Forum:Archive

'''This is an Archive from the old War Room. Do not add new archives to this'''

No more admins
I think we should not make any more admins until we have more users as 3 out of the 5 active users are already active admins.--01:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont honestly see whats the matter with having more admins. There are not really any downsides as the only thing it does is make any administrative functions flow quicker and actually help the wiki in regardless to vandalism and deletions. Royal Orleans 01:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is if everyone is an admin then new users will request adminship faster and there is an increased chance of block and edit wars.--01:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Still that is speculation, we do not know weather new user will until it actually happens. Also the increase in administrators would most likely do nothing to effect edit war's. Also what I see happening is that Since more editors would have administrative powers blocks could be more easily over turned and oversights will lead to more responsible blocks. And I fail to see how more admins would result in greater edit wars. Royal Orleans 02:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A wiki this size does not need 5 admins. One b'crat and 2 admins is enough.--02:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You still fail to give a reason why any more administrators would be a "Bad" thing. Royal Orleans 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a good reason: As Bigm and Fedarated have shown, admins here seem to get into block fights on a semi-regular basis. If we had more admins, it may escalate from semi-regular block fights to a block war. 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats exactly what I said but Bones said that won't happen--09:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * With more admins any resulting fight of one of two admins would result in someone being able to intervene. I also blame the last fight on a lack of "guidelines/rules" and a over tendency to block (no offense). As Again multiple administrators will provide different points of view to any administrative action and will be able to intervene. Also Chia we have TWO active admins that get into a fights somewhat often. Seeing the actions of two people in a fight should hardly be used to judge against others. Royal Orleans 19:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

One more admin would be fine and that should be either Bones or Jack, cause they both are devoted to fixing grammar, rewording articles to remove "I" or "Me", and they both do many cleenups. One more admin would be fine.

Majority or consensus?
Currently, we operate on a majority vote. If 50% of people are for something, it happens. On most other wikis, they operate on consensus, meaning a more general agreement has to be reached (i.e.: 60%, 75%, etc.). I vote for conensus myself. 03:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be 75%--09:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's fairer. The majority will be most appropiate to go by.  Th e p  ark  st er  Co mu  ni  c  at  io ns  Co  nt  ri  b  ut  io ns |undefined ''' 11:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Main page protection
Recently, the main page was blanked. The main page is the page that everyone sees when coming here. If it has vandalous content on it, it can give the wrong impression of the site. Before causing any protection war, I'd like to start a vote on whether we should protect it so IPs can't edit. This will mean that non-admins, like Jack and Bones, can still edit it, but new guys (accounts less than four days old) can't edit it. I vote for. 02:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I have seen Wikipedia's article of the day be vandalized, and I was very dissappointed. It makes the administraters and other editors on the site look bad. I think that some vandalizers may wait that four days anyways. There should be an edit minimum to access larger, more important editable pages. 06:03, 7 June 2008 (vote doesnt count. newly registerd.)


 * I have done this many times, but It is always unprotected. Yes, we should do that


 * I oppose. According to wikia central the main page should not be protected unless it has come under attack by many vandals. one of two attacks every now in then are the norm so to say. --23:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A semi-protection(i.p's cant edit) would be ideal. Because its usually the "first" page any readers come into contact with it would probably be best if only regular remembers could edit it. Though this wont stop all vandalism, we would be able to block their account without blocking any I.P's and hurting any innocent editors. Royal Orleans 13:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

New logo
After my failure that was Forum:New Name for Wiki, I was a little reluctent to start this new forum. One of the main reasons I said Ghillepedia (On the suits snipers wear in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare), cause they look so Awesome. And that got me thinking, after one of our editors said our logo looks like a donkey taking a shit then throwing up on it (AVGN pwnage), we should have a Ghille Suit on our Logo. That would be majorly kickass. Share youre thoughts. 11:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a great idea and i wouldn't oppose it if it looked good. Though i think we should have a bunch of WWII era soldiers because most of the games take place in the conflict, representing most of the game. OR!!!! ( just thought of it) We have one of the protagonists from each of the game back to back of each other. <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000FF;">Royal <font style="color:#0000FF;background:#FFFFFF;">Orleans 22:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not have the have the tools to create a better logo, I only have acces to paint. I could borrow my cousins IMac but Im not up to speed with its features. We need someone to make it.

I think it should stay WWII-era. Out of eight games, seven are from that war, after all. I have access to Photoshop, so I'll be able to whip something up if needed. 23:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I Honestly thing we should go up with my idea,(1 of the protagonists from each game standing next to each other). I think mine would best sum up all of the games if it was possible. <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#0000FF;">Royal <font style="color:#0000FF;background:#FFFFFF;">Orleans 00:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The only problem I have with Bones idea is that we dont have good pictures of the Main characters, cept in Finest Hour. Theres no real story to them either, mostly your allies have story, and Chia even though most games were in ww2m cod4 brought many players who didnt play cod to it so we have to think

Wiki theme
The Defualt theme for no longed in users is never updated. I suggest we just make it the wikipedia lookin one. <font style="color:#000000;background:#FFFFFF;">Prec <font style="color:#FFFFFF;background:#000000;">ence 19:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed --14:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Ads "eating" the main page
Something needs to be done about them. They cover the text on the main page--21:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Forum:Anti/Counter Vandalism Unit?
Hey, I was just looking around at the Runescape Wiki and I saw their totally awesome "Report Vandalism" sidebar thing. I think we need something like this. It would be a big help and a handy tool for users who happen to see some vandalism but don't know what to do. Of course, we really don't want to copy and make ours look like theirs, so I'll need some creativity assistance. I know exactly how to implement this, and all I need is some good concepts as to WHAT we should implement. Any ideas on this, or even any other sidebar feature that would be helpful may be posted here. Or even if you think it is a bad idea. ;) All ideas are helpful!

