Talk:Command & Conquer: Tiberian series

message: I'm rewriting this article completely (offline). I shall stick content that I deem inappropriate here for now (the content will also be present in the article until I actually make any changes)  -- Run!  18:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inferring from concept art and screenshots, Renegade 2's storyline may have reconnected the Red Alert Series and the Tiberian Series after an ambiguous separation in Red Alert 2, in a timeframe somewhere between Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert 2, featuring the "Scavengers," a Nod-backed insurgency against the Allied occupation of Russia following Red Alert 2. Fans had speculated that the same "reunite the series" concept may have found its way into the Red Alert 3 game currently under development; however, EA Los Angeles has cancelled Red Alert 3 and appears to have resumed work on Command & Conquer: Tiberian Twilight. Any immediate effort to "reunite the series" would have to come through this game.
----
Done! I have totally fogotten the intricacies of the Tiberian Sun storyline however, so that remains very very brief.  -- Run!  19:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've not messed it up - all the articles have been reverted. And this particular article is much better.  -- Run!  15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhh guys, you know you're in 2006, right? AtomicSphere 23:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major rewrite 

message: I miss a dedicated article about Tiberian Dawn, could someone write one? I mean, this is THE C&C game (besides from RA1) I think it deserves an article :-) (It's been years since I played the game, hope there's some fans here picking up the "challenge" ;-) )--Jambalaya 22:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article will suffice. I'm rewriting it to fit everything in.  -- Run!  18:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An article dedicated to Tiberian Dawn? 

message: My overhaul is live. I will admit it is not perfect, but its a good place to start. TomStar81 09:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Its Live

message: Could you please explain why you've merged or listed all the C&C articles for deletion without the consent of anyone else on Wikipedia? We've actually put work into these. I suggest you read the newbie guide before you make changes like this or our friends will be upset. sorry to appear a progress inhibitor but many of the additions to the C&C articles have been recent and they were still under construction when you started trashing them. I know for a fact that my friend Mr Bowtie spent several hours expanding and adding images to C&C articles. Try not to declare war on the Wikipedia C&C community. Also, in an earlier message, you misspelled "blatant".
 
Thanks, The Fish 14:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need consensus to list articles for deletion - rather, the AfD process is a method of obtaining consensus. At some point during this, however, an admin suggested I should just make the changes and wait for reversion, as that is easier than listing for deletion. (the comment is on one of the specific AfD logs somewhere)  -- Run!  15:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats true, but you do need a consensus to move pages when creating redirects and such if those pages are considered to be "heavy traffic" pages. Just something to keep in mind. TomStar81 06:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever it was who vandalised The Fish's comment, you misspelled "Wrecked" and failed to capitilse "ck" - "BAck". It seems a blatant attempt to discredit him. It's censorship under a different name. Clearly Fascism. Mrbowtie 13:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formal inquiry 

message: I can't find anything in any of the C&C articles that describe this, but what are the differences between the word "tiberian" and "tiberium"? In the storyline section they appear to be used interchangably (i.e. "First Tiberium War" to both "Second Tiberian War" (heading) and "Second Tiberium War" (used in last sentence of 3rd paragraph in that section)), but this could obviously be a mistake on the writer's part. Then you have "Tiberian Sun" and "Tiberium Wars" as the name of games, so can anyone provide some clarification on this for me?? Thanks. --SSTwinrova 04:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fanon-accepted nomenclature is to refer to the games themselves as Tiberian Dawn and Tiberian Sun, but the campaigns from a fictional history perspective are called the First Tiberian War amd Second Tiberian War.  --AlexWCovington (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Tiberian is simply an adjective form of the noun Tiberium. When the franchise still belonged to Westwood they used Tiberian as subtitles for their games (Tiberian Dawn/Sun/Twilight), EA has chosen to use the base noun Tiberium instead. -- Jordi·✆ 05:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference in use of "Tiberian" and "Tiberium"?? 

message: The Firestorm expansion never mentioned that McNeil died in the crash. Perhaps, with the war over, he returned to the training camp. It's also entirely possible that the player is McNeil, as the expansion goes back to the original formula of addressing the player directly. Chronolegion 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I believe he starred in the Tiberium Wars novel? Talk User:Fissionfox 13:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kodiak Crash 

message: Is there any information anywhere that conflicts or confirms the year(s) of the First Tiberium War? I seem to remember reading somewhere that the war takes place from 2000 to 2002, but most of the info here on the site claims it's in 1995.
...In truth, I really don't expect anyone to believe that everything that happens in the game could have happened in less than two months. Woodrow Buzard 01:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I vaguely remember the original Tiberian sun manual mentioning the first war ending in 1995, also the command and conquer manual says that GDI came to power around 1995 aswell, and I think the Nod terrorist are said to happen in 1995.
Speaking of times, Renegade is set in the year 2020 and Tiberian sun set in the year 2045, it says it in the original copies of the manuals, whoever put those times in this article got them wrong.
Okay no none of you are right. It's 2000 to 2002. Renegade's manual mentioning 2020 is a typo, and Tiberian Sun is 2030. Woodrow Buzard (talk) 20:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time 

