Talk:Command & Conquer/Archive 2

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

Proposed Merger of all Faction articles to new Factions of Command & Conquer article

Further to an earlier thread on this page and on the Talk Page of WikiProject: Video Games, I wish to propose a merge, rewrite and redirect of a group of articles into a single new article, Factions of Command & Conquer. The articles and sections concerned are the following:

My reasoning for this proposal is as follows:

  • All of the above articles and sections fail WP:N by having insufficient real world coverage to an extent that warrants individual articles. Collectively, I believe that encyclopedic understanding of the game is enhanced by having information relating to the factions in a single location, rather than scattered across multiple articles
  • Duplication is evident - a single game and its expansion pack have full sections on each of the three main factions, each of which also has its own article
  • The above articles and sections except those of Tiberium Wars - and even that is arguable - fail WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE by being written in a primarily in-universe style and recanting more plot than encyclopedic value.
  • The above articles and sections except those of Tiberium Wars fail WP:V and WP:OR by being almost entirely unsourced and unreferenced
  • Such a merger brings the Command and Conquer series into line with similar articles for the FA Real Time Strategy games Starcraft and Supreme Commander. The articles Species of Starcraft - a GA - and Factions in Supreme Commander are those which I seek to roughly emulate, although of course I would eventually like to see the article become FA, which neither of the aforementioned are (yet). I acknowledge of course the differences between the series, and as such would not be creating a carbon-copy article.
  • The merger would reduce clutter by forcing meaningless trivia, OR and fancruft to be removed, along with the game guide-like material referred to above.
  • Where sections of articles are listed above, putting a link to this article in place of most of the content of those sections of the main articles would be a much-needed clean up exercise for those articles, with no solution having existed prior when the issue has come up on talk pages. They would not need to be deleted however, merely shortened greatly with a link to the main article inserted.
  • I accept that much of the Tiberium Wars material is sourced, though I still consider it excessive for the main game article and would rather see it cut down if possible

For now, I have created the article in my User Space at User:Caissa's DeathAngel/Factions of Command & Conquer. I propose that this discussion continue for about two weeks (though I admit to not being sure how long these discussions should last, being new to large scale mergers like this), during which time I will create the article, including where appropriate material from the existing articles, though being somewhat brutal with regard the guideline breaches listed above and with a concerted effort being made to add as many sources as possible. Of course, other editors may contribute as desired. If after two weeks, or before if is the case, consensus is reached in favour of the merger, I will redirect all the above-named articles to the main article, and put the article in Main Space. If consensus is against, I will simply delete the subpage.

I recognise by the way that until February 2007 the page Miscellaneous factions of Command & Conquer had the name of my proposal before the main factions were expanded out. I do not feel however that this move was successful or achieved anything, and as such it should be undone.

