Talk:List of weapons in Star Trek/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial unsorted discussion

"Transphasic Chroniton Torpedoes" sounds like pure fanon to me and shouldn't be here unless someone can quote an episode.

What the heck is the source for all this and is it a direct plagiarism? (Asking, not accusing.)

This page seems totally out of place in an encylopaedia - it is not anything real! A page about a television programme is acceptable, as the programme is, itself, real, but a page explaining how a non-existent weapon doesn't work seems pretty silly - there's text to this extent at Physics and Star Trek Tompagenet 00:50 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

---

Is this page a joke? It looks like nearly the Platonic Type of a parody of treknobabble. I tend to agree that this page needs to be removed. It has nothing whatsoever to do with reality -- something which should be the actual focus of an encyclopaedia. What's the process for requesting a page be deleted? --Michael 01:14 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

This is absolutely laughable. No wonder academics do not take Wikpedia seriously. This is classic fanboy technobabble if ever there was such a thing. If this list is legitimate, so is List of weapons in James Bond movies, but it isn't. I'm embarrased to even be looking at this. Thomasendw (talk) 12:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.164.24 (talk)

---

Unless this is plagiarised, it should stay. It's a valid article on a science-fiction universe; there are articles on the characters, vessels, and locations of the Star Trek universe. An article on Star Trek's weaponry is just as significant. -- goatasaur

I agree, there are other articles like Mineral (StarCraft) that haven't been commented on, yet they seem to remain. Sci Fi are valid articles. Poor Yorick

Then at the very least the wording should be changed to reflect that this is 100% fiction. The way it is worded at present could, at a simple glance-over, fool a casual reader into thinking this is intended to be serious discussion and make the Wikipedia lose a lot of credibility.

As to why Mineral (StarCraft) hasn't been commented on by me, at any rate, it's simply because I didn't stumble across it before. (Note: My opinion has changed -- checked the postscriptum below.)

I'm going to try my hand at making this article less laughable. (Even correcting basic grammar errors would help somewhat.) --Michael 01:47 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

P.S. I just checked out the Mineral (StarCraft) article and it is not even remotely similar to the nature of this laughable screed of treknobabble. The Mineral (StarCraft) article reports on something that is real (albeit in software): an element of a game that has noticable, real-world effects when the game is played. For that article to be comparable to this one there would have to be reams and reams and reams of data about its precise chemical structures, socio-economic impact of its use, etc.

I agree, fictional weaponry seem to remain on Wikipedia; Lightsaber, phaser, The Force to name a few. The article, as is, needs work to reach encyclopediac material, but it shouldn't be deleted. Poor Yorick 02:10 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm a Star Trek fan, and I can attest that most of this is speculation and made up stuff, not coming from Star Trek at all. This should be burnt and rewritten totally. The sections should specify in what episodes we saw something first, what we know about it for certain, when we saw it do new things, etc, and anomalies, rather than this. Morwen 11:48, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

==I messed up the klingon meelee weapons article so can somone fix it back up, please, im sry i didnt mean to do that. User:JBloves2rock2626 08:05, 12 FEB 2010 (UTC)

Why are they called photon torpedoes?

If they operate by detonating antimatter with matter, why is it that they are named photon torpedoes?

Because they radiate light.

True, due to the torpedo using photons as an energy source. ----Guest

No. The power source is antimatter. However matter-antimatter annihilation will always release large amounts of energy in the form of photons. CrispMuncher (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

TR-116

---

Source: http://www.phasers.net/2370/tr-116.htm

What about the TR-116 projectile rifle designed by Starfleet that appeared on DS9? That counts as a weapon for the "Weapons of Star Trek" page.

