Talk:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article.|
|Star Trek: Deep Space Nine was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I removed the section pertaining to DS9 and Babylon 5. It seemed to go into great detail about Babylon 5 and did not seem relevant to the DS9 article. Its contents would perhaps be more appropriate on the Babylon 5 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 16:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with this sentiment, especially as most to the 'citations' are from Straczynski's posts. They hardly seems like a reliable source and this section on Babylon 5 should be removed from the DS9 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Just a FYI type thing. The ‘reply’ being attributed to Straczynski on the subject of suing Paramount in this section is complete fiction - it also appeared on the Babylon 5 article and was removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Babylon_5#Edit_to_Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_controversy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
No, the piece previously quoted as coming from JMS is,indeed, posted in a message posted by him in his Newsgroups as can be attested in the link right below.
There are, indeed, reliable Third Party sources that can be cited in this article. IMO, the elucidation of this mess pertaining to both the series should have its place in both their Wikiarticles, provided that they follow the Wiki's guidelines. Given time I'll try to fix this problem, since that today we have statements made by Michael Piller and some magazines that covered the issue.--PauloIapetus (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- Which quote are you referring to? I removed the quote 22.214.171.124 was referring to because (1) it actually juxtaposed two JMS quotes from 1992 and 1995 and (2) by selecting certain sentences it possibly misrepresented JMS's viewpoint.
- The controversy should be mentioned somewhere in this article. Third party sources would help bring a more detached view of the issue. —Mrwojo (talk) 17:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Benjamin Sisko full human?
I would argue that Benjamin Sisko is fully human since all the prophet did was inhabit the body of the woman that bore Benjamin Sisko so physically he is fully human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree. His mother was possessed by a prophet - not impregnated by one. I'm going to change it and if anyone objects, we can discuss it further. ῤerspeκὖlὖm in ænigmate(talk)(spy) 15:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
DS9/Babylon 5 - removed paragraph
Removed this paragraph:
- DS9 ran in syndication, never on UPN. DS9 sister show Voyager did run on UPN. This makes the following discussion dubious. The PTEN vs. UPN network rivalry may have been a factor in the development of such similar shows, since both networks were competing for control of the same independent stations and status as the 5th major network (after ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX). Each nascent network wanted the other to fail. Ultimately, PTEN dissolved in 1997, while The WB (majorly owned by and named after Warner Bros.) and UPN (launched by Paramount, but later managed and then owned by CBS) merged to form The CW in 2006.
Considering the editorial comments (emphasis added), probably needs to be reexamined before being added back in, though it doesn't add all that much to the article anyway, really. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
[Category:African-American television drama series] clearly not an appropriate category IMO
Why, because the Captain on this program happens to be an African-American? That's a mighty broad brush with which this program is assigned to this category, and clearly not appropriate as its themes and storylines do not in any way focus on African-American culture, issues or themes; an essential premise of all Star Trek incarnations reflects a human race which has transcended such distinctions... I'm going to be bold and remove this category.Boogerpatrol (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have to agree, this show doesn't have a focus on African Americans. Transcendence (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
The show is set in the Milky Way galaxy, approximately during the 2370s.
this is a little unnecessary, right? i mean to say that ALL of star trek takes place in the milky way galaxy.. with the exception of a few instances... uh, visiting the q continuum, tom paris reaching warp 10 and being "everywhere in the known universe at the same time", fluidic space of species 8472.. there's probably a lot more.. i'm tired and can't think. ≈Sensorsweep (talk) 08:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Proposed merge with The Way of the Warrior
- Thanks, but I disagree. This wouldn't really be the parent article. List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes would be better, but would give undue weight, in that article, to one particular episode. Time would be better served finding reliable sources which must exist either in print or on the web or by citing the episode itself as a source. ~~ Peteb16 (talk) 13:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Citing the episode itself would not establish notability. Third-party references should be added to the article. DonIago (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes may be a better merge target. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)