I await the opinions of my fellow editors on this matter with great interest - and an open mind for alternative suggestions. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this is great idea and support your proposal. Quality of articles is better than quantity of articles in this case. --MrStalker (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
This is a challenging task, and I think you have some good ideas about how to accomplish it. More than anything, I think it's better to have one great article than a lot of low quality articles that never meet Wikipedia's standards. Randomran (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I support this also. Glad to see someone stepping up to improve this. Pagrashtak 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much for your support everyone, it's much appreciated! Thanks also to ThunderForge, who has been assisting with this as well. I've looked again at the Tiberium Wars material and it actually sums up the three Tiberium factions quite nicely! If I saw those sections initially in my article I'd likely not do too much to them, though I may need to cut down given I'm looking at 3 series and 10 factions (I also want to cover Tiberium-based life forms in the Tiberium series, this including aliens who aren't Scrin and the Forgotten and arguably a passing mention to and Cabal's sides since they are both multiplayer-usable in their respective games. I'd rather get too much up though and cut back than build from scratch as long as what I'm putting up is decent and sourced - and it's sourced to 5 external sources - 3 from Gamespot, 2 from IGN - and a secondary source considered acceptable - Kane's Dossier from EA. I also want to include details on conception, development, reception and legacy, these being far more important of course than how they play. That can come though, for the first evening I'm satisfied with things as they stand. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The draft you've started in userspace looks like a great start, though people might have NFCC issues with the images. And, as you said, development and such will be the more important. --Izno (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
i think its very disrespectful to the guys who put so much work into for example the brotherhood of nod article. youre pretty much going to delete everything they wrote and worked on for months. theres lots of support for this though so i guess thats that. but im still abstaining from this vote. sometimes wikipedia just sucks. this is one of those times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedricDancer (talk • contribs) 08:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
btw the nod article has 16 sister articles in other languages. ea dedicated an exp pack to that faction alone. the lead char of the faction is the core of the c&c fiction and an icon in the gaming world. it seems pretty notable which should warrant a separate article if you ask me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedricDancer (talk • contribs) 08:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a good idea but I strongly think that the Brotherhood of Nod and Global Defense Initiative articles should remain but be heavily worked on. They are too big and too iconic to be merged into another article like the one you're suggesting. The scrin, on the border but most likely into your factions article. The rest, yeah. --Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign!) 14:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • First, I'm not being disrespectful to anyone, see the bit at the bottom of the editing box "if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will then do not submit it here" - they wrote it knowing it might be changed or removed. I would urge you not to confuse Kane's iconic status with that of his organisation, notability is not inherited after all and Kane has gained it regardless. Kane is very obviously an icon of the series, but outwith the series is there real notability of even GDI and NOD? There's a C&C Wikia where you can go into as much detail as you like, but stripping all but the genuinely encyclopedic content from GDI and NOD's articles leaves you with next to nothing I'd say. Of course, I'm perfectly open to being proven wrong, and I will keep the new article in userspace for a couple of weeks - but you've got 2 weeks only to disprove my questioning of notability and encyclopedic value. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The number of dedicated "Brotherhood of Nod" pages in a different language does not necessarily mean that the English language Wikipedia should have one as well. I took a quick look at them. The Spanish one is little more than a stub, the German one actually redirects to a single article covering the entire C&C Tiberium series, and the Italian one just has two sentences about it being a faction in C&C games.
While we very much appreciate the work that others have put into the Nod and GDI articles, the fact remains that Wikipedia evolves. Pages are improved. The articles already in place provide an excellent starting place for the next evolution, whatever it is decided to be. As far as I can tell, the de facto standard for articles about factions in notable computer games is to combine them into a common article, as they are typically not notable enough on their own. I believe that the StarCraft factions are just as notable, if not more so, than the C&C factions. The page Species of Starcraft shows that combining factions is feasible and that such an article can receive Good Article status. This still seems to be the best course of action for articles about C&C factions. As for Kane, he's been recognized outside of C&C continuity (e.g. he's been rated one of the "15 most badass bald guys" above Lex Luthor). To my knowledge, no similar recognition has been given to the GDI and Nod (or the Allies and Soviets for that matter), so I see no reason to defy the standard. -Thunderforge (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
no your not being disrepectful, just throwing months of their work into the garbage bin on some personal whim. your not evolving or improving anything either, your just cutting the best article on this kind ofsubject ive ever seen down to something that you in other places would add a stub tag to. what irks me is that many of the people in favor are mostly the same ones who got karamrir to leave way back when. and i must be honest, he was better at this than all of you put together. he would prolly have continued to make these articles better but he left because of the attitude of these people here. theres just something wrong with this. your making things more poor, more bland not better. sorry but if this goes through i give up on c&c task forcing too. im getting a little tired of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedricDancer (talk • contribs) 12:02, November 21, 2008
I'm sorry but I resent the idea that I'm doing this on a personal whim. I have cited 4 policy/guideline based reasons for doing this - WP:NOT, WP:N, WP:OR, WP:V - the combined failure of which could cause these articles to be deleted if somebody sent them to AFD. I'm not sure from where you are getting the idea that these are brilliant articles either. I love C&C, I love everything about it! But it's because of that that I'm doing this, because I want these articles to be good, and cutting them down and rebuilding them is the only way in which I can do this I'm afraid. Kalamnir incidentally didn't leave, he was indefinitely blocked for voracious personal attacks against admins with whom he disagreed. His loss was a sad one for these articles, but it was his fault in the end. I greatly welcome your input Daedric Dancer, this is a discussion I've not just out and out done things - I've kept the new article in user space for that reason. But you'll need to cite policies and guidelines as to why this merger shouldn't happen, or else make the articles better yourself. I'm sorry but that's just the way things are. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I apologise for the delay in making progress here, I've been buried with work this week and will continue to be until the weekend. Next week though I expect to make major progress with this. In the mean time anyone else wishing to do so is more than welcome, but I haven't forgotten about or abandoned this! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok so I've now lost my internet connection at home so I'm going to be further delayed unfortunately - I can edit sometimes at work but no gaming related sites can be accessed here, so I can't do things like source the new article. Hopefully just a temporary situation! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
