Talk:Command & Conquer: Tiberian series: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:54, 18 November 2006

Major rewrite

I'm rewriting this article completely (offline). I shall stick content that I deem inappropriate here for now (the content will also be present in the article until I actually make any changes) -- Run! 18:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC) Hey could someone get a screenshot for Reneagade 2 there used to be one but someone got rid of it. It shows just how the series are connected. Also are there any screenshots for contiuum if so could someone get them (this includes concept art.)[reply]

Inferring from concept art and screenshots, Renegade 2's storyline may have reconnected the Red Alert Series and the Tiberian Series after an ambiguous separation in Red Alert 2, in a timeframe somewhere between Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert 2, featuring the "Scavengers," a Nod-backed insurgency against the Allied occupation of Russia following Red Alert 2. Fans had speculated that the same "reunite the series" concept may have found its way into the Red Alert 3 game currently under development; however, EA Los Angeles has cancelled Red Alert 3 and appears to have resumed work on Command & Conquer: Tiberian Twilight. Any immediate effort to "reunite the series" would have to come through this game.

Done! I have totally fogotten the intricacies of the Tiberian Sun storyline however, so that remains very very brief. -- Run! 19:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT!! So you deleted our Tiberian Sun article and then "forgot the intricacies" when doing your own personal rewrite? Thanks a lot... I agree with the "Hello" blue-box statement on your userpage. You list the Tiberian Series as one of your major contributions, but all you've done is messed it up... The Fish 14:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've not messed it up - all the articles have been reverted. And this particular article is much better. -- Run! 15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red alert connections

Oh, guys, why are you searching for connection between series (timelines)? C&C and Red Alert timelines are separated, with no connection to each other. Yes, the Red Alert and Red Alert 2 timeline takes place around 1960-70 and C&C timeline starts from the early '90s. However, we could see superior technology in RA2, that is inferior to C&C's tech, like Prism technology, Weather Control Device, Psychic Dominator, etc. Things, that clearly neither the GDI, nor the NOD had. How do you explain this? Or, it they had such advanced tech by the mid '70s, after 25 years, how the heck they could destroy that asteriod? And what happen to the Soviet Union and the Allies? Okay, assume that one side had collapsed, but the happened to the other side? It seems illogical to me, that the C&C and Red Alert series take place in the same timeline.

--Nyiz

While there are many plot-holes, there are also very blatent connections that are presented quite clearly at the end of the soviet campaign. It is not purely speculation. -- Run! 18:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And not just at the end of Soviet campaign. During the Soviet campaign as well, and also within the Allied campaign. Not to mention the Westwood-made multiplayer map for Red Alert titled 'Things To Come', which was nothing short of Nod's emblem in mapform. Really , to state that the connection between Red Alert and the Tiberium games is 'purely speculation' against such a background is quite dense to be honest. Given the numerous subtle references and hints it's quite clear that Red Alert is indeed considered a prequel to the original Command & Conquer (and thus automatically also to Tiberian Sun) by Westwood themselves, but the precise nature of this connection is still pretty enigmatic, storywise. But ultimately it'll be up to Westwood/EA/Petroglyph themselves to set this right one day. 217.136.187.82 05:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look C&C started in 1995 and it hasn't happened yet it MUST be alternmate.

eh? -- Run!

Well they certainly did a nice job of putting the actor who plays kane in RA to make us think this, just because RA2 didn't try to fit into the Tiberium timeline doesn't mean RA1 wasn't part of it. Ragzouken 20:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberiuim appeared in 1995 and GDi was created as well so it must be an alternate universe.

An article dedicated to Tiberian Dawn?

