Past and special-purpose discussions related to this article can be found on the following subpages:
Help icon

Memory Alpha talk pages are for improving the article only.
For general discussion on this subject, visit the forums at The Trek BBS.

FA status Edit

FA nomination (17 Jan - 01 Feb 2006, Success) Edit

I nominated, then pulled this nomination before on the suggestion that it go through peer-review. The participation there was low but I've done significant work on the article since then. For something that is mentioned or shown in practically every episode of every series I think this is about as complete as it can be. I've tried to organize it better, added quite bit of inormation to all the sections and some pics. I think it's pretty well written and reads well now, is thorough, and aside from my most recent changes for better organizaiton I think it's stable. For a vital piece of Trek I think we should give consideration to this nomination. Logan 5 15:47, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. I haven't gotten a chance to go through the nitty gritty stuff on the article yet (looks good), but I have noticed MA has a low participation rate on a lot of stuff, at least relative to its user population. --Broik 05:27, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Well, personally I think this is sad. It's a good article that at least deserves votes/attention. But frankly I think that it's too long for most users to read through. Which brings me back to my objection to some other FA nominations like Noah and Grathon Tolar. People read and vote on those because they are so short but won't read and vote on this because it is more involved. I just don't see who FAs can represent the best work of Memory Alpha when some articles that require the most work don't get read, and ones that require relatively little work get so much support. Sad. Logan 5 17:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Incredibly detailed and informative. Me like. --From Andoria with Love 00:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support. The first picture on the page doesn't cite what episode it came from. If it can be cited or replaced, I support. If not, it may be a copyvio, in which case I can definatly not support this nomination. Jaz 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Replaced with image of a Galaxy class transporter room properly credited to Art of Star Trek. Logan 5 19:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Amazingly informative, amazingly detailed, and definetly worthy of FA status. --Starchild |<Talk> 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The new pic if from inside the Art of Star Trek, so I don't think it is fiar use. I am going to have to oppose until the image issues are resolved. Jaz 01:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Say what? First, if this is the case then the Galaxy-class page is in copy vio and needs to have it's FA status stripped. Second, if it's not usable then why hasn't it been deleted? Third, if you want to be such a stickler about such a minor detail and an easily corrected one, why not just correct it instead of opposing the nomination and standing in the way? I'm just going to remove the picture entirely, but going from conditional to oppose on that basis seems like an exercise in contrary-ism. Logan 5 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Solved, replaced with cited screenshots. -- Q 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Detailed, informative and worked on by lots of archivist. It think atleast 95 percent of what we know about the transporter is there. -- Q 21:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yeah, plenty of information, and the transporter accident section is very informative. Its length is only to encompass the huge amount of information on this device. Good going, to anyone who helped out updating it! Zsingaya Talk 16:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Very informative is an understatement.  :) --Galaxy001 03:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Featured. It's been over 2 weeks now with no objections. --From Andoria with Love 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

FA removal (15 May - 27 Aug 2011, Success)Edit

This article has POV problems, is incomplete, and IMO is structured poorly. - Archduk3 19:38, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. Should be removed for the POV problems alone, but I agree with all his reasoning.--31dot 19:46, May 15, 2011 (UTC)

Since I completely forgot about this, and didn't add the notice to the page apparently, let's reset the clock for fairness. - Archduk3 17:39, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

  • Support for the reasons above. --| TrekFan Open a channel 21:39, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - lots of citation problems as well.–Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 23:23, August 19, 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - also, Template:ArticleOfTheWeek/15 needs to be replaced with other content in case of removal. -- Cid Highwind 23:30, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

Peer review Edit

I put this article up for FA status but a few users thought it was good, but could be better, and suggested a peer review. So here we are.

Some things that have been mentioned are better organization, a few missing references (the personal site-to-site transporter that Tom Paris used, possibly the proto-type personal transporter from Nemesis), and other things.

Personally I think the article might do well with a better breakout of types of transporter technology (Federation vs. Romulan vs. Dominion vs. Borg). It could also do with perhaps a few more pictures, a little more on the technology (confinement beam, etc) and related technology (transport enhancers, inhibitors). And also the non-standard uses such as Scotty did in Relics, and how Voyager hid the telepaths in that one episode.

What else? Logan 5 16:37, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I usually do with pages like this is go through the What links here page, to see what references we've missed out. Is there a mention of the transporter aliens that Barclay could see in whateverepisodeitwas? Also, each transporter accident could be described. Perhaps I'll do that bit... Zsingaya Talk 08:41, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC) I did some, and I'll come back later on today and finish them off. :-) This is going to be a BFP, lol (sorry, I just watched Doom at the cinema.) Zsingaya Talk 09:17, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)
My immediate opinion is that there needs to be some major restructuring in the Article... I would suggest first moving the history section further down in the article. Start with a description of basic concepts of transporters and include the limitations section (which should be shortened a bit to be more concise.) Then include the history section which too could be more concise. Then the accidents section needs rework. Instead of a new subject heading for each of the accidents I would group them by type. For example "Rocks embedded in skin" and "Accidental deaths" both describe malfunctions that rematerialized individuals with foreign matter. "Split one entity into good and evil entities," "Split one entity into two identical entities," and "Two entities merged into one" all describe the merging or splitting of individuals during rematerialization. Overall the article has a great base to build upon, however, it is lacking in flow and structure.--Jlandeen 05:17, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Would-be STXI Use Edit

  • Early drafts of Star Trek showed that, in an emergency, it was possible to beam a child out of a womb, but at the cost of the mother's life (young Kirk would've been born this way) - according to a DVD commentary, though Abrams regarded this as a "really cool" idea, it was dropped because the production staff didn't want to introduce the transporter so early in the film, and felt that the traumatic scene needed the "victory" of Winona Kirk's survival.

I'd like to add this to the article, but I'm not exactly sure where to place it - any suggestions?--Ten-pint 21:51, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

A new subsection to the background section. --Pseudohuman 00:50, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - wasn't sure between that or bginfo box under uses, so I figured I'd put it here and let the site decide. --Ten-pint 07:10, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Note also that this same procedure was used without any incident (and treated as quite safe for all involved) in VOY: "Deadlock" to deliver Naomi Wildman. (Granted, she *did* die shortly afterwards, but that wasn't because of the transporter; that was due to her incubator shutting down due to loss of power to sickbay. Her duplicated counterpart in that same episode experienced no such incubator failure, and both mother and child survived just fine.) Granted, that was a hundred years later and transporter technology had advanced somewhat, but it's probably best that they dropped the scene so as to not introduce another tricky wrinkle in the fabric of continuity. :-) -Mdettweiler 18:18, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Beam me up Scotty Edit

In at least two TAS episodes "Beam us upp Scotty" is heard. Swedish Doctor 23:53, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

TOS Digital effects? Edit

At 7.1.3 Special effects, the transporter effect is referred to as a digital composition. Digital? In 1964? --GNDN 21:38, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

I also found this at least questionable when I read it (upon adding some more info to that section). --Defiant 01:14, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't seem supported by the citation offered. Feel free to replace it with the proper terminology; I'm afraid I don't know much about special effects myself. –Cleanse ( talk | contribs ) 04:57, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
It actually isn't cited, Cleanse; I added the citation for the next sentence after that one. --Defiant 08:34, August 12, 2011 (UTC)
Changed and removed. --Defiant 08:41, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring this page Edit

Please see Cid's comment at Talk:Transporter platform- but in short, there may be a need to restructure and perhaps split up this page(and other pages).--31dot 17:53, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. "operations" and "special operations" segments could be moved to a "Transporter operations" article and "Transporter accidents" could be a page of its own. Maybe even "Transporter limitations". Much of the technical info could be relocated to the transporter pad article that concern the systems that are used in the pads. Warp drive article seems to be a good model, it only has short general description, all the related links, and text about the development history. Everything else has a page of its own. --Pseudohuman 18:03, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
But if we erase the transporter page, some people might think it's a bit odd, since the transporter is such a cultural icon. Are we considering making it a disambig or something? --Defiant 22:24, September 28, 2011 (UTC)
No no, I was not suggesting erasing the transporter page. Just that the transporter page would only contain similar info along the lines of what the warp drive page does now, and all the other stuff would be relocated that are cluttering the page at the moment. --Pseudohuman 09:03, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

This discussion died down three years ago, but I still suggest a split into a "Transporter"-page where history, types and limitations would stay and a "Transporter operations"-page where the operations, special operations and accidents segments would go to make this page an easier read and have a better structure to it. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:53, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

Support. - Archduk3 00:37, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. A "malfunctions" list of all the times when tech went wrong. --LauraCC (talk) 15:15, May 2, 2015 (UTC)
Also, I think there should be a differentiation between the actual technology and the actual science behind the technology, which the intro basically lumps into one.
Specifically, the term "molecular transport" (not to be confused with "molecular transporter") reared its ugly head in "The Masterpiece Society" ("We have no idea how molecular transport will affect her DNA."/"It won't affect her DNA at all.") and "The Host" ("I'm not the first to express discomfort at the idea of molecular transport. I prefer to remain intact.").
I'm sure other various concepts of the term were discussed too ("molecular transposition"?) without saying it, per se, but this new article might also help accommodate the sections here on "transporter accidents", among others. --Alan del Beccio (talk) 18:44, July 6, 2017 (UTC)
"Transporter accident" could be categorized as an event and one more for my proposed "Causes of death" category. --LauraCC (talk) 17:57, July 7, 2017 (UTC)
Support a split as stated above. --| TrekFan Open a channel 02:33, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Site-to-Site TransportEdit

I think an additional system component needs to be listed, the site-to-site transporter.

VOY episode "Concerning Flight" suggests that a site-to-site transport utilizes a separate system from the main transporter. Janeway refers to a device stolen from Voyager as a site-to-site transporter and is able to successfully transport without the device being attached to the rest of Voyager's systems suggesting it works independently. 20:49, October 4, 2011 (UTC)


Removed the "aka materializer" bit. As far as I can tell, this came from only one episode, "Where No Man Has Gone Before", where Scotty in the transporter room says "Materializer ready, sir" before beaming in the Valiant log buoy. That is however a bit unclear, is materializer a synonym for transporter, or is materializer a synonym for transporter pad, the console, or a subsystem within the transporter system that materializes stuff. I dont know. The fact that Kirk calls the transporter a transporter in the episode later on seems to suggest that it is not a synonym at least. But still seems to be a bit unclear. --Pseudohuman (talk) 09:43, December 2, 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It's mentioned in the Sets & props section of the episode article. -- Compvox (talk) 10:12, December 2, 2014 (UTC)
Replaced "Milamber3" with my current handle "Compvox". -- Compvox (talk) 11:53, December 6, 2014 (UTC)
The Materializer redirect page will have to be taken care of too then. -- Capricorn (talk) 18:11, December 2, 2014 (UTC)
I corrected it. -- Compvox (talk) 02:37, December 8, 2014 (UTC)
Since the isssue is that the materializer might be a distinct component, doing a redirect isn't the right way to deal with it. Either it's a synonym for transporter and shoudn't have been removed, or it's something else and deserves an article. So I've turned the page in an article instead. --- Capricorn (talk) 07:16, December 26, 2014 (UTC)

Transporter does not use subspace Edit

The normal transporter does not use subspace, according to TNG Bloodlines (via -

LAFORGE: We think we've found something, Captain.

DATA: Bok was in direct contact with this chair for an extended period. It is showing a distinctive subspace signature as a result.

LAFORGE: We think he's using some sort of subspace transporter to beam aboard the Enterprise.

PICARD: My understanding is that such devices were impractical.

