Talk:Battlefield 2/Archive 2

message: I archived everything becuase it was getting too long please do not revert it back. 
--Riconoen 03:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good deal, it was hard to communicate and reply to an issue since it all looked old.--Hellogoodsir 22:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived. 

message: I know there is a seperate talk page for it, but it isn't geting any attention. I thought it would be best to bring this to everyone's attention. My request is that the Euro awards be added, as well as the Special Forces awards. If you have any suggestions, please state them here.--Hellogoodsir 03:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: Some sites have shown the game capable of running on a bare minimum of;
-1.6GHz Celeron
-384MB RAM
-5200
just FYI..
:Maybe so, but I think its best to just use the official system requirements. Remy B 06:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actual Lowest Specs 

message: This is totally unrelated to the article, but out of interest, does anyone know what the in-game phrases "We're running low on reinforcements" and "Enemy weakening key positions" means? They seem to be automatically generated a couple of times a round but I can't figure out why or what they actually mean. Does anyone have any idea? Thanks.  Canderra 21:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "We're running low on reinforcements" is pretty obvious, and means you have a low number of tickets left. "Enemy weakening key positions" is a bit harder, and it might mean that the enemy is capturing flags and stuff. "Start fighting or I'll find someone who can" might be totally random.--Zxcvbnm 22:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both "We're running low on reinforcements" and "Enemy weakening key positions" occur when you have thirty tickets. "Start Fighting" is when the enemy bases are 75%(?) and after that, if no more enemies capture, and you neutralize a point, "We've regained control" plays. --unsigned
"Start Fighting" happens when you are on a map without uncapturable flags, and lose control of half the control points. Essentially, it happens right when your team goes into a "bleed" because you don't have enough flags. On a map with uncapturable flags it happens when either team controls all the flags. It happens when your team goes into a bleed basically. When you get out of the bleed (or perhaps put the other team into a bleed, I can't quite remember), they play "We've regained control". --Ubiq 22:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "We're running low on reinforcements" 

message: This is just a suggestion, but what if like the special forces page, when armoed fury comes out, we can make a page for the two booster packs?
:It's been a while now since the Special Forces article was merged into this one. The old article Battlefield 2: Special Forces is now just a redirect to Battlefield 2. Remy B 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like the Battlefield 2: Special Forces, I believe it's best that the information for the two booster packs initially should also be within Battlefield 2 page until or unless somehow the articles are comprehensive and long. One good example would be Starcraft: Brood War. --BirdKr 08:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New page For Euro and Armored Fury" 

message: The gameplay section needs to be converted into paragraph form; this article is not a list.--Zxcvbnm 23:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rather like the list format as it is easy to read and comprehend. A paragraph will get messy. I will, however, write a short paragraph to begin the list as it will probably seem more encyclopedic that way. Useless Fodder 23:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree simply placing all that information in paragraphs as is would be messy but Zxcvbnm is right that the section shouldn't be just a long list, even with a short paragraph at the top. Maybe a more general combination of the two could work well, with some of the lesser gameplay details being disgarded or relocated to other sections (e.g. the Battlefield Recorder sub-list - surely this is a feature of the game itself rather than part of the gameplay). Canderra 00:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont like the list format either, it would be good to see the content paragraphed (that may or may not be a real word). Remy B 09:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, need backup in expanding the rest of it. ~ Flooch 06:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: although the entry of blatant selfpromotion about the teamkillers and who had the lowest score was improper and unarticle-like, i think it is i good idea to include something in there about teamkilling if it isnt already stated--Norton112200 05:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-listify Gameplay section 