In response to the criticisms against what we are trying to do, remember that we aren't actually editing the existing articles at this point. We're making a temporary version of new articles on a user's namespace. We have every right to work on them and we are convinced it will be for the benefit of the Command & Conquer articles. If after we create the new articles and then decide that they are not better than the current articles, then no harm is done and we simply abandon the articles we've created. When these temporary articles come to some sort of finalized state, I would encourage others to look at them and give their comments. Hey, you can even help with editing them now. Perhaps it would be good to even ask for a peer review of them when they are further along. In the mean time, we're not doing anything to the current articles, so if you like them the way they are, then don't worry about what we're doing. -Thunderforge (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
uh, no. i submitted the nod article for review long ago when he seemed done working on it and a experienced, respected article reviewer said the nod article violated NO rules. it barely changed since then so the verdict still stands. the user is User talk:Haha169 and you can see his verdict in the nod article talk page still. im sorry but you seem a deletionist who tries to impose his wiki views on an article nobody else had any issues with for so many months. weird no? and why i think the nod article is so good? cause almost no one edits it anymore so apparently all the people reading it think its just fine the way it is. nobody adds, nobody removes, they only read. i see this happen very little in wiki, that articles that get viewed often are edited so little. i am an inclusionist that is why i object to what your doing. wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia giving all free info that is directly important to the topic, giving all info that describes and explains the topic to readers. NOT something that contains just a few lines on each topic, with as many topics stacked together in one page as possible. again your not making things better with this and yes i do think this is arbitrary decision from a band of deletionists = personal whim —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaedricDancer (talk • contribs) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I've moved your comment to the bottom of the thread, as it should be. Please learn to sign your posts also. You are assuming bad faith on my part by suggesting I am trying to impose my Wikiviews on everyone else, and I'll be honest - I'm slightly offended. Note how you are so far the only person who objects to my plan, whereas several users have come out in favour. Note also how I have cited policy and guideline based reasons for making my change, I have made numerous invitations for you to do likewise and yet you have nothing. So I say again - PLEASE cite specific reasons why my plan violates Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines. Personal attacks against my editing style do not count, and that is all you have so far provided. I am something of an inclusionist myself, if I were not I would have sent all the articles to AFD immediately. I have not done that however I have initiated a discussion. One editor may have reviewed the NOD article, but Consensus Can Change, and one review is not binding - especially as that reviewer is not an admin or even particularly active editing the C&C articles. I also remind you that Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and that gaming Wikis exist for the purpose of providing detailed information on the topic. The C&C Wikia is quite good as it happens, I suggest you have a look around. I'm keeping this discussion open as I haven't had a chance to make the new articles what I want them to be, given I only got my internet back yesterday after 2 weeks. This is plenty of time for you to provide policy/guideline based reasons why I should keep things as they are. If you can't provide that, I will be changing the articles in accordance with the policy/guideline based reasons I have cited for so doing. I'm sorry for being repetitive here, but it's worth saying over and over again - it is the basis on which all Wikipedia operates, and it is most certainly not my personal whims deciding anything. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
And again, remember that for now, we're creating a temporary article on a user's main page. We're not actually editing the articles themselves yet, we'd only do that if it is decided that the completed temporary articles are better than the current articles. So if you don't like what we're doing, fine, but realize we're not changing the current articles quite yet, so complaining wastes all our time. And as Cassia's DeathAngel said, please provide good reasons if you feel things ought to be kept as they are. -Thunderforge (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
It's also worth pointing out that the "review" referred to appeared to be nothing more than a quick brush over of the article, and did not mention any specific parts. It also said that it violates no policies as long as nobody cares about getting the article above "Start" class. I am going for Featured class however, so it most definitely does breach a lot of rules in terms of what is required for that class. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the attempted deletion, it seems I was a bit hasty and didn't see the merge proposal. But I don't see how the "encyclopedi-osity" of the different factions could be improved by sending them to a single article. The recurring factions can be merged into the series article, while the ones that only appear in one game can stay at their relative article pages. A "Factions of C&C" article would still be entirely in-universe information unless you can source development info for every last one of those factions.--ZXCVBNM 02:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Since these factions are very important in one of the bestselling computer game series (and, particularly with Nod, notable outside the series), they seem to have a place on Wikipedia. Similar articles, notably Species of StarCraft exist, which is kind of our model. That page doesn't source development for every faction, but it doesn't seem to be entirely in universe. We're trying this out and seeing if it works better than the way things are. As for recurring factions, all factions in the C&C games are recurring: each faction is in at least one game and one expansion (even The Empire of the Rising Sun now that RA3 has an announced expansion). For now though, we're experimenting with this page to see if it improves information about these factions on Wikipedia. -Thunderforge (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
But Species of StarCraft has a ton of great research. WP:N says that an article needs significant research from reliable independent secondary sources. This article has no research of that kind, and I haven't been able to find anything significant. Deletion would be a realistic option if the AFD followed through. But I think a merge would be a good compromise. Randomran (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure, if the page Factions of Command & Conquer was as fully referenced as Species of StarCraft it could stand on its own. But as it is now, even in draft form, I don't see anywhere near the level of detail. Just because they're from a bestselling series doesn't mean they're notable. In fact, the various "lists of characters" for the C&C series need to be merged into "per-game" pages instead of "per-faction" pages, since the factions are fictional.--ZXCVBNM 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am firmly opposed to any merger. These articles that you are proposing to merge have excellent information produced by many quality editors, information that is adequetely sourced and reliable. GDI and NOD, unlike the factions of supreme commander, have a history dating back to 1995 and have been in many bestselling video games. They are an iconic to the real time strategy genre and any merger would only destroy precious information and would be entirely counterproductive.

