Jump to content

Talk:Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Unverified claims

I would say that around 90% of this article is unreferenced and unverified - most of it leaning towards being original research - especially the section of speculation on the 'third faction'. Also, the huge list of fansites is not appropriate, as wikipedia is not a link farm or indiscriminate collection of links and guidelines advise against adding fansites. I will gladly discuss what can be done to improve the article, but if substantial changes aren't made, I will simply delete any unsourced and unverified claims in a few days. -Localzuk(talk) 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. Articles such has "Back Ground" and "Concern over development" should be removed. I dont see any pov. I was wondering if there any need for "Third side possibilities". I think even that articles should be removed. Has for the link what do you think is better?. Has the unregistered user keep adding them on. For me this following link should be added:-

Reason :- A very Popular and most contributed site.

Reason :- Very Old site has contributed a lot to C&C.

Reason :- This site has also lot of information. EA developers are watching the forum.

Reason :- Very Old site has contributed a lot to C&C.

Reason :- Has contributed a lot to C&C.

Reason :- Has contributed a lot to C&C. Those are views. How much information do they need?. If they want to know more they can go their. It is reliable. --SkyWalker 00:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over development section is an important one and should stay. This can be referenced by linking to the official EA forums and see how long rants about continuity are - the thread on Tibeirum itself is 83 pages long last I checked! I will move the tags to specific locations - putting it at the top of the article is like shouting a dog is rabid in a dog pound. Mikael GRizzly 11:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. We cannot link to forums, as they are not reliable sources and fail the requirements needed by WP:V and WP:CITE. Please don't just remove tags, as I placed them there for good reason. The 'concern over development' section has no references - therefore it is unverified. I'll give you some examples of pov comments:
  • the results of these games have at times been considered somewhat lacking among the fan community.
  • universe were upset with the release of Red Alert 2, primarily because the C&C fan community generally views Red Alert as prequel to Command & Conquer.
  • However, since the Red Alert installments were, since their inception, regarded as an alternate history--more of a "what if" scenario--some fans have not quarrelled over any such interconnection.
  • Longtime fans of the Command & Conquer universe were upset with changes EA implemented with Generals and Zero Hour.
  • and the introduction of "middle men" met with some resistance.
  • this issue had been a major sore point for online players of Generals who frequently capped Superweapons (the game includes this option when setting up a server) or banned them altogether.
  • In Zero Hour this ban was extended to include certain Generals personalities who were felt to be too powerful for use in online play.
  • Many players also found the manner in which Generals latched onto topical issues in an overtly militaristic and pro-American fashion to be tasteless and insensitive.
  • However, some argued that the stereotypes portrayed in the game extend to all three factions in a "tongue-in-cheek" manner in order to demonstrate political irony in today's world conflicts.
  • Others found the defeat of US forces to the GLA in Zero Hour as a bad omen for the US in the war on terror, particularly since elements of the GLA and their intended uses (like suicide bombers, bomb trucks, and a willingness to use anthrax in an offensive role) closely mirror methods of attack currently faced by US forces in Afganistan and Iraq.
  • As a result of these changes, some fans of the series argue that Generals was not a true Command & Conquer game.
  • although fans of the series are now wary of what the new game may look like, as most Westwood employees no longer work for EA Games.
  • Although Electronic Arts has taken some liberties with the development of previous Command & Conquer games fans of the series remain cautiously optimistic that Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars will emerge as a successful game, capitalizing on previous C&Cs in the series.
Now, that is a lot of pov comments, full of weasel words, original research, assumptions, generalisations and completely lacking any verification. I am re-instating that tag until it has been dealt with.-Localzuk(talk) 12:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Unknown

Think about the section where tiberium could be a third side should be removed because in 19 december EA tells us about the third side so there should be no speculation. 82.114.81.148 22:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 20:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Fansites

As this article is about a future release, I think there should be a little more leeway allowed for the inclusion of fansites as external links. However we do seem to be going over the top a little. We really need to trim the list down to 4 or so links to such sites. I propose that we include the ones with the most information and get rid of those that just seem to be repeats of press releases and screenshots that all of them have.-Localzuk(talk) 10:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents fellas. I propose CommandConquer3.com which is solely dedicated to CNC3 Tiberium Wars, has quality unique content, news, unit/building info, forums, blog, actor info and is frequently updated etc. Cheers! .-HealthyIsabelle(talk) 15:00, 28 November 2006

EA listening?

I have just read a blog from Mike Verdu explaining that EA has changed several things in the game due to the fans complaints including the return of blue tiberium, visceroids,and mutants. So I'm asking, are they listening and is that a good sign for the game?NODfanatic 17:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a good thing. Usally Game Developers or publisher dont listen to their fans. Has command & conquer is the father of all RTS. They should listen to their fans if they dont the whole community will drop command and conquer. Has command & conquer 3 is the most awaited game. Iam sure EA will do their best to provide best of the best command & conquer. --SkyWalker 17:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some of the development team is using the EA prayer tooNODfanatic 17:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. Since this is a since of good faith on EAs part I went ahead and added some of that paragraph into the "Concer over developement" section as evidence that EA is taking the concern over the development seriously. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

traslate

please somebody traslate this article to spanish wikipedy (and other lenguajes to, of course) i love that C&C


What do you think?....