I miss a dedicated article about Tiberian Dawn, could someone write one? I mean, this is THE C&C game (besides from RA1) I think it deserves an article :-) (It's been years since I played the game, hope there's some fans here picking up the "challenge" ;-) )--Jambalaya 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article will suffice. I'm rewriting it to fit everything in. -- Run! 18:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects and merges

I have gone around and replaced the content of all the following pages with redirects to this page:

Articles converted to redirects (currently reverted to former state):
Kane (Command & Conquer) Brotherhood of Nod
Mammoth mkII
Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun
Ion Storm (C&C)
Scrin
Electronic Video Agent
Global Defense Initiative
Temple of Nod
Tiberium
Kane (Command & Conquer)
Computer Assisted Biologically Augmented Lifeform
Tacitus (Command & Conquer)

Articles on AfD (before I was told to be bold about the clean-up):
General Hassan
Nick "Havoc" Parker
Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun
Ghost Stalker
Ignatio Mobius
Tratos
Umagon
Divination (C&C)
Dr Boudreau

The vast majority of the lost content is unnecessarily detailed fancruft and is mostly available in the Planet C&C encyclopedia - it doesn't need to be repeated on wikipedia. If you wish to contest these changes please do so here and don’t revert the changes until the debate has reached a conclusion (otherwise i'll be forever reverting the reverts if the debate concludes that the fancruft shouldn't exist - which is a very likely outcome). Thanks. -- Run! 21:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with the elimination of these articles; just because they could be considered fancruft does not give the community a divine right to remove them. Furthermore, if this content is important enough to have on other websites why can’t it be included here? This is one of the most legendary RTS games ever created, the lasting legacy of westwood studios, and I for one would like Wikipedia to be counted among the websites entrusted with documenting this legacy for the betterment of world knowlage. TomStar81 23:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from Run!'s user talk page) Please do not merge articles like Kane and Tiberian Sun. Kane is an important character that deserves a seperate article and Tiberian Sun is a seperate game. You see, we're trying to split the "Tiberian Series" articles into different articles for the games (all games have there own articles on Wikipedia, and I'm pretty busy, so I didn't get to the seperate Tiberian Dawn article). If you want to make yourself useful, merge all the minor characters in Category:Command & Conquer characters (except the ones I have specified on the talk page) into the new List of Command & Conquer characters article. You could also make seperate Tiberian Dawn, Covert Ops, Sole Survivor, Counterstrike, Aftermath, Firestorm and Yuri's Revenge articles, and clean the main Command & Conquer page. Jareand 22:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to compose my argument in sections, and then answer individual points, sorry if it turns out to be a confusing mess.

Tiberian series article and seperatism

It's been suggested that this article, the Tiberian series article, be split into its component games. I would argue that that is unnecessary. There is very little to say about Tiberian Dawn for example (excluding storyline) if it were given its own article. It could be argued that unit lists could be included, but such things come quite distinctly under fancruft. The Tiberian Sun article is also dismally short when the storyline is removed (I'll get to the storyline in a moment). Additionally, Tiberian Twilight, being speculative, is also considerably short. All of the Tiberian series can be described easily in a single article, and this is generally better than a number of smaller articles (with the possible exception of Renegade, which has a reasonably seperate linear storyline that can be included in its respective article).

Storyline

However, if the storyline of the Tiberian series were included in the Tiberian series article, it's quite possible the article would become unacceptably long. In this case, I would suggest splitting the storyline off into a main article, and having a brief overview of it in the Tiberian series article.

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

I am aware of the policy outlined in the above wikipedia page, however, that policy should be treated differently with different strengths of fiction. As can be seen from the examples on that page, it mostly applies to very widespread fiction like Star Trek and Lord of the Rings, etc. C&C may be very significant in the gamer world, but generally most people have never even heard of it. A shame, but true. I'm not suggesting that nothing be said about the fiction of C&C, but unique articles for concepts such as Divination and Tiberium are going too far.

Fancruft

Many of the pages in the C&C catagory contain immense amounts of unimportant information. For example, the Tiberium articles documents things such as the size of the crystals, the specific composition of elements, and even quotes the exact figures of livestock deaths related to Tiberium at a particular point in the first game! Such figures are entirely unnecessary. When stripped of this fancruft, the article becomes too small to sustain. Everything that can be reasonably said about it will fit nicely into the C&C overall storyline.