Oppose - The Rswiki has loads more traffic then we do. We hardly ever have vandalism. They have edits like every second. That is why they have it and we don't. We just need to check the recent changes. --20:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Yet - I really support this idea, but as Rs4life said CoD Wiki doesn't pull in enough edits for this to be a major issue. Yes, we have vandalism, but it is usually found and reverted. I also think that users would know what to do if they saw vandalism (its kind of common sense, remove it), but they probably wouldn't think to tell an Admin to issue a ban/warning. If we ever did have enough traffic coming to this wiki (perhaps when CoD 6 comes out) I would be all for it, but at this time it isn't needed.


 * Righto, I just put this up because we had a flood of new users, and with it, plenty of vandalism. Actually, the wiki has been expanding really quickly, so like Ross said, it is a great idea, but maybe not yet.  By the way, I added an "Advanced Search" tool on the side, just for convenience.  Actually, when I added this discussion, I was finding a ton of vandalism just by accident, such as hitting the "random page" button.  The reason I thought this might be a good idea, was that I imagine enough new users come here, see vandalism and don't know what to do.  Besides, if you notice, on Runescape Wiki, the "Report Vandalism" option pretty much just shows a list of admins.  This would be useful for us not only because of new users, but in case someone wants to contact an admin for that purpose, and hits one of the inactive ones.  Personally, I still think it is a good idea just because I go at it with "why not", just like the "Advanced Search".

Support - Since the advent of Call of Duty: World at War and say, to a little lesser extent Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, I support this idea, since these two games have been released, some players do want a wealth of information about Call of Duty for free, and under a official or group of people besides other blogging or fan sites. Wikis are great interactive ways to see other people's point of view, seeing how many edits can be done (whether the edit is to add on or to correct spelling or grammar.) More hustle and bustle = more chances of vandalism. Though I know this Wiki is small and not a metropolis, the idea is fine by me. iplayf0rkeeps MaiPenRai 23:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Yet - They need it. Being an admin there too, I know what their vandalism is like. Bigm's statement that they get edits every second was hyperbolated, but they do get up to a few hundred every hour. What do we get? Fourty edits a day? They get vandalism every ten minutes or so, which is almost immediately reverted. For the fraction that isn't reverted, it gets reported to the CVU (Counter-Vandalism Unit). For the even smaller fraction that doesn't get reported, it stays there until someone comes across it.

For us, we can look in the recent changes at all of the edits in one day. That's good enough to do to watch out for vandalism. 01:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion failed. Being moved to archives.

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)


 * Hmm, ok Chiafriend12 convinced me. I think that logic makes sense, so let's do it that way.  We appear to have agreed that censoring is a no, so let's draw up a neat official policy and call it closed.  And maybe have some sort of a link somewhere that gives our policies.  I had to really go hunting to find the policies we have; we need a link.  Thanks for your input everyone.

Policy is no censoring by popular vote.

Revision to COD:R, and usergroups?
Currently at Call of Duty Wiki:Ranks, ranks are based solely on one's total editcount, and the editcounts are listed for each person, which would tend to get outdated rather quickly.

Which is why I have an idea (an unoriginal one, might I add): What if we were to open usergroups? Like Halopedia's UNSCoH, we could make our own usergroup. This could replace the ranking system, and the requirements we currently have for ranks could be turned into guidelines, and users could just request promotions, and an officer could grant or reject the promotion.

Another idea of mine is that the usergroup could either be our own made up unit, or be named after the Wiki somehow. Examples include:
 * 305th Infantry Company
 * The "305" is vaguely Leet for "COD".
 * Call of Duty Wiki Armed Forces
 * Etc.. I'm too lazy to think up of anything else.

The ranks would probably have to end up being proportional, also. Comments? Ideas? 02:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Ho-ho NOW you're talking. I think we all know that the ranks system needs a change no matter what it is, but everyone likes to have a cool, you know, something to look forward to, and update on a regular basis (No one wants a stickler wiki where fun is outlawed ^^). One question; how... is... 305 related to COD? (looks at it upside-down) xD I can see the 0, but the 3 and 5?

Anyways, I support this idea fully, and so all we need are some ideas. We should get I Ross I, he seems really into that sort of thing.

Oh, also we need some cool/hopefully official userbox templates. For examples look on I Ross I's and my user pages. Official images for the ranks is good too.


 * C is the third (3) letter in the alphabet, 0 just plain looks like an O, and I couldn't find any other digit that looked like D anymore than 5 did. 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why not 304? That makes more sense because C and D are 3 and 4 on the alphabet.  Then "0" is obvious.  Bolded so you can pick out this text in the midst of the others.

