You have come twenty-two years into the future."
 * - Picard to Captain Garrett in the alternate timeline

"The Narendra III outpost was destroyed. It is regrettable that you did not succeed. A Federation starship rescuing a Klingon outpost...might have prevented twenty years of war."
 * - Picard to Captain Garrett in the alternate timeline

"What would happen if the Enterprise-C were to fly back through it?" "Back, sir? The Enterprise-C would emerge in her own time at almost the precise moment she left." "Right in the middle of the battle with Romulans." "Yes, sir." "Any possibility that she could survive?" "None, sir." "Then sending them back...would be a death sentence."
 * - Picard and Data in the alternate timeline

Removed per MA:QUOTE.--31dot 00:01, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

"Shattered Time"
Just as a note for future reference, since it is in a reliable source: The Star Trek Magazine issue states that "Shattered Time" was the title of the Vulcan-based story developed by Stillwell and Ganino; however, this was actually the title of an unrelated spec script written by Stillwell (as I discovered when I bought a copy off eBay!). The Vulcan/Guardian story has no title in Making of... -- Michael Warren | Talk 15:49, June 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought I'd just add further to Michael Warren's comment is that the Vulcan/Guardian story didn't progress further than a story outline, according to the 'Making of Yesterday's Enterprise' book, so there's no actual script for that one. I thought I'd just add this just in case anyone was trying to find a copy of that script like I was and Michael Warren might have been. LLAP. Sumbuddy (talk) 02:31, July 31, 2012 (UTC)

How did the past change?
In the original timeline, the Enterprise-C was destroyed by the Romulans and helped to save the Klingon outpost. For the alternate timeline to be created, something would have to have to have changed in the past to create the temporal rift that brought the Enterprise-C to the future and caused there absence from the battle. So, what exactly changed, and how? RS89 (talk) 06:52, September 2, 2012 (UTC)


 * Article talk pages are not the forum for plot questions(they are for discussion about changing the article only), but the rift was created either way, but in the alternate timeline the ship disappeared instead of being destroyed(no wreckage was found and the Romulans destroyed the outpost) so the Klingons hated the Federation for that. 31dot (talk) 11:54, September 2, 2012 (UTC)