Talk:Raygun

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)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2020
i want to add call of duty zombies raygun in the rayguns in games section 007 bonder 18:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Listed guns need to be notable enough to have their own article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:04, 15 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this criteria doesn't really make sense, because having "their own article" here is depending on the popularity of the franchise and not the connection to the topic. For example citing the Ghostbusters proton pack as an example of a proton raygun is unhelpful, when the shown effect isn't a ray, but rather a kind of magical lasso. Or citing the BFG from Doom, when it is not a raygun at all, because it fires no ray but a huge slow energy ball. Wesp5 16:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Since the lead def is "releases energy, usually with destructive effect" then proton pack and BFG fit the def. These things are fictional constructs so there is no hard and fast def. We can't add every gun anyone saw or read about because that would be WP:OR. That leaves us with notable ones, proof of that would be having its own article... things in Wikipedia are, by definition, notable. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020
Games - call of duty zombies from black ops 1 through Cold War 2607:FEA8:139F:ECD0:4C93:F5DF:27E3:E502 (talk) 12:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Only guns notable enough to have their own article(s) should be given as listed examples. --Paul &#10092;talk&#10093; 12:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Why, Paul? If you search "Ray Gun" it has its own wiki article which comes up as the first option. By far the most recognisable and widely-known version, it seems illogical to have that rule when you're ignoring it's most notable example Antpoolio (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request
While watching Forbidden Planet just the other day, I heard Leslie Nielsen's character call his raygun weapon a "blaster". Out of curiosity, I was looking on Wikipedia to see what the earliest mention of "blaster" for a raygun type sci-fi weapon was mentioned and I see here on Wikipedia that it is attributed to Star Wars and that it came around in the "'60's to '70's". Certainly the SW franchise has all but made "blaster" associated with it, I do not dispute that, however, I believe in the interest of providing the full history of "blaster" used for a raygun type weapon, that Forbidden Planet should be mentioned. Perhaps there are older sources, but FP definitely came out before SW and before the "'60's to '70's" when the article says "blaster" came into use for a raygun type weapon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.44.67.144 (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This got me curious, so I checked the SF Dictionary - https://sfdictionary.com/view/29/blaster - and in fact the term is documented back to 1925. I don't presently have the time to add more info on the matter, but I figured I'd leave a note here anyway. I like seeing the evolution of sci-fi slang. Tisnec (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Why was my addition of the “Ray Gun” removed for not being notable enough?
If there is any specific fictional weapon associated with the term “Ray Gun”, it is the Ray Gun from Call Of Duty. Look up the term raygun, and the first thing that comes up is the Call Of Duty wiki page for the Ray Gun. So how in the name of every god that has and eve will exist is it not notable to deserve a mention on this page? Thelastohioan (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add a hatnote the handle the incoming redirect

As you can see, ablators are called laser blasters [www.aliexpress.com/i/32957280348.html][

-- 65.92.247.17 (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ casualdejekyll  14:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Ultrasonic disintegrator?
disintegrator is directing here. We have also some red links for Ultrasonic disintegrator. Related concept? To be redirected here? Standalone article? Estopedist1 (talk) 14:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2024
Mr.Penis 93.63.177.182 (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Charliehdb (talk) 11:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)