Oppose offensive towards people who have served in a real military or force by treating titles styled after their prestigious classification titles as a cheap way to enhance atmosphere. unless the naming is things that are distinctly mercenary like such as the "CoD Wiki Strike Force" or something, i'm saying it's disrespectful Sqaddif 05:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dis...Respectful??? Did I miss something here?  Have you ever been to the official Call of Duty site, CallofDuty.com?  Or have you ever played Call of Duty 4 or Call of Duty: World at War?  They all use a ranking system, and for the same reason; fun.  I'm sorry, I REALLY don't understand what you are saying.
 * It's not like we'd be trying to pass off as real sergeants, captains, generals, and so on. I'm rather sure that it would be obvious to any veteran that we're not serious about ranks. It makes sense to have these ranks if we were to have a usergroup (or perhaps ranks "soldier", "squad leader", "platoon leader", etc., but it's more traditional to have more authentic ranks) because we're a fansite/encyclopedia about a military game series that uses military ranks. 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Incredibly strong oppose - No matter how you say it, its still showing superiortiy of some users of others which goes against All Editors Are Equal. Also you are forgetting that a promotion may simply may be shot down because someone dislikes you. Also it has been said time and time again that the ranking system on both here and halopedia have failed. Any attempts at reviving this idea, which will cause trouble on the wiki will be stopped. -- 06:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh well, I disagree, but it is no trouble to go without it... I understand perfectly when you say that ranking systems are bad, but the thing I don't agree with is where you say it disrupts the "All Editors are Equal" policy.  Are you saying no-one should have something to shoot for?  I think in many ways, a "flashy" something will attract editors, and if we have something like Chiafriend suggested where it is not an "edit count" system but rather a system that is purely based on editor quality.  Following the "someone dislikes you" logic, why have admins?  Not meaning to be impudent, but if people thought that way, wouldn't users feel inferior to admins?  Why do we have "Users of the Month"?  If other users flaunt their rank, then the granter (admins only) can take it away.  That simple.
 * AEAE would still be in effect. All that the ranks would do is give bragging rights and [if ranked high enough] allow you to promote other people. 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Since forums have this ranking system, and tend to not care about it, I support this idea. To be honest, prestiging in CoD is okay and fine my me, its "to make the game a little bit funner" since you would have all of the weapons unlocked and such. Prestiging is just another fun thing, just as this ranking system. Seniority is not really the problem here, there maybe a private that knows more than me, but it does not mean I am better than him if I am a higher rank than him. And there might be an aristocracy soon, but like I said, it doesn't matter of the rank, just think of it as an interesting thing to see yourself ranked at other people, no serious competition. Are we to have fun here? Or is our purpose to have fun? Well, bring in comedy as you work, it makes time go by much faster in my experience.

iplayf0rkeeps MaiPenRai 22:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support per myself. 02:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - I have been reading a little about how the system works on Halopedia and in my opinion it somewhat combines our current ranking system and the request for admin/bureaucrat system, as it is still based on a certain number of edits, but in order to move on to the next rank, you must ask for a promotion from the general. I really like this seeing that it still combines our old ranking system (ranks, edits), but the general will review your edits and see if they are decent and legit ones. If they aren't he/she will reject the promo, and vice versa. In order to achieve general, you have to go through the ranking system, and once you reach the rank of colonel, you may request to become a general and the community will vote on it. I also like this because it makes you want to achieve something and uses the community voting system. But this brings me to a question - Who will be allowed to vote during this process? And if the change does happen, Should we create a new ranking system or keep the old ranks and edit counts? Also, I would be willing to help with creating templates and etc. PS: I like the name Call of Duty Armed Forces better than 305. PSS: If this does pass there are many more questions to come.
 * I'm guessing that everyone except the user in question would be allowed to vote. I think we'll keep the current ranks for the most part, but change the editcount requirement depending on how big of a community we become. On the RuneScape Wiki, like one fifth of the people there have over 2,000 edits, which would put them at the highest rank. As for here, maybe five people period have over 1,000 edits, and one over 2,000. 05:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Usergroups are a pointless idea. A Wiki is for editing and is not a social networking site. --Thomas "Darth tom" Rattim (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No offence, but why should we even count your vote?, you have never even made an edit here at Call of Duty Wiki.


 * Perhaps because he is a good wikian who has been around the block several times? I do find it's important to mention though that adding a creative and unique element like this to a wiki, does give it its own personality, but you can't base it solely on edits. When users start racking up edits and competing it actually does the opposite effect of what you would think, and the quality of the wiki decreases. I support having an identity, specific to this wiki, but it would have to not be based or rely on one's edit count. Joey  -  Talk Contribs 00:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I only based it on edits since new users aren't allowed to vote but, perhaps I should have checked around the block to see if he is a good wikian, I also assumed he was a new user since he forget to mark his vote on the voting counter.


 * I understand, but it's not really who he is, but what he said. And he is completely right you know, not only does Wikia looks down at this type of thing, and the collapse of other wikis based on this, but it is apparent that in the long term,it's a suicide pill. And, just by looking at what he said, I can almost guarantee he just dropped by for the first time and just clicked the link on the top. His sig isn't made here, which will tell you that he didn't plan to edit here, so obviously he saw something he considered important. But, this is just what I can draw about him by reading what he said. Anyways, if you don't count his vote, replace his name with mine, and consider it mine. Joey  -  Talk Contribs 06:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Strong oppose: Basing rank on edits is not a good idea. You can see that just by looking at Ross' response. People already want to discount opinions by others based on how many times they have posted, as if that somehow has a bearing on how intelligent, or correct they are. If you want to make people feel welcome, and promote growth of the forums...don't bother with rank nonsense, just let people enjoy discussing the game and let them get to know each other. With the rank system, you will eventually end up with 12 Generals and no soldiers... Gsmikem 01:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late reply - Uni's kept me busy. Anyway, as Joeyaa said, I'm just a general Wikian who pops up on various Wiki's every now and again to offer advice and assistance. Being admin on a few, I'm quite well versed in the ways Wiki's work, and it's always good to share around and help out others. :) --Darth tom (talk)

So, what is the verdict? I see this has dissappeared from the main page again, but with a tie vote, what will happen? Gsmikem 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

'''Suggestion failed; an 80% consensus was not reached. Being moved to archives''' <font face="Bauhaus 93"> <font color="Green"> BG.   <font face="Bauhaus 93"> <font color="Green"> Creepydude  Sniper  <Font color="Puce"> Say Some'at Here!   00:56, 27 January 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)