Is it right to say that there the new juggernaut should be called with MK3 is it really MK3 i think only the mammoth is MK3 so is it good to change it from the article. 82.114.81.148 18:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Luck`

I wish EA the best of luck with this new game and have a lot of faith in this new game; Things such as the lack of units and small details such as the roof on the pitbull are details that will probobly be resolved before the game is released. Rob Gyergyek 18:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Well where is here the main purpose for the article as mentioned here this should be page only for the aticle for the game not personal ideas. CABAL 82.114.81.148 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of this talk page

Please can editors realise that this talk page is here to discuss the contents of the article, not to discuss what you personally think of the game and it's changes. Please take this sort of talk elsewhere as it is not appropriate. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 13:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm new here so what is your definition of it. Can we say our opinion as this is a discussion page or are we supposed to be unopinionated? Can we discuss things read on ea.com or can we only use the article on wikipediaNODfanatic 16:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi and welcome to the site. Article talk pages are for discussing what is, and should be, in the article. Please take a look at our guidelines on how talk pages are supposed to be used. Opinions are welcome on the content of the article, but not on the subject of the article. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 16:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm sorry but you are all wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, your contributions are welcome - as long as they are kept on topic and are relevant to the improvement of the site. Personal opinions on changes between versions of this game are not appropriate. If you wish to discuss this within the context of including the information in the article, please do. If you just want to post messages (such as those above) about personal shock and opinions on these changes then this is not the right place - the right place would be a fan-forum. I hope you understand my meaning and do not take it as a 'your views aren't welcome' - because they are, but only within the context of improving the article. Thanks,Localzuk(talk) 18:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


It is best to leave your comments there, per the guideline I mentioned earlier. However, if you wish to remove them, you can do as they are your comments. Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 19:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Avatar:Infantry or armored unit?

The article has the NOD Avatar listed as both an infantry and armored unit. I was wondering if that is correct or is it one of them.NODfanatic 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Yes indeed this should be changed because it is not a lifeform it is a mech unit so it is not an infanry unit so change it. 82.114.81.148 18:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I went ahead and changed it just so that theres no confusion.NODfanatic 00:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that the juggernaut needs to deploy,so its legs get wider as the unit wants to attack. And the avatar mech is something like a core defender because the laser cannon at the right hand looks like an mobile obelisk cannon.This could be noticed to the article. 82.114.81.150 22:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

However I seem to remember GDI's wolverene (sp) that was built in the war factory yet had infantry dialog....

Unit list

Earlier today I removed the lists of individual units and structures but left the general descriptions. An anonymous user then reverted by edit, stating that it was "far too radical". I'm referring to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, specifically "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.". They make the article look amateurish and unstructured, simply not encyclopedic but fansite'ish. I'm posting my views here because I'm trying to avoid an edit war. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 21:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with you on this one. Lists of units in a forthcoming game - with no references seem like a definite breach of WP:NOT. I have re-removed it.-Localzuk(talk) 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I reject!The article can be only full and correct at the time when the game comes out.That means you could remove and order any thing but if you have no info you have nothing to change.This article is referred to a game so why all this talk and here should be a change in the article so I think there should be more screenshots so users can be amazed form the game and article itself. 82.114.81.148 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"there should be more screenshots so users can be amazed form[?] the game"??? Wikipedia is not a soapbox! I also find the article already has plenty of images. And concept art is just that, concept art, and has actually nothing to do with the game. I don't know who would even like to read the list of units. I simply skipped it. I'm sure C&C fans can find fansites that are better than Wikipedia. The article should be accessible to casual readers and they aren't interested in knowing that the game has a unit called "Pitbull" or something. And by the way, do the screenshots you keep referring to actually tell the unit names and properties? And don't you think the header "Known units and structures" contradicts with the next sentence, "Actual unit lists and unit names may be subject to change over the course of the game's development"? --ZeroOne (talk | @) 00:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Remember, everything in an article has to be sourced. Ok, on an article about a future game the definition of 'reliable source' may be somewhat lower, but it still needs citing. I think I will go through the article and flag things with requests for citations and remove blatant original research.-Localzuk(talk) 00:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not relay on the screenshots I say that I saw the article about the game Warhammer Mark of Chaos it had screenshots so I thought it could be good to have also this article screenshots that is all.And the game it is not finished so perfection could lack so also the article about the game Warhammer Mark of Chaos is about a game that is finished and it has more screenshots than this one.Can you tell me this? 82.114.68.30 12:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You kept insisting that all units listed there can be seen in screenshots and now you say you don't rely on screenshots. What do you rely on then? And I don't think that if a game is unfinished it is any excuse for a Wikipedia article about it to be plain fancruft. I also think the Warhammer: Mark of Chaos article has too many screenshots but at least it doesn't have any excess unit lists. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 12:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Not all units can be seen in the screenshots but some of them,but then why are there in Warhammer Mark of Chaos screenshots? Some things are unsure and uncertain so the article can have problems.Then if you think so there should be no unit info for the game nor its buildings and, the game also has no screenshots,then also if you plan to cut out those units lists you may shorten the "Concern over Development"issue,its is too long and the game should not be connected with history of the game or something.There should be just short info for the game as you all intend to this idea and begin to a make a discussion war than your word should be made and the rule of Wikipedia. 82.114.68.30 13:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


