FANDOM


Replacement filing cabinet This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance.

Call of Duty 3 multiplayer classes Edit

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 2


Support as nominator I think there rely is no point in this article i have made a page for each of the classes and a template. Klemenkin 11:49, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Comment of some sort - Well I think it would be better to merge it, butI have a way to fix it up if we dicide to keep it. Why don't we actually WRITE something on it?? Theres not a WORD there!!! So, in the time being, how about we make some words!?

Comment Umm did you wipe the page? Please don't wipe pages, send 'em here...and where are these pages? There's not much point them if you can't find them, haha :) Demon Magnetism talk 00:27, January 10, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's a list of classes in CoD 3 that without it people may be confused. So I think it's important, but maybe it should be reorganised into Category style article.

Neutral If anything, shouldn't it be merged with Multiplayer Classes? Gmanington MCCCXLII 20:02, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

Support - This AfD is long overdue for closure. I'm throwing in a support vote on the basis that the article is a list of wikilinks with no additional information. The multiplayer classes already have accessible navigation via categories and a navbox. --Scottie theNerd 08:28, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I think it should stay for new people --AC-130 inventory icon MW2 N'thro Notadee 10:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

AFD Successful - Not enough information to warrant its own article. Imrlybord7 13:31, May 5, 2010 (UTC)


Direct impactEdit

This article is just to do with the standard mechanics of a Grenades, it should be merged with the respective Grenade articles.

Pictogram voting support Support 4
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support as nominator - Smuff 11:39, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Information can be merged with respective grenade articles. Direct impact itself is not a gameplay aspect that can be discussed and written about. --Scottie theNerd 13:48, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. Tactical Nuke inventory icon MW2Your nuke is ready, turn the key! 05:38, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Needs to be merged with The grenade article. US Army OF-10 General Cod1 Talk 23:15, April 10, 2010 (UTC

AFD Closed - AFD successful. Imrlybord7 13:31, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Soldier Edit

The article is just stating the obvious about an aspect that is present in every single war game ever conceived, and does not need explained to anyone who has ever played an FPS. The article itself contains no information physific to CoD.

Pictogram voting support Support 5
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 1


Support - As nominator. Smuff 23:14, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - some people don't know. Personal Darthkenobi0 Air-force-logoDarthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Editcount 23:16, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - If you're playing a FPS, you probably know what a soldier is. Most people know what a soldier is anyway. {{COAZ}} 23:18, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Darth with all due respect, WTF? To not know what a soldier is you would need to be living under a rock. The Afghanistan War is always mentioned on TV, and practically all schoolboys play console games or pretend to be soldiers. I mean really, that's like saying people don't know what clothes are. Smuff 01:24, April 18, 2010 (UTC)


Comment - with all due respect I have no idea what "physific" means, and Soldiers are very relevant to CoD, because some people don't watch the news, you're making gross generalizations and stereotyping people by both gender and age-group, if you can provide any real arguments that don't disgust me I'll support this. Personal Darthkenobi0 Air-force-logoDarthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Editcount 01:28, April 18, 2010 (UTC)


Oppose - I see nothing wrong with the article, it has good info, it's a good article in my opinion. Flag of the United States Gen. Ex Ask the Expert! He'll answer!BritishCodExpert 01:32, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I can't spell a few words, I'll fix that tomorrow. But it wasn't really stereotyping, it's human nature, when you were young in school don't tell me you have never once pretended to use your hands a guns and play all those war games. And Soldiers are also relevant to WoW, MAG, Battlefield, Halo, Operation Flashpoint, Killzone, Gears of War, Resistance, Medal of Honor, Brothers in Arms, SOCOM, an absolute ton of movies, and real life, so it's not necessarily that unique to this game, therefore it doesn't need its own place on this wiki, hence we have Wikipedia. Smuff 02:14, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - CoDwiki isn't a dictionary. A soldier is a common, everyday term that is seen in the media as well as in literature. Detailed information about soldiers and armies can be found in better places; it isn't the role of CoDwiki to explain generic terms. If we keep a generic article about "soldiers", we might as well have articles on topics such as gun, army, Arabic, helmet, plane, glove, cigar and practically anything else that would turn a paragraph into a single blue wikilinked wall of text. While soldiers are certainly relevant to Call of Duty, there is nothing specific that we can write about soldiers pertaining to COD other than "They are in Call of Duty", and that is exactly all that is in the current article. There's no "good" info in there -- there's no info in the article. Furthermore, this article would be disallowed based on the pending Notability guideline that has been discussed in the War Room. --Scottie theNerd 02:44, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Change to Support - per Scottie. Personal Darthkenobi0 Air-force-logoDarthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Editcount 02:46, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Thank you! Sorry about what I said earlier, I'm not great with examples... Smuff 13:36, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

