Talk:Call of Duty 2/Archive 1

message: How can an October 2005 release be scheduled for the Xbox 360 if the latter is only coming out in November? — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 17:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that is for the PC version. I'll go and fix it. Thunderbrand 17:39, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
i changed the release date to nov 22 for the 360, it was originally the 15.Tik 15:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: This whole article reads like an advertisement. It's terrible! I'm going to rewrite it tomorrow. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 05:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind looks like someone else got to it :) —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording issues

message: Why does this have a review section? Is it needed? Userpie 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No...wikipedia is not a link repository. Tomorrow morning (unless someone else wants to do it) I'll make it a realy reaction section with references, etc. — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and did it (i guess you forgot or something) I did the same think to the Perfect Dark Zero article a couple days ago and threw in a Game Rankings link to the reviews. I know a reaction section can be put in instead of just a link repository, but I'll leave that to you. Thunderbrand 16:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh why do I keep forgetting these things. I'll do it right now. — Ilyanep (Talk) 16:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reviews?

message: I really think this page, like most game pages, should have a minimum requirements listed on it. Or at least a link to the new windows game advisor in which people can check themselves which games will run on they're PC's. -
Razorwave 10:43pm Feb 06 2006
Call of Duty 3 redirects here, why?209.71.221.235 01:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no clue :\ Perhaps someone can do some research and write a stub on it? — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requestion Minimum Requirements 

message: Can someone please swoop in and make the multiplayer section less about glitches/errors and more about how the multiplayer experience is? Unless you're telling me that 99% of multiplayer games experience a glitch or problem which is hard to believe. — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say about 90% of games suffered a problem pre-patch, but this was depending on all the participants. Since the patch it's very rare to experience it. Jay 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about, instead of making it an article about XBOX 360 gamplay, we could make it about PC gameplay, seeing as this is the PC version of the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.102.215 (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Multiplayer section makes me cry 

message: The article has a merging tag but no discussion of it, so here goes: The article shouldn't be merged with the Weapons in Call of Duty 2 article, as the long list of weapons would appear clumsy. As fore example Half-Life 2, it functions well with a small section outlining the weapons in short prose with a link to the more specific list. Poulsen 07:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: I've included a section about weapons, please discuss if you find it inappropriante or useless, or make the changes you want. Afonso Silva 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons 

message: In the weapons section of the article, the StG 44 is referred as a "German support gun". That may be true in the American military doctrine. However, in the Blitzkrieg doctrine, the machine gun (by the way, the MG42 is a universal machine gun, not a HMG) is the main weapon, the one that produces the greatest volume of fire. Rifles are support guns, guns that support the machine gun by providing accurate, long-ranged firepower.
I hope my humble contribution improves the quality of the article, as I do not consider myself in the right to make direct corrections to the article since I am not a registered Wikipedian.
Rui Ferreira
ruiferreira89@hotmail.com
Where did you find information like this? bibliomaniac15 02:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the section has already been removed, this is a moot point. However, the weapons are categorised as such in the game, and while not historically accurate, the game uses the term "support weapon" for the non-submachine gun automatic weapons. --Scottie_theNerd 03:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Doctrinal Correction on StG 44 Assault Rifle 

message: n/m — Ilyanep (Talk) 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's getting worse and worse and worse by the second 

message: I've moved the references format over to the  format. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I found no glitches in CoD2 for multiplayer for X360...are these for PC only? --Aditya Gune 03:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. And if they are they need to be cited and stated as such. — Ilyanep (Talk) 01:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are there, but unfortunately the official Xbox forum (where these issues are discussed) is not considered to be an decent source. Suffice to say I've witnessed them, they are there, and some basic research will reveal other games who will have acknowledged to have witnessed them as well. Fortunately, not many people know how to do it, nor have the skills necessary to be able to execute them. Jay 20:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glitches 

