FANDOM


Forums: Index War Room Discussion: Granularity
Forum logo
Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new topic.


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

What Granularity Is Edit

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

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

Problems Edit

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

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

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

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

Scenarios Edit

Price's Cigars Edit

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

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

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

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

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

Historical Figures Edit

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

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

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

Technical Specifications and Classifications Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Notability via Association Edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Honorable Mentions Edit

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

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

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


Note for discussion Edit

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

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

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

Discuss belowEdit

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

Absolutely not. 100% agreement.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and as a side note, I think that once the policy is revised we will still need to go through article by article and choose what stays and what goes. For example, I strongly support keeping the Dead Cows article, as they appear quite often as a running gag in CoD games. (Impersonal) You might say something like, "Well, walls are featured a lot, too. Should we have an article on them?" Of course not. Walls are normal day-to-day objects. Dead cows? Not really. And no, please do not bring up burgers or other beef products as arguments that they are normal day-to-day objects. Imrlybord7 07:35, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. It was helpful to differentiate between what would be acceptable and what wouldn't. In response to your comment about technical information, we do have a few articles primarily related to real-world firearms, including ammunition, bullpup and certain others that I can't recall. --Scottie theNerd 08:59, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of that. However, to say that we have been documenting "every technical aspect of firearms, vehicles and other equipment featured in the game" is a gross over-exaggeration. But yes, I definitely think that articles which are featured in the CoD wiki that cannot be expanded beyond whatever wikipedia has should be removed. For example, in our M4A1 article, we obviously mention all of its stats in Call of Duty games, which Wikipedia does not. However, in our bullpup article, there is nothing we can include that you wouldn't find on Wikipedia. Actually, now that I think about it, I will amend my answer on historical figures. They should not get articles unless they actually influence the events of a CoD game in some way. If they don't have said influence, there is nothing we can add that Wikipedia won't already have. Imrlybord7 09:32, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and before we go colon-indent crazy, I'm just going to remove all of them. Imrlybord7 09:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
Whether or not we do current currently document technical information is debatable, but the point is that Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity opens the field for editors to write about real-life information within the framework of COD. I could, for example, write articles on the STANAG magazine, Belt-fed mechanisms, self-loading mechanisms and tracers, and technically they would not get deleted under Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity because they are in the game. --Scottie theNerd 00:15, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
Wait, there's already an article on tracer rounds. See what I mean? --Scottie theNerd 00:18, February 28, 2010 (UTC)

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

Rommel is directly mentioned at least four times. US Army WWII MSGTSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 07:44, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I think that if something/someone plays a role in a mission/map, it should be included. For example, Burger Town plays quite a large role in Wolverines, therefore we should have an article on it. However, Cherubini's, as far as I know is only seen, and not interacted with in any way. The same goes for Sex Dolls. Therefore, we should not need or have an article on them. That means Reznov's Machete, for example, should actually have a page as it plays a part in the ending of Downfall.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  14:49, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting distinction to make. If anything, I would have excluded Reznov's Machete and, instead, attributed to Reznov himself. It is Reznov, not has machete, that plays the major role at the end of Downfall. The weapon itself has no notable attribute other than being carried by Reznov. We could similarly draw a parallel between Reznov's Machete and Makarov's Handgun if that were the case. --Scottie theNerd 16:01, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
I also agree. Everything like that needs a page. However, certain parts of this will need clarification. Tactical Nuke inventory icon MW2Poketape Talk 16:22, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
If we follow Callofduty4's line of a subject playing a major part, to whom (or what) do we attribute the part to? If Sergeant Bob shoots Hitler, do we include that information in Sergeant Bob, Sergeant Bob's M1911A1, Sergeant Bob's M1911A1's .45ACP bullet, or Sergeant Bob's Index Finger? I can understand having an article on Price's handgun (since it does feature in the plot to some extent), but under what rationale do we write articles about specific weapons that are used for one purpose? --Scottie theNerd 16:29, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I personally disagree with deleting the ammunition pages. Here is my argument: if CoD is an FPS, and you can use a gun that fires the 5.56x45mm round, and it says so on the side of the gun, and you can find ammo crates and physically see 5.56 ammo in a box, then it should be in the game. If that is deemed unnecessary, we might as well just have a page titled "Ammo" with a list of ammo andwhichever guns they are compatible with. And to the above user, there was a page for every caliber, and if not, it was pretty goddamn close. -- Veteran Emblem MW2 CoD addict (talk · edits) 03:54, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