AFD closed - AFD successful/irrelevant to CoD Imrlybord7 13:31, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Killed in Action Edit

Previous AfD was not closed before archive and support for deletion still stands. The article provides a technical real-world definition of a war-related category, which has absolutely no directly relevance to Call of Duty. The only connections made with the games are a list of dead characters (many of whom were simply killed, not killed in action) and a bunch of quotes and references that have "KIA" in them. As stated in the previous AfD, if we keep KIA, we might as well make a Casualty article and expand that. --Scottie theNerd 07:59, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

AFD closed - If noticing that an article exists long after its creation and deleting it on sight qualifies as speedy deletion, then yeah, speedy deleted. Imrlybord7 13:31, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

RespawnEdit

The article is ill defined and is extremely vague to both Call of Duty and all other games. The article itself was only made to fill a red link in Spectator Mode that was made by the same person.

Pictogram voting support Support 3
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 1
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 2


Support - As nominator. Smuff 18:22, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


Oppose - It was not made by me, it was made by Scotlandthebest, and the red link was there from the start. I simply made a page linking to it. Ghost Bust emblem MW2DjuNgleB 18:44, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I'm kinda on the fence about this. On one hand Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity says it should be kept, but Im doubting it because Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity is still being discussed to my knowledge. on the other, it's a vital part of the Call of DUty series. Unless one side can provide more evidence than the other, I cannot, in good faith commit to either side. Cpl. Wilding 18:54, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


Comment- Being that there are a lot of articles that link to many pages describing the simplest things that many experienced gamers would know about, I thought that adding to the Respawn page may clarify some information that one gamer may actually not know about. I'm sure there are brand new gamers out there that do not know any of the gamer slang or what exactly certain words are. Ghost Bust emblem MW2DjuNgleB 18:58, May 4, 2010 (UTC)


Oppose - This is a hard one. While 'respawn' itself isn't' a COD exclusive design and most gamers probably do know what it means, I think the sheer amount of times it is mentioned in articles, combined with a related COD exclusive item (tactical insertion) at least merits it a definition?? Of course this would be assuming the article gets improved also... IMPufnstuf 19:39, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Weak support - If it is only made to fill in a red link, why keep it? It is not completely important to Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, but on the other ear, just because it is a red link doesn't mean it should be made, for example the 12 Gauge page. It has been deleted about 5 times, and counting. Just because it is a red link doesn't mean it needs to be a page about it. TheManOfIronT C E B 19:53, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Coment - If we're trying to get rid of Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, we can't have articles like this made. So it is to do with Multiplayer, we don't have artcles like Gun, Wall, Ammo. This term is extremely generic, and everyone will know what it means, it's even used in games like World of Warcraft, which is entirely different from an FPS. Smuff 09:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Generic gaming term; article provides no direct relevance to Call of Duty. However, it might be worth including in a glossary page. --Scottie theNerd 09:49, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

AFD closed - Generic term that all readers should know. We do not make articles for every word. It just doesn't really fall under the jurisdiction of the CoD Wiki to define such terms. Imrlybord7 13:31, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

NATO Phonetic AlphabetEdit

The only information contained on this page is the list of the alphabet's letters and the corresponding word in the NATO Phonetic. The only information that pertains to the games are that the names of companies and flags and squads are such as Bravo Six, or calling the "A" flag in Domination "Alpha". I don't really think this is necessary.

Pictogram voting support Support 1
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - as nominator. IcepacKs 11:38, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't this already speedy deleted? --Scottie theNerd 12:47, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
Twice, actually. Imrlybord7 13:19, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

AFD Closed - Article qualified for speedy deletion. Imrlybord7 13:19, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Marley GriffinEdit

Might be useful for an article if it made ANY sort of major appearance in MW2, but it didn't, so... Sergeant InsigniaSgt. S.S.Send traffic

Support as nominator. Sergeant InsigniaSgt. S.S.Send traffic

Support - Background decal; nothing more. --Scottie theNerd 15:29, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deleted -  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  16:05, May 9, 2010 (UTC)


Trivia pagesEdit

We do not need any more pages as is, and it makes no sense. The pages were targeted for speedy but Callofduty4 kept taking the speedy deletion template off...

