Talk:Call of Duty: Black Ops Cold War

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 16 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tscer1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2020
Spelling error in "Retail editions" section.

Change "Frabj Woods" to "Frank Woods" Schellbell (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- ferret (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

This game’s engine
Black Ops Cold War’s engine IS NOT using IW 8.0, but an upgraded Black Ops III engine.

Whoever keeps re-editing this page is spreading misinformation that has already been proven wrong by several articles.

https://gamerant.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-cold-war-modern-warfare-engine/amp/

This is one of many examples attained from a simple Google search pertaining to this game’s engine.

Do not list “IW 8.0” WHEN THE DEVELOPERS HAVE MADE IT EXPLICIT THAT IT IS NOT 8.0. TheNicaraguan (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2020
Add in Marketing section that the change or censorship to the original trailer, witch included the Tiananmen Square video, was made global. So, the censorship is global, not only in China. source: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-08-25-activision-removes-tiananmen-square-footage-in-call-of-duty-black-ops-cold-war-trailer-after-china-ban Axpere (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Melmann 20:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2020
Change Russell Adler actor link from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Thomas to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Thomas_(actor) Jllama97 (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done OceanHok (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Build
- We have more than ample information and reliable sources to expand the lead of the article. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (2019 video game) mentions cross-play - "The multiplayer mode supports cross-platform multiplayer and cross-platform progression for the first time in the series." Hence, it is important to include new cross-generational gaming within the lead and expand on general details of the game. How may we continue? Aviartm (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Cross-platform should be mentioned. Cross-generation should not. Unimportant and has no true meaning, especially when you consider people on PC play on differing hardware that spans multitudes of CPU and GPU generations. It's only "cross-generational" because it's first time a "cross-platform" CoD game has been released during the boundary of a console release cycle. It has no technical significance. -- ferret (talk) 21:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That is true, yet, to mention it or even in a footnote should be of no issue as it takes very limit space. Aviartm (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources actually highlighting "cross-generation" play? This is not the first Call of Duty game to be on multiple console generations. "Cross-generation" is not a "thing" -- ferret (talk) 17:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes.[1 ][2 ][3 ] Aviartm (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Still doesn't seem to be discussed as a "first" or a particularly critical feature. I remain opposed to cross-gen in the lead. That said, I think the article should maybe mention the "Cross-Gen bundle" somewhere. Just not in the lead. -- ferret (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the sentence would be structured to flow with the mentioning of "cross-generation" in it. For example: "Black Ops Cold War multiplayer supports cross-platform and cross-generation. It will have new game modes, more extensive customization, and new map dynamics and elements." Aviartm (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Crossplay is getting more and more common these days, meaning that it is not worth mentioning in the lead, especially since this is not the first game in the series to have crossplay. Crossgen is irrelevent (especially when you consider that Call of Duty 3, Ghosts and Advanced Warfare are all "cross-gen" games. OceanHok (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For that matter so were previous Black Ops titles. -- ferret (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We cannot assume that the average reader, whether acquainted or not, knows this. We should mention the details. Aviartm (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing the point. We don't mention it on ANY of the past games that were on multiple console generations. -- ferret (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, however, is there another instance in which a Call of Duty game can be played on both old and new console generations in multiplayer? Aviartm (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Almost all of them. If you mean can they play cross-platform? No, because the only cross-platform CoD game before this was Modern Warfare 2019, which was released on only one generation of consoles. This is not an important technical detail or leap in technology. It's simply a temporal coincidence that a cross-platform game is being released while multiple console iterations are active on the market. There aren't even really core hardware differences between Xbox One/PS4 and Xbox 4th/PS5, they're just newer iterations of essentially the same hardware configuration. -- ferret (talk) 18:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, however, it is not that big of an issue to mention it. Even a footnote mentioning what you explained should be implemented. Aviartm (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like it's going to happen as no other support has shown up that this is an important detail to cover in the lead. -- ferret (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Sixth game
How does this game count as the sixth game? People maybe wonder why. Egon Eagle (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The hidden note surrounding that says why. World At War is the first game in this universe/continuity, as confirmed in reliable secondary sources and interviews with Treyarch. -- ferret (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Engine information is incorrect
Please change Engine IW to Engine Treyarch in the information box at the top right. As stated elsewhere in the talk page, the engine is not the IW engine. Wikipedia's own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IW_(game_engine) article explains this. The engine would more properly be called the Treyarch engine or the Black Ops 3 engine.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The various Call of Duty engines are all considered the "IW" engine, even though it has multiple internal branches. -- ferret (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Source? Ganchula (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As you already pointed out, the IW article covers this. -- ferret (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

why is bell called they
fix this please.Baratiiman (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Wikipedia uses singular they when talking about selectable gender characters. -- ferret (talk) 13:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Who survives canonically
Someone put that Park is canonically the survivor of the mission in Cuba. I had my contribution of stating that no real difference is found between each of them surviving and the multiplayer operators are all we have to go off of. It's very possible that Lazar also could have been canonically saved but it was up to the player through technicality. All we have is speculation, however convincing it may be. While multiplayer takes place in 1984 as opposed to 1981, there is the problem of what fan services that developers may take into consideration. For all we know, Raul Menendez could be an operator in the future if fans want it bad enough and it could be counted as "canon". I feel like my original edit was better since all we have (to my knowledge and findings) is speculation that may just be coincidental. If you do have any possible sources that are reliable that prove me wrong, please tell. JPaul Getty ptoductions (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

"Polish facility codenamed Projekt Endstation" in Zombies section
Section 2.3 (Plot/Zombies) mentions "He learns from Sam that the Omega Group, a Russian research team, is investigating a Polish facility codenamed Projekt Endstation where the Nazis once instigated a zombie outbreak.". A facility in Poland isn't necessarily polish, this is the same issue as it is with "Polish concentration camps" being there during WW2. Also, "Projekt Endstation" is in German, not Polish.

I suggest changing the text to the following: "He learns from Sam that the Omega Group, a Russian research team, is investigating facility in Poland codenamed Projekt Endstation where the Nazis once instigated a zombie outbreak." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:4043:ED00:109F:C8E3:5D2D:1B20 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

You could also go more in depth on why the facility isn't necessarily Polish by stating that it was established by Nazi, Germany. JPaul Getty ptoductions (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Call of Duty Cold War Controversy edits
So I looked through history and found that a user edited out "Walker's article attracted criticism in response.[36][37]" in the controversy section. The reasoning given was that the sources were dubious. After looking into the articles, and Wikipedia's history with the sources, Wikipedia articles have used these sources multiple times before for other articles. beyond that, the content in the articles is a refutation and makes the controversy section feel more balanced. If someone has more to add for reasoning, please do so, because I feel that based on what has been set precedent (these articles being used as sources for Wikipedia pages) that the sources are valid and the text, therefore, should remain — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireboltLegend (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems you’re talking about this? Please make an actual argument for their reliability. Them “being used elsewhere” is not valid. Please explain within the context of Wikipedia’s definition of reliability. Sergecross73   msg me  11:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanding further with the sources mentioned, Bounding With Comics centers around mainly comic books but sometimes does topics like video games which in general is never out of the ordinary with comic book news outlets. My understanding of the reliable sources policy isn't really strong since I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but I assumed since it appears editors have found Bounding With Comics to be a reliable source given on multiple Wikipedia articles it is cited as a source, then that it can be used as a source in this article. If you want me to mention the Wikipedia articles that use Bounding Into Comics, I can mention them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Kestis, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z:_Kakarot, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MUTO, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate/Grand_Order, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farmhand_(comics), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformers:_War_for_Cybertron_Trilogy. As for Aero, this is a media outlet that mainly focused on culture and social commentary. Though not as many times as Bounding With Comics, Aero has been used as a source in Wikipedia Articles. Their article is nothing new given the pieces that they have written before. If they still violate the guidelines of the reliable source, please tell me which part they violate and what specifically about them are problematic so I have a better understanding of this as I thought that since these two sites have been cited in other Articles, they are reliable in Wikipedia's standards. (FireboltLegend (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC))
 * No, as mentioned before, seeing a website being used as a source on multiple other articles is not valid reasoning. Please think of how problematic such a system would be in practice. It would effectively be possible to argue any website were reliable so long as it was added to multiple articles. And anyone can edit anonymously. It would be virtually impossible to deem any source unreliable in such a system. Sergecross73   msg me  13:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement that used the sources was a simple “it attracted criticism”. Reading through the sources, they are pretty well written articles that back this claim of Kotaku’s article “attracted criticism”. Addressing your statement above, my question to you is then why are these sources cited on other articles in the first place. If they are in your eyes dubious, then why haven’t they been removed from the Wikipedia articles they appear on. If it’s an unreliable source then it shouldn’t be on these other articles, based on your logic. And moving forward, you still haven’t told me what in these articles is dubious. What is in the article that makes it misleading, unreliable, or dubious. There are plenty of articles that use sources that have not seen much widespread use. Why is it that when it is seen as convenience, it’s then not reliable. As you are an admin, I understand I can’t hold it against you that these sources appear elsewhere or that other small media outlets are used as sources even if there is no widespread media use, as I’m sure you would have addressed it, had you come across the situation as you have a lot to handle. You have an admin role meaning you understand this better than me. I’m hoping you address all my concerns over this issue. Point out how I’m wrong in this issue. My final point for keeping the sources is this: It’s a simple “the articles attracted criticism” and the sources create a balance of neutrality which is a goal for a Wikipedia article to have based on the policies. Kotaku’s article does displays one POV while these sources display another. For the reader, they will be able to see two sides and debate amongst themselves on what they think, which is the goal of neutrality. You can move this conversation to my talk page since it seems it might go on for a while.