Please refer to this segment from the notability article:

When discussing whether to delete or merge an article due to non-notability, the discussion should focus not only on whether notability is established in the article, but on what the probability is that notability could be established. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort..

I realise it says deletion and not merger but a merger in this case would be not far off a deletion as there are only bite-sized bits of information about each faction on your sample page and a merger would essentialy constitute a deletion in terms of information pawned. I agree with what has been said above, you attempt to justify this merger with non-notability and real world perspectives claims but how would a merger recify this? Your efforts would be far more constructive when applied to attempting to better the existing articles, which are already at a high standard.

And in regard to the above comment Increasing the quality of information is better than increasing the quantity. This is tottally absurd. The only thing that will come out of this is a reduction in quantity. Please tell me how you are remotely improving the quality of information by simplifying it and pawning information.

No merger please.Devilsaur2 (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

    • Guys, I'm sorry about my 2 month absence, I've been caught up with a whole load of things so haven't had time to come on. I'm increasingly thinking that the sources just don't exist for this, adn that an AFD really is the best solution. What exists on the draft page just now is mostly ok, but could at best be trimmed and put into an existing article. Devilsaur2 I'll say to you what Kung Fu Man said about your attitude to the Soul series characters - you've completely misunderstood the notion of notability, and reliable sourcing is what 3rd party sources are, not in game cites. When 2 sources out of 50 are not from inside the game, that article is not well sourced, end of discussion.