However, COD doesn't specify what weapons use what ammo. That is information that we bring from real life into the game. Ammo types have no impact on gameplay nor are their featured in the game. Ammo crates are scenic items that have as much notability as a box of donuts. Ammo in itself does not have a significant role in COD -- compared to, for example, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. where different ammo types can be loaded and have different characteristics. In COD, the ammo has no characteristics; it's the weapon that holds that distinction. If we use your train of thought, it would more accurately be: COD is an FPS, and you use guns that shoot bullets. We've got pages for the guns; do we really need to add lists of ammunition types?
Additionally, the ammunition pages were only for a small selection of munitions from COD4 and COD6. We haven't touched ammo from WW2. The crux of this point of debate is that ammunition, as presented by the specific, technical categories and types that we understand, is not found in COD. An M4 Carbine does not fire 5.56 x 45mm NATO rounds in COD; it just shoots rounds. There's nothing we can say about a particular type of ammunition other than a list of weapons that use that ammo in real life. Weapon compatibility is often arbitrary and inconsistent -- e.g. ammo from a Scoped Kar89k in the early COD games is not usable for a regular Kar98k or Gewehr 43. --Scottie theNerd 06:45, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
I believe a certain amount of common sense comes into creating a page. In an ideal world, someone with common sense wouldn't make a page on Price's Boonie Hat, even though it makes an appearance in 2 games. So, the point I'm trying to make is that while Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity encourages the creation of articles of even minor things, common sense comes into creating these articles. If someone wants to, they could add a line at the end of the existing policy telling people to use their common sense when creating an article.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  12:01, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Common sense, yes, but the problem is that it varies from person to person. A page such as Captain Price's M1911 was made a few months ago, and why not? It was responsible for the deaths of two of the three major antagonists seen in Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Yet the page was deleted on the basis that it was a frivolous item to make an article about. Using this same logic, under my common sense, a page like Resupply Crate should not exist. Semtex HUD icon MW2 Bovell Talk | Contrib. 18:57, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Captain Price's M1911 is an interesting case because it is the only weapon that has more than a passing significance, since it actually does span two games. However, I'd say that it would be false to accredit the deaths of several major antagonists to the weapon. It is used to shoot them, but the true responsibility lies on the people who used it. The significance of the weapon is barely noted until Soap returns it. There's hardly anything we can write about the weapon -- it has no distinguishing features or characteristics, and its only notability is derived from interaction between other characters, which would logically mean that we can discuss that particular handgun in the character/mission articles rather than making a separate article. In my opinion, for an individual weapon to have an article, it needs to have something unique about it. The example I can think of is Baker's M1911 from Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway, which has a significant backstory and is apparently cursed. In contrast, Price's M1911 is a weapon that just happens to have dispatched a couple of villains.
This discussion on "notable" weapons is important because if we were to give Price's M1911 the benefit of the doubt, we'd have to consider articles for the following:
  • Reznov's Machete (already written and deleted)
  • Makarov's Handgun (kills a main character)
  • Reichstag Guard's P-38 (nearly kills a main character)
  • Al-Asad's Desert Eagle (kills a president, triggers a Middle Eastern revolution and Civil War)
  • Macmillan & Price's M82 (nearly kills an antagonist)
  • Imran Zakhaev's Left Arm (gets blown of by above weapon)
  • Price's M4 Carbine (shoots down a helicopter and nearly kills an antagonist)
  • Martin's M1A1 Carbine (very first weapon seen in a COD game)
And so on. --Scottie theNerd 07:32, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
I have another example of the Pyriot thing. In the AfD there are articles about consoles. Let's pretend they stay. Under the Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, we should then make an article about electricity. Then about how "Electricity was discovered via the Kite. Kites fly by taking advantage of the Wind caused from hot Air from the ground rising and being replaced by cold air from the sea. Some argue that God made the sea in the process known as Creationism. Others however, argue that Water came to the earth via an Asteroid from space that sparked Life and Evolution, a process discovered by Charles Darwin" ect. Another one, "Infinity Ward is owned by Activision, which is owned by Activision Blizzard. This company makes games such as World of Warcraft. WoW is a PC MMORPG set in the world of Azeroth after four devastating attacks from the Burning Legion, ultimately the games main protagonist, led by the evil Sargeas." Before we know it, COD Wiki has turned into Wowwiki. This is utter rubbish, see how the subject changed in the space of just a few lines? Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity is heavily relied upon by editors who want to make articles to make themselves look better by making 20 dogey articles that are protected by this so-called "policy".

