Forum:Changing or removing COD:G

Much credit to Scottie theNerd for originally starting discussion in regards to this policy.

What is granularity you ask? As it currently states, "everything" in the Call of Duty series "gets covered." Not a big deal? These two sentences can blow things out of proportion.

It is understood that we are not Wikipedia, yet, I just deleted an article about tracer rounds, with about one sentence actually having to do with Call of Duty. This wiki is not about world history nor a source about weapon ammunition. Granularity has no limits, and therefore, is above all other policies. It's even sometimes above a policy that should otherwise tell us to ignore it. A policy such as granularity causes problems with Articles for Deletion, as, after all, "everything gets covered."

Notability via association is a problem when it comes to granularity; as Scottie theNerd described, "One of the common applications of Granularity is that x has to do with y, therefore x needs an article."

Washington D.C., a city which the player battles in Of Their Own Accord, is in the United States of America, which is in North America, which is on Earth, which is in the Solar System, which is in the Milky Way, which is in the Universe. There's no reason given as to why the links stop at U.S.A., and some might even argue the United States is not deserving of an article either.

Let's say Price's M1911 was still around. Would that mean an article would have to be created for Price's Barret .50 cal? Or what about Zakheav's golden Desert Eagle that he hands to Al-Asad?

The article on Hitler was deleted for its irrelevance, but what about Erwin Rommel? Douglas MacArthur? Dwight D. Eisenhower?

Fictional businesses perhaps? Cherubini's is gone, but Burger Town is still around. What's stopping someone from creating an article on Sedan Driver, a magazine seen in Zakhaev International Airport, or Chensky, a brand of liquor seen in an advertisement. "Everything gets covered."

While we're at it, why not make an article on blood, since it's seen everywhere in Call of Duty. Next thing you know, the wiki is home to a host of articles regarding human anatomy.

My point is that granularity is simply too broad and opens the door to too many things. Certainly, we want to cover a majority of topics that are Call of Duty related, but where do we stop? Here are some questions to get the discussion going:

'''Are people, places, or things that are briefly mentioned deserving of an article? (Example: Valentina)'''

'How far do we extend to with topics that are irrelevant to Call of Duty''? (Example: United States of America vs. North America; Konami)'''

'''How much history do we cover? (Example: Hitler vs. Erwin Rommel; World War II)'''

'Are topics that only appear in the background of Call of Duty'' deserving of an article? (Example: Cherubini's vs. Burger Town)'''

Hopefully, we will be able to sort out this policy into something a little more logical. 17:08, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion
I don't know man, So many reasons... 2nd Lt.  BravoAlphaSix  17:16, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I believe that articles that arepertaining to Call of Duty should be made into an article. That includes randomly generated characters. We are a database for everything pertaining to Call of Duty, therefore we should cover everything pertaining to it. If we are to delete randomly generated characters then we are not giving the readers all the information that they would like to know about.

As for articles like World War II, that should stay as it is a very important part of Call of Duty and is the setting for Call of Duty, Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 3, Call of Duty: World at War, and the rest of the World War II-era Call of Duty games.

Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity states that everything gets covered. That would be removed or rewritten as not everything does get covered. If everything were to be covered, we would have articles such as Bullets, Ammunition, Nuclear Missile, etc. And everything else that doesn't make a role in Call of Duty.

