Talk:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

Cast Credits
Are all of these cast changes necessary? There have been 27 edits in the past two days, that really are unnecessary. If there is any argument, the way I see it, the cast should be list as they appear on the opening credits, otherwise this started getting ridiculous 26 edits ago. --Gvsualan 22:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. The DS9 page is actually now the second most popular visited page after the Main Page. -- Rebel Strike 22:33, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although going the route of the opening credits limits it some, using Season 3 as an example: But, I guess the overall point is that you are supposed to click on the links to learn futher details about the individual, not read their entire biography on the link! I'm also not entirely sure the list of recurring characters is necessary. There is already several links to those people on that page in "related links". --Gvsualan 22:54, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Avery Brooks as Captain Sisko
 * Rene Auberjonois as Odo
 * Siddig El Fadil as Doctor Bashir
 * Terry Farrell as Lieutenant Dax
 * Cirroc Lofton as Jake Sisko
 * Colm Meaney as Chief O'Brien
 * Armin Shimerman as Quark
 * Nana Visitor as Major Kira

I've reverted it to the original version of the article before our 25+ edit spectacular began and protected it (seeing that the "constant edit" warning was ineffective) until this is resolved. --Gvsualan 23:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * there's really no need for anything but this:
 * Avery Brooks as Benjamin Sisko
 * Rene Auberjonois as Odo
 * Nicole de Boer as Ezri Dax
 * Michael Dorn as Worf
 * Terry Farrell as Jadzia Dax
 * Cirroc Lofton as Jake Sisko
 * Colm Meaney as Miles O'Brien
 * Armin Shimerman as Quark
 * Alexander Siddig as Julian Bashir
 * Nana Visitor as Kira Nerys
 * Readers curious about ranks and positions would visit the other articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suits me (and sort of what I was saying). But from the looks of it the same edits are occurring on the other series' pages. --Gvsualan 08:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How long is the page going to be protected? Excelsior 10:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Episodes
Is there a difference between feature-length and two-parter? For example, "Past Tense, Part I" and "Past Tense, Part II" vs. simply "The Way of the Warrior (feature-length)." 67.181.63.245 19:40, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC)


 * From what I know feature-length episodes are as long as two episodes. The network showing a series may decide to split feature-length episodes into two parts to keep their schedule constant. I have another question about episodes: does anybody know why there are only 19 episodes in the first season of DS9 (or 20 if you split the pilot)? --Timo Takalo 20:09, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)


 * They were probably unsure whether the new series would take off, just look at Voyager's first season. --Broik 04:07, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, feature-length episodes are written, produced, and shot as one epidoe, while 2-parters may have different writers, directors, ect. Jaz talk]] 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether the episodes are feature-length or a two-parter, they still count as 2 episodes. BTW, VGR's "Dark Frontier" was feature-length, but had 2 directors (and look at the original episode credits, noting the 1:31 minutes as "Dark Frontier," but telling you that "Part I" and "Part II" were written and directed by X.  Also, DS9 and VGR only produced 20 hours in their first seasons as the shows launched the first week on January and were scheduled to being "mid-season" to give them extra prep time after the respective season of their older sister show had started that season's production.


 * There is a difference between a two-parter and feature length. Episodes like The Search are 2-parters because they were aired seperatly.  These count as 2 episodes.  Ones like Emissary were originally aired as one episode, and therefor count as one.  Please stop changing the number.  -- Jaz  talk |undefined 19:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia import
I noticed a IP addy imported a HUGE chunk of text in from Wikipedia. Is this an acceptable add according to our policies or should it be removed? The way the article is written seems to be from a different viewpoint that M/A articles typically appear in. --Alan del Beccio 03:37, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course it is NOT permitted because it constitutes a copyright violation. Seems this article needs to be deleted and the wikipedia free revisions restored -- Kobi - (   ) 10:04, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * You'll find that Wikipedia is under the GNU Free Documentation License, thus it is completely acceptable to copy any or all of the article as long as it mentions it is from Wikipedia. I also find it interesting (and perhaps embarrassing for MA editors) that the Deep Space Nine article on Wikipedia dwarfs this one in content and quality. --70.77.45.29 21:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not acceptable because the GFDL and CCL BY-NC are mutually exclusive. The GFDL explicitly allows commercial use, and BY-NC explicitly forbids it. And as a point of reference, the active Wikipedia editor community consists of probably hundreds of thousands of people, whereas the active community here consists of well under a hundred. Nothing embarrassing about it... it's a matter of logistics. Oh, and this wiki focuses much more effort on canon information, so the articles on real-world topics such as the series themselves tend to be rather light in content compared to those at Wikipedia. You're welcome to expand on the article here... as long as you keep the licenses in mind. ;) -- Renegade54 21:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Episode Numbers
I was gonna add episode numbers, but I cant seem to see the episode list on the page edit. Any particular reason for this? -- User:Terran Officer September 19, 2005. 4:48 am est (I'm a night owl :P)

