Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Command & Conquer/Archive 1

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

Storyline connections

I revived the section under "Former Tiberian and Red Alert series connection" at the main article Command & Conquer series, though it will probably removed. Anyhow, you can check it out there. This is fascinating information, though the last removal was made in contemplation of Wikipedia's reference policy against forum posts and the fact that Red Alert 1 attempts to cover the same material. But is this enough to dismiss this section? An integral member of the Westwood creative team (Ishmael) is the one speaking; he's not simply a random employee, or a speculative poster. It's still his first-hand information, but the information itself is fascinating and at least worth reading to Command & Conquer fans (my principal reason or adding the section). He has little reason to mislead. Nonetheless, this is interesting new ground for Wikipedia, so let's see what you guys think of it. Keep or delete? Zeality 04:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I've since addressed this issue for both the Command & Conquer: Red Alert and Command & Conquer: Tiberian series articles, though we may indeed receive some comments over Ishmael's reference material at some point in the future due to it being information contained on a message board. We'll have to see how this plays out, but as a precaution I've added numerous references to actual in-game content which essentially cover the same ground as Ishmael's comments do. This should ensure that these "Connections to the Tiberian series" sections will not be removed a second time. Kalamrir (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

General article cleanup

So, its come to my attention that the C&C articles in general (and the Tiberium Universe ones in particlar) need some clean-up. "Some," in this case, means "the liberal application of wikichainsaws."

From what I can tell, the following needs to be done:

  • The "Storyline" articles need to be cut outright. Pare them down and either integrate each individual game's plotline into the respective article for that game or combine them with the general article on the faction.
  • "Technology" articles also need to be cut back and either integrated into a single "Technology of Command and Conquer" article or integrated with each faction's general article.
  • "Characters" articles need to be pared down, with extremely minor characters removed, and the characters integrated into a general "Characters of Command and Conquer" article. Reference Characters of Final Fantasy VIII article for a good model.
  • Possible creation of a "Command and Conquer Tiberium Universe/Tiberium World" article, of a similar design to the World of Final Fantasy VIII article. If done, we could integrate the "technology" sections or possibly the "Tacitus" article, which is kind of hanging out there on its own. Tiberium could also be integrated into this article.
  • Possible creation of a "Factions of Command and Conquer" article, though I think there's too much information on each of the main factions to create anything meaningful that isn't bloated.
  • General clean-up of all the Command and Conquer game articles. FFS, Renegade has map strategies in its article, and Wikipedia does not work that way. Tiberian Sun needs a wikichainsaw taken to it, and the Command & Conquer series article is a trainwreck.

Now. Suggestions on how to implement this massive overhaul? Peptuck 01:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really, but some obvious criticisms:
  • The first one, I can basically agree with.
  • The second one, no. If Star Wars can have whole sections for the Empire and for the Rebellion, C&C can have their faction tech seperate. Merging into the faction article is possible, but likely to trigger the whole "Article is too long" thing.
  • Third one is countered by Kryptonite, Adamantium (comics), Dilithium (Star Trek), Phazon, Scrith, and all the other Fictional Materials that (a) have articles and (b) are even shorter than Tib's.
  • Agree that compressing the articles would make too much information. Sort of happens when you've got somethin' as complex as C&C.

Scumbag 00:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, can someone please enlighten Man in Black, who seems intent on waging a one-editor crusade on all the C&C articles? At the very least we need to start citing sources and making the articles out-of-universe. Peptuck 04:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Renegade

Hey, I started an overhaul on Command & Conquer: Renegade before I realized that there was a task force. Now that I know, I'd love your guys help. I don't know how to cite sources, and I need help integrating the development section and fleshing out the plot. I had to delete the weapon, vehichles, and building lists, which amounted to something like 3/4's of the article. Any help you guys could give would be appreciated. DurinsBane87 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Allied technology of Command & Conquer

also for Soviet, someone has added a deletion, the article will be deleted tomorrow. Perhaps you know, perhaps you don't. Don't let them delete it, it's based on criteria that are nonsense. Mallerd 08:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that article is better suited for GameFaqs, and should definitly be deleted. DurinsBane87 13:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Generals series NPOV

Hey, I completley re-did the Command & Conquer: Generals series page and I wanted to know if that NPOV on the to do list for it still applies after the changes (P.S I got it to go up from Stub to Start). -Bigvinu —Preceding comment was added at 14:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately enough, my intense and eternal dislike of Generals prohibits me from giving any articles directly related to this title so much as a second glance. On the plus side, you may find that I will make up for this through the attention that I will give to any and all articles which are related to the Tiberium series in particular. And you'll find that attention to be a great boon for these articles. I guarantee it. Kalamrir (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Inactive members

I've removed four members from our group which according to their contribution pages haven't made a single edit to any C&C-related article over a period of several months. This may seem a bit radical at first glance, but if I made a mistake they can always swiftly re-add themselves at any moment of their choosing.

