Talk:Federation-Cardassian Treaty

I've found something quite odd about a line in which mentions the treaty AND the Demilitarized Zone.

"Whispers" takes place before "Journey's End" (47581.2 & 47751.2) in which the DMZ is formed. Is this another example of stardates being untrustworthy? -- Tough Little Ship 15:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Even worse. "Whispers" aired before "Journey's End" (6 February 1994 & 26 March 1994), so the DMZ was mentioned before the episode explaining it even aired. --OuroborosCobra talk |undefined  15:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you would only have heard it if you were listening closely, as it was in Sisko's log... It interesting to see how much TNG and DS9 worked together in creating the Maquis and the DMZ -- Tough Little Ship 15:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

New page for the The Federation-Cardassian Treaty of 2370
If that treaty is different from the one of 2367, then why are they both in one page? Shouldn't there be a separate page for the each of the treaties?

Also, what treaty prompted Chakotay to resign? The one from 2367 or 2370? He resigned in 2368, but I am not sure if the treaty of 2367 was dealing with the border issues of the colonies yet.– Distantlycharmed 23:59, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is a treaty and the other was just an armistice, why was the page moved? One day hardly seems like enough time to discuss this. - 20:14, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need to essentially "disambiguate" by adding a year if there isn't another treaty to confuse it with, and this would have been done wrong anyways. The primary title should reflect the name used, which didn't include the year. If we felt the need to disambiguate, we would do so in parenthesis, but there is no reason to do so here. One is a treaty, one is an armistice. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:19, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, since there is really only one Federation-Cardassia treaty we know of. The problem was that both the armistice and the treaty were in one page - "Federation-Cardassian Treaty" - and that just made it confusing because of what Cobra said above about both not being treaties anyway. – Distantlycharmed 21:04, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * DC, definitely agree they should be on two separate articles, since they are two separate things. Thanks for writing the new one! --OuroborosCobra talk 21:06, September 1, 2010 (UTC)