"Unknown X" articles are becoming increasingly common on this wiki. But they really shouldn't be.
Why are we making articles for things we don't even know the name of? An image or two is not enough to make an article out of. The name is more important than the image.
What's more, if we are not sure of the name of a gun, or a vehicle, or a grenade etc. then it should be discussed on the Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops II page, and when enough agreement is reached on a name, we can name it that on-wiki. Remember, usually the guns in CoD are based off of real life equivalents and named appropriately. This is the process we went through with Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops, but it sadly died after that and it no longer occurs. If no agreement can be reached (maybe the gun does not exist IRL) then no page will be made until we have a name for it from the game.
Should we remove any "Unknown X" articles on the basis that if we don't know the name, we clearly do not know enough about it to warrant an article?
Please discuss below.14:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
I agree, why create a article that 90% of the time only says "X gun appears in BO2 nothing else is known yet" How about a little patience for some real info before creating a page like that. Redskin-26 14:08, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with COD4 and Redskin in that if editors don't have enough info then the article should not be written. And all existing "Unknown X" be removed. Talk 20:20, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Well this can just be moved to KH2002, as that is what the gun looks like. If it's any different in the final game, we rename it. 14:20, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Done that. That's also another good point - if the gun name is different, then we can just rename the page. It's no big deal. 14:52, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Surely people are going to have different opinions on what a gun looks like though? And isn't assuming that an unnamed weapon is going to be called by it's real-life name technically speculation?
- Also: "An image or two is not enough to make an article out of."
- If that's the case, why do we even have a KH2002 page?
15:08, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- How can you have an opinion of how a gun looks? It either is that gun or not. 15:27, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- The difference is that we have a name for the gun in this case. That is opposed to Unknown rifle. We don't have a name for it, and we can hardly make out what gun it is. It shouldn't have the article solely based off the image.
15:28, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- That's some kind of SCAR. 15:32, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- My problems with this are:
- 1. What appears to one person to be an MP5 may appear to someone else to be a HK53. Until it's confirmed, there's going to be disagreements, like there was with the identity of the XM8 pre-confirmation.
- 2. Making an article called X because you think it looks like X is still technically speculation.
- 3. No IRL info. Basing judgements on what a weapon due to appear in BOII is based on it's similarities to a real-life weapon falls under this category.
- 4. There's not even any decent information on pages such as KH2002. Do we really need a page for it now? Would it be of any disadvantage if we just made the page when we actually knew what the weapon is called in-game and know at least a little bit of information about it?
- 15:48, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
Simply put, do what Cod4 has said. Discuss what the gun, equipment, etc. looks like on the Black Ops II talk page. Make a page based on the consensus of what the gun likely is. If we are wrong we can simply rename it.
There's no point in having an article named "unknown X" as the articles tend to simply say "The unknown X was spotted in Y's trailer. No other information is known at this time." This gives no information on the gun, at least having a name gives a little bit. 16:25, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in having a page for a "Unknown Rifle/SMG/LMG/Sniper/Pistol." However, naming a page based off of what gun it looks like IRL is speculation and shouldn't be done. I know that we had pages for unknown weapons when BO came out, and kept them as "Unknown Rifle/SMG/LMG/Sniper/Pistol" until we found out the name. Conqueror of all Zombies 16:34, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
I agree, there's not a point at all. If there are "Unknown X" Articles, I think they should be gone. The lack of information really shows that the Article is not needed. Madnessfan34537 20:20, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
- Some articles that exist are or where based off of "Unknown X" I don't see the harm of adding "Unknown X" because it means that it is avaible and able to edit when more informantion to comes out of their respected game title. Besides some "Unknown" Articles are somewhat informative even though there name wouldn't be there, I say "Unknown" articles don't do harm and will eventually be named articles of their weapons when the info is passed, but we just keep it the same as it is.20:27, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
Since this forum this is the revision details of the KH2002:
- 18:50, June 8, 2012 N7 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "KH2002" (wait it looks more like the acr actually) (view/restore)
