Template talk:Command & Conquer series

Being Bold

I made several bold changes and I felt it necessary to explain my rationale for each of them. First, I eliminated the "Modifications" section because all the articles don't belong on Wikipedia. The "Modding C&C" article is junk and no similar game has an article like it (e.g. there isn't one for StarCraft, a featured article). Every one of the mod articles were deleted from the template because, in my eyes, they are non-notable. We can't include every single mod that has some sort of award. Again, I point to StarCraft which doesn't do that. The only one I left was Red Alert: A Path Beyond because it has been heavily promoted by EA, which I felt made it notable enough and which made it stand out from the rest of the mods. Finally, I replaced the link to the article Tiberium (video game) with a link to the article Cancelled Command & Conquer games. I created this article and made the substitution because I saw no reason why Tiberium was different from Renegade 2 or Continuum. I imagine most of the articles that are no longer linked will eventually be deleted because they simply don't fit on Wikipedia, but as for now, I'm not putting any of them up for deletion in case there are good arguments for keeping them (and presumably returning them to this template if they are to be kept). -Thunderforge (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Universe/series resolution

There is a clearly a lot of debate over how best to group the games, and in particular whether RA1 belongs with TD or RA2. I have my own thoughts on this, but instead of starting a whole new debate that has already been waged, I have a better idea: Why don't you just ask the developers themselves on the official forums? You'll almost certainly get an answer from EA Apoc. -Derek 75.183.52.222 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

And what would you ask him? From a marketing perspective Red Alert 1 clearly belongs with the other Red Alert games (they share a title) but from a narrative perspective it belongs with the Tiberian series. The current consensus was reached after heavy debate (see above) and I see no reason going through that again. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent vandalism

{{editprotected}} Recent annon edits have persistently been editing the template for it to correspond with his/her view of what is "true" C&C-games. This, however, is not the meaning of this template. "Main Universe" is solely to group together the games that exist in the same original storyline/universe as the original C&C. This has been explained to the annon user but with no result. Please revert the template to the revision representing long-standing consensus, i.e. to the revision dated July 12 by Shooterwalker. Also I suggest blocking the annon user for incivility and disruptive editing. --MrStalker ^(talk) 23:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Reverting a page protected due to edit warring is against policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The edits that MrStalker reverted were legitimate, and do not constitute vandalism. Anyone who has followed Westwood's history (the original Command & Conquer developer) and that of the franchise itself, knows that Red Alert 2 and Sole Survivor are more part of the same universe than Tiberium Wars or Tiberian Twilight, as the former two are clearly more connected to the original Command & Conquer universe than the latter two could ever be, especially when the original developers had in mind to make the Tiberian Sun's sequel following the storyline that of Red Alert 2 (see Cancelled Command & Conquer games#Command_.26_Conquer:_Tiberian_Incursion and the statement from the original C&C developers), which Tiberium Wars and Tiberian Twilight had nothing to do with, effectively placing them in the category of spin-offs.

I also advise anyone who tends to take MrStalker seriously to consider the following statement he posted on the anonymous user's talkpage: "First of all, what ex-Westwood employees say about what some design team might have considered to be the future of C&C back in the days is completely irrelevant. They may whine all they want, but Electronic Arts owns C&C. What they say is fact when it comes to C&C, regardless if it's about the earlier games of the new ones, they own all of them. If EA says that Kane is homosexual, then Kane is homosexual (compare to Dumbledore in Harry Potter: Most fans probably don't perceive him as homosexual, but if J.K. says he is, then he is. End of story.)", as well as to look at his edits of this template by checking its edit history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the fact that use almost the exact same phrasing and arguments as the other IP, I suspect you are a sockpuppet. No matter, I've been over this and the discussion, if you can call it that, can be found at User talk:222.89.92.106. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

BTW, not knowing anything about these games (ok I played original C&C waaaaaaaaaaay back in the day a couple times) I think this essentially comes down to sourcing. How well are the 'in universe' and 'spin off' categories defined? If both MrStalker and the IP cannot produce reliable sources for the categorization then perhaps it is venturing into the realm of original research and should be redacted from the template? If it was easy to say 'C&Cs 1-3 were produced by Westwood and then Tiberian Whatsits and on was produced by Microsoft' then you could clearly show a break. Syrthiss (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but it is in fact as easy as in your example, you only have to replace Microsoft with EALA. The current edition of this template correctly reflects this as the main universe (Westwood releases), and spin-offs since (and including) Generals: Zero Hour on (EALA releases). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That would indeed apply if the categories in question was "Games by Westwood" and "Games by EALA", but they are not. The main universe category is for all the games taking place in the same universe/storyline as the original C&C, aka Tiberian Dawn. Spin-offs is, well, those that doesn't. This way of categorization was reached after heavy debate (see talk archive) concluding this is the easiest and least controversial why of doing it. --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see two things disputed here: The placement of TW3 and its expansion, as well as Sole Survivor.