Episode pages
I'm starting a crusade to ensure that no episode summary is blank. If anyone wants to help, please see User:Vedek Dukat/Episodes. Thanks! --Vedek Dukat (Talk) 04:36, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd be glad to help you with that. I've also noticed we've got an episode missing from Season 4. [4x02].  Looks a little embarrassing for how awesome Memory Alpha is. :) --Progamer 10:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, is both 4x01 and 4x02. I have edited the episode template of that and other seasons to clarify this. --From Andoria with Love 07:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I'm a getting a bit senile. Many thanks Andoria. =)  --Progamer 18:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. We should have specified that they were two episodes at the beginning rather than just skipping a number altogether; I can understand how that would cause confusion. Thanks for bringing it to our attention, though. :) --From Andoria with Love 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Opinionated?
Maybe this is just how I perceive things due to my time at Wikipedia, where the NPOV policy is in effect and the user base is much more diverse (i.e. not consisting entirely of fans) but does the summary come off to anyone else as opinionated? Weyoun 22:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree. It just doesn't seem like an encyclopedia or reference article as much as an opinion piece.--AndreMcKay 20:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Saltah'na clock appearances
Do we have an article on the appearances of Sisko's Saltah'na clock? I've received a few messages from people who want info on it and a list of its appearances in the series. -- Tough Little Ship 13:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent Opinionated Comments Removal
Greetings! While talking on IRC with Sulfur and Renegade, we've decided that we should discuss about the latest edit to this page, which removed a lot of information from this page: this edit.

We believe that, although some of the comments removed should be left out, that there may be some comments that should remain. Suggestions? - Enzo Aquarius 16:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost the entire thing should be put back. It was well cited, and not personal opinion of editors here, but rather of statements made by the creators, and TV Guide, and others like that. There was next to nothing wrong with it. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Moved from "O'Brien Must Suffer"
This reeks of the same stink previously found in the List of incidents in which Sisko loses control of his command. --Alan del Beccio 02:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This should be merged into background notes on the given episodes, and a note on the Miles O'Brien article, where I am guessing it already is. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Or merged into the background of the DS9, another centralized location (as this page is), as one of the recurring themes in the series. --Alan del Beccio 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Aye, that'll work. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Works with me, as well. --From Andoria with Love 05:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! (In any case, I think the episodes were referred to by the staff as "Torture O'Brien" episodes) -Taduolus 22:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should make it a category, thus linking the episodes together, and making them easier to find, without creating a needless standalone page such as this one. Crash 02:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced in the slightest that having a new category for that is really a good idea. I still think that this should go straight into the DS9 article and then we can just call it a day. -- Sulfur 02:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, nice bg info for there, but nothing more, so merge. Kennelly 21:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

 * "TNG aired with DS9 for a season and half and VOY did not air at the same time as another Trek during its entire run"

Uhhh, nuh-uh. DS9 ended in Voyager's third or fourth season. --Babaganoosh 20:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "It was also the only Trek series to run alongside other Trek series through its entire run.". DS9's Season 1+2 were concurrent with TNG Season 6+7. DS9's seasons 3-7 were concurrent with VOY's Seasons 1-5. Only during the first half of DS9's Season 3 (fall 1994) no other Star Trek series was on air. --Jörg 20:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To reiterate, Voyager was not airing alongside another Trek series for its entire run; only DS9 was. Only the first, second, and third seasons of Voyager were airing at the same time as DS9, after which Voyager was airing all by itself. Got it? ;) --From Andoria with Love 23:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Still wrong. Voyager was only airing all by itself for its sixth & seventh seasons. Igotbit 18:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Your point is taken, but therefore it "was not airing alongside another Trek series for its entire run", just like Shran said. Only for part of its run, not its entire run. 76.254.84.152 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

First Series of Trek with non-starfleet regulars.
Although this had a lot of non-starfleet regulars, is not Wesly Crusher the real first non-starfleet regular. He may have been out of Starfleet for only the first few episodes, but he still was the "first."

