Jump to content

Template talk:Command & Conquer series/Archive 1

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

Order

I feel tiberian series should come prior to red alert series. Cat chi? 19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree, surely it makes sense to be chronological? Stealthychimp 19:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Characters in Generals series

As of current, the characters are compiled into one article. Shouldn't the template provide the link to this article instead of links to each individual character? --Scottie_theNerd 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sort games per universe instead of per very unofficial "series"

I've made a suggestion template at Template:Command & Conquer series/suggestion with what this template can look like. Instead of sorting the games per very unofficial "series", we can sort it per universe. Officially, there are no Tiberian series or Red Alert series, just the Command & Conquer series. There are, however, three distinct universes, the original Command & Conquer universe, a.k.a. the Tiberium universe, the Red Alert universe and the Generals universe. The original Red Alert is the official prequel to Command & Conquer, thus a part of the Tiberium universe (also confirmed by the fact that Kane is present in the game). Red Alert 2, however, is a spin-off, creating it's very own universe with Yuri's Revenge. Generals, of course, is its own universe. I think the template should adapt to this by sorting the games chronologically plot-wise per universe. But that's just my opinion. I would like to have some secondary opinions. --MrStalker talk 11:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

One thing is for sure though, Tiberium is not part of the so-called Tiberian series, since EA regards it like a new IP. --MrStalker talk 11:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no-one is answering I'll just go ahead and make the change and see if someone notice it. --MrStalker talk 09:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I am opposed to this, because while it's clear that Generals is a different universe, I have yet to see any evidence that Westwood or EA consider RA2 to be in a 'parallel' setting, and until someone does come up with actual evidence (as opposed to just saying 'the webmasters at PlanetCNC say so') I will continue to revert this fanon. Kuralyov (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
You might wanna check out the C&C timeline thread at Petroglyph forums. As I'm sure you know, many of the guys at Petroglyph Games are the ones who created the C&C franchise.
Anyhow, since Renegade is a FPS and takes place before Tiberian Sun, can it really be considered a part of the Tiberian series? --MrStalker talk 10:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Post a link. And I would argue that what the Petroglyph guys came up with depends on whether it's from when they were still Westwood and in charge of the series, or if they came up with it only after they left to move on, and thus would be no more official than any other fan's. Also, either way it still wouldn't necessarily reflect what the current EA people who control the franchise say. And yes, I would put Renegade in the Tiberium series. Kuralyov (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Allied / GDI endings were always followed as the Canon for the C&C games previously. The only exception here was Firestorm, which both endings are relevant and actually happen, since we had designed them to co-exist going into the future. And yes, we were going to explain how RA2 happened in C&C3...

— Adam Isgreen, former Creative Director at Westwood Studios

In dealing with C&C timeline, you have one problem -- the timeline split...

It was:

Red Alert
C&C TD
Renegade
C&C TS / FS
C&C 3
|---> Red Alert 2 / Yuri's --> ???
\---> C&C (4) --> ???

Now as to just WHAT was going to happen in C&C3 to split the timeline... well that's all just fantasy speculation now. The RA2 disconnect was completely explained by the event as well, and it all ties back into the origin of the entire C&C universe and RA's inciting incident.

So that's the timeline. RA2 didn't happen initially, so the dates would be off. Just like Einstein removed Hitler, someone changed the past yet again, resulting in the RA2 universe / split before TS could happen in the first place.

So there you go.

— Adam Isgreen, former Creative Director at Westwood Studios

RA was the start of the universe. Einstein removing Hitler is what shifted the "real" universe to the C&C one. In the original, original drafts of the RA story, Tesla and Einstein were the dueling scientists behind each side's new tech. Although the tesla tech stayed for the Soviets, Tesla didn't.

However, if you read about Tesla (the real tesla), you'll find that he claimed to have contacted aliens through his tech... hmm... now what if he really DID contact aliens... what aliens did he contact? What did the aliens do in response?

...are you starting to see where this is leading?

— Adam Isgreen, former Creative Director at Westwood Studios

Source: [1], [2]

There you go. --MrStalker talk 10:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup, additions and other assorted issues

I've added CABAL to the "Characters" of "Tiberian series". Can't believe I, and indeed all of you, overlooked that for so long. I've also removed the "Generals series" from the template, and put Generals and its Zero Hour expansion pack at "Other". The reason why I did this you can find right here. I've also added an article about modding in C&C to "Miscellaneous", and re-organized the section a bit to make its ordering a bit more intuitive and sensical.

