FANDOM


User TermanologyEdit

Is it allowed to put Username Termaonalogy such as WYK: User:WouldYouKindly or Cod4: User:Callofduty4? --ArmyPro1CodExpert Talk 00:31, May 11, 2010 (UTC)

No, I definitely don't think we should put abbreviations for users' usernames. Imrlybord7 04:24, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Possible expansion of certain parts Edit

There are many things here that obviously do not deserve their own articles, but I think that we could expand a few of them so that certain things don't go completely ignored by the wiki. I just expanded Quick Scoping. Thoughts? Imrlybord7 04:24, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the idea. A glossary is a quick reference guide. It functions best if it is kept simple and only provides the meaning of the terms, not discussion the actual concept. I think avoiding an Oxford English Dictionary approach would be best. --Scottie theNerd 11:22, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Need a Term confirmed. Edit

So, before I add it.. I want to know, what exactly does the term "Loaded for Bear" mean? The only reference I've managed to find so far comes from Urban Dictionary as:

  • "Carrying more equipment than necessary. Overloaded. It can be used in a variety of ways meaning a person is equipped more than necessary for his/her prey." (I.E A youth is going hunting for squirrel but takes his father's high-powered rifle and a shotgun. He's loaded for bear.)

So is this true? Razgriez 05:32, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. Judging from the way its used in MW2, I'd say it means "Loaded for Fire Support." I could be wrong. Rambo362 13:09, July 4, 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we don't put it in. This section is for gaming terms rather than in-game phrases. We could spend an eternity listing every term in use in military vernacular. --Scottie theNerd 14:04, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

General internet slang Edit

As a gaming terminology page, especially on a COD site, I feel that we don't need to list every single acronym or abbreviation used on the internet. We might as well lift Urban Dictionary if we have to put entries for "ROFL" and so on. --Scottie theNerd 17:24, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

- Sorry this may be in the wrong section, has been years since i've edited a Wiki. The listed defenition for a 'Drop Shot' seems to be mixed up with the defenition for a 'Spawn Tube' (Unlisted) 124.178.54.57 20:23, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetizing Edit

Although the letters are all in the right order, entries within each letter are not. Not a huge issue, but one that we need to fix. Imrlybord7 22:31, July 15, 2010 (UTC)


I'm on it :) PJBC 13:05, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


Ok, took me just under 2 hours, but it is now in alphabetical order :) PJBC 13:54, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

This may need editing, something about it seems like a fanboy comment but I can't quite place it...Edit

"New Xbox-360: The third Xbox 360 model released so far, now with great upgrades such as a 250 gigabyte hard drive, better graphic capabilities, a smaller power "brick", a new, smooth, sleek black finish, coupled with larger fans to reduce sound!"


That is the on the 'X' glossary. Now can anybody tell me that something about the way it's worded doesn't seem biased? Sure does to me... I'll leave any edit to an experienced editor.


PJBC 20:49, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Do not put in offensive terms for the sake of being offensiveEdit

It has come to my attention, as an editor, that some people recently, have begun editing into the glossary, terminology, that put lightly and at best, is of questionable content/value. At worse, it is crass, classless, deeply offensive, and frankly, seems to provide little value to the list of terms, as they are more in jokes between a few people and their friends. I have a few personal opinions on these issues as an editor

While some of the wiki's rules may be more relaxed for this section, the fact is, they are merely relaxed, NOT IGNORED

First off, if an admin has told you "no" to a term for it being offensive, then no means NO. Do not constantly put what an admin has declared as offensive, back in over and over again, hoping that it will suddenly be allowed. If you disagree with the view that the term is offensive or doesn't step extremely over the line of decency, then talk it over with an admin, either the same one, or another admin. They have talk pages, leave a message for them, and they tend to get back to you. Explain calmly, why you think your term should be allowed to stay if it was removed.

Second, a bad edit here, is still a bad edit. If your term is horribly written out, and frankly, reads like you made the edit while you were drunk, and we can't understand it, then that term should be removed.

Third and finally, please avoid personal in jokes between you and your friends. They are called in jokes for a reason, because only a select few (you and your friends) understand them. Plus what may seem innocent to you and your friends, could be extremely offensive to someone else.

Any opinions on this from anyone else? -- Razgriez 03:35, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Sentences Edit

I think that, being a glossary, we should make it a little more like a glossary, and add an example sentence for every term. If someone disagrees, then please leave a message on my talk page, not this one, as I might not be checking back to this page for quite some time.


Tomahawk Mace170Talk Icon Stun Grenade MW2 20:05, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

There seriously is this many? Edit

Just wondering, when i was reading these, most of the terms are something i havent NEVER, EVER NEVER heard of. "Baby Buffalo" is someone who rushes at the open? Who is making these up.

I have 513 hours of MW2, and countless hours on other popular FPS's, which in theory should mean that i would have heard every term at least once. Especially when im playing on the PC--Oreo Biskuit!!Eleven 15:04, June 28, 2011 (UTC)

Also, did i understand wrong, because i thought that this page is for CoD and CoDWiki related terms. Half of the entries here are internet slang and abbreviations. Also, some important ones were missing, such as firecap.--Oreo Biskuit!!Eleven 09:15, July 1, 2011 (UTC)

Quickscoping EntryEdit

There should probably be some recognition of the controversy (i.e, is it a 'style of play' or simply a well-practiced exploit of a glitch). I tried to put in a more balanced entry but it was revised back to 'style of play' and the page blocked from further editing.