I know you know the rules of Wikipedia so you should not mean this "Begin to a make a discussion war than your word should be made and the rule of Wikipedia" as a an personal attack.I just ment your word is the more correct one so as it considers the Wikipedia rules and I started to make a discussion war with my ideas wich might cross the wiki rules,but honestly why all this war. 82.114.68.30 13:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion, not a 'discussion war'. The article should only contain well sourced information that adds to the article in some meaningful way. Listing units and building types is pointless - as it doesn't give a reader any extra incite into the game, it just bulks out the page with lists. I have not seen any other articles about games that list units, so why should this one be different?-Localzuk(talk) 14:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Other articles about C&C games contain a list of units, Tiberian_Sun and Command & Conquer: Red Alert --Spacemonkeynz 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


It has already been changed so what? Also I prefer that the only screenshot should be changed that to one that tells us about the game not just two mammoths and some buildings or even remove it all.The article it self needs to be shortened the article should be compact and about the units lists do whatsoever you so like to do change it,remove it whatever you like and think it is wonderful. 82.114.68.30 14:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


And I think it is a dicussion war.Why? Only discussing about just one user thoughts about the article,what it would be good and bad to change.I only am trying to make a better article and I am just referring what could be changed and what I prefer to this article this what I say respects the Wiki rules.82.114.68.30 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots

I think there should be at least two screenshots,one that shows the Nod side and one for the GDI side,so you can see the two sides,an later on probably the third side could get another screenshot.If you do not agree with me,than the only screenshot should be changed to a screenshot that shows both sides an some units too. 82.114.81.150 20:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Do you agree with me? If you do,then please put those screenshots there. 82.114.81.150 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should have a limited selection of screenshots that show a good overview of the game. I will take a look at the official site and make some choices about which ones would be best.-Localzuk(talk) 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that any of those screenshots at the official page are that good because they do not show the user interface. For all we know, they could be just artists' renderings. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


It may be so,but there it says they are game screenshots,and there are some screenshots that show the user interface.I think some screenshots without the interface will not change anything.

82.114.81.150 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


What is the use of the this insult,no screen interface!Does the mammoth picture have an interface?.That screenshot does not show anything,just two tanks.I would prefer to get another screenshot that tells us about the the game,so GDI and Nod.

82.114.81.145 21:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out that an image is missing something is hardly an insult. I do not think I have insulted anybody. If I have, I apologize. I sometimes enjoy a good argument, but I will not do personal attacks. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This really unintellectual.I have been waiting for more than three days and nothing happend,no new screenshots,and the article changes moment by moment,so once with the list and once with no list.This is a encyclopedia.This means no problems with this third class level problems whith no organization.This makes me nervous and unbearable. I hope this could take an end. 82.114.81.145 19:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, please just bear with us. Meanwhile, you could register an account as you seem like a fairly active editor anyway. Personally I'm having a little trouble reading your text. Please mind the punctuation and spelling. There are some good online spell checkers you could use. I'm not a native English speaker either so I need text to be well structured to understand it well. If I do not understand a question then I'm not likely to answer it. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


I am a native english speaker.I could write something wrong and make punctutaion mistakes because I am a fast writer.If this is a problem then please tell me where they are,so I can correct them.I am having some problems too so do not expect to be perfect.My problem here is that I want that you complete to put new screenshots in the article,thats it.Localzuk said that he will look for new screenshots. !82.114.68.27 21:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems

This is unbelievable! How could this go normaly so, I am waiting for my ideas for more than 5 days and none answers. has been deleted for an unkind idea 82.114.81.147 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to get excited. There's no such rule that any talk page posts should be answered in any time. We have our private lives too, I'm busy with the university and Localzuk must be busy with something else. I, for one, haven't judged anybody here, I'm just making a point that in my opinion the unit list is not needed and that we do not need more screenshots. I'm happy with the current screenshots, they are as good or bad as any that are found from the homepage of the game. --ZeroOne (talk | @) 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


