Talk:Roswell Incident

Real world Info
The stuff about the two dead and one surviving alien as well as the USAF arriving and speaking to reporters was never mentioned in. Unless I missed it in the episode, I think this material should be cut out. -FC 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Same thing with any mention of the Air Force or of "Area 51", and in fact same thing with any reference to a spreading rumor or a conspiracy theory. In fact, "Roswell Incident" itself is not a canon reference, so, I think we can get away with calling this "Roswell _i_ncident" but the incident itself isn't a proper name in canon and therefore shoudn't be capitalized. I propose a move to Roswell incident. SwishyGarak 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to proceed with the move, as well as a substantial article re-write which eliminates that non-canon, realworld point of view. If anyone has objections or suggestions, please make them in the next day or two so that it doesn't turn into any kind of disagreement after I spend the time to do this. SwishyGarak 17:25, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
 * I have no problem with rewriting this article, but clearly this event depicts the "Roswell Incident"; the time, location, and just about everything else is spot on, so I'm not sure a page move is necessary. I'd say otherwise, if the event occurred in 1962 and happened in Yuma, or something. --Alan 21:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Alan, thanks for piping up, I do think a re-name/move is the right thing to do. Indeed, as you say, "clearly this event depicts the [real-world] 'Roswell Incident'", however nobody in this or any other episode talks about any Roswell Incident. It's not like the Bell Riots or like World War II, which have not just names, but Proper Names, onscreen. I feel that to call it a capital-I "Incident" is to fabricate in-universe information, even if the article is re-written. SwishyGarak 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a "real" event that was actually depicted in the Trek universe, as such, and whether the name was mentioned or not, it is still the same thing as . A certain amount of ad lib is necessary to clarify instances that were not fully described, be it a persons full name or the naming of a place, person, etc that is merely implied, eg "Douglas MacArthur". Ultimately this is a minor, almost insignificant point, when the primary action required here is a rewrite. --Alan 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I did a slight re-write to weed out non-canon information which was the main problem. I agree that an article move probably isn't necessary. -FC 07:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)