Talk:Deep Space 9

Nomination
Self-nomination. A detailed article about the history of DS9, plus a description of its structure. It could probably use some minor additions for incidental facts and the like, but it's complete enough to deserve Featured Article status! -- Dan Carlson 20:00, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Deep Space 9:
 * Seconded. Ottens 20:15, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Seconded. -- Redge 20:25, 9 Jun 2004 (CEST)
 * Support. -- Michael Warren 22:57, 10 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Reconfirmation
A featured article from back in June 2004. Haven't completely read it, so I'm not yet sure if we should keep it. - 19:16, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
 * Did a once over one this and created a blurb, it seems to still be FA material, so support. - 19:25, May 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Still seems to be a good FA. 31dot 01:10, May 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; room for improvement, but it's an acceptable FA, IMO. --Defiant 21:27, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Upgrades
Is there anything on the weapon-overhaul O'Brien performed? With the nice flashy trop launchers and multiple phasers? I'm looking forward to reading about that (wouldn't mind a picture or two either;-) -- Redge 19:39, 28 Jun 2004 (CEST)

Contact with the Kellerun and T'Lani
Are we sure that DS9 made contact with the Kellerun and T'Lani? I thought they were simply dispatched there as an errand? (I thought they were Alpha Quadrant powers too) -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 17:59, 7 Feb 2005 (CET)
 * As I recall from watching the episode yesterday on Spike, they were from the Alpha quadrant. There was some key line that heavily implied that they were, something along the lines of sending a subspace message to Starfleet Command while at T'Lani III. Since this was before the wormhole transmitter (placed in Season 3's "Destiny") was in service, the only way they could contact Starfleet was if they were in the same quadrant. --Alan del Beccio 18:44, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Non-appearances
Would there be much point in stating when the station did not appear? and are the only ones I can think of. -- Tough Little Ship 18:40, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Weapon Info
Where did the weapon info come from? It seems that there is no source that the tactical systems info came from. It never specifed the number of launchers or phaser banks in the show. But it did say 5000 warheads. Tobyk777 01:15, 18 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Size
A puzzlement: the DS9 Technical Manual states that this is one of the largest space facilities known. However, rewatching, it appears that Starbase 74 must dwarf DS9, considering that a hatch taking up only a small portion of 74's surface area was large enough to engulf the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D).
 * We can assume this is just a goof on the part of the DS9TM because we have seen many starbases bigger than DS9. Jaz talk]] 19:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Terok Nor
It's stupid to have both a Terok Nor page and a Deep Space 9 page. Let's merge 'em! 69.104.90.72 05:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Or not. Terok Nor talks about the station under Cardassian rule, this article talks about it under Federation/Bajoran rule. They are practically different stations under the different ownerships. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  05:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I second Cobra's statement. In an DS9 Episode (can't remember what one) Dukat is talking with Captain Sisko and he (Dukat) mentions something along the lines of "..on what I'm sure you are calling Deep Space Nine again..."
 * Also, Deep Space Nine (the station) refers to a Federation space station. Terok Nor refers to a Cardassian (affiliation) space station. While the station may be Cardassian in design and origin, the names distinguish who is in control of the station. Just my two slips. Mainphramephreak 08:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have to say merge both into one article. Technically both, DS9 and Terok Nor are one and the same spacestation. Their names only refer to the people who controlled the station at a particular point in time. Afterall, the station was first called Terok Nor and after that DS9. If they would be different spacestations why mention Terok Nor in the history part of DS9? This article is about the station itself and what happened on it during its known lifetime, not about the people who were in charge of it at a particular time or who owned the station. -- Q 09:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with Q, if uh...votes are being collected, that is. cap97 23:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I also want it to get merged for the same reason Q said. 24.158.134.254 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That thread-title leaves something to be desired, but, here's a "vote" of merge (per User:Q's reasoning). Makes sense. --Sasoriza 06:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to vote no to merging the two articles, because I feel that, while both Deep Space 9 and Terok Nor are the same station in many respects, the Federation made some serious modifications to it when the Cardassians withdrew in 2369. The weapons array was completly overhauled to be able to combat the Dominion and the Klingons, it went from being an ore-processing facility to a station of commerse and repair. Furthermore, the history behind the two is very different - Terok Nor is associated with the Occupation of Bajor and brutality, while Deep Space Nine has a connotation of peace and rebuilding. Keep the two articles seperate is my vote. - Thot Prad, 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My vote goes for yes to the merge, and I'm surprised this is an issue at all. Terok Nor or DS9, it's still physically the same space station. Having a Terok Nor page and a DS9 page is about the same as having an Enterprise-D page and an Enterprise-D(briefly owned by the Ferengi) page. 70.248.49.72 03:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Message in Braille?
Has anyone tried to decode the lights that appear on the outermost ring of the station, as shown during transitional shots? It looks a lot like Braille to me, and I wondered if someone might be trying to sneak in something clever to read.