--Blue387 21:57, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The TR-116 is mentioned in this article, but the details are almost completely wrong. It's not a gauss rifle, it didn't fire 'duritanium' projectiles, and as a chemically-propelled weapon I doubt it accelerated its bullets to 'a good fraction of sublight speed' either. Someone more eloquent than myself should ammend it!81.179.100.38 (talk) 23:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Star Trek: Nemesis

Could somebody please include something about the weapon used in Star Trek: Nemesis? // Liftarn

You mean the Subspace weapons? --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool Cat, Subspace weapons were used in Insurrection, not in Nemesis. Thalaron Radiation is used as a weapon.--98.17.210.14 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was called a Thaleron (sp?) weapon, wasn't it? 194.128.66.118 16:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Phase pistols

I had always assumed "phase pistols"/"phase weapons" to be the same thing as "phasers", but just an older name for them - that is to say, that the phase weapon became known by the less cumbersome name of "phaser" by the time of the Star Trek original series. By this stage, naturally, it would have been developed and become more advanced; compare a matchlock gun to a modern handgun or the like.

Not so. There is an episode of the Next Generation where Worf comments that there were no phasers in the 22nd century. This would mean that phase weapons are not phasers. They may be precursors based on similar technology though, like comparing a flintlock to a machine gun. But wait, don't they use phasers on the show, "Enterprise", which is set in the 22nd century?

No, they're said 'phase pistols'. 82.31.7.129 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The difference between a phaser and a phase weapon is that phasers have multiple settings while phase weapons have only two settings; stun and kill.--98.17.210.14 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Klingon weapons

This article is missing out on klingon melee weapons - in particular the bat'leth and the dk'tahg.

Treknobabble

Ok, it is treknobabble, but i find the disclaimer completelly unnecessary. Since its the "fiction universe" of Star Trek, and not "our universe", its obvious that these devices are works of fiction. I dont see a disclaimer in Hamlet telling that "ghosts do not exist and therefore Hamlet's father is complete Shakespearebabble". And yes, I am a trekkie :-p

Well, I'm not a trekkie, and I also think the disclaimer is silly. The intro should probably be expanded and clarified, but it's not like we have any other disclaimers for other imagined science. Besides, skimming through the article, I can tell nobody would mistake this for reality. All of the references to the future, Starfleet Command, and the big "Weapons of Star Trek" title kind of give it away.-LtNOWIS 03:09, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

You'd be surised how ignorant people can get. But any truly sentient being should relise anythig seen on Star Trek as fiction. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

When Star Trek was made in the 1960s there were a number of clues that this was fiction, and not real life:

• The ship's crew included women.
• Captain Kirk carried a hand-held "communicator".
• The weapons carried by the crew had a stun setting.

But now, there are real warships with female crewmen, teenagers have communicators they call mobile phones, and the police carry energy weapons with a stun setting that they call Tasers.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Should this page have pictures? --Blue387 20:13, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I may assist with that. however how should that be done? Phasers of TOS and TNG are quite deferent. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, phasers have improved a lot since TOS. 23rd century phases were shaped like today's guns, more like pistols with the Type-II. Hand phasers in the 24th, however, are shaped to fit the hand, therefore, allowing the person to aim down the arm instead of aiming down the middle of the phaser.--98.17.210.14 (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So'na weaponry

Does anyone have info on the subspace weapons used in the Briar Patch by the So'na? They also would seem to be able to tear a hole in subspace. (ref to Tri-Cobalt Torpedo)

I think you've stated there pretty much all we were told about them. It's worth noting that Voyager's tri-cobalts made a subspace tear accidentally due to using four of them at high setting simultaneously, wheras the So'na weaponry was specifically designed to have this effect (hence being banned under the Khitomer Accords). --Mnem e son 01:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. Guys pay attention! It was an Isolytic Burst that did it, not Tri-Cobalt. Dialouge clearly states that in Insurrection.--98.17.210.14 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Begin rewrite..

Okay. Hopefully sometime today/tommorow i am going to begin rewriting this article, now i do not wish to build upon what is here as to be frank it needs a hell of alot of work doing, i plan on blanking the page and building it up with fresh, cited content, would anyone like to help (-:? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yummy

I have to say while it is still pretty small the article is growing to be much better then before.. things are cited, tidy and factual. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 21:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Photonic" torpedos?