Randomran, as a more experienced editor, do you think the time has come to put all the faction articles, and the character articles except for Kane, to AFD? Right now it's looking like there's only 2 characters with any claims whatsoever to notability, Kane and Tanya Adams. Yuri and Yuriko do not have it, based on the AFD for C.A.B.A.L. a few months back. Nobody else does for obvious reasons. Bacon-slicer application time? Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 10:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at four articles...
I couldn't find significant coverage in reliable third-party sources for these. But that was a while ago, and someone else might want to take a look. It's a legitimate reason for deletion. That said, this is a merge discussion. I'm not sure how other people would feel about deletion. I saw merging to a new article as a temporary compromise, because the only permanent solution is either to source it properly or delete it. But again, this might prove controversial. If you have an honest and good faith belief that we shouldn't have articles, then use AFD. But otherwise, we might want to go to WT:VG and start a new discussion, as part of an overall sequence of dispute resolution. Ask them what's appropriate, a merge to a new article, a merge to existing series' articles, or outright deletion. Randomran (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Do any Command & Conquer games have reviews by professional critics? If an article does not contain citations to "reliable third-party sources", that doesn't mean a subject is not notable. You just made the shortcut WP:FAILN up today Randomran. This is the place to talk about a merge discussion, not WikiProject Video games. And AFDs are not for merge discussions. --Pixelface (talk) 21:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What difference does the shortcut matter? We often delete non-notable articles. These articles don't appear to be notable. People were talking about a merge as a compromise, but truthfully, I see just as much reason to delete, if not moreso. Merging non-notable articles together still results in a non-notable article. Randomran (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
What is the shortcut supposed to mean? Articles cannot "fail" WP:N. And articles don't have to notable. When articles are nominated for deletion, people often say the topic is non-notable. How many Command & Conquer videogames have there been? Global Defense Initiative and Brotherhood of Nod are both well-known.
Caissa's DeathAngel mentioned this AFD for Computer Assisted Biologically Augmented Lifeform from March 2008, started by Judgesurreal777. I just so happened to comment at that AFD. The problem with that AFD is that AnteaterZot was there, and AnteaterZot was blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet. When a sockpuppet participates in an AFD, it ruins the outcome. Caissa's DeathAngel was the only other person besides AnteaterZot to argue to delete at that AFD. There was no consensus to delete at that AFD, but for some reason Keegan did delete. But once you throw out AnteaterZot's comment, there definitely wasn't consensus to delete.
Caissa's DeathAngel also refers to Factions in Supreme Commander. That was nominated for deletion on December 19, 2008 by TTN and Caissa's DeathAngel argued to keep. TTN hasn't edited since December 26. So I don't think TTN is going to nominate Global Defense Initiative or Brotherhood of Nod for deletion, if that's what Caissa's DeathAngel is worried about. I don't know why Caissa's DeathAngel wants to merge these into a faction article if someone is just going to nominate the faction for deletion.
There's no such thing as "merging non-notable articles." When people talk about notability, they are talking about the thing the article is about, not the article. --Pixelface (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If there's no consensus to merge the articles, don't take them to AFD to force your viewpoint. --Pixelface (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
If they're against guideline and policy, either it's to AfD to force the viewpoint or a rather peaceable merge discussion; the end result is probably still to merge, while still preserving verifiable information. Of which there is little to none that is not cruft, as they can only be sourced back to game rather than to reliable secondary sources that cover the articles in depth. If you'd like to see them preserved, feel free to find those sources; it's still unlikely that they will be left in their current states, as merging allows a better organization of the topic matter. --Izno (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Policies and guidelines don't create consensus. AFDs are not for merge discussions. And could you define "cruft" for me? There are scores of reviews of Command & Conquer videogames. So no. The claim that the articles can only be sourced back to the game is absolutely false. Whether merging these articles is actually a better to way to organize them is up for debate. Here. Now. Not at AFD. --Pixelface (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There is very little value to having this discussion here. We should settle this dispute by starting a discussion at WP:VG. People can then discuss how to resolve these non-notable articles: if people can find research, if we should delete, or some compromise in between. Randomran (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
No Randomran. This is the designated place for the merge discussion. Look at the {{merge}} tags on Global Defense Initiative and Brotherhood of Nod. This is where the merge discussion is taking place. Notifying WikiProjects is for when previous steps have failed to resolve a dispute. It's not going to be "settled" by notifying WikiProject Videogames. And notability is not about articles, it's about subjects. --Pixelface (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, that's what I'm saying. We've failed to resolve the dispute. There's no consensus here. Randomran (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Randomran, the merge proposal is from November. If there's no consensus for a merge, there's no consensus for a merge. Speaking of Factions in Supreme Commander, after the AFD for it closed as merge, TTN redirected it. On February 4 there was an oppose to this merge. It's been two days since then. What's the rush? --Pixelface (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I also oppose this merge. If someone searches for "Global Defense Initiative" they want to know what Global Defense Initiative is. So we have the article Global Defense Initiative. If someone searches for "Brotherhood of Nod" they want to know what Brotherhood of Nod is. So we have the article Brotherhood of Nod. If someone wants to create a faction article, go ahead. But those two articles should not be redirected. --Pixelface (talk) 00:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • I've taken this dispute to the next logical forum for resolution. See here. Hopefully this can help us obtain a consensus. Randomran (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

