Forums  ForumsTen Forward → Overhaul of PR, FA, & AotW (replywatch)
This forum discussion has been archived
This forum discussion has been archived and should not be added to. Please visit the Forums to begin a new topic in the relevant location.

It's been suggested several times that there are problems with the current peer review, featured article, and article of the week systems. Hopefully, this forum can find a solution.

Peer reviews


  • Over half of all peer reviews result in less than 5 comments
  • Peer reviews tend to only be a step to FAs, which isn't the actual idea

I suggest scrapping the entire PR system, and replacing it with this new one:

  • A template placed on the article asking for a peer review, either in general, or for a section.
  • Instead of a separate page, a section on the article's talk page will be used.
  • The template would have parameters to direct the peer review to the section on the talk page and highlight the reason for review.
  • A PR can be ended as quickly as input is given. No time frame is necessary since PR will not be tied to FAs.
  • The template could be changed to look less like the "problem" message templates as well.

I think this will solve the problem with comments. Currently PR notices are on the talk page, with the review elsewhere. This doesn't really invite comments from readers or contributors, and reviewing the entire article is a daunting task unless there's a reason to get it done quickly. By placing the notice where it can be seen, and allowing for only a section to be reviewed, I think that we'll get more input. This, along with the changes to the FA system below, should also make the peer review system one where you use it to "flag down" readers and editors for particular issues or changes that require more input, instead of simply a relatively unnecessary step to a FA. - Archduk3 19:48, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind this change (independent of what becomes of the changes suggested below), although I wouldn't want to call it scrapping/replacing. It's still the same system of inviting comments, just on a different talk page.
That said, I'm not sure we should go back to having big fraking signs on our articles, if those signs aren't meant to notify readers of article shortcomings (like the PNA messages). If it only concerns editors, it should stay out of view of readers... -- Cid Highwind 20:38, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Well then, were updating it to this one. ;) Part of what I was imaging when changing the template was to tone it down overall, something closer to size and colors of the spoiler section template. The reason to make it visible to readers is that we're trying to invite the largest number of people to contribute, and I think a number of our readers would be happy to leave their thoughts on the matter, especially if it's just a section. - Archduk3 21:28, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it could also be noted on the main page the specific PRs that are under evaluation at any given time, so as to invite even more users to participate(?) Just an idea. :) --Defiant 00:59, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

The real problem with placing anything else on the main page is the question of where it should go. There's already a ton of links on there, and cramming in a variable list makes it even worse, since we don't really have control over how many PRs are going at any time. A link to PRs could replace the FA link in the box at the bottom though (new users can't really participate in a FA anyway). That said, we could also stick a link in the nav menu at the top to Memory Alpha:Peer review, where they are listed. - Archduk3 01:14, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

The main page currently does seem quite jumbled. I'd probably opt for grouping all the site-specific stuff together as well as (separately) all the news-y items that are not directly related to MA ("where to watch", "latest news", etc.), and then position the MA elements at the top. I believe I understand the motive for having the "latest news" at the top, as active content does (demographically-wise) generate interest in the wiki, but I don't see the problem with having the changing aspects be more MA related, rather than news items that might divert newcomers away from this site. The PR could then be one of these active features, directly relevant to MA. --Defiant 01:30, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

You could create a mock up at Portal:Main/temp, since user subpages have wikia crap on them now and aren't full width. We should also continue any discussion on the main page elsewhere. - Archduk3 01:48, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, though I did intentionally dovetail my last post back into this discussion. --Defiant 01:51, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
I support this idea. --31dot 02:27, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
I also like this idea. I definitely think it should go on the page itself, so long as its not that big of template.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:31, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

See {{Peer review}} for a mock up of the template, with working links. I know these are the colors of the current template, though when I suggested this I seem to have thought that the red message template was what we were using. I also think a black background with a silver (#AAA) border looks nice as well, if we do want something a bit different. - Archduk3 09:38, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Switched the default setting to be a section instead of the entire article, and changed the colors to what I suggested above. - Archduk3 19:46, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Feature articles


  • Not all articles are actually featured
  • Some FAs are years old
  • Significant overlap with PRs
  • Resolving objections while maintaining stability tends to be overly difficult or impossible, especially in small articles
  • Old nominations are moved to two different locations depending on what happened.

