Contents 1 Sisko's ship 2 Ratings 3 Moved from Nominations for featured articles 3.1 "Emissary" 4 double speed teaser on spike 5 Cuts for two-parting? 6 Video/Film Quality/Cinematography 7 Sisko's uniform at Jake's birth 8 corridor after holodeck scene

Sisko's ship Edit

I saw this episode today and it raised a question. I always thought Sisko arrived on the Enterprise but it was already there when he arrived. Was it ever specified what ship he travelled on?Rebelstrike2005 19:49, 7 Mar 2005 (GMT)

No, however I was under the impression that its' Captain was female. --Gvsualan 20:07, 7 Mar 2005 (GMT)

The captain is female in the script, but is male in the episode- Rebelstrike2005 21:29, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT)

But when we first see DS9 the Enterprise isn't there. I suppose it could have gone on a quick tour around Bajor. Tough Little Ship 22:41, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

RatingsEdit

Living in the UK, we don't monitor ratings like the USA does. What were the ratings for this pilot in US? I heard it made ratings history at the time. Tough Little Ship 22:29, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Moved from Nominations for featured articlesEdit

"Emissary"Edit

• Support; I think you guys gotta agree it's a solid article & not overdone like the Enterprise finale.--Ben Sisqo 23:32, 20 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Support A fine page. Valley Forge 12:23, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Support Who keeps striking my votes??? --Vedek Dukat 00:28, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Because they appear to be placed at random --Alan del Beccio 01:34, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Well theres that and then theres the fact hed only been registered 2 days prior to voting and the quasi-vandalistic edits. Ben Sisqo 01:30, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Support. As far as background info, it has more than some existing FA episodes, and the length seems like a good "middle ground" between The Cage and These are the Voyages. --Schrei 02:31, 23 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Support Tobyk777 02:06, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose - A summary that is not clear enough and a background section that repeats information. In regards to the summary, I think it's a good length, but I also think that it should be noted whenever a character enters or leaves a scene. When I read this, it seemed like Sisko was still with Dax during her Orb experience! I don't remember that from the episode, although I could be wrong. --Defiant | Talk 12:00, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Support and move to strike that objection. It's established that we don't want it to tell every time someone does something... and I don't know what you meant about it repeating information. Vedek Dukat 17:37, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Firstly, my opinions regarding this process and in general are just as valid as yours are. Secondly, I didn't ask for it to be changed to "every time someone does something", it just makes a summary clearer if it notes any time that a character enters or leaves. Thirdly, the fact that the Vulcan captain goes on to play Martok is repeated in the background information section. I didn't change it, because I don't know which version to remove. Lastly, you seem to be quite immature, as you are clearly not willing to acknowledge my opinion just because it differs from your own. That's not a "personal attack" or anything, just an observation. --Defiant | Talk 18:27, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Support. Should overwhelming consensus override single votes? I am not trying to be confrontational, but I see nothing wrong here. This summary telled me enough, and I've not seen the episode yet. I would also like to point out that you cannot vote twice and I have stricken the second vote accordingly. Ironic considering the suggestion that followed your vote! Makon 18:31, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I also believe someone removed the repetition since it doesn't appear there. Makon 18:32, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Schrei did, I just hadn't checked the article since then. However, I still oppose this article, as I believe it could be clearer that Sisko is not with Dax during her Orb experience. Once, that's done, I'll be quite willing to withdraw my opposing vote and support this article. --Defiant | Talk 18:54, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Couldn't you have fixed that error? I did just now, so I think it's ready. Makon 19:03, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • I re-read the article and was about to support this nomination when I realized that the Acts are wrong for this episode. The script is divided into 8 Acts, whereas this only has 5. Consequently, I think the Acts should either be corrected, renamed to descriptive terms that fit the individual sections, or removed altogether. There are also 3 more log entries that aren't in the summary, but I don't think that's a reason for objecting this nomination. --Defiant | Talk 23:03, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • You know... That occurred to me when I read the article, but I didn't think about it. It's like those optical illusions - at first you think it looks fine and then suddenly you do a double take and go hey wait a second... :) --Schrei 23:06, 24 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Someone condensed the scenes into sections like how it keeps going back and forth between the wormhole the station and the crew except someone else tried to put it into a five act format? I don't get it but I watched the episode to figure out how the hell they put a two part episode in five acts and i think its FINALLY straightened out... Ben Sisqo 03:09, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Support Coke 04:39, 25 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. How weird! I didn't think about the acts at all, because it seemed complete and appeared to cover everything. Thank you for fixing it! Makon 00:36, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Why does it give five paragraphs for one act and only one (plus the log) for another? Also, would it be appropriate to include here information about designing the station, conceiving the series, etc? That would be nice to learn about but it might be inappropriate for an episode article. 1985 15:33, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • Thata the way it happened on screen and I should say there was a distinct difference between the episode and the script so that complicated things. But yes one act is very short with Kira narrating a log, then they talk about Dukats ship and moving the station, they decide to leave & Odo says hes gotta go too. And I think info about the series would be inappropriate here, its good as it is. I assume Defiant will take his objection back like he was going to before the act thing came up unless I missed something in which case just tell me & I'll fix it. :o) Ben Sisqo 03:51, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - why are there no links in the introductory paragraph, and why does it differ from the episode's text? --Defiant | Talk 11:12, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whilst I've fixed the text, it would seem that someone with time to notice the difference should also have time to fix it. No offence intended, but it was not a major fix. I don't see any links in normal captain's logs, so there should also not be linkage in the prelude I think. Makon 20:17, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

