Forum:Naming Policy

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.

Forums: Index → War Room → Naming Policy

Ok, this policy on names is starting to drive me nuts. In the recent-ish nomination for Famas to be merged with FAMAS it really came to light that names seem to take precedence over all other criteria for whether or not a weapon gets an article of its own, which if you ask me is pretty stupid, for the following reason.

For example, Famas and FAMAS are different weapons (well, different variants anyway), but it is only because they have so very slightly different names that they ever had separate pages in the first place. So, if names are so important, what are we waiting for? (Warning, sarcasm ahead) We need to enforce this! Starting with creating separate articles for StG-44 and MP44. They are exactly the same gun but oh my god they have different names. Why stop there? We need separate articles for M4A1 and M4 Carbine . We have Crossbow and Crossbow Explosive Tip. Then there's Tokarev TT-33 and TT-33, then M14 EBR and M21 EBR as well as AT4 and AT4-HS. Again, they have different names! Oh, and an even bigger case, we need to separate M1911, Colt M1911 and M1911.45! They may be the same gun but holy crap they have different NAMES!

Summary: Someone fix this screwy policy. Seijana 19:30, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

The looks of the gun should matter. If they are the same models in two games as they are in real life, then keep it. Im not saying IRL, but the M4A1 and M4 should be changed too, because the real M4 fires 3 round, not full auto, and yet its's on the M4A1 page. Trueblood ^talk 19:41, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

No it isn't. That was one of the first pages I separated! See M4 Carbine. YuriKaslov 19:44, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, I was referring to the gun in CoD4, not Cod4:Mobilized. Seijana 19:53, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Seijana, while I get what you're saying, the point of separating the Famas and FAMAS articles was because they're completely different from one another. Not because they have different names. That they had different names was certainly a help, seeing how I would've had to have given it an ugle "(Black Ops) moniker, that wasn't my reasoning for separating the pages. Where this is different is something like Masterkey and Shotgun (attachment), because in addition to looking very different and acting differently, they also have separate names (actually the MW2 version doesn't even have a name, lol). Might as well merge Ballistic Knife, Throwing Knife, Karambit Knife, Prison Knife, and SOG Knife. YuriKaslov 19:49, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, your examples on the knives are a different case in my opinion, since they ARE different knives, especially the Ballistic Knife. I'm not saying we merge M16 and M16A4 or anything like that, that would be ridiculous. What I am, well, ranting about is the way weapons, particularly guns, get whole separate pages for the sole reason that they have a pathetically small difference in their name in any two CoD games. Seijana 19:59, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Those pages you listed... most of them redirect to each other. TT-33 redirects to Tokarev TT-33 and Colt M1911 redirects to M1911. You are wrong, we don't have seperate pages for most of those weapons. There are only a few exceptions. Nikolai Cannot Die 20:53, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

The sarcasm warning is there for a reason... Seijana 21:39, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Per Seijana. To quote The Saboteur, "Gott im Himmel, this is madness!" Sgt. S.S. 18:43, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Seijana presents a strong point: we don't present a consistent approach to article naming. The policy says nothing about what happens if the same weapon has different names in different games. In my opinion, a small difference in characteristics shouldn't be the dividing line between merging and splitting. If the M4 fires 3-round burst in one game and full-auto as an M4A1 in another, it shouldn't be split just for that reason -- otherwise we'd be splitting articles on the basis that they do different damage. If the hypothetical Browning KiKAS was a pistol in one game and a semi-automatic rocket launcher in another, that's a very good case for splitting the article. If the FN Spork Mk1 has 25 rounds in one game and the FN Spork Mk2 has 26 rounds in another game, that alone shouldn't be a reason to keep them separate. In short, a variant alone shouldn't be split off from the main weapon article. Real-Life relevance should play a role in determining whether or not a weapon is actually the same -- and really, the FAMAS and Famas are the same. --Scottie theNerd 10:48, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

