Possible solution to the video game problem.
 

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/GoldenEye_007

Simply label the weapons as they are labelled in the game. Toss up pictures for reference. Use the text to illustrate the differences and similarities. That way no one identification is held as the absolute final identification and there's leeway for explanation if the developers miss some minor detail and accidentally create a frankengun that does not really exist and therefore can not be technically correctly identified.

An example from this particular article? I remember last year there was a back-n-forth over the AR33. It fires in full auto, is it an M16A3? It fires in 3 round burst, is it an M16A2? No it's neither, it resembles both so just say it is based on the A2. I specifically say the A2 because A: it came first and B: the policy here is to identify full auto A2/A3 type rifles as just A2's.

Any thoughts on doing this to all the video game articles? We should come to some sort of general consensus before allowing any sort of sitewide sweeping changes.

I just sent you a Talk Page message about that. It's not the way we do things. If there is ever a particular weapon (i.e. the shotgun from "GoldenEye") where we're not sure, THEN you can maybe do what you suggested. But for the weapons that are quite obviously based on particular real world weapons, we identify them by their real-world designation on the page.

Next time, I'd appreciate it if you consult with an Admin before you take it upon yourself to do something that contradicts our standards.

I'm missing his temporary 'Time Out' Already..... :(

Seriously, why would you reverse the standard for labeling guns in games? It's already confusing enough. A game like Splinter Cell almost doesn't use the real names and when labeled, it is MENTIONED in the weapon description on what it is called in game.

The problem with this is what is and is not considered obvious. The easy answer is the guns of Bond lore, the PPK, Moonraker, Golden Gun.

The more they deviate from the norm the harder it gets. In particular, the KF7 Soviet. When I first came here somebody else had it listed as a Type 56 because of the hooded front sight. I lobbied to change it to an AKMS because I figured it wasn't necessary to be that specific when all you had to deal with was a poorly rendered block of polygons. Somebody agreed with me and it became an AKMS for a while. Then while browsing through the site it clicked in my head what was going on. The ingame model does have a long muzzle brake, something not found on the AKS, AKMS, or Type 56-1, but is found on they Type 56-1's used in the movie the game was based on. The hooded sight is also present, giving 2 valid points to the Type 56-1 argument. So I changed it. And it stuck around for awhile.

Then AdAstra decided to change most of the article, his only reason being a very limited interpretation of the speculation rule. He says the Type 56-1 argument doesn't fly, I say it's the least speculative of the speculations. So now I come to the community seeking an answer.

Well that's the point of the site, so you change the names already until you settle for what is correct. I mean you see an AK and some one's going to call it an AK-47, then someone will rename it AKM cause it looks like it, the rename it later again.

So I take it you don't like to work on a title of renaming and rather keep it a made up name. I mean either way, changing the name in the description and changing the name in the title is the SAME AMOUNT OF WORK.

My point is, you may disagree on what the specific types of real-world weapons are. But IMFDB standards have always been to have the name of the real-life weapon in the heading. There is some variation (i.e. on the "Deep Rising" page, we have Calico M955A (as the "M1-L1 triple-pulse rifle")), but the name of the real-world weapon must always be present in some way.

Like in the title

It's present in the description. Along with the relevant photographs. (Multiple photographs in the case of the Frankenstein MP5 from Vice City Stories)

I can't believe people have spent so much effort on Goldeneye 007. This game came out in *1997*! Even if the designers had put in that much effort into the guns, would we be able to tell? Seriously, if it wasn't implied that the "PP7" was supposed to be a PPK, how would anyone be able to tell? It wasn't until I discovered IMFDB that I learned that the "DD44" was supposed to be a Tokarev. I thought the entire time it was supposed to be a Makarov. And the truth is, it doesn't look like either pistol. Even in Perfect Dark, which came out three years later, the "PP7" still looked like an eight year old's drawing of what a pistol would look like. (see attached)

I remember reading an article a few weeks ago about Halo Reach, which comes out next month, where they said the assault rifle in Halo Reach has more sprites than Master Chief's entire body in Halo 1, which came out in 2001. Now think about a game that came out four years before that.

http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:PP7.jpg

Okay the image didn't show. Here's the link: http://www.imfdb.org/index.php/Image:PP7.jpg