Talk:World War II (video game)
| This article was nominated for deletion on March 17, 2014.
The result of the discussion was Keep.
|
|||
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II (video game) article.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Article policies | |
liek th8t iz fugn hilarious !!!
ppl_0f_sp41n rise up[edit]
Hm. I--Erwin Rommel 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)nteresting adjunct to wh--Erwin Rommel 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)at was going on, but rather nonsequitur here. Perhaps it would be a good spot for a gateway to Spanish Civil War (video game) (qv), otherwise, I think the section could be safely baleeted. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 
18:48, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
This should be on the front page[edit]
Because it is the war Most people have a greater understanding about. And it's that funny.--Witt E, 08:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
about Hugo_slav42[edit]
Yugoslavia was an occupied country but here it is portrayed as a collaboratory country which is completely false and misleading eventhough this is Uncyclopedia ;)
hitler + churchull + hax[edit]
I think it would be better if Hitler accused Churchill and Roosevelt of haxing their enigma code button. --Erwin Rommel 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC) yeh i made that Jftsang 20:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
NRV tag placed in bad faith[edit]
I believe that the NRV tag placed on this article by User:GravityIsForSuckers is in bad faith. I request that administrators take appropriate action against this user promptly. Pentium5dot1 05:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Who is messing with the article?[edit]
Someone's making some bad edits, seriously, why take out the Zimmerman message part? That was one of the funnier sections too.--Witt, 
of 
UNion Entertain me* 03:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
TAG and criticism (with suggestions, believe it or not!)[edit]
Sadly, I had high hopes when I came across this after taking a peek at the Gulf War (video game) page. Boy did I find that page funny! To any administrators who are listening, I think there should be a uncyclopedia list or some kind of award that is highly discriminatory to the point of separating the real gems from the rest.
Now to the point...
I provided reasons for the tags in the edit summaries, but I thought that I should further explain my objections. What I meant to say was that this article presents such a simple framework of the conflict that it represents an amatuer understanding of actual events. Because it is such a brief overview - hey you, summarize WWII in 10 seconds, ready? go! - it is highly POV and largely innaccurate...but most importantly, minus the funny. The current format may have been a sacrifice to fit this huge event on one page. If so, I have a few suggestions to remedy the problem. The complexity of the subject matter in Gulf War II is akin to maybe one theatre in World War II, a campaign or a grouping of years (early war, late war), yet it works so well because there is room for creativity and details; I think the details are precisely what made the Gulf War II page such fun to read. It is much more than just "A attacks B" and "A inflicts damage of 30 to B" in the order that these events occured.
I highly suggest instead breaking World War II into groups of perhaps prewar, 1939-1941/2ish, and 1942/3ish to 1945. Instead of making World War II just a page, we could make it a series, giving it the treatment some other subjects have gotten on UNCYC. The way World War II is currently presented in does not reflect upon a knowledge of the conflict quite as well as the Gulf War article and I think exploiting minor details is what makes an article about history funny. Yes, the POV bleeds through very clearly (intentionally or not, given the omissions) but as I said before, this isn't really so much the problem as the lack of humor. Humor is what we are striving for, right?
Also, the parties all sound like gangster thugs. It would be better if they sounded like nerds and most nerds aren't really into the g-g-g-g-g-unit thing, methinks. --Waaahhh 01:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Credit[edit]
Some of the great and heroic acts are also being missed. Especially those of smaller countries, And significant battilions. But mayabe that gets too complicated...
Nominate for Featured?[edit]
I think that, though it contains t3h f4ctz, this article is t3h funny and deserves a feature. Thoughts? --Cosa Nostra 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed your stupid caps problem. And while I agree that the article is funny, I don't think it's featureworthy yet- needs more work. --Sir Erwin Rommel 22:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
hitler's screen name[edit]
personally, i think the screen name that hitler has now is kinda lame (adolfinator7?) it should be something liek: crit13r, boo4jewz, or gaydolf --Foxkashi 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think one of the main reasons no-one bothered before was because he's in so many of them. O well- changing now to go with the "G-Unit"-ish theme we got going here. --Erwin Rommel 02:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
For consistency's sake, I changed adolfinator7 to dafuhrer, only to be more consistent with the rest of the article. DerHindemith 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)derHindemith
Wow[edit]
This article sucks so hard that my dick dropped off.
RADAR Error[edit]
Can somebody please take a look at YouKay activating the Dynamo? Shouldn't it be "Cheats not allowed in capital cities" instead of "Cheats not allowed in capitol zones"? Thanks. -- 165.21.154.68 12:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Name change[edit]
Shouldn't we change the name of this article to it's full name World War II: Ultimate Valor, which is what the US named it for licencing purposes?
denmark[edit]
denmark wasn't killed. they surrendered like immediately after they got attacked. just a clarification. btw, hilarious article.
THIS ARTICLE IS TOO DAMN LONG[edit]
Split the article into something like one for the european side and another article for the pacific side.
MAkes it easier to follow and the corresponding time events wont be messed up