"Quick Scoping (QS) : A popular 'style of play' according to some, considered an exploit of a glitch by others, wherein a player is able to scope in at close range, while in motion and without cover, shoot for a kill, then scope out almost instantly and without having to ensure the crosshairs are on the target. Gamers who have become dependent on the QS exploit for success have lobbied to keep the unusual and unlikely technique, pleading that the QS should be kept in the game because (by some accounts) it takes practice to become skilled at QS, though critics point out that the amount of practice it takes to master an exploit is hardly a good argument for ignoring a glitch."

It's not a glitch and what you put seemed to be a passive-aggressive rant. Then you kept on putting it back, so the page had to be locked. There is no need to recognise the "controversy" of it, the glossary is a glossary, not a philosophical debate page.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  02:33, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, just asserting that QS is not a glitch (or more accurately, an exploit of a glitch) doesn't make it so. A glossary is supposed to reflect popular usages of a term, and since some gamers use it to refer to an exploit and others to a style of play, that difference in usage has to be acknowledged. Otherwise the glossary just becomes a tool for one side of the debate to pretend the other side doesn't exist. Not cool. ----

QS has never been a glitch. Just an exploit of the Aim Assist in-game, and btw, it's hard as hell to do.Also, that description is opinionated as hell.-Diegox223 Zed's dead, baby.Personal Diegox223 Deadpool logo02:53, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Insofar as a glitch is an unintended consequence of the programing, QS fits the definition pretty well. I doubt very much that when the programers sat down they discussed ways of making it possible to use a sniper rifle without cover as a short-range-single-round-kill weapon by flicking the scope up for a milisecond on autoaim. QS is clearly not an intended consequence of the programming, so there is a very good argument to made that it is an exploit of a glitch. Now, developers have acknowledged the glitch and are slow to fix it given the stink raised by gamers who depend on it so heavily. I can't imagine it will last. As for it being difficult to do, that hardly makes it any less glitchy. There are lots of glitches that take hours of game-play to master. They're all still cheesy. As for the description being based on opinion, what description isn't?

That quickscoping is an exploit was confirmed when a representative of the developer of CoD told people that the company is going to fix the glitch because the exploit is "cheap" and people should be playing "straight up". That's about as clear as it gets. In the end it looks like they chose not to address the glitch because so many have become dependent on the exploit for success. Let's hope that in the next edition the company demonstrates some integrity and refuses to indulge a vocal minority who are trying to convince themselves and others that glitching is an art form. 96.54.174.92 06:18, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Who ever said it was unintended? You're working on a basis that has not been proven. Until you prove that it was an unintended hitch in the programming, then you cannot assert that it is a glitch, or an exploit of such.  FANMADE_Animated_Derpy_Hooves_desktop_ponies_sprite.gif Sig1.png Sig2.png  12:52, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

TangoEdit

This is really unimportant, but when I play MW3 Special Ops online on XBOX 360, many players refer to the C4 suicide bombers as Tangos. I have become fond with the term and I think we should add it.

MTN Phoenix 01:47, March 27, 2012 (UTC)


More Than One EntryEdit

I don't know if this has happened for other terms, but the term '360 quickscope' was repeated twice in the # section and in the Q section because of reversing the words. I am going to delete the 'quickscope 360' entry because I have almost never heard this. I have only heard of '360 quickscope.' If I am incorrect feel free to reverse the edit. WhinoTheRhino 18:57, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

WTF theres not this many ive seen less than half of these someones making these up maybe might be on other games but this is COD wiki I don't even 'Around the clock' a term for geting zombies in circles some of these sound shit anyway who even made some of these?

There's thousands of players, and many users from around the world. The terminology will be different depending where you live. Conqueror of all Zombies 19:01, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the Glossary Edit

the Term Spawn Trapping  should be in the glossary so people are aware of what it is for informing sake :)

New Addition proposal: Barrel StuffingEdit

Someone recently added Barrel Stuffing to the list. While I do think the description might of been a bit off from some bias, I have heard of it. I personally refer to it as ram scoping, but I've heard this as well. It generally means the act of getting a no-scope at a range that it's almost impossible to miss. Instead of just trying to add it, I figured I'd put forward a proposal to see if people have heard of it, and also what the most popular name is, so we can use that one. 08:49, April 18, 2015 (UTC)
If no one votes, I'll just add it in as I've heard it. But if that's the case I don't want anyone removing it because they never bothered to read the talk page. I'm leaving this mesage so it might raise awareness that there's a vote going on. But if no one adds anything, I will just go ahead and add it. 14:21, April 29, 2015 (UTC)
I think I've heard it a few times. bionicle__unity_duty_destiny_by_cyberpictures-d6p3li2.pngLegos-Rule-15 Talk 14:27, April 29, 2015 (UTC)

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