DATA: The Federation abandoned its research in the field because the technology was found to be unreliable, as well as energy intensive.

LAFORGE: In order to transport matter through subspace, you have to put it into a state of quantum flux. It's very unstable.

Finding from here:

Also note that the TNG Technical Manual does not mention the method of transmission (no reference to subspace): The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

You're missing the direct reference from TNG: "The Best of Both Worlds, Part II", where Data notes that the Borg collective consciousness operates "across a subspace domain similar to that of a transporter beam". So, there is an element of subspace involved. -- Michael Warren | Talk 11:39, September 27, 2015 (UTC)


That exact quote "across a subspace domain similar to that of a transporter beam" doesn't explicitly suggest that the transporter uses subspace technology, only that the transporter beam operates in a way similar to the Borg collective consciousness, which operates in a subspace domain. This is also at odds with Subspace transporter.

"Federation transporters could be modified to transport via subspace (although this was not advisable) by aligning the field coils and synchronizing the phase dampers, after which the transport pattern was modulated. The transport sequence itself was longer than normal because the pattern needed to be shunted through the subspace field coils. There was no guarantee that the person in question could be beamed back. Geordi La Forge and Data used this technique to beam Jean-Luc Picard to the ship of DaiMon Bok."

Why would there be a subspace transporter if the regular transporter also uses subspace? It's an exaggeration to say the transporter is a "subspace device," especially give that the technical manual makes no mention of subspace in its operation, and that in numerous occasions, transporter beams interacting with subspace cause all sorts of accidents (as evidenced by the quote above, for example.) At best, this entry should reflect that it's unclear what type of space the transporter operates within, as there's no direct confirmation. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Why would there be space ships if the area regular ships travel through is also technically in space? Presumably the subspace transporter is named that way because it critically relies on some clever use on subspace, whereas regular transporters also use subspace somewhere, but not as its central operating principle. A practical solution satisfying both bits of dialog may be that transporter beams use subspace, but not for transporting matter (i.e. maybe for metadata or some kind of effect without which the beam would disintegrate or something)
More relevant as to what to do with this discussion: sometimes one bit of information just plain contradicts another, and our policy directs us to do our utmost best to include both bits of information rather then picking and choosing what info to discard. Which I think is exactly how it has been handled here. -- Capricorn (talk) 03:11, September 29, 2015 (UTC)

Removed note Edit

I've removed the following note: "*According to Pony R. Horton (VFX artist on the web-based fan-created series Star Trek: Phase II), Hugh Wade – a VFX artist who worked on TOS at Van der Veer Photo Effects during the 1960s – once informed Horton that the most used sparkle elements were created using Alka-Seltzer in hot water, lit from beneath." The deletion of this note was because it has been on the page but uncited for a very long time, and seems to contradict what other sources state. --Defiant (talk) 11:43, July 9, 2017 (UTC)


I think teleporter should be its' own page, since a transporter is really just one specific type of teleporter, just like an Iconian gateway.

I'm not saying we should mention the Iconian gateway in the article, since to my knowledge it was never referred to as a teleporter, but that is what it was, and in any case it could still work just fine as its' own page.

--Noah Tall (talk) 18:22, May 19, 2018 (UTC)

We do treat Teleportation as its own thing, and I think it deals with the issues you raise very well, but since the term "teleporter" was only ever used by an ignoramus describing a transporter, I think redirecting that exact term here is the right course of action. Maybe it would be helpful to have a disambiguation pointing people to teleportation for people comming in through teleporter. Wikipedia has a "x redirects here so you might be looking for something else" notice which would be perfect for this, but I guess we don't have a template like that here. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:07, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
Who was the "ignoramus"?--Memphis77 (talk) 13:28, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
I believe it was Henry Starling. 31dot (talk) 13:53, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
Starling, yes. -- Capricorn (talk) 13:54, May 22, 2018 (UTC)
Twice. --LauraCC (talk) 17:26, May 23, 2018 (UTC)