Wookieepedia:Comprehensive article nominations/DX-2 disruptor blaster pistol

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a Comprehensive article nomination that was withdrawn. Please do not modify it.

DX-2 disruptor blaster pistol

• Nominated by: Wok142 (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
• Nomination comments:
• Date Archived: 17:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• Final word count: 272 words (0 introduction, 168 body, 104 behind the scenes)
• Word count at nomination time: 153 words (0 introduction, 119 body, 34 behind the scenes)
• WookieeProject (optional): WP:Novels

(0 ECs/0 Users/0 Total)

(Votes required: 2 EC vote(s) required to reach minimum. Additional 3 user or 1 EC vote required to pass.)

Support

Object

Lew

• The BTS is missing the first appearance in Twilight Company. Lewisr (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Dang it, I initially had that and then removed it cause I wasn't sure. I've re-added it. Wok142 (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    • All good, thanks for adding Lewisr (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
• I think the body should really document more of the times Brand uses it, the weapon is referenced a number of times Lewisr (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Added some details, let me know if that is sufficient. Wok142 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I think it'd be worth also noting she appeared to sell it for a sizable price Lewisr (talk) 06:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Good idea. Added. Wok142 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Zed

• Since the page has a Legends equivalent, the BTS should also document its origin in that continuity. Zed42 ^(talk) 23:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Added! Wok142 (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
    • As the Legends DX-2 has a first appearance after its first mention, you'll need to document that as well. Zed42 ^(talk) 12:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Oops, should be fine now. Wok142 (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
        • One more thing on this, sorry :P but the first appearance should be Galaxies, Rise of Darth Vader was later and is only a mention. Zed42 ^(talk) 00:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
          • No worries :P thanks for your diligence. Wok142 (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
• There's a couple more details I can see in Twilight Company that could probably be mentioned, namely that the disruptor could be wielded in one hand and that Brand used it to enter the Thunderstrike.
• Twilight Company doesn't need a 1stID in the Appearances since it's the first appearance, although the shortened name can probably be listed as an alternate name in the body. Zed42 ^(talk) 00:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Wok142 (talk) 03:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Comet

• The information from the card is cited to the rebels episode instead.
• Assuming the legends page is correct, it looks like the first mention was actually The Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology. CometSmudge (talk) 05:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Good eyes, corrected both. Wok142 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• The infobox says 61st Mobile infantry, but the body says Twilight Company. It would probably be better if you were consistent in which name was used.
• I believe you need to mention both names in the body, even if one is just a shorter version of the other CometSmudge (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Changed everything to be 61st for consistency. Wok142 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

spookly

• Later that year, it first appeared in the canon novel Battlefront: Twilight Company by Alexander Freed.—I'm a bit confused; Twilight Company is a 2015 novel. The Twilight Company sentence should probably come first, with the Destiny card sentence being listed after and indicating it was its 1stp and 1stID but not its first appearance (because it currently states both are first appearances).
  • Cleaned this up. Wok142 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• Usually, when we present something first introduced in Legends, it'll need to lead in with "In the current Star Wars canon" or similar. But, sidenote that the same thing as was done in this is done here, so that'll need to be rearranged.
  • I think it's fine now. Wok142 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
• "Brand regrettably…"—should likely be rephrased, as it should ideally read as if she's the one who considered it regrettable, but at the moment can be interpreted as an editor thinking it to be regrettable (akin to the 'a character unfortunately was killed...) sort of thing we avoid.—spookywilloww^talk 05:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Good point, changed. Wok142 (talk) 16:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Comments