Talk:Call of Duty: World at War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emphasis on Wii

There was a lot of emphasis on the wii on the review part I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.114.44 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Perks

I think the cited information on Perks should be left in the article. Let's try to build a consensus on the issue. Green Squares (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Call of Duty: World at War - List of Multiplayer Perks
  • Perks
    COD has announced all of the perks that will be in the World at War game:[1]
    Perk 1
    • Special Grenades x3
    • Satchel Charge x2
    • M9A1 Bazooka x2
    • Bomb Squad
    • Bouncing Betty x2 (similar to claymores)only better and harder to see
    • Bandolier
    • Primary Grenades x2
    • M2 Flamethrower (does absolute work if you use it right)
    Perk 2
    • Stopping Power
    • Fireworks (explosives cause more damage)
    • Flak Jacket (decreases damage taken by explosives)
    • Gas Mask ( worst perk on the game who even uses tabun gas )
    • Juggernaut (noobs)
    • Camouflage
    • Sleight of Hand ( does work with the FG-42)
    • Shades (decreases intensity of signal flares)
    • Double Tap
    • Overkill (dumb perk)
    Perk 3
    • Deep Impact
    • Extreme Conditioning
    • Steady Aim
    • Toss Back (resets fuse on tossing back enemy grenade)
    • Second Chance (ability to revive allies)
    • Martyrdom
    • Fireproof (good if ur playing with the flamethrower
    • Dead Silence
    • Iron Lungs
    • Reconnaissance (shows artillery and tanks on map)
    Vehicle Perk
    • Water Cooler
    • Greased Bearings
    • Ordnance Training
    • Leadfoot
    • Coaxial Machine Gun
Game guide material, keep it out.Mr T (Based) (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Specifically, the info goes against WP:GAMEGUIDE and point 6 of WP:GAMECRUFT, as I've made known to the user in prior statements. -- Comandante {Talk} 00:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Definitely trivial - leave it out. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 09:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is ok to have the perks in the wiki, just leave out personal opinions of them. If you are going to list what some perks do then you must list what all of them do. I would either leave them out completely or list them all with a description of what they do.Rgoss25 (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Playstation 2

Someone has put PS2 under platforms, and this is not true. I'm not a registered user so could someone take that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 21:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/action/callofduty5/news.html?sid=6197246&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures;title;3.Mr T (Based) (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How about the official site http://www.callofduty.com/CoDWW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm telling you, the PS2 is not one of the platforms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 21:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I guarantee that it is, it's already gone gold. "Call of Duty: World at War - Final Fronts" it's a 'companion set' but it's still coming out on the PS2 (81.101.83.45 (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

But it's not on the official website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The PS2 version didn't contain any Russia/Soviet campaign, it has only three campaign which is US Marines in Pacific Theater, US Army in Germany and British Army in Rhine River. If you don't believe, then you should definitely try the PS2 version.--Solidsnakeckw (talk) 08:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I saw Final Fronts in GameStop. I'm just surprised that they made it for the PS2. The PS2 isn't the great system it used to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

"New" game modes.

The article states that "Six new multiplayer game modes have been announced; team deathmatch, hardcore HQ, multi-bomb search and destroy, hardcore free-for-all, war, and capture the flag."

Team deathmatch and multi-bomb SnD were in CoD1. Capture the Flag was at least in CoD3, and I'm sure that it was in CoD2 as well, although that could have been an after-release mod as the case was with CTF in CoD1. Hardcore HQ and Hardcore FFA were in Call of Duty 4, and I'm not to clear on what "war" is, as the citation makes no reference to the new game modes. I can do a bit of research to clear up on war (which I suspect is either CoD:UO's Base Assault or CoD3's War, most likely to be the latter). In short, the phrase "six new [...] game modes" is bothering me, as there is nothing new about them, unless we're taking into account and only referring to the masses of players that were introduced to CoD4 on the consoles alone, which doesn't seem right to me. I think a rephrasal is in order, although I'll leave that to more active users to determine the final outcome of the situation. I'm going to keep scanning the article and make sure there are no more pieces of misinformation or incorrect citations. Happy Fragging, IngeniusDodo (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardcore HQ and Hardcore FFA Where NOT in Cod 4 but i have been hearing of it being put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.82.200.41 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardcore HQ/FFA are indeed new to the series.Greenghost123 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)greenghost123

