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.

Resevoir DogsEdit

Do you think its a coincidence this episode's plot is similar to Reservoir Dogs and that Ken Lesco also worked as stunt performer in that film and this episode? -- Tough Little Ship 16:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


The idea of Klingons keeping vigil over the bodies of the dead seems at odds with prior portrayals, wherein a corpse was considered a worthless shell immediately upon death.

Is it unreasonable to assume that Klingons may have many different beliefs, even among a homogeneous people? Worf may have recognized O'Brien's practice as being one of a different part of the Klingon religion. It's not all that different from favoring cremation over a traditional burial. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

I strongly agree. He also said something like "it is an OLD klingon tradion"... The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Vigil Edit

I think it is fairly clear that Worf needed a good excuse for remaining with O'Brien over the body of their dead friend. That seems a lot more likely than a contradiction in Klingon tradition. --Ihmhi 14:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It would for Klingon in space,but for them on Qo'noS,it seems not completely contradictory on the whole,especially if it were a close family member or honoured ally who had died.Wejvagh 00:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

100th episode? Edit

Article previously said:

Can't see the basis for that, since the honor ostensibly belongs to "Nor the Battle to the Strong". Feel free to replace, but it really should be cited, or at least clarified, in some way.CzechOut | 00:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The Ship's production number is 500, while Nor The Battle.... is 502. It also aired later than The Ship. Not sure why the episode counter on its page says different, but perhaps it doesn't count Emissary or Way of the Warrior as one show each? 31dot 01:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh, yeah, you've kinda got the right idea. It would appear that "The Ship" wins the crown only if you count "Emissary" and "WOTW" as two episodes—which is neither how they were broadcast, nor how they appear on home video. And I suppose that's the way to go, because I'm not sure "syndication numbering" makes a lot of sense. It's surely the original form of the episode that matters. CzechOut | 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I would add that the DS9 Companion says on page 373 that The Ship is the one hundredth episode, in it's defense.  :) 31dot 21:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I meant to say that Emissary and WOTW are counted as one show each by the counter. 31dot 22:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reservoir Dogs Edit

Are the Reservoir Dogs comparisons really valid? It seems a little tenuous to me. This episode seems to be very much about a siege, a la The Alamo or Assault on Precinct 13, I don't fully understand the Dogs comparison. Although having said that, it has been a few years since I've seen it (the movie that is, not the episode), so maybe I'm forgetting something, but I just don't remember seige mentality being a big part of the film – Bertaut 20:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed this *This episode shares a few plot elements with the 1992 Quentin Tarantino film Reservoir Dogs; a group of men are holed up in a room with one of their own dying slowly from a shot to the belly. The admonishment of Sisko to be "professionals" is also an echo of Mr. Pink's speech from the film.
First of all, is there any reference for this or is this speculation? Personally, I dont see how this episode can be compared to Reservoir Dogs. I mean....what? That had a completely different plot and point. Just because in both stories some group is being held somewhere while one of them is shot, doesnt mean they two are similar in plot. I mean what? ...– Distantlycharmed 04:51, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Removed Edit

The following was removed by an anon user today, with the notation "Should we add that to every single episode in TOS when Kirk did it without any possibility to do so? I say no."--31dot 11:55, January 22, 2011 (UTC)

  • It is unclear how Sisko records his captain's log aboard the Jem'Hadar ship. It is possible that he recorded it to his communicator (like Odo in "The Ascent"), on another portable device (such as a PADD), or he found a way to record it onto the Jem'Hadar ship's computer.

Realistic Cost of War Edit

In this article Hans Beimler is quoted as saying, "It's amazing that in all these years of Star Trek no captain had ever sat down and talked about those consequences. In the Star Trek universe, where we blow people up cleanly with phasers, war seems almost antiseptic. But I think it's nice to periodically remind ourselves that the casualties are real people, and that when our characters discuss them, they're talking about people who exist for them. That, to me, was one of the most important moments in that episode, and a great moment for the series." I have to say that I'm in complete disagreement with this statement. Both Kirk and Picard have had their moments in which they come to terms with the losses in their crew. In fact, the first instance of this can be found in the Original Series episode "The Balance of Terror." The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

That's nice, but article talk pages are not for discussing our personal views on or analysis of the information given, unless you are calling for its removal. As it is a quote about the episode, however, it is valid content.--31dot 19:26, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
The bit that I think crosses the POV line is what follows Beimler's quote, specifically the list of episodes that address the "real" cost of the war (including the gratuitous italics). What exactly about "What You Leave Behind" and "In the Pale Moonlight" explore this theme? Why does it say "most obviously" before mentioning "Moonlight"?--Pooneil 16:53, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

References Edit

How was Tiburon mentioned in this episode? I know there's a Tiburonian, unless it's hidden in some display graphic or something, no Tiburon... -- Capricorn 04:00, August 25, 2011 (UTC)

Muñiz' nickname Edit

The references to Muñiz' nickname as "Quique" seems a little odd to my eye: having lived in Chile for twenty years, I've known lots of "Kikes" but never any "Quiques". There's a popular performer, Kike Morande -- he has a night-time variety show. So, what's the verdict? Is it "Quique" or is it "Kike"?

Yeah, I'll get me a user name some day. 07:18, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

The script has "quique". 31dot (talk) 13:15, December 17, 2013 (UTC)

Looks like I had a user name all along. Hey, thanks for that link to st-minutiae.Rust (talk) 18:35, December 18, 2013 (UTC)

Reason for ship/set discrepancy? Edit

This has always bugged me and I'm disappointed to see the MA page doesn't even acknowledge the problem with "The Ship," let alone try to explain it--and it's something I've been curious about for a long time. Namely: the set of the Jem'Hadar fighter's exterior used in this episode does not match, or even remotely resemble any portion of the hull on any of the Jem'Hadar models. This is a 5th season episode; the Jem'Hadar fighter was introduced in season 2. It was a very well established design, so I can't imagine why the prop/set people would have made such a big mistake--unless the script original ally called for a different ship, or the set was a last-minute re-purpose job.Sly.Lupin (talk) 13:07, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

We're not here to come up with explanations on our own- but if there is any information out there on this, there is no reason it can't be added either to this page or the page on the ship type itself. I want to say there are preproduction drawings out there where they plan out where exactly this part of the ship fit on the model, but I can't cite that right now. 31dot (talk) 00:08, November 15, 2014 (UTC)