Talk:Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Nintendo DS)

It's own game?

What sources do we have to confirm that this a brand new game and not a port of Call of Duty 4 for the DS? JesseMeza 02:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

For the love of God, man. First off, you aren't gonna be able to effectively port all the way down from latest-generation console to DS, and second... "For starters, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare isn't some watered down DS port, and it sure as heck isn't a slap-together pocket effort aimed to trick users into picking up a cross-platform turd; it's the real deal. Running a parallel story to the console game COD DS has everything you'd expect from a full-fledged Call of Duty experience, just shrunk down to pocket size." http://ds.ign.com/articles/812/812216p1.html . Some guy 16:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the Xbox 360 edition of this game is going to be different than the DS. Online gaming, graphics, options, sound effects and options are all completly different. The only thing that is remotely similar is the title and single player storyline. The Xbox 360 edition of the game is all all about Xbox Live - most players will be looking for information about the online features and for that reason alone, these should remain as seperate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utahsaint (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you. Some guy 22:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Delete this page.

It's the exact same thing as the regular Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Are we really going to make a page for the same game but on different systems? What I mean is, Call of Duty 4 is for 4 systems, so are we going to start making 4 pages for the same game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.132 (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not the same game. If you'd bother to read, you'd realize this version was built from the ground up for the Nintendo DS, and therefore there will be significant differences. Most notably, in graphics. The XBox360, PS3, and PC versions all share one article because they are actually the same game. Some guy 17:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The IGN article doesn't state that they are different games. Just because a game is built from the ground up doesn't mean that the content is significantly different. Call of Duty 2 for the Xbox 360 was developed separately from its PC counterpart (Infinity Ward claiming that it "wasn't just a port", off the top of my head) but they have the exact same content. The IGN article for COD-DS says that the story is parallel to the console versions, the setting is the same, and the only significant difference is the control scheme. We won't know enough until the game is released, but if those are the only differences, WP:VG convention goes with putting the titles under one article.

A similar case is with The Godfather: The Game. It's been released for numerous consoles, with the Wii and PS3 versions significantly different in gameplay (respectively subtitled "Blackhand Edition" and "Don's Edition"). The PSP version is almost an entirely different game, dropping many single player features in place of a RISK-style turn-based strategy game. Yet for all their differences and independent development, they're the same line of games, and it's far more convenient to write one article that contains their differences rather than separate articles. Again, whether this applies to COD-DS will depend how what information is available upon release. --Scottie_theNerd 03:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The above user used the phrase "exactly the same thing", which of course is inaccurate. My feeling is that, as it is not just a port, this version deserves its own article. Additionally, I must point out that until a few days ago this game was tentatively titled "Call of Duty DS", and that was the original reason I gave it its own article. Some guy 05:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Not a port" doesn't seem to be a solid reason to have its own article. If a game is developed separately but ends up similar - especially if third-party sources treat it as such - we may as well build it into the console article. For the DS version to be developed into a reasonable article, it will need to be as different as Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2: Modern Combat are to each other. --Scottie_theNerd 08:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see for certain, but it's very likely that the game has completely different levels, different multiplayer, less options and some different features, and of course a sharp difference in graphics.

When a film version is made of a novel, or a novelization made of a film, these are given seperate articles, even though they generally follow nearly identical storylines. Why should this be different? Some guy 22:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

One reason is because films and novels are different media, and thus articles would cover different aspects: production, context, critical and popular acclaim, controversies, differences, cast and crew, etc. Additionally, the film and the novel must be notable in their own right; if that is not the case (e.g. Band of Brothers) or if novelisations of films are not notable, they are either placed in the same article or simply don't exist on Wikipedia. In contrast, the differences between two similar games are mainly to do with in-universe contexts and minor gameplay differences. --Scottie_theNerd 04:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

FINE!

I don't care if it was built from the ground up. Its the same game, same series, same figgin thing. It may have differences from the other system, but who cares? But fine. I obviously don't have any say in this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.217.175 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, you don't speak for everyone. Another good example is articles about movie remakes. For example, the 1957 and 2007 versions of 3:10 to Yuma have seperate articles, even though they are the same story told in the same media. Some guy 05:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please merge the two articles together. There is not enough reason to have two seperate articles. I understand they're different games to play, but not different enough to warrant seperate articles. The KZA 02:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't know that. Neither of them has even been released yet. Also, see Super Mario 64 DS. Some guy 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this guy. And whoever said "You don't speak for everyone", get a life. There are millions of games out there that have huge differences on one system than it does on another system, but they only have one page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.217.175 (talk) 19:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You are incredibly immature. There are not "millions" of ports with "huge" differences between systems, and you can look at games such as Super Mario 64 DS, which is much more of a port than CoD4. Some guy 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge the articles

All I'm sayin is that they are basicly the game. They may have differences, but doesn't Star Wars: Lethal Alliance have alot of differences from the PSP than the DS, and Lego Star Wars 2 has alot of differences on the PSP than th DS or GBA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.217.175 (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop posting new comments and trying to pretend like you're a different person. The CoD games aren't released for months and you don't have any idea whether they are basically the same. Some guy 22:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

You call me immature. I'm not going to listen to you, because all I did was put my point out and you have to make a huge deal out of it. I'm not trying to speak for anyone. But if you fell so strongly about this stupid article, I'll gladly step aside. I have to deal with enough of you ass holes at school, but if you ask me, you're the one who should stop posting comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.217.175 (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I called you immature because you told me to "get a life" because I disagreed with you. Now you're resorting to petty swearing. Bravo. Some guy 22:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the matter with you? All I did was say I would like it if someone merged the articles. At the bottom of the CoD page, you could put the difference in a small section. If you didn't want to do that, all you had to say was that. But no you just went right ahead and insulted me. I didn't do anything but that! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.217.175 (talk) 01:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

"Stop posting new comments and trying to pretend like you're a different person." I can see your IP address. Some guy 04:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep it seperate for now, When the game releases then we can judge if it deservesits own artical. And please having to watch 5 new sections as if you were the same person is annoying. Anyone can eaisly tell it's you. Please do not jump to conclusions about this game and you have yet to play it. I suggest you refrain from personal attacks. ForeverDEAD 12:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to get my point here. At least you were nicer than Some Guy. But you're right, I should wait until the game comes out. This should be my last post. And Some Guy, you've got to learn not to insult people so much, the only reason I was a jerk is because you were a jerk

p.s. I don't care if you know my ip adress, and i'll still be looking at this page to see how you respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.217.175 (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just one last thing, please ident your comments so I don't have to do it for you. You use colons or asterisks. Some guy 22:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The opposite is true. Merge the articles now, and if when the game comes out there really is enough information to warrant a seperate article, then split them. For the time being, they need to be merged. There is no reason to have seperate articles and no one has made any compelling arguement as to why there should be 2 articles. The KZA 00:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's absurd. There are plenty of compelling arguments, and it would be far more of a hassle to merge them and then have to create a new article again down the road. Some guy 05:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cod4ds.jpg