Marketing: Xbox360 and PC beta

The Xbox360 beta was released on the 10th of October, while the PC beta is expected to be released Ocober 28, according to a call of duty developer known as JD. I edited the page to say that, as you will see if you check under "Marketing." However, I may not have access to Wikipedia when the PC beta is released, which should be soon. Just putting this out there so others are aware that the section may need to be updated soon once the PC beta is released. Happy Fragging, IngeniusDodo (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Xbox 360 beta is now a free download on the XBLM, no codes required. Somebody put it up there already. Carry on. IngeniusDodo (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Kiefer Sutherland and Gary Oldman

Kiefer Sutherland is the voice of Sgt. Roebuck so who does Gary Oldman voice? Ice (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No clue. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The main Russian narrator
Thank will add that. --SkyWalker (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Is he Reznov? Ice (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, he is Sgt. Reznov. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.182.210 (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ratings

On the contrary, that's what the section is for: to list the ratings. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare lists multiple ratings, as does Halo 3 and numerous other articles. The problem we have is unique: this game is under the same title for multiple consoles (new and old and handhelds), and despite the differences in gameplay they are all cramped into one article. In any case, we can't leave the ratings off just because it makes a long list, otherwise users from other countries would begin wondering why their ratings weren't up. I have three solutions: 1) leave the article as is and make do with a long ratings list; 2) split the Nintendo DS and PS2 games off into separate articles; and 3) since the article focuses primarily on the console (PS3, Windows, etc.) version, just cut off the DS and PS2 ratings. I support the third option because it's the quickest thing to do, especially given that most people looking up this article will likely only care about the console version. It can be mentioned on the side somewhere that the DS and PS2 games got different ratings because of differences in gameplay. -- Commdor {Talk} 05:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

We should make it like CoD 4 and just have a list of ratings not a link to click to show all. the 3rd option is fine with me also. Someone could make a ds and/or ps2 page like cod 4 has. we should also make the system reqirements like cod 4.Ice (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and edited out the PS2 and DS ratings, still considering where to go from there. -- Commdor {Talk} 06:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
We can't make the systems requirements like in CoD4 until the article gets bigger (hopefully immediately following the release), otherwise we'd have a giant block pushing out the text. It is on my to-do list for this article, though (along with expanding the Intro and other things). I'll look into what to do with the ratings tomorrow. -- Commdor {Talk} 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
True I guess the article needs to get longer. It will for sure once the plot is written about like in cod 4 and other games. Ice (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
AGHHHH I soo want to update the info on the "ratings" section, but I am a new member, so I got to wait like 4 days... Creepydude (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Zombie mode

Should the 'Zombie Mode' be included under campaign instead of multiplayer? Unless co-op counts as multiplayerGreenghost123 (talk) 02:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Greenghost123

Co-op is multiplayer since there is more than one person playing usually. Ice (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
You can play the zombie mode alone by yourself
Nazi Zombies is actually a part of the campaign that you unlock once you finish it. It's the same thing that IW did with CoD 4 in which the last mission is kind of a spin off from the campaign once you beat it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.62.10.36 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think somebody needs to mention that in zombie mode you get money to buy new guns and open new parts of the building, not build new fortifications —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatmonkey (talk • contribs) 17:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The 5th game in the series?

