Template talk:Call of Duty series

Free-to-play

Warzone is F2P, should it be listed there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.93.97.55 (talk) 10:53, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

This should really go

This should really go: Call of Duty | United Offensive | Finest Hour | Big Red One | Call of Duty 2 so that it's in order of release. Will change if there's no objection within a week. — Ilyanep (Talk) 02:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

COD: Roads to Victory

This is directed at A Man in Black: while I don't think the Call of Duty: Roads to Victory article has any notable information, shouldn't we tag it for deletion before removing it from the template? --Scottie theNerd 15:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

AMIB is removing it based on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/Navboxes. Specifically, this line: Avoid linking to articles for unreleased games, unless they are particularly noteworthy despite the fact that they were or are unreleased. Articles for upcoming games are often of low quality and subject to sudden change; such games are often cancelled, renamed, or turn out to be hoaxes or misunderstandings. This pretty much escalated to a full scale revert war on {{Metal Gear series}}. Hbdragon88 07:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

COD WAW

Call of Duty: World at War shouldn't be in the main series, it's not Call of Duty 5, it's simply a spin-off of Call of Duty Series. --FrostedBitesCereal (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

CoD: WaW is the fifth game in the main series, Activision has dropped the numbers from the titles. Following this system, CoD: WaW is CoD5, and CoD6 (which Infinity Ward is working on under the tentative title "Call of Duty 6") will also not have a number in the title, but still be the sixth game in the main series (see here, sourced in the WaW article). -- Commdor {Talk} 01:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WaW has been moved to the BO series because of the return of Reznov, Zombies and Treyarch. SamBrev (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern Warfare seperate?

Do you think its time Modern Warfare got seperated? It seems like Activision are trying to seperate the 2 series. I know its pretty tricky with CoD4 being a numbered sequel. DancingCyberman (talk) 18:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we should wait until we at least have more details on the game, but the cutting of the CoD title does make Modern Warfare 2 its own branch. I suggest having a Call of Duty games block, and a Modern Warfare block; CoD4 would simply be in both blocks. The easier solution would be to split the MW games into a new series template, with CoD4 still on both items, but two games (three if you count the DS CoD4) hardly warrant a template so soon. Perhaps the games are noteworthy enough that we'll have to split it off anyway, who knows? Anyway, I believe this is something we should decide closer to the game's release. -- Commdor {Talk} 19:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Games in wrong section

This is all messed up. World at War is a WWII game and yet it is listed in the Black Ops series. "Call of Duty 9" is listed as "historical", yet the article clearly states that this game is almost certainly Black Ops 2. This is ridiculously inaccurate. If anyone objects to me correcting the matter let me know on this talk page. --67.20.248.170 (talk) 04:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

World at War is a WWII game, yes, but it is also linked story-wise with Black Ops, i.e. the overall story of Black Ops starts immediately after World at War (which in itself does not appear to reference other games). So I don't think this is "ridiculously inaccurate". I think we can do something like this:

