Talk:Ablative generator

Confiscated by Temporal Investigations
Why is it presumed that the armor technology was confiscated by Temporal Investigations? This is pure speculation and not very logical in my opinion. Why would TI confiscate technology that doesn't affect their current time line? I think it is much more likely that Starfleet was not able to reverse engineer the armor technology prior to Nemesis. --Maxwell Fawkes 00:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the following stuff from the article:
 * "It could be speculated that the technology seen in "Endgame" is an outgrowth of the ablative armor used in the "current" timeline. Although not explicitly described on screen, it seems that the armor is deployed using a combination of replicator and transporter technology. The total volume of the deployed armor is substantial (not only does it cover the entire ship but its thickness is apparent as the plates materialize.) If the material is stored somewhere within the ship prior to deployment then the material would have to be compressible to minimize the storage space required. This would also mean that the density of the armor in its deployed form is comparatively low. It is unclear what happened to the ablative hull armor technology after Kathryn Janeway brought the armor back to the 24th century.  Presumably it was confiscated by Temporal Investigations, as it was not seen in use on the USS Enterprise'' (NCC-1701-E) a year later."
 * We had a similar list of speculations and nitpicks in the Transphasic torpedo article that was simply removed as unnecessary. Let fans speculate, but if no background source or valid reference material confirms any part of it, it doesn't belong in an MA article. --Pseudohuman 17:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Renaming page
I suggest to merge [ablative armor hull generator] with [ablative hull armor] under the name "Ablative Armor Generator (Technology)" since they both describe nearly th same thing. Or at least one of the articles should be a paragraph in the other one. --Maxwell Fawkes 13:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am against a merge as this is a separate thing from the generated hull. I do however suggest renaming this article, as the canon term used in the episode was "ablative generator" by the computer no less, not "ablative hull armor generator". --Pseudohuman 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am for renaming to "ablative generator". But I am still for the merge too. Ok, there are seperate articles for shields, shield generator, phaser, phaser array... So you are correct that the armor and the armor generator are different. But phasers and shields are big topics, every series has those and because of that we have a lot of information about them. The armor only appears in one episode. I just dont think this merits two articles, one for the armor and one for the generator. --Maxwell Fawkes 10:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the command was "deploy armor", responded to with "ablative generator is off-line," so the generator is only a part of the whole ("armor technology") and isn't what is directly protecting the ship ("the armor technology"). In fact, there is really no indication that it even has the same function as the ablative hull armor (aka ablative armor), which was meant to dissipate weapons' fire, but rather describe the removable ability of the hull armor. --Alan 12:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

"ablative hull armor (aka ablative armor)"? Now you mixed two different articles. The Ablative Generator (&rarr; Ablative armor hull generator) deploys the armor (&rarr; ablative hull armor), it has indeed nothing to do with the ablative armor of the 24th century (wich the Defiant and the Prometheus have). But I sill think the armor generator and its deployable armor (there two articles Ablative armor hull generator, ablative hull armor) should be merged either into "ablative generator" or "armor technology". At the very least, there wont be three articles with confusing names. --Maxwell Fawkes 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. As there is some sort of central ablative generator which is never seen but is mentioned, an array of external projectors that are only shown but not named and the armor itself which is only called the armor. We should have only one article about the one thing that is actually named canonically and specifically, namely the "ablative generator" and then mention all the other parts of this future tech there, instead of inventing names for things that are not canonically named. --Pseudohuman 15:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: "ablative hull armor (aka ablative armor)" The content is wrong, not my usage.. these articles should be under the same name, with the content with the one that matches this article merged with this. --Alan

Then I agree. I think the Prometheus' computer says "ablative hull armor" when it reads the specs. To be perfectly clear now: Merge the current articles ablative hull armor with ablative armor hull generator under the new name "ablative generator" or "armor technology", leave ablative armor untouched, possibly rename to "ablative hull armor", whichever is "more" canon. --Maxwell Fawkes 10:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)