Talk:Command & Conquer: Tiberian series

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.)

---

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)

• 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)

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)

Uhh guys, you know you're in 2006, right? AtomicSphere 23:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

In case no one ever bothered to notice this... there IS proof of that connection you know:

  RED ALERT is the next Command & Conquer game from Westwood Studios, and
  is expected to release in the 4th quarter of 1996.  A FAQ for RED ALERT
  will be released later on that covers the details of this PREQUEL to
  COMMAND & CONQUER: TIBERIAN DAWN.

-Nyerguds 12:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Somehow you all are missing the big point. Red Alert actually occured in the Tiberian timeline. The Allies defeat the Soviets (and in the process Kain), and form the black ops group which will become GDI. Kain then hides in Africa after the failure of his machinations in Russia and Europe, and waits until Tiberian Dawn to Reemerge. Red Alter 2 is simply an alternate reality to the ending in Red Alert. It doesn't have to mean the Soviets won. Because if that was the case, then Kain would have been in a much better position to crush the world. Hell, before RA2 came out this wasn't even a matter of Discussion. Just take RA2 like a piece of cheesy fanfiction that it is.24.17.214.242 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Tiberian timeline is basically Red Alert 1 -> Tiberian Dawn/Renegade -> Tiberian Sun -> Firestorm -> C&C 3. The true alternate universe is Red Alert 1 -> Red Alert 2 -> Yuri's Revenge. This is backed up by numerous posts on the Petroglyph forums, to a lesser extent the Kane dossier EA posted a while back as a promotion for C&C 3, and the PlanetCNC encyclopedia. User Did Not Sign

Interesting read on this topic, copied from the petroglyph forum, which is down at the moment.
http://www.tiberiumweb.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1980
(note: Some of the language used by reply posters may offend)
Fireryone 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

---

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)

---

(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)

---

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)

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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

(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)

---

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)

---

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)

---

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

---

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Kodiak Crash

The Firestorm expansion never mentioned that McNeil died in the crash. Perhaps, with the war over, he returned to the training camp. It's also entirely possible that the player is McNeil, as the expansion goes back to the original formula of addressing the player directly. Chronolegion 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And I believe he starred in the Tiberium Wars novel? ^Talk User:Fissionfox 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Time

Is there any information anywhere that conflicts or confirms the year(s) of the First Tiberium War? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the war takes place from 2000 to 2002, but most of the info here on the site claims it's in 1995.

...In truth, I really don't expect anyone to believe that everything that happens in the game could have happened in less than two months. Woodrow Buzard 01:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I vaguely remember the original Tiberian sun manual mentioning the first war ending in 1995, also the command and conquer manual says that GDI came to power around 1995 aswell, and I think the Nod terrorist are said to happen in 1995.

Speaking of times, Renegade is set in the year 2020 and Tiberian sun set in the year 2045, it says it in the original copies of the manuals, whoever put those times in this article got them wrong.

Okay no none of you are right. It's 2000 to 2002. Renegade's manual mentioning 2020 is a typo, and Tiberian Sun is 2030. Woodrow Buzard (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this true?

To date Firestorm's storyline remains unique in the Command & Conquer series, as it featured ending sequences for GDI and Nod which both took place simultaneously, and which both were considered as official canon (in all other Command and Conquer games, the actions and events occuring during the "good" side's campaign only are considered canon, with the other side's actions and events being seen as an alternate reality).

Wasn't the first C&C intended to be the same? At least it was left ambigious since the GDI campaign was in Europe and NOD in Africa... They weren't the same events but I always presumed both were supposed to be occuring Nil Einne 11:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Unlike other campaigns seen thus far in the Command & Conquer series, the campaigns of the Firestorm expansion are tied together. If one plays but one side, he/she will barely end up understanding the story (for example, the third GDI mission was to stop the quarreling of civilians and mutants, however within the GDI campaign itself a reason as to why this conflict began is never given - only in the Nod campaign. In the same manner, Tratos was said to have been assassinated in the next mission for what at first glance appeared to be no reason either.), unless he/she plays the other campaign. What is also different from all former Command & Conquer campaigns is that both the GDI as the Nod campaign in Firestorm will lead to the same battle at the end. If the player examines both the Nod and GDI versions of the final "Core of the Problem" mission closely, it becomes apparent that the southwestern corner of the map in the Nod campaign and the southeastern corner of the GDI campaign are identical. CABAL's core and all surrounding scenery is also identical in both missions. In both of the briefings concerning this final mission, the player will also hear that the other side is attacking CABAL from another direction. Similarly, in the preceding missions, each side refers in the briefings to missions being attempted by their counterparts in the other campaign to weaken CABAL. Lastly, the endings of the two campaigns in Firestorm co-exist (i.e. both happened at the same time and both are canonical), which was a first in the Command & Conquer series as well.