1. TW3 and exp: The article in question states in the lede that this is a direct successor to TW2: TS and FS. I find it incredulous that this is being moved to the 'spin-off' section. "Effectively placing them [TW3] in the category of spinoffs" is original research and thus a trivial point.
2. As for Sole Survivor, that small piece sitting in the article about C&C says it is the spinoff here.

We should go with what the articles say, without exception here. MrStalker appears to be in the right.

That said, I'll state here that you, MrStalker, using rollback to edit war, could see the userright removed. You might want to think twice in the future when the edits are not blatant vandalism but rather a content dispute. --Izno (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I've been trying to say all along. But there's also the matter of where RA2 belongs, which is the most controversial question and was heavily debated before. Personally, I think it belongs in the spin-off category since it has no published connections to the Tiberium universe, which is emphasized with the release of RA3. And I didn't use rollback, I used Twinkle. --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Much of what the C&C articles on Wikipedia say is largely exaggerated and mostly incorrect. I agree with Syrthiss on that we should go by reliable sources, adding to that we shouldn't rely on sources from EALA's own commercial webpage (commandandconquer.com) that claims their spin-offs to be representing the main universe, while incorrectly excluding a couple of the original C&C storylines developed by Westwood as spin-offs.

I already provided one source from the original Westwood developers (the link of which I found on the anonymous user's talkpage), here is another. If someone can find more, it would help to have them added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated before, EA owns C&C, so whatever they to do with the franchise is in their rights. What Westwood might have intended with the franchise back when they had the rights is no longer relevant. --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have all seen you stating that in my quote, no need to go on about it since your point is void. Just because EA bought the rights to the C&C franchise, doesn't mean their storyline alterations hold any water. That is like saying if someone adopted you as a baby and had your gender changed into a girl, that you are now a girl who can some day have children with another man. The fact is that this is simply not true, as you are still a man who can never get naturally impregnated, no matter how much you're trying to believe that you really are a girl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks, that's actually funny. That said, please just accept that Westwood is dead, and is no longer in charge of C&C. I've played C&C since Red Alert 1, and I've read all the great, awesome and shitty ideas about WW's vision with C&C that Adam has shared at the Petroglyph forums. Some are great, some not so. I do agree that it would be awesome if Yuri was teleported in time and started RA2... however, that's me as an C&C fan. Mainstream gamers probably wouldn't think so highly of it, and I think EALA made the right decisions scrapping those ideas. When RA2 was released, it was not intended as a Tiberium game, the Yuri-thing was a patch to fix a broken plot, which never materialized. And when it comes to this template, the only thing that truly matters is what is official, what was actually released to the public, what is most relevant. And as Adam has said many times, we need to listen to EA now. If you want to create an elaborate article covering all of the various C&C-iterations from Westwood that never made it, please be my guest, but such unreleased fiction should not be the basis of this template. --MrStalker ^(talk) 20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is Wikipedia, not EA. If you want to only listen to them, go to their forums and post your fan fiction there, not here. Wikipedia is not dedicated to your type of make-belief fanboyism, but facts that I have already stated here earlier (that is what I've been trying to tell you with the analogy of you pretending to be a girl, the point of which flew right over your head). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, you're the one representing fanboyism. How can you seriously be saying "EA is wrong, I'm right"? Don't you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? It's EA's franchise for God's sake. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please show us where I said "EA is wrong, I'm right". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

"[...] we shouldn't rely on sources from EALA's own commercial webpage [...]" --MrStalker ^(talk) 00:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you can't read. Case closed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be civil, or you will be blocked. You are saying that we should not trust EA's official sources. Instead, we should trust your judgment and base this template on material that hypothesizes on what C&C might have been if Westwood had developed it. Even if you don't spell it out directly, this is exactly what you are asking us to do, which is of course ridiculous and completely out of line with Wikipedia's policies. --MrStalker ^(talk) 01:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Resolution

