Talk:Call of Duty: World at War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

CoD5 Redirect

Do you guys think that searching "Call of Duty 5" should redirect here? It does already, but I don't think it should because Call of Duty 5 has yet to be released. Call of Duty: World at War =/= Call of Duty 5. Thudunder (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. COD5 shouldn't direct to World At War, since Treyarch aren't making numbered sequals anymore. ← 62.16.201.250 (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Most people who search COD5 and definetly Call of Duty 5 are searching for this game. I haven't yet heard anyone refer to the next game, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, as "COD 5" or "Call of Duty 5" and I can't imagine anyone ever will. Jolly Ω Janner 17:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jolly Janner, this is most commonly referred to as COD5 or Call Of Duty 5. I know it is not called this, but as Jolly said, people searching COD5/Call Of Duty 5 will be looking for this. The next game is Modern Warfare 2, which is the 6th in the series. Therefore it will be called COD6, and as this is the 5th game in the series, it is COD5. --Flashflash; 18:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand Modern Warfare won't even have Call of Duty attached to it, meaning it won't be COD6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.171.163 (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is true, it will not be officially called COD6, or Call of Duty 6, allthough people will still call it that. It will simply be CODMW2, or Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2. Call of Duty World at War is shown as CODWaW, not COD5. CheetoSlayer14 (talk) 08:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there is over 5 games in the COD library. just to make a note. and they are planning COD7. i really hope that is not the title as for newer gens that may cause confusion! Cloud8521 (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

We know that there are more than 5 (there are 12) but they are either variations of the same game for different consoles like Final Fonts for the PS2 or expansion packs like United Offensive. The most famous game of the series COD4 is preceding World At War so what does 4 + 1 equal. Also just typing cod5 in Google gives you close to 3.5 million hits related to Call of Duty: World at War --KAPITALIST88 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You lot are wrong about the COD6 thing...if you look at the cover it is going to use, on the top left, just above the "modern warfare" it says "call of duty" - so therefore it is COD6

Yeah if you look above all the Call of Duty games regardless of what they're called it has Call of Duty. It's the name of the game, in case you couldn't tell. And also, all the people I know are referring Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as Modern Warfare 2.ItsJodo (talk) 03:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ratings

PEGI: 18+ (not 16+!) BBFC: 15 ESRB: Mature (17+) OFCL: MA 15+ USK: 18 —Preceding unsigned comment added by BobtheBaumeister (talk • contribs) 18:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bugs

How about a section on bugs, exploits, and other huge problems with this game that are not intentional? Everytime I play this game, I either experience a negative bug (like the pistol bug, where your pistol will fire only 1 round per second, no matter how many times you pull the trigger), or someone will use exploits to cheat by floating into the air. How about it? Totally unreasonable? 67.193.58.187 (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these things should be publicized. As much as they are already, putting them on Wikipedia will make them even more well known, and thus used to "cheat" in game. No sense in telling everyone how to cheat. Thudunder (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Call of Duty: World at War/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'm a huge fan of the Call of Duty series, so this should be fun.

• The lead should be longer, to better summarize the entire article. For instance, there is little to no information in there about the reception.
• Italicize video game and series names, such as in "of the Call of Duty series,[3] features" and in "other Call of Duty series".
• Some paragraphs do not have citations, such as the "When playing Wii version" one.
• "Other versions" makes it seem like the Wii, PC, and Xbox 360 versions are the "main" ones, which unless there's a reference supporting that, I don't think this should be implied.

Overall, the article needs to be copyedited; the following are only examples.

• "first announced on December 2, 2007 and June 6, 2008" – Two dates?
• "(Treyarch also used this engine for Quantum of Solace)." – Not really a useful fact; I suggest removing it.
• "Not long after Treyarch" – needs a comma
• "They can be downloaded on many different sites." – This can be compacted into a single clause, like "which can be downloaded online" or "which can be downloaded from websites", etc.