This... Well at least you just should have told me that you can not reply.I would consider that,and I would not have started this...those insults.Gentlemen I consider this as a terrible fault. I considered you as administrators,so you are responsible for the site.Can you explain this to me,how can I get informed that no one is active?So this should not happen again. I will take your real life to consideration.I have misunderstood that you have ignored my ideas and my posts. And just one thing,I like the game CNC3 and their developers otherwise this is the cause that turned this to a problem. 82.114.68.27 21:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be patient.Maybe this theater from my side,could cause prejudges for me.And I think I draw a bad image for my personality so excuse me for this tough art of writing. 82.114.68.27 22:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, neither me nor ZeroOne are administrators - we are just lowly editors like yourself - besides, administrators have no more rights or powers on this site - just an extra set of buttons which help with their activities.
Anyway, back to the comments at hand - why can you not add the screenshots yourself? This is by far the best way of getting something done on the site. As for adding the screenshots as a link - they are linked, via the main c&c 3 site link in the external links section.
Finally, the reason I have taken so long to respond is that I watch over many other articles and this one is ranked quite near the bottom in terms of importance.-Localzuk(talk) 22:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


If I would add something,I would surely have problems.And then you now better than I the rules here.Of course I was not informed that you are not an administrator,but you are on an higher rank than me.But you said to complete to add new screenshots to the article.I would never intervene to anyone's work.82.114.68.27 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


Its hard to write a good article when very little is known about the topic. much of the stuff is speculation Rob Gyergyek 16:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Request to protect.

Is it possible to request Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars. Unregistered users and Ip are adding unnecessarily links which has have no value and no information. --SkyWalker 07:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say no personally, as the speed at which it is happening is slow really.-Localzuk(talk) 07:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
They are unnecessary link such has commandandconquer3. Which is a spam. --SkyWalker 09:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but they are only once or twice a day. Other articles receive 10 times that and aren't protected. It is simply something we have to put up with. I would advise simply using the appropriate user talk page warnings each time and report the users. Take a look at the reporting page and you will see how much vandalism would be needed for protection.-Localzuk(talk) 10:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling a site spam that is focused "on topic" and more specific to Tiberium Wars versus the sites listed is really sad. Controlling a page versus keeping it open to quality contributions goes again what Wikipedia is about. Is this page about Tiberium Wars or is it about the Command and Conquer series? Are the other sites listed focused on Tiberium Wars or are they focused on several games? Apparently there are others who have the same opinion resulting in disagreement not spam.

Does Localzuk have any affiliation with the fan sites listed? If he does it should be reflected here as it is relevant to maintaining the integrity of this page.

No, I do not. I am far to busy to be involved in projects outside of this one.-Localzuk(talk) 20:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Spammers like you and ContributorMG are not providing anything to users. I don't see anything unique in the site. I call the site you have provide is nothing but advertising.

Do a favor go and read this site, the sites i have given you. Dont read just the site read even the forums and see the valuable content they give. This are the site provide wealth of information and unique and existed from very long time. They are easy to navigate by newbies and loads quickly.

Last i want to say to you is that, Stop adding the site you have being adding. Has it does not provide anything unique. I suggest you to read this and this. SkyWalker 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The link that is being added doesn't provide anything unique and only has around 40 members on the forums (indicating it is not a notable site). Please do not re-add this link.-Localzuk(talk) 20:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed the fansites section altogether for the following reasons:

  • Wikipedia is not a link directory - see WP:NOT
  • Fansite listings are generally discouraged - see WP:EL

If someone would like to add a dmoz directory link, please do. I think this is the simplest solution to this problem - as no fan sites are promoted or denied promotion through this page now.-Localzuk(talk) 20:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

-

Wow, ContributorMG it looks like there is some real abuse going on here. I agree with adding this site, in fact I did as Localzuk suggested and posted it on the talk page. Apparently no one cared or commented on it then even though thats what the comments said to do. Why?

In regards to external links perhaps you should re-read the Wikipedia page on it. You have taken a one sided view without giving any merit to the other.

Do the words "there is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references. Many major newspaper websites contain heavy advertisement, but they are nonetheless good references" have any interest to you?

Many of the fansites you have listed have advertisements. Why single out one site with some advertisements over others. Very unfortunate. Localzuk perhaps you should remove yourself from this page, it seems your personal bias has clouded your judgement.

Please be civil and assume good faith. I am trying to improve this article in any way I can. WP:EL states that we should not often link to external links. I did try and reason that as this article is about an up-coming release, we could have a little bit of leway regarding fansite links, but as it has resulted in a continual battle over what sites are acceptable the only course of action seems to be to use the rules in a more strict manner and just remove all of the fansite listings. As I said, if someone would like to add a link to dmoz, which can list as many fansites as it wants, then please do!
Also, I never mentioned advertising, I mentioned notability with that site - it has a very low readership (using the forum as a measure), with around 40 members compared to hundreds and thousands with the other sites listed.-Localzuk(talk) 07:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


Localzuk did you realize that the forums on the site do not require membership? That means that anyone can view the forums and anyone can post. That truly was shortsighted and misrepresenative of you to base your bias on the number of members when membership it is not required. Had you really looked at the site you would have noticed this. An apology would be a good starting point for you...