message: Why is there such a gap between the singleplayer title and where the text starts |? i have tryed fixing it but to know prevail.--Paul 11:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the images :Image:COD2screen2.jpg and :Image:COD2Screenshot5.jpg which causes the gap. I guess if they are removed or replaced it will be fixed. I will look at it later of no one hasn't done it yet by then. Garion96 (talk) 11:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not an expert, but I don't think see. Btw, with replaced I meant move the images to another part of the article. There probably is another way, but I wouldn't know how. Garion96 (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed two images and it looks a lot better now. IMO they were too many (fair use) images in that section anyway. Garion96 (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gap in wiki page

message: It says that Vasili Ivanovitch Koslov was referenced in United Offensive. I ercently bought and completed it, the character referenced is another Vasili who isn't Koslov. I'll edit it.
: I didn't think that the last name of Vasili was ever mentioned in that game. It could well be since it said vasili did fight at Stalingrad. 70.49.33.120 16:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would definitely not have been Vasili Zaitsev; COD2 is based around and infantry squad, not a sniper. --Scottie theNerd 06:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasili 

message: The article mentions that Captain Price of CoD2 was also in the original Call of Duty. Thought this might be nice to imagine, it is impossible. CoD2s British campaign centers around the 7th Armored Division. The unit that captured Pegasus Bridge (the first missions in the British campaign of CoD were about Pegasus Bridge over the Caen Canal) was the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire regiment of the British 1st Airborne Division. Though both Captains Price fought in and around Caen during Overlord, they can not be the same person. I'm editing that bit out. (USMA2010 20:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is impossible, Captain Price is COD2 is the same character as the original, even down to the red beret. The article should reflect this fact and not your opinion on what is and is not possible, remember that this is a game and certain liberties are taken to preserve enjoyment. It is worth mentioning, however, that Price's appearance in COD2 would not be consistent in COD1. --Scottie theNerd 16:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That isn't logical. If he was transferred from Africa, he wouldn't be wearing his D-Day outfit in Africa a year earlier. --Scottie theNerd 20:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Captain Price

message: I'm removing some comments that do not respect the NPOV and also some falicious information.
Thompson: and is slow to reload. (It is not considered as a weapon slow to reload)
BAR: 20 round clip that suppresses its usefulness. (Its usefulness is not reduced by its clip size)
Please correct me if I was wrong for removing those parts.
--24.37.160.221 02:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weapons 

message: I reckon the "Reaction" section needs a major rewrite. The distinction between Xbox and PC versions/features isn't always clear, the language is quite awkward toward the end and any comparison with reality needs citing. The biggest example of this would be the very last sentence:
Another thing is, that both British and German tanks can shoot their cannons while moving. Only Russian T-45 was first tank ever to have that ability, all other tanks during WWII had to come to complete stop before shooting their cannons.
That would make it sound as if due to some kind of mechanical feature it was impossible to actually fire them during transit. I assume these tanks' main guns can definitely be fired while moving, but at great cost of accuracy and range - making it of course a very unusual practice in times of scarce supply, but not physically impossible. So what I'd like to see is a proper source on this subject.
Anyway, I'm elaborating on this bit but there are a number of other examples within that section. Lots of comma's, 'therefore,' 'however,' 'interestingly,' 'also,' etc make the text generally feel a bit clumsy.
-- MiG 16:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the section contains far too much NPOV and Original research. Also, I don't consider the reviews from 1up, IGN and Gamespy to be definitive sources, especially as there isn't much consensus between them. --Scottie theNerd 16:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reaction" section 