Next up, we have the Rommel issue, that we have to keep this article. There's another encyclopedia out there know as WIKIPEDIA! This huge wiki has articles about all the featured historical characters mentioned above that sprawls enough to form at least 1 hour of solid reading each. Why do we have them? Because they have 1 paragraph containing what basically reads, "I was mentioned in-game briefly, Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity protects me, so screw you." This magical wikipedia provides information of numerous things, people, bullets, even the guns that fired those bullets. This is Call of Duty Wiki, this is for covering things related to CALL Of DUTY. Wikipedia is for EVERYTHING else! This is my thought, if it's better for wikipedia, guess where it belongs? Wikipedia! If you want real info on guns, you go to wikipedia, not COD Wiki. This is my thought here, Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity should be changed to state "This is the Call of Duty Wiki. Only include things which can be explained primarily in terms of Call of Duty. Anything else belongs on Wikipedia." Remember, this is Call of Duty Wiki, not Wikipedia, not WoWWiki, not Real life wiki. This is Call of Duty Wiki, for Call of Duty. Smuff 21:13, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take on it; we should only cover things that visually appear in the CoD games; no pages about Rommel, consoles or w/e because you don't actually see them in the games. You guys need to realize that most of the pages that would be on the cutting block were made back when the wiki was founded and the editors were trying to get as many articles as they could. Now that this wiki is the main source of CoD info, I think we could cut those pages and have the pages that formally linked to them link to the Wikipedia page on the subject.

As for things like making pages for things like Price's M1911, I don't think its a good idea. The info about stuff like that can (and is already) talked about on the gun's page. Making a page for what is essentially a small bit of info on a subject that is already covered is a waste of space and makes things more confusing. Darkman 4 08:56, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

If we're gonna get rid of Console articles etc, is there a way of redirecting a page to an external site such as wikipedia? So if one clicked a PS3 link on a page, it would link them to the wikipedia article. This avoids a lot of red links if it is possible.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  09:03, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah. Check the infobox on this page; it has links that lead to Wikipedia articles on certain subjects. Darkman 4 09:05, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Darkman raises a good point about old articles: a lot of the articles that would be affected by the revised Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity are articles that were initially created as early sources of information and placeholders. Now that we've advanced beyond the foundations of a new wiki, we can and should look back at these articles and trim the ones we no longer need. However, in doing so, I think it leads to a bigger proposition: should we scrap the Granularity policy in favor of a Notability policy? --Scottie theNerd 09:58, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Finally, someone talking about actually REPLACING it. Think of it as a refurbishment, for higher quality articles. Also, with Rommel, what does Valkarie have anything to do with CoD? Smuff 10:43, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with ScottieTheNerd, I think the Granularity policy should be scrapped and replaced by a Notability Policy. Richtofen bio image WaW Doc. Richtofen 15:45, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A notability policy would work much better than the one we're currently using. Darkman 4 21:10, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I think you misunderstood what I meant, and that's my fault. I know you can use the wikipedia: function, but I was wondering if you could redirect a page to wikipedia using #REDIRECT[[Page]].  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  16:10, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think you could, just make the internal link external. Richtofen bio image WaW Doc. Richtofen 09:18, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

I've tried that before and it has never worked. It just leaves you on a nearly blank page with just an external link, so the links that link to the redirects should instead be the things that become external links. US Army WWII MSGTSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 04:43, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
For pages (noncrucial characters) that really aren't relevant to story, why can't we make a new Namespace? Darthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount 04:46, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
Why would we need another namespace? --Scottie theNerd 04:55, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
Read what I said Scottie. A new namespace to designate pages that would be otherwise deleted. Darthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount 04:57, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, let me rephrase that. How would making a new namespace help? --Scottie theNerd 05:19, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Categorization and organization. Darthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount 05:21, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. Could you please elaborate on how adding a new namespace would help in categorization and organization? We've got namespace for different areas of the wiki. Are you suggested that we give individual namespaces to each type of article? --Scottie theNerd 05:24, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

No a namespace for articles that are not important to the story, but relevant to CoD, like the cartridge pages, or characters that really don't have anything to do with the story, but are in there. Darthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Contributions|Editcount 05:28, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

So...you're suggesting we make a new namespace for articles that are mostly empty or have less information than Wikipedia articles? --Scottie theNerd 05:30, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see a point in shoving them elsewhere if we still have them. We're limited by Wikia to only three custom namespaces, also. US Army WWII MSGTSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 06:32, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Closing Comments Edit

Firstly, thank you to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. All opinions and views on this issue are greatly appreciated and will go towards improving the wiki and providing a stronger framework for editors to work confidently with.

I will be drafting a new policy based on this discussion, which I will propose in another War Room thread as a poll. If there are any final comments, please post them here. --Scottie theNerd 08:13, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'll archive and protect this page. Darkman 4 09:23, April 4, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.