However, we are a collaborative database for everything Call of Duty. I believe that implies that we would include Hitler, Soldiers, etc. If we are to get rid of those articles, we would not be showing readers of the wiki everything they could learn. We are an encyclopedia built to give the readers something to learn about Call of Duty. If we are to delete everything that isn't considered "important" because they only speak or is only mentioned, we would not be teaching the readers everything that they could learn. --CodExpert 17:36, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't even have an article for the Russian sniper that mentions Valentina. From what you're saying, we might as well create an article for the Russian sniper's mother, his father, his sister and his dog because they are all mentioned. Dunn said "...freezing my ass off in this monsoon." Do we need an article on the weather patterns that occurred during the Russian invasion of the United States? 17:52, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * If it helps the readers learn, why not? Importance doesn't matter as long as it is related to Call of Duty. The Call of Duty Wiki is mostly an encyclopedia. And encyclopedias are to help users learn about the subject of the encyclopedia. If we are deprived of articles because they aren't important or unnecessary but still have some relation to Call of Duty, we aren't letting the readers learn all that they could know. --CodExpert 18:00, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow, I don't think readers are looking for a history of the game developer, Konami when they come to a wiki that's supposed to be about Call of Duty. The only sentence in that entire article that might help readers is, "Konami helped publish Call of Duty 2 for the Japanese Release." That's it. Humans appear a lot in Call of Duty, but having an article on the entire species probably wouldn't help the readers either. 18:20, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean that anything that can give a reader information about Call of Duty should be an article. Konami gives a lot of information, but a lot of it is not related to Call of Duty, I agree all the info that isn't related to Call of Duty should be removed. The articles could easily be made into purely Call of Duty, even the ones that make little or no appearance in Call of Duty and is only mentioned via radio message, etc. I believe that we should have all articles that show at least some relation to Call of Duty and will help readers learn about only Call of Duty, which is why they come to this wiki. There is no doubt in my mind that readers haven't come here to learn more about a character that was only mentioned. As for the size of the article, which I am sure most of the articles would then be small, don't matter. As long as the article gives all the information it can, then it's doing what it is supposed to do. --CodExpert 18:30, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think that anything notable in the Call of Duty series should have an article. If we're making articles on randomly generated characters, as Bovell said, we might as well be making articles for their family. I think that the articles for those who aren't even mentioned in the game; or just mentioned once, should be deleted. They might have been important in WWII, but not in Call of Duty. As for Burger Town, I'm neutral on it. It is kind of notable in the game, but I'm not sure it's notable enough to have it's own article. 18:36, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Randomly generated characters are of importance somewhat to Call of Duty. I am sure readers have come to see who Sgt. Field in Call of Duty 2 is. Articles who aren't seen or mentioned in game should be deleted as they would qualify for speedy deletion. And as for Burger Town, it makes a sure appearance in "Wolverines! " in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and people have taken a lot of interest in it so there's no doubt in my mind that it should stay an article. --CodExpert 18:40, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Appearance yes, but people's interest in a topic shouldn't make it any more qualified to have an article over other topics. If it did, then we would have to create an article for all those Ramirez memes, which is Call of Duty related. Restricting it to appearance is more logical, and draws a more definite line for articles such as George S. Patton. 19:02, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

If we look at the example of Cherubini's and Burger Town, Burger Town plays a part in the mission Wolverines!. Cherubini's does not play a part in any mission and isn't mentioned at all. I think that anything that plays a role in a mission and is mentioned as well should have an article made for it. This means Bullets, which play a role in everything, still do not get an article because they are not mentioned. Randomly generated characters do not get a page, because they aren't mentioned at all. They also do not play a major role in the missions they are in. This is a very complicated subject which needs a lot of attention put towards it. The existing policy is very confusing and should not be followed. 19:16, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * That calls for the creation of Unnamed Middle Eastern country to cover much of Call of Duty 4's setting, as it is also mentioned by the News Caster. How much information would an article about a nation, whose name we don't know, even hold? Additionally, the character fights Erwin Rommel's forces in some Call of Duty games and is mentioned several times, but does he himself ever play a significant role? Does the character see him or personally assassinate him? 19:52, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

And Nate's Restraunt played a part in Wolverines! too. 19:43, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think this policy should be made more strict, as I think that Washington D.C. could be kept as an article since it is a playable location seen in the campaign of Modern Warfare 2. However, Hitler, who is barely even mentioned in the Call of Duty series, shouldn't be made into an article. As long as it appears in the series, it could and should be made into an article, but if it is only mentioned, (i.e Hitler), then it should not be made into an article.22:28, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem therein is that many things that appear in the Call of Duty series probably do not deserve an article, such as the U.S. Department of Commerce, which the player battles in "Of Their Own Accord." Or the Capital City, which is the setting for "Shock and Awe." The line we are looking for has to define notable appearances and non-notable appearances. 22:39, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Only things that have an impact on the series should be made into an article. Things that are heavily involved in the series, maybe through gameplay or just through visuals (i.e. NPCs). 01:03, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Granularity is tough to put a cap on. I can't honestly see a good way to denote exactly what it is, so I think the admins should be the ones to decide whether or not an article is realevant or not. Shotrocket6 23:23, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

floody16:

I got your point: there's no reason to create an article about something that's just briefly mentioned. I think you're right, if that keeps up, this wiki is going to be full of garbage

This is not an admin decision. This is 100% a community issue. Firstly thanks to Bovell for re-initiating the discussion, as I have been unable to do so. We are a collaborative database on all things Call of Duty, true. However, not everything in COD is related to COD. We are not a dictionary, although we do define game-related concepts. We are not a glossary, although we do have a section for quick reference. We are not a history book, although some articles are based off history. In essence, the Call of Duty Wiki should cover topics that no other source can cover in depth. We are not professional historians or technical experts. We do not have the knowledge, experience or authority to be writing up articles on historical figures and weapons because the bulk of our information will be taken from elsewhere, such as Wikipedia, which provides plenty of information on those topics already.