You can improve this article by placing the relevant external links back. If you continue to put yourself ahead of the quality of this article it only has a negative effect.

Ok, add in the very low posting count in comparison with the others as other evidence (519 posts compared with > 100,000 on the gamespy c&c forum, 1660 on the cncden site, multiple thousands on the gamereplays site, 2553 on cncnz site). No apology will ever be forthcoming, as my stance on this is now clear, we should not link to fan sites as they are 'links to avoid' according to our guidelines and also, wikipedia is not a link farm. As I said, link to a dmoz page instead - that is a linking site, we are not.-Localzuk(talk) 17:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I have added a dmoz link to the Command & Conquer games section of that site. There isn't a specific Tiberium Wars category, but this provides a list of sites that have some relevance to the game - feel free to add sites to that site but don't add fansites to this page. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 17:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Your argument was based on misinformation Localzuk. Nor did you make any effort to apologize or fix your comments. I dont sense any humility here. Its obvious now that you never really looked at the site to begin with. It would be a good idea to put the quality of this page ahead of your bias and need to control.

Anyone can add fansites to this page as you did in the past and as countless others acrosss Wikipedia adding a positive contribution.

"there is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references."

This page will continue to be a back and forth as others besides me want to contribute and disagree with your attempted control over the page Localzuk. I look forward to a long history of future positive contributions to this article.

Please note that an external links section is not a references section. I have never added a fansite to this or any other page on this site - I disagree with there inclusion as a principal - however, I commented a while back that maybe we should be lenient with the rules on this page as the subject might gain something from a few key sites being included. However, the ongoing argument regarding a single site, the gradual inclusion of more and more such links and general problems (such as foreign linked sites) I have decided that it is unwise to not follow the rules on this page and now stand by my existing principals that fansites are a bad thing to include.
I have looked at the site (else how could I come up with numbers of users/posts on its forums) and I do not think it adds anything that the others didn't. I have now added a link to a site specifically designed for adding links to. As I have said, please take a look at WP:NOT and WP:EL - these are the 2 relevant pages here. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Links should only be included if the information provided by the site could not be reasonably added to the article. Please can you tell me what adding fansites to this page adds to the content of this page (which is what external links are supposed to do)?
Also, as I have said, I have no intention of 'apologising or fix[ing] my comments' - as none of my comments are incorrect and nothing needs to be apologised for. The vehemance with which you are trying to include this link does lead me to think that you are in some way linked with the site, so please take a look at WP:COI. If I am wrong about this, I apologise - I am just getting a general feeling that you are focussing far too much on this link and not enough on actually improving the content of the article.-Localzuk(talk) 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


"If I am wrong about this, I apologise" Now that wasnt so hard was it. Simply said, your actions lately, have degraded this page. The whole point is to improve the content of the article which many have a disagreement on and may continue to disagree on. How can people feel safe contributing to this article knowing you will continue to behave with the edit delete key the way you have? Who has deleted the most contributions on this page so far? Thats something you will have to explain not so much to me but to the people that come after me and read all this. Looking forward to lots of continued dialogue.

Localzuk has not degraded the page. He is doing his best to keep it clean. Has for advertisiment in news site. The service is free. When people access the particular site it requires computer hardware, bandwidth and staff to keep the site alive and all those cost money to do so. When the Triberium wars is released, The page will undergo so many changes almost everything will be changed. Has for enternal links. I will let Localzuk and other registered wikipedians to choose 4 best,popular and informative links. I also want to say that you are keep your cool and stop arguing. Thank You. --SkyWalker 06:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks Skywalker. Hahhaha looks like I missed a lot of fun here! Guys dont be too worried about Localzuk and what he has done here. He neither speaks for Wikipedia nor represents it nor controls it. Its not the first time people have disagreed with him and or on Wikipedia for that matter. Feel free to think for yourselves when contributing to this CNC3 page.

Localzuk the DMOZ link is actually a good idea for this page by the way. It links to CNC sites, including fansites, that have "some relevance to the game" despite the removal of the fansites (also described as "a bad thing to include") from this very article. Oh the irony of it all...

Opening Suggestion

It seems to me that the opening to the article is rather redundent. It describes the plot when that is already covered in the section below it. Can someone fix this? --General Aurum 23:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to be a mini-article summarising all the main points in the article so duplication of info is to be expected. It probably needs work though.-Localzuk(talk) 17:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


What happend here?Tt seems that as it was before on the 12.19.2006 there it said that on this date a magazine-I will not mention it-is going to apear with the info for the third side but here in the article it says

unknown third side.Where is the explaination for the third side?


