Talk:Apocalypse Rising (episode)

Worf's alias
Does anyone know what Worf's alias was? I don't think it was ever stated. -- Tough Little Ship 15:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wasn't he supposed to be Sorval from ? -- Ben Sisko 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The script says "Sisko ENTERS to find Worf (whose appearance has been somewhat altered as in "SONS OF MOGH")". -- Tough Little Ship 21:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Nitpicks

 * Response to Forum:Spoiler Warnings

The following are things I removed:

According to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Companion, it was writer Ronald D. Moore who suggested making Martok, rather than Gowron, turn out to be the Changeling, so as not to upset TNG fans. ([Ironically, however Moore himself would write Gowron's demise in the seventh season episode "Tacking Into the Wind".]) It was felt at this time however that revealing Martok to be a Changeling would give the episode a nice unexpected twist. As it turned out, the producers were so pleased with J.G. Hertzler's performance in this episode, they made it a point to have the real Martok return in "In Purgatory's Shadow" and become a much more prominent character in the series. As René Echevarria explains, "This is the show where we fell in love with J.G. Hertzler as an actor. It was like, 'Hey, this guy is terrific. And here we are killing him.' But actually we were killing a Changeling, which started us thinking, 'If he's been replaced, where's the real guy. Maybe he's not dead. Maybe we can find him'."

(Removed the "Ironically" part, keeping the information relevant and without personal feelings)

It is interesting to note that Gowron tells Worf that he will not get another chance to try to kill him insofar as Worf does kill Gowron, to stop his reckless attacks against the Dominion, in the seventh season episode "Tacking Into the Wind", ironically, installing the real Martok in his place.

(Not relevant to this episode, if someone is interest in Gowron, the Dominion, or Martok, go to their pages. There's that "it is interesting to note", which really means "I think it's interesting that".  Discussion of what you liked or found interesting is best left to a forum, not an encyclopedia)

''This is not the first time Rene Auberjonois has played a character who disguises himself as a Klingon. Colonel West, his character in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country, did the same. Their intentions are precisely the opposite though: West was attempting to prevent peace with the Klingons, while Odo was attempting to prevent war with the Klingons. ''

(Information best left to Rene's page, not this one)

When we see Worf alongside Sisko, O'Brien, and Odo in Klingon Make-up, his full goatee is missing.

(Nitpicks aren't supposed to be on here)


 * I also changed some of the wording. Trying to eliminate personal thoughts and feelings from background information – Saphsaph 05:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Cirroc Lofton
Cirroc Lofton was credited in this episode. Not sure if he appeared. Currently watching it. Please update and verify. Thanks. 112.201.130.3 17:28, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Got the scene. Lofton appeared standing over the balcony of the promenade. Julian Bashir saw him and they had a short talk. 112.201.130.3 17:49, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Okay edited it. Revert in case it was intentionally left out. Trying to see the history if it was there originally but I don't see the link. 112.201.130.3 17:53, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

The Armstrong and the Drake
Where are these two starships mentioned in the episode? -- DS9 Forever 21:01, May 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * While Dr. Bashir is talking with Jake on the Promenade, Kira asks him over the comm to report to the infirmary. These starships were ambushed by Klingons and were bringing casualties. -- Theinfinity42 22:55, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Gowron Killed
I was disappointed to see a spoiler in the Background section. As I am watching the DS9 episodes for the first time, I did not appreciate knowing that Gowron will be killed in the seventh season. Does anyone see a need for deleting that entry? --MindReamer (talk) 07:37, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

The reason for my several edits on the Talk Page for Apocalypse Rising is because I inadvertently added my comments without making a section headline. So instead of undoing it as I should have, I re-edited it to delete my comment and then re-edited again to add my comment with a section headline. But in order to clean things up, I undid all three entries and started over with my comment and a section headline. Perhaps it was unnecessary. I am a new editor and I am sorry for the confusion.--MindReamer (talk) 08:06, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Memory Alpha contains material on all aired episodes; you read MA articles at your own risk. Please review the Spoiler Policy for more information. 31dot (talk) 10:22, October 30, 2012 (UTC)

I have read the spoiler policy and the definitions of a spoiler and I understand that I will run into them on character pages and others. I think that spoilers should be avoided in episode pages if they are merely future trivia. I have read a discussion on the Memory Alpha Talk:Spoiler policy section. The consensus seems to be that spoilers should be avoided if there is no value added to the understanding of the episode. One editor, Cleanse proposed that a paragraph should be added to the Spoiler policy that advises editors on putting spoilers on episode pages. However, it was not implemented.

Here is the entry in question from the Background section:


 * "Gowron tells Worf that he should have killed him when he had the chance, as he will not get another. In the seventh season episode Tacking Into The Wind, Worf fights Gowron again and kills him."

The first sentence of the entry gives information already given in the Summary section. The second sentence is the spoiler. There seems to be no value added in the entry other than to give the spoiler.

There is an equivalent entry in the seventh season episode, referring back to this episode regarding Gowron's statement. --MindReamer (talk) 18:07, October 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * If the note in question was at the top of the page or in the episode summary, I would probably agree with you- but the Background and/or Continuity sections are for precisely that type of information. Most of the episode pages have that kind of information. 31dot (talk) 00:40, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with others in the Spoiler policy discussion and I note that there is a reason it is called Background rather than Foreground or Future Ground. It is certainly necessary to give information that leads up to the situations in the episode. But a blatant spoiler is unnecessary to achieve that goal, especially since the subject is covered in the Background section of a future episode. Perhaps a less specific statement like "Gowron tells Worf that he should have killed him when he had the chance, as he will not get another. However, Worf gets another chance in a future episode." The idea that a spoiler is OK just because it is used in other Background sections doesn't make it right. I realize that fixing those spoilers would be a major undertaking, but what are editors for? If an idea has merit, I think that editors would support it. This will be my last argument for this idea.

I enjoy Memory Alpha and have a desire to improve it. My favorite Star Trek character is Mr. Spock, and I always try to use logic in my suggestions. I am not trying to be smart-alecky or presumptive, but if I am out of line on this post, please accept my apology.--MindReamer (talk) 17:18, October 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * I will first say you are not out of line in any way; it is clear you have nothing but good intentions. No worries there. :)


 * I could actually accept your suggestion to reword the comment to simply say they fought again later. If you wish to change it, go ahead, or I can if you want. As for others in general, I think they should be considered on a case by case basis. 31dot (talk) 21:22, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

I have made the change. Your answer has gone a long way towards improving my self-confidence. Also, I have been learning a lot about wiki editing. Thanks again. --MindReamer (talk) 21:53, October 31, 2012 (UTC)

As a new editor, it is frustrating to me when I make my arguments and my logic to make a useful edit, only to have a veteran editor come along a month later to revert my edit without an explanation. Such are the exploits of a rookie. MindReamer (talk) 16:58, December 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Though I did not do it, that is the nature of Wiki editing. It's nothing to do with you being a "rookie", it happens to everyone. Anyway, I've combined both approaches by reverting to your text but adding a link to the episode piped into your text. 31dot (talk) 17:03, December 3, 2012 (UTC)