Do we really need a template sidebar here? I'm skeptical of any template that is longer than the article itself. 31dot (talk) 02:31, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

Well I think the article can be expanded a bit more. --BorgKnight (talk) 02:38, January 25, 2014 (UTC)
I too think the article could be expanded more however I am definitely for the sidebar, if only to make it consistent with the other "Battle of" articles. --| TrekFan Open a channel 04:16, January 25, 2014 (UTC)


Merge with Temporal Cold War, where the relevant section could be expanded a bit; the name is completely made up and it was just a normal combat situation, nothing that warrants a separate article. Kennelly (talk) 14:13, January 8, 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Made up battles get articles all the time, and the case for merging isn't that strong imo -- Capricorn (talk) 03:51, January 9, 2016 (UTC)
Support. "Made up battle terms" shouldn't get articles on Memory Alpha. So the reason for a merge is strong enough. Tom (talk) 14:09, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
Support. One could argue that any incident could be split into unique encounters and be labeled "Battle of this or that". Unless proclaimed so in canon, such as Battle of Ajilon Prime. But actually, if "gray paste" is not a name, how is battle of anything if the only person who calls it that gives it the name in passing? Also, should Battle of Axanar be similarly renamed "Axanar (conflict)"? -- LauraCC (talk) 19:35, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
Here's a list, focusing just on the Dominion war, of engagements that have articles despite never having been proclaimed as such in canon: the Second Battle of Deep Space 9, the Battle of Torros III, the Battle of the Tyra system, the Battle of Betazed, theLiberation of Benzar, the First Battle of Chin'toka, the Battle of Monac IV, the Invasion of Septimus III, the Breen attack on Earth, the Second Battle of Chin'toka, the Battle of Rondac III, the Battle of Avenal, and the Battle of Cardassia. Made up battle terms shouldn't get articles on Memory Alpha - really? -- Capricorn (talk) 22:25, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
And you've checked them all just to be sure (scripts/production material/ writers comments)? Tom (talk) 22:37, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
See also Talk:Torros III. Tom (talk) 23:07, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
No, I have admittedly not checked writer's comments, nor did I check okudagrams. I was trying to make something clear rather then start a major project. I apologize if every last one of those examples turns out to be supported by writer's comments. -- Capricorn (talk) 17:54, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
Axanar is referred to by Kirk as "your (Garth's) victory at Axanar". --LauraCC (talk) 18:06, January 27, 2016 (UTC)
Oppose: This battle is part of the Temporal War, not Temporal Cold War (JMC Red Dwarf (talk) 05:04, March 16, 2017 (UTC))
Is this even relevant anymore??? Besides Dwarf no one's voted on this issue in over a year.--WarGrowlmon18 (talk) 07:24, March 16, 2017 (UTC)
Probably not, but I do agree with their statement as well as my having a natural aversion to "made up" titles for battles. Somehow I think this is better off combined with World War II (Temporal War) or sad little Temporal War article, as they are both really one-in-two articles. (I'd venture to say the Battle of Procyon V would be be mentioned there too, based on the factions and open conflict of what was otherwise described up to that point as a "Cold War", but that's best left as a "see also".) --Alan del Beccio (talk) 22:07, March 24, 2017 (UTC)