 * Braille is divided into cells 3 dots tall and 2 dots wide, I don't think the widows are arranged like that anywhere. If you find a pic of a part that looks possible, I guess I can take a look. – AJHayson 05:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Which article "deep space nine/9" goes to
When a person types in Deep Space Nine and clicks go, it really should redirect to the series, not the station itself.. I mean the series is named DS9.. that's a bigger topic
 * I'm making it a disambig. --Bp 08:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Station Layout (P.O.V.)
Isn't the "Station Layout" section written in the wrong tense? Shouldn't it be "was" instead of "is", etc.? -Taduolus 21:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As of currently, Deep Space 9 is believed to still be in operation, and thus the station layout is still true to the 'present' Trek period. Thus, the tense is correct ;) - Enzo Aquarius 21:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Except for the whole POV/tense discussion which suggests that we're looking back from far into the future, thus making it simpler to put everything into past tense for consistency. :) -- Sulfur 22:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, touche indeed. Haven't seen that yet ;) - Enzo Aquarius 22:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sulfur's point about looking back and keeping everything in the past tense even if the subject is still in existence - keeps it simple and consistent :o) -Taduolus 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A51
Do we know if "A51" is the reference number to the actual area? Those types of application labels are shown all over the place throughout TNG, DS9 and Voyager and usually are random numbers or state decks. If we have something like this, what's stopping people from making 'Access Hatch 047' if they see an application label with such information? - Enzo Aquarius 03:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think if it's been seen on screen then people should be welcome to make a page about it. There are countless articles about stuff that's been seen on terminals throughout this site. Besides, I think the A51 (area 51) is an in-joke.--Babaganoosh 03:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

...the vultures are circling--Babaganoosh 03:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