Are we absolutely certain this is considered the 5th game in the series? I know there is a citation to some random game report online, but it seems to me that all references and all box art seen so far does not include the number 5 ANYWHERE. Thoughts? Jrtf83 (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare was 4th, World at War is 5th, Call of Duty 6 which will be coming next year. So yes this is 5th game in the series. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because the last game in the series was the fourth installment, doesn't mean the newest one is the fifth. Unless you have evidence to back up that the next game will indeed be titled "Call of Duty 6," or if Activision or Treyarch confirms it, this one technically can't be called the fifth installment. There are plenty of cases to back this up. For example, let's take Grand Theft Auto. The first three were simply titled Grand theft Auto, Grand Theft Auto 2, and Grand Theft Auto 3. Next, we had Grand Theft Auto Vice City and Grand Theft Auto San Andres. The most recent game in the series is Grand Theft Auto 4. Why they disregarded the games with cities in thier title is beyond me, but this has happened sevral times in several series. On the flip side, however, we have the TimeSplitters series. The first game was called TimeSplitters, the next one was TimeSplitters 2, then TimeSplitters: Future Perfect. The next game that they are currently working on is TimeSplitters 4. So you can't say this is the fifth without 100% official word.24.174.152.109 (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

See the following sources (the first explains how the numbering system has been removed, and the second explains that Activision has explicitly named Infinity Ward's upcoming project "Call of Duty 6"):
I believe the latter source is verification enough that World at War is the fifth game, since no other Call of Duty game has been released between CoD4 and next year's CoD6. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
point taken24.174.152.109 (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Semi Protection Template

Do we need to get a new one now that the old one ran out or not? 70.110.63.55 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends. In an ideal situation, the semi-protection will have worked in discouraging vandals and vandalism on this article will be at reduced or non-existent levels for a while. Since that is far from likely, however, if vandalism occurs at a considerably high rate over a relatively short period of time, then semi-protection can be requested again at WP:RFP. Semi-protection isn't meant to be a preemptive measure against vandalism, so it shouldn't be requested until vandalism becomes a significant problem. For now though, we should be fine. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I just fixed the first vandalism since it expired a second ago. Ice (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Add the following Information site:

RGN Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroy (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't add the link per WP:EL. It's an obvious fansite made up of self-published material, and sites like that aren't used in articles. -- Commdor {Talk} 23:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Exact time of shutdown of beta; rank and progress not carrying over.

Just as a little more info, maybe the page should also cite the beta is being shutdown at exactly 2 a.m.? Plus, should also let people know that the rank and score along with any other stats are NOT being carried over into the release of the full game on November 11th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldAtWar (talk • contribs) 19:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's enough info on the beta as is, any more would place undue emphasis on the subject. There's no need to mention the exact moment the beta ends, and explaining that progress doesn't carry over is unnecessary since it will become obvious to all once the game is released. What we currently have is more than sufficient to inform the casual reader. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
However most people don't come here to be 'casually informed', they come here looking to learn about a specific topic. 82.71.41.74 (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Levels

will their be prestige mode in this games--DCsniper207 (talk) 05:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To add more, there will be an additional five custom classes (to the five already avaliable) to be unlocked as your progress through the prestige levels. I know the sixth custom class is unlocked just after completing the first prestige. Seems that IW found a way to motivate the players to go after prestiges. --n0tverycreative

"IW" didn't do anything, they didn't work on this game Treyarch did. 72.18.39.72 (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First Review

I found a review for WaW and it got a 10/10 from http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=201284&site=cvg I wasnt sure if we should start a review/reception table thing like all the other video games have. Ice (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started on it ASAP. -- Commdor {Talk} 05:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I jumped too soon, thought the URL was for the actual review. I'll still set up a reception section, but since we don't have access to the review we can't really add it in. -- Commdor {Talk} 05:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Cant we use this for now until the actual review is released/found. Ice (talk) 05:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. Since the magazine doesn't appear to be one of the more prominent gaming publications, however, once reviews from more well-known sites and magazines like Game Informer, IGN, Eurogamer, and the like are published, this one review will likely be pushed out. For conformity it might be best if we use the same review sources as in Call of Duty 4 once they are all available. -- Commdor {Talk} 06:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is another review, but i dont think it is from a well known site so it probably cant go in the score table. atleast it was another high score. a 9.5 this time. http://www.poland.us/strona,33,3327,0.html Ice (talk) 05:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Patches

Could someone add this in? They have already came out with a 1.1 patch for the game. The link with the info is here... http://www.callofduty.com/intel/173 Lazera (talk) 08:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Added. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Remembrance Day?

