Talk:Klingon Bird-of-Prey/archive

Title capitalization

I've moved this article back to the capitalized version ("Bird-of-Prey"), because I believe that on several occasions the term "Bird-of-Prey" has been used as a proper noun, and therefore should be capitalized. ST6 is a perfect example, for starters. This admittedly contradicts the usage seen in the Encyclopedia, but IMO we shouldn't slavishly adhere to their stylings. -- Dan Carlson | Talk 13:06, Sep 11, 2004 (CEST)

Size

Is it really necessary to repeat that urban legend that the B'rel-class BoPs are the smaller scout vessels? --James Cody 23:49, 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Indeed, check out TNG: "Rascals", you'll find the B'rel is the much bigger, almost galaxy-class-sized BoP. Not the little scout ship. --3D Master 14:47, 14 Jan 2006 (GMT)

That's because they were recycled footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise". --Alan 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also relating to size ...

As-is, the page indicates that BoPs' firepower varies from era to era. To that end, someone notes that Birds are inferior to the Defiant and Galaxy-classes.

I guess the same contributor went on to point out that BoPs were very effective against a Vor'cha cruiser in "Redemption Pt. I."

That is incorrect. The two ships that beat up on IKS Bortas were *cruiser-sized BoPs*. The BoPs that were "no match" for the Enterprise-D or the ships we see the Defiant blow away are *scout-sized BoPs*.

I'm still relatively new to Wiki stuff and I'm unsure how to make the appropriate changes (especially without rewriting the entire section), but that apples-to-oranges comparison really mars an otherwise outstanding page. -Sean R.

Revert

I have reverted a change by an IP that said the following:

(it can be speculated that the Bridge shown in "the search for spock" was an auxilliary bridge. Its reasonable to think that the bird of prey has one despite its small hull, becuse klingons saw the need to fight on even if the main bridge was damaged beyond use)

Since it is self-admitted speculation, I have removed it. Jaz 21:44, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Classes

This has probably been covered somewhere else, but why do we have all three classes of BoP listed here instead of on separate pages? --Vedek Dukat ^{Talk | Duty Roster} 07:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

because the specs, class, and size of the BoP has altered almost every time we see it. the BoP ranges from 70 meters to almost 600 meters (sometimes in the same episode), and we know of 3 canon designations (B'rel, K'vort, D-12). we don't know which designator belongs to which size (again, little consistancy), and we have no distinct information on much else. see ]http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/articles/bop-size.htm] for more. -Mithril 01:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i've altered the class names to place the B'rel class as one of the larger cruisers. although the Encyclopedia lists it as the scout, it's appearance in "Rascals" was a reuse of the K'vort class footage from "Yesterday's Enterprise", meaning that the B'rel was also of the larger cruiser type. i've adjusted the stat block to fit this as well, moving B'rel down with K'vort, and placing the D-12 in for the scout. -Mithril 23:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

You can't place the D-12 as the scout. Worf makes very clear that the D-12 was withdrawn from service quickly because of faulty plasma coils. They are therefore NOT the scouts we see. I would rather right off "Rascals" as a screw-up by the F/X department than put in false information. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 23:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

so change it to just Scout. the D-12 is one of the scout types, so the listing technically isn't wrong. but to place a 300 meter cruiser in as a 110m scout is. the show places the B'rel at cruiser size. we can't chalk it up to a 'screw up', no more than we can chalk up the continual reuse of other stock footage as a 'screw up' -Mithril 23:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

changed the 110 meter type to D-12/Scout. scout being a general term, it should be accurate. -Mithril 00:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Those sizes aren't canon, they are speculated by someone who thinks they know how to determine scale by visual references, but not necessarily taking into account the relative position of two vessels. Rarely have they been show side by side. There has only been one or two production sources that state any sort of supposed sizes. --Alan 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Alan, you're right, but the ILM size chart for Trek III's 109m length figure is, IMO, at least as admissible as text from the tech manuals or _Starship Spotter_. The former is, at least, based on how the FX team wanted the ship to look onscreen; Rick Sternbach confirmed the latter figures are gaffes based on erroneous scaling. --Sean R.