message: I'd like to congratulate everyone on the hard work. The page is now tidy and clean, very professional. Keep up the good work.
One thing that would make my day is if this were a featured article. I don't see anything wrong with the article that would prevent it to ensue. Anyone's thoughts?--Hellogoodsir 17:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing from my experience with video game FA's — you need to focus on the game's impact and notability. Information on its development cycle, critical reaction, reviews, sales figures and other notable phenomenon, as well as trimming down any unnecessary "fancrufty" details. See Final Fantasy X for a good example of what to include. ~ Flooch 08:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect Dark was also just featured. Perhaps we should get a peer review done? Useless Fodder 08:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked into the criteria, and this article meets it. Personaly, I thought the Perfect Dark article was a little to over-done, but it still made Feature Article. So yes, you have my vote for a peer edit. Applying for it would do no harm.--Hellogoodsir 18:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Starting it now. Let's slow down the editing until we have some comments. Useless Fodder 18:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, added it here. Good luck, all. Be ready to address the critisisms given so that this can be as quick as needed. Useless Fodder 18:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on the Booster intro (could be better, edit to make it more, how you say, elegant?) and I'm thinking about how to explain 'classes' into a more general role. I don't understand, classes are classes, I think we've already did a good job at explaining it. Anyways, good job at getting the foot notes down. Still need more, but good job. Someone want to get the images into fair use?--Hellogoodsir 21:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll tackle "elegantizing" the booster intro, though you did do a good job. Useless Fodder 23:34, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well done! 

message: In the Awards and Unlockables section, it says that special access to "forums/downloads" is granted to people with higher ranks, is this true, as I've never seen it. 
Can someone please clear this up for me? --69.120.63.107 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and Unlockables 

message: I'm not sure if this section is even needed as the problems with BF2 are basically the problems with FPS in general. There are some BF2 specific problems, but I've not seen a similar place in other game articles. They all have actual published reactions, so if we were to change it to a sourcable section, I think it'd be better. Useless Fodder 03:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current content in the section may be questionable, but the section itself is worth keeping for later expansion. ~ Flooch 05:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed it. We have had sections like this in the past, where people would just list every little gripe they could think of about the game's performance or lack of realism. There is no need for a bloated list of non-notable tidbits without sources when the article is already big enough as it is. Remy B 07:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone were to find published reviews and put the consensus up, I'd fully support that. They did something similar at Perfect Dark. Useless Fodder 14:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as there was a proper balance of respectable reviews then I would support it. My concern is that people will put reviews up just to serve the purpose of pushing the view that they really like/dislike the game. Remy B 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: As a member of the EAUKF as well, I too can vouch for the veracity of the comments made by this author. The comments he made are precisely in line with those made on the EAUK and other BF2-related community forums. If links to specific posts as sources are required, they can be given provided someone adds tags to where they feel citations are required. Braidedheadman 01:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seriously believe published sources are required for the criticism section. Although I believe many of these details are valid, I also believe an article that seems to be very "opinionated" such as this needs credibility. I do not believe simply linking to a thread in which a person or group rants or points out the problem is enough; It's a source, but I wouldn't call it a credible source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 11:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you have beef with developers and gaming media, take it to them. This Talk page is for discussion of the article, not about EA or whatever practices they might have. If you have verifiable sources to back your claims of criticisms and controversies, by all means include them in the article and reference them properly. Wikipedia is not the place to state your own opinion, and if you are making statements based on what the "community" thinks, you are performing original research. The community matters, but you alone are not the community. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of verifiable information, not a soapbox. --Scottie theNerd 00:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reactions and Critisisms? 

message: Is it me, or should Armoured Fury be on a seperate line to Euro Forces? As it would look better Reedy Boy 14:50, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've rearranged the map table to make it easier to read. Splitting the table up into factions just complicates things for little benefit. Remy B 06:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I rather like the table. I think it looks nice and is easy to read. Useless Fodder 16:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks Loads Better! Reedy Boy 18:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, it's clearer and more compact. Canderra 19:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've kept the table for now. Upmerged the section in this edit. ~ Flooch 01:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of Maps 

message: It says in the Armored Fury section that it(the booster pack)is coming out today, but I have yet to see anything about it on the Official BF2 website. Any ideas on why this was added in? 
It really got my hopes up, since I use Wikipedia as a kind of first source for some things. --Reed9277 20:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Nevermind about the website part. I hadn't looked there first. It does indeed have information about the xpack itself, but none on the release date.--Reed9277 20:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armored Fury 