It seems to me that the last information was not true.It means it was nothing!82.114.68.28 17:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

FMV sequences

Directly after the "casting" section, describing the cast who will be apearing C&C 3, is the "other known facts" section which opens by saying the FMV sequences will return. Is this realy needed, since it has allready been mentionse? 172.141.25.201 19:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed it is not needed. -Localzuk(talk) 20:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Misunderstandings of my edits

Please can all editors realise that my removal of information is due to the fact that there are banners stating that the page contains original research and unreferenced information. Using policy, all such information can be removed without further explanation - and anyone re-adding it without a citation would be breaking our citation policy. I am trying to reduce the amount of POV material and OR in this article. If I remove something as unsourced, feel free to re-add it, but make sure you provide a reliable source for it else I will likely remove it again. Wikipedia isn't about truth, it is about verifiability. So even if something is correct, unless it is source it has no place on this site. Also, can I remind all editors of the following policies and guidelines: assume good faith and no-one owns the article. If anyone accuses me of 'degrading the page' due to my deletion of unsourced information again it will lower my willingness to work with them on compromises.-Localzuk(talk) 13:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've provided a reliable source to each of the content you recently removed. Yet, this does not appear to be any reason to you to cease accusing a fellow editor, and one whom you recently credited with being a good addition to this article no less, of seeking to deliberately violate the core policies of this website. I am more than a little happy to assume good faith, provided there is sufficient reason to do so the majority of the time. My personal experiences with you have made me put into question if that is indeed the case, however.
As it stands, you are seeking to call mediation on a user who has provided this article with 95% of all its reference links, on the grounds that he seeks to undermine the validity of the content of this article. Against this background, I would strongly invite you to reflect on what the origins of this conflict could have been. 84.192.112.171 18:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I am asking for third party input regarding things being re-included such as the scrin thing - which to me is 100% pure original research, which is not allowed. Re-adding it and tagging it is the wrong course of action as it is a terrible sentence.
I am glad to see that you admit that my large scale removal of unsourced material has done it's job - it has encouraged a user to find sources for things.
Your attitude that my edits are detrimental is the other issue - they are not. They have inspired you to actually source material in the article whilst removing other material which obviously shouldn't have been there. Where is the damage to the article? Your attitude since the first time you commented on my talk page has been very dismissive, demanding and you do not very often assume good faith. I do not see where your problem with me stems from but I do sincerely hope you get over it as your edits are worthwhile, as are mine.-Localzuk(talk) 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Is it interesting how members of an encyclopedia start making a comment war

or post war?Well do you remember my words....Yes and if members do not do something like conclusions or compromises the article will not be improved.But yes,ignoring ideas will hardly make something better.

I think some members should be banned or be warned for banning.
Removing unsourced original research is not a bannable offence... Discussing it on talk pages is encouraged - and there is no such thing as a 'comment war' - it is simply a discussion. I will not compromise on the fundamental principals behind this site, namely verifiability and no original research - doing so leads to terrible articles full of fancruft.-Localzuk(talk) 17:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually there is it's not called that but it's when people argue over the talk page for weeks the british empire article comes to mind. Jamhaw 18:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)jamhaw
Well I'm pretty sure that that is called an argument or a heated discussion. In this case, the discussion has been going on for a matter of days...-Localzuk(talk) 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


84.192.112.171 I totally agree with you and disagree with Localzuk. It seems these numbers are growing. After reading this talk page and reviewing the history I think I see what the "degrading" factor is.

Localzuk consider trying harder to work with 84.192.112.171 / others and put the best interest of this page not yourself first. Contradictory and changing statements combined with contradictory actions can only accomplish negative things.

A persons ability to work better with others will only be evident when this talk page, about Command and Conquer 3, has more to do with positive contributions than one person and their deletions. I can only wonder how many people have been discouraged from contributing to this article after looking at all this. The numbers are growing. Should we start a petition on how to improve this page? - HealthyIsabelle(talk) December 21 2006

What do you disagree with? My removal of unsourced information per our policies or my methods of discussion?-Localzuk(talk) 00:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Original Scrin reference source

I've done a bit of digging, and I've relocated the original source on which I based the now disputed Scrin part originally added to the "Sides Overview - Unnamed Alien Race" section of the article by me. (Click on the picture contained within this link to enlarge it.)

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/post-6265-1147374889.jpg

Reading through this again after all this time, I'll say it seems rather dated to the standards of our current knowledge on the ongoing development of C&C 3, however. Kane's return for example is apparently considered to be a 'question mark' by this source. Conversely, this was rather obviously published with the consent of the game's developer. In order to avoid a renewal of the original dispute between editors which this piece of information previously gave rise to, I'm throwing this out for open discussion/review on whether it can be considered a valid reference or not, so that this becomes settled once and for all. 84.192.112.171 21:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Good job it looks like you have done your homework. How many years has PCGamer been around? How about this author? HealthyIsabelle(talk) December 21 2006

How ironic! 82.114.68.28 20:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


It seems you have began to listen to people 82.114.68.28 21:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC).