Most importantly, I've re-added Tiberium (as in the upcoming video game) to "Tiberian series" chronologically. I'm aware of EA's vague and rather ambigious statements of this supposedly being new IP altogether somehow, but the fact remains that this title is confirmed to take place 10 years after Tiberium Wars, features GDI and the Scrin, features the same setting as the one TW and almost certainly Kane's Wrath left off with, it features Tiberium and the Tiberium world with all its zones, and finally the lead is a character from the TW novel. There is simply no contesting that this game is part of the Tiberian series, unless EA directly and specifically says otherwise. A vague comment about this being "new IP" which otherwise does not go into any further details doesn't suffice to prove the contrary. Kalamrir (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt about EA's intentions with Tiberium; it's a completly new IP, a new franchise, set in the Tiberium universe, ispired by the Command & Conquer fiction. Just look at the trailer at GameTrailers. --MrStalker (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Tiberium is not just "inspired" by C&C fiction, it is unarguably a canonical part of it, it is set in the precise same storyline as the Tiberian series, and in fact advances the storyline of the Tiberian series as a fully fledged chapter in the same way the previous titles of that series did. At any rate, there is not sufficient source material available to support your claim of it being a spin-off at this juncture. There may be at some point in the future, perhaps, but at this time the available material seems to directly contradict your notion more than anything else. Kalamrir (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, just look at the god damned gameplay trailer at GameTrailers, I think the guy makes himself pretty clear. --MrStalker (talk) 17:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please, let the points I made into my above post sink in for a while before repeating the same argument ad nauseum. You also continue to revert several other edits I made to the template, without providing any form of rationale as to why they supposedly require reverting to ensure the content quality of the template. If that trend continues, I will begin to regard your edits as cases of vandalism, and act accordingly. Kalamrir (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
This is not a matter of opinion, as I said above: "There is no doubt about EA's intentions with Tiberium; it's a completly new IP, a new franchise, set in the Tiberium universe, ispired by the Command & Conquer fiction." This is a fact, and my source is the interview with Chris Plummer. --MrStalker (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What your quoted source additionally confirms about Tiberium is that it will be featuring the following;
1) The Tiberium substance.
2) The Global Defense Initiative faction.
3) The Scrin faction.
4) A character from the Tiberium Wars novel as its lead.
5) A story set in the same world as that of the other games of the Tiberian series.
6) A story set 10 years after the events of Tiberium Wars.
7) A story that continues and expands the events established in the previous titles of the series.
I don't believe any of these points are a matter of opinion either. That makes it especially peculiar that your argument is apparently not capable of accounting for a single one of these features the title is confirmed to have. Thus, either we include Tiberium in the Tiberian series section, or we remove it from the Command & Conquer franchise template entirely, with only your interpretations of the Chris Plummer interview as a rationale. I am not a supporter of the latter option.
Also, you have again reverted various other edits I made to the template without providing any rationale as to why this is supposedly warranted. As such, I've reverted your last edit on the ground of it being a case of vandalism. Kalamrir (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I know very well what vandalism is, thank you, I have done over 5,000 edits on Wikipedia and at least 10% are vandalism reverts. Take a look at these two links: Video games and Video games. Also look at their wiki-coding. The first one leads to a page redirecting to the second one. If you had been kind enough to check out the edit I made before reverting it, you would have seen that I just fixed a broken link.
I have never, ever said that Tiberium shouldn't be included in the template, that's just plain bullshit. My source confirms more things than that, and less, if you weren't paying attention. It never mentions Tiberium as a part of a previous series, that is, also, plain bullshit. The story is set in the same universe as the games in the Tiberian sub-series, yes. I have never said otherwise. Nevertheless, Tiberium is the start of a new franchise, as you can clearly read in the press-release: "This is the birth of a new franchise -- we couldn't be more excited." Also, if you need futher proof, take a look at EA's official forums. Why, why, would the Command & Conquer forum and the Tiberium forum be two entirely seperate forums if it is the same series? Because they are not.
About the Tiberian Dawn subtitle: The owners of the IP decide what the official title is, sure as hell they do. But the guys at Battlecast primetime doesn't own Command & Conquer. Neither does the fans. Or anyone else except Electronic Arts Inc. Or in this case, when the title was decided about, it was Westwood Studios. They named it Command & Conquer. Nothing more nothing less. Want proof of that? Look at the cover. Then after Tiberian Sun, the inofficial subtitle "Tiberium Dawn" came to distinguish it from the Command & Conquer series as a whole.
I don't really have some official documents at hand right now to confirm this, but I have at least this: http://www.ea.com/official/cc/firstdecade/us/commandandconquer.jsp. EA's official Command & Conquer (a.k.a. Tiberian Dawn) site. It mentions nothing about "Tiberian Dawn", which it would if it was an official title.
You have every right to contest my claims. But you sure as hell need to show some sources other then your own speculation. Otherwise, I have no choice to revert again. --MrStalker (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, my revert of your edit on the grounds of it being a case of vandalism was based on you continuously reverting the following edits, without providing any rationale as to why those reverts supposedly were warranted; 1) the esthetic changes to the template's title, 2) the re-organizing of the Miscellaneous section, 3) the re-organizing of the characters section and 4) the changes to the Generals series section. After repeated requests for a rationale on these reverts upon this very talk page by me, this rationale still was not being provided yet the reverting of my edits on your part continued. Not particularly surprisingly, I eventually interpreted this behavior as being unconstructive and disruptive in nature, and undid your most recent edit at that time as a case of vandalism. In light of the above, I maintain that this course of action was correct, and is in fact supported by the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.
Secondly, the "guys at Battlecast Primetime" are representatives and employees of Electronic Arts, the current intellectual property owner of the C&C franchise. As such, they are sanctioned to speak on behalf of the IP owner, they act in accordance with its policies and official stances, and are in effect the official spokesmen of the IP owner. If that IP owner specifically uses the term of "Tiberian Dawn" in various official publications on its official website's community manager blog, featured articles and its infomercial Battlecast Primetime episodes, then it is thereby established that the sub-title of "Tiberian Dawn" is sanctioned, fully official and thus interchangeable with "Command & Conquer" at any time with regards to this title. I will refer you to the example of "Star Wars" versus "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope". This movie originally was released as simply "Star Wars", but today is referred to officially as "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" in similar manner to the Command & Conquer vs Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn debate. I will additionally note that this approach seems to have earned the editors of the Star Wars article a Featured Article, whereas no C&C-related article that has been overseen by you for a period of several months appears to be have Featured Article status. That seems to provide some measure of indication as to which line of thinking is the more desirable option to be explored by the Command & Conquer task force.
Thirdly, in my previous post I have referred you to a list of seven items that are officially established about Tiberium, which directly contradict the notion that it supposedly can not be considered a genuine part of the Tiberian series due to it being a different chunk of meat altogether. The argument you provide reenforces my point -- that it is simply too early to be making any kind of decisions on Tiberium regarding the template, especially since your position is based solely on your own interpretation of the Chris Plummer interview. A name for this new franchise, for example, is yet to be officially given, yet moving Tiberium to the "Others" section means that we as the C&C task force are implying the title has no direct connections to the Tiberian series, while by your own admittion it does. Until more revealing, specific source material is released by Electronic Arts for us to work with, Tiberium's most accurate place in the template is as the most recent title of the Tiberian series. It's simply a manner of common sense. Although it seems to be in rather short supply lately.
You're perfectly free to disagree with me. The issue here instead is that your argumentation is based on personal interpretation of preliminary and ambiguous source material (i.e. trailers of a non-finished product not due to be released for perhaps well over a year depending on sources), whereas my argumentation is based on a list verfiable facts, point per point. Specifically; the publications of Electronic Arts and the FAQs of Westwood Studios with regards to the Tiberian Dawn debate, and the long list of elements from the Tiberian series which Tiberium is confirmed to be featuring with regards to the Tiberium debate. Your edits of late have been compromising the informative quality of the articles through the promotion of possible inaccuracies based on source material of questionable relevance, the omitting of factually correct information that was based directly of official IP publications, and the promoting of POV material. As such, it has become desirable to the informative quality of the articles that I continue to scrutinize any edits you make on these subjects, and that is precisely what I will do. Kalamrir (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to keep this short and on the point, I don't like posts covering my entire screen. I repeat: I want to see some source except your own speculations. How you interpret documents and information released by the publisher and/or the developer is not good enough, per WP:VER. Please provide a reliable source that says that the official title of the game is "Command & Conquer: Tiberium Dawn". That's all I'm asking.
The other problem of ours is your complete failure to face this fact: "This is the birth of a new franchise -- we couldn't be more excited." That line in the official press release undenialby confirms Tiberium as a seperate franchise.
Btw, if you even imply something uncivil and/or revert my changes just because you don't like them, you can I expect the same treatment.--MrStalker (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to extend to you the same level of courtesy; This page nor this topic is about your personal likes or dislikes, and you can leave these comments out of it altogether in the future. I have given you my sources on numerous occasions -- the FAQ files of Westwood Studios and the various community manager blogs, press publications and Battlecast Primetime episodes of Electronic Arts. All of these are readily available for you to consult on the official C&C website. Secondly, their content, both spoken and written, does comply with WP:VER in full, in contrast to your personal interpretations of the Chris Plummer interview and the implications for the template that come with it. (All of which I've explained in due detail in this topic to the nth time). I am still waiting for a single coherent and sourced argument as to why "Tiberian Dawn" supposedly can not be considered the official title of this game. As such, I have reverted your most recent edit regarding this issue as another case of vandalism.
Lastly, I am not here to cater to or deal with your paranoid delusions. Feel free to leave such baseless accusations out of this topic just the same. Kalamrir (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. None of the edits I have made is vandalism, and if you continue accusing me of such, I'll see it as a personal attack.

This topic is not about your personal likes or dislikes either. And since you ignored to respond on my argument regarding if Tiberium is a new franchise or not, I'll just assume we can close the book on that one, as it's very clear that it actually is. If you like a template design with games grouped per universe and not per series, be my guest, but as of now Tiberium is not a part of the Tiberian sub-series.

I have read the Westwood FAQ, and in it there is absolutly no proof that "Tiberian Dawn" is an official subtitle of the first Command & Conquer game. In fact, on top of the page it clearly says "COMMAND & CONQUER", nothing about Tiberian Dawn. As for the other sources, unless someone actually says "Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn" is the official title of the first Command & Conquer game, the same goes for them. In fact, I have consulted the Petroglyph forum regarding Tiberian Dawn's validity as an official subtitle here, and they assure me that it is not. --MrStalker (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You can re-establish your good standing with this editor quite easily by providing a clear rationale with every revert you make of which you know it is likely to become disputed. Since you apparently have systematically refused to do so up to this point, even after repeated requests by this editor, you leave me with (very) little to work with to assume good faith in your edits.
Moreover, the nature of your edits as well as that of the replies that you have been giving to my posts within this dispute (and others) are, in fact, increasingly beginning to show evidence of point behavior. Be reminded that this is an offense on Wikipedia that could potentially get your account blocked. Please turn your mentality around as soon as possible, as I can not do this for you, and my patience gradually is deteriorating. Kalamrir (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I will present your closing comment as evidence of my allegation of point behavior as well. The individuals at Petroglyph Games no longer are the intellectual property owners of the Command & Conquer franchise. Electronic Arts is. In the recent past, you have demonstrated knowledge of this fact. Yet, apparently you are presently omitting this in order to be able to further progress your stance that Tiberian Dawn supposedly can not be considered an official title for this game. As such, I will - with urgency- refer you to the last sentence of my previous post. Lastly, I would like to see a source for your claim regarding Petroglyph Games' staff's statements. Kalamrir (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused. "This editor", i.e. you? My rationale is clearly visible for reading on this page.
I'm sorry if that's the way you perceive it, but I assure you that's not the case.
The individuals at Petroglyph are the same people who created your strongest "evidence", the Command & Conquer FAQ. You know this as well as I do, so please don't point the finger at me. Source? Didn't you see the link I posted? If you want another one from the guys at Electronic Arts forums you got it: link. --MrStalker (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Command & Conquer vs Tiberian Dawn