message: It seems a new version has come out (1.3, according to xfire), perhaps it is time to update this wiki? I noticed one of the items in the update log was commander dropped vehicles. Anyone tried that yet? ---Idiot with a gun 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried it, it's pretty fun to drop it on a carrier and just drive around on there, and also on a roof, like the hotel on Oman. And it's been updated in Wiki.--69.120.63.107 01:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Only Humvees, DPVs, and Vodniks can be dropped. I was afraid the patch would allow tanks to drop which would have destroyed the game. Useless Fodder 17:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humvees? Where's the option for that? I thought it was DPVs, FAVs and Vodniks... --Lorian 17:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.3 Patch 

message: I added in information and reference of these patches:
1.01
1.02
1.03
1.12
I also took the liberty of changing the previous article of BF2 patches so each information of a patch uses the same format. I also realize I need a source for a sentence in Patch 1.12 which I have claimed "undocumented changes." Despite most BF2 players knowing these changes, I feel the sentence needs a reference/source for it to exist in the article. I tried to find one but came empty; If no one else provides one, I'll gladly delete it :) --BirdKr 09:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patch information change 

message: Per the request for review, I have read this article and cited its merits for meeting the GA prerequsites. I've passed it as appropriate and did a clean-up on the patches section, which simply required some bulleting and speaking in the third person. Editors should take care in the future to follow this as well and always use the context of "the player" rather than "you" or "he/she". -ZeroTalk 19:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA nomination 

message: I have heavily updated and added to the Point of Existence mod for Battlefield 2. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Mathieu121 10:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of Existence 

message: I have created the Rising Conflict mod section. I need help with the Riding Conflict page were it describes Rising COnflict. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Mathieu121 10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rising Conflict 

message: I'd like to add Battlefield 2 Common Fixes link. It just describes a couple of common and very significant fixes ie. widescreen support and coop support. --FlameHead 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just asking one last time before I add it... --FlameHead 13:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably havent got any replies because you put the message at the top of the page, so I've moved it to the bottom. The standard convention is to put new sections at the bottom, which is where most people look for new comments. On topic... I dont think the link belongs in the article. The external links section of the article is meant to be for official links and more in depth information that is probably too detailed for an encyclopedia article. A directory of helpful hints for how to get it to work on your machine is something that people will find through Google rather than an online encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Remy B 10:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No, bf2s.com is already mentioned in the appropriate section, whether it "deserves" to be is subjective, and it is not the official BF2 stats site - EA has its own system.--BirdKr 17:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: This article has mostly good quality content but I think the Patches and Easter Eggs sections are holding it back. My view is that they contain pointless material that is taking up valuable space in an already too long article. Would anyone have a problem with me removing those sections? Remy B 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patches and Easter Eggs 

message: "Indeed, it has spawned a whole cross section of players obsessed with immaterial, practically worthless awards; players can be seen TKing for helicopters and explain it away by saying they want their Helicopter Service badge. Camping of jets and armour is also common. Humvees and Vodniks can often be seen parked in remote areas of the map simply sitting idle, so the player can have the requisite time in the seat to get their transport badge."
I'm not really very sure whether this should be in the article.
I know its what happens, but it isn't very relevant IMHO
Anyone else?
Reedy Boy 13:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That text should be removed immediately. An encyclopedia (why do people forget thats what this is?) isnt the place to vent or whinge about your pet peeve. The text violates all 3 basic policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. Whoever wrote it would be advised to read those policies to get a better understanding of what this site is about, and not about. Remy B 08:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards and unlockable weapons 

