Talk:Dominion War

message: It would be better to mention the episodes in order.  For example, the Season 4 section discussed "To the Death" before "Homefront" and "Paradise Lost".  But to the Death was episode 23 while HF and PL were 11 and 12 respectively.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.53.164 (talk) 07:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Order and All Episodes

message: Conflict infobox restored. This time it utilizes the FICTIONAL BATTLE infobox. In addition I have also added various information regarding the story arc and it storyline uses in Star Trek Enterprise, especially in the Xindi Crisis. I felt that the page concentrated too much on the critical review and hardly any at all on the actual story itself or its results, most of which can be laid out in an infobox. As it suggests the Fictional Battle Infobox is used for Out-of-Reality occurences and be used to seperate context from the real to the cannonical. Rhatsa26X (talk) 16:31 27 June 2010 (CDT)
I have to say, the specific reasons this and many ST articles were being refused GA status was a: no reference to the television shows critical reception, b: total lack of sources, c: main text of article written entirely from an in-universe perspective and focusing entirely on narrative, and d: a section on results of the fictional war that involved fan speculation. I like this new Fictional War box, especially the info relating it to other story-arcs. It is a better fit than the original 'real war' box which quite rightly had to be removed until a better idea came along, but GA status will hang on the other changes previously mentioned. If we revert the tone of the main article to focus on story narrative, GA would be automatically denied again. Ethdhelwen (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: How can this article be biased when the subject is sy-fy.  I am sorry to alienate all the Trekkers, but when the "truth" of the article doesnt exist due to being fiction, it is hard to be neutal.  BTW, go Feds!.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.179.96 (talk) 07:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view? 

message: This makes no sense to me.  Autonomous or no, Section 31 is part of the Federation.  It shouldn't, IMHO, be listed as a separate combatant. Famartin (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Marquis is comprised mainly of Federation citizens and starfleet officers, however they are rogue. Similarly, Section 31 is comprised of Starfleet intelligence officers and is a rogue organization. It does not obey Federation law, and it does not technically answer to anyone. Alpha Quadrant  talk   02:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest I'm not keen on Maquis being listed either, but since Section 31 is likely smaller than either, and includes CURRENT Starfleet officers, its the biggest flaw with the combatant list, IMHO. Famartin (talk) 03:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 31 as a combatant??? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dominion War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430065531/http://www.irosf.com:80/q/zine/article/10421 to http://www.irosf.com/q/zine/article/10421
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified