Talk:DC-15 blaster rifle

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Star Wars, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Star Wars saga on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Star WarsWikipedia:WikiProject Star WarsTemplate:WikiProject Star WarsStar Wars articles

WikiProject Star Wars To-do:

edit
history
watch
purge

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : Tag the talk pages of Star Wars-related articles with the {{WikiProject Star Wars}} banner. Update the classification of articles in Category:Unassessed Star Wars articles and Category:Unknown-importance Star Wars articles.
Citing sources : Jedi, Sith
Cleanup : Remove any In-universe information at Category:Star Wars articles that need to differentiate between fact and fiction.
Copyedit : Under Early Life. Fix grammar of "towns (plural) predominantly Protestant technical college" to "town's (possessive)..."
Stubs : Category:Star Wars stubs
Other : * See the things to do page
- Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability

Carbine or Pistol?

Quit reverting my edits of the DC-15s. It has been stated in Republic Commando that the DC-15s is a PISTOL, not a CARBINE.

Oops. Your IP was similar to some vandals so I reverted sight unseen. Now that I do a little research, you are perfectly right. :( Gomen. --Maru 23:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I have edited this so that there is a separate section talking about the controversy. Should I move all the clone weapons into Clone troopers? Or maybe Clonetrooper Weaponry? --65.101.108.247 01:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the clone weaponry into, you guessed it, Clone Weaponry. I am making this page a redirect to it. --65.101.108.247 01:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restored

See also Talk:E-11 blaster rifle.

I restored this file because its replacement at Blaster (Star Wars)#DC-15 is so short that this page was in effect deleted, not merged. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And again. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useful real world information was merged, cruft was discarded. The article is about a paragraph long, once the cruft is removed - what is there that you think needs to be merged? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether the in-universe matter is cruft or crap, or not. Often one man's cruft is another man's important matter. For example, I have no interest in football and to me most football matter is footballcruft, but I do not go around deleting it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]