message: A video about BF2 on ABC about BF2 and the 'killing of Coalition forces' in the game and that its going to train Insurgents to kill U.S. soldiers (Oh no, terrorists gonna prone spam!) is located at http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2105341
I'm way too biased about the silliness of it to write about it, so watch the video and get writing if you aren't biased and won't use weasel words. Userpie 15:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this controversy should be given at least a brief mention on the page. People who hear about BF2 only in the context of this Pentagon controversy may want to look up more info about BF2, and this page should clarify its role in that controversy. It's also very relevant to the topic: it's relatively rare for a computer game to become part of a public Pentagon controversy. --IQpierce 18:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is horrible! Now the terrorists will learn the secret art of Bunny Hopping and avoid all the Coalition Forces' bullets! Or maybe they will start Dolphin Diving instead....--Zxcvbnm 21:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent ABC news video

message: Since this has lead to disagreements, we need a solution on whether or not the "unofficial" system requirements belong here.
From my point of view, wikipedia exists for providing usefull information; not for companies to have their product descriptions just cloned here. Many professionals are still using Windows 2000 so it is interesting for them to know that EA is obviously trying to force the gaming community to upgrade.
The Xeon processors are "official" in some way, I have found them listed in some .txt file that came with the installation.
I see your point with the "official system requirements" though and therefore changed it to just "system requriements". The wiki user will want to know the *real* system requirements, not what EA wants you to use. User:LoneWolfJack
:Please sign your posts
I think it should be there, but ti seems we are only listing the official - ie what EA say are the specs Reedy Boy 20:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't it qualify as WP:OR? --LorianTC 21:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It absolutely would. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - why do people forget that? You cant just write in any information you think might be true. Personal experience is not acceptable grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia, as you can see at WP:NOR. If people want to find 'useful information' that isnt properly verified from a reliable source, then they can use Google. Otherwise Wikipedia just becomes a dumping ground for unverified information like this and it no longer resembles an encyclopedia. Remy B 01:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not think so.
The whole point of a good encyclopedia is that it provides information that goes beyond what has been made official. The best ones even have their own staff of people who do research on their own.
Also, we are not talking about some statement that can not be verified. Go get a dual xeon machine, put windows 2000 on it and it will work. Everyone can verify that. If we are just going to use information approved by EA, why not just link to the EA website? You can be sure they have everything on there they want you to know, not a bit more.
However, I can see that this is not going to be a honest discussion about what is best for the wiki, it is about some people just wanting to be right. Why listen to reason? After all, you are right anyway. Get a life. I will not waste any more time in this part of wikipedia. LoneWolfJack 13:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't like the WP:NOR policy, you can discuss it there. There is no point abusing me about it. Remy B 21:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  System Requirements 

message: I have placed a 'nomination for deletion' template on the Cartillery article which is exclusivly linked from the 'patches' section of this page. A slang term for a hack - which according to EA has now been fixed - hardly warrants its own article, particularly as almost all the info in that article already appears in this article. Any objections?  Canderra 19:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully the hack is fixed now in 1.4. If it is fixed, it will likely be forgotten. Such article is more suitable for UrbanDictionary, not Wikipedia. Voidvector 19:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominating the linked 'Cartillery' article for deletion 

message: Since User:Swatjester insists on keeping the loaded word "significant", can somebody at the very least remove the word "do" in the second sentence of this section?  It is not appropriate for the sentence.  I am obviously be watched since I am anonymous user, so I would much appreciate some help from a logged-in user.  Thank you.  69.124.143.230 22:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Booster packs 

message: I know this is kind of off-topic, but has anyone else noticed the seemingly extreme amount of bugs since patch 1.4. I know Battlefield 2 has always had a reputation for being one of the buggiest games of all time but some of the new bugs are just funny. My favorite is the one where your c4 mysteriously self-detonates, but rather than killing you it sends you and your teammates flying (unhurt) across the map, a bit of research and this could be really used to some effect! 
Thankfully server crashes seem to have decreased a little. On a more serious note, I hope BF2142 actually gets some people who know how to program working on it though. Canderra 19:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's mostly because most of the bugs in 1.3 and previous versions were never fixed in 1.4.  Most of the bugfixes were for engine and server stability, because it will be the same engine used for BF2142, which is what EA and Dice are now working on.  So basically, you don't have to worry about BF2142, since the bugfixes they are implementing for BF2 now are all intended for BF2142.  Oh and another thing, the Dice team working on BF2 right now is Dice Canada, while Dice Sweden is the one working on BF2142.  The Sweden team is notably less incompetent.  Of course I won't be adding any of this to the article because I don't have any references, but it should at least explain to you why every patch of BF2 has slowly made it a buggier and buggier game.  69.124.143.230 17:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme amount of bugs in patch 1.4 