Suggestion died without any consensus being achieved, FAIL

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)
 * Don't mean to burst your bubble, but I did that last July :P. Though, as for links to RfA and the other project pages, remember that our unregistered users will also be using the same sidebar, and they probably couldn't care less about our project pages. If you want to go to one of those pages, just enter in a redirect title, like COD:RFA or COD:AFD. 03:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Weird, I don't see the link to the war room anywhere on the sidebar.-- 09:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He added it to the Monobook skin (MW:Sidebar) but you (and everyone else) are using the Monaco skin so you need to add it to (MW:Monaco-sidebar). Yawn. Joey  -  Talk Contribs 11:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Done-- 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete Project:Community Portal?
This is basically the same thing as the war room and its never used. Opinions?-- 23:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC) -- 23:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Everything about the help is found in Help:Contents so I really see no reason for this.

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)


 * I don't see the point of adding pages for every soldier in the games. There should only be info on characters that do something important, such as lead the player somewhere or point out an objective. Adding a page for each soldier, no matter how insignificant, is a waste of time and resources. Darkman 4 00:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with you. The age and death of background characters is just an unnecessary. We need to clean up this wiki and remove these pages.

....But if we remove them then we would have lots of articles removed, i'd say around 300. We'll think of something --;D MWAHAHA!!! 21:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather have a smaller wiki that has good quality articles about important concepts than a large wiki that's mostly filled with shitty pages about faceless soldiers. Darkman 4 23:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A page should only be given to a specific soldier if it meets some specific criteria, something that not every character in the game would have. If a character in game did not have at least one line of dialog or a scripted event pertaining to that specific character, I don't think that a page is really called for. For example, Pvt. West in Call of Duty 4 had the line "Right away sir." and then subsequently died with the javelin in hand. This makes him important, since not only did he speak, but Jackson now has to be the one to use the javelin rather than West. Now one could argue that his role isn't big enough, he's just a background character, but he has a scripted event in which his name does not vary, which I think is the key to the kingdom. 15:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I assume we have a consensus. With these decisions, this would mean that any articles on background characters would be deleted. For example, most of the articles linked to from Dog Company (2nd Ranger Battalion) would be deleted and de-linked to. Any last second comments or objections? 19:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If a soldier is a randomly generated character (with a random last name and possibly a random rank), they don't get an article. If they are random but have a notable scripted event [like the British door opener], they may get an article with a title related to what they are notable for.
 * Years of birth and years of death (especially days and months) may not be added unless it has been officially stated in-game, by the makers of the game, or by any other official source. Fan-made approximations will not be accepted. For example, Randall could look 22 to me, while someone else could think he's 30.


 * I'm cool with this. I especially agree on the date thing.  It is unbelievably annoying to have to revert the changes on an article where someone puts "Birth: probably somewhere between 1924-1930 - Death: probably 1942 since he was with a squad that probably died when they might have gone into..." etc.  So yah.  It's really annoying.  Chia, wanna draw up a poliC?   16:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk page length
I propose that we limit the amount of non-archived discussions on a persons user page to 50 or less. After 50 they should be archived. This will severley reduce lag and will be beneficial to many people including myself as my school's computers suck. For an example of what I am proposing we limit see: User talk:Chiafriend12. His talk page is laggy for me even on my uber computer.-- 00:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Support as proposer.

Support although it may be a little rigorous, it is very annoying to have a delay in the time that you type and the time it appears on the screen. *hint hint Chia!* :)  16:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do extended searching of the model of the character and point out characteristics that make them look a certain age and estimate their true age.

Welcoming Committee
Right, well to help with the new flow of users and ips consantly editing this wiki I propose we create a welcoming comittee. This committee will be responsible for welcoming all new users and ips. Any thoughts/comments are appreciated.-- 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - I'm kinda new here so I think a welcoming committee would be good for the others joining. I mean, what's bad about a welcoming committee? ukimies 19:09 5 June 2009

Support - As proposer-- 21:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

For an example see Here--

Support - It makes life easier, and the wiki more effective....no reason to oppose <div style="display: inline; white-space: nowrap; border: dashed #000099; background-color:#CCFFFF; font-weight: bold;"> WhiteyT6 What u want? 05:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - It will make the site seem nicer, esspecially the users. TAK The Voyager 22:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - It will just make everything seem more professional. TrueRedJake 08:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - It will make the wiki better! Cod1 19:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - Most wikias have one, so this should too. Nemesis645 14:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - A welcoming committee would be useful for helping people get to know the website. HWAskiBRAVO 10:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - It would help people use the site easier. Ajr117 12:46, 22 May 2009 (GMT)

Support - While a warm welcome is always nice, I think it would be great to take it a step further. It would be especially helpful for those who are new to wikis and the like if they received some assistance. 11:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - I think it's a great idea. When I became a member of this wiki, I kinda got a welcoming thing, though. I thought we had this already. 01:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - I think a welcoming committee would be a great addition. It will help get new visitors interested. ZopySH 16:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Support - Although I may be a little inactive around the Call of Duty wiki, I've been helping out at a handful of other wikias, one of them exclusively being Halopedia, and by my knowledge, a welcome greeting to every new users make them feel wanted, helpful, and contributing to the wiki community. I've noticed that a wiki user's performance can exponentially grow with a little confidence from a welcome greeting.--

Support = Like the others, I think a welcoming committee would be great. It's nice to feel accepted and welcome to a new place :) --CirChris 00:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I litterally just joined a few minutes ago, and it's all a little confusing. I think a welcoming comitee would be nice, to let people know where to go and how to do things. -Awesomeguy


 * I think the community has decided that this is a go. The job is now is creating a system in which users as well as IPs will feel welcome as well as being familiar with things. What I think is important is people knowing how to use common templates and other wiki activities that might be a bit dubious to some. 00:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Support- I think that a welcoming committee would do a great deal to help newcomers around the site.--

Support - No reason to oppose, it's a good idea

CALL OF DUTY RULES!!!!!!!!