Image:Cod4ds.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I do not understand what purpose this page has other than to have some info that was copy and pasted from Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. I propose that this page be merged with the cod4 page, or to be more correct that this page be deleted and redirected seeing as it only contains information from the cod4 page anyway. JayKeaton 18:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering that I wrote this page from scratch based on external sources, that's a bunch of bullshit, and I protest the merge. Some guy 20:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well some guy has opposed the merger, but what does the rest of the Wikipedia community think? JayKeaton 10:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The 2 pages do need to be merged. I had requested for it to be merged quite a while ago yet it seems Some guy is blocking the process. Despite the many arguements about this matter on this talk page, I still haven't seen one compelling arguement for there to be 2 articles except for "x and y have 2 seperate articles." I don't think the Nintendo DS version is unique enough to warrant its own article. The KZA 11:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you don't know that, since you haven't played both of them and considered the differences. It's highly likely that the differences are enough to warrant a separate article. Additionally, this page has already been tagged for inclusion in two Wikiprojects. Some guy 20:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have indeed played both of them (though admittedly I haven't gotten too far through the DS version yet), and while the stories are different, they are still for the most part the same enough to share a single article. Once again, you haven't provided any reason to split them. The KZA 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, there are precedents for separate articles, this page is included in two Wikiprojects, it was built from the ground up and is not a port, and the other versions offer online play which is very popular and significant and lacking in the DS version. You're just being an ass and ignoring what I'm saying. Some guy 05:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Precedents are not enough. It is not valid to say "article x does it!"... that is an issue for 'article x'. I don't see what Wikiprojects have to do with it? And I agree there are a lot of differences in the games, but there's still no reason for them to be split into seperate articles. Like I said before, if, when merged, the DS version starts to bear a significant weight on the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare article, then you could argue for a seperate article, but you're going about it backwards at the moment. The KZA 11:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Precedents establish acceptability of procedure. There is clearly reason to keep the articles separate, you are just ignoring this. The wikiprojects show that two projects have expressed some interest in this article, rather than deeming it worthless and ignoring it. Some guy 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say they more set an example, but by no means establish procedure. And as far as I know, there is no official procedure in adding things in to a Wikiproject, apart from anybody adding a tag to a talk page, so, like I said I don't see how Wikiprojects have anything to do with it. The KZA 13:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case consensus for merger stands at 2:1. The games have the same name, were released in the same time frame, have the same stories, were from the same publisher but all of that is unimportant in the face of the fact that this article serves no purpose and is 100 percent better suited to be merged. This article has NOT changed at all in the months that it has been around. Enough is enough, it has to be merged like it should have been months ago. JayKeaton 11:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

2 votes is hardly enough to act like you have some sort of wide majority. This article does serve a purpose, it provides information about a separate version of the game rather than cramming it into an article that is already long enough. The games are different enough that merging this article into the other article would only be confusing. The Multiplayer, Game Engine, and Reception sections in the main article all are completely irrelevant to the DS version, so basically you'd have the long main article and then at the bottom, "oh by the way, here's the DS version, to which almost none of the above information applies." By keeping the pages separate, the information is presented in a more concise and understandable format. Some guy 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This talk page is filled with nothing but people requesting the merge. I'm afraid we're going to need mediation on the matter as we won't achieve anything buy arguing with a brick wall. The KZA 13:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I believe that a no consensus allows a merger to go ahead unless it will be controversial, and this merger doesn't appear to be controversial at all. It has been enough time, we can now merge whenever we want to JayKeaton 14:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, you exaggerate and ignore reality. Two others above argued against a merge. And neither of you has addressed the important point that at least half of the main article is totally irrelevant or contradictory to the DS version. Some guy 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see no records of anyone else making a post here for months. I will investigate the moves that will merge this article and see if we can't lock this article title so it cannot be recreated JayKeaton 20:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There have only been three participants in this merger discussion. The previous discussions are now void, as practically all discussion was deferred until more information was revealed upon the game's release. Now that the game is out, we can accurately propose and discuss the merger.

So far, the only clear argument against the merger is that "the game is built from the ground up". That is true; however, I don't see why that warrants its own article. Some sections in the main COD4 article will not be relevant to the DS version; that can be rectified by giving the DS version its own section. My rationale is that there exists enough differences for a sub-section in the main COD4 article, but not enough differences (or even notability) for the DS version to have its own article. When a developer goes as far as to give a handheld game the same title as the console versions, there is clearly some intent to make the games as similar as possible. Incidentally, while not a Good or Featured article, Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter is an example of a combined article for a game title -- the PC and console versions are entirely different in terms of gameplay, but they share the same setting and story. --Scottie_theNerd 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also IGN went into great lengths in their official review to say that the DS version is very much exactly the same as the console versions just on a smaller scale {[[1]]). From the looks of the edit history of this article IGN is the preferred source for "some guy". JayKeaton 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

They certainly don't say it is exactly the same. Hyperbole doesn't make you right. Neither does quoting my name like there's something wrong with it. None of the other major game sites I've checked (Gamespot, 1up, and I think one other one) have posted reviews of CoD4DS yet, so I can't use them as sources. Some guy 07:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CoD4DS has been out for many many days now. If no one else has commented on it, then it is not at all notable enough for them to comment on it. The fact that "none of the other major games sites" have posted reviews yet tells me that this game is on the very lower end of the "notable" scale. JayKeaton 15:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting argument. Here I have to say that I oppose the merge, not becasue I think the DS game deserves its own article (maybe if someone could add a plot section), but because I do not see a strong enough argument for the merge to be necessary. Just because a similar crisis has arisen and been resolved with a different game does not mean that such a move would be appropriate in this case. The notability or lack thereof of something should not instantly disqualify it as article-worthy. Take a look at some of the stubs out there; they have much less info to display, but no one has tried to merge them yet. Also, as the DS game was only very recently released, there may still be someone who will want to add to the DS game article. If nothing new appears (plot section) by the end of the year, or maybe if more than one person wanted the merge in the first place (or cared), then there may be a somewhat less disputable cause for this merge. As it is, I don't think anyone will lose sleep if this article is left alone. Comandante42 04:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly how I feel. Some guy 05:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Putting together some evidence: GameSpot, IGN and Nintendo World Report recognise and review the DS version as separate titles. In contrast, review sites like GamePro and GameTrailers either have not reviewed the DS version, or have lumped the titles into one Call of Duty 4 section. The latter I feel is a legacy of combining titles even through they have have releases for different platforms. Considering that the DS version has a different plot, different gameplay mechanics, different features and different reception -- and most importantly sources to cite that are exclusive to the DS version -- I believe that this article has more than enough information and sources to stand on its own. My previous argument was that independent development alone was not a decisive factor, but the end-product should be what determines notability. The three sources I have cited -- and probably other sources -- identify the DS version has a notable standalone product. I therefore oppose the merge proposal. --Scottie_theNerd 05:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I think Nintendo Power may also have a review, but I am not subscribed to the magazine, so I cannot confirm. --Scottie_theNerd 05:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am subscribed to Nintendo Power, and am awaiting the next issue which should arrive within the week. As soon as I get it I will confirm if there is a review of the game. Comandante42 (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Some guy 05:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Merge

Request wider, unbiased opinion on appropriateness of merge. 192.189.46.30 21:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion, a merge is appropriate, since: (1) The main article on this game is short enough to accomodate a merge, and (2) the information unique to this version of the game is not extensive enough to justify a separate article. Nick Graves 02:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A merge is completely unneeded for this article. All that is missing is some plot info, and this article would be a match for any other. The separate plot for COD 4 DS is a big enough difference to warrant its own article. Also, where would you fit all of the game release and reception info, as well as a link to the IGN review and game page, and plot info once someone posts it?

72.49.101.186 04:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Discussion Ended

As no one has debated the issue for some time, and it is obvious no new arguments need be presented, it appears the issue is over. The merge clearly cannot be fully justified, and would be more trouble than it is worth; also, of those who have participated in the main debate, only one user has called for the merge. Unless some new SIGNIFICANT argument can be presented in favor of a merge, and is supported by more than one user alone, then this article is staying right where it is and debate is over. Comandante42 (talk) 20:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That is not a plot