The main change would be to add the current two week stability period at the end of a PR to be a part of the FA nomination by removing the time limit on nominations. This would work like this:

  • Article nominated
  • Someone makes a good objection, pointing out how the article could be improved
  • Article is significantly edited to resolve the objection
  • After two weeks without significant changes or objections the article is featured
  • A nomination can continue as long as there are timely changes being made to address objections.
  • The nominations page will be used for all discussion about the nomination (this is already what we do, though according to the rules we shouldn't be.)
  • All closed nominations would be moved to the article's talk page. The archive will be dismantled and replaced with links to the sections on the talk pages.

While these changes would mean that FA nominations would now take at least two weeks to resolve, this shouldn't be that big a problem considering we've already decided with the current PRs that for everyone to participate, two weeks is a good period of time. This should also solve the overlap problem with PRs by internalizing the entire process. The changes to the AotW system below should resolve problems with these actually being "featured" as well. - Archduk3 19:52, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

I support this idea.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:31, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
Some random thoughts:
  • Just to make sure, this is supposed to just be a change to the current process? Especially, necessary minimum of supporting votes will stay a part of the process?
  • What does "a good objection" mean? I hope it's just meant informally here, and not supposed to mean that not all objections are considered "valid" any longer. If so, what if I believe that a specific article just isn't "FA-material"?
  • There needs to be something that keeps people from "keeping alive" their own nomination by making major changes. Otherwise, we might see some gaming of the system to prevent a nomination from failing due to other reasons (not enough support).
  • Similarly, at least some upper time limit should be a part of this new process. If an article gets rewritten again and again for weeks, at some point we need to accept that it probably won't ever leave this process successfully. I don't think it would be sensible to keep an article in this process for longer than, say, 6-8 weeks, and probably even less.
  • Also, we should make sure that the number of concurrent nominations is limited somehow. For example, it could be restricted to one nomination per user - or even one overall vote per supporter. The reason is that we don't want to get swarmed by nominations just because they now officially double as a PR.
  • Last but not least, the way of discussing and archiving FAs that is suggested as a good thing here is not much different from what has been called "too difficult" for PRs? Why not do both of them the same way, either by having both discussions on the talk page from the start, or by creating something similar to our deletion discussions for both?
-- Cid Highwind 10:12, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

The main changes to the policy would be:

"A nomination can be resolved if it has been inactive for fourteen days, meaning that there were no new votes or work done to resolve objections in that time, or after a total of 6 weeks without any indication of resolution. The following results are possible:

  • Less than five votes, whether supporting or opposing: The nomination is considered unsuccessful and removed from the list.
  • Five or more votes with objections. The article is considered in dispute, therefor the nomination is unsuccessful and removed from the list.
  • Five or more votes without objections or with all objections resolved. The nomination is considered successful and removed from the list.

The discussion for nominations should be moved to that article's talk page; and a link placed in the nomination archive.

Re-nominating an article
If a nomination has been unsuccessful for whatever reason, the article may be suggested again after a waiting period of four weeks from the date of the initial rejection. Before re-nominating, any unresolved objections that were made during the initial nomination voting period should be addressed.

The rest of the policy would remain the same except for the removal of the other mentions to a PR. As for a good objection, I assumed it is one that has to do with the FA criteria, or at least that's what I thought when Cleanse wrote it.

The main reason I was trying to avoid a upper time limit is that someone could game the system by waiting to respond until the nomination is almost over. I've tried to work that, and Cid's concern, into the text here, though I'm open to wording changes. The increase in time for a renomination is that any objection that ends a nomination will now most likely take more time to resolve.

My reasoning to archive to the talk page instead of just using it instead is that FA nominations are restricted, and the nominations page is locked to reflect that. The talk page shouldn't be locked like that, since it's also used for other things, and creating another page like the deletion discussions would either require locking every page once it's made or forgoing the lock. Also, one of the points of this is to make the information easier to find from the article while not creating more "clutter". FA nominations also don't suffer from the same problems that PRs do, which is why the solutions are different, if similar. - Archduk3 14:16, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Continued below.