 * Of course it is a nice idea, but so is a personal butler for each of us. I Support, but as long as regular members are willing to give up a fair amount of time. -WartyX 07:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Accepted standards
There are some things that have been accepted among the site, and we write respective articles as that being the way things are. A prime example of this is how we have separate articles for the Captain Price from World War II from the Captain Price from modern times. Why do we do this? Because it makes sense. Call of Duty is not a series that has timewarps or special powers and such. How would a man who was middle-aged in World War II be able to do covert sniping operations and save the world from a nuclear war 66 years later? Or for that matter, even still be alive? He wouldn't be able to (well, with the being alive part, he could still be alive, but it wouldn't be likely for you litteralists :P). And because of this, it has been decided among our community via sensical discussion that the two Captain Prices are not one in the same. It has also been decided that they are not even likely to be relatived. They look similar, they sound similar, and they generally are similar. That's it.

Thats a crock! He is the ww2 capin price's son! bALROG 1262
 * Is there any proof? No that's just your opinion. Unless there is proof, we have to assume that they are not related in any shape or form. The characters are most likely based on a developer in Infinity Ward.

But there is still other things that need to be decided as what he accept for our standards. The main thing I'm going at is the Nazi Zombies game mode and things about it. It has been commented that it could be any of the following: Personally, I go with the last one. This series is just so great that many people want to fit all of the metaphorical puzzle pieces into position. But Nazi Zombies? It doesn't fit anywhere in the storyline. Why? It's not supposed to. It's just there for fun. Treyarch didn't add it to have a twist in the official story. They added it to be a fun game mode that doesn't apply to the story.
 * an alternate future
 * one with Locke being the survivor of a plane crash and defending himself from zombies (Nacht der Untoten only)
 * that Call of Duty isn't based off of the real Earth, but it takes place on an alternate Earth that had an almost identical history and all, but instead of World War II ending in nukes dropped on Japan, it ended with a zombie onslaught
 * it's just a dream some character had
 * or, lastly, that it's non-canon (meaning it's not part of the official storyline).

So, yeah. Vote on how we should view the Nazi Zombies game mode in articles, bring up anything else we need to decide on, comment, or whatever. 22:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nazi Zombies shouldn't apply to the official story. It obvious that it's just there for fun. Darkman 4 17:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with the last one. Its just a (really) fun little gametype that Treyarch made at the last minute. Unless an official story is announced by Treyarch, then its just a mini-game. TAK The Voyager 21:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the last one also because there is no way you can beat the thing but just beat waves and when ever you die it doesn't make you do it again.-Huxley123

I have a theory that locke's plan crashed in manchokoh at the Japenese zombie testing facility where pows from the batan death march were experamented on by the Japenese and were turned into zombies and some nazis were there when the zombies went out of control -Balrog 1262
 * Once again, do you have any proof? First of all, there are thousands of theories about the Nazi Zombie, but we have agreed it's a minigame (IMO to compete with Infinity Ward's choice to go to Modern Warfare). The theories mostly have no proof at all, except for the plane. Second, your theory is completely, no offense, stupid. Locke's fate is unknown to the player. Also, Locke's attack time is way after the Bataan Death March. Hell, it was after the Americans took back the Philippines. Third, are you serious about the Nazis? There were none nor has there ever been a Nazi battalion or force in the Pacific Campaign. Fourth, if the "captives" were the ones being "experimented" on, then why are the zombies Nazi Zombies? If the zombies went out of control, why would it matter why the Nazis were there or not too? If I sound harsh I'm sorry, but I just had to go through a 6 hour wait for MP2 for PS3.

What is a MP2?--Lord DooDoo 01:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Lord DooDoo

If you go to solo campaign, you will see nazi zombies is a separate campaign (click nazi zombies it shows all the zombie maps that are out) so I think your correct in it being non-canon. McShane 07:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal Images
I think that profile/personal images should be allowed. There is no indication on this wiki that personal images are not allowed and I don't see why they shouldn't. I've seen wikis that strive to be "professional" but they still allow personal images (see the Half-Life Wiki for an example). There's no need to worry that personal images clogging up space and eating up bandwidth, as Wikia wikis have almost-unlimited space and bandwidth.

