How far back in time can we go?

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

Firearms underwent a loooonngg phase of being big, unwieldy, and unreliable as man-portable weapons before they became more user-friendly. I noticed we have pages for the Jezail musket and wheellock/matchlock guns. Would even earlier "man-portable cannons" (AKA "handgonnes") be permissible for this wiki or not?

One such piece of media featuring these primitive firearms (aside from the infamous "bamboo and blackpowder cannon" from the original Star Trek series episode titled "Arena") is the video game War of the Roses, a third-person medieval combat game focussing on the titular conflict. You can watch a video of them in action.

The question is, if I were to make a page about this game, would the handgonnes (and similar "hand cannons") count? I'm sure there are plenty of historical dramas (most likely China-focussed) that might be included if the gates were opened on that.

We don't allow improvised firearms, so Kirk's cannon from "Arena" is out.

I think the earliest weapon we have is the matchlock musket, and I'm okay with that. As with flintlocks and wheellocks, since all we're doing is IDing the type, it's a bit pointless.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

We don't allow improvised firearms, so Kirk's cannon from "Arena" is out.

Didn't Mythbusters check that out once, concluding that it would have been better used as an oversized hand grenade (the "barrel" having too little strength to focus the explosion to propel a projectile effectively)?

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

I think the earliest weapon we have is the matchlock musket, and I'm okay with that. As with flintlocks and wheellocks, since all we're doing is IDing the type, it's a bit pointless.

But we still have those pages for these "old-school" firearms. If some of us could make "enough" (your call) pages featuring these old "Hand Cannons," would that merit inclusion on the wiki?

[commando552]

But we still have those pages for these "old-school" firearms. If some of us could make "enough" (your call) pages featuring these old "Hand Cannons," would that merit inclusion on the wiki?

Wheellock and matchlock weapons can be very easily be mistaken by the normal observer for a more modern flintlock or caplock weapon so it is worth listing them when they appear in something.

TBH I'm not crazy about the generic wheellock and matchlock pages as these weapons tend to pre-date standardisation and arsenal production so they cannot be classified into specific types (even the terms like "musket" "carbine" and "arquebus" are non standard and change depending on time, place and random whim), and it would be even worse with handgonnes. Flintlock weapons were the first weapons that were mass produced and can be classified (and therefore stand and chance of being identified by us) as a specific model.

Another thing to bear in mind, is that if the media includes a realistic depiction of a handgonne, then it likely predates modern shoulder arms so would have no other eligible weapons, making inclusion of it questionable in the first place.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by commando552

Wheellock and matchlock weapons can be very easily be mistaken by the normal observer for a more modern flintlock or caplock weapon so it is worth listing them when they appear in something.

I'm starting to understand.

Originally Posted by commando552

TBH I'm not crazy about the generic wheellock and matchlock pages as these weapons tend to pre-date standardisation and arsenal production so they cannot be classified into specific types (even the terms like "musket" "carbine" and "arquebus" are non standard and change depending on time, place and random whim), and it would be even worse with handgonnes. Flintlock weapons were the first weapons that were mass produced and can be classified (and therefore stand and chance of being identified by us) as a specific model.

If we want to talk about Categories that are too inclusive, I already brought up the "Carbine" category since it refers solely to barrel length and has nothing whatsoever to do with cartridge or firing modes. But we could classify Handgonnes (once enough pieces of media featuring them had pages on the wiki) according to where they are being depicted in, such as Asian and European to start.

Originally Posted by commando552

Another thing to bear in mind, is that if the media includes a realistic depiction of a handgonne, then it likely predates modern shoulder arms so would have no other eligible weapons, making inclusion of it questionable in the first place.

We have a page for Akira Kurosawa's Ran, which only had the pre-modern Tanegashima matchlock. Anyway, the War of the Roses game I mentioned earlier has some fortification-mounted cannons that aren't usable by players that could also be included in a potential page for that game.

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by Mazryonh

We have a page for Akira Kurosawa's Ran, which only had the pre-modern Tanegashima matchlock. Anyway, the War of the Roses game I mentioned earlier has some fortification-mounted cannons that aren't usable by players that could also be included in a potential page for that game.

I only made the Ran page because you created the tanemashima page with its red link.

[commando552]

I think starting a page with a single generic entry like "Matchlock Musket" or "Tanegashima" would be against the rules. They state that:

It must have more than one real firearm in it

The page must have enough firearms to merit inclusion into the database, thus the page must have more than ONE real firearm in it to qualify. There are some important exceptions to this rule:

1) the firearm is identifiable, well seen and important to the story. A film where 'some character' wields an 'unknown revolver' means nothing.

With generic classes of pre-standardisation firearms like this the weapon is not identifiable. It is akin to creating a page where someone uses a "rifle". There are some cases where an exception could be made, such as it being part of a series of films or if it is used by an actor who has other pages on the wiki, but in the case of a game that only has one firearm that cannot be identified as anything but a general class and fortification mounted cannons (which again are unidentifiable and ineligible on their own anyway) I don't think it is worth making a page for it.

[Mazryonh]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

I only made the Ran page because you created the Tanegashima page with its red link.

My thanks once again. But I put Ran there because it was the only movie I could think of that had the Tanegashima. As it turned out, I clearly hadn't watched enough historical Japanese cinema. Oh well, Ran was clearly a "significant motion picture" anyway. If could afford it, I would get a console-compatible screen capture device and buy some more titles to fill out the red entries on the Tanegashima page.

Originally Posted by commando552

I think starting a page with a single generic entry like "Matchlock Musket" or "Tanegashima" would be against the rules.

With generic classes of pre-standardisation firearms like this the weapon is not identifiable.

Well, the Tanegashima was pretty standardized for its time. The Japanese did not export the weapon either (it was a major military asset of theirs, first in intra-national conflict, and then again when it came time to invade Korea during the Imjin War), so it behooved the Japanese to keep it to themselves. From what I can tell, unlike their European and American counterparts, they stuck with the Tanegashima for a long time instead of fiddling with and improving the design or adopting new firearm technologies (such as wheellock and flintlock guns) until their 19th Century intra-national Boshin war, where they imported foreign firearms en masse, and then afterwards started copying foreign designs for their upcoming Imperialist endeavours.

And we already have pages for Wheellock and Matchlock guns right now, those being rather un-standardized. If more pages for works with Handgonnes come in, then what's one more firearm page compiling the appearances of "western" and "eastern" ones?