Updating FAs

As part of this, I would suggest that every so often, FAs would need to be reconfirmed. Currently, the only way to do this is to remove the article from being featured and then renominate it. This is rather silly if the article is still considered one of the best, so essentially every so often we would update which revision we consider to be "the" FA. Currently, the template marks articles older than two years, so every two years a FA would be "voted" upon again (a page could display articles in the hidden cat that need this, and these discussions could be displayed on the recent changes page with the FA nominations). If the majority agrees that the article is still "the best MA has to offer" after two weeks, the revision at that time would replace the original. This would solve the problem of differences in the current revision and the featured revision, since over the course of two years it's expected that images, templates, and other things would change, as well as weed out articles that no longer meet standards. - Archduk3 19:48, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

"Old FAs" are a problem only if we want to actually do something with articles that have been featured a while ago. Currently, we note what article revision has been the FA revision, and there's a handy link to the diff between this and the current revision. Something we might want to do with "Featured Articles" is to really feature them. As I already stated in the section below, if we can make sure that featuring happens shortly after them becoming FA, this is not a big problem. Only if we feature them again and again without doing anything inbetween, it becomes a problem. I'd rather solve that by not featuring "old FAs"... -- Cid Highwind 20:34, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

The problem as you describe it, and I understand it, with old FAs is one of the word "featured" meaning "featured on the main page" instead of "having the significant characteristic of being one of the best". Both of these things are correct, and since all FAs are available to the public at all times, they should still be "noted" as such because of the latter regardless of former. Reconfirming FAs, by updated the revision that's featured, is suppose to deal with the issue of changes to the article during a long period of time without the article becoming less than one of the best articles. - Archduk3 21:28, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe re-evaluating each old FA the week before it's to be featured on the main page might encourage users to participate in the reevaluation process. --Defiant 01:05, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

There are a few problems with that Defiant. First, we would need at least two weeks to discuss and replace one that fails, assuming that the discussion would only last a day, so a month out would be best. Second, the discussion below would make predicting when a FA is on the main page impossible. Third, not all FAs are AotW, so those would be missed. Implementing a date from featured system is the only way to insure we get them all, and this can be done using the category already in place, though if we do this we should stagger updates for the ones currently over two years, so we don't have them all come up again at the same time. - Archduk3 03:25, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of some kind of reconfirmation process. At the moment, old FAs tend to just hang around, even sometimes with big PNAs slapped on them.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 05:31, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
You're right, Archduk; that suggestion of mine is problematic. I realized that quite soon after posting it. I think we can (and should) retain the idea of the reconfirmation process, though – that's a good one. :) --Defiant 09:39, November 18, 2011 (UTC)
It's funny that, apparently, reconfirmation of an FA every two years is considered valid, while discussing and generating/featuring a new FA at least semi-weekly (and falling back to exactly this if that process fails in a week) is not. I think that the same scrutiny needs to be put into updating the featured revision than what is put into featuring the first revision - so, in the long run, this will create more work, not less. -- Cid Highwind 10:18, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this would take more work compared to creating a new FA, and in fact I'm sure it would take less. The main point with this is to reconfirm our FAs, not create new ones. This process doesn't require five votes and that they be unanimous, instead it has the same requirements as the FA removal process, since that's already an agreed upon way to do one of the functions this does. - Archduk3 14:16, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with that - one reason for why we're mentioning which article revision was featured is the fact that it is harder to get an FA removed than it is to get an FA nominated: if we wanted both to be equally hard, we'd need 5 or more opposing votes without further support to not get an FA removed. This new suggestion would make it easier to get a new revision "re-featured" without also making it easier to get an FA removed outright. Basically, it imbalances the current situation towards a more easily achieved/kept FA status. -- Cid Highwind 14:41, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

That's simply isn't true Cid. Removal only requires two votes, the nomination requires five. Removal only requires a majority, the nomination requires that all votes be unanimous. It's harder to make a FA than it is to remove it. There's also nothing easier than ignoring our older FAs, which is what we've been doing, so forcing a reconfirmation for it to keep its status is harder than that as well. - Archduk3 15:17, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