message: :To date Firestorm's storyline remains unique in the Command & Conquer series, as it featured ending sequences for GDI and Nod which both took place simultaneously, and which both were considered as official canon (in all other Command and Conquer games, the actions and events occuring during the "good" side's campaign only are considered canon, with the other side's actions and events being seen as an alternate reality).
Wasn't the first C&C intended to be the same? At least it was left ambigious since the GDI campaign was in Europe and NOD in Africa... They weren't the same events but I always presumed both were supposed to be occuring Nil Einne 11:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike other campaigns seen thus far in the Command & Conquer series, the campaigns of the Firestorm expansion are tied together. If one plays but one side, he/she will barely end up understanding the story (for example, the third GDI mission was to stop the quarreling of civilians and mutants, however within the GDI campaign itself a reason as to why this conflict began is never given - only in the Nod campaign. In the same manner, Tratos was said to have been assassinated in the next mission for what at first glance appeared to be no reason either.), unless he/she plays the other campaign. What is also different from all former Command & Conquer campaigns is that both the GDI as the Nod campaign in Firestorm will lead to the same battle at the end. If the player examines both the Nod and GDI versions of the final "Core of the Problem" mission closely, it becomes apparent that the southwestern corner of the map in the Nod campaign and the southeastern corner of the GDI campaign are identical. CABAL's core and all surrounding scenery is also identical in both missions. In both of the briefings concerning this final mission, the player will also hear that the other side is attacking CABAL from another direction. Similarly, in the preceding missions, each side refers in the briefings to missions being attempted by their counterparts in the other campaign to weaken CABAL. Lastly, the endings of the two campaigns in Firestorm co-exist (i.e. both happened at the same time and both are canonical), which was a first in the Command & Conquer series as well.
I copied the above from the Tiberian Sun article. It seems to explain things better. Firestorm is somewhat unique in the way both campaigns are basically the same but I think I'm correct in that it's not unique in that both campaigns are canon since the first one AFAIK appears to be like that with events taking place in different areas and/or different time frames. The description needs to be reworded to more accurately descibe what makes Firestorm unique Nil Einne 11:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm a bit confused here. It's been a long, long while since I played Tiberian Dawn but according to the article, at the end of the Nod campaign you've won in African ready to invade Europe. How then is it possible that GDI has been destroyed entirely? (Indeed I seem to remember that in either the Nod or GDI campaign it was mentioned at one stage that the other side wasn't going well). Also, I don't see any reason to assume Kane didn't die in the Nod campaign. Assuming the Nod campaign ended BEFORE Kane died, then why couldn't he have died afterwards? I'm not asking for speculation in the article. I'm simply pointing out that I don't really see any major plot holes which prevent both campaigns having occured in Tiberian Dawn. Tiberium Wars and Firestorm are obviously somewhat different in that all 3 campaigns appear to have occured somewhat simulatanoues with intertwining storylines but from what I can tell, there's nothing in Tiberian Dawn which indicates that both campaigns did not occur. Therefore, I think it's quite wrong for us to conclude that in only Tiberium Wars and Firestorm have campaigns which don't conflict and which are all canon. Rather, it would be more accurate to say (assuming this is accurate and the information in wikipedia suggests it is) that there are no major plot differences which would indicate that only one campaign is canon. Nil Einne 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

text: While I agree that both campaigns appear to be progressing simultaneously, I am wondering about EVA. Was she (it?) not stolen by NOD? If so, would it be the same as stealing a program these days (i.e. the original remains) or would one have to actually take the physical core of it, as with CABAL? Chronolegion 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this true? 

message: I added some more information to the article; A more accurate explanation of the events of the Nod attack in the beginning of Tiberium Wars.
Joeskipsey 20:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data revised 

message: Rumors are going around that AELA is working on a shootergame and that It may be Renegade 2. Does some one know more about this? inAbag
: Its not going to be called Renegade 2, so far there is a working title of Command & Conquer: X, there are limited details about this game on the wiki Here. 212.50.191.54 09:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renegade 2 not canceled? 

message: The first line of the second paragraph states, "Released in 1999 by Electronic Arts, Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun was the highly-anticipated sequel to the original Command & Conquer. Tiberian Sun..."This sentence makes no sense,, how can Tiberian Sun be a follow on from Tiberian Sun? Surely it followed from Red Alert? I have taken it upon myself to change this sentence. 212.50.191.54 09:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious Error 

message: :Image:Rapic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rapic.jpg

message: :Image:Philadelphia (C&C).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Philadelphia (C&C).jpg

message: "[...] Tiberian Sun was built on a 2D engine [...]" and a little further down "Westwood Studios later would eliminate many of the performance and stability problems of Tiberian Sun, and would reuse its 3D engine for the production of Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2."
85.177.41.89 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  inconsistency 

message: The image :Image:Tiberium deposits seen in Command & Conquer (1995).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:File:Cc kane shot.jpg
*:      Image:Ttpic.jpg
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --13:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Tiberium deposits seen in Command &#38; Conquer (1995).jpg

message: Hey! I'm just going to dump some references here until I find the time to incorporate them into the article (maybe in the next day or two). These all pertain to C&C: Renegade.
*  Gamespot review; includes a blurb on the 3D engine (made by Westood)
*  Eurogamer.net review
*  IGN review
Peace. Braincricket (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference dump 

message: Most of the FAQs were deleted off their FTP page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.232.40.98 (talk) 06:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: FAQs deleted

message: Which one is it? Both terms are used on this article and elswhere, with no clear consistency. Also, how is the full form of the title supposed to be written: "Command & Conquer: X series", or "Command & Conquer X series", where "X" stands for either "Tiberian" or "Tiberium"? MarqFJA87 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tiberian series" or "Tiberium series"?