Notability via Association is the first step in breaking down COD:G. We need to specify exactly what is related to COD instead of drawing lines to every possible connection. You don't fight Erwin Rommel in Call of Duty, but you do fight against his forces. So, let's write an article on the North Afrika Korps and state its involvement in COD2. You don't fight Hitler, but you do fight his forces, so write it up in Wehrmacht or German Military. A battle took place in Washington D.C., so put content in there instead of United States of America. Rook (Modern Warfare 2) wears an Australian flag patch, so include that in his article instead of making one for Australia. This is the single most important part in breaking down COD:G, yet many editors cannot see the overlap they are creating when spawning more and more articles that are loosely related and incorrectly attributed. More articles does not mean more content.

@CodExpert: You said "encyclopedias are to help users learn about the subject of the encyclopedia". I agree. Where I disagree is that not everything we write about his to do with our subject, Call of Duty. In Call of Duty, there are tables, chairs, schools, grass, noobs, heroes, climaxes, plot holes, laptops, goggles that do nothing, moments that would induce facepalms, and the list goes on. You stated that soldier is an example of a "COD-related" topic we should include. What would you write in the article other than "There are soldiers in Call of Duty"?

I believe that Notability via Association is best covered in this phrase: Not everything in Call of Duty is related to Call of Duty. Just because you see it in the game doesn't mean you have to write an article about it. It might seem like a good idea to start a stub article about the Iron Cross, but consider the poor editor who has to find sources and write up the whole thing using his armchair history skills. --Scottie theNerd 00:49, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

For locations, I suggest making an article listing all locations in Call of Duty games. All locations get a paragraph under their heading on this article. Locations that have more information than 1 paragraph will have a link to their article in addition to their brief paragraph. Others wouldn't. Non-notable locations can still be linked to, by linking their section. See [] on the Left 4 Dead Wiki for reference. LITE992 01:10, July 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * This idea sounds good. Rambo362 01:59, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Per Scottie's bold. Shotrocket6 02:05, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bovell and Scottie. Granularity is getting seriously out of hand. Lots of AFDs have ground to a halt over granularity. A while ago, articles about FlugRuger, a fictional airline in MW2, and Marley Griffon, a removal company in MW2, were deleted. FlugRuger planes and Marley Griffon signs were just background decal. By that logic, we'd need articles like house, tree, stop sign, ambulance, statue, swimming pool, garden, door, and all kinds of other s***. Granularity has gone too far - waaay too far. Sgt. S.S. 11:36, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think that we need to...have articles that ONLY confict or have a major part in the series. For example, Bovell talked about Price's M1911. But did that conflict or have a major part in the game...maybe. It was just used to shoot at Zakheav. But we can already put that in the M1911 article. Burger Town coflicted with the player as an objective and hold position. But it was mentioned several times. At Virginia and the Airport. Now just because it was a secure and hold point doesn't mean we should make a...Let's say...MG Nest in CoD2. Just something that has a conflicts with the charachter or has a major role.  2nd Lt.  BravoAlphaSix  00:52, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Price's M1911 was a point I raised in the previous discussion as a key example of how "notability" is severely mis-attributed. Price's M1911 is not notable. It did not kill Zakhaev. Soap did. Price is notable; the weapon he used is not. Unless his M1911 has a unique characteristic (e.g. appearance, stats or lore), it does not warrant its own article. Anything that pertains to it is already covered in character, weapon and mission articles. --Scottie theNerd 07:50, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I for one am very confused why Valentina is an article. The logical thing to do would be to put it in the trivia section of the level. Because this happened, it opens to door for similar articles. LITE992 17:06, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this policy deserves to be removed, it was made in good conscience. We should be elaborating on most things you can find information on. But let's not dwell on every possible association something makes. From what I've gathered from previous discussions on this page, a step in the right direction would be this, what's essentially some of a rough draft for re-writing the policy: "This wiki is dedicated to all things Call of Duty. Therefore, any subject that is of importance and impact on the Call of Duty series, deserves to be covered by the editors, whether it deserves an independent page or a dedicated section in an article associated with the subject depends on the availability of information for the subject, and if a separate page would be redundant/ridiculous." I know it's not perfect, but this seems to capture some, if not most, of people's current opinions on the matter (to me, anyway). 19:38, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is that we define the parameters for the policy. Granularity is important, as it promotes the wiki to be more comprehensive. The thing we need to watch out for are those who misconstrue it as an excuse to create articles (I've seen users list what articles they created) and to make sure those parameters are as clearly defined as possible. Chief z 03:19, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Granularity is important, but it also restricts the wiki as much as it is supposed to open it up. It was written to encourage editors to write anything and everything about COD when the wiki was young and empty. Now that it has matured, it is time to move on. Granularity cannot exist with other policies. You cannot have a policy that states that everything in COD deserves to be covered, yet at the same time have other policies that lay down parameters based on impact, importance or notability. Granularity defeats the majority of AfD articles due to the fact that as long as it is in the game, it has an article. That is why I petitioned against it months ago. I feel that many of us don't understand what "Granularity" means. Granularity describes the "state or quality of being composed of many individual pieces or elements". We already recognise that some elements in COD are more significant than others, and we realise that we should not have articles for certain topics. COD:G permits every article loosely related to COD to exist. If we were to keep it, we would go back to bloating ourselves with weapon articles and wannabe history articles that rip information off Wikipedia, which I stress, we are not. COD:G has so much precedence over other policies and processes that, if more editors actually followed these policies and processes, would reveal the problems that editors are facing and will face come Black Ops. Granularity must go. --Scottie theNerd 06:37, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you mention it, I've come to think that I don't necessarily support granularity, but rather having a comprehensive wiki. When it was first proposed, it looked like a good idea and I thought "Good, a lot of things will get covered." Its vagueness was quickly brought to light when Sex Dolls had an article. After reviewing all the AfD's that used the policy as an excuse, I've come to think that it may not be suited for the wiki after all. Chief z 07:38, July 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm in support for the removal of granularity, it is an excuse to keep completely unnecessary articles (Darkman just deleted SP-GPS, the goddamn GPS the characters wear on their wrist, but with granularity that should be kept, which is stupid), confusing at times, and it would be a good idea to get this sorted out before the release of Black Ops. 10:45, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Scottie just hit the nail on the head. If we don't get granularity fixed, well, Banana Mags anyone?[[Image:spock1.gif|30px]]nlmgr [[Image:enterprise.jpg|30px]] 10:51, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment was added on 14:02, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Granularity actually conflicts with the notability section of another one of our policies. Editors are being told not to write about random characters in the Call of Duty series, yet granularity tells them that "everything gets covered." I would much rather see a policy on notability rather than one that is more of a goal that, with all due respect, we aren't meant to completely fulfill. 12:28, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well then, Shall we put it to a vote? Rambo362  13:45, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to mention that Granularity states that everything gets covered, but it doesn't say that everything gets its own article. It seems that this was misinterpreted.LITE992 17:26, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