  • nomination process - 2 opposing votes, 3 supporting votes: nomination does not happen.
  • removal process - 2 votes for removal, 3 against: article stays an FA, although the same result wouldn't have been enough to make it an FA in the first place.
It may be easier to remove an article in theory - in an ideal wiki world where countless contributors are just waiting to be able to vote on something, and each and every one of them acts totally objective. It is not easier in practice, where we have to deal with just a handful of people willing to discuss/vote, and potentially some of them being a little protective when it comes to their earlier work - especially if that removal now actually means something because of the other changes suggested here. -- Cid Highwind 15:32, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

That makes more sense, though I think adding the notifications that a renewal discussion is going on will solve the problem of not enough participants. While I would rather run though at least two of these with the currently purposed system to see how it works out, would requiring at least three votes be enough to alleviate your fears about this (bearing in mind that unlike the removal process the nomination is automatic)? The argument can be made that "overturning" a five vote unanimous consensus shouldn't be possible with just one vote, and that users voting for removal aren't always objective either. - Archduk3 16:09, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

A minimum number of votes necessary to stop FA removal sounds good. Alternatively, or in combination, perhaps something like this:
As long as support during this "update process" is unanimous (independent of the actual number of votes), the new revision becomes the featured revision. Opposition needs to give a reason - but if a reason has been given, the (simple) update process turns into a (proper) FA nomination process of the new revision, meaning that there needs to be five votes with all opposition resolved.
My line of thinking here is the following: either the new revision is on par (or even better) with the old one: in that case, it should be easy to update it - or the new revision is worse than the old one, in which case it should be possible to remove its status. Obviously, "being different" from the earlier revision should not be a valid opposition in this case. -- Cid Highwind 16:26, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

I would drop the need for a number of votes up front, and add that the oppose vote that triggers the switch to a FA nomination "proper" must be related to the FA criteria. So the full text of the "policy" (which could be added to the nomination policy), and a mock up of the a page (if we don't want it in a new section elsewhere), can be seen here. It should be noted that the list shouldn't ever be that long after we work though them, hopefully at a staggered pace. - Archduk3 23:05, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

Continued below.

Article of the Week


  • Not all FAs are a AotW
  • Some AotW are years old

Instead of having a FA each week, a FA would be randomly displayed either each week, or on each page load. This way all our FAs are actually featured at some point, and old articles are given just as much notice as new ones. So to clarify, Memory Alpha:Article of the Week would more or less be merged with Memory Alpha:Featured articles. We would still use subpages, but instead of numbers the page title should be used. - Archduk3 19:48, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Further problems:
  • Not all AotW were FA nominees (I believe, unless that has been changed in the meantime)
  • Even for FA AotWs, the article snippet that is displayed on the main page is not the outcome of any community/consensus process, but was just created by whoever added the AotW.
On top of that, I don't like the idea of "randomizing" articles being displayed - at least not under the current title of "Article of the Week". If we randomize articles, that should be made clear by removing the title "AotW" completely.
Also, what this suggestion does not achieve is to actually feature articles when they become a "Featured Article" - instead, we still end up with articles that are called "Featured", but actually aren't - and when they eventually are featured on the main page, it may be in an article revision that doesn't resemble the revision that was voted for. -- Cid Highwind 20:29, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

It's my understanding that all AotWs are featured articles now*, and AotW blurbs are open for votes/comments before being added, so there is a community effort, at least as much as the community wants to involve itself. I also didn't mention it outright, but by merging AotW with Featured articles, I meant it to be called "Featured articles" (with the templates and other pages updated to reflect that).

Randomizing the "featured article" template so a new one displays on every page load would mean that a new FA could be potentially be on the main page the day it's blurb is added to the "pool". A weekly system means that it could be as soon as the next week. - Archduk3 21:28, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

*Actually, Klingon (Week 4) and "A Matter of Perspective" (Week 38) aren't, and need to be replaced either way. - Archduk3 21:50, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, merging Memory Alpha:Nominations for AotW with Memory Alpha:Nominations for featured articles might be a good idea if this is approved, since the blurb would be required right afterward anyway. - Archduk3 23:31, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Continued below.

