Forum:Discussion: Granularity

Granularity has been a contentious policy, especially when applied to the Articles For Deletion process. In the past I have had conversations with many editors about COD:G and its application, which has been concurrent with many articles being written about seemingly trivial elements of the COD universe and, arguably, whether or not they have a place on the wiki. This thread is not meant to be my opinion on the COD:G issue, but rather to open a discussion and reach a consensus on how COD:G is to be applied and, if needed, how the policy can be re-written.

What Granularity Is

 * Every weapon, level, map, battle, location, mentioned or notable character, perk/attachment, game, unit, etc., gets to have its own article no matter how important it is. From Captain Price to 1st Squad, everything gets covered.

Granularity, as a policy, was created to encourage editors to cover all aspects of the Call of Duty universe. Rather than setting a limit to what can or can't be written, Granularity opens the field for all topics and all editors. This provides the wiki with a broad range of topics in an ongoing mission to document everything that is known about Call of Duty.

Problems
The biggest problem with Granularity is that is a blanket rule. As long as it's in the game, it has an article. Regardless of how insignificant the subject is or how little we can write about it, it gets an article. It is the policy that overrides all policies (even COD:IAR at times). COD:G makes several important processes in the wiki redundant, such as the AfD process. Granularity is a truism -- it cannot be argued against. Articles cannot be deleted via AfD because COD:G will always apply. Where an article fails COD:G, it is automatically deleted via speedy deletion without going through the AfD process. This absolute application of COD:G provides a vague goal of writing comprehensive articles about topics that aren't comprehensively covered in the games.

While not a policy, the idea that CODwiki is not Wikipedia is a precedent that has been echoed through various discussions and AfDs. CODwiki aims to provide all information about COD, but not necessarily cover real-world information that is better covered elsewhere. The main reason is that most editors and readers are purely gamers. Very few of us are actual members of any military, and less -- if any -- are military scholars, engineers, historians, or other academic or technical expert. The richness of the content we can write and edit is restricted to what we know, and that is COD.

The inherent problem with COD:G is that editors naturally strive to include every single aspect of the game, notable or not. Understandably, we want to have the biggest database of COD knowledge, but we have to drawn the line somewhere. COD:G is a mission statement more than a policy, as it is something we can work towards but does not assist in how we can achieve it. As a policy, it cannot exist with other policies.

So where do we draw the line? To guide the discussion, I have provided some contentious articles and issues that have been smothered by COD:G, as well as some ideas that have been brought up in my discussions with editors.

Price's Cigars
In one my first challenges to COD:G, I put forward the following question: if we have to include everything from COD, does that mean we should write an article about the brand of cigars that John Price smokes?

Chiafriend stated in the conversation: ''I would see no reason not to. If it was a real brand, like Camel, I would see no reason not to include it in his article, but it having its own article would be half-pointless. Not much to say without including completely irrelevant information.''

I added something along the lines of: ''if we know the brand, we put it in trivia in Price's article. We don't need an article just about the brand.''

This scenario applies to cases where a particular name or brand appears. Already, we have articles on food chains in MW2 (Cherubini's, Burger Town), and there are numerous other companies we could write about. Recently, an AfD was put up for Sex Dolls, which the nominater stated: ''A little argument has sprung up about this article. Some see it as just an irrelevant piece of scenery, others see it as deserving under COD:G''

Question: Do we strive to create articles for topics that only have a background appearance?

Historical Figures
Dwight D. Eisenhower has a building named after him in MW2, was Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditory Force in WW2 and his Order of the Day was used in a COD1 loading screen. Douglas MacArthur had one of his speeches replayed at the end of COD:WaW and was commander of allied forces in the Pacific. Erwin Rommel commanded the forces in North Africa and France that the COD characters hypothetically fight against and erected wooden anti-glider poles, now immortalised by his name. Adolf Hitler was the leader of the Third Reich and was generally a dick.

