Forum:Real Life Trivia

I am one very loyal to this Wiki (being on here for half a year) and support this Wiki a lot, but now I'm uncertain what to do. I usually only come here for the Trivia because I already played the levels and know what to do from experience (I also come on here for the Nazi Zombies plot). But the main reason I liked the trivia so much was how I could read it and go "Oh, wow? They fucked that up?" or other fun facts and corrections. Let's think of something many of you seem to have forgotten. "Wiki" comes from "Wikipedia" and Wikipedia was a huge database of knowledge and other stuff. We are a Wiki. If I were to get some of the knowledge I used to get from here at Wikipedia, I would have to read through a shitload of riduculous paragraphs hard to understand. Wikis are suppossed to give knowledge, right? Yes, I understand you can throw the "We're the Call of Duty wiki" at me, but Call of Duty involves a lot of things, why not cover the things they involve? I loved learning here, now it's very rare to learn. Please make more real life trivia. Pvt. Reddenbawker 23:27, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Comments
Hell no! If we have that, than we would end up with trivias such as "The TAR-21 is Israel, however it is being used at the Russian Spetsnaz, which is odd". Then, we would need to make a page for Israel and while we're at it, why not Jesus and then Mary and God. It would turn into a clusterfuck, and then we would need a page about the entire history of Russia, and the Spetsnaz. Oh, and how about the Navy SEALS, and a large historically accurate page out the Rangers and it wouldn't be about Call of Duty anymore. We are the Call of Duty Wiki, not the Thing related to Call of Duty and more Wiki. TheManOfIron (Wanna talk?) 23:35, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh... who says we would have to make a page for Israel? Just because we note 'Tar 21 is an Israeli weapon, used by the Russian Spetsnaz in Modern Warfare 2', does NOT mean we have to make something on everything. Also, I'm pretty sure we should've made a SEALs page, because they're a playable faction. We don't have to have a ton of random articles just because they're minorly related - he's talking about TRIVIA, not creating an article on God. Juan José Rodriguez  reportin'  for duty.  00:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

 Talk 00:06, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

-- 00:20, August 27, 2010 (UTC) Israel is a country, the TAR-21 is Israeli.  List of other weapons that are Israeli   We don't need articles like that -- and if we are following the logic that you put out, why wouldn't we just provide a link to Wikipedia? His logic states that as an encyclopedia, we should inform readers of everything they can learn, that is flawed. As Call of Duty takes place on Earth, his logic means that we could also create an article on that, and then a chain of articles we don't need as well. -- 00:52, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't NEED to create an article on Israel, because it isn't mentioned! He's saying 'let's put some real-life trivia', not 'let's create a page for everything'! Plus, Granularity has been discontinued. Basically, all it would mean is putting 'The TAR-21 was made in Israel' as trivia. That's it. No Earth, no Solar System, just the trivia! Really, it isn't covering everything, it's minor trivia, dude! Juan José Rodriguez  reportin'  for duty.  00:40, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Users will eventually make an article for Israel because they saw it in a few weapons articles, I really can place it out on how it would look as well:
 * There are only three weapons that are from Israel, and literally all they would involve in the trivia is 'This weapon is made/is originally an Israeli weapon. You don't need to create a million pages. His logic does not mean you create articles for anything at all, it's about TRIVIA, nothing more, not pages, categories, but TRIVIA. If Israel is not involved in the MW series at all, you don't put a page for it. If weapons are from it, what's the harm in putting the trivia? Plus, if people decide to make those pages, you delete them, because they're not mentioned in CoD. Juan José Rodriguez  reportin'  for duty.  00:57, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Darkman 4 03:46, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

05:34, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

--Scottie theNerd 06:14, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

--Soldier 08:17, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. S.S. 18:41, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is when the trivia section becomes bloated because of RL trivia. It looks like shit and is filled with info, that quite frankly, most of our readers don't care about. As I said before, all it does is turn into every gun nerd that thinks he's a gun expert because he reads the Wikipedia pages on guns posting extremely minor nitpicks that nobody cares about. Darkman 4 19:42, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what? It's just trivia. Trivia sections are bloated with stuff like pop-culture references. Why should RL gun info take precedence above that? Sgt. S.S. 19:58, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, like Pvt. Reddenbawker, I loved reading RL trivia. What you, Darkman, see as gun-nerd crap, is interesting information to others. Sgt. S.S. 20:07, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Back in IRC a while ago, one of our admins said that our readers don't care about anything besides the game stats and strategies on weapon pages. I would agree, as every time someone has linked to our pages from other sites (I've seen it), they never mention the trivia; it's always the facts, like weapon stats. Adding a bloated amount of trivia just to please a small amount of users like you isn't worth making our weapon pages look like crap. Darkman 4 20:18, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I just said, "the pages looked like crap" is your opinion. What if we did what Scottie suggested, and added an "Inaccuracies" section? Also, you said people come here for game stats, not trivia; if that's the case why would we be worrying about trivia, if people don't come here for it? Sgt. S.S. 20:26, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * What registered users isn't exactly what your average person viewing it at school/work/home want.
 * It would still be crap and would lead to a large amount of bloat. Darkman 4 20:42, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what if it bloats a little? The stats would remain the same. The info in-game would remain the same. Same article, just a little longer. Sgt. S.S. 20:49, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. I'd rather have no RL triva than allow a "small amount" that could become way larger if it isn't kept in check. Allowing some is going to cause trouble. Darkman 4 23:31, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

What if we establish a limit as to how far the rea life can go. For instance, nations that play a large part (large) should be added. If those pages aren't added, then at least add real life trivia. I loved that, now a bunch of boring "If you shoot here blah blah blah" or whatever are spamming the trivia. For fuck's sake a whole bunch of trivia was deleted when the real life thing was enacted. I saw entire pages ripped down to half their size for weeks! We need at least the trivia to have real life references. Pvt. Reddenbawker 23:01, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * A limit is too much work; very few people read the rules as-is. If we tried to enforce a limit, then we'd have people going over it all the time because they don't know about it, which would be too much work for the admins for little payoff. A blanket ban allows us to get rid of all of it and easily revert and RL info before it gets out of hand.
 * And, who cares that the pages were made smaller because we got rid of the RL trivia? Page quality is not determined by it's size. Darkman 4 23:31, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * If bloating trivia sections is the problem, don't put them under trivia. I just recently suggested putting up a "Notes" section in every weapon article to include game-relevant information that is not trivia. I don't see the harm in including an "Inaccuracies" section to list some RL-related details worth mentioning. I believe we should be allowed to observe some connections with real-life material as long as we don't include information that is exclusively about RL weapons. IMO, it's fine to mention that an AK-74u is actually an assault rifle, but it's not fine to talk about the nomenclature of the MP44 and its round-the-corner attachment. --Scottie theNerd 03:48, August 28, 2010 (UTC)