(FireboltLegend (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC))
 * The sources should be removed from those other articles as well. I can do so, if you like, but you can hardly fault me for them being any of those article - I’ve never edited any of those articles in my life. Anyways, you’re not getting any closer with your rationales - still none valid - so I’ll give you a quick briefing. We look at things like whether or not websites have things like an established editorial staff and editorial policy, or if they have any professional credentials (writing for other reliable sources, having a college degree in writing/journalism, etc). On the contrary, if they have no editors or editorial policy and their only credential is “really loving video games” or something, then it’s not going to be considered reliable. If you want to see a list of sources that are already deemed usable or not usually, look through WP:VG/S. Sergecross73   msg me  18:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, looking with the policies, I can see Bounding Into Comics not being a reliable source as it has a small editorial board and is a relatively small news site. Aero, on the other hand, has an established editorial board and is bigger than Bounding Into Comics. It seems to fit the criteria for reliable sources. While its content isn’t focused on gaming, the article it has is related to the Kotaku article and is a commentary of that article. If there is anything you find in Aero that disqualifies it from reliable sources, please let me know. (FireboltLegend (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC))
 * What exactly were your findings on Aero? Usually you’ll want to explain and link to your findings.  Sergecross73   msg me  15:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is the about page- https://areomagazine.com/about/, here is the page about submitting an article to be reviewed- https://areomagazine.com/submissions/, Aero in a nutshell is like the New Yorker, where they post essays, news stories, and they mostly are commentaries about the world. A look through the main page shows that they discuss a wide range of topics, but their articles are always centered around the topic they are discussing. If you need anything more, I'll find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FireboltLegend (talk • contribs) 00:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ooof, open internet sourced article submission, not staff writers. Even with editorial review its close to WP:USERG. I'd be further against it's use here. Essentially anyone can write an article for them. The author in question has only 3 "articles" on the site. -- ferret (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ferret, the submission thing is the same system that the New York Times does. It's like an opinion area where you can submit them to be published. According to the site "About 75% of Areo writers are academics or graduate students, but they write accessibly about cultural issues for much wider audiences. The other 25% range from high school students to artists to activists to journalists to anyone at all with an original idea that they argue for well. We feature first time writers and well-known veterans of cultural commentary. If you write well and thoughtfully and you have an idea which you think has not been argued for before and you want space and time to unfold it, submit it to Areo." Also, "Areo wants Thoughtful, well-argued pieces expressing an original idea, ideally between 1200 and 3000 words. We do accept shorter and longer pieces provided that is needed to do them justice. Write as though you are addressing a class of bright and engaged 1st year undergraduates with no prior knowledge of your subject. Be clear. Be reasoned. Be evidenced. Be balanced. Be charitable. Be engaging. Be relevant to an international readership. Areo does not want Sensationalist, hyperbolic or partisan speaking points. Obscure theoretical, theological or metaphysical musings. Hit pieces on individuals – address ideas rather than people". You can read the rest on the submission guidelines in the submission link above. As for the editorial board, what about it makes their review "user-generated". As for the author, is his work meaningless or is there value. (FireboltLegend (talk) 19:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC))
 * Ferret is right, it allowing WP:USERG-content is a big point against. And the issues to your above claims are two-fold - one, you’d need to truly prove that this little obscure video games website truly has the same stringent review and editorial process as one of the biggest publications in the world (rather unlikely). And put forward an argument as to why this writer of this article has professional credentials. And two, there’s the issue that we don’t necessarily use every article the NYT publishes either - there’s plenty of times where consensus could deem that their controversial opinion/editorials not be used. I think it’d probably be an easier path to find a better source or drop it, as this is a rather minor point... Sergecross73   msg me  20:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess. Though, I disagree, I won't be arguing for this any further since it's literally for 5 words on a Wikipedia article. (FireboltLegend (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC))
 * Well at least you’ve learned a bit about what we look for in sources for future edits you may chose to make. Sergecross73   msg me  01:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding the edit, Serge, as I was about to have to dig. Neither source has any sort of widespread use on Wikipedia and their reliability is dubious. A review of the user's editing shows a history of POV pushing, removal of accepted reliable sources they disagree with (Particularly, Kotaku and Polygon) and the inclusion of unreliable sources (such as Youtube) that present an alternate view. This effort doesn't seem any different. -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I’ve seen similar patterns, and quite frankly I’m not convinced they even know our source reliability standards, let alone know them well enough to apply them to these sources and come to a valid conclusion on them. Sergecross73   msg me  15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Grammar
Why is "they" and "their, third person plural, being used to refer to Bell (singular) when being told about Bell's hidden memories and choices at the end of the plot section? Grammatically, should be either the traditional the "his/him" or "he/she" or even "s/he". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pitbull636 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not only is singular they proper grammar (Read the article on it, I'm not having this debate yet again), it's accepted for use for protagonists with selectable gender on video game articles. -- ferret (talk) 00:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Ops Cold War Bricking Xbox Series X/ps5s
its not the game its the hardware Raw 1234567890- (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC) https://www.ignboards.com/threads/is-cold-war-still-bricking-ps5s-share-your-experience.455709352/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raw 1234567890- (talk • contribs) 14:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)