Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:32, 19 January 2009

Star Trek Redirect‑class Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Star Trek, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to all Star Trek-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Star TrekWikipedia:WikiProject Star TrekTemplate:WikiProject Star TrekStar Trek Redirect This redirect does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages; 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)

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.

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 10:15, 18 April 2006 (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)

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 10:19, 18 April 2006 (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 09:59, 18 April 2006 (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)

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 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^  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)

Biological agents and Thalaron Radiation

I've removed this text:

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)

Corbomite

Opinions on including corbomite? x 21:46, 28 February 2007 (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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages 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 (10 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 (1.35x10) 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/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)

• Redirect-Class Star Trek pages
• Low-importance Star Trek articles
• WikiProject Star Trek articles