So I've just become aware of the explicit policy on naming the original weapons some guns are modeled after, and it makes some sense from standpoint of wikipedia tradition of citing sources, but the Deliverer in FO4 seems to break the rationale. It's so clearly modeled after a PPK, that it seems incongruous not to mention it. I doubt there will ever be a dev source for it, but barring two details (frame text and odd caliber), the model is just painfully accurate.
What would it take to either get that in the article, or reconsider policy?
- Here's the problem. The whole reason we created this policy was because we would have arguments where person A would claim "this weapon is so clearly modeled after this real world weapon" and person B would claim "no, this weapon is so clearly modeled after this other real world weapon!". And this would create arguments and edit wars until a developer declares "You're all wrong, the weapon was modeled after this different real world weapon" or "this weapon wasn't modeled after anything in particular".
- Everyone who makes a real world weapon reference is just as certain as you are, so allowing this to go through would be opening a flood gate of potentially incorrect information. Paladin117>>iff bored; 21:02, April 21, 2017 (UTC)
- I completely disagree--nobody would argue about this if you compare the two side by side. It's like a Delorean--there's no confusion here. The "Assault Rifle", ok...that's a complete mutt. This is a PPK. If you want a source, see IMFDB. But really, the proof is the model itself. I'm not going to mess with it, but I want to be on record as saying this is flawed policy, if it doesn't allow for this being called what it is. Bodhisattvah (talk) 00:34, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
- The policy finds its grounds and basis in stuff from Fallout 3 more than anything else, with its mongrel weapons that draw elements from multiple firearms, like the chinese assault rifle. The Deliverer could be based on a PPK or it could be based off of one of the many clones/knock-offs made by other companies such as FEG, or for that matter it could be based on a developer's fever dream of a generic spy looking gun. The point is, without the game itself stating what the firearm is (such as the FAL in Fallout 2), it cannot be conclusively said that Gun X is based on real world firearm A without a developer saying "Yes, I based it on A." Or "No, it's actually based on gun B with a few bits and pieces taken from guns C and D."
- Stating what the real world inspiration that a gun draws on without the game telling us or a developer doing the same is speculation, which is not allowed on the wiki. It's not a matter of creating a policy that "doesn't allow for this to be called what it is." because calling something what it appears to be has been proven wrong in the past (such as with the .357 magnum revolver SAA vs Vaquero), and IMFDB, while a wonderful resource is not infallible, given that they are still under the impression that the aforementioned .357 magnum revolver is based on the Ruger Vaquero (according to a developer source, it's based on the Single Action Army).
- A policy that would allow for calling a gun what it is would only create edit wars after different people argued what a gun is. To paraphrase an example I read somewhere on here but can't be bothered to find you'd wind up with different degrees of "experts" claiming to know exactly what a gun is based on because they learned to use those guns in the military, they own the gun it's based off of, they're a self proclaimed gun expert etc. The amount of speculation a change in the current policy would bring about would do nothing but cause edit wars and drama. Richie9999 (talk) 02:44, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
- It's not that complex--simply say it's a "PPK variant". That covers all the bases. That's not speculation. Same holds true for your example--the Vaquero is an SAA variant. No speculation necessary. Like so many things, the impossible is possible with the correct solution. Bodhisattvah (talk) 00:27, April 28, 2017 (UTC)
(←) My position is the same as Richie's. We've been here sooooo many times. Each time we determine the policy has merit for good reason. Look, I'm one of those gun nuts myself. But after seeing the edit wars over these things, I'm perfectly fine calling the weapons what I think they are in my head and not on the wiki. An encyclopedia, even one like Nukapedia, is a repository of verifiable honest truths. There is never room for speculation, as that opens everything up to interpretation and subjectivity. I will never support changing this policy, or allowing speculation of any sort on the wiki. 22:39, April 27, 2017 (UTC)