Talk:Mirror Universe

VfD

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Mirror Universe (Star Trek)

---

Template needed

There oughta be a Template:Star Trek Mirror Universe stories template, just as there's an Template:Star Trek Time travel stories template. The bars on the bottom, such as the one from Crossover (DS9 episode), are insufficient and inconsistently used. Mdiamante 19:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible origins of the mirror universe

---

Would a possible "point of divergence" have been the survival of Edith Keeler which would have paved the way for an Axis victory in WW II? j/w. - knoodelhed 08:58, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That would be a good "point of divergence" and it is part of the canon. But, it is an English speaking Empire, uses American-British naval ranks, and seems to be dominated by by people with Anglic last names. But, bravo to you for the interesting point, Scott

I, too, wondered about that; it is true that they are English names, etc., but it could be that English became the dominant language for some reason; or even more likely a Spanish Armada win in 1588 with England then taking the reins.

I used to think Edith Keeler was probably the point of divergence, but close examination of the scenes in the opening credits/theme of the mirror universe episodes of Star Trek Enterprise shows earlier divergence. SEppley (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I seem to recall a Star Trek comic book wherein something way back in the past - ancient Rome or something - causes a bunch of things including British victory in the Revolution in 1776 and Nazi victory in 1940; so maybe it's that creation of a more warlike Earth with the empire at that point being a worldwide one lasing for centuries. Maybe not good [[alternate history][] but perhaps a more likely scenario that points to the topic below of it not really having a divergence.

Just speculation, but it does sound plausible, as much if not more than the Edith Keeler idea.108.90.95.211 (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Except the whole Edith Keeler idea is based on bad history (or Star Trek's WWII being way different from our own).

As documented in Capra's Prelude to War (1943) the United States already has a strong desire to keep out of the war in Asia and later Europe. All that ended when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941 and no matter how popular Edith Keeler was there is no way she could have delayed the US entry into the war once that happened and I don't see how should could have influenced the events that lead to that.

Also we now know Germany's heavy water experiments were moving at a snail's pace because Hitler believed the war would end before they would be ready: "From the start of the war until the late fall of 1941, the German "lightning war" had marched from one victory to another, subjugating most of Europe. During this period, the Germans needed no wonder weapons. After the Soviet counterattack, Pearl Harbor, and the German declaration of war against the United States, the war had become one of attrition. For the first time, German Army Ordnance asked its scientists when it could expect nuclear weapons." In fact, the German program was so far behind that the best they could have done by 1946 was a "dirty bomb" - NOVA: Nazis and the Bomb

Another problem is the V-2. When Hitler was first show the plans for the V2 in late 1941 he was dismissive of the V2 as essentially an artillery shell with a longer range and much higher cost (Irons, Roy. Hitler's terror weapons: The price of vengeance. p. 181.) It was not until 1944 with German moral waning in the face of defeat after defeat that Hitler decided on building the V2. More over the V-2 had roughly a 2,200 pound carrying capacity; Little Boy weighed 9,700 pounds; this is why Stalin so desperately wanted to copy the B-29 Super-fortress-it was the only way to deliver an a-bomb to its target by air. It would not be until 1953 that a rocket even remotely

So in anything even remotely like OTL you have this catch-22 situation: delaying the entry of the US into WWII so that Germany has more time to work on their A-bomb also removes the pressure on Germany that caused them to focus on developing the weapon in the first place. Worse removing that pressure also would delay the improvements in V2 that were needed to carry the weapon to make it effective.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Mirror Universe concept is crazy enough that it must be the work of Q. There's no other "sensible" way to explain how so many mirror characters are killed, presumably year after year and century after century, without causing orders of magnitude more population & situation divergence compared to the prime universe. Chaos theory tells us that small perturbations would lead to huge divergences over time; a few decades after a point of divergence on Earth there would be few if any Mirror Universe humans who have the same genes and are exactly the same age as their prime universe counterparts. SEppley (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Data in Parallels explains this. Besides we don't know how much Chaos theory applies to history.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The Mirror Universe never diverged.