Tactical Nuke inventory icon MW2Your nuke is ready, turn the key! 23:20, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support 5
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 1
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 10


Weak Oppose - Callofduty4 worked very hard on those for the reason that some pages had more trivia than article. Personal Cpl.Dunn sig 23:22, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Support - We do not need them. Guests need not be forwarded to a different page just because he needs to see whether or not he wants to read it. Those two are out of control they should have proposed this and did it based on the communities decision, not on the decision of two admins. And, I have no idea where you come from, but Copy + Paste isn't very hard where I come from... Tactical Nuke inventory icon MW2Your nuke is ready, turn the key! 23:26, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Cod4 made those for a reason. I believe they deserve to stay. Tactical Nuke inventory icon MW2Sactage Talk 23:31, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Dude, no your vote should not count. You and him randomly made the pages. We need to community to agree on it, not 2 admins (You and Cod4).

Comment - I'm not an admin, genius. Tactical Nuke inventory icon MW2Sactage Talk 23:41, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Look at Wolverines!/Trivia. More than 3/4 of that article was trivia. It is not necessary for all that trivia to be on one page. It was either cut the section down, or move it to a separate page. Besides, I left links to each of the trivia subpages, so what could possibly be the problem? Also, I spent time on them as Dunn said, and TheManOfIron, I am insulted that you fail to appreciate the effort I put into trying to make the wiki more user-friendly.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  23:35, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I fail to see how that can make it harder. More articles = Harder to use. —Unsigned comment was added by TheManOfIron

Strong Oppose - CoD4 made them for a reason, right CoD 4? lol AC-130 inventory icon MW2Commander W567123danielWanna Talk?|My Duty|Wassup? 23:43, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - So you're saying that the less redirects we have, the better. I left a bloody link to the article. How difficult is it to move the cursor over to the link and click? Are people really that lazy these days? A massive wall of text at the bottom of an article leaves a really bad impression, and not everybody wants to read trivia, especially those who have read it before, and are reading the article for tips on the level. Also, you made a fatal mistake in your above comment, the first "harder" I assume was meant to say "easier". And W567123daniel, that is correct.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  23:46, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - While this took a little bit getting used to, CoD4 put a lot of work into this, and this seems like a good idea. At the MOST, what we'll do is try it out and leave it like this for a month, then see what people say. Corporal Juan José Rodriguez Reportin' for duty. 23:49, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Trivia is a chronic problem with most wikis. On CoDwiki, many articles were mostly trivia. Though some attempts have been made to reorganise trivia into meaningful sections and integrating them with the articles, far too many articles are bloated with trivia. However, as it is CoDwiki's goal to document everything in the games, trivia is actually valid content. So, instead of having an article that is 70% trivia, creating a separate trivia page is far more accessible than keeping it in the article. It's a perfectly sensible decision. Also, speedy deletion tags can be removed if the article does not meet speedy deletion criteria; and this is just the sort of article that should be debated, not deleted. --Scottie theNerd 03:14, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Very strong support - The pages are no use at all. They are more complicated than having it all in one article, and the articles were made because two (!) admins decided they were needed. No vote, no War Room discussion... nothing. Sgt. S.S. 17:32, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - COD4, I know that you think you were helping, but you've made it even worse. There are now a ton of stupid sub-articles for every MW2 and WaW mission. New users will take one look at them and say, "For Christ's sake, why not just put it in one article? Now I have to remember to go to some dumb sub-article every time I want to add a bit of trivia." I also think that this merits a War Room discussion. Sgt. S.S. 17:39, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

