|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trebuchet article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by ClueBot III. Any threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Manajaniq vs Manjaniq
I am informed by a person reading Arabic that المنجنيshould be Latinized as manjaniq (with one a) instead of manajaniq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs) 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
In this article, traction trebuchet were used by Chinese as early as 4th century BC, used by Byzantiumc and Muslim in the late 6th century. Then this article claims hand-trebuchet was first used in around 965 AD. Someone insist hand-trebuchet is in front of traction trebuchet by "chronology". I wonder in what kind of "chronology" the event happened around 965 AD will be earlier than events happened in 4th century BC and 6th century. Moreover, the section of hand-trebuchet cited sources  . Even in these source, the traction trebuchet used in 4th century BC was in the leading paragraph and the source also firstly introduces the traction trebuchet. We should edited based on the source cited not some personal ideas from editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed the "somebody" must have been confused, or sleep deprived - mea culpa. Snori (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to add to the page in a careful tone that Mozi is a highly unreliable text. So much has been added to it over the centuries, that it's full of physical impossibilities (just have a quick look and try to add up some of the numbers menionted).
In this article though, Mozi is put forward as the proof of the trebuchet being in China centuries BC, without mentioning the serious doubts one must have reading it. On top of that, centuries of 'trebuchet silence' follow Mozi. Then comes the flurry of mentions of some kind of cataput in the T'ang dynasty, but AFAIK without illustrations. Only in the 11th C we see the Chinese trebuchet illustrations.
That's why I propose to make this clear in the text: the questionable nature of Mozi and the absence of clear explanations and illustrations until the 11th centruy AD.
I was surprised my edit was undone within 10 minutes, like someone is hugging this page. Undone without explanation btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
It is essentially a smaller version of a trebuchet. User:SmartyPantsKid 17:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I agree to the merge. There's a single line in the article about Couillard already. I think just add the weight/range/rate-of-fire info from Couillard, and we're done. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I also agree on a merge, there's not enough information in the main article for the Couillard for it to have its own article. I do, though, believe it should be in the history section with the other versions of the Trebuchet, or be elaborated on in the basic design section. - Awesomefriends56 (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Honestly, I agree. A smaller version of a trebuchet. is still a trebuchet. - AngryBear423