For general discussion on this episode, visit the DS9 forum at The Trek BBS.
New Summary Edit
I've written a new summary. Internal wiki links are still missing (too lazy ;-) ) --Shh 11:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry for the grammatical mistakes - I am not a native speaker. The missspellings are not excusable of course. --Shh 13:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- I've corrected the spelling, fixed up the grammar and added internal links, but I didn't alter the content much, so the article still needs more detail at some stage in the future. – Bertaut talk 18:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
But it's better than the single (short) paragraph it was before. ;-) --Shh 08:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I watched this episode last night. My memory may be foggy, but although I remember Morn being mentioned, I do not believe we saw him. Quark described the discussion & subsequent fleeing, Kira described seeing him naked in the temple. Anyone else have a different memory? --Seleya 03:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- I concur with what you said. Does this warrant a mention in the "reference" section? --Htam 07:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I definitely think this is funny enough to be somewhere in the article... and er besides, it should at least be part of the plot summary anyway. I also think it is worth noting how uncharacteristic it is of Morn to act like that.--Ihmhi 04:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Production Number Edit
The production number for this episode is wrong. It's listed the same as "Soldiers of the Empire". I think it should be 523, but I don't have a canon reference handy that has the production number listed. Dave C
- Actually, you'll notice that BoG is 519/5x23, and SotE is 521/5x19. So, different production numbers and air numbers. -- Sulfur 03:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Nog's Leg Edit
Martok's warning to Nog not to tempt fate (while pointing to his own missing eye) foreshadows the loss of Nog's leg in the 7th season episode "The Siege of AR-558".
It seems like a bit of a stretch to make that statement. Nog was not tempting fate when he lost his leg in that episode. He was given his order as a Starfleet officer and he obeyed it, in stark contrast to Quark who talked of making peace with the Dominion at any price. What do you think? Should it be removed? --User:126.96.36.199 22:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Unless there is proof that the writers intended it to foreshadow Nog's injury (doubtful), then it is just an opinion and should be removed. --From Andoria with Love 05:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Was or were? Edit
"As far as the Deep Space Nine writers were concerned however, the Maquis was dead"
I wrote that sentence, and Cleanse changed it to read:
"As far as the Deep Space Nine writers were concerned however, the Maquis were dead"
I'm pretty sure the singular is correct. For example: 'the IRA was disbanded'. It's not 'the IRA were disbanded'. I'm not sure, perhaps I should just rephrase the sentence so it's clear I mean the group called the Maquis as opposed to the collected members of the Maquis...if that makes any sense at all. Any thoughts? – Bertaut 01:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- On thinking about it again, you're right. Probably rephrase it so it doesn't sound like you're talking about the collected members of the Maquis (which is what I initially assumed). May I suggest something like "As far as...the organization was dead". – Cleanse 02:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
For the Fallen Edit
I removed the following note, which has been lacked citation since March:
- One of the proposed names for the episode was "For the Fallen", which would have alliterated with the two other episodes featuring Eddington:""For the Cause" and "For the Uniform".
It's not in the script (where these previous titles are often found), and a quick google and google books search comes up blank. If a citation can be found it can be returned.– Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 11:13, August 22, 2010 (UTC)