The "Plot" section of this article is basically a long explanation that this game's story differs slightly from the console versions. What should be there is... well, the plot. Hell, maybe I'll write it, but does anyone agree? 69.121.179.87 (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The current plot section is hardly "long". I think it is effective in its current form - it gives a good overview of the game's story without unnecessary detail. We do not need a ridiculously detailed summary of every event that occurs as seen in some other game articles. If you want to add detail, go ahead, but please do not add go into excessive detail and describe what happens in every mission. Nobody wants to read that... either they're planning to play the game, they've already played the game, or they don't care. Some guy (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Plot is a bit on the slim side. It shouldn't talk about every event that happens in each mission, but a general description of plot developments throughout the game's progression would be appropriate. As it is, it's more of a game overview than a plot overview. --Scottie_theNerd 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnt want to add exessive detail about each mission. I'm saying, just reduce the current "Plot" to one shorter sentence and give a very general overview of the game's locations and ending. 69.121.179.87 (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible U.S. marine's name and other things I noticed

So far, the U.S. marine(s) in this game have been anonymous, to the point where we're not even sure if it's the same guy in each mission. However, after replaying Mission 1- First to fight, I could have sworn that Sgt Newman, who teaches you to call in air strikes, refers to the player character as "Parker." I'll double check, but if he really does have an identity, I feel it may be the same marine in each mission(EDIT: Yup, the marine is refered to as Parker multiple times. Ladies and gentleman, we have an ID). I found some evidence for this with the British S.A.S trooper, as well. In the Mission 9- AMF, your partner refers to you as a "Demolitions expert." During other S.A.S missions, you disarm tons of explosives (alot more than "Parker" does), so we could safely assume that throughout the game, you play only as "Parker" the U.S. Marine, the unamed S.A.S. demolitions expert, and the unamed gunner in Mission 7- Spectre. Also-

- Newman also refers to the junked tank you perfrom your first practice airstrike on as a "T-72." All other tanks in the game look identical. Follow me?

- This game features some of the same big names as the console versions- Al Fulani, the assasinated president, Al Asad, the executioner and terrorist, and Irman Iforgothislastname, Russian ulranationalist. And there's Petrovich, the Bagman, but I forgot if he's in the console verions.

- The game has two confirmed and distinct locations- generic Persian Gulf country, to avoid War on Terror complications and confusions, and Russia (likely northern, 'cause there's alot of snow).

- The few real-world guns I could identify- M16, AK-47. Others were: Uzi-tye gun, bigger Uzi-type gun, S.A.S gun which looks just like a Destuche from goldeneye, and I'm sure is based off of a real world gun I don't know of, seemingly generic shotgun (also looks Goldeneyeish... but most guns do), generic RPG, pistol that could be a Desert Eagle (I'll check), and the sniper rifle, which is referred to as (what I heard) a "Trigonough/Trigonof".

- I'm rewriting the plot. So there.

If anybody finds room for this information, add it (Me included). I'll interpret silence as "Yea, go ahead!"

Phew. 69.121.179.87 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Reception Section

I think the second paragraph is biased, needs citation, and it feels more like fan criticisms than ones from a notable publisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeathKila (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

This game doesn't need it's own article. Call of Duty: World at War has 3 different versions of the game, but they're all on the same page. Legend6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

This is an established article with twenty sources. It's not hurting anything by existing as its own article, and it helps cut down on page length for the main version of the game. Some guy (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well then someone should split up WaW too. Legend6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC).

Weapons

Someone asked about weapons so here goes, There is a M16A4, AK47, Mac11, Uzi, MP5, M2 Browning 50. cal, M68 Minigun, and M9A1 Pistol. The Sniper rifle is a bolt action rifle with a 7 round magazine called a Dragonov, but in real life a Dragonov is semi-automatic with a detachable magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.213.215 (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

There is also an American bolt-action sniper rifle in one mission that you use for about five minutes - I don't remember which one it is. Probably the M24. Some guy (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Nintendo DS). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120119064419/http://music.ign.com/articles/832/832637p1.html to http://music.ign.com/articles/832/832637p1.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3165262
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081226171340/http://nds.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r32387.htm to http://nds.gamezone.com/gzreviews/r32387.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Gregson Williams.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2021 (UTC)