None of these characters appear in the Call of Duty series. However, they have survived the deletion process through the virtue of having been mentioned at least once, which is enough for COD:G. The problem is that the game provides no information about these characters, and subsequently articles written about these people depend heavily on Wikipedia.

Question: Should we strive to create comprehensive articles for historical figures, even though ample information about them can be found elsewhere?

Technical Specifications and Classifications
COD gamers love firearms, and we have an abundance of articles related to weapons and all their technical minutae, from Bullpup to 5.7x28mm, the ammunition used by the P90.

All of these elements are in the game, but the game never explicitly mentions them. My argument is that we're bringing real-life concepts into the game instead of gathering information from it; we're putting pieces from other puzzles and making them fit. While these concepts might have everything to do with firearms, they have nothing to do with the game.

From the 5.7x28mm AFD: ''This article tells us nothing except what ammunition the P90 uses. In my opinion, this article is actually spam.

Callofduty4 | What you after? 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC) ''

we would have to create a page for every ammo type for every weapon in every game (Unless of course the weapon or ammo type is repeated.) Jdcoolha 13:59, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

''Keep - It may be really short now, but many articles start out that way. Just wait for someone to come along and add more content to it. Sgt. ChiafriendRifleman 20:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC) ''

Question: Should we document every technical aspect of firearms, vehicles and other equipment featured in the game?

Notability via Association
One of the common applications of Granularity is that x has to do with y, therefore x needs an article.

This has recently appeared in the AfD for game console articles, such as Nintendo Wii and Personal Computer. In the AfD, a point was made that without these platforms, we couldn't play COD. I rebutted that without electricity, I couldn't play COD either. As the platforms are external to the COD series, I do not believe they should have articles on CODwiki.

Similar, some debate has appeared in country articles. Some countries play a significiant role in the COD storyline; others are indirectly linked. We have an article on Australia because several Task Force 141 members wear Australian flag patches, even though Australia has nothing to do with the COD universe. Likewise, Ukraine has an article because Pripyat is in Ukraine. Poland has an article because the Polish Army is featured in COD3 and because the Polish characters refer to the "homeland". If half the products in the game were Made in China, would China get an article?

A discussion arose between myself and SaintofLosAngelesXD that brought up the notability line (similar to the above scenario): Pripyat is in Ukraine, which is in Europe, which is on Earth, which is in the Solar System, which is in the Milky Way, which is in the Universe. Where do we draw the line on what not to include and why? We can't arbitrarily say "we can write an article on Europe but not the Universe" because the logic is the same for both without an over-arching policy.

Also, we have an article on ''Saving Private Ryan because several games have references to it. We don't have articles on Band of Brothers, Enemy at the Gates or The Rock. I could raise an AfD, but it'll get shut down with the same "it's in the game" line.

Question: Should we include topics that are indirectly associated with a COD-related topic?

Honourable Mentions
While COD:G does not specify it, the concept of characters or places being mentioned is considered to be acceptable based off Call of Duty Wiki: Character rules. We have references to Erwin Rommel, Hitler and Valentina. Well, if we have an article for Valentina, why not have an article for sniper's family and dog as well, since they're all mentioned? The characeters apparently don't have to be in the game, and often the person doing the mentioning is considered non-notable.

In a discussion with Chiafriend, I raised the point that if someone mentioned that he came from New York city, does that mean we write an article about New York? If someone's favourite food was Cheerios, do we write an article about Cheerios? If someone skipped school to watch Joe DiMaggio play baseball, do we write an article about DiMaggio or even baseball?

Question: Should we write articles for topics that are only briefly mentioned?

Note for discussion
This isn't a poll. This is an open discussion on the intricracies of a policy and how we can improve the policy and the wiki in general. I'm not calling a vote; only to see what editors felt about working within the bounds of Granularity.

I'm looking for something beyond a single "Yes/No" answer. I'd like to see the logic and reasoning for both sides to gain a better understanding of how we have established the status quo.

Please feel free to make references to the scenario or any other situations you are aware of and would like to raise.