Talk:Battlefield 2/Archive 1

message: there are factual errors: 1. Eryx is NOT a Soviet weapon. 2. The Chinese in Battlefield two do NOT use Soviet style weapons. 3. AK-101 is NOT a Soviet era weapon.
This page needs to rolled back to some previous good version. It seems to have been vandalized --rasmusdf 20:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors 

message: Anyone else get a bad taste from the news that Trauma Studios were axed by Dice? Tzarius 10:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trauma Studios 

message: Is anyone going to write a section on gameplay? And the bad taste the current TK system leaves in players minds?
*The textbook response to that statement is to "be bold", go ahead and do it! I've started it off, perhaps some people will add to it later.--inks 05:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  gameplay 

message: The picture is a promotional image, created artificially and probably touched up. Why not get a couple gameplay screenshots? Combat, vehicles, and commander mode seem worth highlighting. Twinxor t 23:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture is not a screenshot 

message: Uh, my edit that there are Black Hawk(UH-60) in Battlefield 2 was deleted.
But I think there were Black Hawk in Gulf of Oman Map. When I kill someone by that transport helicopter, it surely shows that I killed by Black Hawk like Izumi5[Black Hawk]XXX.
Is there a mistake, isn't it? Official Site in US shows there are Sea Hawk, but in JPN, there are Black Hawk, not Sea Hawk. You can see it by clicking the same position that ARMIES is located in US official site. Next, click Stars and Stripes, Jet-shaped silhouette, and click Right Arrow for a few times. Then you'll see the picture of Transport Helicopter, and you also see that the top of descripition shows Helicopter is UH-60(Black Hawk).
Izumi5 17:53, 30 September 2005 (JST)
* I put the Black Hawk in the artical a while back and it was removed.  While playing the game says that the US transport helo is a Black Hawk.  The EA website says Sea Hawk as the title, but in the artical it uses Black Hawk.  The Sea Hawk is a special Black Hawk packaged for the Marines.  From the pictures that I have seen, the helo in the game more closely resembles a Black Hawk.  --BeastRHIT 21:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Hawk 

message: I've reverted the page after a deletion by User:Abelson.  Specifically, an external link to a large and heavily-debated PlanetBattlefield forum post entitled "Why I support the idea of an expansion boycott" which discusses the community's reaction to Electronic Art's announcement of an expansion pack despite many outstanding technical and gameplay balance issues currently plaguing the game.  I don't believe this link violates NPOV -- since many, many articles on Wikipedia feature sections listing criticism or opposing positions of the topic at hand -- and given the amount of participation in said discussion it isn't just "junk" as the previous article editor claimed.
If we're going to list a multitude of external commercial sites as well as softball interviews with the development team, we should include links to something that better reflects the attitude of the player community as well.  Selectively cropping out unflattering material is simply fanboyism and is not NPOV.--cdjaco 00:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An external link to criticism is not "junk"! 

message: I added the Stinger and the TOW to the vehicles list. Also I added a list of the unlocks (with descriptions of my own. Not that I have used them all.)
--Spark.1.4 09:58, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New additions 

message: Hi,
I have added the ranks for the time being
I think changing it into a table as the article is now over 33kb.
A table like:
Preferably, the new-style table markup should be used:
  |-
  | Monaco || 16000 || 2 || 31987
  
Reedy Boy 12:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks 

message: What are the controls for the game? I would like to know. 
Mike15 15:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controls 

message: I have done a number of minor edits to the page to clean it up and make it more encylopaedic:
* removed commentary on the unfairness of teamkill punishing. opinions are unnecessary.
* fixed links in exploits section to remove self-reference to own article.
* moved link to external BF2 wiki to external links section where it belongs.
* removed reference to Trauma Studios closing from opening paragraph as it was off-topic.
* moved screenshot to right hand side to make the page more vertically fluid.
* removed Oman link from within Gulf of Oman, which was unnecessary and detracting.
* fixed unlock links which had somehow got messed up.
* removed GeForce Ti mod section, this article is not the place for talking about third party hacks.
* removed bold from vehicle names to make it more visually acceptable.
* removed bold from ranks, and added links to rank articles.
* fixed sexist language in ranked servers, its inappropriate to assume a BF2 player is male.
* fixed emotive language in ranked servers (ie. 'crying out') to be more objective.
* summarised system requirements more accurately.
Remy B 12:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple edits 