{{editprotected}}

I believe there is consensus for this template to be reverted back to its old version dated July 12. In a nutshell, the current dispute is that the annon user want to keep this version because he/she thinks that Electronic Arts, the current owners of the franchise, has misinterpreted the C&C universe and wants to stick with the version put forward by ex-Westwood developers long after the game's release. I believe on the other hand, that this version of the C&C universe is now defunct, just as Westwood, and is no more official then any other fan-fiction. In the end, what truly matters is what was published in the finished products, not what might have been published if things were different.

The annon user is the only one supporting his/her stance, and all third opinions offered on this seems to support my stance, which also goes in line what's currently said on related Wikipedia articles.

Lastly, I do admit that labeling the annon user's edits as vandalism was incorrect and I apologize for that. Since the edits wasn't explained properly, I falsely identified them as deliberately introducing factual errors. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the games in the template should be separated in 3 groups - Tiberium Universe, Red Alert Universe, and Generals Universe - as this is the official categorization on the http://www.commandandconquer.com/ website. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, I refer to the earlier discussions in the archive why this is not a good idea. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well it's too long to read (this current page too) and you don't bother giving helpful indication on where to start, which is probably why so few people are commenting on this current page despite the link from WT:VG. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually pretty much the entire archive is relevant, but you might try this for starters. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So I read this and still I don't see why the 3 group classification is not a good idea, let alone not an official idea. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I second Megata Sanshiro that it would take too long to read all the archives, which are prominently about arguing over more than 2 years and much less about citing sources. Even if there were good arguments and reliable sources quoted, they get lost in pages of text. Despite the WP:VG talk link, I hardly expect many editors to work through the entire discussion unless someone (I presume MrStalker is the best candidate) can provide a decent overview, links to sources, and a list of proposed variants.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it. It will take a while. --MrStalker ^(talk) 11:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The history of the template

Okey then... I will try to do this in a NPOV manner as much as possible, but you should consider this my side of it rather than actual facts.

Version 1.0, sorting per series

Pros

• Seems logical and the most simple solution, right?

Cons

• Officially only one series exist: the Command & Conquer series.
• Red Alert 1, Tiberium (at the time) and arguably also Renegade was not part of the Tiberian series, but part of the Tiberium universe, which made things confusing.

December 2007, this was the current version with all the games sorted per series. Seemed logical at the time, but there was a problem which I discovered largely because of Tiberium. Tiberium was a new IP, separated from the already established series, but still a part of the Tiberium universe, so it would make sense to put them in the same category. Also, the series categorization was very unofficial, since officially only one series existed, that is the Command & Conquer series. So, I opted to change to a universe-based model...

Version 2.0, sorting per universe (Westwood style)

Pros

• Goes in line with Westwood's intentions.
• Unambiguous.

Cons

• Unofficial.

I chose to base it on the universe model put forward by ex-Westwood staff. In retrospect this was not a proper approach since the franchise was no longer owned by Westwood, but my mistake was not long-lived, and the template was reverted to it's previous form.

A month went by, and this is when the real shit was about to hit the fan (now comes the reason why Option 1 was considered a really bad idea). Another editor (no names) opted to move Tiberium to the Tiberian series, because it was so clearly a part of the Tiberium universe. I said, no it's not part of the Tiberian series, it's a new series on it's own. I should have explained my rationale better (I guess I assumed the other editor understood it by looking at the previous discussion), but I didn't which resulted in some edit warring and several walls of text with myself and the other editor bitching around. There was also the other issue of the Tiberian Dawn subtitle, but that's not relevant now.

Eventually a resolution was reached (with much irony to me, since I suggested the universe approach a month earlier)...

Version 3.0, sorting per universe (EA style)

Pros

• The model used on the official website, thus somewhat officially correct.

Cons

• Doesn't take in account that Red Alert is in fact prequel to Tiberian Dawn and thus part of the Tiberium universe. This is confirmed by both ex-Westwood staff and Electronic Arts' "Kane's Dossier" document as well as in-game references. Thus it is also, contradictively, somewhat officially incorrect.

This model was devised to solve the apparent problem with Tiberium's separation from the Tiberian series. However, it was quickly pointed out that Red Alert is part of the Tiberium universe as well...

Version 3.5, sorting per universe (EA style, modified)

Pros

• Is compatible with the model used on the official website and...
• Takes in account that Red Alert is in fact prequel to Tiberian Dawn, thus officially and factually correct.

Cons

• Confusing with Red Alert in the Tiberium universe category, when there's also a Red Alert universe category.

Red Alert was added to the Tiberium universe category and never really contested, but there was a lot of edits by bypassing editors removing Red Alert from the Tiberium universe category, indicating that having the template in this way was, although factually correct, confusing.

Version 4.1, sorting per main universe/spin-offs

Pros

• 100% compatible with C&C canon
• Maintains a neutral profile, circumventing the problems of the previous versions
• No verifiable sources contradicting it
• Supported by long-standing consensus

Cons

• Not entirely compatible with the categorization on the website.

Eventually, an annon user stepped forward and revised the template completely to this. At first the changes made didn't make much sense and was met with much resistance from myself and another editor largely because of introduction of some irrelevant links and the speculative nature of the changes. However, after a lengthy discussion and a number of revisions later (including changing "main series" to "main universe"), myself and another editor (the same editor I had major disagreement regarding series vs universe) agreed to this version, which is essentially the same (where it matters in relevance to this discussion) as the one used today.

There probably some points and arguments I've missed compiling this "short" summary, for the full story please review the talk page archive.

The latest dispute

The latest dispute regarding the status of RA2, Sole Survivor, Tiberium Wars and Kane's Wrath is explained in short above.

--MrStalker ^(talk) 13:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The last one seems best, but should that have problems I'd suggest looking at {{Megami Tensei series}} or {{Mario series}}. I worked on the former if you want help how we came up with that.陣内_Jinnai 19:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Confusing with Red Alert in the Tiberium universe category, when there's also a Red Alert universe category."
It isn't really confusing at all IMO. Game titles and series titles are two distinct concepts that don't have to match up. Games themselves and series themselves are also distinct concepts that don't have to always overlap (for instance, Vagrant Story is an Ivalice game but not a Final Fantasy game, unlike the other Ivalice games; and Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Gaiden is part of both the Final Fantasy and the Seiken Densetsu series). I think Version 3.5 is the best one as it is how the publisher views the franchise. They don't view it as a main series with spinoff games; they view it as 3 series in a franchise. If Red Alert is part of two series, then so be it. The template should reflect the basic, "first-level" idea of a 3-series franchise, and anything that is more complex, like the status of Red Alert, should be explained in the relevant articles. So I recommend Version 3.5, with "universe" replaced by "series" for clarity. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it confusing either, but the general reader probably do. If you look at the edit history when that version was current, you'll see a lot of changes of the Red Alert link back and forth, so it's definitively a source of confusion. I also oppose changing "universe" to "series" because "universe" is the term used by the publisher, which makes "series" a bit unofficial. Also by doing so it would be incorrect to place Red Alert under the Tiberian series, because while Red Alert is a part of the Tiberium universe, it is not a part of the Tiberian series. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the "universe" word. I don't think vandalism should be a reason to change a template, but if it's really needed, I guess you could also further separate the entries between Westwood and EA, as that would still be factually correct and perhaps less confusing. Something like this:

(This is just a quick mockup missing the "characters" and "other" articles.) The idea of a Tiberium universe didn't exist before EA anyway, right? Before that there was only one unnamed universe. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