Again, every point above is only an example; the article needs to be thoroughly copyedited. Gary King (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• With regards to the Nintendo DS and Playstion 2 version, should I split them off into seperate articles and remove their plots from this article? Jolly Ω Janner 16:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what to do with them; leave them here for now, as I'd rather not see each created as separated articles unnecessarily. Gary King (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Fall" is a discouraged term per WP:MOS as the time it takes place is different depending on which atmosphere you live in. Perhaps "late 2008".
• "all of the"

• I can't find this one. Jolly Ω Janner 16:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• "hey had earlier worked together " – "hey had worked together earlier "

Just a few more examples that this article needs a copyedit. Gary King (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, i am completely new to wikipedia and it won't let me make changes. i want to put a "updates" section explaing the various patches and online updates (just got one on the wii) and it won't let me ughh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yodaman626 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Any updates? Gary King (talk) 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you refering to the post above by Yodaman626 regarding the game's updates or updates to the article itself? Jolly Ω Janner 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This review; is there any progress with the article? It still needs a copyedit. Gary King (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have copy edited the gameplay section, as well as all the points you raised above. Except for one, which I have individualy commented on. I will continue to copy edit the rest of it. I believe all paragraphs now have an inline citation. Jolly Ω Janner 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's structure still needs work. There are a few relatively small paragraphs that could be merged together. The Reception section should have each paragraph focusing on a different aspect of the game, not on different reviews. This article doesn't pass GAN yet, so please continue working on it. When it's ready, feel free to renominate it. Gary King (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

These things arent really bugs. They are commonly referred to as glitches, and add a spice to the game. Now the pistol bug is annoying, but glitches can be interesting. CheetoSlayer14 (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Morality choices

In the article, it says that in 'Breaking Point', that depending on the players actions, Polansky or Roebuck dies. What are the actions they speak of ?--Flootures (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If the player does nothing, Roebuck dies and Polansky lives. If the player kills the Japanese soldier near Roebuck before he kills him, then Roebuck lives and Polansky dies. If the player kills the Japanese soldier before he kills Polanksy then Roebuck dies and Polansky lives (no real difference then). If the player is skillfull and kills the Japanse soldier near bother Roebuck and Polansky before they kill them they both live I think. Although it's quite rare and the general storyline is that Roebuck dies. Such detail is not necessary in the plot section. I mean, just look at how many lines that explanation took up! Jolly Ω Janner 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that, due to an exploit involving grenades and skillful shooting, it is possible to save both- but i've never done it myself. AYoungMan68 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You may save only one of them: Either Ruebuck or Polansky. There is no plot leading to Happy Ending; someone must die.--203.73.47.237 (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right here. If you do manage to save both of them, it's due to a bug.ItsJodo (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I'm asking because I wanted to add two categories to this article. Omniryu (talk) 15:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Omni

What are the names of the categories? Jolly Ω Janner 16:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Vasily Zaytsev

The character "Private Petrenko" recreates what Vasily Zaytsev did through out the game. Instead of having people assume the game ripped off enemy at the gates I believe we should make people aware that this stuff actually happened for the most part and was based on true events. It just seems right to give credit where credit is due to enemy at the gates for showing most people that there was a person named Vasily Zaytsev who did these things and as well to give credit to Vasily Zaytsev himself, no explination for the last one. I can see how people might not want to give credit to enemy at the gates which seems fine but at least give it to Vasily Zaytsev. Under characters and plot this should be noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnica540 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I also noted that in the film, but struggled to find reliable sources making the connection. Jolly Ω Janner 19:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it is so similar should be good enough and for the fact that the movie makers of enemy of the gate say that the sniper journal's they used to base the movie off of was Vasily Zaytsev. There is no proof that says its not a copy from the movie. In fact when you snipe the first men you wait for plans, same in the move. When you take out the sniper its in the same window of the movie, the buildings and location is the same and the plot is the same. If you can't see the similarity then please look again, This all should be credited. < note that. even the main victim of the mission and the movie scene is the same, they even look similar.98.247.73.68 (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This 'fact' is not good enough. A reliable source, besides your original research is needed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

DLC price?

Is it worth mentioning that the console versions cost money, while the PC version is given free in a patch? The DLC section of CoD 4 makes mention of this fact... Newmansan (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Jolly Ω Janner 15:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Zombies

Maybe there should be a section or even a page devoted to Nazi Zombies because of how popular it is. I don't think that enough information is given in this article about it. I'm going to add a section to this article, but if anybody wants to make a Nazi Zombies article, that would probably be helpful to more people.--poketape 04:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketape (talk • contribs)

I agree, it is very popular, and with Shi No Numa coming out soon, as well as Nacht Der Untoten and Verruckt already being released, I feel it's worth an article of its own.--Flashflash; 19:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the DLC Maps, somebody please fix the translated name for Shi no Numa. The correct translation is Swamp of Death and not Zombie Swamp. -Anonymous

