Talk:Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Former good articleStar 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
August 9, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
August 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
May 15, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

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)
I made a few changes to this paragraph about a year ago, and I concur with the deletion decision. However, a few points:
  • Roughly the same paragraph appears on the Wiki page for Babylon 5, but there has never been a move to delete it. I struggle to understand how the subsection (not a differently-written section, either, but an earlier version that seems like copy-and-paste) can be simultaneously relevant to one show, but not the other. Perhaps this can be explained plausibly; but if not, I suggest the paragraph be deleted on the B5 page, as well. Based on the talk page for the B5 article, it looks like the last discussion took place in 2009.
  • Taking a step back, I think the entire section as it's presented now is a thinly-disguised collection of competing opinions, and wouldn't be worthy for inclusion even if it was relevant. Michael J. Straczynski's allegations have never been substantiated, and because DS9 and B5 never actually competed for viewership (e.g., different time-slot, no network-level competition), Paramount/CBS likely had no motive to engage in a risky scheme of IP infringement. To present the "controversy" as we do now, e.g., with collected quotes from MJS and some statements from the DS9 producers, implying that there's some kind of objective, unresolved debate, really does give this matter more than its due. To the extent that we have *any* paragraph addressing a DS9/B5 controversy, it should be only to the extent that, historically, a controversy has existed among fan opinions. But I question even the value of that. MaRoWi 19:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Since the sources are mainly posts on MJS sites, not independent 3rd party sources, I wouldn't add it back in as it was. Perhaps a sentence or two in the production or reception sections, based on discussion from the DVD verdict review (independent 3rd party, with a concise summary of the "controversy")? Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2014 (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)
More significantly in the star trek universe countries have ceased to exist sometime before TOS so 'African American' it a anachronism. Mtpaley (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Setting Impacting Storytelling[edit]

"[Setting the series on a space station] made continuing story arcs and the appearance of recurring characters much more feasible." In what way? I fail to see the difference between DS9 at the mouth of a wormhole, the original Enterprise on a 5 year mission, the Voyager stranded, as being in any way less conducive to continuing story arcs or using recurring characters - indeed, it is easily argued the other way 'round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voideater (talkcontribs) 15:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Voideater (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, a relatively fixed location does lend itself to revisiting the same nearby locations, characters, and conflicts... The connection from there to "continuing story arcs" is understandable, but is by no means exclusive to the setting. Either way, I think it reads a little like original analysis, and does not appear to be supported by anything else in the article, so I've removed it. --Fru1tbat (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I would only underscore that an isolated colony such as on a starship far from its home actually supports recurring characters much more effectively than a space station at the hub of major commercial and other interests. At best, we might say that the other incarnations of ST are a ship moving through space, while DS9 is space moving through a ship. Cheers! 2601:500:8202:8BC0:9C93:96CA:24FA:979F (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

That depends on the nature of the recurring character, does it not? If the recurring character lives on Bajor, they're probably not as likely to recur in a series set on a starship as they are in a series set on a space station orbiting Bajor. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)