Memory Alpha

Talk:Rapture (episode)

Back to page

41,936pages on
this wiki
Add New Page

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

Help icon

Maintenance links

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this episode, visit the DS9 forum at The Trek BBS.

FA nominations Edit

FA Nomination (15 Feb - 16 Feb 2008, Failed) Edit

This is the first time I've nominated something, but I have read through the requirements, and this article seems to have everything necessary: a thorough and well written summary, excellent use of images, well chosen quotes, a very detailed background section, and a good reference section. I've looked at a lot of other DS9 episode that are featured (such as "Tribunal", "The Collaborator" and "Call to Arms"), and "Rapture" seems at least on a par with them – Bertaut talk 16:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Support: I was one of the major contributors to this article, but it has been edited and re-worked extensively by many others since I worked on it and I think it's a pretty damned good candidate for a Featured Article now. The article is long and detailed, well written and informative, with a particularly thorough Background Info section and a good selection of appropriate, high-quality pictures. One minor point: I think a couple of extra memorable quotes could be added, and the rather unmemorable one about the Prophets finding quarters for Admiral Rifkin could be removed. Aside from that, support support support! -- Taduolus 11:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I've added six or seven new quotes. – Bertaut talk 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Support-- Rom Ulan 19:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope we can make this page better, and possibly when renominating it: Get more votes. -- Rom Ulan 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What a shame. It's actually appalling that an article that has had as much hard, loving work go into it as this one has cannot even generate enough interest during an FA nomination period that it has to be removed (one day early, I might add, given that it had been inactive for 6 days, not 7, at the point of its removal). It didn't even fail due to objections (it didn't get a single one), it failed due to lack of interest. How incredibly sad. It's awful how neglected the Peer Review and FA Nomination processes are. -- Taduolus 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree 100%; this outcome really annoys me. If it had received 8000 opposes, I wouldn't have minded, but 2 blooming votes in any direction, that's farcical. Why do we even have the nomination policy if people can't be bothered to vote on it? I would have thought the FA nominations page was one of the most important pages on the site, for people who take the site seriously anyway, but it doesn't seem to be the case, which strikes me as strange. In any case, this article is considerably better than a number that are already featured, and I don't understand why no one voted. Nevertheless, once the 14 days are up, I'm going to resubmit it, I don't believe the article needs modifying; the only comment made about quality was Taduolus' (accurate) point about the quotes, which I fixed. So in two weeks, I'll resubmit it, and maybe then people will vote – Bertaut talk 02:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

FA Nomination (06 Apr - 16 Apr 2008, Successful) Edit

This is the second time I've nominated this for FA status. The first time around it got two one supports and no objections. It's also been on peer review for some time now, and again, I've got no negative feedback on it. As Taduolus has pointed out, it's hard to see anything that significant that could be added to the article to actually improve it any further, so I thought I'd give it another go at nomination. – Bertaut talk 02:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Let's not leave Bertaut high and dry this time. The guy does too much work around here for that. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - extensive background information and well illustrated. Exactly what we're looking for in an episode article.– Cleanse 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - Very good article. I know I'm repeating myself from the Peer Review, but the background section is great. ---- Willie LLAP 13:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree, the background section is very comprehensive. - Bridge 14:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Very kind of you to say OuroborosCobra, and thanks to everyone else for their support too. – Bertaut talk 15:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - For all of the reasons I gave in my Peer Review comments. There's no question that this great piece of work should be Featured! – Taduolus 15:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. A perfect example for an episode article. Well done. – Tom 12:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bee v HiveEdit

One redlink currently points to Alvanian beehive. Would it be better to create Alvanian bee and say something about their hives? Kennelly 12:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Was an Alvanian bee ever mentioned? Or just the beehive? If only the beehive, then we only create an article about the beehive. Heck, for all we know, the creatures that inhabit them are called "goombas". -- Sulfur 13:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Communications Badge Edit

Did anyone notice that sisko's badge was on his uniform was too high? – Captainmontgomery 23:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Avery Brooks' costume was too large. Technically, the combadge was in the correct spot, but the shoulder-length section extended lower than usual. ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 23:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
This costume snafoo continues through the episode, and intermittently in following episodes.
I know I'm bumping a really old convo here, but is there a source to the statement that this was a costuming error? I always assumed that he was wearing some sort of variant jacket.-Cpthunt (talk) 20:14, December 5, 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article? Edit

Hey, I was thinking of nominating this article as a Featured article, but I'm not 100% sure how to go about it. Where do I place the nomination, is it on this Talk page, or on the Nominations for featured articles page, or both? – Bertaut talk 17:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You place {{fac}} on top of "Rapture", then add a new section to Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles. It's discussed there, and the discussion is later archived onto the talk page. Hope this helps.– Cleanse 04:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
That's great Cleanse, thank you. – Bertaut talk 11:35, 15 February 2008 (EST)

Moved comment from FA nomination page Edit

I moved the following comment here from the Featured Articles nominations page as it was not directly related to the voting (in accordance with policy at Memory Alpha:Featured article policies#Voting for nominations). -- Taduolus 11:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Some context - this is a caveat I had preventing me from voting in favour of featured status for this article. Comment: Although this is one of my top 5 DS9s, I've always had a big problem with the ending. Sisko chose to abstain from treatment, and Bashir forced it on him anyway, violating his patient's rights. If I understand correctly, this is going against the Hippocratic Oath. Jake's wishes were irrelevant since Sisko made his stance clear. I'd like to add something about this in the background when I get time (whenever that happens...). -- Connor Cabal 03:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

I already placed this article up for FA nomination but only two people voted (although they both supported the nomination). I think the article is pretty thorough as is, there's been a lot of good work put into by myself and others, but I'd welcome any suggestions for improvement, as I plan to resubmit it for nomination as soon as time allows – Bertaut talk 17:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I think its fantastic. A very thorough and well-written summary, with well researched background information. Well done! --- Jaz 07:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Jaz. An incredibly detailed, well written and well researched article. Good pictures, good quotes, and a comprehensive and informative Background section. I don't honestly know what could be added to this to make it any more comprehensive. Good work! This should be a Featured Article. – Taduolus 13:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Really great episode article. I love the picture of Quark. I also like the background sections. Great work!!! ---- Willie LLAP 14:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Worf referring to Human root beer? Edit

When Quark says his bar is gonna be busier than an Alvanian beehive Worf says:

"Perhaps so. But there is one problem." "What's that?" "There is an ancient Klingon proverb that cannot loosen a man's tongue with root beer." - Worf and Quark

Was Worf referring to Human root beer? Or do Klingons have an similar drink they also call root beer? I assume it's Human because he say's "man's" as opposed to Klingon –Namnai 20:21, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

Eh. I'm thinking its a loose translation. Perhaps in the original it's something like "You cannot get information out of a warrior by plying him with fruit juice." 05:38, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
People say that Worf doesn't have a sense of humor but he does, and I think this like the "I know many things" comment is an example.Lt.Lovett (talk) 10:30, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

Nurse Edit

Who is the Starfleet nurse assisting Bashir when he preps Sisko for surgery? There's no mention of her anywhere. --Ortzinator (talk) 21:08, January 26, 2016 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki