Talk:Raygun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tesla

• There is no mention of Tesla with his "death beam" Kmill 02:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Attended to by Anthony Appleyard 19:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The hyperboloid of engineer Garin

The following sentence removed since I cant get what does it mean: Its name seems to have been re-interpreted as Greek for "resembling something which throws/fires above".--Nixer 15:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fictional or not? Please pick one!

"All or most rayguns are fictional" sounds nonsense. Continued with "as far as now known". As far as known by who? If "it is known that bear is a mammal", you don't say "bear is mammal as far as known", right? Or is the sentence trying to say "as far as Wikipedians know"?

• Could someone correct the sentence to state: "All rayguns are fictional" or "Most of rayguns are fictional"? If one of the claims is true, the another one simply can't. Hiilidioksidi 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• I don't know what is happening in all the world's secret energy weapon labs. Thre are some recent real weapons which may be classed as rayguns, but usually are not. As I put in the article:-

See directed-energy weapon for various real weapons which are more or less like rayguns.

Anthony Appleyard 22:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• • In other words all the known rayguns are fictional - besides the fact that there are guns which "some people categorize as rayguns, but which although are not usually classified like that. Hiilidioksidi 22:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• What was wrong with my edit Anthony? --24.57.157.81 22:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• My four directly-typed See ... lines are clearer and more informative than the short unspecific result of the "Otheruses4" template. What is this phobia against directly-typed "See ..." lines? Also, with modern real energy weapon developments, saying "There is no real raygun" is getting like a matter of definition what is a raygun and what is not. Anthony Appleyard 06:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I know, that's why I figured just have this page about fictional rayguns. The whole article is already all about fictional ones anyway. Your links were good, I just thought it would be more hierarchial with just a link to directed-energy weapons, then readers can go from there. 24.57.157.81 09:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The Air Force's Airborne Laser will be the first high power laser weapon system deployed. This has the power output and range reminisent of the 1953 version of War of the Worlds. See Air Force link below. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.172.42 (talk) 08:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation for Capacity of handheld devices

thumb|Supercapacitors chart It is unlikely that any current "rayguns" can compete with existing firearms. It may be possible to carry a raygun which could kill, but it would be too bulky and cumbersome to be considered for use by the military, unless it was mounted on a vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.146.20 (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

****, this article needs a complete rewrite

now where's that template? Blueaster 01:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Military ray-gun

Can anyone give any more information on the US Military's new ray gun for crowd control? The CNN article is very brief. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amphion (talk • contribs) 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

• It is the Active Denial System, which is already on Wikipedia. Anthony Appleyard 07:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete the whole article, geez...

What a horrible article about such a wonderful subject —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vstarre (talk • contribs) 21:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

• True!--Blacklemon67 (talk) 21:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed.--99.224.26.113 (talk) 01:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have to agree, too. I am amazed as how such an article can appear in an something that strifes to be a serious encyclopedia. This is a list of quite meaningless detail on a subject that should be listed as a science fiction or movie cliche, but not as a subject of its own. Nothing here indicates anything but superficial research. There is no indication why a "raygun" is so interesting to write about or why it makes good movie prop. (You may remember that the light sabres in "Spaceballs" look particularly like a dildo.) It is as worthy a subject as a "List of Sandwiches Eaten by Homer Simpson." So, the article just reflects the rather limited interest of one quite small group of readers and does not reflect a general need of information. To sum it up: Grow up, people, and find a life (... but do not write Wikipedia articles about it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramander (talk • contribs) 13:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Laser gun as Gaming Hardware

what about the input devices using laser to point? they've been called laser guns too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.72.81.214 (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Raygun" term and overall layout

The name of the article, "Raygun", while a nod to classic sci-fi, seems both dated and a poor descriptive term. As the article itself notes, the ray terminology is more common before the invention of the laser. And rays and beams (connotation of continuous energy stream) don't really capture the many sci-fi weapons with individual bolts or pulses of whatever energy they fire.

It seems a more technical name, Fictional_Energy_Weapons or Directed-energy_Weapons_(fictional), more broadly describes the subject material. Or merge parts of it under Science_fiction_weapon. In fact, the sci-fi weapon article has links for articles on the weapons of various sci-fi settings.

The long list of weapons and descriptions seems pointless, as they all seem to be covered in their own articles. A smaller list, perhaps of the "influential" (either through being well known or the direct inspirations for more popular sci-fi) weapons in sci-fi history would be better use of suce a list. Possibly as its own separate article, eg Science_fiction_weapon_history (or evolution?).

The types section perhaps should make a distinction between "soft" and "hard" sci-fi (and the spectrum between) types, and more distinctly have categories (such as continuous beam types, "bolt" types, laser-like, rapid pulse types - as sort of meta-categories, not an attempt to somehow relate various different settins technologies).

Not sure there needs to be a real rayguns section, since its all covered under the Direct-energy weapons article (and if not, then why not?)

Joiry 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of the list of fictional rayguns?

• I have restored the bulk deletion that User:Eyrian did on Raygun, cutting it back to a stub. Please discuss before such a big deletion. The material in that list is needed to give an impression to the readers of what fictional rayguns are about, and it has stood there since September 2005 without anyone querying it. It may be cruft to someone who is not a science fiction fan, but it is relevant information to science fiction fans. Anthony Appleyard 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• I have again reverted the big deletion. Please discuss this, instead of saying "It is trivia" without waiting to discuss it. Anthony Appleyard 22:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss it sans trivia as well as with. I refuse to be a party to consensus by timeout, which is what has happened previously. The problem is that that was just a massive list of OR instances of rayguns, basically any fictional gun that shot a beam, without any necessary connection to the concept or analytical depth. That's simply inappropriate for Wikipedia. You will note that several users above share this opinion. --Eyrian 23:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• It may be trivia to some readers who have less interest in science fiction, but it is important information to many. This table of fictional rayguns seems to me to be a good way to give an impression of what fictional rayguns are about. Please discuss it here and let others' opinions be heard, and leave the text in so participants in this discussiopn can see it and decide about it. Anthony Appleyard 23:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• We can discuss it sans trivia as well as with.: that is pre-judging that the table text is trivia, before the discussion starts. Anthony Appleyard 23:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And the opposite is pre-judging against. It's just a list of items, of which precious few are necessarily rayguns, just beam weapons. This is utterly unacceptable and original research. You will note that several other users agree that the list needs eliminating. It doesn't deserve to stay. The historical and analytical parts do. --Eyrian 23:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• several other users: How many users? Which users? Anthony Appleyard 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Joiry calls it "pointless", User:Vstarre said the entire article should be deleted (including this list of junk), and User:Blueaster advised a complete rewrite. --Eyrian 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

DANGER OF 3RR

Anthony, you are in danger of 3RR. Jddphd 23:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian - it doesn't look like you are helping the situation.

Can you both perhaps try to reach a consensus.Jddphd 23:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I was pushed over by the reversion of my other useful (and undisputed) changes. Anthony's blind reverts were unacceptable. I can try and reach consensus, but previous attempts have failed. I refuse to allow this to devolve into consensus by timeout, a la thermal lance. --Eyrian 23:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Look, I'm just third man in trying on WP:3O for size here. You can try WP:RFC for help if you want. Or I am happy to try to informally mediate. Jddphd 23:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mediation will not work. From my previous dealings, I know that Anthony covets these lists. I consider them trivia, well heaped with original research, that must be excised (and Wikipedia policy is quite clear on the matter). I'm afraid that, if there is going to be consensus, the two of us are going to be on opposite sides of it. --Eyrian 23:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I have the 3RR on record, let Anthony speak for himself on the matter. If there's no way to get to two of you to sort it out, then we can request other voices. Jddphd 23:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted the edits-BOTH OF THEM VIOLATED THE 3RR.--Xterra1 01:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR isn't a club to beat people, it's an indication of shady behavior. Otherwise, I would've blocked Anthony the second he violated it. The consensus on the talk page seemed to me to indicate that this list wasn't worthwhile, and that's been my observation of general Wikipedia consensus on AfD. Reverting against consensus, as Anthony did, cannot be permitted. --Eyrian 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's lookin' at you,Eyrian! You both violated the 3RR.--Xterra1 15:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of good faith content (dab page). --Eyrian 15:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, Xterra1. Here for information is a timeline of this revert war in Raygun, with counts:

• X1: 01:41, 26 July 2007 User:Xterra1 (21,222 bytes) (Undid revision 147101926 by Eyrian (talk) Stupid-Also violated 3RR)
• E4: 23:13, 25 July 2007 User:Eyrian (5,232 bytes) (rv; you're reverting against consensus, the history remains public, and there were several other minor changes you aren't addressing. Try not to revert blindly.)
• A3: 23:06, 25 July 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard (21,222 bytes) (Rv so that participants in the discussion can see what the the discussion is about)
• E3: 23:03, 25 July 2007 User:Eyrian (5,232 bytes) (rv; we can discuss this version. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a trivia collection)
• A2: 22:51, 25 July 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard (21,222 bytes) (Rv again. Please discuss it in Talk:Raygun/Archive 1#Deletion of the list of fictional rayguns?)
• E2: 22:42, 25 July 2007 User:Eyrian (5,232 bytes) (rv; invalid reason. Trivia it remains, and as trivia it is purged)
• A1: 22:35, 25 July 2007 User:Anthony Appleyard (21,222 bytes) (Rv massive deletion. The affected matter has stood here for well over a year un-queried.)
• E1: 19:21, 25 July 2007 User:Eyrian (5,232 bytes) (remove trivial, move dab references)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• I made my revert A2 because Eyrian made his revert E2 before I could finish typing a start to a discussion about this. Anthony Appleyard 06:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Points for discussion

(See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Eyrian)

For section Thermal lance#Appearances in fiction, see:

• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance
• User talk:Eyrian/Archive 3#Uses of thermal lances in fiction
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance

There seem to be these topics here:

• #Is it trivia or cruft?
• #Is it referenced?
• #In the body of the article
• #Original research?

Is it trivia or cruft?

• Trivialness and cruftyness and WP:NN-ness are often relative. If User:X has less interest than others in topic Y, then he is likely to treat detail related to Y as trivia or cruft. e.g. to me football is boring, and most football matter is footballcruft; but I do not go about deleting bulks of matter out of football-related articles, because that I know that such matter is important to people to follow football. This difference of view has happened with Pokémon-related articles: some call it Pokécruft, some treat it as notable. A few years ago there was a notability / speedy-delete controversy followed by a long discussion, about articles about schools; I was not part of that matter. Likewise with matter about fictional weapons in science fiction. This tabulated list about rayguns seems to me to be as good a way as any to give a general view of how science-fiction treats the idea of hand-held energy weapons. (I do not "covet" these lists: I merely consider them to be relevant, and I am not a fan of "best essay style" for its own sake.) Anthony Appleyard 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• Two other current cases of controversy between "this is listcruft" and "this is useful information" are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deaths in Harry Potter and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deaths in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Anthony Appleyard 11:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it referenced?

• Surely, a statement that item X (a raygun or a thermal lance or whatever) occurs in movie or book or videogame Z, is its own reference?: to check truth of the statement, read the book, or watch the movie, or play the videogame (or read the introduction that comes with the game), or talk to someone who has, as User:ArnoldReinhold ("agr") says in Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Thermal lance#Sources. Anthony Appleyard 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't suffice to reference its importance. The question here is relevance. What make these things relevant? It's important to have secondary source to reference that importance. --Eyrian 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is relevant to any people studying science fiction who want a general picture of rayguns including plenty of examples. Anthony Appleyard 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • You've conflated personal relevance with article relevance. All sorts of things can be personally relevant (i.e. useful, which has nothing to do with encyclopedic), without being relevant to the subject. This article needs to be an encyclopedic discussion, with secondary-source analysis of how Rayguns have been portrayed in fiction. A trivia list doesn't help that. --Eyrian 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Here I preferred to list the fictional uses of rayguns plain as they are and let each reader analyse them for himself. Anthony Appleyard 08:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In the body of the article

• What is the "body of the article"? A Wikipedia article does not have a physically semi-separate appendix tacked on the end like a printed book. The term "not in the body of the article" seems to be usually applied to one of various sections merely because its section heading is "==Trivia==". Miscellanea sections DO arise in some articles, when having each topic in its own section would create too many very short sections; a habit of going around routinely deleting miscellanea sections often causes loss of relevant information. Anthony Appleyard 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The body of the article is the useful (though still, tragically, uncited) portions that remain in the good version. There is no relevant information here. --Eyrian 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • It is relevant to any people studying science fiction who want a general picture of rayguns including plenty of examples. Anthony Appleyard 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Same tired "But it's useful!" (WP:ATA) argument as above. See my reply there. --Eyrian 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• I think the list should be removed and simply point to the table form (e.g. "main article: Table of rayguns in fiction"). it is much cleaner to put such information in a table and cleaner for the article. Is there any reason for having both a list and a table? It is redundant, unless the list itself is more selective (e.g. rename heading to "List of Notable Rayguns", and then justifying why each element in the list is notable and discussing the clutural impact, etc. as suggested by other contributors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.121.51 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research?

• I gathered all or most of the raygun matter from other Wikipedia articles, not from outside. In it I do not (as far as I know) act on the line "I know A; I know B; therefore C can be proved", but I copied directly from the various other Wikipedia articles. To follow the references, follow the blue-links to the other Wikipedia articles pointed to. Raygun#Rayguns in fiction has also been edited by other people. Anthony Appleyard 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
• As regards thermic lances, all that matter about fictional uses was edited in by other people, not by me. Anthony Appleyard 05:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • People ape these lists because they see them already existing. When they're gone, the desire to add to them dries up considerably. Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. The "blue references" you indicate very rarely have any kind of raygun assertion, and if they do, it's rarely cited.--Eyrian 14:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • If Wikipedia cannot be used to refer to or as a source of information, what CAN it be used for? Anthony Appleyard 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Re complaining about lists accumulating, is Wikipedia short of storage space? Anthony Appleyard 14:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
      • It's not a matter of storage space, it's a matter of overwhelming readers with worthless, context-free data. --Eyrian 15:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Outside view

To be honest, the OR and RS problems are not major; only interpretation needs a source, or non-obvious instances. Saying "there is a raygun used in Episode 9 of Futurama" does not need a source; it's a simply, uncontroversial statement of fact. However, it's still trivia -- and the guideline in question is WP:TRIVIA. The key here is that the material should be integrated into the body of the article -- i.e. write an article about it; not a list and not a table. A list of examples is not encyclopedic -- there is no context for discussion, or interpretation. A list, or table, of examples can, and could, be replaced by "rayguns have appeared in many different media"; the two add the same merit to the article. What should be written is a section explaining why certain examples are important, or how they add to the understanding of rayguns, and their role in culture. Don't just list them -- write an article using them; for instance, if you wanted to emphasize that they have been widely used, mention a few examples across different media. If you want to explain that they play a certain role, cite a source, and use an example to illustrate the point. A table is not the way to go here. --Haemo 07:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• As regards "list or table or text?", text is not always the best. For example, in histories I have seen cases where a clear history timeline in list form has been edited into a long meandering "best essay style" with all the artifices of elegant variation and "varying the expression" etc, making it difficult to search through the text for any one desired bit of information. Anthony Appleyard 08:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And Haemo's first paragraph brings us back to "What is the body of the article?": see above. Currently the table is one section among various sections in article Raygun, which seems to me to be quite like being part of the body of the article. Anthony Appleyard 08:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• This isn't a matter of text vs. list, it's a matter of cited analysis versus worthless trivia. The list is the latter. If you pulled out the bullet points, it'd still be trivia. These indiscriminate lists simply don't belong. It needs to be erased, and replaced with actual research regarding cultural appearances. --Eyrian 14:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• This comes back to whether it is trivia or not: often one man's trivia is another man's important information, as described at #Is it trivia or cruft?. It is relevant to any people studying science fiction who want a general picture of rayguns including plenty of examples.Anthony Appleyard 14:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• A list of loosely connected mentions with no context is pretty much the definition of trivia. Trivia is facts which may, by themselves, be interesting to certain people but provide no meaningful understanding of the topic. This fits that to a tee. Seriously, if you want to write about "rayguns in fiction" then write about rayguns in fiction, don't just make a great big-honking table or list of them. Explain to the reader why these examples are important, and give some context. If you can't, delete them. --Haemo 21:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Event on 26 July 2007

• At 15:01, 26 July 2007 User:Eyrian split off the paragraph with the table in, into a new page called Rayguns in fiction, which he put in AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayguns in fiction. Anthony Appleyard 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed, the list was too long, and overshadowed the rest of the article. Now it can be considered on its own merits. Even if it's not deleted, it should be in a separate article. --Eyrian 15:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD now closed

I have closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rayguns in fiction and redirected the article here. Note that I realized after the fact that the nomination was a bit pointy and I now realize that this is really an editorial dispute. It should be treated accordingly which, I suppose, is what this closure does. Pascal.Tesson 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whole article about that

Did you see the thing at the top of the article that says: This article is about fictional devices. See Directed-energy weapon for various real weapons which are similar to rayguns. That's where the "whole article about that" is. Totnesmartin 23:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Huh?

"The shapes of some rayguns are influenced by an opinion that they look most effective and weapon-like if they look somewhat like real guns; others, such as this, are not."

Sorry, what is all that about? It and the picture barely seems relevant to the article... am I missing someting?JackorKnave (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lieutenant Marseilles, your holodeck is ready

While I'm by no means the world's biggest fan of Captain Proton (I'd just as soon beam him into the 7th Dimension), I do recall a mention of a different weapon than the standard blaster, referred to as a "comatizer" (presumably from its ability lethal to induce coma). I suspect this is what's known as a blaster. Can somebody who has a better idea how "ST:V"'s writers think check & add? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 04:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

• Hi. I attempted to rewrite the article based on a reliable academic sources in order to better structure the content, trim redundancies and remove unsourced content, in accordance with WP:V. This rewrite was nearly instantly reverted. I'd like to invite a discussion of the merits of the respective versions.  Sandstein  11:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• The source info for each sort of fictional raygun is the fiction story that it occurs in. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, what I had in mind when I talked about "unsourced" was the long and disjointed "types" section, which I have replaced with sourced prose. With respect to the list, do you really propose carrying what seems to be a list of every raygun in every fictional work ever? Ther strikes me as indiscriminate. But if you want, we can spin this off into a List of rayguns or something. In its prior state, it just about overwhelmed the article. What do you think?  Sandstein  13:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Some readers do not need information pre-digested, they can read lists directly, and to me a direct list gives the best impression of the great variety of energy weapons that fiction writers have used in their stories. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• OK, would you then be amenable to restoring my rewrite if we maintain the list currently entitled "Some fictional makes of raygun", either in the article or as a standalone list?  Sandstein  14:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Sure, but that's like having an article on the Democratic Party just be a list of Democratic politicians over history, and saying it gives the reader an impression of the variety of Democratic Party politicians. The idea of the raygun has a history and historical context to it, it would be better to incorporate the information that way. For instance, the article doesn't even mention Buck Rogers, which helped popularize ray guns and led to toy models being marketed, but has a lot of odd references to games like Crash Bandicoot and Super Smash Bros. A lot of games and movies today have ray guns, we get it. Modern derivatives like pulse cannons and phasers are in some ways technically the same thing, but are kind of an evolution of the original idea, something already noted, but its something that needs to be expanded; its almost like a footnote in the article. Brianshapiro (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have now merged your rewrite into the article as it now stands. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I still think this misses a chance to make this article more concise and tightly written. I'll tag some stuff that I think is still questionable.  Sandstein  15:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the "Macross scenario" picture. Gatling gunpods are not rayguns. 98.141.76.219 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
• In Transformers a gun that shape is used as Jetfire's raygun, and described on his toy box as a laser gun.

Ok...

There's already handheld laser cutters i.e. a laser the cuts metal for only a couple hundred bucks. So I'm sure some company that's decided to go for the raygun gimmick. In fact I Googled it up and this is what I found. http://www.engadget.com/2005/11/03/handheld-laser-gun-available-for-purchase/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.4.228 (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Lightsaber

• The lightsaber should be removed from the article as it is no kind of gun. Who came up with the stupid idea of putting it into the list anyway? --217.83.122.5 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
• A lightsaber to me looks a lot like a limited-range raygun. The "blade" does not exist when the weapon is switched off. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
• Is a Star Wars lightsaber a raygun? User:H. 217.83 wrote in an edit comment "A sabre is NOT a gun."; that is true for a real-world saber with a steel blade. But the "blade" of a lightsaber does not exist when the weapon is switched off, and it looks to me more like a limited-reach raygun whose ray also acts as a "barrier beam". Similar to: a javelin is a sort of spear, but page Javelin (disambiguation) lists various things called "javelin" which are not spears. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but I disagree. A gun is a projectile-firing weapon (this is taken from the article’s first sentence), a sabre is not (whether its blade can be switched on and off or not). --217/83 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This is not the Star Wars article, so story exclusive weapons that are controversial should not be placed here to prevent extensive discussion of the in-universe(non-real world) mechanism of it. A sabre is not a gun, its function is to slice and stab, and not shoot. The "light" coming out of the light saber(spelling per original) did not project out to damage the enemy, just like you would not call a blow torch a Raygun, even it does project a very short distance with a very limited reach. Per the javelin disamb page grounds, this page's title is Raygun, and not Raysabre, thus light sabre should not be place here using the same reasoning. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 02:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• Uhh: the query may be: how short-range can an energy gun's beam become before the gun becomes not a gun but a (UK usage) blowtorch or similar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony Appleyard (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Short enough so that you have to make it continuously project projectiles and swing it to hope to get a hit as its main function. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 01:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
    • If I don't see a reply with enough reasoning to counter my point and I don't see a reliable source stating a light saber is a gun in 5 days after my above reply, I will be bold and remove light saber from this article per WP:OR and WP:RS. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 14:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but add the lightsaber to the related articles of See Also, since the technology and types of weapons are related and it would be good for the See Also articles along with Energy Swords if that is even an article. 2600:1700:BCE0:A230:3D9E:B307:38EA:4B7C (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Images

• I'm just noting that the CGI images are not high quality and they look rather ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.252.128 (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Well, find a real working hand-held (or arm-held) raygun and photograph it being used. :-) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

the images aren't of terribly low quality but they do still seem to follow a central theme as said in the first comment on this. It needs examples of different representations of rayguns. Appleyard's argument can be ignored as there are numerous other articles of fictional things but still manage to have images with some diversity. The entire article is a mess overall, and the list of rayguns needs to be put in another article. The article itself is a mess and may need to be entirely rewritten.TheClippingCow (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Futurism should be put in historical context, plus examples should be put in detailed history

The idea of rayguns came about at the time when the idea of radiation was new; cathode ray tubes were invented in the 1870s, the X-ray was discovered in 1895, and Becquerel ray in 1896. By 1898 when H.G. Wells wrote about a "Heat-Ray", radium had just been discovered, and x-rays and ultraviolet rays started being used for therapies. Cathode ray tubes were also sometimes referred to as "cathode ray guns" or "electron guns". The idea of "heat rays" in fact was pretty common in the 19th century; it was believed at the sun had three different rays -- light rays, heat rays, and actinic rays. This is the cultural background that would have led Wells to postulate the creation of a "heat ray". Some historical context should be noted for the creation of the idea of the "raygun".

Also, I think other commenters here are right that most of the article is a list of trivia. References to science fiction uses should fit into some longer "history" section, which discusses the evolution of the concept and ray gun designs, from the 19th century to the Buck Rogers era, to modern laser and phase weapons.

I'll find some sources to cite and try to do an overhaul of the page soon. Brianshapiro (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• Trivialness is relative. Often one man's trivia is another man's important relevant matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that the article contains far too many uncited trivial appearances which should be removed per WP:V and WP:IINFO. The use of this prop is so widespread that it should not merely be listed indiscriminately, but notable uses should be explained in the context of prose.  Sandstein  22:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Anthony, anyone is able to find plenty of uses of ray guns in fiction by searching Wikipedia; the search will return a results of all articles containing "ray gun", after all. The question I think is how we should best organize the article. The history section should be much bigger than it is, and I think most references would be able to fit in there anyway, so if we get that done, a list will just end up being redundant.