The game came out today on Remembrance day, so I am wondering is there any connection here since they are releasing it in Europe on the 14th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Editor (talk • contribs) 22:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Seem to be contraversial in the media as well, so it may be noteworthy to mention. --Mista-X (talk) 23:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Story

Someone that has the game or played through it should write out the story like CoD 4 has. Ice (talk) 02:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The story is much less fleshed out than CoD4's. I finished World At War this morning. It is good, but it has the same old WW2 formula than every other game in the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.90.169 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah but can sombody make this text you can choose Roebuck or Polonsky to die 213.216.242.14 (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC) UH, why do you say that Mallerd (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Need to change all references from "Russian" to "Soviet"

References like "Russian flag" and "Russian campaign in Eastern Europe" should be changed to "Soviet flag" and "Soviet campaign in Eastern Europe". I don't know why people insist on calling the USSR "Russia", as much as you want to, the official name was "USSR" or "Soviet Union". We don't want to confuse people who don't know the difference between "Soviet" and "Russian". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.16.230 (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea it is a huge blunder. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


Note: Change it to Red Army. There specifically called the "Red Army". Please refer them/ rename them to what they are called for.

Side note, I don't have pc version yet, but DS version calls the campaign the "Russian" campaign, its alongside "American" and "British" campaigns. As for ingame briefing/background text, it calls the forces a variety of things including, "Russian army", "Soviet army", "Red army" etc...66.8.254.133 (talk) 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section?

While the game is generally liked I think there should be a section for any criticism the game might have. For instance many people seem annoyed at the addition of zombies.

The Wii version did not at all live up to Treyarch's promise of being exactly the same as the other versions (regarding features not graphics or other similars things). Notably the exclusion of several online modes for no legitimate reason. To say that the Wii isn't powerful enough to render capture the flag mode isn't an excuse at all. Not to mention the Wii's control scheme being worse than Medal of Honor 2 despite once again promises that it would be better.

72.89.125.25 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Such criticism would simply be added to the Reception section. Unless you can back up what you say with legitimate sources (can't be forums, fansites, blogs, etc.), however, then it can't be added as it all would just be your and others' opinions. See WP:NPOV and WP:RELY. -- Commdor {Talk} 00:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Reception

"Call of Duty: World at War have received" should be change to "has received" Mukanil (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering if it is noteworthy under either criticisms or under reception to inlcude a note about how the XBOX 360 version has a laundry list of glitches (IE players getting underneath the maps, floating, using rifle grenades to jump to locations the developers did not intend the players to be able to access and others) that the online multiplayer has? I know that I as an avid FPS gamer am fed up with glitching?

PS, be gentle Im new to contributing to wiki Stevejsam (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no, that kind of material isn't vital to the average reader's understanding of the game, and so shouldn't be added. Video game articles are centered on what the game is about, how it plays, and how it has been received in the media, rather than guides on how to beat the game or lists of items, cheats, and glitches. See WP:N and WP:OR for details on the policies, as well as the vg article guideline WP:GAMECRUFT. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Though if it's a big enough issue to be commented on in a reliable, verifiable review, then it's ok to add. Thanks! Fin©™ 00:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Final Fronts

I saw on IGN that they gave Final Fronts a 4.5 out of 10. Maybe we should put that Final Fronts got negative reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.222.72 (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Added the score. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In Other Media?