"Classic" games: 1, 2, 3

Modern Warfare series: 4: Modern Warfare, Modern Warfare 2, Modern Warfare 3

Black Ops series: World at War, Black Ops

Sub-series TBA: Call of Duty 9

Sabre (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I put WaW and CoD9 in the BO series because CoD9 has been confirmed as BO2 and WaW because of the return of Reznov, Zombies and Treyarch. SamBrev (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no sources anywhere to support these claims. Two games sharing the same characters does not automatically place them in the same continuation/branch/series of games. I reorganized the template and article to signify this and it should stay that way until ample sources are provided that SPECIFICALLY cite World at War as part of the Black Ops series of games. TJD2 (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, TJD2. Internal organization of Wikipedia is governed by Consensus, not by source. Game developers have equal right in this matter as anybody else in Wikipedia; but only if they choose to show up. That said, I also this WaW should be group with Black Ops. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeff Gerstmann is a reliable source: [1]. To quote specificly: "Set in the same universe as Treyarch's Call of Duty: World At War..." -- ferret (talk) 18:41, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Giant Bomb says its in the same universe, not same series. I have contacted an administrator to review the situation, and until then it will remain as is. TJD2 (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, TJD2. That is true but that is also the basis of our classification. There are three different universes in Call of Duty series. World at War does not take place in the same universe as Modern Warfare or the original Call of Duty. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page.TJD2 (talk) 10:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we just group the games by developer? World at War isn't really a "Black Ops" game TMV943 (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Why should we discuss this template's issue elsewhere? I think TMV943's suggest is a good one to consider. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The same discussion is occurring at the main series article, and to a degree, the article and template should be kept in sync. I feel another compromise is to simply change "series" to "universe" so that a logical grouping can be retained. At this point though, I'm excusing myself from further comments, as I've had trouble with TJD2 in the past on other articles for POV pushing. Since admins were told that he had been informed that "Sources weren't needed" when in fact, a source had been provided (Even if he disagreed with it), I don't think I can objectively work with him. He's also taking the fact that the admin who protected didn't revert his changes as vindication. -- ferret (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do I need to tell you this in every talk page? Stop putting words in my mouth! It's not POV, if it were POV I would be trying to change the reception section. This is mere objective organization. I never said anything about vindication, I merely stated I requested an admin to look at the page. World at War is NOT in the Black Ops series. YOU YOURSELF stated that sources weren't needed, and I quoted you on the article talk page within the link you provided. "I don't think I can objectively work with him." Every time you get into an argument concerning COD you can't objectively work with users in general. It almost seems like your definition of "objectively working" is just others agreeing with your views. I've looked at your contribs and if you don't get your way with an article you revert until the other party gives up, or flame them. You, SamBrev, and Sabre agreeing on something is NOT consensus; especially when I'm not the only one who disagrees with this method of organization. 67.20.248.170, TMV943, and I believe it shouldn't be classified as such.TJD2 (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, TJD2. You conveniently ignored me, who believes World at War is in the same continuity as Black Ops. And mind you, TMV943's method of classification also puts World at War in the same group along with Black Ops. It is a Treyarch product, remember? In general, I think you should tone it down.

Please allow me to give you a piece of advice: One must not lose temper in Wikipedia. In my past experiences, those who lost temper, also lost consensus as well. I hope this does not happen to you because I believe a fair judgment is everyone's right Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC).

I've posted my reply to Talk:Call of Duty#Protected as this discussion is occuring in two places. Whether or not we group by developer does not solve the initial issue of whether World at War should be grouped under World War II or Black Ops. I'm not opposed to the developer grouping, however, it is really a separate decision and doesn't address the root issue. -- ferret (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

I also replied there but I think it is worth repeating it here: I have considered the developer-based classification and eventually, I rejected it. In a developer based scheme, World at War is grouped with Black Ops and Black Ops 2 because all are developed by Treyarch but the rest of the games go into another category for Infinity Ward (unless we decide to decouple expansion packs from main games.) Not good, I say.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Interested parties should get involved Talk:Call_of_Duty#Protected -- ferret (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Declassified in parentheses

I suggest that Call of Duty: Black Ops Declassified be put into parentheses alongside Black Ops II. Even though there's not a II in the title, it's still being released on the same day as that game as a companion to it. If you take a look, you will notice that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare: Mobilized doesn't have "Modern Warfare 2" in the title but is still a companion to that game and is in parentheses alongside it. Declassified should follow suit. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 08:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is my argument: Mobilized is named wrongly also (presence of problematic precedent should not permit future problems). For example, Big Red One actually has the 2 in the title (same goes for Defiance with 3). On the other hand Roads to Victory does not (and is not even that closely related). I have edited the other titles to reflect this. θvξrmagξ ^spellbook 08:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Even though they may be given their titles differently, they're still clearly made to serve an identical function as companions to their respective console titles. I think we need more opinions on this than just the two of us. Byakuya Truelight (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think the devs of MW: Mobilized meant for it to be the handheld companion to MW2. The identical box art supports this fact. I feel that Modern Warfare: Mobilized should be moved next to Modern Warfare 2, set in parenthesis. We did this with the similar MW1 and MW3 titles, why not MW2? Lil diriz 77 (talk) 06:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Strike team

Accirding to ign call of duty strike team takes place in black ops unverse so on template it should be with black ops games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.251.19.124 (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is. It's listed next to Black Ops 2. -- ferret (talk) 15:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)