A51 appears to essentially be a access tunnel, why not merge the article into that? The in-joke could also be put in that article (if it was merged) and/or the background section for the episode. - Enzo Aquarius 03:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Good information, but it doesn't need its own article. I agree with a merge of history and info to Jefferies tube. --From Andoria with Love 06:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's just a hatch with an in-joke label. It should be moved to access tunnel (wow, that page doesn't exist yet), I wouldn't create a subsection for the Cardassian tunnels at Jefferies tubes because the Cardassians wouldn't call them that.
 * In the episode, Kira calles it a: "secured conduit rigged with alarms". When Rom opens the hatch with a label, we see that the small space between it is filled with Cardassian circuitry, he doesn't climb through th hatch, he just opens it and has access to the circuitry, but then the alarm goes off. Finally, On a shot preceding the one that babaganoosh uploaded, the label is seen in a close-up. It reads: A51 | RESTRICTED AREA and underneath in smaller writing AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY. We can assume that the Cardassian label to the left of the Federation one states the same, in, who'd have guessed it, Cardassian...;-) Cool find nontheless! Should be added to the page as well (at least for as long as we don't have that access tunnel or access conduit page yet. --Jörg 09:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Time
Doesn't Deep Space Nine have a 26 hour day? I'm not sure, but I think I remember hearing this in an episode once. Also, is this to emulate Bajoran time, Cardassian time, or neither? 70.248.49.72 03:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The station ran on Bajoran time, which has a 26-hour-day. --From Andoria with Love 00:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The station also rotates once every 26 hours. --70.77.37.70 12:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting that info from? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that DS9 rotates is seen in many shots with a view on the outside: the starfield outside of the window moves at a perceptible speed. this does not state anything about the actual rotation speed, however. -- Bakabaka 15:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there are several episodes that refer to 26 hours, 52 hours, etc. For example, in "The Wire," Bashir says that he'll be back in 52 hours, as opposed to 48.  And in "Fascination," the Bajoran gratitude festivel lasts for 26 hours, or one day.  Not sure if this helps, but, it seems to make sense that the station works on a 26 hour system. --Nmajmani 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Official Long Name?
I'm certain I've heard DS9 referred to as "Starbase Deep Space 9" before. And it is, technically at least, a starbase. --70.77.37.70 12:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that isn't part of the name. Similarly to how the Nimitz is sometimes called the "aircraft carrier Nimitz, its title is still "USS Nimitz". --OuroborosCobra talk 18:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are at least two instances where the station was called "Starbase Deep Space 9" (where it was also capitalized in the scripts), and both of them were more formal situations. It is possible that its title is "Starbase Deep Space 9", as Starbase 47's title includes the Starbase, as well as Starbase Montgomery and Star Station India, but there is not much hard evidence to support it. I guess I would stick with Deep Space 9, but you've got a point there, 70.77. --Bp 19:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Capitalized in the script? That is interesting... --OuroborosCobra talk 19:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What were the two scripts? -- Taduolus 19:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From, "This is Chief Miles O'Brien from Starbase Deep Space Nine... state your business." , and from , "This is Commander Benjamin Sisko of the Federation Starbase Deep Space Nine." . That second one has the "..of the Federation.." which makes it ambiguous. I'd like to see how it was said in the episode, and appeared in the subs. --Bp 20:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the episodes where Sisko talks to Joran Dax's brother and says: "I'm Commander Benjamin Sisko of the Federation Starbase Deep Space Nine..." (capitalized in script) and Prophet Motive where "Doctor Julian Bashir, Chief Medical Officer of Starbase Deep Space 9" (capitalized in script) is nominated for the Carrington Award. I found the scripts here, and watched the episodes and can confirm these lines were said onscreen. I do think DS9's "official" full name is "Starbase Deep Space 9." --70.77.45.29 15:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to think so. However, without hard facts to support such a contention, it can't be in the article.  As Cobra said, "starbase" simply refers to its function and not its name.--31dot 15:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As for the script, I'm not sure how much weight that should be given. It could simply have been an error, but even if not, it was only done twice.  The vast majority of the time they chose not to do that.--31dot 15:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was done four times, not twice. But whatever, it doesn't really matter. I thought I would just bring this fact to the attention of the MA community. Now no one can say it was never documented. --70.77.45.29 16:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Was there not once a reference to DS9 getting an official Starbase number (Starbase 747 or something like that), but retaining the old name for "historical reasons"? If this is the case, it might explain other anomalies such as "Lya Station Alpha".  The "Deep Space" designation might have a different meaning, perhaps to do with the joint ownership status, but that is not certain.  To the contributor above, calling DS9 "Starbase X" would be a bit like calling U.S.S. Nimitz "CVN-68", which is virtually never done except on official documentation.--Indefatigable 12:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't recall that happening. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Attached Ships?
Should there be a section that mentions/list the known attached ships to DS9? Such as the Defiants and the various runabouts (they are "ships" arn't they?)--Terran Officer 07:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably, along with an explaination as to why the Defiant didn't have her own Captain. Federation 05:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Added a new section for "Support Vessels", a little history on them and a list of current and former ones. Willie LLAP 15:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
Is there any particular reason that the name of the station is written with the numeral "9", but the name of the series spells it out as "Nine"? Just a little curiosity on my part.... JYHASH 23:36, March 7, 2010 (UTC).248.235.84|96.248.235.84]] 04:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Good question about the station article's name, though: Anyone got info? SennySix 21:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there IS a reason the series article name spells out "nine". See
 * 'Deep Space 9' links to the article on the station as a way to differentiate them.--31dot 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That and we went with the same practice as all other stations and starships... the "registry" is listed as a number rather than being spelled out. :) -- Sulfur 21:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote
J u s t i n added the following header quote:

"Think of it. Five years ago, no one had ever heard of Bajor or Deep Space Nine and now, all our hopes, rest here. Where the tides of fortune take us no man can know."
 * - Chancellor Gowron,

which was removed by OuroborosCobra because: "no, we are not putting these basically useless and non-descriptive quotes everywhere". While I agree that many of the quotes added by said user are not very useful, I really think that this quote is indeed a good one. It sums up the significance of the subject well, and is interesting. It is very similar to the Benjamin Sisko quote, which seems to be accepted. – Cleanse 03:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Only accepted because I hadn't found it to kill it yet... --OuroborosCobra talk 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So you have an opposition to quotes in general? If so I think you should bring it up on the forums because many, many, pages have quotes. In my opinion, such quotes fall under Memory Alpha:Inform and entertain. But more significantly, a good quote livens up articles and gives the reader a nice introduction. – Cleanse 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Promenade Discrepancy
At one point, early in the article, it mentions that this area is two levels tall. Later on in the article it labels it as three levels tall. Can someone fix this who knows for sure the correct version? Hooper 20:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it to state "multi-level". We only saw two levels but a directory was seen that stated it could have more than two levels - we just never saw the other one. The set itself, however, was two levels. &mdash; Morder 20:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You actually beat me to responding myself. I thought I had made up the two part because I double checked it after you made that change.  Now it makes sense.  Thanks. Hooper 20:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