That makes no sense. It is standard procedure on wikis that when an article becomes bloated with too much information, it is split into separate pages to contain the content that would otherwise be dismissed. Accessing the trivia page is only one click away. It's not hard to remember to add trivia to the sub-page because it's the only page with trivia on it, thus freeing up the main article of cluttered dot-points. If you're accusing Callofduty4 of "making it worse" and slamming the sub-articles as "stupid", you're practically saying that we should remove trivia sections altogether. And while this is the sort of thing that would definitely be needed to be discussed in the War Room, we're effectively having that discussion right here. --Scottie theNerd 17:44, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - No need, I already started a War Room discussion/voting forum. Link here. Sgt. S.S. 18:03, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - These look like they contained a lot of work put into them, and also, pages like the M4A1 were at times more than 50% trivia. Smuff 20:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Well if were going to have Singleplayer map Trivia pages, how about making retarded Trivia pages for every god damn Weapon, Map and Character. HEY! lets go make a Ghost Trivia page, cause he has a lot of Trivia too, or how bout Soap hes been on the cover..... Call of Duty 4 freaking basically took a douche on this entire wikia Qw3rty! 16:48, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Separate trivia pages are only made if a page has a very large amount of trivia. The weapon pages and most character pages wouldn't need a separate trivia page because of how small the trivia section is. Darkman 4 20:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Just use them in the page. there is no point to create a page that takes more doing to get to. I hate them EpicLegand28 19:42, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - The Trivia section took up way too much space on pages. I tried making them a bit more smaller, but it didn't work. Splitting them off into different pages makes the main page look much better. Darkman 4 20:08, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This pages are needed and stops clutter on the main article. Helljumper sigTalk 20:17, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think they're excellent pages, they divide up the total size and make it easier on those who have slower internet, also an Admin made them, someone who was chosen for his knowledge of policies and decision-making skills, honestly I love the pages. And basically per everyone, especially Darkman4. Personal Darthkenobi0 Air-force-logoDarthkenobi0Talk|Blog|Editcount 20:28, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

MEGA Oppose - There very helpful, there's a huge amount of info in them. Doltensig 20:33, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Rather than create entire pages for trivia, we should focus on making smaller, easier to read trivia sections by eliminating repetition, useless facts and any speculation. Creating trivia pages will only encourage people to fill them up as much as possible with any random thing they feel is trivia. Ant423 23:06, April 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - There comes a point where the trivia section becomes so large it detracts from the article. I really see no problem with the separate pages. Like CoD4 said, have people become so lazy that they can't click a link? Keep the pages. Chief z 12:55, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I have to agree the trivia sections have become out of hand on some pages, something the Tactical Nuke page also suffers from, with the Trivia section being much larger than the article itself. Surely that would have its own trivia page as well. However, I don't feel a separate page is needed for it, as you have to load an another page, which on slower internet connections, is a little annoying. I do understand the purpose of it, but could we find an alternative, such as a click-down box option, much the way the game templates do, should more than one of them be on a page. The-Dreamcaster 14:00, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

We can hide templates, but we can't hide article section. Additionally, while loading the Trivia page might take longer for slower connections, the same can be said for loading the main article with the long trivia, which punishes all readers. --Scottie theNerd 14:05, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have no problem clicking on a link or loading a new page every time I want to read some trivia. My problem is why the trivia sections grew so big in the first place. How were these trivia sections even allowed to grow so big that they needed their own article? Is all of that trivia really necessary? Someone should have put their foot down and said "look there's too much, it's time for a cleanup." Hell, Wikipedia discourages trivia sections/articles. Ant423 23:15, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

While I'm no fan of trivia, every time I clean trivia sections up, more gets added. Truthfully, trivia sections are large because there's a lot of trivia. While some information can be better organised and integrated into the main article, most trivia is 100% relevant to the game and the article it's in. This isn't trivia like "Captain Price is ten millimetres shorter in Mission Two than he is in Mission One" or "His moustache is strawberry blonde instead of brown, as stated in his profile". They're pretty much all valid observations and minutiae that players have picked up over the years. The crucial flaw in your perspective is that CoDwiki is not Wikipedia, and CoDwiki hosts articles and information that Wikipedia wouldn't allow. --Scottie theNerd 08:37, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - After looking around the Wikia for a few days, plenty of articles would need similar treatment, notably, killstreak and Multiplayer map articles would need similar treatment to the Campaign Missions. Perhaps if this was to be accepted, a clear line needs to be put down when an article needs to have a separate page for trivia and could be incorporated to cover all articles within the Wikia. The-Dreamcaster 14:10, May 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I'm in favor of simply moving them back to their respective pages.Ukr mech 93divDelta 4-7 18:54, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

support - I do like Trivia, but it being on thesame page would make things a lot easier. I do want to say that Trivia should be able to be edited by anyone with an account. Not only does it make thins a lot easier, It also saves a lot of disk space at the wikia HQ 02:00, May 9, 2010 (CET)

