Talk:Federation-Cardassian Armistice of 2367

Armistice
Since we don't have a page for armistice yet, I suggest moving this page there and expanding it to include information on all armistices. - 20:25, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This is a specific armistice, or cease fire, between the Federation and Cardassia and as such it should remain under that name. It can even be renamed to cease fire instead of armistice if you want, but jumbling it in with all cease fire agreements takes away from what this is about, which is the cease fire between the federation and cardassia. Also, other articles link/will link to this and having this event under just "armistice" (with dozens other events between different species and entities) will make distinguishing it impossible. I would suggest creating an armistice page and populating it with all armistices. This way, there is one place for all armistices and one for this particular event. Also, the "category" it is under - Treaties - has both the "federation-Cardassian treaty of 2370" and "the federation-Cardassian armistice of 2367" listed as treaties. Putting this article under the generic term "armistice" would ruin that too. You get the picture. – Distantlycharmed 20:56, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose move/merge, based on what DC said. This is deserving of its own article. -OuroborosCobra talk 21:07, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, I just think that aren't that many armistices mentioned, and any other ones are likely to just be one sentence blurbs that will hardly clutter up the page. Linking is easy by using a redirect that points to the correct portion of a page. As for this article, with no offence intended to DC, but the title should drop the date and be used in the article text. While I'm not sure if any other armistices were mentioned between the Federation and the Cardassian Union, I'm fairly sure they would all have to do with the Federation-Cardassian Wars, and could easily be covered in one page without needing multiple ones. Also, should Armistice be capitalized? I'm not really sure it should since this is a generic title, since we don't know the proper name, assuming there even would be one. - 22:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean look the cease fire between Cardassia and the Federation in 2367 after their long war and animosities was important. It is a unique event. It is referenced and people should be able to track back to read about this specific event and not all armistices and then muddle through them to find this. It is an important agreement. This deserves a page of its own. Even if there are no other cease fires in the history of Star Trek, I dont get the point of wanting to have this be under one article or category essentially about cease fires. Seriously. It's like saying let's put all treaties from 1900 to present in one page titled "Treaties" and have like hundreds of sections in there dealing with the treaties. That is chaos. As an encyclopedia, people should be able to find this stuff without going through complicated hurdles. Ayla who is a mere extra has an entire detailed page devoted to his comings and goings in every painful detail and now suddenly this page is superfluous and inappropriate? – Distantlycharmed 23:17, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to reiterate your previous point in detail DC, since I said I did get it, and none of your response actually addressed the other issues I mentioned, mainly the formatting, which I've already taken care of, or the page title, which remains. Your complaint with Ayla page isn't similar, or even relevant, to what I have purposed here, and I never said that this page was "superfluous and inappropriate". I suggest actually reading what I wrote again, since there's far more there than just the reasoning behind my initial suggestion. - 11:40, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the later renaming suggestion - the year is not necessary, and capital "Armistice" implies that this is an official title instead of just a descriptive one. This means, the article title should be Federation-Cardassian armistice. I've not formed a final opinion on whether to merge this article with others - but I have to note that this armistice could be considered just one intermediate step towards the later Federation-Cardassian Treaty, and as such might as well be mentioned in that article. -- Cid Highwind 12:32, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry archduke, i felt that you were not getting my point, that is why reiterated everything. I am ok with Cid's suggestion (or yours) to change the title to remove the date and caps. Or just call it cease fire. I dont care about the fancy term. Other than that, I do not see why everything should be put under "federation-cardassian treaty", when a war, an armistice and a treaty are separate things and - I hate to reiterate this - do not belong in the same article. When I or someone else references the cease fire of 2367 they should be able to do just that, instead of directing the reader to the generic Federation-Cardassian treaty. Also, while the 67 cease fire was a precursor to the the 2370 treaty, there are 3 years in between when a lot happened. That was an important step in their relations; a milestone. The Maquis organized in those years and found roots. I guess what it comes down to is that i do not understand the insistence or rationale of merging 3 separate events into one piece when each had a significance of its own. – Distantlycharmed 16:30, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

What was the term used in the episodes, armistice or cease-fire? - 16:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Err...at the beginning of The Wounded, which takes place in 2367, Picard actually says that "it's been a year since a peace treaty ended the long conflict between the federation and cardassia". I didnt get a chance to look at the rest of the episode but it seems like either way, 2367 is wrong. The treaty (or whatever they call it later in the episode) was apparently signed in 2366, not '67. I havent looked at any of the other episodes yet to see which terms they use or if they maybe use treaty/cease fire interchangeably. – Distantlycharmed 17:22, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Edit: Ok so looks like (looking at The Wounded only) this was a treaty not a cease fire and it apparently happened in 2366 and not 2367 like this article and the chronology say. I'm confused because whats the treaty of 2370 then that's mentioned everywhere here? If anyone figures out this mess, lemme know :) – Distantlycharmed 17:49, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * This might be indication for not having separate articles, then? :) After all, the progress from war to cease-fire to peace treaty might just as well be considered one single process, and as such be described on one single page. -- Cid Highwind 19:28, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Then we might need something like "Federation-Cardassian TreatIES" as opposed to just Treaty. At the same time, it is confusing to be linking treaties at different times (2366 and 2370 etc) to just one page. Anyway, I need to watch some of the other episodes referenced to see what the difference between the one in 2367 and the one in 2370 is and if there ever was even just a formal cease fire agreement without a treaty. Then 2367 and 2370 need to be updated accordingly. I'm still wondering if Chakotay was referencing the treaty of 2366 when he resigned from Starfleet in 2368. Arrgh... :) – Distantlycharmed 04:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC)