Talk:Nuketown

Requested move 31 March 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus that the Call of Duty map is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

---

• Nuketown (Call of Duty) → Nuketown
• Nuketown → Nuketown (disambiguation)

– Very clearly the primary topic and a disambiguation tag shouldn't be needed for only two subjects that share the same name. Xtools shows the multiplayer map with 5,000 page views in the past 30 days, compared to 900~ for the song and only 80 for the disambiguation. Having the multiplayer map named "Nuketown" and the song named "Nuketown (song)" should be the clear way to go here. λ NegativeMP1 17:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support It's heavily likely that the song is non-notable and should be merged into Stokeley. The DAB page should be removed afterwards per WP:ONEOTHER. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nuketown/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: NegativeMP1 (talk · contribs) 04:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I used to play Black Ops so much as a kid, so I'm sure reviewing this will be a good kick of nostalgia for me. I'll complete the initial review within the week. --Joeyquism (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is mostly good; however, from what I can see there are several violations of MOS:POSS — specifically the usage of "maps" (plural of the word "map") instead of "map's" (possessive). Other small things I picked up: This version of the map was known as "Nuketown 2025," and the maps maps aesthetic was changed to be more in line with the 1960s than the 1950s. — The word "maps" appears twice. It should also be "map's". [...] and GameRadar+'s Jeremy Peel wrote [...] — MOS:APOSTROPHE: The apostrophe is contained within the wikilink; use the {{'s}} template or the nowiki tag. A month later, a version of the map that was playable in the games zombie mode was released. — Should be "game's", and I think "zombie" should be "Zombies" with a capital Z? That is the official name of the mode AFAIK. To accommodate for the games new movement mechanics, the map received a redesign to emphasize vertical movement — Same as above. He also stated that, regardless of the players skill [...] — Should be "player's". [...] everybody would die in the end, and no achievements of an individual would matter [...] — I think this part can do without the comma; the sentence it belongs to is a bit choppy to read because of all the clauses. May just be personal preference though. Otherwise, everything looks great and is very easy to understand. Well done (but do still fix these things)!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	See 1a; MOS:POSS and MOS:APOSTROPHE violations.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Looks good, but I'd wikilink the works/publishers of the sources.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	RNG'd a sample of six references: Source spot check: [1] — Source supports all except the citation for the sentence: At the end of each multiplayer game on "Nuketown", a nuclear bomb is dropped on top of the location, obliterating it as the results of the match are displayed. I guess you could say the mention of "impending doom" is a reference to this, but I don't see anything that explicitly mentions this. Otherwise, quotes are attributed and used appropriately. No copyvio. [3] — Source supports Nuketown 2025 information. No copyvio. [6] — Source supports Nuk3town information. No copyvio. [9] — Source supports Nuketown '84 information. Quotes are attributed and used appropriately. No copyvio. [11] — Source supports claim that Nuketown is highly regarded among several outlets. No copyvio. [15] — Source does indeed hate Nuketown. Lame. No copyvio. All content is cited no later than the end of the paragraph it belongs to, and no glaring instances of WP:OVERCITE or WP:BLUE, etc. Most sources are considered reliable according to WP:VG/S, and those that are considered "situational" are used appropriately (e.g. attributed opinion). Everything looks good except for the one.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Don't see anything that violates this.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio check comes back fine, with higher percentages being due to quotations.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Good.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Focuses on background, design, and reception with little else. Good work!
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Neutral point of view maintained; both positive and negative coverage mentioned in the reception as well.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No edit warring here.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	All images used are fair use or public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images provide context to the map itself and the history behind it. Looks good.
	7. Overall assessment.	@NegativeMP1: I got this done really quickly — forget the week, I'll get it done within the day. For now, I'm putting this on hold. The article is very well-written and well-researched, just need some grammar and citation tweaks. I can care of any minor adjustments if requested. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to let me know by pinging me. Thank you for your hard work on this article! I really loved Black Ops as a kid, and learning about one of my favorite maps from it brought me a lot of joy. --Joeyquism (talk) 00:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)