- 18:45, June 8, 2012 N7 (Talk | contribs | block) restored "KH2002" (7 revisions restored: its clearly a KH2002)
- 17:03, June 8, 2012 Callofduty4 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "KH2002" (Not a KH2002) (view/restore)
- 15:51, June 8, 2012 Callofduty4 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "KH2002" (Deleted to make way for move) (view/restore)
- 11:42, June 8, 2012 N7 (Talk | contribs | block) restored "KH2002" (2 revisions restored)
- 11:37, June 8, 2012 KATANAGOD (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "KH2002" (COD:LEAK) (view/restore)
- It is still a good idea to discuss these things on the Black Ops II talk page though. 15:20, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
I feel that there is no point in making an 'Unknown X' article if we don't have sufficient information about that weapon. Why make a page about a weapon that we know nothing about? There's no point in making a page dedicated to a gun held by a soldier in a blurry piece of concept art, or an unidentified gun that's held by some soldier in a trailer for 2 seconds. Personally I think a page should only be made for a weapon once we have a confirmed name for it. If in some unlikely scenario in which we end up with sufficient information about a weapon that we don't know the name of, then the best thing to do IMO is to make an 'Unknown X' page that is replaced with the actual name once we find out what it is. However, pages like Unknown Rifle do not contain enough information and should not exist.15:30, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Callofduty4. I had an argument with Darkman4 about creating these articles, but it seems he did it anyway. Joe Copp 15:41, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
What's the harm of having "Unknown X" articles? Conqueror of all Zombies 17:07, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
I dislike naming weapons without proof (a pickup icon in a trailer, a split-second look at a name in the HUD) or a one hundred percent conviction of what the weapon is. It could look like a T-45 Thingyrifle to most, but turn out to be a M-47 Stuffgun LMG , and as stated before, people visually interpret an unknown weapon differently. With vehicles it's a lot easier, since they have this odd habit of being slightly more identifiable as a result of being larger than the standard firearm. What we are basically adding as a result is speculation, and speculation that possibly isn't even agreed upon by the community as a whole. I see nothing wrong with "Unknown X" and as I am pretty certain that this wiki is used a reference by many individuals, we run the risk of spreading misinformation. TL;DR: Speculation not good. Could be wrong.21:27, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
If we don't know its name, we can't verify what it actually is in the Call of Duty Universe. We use this to judge valid info, hence no IRL info. If we can't verify it, its speculation. We are clear that we can't speculate and can only post legitimate info/images which are canon and so confirmed by the producers of the game/item. If it is the case for info, why not for whether we can create articles on it or not? If it turns out that we've already gone past that phase, and we can only create confirmed articles, then this whole discussion becomes relatively pointless. There's also the issue that it could cause friction or disagreements, which Sam's evidence shows can happen.
To be short, we shouldn't speculate about it. While you can discuss, the consensus gained is pointless without producer confirmation. If we don't have enough info to write, or at least clearly name, an article then we shouldn't create it. DrRichtofen (Talk) 22:45, June 9, 2012 (UTC)
The Unknown X articles often cause confusion and we do not have enough information to actually cover the weapon, as stated above. Nor do I support the speculation, such as the TDI Kard (iirc) becoming the KAP-40. I support not making the pages at all and not making pages of what we think might be a specific weapon. 17:24, June 10, 2012 (UTC)
Why don't we just call it this?: "A Gun which we do not know the name of at the current time and this title is long as fuck"15:20, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean? This is reffering to those weapons which will appear that we know exist, but we don't know much about them. Not so much wonder weapons, as we don't know any of them that will appear in Call of Duty: Black Ops II. DrRichtofen (Talk) 15:33, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Moving to a voteEdit
Remove "Unknown X" articlesEdit
- I never agreed with doing so. Per all reasoning. Joe Copp 04:07, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Per reasoning above. Madnessfan34537 04:11, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Per the guy two above myself. Smilular Talk 04:21, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Per everything above 09:47, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Per all above. --MLGisNot4Me talk 09:51, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Per all the above reasons. Talk 06:19, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
- Per all of the above. Qw3rty! 06:19, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
- We shouldn't make articled out of things we can only provide very few details about, let alone name. 06:52, June 19, 2012 (UTC)
- Per all. DrRichtofen (Talk) 15:21, June 21, 2012 (UTC)
Allow "Unknown X" articlesEdit
Closed - "Unknown X" articles will be removed. Joe Copp 23:53, June 25, 2012 (UTC)