Talk:Blaze of Glory (episode)

New Summary
I've written a new summary. Internal wiki links are still missing (too lazy ;-) ) --Shh 11:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for the grammatical mistakes - I am not a native speaker. The missspellings are not excusable of course. --Shh 13:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've corrected the spelling, fixed up the grammar and added internal links, but I didn't alter the content much, so the article still needs more detail at some stage in the future. – Bertaut talk 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

But it's better than the single (short) paragraph it was before. ;-) --Shh 08:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Morn
I watched this episode last night. My memory may be foggy, but although I remember Morn being mentioned, I do not believe we saw him. Quark described the discussion & subsequent fleeing, Kira described seeing him naked in the temple. Anyone else have a different memory? --Seleya 03:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with what you said. Does this warrant a mention in the "reference" section? --Htam 07:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely think this is funny enough to be somewhere in the article... and er besides, it should at least be part of the plot summary anyway. I also think it is worth noting how uncharacteristic it is of Morn to act like that.--Ihmhi 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Production Number
The production number for this episode is wrong. It's listed the same as. I think it should be 523, but I don't have a canon reference handy that has the production number listed. Dave C


 * Actually, you'll notice that BoG is 519/5x23, and SotE is 521/5x19. So, different production numbers and air numbers. -- Sulfur 03:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nog's Leg
Regarding this:

Martok's warning to Nog not to tempt fate (while pointing to his own missing eye) foreshadows the loss of Nog's leg in the 7th season episode "The Siege of AR-558".

It seems like a bit of a stretch to make that statement. Nog was not tempting fate when he lost his leg in that episode. He was given his order as a Starfleet officer and he obeyed it, in stark contrast to Quark who talked of making peace with the Dominion at any price. What do you think? Should it be removed? --User:205.237.164.187 22:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless there is proof that the writers intended it to foreshadow Nog's injury (doubtful), then it is just an opinion and should be removed. --From Andoria with Love 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Was or were?
"As far as the Deep Space Nine writers were concerned however, the Maquis was dead"

I wrote that sentence, and Cleanse changed it to read:

"As far as the Deep Space Nine writers were concerned however, the Maquis were dead"

I'm pretty sure the singular is correct. For example: 'the IRA was disbanded'. It's not 'the IRA were disbanded'. I'm not sure, perhaps I should just rephrase the sentence so it's clear I mean the group called the Maquis as opposed to the collected members of the Maquis...if that makes any sense at all. Any thoughts? – Bertaut 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On thinking about it again, you're right. Probably rephrase it so it doesn't sound like you're talking about the collected members of the Maquis (which is what I initially assumed).  May I suggest something like "As far as...the organization was dead". – Cleanse 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

For the Fallen
I removed the following note, which has been lacked citation since March:


 * One of the proposed names for the episode was "For the Fallen", which would have alliterated with the two other episodes featuring Eddington:" and .

It's not in the script (where these previous titles are often found), and a quick google and google books search comes up blank. If a citation can be found it can be returned.– Cleanse ( talk 11:13, August 22, 2010 (UTC)