---

The Mirror Universe never diverged. Every universe Worf visits in Parallels has its own Mirror Universe (by the way, Worf never makes it home because in his universe, Spot is a male long-haired Somali-cat, while after Parallels, Spot is a female common house-cat and births baby kittens). Universes are paired. The natural tendency of universes is to diverge, but the pairing causes convergence. The result is a theme and variation. The paired universes were, are, and always will be similar, but never identical.---— Ŭalabio 08:30, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

• Your ideas are intriguing, but thorougly speculative. You're assuming that the writers of Parallels had the Mirror Universe in mind when they sent Worf on his cross-timeline journey. But there's no evidence of that. Quite the contrary -- it seems obvious that the Mirror Universe was one of many TOS concepts that were abandoned by TNG writers, and only revived later in DS9. Fans can insist that there has to be a theory that reconciles the parallel universe concept with the Mirror Universe, but "official" Star Trek has never bothered to provide one. ¶ Despite its non-verifiability, I like your theory, because its the first one I've heard that explains why everybody in the MU is so paranoid and violent, something a "point of divergence" does not. ¶ Be sure to check out Mirror Universe Timeline before it goes away! ---- Isaac R 18:12, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • My theory is how it simply has to be. If a POD (Point of divergence) is responsible, then we could have Mirror, Mirror, but none of the others. In the time of Deep Space 9, no analogues of the of people, with the exception of long-lived species, would exist. Contrarily, In a Mirror, Darkly would have to happen before the POD. Regardless of Parallels, "¡Our Universe has an evil twin!" with the two of them exhibiting theme and variation. It is the only possible solution. Pairing and entanglement are concepts in real world of quantum-physics. Just imagine two branes paired and entangled. ¿Can you think of any possible POD hundreds of years in the past which somehow insures that people always marry the right people and the correct sperm always finds the right egg so that everyone in one universe has an analogue in the other universe over three hundred years, but in one universe a Federation arises, while in the other Universe, the same people create an Empire?--— Ŭalabio 22:53, 2005 May 30 (UTC)

• I agree with every point — Ŭalabio had made. After all, it as always been refered to as a parallel universe. Parallel means running alongside, not diverged from; otherwise it would be refered to as a "divergent universe". This means no divergence point exist and the two universes simply have always been parallel with many convergent aspects; such as the birth of the same people and certain events, such as McCoy spilling acid on a table in both universes. Hence the term "mirror universe". -- Crevaner 05:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• There are many concepts in the Star Trek universe which require liberal use of the Suspension of disbelief. The Mirror Universe is certainly one of them. There's really no logical way to explain how a parallel universe could develop in such a way that all the same people existed, but as opposites of themselves. --142.242.2.248 23:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is; Whatever the point of divergence was, or might have been, there would exist branching out from that point every possible outcome from the divergent event, it is therefore extremely likely that in one of those many branching timelines there would exist characters and events which parallel those in the one of the timelines which originate from the other outcome of the original POD.Number36 00:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Data explains in Parallels "For any event, there is an infinite number of possible outcomes. Our choices determine which outcomes will follow. But there is a theory in quantum physics that all possibilities that can happen, do happen in alternate quantum realities." This explains how the Mirror universe could be so similar and yet so different. James Hogan's The Proteus Operation uses such a mechanic where Time Travel involves going to a parallel universe.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The Crime Syndicate

While the serial Inferno may have been inspired by the Mirror Universe (MU), the Crime Sindicate of America (CSA) first appeared in the comic books in August 1964, beating the Mirror Universe by three years. Therefore, the following section:

"The Mirror Universe concept has been used by Doctor Who in the serial Inferno and by the Justice League of America in stories featuring the Crime Syndicate of Amerika. It is unclear to what extent these have been inspired by the Star Trek setting."

Both ideas, Earth 3 (where the CSA lived) and the Mirror Universe are probably based on similar concepts, but it is logically impossible for the Syndicate to have been inspired by the MU.

Quite right. Changed. Daibhid C 16:56, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Good grief. Star Trek was a lot of things, but it didn't originate any ideas that I'm aware of. Popularised them, certainly. Barsoomian (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Upcoming ENT-era MU novel?

I seem to recall a Trek Today or TrekWeb news item that indicated that Manny Coto ... or some other writer ... was planning to write a novel continuing the Enterprise-era Mirror Universe stories, since Coto was unable to produce a follow-up for season 5. I can't find the news story anywhere, but if anyone can find a link to confirm the facts, it might be worth noting in either the Enterprise or Novels sections. 23skidoo 06:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

MU in the Comics

I didn't see a reference to Marvel Comics' "Star Trek: Mirror, Mirror" one-shot. It gives an account of what (may have) happened directly Mirror-Kirk returned to the I.S.S. Enterprise. Mirror-Spock incarcerates Mirror-Kirk, who allies himself with incarcerated Mirror-Sulu in a failed coup attempt. Ultimately, Mirror-Spock enlists Mirror-Scotty's aid in using the Tantalus device against a Klingon attack group. One ship is spared to spread the word of the Empire's terrible new weapon. Mirror-Spock kills Mirror-Kirk at the end of the story, and is given official command of the I.S.S. Enterprise by Mirror-Starfleet.