message: The article says that the Russians shouting "Potato Masher" is erroneous. Wouldn't this be wrong, considering that the Russians probably didn't speak English? bibliomaniac15 00:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In the game, the Russians speak English. As the game was primarily marketed toward English speaking audiences, this makes sense. --Far Beyond 08:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the section in question was removed a few months ago, the reply is a bit redundant but I'm not clear as to whether you agree it is an error or it isn't. As the Russians do speak English in the game, referring to German grenades as "Potato Mashers" cannot be a historical error to do the game being a hypothetical transliteration of English concepts. --Scottie theNerd 08:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhhh, I saw an unanswered question and I answered it. Your reply to me was redundant.  --Far Beyond 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I found another mistake. Real life humans have more pixels, more definition in their faces, which this game doesn't accurately potray. No, wait. The Ruskies speak English because when you fight with comrades, you understand what they are saying and hearing what people say in the heat of combat is critical to the game. Most enemies speak their own language, but it is vitally important to the experience that you can understand your own team mates. They do have Russian accents at least though JayKeaton 05:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Inaccuracies? 

message: Has anybody noticed all of those yellow teddy bears that have showed up throughout the Call of Duty series? Would that be considered an easter egg? I'm not sure if it should be put here because i have noticed the yellow teddy bear in Finest Hour also I'm not sure about the rest of the games. To find a few in CoD2 go to D-Day: The Silo one is in the stone farm house in one of the upper rooms on a chest by the broken bed, another is in the German field HQ in one of the upper rooms on a bed. --Jt_200075 17:30, 14 October 2006
I have never seen it but it could be an easter egg --Putmalk 00:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter Egg? 

message: I sense an edit war happening here, so let's sort this out now. I've directed editors to WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a game guide and should only contain information useful to readers in general and not to the game's players. A full list of weapons is something that belongs on StrategyWiki rather than Wikipedia, as it is in-depth minutiae and adds nothing to the article. Considering the weapons section is continually being changed, especially by the one anonymous editor who is tweaking all the entries, it is best that the weapons list be removed and a general statement included in gameplay. A weapons section would only be beneficial if the game's equipment stood out in some way, which would require proper referencing. The anonymous editor might be more interested in contributing to the above two sites if he or she feels that they want to contribute game details.
Certain articles with notable equipment do have weapon lists, such as List of Half-Life 2 weapons. However, the weapons in Call of Duty 2 are all historical and do not need their own weapon list. Anyone interested in finding out about the weapons can search for them through Wikipedia with little effort. --Scottie theNerd 03:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would like to contribute, I stongly suggest that you head over to the StrategyWiki page for COD2 weapons. It could use some expansion, and is an excellent place to get wiki experience and impart your gameplaying wisdom at the same time. bibliomaniac15 03:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: "Wikipedia is not a game guide and should only contain information useful to readers in general and not to the game's players." Quite the oxymoronic policy. Besides people who have or want to play the game, who on Earth is going to read an article about a game? --Far Beyond 19:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a moot argument: that's like saying who's going read an article about ________. Everyone has their reasons, and some people do look up Wikipedia to find out information on games to find out what they're about instead of digging through reviews. Even people who "want to play the game" would be more interested in what the game is about rather than how to play it, which they can access elsewhere. Again, Wikipedia is not a source of game information and it is not within Wikipedia's interests to cater for gamers when there are plenty of specialised sites that do so. --Scottie theNerd 00:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Weapons section 

message: Do you think that a seperate article on this page should include the mapmaker that Infinity Ward released, Radiant.  If so, some facts could be included like it used the Quake 3 Engine and maybe there could be an article on list of best produced maps?  Good to see anyone's comments.  --Putmalk 00:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mapmaker Details? 

message: This article needs MAJOR cleanup. It has too many sections with information that is not properly sourced.PowderedToastMan 06:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where most of the sections have sprung up from. Most of the content violates WP:NOT and WP:OR. I've removed the patch details and comparisons to previous games, the brief map list and summarised the game types into the multiplayer section. I removed the list of missions - the single player section already covers the game's events. I removed the unverified criticisms section, and also removed the link to Medal of Honor (series) as it isn't directly relevant - we shouldn't need to MoH to every WWII game. --Scottie_theNerd 10:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Needed