Talk:Maquis

FA nomination (24 May - 27 May 2004, Success)
Self-nomination. A long article about the entire history of the Maquis movement. Much longer than the short Encyclopedia blurb about the group! ;-) -- Dan Carlson 22:17, 24 May 2004 (CEST)
 * Maquis:


 * Archived as "successful nominations" by User:MinutiaeMan on 12:50, May 27, 2004. --Alan del Beccio 22:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove featured status?
Should we remove featured status from this article until the citation issues are cleared up? It kinda looks bad to have a big fat PNA in the middle of a featured article... - Renegade54 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * agreed--Alan 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

FA removal (03 Feb - 14 Feb 2008, Success)
Maquis: This should have never been featured:


 * ''Self-nomination. A long article about the entire history of the Maquis movement. Much longer than the short Encyclopedia blurb about the group! ;-) -- Dan Carlson 22:17, 24 May 2004 (CEST)

Then it was archived as a "successful nomination" three days later by User:MinutiaeMan, with no additional votes.

Last year March, User:Renegade54 suggested:


 * ''Should we remove featured status from this article until the citation issues are cleared up? It kinda looks bad to have a big fat PNA in the middle of a featured article...

To which I later agreed on 26 June 2007. Since then the citation thing seems to have been somewhat resolved.

Regardless, the changes from the original featured and now are quite drastic, and as I stated above, a self-nomination/self-featured no-vote article should not be considered a FA on MA as there is clearly no community involvement outside of this discussion. --Alan del Beccio 22:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Disregarding the legitimate issue of different guidelines, and the massive changes to the article since it was nominated, it does seem to have odd sectioning and a low number of citations in places.--Tim Thomason 23:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - for reasons given by Alan. – Cleanse 23:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. - also for the reasons Alan gave. --31dot 11:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the first time I've ever voted on the site, so forgive my ignorance. I've read through the guidelines and whatnot though, and I think I've got the basics. Now, I read through the Maquis article and it seems extremely well written to me. Am I correct in thinking that the main reason you're suggesting it be removed is because it didn't fulfill all the criteria when it was first added? If that is so, I can see your point, but at the same time, if it's a good article, then what difference does it make now how it was added in the first place. Can we not put it down to proverbial 'computer error' and just accept the quality of the article as is? Like I say, I'm new to this, and I could have just asked the dumbest question in history here, so if that's the case, be gentle with me! – Bertaut talk 02:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived. --Alan del Beccio 05:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

PNA
Seems to be lacking a lot of Voyager information. Signed, Tyrant

Misc
In the apocrypha section it is stated that VOyager's Maquis personnel rejoined Starfleet to fight the Dominion. Voyager return to the Alpha Quadrant in 2378, three years after the war ended. How then could they fight the Dominion?--


 * TIME TRAVEL --

Long Quote
Is the long quote at the beginning of this article really necessary? --OuroborosCobra 07:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What long quote? --Mac Lover

Well, the comment I made is 2 months old. Obviously, in that time, the quote has been removed. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry. I don't read the date.--Mac Lover 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Is This Correct?
From the article: "Ignoring the treaty's restrictions, they launched a massive invasion of the Demilitarized Zone, rapidly and efficiently wiping out every Maquis colony. The Maquis attempted to put up a valiant fight, but the small raiders and fighters they possessed were hardly a match for the fearsome Jem'Hadar attack ships. (DS9: "By Inferno's Light") " I don't believe this happened in "By Inferno's Light", (Maybe I saw an edited version?). Yes, I saw Dukat make the threat, but when was it established that the colonies were wiped out? Should this be amended? 86.41.199.181 15:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Maquis were wiped out is mentioned in, and . --Jörg 16:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Origin
The Maquis is named for a REAL resistance group in France during World War II. 65.163.112.56 03:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We know, in fact the opening paragraph of the article says just that. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We know that they share a common name, but we don't know that as a fact, otherwise it would be cited somehow. --Alan 03:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed Text
I removed the following as speculation and opinion...try as I might, I can't think of any supporting source:


 * Only months after the utter destruction of the Maquis, the Federation was plunged into the Dominion War. The Maquis insurrection was to be remembered as one of the primary causes leading to the war, albeit in an indirect way.  The Maquis cause, though temporarily successful, had made the Cardassians so desperate that they were willing to sacrifice their independence for the security offered by the Dominion.


 * The Maquis cause remains controversial even after its demise; opinions differ on whether the Maquis could ultimately have succeeded in repelling the Cardassians from the Demilitarized Zone and establishing their own independent state. Although they had the Cardassians on the run in early 2373 and victory appeared within reach, many argue that it is unlikely that the Maquis would have succeeded even had the Dominion not annexed Cardassia.  Thus, in the aftermath of the Maquis' destruction, many Starfleet officers viewed the movement as a grand, and perhaps noble, lost cause.

