Forum:War Room


 * This is not a replacement of the RfAs, AfDs or the forums itself. This is for things all other things that would need community discussion.

As discussions and votes on wiki-related topics can't always be found in the forums, which may result in an inaccurate result based on only some people voting, the War Room is an established page to vote on wiki things.

Policies?
Ok, there have been some questions about policies lately, well, more like many questions. I think we should create some sort of a page that has some of these. Just because it's hard to go around hunting and asking questions for them. Sadly, I can't remember all of the questions that were asked, but the most recent one was "Profanity". Rs4life07 confirmed that profanity is not used, unless in quotes, in which case it is not censored. From personal experience, I had no clue about this, and was actually going around censoring these quotes, because I figured it made sense (no, not because I can't handle the language). So it would be very useful to have these rules somewhere.

Thanks for any input.

We should make a policy on vulgar language in articles. Some people want it censored, and others (like me) want it uncensored. Censoring just hinders the ability to give information to others. 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should make an actual article about this profanity policy, or as creepy said, possibly an article on all of theses policies, and perhaps on the talk page, let users ask if we have a certain policy on this that and the other.


 * Would the fair way to do this be to do a vote? Because personally, I prefer censored, as it seems to maintain that quality standard.  I have no problem with the language myself, but I think it looks better not to have it.  I don't think it will make a difference in the ability to give information to others.  I mean the whole point of a censor is so you can still see/know what it says, but withholding the vulgar language.  Shall we do a vote, or are we just going to say "It IS done this way"?  You guys have been here longer than me.


 * Yes, it would be fair and we should vote on the issue but, we already know what way it would turn out (no censor), seeing that only about 5 editors are discussing the issue(s) instead of the whole, active community. =(


 * I suppose. But Tipper45 and I think we should censor...  Maybe more users will come out.

The thing is, and I do admire that you have brought this up, we can't censor articles when the game is rated M (Or whatever wherever you live). It was created for adults, the content is at a mature level, and thus we need to be concurrent with this and relay it to our readers the same way. Sure, if we were a children's wiki based on something childish such as Barney, then we would be needed to censor everything, but for an adult topic like this, we can't. Joey  -  Talk Contribs 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, see your point. However, I positively hate that "This game is rated M so anything goes" talk.  I myself have no problem with the language, but I have seen a lot of IPs come and try to censor it as well as a few users.  I think that if people come to the wiki and have a certain standard, we should try to keep it.  Granted, this does not go for everything though.

When it comes down to it, no matter how old or used up that argument is, it's right. We as an expository for the game, have a duty to be accurate and to demonstrate the game on multiple dimensions (In game, Out of game, Real life) As such, when the game swears in some dialogue, or has text appearing somewhere, we need to completely show that. We copy all these elements from the series, we may swear, but we don't host nudity, or any other controversial thing never demonstrated. And to that, I think it should just be common sense. Joey -  Talk Contribs 00:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that more people have come out, why don't we go ahead a start voting on this subject as well, see what the outcome is, then put that into stone.

I personally go by "I don't care what this game is rated, but nevertheless anything canon goes". It's canon that Roebuck is a pottymouth. It's canon that Sullivan says "Fuckers!" at the beginning of World at War. It's canon that practically every named marine with a line cusses at one point or another. If it is canon for Call of Duty, it should go up as it is in canon. If it has a censorous bleeeeep, that's how we would cover it. But it's not. 06:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Joeyaa; a quote is a quote, and any sort of personal feelings against profanity must be ignored if you wish to present full accuracy. In addition, the game's rating is a 15, and if you aren't of that age or don't like cussing then the obvious answer is don't play it. If you're younger than that age and you play the game or read the Wiki, that's your own fault for not respecting the rating. --Darth tom (talk)