I don't know others' view, but this is a curious incidint. Can anyone explain this please. --Nmajmani 14:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Alan Keyes reference
So...? Why does it matter? I removed this section of text that was added by an anon, using the Wikipedia template... but really... why should we care?


 * ''It is considered the best of the Trek series due to its broad appeal, even being described as Alan Keyes' favorite television program.

If anyone's got a good reason why this should stay, and why we should just like stacks and stacks of people who felt that this was their favorite show on the telly, then please put it here and we can go from there. -- Sulfur 02:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally find that hilarious given Keyes' rather extreme positions on many issues and the fact that DS9 had darker themes but had the first same-sex kiss, "pagan" religion, etc. 85.10.196.173 21:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I would oppose restoring this sentence, for the reasons Sulfur stated. The fact that Keyes is a public figure is immaterial, but even if it was not, it would set a poor precedent to start listing the favorite episodes or series of public figures.--31dot 23:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism paragraph
I'm as much a fan of DS9 as anyone, but let's be honest. The plagiarism accusations/conclusions concerning B5 were hardly mutual. It was a claim, not without at least some basis, that Paramount had taken the general concept of JMS's pitch and put the Trek brand name on it. --Jedi42 00:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Promenade Discrepancy
Discussion handled at Talk:Deep Space 9

Episode Synopsis
Can a synopsis of each episode appear after the title of each episode? I am willing to do this.

Summary
I'd like to question this line of the series description of the DS9 entry:

"It also tended to deal with subjects never before dealt with in any real depth by Star Trek; subjects such as racism, sexuality, war, politics, and religion."

Not to be rude, but I can think of numerous times the franchise dealt with these issues in depth long before the launch of the second spin-off. Star Trek was famous for being socially relevant since before the the first Space Shuttle launched. The Space shuttle they named after the ship on the show. The show that didn't bring up subjects relevant to garner national attention? Or did they name the first true starship in history the Enterprise because NASA dug that guy in the Gorn suit?

I could list specific examples. The Wounded, Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, The Outcast, Star Trek VI, Errand of Mercy. I could go on.

I deleted the line but it keeps coming back. I find it insulting.

add episode summaries on the episode list page
wikipedia's article is automatically better than memory alpha's because you can scroll through and read episode summaries to quickly see what episodes you want to view... just saiyan.....
 * We all can't be over 9000. - 04:50, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Memory Alpha is not Wikipedia. --31dot 11:36, November 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is actually a constructive suggestion worth discussing, so any snide remarks seem totally unwarranted to me. We could add single-sentence summaries to our lists of episodes. -- Cid Highwind 11:51, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being snide- I was simply saying that just because Wikipedia does something doesn't necessarily mean that we should. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.  I'm actually wondering if the idea is counterproductive- it seems to me that it would make the page much longer and thus harder to scroll through.--31dot 11:58, November 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Assume for a moment that you don't know the content of each and every episode by reading just its title. ;) I know that simple two-line summaries have often helped me when I was searching for specific episodes of other series on WP. -- Cid Highwind 12:15, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would say I am opposed to the idea- but I'm not a big supporter either.--31dot 01:06, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is definitely an idea worth implementing. Since we do strive to be as comprehensive of a reference as possible, having a line or two summarizing each episode completely falls within that realm. We could use the "taglines" or whatever you call it that we use at the top of each episode summary. So I am all for it. – Distantlycharmed 01:35, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Dates incorrect
On the DS9 page it says that ST: NG ran from 1993 - 1994 (should read 1987 - 1994). Star Trek: Deep Space Nine -- Chockolatta 18:03, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * If you read it in context, it means DS9 ran alongside TNG from 1993-1994. Usually, questions like this would be posed on the article talk page. --| TrekFan Open a channel 18:07, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

commanding officer Unique?!
I've changed back/removed the following input from BlueResistance:

The show also broke with tradition - and with future Trek series - by featuring a commanding officer at the rank of commander, rather than captain, for nearly three years.

