Jump to content

Talk:Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

alternate pic for this ep: Image:1x08.jpg

Anne Haney also played the judge in an episode of Northern Exposure, which aired two months prior. In the episode Chris Stevens faces an extradition hearing and his lawyer, somewhat similarly, claims he has become "a different person" so can't be extradited for that Stevens's crimes. Although in the NE ep it's more he's "different" due to personal growth and life transformation. It's a neat coincidence, but I'm not sure if this is worth mentioning in the article or how I'd do so.--T. Anthony (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest her recurring role as a judge on L.A. Law for eight seasons had more to do with her being cast as a judge on Deep Space Nine casting her as a judge again,. She was on TNG before too. The difficult part is finding a reliable source that mentions it. (I had hoped StarTrek.com might have something but no mention of her that I can find.)
It would be nice if this article had any picture at all. If someone is willing to dive into the convoluted process of using a non-free image in Wikipedia then TrekCore has a gallery full of screencaps for the episode "Dax". As the episode is a courtroom drama an image showing a group of characters in front of the judge might be a good representative scene, or perhaps Sisko advocating on her behalf while Dax looks serious. But really the episode is named after the character Dax so any image of her would be better than nothing (I'd even suggest reusing the image File:JadziaDax.jpg but she's wearing the later type of starfleet uniform and badge so it is definitely not from this episode). -- 109.78.208.59 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AV Club review: "The hearing judge was played by Anne Haney, who always seemed to get these types of roles."[1]
Close but not close enough. -- 109.77.207.153 (talk) 04:37, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 March 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The support outweighs the opposition, though they do raise good arguments. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) → Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode) – WP:PRECISION and Talk:Rose (Doctor Who episode)#Requested move 7 February 2018, and consistency with comparable articles like Cardassians (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode). Moreover, Jadzia Dax is almost certainly the primary topic of the current title (Ezri Dax is far more likely to be referred to as "Ezri", but Jadzia Dax is often just called "Dax", meaning that a disambig headnote would be insufficient. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 22 March 2020 (UTC) (Edited 12:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC) due to technical request being transformed into an RM.)[reply]