Support as nominator. Darkman 4 03:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just my comment, I'm okay with it as long as the image is not copyrighted and either is in the public domain or is owned by the user. Fair use laws don't allow for images to be used on profiles, so we cannot allow them to be used. Joey  -  Talk Contribs 03:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that. Would it be okay if someone used one of our already-uploaded fair use images on his profile, or would it have to be deleted off of the user page? Darkman 4 03:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With fair use images, every instance of the images needs to be used to display educational non-profit information. Thus, it isn't actually allowed to be used as a symbol or profile for a user. However, it is important to note that if we want to comply with the Law, we must not start adding them to user pages, if we want to break the law (some wikis do actually do this) then we can go ahead with this. I know on Avatar Wiki we're close to using a bot to get rid of all of the images on user pages due to this, which is quite inconvenient. I suggest we don't get into a bad habit by breaking the Law and adding them. Joey  -  Talk Contribs 03:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. If we do allow personal images, there should be a warning on the "Upload Image" page that says that only public domain and/or images owned by the user are allowed to be personal images. Darkman 4 03:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'd vote support on that as long as we are limiting it to one. :) Joey  -  Talk Contribs 03:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. Darkman 4 03:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - If someone wants to upload an image solely for personal use than they may use a site like Photobucket or Flickr. Having personal images just clogs the file list and makes it harder to sweep for unlicensed images.
 * Most people don't know that you can have images from an external website on your userpage. Instead of having to delete a personal image everytime someone uploads one and reminding them that they must put their personal images on an external site, just let them upload them here. It would save the admins a lot of hassle.
 * As for unlicensed images, get a bot instead of manually going through them. I'm sure there are a few on Wikipedia. Like I said earlier, who cares about clogging up the file list when we have almost-unlimited space on this wiki? Darkman 4 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a bot that I used here a while ago (December?) to add licensing. Joey  -  Talk Contribs 07:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - We already have enough problems with licensing on the wiki. Now, that maybe an easy problem to fix for now, but it could get a lot worse with this. For all we know, people could upload personal images that are actually not in the public domain. Instead of allowing personal images, I think the focus should be on making a guide of how to use them from other sites. I just don't think it's a very good idea. We could be well in over our heads if we let this one pass. 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Using them from other sites really makes no difference. With that, we're still using them. and unless they're in the public domain, we're in the same boat as if we had them uploaded. Joey  -  Talk Contribs 01:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - It seems that a lot of other wikias allow this, so by not allowing this it seems to be holding us back (kinda) 23:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Halopedia actually does a great job of using personal images. If we were to implement the use of them, there should be a committee that approves or disapproves which personal images can be used on the wiki, instead of users uploading pics left and right. Chief z 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I agree with Chief z Cod1 22:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - Uploading images for your own use makes the experience here more fun. If uploaded images aren't being used, they can just be deleted. Other standard procedures relating to images can be extended to be applied to personal images too. 06:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I like the idea of uploading images because you could upload and share your experiences with other players. Lpmsly 14:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - having Personal Images makes expressing yourself much easier. I have seen other wikis do it, and they work out quite well.

Neutral- I don't agree or disagree, I personally think it's just preference. I personally wouldn't put a picture on the wiki for various reasons, but I don't see anything wrong with it.

Minimum Edit Count for voting
To prevent sock puppetry and uninformed voting, I propose that we limit all voting, except in the case of Featured Articles, to registered users with an edit count of 50 or more. Recently, our influx of new editors have been rushing into a vote headlong without even getting a feel for the wiki. Something they may think is good now may be bad for them later on as they start to get more involved in the wiki.

Support - As proposer -- 09:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - While their vote should not be counted, I think it's fair enough that they give their opinion as a comment. 14:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - 50 is acceptable, although I am usually against restricting users to vote with low edit counts (as edit counts don't mean anything), I think as long as we are talking about votes that would require in depth knowledge of the wiki (which new users wouldn't know) then restricting voting is ok. Joey -  Talk Contribs 14:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I think that their should be a limit to be able to vote, but not as high as fifty. Maybe more like 20 or 25. The wikia doesn't have that many errors and missing pages. -Awesomeguy


 * Lol, perfect example. This guy only has 4 contributions and he doesn't even know the state the wiki is in yet he is voting on our policy.-- 23:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - The amount is certainty not very hard to reach, but will keep the serious, dedicated Wikians voting. It also helps with improving the wiki and gives something for new members to aim for keeping people into it. Perhaps as the wiki grows the amount will increase. 17:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Conditional support - The point of a rule like this is to keep newer users from swaying the vote when they either don't know what they're doing, or are voting for stupid reasons.

From personal experience, it's really cold of a wiki to not make exceptions for a rule like this. I used to edit minimally over on Star Wars Fanon, accumulating just 101 edits since 2007. 250- that's over twice of what I have -are required to vote, leaving me with effectively no say in any community discussion. Though, across all of Wikia, I have over 13,000. Now, from getting over 10,000 edits, it's pretty obvious I'd know what I'm talking about if I contribute to a conversation, no?

Which is why I'd only support if COD:IAR applied to those who have proven that they know what they're talking about, but don't have the fifty edits. 06:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Support - I like it, but it should be applied to the "Featured Article" section as well. It seem to me that the "FA" section has been plagued by random IPs appearing and giving shit reasons ("Hunted sucks!") for nominating an article. However, we could have a discussion about that later. Darkman 4 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I think that the idea is good but the number is not. I think the number should be about 20 or 25. Lpmsly 14:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - I would like to see people expressing their freedom, but remember, there are dangers that come with giving people this kind of liberty.--Represent this shix. 21:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

support - I think this is perfect to enable people that are serious in helping the wiki voting privileges while people that just spam are kept out, Look at me, I'm new but once i get 50 edits i might understand the wiki's condition a little more - Falcon1996

Forum style War Room
I propose we set up a forum style war room, as seen here. This will allow each discussion to have its own page so that discussion may be easier to follow. It will also remove the use for archiving as each thread will remain visible to all and easier to find. This will also allow us to reopen new discussions easily if the need should arrive.-- 01:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - As nom-- 01:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Sorry, but the RuneScape Wiki's Yew Grove was changed from a normal page with subsections like this to a forum-based community discussion because it was often over 72KB long at any one time, often causing considerable lag to many users. From looking at the list of recently edited topics, they have had fourteen in the past 72 hours. We tend to get four topics a week if we're busy.