message: It seems some of the mods are BF1942 mods, and really shouldn't be in this list.
Anyone else agree?
Reedy Boy 14:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BF2 and 1942 Confusion 

message: This article is 34 kilobyte long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size.
Should the 'List of Battlefield 2 vehicles' article be reopened to redirect the information on vehicles in this article to that article? - yxTay 06:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: There is not information on the awards in Battlefield 2. Are there any reasons that the awards section is missing? - yxTay 06:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I'll start a new page for awards. It won't have pictures as of yet, but will have instead just some description and requirements (from bf2s.com) It will be at Battlefield 2 Awards. However, i'll need some help from the more experienced members of the community. Spark.1.4 04:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards - new page 

message: "Sergeant Major of the Corps" is no longer a rank in the game -- it was removed in the 1.03 patch. 2nd Lieutenant is the last rank. Also, the in-game Black Hawk is only capable of carrying 6 people (pilot, two gunners, three passengers), so I have changed this figure (previously 7). Juice 14:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd.  I based my edit on the fact that the rank had disappeared with from the BF2S ranks page (http://ubar.bf2s.com/ranks.php) but it seems to have returned, although doesn't seem to have any solid requirements.  All the above linked profiles are 2nd Lieutenant, this can be found by viewing their profile in-game (so I reckon the reason they displayed on Paradroid as SMOTC was because Paradroid had not updated correctly), so I am not sure if there are any players who currently hold this rank.  If any of the above players did have this rank it would have been for an extremely short time before advancing to 2nd Lieutenant which kind of defeats the purpose of it. - Juice 05:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranks 

message: I think this article needs a serious overhaul,  there are sections that seem random and out of place, the bugs list is way too short, And some sections are just unnessacary, like the demo section.
:That wouldn't be cleanup, but "article improvement." You could do it yourself because I doubt people would rewrite a perfectly good article.--Zxcvbnm 13:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is anything specific that you think neads overhauling, list them so people can work on it. I think the demo section is warranted, as it is quite short, and is a commonly used part of the game by people who want to try it out before they purchase it. As for the bugs, I recently cut it down because most of them were just pet peeves of people (eg. teamkilling). If you know of actually verified bugs in the game that are worth noting, then add them. Remy B 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The 'Bugs' Section in the article states "Battlefield 2 suffered from several serious bugs at release", with the partial exception of the last bug, no mention is made of whether these bugs still exist in the game at its current version (1.03 I believe). Does the past tense signify that these bugs have been resolved?
Also, no mention of the approximate frequency of these bugs is mentioned.
* The list is also frightfully short.  There are numerous bugs still present (as of patch 1.03) in-game, using the server browser, and even during installation of the patch.  The most prevalent and annoying of the bugs I've encountered thus far is the "unmodified content" error received when joining servers (requires a complete reinstall of the game! even if you don't in fact have modified content!).  It should definitely be included in the list. --Criftus 21:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it wasnt very consistent of me to leave in the bugs that have been listed for a long time, since they also do not have sources. I am seriously considering removing the section if I am not reasonably easily able to find verifiable sources for the bugs that are on there. The whole section reeks of original research (WP:NOR) and takes up way more proportion of the article than seems justifiable. If every little BF2 bug should have a place on Wikipedia, I would probably suggest making a separate article for it, in a similar way to what has already been done with ranks and vehicles. Remy B 08:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugs 