The counter for that however is that when we start including loads of variants with different fire modes, models and names it becomes a headache to merge. On the Famas page, we had to add notes after the word "Famas" to state that it wasn't the FAMAS. When the gun is completely different in practically every way, like the Famas, it doesn't make sense to merge it. But when we have guns like the STG-44 and MP-44, they're identical bar the name. It's easier to show the progression of a gun throughout Call of Duty by having the gun on the same page. Naming Policy at the moment states that if the gun has a different name, it's a different gun, but at the same time there's COD:IAR. While it's normally a useless rule, I believe that it suggests there's an exception to every rule, we make exceptions when we feel we need to, like with the STG-44. There's no need to revamp the whole way we merge articles, it works just fine the way it is. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 11:22, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Making a page containing variants is no different to what we have now. Every weapon page has sections for every individual game the weapon appears in, including a written description, image gallery and infobox. Some weapon pages have do notable differences between each section. --Scottie theNerd 12:26, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Things are clearly not fine the way they are. Most of these weapon articles are in the state they should be in, true, but at the very apparent cost of site consistency. Either this policy needs better defined guidelines, like Granularity did, or COD:IAR needs a good sight more emphasis in this area if it really does hold the key to a solution. Seijana 13:31, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Granularity did not have definite guidelines. In fact, it was so broad that it caused problems on multiple occasions. What we need is for the naming policy to be amended, as it quite clearly does not address the issue we are having with splitting/merging articles purely based on names. I am of the belief that two different subjects must have apparent and major differences between them in order to be named differently. My example case would be Sentry Gun vs. Auto Turrets, which serve entirely different functions.

The only problem that exists, however, is what to do about articles they have inconsistent names throughout the series, such as the M1919 Browning or STG-44. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 18:26, February 20, 2011 (UTC)

Uh, that was kinda my point there. Granularity didn't have definite guidelines, which was why it needed them badly. Just like the policyI am ranting about here. Seijana

It appeared to me that you were using Granularity as an example of a policy with definite guidelines. Apologies for the confusion. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 14:17, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think that for a weapon to have warranted separate articles, the in-game function of the weapon between games needs to be very different. Scottie theNerd illustrates this point very well with his hypothetical example above. Just because a weapon has its fire rate changed doesn't mean it should have a separate article, as it's not different enough to really warrant any separate articles. The only issue which has already been stated by Bovell above is that there are inconsistent names between games. FAMAS and Famas are inconsistent between the two games they are in. If we were to group them together into one article, would we stick them under the title "FAMAS", because that's the first title which appeared, or "Famas", because it's the most recent title? --Callofduty4 18:14, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the links, most of them are redirects. I don't see the problem with redirects. Conquerer of all Zombies ^Talk 19:56, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

It was sarcasm. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 20:25, February 21, 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't really the point of this thread at all either. Seijana 01:33, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Then what the hell was the point beyond the FAMAS/Famas stuff? Conquerer of all Zombies ^Talk 05:37, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell did we move Suppressor and Silencer together? RC™ 05:39, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

@Callofduty4: IMO, invoke Real Life. It's called the FAMAS in real life, and the weapons are based off real weapons, so where there is indecision, we should factor in the relevant real life information available to us. --Scottie theNerd 06:04, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean if MW3 calls the Barrett .50cal simply the Barrett, we'd rename the page M82? Or am I misreading your point here? Sgt. S.S. 10:28, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's not the best example: it already follows consistent name. However, if there was a different Barrett .50cal weapon, I don't see why we should just use the real life name. --Scottie theNerd 11:16, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

Well... The Barret .50cal is named M82A2 twice in the game, which would stand a chance for getting it moved. I'd be happy to have it renamed with Barrett .50cal redirecting to it. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 19:56, February 22, 2011 (UTC)

The IRL policy should not be invoked. It stops large amounts of pointless trivia about magazine size, gun model, range, ect... from being added to articles. Conquerer of all Zombies ^Talk 03:31, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said anything about revoking the IRL policy. --Scottie theNerd 06:35, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, according to the weapon rules, we will name a gun after its real life counterpart if it's name is not explicitly stated in-game. I don't see a problem extending that to cover guns with differentiating names between games. --Callofduty4 21:40, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I think that having the page named after the most recent rendition of the weapon would be a good idea, as users are more likely to search for that than the older game's counterpart. And the way I see it -- pertaining to the FAMAS/Famas issue -- Famas was a capitalization oversight by Treyarch, and that the name was meant to be the same. Should that change things? Not in my opinion. Shotrocket6 ^Talk 00:57, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