AFD closed - No consensus met.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  16:06, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty Wiki: SandboxEdit

This page is the sandbox for the whole wiki. Some users have a personal sandbox, me included. If we can have personal sandbox's, why do we need one for everyone? Richtofen bio image WaW Doc. Richtofen 20:31, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support 4
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - Per Above. Richtofen bio image WaW Doc. Richtofen 20:31, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I never use the sandbox Purplestar ♫♪Sмαsђ♪♫ Purplestar 20:58, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Doc. and Gamer, most users that would use it have their own. Doltensig 21:00, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per allHax217 Sig. HeaderHax217 Sig. TalkHax217 Sig. Editprogress-wheel.gif 21:01, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Even though registered users can just make a sandbox of their own, the public sandbox is open to both registered and unregistered users—who have no other way of testing things out other than vandalizing an article as a means. We are not deleting the sandbox. US Army WWII MSGTSgt. ChiafriendRifleman 04:09, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Elephant TanksEdit

This article is almost all real-life, very, very little info is about CoD. All in all, it needs to be deleted. azuris_ 00:05, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - As nominator. US Army OF-21st Lt. CôdExpert Talk 00:06, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Should be speedy deleted as per COD:NOT --Scottie theNerd 02:47, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted -  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  08:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Pegasus BridgeEdit

The article is mostly IRL info, and only has one line about its role in game. And Its only in game relevance is a level for which there is already and article. Blinzy45 01:56, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - As nominator Blinzy45 01:56, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Should be speedy deleted as per COD:NOT. Space should be used for Pegasus Bridge (Call of Duty) --Scottie theNerd 02:48, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted and CoD page moved -  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  08:59, May 23, 2010 (UTC)


Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 Wii Edit

It should be merged with Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2; it's pointless to have its own page. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 17:53, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support 3
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - as nominator. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 17:53, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - They are basically the same game. Doltensig 21:01, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - They may be similar, but there isn't enough information available to make that assumption.Hax217 Sig. HeaderHax217 Sig. TalkHax217 Sig. Editprogress-wheel.gif 21:05, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Not enough info has been released aside from box art. The name of the game has not been confirmed either.Hax217 Sig. HeaderHax217 Sig. TalkHax217 Sig. Editprogress-wheel.gif 21:07, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - No confirmation of details; therefore no article should exist. --Scottie theNerd 04:36, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deleted - The exact same info could be found on the MW2 page.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  09:03, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

GriffinEdit

The article is on a randomly generated character clearly stating that he may spawn as an African or caucasian model and does not list speficic information. The Griffin described in the article which is only one sentence is not about the soldier Griffen who is in Crew Expendable but about a randomly generated character. Even according to the Granularity policy it has no place on the Wiki.

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support-As nominatorFoxtrot12 22:50, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Foxtrot. Doltensig 20:58, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

AfD Closed - Article qualified for speedy deletion. Imrlybord7 18:12, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ranks Edit

Unlike the respective articles based on the unlockable content, the generic article on Ranks has nothing to do with Call of Duty. It currently only provides insignia and rank names, which are fine and dandy for modern military enthusiasts, but not relevant to COD. --Scottie theNerd 14:28, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - What about the soldiers in the game that go by those ranks? Sgt. S.S. 17:10, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

What about them? Characters all have their own articles. Why do we need the name, insignia and NATO pay grade of every rank in current military existence on one page? Also consider that the article only includes modern ranks rather than ranks used in the Second World War; and many insignia (notably the Russian ranks) are incorrectly placed as American ones. Within the Call of Duty series, a soldier's rank has never been a notable aspect in any regard. --Scottie theNerd 07:57, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie. Chief z 09:27, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

AfD Successful - Page was not relevant to Call of Duty. Imrlybord7 18:11, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Explosive Bolts Edit

It should be deleted due to the fact that there is a page for bolts, both explosive and not. Nacht der Untoten Poster2Conqueror of all Zombies TalkNaziZombies 21:05, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Support: 1

Neutral: 0

Oppose: 0

Support - As nominator Nacht der Untoten Poster2Conqueror of all Zombies TalkNaziZombies 21:05, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Tagged for speedy deletion. --Scottie theNerd 01:39, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Call of Duty Roads to Victory Single Player Levels Edit

Poorly written, bad grammar and title. (It has nothing to do with the levels as a whole, it only details one.) If it was rewritten, built upon and the name was changed it could potentially be a good article but at the moment it's in horrible condition. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 18:05, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support Support 1
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - As nominator. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 18:05, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

AfD Closed - Article qualified for speedy deletion. It should be a category. Imrlybord7 18:08, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Apple iPhone/iPod touchEdit

It's pathetically short, and doesn't need to be on here. Is not as important as PS3 or Xbox 360.

