Talk:Broken Bow incident

Possible references
Here's a list of episodes that reference this incident. I haven't checked all the Enterprise ones yet, though they do all reference Klaang, at least.
 * . --Defiant (talk) 13:36, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Defiant (talk) 13:36, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Defiant (talk) 13:36, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Defiant (talk) 13:36, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Defiant (talk) 13:36, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Defiant (talk) 13:36, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Defiant (talk) 13:36, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * . --Defiant (talk) 13:36, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Unless one of the references above actually uses the term, we don't need this as a separate page from the location, as a redirect is more than enough in that case. - 13:54, July 7, 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the wealth of information we have about the incident, which would soon overwhelm the info about the location, I propose that we keep it as a separate article. --Defiant (talk) 13:58, July 7, 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to see where this goes, since right now there isn't much, but I don't think we need an in-universe episode summary for. - 14:10, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me neither. The event should cover the actual events that took place in Broken Bow in greatest detail, with the "aftermath" depicted in the pilot episode basically being summarized. Also, there's info about the lead-up to the incident in "Shockwave" that would be inappropriate for the Broken Bow page, as another example of why they should be kept separate, IMHO. --Defiant (talk) 14:14, July 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought, much of the Klaang info from the above-referenced episodes does not seem directly relevant to this article. For example, the discussion had between Trip and Archer (as established in "Shockwave") does not have any direct correlation with the incident itself, other than being immediately before it. I've tried to add the info that is directly related to the incident. Is a merge still desired? --Defiant (talk) 10:30, July 22, 2012 (UTC)


 * With the changes made to the article since the original suggestion, I'm of the feeling that this can stand alone as its own article now. It may be a bit more detailed than is really necessary, but that's OK :) -- sulfur (talk) 20:36, January 4, 2013 (UTC)