Fire control system is NOT fire-suppression system Edit
I removed the following text:
In 2369, the fire control system on board Jaheel's ship failed to function after his aft isolation plate buckled during an attempt to leave Deep Space 9 while the mooring clamps were still engaged. (DS9: "Babel")
- Okay, so please explain why "fire-suppression system" = "automatic fire-suppression" and "automated fire system", but not "fire control system"? (Keeping in mind the term "fire control party" was also used to describe, more-less, firefighters; the removed reference falls within the same wheelhouse.) The intention from the context of what you removed has to do with not what the term "fire control (system)" otherwise meant in three TOS references, which referred to essentially "weapons control". --Alan del Beccio (talk) 23:10, February 21, 2017 (UTC)
- "The situation goes from bad to worse for Anan as Scott informs the council that all cities and installations on the planet have been fed into the Enterprise's fire control system, and will destroy the entire planet if they don't release their captives."
In the classic context, the "fire control system" are the components that are involved in targeting, directing, and controlling the firing of weapons. -- Renegade54 (talk) 17:33, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
- :::facepalm::: Okay, I am fully aware of the meaning of the TOS reference (in fact, I said "in three TOS references, which referred to essentially "weapons control"."), but what you are completely overlooking is the context of the information you removed from DS9: "Babel" which has ZERO to do with weapons control, but rather, fire suppression.
- In other words, they used the exact same term to describe two completely different things, one being what should belong on this page, that is the centerpiece of this discussion: "In 2369, the fire control system on board Jaheel's ship failed to function after his aft isolation plate buckled during an attempt to leave Deep Space 9 while the mooring clamps were still engaged. (DS9: "Babel")"
- In other other words, from the script (as dialoged):
84A INT. OPS (FORMERLY SCENE 76)
Sisko and Odo are staring at the static filled Viewscreen.
SISKO: "Try to re-establish visual contact with Jaheel's ship."
ODO (working console): "His com lines are down."
SISKO: "Bypass communications through a secondary grid. See if you can switch to external pickups."
ODO (working feverishly): "Got it."
84B ON VIEWSCREEN (OPTICAL)
The static clears -- replaced with the burning bridge of Jaheel's vessel. (Jaheel's nowhere in sight)
ODO: "His fire control systems don't appear to be working."
SISKO (checking console): "We have about fifteen minutes before the fuel cells collapse."
- Again, I don't see why this was removed, because they wouldn't be using phasers to put out a bridge fire. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 21:41, February 23, 2017 (UTC)
- So we have a misunderstanding here. The difference being that in Journey to Babel and The Ultimate Computer, it's not called a system, just abbreviated to "fire control". (I dunno about the 3rd TOS reference, but I guess it's not in the dialogue). The DS9 reference uses the word "systems" and shows an actual fire in progress. As long as it's been explained, it can be disambiguated and problem solved. --LauraCC (talk) 15:18, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
- Seriously? Is this conversation still for real? The third one is "A Taste of Armageddon", which has been referenced 47 times already. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 18:32, February 24, 2017 (UTC)
Alan, I agree that the term "fire control system" in DS9: "Babel" was used as a synonym for "fire suppression system", as opposed to its usage in other episodes (the way it's normally used). So... how do we handle this? Just put the reference back into the article, and add a background note about the inconsistent/incorrect use in "Babel"? I apologize, btw, for not reading your comment more closely... if I had, this would have been resolved much more quickly. -- Renegade54 (talk) 01:34, May 12, 2017 (UTC)