A redirect still gets people to the same place. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 22:12, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

I thought somebody had vandalised the FAMAS page when I couldn't find the Black Ops variant in it. Then I see the disambig, and find it on different articles. It's ridiculous, just an excuse to make more articles and to boost the count. This isn't disambiguation, it's confusion. A change of the ironsights shouldn't result in a new article. It's pointless, they should stay on the same page. We can do level 2 sections fine with an infobox for each, right? 109.157.225.215 01:36, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

This is what seems to be what people are in agreement with:

• If a weapon looks the same, functions the same, but is named differently, merge.
  • Article should invoke real-life when named to preserve consistency. (ex. Famas merges with FAMAS; article named FAMAS)
• If a weapon is named the same, functions the same, but looks differently, merge. (ex. Hypothetical M1911 (World at War) merges with M1911)
• If a weapon is named the same, looks the same, but functions in a drastically different way, split. (ex. Auto Turrets separate from Sentry Gun)

If passed, these guidelines will be added to the Naming Policy.

Support

Support — As nominator Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 02:58, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — per the nominator and the lengthly discussion above. Talk 03:04, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Easy-to-follow set of guidelines which serve to organise pages better. --Callofduty4 03:09, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Will help new users and 'veteran' users navigate the Wiki more easily. Sp3c^Schneller 03:10, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — --Scottie theNerd 03:27, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Creates less confusion for new users RC™ 08:46, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per Bovell. elmo's ramblings 10:16, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Seems reasonable. Shotrocket6 ^Talk 10:31, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — -- D o c t o r · R i c h t o f f e e … ^Talk 12:12, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Perfecto. Sgt. S.S. 12:27, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Do I of all people need to state my reason? Seijana 00:43, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support — I like the "duck test" approach this takes. bibliomaniac15 03:55, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Weak Support — I like the idea, however I'm not too keen on having M60 and M60 (turret) nomiture. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 11:31, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Per all above. --ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 12:07, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support — What Ukimies said. Besides I've been waiting for this since I joined back in July. And now it's (most likely) going to happen! WOO! EDIT-I was just about to make this proposal too. :) YellowRiolu Leave a message! 14:26, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Sounds good to me. Let me know when we start. Rambo362 20:14, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Support — I like the idea. --Diegox223 ^Talk 00:04, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Efficient and practical. --Ryemccrory 05:54, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Support — Very good idea and helps with make the wiki less crampedNoahg11 23:53, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Support — It should help clean out the wiki a LOT. NCD ^{Эй, что рифмы!} 01:49, March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral

Neutral leaning towards Support — I don't support the idea of splitting weapons with identical models and names but a different function, considering this "function" still hasn't been made clear to me. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 23:15, February 26, 2011 (UTC) Changing vote - Smuff^{[citation provided]} 11:31, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

"Function" equates to use and purpose. Having different firing modes is a "feature" rather than a function (ex. The MP44 can be select-fire or full-automatic, but both are still assault rifles). However, if I were to get an "MP44 on a tripod" that serves as a stationary weapon, that's a different function to a shoulder-fired assault rifle. That means, by extension, that weapons with different functions (ex. The MG42 in its LMG and turret forms, same with M1919 Browning) need to be split -- which, in my opinion, is a good thing. --Scottie theNerd 00:08, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Comments

If we're giong to merge the pages, which name will we use (ie Dual Wield and Akimbo) RC™ 03:15, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

It would be representative, so it would be named "Dual Wield" since it's also called that in Call of Duty 2 multiplayer. Smuff^{[citation provided]} 11:27, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Closing - This will be added to the Naming Policy momentarily. Bovell ^{Talk | Contrib.} 16:21, March 6, 2011 (UTC)