  I'm going to work on the history. If anyone wants, I could put the edits up in a candidate article instead of the live article, but I think what I have in mind won't be very controversial. Brianshapiro (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• ...able to find plenty of uses...: i.e. by each reader having to repeat the long work that I had to do: call search for several terms used to mean rayguns, weed through the search results, read through each article to sort out the raygun matter from the rest, and make a list. I did the job once and made a list and saved many readers from having to repeat this work. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Belgriffinite, 9 September 2011

In the Call of Duty section where it lists the maps featuring the raygun, it only lists Kino Der Toten, Five, Ascension, and Call of the Dead, however it is also featured in Shangi-La and Moon as well.

Belgriffinite (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done ^Jguy_Talk^Done 21:44, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2015

Can the website "Ispy Rayuns" be included on the external links. For more fictional, but enjoyable, advice on RayGuns, visit http://ma1243.wix.com/ispy-rayguns Littleredlight (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: These do not appear to be very reliable sources. Cannolis (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Rayguns in Call of Duty

Please change the claim that the Raygun can be obtained in Call of Duty World at War "through an easter egg." Just because something is hidden does not mean it's an easter egg. Fucking kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.156.136.229 (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is an easter egg. Fucking old people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sellsomepapers (talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Rayguns in Call of Duty

Its not a easter egg Like not like in the way of the Radios in Call Of Duty Zombies or The lore easter eggs ITS A FUCKING GUN ITS SAIDS IT IN THE NAME! Jesus wikipedia people dont know fucking Call of Duty zombies exist damn.

Suggest deleting list

I tried to make the list a little easier to follow by separating it into categories: written SF, film and movies, and games.

Still, I think that this list really isn't very useful. Ray guns are so common in science fiction that there hundreds of examples not listed, far more than the ones that actually made it on the list. My suggestion would be to pick a few of these that have some historical value of illustrate some point, and expand those, but not keep the simple list of names of works.Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It would be near impossible for the list to be comprehensive. If there are "rayguns" which have their own article - then (possibly) list them as noticeable, but dump the rest.GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with a great deal of dumping. Instead of the list being a whole lot of fanboy OR, each entry should have its writing reversed, bullet list each example of "Raygun" that has its own article, then its description, i.e. a WP:NAVLIST. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Went ahead and cleaned up the list(s) - besides the WP:FANCRUFT, turned out to be allot of redundancy.Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

ENOUGH ALREADY!

This is one of the most objective articles in the world right now on fiction I have seen as a Storyteller in my life. From scientists lying about asteroid fields unlike our solar system being impossible, to ignoring the fact lightsabers and blasters are plasmas or particle beams, to saying the Death STAR needs six weeks of solar energy and is therefore impossible and unrealistic despite unlimited access to artificial gravity and fusion in a moon sized metal ball!!!

Now who is the idiot who wrote that visible wounds are not seen in Star Wars? They never watched the movies! They even bleed in the same ones! In Star Trek, the level of Phaser wounds depends. Often budget concerns stopped them. But the most of the later series, if you were not disintegrated, there were wounds referenced often in all series needing treated and visible plasma burns have been shown a ton!

Someone cut this out and stay the course. We don't need more people pretending dual wield is impractical because modern gun culture doesn't like it...Because the movies do it simply, no physics ban there.2600:1700:BCE0:A230:3D9E:B307:38EA:4B7C (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018

The Yamato (Space battleship Yamato 2199) has 5 triple-mount shock cannons that thrust the energy generated by the wave motion engine in a small, concentrated blue energy beam. Garmillas warships are armed with positron beam turrets which shoot a red energy beam. UNCF (United Nations Cosmo Force) ships are armed with dual or triple-mount high-pressure laser turrets. The high-pressure laser turrets shoot a compressed, concentrated green energy beam that destroy targets with sheer pressure, earning it's name. These high-pressure lasers prove to be ineffective against the migobeza armor coating of Garmillas warships, as seen in the Yamato 2199 episode, "Messager of Iscandar". 1.53.241.12 (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 10:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)