I've changed the name of the first title of the Tib series within the template's ordering to the sub-title Tiberian Dawn. It aids readers/users to more readily grap the chronological ordering of this series of games, while the sub-title of Tiberian Dawn has official status just the same, to this day. Kalamrir (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Tiberian Dawn is not official just because some of the devs use it. Revert. --MrStalker (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The sub-title of Tiberian Dawn is mentioned in the official FAQ pages of this game, written and published by Westwood Studios. This is compounded by the fact representatives of Electronic Arts, the current owner of the C&C franchise, frequently have used the sub-title themselves to refer to this particular game, both in their publications on the official C&C website as in the Battlecast Primetime episodes. That establishes "Tiberian Dawn" as a sanctioned, official designation for the first Command & Conquer game, freely interchangeable with "Command & Conquer" as context of the situation dictates. Kalamrir (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Command & Conquer was and remains the only official title of the game. Westwood devs did use "Tiberian Dawn" in their FAQ, yes, and since then it has become very popular alias, but it's not the official title. --MrStalker (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Your conception is factually incorrect, for reasons I have already specified above. Kalamrir (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Er, no, you are incorrect. There is only one official title, and it is Command & Conquer, as it says on the box. Or if you put it this way: Tiberian Dawn is not a registered trademark nor brand. --MrStalker (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It should be noted that your tendency to systematically ignore the argumentation of other editors can quite easily become mistaken for unconstructive and even disruptive behavior. Emblematic of this is that you have yet to provide a single counter-argument to the points I made in my original post on this subject. Incidentally, these points put into question the validity of the one argument you have been repeating thus far. Kalamrir (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
What is it to argument about? You can't change fact with arguments! We can argue about if red apples taste better then green, but I don't really feel like it. "Tiberian Dawn" is not part of the official title! --MrStalker (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The owners of the intellectual property decide what is the official title for a game. And not you. The FAQs of Westwood Studios and the publications of Electronic Arts speak for themselves, as I've explained in due detail above. Do not revert this again. Kalamrir (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
See section above. --MrStalker (talk) 13:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey. I'm going to give a third opinion in a bit; let me read over the text here and figure things out. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for taking the time. Don't let the above volume of text scare you; it's a pretty trivial issue compared to another one that I am currently having with my fellow C&C task force member, and should be definitely resolvable with a bit of outside mediation. Kalamrir (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so, let me see if I have this right. There's a few issues that I'm seeing based on the edits/reverts. First, you guys keep going back and forth on the "Video games" link, between one link and two. I would say leave it as it currently is - Video games. Wiki fixes the link properly, and since "Video games" redirects to "Video game", it's better as it is.

Another issue is whether or not the first game is just "Command and Conquer" or "Command and Conquer: Tiberian Dawn." I would go with just "Command and Conquer," as that is what was on the original box; it seems that the subtitle was added on retroactively. The game is listed under the original name, so that's the one that I think should be used.

The other issue is whether or not Tiberium, the upcoming game, should be listed under the Tiberian section, or whether it should be listed as Other. I have a feeling it should be listed as part of the series. For one, the name "Tiberium" is close enough to Tiberian, the name of the series of games. I just watched the GameTrailers video, and it doesn't seem to indicate one way or another if it's part of the C&C series. I'm going to hesitatingly say that it should be part of the Tiberian series until better proof can be given that it's not. If EA specifically states that the game is a spin-off and is unrelated to the original series, or if they make some other assertion like that, then it can be shuffled into its own category. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This is taken directly from EA's official Tiberium press release: "This is the birth of a new franchise -- we couldn't be more excited." (link) --MrStalker (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh. Well.. that puts a damper on things. I guess based on that source, it has to be listed as separate from the Tiberian series. :/ — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree on a number of counts, especially since you are not being presented with the full scope of the dispute. My argument isn't that Tiberium can not be considered a new IP franchise. My issue with this instead is that Tiberium is equally confirmed to feature a plethora of elements from the Tiberian universe, to the extent it can unarguably be considered the successor to the latest installment of that universe. I will refer you to two statements from a Gamespot article, which by MrStalker's own admission is to be considered a reliable source:
* "Tiberium will continue the storyline that ended in Command & Conquer 3, as the game is set in the years after the Third Tiberium War."
* "Longtime C&C fans will also be interested to hear that Tiberium will also delve into the lore of the franchise like few games before it."[3]
As such, my concern is that by placing Tiberium is the "Others" section, we as the C&C task force are implying that Tiberium has only a tenuous link to the Tiberian series, when we in fact possess sourced confirmation to the contrary.
Since we are still quite early in Tiberium's stage of development, with a release date estimated to range from late this year to 2009 depending on source (i.e.: Gamespot vs IGN previews); my proposed compromise is to keep Tiberium within the Tiberian series until Electronic Arts officially releases the title of this new IP they seem to be creating. The rationale behind this is that the template will much more accurately reflect the current reality of the situation.
As an aside, I've never put into question that Tiberium constitutes a new IP. I'm not sure what prompted user MrStalker into continuously making these assumptions. Kalamrir (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
According to EA's press release, the most reliable source there is, Tiberium is a new franchise, and thus not a part of a part of Tiberian series, but it is a part of the Tiberian universe. If you want to rearrange the template per universe instead of per series, be my guest, I've already made that suggestion a couple of sections above. --MrStalker (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that is, I believe, the most constructive and correct course of action at present, at least until Electronic Arts reveals the name of its new IP. Until then however, we should be wary of removing Tiberium from the Tiberian series, as we will imply the title has no connection to this series, while we have verified that it does. It's just a temporary arangement to ensure the template most accurately reflects reality. Kalamrir (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Good, I guess we can close the book on this one then. --MrStalker (talk) 09:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not presume to speak in the name of others. I still have my own views and my own comments to make on this issue. Thank you. Kalamrir (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, you have - once more - reverted several other previous edits I made to the template, along with Tiberium's placement, without providing any rationale as to why those reverts supposedly also are warranted. You have done this on three consecutive occasions now, while systematically ignoring my requests for you to provide this rationale. This seems to be a renewed case of intentionally disruptive behavior, and a notable example of the cause behind our deteriorating working relationship here on Wikipedia. Kalamrir (talk) 09:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Ehrm... what? I can't have read that correctly... wait a second... omg, apperently I did. The only edits of yours I have reverted are the name of the first game and Tiberium as a part of the Tiberian series. My rationale is: Current consensus on this talk page, which I also noted in the edit summary. As of now, there are only three editors in this dispute, so the math is simple: 2 vs 1, 1 being you. Unless HelloAnnyong change his mind, which he haven't yet. --MrStalker (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Please do not intentionally spread lies like this, as they harm your cause by no small amount -- the disputed edits I am referring to can be readily traced on the history page of this template. You have reverted, on several occassions, numerous other edits I made to the template along with the placement of Tiberium, and while ignoring my repeated requests to provide a rationale for this. This can and will be interpreted by other editors as intentionally disruptive editing, so please be more constructive and mindful of the work of others in the future to avoid such confrontations. Not just with this editor, but with others as well.
You are showing ignorance of Wikipedia's consensus policy. Consensus is not simply a case of "three against one you lose", and Third Opinions are not a formal and binding procedure. Please better educate yourself on on relevant Wikipedia policies. This may in fact help end this dispute in a more expedient manner. Kalamrir (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I may have reverted more of your edits then I intended by mistake on some occation, but what really matters are my last edit and they include all your edits except the ones I mentioned above. So don't accuse me for something I haven't done.
Likewise. Generally, I agree with you, but when nothing else works, polling may be considered. Fact is, unless you can prove a change in consensus, it should remain as it did before. --MrStalker (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You seem to display a capacity for reading, so the question remains why you consistently ignored my repeated requests for a rationale on these edits. Be that as it may, the goal of this page is find a solution to this dispute. I am in agreement with you that Tiberium is indeed a new IP, and I do not believe I ever stated otherwise. The problem is that by adding it to "Others", we are suggesting only a tenuous link between it and the "Tiberian series", while we have confirmation that it is directly linked to it. Hence, my compromise is to keep Tiberium in the "Tiberian series" section, until Electronic Arts reveals the proper name of the new IP.
Once we have that official title, we can move Tiberium to its own section, per your provided reference. This course of action strikes me as the best way to ensure that the template accurately reflects reality at all times. Kalamrir (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The rationale for "these edits" is on this talk page.
I agree partly. That's why I suggested to rearrange the template per universe instead of per series. But since Tiberium is not part of the Tiberian series it would be a factual error to place it there in the template. And what do you mean, reveal the proper name? The IP, the game, the franchise is called Tiberium! --MrStalker (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Both of you need to calm down. You're both coming close to violating 3RR, and you're just sniping at each other. Kalamrir, why did you remove the "Generals series" from that line? What does that even have to do with anything? This template is starting to degrade into nothing but anger and hostility, and you both need to back off for a little while and calm down. Your argument here will only be strengthened by not descending into petty arguing.

