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.

Now, we all remember this forum, right? I read over the whole forum, and I thought os something: If we have forums like that one, then why do we have articles on Paris? Paris is merely a setting, so why is it still an article?

This seems to overturn the point on why the old forum was passed in the first place: deletimg countries that have no significance outside of being merely a setting and having enemy factions. In fact, why do we even have articles on countries in the first place on this wiki? Like they said in the forum, people are more than capable of looking it up om Wikipedia.

So, what do we do? Do we overrule the old forum, or simply re-define it? Metl^Talk 03:26, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

I would say that our discussion in chat has tested that forum. I would say that there are more noteable countries than the ones we have now. We should have the right to bring them back. Most of the discussion on that forum contravenes the whole In Real Life project. Qw3rty! 03:32, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

As I was the one who initiated the motion, the context was that many country articles were relics from Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity, when everything in the game had to have an article. The problem I identified was that users were associating characters and factions with entire countries, such as Australia being significant because a character had a flag patch; or Poland because several characters from the Polish army were represented; or Ukraine because two missions take place in one town or that a couple of snowmobiles were manufactured there. During this time, a lot of editors were strongly in favour of keeping the articles, as as the thread shows, it took a lot of effort and reasoning to make the change.

I'm personally all in favour of removing country articles entirely. However, it seems that the ones currently in existence are fine under COD:NOTABLE. Many of the location-based articles contain composite in-universe information that is unique to COD. --Scottie theNerd 12:15, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I'm currently wondering why articles such as this one even exist, if they only appear as settings in the game, and not as places of actual importance in the campaign. The existence of these articles seems to invalidate the reason the Deleting Countries forum was even made in the first place. Metl^Talk 18:27, May 22, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be deleted or, at least, put up for discussion. I don't see a thread open for Paris on COD:AFD. The existence of these articles does not invalidate the consensus; it is the other way around. The thread established a precedent for which we refer to when dealing with articles such as this one. --Scottie theNerd 13:36, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

As per your reasoning in the last forum, the Paris page contains nothing about Paris, only about missions and maps that take place in it. So why not delete it? Because it is noteable. France, per se, is notable because it spans an entire campagin (Call of Duty 3), we have French GIGN soldiers, What is a game without a setting? Qw3rty! 00:32, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

As per COD:NOTABLE, only countries that have a major geopolitical role have articles, and in the discussion leading up to the formation of that policy, we clarified that we should be careful how we specify and associate notability. The campaign is notable, but not the setting. The faction is notable, but not the country. As with other factions, GIGN has an article, so that gets its fair treatment of notability. The main reason why we removed country articles was because there was nothing we could write about them that wasn't already covered in real-life articles, and that they had no significant claim to notability within the COD universe. --Scottie theNerd 13:36, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

In the case of Paris a lot of things happened in the game version that couldn't be found on the wikipedia page, whilst you can find out basic things, wikipedia does not have information about the gas attacks or the collapse of the Eiffel Tower. So Paris does have some notable things happen. 14:55, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Paris itself, however, is not notable. If John Price fired a nuclear missile at my backyard, it wouldn't make my backyard (or the nuclear missile) notable. This is going back to why Call of Duty Wiki:Granularity was removed: not everything in the game is notable nor should everything in the game have its own article. Unlike many other games, COD does not have extensive in-universe locations and lore that can be written about them. --Scottie theNerd 15:23, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying the Battle of the Somme is not a notable battle of WW1 because the casualities were only bad on the first day. Stuff physically happened in Paris, the capture of Volk, the gas attacks, the collapse of the Eiffel tower, it isn't just glazed over with one dialogue line of "Paris got hit".

