| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Warcraft: The Beginning: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
::Well, the problem is the single gun rule requires the firearm to be real and identifiable. This one has a fictional "boomstick" that ''looks like'' a flintlock blunderbuss, but was probably never a functional firearm (because really, why would it be?) [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 02:41, 1 December 2016 (EST) | ::Well, the problem is the single gun rule requires the firearm to be real and identifiable. This one has a fictional "boomstick" that ''looks like'' a flintlock blunderbuss, but was probably never a functional firearm (because really, why would it be?) [[User:Evil Tim|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim|talk]]) 02:41, 1 December 2016 (EST) | ||
:::For me, it's a flintlock blunderbuss (of course, a modern reproduction), with some mock ups to make it look more fantasy. I don't know, is this gun was fired in the movie, or not (in the last case, it's non-firing prop). Also, may be useful to rename the section "boomstick" to "blunderbuss"? [[User:Pyramid Silent|Pyramid Silent]] ([[User talk:Pyramid Silent|talk]]) 11:57, 1 December 2016 (EST) | :::For me, it's a flintlock blunderbuss (of course, a modern reproduction), with some mock ups to make it look more fantasy. I don't know, is this gun was fired in the movie, or not (in the last case, it's non-firing prop). Also, may be useful to rename the section "boomstick" to "blunderbuss"? [[User:Pyramid Silent|Pyramid Silent]] ([[User talk:Pyramid Silent|talk]]) 11:57, 1 December 2016 (EST) | ||
::::I don't think a generic flintlock blunderbuss prop really warrants a page - it'd be one thing if it were clearly a real, historical firearm, but this is a completely fictional prop that probably doesn't even fire. You have to consider that the purpose of IMFDb is a resource for people trying to identify guns in media they've seen, and I seriously doubt anyone is going to come looking for the one imaginary gun from Warcraft. The only time fictional guns really deserve a pass is if they're clearly based or built off of real guns (see [[Blade]]'s [[MAC-11]]s) | ::::I don't think a generic flintlock blunderbuss prop really warrants a page - it'd be one thing if it were clearly a real, historical firearm, but this is a completely fictional prop that probably doesn't even fire. You have to consider that the purpose of IMFDb is a resource for people trying to identify guns in media they've seen, and I seriously doubt anyone is going to come looking for the one imaginary gun from Warcraft. The only time fictional guns really deserve a pass is if they're clearly based or built off of real guns (see [[Blade]]'s [[MAC-11]]s) or if they play a very prominent role in the film/game/show/whatever (see the [[Samaritan]] in [[Hellboy]]) - and usually only if the source already features a lot of real firearms that would qualify the page anyway. This doesn't really fit either of those. --[[User:Sergeant Simpleton|Sergeant Simpleton]] ([[User talk:Sergeant Simpleton|talk]]) 15:15, 1 December 2016 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 20:16, 1 December 2016
I don't think this qualifies. Evil Tim (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2016 (EST)
- It seems to fit all of the exception criteria for a single firearm page. Certainly seems just as (if not more) eligible than some other one-gun media pages I've seen. StanTheMan (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2016 (EST)
- Well, the problem is the single gun rule requires the firearm to be real and identifiable. This one has a fictional "boomstick" that looks like a flintlock blunderbuss, but was probably never a functional firearm (because really, why would it be?) Evil Tim (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2016 (EST)
- For me, it's a flintlock blunderbuss (of course, a modern reproduction), with some mock ups to make it look more fantasy. I don't know, is this gun was fired in the movie, or not (in the last case, it's non-firing prop). Also, may be useful to rename the section "boomstick" to "blunderbuss"? Pyramid Silent (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2016 (EST)
- I don't think a generic flintlock blunderbuss prop really warrants a page - it'd be one thing if it were clearly a real, historical firearm, but this is a completely fictional prop that probably doesn't even fire. You have to consider that the purpose of IMFDb is a resource for people trying to identify guns in media they've seen, and I seriously doubt anyone is going to come looking for the one imaginary gun from Warcraft. The only time fictional guns really deserve a pass is if they're clearly based or built off of real guns (see Blade's MAC-11s) or if they play a very prominent role in the film/game/show/whatever (see the Samaritan in Hellboy) - and usually only if the source already features a lot of real firearms that would qualify the page anyway. This doesn't really fit either of those. --Sergeant Simpleton (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2016 (EST)
- For me, it's a flintlock blunderbuss (of course, a modern reproduction), with some mock ups to make it look more fantasy. I don't know, is this gun was fired in the movie, or not (in the last case, it's non-firing prop). Also, may be useful to rename the section "boomstick" to "blunderbuss"? Pyramid Silent (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2016 (EST)
- Well, the problem is the single gun rule requires the firearm to be real and identifiable. This one has a fictional "boomstick" that looks like a flintlock blunderbuss, but was probably never a functional firearm (because really, why would it be?) Evil Tim (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2016 (EST)