Similarly, the Brotherhood of Nod article (or Kane, i forget) contains an entire speech which amounts to nearly half the article itself. Such things are fancruft. In most cases, the Planet C&C encyclopedia covers all these topics adequately, and all that is needed is an external link to it in the main C&C articles.

I just checked on that long speech you metioned, and I must congradulate you for bring that to my attention. This is copied ver batem from Planet CNC's website (here specifically). Since all material from Plaet CNC is copywrited you may have just saved our wikibutts. I have removed the passage from the text, but we all need to make sure it doesn't end up in there again, or that its paraphrased when added. TomStar81 04:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters such as Umagon, Tratos, Moebius, should be moved to the List of C&C characters, and perhaps given brief descriptions there.

A few exceptions

I left the Mammoth Tank article and the Orca aircraft article because what I read there seemed particularly relevant, and the units are iconic of the series. In retrospect, the Kane article is probably acceptable, so I'll leave that in future too.

"Furthermore, if this content is important enough to have on other websites why can’t it be included here?"

No, that's what the external links are for. As said, the Planet C&C encyclopedia will suffice for all the intricacies of the C&C storyline.

"This is one of the most legendary RTS games ever created, the lasting legacy of westwood studios"

This is true, but Wikipedia is not responsible for documenting every facet of the plot.

We should let this debate simmer for a while and see if an agreement in reached before calling in an administrator or.. uh.. one of those debate-settling thingy persons. I won't touch any of the articles for the moment, but please don't go and split the Tiberian series until we get somewhere.

-- Run! 08:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea that I would like to try out that I think will solve the problems while at the same time retaining as much content as possible. The catch is that I will need a day or two to get all the nessicary elements of this idea into place. For the time being, I need the pages (all of them) to stay as stable as possible so nothing gets left behind in the reorginazation. TomStar81 23:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now here's my opinion.

The vast majority of the lost content is unnecessarily detailed fancruft and is mostly available in the Planet C&C encyclopedia

1 And alot of other info on Wikipedia is available on Britanica and Encarta, so what's your point? But I agree, there is some fancruft, like "Divination (C&C)" (which can be merged into the Tiberium article, and I got rid of Divination once but someone restored it) and all the minor character stubs. Articles like Scrin and Tactitus could be expanded.

It's been suggested that this article, the Tiberian series article, be split into its component games. I would argue that that is unnecessary. There is very little to say about Tiberian Dawn for example (excluding storyline) if it were given its own article. It could be argued that unit lists could be included, but such things come quite distinctly under fancruft.

2 My problem with your proposal is that it is unfair to the Tiberian games and C&C as a whole. All games (and even expansion packs) on Wikipedia have their own articles. And what would be wrong with having unit lists (with brief information about the unit). Other games (The Starcraft article for example, well actually Starcraft has a seperate article for that) have similiar things on their articles, and you don't see people there complaining about "fancruft".

The Tiberian Sun article is also dismally short when the storyline is removed

3 So it can't be expanded? It has to be expanded, I would expand it if I had the time.

I am aware of the policy outlined in the above wikipedia page, however, that policy should be treated differently with different strengths of fiction. As can be seen from the examples on that page, it mostly applies to very widespread fiction like Star Trek and Lord of the Rings, etc. C&C may be very significant in the gamer world, but generally most people have never even heard of it. A shame, but true.

4 What a dumb point. Where does it say that there are different strenghts of fiction in that policy or anywhere on Wikipedia? It is completely your opinion, and making articles based on people's opinions violates Wikipedia's POV rules. Wikipedia is a place of research. Gamers are people too. And, as I have made a point of before, other games have great information about their games, and nobody complains about so-called "fancruft".

Many of the pages in the C&C catagory contain immense amounts of unimportant information. For example, the Tiberium articles documents things such as the size of the crystals, the specific composition of elements, and even quotes the exact figures of livestock deaths related to Tiberium at a particular point in the first game! Such figures are entirely unnecessary. When stripped of this fancruft, the article becomes too small to sustain. Everything that can be reasonably said about it will fit nicely into the C&C overall storyline.