As an aside, I'm a little puzzled as to why user Zealtity is not an official member of this task force. As I understand it, it was this user who was largely responsible for the Frank Klepacki article having reached FA status. Kalamrir (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks like our little beehive has regained a good part of its buzz. Lovely. Now, let's update, polish, verify, source, rewrite, discuss, bicker, call each other dirty names and generally get as many of these C&C articles to "Good Article" status as we can. Let's not underestimate the potentially rippling effect of our efforts here, gentlemen; Wikipedia is a readily accessible website for many internet users, and decent and compelling C&C articles will help put the franchise in the limelight some more again with long-time fans and newcommers alike, by serving as a stylish point of reference. The more interest we inadvertently (re)generate through quality articles here, the more active the fan community could become and also remain, and the more likely those dolts over at EALA might turn motivated to invest in higher quality development for future C&C titles. And perhaps even better aftercare on things like Tiberium Wars and Kane's Wrath. Imagine that.
So, let's do what we can. It's called a "task force" for a reason. Kalamrir (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Article "CABAL" listed for deletion

Computer_Assisted_Biologically_Augmented_Lifeform is up for AFD per WP:N. Unfortunately it doesn't look like it's passed it so I've had no choice but to vote for deletion, but if it can be saved I'll do anything I can to assist with it. AFD is here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Computer_Assisted_Biologically_Augmented_LifeformCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 11:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


Real-time strategy article needs help

Hey folks. Just wanted to direct some eager and intelligent minds to the real-time strategy article. Right now, the article is B-level status but it's important enough that it needs to be pushed to good article status. More than anything, it needs research and references to verify the statements in the article at this point. Please check in when you can. Randomran (talk) 15:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:VG

This discussion is relevant to this task force, please take a look. JACOPLANE • 2008-07-9 17:09


Character and Faction pages

(Cross-posted from talk page of Wikiproject: Video Games and also Command & Conquer (series) to reach wider audience)

This is something that's been bothering me for a while, time to get closure on it. Basically just about every Command & Conquer related article is a mess, and to get a template for the other games I've been working on Red Alert 3. A sticking point is the cast and characters section, and the main articles. At present there is are articles for most characters divided by faction (so Allied characters of Command & Conquer etc). These articles are almost wholly non-referenced, at least not to 3rd party sources, and I would say non-notable. There are exceptions - I'd argue Kane and Tanya are iconic enough to warrant their own articles (possibly not the latter) and indeed the C&C miscellaneous articles have been cut down a lot already, but should these characters articles exist?

Actually, when thinking about this I would extend this discussion to the faction articles as well where notability can't be proven - I'm not sure how many other computer games have pages for factions not existing in a context outwith the series.

There are a few options here (this list is not exhaustive):

  • Keep all articles as they are, just cleaning them up, adding references, etc as any normal article progresses.
  • Submit them all to AFD - individually of course - citing the likes of WP:N as reasoning
  • Cut down on the number of lists, for example by having one list per series
  • Keep a couple of them, remove the rest
  • Take a few key characters - like Kane and possibly Tanya - and expand them into their own articles (Kane already has one right enough) while deleting the broader lists
  • As above but keep the lists for (a smaller number than at present of) minor characters
  • Keep the faction articles and merge the character lists into them

For reference I'm talking about the following articles:

I'm undecided on the best course of action and as such open to any of the above options. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC template

I've made an RfC template for the C&C Task Force since not many people check the talk page that often. To use it just add {{C&CTF-RfC|NAME OF DISCUSSION}} to any page. Eg, for this message add {{C&CTF-RfC|RfC template}} to produce

Command & Conquer Task Force

Thoughts? --Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 11:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Page redesign

I was bold and reworked the project page into the same style as the main project. There are still a few errors with it I can't quite fix. Feel free to edit at will Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 22:17, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Great source for Tiberian Sun

Someone should add this; it's written by the producer and allows a behind-the-scenes perspective on production and reception. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 11:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


Hefto cleanup

Right troops. It's that time, I propose that we start a major cleanup effort on the various Command & Conquer related articles on the great 'pedia. Instead of just everyone going off willynilly I think we should agree on one article to focus on and to try improve that article to WP:GA status.

Since it is the most central article I propose we start with Command & Conquer. By clean up I don't mean add more info and padding etc. I mean take the proverbial wikichainsaw to the pages and trim them down. See articles like Halo (series) for an example of what we should be aiming for. The article has a lot of potential but it contains too much game guide material. The whole section on Hero units for example can go completely. Command & Conquer should be about the media franchise that is Command & Conquer and contain only a brief summary of the plot and no other ingame info. I think we should tackle this one step at a time. Don't even look at other articles until we're happy with Command & Conquer.

Please sign your name below in the area I've lined off so I know who the active members still are even if you can't devote much time. Try keep comments and suggestions below this area. -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Active members

  1. -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 16:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  2. -- Nyerguds (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC) (I mostly edit C&C1 though)
  3. -- Gamer007 (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments on cleanup effort

  • I've removed all of the inappropriate in universe information in the article, copy edited it and formatted it similar to Age of Empires (series) which is a featured article. I've now copied this over into the main article. If anyone has any issues with this, here is the place to discuss it -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 14:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sugested move of Tiberian & Red Alert series articles

Details here. --MrStalker (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New Article

I just added Red Alert: A Path Beyond to our project scope. It is an indie game taking place in the Red Alert universe. It has received widespread attention by both EA and the Community. Right now, it has low importance, but I might nominate it for mid importance later, as the project, and community, is growing. It is also in the indie task force. Cbrittain10 (talk)

What Should We Rename Command & Conquer (2013 video game) to?

Currently there is an article called Command & Conquer (2013 video game), which was for a new entry of the series sharing the same name as Command & Conquer (1995 video game). The thing is, the new game was canceled and wasn't actually released in 2013, so the date no longer belongs in the title.

However, we still need a way to distinguish this article from the article of the first game in the series. I imagine we could name in Command & Conquer (canceled video game) or Command & Conquer (reboot video game) or something similar. Any ideas would be greatly appreciated. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Merge this task force

I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup of WP:VG's inactive task forces (which would include merging this task force into the "strategy" task force), if you'll take a look czar ♔ 02:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Command_%26_Conquer/Archive_1&oldid=1146379506"