FA merged with AotW

This is mainly a continuation of the the three preceding sections. Since no new comments were posted to either in a week, I considered the lack of opposition to these suggestions as the standard "silent acceptance" of them that allows anything to be done around here and started to merge the two AotW and FAs together as well as make the suggested updates to the FA policies. Most of the way though this, Cid asked me to stop, since he thought there wasn't "enough consensus" to do so without testing the whole thing in temp pages first. Since the merging was to a point that the current system is pretty much what would have been see in any mockup, here are links to the pages and templates involved:

Things that were still undone are merging AotW and FA, as well as some cleanup to the remaining AotW stuff, like the redirects I left from the AotW templates, so the old system would still be functional more or less, as seen here. It should also be noted that I've considered a tiered system for randomizing the FAs, since I think that might even the odds between the types/subjects of the FAs we currently have. Assuming we are still for this, we might also want to start dealing with the backlog of old FAs sooner rather than later, starting with FAs that have been suggested for removal and survived within the last year or so, since it seems they're still up to snuff.

With all that said, and since further discussion was requested, I assume that people have things to say. I hope it's mostly good. :) - Archduk3 09:38, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Well, you forgot to mention that I, like Cid, also opposed you making all these drastic changes without sufficient approval. So, that was the consensus; that you stop what you're doing. You've clearly ignored that majority opinion, as you're still going at it (as can be evidenced by this thread)! --Defiant 11:43, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't forget anything Defiant, since you didn't oppose anything in the time frame I'm talking about. I don't see a single opposition comment anywhere on here from you, or from anyone for that matter. Concerns were raised and addressed, that's it. If you have a complaint about these changes, do try to be specific, since there is no precedent, policy, or guideline that even suggests changes without opposition need "enough consensus" or "sufficient approval", while we have several that state the opposite. If you want to go on another rant about how you think I've done something wrong, you're free to do it on my talk page or in another forum, but do try to stay on topic here and not waste everyone's time. - Archduk3 19:42, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

(@Archduk3) Well, a "policy about how to create policies" is somewhat cyclic, so we should rely on precedent and common sense here. There is precedent for policy changes being discussed in good detail, as well as them being left to mature before being implemented, and common sense seems to suggest (at least to me) that something that will be binding for all contributors should not be installed by a very few, and very quickly. (@Defiant) That said, the outcome of the other page has not been to not further the discussion about this suggested change. That would just be stupid - what should we do with a suggestion that hasn't been "discussed enough", if not further discussing it? I agree with Archduk3, if you want to go meta again, do it on another page, not here. -- Cid Highwind 21:12, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

That's true, but a week is almost always considered enough time to make changes (old FA nominations, old AotW nominations, FA removals, various talk page comments, etc), though these changes have actually changed a good number of those ironically. This was also the product of "time + extended family = do anything else" and the need for an entire day to do it, since 7 hours in there's still things that were undone. That said, I'm all for any further discussion on these, assuming there are things about them that need to be discussed, instead of simply allowing for more silence. :) - Archduk3 21:25, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

I've personally decided to no longer contribute to discussions regarding policies and guidelines of this wiki, as: (a) I'm frankly too busy nowadays, and (b) I feel like, whenever I do try to add to the discussions, I just get a load of abuse hurled at me (such as terms like "rant" and the implication that I've been "wasting everyone's time"). So, good luck with continuing to maintain the site's policies and guidelines (which the admins seem to do splendidly without my input, anyway). --Defiant 17:14, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

FAs without a FA blurb template

FAs without a FA blurb to be displayed on the main page. I suggest we use this place to create the blurbs for the "New" FAs using the old AotW system (at least a week without opposition), since these articles are "grandfathered in". The ones already in the update queue can be done as these articles are reconfirmed, though the articles in bold should have some blurb in a page history somewhere. - Archduk3 11:22, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Support all the blurbs below. And good work. :-) –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 00:20, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II

The ISS Avenger and the USS Defiant

"In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II" was the 19th episode of the fourth season of Star Trek: Enterprise.

On the bridge of the USS Defiant – having just witnessed the destruction of the ISS Enterprise by the TholiansCommander Archer supervises Chief Engineer Tucker, T'Pol, and Major Reed, as the team desperately try to escape from a Tholian drydock that holds the Defiant. Even though they manage to shake the starship free from the facility's docking clamps, six Tholian ships approach and speedily construct an energy net over the opening of the dock, effectively barring the Defiant's escape.