By the way, gents, Suricata (see: http://suricatasblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/klingon-bird-of-prey-paradox/) has convincing evidence that the "giant" BoPs we see in "The Defector" are no larger than the other cruiser-sized Birds we see throughout TNG. -- Sean R.

Deflector

Does anyone know where the BoP deflector is? – 7th Tactical 05:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

As with most ships (with the exception of the majority of Starfleet vessels), no, I'm pretty sure we do not. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I was looking into this while working on a rather large expansion of this article, which is still in the works (on my hard drive, unfortunately), and the only plausible location I could find was where the ship emitted an EM pulse towards the Monac sun that destroyed the Monac shipyards, in DS9: "Shadows and Symbols". The location of where the pulse was emitted from was on the bottom of the ship near, where we have seen in the past, the tractor beam emitter located. Otherwise, the script and/or dialog never specified where that pulse was emitted from, which could just as easily be the tractor emitter, which may or may not make sense, but then again, having the deflector on the bottom of the ship doesn't quite make sense either. --Alan 06:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reference made to the main deflector that I can find was referenced in "Once More Unto the Breach". --Alan 04:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise?

The Bird-of-Prey also appeared in the series of episodes about the Augments in Star Trek: Enterprise, which is not mentioned at all within this article. I think it is quite important, since ENT is the first chronologically in the Star Trek shows. -- Interrupt feed 02:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the first line, "For the 22nd century vessel, see Klingon Bird-of-Prey (22nd century)." ;) - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 02:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I guess I didn't read too much into it...Thanks. :D -- Interrupt feed 13:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Phasers" in "A Matter of Honor"

Phasers, disruptors -- they're basically the same thing and often used interchangeably. I think it's taking Kargan's line too literally to decide that the Pagh must've had different weapons than other Birds.

We could just as easily change the entry to read something like this: "The captain of a Bird-of-Prey ordered his ship to 'arm phasers and photon torpedoes.' It is unknown if [i]Pagh[/i] is specially equipped with phasers or if her captain thinks phasers and disruptors are synonymous, as many other characters have indicated." -Sean R.

Kellicam/kilometer conversion

My apologies, dialogue from TNG's "A Matter of Honor" and "Redemption" establish the ratio between the two, and the dialogue in ST III establishes the mentioned weapons' range in that movie.Capt Christopher Donovan 04:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Maximum Range given for weapons in this article is pure speculation, the on screen dialog only confirms that the bird of prey is closing on the Enterprise to a range of 1'000 kellicams. The dialog does not imply that this has something to do with the range limit of their weapons, it could just as easily be to reduce the Enterprise's response time as reinforced in "A Matter of Honour" when Riker recommends they get closer to the Enterprise D to reduce her responce time to the attack. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.241.189.213.

Aft torpedoes

There is actually an aft torpedo tube also. As can be seen here:

I don't think it's ever shown again, but it seems reasonable to me that most, if not all other BoPs would have an aft tube. Rogue Vulcan 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! We'll get our best man on this!

Hey, Alan! Go find our best man! :-D --From Andoria with Love 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have a sort of an unwritten rule that when a single effect clip shows phasersfire or torpedoes etc. launching from a place on a ship where there is no visible launcher or emitter, and it basically seems like effects guys just went "who cares", and put the effect in anyway, that we sort of note it as an anomaly in italics rather than take it as an established truth. For example the Intrepid-class nacelle phasers and fifth torpedo launcher. --Pseudohuman 14:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is nothing that states the contrary, so why treat it like it is an anomaly? Aside from the fact that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to leave the rear of your ship completely undefended, it is worth noting that the 22nd century version was equipped with aft torpedoes, so there is an equal likelihood that the newer version is also, which is apparent in that screencap, which is certainly as credible as anything else we've seen, especially since dialog (the only potential contradictory factor here) does not state otherwise. --Alan 03:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be right where the ship's engines should be though? TheHYPO 15:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

