Forum:Clarifying pagenames

Well, this is an issue I started thinking about today when this guy and I were merging the Mk 11 page together. I started looking around. By precedent, variants of the same weapon tend to be grouped onto the same page, a la M16 and M60. However, there are a fair number of pages dedicated to weapons which, under this scheme, should realistically be merged into a single page under their parent design's name.

This poses two problems.

Firstly, at what point is a weapon considered different enough from its cousins to warrant a separate page? For the Mk 11, the only real difference is its furniture -- the internals, the design in general, is virtually the same. Cloned weapons, as well -- they're produced by different manufacturers, yet are nearly identical.(I personally think that type of weapon should have a separate page, but that's not the point here.)

Secondly, which name should we use in cases where every name is different? Both the M110 and the Mk 11 Mod 0 are variants of the SR-25 page, yet we chose Mk 11 because the M110 is also known as the Mk 11 Mod 2. I had been thinking of making the page SR-25 instead, but that would violate the MoS.

For an idea of what kind of weapons might be merged based on physical traits:


 * PKP Pecheneg - The only difference between this and the PKM is that this one has polymer furniture, a different type of barrel, and a fixed bipod.
 * M39 EMR and Mk 14 - Both weapons are variants of the M14, and functionally near-identical.
 * NOR982 - Nothing more than a Chinese copy of the 870 MCS.
 * G36E, G36K, G36C - They're all identical. The differences between them is like the difference between the M16s, especially the G36C (which is a development of the K).

Give me some ideas on what is sufficient reason to have separate pages. With this I will amend the MoS to reflect our decision.