Also, there was a 2-part back-up story pertaining to the Mirror Universe in Malibu Comics' "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" 29 & 30 that followed Mirror-Tuvok. I don't recall much about the story offhand, but I've got it somewhere.

Mirror Vic an Android?

Is this true? I've seen the episode in question several times, and while Vic is definitely "real" (not a hologram), I didn't see any evidence that he was an android. (It would make sense, though, seeing as how both would then be artificial lifeforms...) (an anonymous user)

• I read this in the main article and immediately jumped to this discussion to post the same question. Perhaps if a third doubter happens along, the designation of mirror-Vic as an android should be deleted. I still claim that this is the funniest site gag in Star Trek history. When mirror-Vic, who can't exist outside the holosuite in the regular universe, bursts out guns ablazin' then gets whacked within about five seconds with no explanation, it's sublimely hilarious. Pardon me if I missed it, but the main article should work in the idea of high camp in the mirror universes of the modern Star Trek. It's not merely that the mirror-characters are more violent or sexual--they're send-ups of violence and sexuality. And the characters who get "toned down," like Brunt or Quark, are specifically parodies of their non-mirror selves. JimmyTheSaint 00:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• When's he's shot, sparks fly out and when you see the "wound" it definately doesn't look biological and seems machanical. What else can he honestly be? --TheTruthiness 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Those are some sharp eyes you've got there. I don't have my DVD set anymore, so I'll have to watch that episode when it cycles around again on Spike TV. What's the episode number and season of Vic's appearance? Of course, if other people can confirm this, the info should go in the main article to support his being an android. On the other hand, couldn't sparks be from 24th century bullets or whatever? JimmyTheSaint 02:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Now wait a second. I have freeze-framed episode 7.12 "The Emperor's New Cloak" at time code 11:22. Mirror-Vic is lying dead and the wound looks consistent with the way biological wounds from energy weapons are displayed: charred stuff with a bit of glowing embers underneath. Looks consistent with body tissue burning at a high temperature. Nothing else about mirror-Vic looks androidian, for example, he has messed up hair like a human, whereas Data and Lor always had plastic looking slicked back hair. I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that mirror-Vic is anything but human, so I'm taking that out of the main article. JimmyTheSaint 05:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I did the same, and there seemed to be some metalic-grey stuff on the wound. BTW, Dada often had bad hair- take that ep where the probe blocks his memory and the locals think he's an Ice-Man. He obviously isn't a hologram, he can't be biological unless he's a clone- but how would a mirror universe where humans are slaves (or any universe for that matter) have the DNA of a 1960s guy? And most humans wouldn't stand in an open space during a firefight, an android who considers himself somewhat invincible might. --TheTruthiness 00:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the android idea, and it would have been a great aspect for the writers to make explicit, but there's no clear evidence for it. All we know for certain is that he's not a hologram, so I just wrote "Inexplicably, he's not a hologram..." in the article, which is the most we can claim with confidence. The wound is at most ambiguous: it could possibly be showing fried mechanical guts, but just as possibly biological tissue charred and glowing from weapons whose power we're also not sure of. Granted, the hair is not strong evidence one way or the other, but in the absence of strong evidence, I think we have to assume he's human. Is there any evidence that the mirror universe even has androids of such authentic quality? JimmyTheSaint 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

I am sorry to say that this article failed its GA nomination. Refering to the GA criteria, it failed these specific points:

1a) The prose is not up to GA standards. The article uses long and often confusing sentences, and goes on a lot of tangents in parenthesis.
1b) The article itself does not follow a logical structure. It seems to have been written with no plan, with each editor adding information as they thought of it. The article goes from one section about the TV series, to one section about books, to one section for each game, to "other ramifications" which is again about TV, to parodies, to TV again, and then to the "see also" section which, for some reason, contains a short paragraph about a game.
1c) It does not follow style guidelines for writing about fiction. Specifically, many sections are written with an inappropriate in-universe perspective.
1d) While all terms are wikilinked, the article goes a little overboard on this, and many words and names are wikilinked multiple times. The style guideline is to wikilink only the first occurence of a word.
2a) The article provides no references.
2b) The article provids no citations.
2d) The article contains a lot of original research. For instance, there is a long paragraph on fan speculation of the impact of the Enterprise-E's impact on Cochrane's warp test.
3a) This article makes no distinction between canon and non-canon "mirror universe" information. Given that canonicity of material is an important issue in the Star Trek franchise, this would be an important point to discuss.

