For general discussion on this episode, visit the DS9 forum at The Trek BBS.
The scene where they were mentioned was script only, so merge. Kennelly 17:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Or delete, because it is a script reference that has no connection whatsoever to any canon references or other sources outside of an outdated script...--Alan 17:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This deals with the internal continuity of the episode. When looking at everything wrong with the ship O'Brein tells Sisko that the communications are shot leaving only the new holographic communications and Nog yet Sisko sends a message on all mauquis frequencies. One could argue that it was with the holographic communication system but it sounds just like any other communications sent the old way. This just a thought. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk).
Citation needed Edit
- Michael Eddington was made a defector to the Maquis, as internet rumours of his being a changeling led to the writers deciding to prevent Eddington being written as a Changeling, this is referenced in a scene with Sisko and Dax in a holosuite, where Sisko rages about being outsmarted by Eddington, despite Sisko's job being to act as a good judge of character, shouting "and what's my excuse; he's not a changeling, he's not a being with seven lifetimes of experience, he's not a wormhole alien! He's just a man, like me!"
Uncredited Roles Edit
According to IMDB, Jessica Gaona and John Hostetter appeared in the episode as a Maquis child and a Dopterian respectively. If this is the case, then their character images should be on the profiles.--184.108.40.206 12:38, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
- IMDB is not infallible; are there pictures to identify them in their roles? 31dot (talk) 20:27, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
Spoilers ... aw crap. Edit
I've noticed that there are references to Dr Bashir being a changeling in this episode's article (and some previous ones).
Since it has already spoiled the surprise for me -- I am just seeing these episodes for the FIRST TIME -- would it not be prudent to remove those references for the benefit of anyone else? Not everyone had access to televisions or receivers capable of viewing these shows at the time they were first broadcast. I for one had no means of seeing them until recently. Rust (talk) 01:42, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
- Please see the spoiler policy; Memory Alpha contains information from all aired episodes and released films. You view Memory Alpha at your own risk; people all over the world view Star Trek at different rates by different means at different times and we cannot possibly account for all of them. In this case the reference to the future episode is in the Background section; I would suggest not reading the Background sections of episode articles as they will quite often contain information about future episodes. 31dot (talk) 01:54, December 20, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but between Ex-astris-scientia.org and MA I find that MA is the worst offender when it comes to spoilers in the Background sections. I would think it a good idea to separate out those passages in the Background section that refer to future events into a list entitled "Spoilers" for obvious reasons. I'll gladly volunteer at some point in the future to do it, but for now, as I mentioned above, I am only just getting through the episodes for the first time. All of them, with the exception of a couple (the one where Benny is a writer at Foundation) are new to me. Your thoughts are welcome. Rust (talk) 06:00, December 22, 2013 (UTC)
- In aiming to be as comprehensive as possible we do discuss background information when it is relevant to an episode, even if that comes from a later one. Separating it out would in many cases alter the narrative that articles have. Again, we cannot account for how episodes are viewed by every person on this planet. Suggestions for improvement are welcome, but I would look skeptically at an effort to make such changes. 31dot (talk) 06:09, December 22, 2013 (UTC)
Your skepticism is noted. In any case, as I'm only at The Magnificent Ferengi in my viewing, I wouldn't expect any headway in such a project until the new year. Rust (talk) 21:45, December 22, 2013 (UTC)