If we can move past the extremist inclusionist vs deletionist rant war that's clogging up the works here (as usual) for the moment, I certainly support the development of a central factions article, containing summaries of all the factions to help better organise them. Such an article should contain general information on the development and reception of the factions. With the size of the franchise, I imagine that will be possible in a similar style to Species of StarCraft. The development section can be based off of developer comments and features discussing the overall design of the factions in both story and gameplay terms, while the reception section may be constructable out of review comments. Such an article should also keep the plot in check, bearing in mind that the plot is already covered elsewhere.

As for the other three, they are really poorly done at the moment, providing little context and real-world information for the general reader. It is not the case that when someone searches "Brotherhood of Nod" that they find an article on the Brotherhood of Nod, but that they find information on the Brotherhood of Nod. I am doubtful that Brotherhood of Nod, GDI and Scrim can be improved with specific (as opposed to general) real-world information akin to Flood (Halo) or Combine (Half-Life), but an attempt to at least cleanup the fiction in those C&C articles in a similar way would go a long way. Then, if specific real-world information can be found for these three pages, all well and good. if no real-world information can be found, the articles can be merged into the faction article. However, if done in a particular way, these articles can be spun-out again with ease if real-world information becomes available, and while merged, they would still be covered as though a mini-article. This would somewhat emulate the Species of StarCraft article: specific real-world information about reception and design isn't available for the Protoss, but the article is written as though it were three mini-articles, slightly more concise than if they had separate articles, but ready to be spun-out again at a moment's notice (primarily in my hope that I can do so after StarCraft II is released). Merging, if done properly, does not mean de facto deletion, people really need to get that out of their heads - this is about organisation, not removal. -- Sabre (talk) 11:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break/clarification

Ok, let's be clear here. The articles as they are now are blatantly of extremely low quality. I tagged the articles and began this merge discussion because I believe that while there should be sufficient information out there on the net to create an article similar to Species of Starcraft. Unfortunately, offline affairs have kept me away from here for a while, and besides that neither myself nor Thunderforge, the other main contributor, has found anything much. Almost the entire content of the current page, with a few exceptions, is compiled from the existing information, and there's no way that it passes muster. I am starting to think that perhaps the information I believed did exist actually doesn't, and if that's the case then perhaps sections in the main C&C article are the way to go. Everything else can go in the fairly comprehensive C&C Wikia. So that, Pixelface, is why I want to merge, not because I think someone is going to delete them but because they're full of cruft and almost entirely devoid of 3rd party reliable sources. General game play info is for either a Wikia or a site like GameFAQs, it is not encyclopedic.

I mean, look at the articles, there's almost nothing of encyclopedic value in any of them! The objection above came from someone with a history of misunderstanding the nobility principle, and who has caused problems on that basis with the Soul Series. Pixelface are you prepared to cite a single policy/guideline that provides grounds for opposing a merger? Because we have 5/6 that support it but despite repeated requests I've yet to see a single one for opposing it.