That would probably create more problems than it solves. EA have had a hand in the C&C franchise since Tiberian Sun, so how do we determine what makes a "Westwood-game"? Also it would indicate that the "EA-games" is somehow disconnected from the earlier games in the franchise, which they aren't. What would be the verifiable source support this? --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then Version 3.5. As I said, vandalism shouldn't be a reason to introduce inaccuracies in the encyclopedia. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 10:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue with the current version? RA2 is clearly a spin-off, Sole Survivor (as well as all the other section links in the template) shouldn't even be listed since it doesn't have its own article, Tiberium Wars/Kane's Wrath are in the main series since they clearly have "Command & Conquer 3" in their title. Version 3.5 is messy. I suggest removing The Covert Ops, Counterstrike, Aftermath, Firestorm, Sole Survivor, and Commander's Challenge, and place C&C1, 2, 3, 4, RA1, Renegade under "main series" and other RA and Generals under spin-offs. Any other recategorization is idle speculation about the developers' intentions. Separating into 3 series just creates unnecessary clutter. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't see why having links redirecting to sections would be a problem. They serve just as much for navigation as any other link. I don't have any issue with the current version, in fact I think it's the best. The only thing I think that would be controversial is RA2 as a spin-off. An ex-Westwood source has confirmed that they where considering connecting RA2 to the Tiberium universe in a future title, but since it never took off and no other connection exist I think it should be regarded as a spin-off just as RA3. If this version for some reason isn't acceptable then I think the next best option would be to simply ignore all storyline connections and go back with version 1.0 which worked fine until we started to mess around with it because of Tiberium, but Tiberium is canceled and no longer a problem so... --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the section links because they don't really add anything and instead just clog up the template. If someone uses the search bar to find an expansion pack, they'll get redirected to the correct section anyway. Otherwise, they'd just go to the main article and see it right there in the table of contents. I don't think it's controversial anymore to put RA2 in the spin-offs section. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with removing section links. Navboxes are for navigating between articles, not sections within articles. Having all those sections links just adds clutter. Pagrashtak 03:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no policy or guideline discouraging section links, and they provide a convenient way for readers who wants to know about some particular game in the series. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

True, but everything in moderation. To include every expansion pack that exists results in a messy template with dubious inclusion criteria. Which expansion packs are notable enough to include on the template? If you say "all of them", you end up with the mess that existed before with LOTS and LOTS of links. I think the criterion of "expansion packs with their own articles" is a good cut-off. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Template Changes

I edited the template so the Tiberium Universe and the Red Alert Universe AND it's spinoffs are seperated. Red Alert is under both the Tiberium universe and the Red Alert universe. Currently, only Generals is in as a spin-off, although, I might add the IPhone game later. Cbrittain10 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorting By Series/Universe (Again)

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

---

I think its time to bring up whether to sort it by series, especially given the announcement of Generals 2 and since we already sort the characters by series. Officially EA, treats Generals, Tiberian and Red Alert as separate universes. This classification can clearly be seen by the way they organize the games section on [1] so should we follow this procedure with a template that looks like this: (Also interesting to note that EA calls the original C&C, Tiberian Dawn, on the site. Should we follow suit?)

KiasuKiasiMan 14:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. However, I still feel like 3 links is a bit too sparse for a whole line in the template. You also lose the distinction of main vs. spin-off for the first Red Alert game. As form the name "Tiberian Dawn", we should go with the most common name, whatever that may be, which I'm guessing is not that. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think its more important for organization sakes, (especially since EA is doing it) than "sparseness". The current template gets a bit messy and hard to navigate sometimes. And as for the "main v.s. spin-off" for the first Red Alert. We should follow EA's current classification putting it into the "Red Alert" universe. Especially since EA is no longer classifying the C&C series as Main (Tiberian) v.s. Spin-off (Red Alert, Generals), but rather as the 3 universes being equally part of the same series.KiasuKiasiMan 01:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to invite the participants of the previous long discussion. It seems like their opinion is relevant here. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a compromise would be acceptable, like this:

This would have red alert in BOTH perspectives, making the Tib vs. Red Alert Universe argument void. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 00:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I invited previouse participants to join the argument and have their say, one is on a wikibreak however, hopefully he will be here. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 15:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I also support the series-based arrangement. This main/spin-off affairs is for zealous fans only. Navboxes should help those unaware of the subject become familiar with it with least trouble. As for the connection between Red Alert and Tiberian Dawn, this is certainly not a navbox material. Fleet Command (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I might be inclined to support the most recent example with RA1 in both lists. I don't think a fourth division of "other" is necessary. Izno, do you have an opinion? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm only keeping to the consensus version and have no objection to a new consensus position regarding the overall formatting. However, I would find issue with including a link twice. I think I would personally prefer RA showing up as a link only in the RA listing if we're to go with the Tiberium/RA distinction rather than the current consensus version. Don't let me stand in the way though. --Izno (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Izno. I also do not like to see two RA1 links. But I have a question for Axem. If we do not include an Others group, where do we put Canceled games and First Decade? They are video games after all. Fleet Command (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine under "Other". Template:Metal Gear does a similar thing, which we might want to do here as well, which is nest them into the List of media. I always thought it to be a bit disingenuous to treat compilations the same as new releases. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Er... you are overruling "Others" in favor of "Others"? Or do I miss something? Fleet Command (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was extremely unclear. I was suggesting to leave them in the same row as Music/Factions/Mods. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... Okay. No problem. So passing over the "Others" matter, am I to understand that this is the final compromise? Fleet Command (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am ok with it. Anyone else? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

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

How Should We Handle an "Other" Section?