There's nothing in that cite that indicates such a thing even exists. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 09:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The cite identifies the episode in which they are introduced. The Enterprise series does call them "photonic torpedoes". They appear to be intended to be the same as the "photon torpedoes" on the earlier series. (Enterprise is a prequel, so it often shows the new introduction of technologies taken as standard in the earlier series. Presumably, one is to assume that the name got abbreviated in the years between Enterprise and the original Star Trek series.)--Srleffler 06:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The Klingons possessed photon torpedoes at that time; we should not be speculating as to if they are the same. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 08:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Considering that the Enterprise characters also refer to what appear to be phasers as "phase pistols", I think we can safely infer that "photonic torpedoes" are the same as "photon torpedoes". -- Tuvok^^{Talk|Desk|Contribs}  01:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No, we cannot infer anything - it is called original research and speculation - Enterprise clearly makes differentiation between Photons and Photonics. Addendum: The non-canon Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual states that Starfleet began developing Photon torpedoes around 2215, - Enterprise is set in 2152-2155. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 01:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

We need to be careful of relying on the Next Generation technical manual for details regarding Enterprise: it was after all written before Enterprise was even conceived. I'm reminded of the section detailed all previous Enterprise starships: it omitted the NX-01. CrispMuncher (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC).

Biological agents and Thalaron Radiation

I've removed this text:

The biological agents themselves are made up of billions of organisms which feed upon all other biological matter. It has the same effect on animals, plants and humans rapidly feeding upon all living things they fall upon.

since it's in a section about Thalaron radiation, which is EM and not a biological weapon. This seems like it was just made-up (which I realize is kind of funny to say). x 21:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this. It is not EM which is electromagnetic, it doesn't affect any systems at all. It is a biological weapon meant for complete and total destruction. It actually makes sense that organisms are used but since this is radiation, it does sound a bit fraud. Radiation is when molecules break down from decay so it can't be organisms.--98.17.210.14 (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Corbomite

Opinions on including corbomite? x 21:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OMG, Corbomite is fictional in Star Trek! The episode "The Corbomite Maneuver" clearly states that it doesn't exist!--98.17.210.14 (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Removing tribbles

It's certainly not canonical that tribbles are weapons, except incidentally - in one episode some were beamed aboard a Klingon ship, but that doesn't make "weapon" an accurate description of tribbles in general. Also, at least some of the text I just deleted was pretty clearly a description of Gremlins-type mogwai, and a joke. 216.75.189.154 20:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Good call. I didn't even notice that they were in there, but tribbles are definitely not weapons. Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

TR-116 - important weapon

this rifle deserves a place in the article.

in the star trek universe it is unique.

unlike most of the other weapons in this story line, it's operation is based on currently understood laws of physics in the real world. furthermore, it is applied to situations where proposed physics render proposed technology ineffective. in other words, it is the old undermining the new.

another notable point is a modification to the weapon which makes it a profound weapon of murder for a deranged Vulcan in an episode of DS9 ("Field of Fire"). A small transporter is attached to the end of the barrel and it's controls are tapped into the rifle's headset scope, which can see through just about anything. a bullet fired from the weapon would reach the end of the barrel and then instantly appear at the target point, still moving at initial velocity. Thus one may fire from point A to point B regardless of any conceivable obstacle between points A and B, which B will most certainly regret.

personally, i find it interesting that this weapon is not used at any other time, except that it was a useful plot device in that particular episode which developed Dax as a character.

someone posted a message about this weapon before, with a nice link. the page does contain useful information about the rifle, and interesting information regarding it's potential, including things that may be able to block the modified rifle.

it would be best to find an official site or cite the original DS9 episode in the article.