On what exactly are you basing the assumption that I was not doing this before? By the way, make proper use of the " : " symbol to separate your post from previous posts in the future. Otherwise, you will create confusion as to whom you are responding to when more than one person has already posted in the same topic. 84.192.126.66 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


Well my IP number should tell all this mockery.Really I do not respond only for you.

Well I am proud ironically of this...82.114.68.28 15:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And in the end I am very surprised how many members support you.

My idea could not even reach to be a topic in this article. It seems this is not a place for me.82.114.68.28 15:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also temperament will not help you all make friends. 82.114.68.28 15:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Official package art revealed by EA

It can be viewed on the official C&C 3: Tiberium Wars homepage.

http://www.ea.com/commandandconquer/news.jsp?id=17

Could someone so inclined upload this packaging art to Wiki and replace the C&C 3 logo we currently have with it? Thank you. 84.192.126.66 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Aliens!

I thought the aliens were called "Scrin" or something of the like...Bioform 1234] jan 2,2007

The name 'Scrin' has been noted ingame in Tiberian Sun, no official release information about them is known, so the name for the Scrin is just a popular believe, just as the name 'Tiberian Twilight' was.crashmatrix 22:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
EA's C&C community manager Predator has confirmed that the aliens are indeed "The Scrin" on EA's official C&C-forum. --MrStalker 18:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me, but i'm just dripping with "What-did-i-tell-you?"

Brotherhood of Nod screenshots

Out of the four screenshots currently on display in the article which are directly related to C&C 3: Tiberium Wars, there are three that are focussed on the GDI and but one that features the Brotherhood of Nod. Because of this, it may be desirable to replace either the first screenshot featuring the Mammoth Tanks or the concept art of the Zone Troopers with a picture showing in-game footage of the Brotherhood of Nod instead. Personally I'd advocate to have the screenshot of the Mammoth Tanks replaced, as it is rather generic when compared to the Zone Troopers concept art picture. If anyone knows of a few visually interesting in-game screenshots which feature the Brotherhood of Nod, please feel free to upload them to Wikipedia. 84.192.116.92 06:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Kane's back

Why won't he just die?

If he dies. They wont be anymore of triberium series and ea wont be able to create anymore game because they are mindless people who just copy other people work. He is also the source of income for EA Games. If you have seen lot of videos. He would say "You can not kill the messiah". I hope that has explained a lot :P. Have fun. --SkyWalker 08:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
The cynicism is strong in this one. 84.192.125.204 23:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that explains a lot. Thanks.

Umm, you can kill the Messia, but he comes back in three days.

Deleting the background article.

I have deleted the background article. I don't feel they is any use of it anymore in this article. The game is going to be released on march 28th. So i feel the article should expand more on the game and should be more readable to all users. I hope everyone agrees it. --SkyWalker 09:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. I'd opt to keep the background section in place until the date of the game's release. The article is unable to expand much more on the game itself at this time, save for the occasional info that is revealed in interviews with the producers and the like, until it actually becomes released. Lastly, I don't see how the removal of the background section results in the article becoming 'more readable' to 'all users'. If anything, it is likely to have the opposite effect pending the game's release, as the game itself is not yet available for all to see how it does and does not relate to its predecessors, made by Westwood Studios. 84.192.125.204 09:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well I dont see any information interesting in the article. Talking about Red alert 3 and mark skaggs does not make any sense in this article. I pretty much dont see any information relating to Tiberium wars. Create a article History about Command&Conquer and you can write all the history of command & conquer here. --SkyWalker 09:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It does actually, as Tiberium Wars essentially replaced the planned Red Alert 3 to give one example, making it part of the context of TW's early development history. It's also quite obvious that this background section isn't a 'History [of] Command & Conquer' as you put it, as it only pertains to Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars its early development background, and not to that of the C&C series as a whole. I agree that this section isn't suitable to remain as a permanent addition to the article however -- this is why I will support your call for the removal of it as soon as the game's release date is reached, as I've already been hinting at. But for now, we may as well keep it as it provides a little additional context to a game under development. 84.192.125.204 11:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On the addition of unit lists

I was under the impression that the last unit list of this article was deleted under consensus on the grounds that Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. Any thoughts/votes of other users on whether or not we should keep this current list? 84.192.125.204 07:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this list should go for the time being. It's based on the personal perception of a number of fansite owners who were invited by EALA to be the first to preview the game. I have my doubts that the personal impressions of fans are a valid source of information for Wikipedia. The odds additionally are quite high that there are numerous factual errors and personal speculation in the content of this current unit list. My vote would be to keep unit lists like this deleted until the actual release of the game, when there is no doubt or confusion left on which units do what and how and to whom. 84.192.125.204 07:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll second this. An extensive list like this merely takes up space. When the game finally comes out, maybe we can create an additional article for the units to satisfy fans, but for now the list has no purpose. I will remove it as soon as I finish typing this message. General Aurum 03:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Just for the sake argument however -- I've looked over the Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information policy guidelines, and there is in fact no explicit mention of these kind of video game unit lists being made. Also, the Command & Conquer: Red Alert article has featured this type of unit list for a prolonged period as well, and it does seem to add to the article's thorough coverage of all notable details on that 1996 real-time strategy title.
At any rate, we indeed should keep the unit list out until this game's release, due to its current sources being a little too dubious for Wikipedia's standards. To be continued. 84.192.125.204 07:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


