Discussion here continues to be interesting, though mostly of course simply perspective on a well established conundrum in the study of arms which remains perplexing. The good thing here is bringing together various examples of the semantics and transliteration issues in trying to classify ethnographic weapons, and developing a kind of status quo.
As noted, the term 'name game' is concerning to some as it suggests a less than serious concern for the issue at hand. It is however, in my opinion, simply an idiomatic term used among individuals with regard to discussion of their common interests and not significant as far as an actual practice. The discussion and study are of course not a 'game' but it is a comfortable expression used among those engaged in focus on the topic at hand.
I think that in many cases where identification and classification of weapons where there is any notable variation or exception, there should be qualifying description added. This might include a note pertaining to other matters such as alternate terms or altered description, such as 'British infantry officers straight sabre of 1780, also often termed 'spadroon'.
An Indian katar (properly 'jamadhar') probably 18th century, N. India.
In this case, more a working caption, but not misleading or confusing.
The 'phul phactor' is here seen as a bit more 'colorful' (good one on the 'price list' Mercenary
I think the humor was missed as often the case). Here a bit more defined description might be necessary.
The idea of a compilation of weapon related terms in a glossary to be used as a cross reference is actually not a bad idea, and actually has been in degree well illustrated on this thread.
In some ways I think of some of the literature and Kiplingesque terms of the British Raj, and the use of Hobson-Jobson catalog of such terms as applied along with proper English and Indian terms.