If we were to get to the state that they're in when it comes to community growth, discussion, and so on, then I would be for it. Though, at the moment, I would find such a change currently unnecessary. 17:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Personally, I like to have both forums for large discussions, and a community portal (War Room) as an outlet for smaller discussions and a nice place for newer users to bring their concerns if they are too timid to create a forum themselves. From my experience it works without too many negatives. Joey  aa  16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Although it may make new users (or just plain users) unfamiliarized, a nice forum-like war room would be nice since it isn't a bazaar where a major event happens every second, rather, a small one story house on low hills as I like to call it. "Specialized" memebers (a.k.a. users) will populate the war room instead of millions of New Yorker busybodies such as other popular forums. iplayf0rkeeps MaiPenRai 03:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Support Although I am a new user, I think that it might be a better idea to scale down the idea of a War Room. If main topics of discussion are maybe transported to their own portal, with a link in the main discussion thread, it would work better. It would then mean, the War Room would not be flooded by smaller discussions, while still keeping it's integrity as a place for major discussions for possible change on said article. Attack Rhino 23:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC) user does not have required main space edits-- 19:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I feel that forums are easier to use/navigate. Forums make it easier to find and discuss both large and small discussions. A War Room would only be useful if you were to limit it to a small amount of large and important discussions, this should not however be a substitue for forums. --CptJackHouse 08:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC) user does not have required main space edits-- 19:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: no consensus. 23:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

New rules
The admins (actually, I) have been brewing up some new rules. I think they're ready to go; we just need community approval before they go live.

The new rules are here:

User:Darkman 4/Images User:Darkman 4/Weapons User:Darkman 4/Characters User:Darkman 4/Levels User:Darkman 4/Perks

All you need to do is vote yes or no on us implanting these new rules. If you vote no, an explanation would be nice, but not necessary. Darkman 4 06:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - I approve of everything I've read in those pages, but there are some questions I'd like to ask and changes I'd like to see:
 * With notability on characters, what if they always have the same name every play through, but don't do anything significant (for example, nearly every named NPC in Finest Hour)?
 * Also with notability on characters, what if they're mentioned only (such as Norman, Jack, Gordon (Call of Duty 2: Big Red One) and George S. Patton)?


 * With other wikis I've volunteered at, a trivia subsection is the last section of the article filled with actual content, and that a quotes section would come before.
 * You mentioned that if a real-world person held back a wave of enemies by firing an M1919 from the hip, we wouldn't mention it. I agree with that, but are you trying to refer to the actual World War II marine who got a Medal of Honor for doing that? In the second episode of Lock N' Load with R. Lee Ermey, Ermey proved that it's possible to fire an M1919 from the hip with at least modest aim, because over the years people have said that what the marine did was impossible. It just strikes me as odd that your example was exactly what I learned a few days ago that a real marine did. 07:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support - Oh, it is definitely time for some change. There really needs to be stricter guidelines in place for touchy articles, and I think this is a great start. What I would really like to see is some MAJOR crackdown on the trivia sections, though. I tried making a template of what you should and shouldn't write as a header for the sections, but APPARENTLY these rules made it useless and it got deleted. Why? <font style="background:Red">  Akyoyo    Talk  15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support - I feel we need new rules and guidelines. Some trivia rules are not needed, in my opinion.

Uber Support - We NEED to start doing things by the book here.-- 05:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - These rules would help the wiki if implemented AND followed. --CptJackHouse 09:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - I dont see why not. But maybe a link to Wikipedia should be encouraged if the person is interested in the real thing, ex. Weapons, Battles, People, ect. user lacks the required number of edits.-- 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Support all the way. This will definitley make the articles look more professional. I'm starting to get into the GTA Wiki and that place is a mess. Chief z 12:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC) user lacks the required number of edits.-- 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Especially for the rules about opinionated edits, seriously, we've been seeing way way WAY too may opinionated edits recently, it's time we kept those in check WouldYouKindly 19:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - These guidelines are the first step to improving this wiki. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)  user lacks the required number of edits.-- 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sound like some great new rules, definitley agree with getting rid of the opinionated articles, they are REALLY annoying. SaintofLosAngelesXD(m) 23:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC) user lacks the required number of edits.-- 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - I especially support the rules for the character pages. I was getting pretty annoyed at seeing all the useless articles on the cannon fodder soldiers. Herr Kaese 06:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC) user lacks the required number of edits.-- 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - I think theses new rules will really help the wiki 18:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - Awesome new rules! You have my support. GadgetGuy98 11:21 7 August 2009 [UTC] user lacks the required number of edits.-- 23:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay guys, I think we have enough votes. The new rules are now official. Darkman 4 16:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

New Mainpage
Recently I asked JoePlay to clean up our mainpage and make it better. The new design can be seen here. Please give your opinions.

Support - as original requester-- 19:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support. Great work yet again JoePlay. The new mainpage looks great, but I think the 2 columns need to be aligned a bit better. Str Devil53 19:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * JoePlay said this can be fixed when it goes live.-- 19:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Mhm. I'm changing to full on Support. We need an up-to-date mainpage.Str Devil53 08:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I say we should put the "Did you know" thing in the side column under the "Community" tab that shows the activity. 18:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support- I agree with CoD4 that the columns need to be aligned, and that we need to unclutter it. But, what is in the picture is better than what we have now. 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral, leaning towards Support If you say those bugs will be fixed, then I'm all for the slightly improved front page, but if you'e going to change it, you need to make the User of the Month more noticeable. 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - looks good but those bugs need to be fixed --Cpt Jack House 08:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - It's a great looking page as long as those bugs get fixed WouldYouKindly 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have corrected the problem with the two columns not alliging. The new main page will be going live shortly.-- 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Forum Style War Room
I proposed this before but no consensus was reached due to a lack of votes. I propose that we make the war room into a forum where each topic is a thread. This makes it easier to track disscussions and allows users to view only topics they want to see. On top of that, it keeps the page from getting long and laggy which will benefit user's with older computers or slow internet connections.

