Talk:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good 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:
WikiProject Star Trek (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Television (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of television on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Science Fiction (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / American Television (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject American television (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

Babylon 5[edit]

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 76.127.81.35 (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 205.237.166.151 (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 86.173.116.79 (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.

JMS's statements about the litigation's issue

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 86.173.116.79 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)
  • I have thrice reverted a first-time IP user regarding deletion of the section, which has been a stable part of the article for years, and was then reverted agaiin by User:Justin.Parallax. Suggest we discuss the matter here, and gain consensus, which is the proper way to edit collaboratively instead of by way of terse edit summaries. Thanks. Jusdafax 09:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Benjamin Sisko full human?[edit]

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 76.114.230.47 (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[edit]

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.[1] 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[edit]

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)

milky way??[edit]

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)

Agree - go ahead and make the change. Ckruschke (talk) 19:01, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Proposed merge with The Way of the Warrior[edit]

Unreferenced, so should be merged with parent article.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

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)
I agree.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 22:53, 22 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)
I disagree, unless we plan on merging all episodes, it is best to keep all episodes the same. Since all other episodes have their own page, this one should as well. S806 (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF. It's entirely likely that those other episode articles should also be addressed. DonIago (talk) 13:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a review can be done, however quite literally the only reason this episode article was proposed to be merged was because it was recently created, and had no content (until yesterday). It is not any different than every other DS9 episode article. In fact, if you look now through the list of episode articles, you can't point this one out as being different. Merging this one episode makes no sense.S806 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Anyways, I don't have a strong opinion, just an opinion. Whatever is decided, is decided.S806 (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If my past experiences in this regard are any sort of precedent, I would recommend re-directing episode articles with no clear indication of notability (and hopefully some could be found for this particular episode) to the episode list article. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the tag because it doesn't seem there is a consensus to merge at this time. As Jeff G. noted, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes would be a better target for a merge anyhow. If any individual episode articles do need references, both The Star Trek Encyclopedia and Deep Space Nine Companion would be good places to start. gobonobo + c 00:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)