5 As I have said before, other games have even more information about their unique stuff. And the Tiberium article is a great article, these comments from the talk page speak for me:

Why are you referring to this as if it was real? Jogloran 01:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Tiberium is a very significant element of the Command & Conquer game series, and is treated to be a serious element within it. For those fans out there, this page is unbelievably informative. (and accurate too) -- D.R.E. October 9th, 2005.

This page is amazing; not only does it perfectly reference Westwood's classic series, it also pays homage to everyone's favorite resource. The fact that someone went to the lengths to put this in fills my little heart with happiness. It's almost like an EVA unit is speaking to me now! ;) --Riley, November 29th, 2005

Minor characters such as Umagon, Tratos, Moebius, should be moved to the List of C&C characters, and perhaps given brief descriptions there.

6 Agreed. I have already given you my support.

I left the Mammoth Tank article and the Orca aircraft article because what I read there seemed particularly relevant, and the units are iconic of the series. In retrospect, the Kane article is probably acceptable, so I'll leave that in future too.

7 But the Tiberium article isn't?

Tomstar: Furthermore, if this content is important enough to have on other websites why can’t it be included here?

Run: No, that's what the external links are for. As said, the Planet C&C encyclopedia will suffice for all the intricacies of the C&C storyline

8 Tomstar is right. Wikipedia is a place of research. Information from other sites is to be used a bibliography for the article. If Wikipedia had a "let other sites do it" attitude, then articles would just be listings of external links.

This is true, but Wikipedia is not responsible for documenting every facet of the plot.

9 All I want is for Command & Conquer articles to be like other articles for different games. And we should use articles for different games as models for C&C articles.

Anyway, I am glad we can have this discussion. Thank you Run, for taking an interest into this. Let's make a real plan for C&C articles and make them some of the finest game articles on Wikipedia. Jareand 02:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I've numbered your points just for ease of discussion)

1 Indeed, some of the articles can easily be merged. Though I would like there to be just one article documenting the storyline, I'm happy for there to be just two or three. For example, the Brotherhood of Nod article could remain, and it could also absorb the Kane article (since he's obviously all to do with Nod) using sections. In fact, that would actually prevent some repetition of information that I noticed when reading through them. Likewise, it could absorb CABAL. Meanwhile, the Scrin article could absorb the Tacitus article, since they too are also intimately related.

2+3 Not every game has its own article - take for example Worms or Rollercoaster Tycoon - both series fit into one article (and yes, they were like that before i got extensively involved in them ;) ). I know you say that the articles can be expanded, which is a perfectly good point, but they should be expanded before they are split into seperate articles. And i disagree with it being unfair - it isn't a case of "the more articles the better" and in fact I think the opposite is true - if it's mostly consolidated into one article, then it makes it more accessible to those interested in reading about the series (unless the articles gets too long, which i think is about 50kb but not sure).

4+5+8 Well, notability on wikipedia is naturally a POV topic, which is why there are fancruft debates all over the place (it's not true to say that no one complains about it). Regarding the Tiberium "statistics" though, they will be impossible to defend. They don't even matter to gameplay, let alone the storyline ;) The figures can easily be replaced with the sentence "Human contact with Tiberium is extremely toxic and often fatal" (as in this article) without impeding the storyline at all. In fact it makes it more readable, which is only beneficial to the article.

7 Tiberium is the quite possibly the most integral part of tiberian storyline - so naturally it will get mentioned in the storyline (as it has done in this article) and anything that needs to be said about it will be mentioned. If there should be an article that simply documents the whole storyline in one go, then ideally Tiberium would redirect to that. On the other hand, I'm willing to accept the Tiberium article if it can actually be padded out with more qualitative content. Perhaps it could absorb the Scrin and Tactitus articles as they are all very connected.