Crazy sam10 • Talk

15:31, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Stuff "physically happened" in Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Tunisia and Italy as well, but we got rid of all of them, because it's the stuff that's physically happening that's notable, not the location. Sgt. S.S. 18:37, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

But let's remember the events in Paris changed Paris, it's landmark was destroyed and certain pockets were contaminated. Veitnam is historical, you can look up the Vietnam war to look up ops like that, whereas the Paris we have is in the future and not in-keeping with a wikipedia search.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

19:59, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. You won't find "Paris was attacked by A Chemical Weapon", "Volk was captured in Paris", or "the Eiffel Tower was destroyed during the third world war" on the Wikipedia page. 21:45, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Under COD:NOTABLE, "Events, places or people that are referred to across more than one level are covered, provided they do not consist of large amounts of real life information." Which perfectly fits locations such as Paris. Furthermore, if the Article were too come under fire for being to IRL, "Real-life articles must have some pertinence to the scope of the wiki." which Paris also fits, as it's a major setting in the Modern Warfare 3 Campaign. Under this, and because I just really don't see the point of deleting articles like this, I believe articles such as this shoudl be kept. 18:44, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

^ Per this. It's right in the policy guys :| Redskin-26 20:48, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

Which is why the forum is about redefining notability for country articles. <_< -- azuris_ 00:54, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the town or area the player is in take precedence if it's available? Joe Copp 09:25, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I've just realised, we're talking about countries pages, yet Paris is being used as an example. Paris is a city. 12:44, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

But France does redirect to Paris - and the Paris page also seems to be somewhat of a general representation of what happened in France throughout the series. -- azuris_ 04:11, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

And Scotty, as your whole representation of the notability concerning if something happened what becomes notable, the you, that house, the backyard, the street, the city, the state, and the country, which one of these becomes notable. Well what happens when there is an entire World War, say, France. Does the battle become notable, the provinces of the battles, or the country for fighting the battles. Or say something like the bombing of Hiroshima, does only the city become notable and not the country itself? The logic is flawed to the degree of what happens. Qw3rty! 04:19, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you talking about real life? All the things you mentioned are, by themselves, notable to some degree (and are kept on Wikipedia according to their notability policy). France was and is notable without the World War. Hiroshima has a claim to notability as a city; Japan has a claim to notability as a country; the bombing and the bombs themselves have enough independent information to warrant their own articles. Simply, one event does not make 20 other things notable just because it happened; though that event may be part of other subjects. --Scottie theNerd 05:15, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Quoting this in my earlier paragraph,

"Let's take an example: Alex Mason appears in my backyard and steals my car. Which of the following becomes notable: my car, my backyard, my street, my suburb, my city or my country? To my understanding, it's none of the above. It's Alex Mason who is notable; and not everything he touches can turn into an article."

I use similar logic in your statement, noting the logic. And i am talking about this wikia, if those things were in the game, say a level where you fly the Enola Gay, drop the bomb, little cutsceen. Does the country become notable because of this? It should, as it is a major even in history. Now i understand the fact that we don't need absolutely every single country in the game that is forementioned, but ones that still play an extensive role in the series itself. Qw3rty! 05:26, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

We do cover countries that have a significant geopolitical role, as per COD:NOTABLE (and examples include United States, Nazi Germany and Russia). If all we can put on an article is "It got bombed", it's a stub article with no hope of expansion. --Scottie theNerd 09:02, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

But Paris is notable. Volk was captured there, Eiffel tower collapes, the area is poisoned, and there's some Spec Op missions there. Paris is very notable.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

11:17, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying it isn't. I'm defending the rationale behind the removal of country articles and notability via association. --Scottie theNerd 15:03, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Although COD:NOTABLE states that any important thing needs it's own article, I seriously don't feel the need to keep the country/city pages. Yes, they are notable, but we know where London and Paris are. It would be different if CoD 24353254363 took place on a non-existent place, that is when we need another page for it. Reznov115^Talk

Just because I know where abouts Paris is doesn't mean I know what happened to it in MW3 (I do personally, but this theotitically for other users). Also, in the case of Paris, Battle of Paris, given a battle occured there I think that makes it notable, we also have a page for Pointe Du Hoc as it was in The Battle of Pointe du Hoc, but Pointe Du Hoc could essentially be looked up on Wikipedia easily, yet it's stayed there for this length of time.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