Thank you for your hard work on this page, and fell free to re-submit it once these issues have been settled. Happy editing! -- Ritchy 17:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Agonizer

Please merge any relevant content from Agonizer per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agonizer. (If there is nothing to merge, just leave it as a redirect.) Thanks. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:39Z

Fair use rationale for Image:In a Mirror, Darkly (ENT episode) Part I.jpg

Image:In a Mirror, Darkly (ENT episode) Part I.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality of MU!Ezri

I'd contest the point calling DS9's mirror!Ezri bisexual. To my recollection, there was no mention of any relationships with men, and several lines indicating suggestively that male characters were "not her type"--if we're going to make judgments about characters' sexuality, I'd say that she was a lesbian. Also, bisexuality does not equal promiscuity; that's just silly. We saw MU!Ezri with Kira, yes, and it was insinuated with Leeta at the end (and if you take the novels into account, the two married some time later), but that's it. Leeta was on screen for all of thirty seconds, flirting with one character, thus hardly justifying the above label as well. I'm removing both references. CrashCart9 (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If anything, it is Mirror Universe Kira that is bisexual. Lots42 (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Nuke from above

I'm considering stubifying this article -- it is laden with long-unaddressed problems such as OR, overwhelming plot trivia, and no real-world perspective. Any substantive objections? --EEMIV (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If you somehow reorganize all the mirror-universe fiction sections into something that makes sense, I will be happy.Lots42 (talk) 06:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends what you call substantive. Does the present status of the article cause any harm, distress or inconvenience? And if the answer is, as I suspect, no why waste time and effort nuking it when the only effect will be to cause, if not harm or distress, then at least potential inconvenience.

More generally I will just say, yet again, that I much preferred Wiki before it started believing it's own hype. Does it matter a fig how "important" or "trivial" an article is or whether it contains "real-world perspective"? Only, I suspect, in the minds of people who have nought else to worry about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.14.29 (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ferengi in the Mirror Universe

Anyone else notice that in all of the proper DS9 mirror verse episodes (excluding Resurrection given its inverted format) a Ferengi dies in each one; Quark in Crossover, Rom in Through the Looking Glass, Nog in Shattered Mirror, and Brunt in The Emperor's New Cloak. Anyone know whether this was some sort of ongoing joke? Is this worth mentioning in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougie89 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Terran Empire logo versus Interpol logo

Except for the addition of the "Scales of Justice", and the olive branches, Interpol's logo closely resembles the Terran empire's logo.

File:TerranEmpire1.jpg

Emblem of the Terran Empire

Perhaps this makes senses as the Empire is missing Justice and Peace. Lent (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Timeline article

Possibly a useful ref for fleshing things out: https://io9.gizmodo.com/everything-we-know-about-the-timeline-of-star-treks-mir-1822127136 Artw (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

(a fair number of spoilers in that article if you are not up to date on Discovery) Artw (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Some sources

• Nerdist, though from November 2017, prior to the Mirror Universe ST;D storyline.

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Episode summaries

So at the moment we have a number of rather sprawling episode summaries, which are largely an artifact of how the Mirror Universe would appear in Star Trek prior to Discovery, showing up periodically in largely stand alone episodes. Obviously Discovery’s extended mirror universe plotlind blows this out of the water and what we have now is looking rather bloated. Given all this should we aggressively trim the episode summaries? Merge multi-part stories into a single listing? Or possibly omit them altogether and take a different approach? Open to suggestions. Artw (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

• Given a lack of response I’m probably just going to go ahead with my own preferred solution: cutting the individual episode summaries down to the most relevant points. Artw (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