Pictogram voting support Support 9
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0


Support - As nominator.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  09:02, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per CoD4. ukimies {talk | irc | administration} 09:56, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I'd even do away with the other platform articles, as they have nothing directly related to Call of Duty. --Scottie theNerd 10:11, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie Personal StB 4MB1T10N sig 21:16, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support- No argument, while other platforms are contested this really has no place as all it can run is Nazi Zombies.--AR Sig 21:24, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie. Doltensig 20:54, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Cod4. Emblem-pavelow-1-Major DuNnEmblem-b2-1- 20:56, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per everyoneHax 217 Sig 2 HeaderHax 217 Sig 2 TalkHax 217 Sig 2 ContibsHax 217 Sig 2 Editcount 20:30, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Scottie. I know it looks like i'm just saying that cause everyone else did, but he has a point... minus the Xbox... wouldn't prestige edition qualify per the policies? Extremofire 00:38, May 29, 2010 (UTC)

Illuminati CodesEdit

It's pointless


Pictogram voting support Support 4
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 0
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 0

Support - As nominator.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  09:08, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - But I think it should be merged with the Der Riese page. LITE992 15:49, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per LITEPersonal StB 4MB1T10N sig 21:18, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Like Lite said. TaskForce141logo-1-Squelliot Talk EditsMw2 cia-1- 23:44, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Has Been Merged with Der Riese Page. Blueguard Squelliot Wanna Talk? Glorious editsBlueguard 20:49, May 21, 2010 (UTC)


All categories under Category:Weapons by Nation Edit

As part of the overhaul, I'd like to push to remove these categories, as they divide weapons based on their country of manufacture, which is not relevant to the Call of Duty games or universe. In-game faction weapons are already easily accessible by weapon templates. --Scottie theNerd 13:41, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

AFD Closed - Articles... erm, categories qualified for speedy deletion under new policies. Imrlybord7 14:17, May 11, 2010 (UTC)


Melee (Tactic)Edit

This page seems rather unnecessary and it sounds more like a strategy guide than an article.

Pictogram voting support Support 2
Pictogram voting neutral Neutral 1
Pictogram voting oppose Oppose 7


Support - As Nominator Ant423 19:46, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I see no reason why we should get rid of it! It could help some players. Also, it has some pretty legit and nice information, and is well put together. Why delete all of that for nothing? TheManOfIronT C E B 19:50, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It is an article about a play style commonly seen in the game, which this wiki has a few articles about LITE992 19:58, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per LITE992. Braden 0.0 01:57, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Teh more teh marryer! (The more the merrier!) TheManOfIronT C E B 20:00, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I made the article to fill a gap, the Knife Monkey tactic is a well known piece of Call of Duty that everyone has come to know and hate (or love if you're doing it). If we have articles for Rushing and Camping, it is only hypocritical to take this off. Smuff 09:43, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Legitimate information; no reason provided for being "unnecessary". --Scottie theNerd 09:48, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - In its current state, this article is a freaking trainwreck, but with a move and some reworking it could be alright. Imrlybord7 13:21, May 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry about that Smuff 09:50, May 6, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I was completely unaware that there are pages for camping and rushing. In that case, I feel they should go as well, but whatever. Ant423 19:00, May 8, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - This page actually helped me (jurryaany) out a lot, and I have worked on it as well! 01:48, May 9, 2010 (CET)

Oppose - This page is on a legitemit tactic. I believe and agree with Imrlybord7 that it shouldn't be deleted, but cut down to where its an article and not a fanmade strategy guide that may or may not work. Rambo362 00:17, May 9, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Tactic pages are useless, I think all "tactic" pages should b e deleted. Doltensig 20:52, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - A page which really just clutters up and does not much to help this wiki. ajr117 18:52, May 24 2010 (GMT)

Closed - No consensus met  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  15:45, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.