I came to this wiki article hoping to find how many zombies spawned in different waves. I couldn't find it on the net anywhere, and was hoping there would be good info here. Now that I got the info, I put it in the article. However, I'm not sure that is what people want. Is this article just a description of the game in general, or is it all right to take it to the next level and provide information that is also valuable to gamers? Akuvar (talk) 16:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone edited out my section concerning how many zombies spawn each phase in solo mode. That would be OK if they posted an explanation as to why they did it? I asked in my above comment what we are trying to accomplish here, and rather than post a response, someone just removes my text.Akuvar (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a game guide, that is why it was reverted I imagine. That is why I am about to revert it...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That is completely reasonable, and I agree. Thanks for posting an explanation.Akuvar (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I know this is kinda off the subject of how many in each wave, but I would like to know why no one has updated the info and added MP3 coming in August? The new map is supposed to be pretty good and have some new perksacola machines, traps, and weapons. I just thought I would see if anyone knew anymore about it and why no one has added it to the main page. (Miami3811 (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

responding to you ↑ i just added information regarding map pack 3. the most likely reason nobody updated it is because it was just announced 2 days ago. i added the information but i dont think i did the greatest job. im sure there r grammatical errors and somebody could add more information if they wanted to. im not a wikipedia editting professional here i rarely edit pages. and if i do it'll usually be a grammatical error much less adding new content information. but if any senior editor deletes my update please post the reason. i also updated the Nazi Zombies section too with the new map pack 3 zombie level information. also cited btw... --Mark0528 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just kinda wondering, because a lot of times Wikipedia will have information before anywhere else does, but thanks for updating it and I'm sure some anal person who needs it neat will go critique it. It really doesn't matter to me as long as I can follow the updates it's all good. (Miami3811 (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC))

Is there any reason why somebody deleted an entire section from the Nazi Zombies area? They erased like 3 paragraphs containing information about the 3 new zombie maps. It kind of bothers me because they never posted a reason. --Mark0528 (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I just asked that on his talk page. Waiting for a response. --Flashflash; 10:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

how do you kno who did it? it doesnt say as far as i can tell. it just looks like someone deleted a section. --Mark0528 (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i just re added the information because i dont think its right to just randomly delete information without a valid reason or at least SOME type of reason. --Mark0528 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

What about custom nazi zombies for the PC? Shouldn't there be something in here about that? Sheensmith (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Weapons list

How is a weapons list part of a game guide? Yeah, if you go to the store and buy a game guide it lists some weapons, but it also describes the campaign and multiplayer, which is what Wikipedia does too. Listing weapons is not "guiding" anything. The purpose of Wikipedia is to expand knowledge to the world. There are many people i know that are interested in learning about the real life weapons that are used in videogames. A weapons list only give the real names of guns used in the game, so people can click the links and learn about the real life weapons. A list may be lengthy, but that is a matter of opinion. There are things in Wikipedia that i consider unnecessary or lengthy, but i dont complain about them because there are people on the internet that want to learn about things that i might not want to.Puro spana (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you go to the store and buy a game guide it lists some weapons, but it also describes the campaign and multiplayer, which is what Wikipedia does too. - Do you not understand the difference between an encyclopaedia and a game guide? Would you like to point out the places in this article where advice on how to beat the game is provided? Wikipedia is not a game guide. There is little (if any!) game guide content in the article, and that's how it is supposed to be. Just because a game guide covering this game and the Wikipedia article covering this game might have similar sections is not an excuse to include info from one in the other. You would struggle to justify including encyclopaedic data in a CODWAW game guide, because it doesn't belong in there, just as game guide content does not belong on Wikipedia. Geoff B (talk) 01:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