I have done so for the reason that I do not believe a commander as commanding officer is unique, we have seen Data for instance take command of a starship. And I find the "and with future Trek series" nonsensical since future series can not be predicted, we just never know what new Star Trek series will come out at one point in time. I also think that the general information in this added paragraph is info that can be found within the articles about each series.. -- OvBacon (Talk) 22:47, June 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have protected this page to prevent an edit war. Please discuss the issue here before making changes. If the issue is settled before the protection is up, it will be lifted early.--31dot 22:58, June 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have posted a response and a counter-proposal on OvBacon's talk page. 31dot, would you be willing to comment on it? --BlueResistance, 21:36, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

Please post it here, my talk page is not a discussion board for articles. -- OvBacon (Talk) 22:14, June 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the wording of the sentence, but as to its presence in the article I think it best that I remain neutral due to my involvement of protecting the article. I'll lift the protection, though, as long as there is no back and forth editing.--31dot 00:02, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

I have, in the discussion on my talk page, responded that the new suggested wording is much better and I have no problem with its inclusion in the article. -- OvBacon (Talk) 00:33, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I hope I'm treading on no one's toes, but there are references by the producers to the significance of Sisko's commander rank. This would make the statement highly notable. I thus propose:


 * The show also broke with tradition – and with the two Trek series that followed it – by featuring a commanding officer as the star of the show at the rank of commander, rather than captain, for a significant portion of its run. Robert Hewitt Wolfe recalled that this led to unfavorable comparisons to the other series. "Whenever people would do articles about Star Trek they would talk about the three captains: Kirk, Picard, and Janeway." Feeling that Sisko deserved the higher rank as much as the other lead characters, the producers decided to promote Sisko in . (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, p. 253)


 * How about that? :-) –Cleanse ( talk 08:26, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think that you two can probably hammer out the details, but its starting to sound pretty good. -- OvBacon (Talk) 08:53, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Insert that, a citation is always better then an observation. - 08:56, June 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. Cleanse, thanks for coming up with an ideal solution!  Thanks also to 31dot for locking down the article during the debate, and thanks to OvBacon, too--even brief edit wars are great for compelling writers to improve their work. --BlueResistance, 21:57, June 22, 2011 (UTC)

Cast Credits Revisited
Okay so I changed the cast credits earlier to remove the ranks of the main cast but it was reverted. I removed the ranks because I thought having them their in their ever-changing form made the listing look bad. Instead I was thinking setting up the list so as to only show the characters names and then changing the appropriate season articles to include the ranks they were credited with in that year. Much more simple and better looking in my opinion (I would do this for TNG and VOY pages as well). Thoughts? --68.0.173.120 03:04, October 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's memory Alpha standard to list the credits as they were on screen, in the case of the main cast, they were credited with their ranks, even being "ever changing". --Terran Officer 04:12, October 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's why I reverted the change, although I understand the reasoning. --31dot 09:24, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

@Terran Officer - that's why the ranks would be on the specific season credits. --68.0.173.120 16:31, October 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * And they should be there, but that is no reason for them not to be here. As such I've protected the page to prevent any back-and-forth edit warring.--31dot 08:36, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Dominion members
I know this page is merely an overview, but the way I see it "the Changelings, the Vorta, and the Jem'Hadar, who collectively made up the Dominion" is technically innacurate and misleading, as there were other members who made up the Dominion. Geek Mythology 17:48, March 23, 2012 (UTC)


 * There are also many races in the Federation and Starfleet, but we don't list them all or even most of them in the overview for any of the Star Trek shows. The line in question is only discussing the concept of DS9 introducing new races, and is not meant to be a complete description of the member races of The Dominion. --31dot 21:29, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

I know not every federation member is listed, but it isn't described as "Humans, vulcans and andorians, who collectively make up the federation" either. I'm not saying all have to be listed, just change it so that it isn't innacturate. Geek Mythology 12:02, March 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * Then I think we could simply replace "who collectively make up" with "among other members of". The Karemma are a relatively minor species in the show and don't need to be specifically mentioned.--31dot 12:44, March 24, 2012 (UTC)