 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Should this article be merged with Weapons of Star Wars? -- FirstPrinciples 11:28, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- This gun is really a carbine, isn't it? 00:01, 29 June 2005 User:71.34.218.110
- no its two small and portable. and it fires fast 17:45, 15 December 2005 User:168.9.19.101
- See also Talk:DC-15 blaster rifle.
- I restored this file because its replacement at Blaster (Star Wars)#E-11 blaster rifle is so short that this page was in effect deleted, not merged. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 12:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- And again. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with whoever did the original merger - most of the content was disregarded because it was in-universe crap of the sort that needs to be purged from our articles. Once this article has been edited to bare minimum standards, it's going to contain about three lines of content - the point of that having it's own article is? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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) 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Should this article be merged with Weapons of Star Wars? -- FirstPrinciples 11:28, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
- This gun is really a carbine, isn't it? 00:01, 29 June 2005 User:71.34.218.110
- no its two small and portable. and it fires fast 17:45, 15 December 2005 User:168.9.19.101
- See also Talk:DC-15 blaster rifle.
- I restored this file because its replacement at Blaster (Star Wars)#E-11 blaster rifle is so short that this page was in effect deleted, not merged. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 12:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- And again. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 07:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with whoever did the original merger - most of the content was disregarded because it was in-universe crap of the sort that needs to be purged from our articles. Once this article has been edited to bare minimum standards, it's going to contain about three lines of content - the point of that having it's own article is? -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 10:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- 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) 15:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)