One other thing, COD wiki does not give information about the real world weapons, just an explanation of them in the Call of Duty series. Would you like to point out the places in this article where advice on how to beat the game is provided? i agree with you, there is no place that shows how to beat the game in this article, but how does a weapons list guide you in how to beat the game? Just because a game guide covering this game and the Wikipedia article covering this game might have similar sections is not an excuse to include info from one in the other. EXACTLY, who is to say an explanation of multiplayer should go in to the article but a weapons list shouldn't? Yes, the inclusion of multiplayer information is to give the reader information about the game, but isn't that what a weapons list is too? The same goes for an extended explanation of the plot and talking about some of the weapons. You are also right in that encyclopedic data does not belong in a game guide, but it seems that you are saying it is ok to include certain parts of a game guide just because of your opinion of what belongs in there. There are many people who believe a weapons list does not belong in the article, but there are also many people who think it should. Would including a weapons list kill you that much?? There are aspects in wikipedia articles that i think don't belong in there, but as long as other people find the information useful, i leave it alone and don't complain telling people to take it down. Why? Because even though I dont care aout it, it enriches someone knowledge and interests.Puro spana (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A weapons list is just gamecruft. Search for the word "weapon" in Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. The first entry lists that inappropriate content is a weapons list. Weapons list does nothing to enrich the content of these pages, and if you don't agree, then go and appeal to an administrator or someone important because no matter what, you aren't going to be able to add a weapons list on this article. Razr95 (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that a weapons list may not necessarily constitute "game guide" content, but I still believe that it is somewhat superfluous and unnecessary. It doesn't really help the article in any way, and I doubt that that many people care to read through a list of every weapon in the game. Plus, if we start adding weapons lists to every shooter article, then people will start wanting to add vehicle lists to driving game articles, and for games like Gran Turismo 4 that would mean a list of hundreds of cars, a huge waste of space for relatively useless information.68.17.250.230 (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see something in the article about the vast mispronunciation of the Gewehr rifle. It is supposed to be pronounced "Guh vair", but many, many people pronounce it "Gewer".---71.82.49.242 (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Soldiers/Marines

A Marine is not a soldier. And a soldier is not a Marine. A Marine is a member of the Marine Corps, soldier a member of the Army; airman a member of the Air Force; and seaman/sailor a member of the Navy/Coast Guard. Please fix all instances of this whenever you view it on Wikipedia, as it is tacky and in great disservice to the branch that you're trying to refer to. In this article, second sentence under Plot "Private Miller watches the torture and execution of a fellow soldier by the Japanese." --69.23.120.90 (talk) 04:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to burst your bubble, but a Soldier refers to anyone in the Armed forces of any nation. as a matter of fact here. sol⋅dier  [sohl-jer] Show IPA

–noun
1. a person who serves in an army; a person engaged in military service.
2. an enlisted man or woman, as distinguished from a commissioned officer: the soldiers' mess and the officers' mess.
3. a person of military skill or experience: George Washington was a great soldier.
4. a person who contends or serves in any cause: a soldier of the Lord.
5. Also called button man. Slang. a low-ranking member of a crime organization or syndicate.
6. Entomology. a member of a caste of sexually underdeveloped female ants or termites specialized, as with powerful jaws, to defend the colony from invaders.
7. a brick laid vertically with the narrower long face out. Compare rowlock (def. 2).
8. Informal. a person who avoids work or pretends to work; loafer; malingerer.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlefatmonkey (talk • contribs) 04:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The definition of the word defined is worthless. You are speaking of someone in the US military, any soldier would be disgusted for being mistaken as a Marine and vice versa is just as true. As a US Marine serving in the 24th Marine Regiment, it honestly offends me when people do not know the difference between a US soldier and a US Marine. In the United States, a soldier is a member belonging to the Army only. It is a very large offense to make such a mistake. I do not expect a non-Marine to understand. 1 2, in response to topic creator You do not refer to a member of the US Marine Corps as a soldier. It's a term of respect. "Soldier" isn't a general term; that would be troop, serviceman, but NOT soldier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.120.90 (talk) 08:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You're very right. There are specifics to what members of each branch of the US Armed Forces are called, as someone included above. It is a matter of respect, like calling a CMsgt from the Air Force Chief instead of Seargent, or calling a A1C a Seargent. As the title Marine exists for US Marines, it seems very ridiculous calling them a soldier or similar when in fact the word you use is MARINE.ItsJodo (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's neither 'a matter of respect' or whether you consider the definition of the word 'worthless'. 'Soldier' is an acceptable word in this context. 'You do not refer to a member of the US Marine Corps as a soldier. It's a term of respect.' holds no weight here at Wikipedia, please read the guidelines if you need further clarification . Zarcadia (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, respect. We have lost it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.149.69 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Private Chernov

I request a change in the last section about the missions. If the player stays near Chernov, Chernov is shot right before the soldiers enter the building. Sergeant Reznov picks up Chernov's journal, and says, "Someone will read this." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChexGuy331 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wii version?

