Too specific to warrant its own article?[]
I'm not too certain of my own opinion on this, but I could not help but question nonetheless. Does anyone think that perhaps this article is too specific to warrant its own article? "Anti-personnel" is just like an adjective to describe the intended function of a particular laser cannon emplacement right? Sources occasionally specify if a particular vehicle's laser cannons are designed to be used on infantry, but this is only if that vehicle is large enough to necessitate the distinction (as its other weapons may be designed for devotion to targeting tanks and bunkers instead). Technically, when sources do not specify that the laser cannon is intended for "anti-personnel" use, it is simply because it is not necessary because the function is obvious, such as in the case of say, the AT-RT. Then again, perhaps I am making presumptions that are not obvious, as I said initially, I am not certain of my opinion. However, I generally believe that when a source specifies that a laser cannon is an "anti-personnel laser cannon" it is only describing its intended function (for instance on the clone turbo tank where its other weapons may be designed against non-infantry targets) and not a difference in the design. In other words, I think that the anti-personnel laser cannon and the "regular" laser cannon are the same weapon and that "anti-personnel" is merely an adjective in the same way that hypothetically, the "blue" in "blue lightsaber" is an adjective. Or perhaps a better example is "heavy laser cannon" or "light blaster cannons." We don't have articles on those do we? (Or perhaps we should? as we do have an article on heavy blaster pistol). Anyways I'm curious what others' opinions on this are. Sol Pacificus (talk) 05:05, October 30, 2013 (UTC)