Now I'm NOT a deletionist, far from it, but I do believe it's infinitely better to have 1 FA than 4/5 rubbish articles. Oh, and the CABAL AFD? There was not even ONE keep vote (not even you said keep), and two votes for "Merge/direct per Caissa's DeathAngel" since my vote also said "Merits an entry in the characters of the Brotherhood of Nod" page. It wasn't a widely commented on AFD, but consensus was clear.

The discussion is now at WP:VG where I'm just about to comment, but I'll state again my view - if we get enough information for separate high quality articles, then great. If not, then we create a single Factions article, and if there isn't enough even for that, as I suspect may be the case, then merge them into the main C&C article and delete them. Pixelface, you talk a lot, try actually improving the articles if you want to keep them. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh, and I agree with every single word that Sabre said, so thank you for that! Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Good to see you back. I agree that a merge/transwiki is what is needed here. The articles are in very poor shape and it appears there simply isn't enough coverage to fix them. Combining them into one article will be a much stronger presentation. Pagrashtak 18:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
To check back in after a while, I agree. The articles haven't improved, and still don't meet our guidelines. I think a merger would be preferable to outright deletion. Randomran (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, its a sad day for C&C. It sickens me that rubbish like The Scooby Gang and Summers Residence get thier own pages with one reference but GDI and NOD do not with plenty.

Quote: Welcome to the WikiProject Video games on the English Wikipedia! We are a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to video games.

What a load of tripe, all thats going on here is a blatant contraction of information and nothing more. Improving coverage....what a joke, in fact this entire Wikiproject is a joke, you may as well rebrand it:

Welcome to the WikiProject Video games on the English Wikipedia! We are a group dedicated to trimming down pages that have been on wikipedia for years to insignificant bite sized abborations. Remember that Wikiproject Videogame Motto everyone: Simplify, Merge , Delete!!

At least that one would be a bit more consistent with wikipedia's policies. I also find it extremely ironic that the only rule you guys ignore on wikipedia is this one: Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If you guys think that this merger is a genuine improvent to wikipedia then I dont know what to say.

Yes I realise im most likely going to get flamed for this but as was said above earlier in the discussion sometimes wikipedia just sucks, and this is definitely one of those times.

Ok /Rant-off thanks for reading.Devilsaur2 (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen 10,000 online at one time playing Tiberian Twilight. Initially I couldn't understand why EA made the game the way they did. I enjoyed the single player and thought it was totally awesome. But even when I reached in multi-player level 20 for GDI (highest level) I still didn't get it. It was only till I got to level 20 with Nod that I understood why they made the game the way they did. This is the most brilliant game once you get into it. I couldn't have made it better myself. There is a reason why everything is the way it is, you just have to invest yourself to realize why all in good time. I have played Tiberium Dawn and was ranked in 1995-1997 as the #1 player on Kali as 'Bosco'. 2nd place was usually 'NOCHANCE' and 3rd was usually 'Bill'. Nostalgic. Then competition got more tough. I could only finish 3rd in the the first season of the first Red Alert. I never liked Red Alert all that much so stopped playing after that. It was too cartoony for me. I played Tiberian Sun, Dune 2, Generals and Tiberium Wars (I can never remember if it is Tiberium or Tiberian). But my last accomplishment was I finished first in the pre-season rankings for Tiberium Wars as 'Agrippaull'. This is a neat recent video,

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/review-hd-command/63603


Discussion Conclusion (hopefully)

Ok so the article Factions of Command & Conquer has now been created, just flat out replacing the old article of the same name. Shall we now go about merging the other articles into it? Now is the time to save any content that should be saved from those articles, with all Cruft going to the C&C Wikia. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. The factions article looks great to me, and probably has a better chance of meeting our guidelines. There's broad support for the merge, with no one showing how the articles can meet the guidelines. But let's give it a couple days. Randomran (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
    Indeed, this section of the discussion is open to allow that to happen. That and to allow someone else to actually do the merger since I've not got the time right now. The factions article is obviously a work in progress, but then so are most articles on this site. There's a good bit of potential there I'd say, more so than with the existing articles. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Story Arc

