Talk:set phasers to

RFV discussion: February 2016
I've only ever heard "set phasers to stun". Definition looks wrong. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Can also be "set phasers to kill". Definition makes no sense.  "Alternative form" is just a possible but so far uncited misspelling.  Would suggest splitting into two entries, one for "stun" and one for "kill".  Meaning may be a bit harder to establish.  First thought is, prepare to astonish (someone) or (usually metaphorically) use non-lethal force for "stun", and prepare to destroy or use maximum force for "kill".  P Aculeius (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Just fix the definition. It’s an unusual construction so I was not sure how to define it, but it’s clearly used., -- Romanophile  ♞ (contributions) 19:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Romanophile - When one excludes the Star Trek books, what is left is a wide range of values, such as [| Set phasers to spoof], [| set phasers to none], [| set phasers to bless], [| set phasers to BURN SHIT DOWN]. I will take a crack at redoing the definition. Kiwima (talk) 21:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree it now looks fine. I'll set phasers to strike. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)