message: The External Links section seems to have grown considerably, and is starting to list websites that are really not noteable. Does anyone agree that this section needs a cleanup to reflect sites that are widely recognised as significant to the BF2 community? Remy B 06:33, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Definately Agree
Reedy Boy 15:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have cut the External Links down after an anonymous user posted a totally non-notable link. Wikipedia articles are not the place to advertise sites that are not largely relevant to the community of people related to the article. Remy B 16:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia articles are not link repositories for sites that are related to the topic. This is an encyclopedia, not a search engine. Remy B 05:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, they are mostly redundant too. Its very hard to find a balance between everyone just putting any old link on they want to promote and listing sites that are genuinely unique and contain a lot of additional material. Add that b0x site back on if you really think it meets the qualifications of WP:EL. Remy B 11:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also note that WP:EL strongly discourages against links to sites with heavy advertising, and that b0x site certainly has that. That is considered spamming for advertising dollars, and usually means the external link is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Remy B 11:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: What's the difference between an expansion pack and a booster pack? — Ilyanep (Talk) 05:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: I think the bugs section needs to be deleted, there are no sources to anything that can verify any of these claims and they all seem to be just something that annoyed the person who added it that day. This isn't the place to complain about glitches in games that may not even be glitches and hope the patch team of EA just happens to take a break form thier work to look at the wikipedia article to see if someone has a complaint. Wikipedia is nuetral, the place to complain about this is a forum. 
Riconoen 2:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Remy B 08:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bugs" deletion 

message: Pure idiocy.  Have you played the game?  They are real, and whoever deleted them was a fool.
:I agree they are real, but thats not good enough for Wikipedia. You have to have real sources, as outlined in WP:NOR. If you find legitimate sources for the material, there is no problem with adding it back in with those references. Remy B 10:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Bugs Deletion, or "This Is Pure Lunacy!" 

message: Two things.
First I want to submit www.bf2combat.net as one of the major leagues for BF2, and one that has official support from DICE and EA (it's advertised on the www.battlefield2.com website, and was featured in a multipage spread of CGW magazine.)
:I dont see any problem with that one based on what you have said. Remy B 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I do it is because the external links section is heavily abused by people simply wanting publicity. Wikipedia guidelines clearly state that external links are not meant to be a web directory on the topic. The warning message comes from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Regular_clean-out_of_undiscussed_links. I know it seems anal but if people dont follow WP:BB on here then articles on popular topics turn into large piles of cruft. Remy B 11:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone consider BF2E for deletion? The site has only been up for 7 days and claims to give you a battlefield 2 'experience'! It doesn’t even work for me (using firefox and IE, anyone else not getting this site working?) This is blatant advertising for a site trying to emerge in the BF2 community. Wikipedia is not the place to get the word around, so I'm asking for a second opinion to delete the link. If you have any objections, you can always rebuttal, but this just stinks advertisement.--Hellogoodsir 22:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed BF2E again, seems the site owner has added it three times so far. It is in complete copyright violation of the bf2s.com site, the owner of which is currently trying to get it shut down. Should the owner of bf2e be warned? Can someone else do it I'm new here ;) Badgrs 17:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been deleting it from the external links too. Some site owners just don't know when to quit. But I'll be glad when it gets shut down for copyright infringement. Riconoen 02:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I would like to submit bf2.org for a place on the external link list. There is very little advertising on the site, with the emphasis being the site forums with over 10,000 members. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.97.165.193 (talk • contribs) .
I second. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 21:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to just go ahead and add it.... should I wait a while longer for more consensus? 81.97.165.193 00:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good link. Remy B 05:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for link addition

message: Does anyone agree/disagree that the 1.2 patch section is disproportionally long and unnecessary? Remy B 11:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patch 1.2 

message: So..yeah.
:Where does this information come from? Remy B 07:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed that since the three sets of requirements were first placed in, they have been constantly edited to various values. It is now at the point where it cant be verified, also because no source is listed on the page. I also think the section was disproportionally large, considering it is just a list of machine specs. So... I have removed it all and replaced it with the system requirements found on the official BF2 website. Remy B 13:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Medium/High recommended system specs 