Now, as for the topic at hand. The official EA link was from December; the Gamespot one is from January. While the Gamespot article isn't an official statement, it certainly has stuff we can use. In particular, the article says: "the new first-person shooter based on the popular Command & Conquer real-time strategy series." Based on seems to suggest something separate. This article says that EA is plans "to spin a first-person shooter off of its Command & Conquer real-time strategy game series." Another use of spinoff there.

I've been trying to find similar situations on Wikipedia of games that have been spinoffs of the original. That may prove to be more useful here. Consider the CoD template. They don't list Finest Hour with the rest of the CoD games, but why? Before going any further, I would suggest that you find some other examples that we can look at. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Then I will leave the final design of the template to user MrStalker in a gesture of good will. I've no problem with this because I frankly quite approve of the recent ordering according to universe, along with other aesthetic changes, which he made to it. My removal of the "Generals series" from the template is unrelated to this dispute; I recently performed a selective paste merger between the articles Command & Conquer: Generals series and Command & Conquer: Generals, on the grounds that the Generals series article was a content fork and that a single title and an expansion pack do not constitute a "series". MrStalker's recent renaming to universe is more accurate, and I subsequently welcome those particular edits.
Lastly, keep in mind - the both of you - that I never disagreed Tiberium is a new IP. I have, however, valid concerns that by placing Tiberium in its own category the template will imply the connection between Tiberium and the titles of the Tiberian series is tenuous, when we have sourced confirmation it in fact is much more directly linked to them. (To the point where Electronic Arts states it is a direct sequel to the story of Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars.) As such, my proposed solution is to keep Tiberium in the new Tiberian Universe section until EA publishes more specific info on the title's precise place within the franchise. We already know it is a new IP, but its relationship to the games it is based on remains a bit obscure at present.
I hope this dispute is now settled, as I'd much rather invest my time here on Wikipedia into improving the qualities of our articles, as I have been doing for these past two to three months with quite a bit of commitment. Most editors appear to receive barn stars for this. I've apparently been rewarded with a temporary block from Wikipedia. Though the person who did so hardly is representative of Wikipedia in general, so I can and will shrug this off without loss of motivation. Kalamrir (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad that this edit war is over and that we can settle on this solution. It might not be ideal, but until EA releases more info it's good enough. You didn't comment on the Tiberian Dawn thing, so I assume you accept it as it is as of my current revision. --MrStalker (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for civilly putting this issue to rest. It's not all that often that you see people calmly resolve a situation. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RA and tib universe

RA is part of the tib universe. it should be added to it. sources:

the ww faq says it is a prequel and that RA shows the beginnings of GDI and Nod. the kane dossier jpg from ea mentions kane being there during the events of RA. both references show that RA takes place in the same universe as the tib games.DaedricDancer (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, thanks. --MrStalker (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the entire Red Alert series are the prequels to the Tiberian series.--PCPP (talk) 06:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, just Red Alert 1. However this can change in the future. --MrStalker (talk) 07:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Expansion packs

Where are Counterstrike and Aftermath?--Eikern (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. --MrStalker (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Covert Ops, Counterstrike and Aftermath have their own articles as all the other expansion packs do? Savager (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Validity and relevance of the "three universes" angle anno 2008

Alright, here's the deal/issue at hand which I'm throwing on the table through my recent big edit to the template. As most of you are already aware of, the C&C series has had three different development teams over the years. First, the original Westwood Studios team from the mid-90s, secondly a team which initially also worked under the name of Westwood but later became known as Westwood Pacific during the early 2000s, and lastly the current EALA team, which has given us Tiberium Wars and Kane's Wrath.

Now, the notion of there supposedly being three separate universes within the C&C franchise comes from the second development team, which created Red Alert 2, Renegade and Generals. They made this proclamation on the bonus DVD that came with the The First Decade compilation pack. And this is where the problem is.

As we've established through numerous sourced material in the various C&C articles, the first team originally intended for Red Alert to be the prequel to the Tiberan series. At the same time, this first team also never planned for the contingency of a direct sequel like Red Alert 2, which was created by the second team in response to the original Red Alert its very high sales. But that second team took things a step further beyond this, and blatantly claimed that the original RA wasn't at all connected to the Tiberian games, and that Kane's appearance in RA's Soviet campaign was "just a cameo". That is something the official Red Alert FAQ of the first Westwood team explicitely denies and refutes.

And now we have the third, current team. Concerning the issue that we're discussing here, this third team has given us two things to work with. They first of all published the infamous "Kane's Dossier" document, in which a direct reference to Kane's appearance in the original Red Alert game is made. At the same time, that official document makes no mention of the events, characters and technologies of Red Alert 2 whatsoever. The second hint that they've given us along these lines is in the official introduction to Red Alert 3, which specifically stated that RA3's premise is based on a fantasy world, where all kinds of stuff like the victory of Japan in the second world war, the Philadelphia experiment, UFO related research etc. all actually happened and succeeded. That pretty means that this current development team is making it abundantly clear to us that RA3 shares no direct storyline connections to the Tiberian series (and perhaps not even to RA2 either, as Yuri is confirmed as not being in RA3), while they at the same time acknowledge that the first RA is indeed connected to the Tib series.

In light of all the above, I think we should start to seriously take into consideration that the third team is in fact intentionally overriding and dismissing the stance of the second team, which originally came up with this notion of "three separate universes". That basically means that this "three separate universes" angle is no longer actually valid, and thus has become incorrect when following the position of the current team. As such, by means of experiment, and also to initiate a wide debate among all C&C article editors, I've re-worked the template to reflect this. I have added a "main series", in which all the titles sharing a direct storyline connection to each other are listed according to release date, and I've replaced the "Red Alert universe" and "Generals universe" with a "Spin-off titles" section, in which I've placed the titles of RA2, Yuri's Revenge, Red Alert 3 and Generals.