With T'Pol's assistance, Tucker manages to restore power to the Defiant's weapon systems. The ship then blasts its way out of the dock, destroying half of the Tholian ships in the process and continues maneuvering away, firing photon torpedoes at the Tholian facility while departing. Reed detects escape pods from Enterprise, so Archer orders that they be brought aboard.

As mentioned above, this FA needs a blurb that can be displayed on the main page. - Archduk3 23:22, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

The Best of Both Worlds

Picard kidnapped by the Borg

"The Best of Both Worlds" was the 26th and final episode of the third season of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Commander Riker, Data, Worf, and Geordi La Forge file into a transporter room. Worf notifies Riker that there has been no contact from the surface of Jouret IV for over twelve hours, nor any signs of life. Immediately after the away team is beamed down by Transporter Chief Miles O'Brien, the team finds not only that the entire colony of New Providence has been completely destroyed but also that the colony's former town-center is now nothing more than a giant crater.

As the Enterprise flies alongside an Excelsior-class transport ship, Hanson and Shelby inform Captain Picard and Riker – in Picard's ready room – that Starfleet is unprepared for a potential Borg incursion, despite having known for over a year that they are coming. The officers discuss whether the colony was destroyed by the Borg and refer to the Enterprise's first contact with them, at System J-25 a year ago. Hanson asserts that Shelby – an expert on the Borg – will lead the investigation.

As mentioned above, this FA needs a blurb that can be displayed on the main page. - Archduk3 23:22, November 30, 2011 (UTC)


Resistance is not futile

"Scorpion" was the 26th and final episode of the third season of Star Trek: Voyager.

In a region of space, two Borg cubes are seen. They are advancing on their next intended targets for assimilation. Their hail is cut off abruptly as energy beams lash out at the cubes, which are instantly destroyed.

On one of the USS Voyager's holodecks, Captain Kathryn Janeway is running a Leonardo da Vinci holo-program, conversing with a Leonardo hologram in a simulation of the historical figure's workshop. She receives an urgent hail from Commander Chakotay, who urges her to go to engineering to take a look at something.

There, Lieutenant B'Elanna Torres explains that the long-range probe they sent out months ago has stopped transmitting. However, she was able to catch the last few seconds of telemetry, which show a Borg drone's face staring into the viewscreen.

As mentioned above, this FA needs a blurb that can be displayed on the main page. - Archduk3 23:22, November 30, 2011 (UTC)


Bashir and Melora in a zero gravity environment

"Melora" was the 6th episode of the second season of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

Doctor Bashir and Lieutenant Dax are in the infirmary, testing a wheelchair designed for Ensign Melora Pazlar. Dax expresses amazement that the specifications are even in the replicator's database, saying she hasn't seen a wheelchair in over three hundred years. Bashir reveals that they weren't. It was, in fact, Pazlar herself who had sent him the design, due to the fact that her normal anti-grav unit won't work on Deep Space 9, a situation that Bashir likens to the troubles they had with integrating Starfleet cargo lifts. Before they can discuss it further, Major Kira chimes in over the comm system, informing Bashir that the Yellowstone has just docked at airlock 14. The doctor responds, telling her they're on their way, before taking the wheelchair and heading out with Dax.

As mentioned above, this FA needs a blurb that can be displayed on the main page. - Archduk3 23:22, November 30, 2011 (UTC)


Gorkon in 2293

Gorkon was the Chancellor of the Klingon High Council in 2293. In this capacity, he notably pursued peaceful relations between the Klingon Empire and the United Federation of Planets. He was murdered just prior to the start of the Khitomer Conference, however. Only a full explanation of a conspiracy behind his murder allowed for successful negotiation of the Khitomer Accords, which eventually normalized relations between the two governments after years of hostility.

In 2293, the destruction of the Klingon moon Praxis forced the Klingon Empire to reassess its position towards the United Federation of Planets, as the Empire simply could no longer afford to maintain its massive military budget and deal with the devastating effects of the explosion on its economy. Gorkon approached the Federation via Captain Spock and opened negotiations that would see the military outposts on both sides of the Klingon Neutral Zone dismantled and a new alliance forged between the two cold war enemies.

As mentioned above, this FA needs a blurb that can be displayed on the main page. - Archduk3 23:22, November 30, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-NC unless otherwise noted.