18:00, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the existence of an older article doesn't make it and other articles sacrosanct -- that's exactly why we have the AfD process (i.e. "_____ article exists, therefore we must keep this one" is a null argument). The point of this discussion is to establish a precedent for the removal of one article and others like it, just as the original country deletion article tried to do. Secondly, as we do have the Battle of Paris, doubling up with Paris is redundant. The key is that we already have a wealth of information in mission articles and pseudo-historical articles like World War III where such information can be compiled and referred to in detail. Breaking information into smaller articles with no additional information simply inflates our article count. --Scottie theNerd 01:12, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

The older article was linked as it was not deleted after the previous forum, which was referenced in the forums introduction, not because it hasn't been AfD'd yet. Also if the Battle of Paris page is redundant shouldn't this forum just be about removing every page that isn't directly tied into game?

Crazy sam10 • Talk

04:14, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

Your terminology is confusing me. Are you talking about the thread I started to discuss purging the Countries category and deleting non-notable country articles? I started that discussion to address a different issue and did not specify, at the time, other locations. The problem was that country articles were inflated with information that was not actually about the country (e.g. we had article on Ukraine even though the only information in it was from Prypiat). Also, I didn't say that Battle of Paris was redundant; rather, Paris is partially redundant because of the article on the battle. My opinions on Paris aside, I think we're losing track of the original proposal of this thread. --Scottie theNerd 14:47, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

While the events that happened in France during MW3 may be important, so many things have happened in cities and countries throughout the CoD series that it'd be hard to separate the games and events from each other in a clear way. Plues, the cities and countries themselves aren't that important. Conqueror of all Zombies 02:37, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

"Like they said in the forum, people are more than capable of looking it up om^[sic] Wikipedia" - whilst this is true Call of Duty is entering a phase were everything that happens in these countries is fictional, as such, like how we treat guns with their in-game names and perforamance, we should treat countries and cities as as such. As I've brought up before a Wikipedia seach can tell you about Pointe Du Hoc and Veitnam, but it cannot tell you about WW3 France, or Cold War 2 LA. This is a point I'd like to raise as many users are forgetting that many of the newer CoDs take place in the future in fictional timelines. 02:57, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Per Sam. The articles have information on them that only pertains to the Call of Duty universe. If they don't, it clearly means they need to be updated, not deleted. 16:05, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying we should apply COD:IRL to determine whether an article should be deleted or not, and/or the information that's on these articles? One more thing: these only concern countries right? So if I were to create a page about Singapore, which is a city-state, and is to be in Black Ops II, would it be deleted?   ParagonX7 _跟我谈天 11:18, June 8, 2012 (UTC).

Well, despite the name of the forum it seems to cover all locations, as the ontroduction makes mention of the city Paris. But as we are considering a city from a fictional part of the series it should not be deleted as long as we have notable information.

Crazy sam10 • Talk

05:36, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I just thought of something. We treat characters and weapons in Call of Duty as if they are fictional, why don't we do the same for countries? Metl^Talk 07:19, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

You know what, that's not a bad idea. Sgt. S.S. 09:13, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

I thought that's what we were doing? Joe Copp 03:40, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

Apparently not, as there are Wikipedia links on country articles, as well as battle articles. Metl^Talk 01:54, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia links so the reader can learn about the country by their own accord, the countries should be treated as if they dont exist, and if they are treated as such they become notable. —Unsigned comment was added by Qw3rty!