Capt Christopher Donovan 08:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal, unless a valid source can be found. A pity though; it's well-written and I think the first paragraph is thematically correct. – Cleanse 09:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the real world, the were a French resistance group during World War II.
 * Unnecessary real world comparison. Though, obvious it may be, perhaps a wikipedia external link might be better. Though I still see no need. &mdash; Morder (talk) 06:05, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * That Trek's Maquis were named after the real resistance group can be cited to several sources, including the Star Trek: The Next Generation Companion. It's thus a valid note.– Cleanse 11:57, October 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * It is valid to note what they were named after, but it should probably say "The Maquis were named for the WWII French Resistance group of the same name", removing the "In the real world" part.--31dot 12:12, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that's a horse of a different color since we have a citation. &mdash; Morder (talk) 20:14, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

"The June Offensive"
The article as currently written dates the events of to June 2373 (see second paragraph of the section titled "The June Offensive"). I've seen the episode a couple of times and am quite sure the Gregorian month was never specified (which the transcript confirms--yes, I know transcripts are unreliable so it's not necessarily conclusive). Does anyone know if this was stated anywhere, and if so where? Might it be apocrypha of some sort? -Mdettweiler 04:09, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like something made up with a stardate calculator. I'd say remove it.– Cleanse ( talk 00:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. However, since this tidbit is currently in use as a section heading, we'll need to come up with something better to replace it with. Any ideas? Possibly something referencing either Eddington (who led the offensive described in the section) or something particular to the offensive itself, say the biogenic weapons used? Something concise, yet descriptive. -Mdettweiler 04:54, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "The Leadership of Michael Eddington" for now, although I briefly considered "The Wrath of Eddington" :-p
 * If anyone has a better idea, feel free to change it.– Cleanse ( talk 05:15, June 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mike Okuda indicate that starting with Season 1 of TNG, stardates were figured on the basis of the following: First digit 4 (for 24th century), second digit = season of TNG production and the next 3 digits used the basis of 1000 stardates = 1 earth year. This is explained in detail in the Chronology, and the writers used this formula to keep stardates progressing properly throughout TNG, DS9, and Voyager.


 * Checking the stardate for "For the Uniform", it is 177 days into the year. Using a perpetual calendar, I double checked.  177 days is June 26 for that year.  So "June offensive" is correct.Capt Christopher Donovan 08:47, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * The idea that January 1 is the beginning of the stardate year was never established in canon. For all we know stardate years start from some other significant event. Thus "June offensive" is speculation.– Cleanse ( talk 09:13, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okuda wrote the start date for the modern stardate system into the Writers Guide. (See Stardate article).  The modern shows set in the 24th century all followed it.  At the very least it's acceptable background.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:18, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is all interesting and relevant background for the stardate article, but what's the point of having a background note on this page that says "This offensive occurred in June according to Okuda's stardate system"?– Cleanse ( talk 09:41, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, production materials ARE permissable sources to use to round out articles. Since we have a production source that we can use to establish the calendar date for the time period, I submit that the original title is acceptable.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:48, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Production materials are permissible sources to round out articles by providing background notes. But they cannot be used to justify non-canon material in the in-universe section of the article. Why should we call it the "June Offensive" when this was never said on screen? Who said it only occurred in June? Who said it was one offensive? The article is talking about two separate Maquis actions. The point is, the "June Offensive" is just a fan-made title created in the early days of MA, and is equally valid as calling it "Operation Industrial Replicator" or something. If some production source called it the "June Offensive", yes, we could note that as a background note. But as far as I'm aware, none have.– Cleanse ( talk 10:11, September 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.Capt Christopher Donovan 10:29, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Ships
Since the Maquis in "The Maquis, Part II" use Federation attack fighters, should that ship be listed under the "Ships" section? It's not a Maquis craft in origin, but it is a ship type they used. Perhaps it could be added and the section renamed "Ships used by the Maquis"? —Josiah Rowe 23:01, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense to me. D7 class is listed as both a Klingon starship and a Romulan starship.– Cleanse ( talk 00:47, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Done. —Josiah Rowe 04:12, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

Background
It's a bit confusing to use the heading "Background" for an in-universe section. However, I cannot think of a better title. I considered "origins" but that's really what the next section covers. Any ideas?– Cleanse ( talk 07:11, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * How about using "Origins", with the lower section becoming "Early history"? Other suggestions for the first section are "dispersal" or "exodus", etc. --Defiant 08:56, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm happy to keep "Seeds of Resistance" as it is. I'll just change "Background" to "origins" - it works.

Thanks for your input. If you or anyone else wants to play around with the other headers, feel free. ;-)– Cleanse ( talk 09:18, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

"In" or "Along"?
An anonymous editor changed the article to say that the conflict took place "along" rather than "in" the DMZ, saying that stated this. I've reverted the edit, but would like to justify why with dialogue. First, "Journey's End" doesn't actually refute the conflict being within the DMZ, or the colonies being within the DMZ:
 * NECHEYEV: "You'll notice a demilitarised zone has also been created along the border. Neither side will be permitted to place military outposts, conduct fleet exercises, or station warships anywhere in the demilitarised area."

"PICARD: "This border places several Federation colonies in Cardassian territory and some Cardassian colonies in ours." From this, we don't actually know where the colonies lie with respect to the DMZ, only the absolute border. That some Federation colonies are now on the Cardassian side does not mean they are outside the DMZ, as the DMZ runs along the border on both sides of it. Now we have info from :
 * SISKO: "Chief of Security Odo. Lieutenant Commander Calvin Hudson, Starfleet's attaché to the Federation colonies in the new Demilitarised Zone."

That's one for "in" the DMZ.
 * SISKO: "Where are we going?"
 * DUKAT: "The Volan colonies."
 * SISKO: "The Demilitarised zone?"
 * DUKAT: "Not so demilitarised, I'm afraid."

That specifically states a colony is within the DMZ. I won't post the whole scene with Dukat and Sisko witnessing various little ships fighting each other in their "little war," but it is specifically stated that the combat takes place inside the DMZ. So "Journey's End" doesn't really counter the location of the colonies, and they are specifically spelled out by the time the Maquis conflict starts. If someone can remember an example of much of the conflict taking place elsewhere, feel free to post it. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:54, December 13, 2010 (UTC)