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 it 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.

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

Absolutely not. 100% agreement.

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

No. However, I think having small articles about key figures or figures specifically referenced is alright. Also, the way you worded that question is extremely biased, per "even though ample information about them can be found elsewhere."

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

No, but we don't currently do that. I think we've struck a good balance, but we do need to better define what real world information makes it into the articles and how it is implemented.

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

Hell no. Maybe there are some exceptions, but I can't think of any offhand.

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

I do sort of disagree with you here. You use the "slippery slope" argument. Topics that are only briefly mentioned can still have a large impact on the game. Hitler is an obvious example of this. However, the Valentina article is absurd.

Overall I agree with most of your views, and I definitely agree that the current granularity policy is overkill and needs to be seriously revised. Imrlybord7 07:24, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and as a side note, I think that once the policy is revised we will still need to go through article by article and choose what stays and what goes. For example, I strongly support keeping the Dead Cows article, as they appear quite often as a running gag in CoD games. (Impersonal) You might say something like, "Well, walls are featured a lot, too. Should we have an article on them?" Of course not. Walls are normal day-to-day objects. Dead cows? Not really. And no, please do not bring up burgers or other beef products as arguments that they are normal day-to-day objects. Imrlybord7 07:35, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. It was helpful to differentiate between what would be acceptable and what wouldn't. In response to your comment about technical information, we do have a few articles primarily related to real-world firearms, including [ammunition, [[bullpup]] and certain others that I can't recall. --Scottie theNerd 08:59, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware of that. However, to say that we have been documenting "every technical aspect of firearms, vehicles and other equipment featured in the game" is a gross over-exaggeration. But yes, I definitely think that articles which are featured in the CoD wiki that cannot be expanded beyond whatever wikipedia has should be removed. For example, in our M4A1 article, we obviously mention all of its stats in Call of Duty games, which Wikipedia does not. However, in our bullpup article, there is nothing we can include that you wouldn't find on Wikipedia. Actually, now that I think about it, I will amend my answer on historical figures. They should not get articles unless they actually influence the events of a CoD game in some way. If they don't have said influence, there is nothing we can add that Wikipedia won't already have. Imrlybord7 09:32, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, and before we go colon-indent crazy, I'm just going to remove all of them. Imrlybord7 09:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether or not we do current currently document technical information is debatable, but the point is that COD:G opens the field for editors to write about real-life information within the framework of COD. I could, for example, write articles on the STANAG magazine, Belt-fed mechanisms, self-loading mechanisms and tracers, and technically they would not get deleted under COD:G because they are in the game. --Scottie theNerd 00:15, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, there's already an article on tracer rounds. See what I mean? --Scottie theNerd 00:18, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

One of the things that really bothers me is that we have to deal with Erwin and George Patton. I really don't think they should have an article. Maybe we could merge Patton with the mission he is mentioned in, but Erwin does not deserve to be on this wiki, for he is not even mentioned. There are a lot of other reasons COD:G bugs me. I pretty much agree with all your answers though. 7th Body 19:44, February 28, 2010 (UTC)7th Body
 * Rommel is directly mentioned at least four times. 07:44, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think that if something/someone plays a role in a mission/map, it should be included. For example, Burger Town plays quite a large role in Wolverines, therefore we should have an article on it. However, Cherubini's, as far as I know is only seen, and not interacted with in any way. The same goes for Sex Dolls. Therefore, we should not need or have an article on them. That means Reznov's Machete, for example, should actually have a page as it plays a part in the ending of Downfall. 14:49, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting distinction to make. If anything, I would have excluded Reznov's Machete and, instead, attributed to Reznov himself. It is Reznov, not has machete, that plays the major role at the end of Downfall. The weapon itself has no notable attribute other than being carried by Reznov. We could similarly draw a parallel between Reznov's Machete and Makarov's Handgun if that were the case. --Scottie theNerd 16:01, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Everything like that needs a page. However, certain parts of this will need clarification. [[File:Anim-tactical-nukeemblem2.gif]] Poketape Talk 16:22, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * If we follow Callofduty4's line of a subject playing a major part, to whom (or what) do we attribute the part to? If Sergeant Bob shoots Hitler, do we include that information in Sergeant Bob, Sergeant Bob's M1911A1, Sergeant Bob's M1911A1's .45ACP bullet, or Sergeant Bob's Index Finger? I can understand having an article on Price's handgun (since it does feature in the plot to some extent), but under what rationale do we write articles about specific weapons that are used for one purpose? --Scottie theNerd 16:29, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

