Talk:Advanced long-range torpedo

Removed

They were equipped with an unknown propulsion device that had the potential to severely damage the warp core of a Federation starship.

We don't state unknowns, and generally this line isn't true, since the propulsion system of the torpedos was only unscannable because those torpedos were intended to hide the bodies inside, not because the design itself had an unknown drive. Scotty also just didn't want an unknown right next to the warp core, because unknowns could potential be anything, including something that could damage the core. - Archduk3 19:45, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

Rename

Should this article be renamed to either Advanced long-range torpedo, since that's what they were actually called by Sulu in the film: "If you do not surrender to them immediately, I will unleash the entire payload of advanced long-range torpedoes currently locked on to your location." in his communication to Harrison. Or, another name candidate would be PHOT1093 that was the model id label on every torpedo. I don't think we should use these descriptive names if there are actual canonical name candidates we can use instead. --Pseudohuman (talk) 22:02, June 5, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. - Archduk3 06:55, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

If anyone has high quality images from the film, I noticed that there was a file open on Harwoods computer just before he blows up Section 31 London, it has a legible paragraph of text under the title "WEAPONS SUMMARY" that seems to begin with the word "Stealth.." [1] Just wondering if it's about these torpedoes or the weapons of the Vengeance. or what.. --Pseudohuman (talk) 17:18, June 6, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. It is what Sulu refers to them as in his message. Marcus' description of them is somewhat vague at best when he calls them a "stealth torpedo." Kyle C. Haight (talk) 05:35, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

The Marcus dialogue was: "As part of our defensive strategy, thirty-one developed a new photon torpedo. Long-range and untraceable. It would be invisible to Klingon sensors." --Pseudohuman (talk) 12:13, June 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think "Long-range photon torpedo" would be better. - Mitchz95 (talk) 16:52, June 15, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, but at this point I would say that let's wait for the script, blu-ray and reference books to come in, and see if there was some more specific official name given for this model of torpedoes. --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:30, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Display graphic info

There's a bunch of info here from a display graphic that was seen at poor Harewood's desktop monitor just before he died. Call me dense, but how exactly do we know that that summary referred to these specific torpedoes? There doesn't seem to be a weapon name on that screen, nor does the accompanying graphic correspond to any part of the torpedo we've seen. And it's hardly a stretch that a weapons research facility might have more then one type of torpedo under development. The text might fit well with the torpedo, but that hardly seems conclusive enough. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:36, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Moved it to bg. If anyone spots a comment from a production source that the summary was about the torpedoes, let us know. --Pseudohuman (talk) 18:51, September 9, 2013 (UTC)

Rename II

Unaltered graphic, should be cropped later

The transporter display locked onto the torpedoes

There is a display graphic which IDs this as a "Photon Torpedo, Mark VI". As graphic also confirms the Enterprise is a Constitution-class. Looks like the graphic was designed with MA in mind. There's also the transporter display graphic which contains several other ID like information. - Archduk3 23:59, September 30, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. I dont support a name change, as the torpedo was also referred to as "class 12 photon torpedo" in the interior security screen of the torpedo, and CVN-65 Mod.PHO 453 on the detonator processor access panel. Mark VI and CL 365-A photon torpedo on those computer screens. The torpedo casings have the prominent marking as PHOT1093. So there are at least five candidates of what "the official classification" could be, or perhapes it is all of them and the torpedo is a "Type 1093 Class 12 Mark VI Type CVN-65 Model 456 Class 365-A photon torpedo" for example. :D I'm fine with "advanced long-range torpedo" as that is what they were called in dialogue and probably what any reader of MA will look for. --Pseudohuman (talk) 07:29, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Comment There's no reason to lose sight of the forest through the trees. Some of those designations are a lot less likely to be the actual name then others. For example, if the film only offered us "Photon Torpedo, Mark VI" and "CVN-65 Mod.PHO 453" then I think there would be little discussion that the former should be the name and the latter is just a serial number (and a homage too, it seems). My point being, its not necessarily because there's a lot of potential candidates that there can't be still one that seems to be the right one. I think the only two real contenders are the "Photon Torpedo, Mark VI" that Archduk3 uncovered, and "class 12 photon torpedo". Can I just ask you to clarify though, Pseudohuman, was the latter really fully on-screen? Because I've been looking for it and the best I find is "Class 12 Photo..." cut off. Not that I doubt you, (you clearly know your stuff better then me), but a screenshot would be usefull I guess. In any case, "Advanced long-range torpedo" is clearly a general term, so I don't think we should stop being on the lookout for a "real" name, even if this particular discussion comes to nothing. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:54, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

That is it. Another reason not to name this page as "Mark VI photon torpedo" is that there is a completely different type of photon torpedo with the exact same mark-classification in the prime universe. Also we shouldn't have to be in a position to decide which of the several class, type, model and mark designations attached to this weapon is "the real name" of the torpedo for the simple reason that it requires unnecessary speculation on our part and any decision would give the page a misleading title if we raise one of the possibilities above the rest, since we don't have a clear statement from a production source which of these/or what combination of these did they intend to be the real name. Could we wait for a script or other bg material to surface before making any decisions? While adv long-range torp is a general term there are no other torpedoes that have been given the same description, so IMO there isn't a problem with it at the moment that requires this kind of disambiguation. --Pseudohuman (talk) 13:03, October 1, 2013 (UTC)

Just a very short response, but I wasn't advocating speculation, merely saying that it might potentially be possible to eliminate enough of those suggested names trough simple common sense that only one remains which can reasonably be supported. Just my two cents though, I realize its a bit of an unconventional argument. -- Capricorn (talk) 15:34, October 1, 2013 (UTC)