And... done. It may go too far in the opposite direction now, in fact. I ask if anything gets added back in that we try to keep it to details relevant to the mirror universe, and not full plot descriptions of episodes. Artw (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 01:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Mirror Universe → Mirror Universe (Star Trek) – Mirror universe and Mirror Universe should be WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs to Parallel universe as a commonly used physics, philosophical and fictional term from which the Star Trek writers drew their ideas. Page was at that location prior to 2014 but was moved unnecessarily._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support Mirror universe (Star Trek) no need to cap unless this is a proper noun named "Mirror Universe" with that name throughout the franchise. Can't see that it is. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Firm Oppose - per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, The Star Trek usage is completely dominant. Filtering out Star Trek references (and references to the Magic: The Gathering card named this), I find only a scant smattering of use of this phrase in a scientific context, usually like this PBS article from 2014 which uses "Mirror Universe" in the title, but where source article doesn't use that phrase. I suspect the use of phrase to make sensationalist headlines is specifically influenced or inspired by the Star Trek concept. In short, this phrase is NOT at all "commonly used" in a scientific context, and the hatnote works just fine. -- Netoholic @ 21:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That might be true given the amount of Star Trek books on GBooks: About 7,010 results less About 2,810 results -"Star Trek" "1996 One of such developments is an idea about the existence of the mirror Universe that dates back to 1956 in connection with the discovery of the parity non-conservation in weak interactions The conception of the mirror Universe involves the existence of an invisible system of particles and forces which is identical to the known system of particles and forces." But not sure how it affects the CAPS issue? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

My reading of the Star Trek literature is that the caps are necessary as references to the topic speak about a specific universe, not just a broad concept of mirror universes. In Star Trek, there is only one Mirror Universe, with an established history and which has been specifically affected by multiple contacts from the main universe. -- Netoholic @ 03:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose covered by the hat note, no need to replace with redirect. Artw (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Unnecessary and likely to cause more problems than it resolves. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notabe characters?

One thing occurred to me when trimming down the plot summaries - we ahve a lot of character descriptions in there, in particular tracking how characters differ from their Prime universe counterparts. Could the article benefit from a "Notable Mirror Characters" section? Artw (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Fate of Empire unknown

• In Mirror Mirror Spock predicts that the Terran Empire Will fall in 240 years; In the Deep Space Nine and Emterprise it is shown that 110 years later the vicious Terran Tempire has been replaced by Triple Bajorian-Klingon-Cardassian Alliance..which is equally corrupt...as the old Terran Empire...thus logically in 130 years the Bajorian-Klingon-Cardassian Alliance will fall as well....and perhaps the Terran Empire/Klingon-Cardassain Alliance Universe will fall to THE BORG!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.156.249 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Anachornistic use of "Terran" Empire

User @Ajd: continues to revert the text to a version that makes an incorrect and anachronistic use of the term "Terran Empire". The incorrect version uses the term "Terran Empire" in reference to a TOS episode (Mirror, Mirror) and to the five DS9 episodes. This is completely incorrect. During the entire run of the episode Mirror, Mirror at no point in dialogue the Empire is named, is just referred as the Empire. In fact expanded universe material like comics and novel gave different names to the empire, which are not important as this article seem to based itself on canon material only. The first coinage of the term "Terran" was used in DS9 episode "Crossover", not before. In all five Mirror episodes of DS9 at no point the term "Terran Empire" was used. The first used of the term "Terran Empire" was in the Enterprise episode "In a Mirror, Darkly". Thus is obvious that is incorrect it usage before that time. HourZerox (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I'm doing. Following your lead, I removed the phrase "Terran Empire" from the description of "Mirror, Mirror". I left it in the description of the DS9 episodes, because even though the exact phrase "Terran Empire" might not be used on DS9, but DS9 calls them Terrans and says they had an Empire ("our Terrans were barbarians then, but their Empire was strong"); referring to it as the Terran Empire on that basis would be justified even if "In a Mirror, Darkly" had never aired. But moreover, I simply disagree with you: We're describing the fictional construct of the Mirror Universe from a present-day perspective; we can use terminology that was invented later to refer to elements of the universe that were established earlier. "Mirror, Mirror" portrays the empire; "In a Mirror, Darkly" establishes its name as the Terran Empire; therefore "Mirror, Mirror" portrays the Terran Empire, and we can say that. Similarly, the article Star Trek: The Original Series states that the character Hikaru Sulu appears in that series, even though the name Hikaru was never used for Sulu on the Original Series.

Also, the fact that "In a Mirror, Darkly" is the first time the phrase "Terran Empire" is used is definitely original research on your part; you went and checked the earlier episodes to see if it was used and found it wasn't. That's research. AJD (talk) 18:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, but I can pass you the transcripts of every script on all 5 episodes of DS9 and the one of TOS to see that what I say is true. However I can agree with your logic regarding DS9, they are called Terrans and their empire is mentioned. I do can see the argument in seeing the events from a present-day perspective however this can be missleading as requires for the editor to assume stuffs.

But in order to reach a consensus I will agree with your editings regarding DS9 if we can agree with just not add Terran in the TOS section. --HourZerox (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! AJD (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)