I'm surprised to see nothing mentioning CoD:WaW in South Park's season finalle a week or so ago, is there a reason for that or is it that no one has gotten around to it yet? --69.19.14.40 (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the game itself, so there's no reason to add it. It's merely a passing reference to a video game in a TV show, not a notable detail a reader of this article should be aware of. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay, but now i'm confused, alot of articles I see have in some form an "In Other Media" section, and lists whenever a reference is uttered in pop culture about the topic in question. Would that be considered bad or poor wikipedia editing? (Don't mean to be confrontational, just trying to figure this all out lol) --69.19.14.40 (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
That's usually unsourced trivia. Most of the time we try and keep that kind of material out of articles (see WP:TRIVIA), but since there are so many articles to comb over, there are probably several thousand which have sections like "In Other Media," "In Popular Culture," "Trivia," and so on. In some cases such sections are justified by their sources and their impact on the media and culture, but these are rare. -- Commdor {Talk} 22:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

ZOMBIES?!?!

Anyone regard an article about zombies after beating the solo game? Oops..spoilers..

I think there should be a section in this article about the Nazi Zombies multiplayer in this game. I would do it myself, but the article is locked (Absolutelyamazingalexander (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)).

It's mentioned in the article already under the gameplay section, because it can be played alone as well as in co-op. There's really nothing more that can be added about the mode without straying into game guide material. -- Commdor {Talk} 04:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Personnally i think that we should get that out of the gameplay section, along with the multiplayer, and create a new Modes section to describe the zombie mode, the multiplayer modes, and the singleplayer modes. Putting the Zombie mode into the middle of the gameplay section makes it feel out of place.

SSBBchamp (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Plot section

I think this section needs to be cleaned up a bit since it only describes the roles of each character. I would but I have yet to finish the campaign.Llama lom (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to add some depth to the first paragraph but apparantly it's "original research". Suddenly I remember why I dont edit this site. --Nitro378 (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Training?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no training section in this game, which is the first I've ever seen out of a Call of Duty game. A point, in my opinion, should be made in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.62.139 (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC) I don't remember there being a training section either. Jolly Ω Janner 14:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit needed for version

As of today, 1/3/09, it is now 1.02 for PS3. An edit is needed.Ancientflounder (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Zombie section too large?

In the latest revision (as of 1/4/09) before the page was locked, the "Nazi Zombie" piece received it's own section. It is my opinion that this section is far too large and detailed compared to the rest of the article. It is only one level, yet it gets it's own section? The section also appears to be larger than the whole single player game summary. It also features very detailed and somewhat trivial info compared to the rest of the article. Example: "Nazi Zombies is set inside a bunker based off of the multiplayer map Airfield, with the players starting on the first floor of the bunker." and "Recently, players have been using glitches to make it impossible for zombies to attack them, and then record their extremely high scores on the leaderboards. There is writing on the walls of the stairs saying "You must ascend from darkness" and "Salvation lies above" hinting to the player to go upstairs and not to go into the room marked Hell, although some people believe it says Help. Other maps/locations for the Nazi Zombies can be downloaded." and "Players are not able to shoot fellow players and their grenades do not kill fellow players. If a player is hit several times by a zombee, he will lay on the ground with a one-handed weapon and be able to shoot zombees.".

I suggest either cleaning up the trivial bits of the zombie section or expanding the single player section so it is more proportionate in length and detail. But first the page needs to be unlocked. Why was it locked in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Splew (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know the page isn't locked, it's been semi-protected since mid-December due to frequent vandalism. I'll cut the section down, apparently it was merged directly from a separate article. No one seems to notice the paragraph about the mode in the Multiplayer section, which I think is sufficient. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

That looks much better. I realized I couldn't edit because I wasn't logged in when I was viewing the page(duh). Splew (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It was originaly a seperate article. After that became a redirect, I cut it down a bit and added it to this article. I have now added inline citations, whilst this issue was raised. I will now try and cleanup further trivial sentences and find more references. Feel free to join in. I think the issue is that other sections are smaller, rather than Nazi Zombies being too big. CoD 4 has large sections throughout and is a FA. It is a good example of how to write this article. It's easier to cut out bits later than to try and find more information. Jolly Ω Janner 21:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of trimming. I hope it is better now. Jolly Ω Janner 22:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks fine. I fixed two minor spelling errors. You are right, some of the other sections should probably be expanded, like the COD4 article. Splew (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Layout