As of 2008, and due to the apparent stance of the current development team, this very much strikes me as the most correct way of listing the (many) titles of the C&C franchise in our template. Opinions and thoughts, everyone? 84.196.74.217 (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a hell of a lot speculation here and no references. We should stick to what's known and official. --MrStalker (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Have I not cited official sources at every step? Also, the previous revision is as of now being disputed as well, as the current development team has published numerous sources which put the "three universes" angle into question.
Many of the other edits I've made have no relation at all to this debate, by the way. These includes the addition of the six other featured factions of the franchise, and the developers and publishers of the series. May I ask why do you continue to revert these as well without providing any explanation? 84.196.74.217 (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Err... Please check my response at my talk page, since it explains that rather well.
It didn't. Your response did not account for your removing of the publishers and developers from the template in any way, to give one example. 84.196.74.217 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
First of all, there is no articles about the factions you added, therefor there shouldn't be any such entries in the template. The links you added links to their real-world correlate, which has nothing to do with the C&C franchise. And, for example, calling Red Alert 3 a spin-off is purely speculative.
Could you please present a link to a Wikipedia policy article which describes how linking to real-life correlates is undesired in a video game template? 84.196.74.217 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
No reason to be disputed? You cleary doesn't how it works around here. Please check WP:CON, previous consensus stands for now. --MrStalker (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The tone of this response prompts me to ask you to please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. 84.196.74.217 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Saying "person A said that" is not citing sources. You need some proof of your claims. Some links to the interview where the person said what you claim he said perhaps. And even still it's speculation. You are assuming things based on what they've said, and that's speculation, and that is not acceptable for wikipedia. The previous consensus was undisputed for a long time and thus it should remain for now. Your version has not. --MrStalker (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The links to the Red Alert FAQ file and the "Kane's Dossier" document are listed on this very same discussion page. As for other sources, Red Alert 3 was described as a spin-off in the news section of the official Command & Conquer franchise on 14th February of this year. The website does not allow a direct link to the article in question for some reason. Click on the link below, and scroll to the "Red Alert 3 Announcement Video & Screen!" article in the box to the right to find the source I have cited.
http://www.commandandconquer.com/intel/default.aspx
Also, you are not excempt of the rules you cite. Please provide a source published by the current Electronic Arts Los Angeles development team which confirms that the "three universes" angle is still being maintained by them. The reason why this "three universes" angle is under dispute is not because I say it is, but because the "Kane's Dossier" document -which was published by the development team of Tiberium Wars and Kane's Wrath - directly contradicts the notion of there being three separate universes in the C&C franchise. As does the official Red Alert FAQ file. I must ask, have you ever read any of these documents? Because if you wish to constructively partake in this discussion, you will require a much more up-to-date knowledge than what you seem to have at present. 84.196.74.217 (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to the "three universes" debate

I'll add this here, since the first part of the debate already managed to turn a bit spammy. For those who are having trouble finding the specific news article in the link given directly above, I'll add this quotation of the official Red Alert 3 press release by Electronic Arts:


That statement of RA3 having the premise of all experiments of the last 70 years having actually happened confirms it does not take place in the same fictional universe as the main C&C games do, as 70 years after the first Red Alert extends as far as the era of Tiberian Sun. In addition, we have the official Red Alert FAQ file (the link to it is found in a previous topic on this talk page), which confirms the first Red Alert game IS a part of that same main C&C story arc. At the same time, no sourced material I know of exists which confirms RA2 and Generals are a canonical part of this main story arc. There is much fan speculation that RA2 supposedly follows on an Allied victory in RA1, but again no sources exist that can confirm this. Quite the contrary in fact; in the RA article a source is listed referencing a statement made by Ishmael Isgreen -former lead C&C designer- in which he explicitely mentions that it is in fact the first Command & Conquer game that follows on an Allied victory in RA1. The only possibility of RA2 being part of the main story arc is that it would have happened somewhere in between RA and the first Command & Conquer. Again, no sources exist which can confirm this, and moreover, if there were it would actually prove that RA2 and RA3 are not connected to one another either, due to that above mentioned 70-year period.

This has two major consequences for the template. First of all, it shows that there is no way we can establish that the "three separate universes" representation, which was previously used by the template, is correct in the first place. In fact, we have more than one source that is contradicting it, specifically the RA FAQ file, the "Kane's Dossier" document and the statements of Ishmael Isgreen.

What we do have sourced confirmation of is that there are two distinct groups of C&C games. Firstly, all those who are directly connected with each other in terms of storyline -as prequel or sequels to one another- and secondly, those who are spin-offs to that main story arc. Spin-offs in the most literal definition of this English word -- "based on" or "imitation of the traits of the main product", yet not directly a part of that internal storyline which the main series of games share with one another. In short, we have sourced material available that substantiates these "two groups" of C&C games, and sourced material available that contradicts the "three separate universes" take. The template should reflect this reality at all times. 84.196.74.217 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There must be some kind of a misunderstanding here. After having read all your posts over and over, I can't see what the problem with the previous version of the template is. The previous version of the template, "my" version, reflected the connection between RA1 and the Tiberian series as well as your version does. It did not, as you say, reflect the original "three separate universes"-stance. I agree that RA1 is connected to Tiberian Dawn, but it's also connected to RA2. It must be since RA2 features many of the same characters as RA1. Generals and Zero Hour is clearly set in another universe, and so are RA2/YR and RA3 in my opinion. Sometime after RA1 there must have been a timeline split, one leading to RA2 and the other to Tiberian Dawn. If you want to see how I think the games in the C&C franchise are connected please look at this graph I made a while ago. It is, obviously, a bit speculative but I have tried to base it as much as possible on official references. --MrStalker (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Then we have the issue of all unrelated links in the current template. Please explain, if a reader reads about for example Red Alert 2, how is it relevant with a link to the real-world Soviet Union, which is in no way related to C&C? If there where an article about the Soviet Union in C&C, it would be in the template, but there isn't. And the links to the different developers/publisher, what are they good for? Every article about each game in the franchise has their respective developer and publisher linked at the top in their respective infoboxes, which makes linking them in the template somewhat redundant. --MrStalker (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary of the "3 universes or not" debate

For those who don't like reading the above walls of text, here's a summary of why all references to "Tiberian Universe, Red Alert Universe and Generals Universe" were removed from the template:

  • 1) The template previously categorized the C&C games according to "Universe".
  • 2) A fundamental, non-negotionable principle in Wikipedia is verifiability -- you need to be able to prove what you're claiming here by means of a reliable source.
  • 3) There is one (1) such reliable source stating the C&C games exist in three separate universes. (The Bonus DVD in The First Decade compilation pack.) There are three (3) such reliable sources which contradict and discredit the notion that the C&C games exist in three separate universes. (The Official Red Alert FAQ by Westwood Studios, the "Kane's Dossier" document by Electronic Arts Los Angeles, and the statements made by former C&C lead designer Ishmael Isgreen on the official website of Petroglyph.)