Why is there no information or screen shots about the wii version? There are seperate articles for the DS and PS2 versions but not even a section on the wii version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.108.31.34 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 15 June, 2009 (UTC)

Are Nazi zombies featured on the Wii version of the game? If not, it should be mentioned that the feature is only on Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. JayLeno175 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing Wii level.

When I watch the video review for Xbox360 and PS3, I noticed one level has been taken out of the Wii version for obvious reasons. I couldn't put my finger on which one but I like anyone to guess. If you know which level is not put into the Wii version that might not work for a primarily a first person shooter, let me know. The thing I will rule out is an army of tanks which change the pace of the game for that moment. Johnnyauau2000 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignorant reverting

User:Flashflash; keeps reverting good information concerning the translation of Shi No Numa. He appears to find it "Zombie Swamp" while a respected user who has had his own translation company and speaks 26 different languages including Japanese finds it "Marsh(es) of death" seen in [[this section. The wsame goes for verrückt, which is German for crazy or mad. For confirmation see wikt:verrückt. If anyone sees the former translation of shi no numa, revert to the correct tranlation immediately. Mallerd (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

with the crazy, mad thing, I imagine many North Americans are not as used to the meaning of 'mad' being applied here. It is not anger, it is well, being crazy... Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For that reason I found it's better to have 2 translations, explaining eachother if you will. Crazy is not in the sense of a dog wearing sunglasses and mad is not in the sense of being angry. The appearance of both translations make the reader think of the other meanings the words have. Mallerd (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree wholeheartedly. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm Australian, now living in England, not North American or some crap. I know the meaning of crazy and mad in this instance, I'm not stupid. Nobody uses and has heard of "Marshes Of Death", and I don't care if thats the correct translation and I also don't care if you speak 26 languages, everyone knows it as (The) "Zombie Swamp", like the argument above, as how everyone calls it COD5, and not COD: WAW. I know Verruckt means German for crazy/mad, I'm doing German at school as a GCSE; what I'm trying to say is leave it as Zombie Swamp, as most people call it that.

--Flashflash; 15:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to myself, but to Stephen G. Brown who advised me, have you even read the link I gave you? A translation is never wrong. Same goes for a transliteration. It doesn't matter if you happen to know it as Zombie Swamp or COD5. The people I know, including myself, do call it World at War instead of 5, I don't know why you shouldn't. They also call it Shi no numa, because that is how it was announced by many gaming sites. You knew I was replacing a term for the map which I thought was meant to be a translation. I knew that was wrong therefore I corrected it. You knew it was a translation, all you could have done was simply write after my translation something like "popularly known as Zombie Swamp" or whatever. If you (either of us) start an edit war based upon grounds such as "everyone knows it that way", a translation or synonym shouldn't be given at all. Such perpetual matters are needless. So you have German in school, why do you revert the 2 meanings of verrückt if you know it's correct? Seriously. I just stop editing this article because of this nonsense. --Mallerd (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care anymore. Your friends must be the 1% who call it COD: WAW and not COD5. End of discussion. --Flashflash; 19:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Im sorry. Didn't realize I was talking to a moron. Guess the title of this discussion says it all :D good day to you! Mallerd (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Having to revert to insults when you've lost the argument? Show what type of person you really are ;) --Flashflash; 05:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was getting so mad when I saw how indifferent you behaved when I just showed you that you were wrong and being stupid. Perhaps it's shows my impatience with your kind, but you not even giving a proper reaction shows how you are as well. So what's the point. --Mallerd (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that most people playing CoD:WaW or CoD4 also say martyrdom as "mater-dome," "matray-dum," and all sorts of stupid ways or say the name of the PPSh-41 as a group of letters instead of the Pah-Pah-Sha. Point is, if you use what's common in the CoD gaming community, you're usually getting wrong info. Right is right, wrong is wrong. Simple as that. SoulBrotherKab (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, if a translation is listed in the article, it should be the correct/official translation for the word(s), not "what everyone calls it", that's just silly and ignorant. If someone is so inclined to include the "what everyone calls it" term, then the correct translation should still be listed, then followed by something along the lines of "or popularly known as 'zombie swamp'".Splew (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

But is "good" always good and "bad" always bad? Just saying ;-)ItsJodo (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nazi zombies vs DLC

We should watch out that the DLC section about Nazi Zombies or the DLC section as a whole is not going to be redundant due to earlier addressed topics.