This is a contested technical request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Station1: WP:TREK (or perhaps your interpretation thereof -- I haven't checked) appears to be at odds with our standard naming conventions, to the point that I was not even aware of it. Moreover, if this move "would make the title inconsistent with all other Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes" then those other pages should also be moved, since we don't use parentheses for partial disambiguation. Anyway, which other articles are you talking about? Cardassians (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode) currently conforms with the proposed title, and I couldn't find another comparable case despite going through our list: we don't, for example, have an article on the starship that Valiant (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) needs to be disambiguated from. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:15, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The comment above was not placed by me on this page and was not an answer to the RM as written above, which has been edited. My comment was moved here from WP:RM/TR, where it was a response to your request for an uncontroversial move. I have no interpretation of WP:TREK and was simply pointing out that move did not qualify as uncontroversial. Station1 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Station1: Oh, I know -- that's why I modified my signature so as not to undermine you. But as for the substance, everything you said seems to support the idea that this is an uncontroversial technical request to bring this page more in-line with our conventional guidelines and the titles of other, similar, articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncontroversial, especially as originally written, since it already attracted one oppose comment in addition to the original move, and the recent RM you cite at Rose (Doctor Who) was itself controversial, with very strong oppose comments. As to substance, since you ask, personally I think it makes virtually no difference. No one is getting lost or confused,[2] so I don't see a point to a move, but it won't hurt anything either. Anyone looking for Dax without knowing exactly what they're looking for already winds up on the dab page, and this won't change anything. Technically, the proposal does go against policy at WP:CONCISE (it's longer) and WP:CONSISTENT, since it would be different from ~100 other articles that all use "(Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)" as their qualifiers in line with the recommendation at WP:TREK. It's not like there's an article titled Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine character) that this needs to be disambiguated from. Station1 (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not uncontroversial, especially as originally written, since it already attracted one oppose comment in addition to the original move The original move doesn't count, since I had no reason to know it had taken place. The current title looks like it was carelessly and mechanically given because most one-word Star Trek episode titles need to be distinguished from real-world concepts but not from other articles on Star Trek-related topics. Actually it doesn't just look like that -- it clearly is that. Moreover, it can't be counted now since the editor who made it has long-since been de facto site-banned. the recent RM you cite at Rose (Doctor Who) was itself controversial, with very strong oppose comments It's not entirely clear what you are talking about here: I was citing it not to show that "no one disliked this move", but rather to show that in a near-identical situation it was decided that the policy supported a title corresponding to the proposed one over the current one. Dax_(Star_Trek) That's a very questionable reading of that data -- I would read it as saying that this topic clearly is not the PRIMARYTOPIC of the current title, and so more precision is needed. Anyone looking for Dax without knowing exactly what they're looking for already winds up on the dab page, and this won't change anything. I was actually not aware of the extremely poorly-titled Dax (Star Trek) until now, but I think that article should also be renamed, or possibly merged -- I can't recall ever hearing of this character being mentioned in any property other than DS9. At present, readers looking for an article on Jadzia Dax (the primary topic of both the titles Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine) and Dax (Star Trek)) and searching for "Dax" are shown links to articles with both those titles, one of which is on an episode and the other of which is actually just another, less helpful, disambiguation page that is padded out with a lot of plot summary minutiae. the proposal does go against policy at WP:CONCISE (it's longer) It's more precise. Giving articles ambiguous titles just because they're shorter, forcing other pages to be artificially disambiguated by other means like adding first, last, or middle names, nicknames, patronymics, etc. to fictional characters who are usually referred to in the real world by one name (like Rose, and probably like Jadzia for the first six years of DS9's run), is very much against the spirit of WP:CONCISE. and WP:CONSISTENT, since it would be different from ~100 other articles that all use "(Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)" as their qualifiers in line with the recommendation at WP:TREK. Please actually read my comments rather than talking past me over and over again. The only comparable title is Cardassians (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episode) -- every other episode either only needs to be distinguished from non-DS9 topics (i.e., the disambiguator "(Star Trek: Deep Space Nine)" is contextually appropriate and sufficient -- Past Tense (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), etc.) or has a title that refers to an in-universe topic we may or may not have another article on but that would never be used to refer to the other topic as opposed to episode (i.e., no disambiguator is needed -- The Magnificent Ferengi, etc.). CONSISTENT is actually in favour of moving the page, as was already pointed out to you. It's not like there's an article titled Dax (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine character) that this needs to be disambiguated from. Yeah, there isn't an article with that title -- we currently have three articles that could theoretically be given that title, and this article of course needs to be disambiguated from them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, it's always good practice to check the move history and talk page of an article before requesting or carrying out an uncontroversial move. I also think the discussion at Rose was not uncontroversial, despite the outcome, which I nevertheless respect. The original move was hardly careless, given the edit summary, even if one disagrees with it. Article titles that are not in conflict do not need disambiguation; that can be handled by hatnotes. And the Cardassians example was a recent unnecessary bold move that can be reverted if this proposal is not agreed to. Station1 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the discussion at Rose was not uncontroversial Again I will ask you to stop talking past me. I didn't make an uncontroversial technical move request on the Rose article: I opened an RM and, over two years later, cited its close rationale as a reason why this current move should be uncontroversial. The original move was hardly careless, given the edit summary, even if one disagrees with it. I would call mechanically moving a page from an unambiguous title to an ambiguous one, based on an idiosyncratic interpretation of a style guideline that is at odds with several of our common practices, careless. If the edit summary had cited, for example, PRECISE, and clarified why it should not apply here, then we could say that the edit summary proves it was not careless irrespective of whether one agrees with it. the Cardassians example was a recent unnecessary bold move I would argue that it is very necessary. Wikipedia does not use parenthetical disambiguators that do not fully disambiguate their titles. This is not my opinion -- it was the unanimous decision of those opposing me in an RM at Talk:The Avengers (2012 film) back in 2013, which I subsequently adopted as word-of-god policy, since it seems that all articles throughout the encyclopedia, with the sole exception of a small minority of articles on TV episodes (basically the ones where we have two or more articles that could conceivably be titled "Topic Name (Title of TV Show)"). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if it seems I'm talking past you. That's not my intent. Re Rose, my point was that if some editors opposed the Rose move, that would indicate that some editors might oppose this move, making it not uncontroversial. Re The Avengers, I think you were right. Pageviews indicate that The Avengers (2012 film) is indeed the overwhelming WP:primary topic among films titled The Avengers, if not the primary topic for all topics with that title. Those kind of titles definitely are allowed; in fact, there was a RfC within the past few months that specifically upheld those types of titles. If you nominate it again for primary topic, I will support that move. Station1 (talk) 07:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Book references

[edit]

Please note that an editor removed some book references from this article.[3] I don't care about reference style, I was only making a good faith effort to follow the style of referencing already seen in other Trek episode articles like Past Prologue (and to a lesser extent articles with even more complicated reference formatting like Favorite Son (Star Trek: Voyager)). The reference to the book The Nitpickers Guide was added in 2007[4], and seems to have been a general reference for the episode as a whole, not a specific reference for any particular detail. I added the reference to Deep Space Nine Companion (Erdmann) specifically to support details in the Production section. -- 109.79.178.97 (talk) 23:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP 109.79.178.97 is forum shopping because they are not willing to accept Wikipedia's manual of style, specifically regarding citations and references. See other discussions with this IP here (which they deleted apparently without reading), here, and here. Sundayclose (talk) 02:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dax_(Star_Trek:_Deep_Space_Nine_episode)&oldid=1206896614"