In other words, it's simple math. There is three times more sourced evidence which states specifically that Red Alert is connected to titles outside of the Red Alert series, then there is sourced evidence which substantiates that the C&C games come in three distinct and separate universes. From a Wikipedian standpoint, this is all that is relevant to the discussion. Kalamrir (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Those sources confirm Red Alert is connected to the Tiberian Universe, and the previous version reflected that. That doesn't mean Generals and Red Alert 2/3 aren't in seperate universes. --MrStalker (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Regardless even if Generals and RA2/3 are considered spin-offs, they are in seperate universes. You can't escape that no matter how much you bend things. --MrStalker (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This is besides the point. Revision of the template is a necessity not because the previous template supposedly denied Red Alert was connected to the Tiberian series, as your comment is somewhat misleadingly putting it. Instead, the point behind this new revision is as summarized above: you have maintained a template which categorized the C&C titles according to universe, when for months there have been three times as many reliable sources within our C&C articles that state this outlook is incorrect. You are championing a template revision which is in direct violation of WP:PROVEIT. That is the fact of the matter, no matter how much you try to dodge it.
I freely admit to sharing in the blame, however. At the end of the edit war that you and I had in the past on this same talk page, I simply wished for the dispute to end and thus became a bit too eager to make concessions to you. As a direct result, a template which was both misinformative in nature and in violation of Wikipedia's Burden of Evidence policy was allowed to remain standing for a prolonged period of time. This has been a great shortcoming on both our parts as members of the C&C task force, and one which I am presently correcting. Kalamrir (talk) 11:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I must be missing something here. The three sources you mentioned, they confirm that Red Alert is the prequel to Tiberian Dawn, correct? So, how does that contradict the notion that the C&C franchise is divided into three universes? Please explain that to me, because I don't get it. --MrStalker (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
It's fairly simple. We know for a fact Red Alert is the opening chapter of the Tiberian series. That raises two questions. How can there be a single coherent RA universe too then? And, while there is such a thing as a RA series, how can this series represent a distinct universe all of its own, when its supposed starting chapter is confirmed to be the starting chapter of the Tiberium series instead?
In response to this problem, there has been speculation that Red Alert gives rise to the Tiberium games through the Soviet ending, and that it gives rise to a separate RA universe through the Allied ending. Yet, there is no reliable source which confirms that outlook. On the contrary, we have reliable sources stating that the first Tiberium game takes place 50 years after the Allied ending. That is where this uncanny level of confusion and debate stems from.
It's going to come down to precise definitions because of this. In order to speak of a canon universe -as in a single coherent storyline consisting of multiple chapters- you need confirmation from the creators that every chapter in it is directly interconnected with the others in terms of storyline. We have no confirmation Red Alert and its own successors are thus connected. Worse even; we instead have confirmation that Red Alert + the Tiberium games are actually interconnected instead, forming a single and cohesive storyline with one another. The three RA games do form a series, namely in that they share a name and theme, yet the source material we have contradicts they share a single progressing storyline with one another. That means they can not reach the definition of a "canon universe".
What's for certain is that RA2 and RA3 are derived from the theme and setting of the original Red Alert, but our sources contradict that they can be considered as canonically linked to each other. That makes these two titles fall squarely under the definition of "spin-off", as you'll find it in any dictionary. The reason why we can't speak of "three separate universes" however is because of the original Red Alert game, not so much because of RA2 and RA3 themselves. I think that is where your point of confusion is. Red Alert and the Tiberium games form a single cohesive universe. The relationship RA2/RA3 have with that main series is akin to the relationship the titles Metal Gear Acid and Metal Gear Acid 2 have with the main Metal Gear series. Non-canonical spin-offs. Kalamrir (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Still, is it not correct to say that since RA, RA2/YR and RA3 share the same characters and sub-plot, they are part of a destinct universe seperate from the main universe? Same goes for Generals/ZH. The way I see it, Red Alert is part of both universes. --MrStalker (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Being part of a universe separated from the original universe is what being a spin-off title is all about. Ordinarily, there wouldn't have been an issue. But the second C&C Dev Team tried to override the angle of the original team, and attempted to make Red Alert become the first chapter of two distinct timelines.
There just was a minor problem with this -- the premise of RA2 following on an Allied victory in Red Alert actually was already taken by the original Command & Conquer game. In short, these guys just completely messed up, and a huge confusion among fans everywhere arose over how RA2 "fitted in" exactly. It wasn't until Ishmael Isgreen publically declared a year ago that the Tiberium games were indeed meant to follow on that Allied ending, that we finally had confirmation in our hands RA2 couldn't possibly be connected canonically to the main series, and thus had to be a spin-off game by definition.
In the meantime, it's been fans like us on Wiki who had to pick up the pieces and try to make some basic sense of this entire mess. As the length of this talk page alone shows, it hasn't always been an easy or pleasant ride. But everyone here is a big fan of this stuff for a reason anyway, so whatever. Kalamrir (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's a spin-off, but still, can't it be considered a "spin-off universe" then? --MrStalker (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
...that's precisely what I've been talking about in my previous post. I will summarize it.
In order to legitimately speak of a fictional universe, it needs to be established internal consistency is present among all chapters which put together are supposed to make up that universe. The problem with the Red Alert series is that the chapter which supposedly starts the RA "universe" is in fact confirmed to be the starting chapter of the Tiberium universe instead. The consequence is that the first Red Alert isn't a spin-off like RA2 and RA3, but the canon prologue of the Tiberian series, and a fully fledged part of the main series.
The internal consistency required to speak of a "universe" isn't being met by the Red Alert games because of this. Only by the Tiberian series, and by Generals. And calling Generals a spin-off game isn't incorrect, since it is a spin-off on the C&C series and its style as a whole, whereas Sole Survivor, RA2 and RA3 are spin-offs from one particular title in the C&C series each. (The first C&C and the first Red Alert, respectively.) Categorizing the games according to "Main series" and "Spin-offs" thus seems the most correct and succinct solution. Kalamrir (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) The funny thing is that I agree, so why are we having this discussion? I think the point of dissagrement is basically this: "It is difficult to determine what actually constitutes a 'fictional universe', but whether the universe is contained in a single work or consists of a succession of works [...]" (source). It's my opinion that although RA2/YR and RA3 are not part of the original C&C canon, they are in fact part of a fictional universe (or perhaps multiverse). Generals/ZH definitely qualifies as it's own fictional universe, so degrading them to "just" spin-offs is a bit dismissing. --MrStalker (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I got here via WP:3O, but I'm not quite sure whether or not there is still a substantial disagreement. If there are conflicting, reliable sources (their exact numbers on either side notwithstanding) something as mundane as a navbox template should opt for the common denominator and leave the "universe" term out, in favor of the more neutral "series" phrasing. The conflicting sources could still be worth mentioning in the franchise article. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, universe is more neutral then "main series", since RA1, the Tiberian games, and Tiberium aren't even part of the same series of games. --MrStalker (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstand. My approach would be – given the inconsistency of the available sources – to leave any in-game/universe considerations out of the template and simply sort the games by sub-series (like the template already does for the "Playable factions" and "Characters" groups). This way we avoid all the canon/continuity fuss and readers may even find the game they want to navigate to more quickly. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, ironically, that was what I was trying to a while ago when another edit war broke out. --MrStalker (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Btw, Tiberium is not part of the Tiberium series, in fact, it's not even a Command & Conquer game. --MrStalker (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That is correct. Tiberium however is a part of the "main series" of C&C. We have sources verifying its story will take place sometime after Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, and that it thus is situated in the same storyline as RA1 and the Tiberium games is. While it is not a direct part of the Tiberian series, or even a "C&C" game, it nonetheless is set to become the latest chapter of the ongoing storyline of the main series. This was one of many issues I believe can be solved by categorizing the games according to "main series" (all games that are part of that one canon universe) and "spin-offs" (those C&C games which are happening in their own tailor-made setting/timeline). Kalamrir (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't call it the "main series", since it's not a series as such. I would call it the "main universe", or the "Tiberium universe", which is the same I guess. Which I did... before it got revised by this anon user who seems to have dropped out completly.
Then I think it's incorrect to put RA2/YR + RA3 + Generals/ZH into one "spin-off" section, since they are two very distinct universes, per definition of a fictional universe. --MrStalker (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, "main series" as in: that series of video games which the main C&C storyline is all about. I see your point though. We might indeed want to rename that part of the template to "Canon series" or "Main universe". I don't see any problem with the "spin-off" section. RA2, RA3 and Generals are indeed all in their own distinct universe, but which all have split from a larger original one. And that is the definition of a spin-off title.
I'm very hesitant to put the term "universe" before RA2 and RA3, because it will just cause people who do not know of the source material to constantly ask: "um, why is RA not in there?", or it will just cause them to remove RA from the main universe and place it in the "RA universe" section. This while we have established that the first RA is a part of the main storyline, above anything else. The point behind this new template is to finally try and clear up this confusion! Not perpetuate it. Kalamrir (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, I guess that's true. Very well, that's settled then. As you may have noticed I have moved the company links to a seperate section with dates and all, this makes things a bit more clear then just listing them under misc. Please tell what you think. --MrStalker (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
There are several issues with this new revision, which the previous one in fact was solving. The canon/continuity of the C&C games is quite relevant to the template; not only to the articles it links to, but also for the readers interested in their content. Moreover, the available sources are not inconsistent as such -- it's simply the matter of one of them having become outdated.
You could legitimately speak of conflicting sources if each of the three development teams behind C&C were presenting a completely different outlook on the internal connection between the games. This is not the case; we have the outlook of the original creators behind the first Tiberium game and the first Red Alert game, which has been endorsed by the current EALA development team behind Tiberium Wars and Kane's Wrath. The source of all the confusion surrounding C&C its canon instead stems from an outdated commentary of the second development team, which is no longer involved with the franchise and whose claims have been all but dismissed by the current EALA team. Yet, the revision you are experimenting with actually follows this outdated commentary more than it does the outlook of the original creators and the current EALA team. I'm sure you'll agree that this is a problem.
A second important issue with your revision is that it doesn't appreciate the direct storyline connection between the first Red Alert game and the Tiberium titles, which have been confimed by both the original creators and by the current EALA team to make up one single and coherent universe together. Lastly, it also neglects to mention the status of The Covert Operations, RA2, Generals and RA3 as spin-off games, essentially resulting in the removal of correct and relevant information for the readers.
I'm going to revert this experimental revision because of the above reasons for the time being. If you disagree with this, please do elaborate on your position. Kalamrir (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think any storyline-based grouping of those games is appropriate here, in the sense of being in the best interest of our readers. C&C-savvy people may be aware and appreciative of Red Alert's role as both a prequel of to the original game and the first in an alternate storyline. But for the average Joe it is just confusing to see one RA game listed in group A and the rest of them in B. And while we split up a numbered series based on in-depth plot elements, we still do not list them in an order which would reflect that in-game continuity (i.e. RA, C&C, Renegade, TS...). On top of that, we then go for the series-based approach after all, for the remainder of the template. Were is the consistency in that?
Given that the template already uses said Tiberium/Red Alert/Generals in some parts, losing the in-universe perspective for good (see WP:INUNIVERSE) and using one approach consistently (see WP:MOS) seems fairly reasonable. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Although it feels a bit odd to say this (considering the sections above), as of right now I complety agree with Kalamrir on this one. The C&C franchise is a bit of a mess, I can't see why we as an encyclopedia can't help clearing things up a bit, and nothing in the templete contradicts the latest sources we have. Although it might seem a bit confusing at first glance for the average Joe, the only thing Joe has to do to clear things up is to read the article. The only other issue I'm concerned about right now is which links to include or not, but that's another issue. We are not supposed to count votes, but on this particular issue there is as of now 3 vs 1 so I feel a revert is in place. --MrStalker (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree only in so far, that the series' continuity is indeed very confusing, though to the point were nothing short of a detailed elaboration on the issue would genuinely enlighten readers. An inconsistently formatted, in-universe-centric navbox won't do much good. – Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Weird as it perhaps may sound, but MrStalker's point of view on this completely mirrors my own.
As previously mentioned, grouping according to canonical status solved several issues which your revision would be re-instating. More importantly, it is the very purpose of the template to provide "Average Joe" with a roadmap to everyting related to C&C in a user-friendly manner in the first place. Secondly, the consistency lies in the simple fact that the games are being ordered according to their respective release dates.
Your revision would re-introduce several problems that already have led to extensive debate in the past, and which the template MrStalker and I have been working on is in fact meant to permanently resolve. These problems are: 1) The validity of categorizing the games of Tiberium, Red Alert and Generals as three "series" distinctly separate from one another -- which is a perspective lacking reliable source material with regards to the first Red Alert game in particular, and which thus fails to meet WP:PROVEIT. 2) the canonical status of the first Red Alert game, and 3) the status of Sole Survivor, RA2, RA3 and Generals as spin-off titles.
As such, I'm going to have to ask you to please not revert the template back to your revision. I know it's a pity of the time you spend on it, but we've all been there. Kalamrir (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a derivative discussion from some of the sections above with an anon user (which were largely because of some misunderstanding I think), but since it's seperate from the main issue discussed I thought it would be better to create a new section. Anyway, the issue is what links is relevant to be included in the template? The links I'm refering to is the current links to the real-world equivalents of the factions in Red Alert. Since there are no articles about the factions in-universe, no can be included, and I think links to real-world factions which are unrelated to C&C shouldn't be in the template at all. I think a rule of thumb would be that a link to an article should be included in the template if the template itself would be included on that article, or if the subject have a strong real-world connection to the subject the template covers. Please give your opinions. --MrStalker (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the Generals factions, this was solved easily. The main Generals article proved to have a short overview for each of that game's three factions, so it was simply a matter of relinking the template to each overview. The Tiberium factions weren't an issue to begin with, since given the popularity of these games each of their factions actually has its own dedicated article.
The problem however is with the Red Alert (Anyone seeing a pattern here?) factions. None of the RA articles features a summary of the Allies, Soviets and now Imperials which can be considered representative of those factions as they appear in all the RA games. Moreover, they do not have their own dedicated articles either.
The way I see it, there's two solutions to this. Either we simply remove the links and leave the RA factions in the template as plain unlinked text, or we keep the current links in place until for example someone puts up a summary of the factions in one of the RA articles. I don't really have a preference in this, so I will leave it up to other editors. Kalamrir (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to discuss my edit. I propose to delink words in this template that take the reader to non-C&C related articles. The words "Playable factions" are linked. In any other video game navbox, the reader would expect to be taken to an article such as Playable factions in the Command & Conquer franchise or similar. It, however, links to political faction, which is an article that is obviously not about C&C. Similarly, "Companies" is linked to Company. I think we can assume the average reader is aware of what a company is. Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context says to not link to plain English words in general, of which this is a clear case. Under the Playable factions portion, if I click on a Tiberium faction, I am taken to an article about the fictional C&C faction. If I click on a Red Alert faction, I am taken to an article about a real-world construct (such as Soviet Union) or, worse, a general concept (Allies). How does this help to reader who wishes to learn about C&C?