Okay, this is what I propose. It's getting a bit out of hand. I say that the Nazi zombies section under gameplay just contains information about the original version of the game. Every downloadable map etc. should be under DLC. Sounds logically, right? If there's no response in 7 days I'm just going to do it. Mallerd (talk) 08:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with this proposal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

please stop arguing and i have a question where can i edit where what der riese means because it actually means "the voyage" not "the giant" the gians the e and i are flipped. but the kind with nazi zombies means "the voyage" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thee DeadEye (talk • contribs) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Der Riese means the giant, die Reise means the journey. There is no need for you to edit. With whom was I arguing? I was merely proposing. Mallerd (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

i think we should put some sort of information regarding the new maps like "refer to the DLC section for more info on the new zombie maps" because if u go to just the nazi zombies section a user may be misleaded into believing there is only one if they do not read the whole article because some people will glance at the first few topics of an article just conveniently located at the top and then move on to another one or leave the page or w/e. the DLC section is all the way at the bottom so not everyone is going to read it. just put like a section saying "for information on the new zombie maps please go to DLC section" or something along those lines. --Mark0528 (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like that. If it's true what you're saying and people skim the article (TOC) first and they possess some common knowledge they would see that any downloadable content would be under the "Downloadable content" header. I don't like a sentence like that, because it disturbs the immersion of an article. Especially when it's just redirecting the people looking for zombie maps (meaning there should be such a sentence under "multiplayer" etc). That's just my opinion, though. --Mallerd (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Map Pack 3

I've been hearing rumours abotu there being a Map Pack 3 and was wondering if anyone knows about it and is anyone gonna post a topic about it? 212.183.136.192 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Craig N 20/7/09

Yes, there will be a new map pack. Razr95 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

http://news.vgchartz.com/news.php?id=4423 this shows pictures of some of the maps in the pack, but nothing on the Nazi Zombie map if there is one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KP-TheSpectre (talk • contribs) 20:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

i already added information regarding map pack 3. hopefully nobody will remove it. i referenced it with a reliable source....the call of duty website itself.

http://www.callofduty.com/supplies/wawmappack3/ --Mark0528 (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia and so unable to add this information...could I request an addition to map pack 3 nazi zombies regarding the "Bowie Knife" which costs 3k points and replaces the normal combat knife? Heavyflorida (talk) 04:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is it?¬¬¬¬¬ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.200.130.2 (talk) 10:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I reckon the information about the 3000 points and replacing the normal combat knife is too detailed. At least, that's why it's not me including the information. Mallerd (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

ya. i would hav added it if it were more important. but seeing as how its not CRUCIAL part of the gameplay i dont think its necessary to add it. id rather not get into too much detail with the new maps. just the major stuff. --Mark0528 (talk) 22:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wehrmacht Redirections

I removed the Nazi Zombie links that took users to the article on the Wehrmacht, I instead forwarded the Nazi aspect onto the Nazi party and left the zombie linkings as they were. I did this because it is technically incorrect to call Wehrmacht soldiers "Nazis" since party membership was never required and not something people did at the time hence they were not Nazis, just Heer if you will.. If anything it should direct to the S.S. articles since Nazi party membership was required to join that group. --Elven6 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

But of course eventually Germans were forced to go into the SS, and also not all members of the SS were true hardcore Nazis.ItsJodo (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Platinum Range

This is not a Platinum game (yet) I have removed from the Playstation 3 Platinum games list, but the link to the page needs to be removed from this page as, like I said; This game is not a Platinum game.

The rule is the prestige (Platinum ext) for each console was only given to the first game in a series, and never to a game with a limited edition. otherwise. CoD: 4 would have it.--Flynn M Taggart (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Zombies music

I know this isn't very important, but the songs for Nazi Zombies aren't given a even mention. Aren't they at least worthy of that? Or at least a link to them on the Call of Duty wiki. 174.130.226.13 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Elena Siegman should at least be mentioned, if that is what you mean. Halofanatic333 (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Change to "Characters"

Hope you guys don't mind about my recent change to the "Characters" section. I felt that it was too much like a brief synopsis, when it should be specifically about the characters in the campaign. Grieferhate (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)