This applies to all, so countries NEED to stay. There is no reason for them not to be there. Dark as night...the batman  15:49, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

COD:N does specifically state that "countries that play a major geopolitical role" are allowed to have articles, yes (and I was involved in making that distinction and wording, so I know). However, policy is not absolute. The purpose of this discussion to to amend the policy, so quoting policy is redundant. --Scottie theNerd 15:06, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

I have a final question. Why should the articles on Russia, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States stay? the United Kingdom and United States have very few missions actually set in them, and like Scottie said, location is not notable in the series. Time and time it has been pointed out that what the factions themselves did has been notable, not the country they represent. People shouldn't go to our wiki if they want information on the United States. they should only go here if they want info on Of Their Own Accord. Hell, we have an article on the Vice President of the United States, and he only appears in a single mission, not even with a name. Metl^Talk 07:25, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

The article on the VP is a different issue. He is an identifiable character and falls under COD:N. He would get an article regardless of whether or not we get rid of country articles. --Scottie theNerd 15:06, June 21, 2012 (UTC)

COD:N Mentions a place referred to across more than one level can have articles with enough non-IRL info. Meaning, if Paris was attacked by gas, Russians, and had the Eiffel Tower destroyed, it would be noteable enough to have an article. Sgt. Sackboy 00:31, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yet, we have no articles on Vietnam or France. Somehow, I don't see why we have articles on the Soviet Union, Russia, America, Britain, and Nazi Germany. It's about factions in Call of Duty, not the countries they represent. Metl^Talk 02:34, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

"People shouldn't go to our wiki if they want information on the United States." No they shouldn't, but they can come here for Call of Duty specific information on the United States, you know, like the fact that it was invaded in 2016 by the Russian army. 03:30, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

I have two solutions for that. The first solution is to just have it explained in mission articles. The second is to have country articles in, as what occurs throughout the entire Call of Duty series is fiction, and only based on IRL events. In which case we would have to make articles for France, Vietnam, and Japan. Metl^Talk 03:39, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with the first, what if the person wants generalized information from multiple games? Why do they have to go to several different mission pages if they would only need to go to one. The second idea, I don't completley understand, can you be a bit more clear. 03:42, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase: we treat characters and weapons as if fictional. We treat wars (except in Modern Warfare series) as if they are not fictional, and everything that happened in-game is fact. I think wars, events, and battles, even if set in a historical setting, should still be treated as if fictional. Metl^Talk 03:53, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

In regards to Vietnam, Japan, France, etc.: I drew the line on those countries as a compromise between removing country articles outright and keeping some because of their "importance" based on community discussion. I defined a country's notability as "having a significant geopolitical role" in the COD universe -- the wording of which is exactly used in COD:N. Under this criteria, countries like the United States and Russia have articles because, as a country, they have significant roles in the COD storyline in addition to being settings for events. Russia, for example, undergoes a political revolution and civil war, ultimately becoming a belligerent in a global war. Nazi Germany, aside from being the opposing faction, is a major plot 'character' in Black Ops and the Zombies alternate storyline as part of the back story. These factors make the countries distinct from the factions within them and thus qualify for notability in their own right.

In contrast, countries like Japan and Vietnam have no in-game notability apart from being settings for other plot events. I do believe that we respect the real-life events on which they are based on (seriously, it's stupid to assume that WWII and the Vietnam War was fictional), and as such we place emphasis on COD-exclusive information as the basis of notability; else we would be re-documenting historical events and figures as "fiction". As geopolitical entities, Japan and Vietnam don't actually do anything in the COD universe other than being "an enemy" (and not the enemy). Thus, as the player, you interact with the Viet Cong and NVA (albeit by shooting them), but the country itself has no role in the COD storyline.

That was my established reasoning, based on discussion and consensus, that led to the retention of current country articles. --Scottie theNerd 16:36, June 24, 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that logic is that the events that happen in the WW2 titles are only based off their real life couterparts, and do not play out exactly like they did in real life. Thus would be my logic for making them fictional, as we already treat weaponry and Characters with that respect. In your same regard, the United Kingdom has no real role in any storyline in Call of Duty, yet they get an article. Why? Metl^Talk 07:10, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Under COD:N, Events, places or people that are referred to across more than one level are covered, provided they do not consist of large amounts of real life information.