I copied the above from the Tiberian Sun article. It seems to explain things better. Firestorm is somewhat unique in the way both campaigns are basically the same but I think I'm correct in that it's not unique in that both campaigns are canon since the first one AFAIK appears to be like that with events taking place in different areas and/or different time frames. The description needs to be reworded to more accurately descibe what makes Firestorm unique Nil Einne 11:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think it's possible that some of the events in Tiberian Dawn's Nod campaign did occur during the GDI campaign, but remember that at the end of Tiberian Dawn GDI is destroyed entirely - thus implying that perhaps GDI's campaign in Europe failed due to other Nod commanders whilst that campaign took place. In any event it isn't made explicit that both are canon, and we must be wary of assuming that because we are not told that the events did not happen at the same time that it is the case that they did. That, and of course the end result is the "death" of Kane in the GDI missions, which obviously does not occur in the Nod missions. Firestorm very definitely does feature both campaigns as canon as this is explicitly stated and the end sequence is effectively the same for both. Addyboy 11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused here. It's been a long, long while since I played Tiberian Dawn but according to the article, at the end of the Nod campaign you've won in African ready to invade Europe. How then is it possible that GDI has been destroyed entirely? (Indeed I seem to remember that in either the Nod or GDI campaign it was mentioned at one stage that the other side wasn't going well). Also, I don't see any reason to assume Kane didn't die in the Nod campaign. Assuming the Nod campaign ended BEFORE Kane died, then why couldn't he have died afterwards? I'm not asking for speculation in the article. I'm simply pointing out that I don't really see any major plot holes which prevent both campaigns having occured in Tiberian Dawn. Tiberium Wars and Firestorm are obviously somewhat different in that all 3 campaigns appear to have occured somewhat simulatanoues with intertwining storylines but from what I can tell, there's nothing in Tiberian Dawn which indicates that both campaigns did not occur. Therefore, I think it's quite wrong for us to conclude that in only Tiberium Wars and Firestorm have campaigns which don't conflict and which are all canon. Rather, it would be more accurate to say (assuming this is accurate and the information in wikipedia suggests it is) that there are no major plot differences which would indicate that only one campaign is canon. Nil Einne 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that both campaigns appear to be progressing simultaneously, I am wondering about EVA. Was she (it?) not stolen by NOD? If so, would it be the same as stealing a program these days (i.e. the original remains) or would one have to actually take the physical core of it, as with CABAL? Chronolegion 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Nod stole the physical core. While there was only ever one CABAL, there are multiple EVA units in use by GDI, and the one stolen was that used by that particular base. The GDI commander you portray in the other campaign clearly has access to another EVA unit. In the Nod mission, you get an engineer into the radar dome, and presumably somehow escape with the physical core.Addyboy 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Might want to amend your second sentence - although CABAL's core was destroyed in "Firestorm", another copy obviously survived, as seen at the end of the NOD campaign. Chronolegion 18:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I've always interpreted that as "the core wasn't actually destroyed, they just thought it had been"Addyboy 00:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Are you suggesting that CABAL simply "played along" (i.e. shut down his cyborgs, etc.)? I doubt it. I consider it more likely that, since, no matter how advanced, a program is still a program, there must have existed a back-up copy of sorts that was activated at the moment of CABAL's demise (deletion?). Chronolegion 12:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Data revised

I added some more information to the article; A more accurate explanation of the events of the Nod attack in the beginning of Tiberium Wars. Joeskipsey 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Renegade 2 not canceled?

Rumors are going around that AELA is working on a shootergame and that It may be Renegade 2. Does some one know more about this? inAbag

Its not going to be called Renegade 2, so far there is a working title of Command & Conquer: X, there are limited details about this game on the wiki Here. 212.50.191.54 09:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Obvious Error

The first line of the second paragraph states, "Released in 1999 by Electronic Arts, Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun was the highly-anticipated sequel to the original Command & Conquer. Tiberian Sun..."This sentence makes no sense,, how can Tiberian Sun be a follow on from Tiberian Sun? Surely it followed from Red Alert? I have taken it upon myself to change this sentence. 212.50.191.54 09:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rapic.jpg

Image:Rapic.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding recent edit and reverts by user Kalamrir

This page have said "Command & Conquer" for a very long time, and now Kalamrir come saying it should say "Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn", going against current consensus with no support from other editors. And then he says I am ignorant?!? Unless you have support for your edits, status qou should remain. An don't come with the "factual error" talk again, because I have sources confirming the title is "Command & Conquer", plain and simple, which I have presented to you, Kalamrir, whether or not you chose to ignore them. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, please focus on content and refrain from personal attacks. My edits stem from numerous source material, which are available for consultation at the Command & Conquer (video game) article. For better reference, I will list them here directly;

*[1]

*[2]

*[3]

One can also consult the various publications of Electronic Arts, the current IP owner, either in written form or through broadcasted media (the infomercial Battlecast Primetime episodes), where the sub-title of Tiberian Dawn also is actively used by the C&C franchise owners when referring to this particular game. Their official website can be found here: [4]