How about we fix up the rough draft I made, and just change the policy from "Granularity" to "Comprehensiveness"? Seems like what we're going for. We want coverage of most things, but not everything. 22:14, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S., if you're wondering, yes, "comprehensiveness" is a word. 22:16, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --CodExpert 14:24, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) 14:54, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  - User withdraws his vote.
 * 4) [[Image:spock1.gif|30px]]nlmgr [[Image:enterprise.jpg|30px]] 15:08, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) US Army OF-2.png  Rambo362  US Army OF-2.png 15:21, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) --    E ight   O h   E ight  16:07, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) LITE992 17:23, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  17:28, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) -- 17:30, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Chief z 21:31, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) --Scottie theNerd 14:04, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) --Raygunprofile.png Rampantlion513 Monkey bomb.jpg Wanna Talk??Waffe.png 16:47, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Sgt. S.S. 19:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 14)  20:45, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) The policy is not informative enough for a new user to know what to edit or create Coolcoolman_pic_SC.jpg 2nd Lt.   BravoAlphaSix
 * 16) Sac tage   Talk  Editcount Contribs 01:48, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 17) 20PX_SIG.gif  Talk 02:03, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 18) --Tbsoldier sig.pngSoldier 07:35, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) <font style="background:darkred"><font color="Orange">Sac <font style="Background:orange"><font color ="Darkred">tage   <font style="background:darkred">Talk <font style="background:orange"> Editcount <font style="Background:Darkred"><font color="Orange">Contribs 01:48, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) 20PX_SIG.gif <font color="Green"> Talk 02:03, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --Tbsoldier sig.png<font style="background:#808080">Soldier 07:35, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I truly don't care if it goes or stays Conqueror of all Zombies 03:23, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

 * -- CoD addict · (talk) 23:52, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * A scope, or more preferably, a notability policy, would be a suitable replacement. 01:35, July 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * 18:58, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * US Army OF-2.png Rambo362  US Army OF-2.png 23:37, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unanimous votes mean nothing. 23:40, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be the case, but everyone who comes here to vote will support the removal. As COD:CONSENSUS states, the vote will be decided when two or more viewpoints can achieve the best possible resolution. There is no second viewpoint. No one objected to removing the policy. US Army OF-2.png Rambo362  US Army OF-2.png 02:12, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * No one has yet opposed the change. Whether or not people will eventually oppose is irrelevant; what matters is that we allow discussion and voting to take its due course. It's not going to kill us to let a vote go on for a week, and having twenty people agreeing out of thousands of editors is hardly grounds to prematurely close a vote. --Scottie theNerd 09:59, August 3, 2010 (UTC)