The section should be renamed to universes and series should also should be changed to universe. As EA officially refers to them as universes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KiasuKiasiMan (talk • contribs) 10:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent Cleanup

First off, I'd like to applaud Cabe6403 on his changes to this article. I think that the article as it is is much improved and hopefully is on its way to being a Good Article and one day a Featured Article. I had a few changes I wanted to make, but he wanted them to be discussed on the talk page first, so here are my suggestions:

1 The article should use American spellings since it is an American game. I saw Global Defence Initiative and it should be Global Defense Initiative (also the GDI article uses American spellings)

  • That seems fair enough. I use British English so I wont be able to do this as I wouldn't know which words need a-chanin' -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

2 There should be a quick intro at the start of the games section to explain that there are three different universes 3 The Generals section should be called "Generals Universe" rather than "Spin-off Games," since that's what they are called in The First Decade, the most recent form of them. Also, the infobox at the bottom of the screen uses "spinoff" to describe Sole Survivor, RA2, Generals, and RA3, not just Generals

  • That infobox needs some work, it doesn't even list RA2 at all and lists is expansion pack as a spin off as opposed to the format above it (i.e. Red Alert 2 (Yuri's Revenge) - Main game then expansion pack(s) in brackets). About the 'universe' thing. I listed Generals as a spin off since it's a one of game with an expansion as opposed to a series of games. Tbh, I think it is a spin off, it's totally different from any other C&C rts game. No sidebar, less emphasis on resource gathering etc -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

3Canceled games like C&C: Continuum have a year of xxxx while Tiberium has 2009 as a year. Obviously, they should be uniform. I would prefer using years rather than xxxx since it fits better as a timeline. Maybe we could use the year in which it was canceled. 4 I don't like the numbers after the list of games to denote an expansion pack, canceled release, or standalone expansion because they look identical to the numbers used to cite sources. In fact, that's what I thought they were at first and I scrolled to the bottom of the page to see what the source was. I would much rather prefer the old method of writing "(Canceled)" canceled games and indenting expansion packs, as a reader can see it without any confusion

  • I hadn't touched that section yet since I'm not entirely sure if it should even be in the article. For now, I agree with what you have said -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

5 The online section is a mess and would be confusing to someone who never played C&C online 6 The Command & Conquer TV section feels out of place. I think it's because we're talking about games and then all of a sudden we're talking about promotional stuff. Unfortunately, I don't really have a better solution at the moment. 7 I feel like the music in the games and The First Decade should be mentioned somewhere, as we have articles for them

All that said, I'm really impressed with your changes and am glad that you made them. Obviously, it's still a work in progress, but it was a great step in the right direction. -Thunderforge (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your kind words :) -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Also, can you check out WP:CNC's talk page for info about inactive members -- Cabe6403 (Talk•Sign) 13:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Still needs some cleaning

"On December 14, it was also announced that a new browser-based, free-to-play MMO Command & Conquer game is currently under development, under the name Command & Conquer: Tiberium Alliances.[26] On December 15, Tiberium Alliances began a closed beta."

How does this go under "Generals" and not "Tiberium"? Also, this has been released quite some time ago, it should have been noted in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.146.159 (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Command and Conquer (4) Officially canned and the studio too

I have done some edits, please cover as much as you can.--Karim666 (talk) 19:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

CncNet

EA seems to have officially accepted the community-built replacement for Westwood Online, called CncNet. Version 4 (tunneling the LAN packets) supported Tiberian Dawn/Sun and Red Alert 1/2. Due to Red Alert 2's DRM, CncNet5 "spawn" couldn't be made (at least, not legally - since "spawn" is based on a patched .DAT that's actually an EXE), CncNet 5 dropped RA2 support. EA has officially accepted CncNet at least for the Origin edition for at least Red Alert 1. - 46.173.4.68 (talk) 18:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Rush deletion discussion

Rush (video gaming) has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rush (video gaming), if anyone involved with this article might be interested in weighing in. —Lowellian (reply) 04:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Command & Conquer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Command & Conquer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Command & Conquer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Command_%26_Conquer/Archive_2&oldid=1211963385"