France falls under this, France is a country featured in many Call of Duty missions, even the setting for a whole game! France is featured in more missions than the United States, and yet, the United States is more notable because it features are more prominent role in the COD Storyline?

We treat our Weapons as fictional, we treat our Characters as fictional. I fail to see how keeping the country articles will hamper this wiki's ability to give accurate information about Call of Duty. They are in Call of Duty, they play a role in the universe of Call of Duty, and yet, they are deemed, unecessary? What else is deemed unnecessary? Qw3rty! 07:38, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate and nitpick every country article here. If a particular article, such as United Kingdom, is deemed to be non-notable, put it up for deletion. Logic is not infallible; nor is this "my" logic, merely the points raised in the previous discussion. Please avoid targeting rebuttals at me. This is not my opinion. --Scottie theNerd 13:58, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

Amendment to COD:IRL?Edit

The discussion has spilled over to regarding all things in COD as fictional, so let's talk policy. The notion of "treat all things as fictional" is often misapplied. The whole idea started with armchair gun experts nitpicking on all the "inaccuracies" of weapons modeled in COD, and the "fictional" aspect was put forward so that weapons, while based on real life ones, are not treated as if they are the real thing. By extension, this applied to a lot of historical real life articles, such as famous generals and events in the war, thus becoming what we refer to as COD:IRL. Here, I dispute the wording of the current policy:

"...the subject of article should be considered fictional and written in such perspective rather than real life perspective. "

In that I think it is misleading to assume that the subject is fictional, but rather the second part -- to write from a (fictional) perspective rather than real life perspective -- is where the correct and most meaningful approach is. Editors are fixated on whether something is fictional or not, but that is not the point. There is a middle ground: that the subject of articles can be real but the article is written from a fictional perspective.

Because World War II was real. France is real. America is real. We're not talking about completely made-up subjects like House Ordos, Jedi or Yuri's faction from Red Alert 2.

The original problem was that in covering these topics, editors felt the need to provide sufficient information to turn stubs into full articles, but in doing so filled articles with too much RL information, such as the history of the founding of America.

Now we've turned to the other end of the scale, where everything is now arbitrarily fictional, which is nonsense. COD WWII is no different to real WWII -- otherwise we'd have to document COD WWII in its entirety, which is basically around 20 skirmishes fought by a handful of individual soldiers. We can talk about "Americans" without having to document COD's America, because COD's plot doesn't happen in COD's America; it's set in the America that we all know.

In short: Let's get over this fiction/real labeling sham and accept that some subjects can be both. We can acknowledge a subject's real-life basis but focus the article content on the fictional aspect. We need to get this clear and, if necessary, modify the wording of the policy to reflect that. Doing so will provide more flexibility in the content of the wiki and avert these pedantic arguments. --Scottie theNerd 13:58, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

I must say I agree with what you have said here and it is easy to assume that the policy itself is rather misleading. I'm all for amending its wording to prevent further confusion. Joe Copp 23:41, June 25, 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the wording -- it's the principle I'm proposing a change to. We no longer treat all things as fictional. --Scottie theNerd 12:23, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

So rather than calling everything fictional, we just write as if it's fictional, but if there is a lack of general information, real-life information can be applied? Joe Copp 02:39, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

This sounds very reasonable, and should clean up any confusion some editors might have. Shall we go to a vote, gentlemen? Metl^Talk 07:48, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

I'll create a new thread to discuss and vote on the IRL amendment, as this thread was created to discuss the deletion of country articles. --Scottie theNerd (talk) 12:48, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

ConsensusEdit

I think that some really secure ideas here for solving this problem. Specifically, Scottie's idea of considering the articles in a different way seems good, as is being discussed in the other forum. Alternatively, Qw3rty's idea of leaving it to COD:N, when the location spans 2 or more missions, could be the easiest way to manage the country articles. Thoughts? Joe Copp 16:00, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Closed - The change to COD:IRL now allows these articles to exist without problems. Joe Copp 01:25, July 6, 2012 (UTC)