Talk:Phaser type-10

First, I would suggest moving this info to type 1 phaser0, to conform with our naming standards (type 1 phaser, and type 2 phaser). Then, I would think all the references 86.132.240.158 is making to it should be cited. - AJHalliwell 11:01, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I already suggested this page and the existing redirect for deletion. If the article "survives", I agree with the page move, but let's wait for that first. Anyone, feel free to add valid references, if those exist. -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)