I also propose to remove links to subsections in cases where the main article is linked. This includes link to the playable factions of Command & Conquer: Generals. We don't have separate articles for those factions, so there is no need to have separate links for them in the template. Pagrashtak 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Providing real-life context relevant to the subject(s) which the template covers is precisely what the links you seek to remove in fact accomplish. This additionally renders these links in complete accordance with the guideline that you have cited. Secondly, the links to the Generals factions direct the reader to brief summaries of these three factions within the main Generals article, making them not only entirely relevant to the subject of the template, but also of direct value to its purpose; namely, to serve as a user-friendly roadmap to all things related to the Command & Conquer franchise, and for readers of as many backgrounds as possible. Also, inclusion of links to the real-life correlates of the Red Alert factions is already discussed in the topic directly above this one -- feel free to further discuss that particular issue there, at your leisure.
As an aside, it's a little ironic that you've coined your edits as "template cleanup" in your edit summary, when the template's current revision has been receiving a positive reception in the recent past from numerous editors. This may suggest that your proposed edits aren't quite that necessary. Kalamrir (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
How is the article Company relative to the context of Command & Conquer? Companies of Command & Conquer would be appropriate, but not Company. Pagrashtak 18:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps due to the fact that this section lists the respective companies which have produced and published the C&C games, in the same fashion that the linked to "Video Games" lists the respective C&C titles which have been brought to us on that particular medium. (Namely, video games.) I don't really see the alleged issue here, to be honest. Wikipedia is meant to provide the world with a free flow of readily available information, and the template's current revision reflects the nature of that mission in its own way.
I could see your point if a link was present within the template which redirected to an article related to cooking, to give a rather very straightforward example. Something like this isn't the case, anywhere in the template. All links provided share relevance with the subject(s) being covered by the template, albeit in varying degrees. But relevance there always is, in each and every single case. As such, I'd dare state that the template is doing quite fine.
That shouldn't be much of a surprise either, since the current revision is the result of both extensive debate and numerous, numerous edits, from multiple editors. That is part of the reason why I requested that you first discuss your issues with it on the talk page here before making any large alterations, as the template's current revision is the result of a widely supported consensus. Kalamrir (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The very first example in WP:OVERLINK of what not to link is "Plain English words, including common units of measurement". Would you write "GameCo is the company that developed Super Foo Bar"? Of course not. The company article is about companies in general and is not relative to the context of an article about GameCo. If you were to write "GameCo is a video game developer that create Super Foo Bar", that link has more merit. The article about VG developers is more relevant to the subject matter than "Company". This is the general concept, but applied to a template.
The first issue with overlinking is the dilution of link usefulness. These superfluous links draw attention away from the links that actually matter—Command & Conquer: Red Alert, Scrin, etc. The second issue is reader confusion. When a reader sees "Playable Factions" and a list of nine factions underneath that, it's confusing to have a mishmash of real-world and fictional subjects linked there. Someone wanting to learn about the playable factions of C&C who clicks on "Empire of the Rising Sun" and is taken to an article about the real-world Empire of Japan has just had his or her time wasted. Pagrashtak 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
With regard the Empire of Japan link, it has been verified that the Empire of the Rising Sun is based on the Empire of Japan, therefore the link provides real world context as Kalimar has stated. I don't think there's any confusion there, a cursory glance at the Red Alert 3 article demonstrates that there is no real Empire of the Rising Sun, but there is a real empire on which it is based. I may well be interested in looking at such an article. And the issue of Company has already been dealt with by Kalimar, I don't see any reason to disagree with what he has said here.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
What you are characterizing as "reader confusion", I hold to be the proper providing of context to this template on all counts for reasons which are already stated above. I feel strenghtened in that position by the simple fact that these concerns you are raising appear to be unique to you. That, too, may be indicative of something. This page certainly is no stranger to extensive debate, but this is the first time I've seen it happen over such a trivial issue, quite frankly. Kalamrir (talk) 04:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Unique to me on this page, perhaps. There are only three editors discussing in this thread—with two points of view, that means one side must stand alone. I am also surprised that something so trivial is apparently controversial, but such is the way of Wikipedia, is it not? ;) If you'll take a look around other video game navboxes, you'll see that what is being done here is not the standard. I won't push the point at the moment, as there are other things on which I would rather spend my time right now, but at some point, I would like to open this discussion up to a larger group. Not necessarily about this particular template, although it would be an good example to illustrate the point, but navboxes in general. Pagrashtak 05:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Do indulge yourself, my friend. To be quite honest, the probability is high that I will participate in that discussion myself, and use the opportunity to advocate for our C&C template's current revision to be rendered something of a new standard for Wikipedia navboxes across the board. The response to our template's current revision has been so positive -with the sole exception of yourself, as has already been pointed out- that I am quite confident we at the C&C task force are in a position to convicingly make such a case to the Wikipedia community at large. Keep me informed! Kalamrir (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely agree with Kalimar, the template works fantastically and I should say that if others are different they should change rather than us.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#What links are appropriate in navboxes?. Your comments are encouraged. Pagrashtak 16:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for keeping me informed. I'll be participating in this discussion to advocate the template's current revision becoming a new standard for video game navboxes across Wikipedia. Kalamrir (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is silly, let's not put crazy unrelated shit in the game infobox thanks. Ideally, the only articles that will be linked will be articles that also have this infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to drop the presumptious attitude and participate in the debate instead. I'm expecting argumentation, not some drivel. Kalamrir (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not what presumptuous means.
Basically, this is the C&C infobox. It should link to articles that talk about C&C. Articles that do not talk about C&C should be removed. This isn't complicated. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
My reply -and indeed ours, as this revision is the result of the input of numerous editors- can be found in the general debate. Since you appear to have difficulty finding your way there, please follow this link. Kalamrir (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, okay. That's Pagrashtak and I telling you exactly the same thing, only on a different page. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Since you don't seem capable of independently grasping that Pagrashtak seeks to broaden this discussion to editors outside of the C&C task force, I unfortunately had to forcefeed it to you. Kalamrir (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You don't really have any room to be smug, when I had already made two comments in that thread before you pointed it out. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
So you concede you're arguing the same case on two separate pages just for the sake of being argumentative? That doesn't seem to allow any room to point out etiquette to other users with. Kalamrir (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Still waiting on the explanation for why this template is ⅓ non-C&C articles by volume. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The answer has been waiting for you on the aforementioned talk page for the past 45 minutes or so. Specifically, the second paragraph. I take it my sentences were too long and they ended up making you a bit confused?
Also, I'm awaiting the four other editors who are proponents of this revision to step in. Since it evidently isn't beneath you to generate the perception that this revision is solely my own doing and that I am the lone proponent of it, I think their input is quite important in this discussion. Kalamrir (talk) 22:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
You keep using long words incorrectly. It's annoying.
I read that, and you say "It's valuable real-world context!" I think, "Okay, but why is it misleadingly linked, and why are plain English words (like "company" and "publisher") linked?" You say, "It's confirmed that (fictional faction) is based on (historical nation)!" I think, "Okay, but when I click a link to (fictional faction), I don't expect a gotcha link to (historical nation)." LOLLONGWORDS doesn't really answer my "Why the misleading links?" and "Why the links to plain words?"
"Misleading links and links to plain English words are popular, look at all the people who support me!" isn't terribly convincing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Revert to Series Form