We have to be reasonable here. Don't argue granularity for the sake of having one more useless article in the wiki. Personal equipment should belong on the character's page. Historical figures, if kept at all, should be combined into one page. Technical specifications should be mentioned in the trivia section on the gun pages. We just need to compile the non-important stuff onto their respective pages or into a page of their own. It's not that hard. I appreciate you thought, Scottie, to invite me to this discussion but I really don't see why it's such a big deal. -- EightOhEight  17:09, March 28, 2010

I Agree with 808, but we don't want to create a bunch of stubs. --User:Squelliot (UTC)


 * It's become a big deal because COD:G has governed what articles should and should not be kept on CODwiki. Your points are reasonable and valid, but unfortunately they're not common practice and don't hold up in AFD discussions. Recently some admins have been taking proactive actions by deleting articles based on the discussion in this topic, but it's time that we agree on being consistent for the wiki's sake. Since we don't have a Notability policy, a user could create an article about Ramirez's Middle Finger. Any admin would delete it, but on what grounds can an article that falls in COD:G be deleted based on an admin's common sense? If we are to apply reason, we need to make it transparent and accessible to the everyday editor. --Scottie theNerd 03:02, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Here's how it should be: they should have a page for the major characters and for the minor ones they should have a page that is titled, "Minor Characters in CoD:(game)".Mstar blue box 20:08, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

I personally disagree with deleting the ammunition pages. Here is my argument: if CoD is an FPS, and you can use a gun that fires the 5.56x45mm round, and it says so on the side of the gun, and you can find ammo crates and physically see 5.56 ammo in a box, then it should be in the game. If that is deemed unnecessary, we might as well just have a page titled "Ammo" with a list of ammo andwhichever guns they are compatible with. And to the above user, there was a page for every caliber, and if not, it was pretty goddamn close. 🇨🇩 03:54, March 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * However, COD doesn't specify what weapons use what ammo. That is information that we bring from real life into the game. Ammo types have no impact on gameplay nor are their featured in the game. Ammo crates are scenic items that have as much notability as a box of donuts. Ammo in itself does not have a significant role in COD -- compared to, for example, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. where different ammo types can be loaded and have different characteristics. In COD, the ammo has no characteristics; it's the weapon that holds that distinction. If we use your train of thought, it would more accurately be: COD is an FPS, and you use guns that shoot bullets. We've got pages for the guns; do we really need to add lists of ammunition types?
 * Additionally, the ammunition pages were only for a small selection of munitions from COD4 and COD6. We haven't touched ammo from WW2. The crux of this point of debate is that ammunition, as presented by the specific, technical categories and types that we understand, is not found in COD. An M4 Carbine does not fire 5.56 x 45mm NATO rounds in COD; it just shoots rounds. There's nothing we can say about a particular type of ammunition other than a list of weapons that use that ammo in real life. Weapon compatibility is often arbitrary and inconsistent -- e.g. ammo from a Scoped Kar89k in the early COD games is not usable for a regular Kar98k or Gewehr 43. --Scottie theNerd 06:45, March 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe a certain amount of common sense comes into creating a page. In an ideal world, someone with common sense wouldn't make a page on Price's Boonie Hat, even though it makes an appearance in 2 games. So, the point I'm trying to make is that while COD:G encourages the creation of articles of even minor things, common sense comes into creating these articles. If someone wants to, they could add a line at the end of the existing policy telling people to use their common sense when creating an article. 12:01, March 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Common sense, yes, but the problem is that it varies from person to person. A page such as Captain Price's M1911 was made a few months ago, and why not? It was responsible for the deaths of two of the three major antagonists seen in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Yet the page was deleted on the basis that it was a frivolous item to make an article about. Using this same logic, under my common sense, a page like Ammo Crate (Care Package) should not exist. 18:57, March 29, 2010 (UTC)