C&C 3 Community Summit

People there gained much more knowledge as to what C&C 3 will be. As to the alien name, it will be the scrin, although it is not official yet EA has acknowledged that there was a leak from a Spanish magazine that first reported this and have not denied the report and had talked the name during the Summit. misterdan 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide some links to substantiate this? Specifically for the leaked Spanish magazine part, and a reference to EALA having explicitely used the name of 'Scrin' during this summit. DieOfGoodLuck 09:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
EA's C&C community manager has confirmed that the name of the third race is (The) Scrin on the official forums. --MrStalker 18:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nod is not an Abrahamic cult they worship Kane

Also we should have pictures an details of the preorder and Kane editions.Jamhaw 18:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

"Abrahamic" does not quite equate to "worshippers of Abraham". Click on this link to find out a little more on the subject. DieOfGoodLuck 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No I mean't they don't worship God they worship Kane I had already checked ou that article.Jamhaw 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
"From God, to Kane, to Seth." -- Quoted from the first mission briefing cutscene of the Brotherhood of Nod campaign, in Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn. DieOfGoodLuck 15:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah in fact I thought of maybe saying a don't use that quote against me when I wrote it. The point is that Seth was not your typical Noddy and this was during the Brotherhoods formative days before they organised a dogmatic religion. "Did you all Knowing god say you were going to die to today Slavic" or Kane's "let's show them who's side the gods are on" really while Kane doesn't believe he's a god at least most of his followers do and this is what they preach. 18:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
This doesn't conflict with the notion that the Brotherhood of Nod is Abrahamic by nature. In the same manner, Christians worship Jesus Christ because they consider him to have been the Messiah, and thus the mortal born personification of God. But in both cases it is irrelevant to their classification as Abrahamic faiths. DieOfGoodLuck 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
How is it irrelevant? Jamhaw 16:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)jamhaw
It is irrelevant, in the sense that all of the Abrahamic religions focus their worshipping of God through a central Messiah or prophet figure. In Christianity, that figure is Jesus Christ. In Islam, it is the prophet Muhammed. In Judaism, the central point of worship is the covenant that existed between Abraham and God, and later also the renewal of this covenant between Moses and God. However in each of these three examples none of this is relevant to the notion that they are Abrahamic faiths either, because "Abrahamic" is simply a reference to the religion or faith deriving from ancient Semitic tradition, traced back by its adherents to the figure of Abraham. The Brotherhood of Nod is portrayed in the Command & Conquer games as being very similar to these three real-life religions in that regard, because Nod too traces its origins to ancient Semitic tradition and in part to the name of Abraham in the precise same manner as Christianity, Islam and Judaism do. The fact that the central figure of worship in Nod is actually Kane, and not Jesus Christ, Muhammed or the covenant between Abraham/Moses and God, subsequently becomes irrelevant to its classification as "Abrahamic". DieOfGoodLuck 08:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comments of C&C 3's community manager on the name of 'Scrin'

While these comments certainly constitute sufficient confirmation for C&C fans such as ourselves, who have been following the official C&C 3 forums over these last few months, the problem which arises is that the content in this article is required to meet Wikipedia's standards regarding verifiability. If - and indeed when - other editors on Wikipedia will begin to request verification on this name of 'Scrin' through the placement of a {{Fact}} tag, for example, we would presently be unable to offer this to them due to the content of message boards being prohibited as a valid reference link on Wikipedia, as shown in the provided internal link. This is a little unfortunate -- I know. But for now we will need to put this news on hold here on Wiki, until Electronic Arts makes the name of the alien faction official in the more formal sense of the word through updates on their C&C 3 website, or through interviews with established gaming magazines and the like. DieOfGoodLuck 19:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

System Requirements

While I myself know what BFME2 is, I doubt a lot of people will. Honestly, someone please change the S.R. to something people know. Bfme 2 requirements- 64 Display memory, windows xp or higher, system memory of 256, directx version 9 or higher, and a processor speed of 1600 Mhz (1.6 Ghz). There you have it, straight from electronic arts EasyInfo for the game. Look it up, these are the exact specifications.

No exact specifications for Tiberium Wars is released, but they are expected to be similar to those of BFMEII. So just click the link if you want to know the specs for BFMEII. --MrStalker 14:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Command_%26_Conquer_3:_Tiberium_Wars/Archive_3&oldid=209400262"