message: We should probably add a section for squad hopping pre-1.3, right?  I don't think it should get its own page, but it probably deserves a mention.  69.124.143.230 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really dont think so. I would much rather stick to what the game is than the nuances of how people have played it in certain versions. Remy B 01:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just thinking some tiny sub-section since I believe there is a reference to the term once or twice in the article itself.  69.124.143.230 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How about we remove the reference to squad hopping or, instead of using the term, give its definition instead?  I think it's used only once in the article.  Does that sound agreeable?  69.124.143.230 23:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Squad Hopping

message: I didn't even see this at first, but is
Unlike Battlefield 1942, there are no ground vehicle repair pads. This means that the only methods of repair are via engineer, or the comparatively slow supply drop. This is to necessitate a stronger, more urgent team dynamic, and in a way breaks the sense of dominance tanks had in previous games in the series.
technically original research?  I don't recall EA or Dice even mentioning the lack of vehicle repair pads, or why they chose to drop them.  I'd be interested in seeing a source.  69.124.143.230 23:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that looks like original research, or at least it looks like an unverified assumption. Feel free to remove it. Remy B 09:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repair Pads

message: I moved the following section here because it is a fan-fiction and does not have enough notoriety, so not reference worthy. --Voidvector 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial Story 

message: What is the obsession with deleting sub-articles? When articles reach a certain size, sections are broken off into new articles. This is common in Wikipedia across all large articles.
This article is 47 kilobytes long, well over the 32 kilobyte recommended maximum. Sections had been broken off into new sub-articles.
Now we have certain editors with an obsession with deleting those sub-articles. The reasons given are some of the most irrational possible. They reason they gave was that the articles contained game guide information. The other reason was that they were cruft. Cruft means old or decrepit.
Battlefield 2 is played by over a million people. Do they regard it as old and decrepit? Instead of removing any game guide contributions their solution was to delete the whole sub-articles. Absurdity to the extreme!
All the information contained in the deleted articles can not go back into this article because it is already too big. The sub-articles have to be recreated. --WikiCats 12:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  at this time I have made 2717 edits of various sorts on wikipedia. Of those, @7 have been connected to Battlefield 2 - that means that Battlefield edits account for about 0.25% of my edits. Clearly a dangerous obession on my part... if you feel that those articles need to be recreated, you need to take it to here. If you atttempt to just recreate them, they will be speedy deleted. ( BTW cruft in the wikipedia sense does not relate to old and decrepit but generally to material that is of little or no value to the general reader). --Charlesknight 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have NO interest in Battlefield 2, however you can say the same about 75% of the articles I edit. My interest is making sure what is there is of a standard that is suitable for an encyclopedia and suitable for the general reader.  Why would I re-write games guide contributions - what's the point? We are not a gamesguide - such contributions should be deleted. I'm not sure what needs to be said. If you want the articles back take it to review - otherwise you are just whining. --Charlesknight 14:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try rewriting the "game guide" articles so they are less of a game guide but still contain the information pertinent to the main Battlefield 2 article.  There was a lot of work put into this pages, and now it's all gone.  69.124.143.230 17:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Here, a present for you Charlesknight:  69.124.143.230 17:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 69.124.143.230 why are you trying to make the sitaution worse by sending none working tampletes--M8v2 02:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Next time your playing battlefield 2 and your at the BFHQ look up user m8v2. I have much interest in battlefield 2 but my interest in wikipedia is far greater that I choose what is best for wikipedia and not for battlefield --M8v2 02:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Like BF:V was the finish of BF1942? :) (couldnt help myself) Remy B 11:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked you up. Your pretty good must have been playing a while. Anyway I never played any of the other Battlefields but from what I hear BF:V was pretty bad huh.--M8v2 01:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the obsession? 

