Talk: DC-15A blaster carbine

Correction Needed

I believe there are inaccuracies in the current DC15-A canon article that require revision. It seems the Legends article on this weapon is correct, but the canon one is not.

Could you specify the issues you've identified? Overlordjeff ( talk ) 11:33, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
The canon article incorrectly depicts the DC15-S instead of the DC15-A. The DC15-A is a larger rifle, whereas the DC15-S is the smaller model. While the Legends article appears to be entirely correct, the canon article contains errors. This is a concern for me... 13:00, April 13, 2016 (UTC) In the official canon, it was designated as the DC-15A. The S designation was only used in Legends material.--Tuskin38 (talk) 01:58, July 3, 2017 (UTC)

Boba Fett used the term DC-15A in "Death Trap", which was likely a mistake. We are certain its true designation is DC-15S blaster carbine, so I am adamant that we maintain this, regardless of Disney's stance.

No, since then, a greater number of sources have referred to it as the A, so A it is. Also, please remember to sign your comments -- Tuskin38 ( talk ) 01:06, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

Media Listings

The "Appearances" and "Sources" sections currently list Canon media, rather than Legends ones. --Rakhsh (talk) 18:31, February 11, 2020 (UTC)

The talk page is incorrectly assigned; it belongs to the canon page. Furthermore, the canon page is inexplicably labeled as Legends.--Tuskin38 (talk) 18:34, February 11, 2020 (UTC)

Official Canon DC-15S Designation

Two official canon sources, specifically Tyrants of Lothal and Helmet Collection 22, explicitly name this blaster as the "DC-15S." Given that the Legends version of the article's topic shares this designation, it's reasonable to infer that neither instance was a simple error. Therefore, should "DC-15S" be included as an alternative name for the blaster within the article's introductory section or summary? Doing so would not contradict official canon and would be in line with established wiki conventions. --Eddiebox28 (talk) 18:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it warrants inclusion within the article. UberSoldat93 ( talk ) 18:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Excellent, I will proceed with the addition. --Eddiebox28 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2021 (UTC)