dadederakh

"Biological" weapons

As far as I can tell, none of the weapons currently listed in the section called "biological weapons" are actually biological weapons under the ordinary definition. They all seem to be high-yield explosives, radiological weapons, chemicals, and so on - non-biological weapons of mass destruction. Several entries use the term "biogenic weapons," which as far as I can tell is a Star Trek coined term. Should this section be renamed, and/or the entries moved to other more appropriate sections? What about listings for the actual biological weapons in the Star Trek universe, of which I know there are at least a few? (e.g. the "harvesters" from Armageddon Game) 69.63.60.165 21:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Images

I could scan in images from "The Star Trek Encyclopedia", if it could be appropriately justified; would it be considered a positive contribution to the page? Let me know on my talk page.LeeRamsey (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:D'k tahg.jpg

Image:D'k tahg.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Photon torpedo conversion to megatons

In the description of photon torpedoes I have read the following;

"According to the TNG Technical Manual, photon torpedoes use 1.5kg of matter and 1.5kg of antimatter. The resulting energy output would be 2.7x1017Joules of energy (by the well-known formula E=mc2). This amount of energy release would be equivalent to about a 64.44 megaton nuclear explosion."

I was also reading trough the Antimatter weapon page on wikipedia and found that one kilogram of matter vs antimatter produces 180 petajoules (10¹⁷ joules) and is rougly equivalent to a 20 megaton thermonuclear explosion. The photon torpedo has 1.5 kilograms, and produces 270 petajoules; this is correct, since 180+90=270 (1kg+0.5kg=1.5kg). So, the power of the photon torpedo explosion should be lower than 64.44mt. The problem could be that about half of an antimatter explosion's power is released as EM and neutrinos, and neutrinos do not react with anything thus provide no heat and don't contribute to the real power of the explosion. If we divide by 2 the photon torpedo megaton output we would get 32.22mt; 1kg has rougly 20mt, so 1.5 would rougly have 30 (32,22 in this case). I'm not sure how the photon torpedo's energy was calculated, but it might be interesting to consider this regarding the above quoted; the "real" power of the explosion would be about 135 petajoules (1.35x10¹⁷) and the megaton range would be around 30. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberflaven (talk • contribs) 11:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Should list of weapons or other equipment be allowed in the wikipedia at all?

Is this and other weapons list valid for wikipedia? Should all weapons list be saved for any notable series, or is there something that makes this one better, while other series should be erased? I'm curious since the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gantz_equipment is nominated for deletion, despite basically being the same thing is this one. I'm curious what everyone thinks. And this is valid to the content of this article, since it determines whether it should exist at all or not. Dream Focus (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not a regular editor here (first visit actually) but it seems to me that technology and terminology used in Star Trek is often copied to the real world, even as a scientific goal, so I would vote in favor of retaining the list should it ever come to that, and I am aware of the consensus request. 5Q5 (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The deletionists seldom try to destroy any page with an active number of editors, and a significant number of people viewing the page each month. They know that their efforts will be thwarted. When I posted my question, I was just trying to figure out why some articles got deleted, and others did not, despite being the same thing, and that's basically why. Whatever they can get away with. Anything on Star Trek that exists in the real world, is based on real world theories usually. The only exception I can think of, is the guy who invented an ion drive for space vehicles claiming he dot the idea from a Star Trek episode. Dream Focus 20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Phaser

Was this portion of the article ever its own article?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Omega molecules

I've just made some minor copyedits to this section but does it really belong here at all? We only have one episode of Voyager for reference and it that Omega is referenced as a power source. As I remember, for all its destructive potential, there was never any proposal that the molecule be weaponised. Having it listed here is akin to saying a nuclear power station is a weapon because it might explode, even though that is not the intention of the facility. CrispMuncher (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC).

Just about anything in any movie featuring the word Omega when talking about equipment will state that it is most likely a weapon. I don't know about Star Trek's Omega though as I have never seen the VOY episode so I'm going to have to take your word for it.--98.17.210.14 (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sound of Photon Torpedoes

Here is an excerpt from an interview that offers an explanation. 5Q5 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1