-- Run! 10:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1+3+7 And why would anybody want just one article about the whole storyline? That is terribly uneat and unorganized. Imagine having to explain GDI, Nod, EVA, CABAL, Kane, Tiberium and the wars in one huge article. Other articles games that have as great of a plot as C&C (most notably StarCraft and Half-Life) don't do that and don't have that problem.

2 Worms!? Roller Coaster Tycoon!? Uh geez... think you could find articles about games that have the same and similar genre as C&C? Of course, when I said "every game" I didn't mean literally every game. 95% of articles about games at the least.

4+5+8 Agreed

Jareand 07:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a knack for making things neat and organised ;) When I get around to playing Tiberian Sun I'll have a go at writing up a smoothly-flowing storyline, and see what you think of it. Then we can decide the fate of the other articles after that.

-- Run! 08:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the! You've never played all the games yet?! Jareand 04:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I have, but I lost the savegame files yonks ago so I'll have to complete them again. -- Run! 09:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My idea is just about complete. In the next 24 to 48 hours I am going to conduct a massive sweep of the C&C pages, (hopefully) resulting in a better design layout and orginization pattern than we have now. As fair warning, I am posting this here so everyone who has been following this discussion can see it. After I get this all live we can discuss the problems with the layout and move from there. TomStar81 23:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its Live

My overhaul is live. I will admit it is not perfect, but its a good place to start. TomStar81 09:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formal inquiry

Could you please explain why you've merged or listed all the C&C articles for deletion without the consent of anyone else on Wikipedia? We've actually put work into these. I suggest you read the newbie guide before you make changes like this or our friends will be upset. sorry to appear a progress inhibitor but many of the additions to the C&C articles have been recent and they were still under construction when you started trashing them. I know for a fact that my friend Mr Bowtie spent several hours expanding and adding images to C&C articles. Try not to declare war on the Wikipedia C&C community. Also, in an earlier message, you misspelled "blatant".

Thanks, The Fish 14:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need consensus to list articles for deletion - rather, the AfD process is a method of obtaining consensus. At some point during this, however, an admin suggested I should just make the changes and wait for reversion, as that is easier than listing for deletion. (the comment is on one of the specific AfD logs somewhere) -- Run! 15:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats true, but you do need a consensus to move pages when creating redirects and such if those pages are considered to be "heavy traffic" pages. Just something to keep in mind. TomStar81 06:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever it was who vandalised The Fish's comment, you misspelled "Wrecked" and failed to capitilse "ck" - "BAck". It seems a blatant attempt to discredit him. It's censorship under a different name. Clearly Fascism. Mrbowtie 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small Correction

In the article, a quote from CABAL ("for my....your cause") was incorrect. The correct one is: "vital to my... your movement". I corrected it! TS Secret

Small ERRORS

This game is the worst because i found long time ago some major problems like if a Laser or Obelisk [every laser anim] shots at the bottom of the screen the game crashes this game has a internal error and it is unrepairable and the patches did nothing.I want someone to comment this errors from me now. guest 08:58, 20 October

Difference in use of "Tiberian" and "Tiberium"??

I can't find anything in any of the C&C articles that describe this, but what are the differences between the word "tiberian" and "tiberium"? In the storyline section they appear to be used interchangably (i.e. "First Tiberium War" to both "Second Tiberian War" (heading) and "Second Tiberium War" (used in last sentence of 3rd paragraph in that section)), but this could obviously be a mistake on the writer's part. Then you have "Tiberian Sun" and "Tiberium Wars" as the name of games, so can anyone provide some clarification on this for me?? Thanks. --SSTwinrova 04:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fanon-accepted nomenclature is to refer to the games themselves as Tiberian Dawn and Tiberian Sun, but the campaigns from a fictional history perspective are called the First Tiberian War amd Second Tiberian War. --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiberian is simply an adjective form of the noun Tiberium. When the franchise still belonged to Westwood they used Tiberian as subtitles for their games (Tiberian Dawn/Sun/Twilight), EA has chosen to use the base noun Tiberium instead. -- Jordi·✆ 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]