How many levels?
In the sidebar of this article it is stated that there are 98 levels (total?) while in the article Deep Space 9 levels there is this statement: The space station Deep Space 9 has close to fifty levels, ... at the beginning. Which is the right number, or, if it is not unknown, can you cite in which episode/manual (or whatever) it was defined? Thanks! Gifhtalk17.06.2009 11:21 (UTC)


 * If an answer is not provided, feel free to tag both disagreeing statements using incite, so that a proper citation can be found. -- Cid Highwind 10:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is everything always located in "Section 21 Alpha"?
In nearly every episode that has a line that relates to deck location (on DS9 or even TNG), someone is always located in "Level (insert random number here), Section 21-Alpha. Is there a reason for this? Is it an in-joke like the number 47 or the anime references? It just seems wayyyy too common to be coincidence.--JYHASH 23:36, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's Quark's. :) -- sulfur 13:00, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Runabout template
Starting this section to discuss the recently added template of runabouts. Aside from the formatting issues, I think there are some issues with this. First, I'm wondering what the need for this is- this is not the article about runabouts, and as such I do not think we need to list the details about their service. There was also already a perfectly good list of runabouts  There are also a lot of holes in the template as it stands now- is there a better way to arrange this information, if we need to do so at all?

I think the references to "no destruction" should be removed, as we do not need to state what did not happen.--31dot 12:56, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion to just remove it completely.--Obey the Fist!! 13:03, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that as of now.--31dot 13:08, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I can see the value of information about the exact period during which a specific runabout was stationed at DS9 - but this table doesn't really help with that. There's already a section "Support vessels", listing both "active" and "former" vessels. This section could be amended/enhanced to include that information, in which case we could (and should) get rid of the background POV table. -- Cid Highwind 15:08, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see how a table would help with what Cid suggested, but the one there now isn't that, of very useful at all, so removal is fine by me. - 17:04, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I considered the table could help follow the succession of runabouts stationed at DS9, since they went through an enormous number of them, only one survived the entire seven-year period, and one other survived two-thirds of that time, while "number 3" was frequently destroyed and replaced. The table also suggests the possibility of names for unnamed runabouts. The one destroyed over Torga IV could have been the Volga, the one that Bareil tried to steal could've been the Shenandoah.  The one destroyed at Ajilon Prime could have seen a very short use at DS9. As to formatting, the coding information for tables is either too simplistic to create one that looks decent, or hopelessly buried in complex formatting information that would take ages to find the relevant information in. GCapp1959 14:07, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