The layout of images isn't so good on my screen resolution. Any thoughts? See the screenshot for a closer look. Jolly Ω Janner 00:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are running a high resolution widescreen on your computer, which isn't really the norm for most home and work computers. I'm using a widescreen computer, but google gadgets squishes the browser and the layout and resolution of the images is fine for me.Splew (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GA nomination

Why? Jolly Ω Janner 02:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The nomination is certain to fail. The article is nowhere near ready for GAN (Development needs expanding, as well as several other areas), and I don't recognize the user who made the nomination (he may not have edited the article at all). -- Commdor {Talk} 20:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've notified the user and asked him to withdraw the nomination. -- Commdor {Talk} 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the article has the potential to become a GA, but I don't think it is achievable in the time we are presented with i.e when it gets reviewed. As I have said in the thread above, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare is a great example to use. Jolly Ω Janner 21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem here is that while there was an abundance of articles, previews, etc. to be sourced for Call of Duty 4, there seems to be a relative dearth of good info to use for World at War. As I said above, there needs to be a general expansion and improvement of the article (especially because we have so many images crammed into one area, we may just need to get images for other parts of the article rather than several for the multiplayer) before we can properly consider GAN. -- Commdor {Talk} 21:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
I've just had a look on the nominations page. There's a rather nasty backlog. Eight articles are listed and none have been reviewed or are tagged as going to be reviewed soon. They go back to early December, so I think we have more time that we think. Jolly Ω Janner 01:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Commdor concerning lack of good source information compared to Call of duty 4. I've searched around quite a bit to try and find additional info and found very little. While some game sites have in depth plot and development info for Call of Duty 4, there is little more than a preview or short review for Call of duty World at War. Unless some new source shows up, I don't think the article will get much better. Splew (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The extremely large story section of CoD 4 is actualy referenced to the game itself, so we don't really need to find other references for the story or "plot". Jolly Ω Janner 17:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, User:the ed17 just marked it as being under review. Jolly Ω Janner 14:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Zombies sub-section MOS

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Images should be inside the section they belong to (after the heading and after any links to other articles), and not above the heading." and "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two." If the Nazi Zombies section is merged with multiplayer, then this problem will be eradicated. Jolly Ω Janner 14:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Call of Duty: World at War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    watch your images; follow MOS:IMAGE
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


I'm literally out of time here (which is why 2 &3 aren't done); I'll do a more in-depth review when I am at college tomorrow. Cheers, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 07:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've fixed the problem with the image layout. Jolly Ω Janner 14:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sorry about that. :) My comments, in no particular order - (on this version):