These sources establish Tiberian Dawn as an officially recognized title as well as sub-title of the game Command & Conquer. Since sources have been provided to validate this argument, I hereby consider this discussion closed. Further reverts of user MrStalker will result in mediation of an administrator. Kalamrir (talk) 12:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you was the on who called me ignorant. How many times do I have to repeat this: YES, your sources confirm "Tiberian Dawn" as an alias for "Command & Conquer", NO, they do not confirm it's the official title! How can I explain this any more clearly to you?!? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, please focus on content, and stay cool for crying out loud. A similar issue has been (also fiercely) debated among editors of the Star Wars articles. The dispute there was that it was incorrect to title the article of the first Star Wars movie as "Star Wars episode IV - A New Hope", because the movie originally was released as just Star Wars in 1977. Consensus in that discussion eventually established that when an IP owner adds a sub-title to a work at a later date, that sub-title is official and can be used interchangeable with its original name. You may find the same to apply to this situation. I am sorry, since for some reason you obviously feel very passionate about this, but the source material and the Star Wars precedent speak for themselves. Tiberian Dawn and Command & Conquer is one and the same thing, and since C&C has since turned into a franchise spanning numerous titles, it helps to name the original game Tiberian Dawn in all our articles for purposes of reference, clarity and consistency. Kalamrir (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Despite what some may say, Command & Conquer is not Star Wars. I don't know about the circumstances around the Star Wars debate, but I do know that there has been no such announcement from Electronic Arts. I agree that perhaps they should officially rename it to "Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn", it whould clear up some confusion, but they haven't. --MrStalker ^(talk) 13:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Btw, you just broke WP:3RR. Again. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I might have. This is the first time I have been involved in an edit war, and as such I do not have that much background knowledge on the guidelines covering the phenomenom. You do, apparently. Kalamrir (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, never broke it though. You should know about it too, since I warned you. --MrStalker ^(talk) 13:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Philadelphia (C&C).jpg

Image:Philadelphia (C&C).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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

inconsistency

"[...] Tiberian Sun was built on a 2D engine [...]" and a little further down "Westwood Studios later would eliminate many of the performance and stability problems of Tiberian Sun, and would reuse its 3D engine for the production of Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2." 85.177.41.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC).

Image copyright problem with Image:Tiberium deposits seen in Command & Conquer (1995).jpg

The image Image:Tiberium deposits seen in Command & Conquer (1995).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Cc kane shot.jpg
• Image:Ttpic.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Taelus (Talk) 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Command & Conquer: Tiberian series → Tiberium Universe — The title format used in these two articles seems very unofficial. On the official C&C site these sub-franchises is refered to as the Tiberium Universe and the Red Alert Universe respectivly. Also, some games in the Tiberian series doesn't even have the word "Tiberian" in its title. I believe that at this point C&C has grown beyond just being a series of games, and this should be reflected in the titles of these articles. MrStalker ^(talk) 20:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Command & Conquer: Red Alert series → Red Alert Universe

Survey

• Oppose definitely unclear, especially for red alert, but also for tiberian. It requires "Command and Conquer" to be clear, and since the Tiberium series is the main series, moving it elsewhere makes very little sense, this is what is meant by C&C by normal people. 74.216.194.130 (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

  I don't understand what you mean by "unclear". We still have the main article dealing with the general aspects of the C&C franchise, then we these two series articles going in-depth on the two universes. What is unclear? C&C can refer to Red Alert just as much to any of the Tiberium games, for example I have several friends primarily associating C&C with Red Alert 1 & 2 because that's the only games they've played. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - this is only useful for those who are very into the C&C series, and breaks standards of WP:VG, where things are not organized in an WP:INUNIVERSE manner. Though this may be just a title change, it changes the focus from a real-world perspective to an in-universe one. However I'm not opposed to a redirect in the opposite manner, such as Tiberium Universe redirecting to Command & Conquer: Tiberian series, as that still keeps WP standards, but they are also plausible search terms. --Teancum (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Tiberium Universe is the term used on the official website, I don't see how it would violate WP:INUNIVERSE. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the issue is that an article with the title "Tiberium Universe" would suggest focus on the in-universe aspects while something with "series" in the title would suggest focus on the real world series. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

      Okey, that I'll buy. But still, it feels like the current titles is very unofficial and ugly. Maybe something like Command & Conquer: Red Alert (sub-series) would be better? Although I'm not sure what the equivalent titling for the Tiberian series would be... I cannot find any usage of the words "Tiberian series" outside of Wikipedia. Btw, what's up with "Tiberian series"? Is the series (the actual IRL game copies) infected with Tiberium or something? Isn't "Tiberium series" more correct? So maybe it should be Command & Conquer: Tiberium (sub-series) then? Or perhaps the most appropriate thing to do is merge both articles into the main article, since much information overlap and the purpose of having three separate articles is a bit unclear. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference dump

Hey! I'm just going to dump some references here until I find the time to incorporate them into the article (maybe in the next day or two). These all pertain to C&C: Renegade.

• [5] Gamespot review; includes a blurb on the 3D engine (made by Westood)
• [6] Eurogamer.net review
• [7] IGN review

Peace. Braincricket (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

FAQs deleted

Most of the FAQs were deleted off their FTP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.98 (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"Tiberian series" or "Tiberium series"?

Which one is it? Both terms are used on this article and elswhere, with no clear consistency. Also, how is the full form of the title supposed to be written: "Command & Conquer: X series", or "Command & Conquer X series", where "X" stands for either "Tiberian" or "Tiberium"? MarqFJA87 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)