This page is for the listing and details of proposals from the War Room which have been rejected several times.
Topics here may not be brought up again with the same reasoning. If they are, they will most likely be deleted on the spot. If a user wishes to revisit the topic, they must provide sufficiently differentiating reasoning than that which is listed on this page.
In order to propose a new topic to add to this list, just add the topic to the talk page. Note that the topic must have been rejected several times.
Blogging used to be subject to much controversy on this wiki - this was due to an increase in off-topic blogs, which many thought served as a distraction to more important procedures. Off-topic blogs were eventually cracked down on, and now, there are no off-topic blogs. The transition from blogs being used mainly to express off-topic feelings, to blogs being used mainly to report and comment on news, was due to the cessation of off-topic blogs. Since the primary reasoning behind banning blogs in the past are no longer relevant, and any other rationale used having failed several times, this topic is effectively sealed until new arguments are provided.
There were several forums to deal with My Little Pony images/avatars, all of which were not successful. It was often stated that MLP pictures were irrelevant to Call of Duty, and this formed the main backbone of the argument to ban MLP pictures in Forum 3. The other 2 forums' arguments consisted of them "looking stupid." All of these reasons were put down by the opposition.
Personal images are a topic of concern on the wiki for most users. With the majority of supports on threads concerning either personal images in general or of a certain topic stating that they "don't like them". If any new thread that has the majority of support saying they dislike them or that the forum itself says that personal images should be prevented from upload with the reason stated previously, it should be closed.
Ban X user forums
This is a slightly different entry - it is not so much that these fail, but more that these are not decisions for the community as a whole to make, and as such, are never to be discussed by the community in the War Room.
Simply put - banning users is a purely administrative decision. Openly discussing in the community bans for the user in question only serves to lengthen out a process which does not require unneeded bureaucracy. Also, it can often become a battlefield for users, as is the case with Forum 1, where the user who proposed the ban was later shown to have created the forum out of spite. In order to keep blocking an efficient process, and to not exasperate the situation further or cause disruption within the community, blocking users is a decision to be made and mediated by administrators only.
Forums regarding the Call of Duty Wiki's YouTube channel have often come up. These can range from simply revitalising it, or talking about using it for specific functions. All of these forums often started strong, but quickly lost interest, and in the end no changes were ever made. Due to consistent lack of outcomes, it is not to be discussed in the War Room any longer.
While there has been only 2 forums on the matter there has been plenty of discussion about the locations on talk pages. This lead to the first forum where we decided to use in-game satellite images and pair them up with Google map images, using the quotes to help guide us. This was the accepted solution until other users started using more specific information, uch as the architectural design seen in levels, to try and disprove this. Due to the in-game satellite images disproving this, this was deemed to close to IRL. With the release of Moder Warfare Remastered the pages were edited to new locations based smaller maps that game used and the second forum was created soon after this was spotted. The game used the same load screens, and as such same satellite images, as before and the new small maps seen on the mision select screen were too inaccurate to get any helpful information off. Soon the discussions fell in to the same pitfall as the first forum using information that was deemed too close to IRL. As the user putting this information forward failed to continue contributing the vote merely asked if the issue should be moved to PRP or not.