*Mild Oppose. Almost but not quite there, IMO. I think the Summary is manageable enough for this episode, though longer than I like. But Background could use some info on this second Trill appearance and the difference in makeup, the introduction of the new Starfleet uniforms, the decision to make Sisko a Commander instead of Capitain (reasons for it, and the fact that he was the first lead in a Trek series to be the lower rank) and whatever info, if any, is available on the decision to use O'Brien in this series. Logan 5 20:38, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. I've given this episode what I'm now going to call the tribble treatment, because I think I more than doubled the amount of background info on this episode. ;) --Schrei 23:40, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • MUCH better! Opposition withdrawn. Though I still would like a note on Sisko being a Commander at first, instead of Captain. Logan 5 03:32, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that was just an arbitrary decision. There could be any number of things: He's on a space station and "Commander of DS9" sounds cooler, or they wanted an excuse to have Picard there since it would probably be an Admiral if Sisko was a Captain, and I'm sure BajoranBrouhaha would say it's because Sisko is black. --Schrei 05:16, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• After careful consideration (and overwhelming support for this nomination from the MA community in general), I've decided to withdraw my opposition and support this article. --Defiant | Talk 21:14, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)

double speed teaser on spike Edit

I just watched this episode on SpikeTV and it appears that they ran the opening part (Wolf 359) at 2x or 1.5x speed with the audio at 1x and re-cut into the high speed video. Strange to watch, must be to make more time for commercials or something. bastards. --Bp 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Cuts for two-parting? Edit