An "M" rating means 17 and up. I am personally tired of finding children online playing and cussing. As a parent, I have to say that if I cayght my 9 year old playing COD4 or WaW, she wouldn't be allowed to touch the Xbox for a long time. I guess some parents are just too busy to be bothered by their children, so they stick a controller and adult game in front of them. Everyone in my clan is over 20, and we have started only talking in private chat while playing the games because we don't want to have to listen to squeaky teens and pre-teens, and even single digit aged children taliing about stupid crap and being absolutely annoying. Gsmikem 20:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the game has many rating depending where you live, but I can guarantee that they are all at a responsible age for cussing. But, yes on all points provided by both of you. You can't censor something like this. Thanks. Joey  -  Talk Contribs 04:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So the question now is: do we take a proper community vote or just make a desision based on the current user's opinions? I know we do not have 80% consensus, and as a matter of fact, I am quite swayed by Chiafriend12's explanation.  Either way, we should draw up a policy at Call of Duty Wiki:Censorship policy.   00:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Signature Policy
I think we should have a policy requiring all signatures to be used in template form. I mean the code is longer than the message a lot of times, templates are easier and make the pages look neater.--13:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Support - as proposer. -- 13:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Having signatures in template form is good for longer ones like your's mine, but people do use simple, short, and default signatures sometimes. I think that if a signature is longer than so many characters (say, 50 or something), then it would be required to be in template form. If it is shorter than that, then it would only be reccomended. 18:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Templates are confusing to me but if people know how to use them then they should for longer signatures. BR Ninja15 19:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chia, we should require that people with 50+ characters use a template and recommend it to those with less characters.-- 13:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnotable background characters, and unspecified birthdates and years of death
We already have COD:FNP saying that first names need a source, or they will be tagged with Template:Fact and most likely later removed. But something I've seen happening recently is articles for those randomly named (and sometimes randomly ranked) background characters who play no actual role in the game. Actually, sometimes they play a role, but if they do, their name is different each time (British door opener, pl0x).

Another thing that I've seen is people entering in birthdates and years of death that have no official source, other than personally judging their age via their looks and guessing when they'll die. I'm sorry that I even started this "fad" (I was the first to do it, believe it or not. Ironic that I'm the one trying to ban it, so to speak.).

Private Eugene Jackson (as protrayed in the book and miniseries Band of Brothers) was a paratrooper of the 101st Airborne who enlisted at the age of 16 in 1942- he lied and said he was old enough -, and was KIA in 1945 at the age of 18. Because he started training in 1942 and he had to be 18 then, we would assume he was born in 1924 or earlier if he was a character in Call of Duty. The same could very well be with the random characters that inhabit every level.

Template:Infobox Soldier is designed so if one of the criteria is blank, it will collapse in that area, showing only areas where applicable information is shown.

Look at these two examples at the right of the subsection. One is filled with speculation and fanon while the other only has the cold, hard facts.

The other topic I would like discussed is articles on the background characters I briefly spoke about earlier. It's not that I don't think that they should be mentioned, it's just that being listed is just about the only thing that could be noted about them without going into something that isn't canon. For example, let's look at Private McLeod in Call of Duty 2. If you play through, he might be KIA when landing at Pointe du Hoc, then re-appear the next day, and survive the German counterattack. He then could not appear anywhere in The Silo, still be absent when taking the town at the base of Hill 400, then appear trying to take the hill, and survive. Then, he could totally be absent at the defense of Hill 400, and wind up KIA again at Wallendar.

That is just one of the many ways he could appear throughout the American campaign. And because of that, what would there be to write about him?

Private McLeod was an American soldier of Dog Company during World War II. He is featured in the American campaign of Call of Duty 2.

After that, going into detail about what battles he fought in wouldn't be completely canon. Thus, all articles like this would ever be are one-lined stubs.

Comments? 22:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure... That much is true, but at a certain point, adding content based on common sense/obvious speculation is a good thing.  However, as you put, that does not belong in the infobox, but in a trivia or a speculation section below.   14:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I say that we come up with a new tag, sort of like a stub that says something along the lines of " This article is about a character for which we have limited information. Please do not edit this article to insert speculitve information"or something like that so that these articles don't clog -- 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding War Room to Sidebar
I for one would like to add a link to the war room into the side bar so that it is easier for users to navigate to. Would anyone be opposed to me doing this? I also think we should add a link to the RFA, AFD, AotM, and UotM pages. This will allow the community to participate easier.-- 00:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)