message: I was looking over the peer review archive for this article and it is agreed up in thye peer review that the easter egg section needs to be rrmoved in order for the article to become featured.--67.81.85.50 22:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed it. --Charlesknight 22:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you recall, the peer review only contained the opinion of a few users who thought the easter egg section would restrain the page from reaching FA status, but not giving much reasoning for this opinion other than "it has no real relevance to anything" but I completely disagree with this sentiment.  I wholeheartedly disagree with the removal of the Easter Egg section, though I DO agree that a big cleanup of the section needed to occur.  I would have agreed with removal of all the easter egg pictures (one of the peer reviewers mentioned the fact that there were more pics illustrating the easter eggs than the actual game itself, and I agree with him that this is a bad idea) and condensing of the actual info, featuring at most one or two lines describing each easter egg.  Easter eggs are a notable feature of any game that contains them (and it's not like editors can have difficulty providing verifiability) and, especially considering the multitude of these eggs in BF2, I believe they are worthwhile additions to any video or computer game article.  69.124.143.230 00:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with a line or two but no more. Remy B 08:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easter egg section 

message: That really needs to be no more than a paragraph - mentioning multiple patches were released and that the most upto date was...
--Charlesknight 22:47, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a few changes, it's still far from done but I think it helped condense the section quite a bit.  I think it's important for the section to have information for when new content like maps and weapons were added, and how the patches relate to the expansion and booster packs.  69.124.143.230 00:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I condensed details of many patches. I decided to only list specifics such as maps, weapons, and gameplay mode while others as "various gameplay additions/tweaks and changes"--BirdKr 12:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patch section 

message: I've compiled some interesting things about this booster here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=45866
It's nothing much, but if you want to check it out and think it contains anything useful, go for it!--Hellogoodsir 03:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro Forces 

message: Can we semi protect the page theres been alot of vandalism lately?--M8v2 19:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protect? 

message: I don't know if anybody cares, but some of the arab soldiers have taped together two magazines and just flipp it when they reload. does anyone know it this happens in real life and where one can read more about that, and perhaps other "solider tricks" like that?
:See Magazine (firearms)#Box and Magazine clamp for a little bit more info about joining amunition magazines together.  I'm sure you can find more information outside of Wikipedia if you care to look.  Try Google.  BlckKnght 04:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mag-taping 

message: I hope the editting I added to the Gameplay section is acceptable.  I had noticed, when reading it that it could use some extra explanation (such as "ticket bleed") and so I added said material with a ref/cite.  (Yes, I am a new Wikipedian, but hopefully I've not gone outside community standards in this update.)
As a second part -- is there any way I can add a link to the +GRID+ clan website (who is responsible for the tutorial I used as a reference... but does not host said tutorial themselves at the moment, due to their personal clan website being overhauled)?
Best regards to the community!
JDBarnhart 18:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gameplay section update

message: Why were the following links removed?
*Battlefield 2 ranked Stats
*Formitron Battlefield 2 Stats
*Battlefield 2 Online Stats
*Gameslave Battlefield 2 Stats
I think these were a good contribution to the article so wikireaders can see BF2 rankings work with actual players 69.92.59.9 23:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global stats 

message: Wasn't there a list of weapons sub-article for Battlefield 2?  Can someone explain to me what happened?
Waffle77 05:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It got deleted but it wasn't considered notable enough information for Wikipedia. Remy B 11:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it was deleted because it wasn't useful--M8v2 02:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Weapons 

message: Theres been alot of activity on the article lately and I want to see what some of the other editors think about more additions and reformatting. 
*Mentions of stat inflation on the ranking section. 
*Mentions and maybe a sub section dealing with hacking and game glitching like the in Counter Strike article. 
*How about some mentions or links to some unsupported battlefield 2 tournaments.
*Move the system requirements up or remove them.
*Move the map list down.
*Add more pictures especially to the booster pack section
any thoughts?--M8v2 02:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links and other additions 

message: wtf happened from the System Requirements down? its all gone.--Fissionfox 09:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mass Deletion

message: Can someone explain to me how BF2 contains a single RPG element, as the lead's decided to inform us? My mind's boggled. Seegoon 02:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it refers to the leveling system it uses Mattyatty 19:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''RPG???'' 

