Moved from "talk:Phaser type-12"Edit

This page seems inaccurate.. of the three films cited, i don't believe any of them mentions that the phasers of the Sovereign-class ship are any particular type or specification. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I did my best to try to fix this, I hope I did the right thing. Please leave a message on my talk page if I am wrong. The King of Kings' Soldier 02:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Mike this would appear to be the downside of using the Star Trek: Starship Spotter for ship specifications, which is where these phaser types presumably originated from. --Alan del Beccio 02:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a new name like Phasers (TNG movies). The Last Satanist 02:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? it's still not canon, nor does it follow our naming conventions. --Alan del Beccio 02:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd say leave the title how it is, and add a comment that the name is derived from semi-canon sources. The Last Satanist 02:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It would be more appropriate, according to our policy, to delete it. We've deleted numerous other articles based on Starship Spotter and Star Charts -- those books aren't part of the "official" Star Trek universe; they aren't considered canon like films and episodes. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Is there an actual difference in the look of the phaser? If so, it deserves its own article. The Last Satanist 02:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
No it shouldnt and please stop this dual indentity puppeteering you are committing. It is quite obvious you are also User:The Last Christian. --Alan del Beccio 02:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • How could he be logged on two files at once, I'm curious, and sice I am updating this while th Last Satanist is blocked, how could he be me?

The King of Kings' Soldier 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, physically, the phasers "look" similar or identical to the phasers of the Enterprise-D and other ships of similar makes -- so who are we to say they are different designs? -- furthermore, those phasers look similar to the Phaser type-9 of the Ambassador class. So, even though non-canon sources say the Ambassador, Galaxy and Sovereign have three different types of phasers, that all look to be about the same shape/specification, are any of these designations official? No, all we know for sure, canonically, is that they are all phaser arrays -- this is the proper description for all phasers of this shape and appearance. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 02:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
It's easy... -- 02:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
To log on... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
As different identities. --
But any user who chooses to have more than one logged in name may find one of those names banned. This is a flagrant violation of MA policy, and is quite annoying. I don't have any concern with characters like Christ or Satan anyway, so who cares who is who. If there is some reason you come in a pair, speak up, otherwise it may require a ban -- as copying someone's name for trolling purposes, or doing it yourself are both contraindicated by our common policies. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am so very confused over this situation, it makes no sense. If these articles are non-canon, shouldn't they be in a brief background section of the Phaser article. And what exactly is a 'Dual-identity puppeteering' anyways, don't use any big words, I am only in the eighth grade.The King of Kings' Soldier 03:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
i just wanted to add something i think many people are not aware of, i cannot remember where i read it, but i believe the difference between a "phaser BANK and a phaser ARRAY, is purely a detail that the BANKs are sets of emitters, each assigned to a specific strip or strips. arrays, are the strips themselves. i once again say i am not sure where i got this from, but it sure makes sense to me. and also, phasers look the same, no matter what type they are. just like a set design of car look similar to one that is only a few years down the line from it's following model. sorry if i upset anyone for this, just thought i'd add what i rmember. thanks. btw, my names dave, and i've been a fan of trek since i was a kid. wish i was scotty! lol. ttfn. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Moved from VfdEdit

Phaser types Edit

Phaser type-12, Phaser type-10, Phaser type-9, Phaser type-5
  • Non-canon, they come from Star Trek: Starship Spotter, and although I am not completely opposed to have the information from the ST:SS on the starship class pages (as long as the source is clearly noted) I dont think it should be linked internally, OR if so, they should be redirected to phaser or phaser emitter. --Alan del Beccio 03:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • deletion: types 9-12 would be classified as "phaser arrays" i believe, but Alan is correct -- if it wasn't mentioned on screen, there's no need to create a separate article. I still think that the Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual originated reference phaser type-10 may be found in an onscreen mention, because Okuda and Sternbach named the type-X arrays on the 1701-D -- so there is probably a computer display readout or some other piece of canonical set information about this -- the rest however, were devised by non-canon book writers after Sternbach and Okuda finished contributing regularly to technical illustrations, and shouldn't be taken as valid based on the books alone. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Normally I would be inclined to reccomend deletion, but since the names are very commonly used in fan-cirlces and on the web, I think we should make them redirects. Jaz *** 05:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as background on phaser and redirect ~Starchild |<Talk> 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
    • In light of Mike's comments, perhaps we should redirect them to phaser array, which more specifically descibes or corresponds to what these phaser types supposedly represent. --Alan del Beccio 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Redirected to phaser array. --From Andoria with Love 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


According to Worf, after surveying the Enterprise's tactical systems in TNG: "Conundrum", the ship was "equipped with ten phaser banks, 250 photon torpedoes, and a high-capacity shield grid." Quite clearly our distinction between phaser banks and phaser arrays needs to be reevaluated, meaning this article is inaccurate. This contradicts what Mike mentions above. --Alan del Beccio 03:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy-class starships such as the USS Enterprise-D were equipped with twelve Type-X phaser arrays, two on the saucer, nine on the drive section, including two on the neck, four on the stern, one on each pylon, one on the belly, and one hidden (stardrive phaser array in front of the battle bridge).

As a result, I have removed the above (uncited) text, which is contradicted by dialog. -Alan del Beccio 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the standard Galaxy has 11 arrays, and the contradiction can be explained by Worf not including the hidden stardrive array as it would normally not be used. Blackstar 18:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
If you count the phaser strips on the hull, there are 11 of them with the cobra head phaser being the 12th. I've always undestood the 10 banks statement as meaning that the four tiny aft arrays arranged closely together constitute two banks of two stips each, but thats just speculation. --Pseudohuman 19:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

A mile of granite in 10 seconds Edit

On Legacy, E-D blasts Turkana-IV with 3 million gigajoules. Just wondering if its ever been stated anywhere what the actual output of a phaser is?

I remember Garak saying Defiant can turn a planet into a "smoking cinder" and a small fleet of Romulan and Cardassian ships can destroy a planet in 12 hours. The only actual numbers I remember hearing were on Silent Enemy when Malcom says phase cannons can put out 5 hundred gigajoules even though Trip says it'd take a thousand Enterprises to destroy a planet... 22:54, February 27, 2016 (UTC)