Eligibility of guns for their own pages

[MoviePropMaster2008]

Originally Posted by commando552

I think it is probably best not to have individual pages for all of the tank and aircraft cannons out there, for the reasons you stated, but also the fact that particularly with aircraft you tend not to actually see the gun, and the ID's are purely based on the presumption that it is there.

That is similar to the tactic used by a relatively new member (whose name will go unmentioned) . The problem with the practice of "If it is supposed to be there, IMFDB will list it as being there", is that in entertainment media, substitutions happen all the time. Also IF something appears in either film or tv, there is no guarantee that the weapon is not a fantasy mockup. I remember an old B&W movie where the F86 jet footage was actually stock footage of test flights of an unarmed model (done in the testing grounds of the Western U.S.) So all the 'battle' scenes took place with a plane with no guns. LOL.

Now in the world of Video games, the guns MAY be specifically identified, but even that doesn't make it qualify (for the reasons I listed above).

The only issue is that even if the pages are well done AND accurate, they're still of an item which we don't recognize as qualifying for IMFDB. And we HAVE to limit the scope of IMFDB. New members are just too clever as to how they will twist and distort the intent of the rules and push the envelope as to what wacky page they will try to make.

I do like the idea of a GUN PLATFORM page which lists all AIR COMBAT armament on the same page and all ARMORED VEHICLE COMBAT armament (like the 155mm guns) so that the identified weapons have a place to link to.

Thoughts?

[funkychinaman]

I think it should also be mentioned that a lot of aircraft in modern films (like Pearl Harbor or Red Tails) are CGI, so their guns are completely CGI as well.

Even making a separate Aircraft Cannon and Tank Cannon page might give people the wrong idea. I'm okay with just mentioning it on the movie/tv/VG/anime page itself.

[Jcordell]

I concur. Lets not get carried away.

[Evil Tim]

Originally Posted by MoviePropMaster2008

I do like the idea of a GUN PLATFORM page which lists all AIR COMBAT armament on the same page and all ARMORED VEHICLE COMBAT armament (like the 155mm guns) so that the identified weapons have a place to link to.

Thoughts?

Yeah, I've thought it would be a good idea to have an "other weapons" page or page group for collecting images of weapons that don't qualify for their own pages (eg specific types of manufactured explosive charge*, artillery, any distinctive rockets / missiles / bombs that have a major role in the proceedings like that bomb in Rambo). That way they're not just floating around unlinked.

While I think such a page could feature lists just for the sake of two-way linking, I don't think it would be good to lay it out like a standard gun page. Maybe just movie / year / notes.

It's definately worth identifying these weapons if they appear since the chances of anyone setting up an Internet Movie Artillery Database are basically nil. I think individual gun pages would probably stop around FlaK 88 level (ie large, distinct direct fire weapons weapons that are quite likely to be real rather than fabrications or CGI), though before I make *that* page I need to do more researching into the barrel and carriage variants and get some images of each.

*Meaning those with distinct markings that are produced to pattern for a military force, rather than Looney Tunes sticks of dynamite. I know those don't qualify for anything but "sake of completeness" in games and not at all in movies.

[funkychinaman]

I just want a clarification:

Unless the actor is actually piloting an aircraft, aircraft cannons don't count on actor pages?

[commando552]

Originally Posted by funkychinaman

I just want a clarification:

Unless the actor is actually piloting an aircraft, aircraft cannons don't count on actor pages?

I wouldn't have thought they would even count then. It's not like they are actually handling the weapon, they are just pressing a button. If someone pushes a button in the CIC of a carrier you wouldn't say they were firing a Vulcan cannon. Also, I doubt that there has ever been anything where the actor portraying the pilot is actually controlling the weapon. Most of the time the cockpit shots would be filmed in a mock up or in a grounded fighter, whereas aerial shots of it firing (assuming it isn't CG) would be a professional pilot flying the plane, most likely with any firing effects added in later. Do you have an example of one that you think might be eligible?

[funkychinaman]

Originally Posted by commando552

I wouldn't have thought they would even count then. It's not like they are actually handling the weapon, they are just pressing a button. If someone pushes a button in the CIC of a carrier you wouldn't say they were firing a Vulcan cannon. Also, I doubt that there has ever been anything where the actor portraying the pilot is actually controlling the weapon. Most of the time the cockpit shots would be filmed in a mock up or in a grounded fighter, whereas aerial shots of it firing (assuming it isn't CG) would be a professional pilot flying the plane, most likely with any firing effects added in later. Do you have an example of one that you think might be eligible?

Not in a fighter. I just wanted to be sure.

The only exception to aircraft cannons that I can think of is if someone was loading the cannons on an AC-130.

[Evil Tim]

Yeah, and I doubt they'd let an actor do that anyway.

[funkychinaman]

I'm not really sure what context of this image is, but if it's for Lock 'n Load, then I suppose it'd be eligible.

Then again, for Mail Call and Lock 'n Load, it just says "Various weapons."