Support - as proposer-- 22:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - I have a problem with my internet that is supposed to be SO great, and this would help because I check in often. <font style="background:Red">  Akyoyo    Talk  23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per my reasoning last time. This page is still too short that bandwith and such would start being a problem. 04:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, when I edit from school this page is impossible to get on due to the lag.-- 07:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - While connection for me is not an issue, I think topics will be easier to vote for and read in general.

Support - Definitely, a lot of important decisions are made in here, a forum-style page would ensure that these decisions get voted on quicker and easier, and keep a page as important as this from looking like a simple talk page. WouldYouKindly 18:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Award System
I propose that we create an award system that will be given out by admins. Here's an example of a possible award that we could include, in the form of a userbox:

Feel free to give improvements about this.

Support - As I said above 21:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support - I don't know, I think that would get kind of complicated, and usually we just make someone the user of the month. But, that would be cool to turn real awards into equivalents for doing something good. One person has to figure out all the awards though, you can't just ad-lib that. If you pre-plan everything, and make sure they get the awards, as long as the admins are okay, that would be a great place to start. 21:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, I change to Strong Support. 04:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support - If this is too complicated, it will be no good and no fun. However, I believe we need something to replace the old ranking system on this wiki. Let's see what da admins say.

This sounds similar to Wikipedia's Barnstars and Halopedia's [now defunct] usergroup awards sytem. Some things that we should decide:
 * Should we just let admins give them out, or let anyone give them out? On Wikipedia, anyone is able to give anyone else any Barnstar. On Halopedia, I believe it used to be that any officer who was a high enough rank in a usergroup could give them out to anyone else in the usergroup who they thought had done a good job.
 * If we have it restricted so only administrators can hand them out, the significance of the awards would remain.
 * If we have it open so that anyone can hand them out to anyone else, it's very possible that some people would just give them to their friends for little to no reason, destroying their significance.
 * What types of awards would we have? I think that we should base it off of either the American military's awards, the Brits', or an allocation of both. Or, perhaps, we could have one set of awards, but variants in that if someone were to receive a Medal of Honor award, they could instead choose to receive a Victoria Cross award instead if they lived in Britain and would prefer such.
 * Besides the Victoria Cross, I don't know what awards England hands out. But for an American set of awards, I think, from lowest-to-greatest, it should be something like: Good Conduct Medal (or whatever it's called), Bronze Star, Silver Star, Distinguished Service Medal, and the Medal of Honor. Would we cinclude Purple Hearts for something?
 * Would the awards be for generalizations, such as "a long time of dedicated editing", or milestones such as "gaining 1,000 mainspace edits", "uploading 100 pictures", and so on? Honestly, I think that having milestones would lead to some edit whoring—people just doing something so that they can get either a higher count in doing that, or some sort of award. I think that if the awards had more generalized requirements, whoever would be giving it out would have to really think about whether the person deserves it or not.
 * Would people be able to get the same award twice for separate events?

With a lot of thought put into this, I'd support. 22:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - we shouldn't have to encourage people to make good edits by offering recognition. They should earn it on their own without saying "if I do good I'll get an award"-- 22:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - An award system would cause too much edit spamming and takes away the point of making good edits in the first place. Darkman 4 23:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant for stopping vandals, becoming UotM and other things. This kind of thing on a person's user page would improve the Uotm thing. I strongly think that admins will only be able to give them out, we should base the awards on the medals given out by the army/british forces. I do not think we should include milestones because then, as it has been said, people would make pointless edits just to get awards. We should make it as hard as possible to get these awards so they are significant still. Also, my computer broke so I can't make any changes to the formula until monday. 03:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Still don't like it. You should be doing stuff on this wiki to help, not so that you can get a special picture and some text on your userpage. Darkman 4 04:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What Dark said-- 04:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose: This is horribly unnecessary and I see no good from it. If people need recognition for their work then a silly medal saying all this shit with something so generic is useless. 08:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Oppose - If we implement this, people will start editing crazily and we will be faced with more problems. It's a nice idea, but flawed. I'd like to see something, though, to replace the old ranking system.

Oppose - As stated this would be complicated and cause an increase in problems, and instead of fixing these problems we'd have people just watch them getting ready to hand them a medal. not a good idea --Cpt Jack House 13:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Cool Idea, but I think we should make a new ranking system.


 * Mostly, that's what I wanted people to get if they didn't like the idea: We need a new ranking system. 02:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wunderwaffe DG-2
This is now getting out of hand. There are users who think DG-2 stands for Die Glocke -2, and others who don't. So here is the question: Should we, as a community, refer to DG as "Die Glocke"

Oppose - We have no proof. Therefore it is speculation and rumor.


 * This is not the place for it. However, I might add that their is significant reason to believe it is even if there is no hard evidence.-- 13:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)--Rs4life07 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Then I would call this Closed.

The Music of Call of Duty
I think we should have pages listing the music from each game, along with the composers and producers of the music. I see no reason why this shouldnt be done.

Support - as original poster(see above) --Cpt Jack House 21:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - If you could gather all the intel on that subject, have at it. 22:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Support - I think it would be good to have an article about the music, It would make the wiki more informative. 22:33, 16 August 2009


 * Again, not really a war room topic. If you feel like doing it, go ahead-- 22:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright then, i was just making sure there were no objections, ill start on this when i get the chance i probably wont be able to get on until thursday. However i already have some info so ill hold onto it until i get the chance to put it down --Cpt Jack House 22:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neutral - Yeh, as Akyoyo said, if we have all the links/info needed, then no problem. I do not want to see a whole page for one piece of music. Cpl. Callofduty4 16:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)