I'm watching the DVD cut of the episode, and about 36 minutes in, there's a that I don't recall seeing recently. I could be wrong, but if it was cut from the 2-part cut of the episode that is normally aired (as occured with TNG's premiere), I think the background section should mention the scene. It is directly after Dax's orb flashback. It begins with a pan from DS9 up to the Enterprise and then cuts inside. O'Brien arrives on the bridge (in his TNG uniform, tho he's already appeared at the beginning of the show in DS9 garb) and is about to go see Picard in his ready room. He thinks twice and looks around the bridge. A female lieutenant sitting in Riker's chair tells him that the Captain is in the ready room, and asks him if she should tell Picard that he's here. He says no, and goes to transporter room 3. As he's about to transport to the ops pad on DS9, Picard arrives, saying that he heard that he missed O'Brien on the bridge. He dismisses the transporter operator and has a talk with O'Brien. He recalls that transporter room 3 is the chief's favourite and says that he called down without thinking asked for O'Brien the previous day. He tells O'Brien that it won't be the same without him, and then beams him over himself (with a rather solemn look on his face). Then there is a shot of the Enterprise disconnecting from the upper pylon and heading on it's way. This is the act break. I can't recall The scene feels very out of place and unnecessarily stoic considering that this isn't O'Brien leaving TNG but joining DS9. Anyway, if the scene can't be scene in normal syndication runs of the series, (I'm not 100% sure but I believe so), I propose that one of two things should be done to the article - First, I'd give slightly more detail to the scene in the synopsis since it can't be seen these days unless one has the DVDs, and secondly I'd mention in trivia that it is cut for syndication. The other, posibly better option, is to have a subsection of background on the changes for splitting - as I said, I'm pretty sure that scene wasn't just cut but that the entire commercial break was dropped there, but I could be wrong. There could be other changes I'm not noticing right now. TheHYPO 19:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The scene was indeed in the episode as originally aired, although SpikeTV likely cut it out (they cut scenes from every episode of DS9 and TNG, and will likely do so for Voyager). Basically, if a scene is in the DVD version of the episode, then it was in the original episode. All episodes on the DVDs are uncut and unedited as they appeared in their original airing. --From Andoria with Love 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Do they really make cuts from every episode? I didn't know that, and I've never noticed it myself... But still, this is a unique case. Like TNG's first episode, which was a 2 hour feature, when it was cut in half by Paramount itself, it had to lose some content for the commercials between episodes and the "last time on" shots. Encounter At Farpoint has (two I think) scenes that are rarely if ever seen on TV because they are not in the 2-part cut of the episode. I figured there are similar cuts from DS9 - I don't know if Spike makes its own cuts, but i'm referring to cuts that the studio makes to its own episodes to split them in half. TheHYPO 21:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Video/Film Quality/CinematographyEdit

This pilot seems to be shot on video and not filmstock. Is there any resource out there to support or explain this? It seems like a low budget version of the TNG episode, or like low budget cutscenes from interactive computer games from the same period. DS9 I remember looked beautiful, but I really don't remember the pilot. 70.226.206.60 04:47, March 22, 2010 (UTC)Gagarin

Sisko's uniform at Jake's birth Edit

Would it be too much of a nitpick to note that when the Prophets take Sisko back to Jake's birth, Sisko is wearing the TNG uniform introduced in 2366, though by previously established continuity he should have been wearing the earlier TNG style uniform? If it's not too nitpicky to mention, what section should this be put in: "Distinguishing DS9" (with the notes about the DS9 uniform), "Production information" (with the bit about the filming of the scene with Jake's birth), or "Trivia"? —Josiah Rowe 21:07, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that the older uniform was phased out (kinda like in Star Trek Generations) or that the new uniform even went through a period of "beta" testing, as it were?! I think we can avoid it becoming nitpicky by acting as if it was intentional (and who's to say it wasn't?); don't refer to it as a "mistake", per se. Something like "Sisko's Orb vision to 2355 shows those uniforms in their earliest chronological appearance. They would otherwise not be seen until 2366, first appearing in regular use in the third season Next Generation opener TNG: "Evolution"." Present the facts; let the reader figure out how they'd like to line up the dates! If we know it was a mistake (for example, if we have a quote from Robert Blackman regretting the uniform's inclusion or whatever), then we can refer to it as an error, as that much will be factual. As for what section to add the info, I'd be inclined to put it in "Distinguishing DS9", as it's not only relevant to what is already there (i.e., the pre-existing uniform note), but the info you want to add is about how the episode is distinguished from TNG; that's my opinion, at least. --Defiant 02:21, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense... so which section would it be best to include this (non-nitpicky) tidbit? —Josiah Rowe 04:45, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

corridor after holodeck scene Edit

i havent this style of corridor on any other episode of star trek – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.69.236.137 (talk).

OK. And...? --31dot 21:03, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

i think he means it should be included on corridor page – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.219.142.33 (talk).