From what episode is that picture? I can see where some larger BoP's might have an aft torpedo launcher as a variant, but really there is no place on the back end of the model for an aft torpedo launcher, and especially not one anything like the launcher on the forward command pod. I also think that this is a visual effects team error (much like when the Enterprise D fired a phaser blast from its torpedo launcher). A ship as maneuverability and aggressive as a BoP doesn't really need one. I am not so sure it should be considered a standard BoP weapon configuration. Your thoughts? --Gug 19:41, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Picture is from The Way of the Warrior, part II, and the bird-of-prey was a normal small b-o-p, one of the ships attacking Gul Dukats cruiser, it fires at the pursuing Defiant with an aft torpedo. We have had several long discussions in MA on the subject of when weapons are shown to be fired from locations where the model makers did not intend there to be weapon ports, and have concluded that these weapons do exist and are not an error as far as we are concerned, unless there is a statement from someone in production stating it was a mistake and should be ignored by viewers. Also assuming ships are variants would be speculation when there is nothing stated to indicate this. --Pseudohuman 10:48, January 31, 2012 (UTC)

Torpedo tube?

In its 2nd scene in Star Trek V [when the commander learns that they have sent Kirk], The BOP featured in the film has an odd mushroom shaped fixture where the hole for it's torpedo tube should be. It's there in other shots as well, but there is a closeup in that scene. It's hard to tell if it's NOT there in any other scenes, but when the BOP fires at the Enterprise after the shuttle crash-lands in the shuttlebay, it doesn't look like the same mushroom cap is sticking out. Any thoughts on what this thing is and why it's there (sometimes)? TheHYPO 15:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Homage to failed experimental bi-plane?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos-Dumont_14-bis

Plexiglass or transparent aluminum?

The last few edits to this page have attempted to clarify whether plexiglass or transparent aluminum was used in the construction of the whale tank aboard the HMS Bounty, with the most recent edit (from me) changing it to plexiglass. There wasn't enough room in the edit summary so I'll explain my reasoning here:

-For one, Doctor Nichols said "it would take years just to figure out the dynamics of this matrix". It seemed apparent (at least to me) that Scotty didn't tell him how to do that, but just let him figure it out on his own--that way he'd figure it out in what likely would be a bit closer to the time when transparent aluminum should have been invented. (Surely Scotty knew quite clearly that transparent aluminum did not exist in the 1980s and thus letting Nichols have it ready to roll then would seriously mess up the timeline.) Nonetheless, Nichols was interested enough by the prospect of the material that he probably figured even partial information on it was worth a few little sheets of plexiglass.

-Transparent aluminum is clearly quite a different type of material than plexiglass. At any rate, it would take years just to begin to change the Plexicorp plant over to producing it; that would be the case even in the 23rd century, let alone the 20th.

-Dr. Nichols said that a plexiglass sheet of 6 inches thick would do the trick to withstand the water pressure Scotty was talking about. When Mr. Sulu drops the stuff into the Bounty via helicopter, it looks about 6 inches thick--at any rate, it was most definitely not the 1 inch thick that Scotty said transparent aluminum could do it with.

The combination of those three points, IMO, seems to make a pretty adequate case that what they were using was plexiglass (given in exchange for the transparent aluminum molecular structure), and definitely not actual transparent aluminum. -Mdettweiler 02:51, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

I always thought it was pretty clear that Scotty traded the formula for the equivocal quantity of plexiglass for the dimensions that he rattled off. --Alan 04:14, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, me too--though apparently it wasn't to everyone since there appeared to be the makings of a possible edit war over it. Hence I figured it was important to outline my reasoning here. -Mdettweiler 04:37, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

D12 class reference in "Firstborn"

According to the article as currently written:

The D12-class was retired from service by the 2350s due to faulty plasma coils, which were components of the cloaking systems. (Star Trek Generations) In fact, according to Gorta, finding one of these vessels with a working cloaking device was rather unique in 2370. (TNG: "Firstborn")