I propose we revert the template to the series form (Main, RA, Generals) for three reasons: They all fit into a clear series, we do not know enough about the overall plot to decide which fits into which, and it will be easier for the reader to find what they are looking for.

The Red Alert games are clearly part of their own series as they are all named "Command and Conquer: Red Alert #", they have their own reoccurring characters which appear only in Red Alert games, and they always use the same themes like Soviet invasion, time travel, and are quite far fetched (as opposed to the other games which try to be a bit more realistic). While Red Alert definately happens in the same universe as the main games, for the reasons above it is more suitably placed in the RA category, just as a television programme like Torchwood is categorized seperately to Doctor Who despite belonging to the same universe.

The Generals games must be put seperately to the others as they bear no resemblance in terms of story, none of the same characters, or conflicts, completely unrelated.

By having them in these three groups, it will be clearer to find the article you are looking for without having prior knowledge of the plots, and is the more logical way of seperating them. [ TheMG ]

  • I propose we do none of this, for the reasons discussed extensively above. We had it this way before and it was misleading and confused. The lines are not clearly drawn between the three series, this was only done for C&C: The First Decade and it was a decision which has been heavily criticised. Your basis for seperating the Red Alert games is highly subjective, and in any case you accept that Red Alert happened in the same timeline as the Tiberian series. This latter fact is up for debate, but your acceptance of it means some acceptabce of the fact that it blurs the lines between franchies. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
  • sorry for reviving an old topic, but cassadeathangel is right. the treshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability not truth. we can verify red alert is the first chapter of the tiberium story arc with the westwood faqs, the game dialogue and the kanes dossier file from ea. we cant verify that ra2 and 3 are part of it. stalker and kalarir were right. we can talk of 3 'series', but not of 3 'universes'. you could say that the ra to tib connection was a westwood thing and it no longer matters now ea has bought cnc, but ea kept the story connection alive too! read the kane dossier document. the new ea cnc website is going to put all games together by 'universe', but then theres the kanes dossier document which says gdi has photos of kane during the 1950s of red alert. i think ea just hasnt figured out what to do about it either cause they always contradict themselves. what we have to work with on wiki is what we can verify. the template right now is based only on verifiable sources. not opinions. it makes for the least confusion. it really should stay the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedricDancer (talk • contribs) 07:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuri is a playable RA-fraction...

...isn't it? -- 84.57.12.19 (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Command_%26_Conquer_series/Archive_1&oldid=1142001822"