Talk:Terok Nor

From Memory Alpha, the free Star Trek reference.

Contents 1 Merge 2 Naming: Terek Nor?

[edit] Merge

Why dont we just merge this with Deep Space 9? NeoExelor 17:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Good question, seeing that it is the same installation. Guess the same could be done with the USS São Paulo/USS Defiant (NCC-75633). --Alan del Beccio 22:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, what would we expect an encyclopedia to do in this case? There's much to tell about "Terok Nor" - would it really just link to "Deep Space 9" and be done with it, or would there be some text about TN's own history? I think this could be a case where we shouldn't just merge, because relevant information would be harder to find otherwise. -- Cid Highwind 08:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

We could add a section at the beginning of the Deep Space 9 page with basically the info and picture from this page. NeoExelor 00:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. They are the exact same installations, just under different rule. There is already a modest section on Terok Nor on the DS9 page, as well as the fact that it was "renamed" Terok Nor by Dukat in "Call to Arms", and then, obviously, it was DS9 again. It seems rather unnecessary to flip flop back and forth between those two pages to read about one place. As for "what would we expect an encyclopedia to do", it seems Wikipedia decided to simply redirect Terok Nor to Deep Space 9, as this merge suggests. Either that, or remove the aforementioned Terok Nor references from the DS9 page, and have the history of DS9 start at (and not before) ""Emissary"". --Alan del Beccio 20:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Erm... I'd hafta go with support on the merge in this case. They are the same installation, it's just given a different name. It's not really much more different than, say, Keiko Ishikawa and Keiko O'Brien. The former is a redirect of the latter because, let's face it, there's no use in an article that says "Keiko Ishikawa was the maiden name of Keiko O'Brien." And what point would there be in seperating her history as an Ishikawa from her history as an O'Brien? Her named changed, and the primary article now reflects the most recent (known) name. I think we should do the same for ships and installations. --From Andoria with Love 05:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot more than the name changed between Terok Nor and DS9. The ownership changed, the location changed, hell, the purpose of the station changed. Terok Nor was an ore processing center, DS9 was a hub of commerce and a eventually a defense outpost. In the end, they were extremely different from each other. Should be considered. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to vote no to merging the two articles, because I feel that, while both Deep Space 9 and Terok Nor are the same station in many respects, the Federation made some serious modifications to it when the Cardassians withdrew in 2369. The weapons array was completly overhauled to be able to combat the Dominion and the Klingons, it went from being an ore-processing facility to a station of commerse and repair. Furthermore, the history behind the two is very different - Terok Nor is associated with the Occupation of Bajor and brutality, while Deep Space Nine has a connotation of peace and rebuilding. Keep the two articles seperate is my vote. - Thot Prad, 17:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I say NO It is, and it isn't the same station. Both names repesent differnt things, and there's plenty that could be done with the article, by adding the times it was considared to be named "Terok Nor" and no "Deep Space Nine"--70.33.138.121 23:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

No to the merge. The argument has been made that it is the same physical station, however, that is the ONLY thing that is the same about it. Lets use the F15 example. The United States builds, operates, and maintains a small fleet of F15 fighters. The planes are striped down of classified materials, sold to a foreign nation, refit, re-crewed, renamed, and operated by said foreign power. To the foreign power, they are brand new planes, to the United States, the planes they built don't exist anymore. If i were to write an article about the foreign powers new planes, I may mention that they purchased them from the united states used, but the point of the article is the foreign powers acquisition and use of the plane, and not the history of the sheet metal its built out of. Same with an article about F15's in the united states, they stop at the note about the sale, with MAYBE a line or two about their new roles. I hope the analogy wasn't lost on anyone --Six of Six 12:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Just popping in to let ya'll know how this discussion is going so far. Assuming that the final decision is based on the number of votes on this talk page and at Talk:Deep Space 9, the current tally is eight for the merge and six against it. The majority want it merged, but it's a small majority, so we need more votes. That is, as I said, assuming we're going by votes here. --From Andoria with Love 20:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why "majority votes" are a bad idea on a wiki in the first place, and a consensus should be the preferred method. ;) "Simple majority" means that we might need to discuss this again and again when majorities change. Better find a "good" solution in the first place. Thinking about my earlier question again ("What would we expect an encyclopedia to do?"), I would probably expect most of the information about the physical entity to be in one place - however, not only the name changed between TN and DS9. Those two stations had different functions, different locations, different abilities (e.g. later Federation weapon enhancements). Simply merging all that under the DS9 article doesn't seem to be the way to go. I'd still have one article ("Terok Nor") for the early Cardassian mining facility in orbit of Bajor, and one article about the later Federation space station Deep Space 9. This doesn't mean we have to "flip-flop" between pages and have the later temporary appearances as TN on the Terok Nor page... -- Cid Highwind 11:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if we were going by a majority vote (not saying we are), then the majority are currently voting for a merge. Judging from the current tally, though, a consensus is still far from being reached. As for myself, although I originally supported the merge two months ago, I am sort of split on the decision now after what you, Cobra, Six of Six and others have pointed out. However, others who supported the merge don't seem to have swayed, so needless to say we'll likely be discussing this for some time. ;) --From Andoria with Love 18:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

If anybody's still counting votes, I say we merge. The USS Enterprise received a massive refit in the Motion Picture and seems to change from a vessel of deep space exploration to a training vessel at various points, and yet, there's no argument there about whether or not it's the same ship. Crews change and equipment gets upgraded all the time. If you want the name to be the deciding factor, that means DS9 ceased to exist during the Dominion War and Terok Nor suddenly reappeared. The Deep Space Nine page even describes the events that take place on Terok Nor during the Dominion War. I just don't think it makes sense to treat it like two different things. If you want a real life example, go look up New York City. Despite name changes, nationality changes, and a vastly different appearance over the years, it's still the same city. – AJHayson 05:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize I'm pretty late to the discussion, but I support a merge. It's the same place with the same history no matter what you call it. As stated above, the DS9 article already has some duplication with this article. In my opinion this article should simply state that it was the Cardie designation for DS9, with a link to that page, since that is the name it was known by most recently.

I don't expect this to happen, as it has been awhile, but I wanted to get my opinion out there.--31dot 02:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naming: Terek Nor?

I have read in a (1996?) TV-Guide Trek-related magazine about DS9 that the station's original name was also Terek Nor. I knew that until about 2000's, when I started noticing Terok Nor and not Terek Nor.

A Google search on Terek Nor also supports the alternative name. -Mardus 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Terok Nor in every script where the station's original name is mentioned. If you're German, I can explain the error: In the German dubbing of "Crossover", Garak says "Terek Nor", instead of Terok Nor, and that's an error that seems to have stuck for quite some time... --Jörg 11:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm actually Estonian, but I remember the Terek spelling from an English-language Canadian TV Guide's Star Trek: 30 Years (or somesuch) Collector's Edition first and then use of this pronounciation later in German.

Google results for Terek Nor specifically in English do exist, but are approximately ten times less my previous result linked above.

-Mardus 11:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)