message: Regarding the reintroduction of a 'bugs and glitches' section - this new text is heavily POV and considered original research. Two articles have already been made including such material (Battlefield 2 Bugs and Exploits and Secrets and glitches in Battlefield 2) and since been deleted for the same reason as above. Does anyone think this new text on the subject should be treated any differently? Remy B 08:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section should either be removed or substantially reworded to remove POV and original research. References also need to be added for each of the statements if the section is kept. Canderra 04:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the content, its just like all previous attempts to discuss bugs - POV and almost exclusively original research. Remy B 10:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bugs and glitches 

message: I want to link to BFCentral Biggest Battlefiled Community of Latin America.
Here is another, BF2S.com, you can look up your Battlefield 2 Statistics...
:That one has been on there for months now :) Remy B 08:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ==External Link Request== 

message: Is it just me or is that section completely unnessicary? It's an arcadey online shooter not a combat simulator. Who's for deleting it?
:depends what's put in there I believe. Like the tea-brewing system, although it's apparently true, it's not really necessary for a game comparison. th1rt3en 04:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its ridiculous. This is a arcade-style computer game - its not even a simulation computer game! The full list of "inaccuracies" would be thousands of entries long. I think it has got to go. Remy B 05:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken it out. I re-read the entries more carefully and its purely original research, which is something we have to constantly fight in this article (if anyone remembers the now-defunct bugs section). You cant just list things you think are correct without any sources, that goes against everything that an encyclopedia is about. See WP:NOR and WP:V for the official policies on the issue. Remy B 05:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's my fault, I probably should have deleted it when I saw it there.  It was originally a list of opinions that another editor had put down (see the revision before mine), although it did need to go all-together nonetheless. Dudewheresmypizz4 14:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck? Onboard tea-brewing system? I know its the Euro Force pack and the Challenger 2 is a British tank but expecting the in-game version to actually brew tea is just plain ridiculous. Canderra 14:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It does matter... Wikipedia has a credibility to uphold, and cruft like that only diminishes that credibility. There are official policies on what sort of material belongs on Wikipedia (see WP:NOR and WP:V), needless to say its not a site where you just post *everything* related to a topic. Im also curious - in what way did the list help you a lot? By the way, you can sign off your comments with four tildes (~~~~) so we know who has said it. Remy B 11:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to stay anonymous, I would recommend logging out first. Even if you dont sign on the talk page, your username still comes up in the history. Remy B 01:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real life innacuracies. 

message: Aside from the new weapons, vehicles and maps (Which all can be merged into general series pages), the booster packs use the same backstory as Battlefield 2 and have no information to include in their own article that can't be merged here.--Zxcvbnm 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge the booster packs 

message: To avoid messing up the nice formatting on the article's Mods list, I'm suggesting the addition of the following mod that was covered in Total Battlefield 2 today by those who know how to avoid messing it up.  :)   Lachrym 17:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Mods list 

message: It seems the external links section is just a billboard for webmasters to advertize thier fansites. I'm for trimming the list down a bit to only include the offical sites and the most popular fansite(s). --Riconoen 09:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, be bold. The external links in this article can quickly turn to a list of cruft. People are clearly ignoring the notice in the code to not just put in any old link. Remy B 11:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since wikipedia is telling me to be bold :) I went ahead and removed everything except the official sites, the demo, and the two most high traffic fansites, Totalbf2 and PlanetBattlefield.--Riconoen 04:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed bf2combat.net, which I've readded. They're one of the largest BF2 leagues (12,000 players), receive special treatment from EA and DICE (such as beta-testing patches....anyone notice the shoutout in the patch notes to "Combat Studios"? That's bf2combat.net). The insertion of the link was discussed and approved on the talk page further above this. ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 00:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links, again. 