message: This article has been opened for discussion over possible delisting as a good article. Please add comments at the review page here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Battlefield_2. --Scottie theNerd 09:40, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been delisted from the Good Article list. The article looks significantly improved since the review, but it still contains too many elements pf game guides or technical lists, and still looks bloated. Once enough fixes have been made, we can put this article up for another GA review. --Scottie theNerd 21:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in case anyone's interested i've archived the dispute, it was 4-0 to delist, at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 13. Homestarmy 22:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article review 

message: I reworded, deleted, and added more general statements in the Gameplay article so that it won't to too big as it was before while removing unnecessary details. If you have any issues or comments on this revision, post here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 04:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also deleted two sections from the Features section: Mini-map and commo rose. To me, these are not notable nor important to mention for Battlefield 2. These two especially reads like more of a guide to people who bought the game already. Had it been important, I've would've rewritten it but as I said before, it's not important to be written. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 08:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll be working on fixing the references and citations this weekend. Would be nice if someone provided the link how to appropriately cite references.--BirdKr 06:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the article 

message: Regular BF fans will no doubt know the difference between these two, but not regular readers. After all, both games have the same name "Battlefield 2". Saying that these two games are different may raise some questions and doubts, such is the reason why I linked to Gamespot's review of BF2:MC because in its very first paragraph, it states BF2:MC is nothing like BF2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 10:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification to add in citation for the statement that BF2 (PC) is different to BF2:MC 

message: While a list of patches and updates is not considered to be a game guide (as it does not provide instructions on how to play a game), a list of patches is an indiscriminate list which provides little useful information to readers outside of the game's userbase (as per WP:NOT). Wikipedia does not need to repeat every snippet of information released; readers looking for patch history can look it up on the official site or other download sites. If patches are to be kept in this article, only keep the most notable changes and incorporate them into the article, else they may fail both WP:NOT and WP:TRIVIA. --Scottie theNerd 17:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop re-adding the patch list without discussing it here. Please heed to the three revert rule and avoid a pointless edit war. --Scottie theNerd 21:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm one of the users that heavily added and revised the patch section. I didn't realize that non BF2 readers would not get much out of this section and the fact that it is about to cross the line of a game guide. I'll be content if you indeed remove them. However, if you do not delete them, I will still update it and soon add references to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 14:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I support a patch list for both BF2 and BF2142. I think a brief overview of patch contents is not going to add large amounts of text to the article. At the same time Battlefield games have often been regarded as being buggy, having a patch overview gives readers a good indication of how they were patched and what the main issues were. In general patch lists for games on a wiki page is unneeded but for Battlefield 2 and 2142 I think patches are a very important part of the games and indicate the level of support after the release. Having said that the majority don't seem to agree so I didn't bother re adding the small patch overview to the 2142 article.nutcrackr 23:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've gone around in a circle. Why would a patch list be unacceptable for other games, but acceptable for the Battlefield series? There are far buggier games out there. As I said above, if there are notable patches that fix major gameplay elements, mention them in the article. There isn't a need to include a list of patches as raw data. --Scottie theNerd 01:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't say they were unacceptable, I just said they were unneeded. There are far buggier games yes but BF series has been particularly criticized for it's lack of support post release, a patch list is a good quick reference to show more than just the fixes. I'm really unsure why there isn't a need to include a very brief overview of patches released. Just about all the other information on this wiki can be gathered from other sites, map list for example. Patch list with the major fixes is not something that is easy to acquire without trawling through individual links at download sites. nutcrackr 08:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, the map list also violates WP:NOT. Including a patch list is raw data and therefore not encyclopedic. If there is a reliable source that acknowledges that online support for BF2, then you can include that. You can't use a patch list as a way to communicate online support. --Scottie theNerd 01:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I would be against patch list solely being there just to indicate the bugginess of BF2. The patch list is there just to inform readers about the patches themselves. Previously, there were mentions of bugs and glitches but were cleaned out since it bloated the section and few crossed the line of original research and non-neutral perspective if I remember correctly. About the map list, I would prefer it to be in place since it informs the readers of what maps are available in BF2...albeit not informative nor useful after that (maybe a link to one of BF2's info sites will be acceptable)? Another alternative could be creating a section that talks about the maps in general, referencing some of the maps, and mentioning the map scaling feature which I think is an important feature of BF2 as commander mode and squad structures are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patches 