= From Talk:Terok Nor =

Merge
Why dont we just merge this with Deep Space 9? NeoExelor 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good question, seeing that it is the same installation. Guess the same could be done with the USS Sao Paulo/USS Defiant (2375). --Alan del Beccio 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what would we expect an encyclopedia to do in this case? There's much to tell about "Terok Nor" - would it really just link to "Deep Space 9" and be done with it, or would there be some text about TN's own history? I think this could be a case where we shouldn't just merge, because relevant information would be harder to find otherwise. -- Cid Highwind 08:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We could add a section at the beginning of the Deep Space 9 page with basically the info and picture from this page. NeoExelor 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That's what I was thinking. They are the exact same installations, just under different rule. There is already a modest section on Terok Nor on the DS9 page, as well as the fact that it was "renamed" Terok Nor by Dukat in, and then, obviously, it was DS9 again. It seems rather unnecessary to flip flop back and forth between those two pages to read about one place. As for "what would we expect an encyclopedia to do", it seems Wikipedia decided to simply redirect Terok Nor to Deep Space 9, as this merge suggests. Either that, or remove the aforementioned Terok Nor references from the DS9 page, and have the history of DS9 start at (and not before) "". --Alan del Beccio 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Erm... I'd hafta go with support on the merge in this case. They are the same installation, it's just given a different name. It's not really much more different than, say, Keiko Ishikawa and Keiko O'Brien. The former is a redirect of the latter because, let's face it, there's no use in an article that says "Keiko Ishikawa was the maiden name of Keiko O'Brien." And what point would there be in seperating her history as an Ishikawa from her history as an O'Brien? Her named changed, and the primary article now reflects the most recent (known) name. I think we should do the same for ships and installations. --From Andoria with Love 05:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot more than the name changed between Terok Nor and DS9. The ownership changed, the location changed, hell, the purpose of the station changed. Terok Nor was an ore processing center, DS9 was a hub of commerce and a eventually a defense outpost. In the end, they were extremely different from each other. Should be considered. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  05:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to vote no to merging the two articles, because I feel that, while both Deep Space 9 and Terok Nor are the same station in many respects, the Federation made some serious modifications to it when the Cardassians withdrew in 2369. The weapons array was completly overhauled to be able to combat the Dominion and the Klingons, it went from being an ore-processing facility to a station of commerse and repair. Furthermore, the history behind the two is very different - Terok Nor is associated with the Occupation of Bajor and brutality, while Deep Space Nine has a connotation of peace and rebuilding. Keep the two articles seperate is my vote. - Thot Prad, 17:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I say NO It is, and it isn't the same station.  Both names represent different things, and there's plenty that could be done with the article, by adding the times it was considered to be named "Terok Nor" and no "Deep Space Nine"--70.33.138.121 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No to the merge. The argument has been made that it is the same physical station, however, that is the ONLY thing that is the same about it.  Lets use the F15 example.  The United States builds, operates, and maintains a small fleet of F15 fighters.  The planes are striped down of classified materials, sold to a foreign nation, refit, re-crewed, renamed, and operated by said foreign power.  To the foreign power, they are brand new planes, to the United States, the planes they built don't exist anymore.  If i were to write an article about the foreign powers new planes, I may mention that they purchased them from the united states used, but the point of the article is the foreign powers acquisition and use of the plane, and not the history of the sheet metal its built out of.  Same with an article about F15's in the united states, they stop at the note about the sale, with MAYBE a line or two about their new roles.  I hope the analogy wasn't lost on anyone --Six of Six 12:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just popping in to let ya'll know how this discussion is going so far. Assuming that the final decision is based on the number of votes on this talk page and at Talk:Deep Space 9, the current tally is eight for the merge and six against it. The majority want it merged, but it's a small majority, so we need more votes. That is, as I said, assuming we're going by votes here. --From Andoria with Love 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why "majority votes" are a bad idea on a wiki in the first place, and a consensus should be the preferred method. ;) "Simple majority" means that we might need to discuss this again and again when majorities change. Better find a "good" solution in the first place. Thinking about my earlier question again ("What would we expect an encyclopedia to do?"), I would probably expect most of the information about the physical entity to be in one place - however, not only the name changed between TN and DS9. Those two stations had different functions, different locations, different abilities (e.g. later Federation weapon enhancements). Simply merging all that under the DS9 article doesn't seem to be the way to go. I'd still have one article ("Terok Nor") for the early Cardassian mining facility in orbit of Bajor, and one article about the later Federation space station Deep Space 9. This doesn't mean we have to "flip-flop" between pages and have the later temporary appearances as TN on the Terok Nor page... -- Cid Highwind 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if we were going by a majority vote (not saying we are), then the majority are currently voting for a merge. Judging from the current tally, though, a consensus is still far from being reached. As for myself, although I originally supported the merge two months ago, I am sort of split on the decision now after what you, Cobra, Six of Six and others have pointed out. However, others who supported the merge don't seem to have swayed, so needless to say we'll likely be discussing this for some time. ;) --From Andoria with Love 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If anybody's still counting votes, I say we merge. The USS Enterprise received a massive refit in the Motion Picture and seems to change from a vessel of deep space exploration to a training vessel at various points, and yet, there's no argument there about whether or not it's the same ship. Crews change and equipment gets upgraded all the time. If you want the name to be the deciding factor, that means DS9 ceased to exist during the Dominion War and Terok Nor suddenly reappeared. The Deep Space Nine page even describes the events that take place on Terok Nor during the Dominion War. I just don't think it makes sense to treat it like two different things. If you want a real life example, go look up New York City. Despite name changes, nationality changes, and a vastly different appearance over the years, it's still the same city. – AJHayson 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I realize I'm pretty late to the discussion, but I support a merge. It's the same place with the same history no matter what you call it.  As stated above, the DS9 article already has some duplication with this article.  In my opinion this article should simply state that it was the Cardie designation for DS9, with a link to that page, since that is the name it was known by most recently.
 * I don't expect this to happen, as it has been awhile, but I wanted to get my opinion out there.--31dot 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're still looking for opinions, I vote to merge with Deep Space 9. It's the same station and the info contained within this section could easily be incorporated at the beginning of the article. -- TrekFan Talk 20:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't support a merge. They may have the same history, if you consider it that, but Terok Nor stopped existing when Bajor/Federation took over. They are two different stations - sure they're the same thing but The DS9 article should only include the history of DS9 and not Terok Nor (except a blurb talking about how it was Terok Nor) - The Terok Nor page should contain the detailed information about the station, of which there is a lot, during cardassian rule. If you want to merge the technical data, then I would suggest you go with a "Terok Nor-type" as we know this was a common station created by the Cardassians and we know multiples exist. Even then, the technical data for DS9 has be changed quite a bit during the course of DS9, with upgrades to armaments and what-not. &mdash; Morder (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Redux
Reading this and the discussion at Deep Space 9, and taking into account our "policies" on similar matters, I would be inclined to say that there is an argument for keeping this page, while I personally feel that it should be merged. I don't think a consensus was reached either way, even though the votes favor a merge. Without a consensus, I would be inclined to go with the majority, especially considering the length of time between the first post and this. Either way, I put the template up to hopefully generate some interest in this again. - 05:38, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also support a merge. It's much easier to discuss the station's changing designations in one article than to have to flip-flop between two articles, as Gvsualan noted several years ago. Much of this Terok Nor stuff seems to be on the Deep Space 9 page anyway, making this one rather redundant. – Cleanse ( talk 05:49, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I too support a merge for much of the reasons already stated above. Yet, I do see a point for keeping them separate, for example consider the real world case of the US Civil War ship USS Merrimack which became the CSS Virginia. Wikipedia treats them in two separate articles. The argument is that her appearance changed dramatically to more logically warrant such a treatment (though they still started out as one and the same ship). A similar argument can be considered for DS9. O'Brien spent at least two seasons changing and upgrading internal systems to make them compatible with Federation technology. While the exterior has remained the same, the interior must have changed dramatically in order to achieve this. Functionality and technology changed, but not exterior, thereby warranting two articles (In the Merrimack/Virginia case it was exactly the opposite, exterior changed, but not functionality -she remained a warship- and technology -the engine stayed the same-).So despite my personal preference, I guess I'm in reality split between either option. - Sennim 12:54, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be clear support for a merge, even though there isn't a perfect consensus. As for the outstanding arguments, while DS9 and TN were in different locations and had different abilities and even "looked" different inside, thase hardly seem like good reasons to have separate articles since we don't have different articles for each "upgrade" to the original Enterprise. It was always in a different location, it's abilities were different from TOS to TAS to the films, and it even looked different several times in TOS, to say nothing of TAS and the films. IF that wasn't enough, another reason to merge these is that the mirror universe page needs two disambiguation links for it "counterparts". I don't see a reason not to merge if there isn't any more opposition in the next few days. - 16:19, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * They are the exact same station, just with different names. I see no reason for separate articles. TJ Spyke 01:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Naming: Terek Nor?
I have read in a (1996?) TV-Guide Trek-related magazine about DS9 that the station's original name was also Terek Nor. I knew that until about 2000's, when I started noticing Terok Nor and not Terek Nor.