Not recalling the reference from that episode, I checked the transcript and confirmed that the D12-class was not referenced anywhere in the episode. The article, however, references Gorta, who only appeared in "Firstborn"--so it can't just be a misplaced reference. Since transcripts are known to be somewhat unreliable, I figured I'd check first before removing the reference from the article. -Mdettweiler 01:33, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Watch the episode before removing it. Transcripts are as unreliable as the scripts. -- sulfur 01:39, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I figured something like that might be the case, hence why I posted here about it in case someone else had seen it recently and could answer definitively. I checked the episode just now, and it seems in this case the transcript was right: I watched the entire scene with Gorta in it and the word "D12" was never spoken. Thus, it would seem safe to remove the line--I'll do so as soon as I've posted this. -Mdettweiler 04:55, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Request for citations

I do remember that the info in the "Miscellaneous" subsection (which was added before the obsession over citing sources began) is mostly from the DVDs; all but the last two notes are from there. --Defiant 10:54, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Movie posters

There is a bit in the misc section talking about the movie posters from the 5 movies that the Bird-of-Prey has appeared in reading as follows:

• Of the five Star Trek movies in which Klingon Birds-of-Prey appear, the ship features on the theatrical posters for Star Treks III, IV and VI while excluded from (or possibly cloaked in) the posters for Star Trek V and Star Trek Generations.

My big question here is why do we say "or possibly cloaked in"? That's pure speculation and silliness. It's been removed twice in the last 24 hours, once by an anon, and once by me, and re-added both times. It's a line that is not funny and is actually a bit stupid. -- sulfur 14:06, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

...in your opinion. Thank you for raising this point here, rather than continuing to involve yourself in the edit war, sulfur (though it's technically what you should have done, originally). As much as it's speculative to state outright that the Bird-of-Prey isn't cloaked in those pictures, it's just as speculative to say that it simply "does not appear" in them. Neither is wrong, since we don't know, either way! In fact, this is actually based on something from an official source I faintly recall once reading (I think it may have been a text commentary, though it was a long time ago, accounting for the lack of vividness of the memory), so it does have a precedent. What is humorous/funny is completely subjective, as you should know. This doesn't hurt anyone, is actually one of my favorite parts of the entire site and is really in line with the guideline of making articles an entertaining read. If we were to remove this, based on the opinion of it being "a bit stupid," we'd also have to remove the likes of the long, rambling sentence that begins the Worf article. Not only because it's also "a bit stupid," but also on the grounds that we're meant to avoid long, rambling sentences. --Defiant 14:21, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

If there is a comment on this from Trek staff in a commentary or otherwise, then it could be noted on those grounds in that context. Otherwise, it should be removed.--31dot 15:02, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll have a look for such a comment. Since it is apparently the consensus that the note should be removed, I'll accept that. Thanks for your input, 31dot. :) --Defiant 15:18, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy to revise the text if there is a citation for this reference. I would also like to note that a) it wasn't an edit war as yet, and b) it would've been strongly helped by an edit summary from Defiant's reversions. That's what the edit summary field is all about. When I saw your reversion of what appeared to be an intelligent edit from the anon, I questioned whether it was even intentional or not, and since it seemed to be a good edit, I made the change (in a similar manner) to what the anon had done (although with a grammar fix). -- sulfur 17:14, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not actually a grammar "fix", as such. I've changed it back to the way it should be, correcting the error in tense. The posters currently exist, so a comment about them should technically be in the present tense (such as "the poster features mice" as opposed to "the poster featured mice," the latter influencing the reader to then ponder "what happened to the poster such that it no longer features mice?"). It's acceptable to say something like "the poster was created by Gene Roddenberry," using the past tense for something that happened in the past, but it's illogical to use the past tense for something that's still true of the present (unless in cases where both tenses are used). --Defiant 17:27, September 19, 2011 (UTC)