Talk:Neutral Zone Incursion

Spelling of comet?
Do we have a spelling confirmation for comet "Ichyrus-4" that confirms this as not being the more commonly seen "Icarus-4" spelling. I'd like to know either way, just for my own curiosity... -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:49, 14 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Well, I pulled it off the TOS transcripts site. Admittedly, Googling only yields one other hit for it.  I can check the closed captioning on the VHS later today, or maybe someone with the DVD's could take a look... -- Steve 20:52, 14 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * I just checked; the captions say "Ichyrus". And furthermore, what Spock says definitely has a long "I" sound and not an "A" sound. -- Steve 22:28, 14 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Isn't it the policy of this site that the spelling from Encyclopedia (Icarus) supercedes closed captioning (Ichyrus)? And btw "Icarus" isn't usually pronounced with a prominent "a" sound. -- EtaPiscium 01:02, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Yeah, but it certainly doesn't have a long "I". And I dunno what the spelling policy is--we use closed captions for ENT because that's all we've got.  And besides, the Encyclopedia has been wrong in spelling on occasion: ShirKahr, Neela Darren, &c. -- Steve 05:31, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * I know, but in this case I'm more inclined to believe the Encyclopedia, since "Icarus" actually means something so I doubt it's a misspelling. -- EtaPiscium 05:42, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * What we need is a script... ;) -- Steve 05:51, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)


 * Yeah, that'd be convenient. Til then I'm voting for "Icarus". It just seems too far-fetched that the writers would come up with a name that's almost but not quite a reference to a mythological character. -- EtaPiscium 06:10, 15 Dec 2004 (CET)

I fail to see how a closed caption (not created by the studio, but by the VHS or DVD manufacturer) could be regarded as canon. The closed captions frequenlty conflict with dialogue, and are rearely concurrent with the script. Also, foreign versions are dubbed and transcribed overseas, and website transcripts are usually fanmade. I fail to see how any of this could be taken as (or superceding over) canon fact.

I have a large number of TNG videos at my home where the captioning refers to an officer named Ryker. Should we move William T. Riker to William T. Ryker based on the captioning? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:03, 1 Jan 2005 (CET)


 * In the case of "Ryker" we know the correct spelling to be "Riker". In the case of the comet, I have seen no source given for spelling "Icarus".


 * That said, I don't particulary care. Do whatever you like. -- Steve 17:56, 2 Jan 2005 (CET)

Deletion of Article Proposed
This article simply summarizes. Given that a nice summary already exists, why is this article here? I propose its deletion, but would like some opinions before formally suggesting it. Aholland 00:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an in-universe article about an event happening in the Trek universe, while the episode summary is a meta article. We might still want to discuss if this article has a valid name or if there might be a better one, if the event is important enough to have its own article etc., but it should not be deleted just because this event is also described in an episode summary. -- Cid Highwind 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Definitely oppose deletion, but I do support a possible name change; perhaps this can be moved to an article on Human-Romulan history? --From Andoria with Love 04:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If not deletion, what about simply moving it under "Balance of Terror" instead? It is a fuller description of the episode, and seems most appropriate there. For instance, "The City on The Edge of Forever" has a very nice summary, but there is no analogous "Guardian Event" page going over the same material. Aholland 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Move the content of this article to the episode summary page, or what is it that you are suggesting? That would basically be a deletion, because we generally don't redirect "in-universe" articles to "meta" articles. Again, questioning the usefulness of a) the title of this article and b) the existence of this content on a separate page (as opposed to being a section on Romulan Neutral Zone, for example) is definitely valid and can be discussed here, but that should have nothing to do with the episode summary. -- Cid Highwind 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Understood. That being said, I propose that the title of the article be modified to "Romulan Neutral Zone Incursions of 2266".  (The plural being because both sides went in.)  I think adding this text to a general article (e.g., Romulan Neutral Zone") would overwhelm the general and reduce the usefulness of it.  Aholland 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're all barking up the wrong tree. What this article needs is to be renamed "The Battle of Sector Z-6" (or something like that) or perhaps "The Neutral Zone Incident." This was a MAJOR event, it was the first exchange of fire between Romulans and Earth (and its allies) in over a century. To simply call it "an incursion" downplays both its historical significance and the violence and loss of life that occurred. – Gotham23 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the dates, this discussion was closed 3.5 years ago. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right...because right there in big, easy-to-read letters are the words "this discussion is closed." It's right next to where everyone comes to a consensus and agrees there's nothing more to talk about. So I can see why you're being such a prick about it instead of just politely telling me "the issue has been resolved." Honestly, man...if it's closed, either SAY IT'S CLOSED or delete the whole freaking thing...don't leave a discussion up and then treat me like a fucking idiot just for contributing to it.


 * And I still think it should be renamed to reflect the fact that it was a real battle with a real firefight. – Gotham23 20:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)