There's been a few changes recently that seems to have some disagreement, so I figured I would talk about it a bit. The current revision has an Other section under the "Games" category that contains categories for the Tiberium, Red Alert, and Generals series as well as a fourth category titled "Other". I find this to be a bit misleading, as the Other category currently contains The First Decade and Canceled Games, which describe multiple games in several of the C&C universes, rather than games that are in a universe other than the three previously mentioned.

Two similar templates covering game series are Template:StarCraft series and Template:Age of Empires series. Both of them have a top level category apart from the games called "Miscellaneous" and "Other info" respectively, which contain articles related to the games that are not games themselves. I think that this would be a good model for us to follow with this template and an appropriate place for noteworthy collections as well as canceled games.

One template that does contain canceled games is Template:Ultima. For this one, there is a list of canceled games as well as two articles detailing in more detail a canceled game. These are put into a separate game category. However, I don't think this would be appropriate because we only have two articles (List of Canceled Command & Conquer Games and Command & Conquer 2008) rather than three, so creating a new category like this template seems excessive.

Given all that, I think that we ought to handle an Other section as a top level category, rather than a sub-category of games. In this revision, I had gone a step further and merged the Media in with Other, since I don't think that there is enough for Media to stand on its own, but I'm willing to talk about that. -Thunderforge (talk) 03:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I studied your message and it isn't quite clear as to what is your actual concern. (You said you find something misleading.) In addition, you seem to have taken the word "series" to mean "universe" and I don't understand why. Cancelled games certainly never got to be the part of any series. As for First Decade, I originally wanted to create a compilations section and include Second Decade two. But Second Decade does not have an article at this time.

My concern, however, is that list of miscellaneous items must be avoided. (I know that it is extensively discussed regarding the article space and certainly don't want to misdirect the discussion there, but...) When a person looks at Games category and does not find "First Decade", he or she assumes it is not in Wikipedia. Even when he or she sees the Category title "Others", he or she assumes "not games". It has happened to me a lot.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern was that stuff like List of Canceled Games technically belongs in both Tiberian Series and Generals Series (given that it contains games intended for both) and The First Decade belongs in all three. To me, "series" and "universe" are synonymous and I think canceled games that were intended to be sequels to other games in the series would belong in that. Having canceled and compilations in "Other" as a subset of "video games" makes it look like it is part of a fourth series aside from the three already listed. Also, I don't think that The First Decade should be counted as a game since it's just a compilation of games without any new game content, so the assumption of "not games" would be correct. -Thunderforge (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. We can remove the label "Others" to avoid giving the impression of it being a separate series. But as for, "First decade" not being a game, I couldn't disagree more. If someone wants to purchase it from a supermarket, he'd look in video games section. If one wanted to purchase it only, it would purchase from a video game distribution service. It is definitely "Video games". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

How about this as a compromise? Some other video game templates use "Compilations" as a category to solve the problem that you are mentioning (e.g. Template:Angry Birds). We could do the same with The First Decade. Similarly, I've also seen the category "Canceled Games" (e.g. Template:Ultima), which we could use for C&C 2013. This solves the problem of them "not being games" and removes any confusion about it being part of a different universe. My only reservation would be that we have one article per category which seems a bit wasteful of space and that the C&C 2013 article might be merged into List of Canceled Games as Tiberium was years ago, but perhaps it's the best solution for the time being. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... Please check my most recent edit and see if it is what you are proposing. I might how gotten it wrong because I am a bit sleepy right now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Just made an edit to match what I was after. Rather than putting The First Decade under Video games (which would imply it covers all of them, but it doesn't since it was released before C&C 3), I put it in a category for Compilations underneath video games. This solves the problem of it not looking like a video game while making it clear that it is a compilation, rather than a new game in the series. -Thunderforge (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)