A Google search on Terek Nor also supports the alternative name. -Mardus 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Terok Nor in every script where the station's original name is mentioned. If you're German, I can explain the error: In the German dubbing of, Garak says "Terek Nor", instead of Terok Nor, and that's an error that seems to have stuck for quite some time... --Jörg 11:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm actually Estonian, but I remember the Terek spelling from an English-language Canadian TV Guide's Star Trek: 30 Years (or somesuch) Collector's Edition first and then use of this pronounciation later in German.


 * Google results for Terek Nor specifically in English do exist, but are approximately ten times less my previous result linked above.
 * -Mardus 11:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

What series and episode??
Hi all, just a quick question: what series and episode did modern Star Trek cast members go back in time to the original enterprise? Thanks! Don


 * . In the future, please use the Reference Desk for questions like this.--31dot 23:16, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Deep Space Nine weapons
How does Deep Space Nine have 48 phaser arrays on rotary mounts; 36 phaser emitters on stationary mounts and 3 phaser emitters on sliding mounts? The 48+ torpedo launchers, 5,000+ photon torpedoes (after 2372 refit) seems correct, but I tried to count the phasers myself and got the following: 36 Fixed Weapon Emplacement phasers (the ones on the habitat ring) 18 Sail Tower phasers (the ones on the aforementioned Sail towers) and 33 other phasers 50.148.12.9 16:27, February 7, 2013 (UTC)