message: I removed all the unneeded info about them.  Remember guys this is not Stratagy Wiki, talking about what types of weapons will can be subsituted for whitch and carrying on into so much detail that no one who does not play the game will read is not good for Wikipedia.
Planb11 01:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced the list. A brief description of how the class system works is far more useful than a list of classes --Scottie theNerd 03:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infantry Classes 

message: Assuming that I have time to spare, I guess I should compile a list to improve the article:
-Add in citations and references for the Gameplay and Features section. There's a huge gap of citations between the section before these two mentioned sections and the section after them.
*My priority
-Add in more screenshots in the Gameplay/Features section
*My priority
*I do not yet know how to upload/post images in Wikipedia however.
-Change the map section: removing the table of maps, informing about the maps in general, and mentioning the map scaling feature.
*Revised and posted
*Needs improvement in writing
*Need to add in a single image that displays 3 variations of the selected map
-See if the expansion pack / booster pack section could be improved. There were one or two editors who noted that it seemed to be more of an advertisement than being neutral. 
Thoughts? Objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BirdKr (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with changes, especially the map list. A list of map names by itself isn't particular helpful to readers who don't play the game; a paragraph outlining the variety of maps is more accessible and appropriate. --Scottie theNerd 12:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of things to do about this article 

message: Here's my rough draft of the map section. This is clearly not written well that it itself should not be presented into the article. I will also make corrections and revisions to this draft:
----
Battlefield 2 offers 14 maps for the players to play. These maps are diverse which ranges from jungles such as Shongua Stalemate, urban areas such as Strike at Karkand, to an unfinished Dam known as Kubra Dam. The USMC is present in all maps and faces against either against the MEC or the PLA depending on the map. PLA is present in Far East theaters such as Dragon Valley and Daqing Oilfields. MEC is present in Middle East theaters such as Gulf of Oman and Zatar Wetlands.
The unique feature about BF2 maps is that each map has 3 variations that is suited for certain number of players. Each map has 16, 32, and 64 player-suggested variations in which the area of battlefield or playing field is relatively small, medium, and large, respectively. Other contrasts between these variations other than the size is the difference in the number and position of control points and the availability and number of certain vehicles. As a result, the gameplay of the map is different depending on the variation.	
----
Last revised on 3-11-07
For starters, the second last sentence needs to be rewritten. I presented this rough draft so that any interested editors will have an idea of what is to be said about BF2 maps. Finding sources should be relatively easy, especially if I look in the past interviews.
--BirdKr 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I haven't been updating the article- time's a bit too short for me to contribute a large update right now --BirdKr 10:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map section has been revised to what is written above. If you have any concerns or ideas, please respond here and be sure to improve it if you can.--BirdKr 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drafting the map article 

message: Whenever an acronym is encountered the first time, it should be spelled out and the acronym put in brackets (IIRC, or is it the other way around?)  Don't look at me, it's what I was taught!  Anyone want to fix this?  Otherwise I'll come back in a few days after I've discovered the answer and fix it myself. :)  CraigWyllie 04:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been addressed, thanks for pointing it out --BirdKr 13:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MEC - define acronym on first use

message: Reference link #8 is dead, I was unable to find a suitable mirror, or updated figures. I'm hoping that someone else might have something suitable.
Tyler 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead reference link.