  • References at the end of paragraphs cover the entire para, right? (I.e. #13, #3)
  • Can you cut down on the refs in the lead? Per WP:LEAD, it should be a summary of the entire article, and stuff in it can be repeated and cited in the main body of the article.
  • Why don't you reorganize the article based on COD4? That is a FA, and it seemed like the order of the sections there flowed better.
  • Expand "Development" and get rid of the tag. This can't be passed with an {{expand}} tag sitting there...
  • The "Nintendo DS" section confuses me. Has that version been released or not?
  • With references, I'm going to AGF and assume that they are reliable for a video game article (this is a bit out of my comfort zone...=])
  • I've placed this on hold; fix these problems and this will pass easily - few, if any, prose errors and it is very well referenced... :) Cheers! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow! The article looks significantly better! I just wanted to say kudos to whomever contributed to the recent improvements.Splew (talk) 23:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I wrote the "bulk" of the story, although many other contributers did improvements to it. I basicaly played through the campaign on recruit level and took notes, as I went through each mission :) Jolly Ω Janner 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Ed states that he's rather out of his comfort zone with this, and as I imagine plot summaries rarely feature in military history articles, I must jump in here. The plot section is far too long for a quality article at this point. It is 1,500 odd words and essentially a blow-by-blow account of each mission. Do not follow CoD4's example of this sort of plot section, it is liable to end up at featured article review sometime soon based on the excessive length of that plot summary. A good plot summary should be concise and short - around 500-700 words max, roughly three or four paragraphs. 11 paragraphs is far too long. Compare with articles such as Halo 1#Plot, StarCraft#Plot, Grim Fandango#Plot, FAs on subjects far more story-focused than this game, which use short and concise plot summaries.
As for development information, the very least that could be done is a paragraph or so on the game's production history. Such coverage would include when the game was announced, convention appearances such as at E3, media releases such as the game's trailer and demo, when development was completed and finally when the game was released, all intermingled with bits of information from interviews and comments from developers in previews. A quick search of places like GameSpot and IGN shows the sort of sources that can be used here -- Sabre (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with Sabre. This article's excessive plot length and incredibly short development information are big problems. As is, the article does not satisfy criteria 3. --TorsodogTalk 16:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did have my reservations about the summary...and no, milhist has no plot summs, but I have a lttle experience. :) I was going to pass it if the other issues were fixed becuase I didn't think that it was the biggest deal, but evidently I was wrong. :) Thanks Sabre and Torsodog! —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I will make a draft at some point. Still no response from the GA nominator... Jolly Ω Janner 16:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to intrude, but the template at the top says editors have seven days to rectify the concerns raised. It's been ten days now, and both the plot being very long, and development information being apparently quite hard to find suggest that these aren't quick-fix issues that can be done to pass it any time soon. I think this should probably be denominated and another good push done on those two sections before renominating. SynergyBlades (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you for the poke. My apologies Jolly, but keep at it; you can do it. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 02:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem, although I didn't nominate it. I will inform the nominator and continue improving the article. Jolly Ω Janner 17:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Development

Yeah... we need some more information for this section. I found this reference for the audio side of it, which should cover it in more detail than CoD 4's article. Still more stuff is needed. As it uses the same game engine as CoD 4, maybe we could just copy and paste it. Jolly Ω Janner 00:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Zombies and the Wii

Pardon for the intrusion, but something about the section regarding the zombies has come to my attention. I own a Nintendo Wii as well as a copy of CoD: World at War. So when I compare to what is shown in the video within the citation of the section, I come to realize that much of the features of the game are not present in the Wii version, including the zombie mode. I have completed the campaign, and unlocked nothing afterward. I just thought that I should bring this up, even though I actually do not have a source that I can cite to support my observation. American Imperialist (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see what I can do. Jolly Ω Janner 00:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mission "Black Cats" is not in Wii version

I expected to learn this from the CoD5 wiki page but did not. After several google searches, I finally found a forum post citing that the "Black Cats" mission is (sadly) not in the wii version of the game. Can someone with privleges please add this after the sentence for Black Cats? Xorpedia (talk) 03:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

One, it's not notable and two, a forum isn't a reliable source of information. Jolly Ω Janner 16:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

New DLC

A new DLC map pack has just been announced for CoD: World at War with a new Nazi Zombie level. Just thought maybe someone that can could add that in, thanks. Razr95 (talk) 02:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, there will be four different maps called "Nightfire", "Station", "Knee Deep" and "Verrückt (Zombie Asylum)". Razr95 (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I think there should be a mention that they added new maps to be downloaded or whatever, but not a list of the actual maps, as it's not of any use to the reader. Jolly Ω Janner 21:05, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

O.k., that's fine, then. Razr95 (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Added in the info using the DLC section in the CoD4 article as a guide, should be sufficient. -- Commdor {Talk} 22:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC) This isn't really that significant or anything, but in the source files of the PC version of the game, leftover code and assets (including loadscreens and compasses) from Nightfire (mp_nachtfeuer), Station (mp_subway), Knee Deep (mp_kneedeep), and Verrückt (nazi_zombie_asylum) can be found in the IWD files in the main folder. Just thought I'd point that out. BobManPerson (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Perks Announcement
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Call_of_Duty:_World_at_War/Archive_2&oldid=1142376811"