message: This section of the article has gone out of control with claims that have no sources or citations. I also think that the definition of an 'easter egg' is being stretched very wide - some of them are clearly just novelty parts of the game (like Stalin's face) or just normal parts (like the bunkers that happen to be the same model as in BF1942), rather than hidden parts (like the fish and bear boxes). Personally these are the ones I would like to keep (if I can find sources): fish boxes, bear boxes, crop circles and Dice cream. What are other peoples thoughts on this section? Remy B 05:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed: many of the items listed as easter eggs are just details, assuming they exist in the first place.  The Dice references (dice cream, T-shirts, headsets) aren't hidden, and therefore in my opinion they don't qualify as easter eggs either.  I suggest deleting them all except the fish boxes, bear boxes, crop circles, and maybe the coins. bcasterline t 05:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: If it doesnt work, why did you add it? Remy B 07:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It did work, but after one of the new patches it didn't seem to work. Maybe when I did it, it was a freak accident or needed to be done in a certain location. And opps, I always seem to put discussion in the wrong place, so I'm moving this up.--Hellogoodsir 08:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter eggs 

message: A "gameplay" section should be put in place of the features section to actually describe the gameplay, instead of advertising most of its features. Also, most the easter eggs in this game are not so significant. Also, the "maps" section should clearly divide themselves between Special Forces maps, EF maps, and vanilla maps. Also, system requirements needs to be moved back towards the beginning of the article, as placing towards the end seems rather odd. Among other things. I don't have this game yet, and I won't be getting this game till at least June, so, thus. - XX55XX 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely agree that the 'New features' section needs to be rewritten, starting with the name of the section. Remy B 05:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a qualification, I dont agree that the article is entirely structurally broken and needs a concerted cleanup. The article has had many many edits, and it has taken a lot of revising to get it where it is now. For that reason I dont agree that we need the cleanup tag on the full article - I realise it is far from perfect, but that is the nature of a wiki, where there is always room for improvement. I would ask that the cleanup tag not be placed back into the article until there is an obvious consensus of editors that it really does need a proper overhaul. Remy B 10:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine the way it is, but this article is quite not as polished as other game articles. The information is there, but it needs to be reorganized into a more orderly way. That was what I was merely saying. - XX55XX 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs a serious overhaul. 

message: There are too many, and Armored Fury will clog up the article. Should the expansion pack ones be deleted?--Zxcvbnm 23:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think that personal experiences listed on a forum (official or not) counts as verified information. If EA/DICE have acknowledged particular bugs, and they are notable, it would be fine to have a small section in the article about that. Anything short of those standards really doesnt belong in Wikipedia. Remy B 14:19, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes 

message: Is it me or does that list seem redundant, way too long, and is merely trying to advertise the game? It's just yet another peice of filler you have to skip over to get to the actual content. And also, these is no reason why everything is now a seperate article. When I read a wikipedia article I want to read actual content not a page of 1 line summaries and links to other pages. --Riconoen 16:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'New features' list certainly needs an overhaul. The name itself is fairly misleading, as it doesnt say what the features are new compared to (although I assume it is BF1942), and the fact that the game might not even be considered new anymore. The features list should really just be a paragraph or two of text, without sounding so marketing-like. The separate articles are a problem, but then again so is having an enormous main article. I would prefer it all in the one article, but the content would have to be cut down a lot. For example, the list of awards and ranks could be put in the main article if it was a concise table of smaller images with just the name of the award (the award requirements are quite unnecessary). I would rather not see an exhaustive list of weapons and vehicles in the main article because the information is barely notable, and takes up a hell of a lot of space. I think the ordering of the sections needs reconsidering, as there are heaps of specific details on the expansion packs before there is barely any information on the main game itself. The article also lacks sources for pretty much any of its claims, which means there is no way for people to trust the information that is presented. I would like to see [citation needed] tags placed on the unsourced claims (made with  template tags), even if that means they are all throughout the article. Remy B 16:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Features and article in general