Template talk:Command & Conquer series

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

message: There is a clearly a lot of debate over how best to group the games, and in particular whether RA1 belongs with TD or RA2. I have my own thoughts on this, but instead of starting a whole new debate that has already been waged, I have a better idea: Why don't you just ask the developers themselves on the official forums? You'll almost certainly get an answer from EA Apoc. -Derek 75.183.52.222 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And what would you ask him? From a marketing perspective Red Alert 1 clearly belongs with the other Red Alert games (they share a title) but from a narrative perspective it belongs with the Tiberian series. The current consensus was reached after heavy debate (see above) and I see no reason going through that again. --MrStalker (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universe/series resolution 

message: Recent annon edits have persistently been editing the template for it to correspond with his/her view of what is "true" C&C-games. This, however, is not the meaning of this template. "Main Universe" is solely to group together the games that exist in the same original storyline/universe as the original C&C. This has been explained to the annon user but with no result. Please revert the template to the revision representing long-standing consensus, i.e. to the revision dated July 12 by Shooterwalker. Also I suggest blocking the annon user for incivility and disruptive editing. --MrStalker (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting a page protected due to edit warring is against policy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?   14:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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

text: I don't have a source, but it is in fact as easy as in your example, you only have to replace Microsoft with EALA. The current edition of this template correctly reflects this as the main universe (Westwood releases), and spin-offs since (and including) Generals: Zero Hour on (EALA releases).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That would indeed apply if the categories in question was "Games by Westwood" and "Games by EALA", but they are not. The main universe category is for all the games taking place in the same universe/storyline as the original C&C, aka Tiberian Dawn. Spin-offs is, well, those that doesn't. This way of categorization was reached after heavy debate (see talk archive) concluding this is the easiest and least controversial why of doing it. --MrStalker (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

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

text: As I've stated before, EA owns C&C, so whatever they to do with the franchise is in their rights. What Westwood might have intended with the franchise back when they had the rights is no longer relevant. --MrStalker (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we have all seen you stating that in my quote, no need to go on about it since your point is void. Just because EA bought the rights to the C&C franchise, doesn't mean their storyline alterations hold any water. That is like saying if someone adopted you as a baby and had your gender changed into a girl, that you are now a girl who can some day have children with another man. The fact is that this is simply not true, as you are still a man who can never get naturally impregnated, no matter how much you're trying to believe that you really are a girl.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, thanks, that's actually funny. That said, please just accept that Westwood is dead, and is no longer in charge of C&C. I've played C&C since Red Alert 1, and I've read all the great, awesome and shitty ideas about WW's vision with C&C that Adam has shared at the Petroglyph forums. Some are great, some not so. I do agree that it would be awesome if Yuri was teleported in time and started RA2... however, that's me as an C&C fan. Mainstream gamers probably wouldn't think so highly of it, and I think EALA made the right decisions scrapping those ideas. When RA2 was released, it was not intended as a Tiberium game, the Yuri-thing was a patch to fix a broken plot, which never materialized. And when it comes to this template, the only thing that truly matters is what is official, what was actually released to the public, what is most relevant. And as Adam has said many times, we need to listen to EA now. If you want to create an elaborate article covering all of the various C&C-iterations from Westwood that never made it, please be my guest, but such unreleased fiction should not be the basis of this template. --MrStalker (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is Wikipedia, not EA. If you want to only listen to them, go to their forums and post your fan fiction there, not here. Wikipedia is not dedicated to your type of make-belief fanboyism, but facts that I have already stated here earlier (that is what I've been trying to tell you with the analogy of you pretending to be a girl, the point of which flew right over your head).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, you're the one representing fanboyism. How can you seriously be saying "EA is wrong, I'm right"? Don't you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? It's EA's franchise for God's sake. --MrStalker (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please show us where I said "EA is wrong, I'm right".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "[...] we shouldn't rely on sources from EALA's own commercial webpage [...]" --MrStalker (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so you can't read. Case closed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.172.201.152 (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil, or you will be blocked. You are saying that we should not trust EA's official sources. Instead, we should trust your judgment and base this template on material that hypothesizes on what C&C might have been if Westwood had developed it. Even if you don't spell it out directly, this is exactly what you are asking us to do, which is of course ridiculous and completely out of line with Wikipedia's policies. --MrStalker (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent vandalism 

message: I believe there is consensus for this template to be reverted back to its old version dated July 12. In a nutshell, the current dispute is that the annon user want to keep this version because he/she thinks that Electronic Arts, the current owners of the franchise, has misinterpreted the C&C universe and wants to stick with the version put forward by ex-Westwood developers long after the game's release. I believe on the other hand, that this version of the C&C universe is now defunct, just as Westwood, and is no more official then any other fan-fiction. In the end, what truly matters is what was published in the finished products, not what might have been published if things were different.
The annon user is the only one supporting his/her stance, and all third opinions offered on this seems to support my stance, which also goes in line what's currently said on related Wikipedia articles.
Lastly, I do admit that labeling the annon user's edits as vandalism was incorrect and I apologize for that. Since the edits wasn't explained properly, I falsely identified them as deliberately introducing factual errors. --MrStalker (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the games in the template should be separated in 3 groups - Tiberium Universe, Red Alert Universe, and Generals Universe - as this is the official categorization on the http://www.commandandconquer.com/ website. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I refer to the earlier discussions in the archive why this is not a good idea. --MrStalker (talk) 12:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's too long to read (this current page too) and you don't bother giving helpful indication on where to start, which is probably why so few people are commenting on this current page despite the link from WT:VG. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually pretty much the entire archive is relevant, but you might try this for starters. --MrStalker (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So I read this and still I don't see why the 3 group classification is not a good idea, let alone not an official idea. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I second Megata Sanshiro that it would take too long to read all the archives, which are prominently about arguing over more than 2 years and much less about citing sources. Even if there were good arguments and reliable sources quoted, they get lost in pages of text. Despite the WP:VG talk link, I hardly expect many editors to work through the entire discussion unless someone (I presume MrStalker is the best candidate) can provide a decent overview, links to sources, and a list of proposed variants.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it. It will take a while. --MrStalker (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution 

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

message: I think its time to bring up whether to sort it by series, especially given the announcement of Generals 2 and since we already sort the characters by series. Officially EA, treats Generals, Tiberian and Red Alert as separate universes. This classification can clearly be seen by the way they organize the games section on  so should we follow this procedure with a template that looks like this: (Also interesting to note that EA calls the original C&C, Tiberian Dawn, on the site. Should we follow suit?)
<noinclude>
KiasuKiasiMan 14:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You bring up a good point. However, I still feel like 3 links is a bit too sparse for a whole line in the template. You also lose the distinction of main vs. spin-off for the first Red Alert game. As form the name "Tiberian Dawn", we should go with the most common name, whatever that may be, which I'm guessing is not that. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think its more important for organization sakes, (especially since EA is doing it) than "sparseness". The current template gets a bit messy and hard to navigate sometimes. And as for the "main v.s. spin-off" for the first Red Alert. We should follow EA's current classification putting it into the "Red Alert" universe. Especially since EA is no longer classifying the C&C series as Main (Tiberian) v.s. Spin-off (Red Alert, Generals), but rather as the 3 universes being equally part of the same series.KiasuKiasiMan 01:28, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps it would be best to invite the participants of the previous long discussion. It seems like their opinion is relevant here. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I also support the series-based arrangement. This main/spin-off affairs is for zealous fans only. Navboxes should help those unaware of the subject become familiar with it with least trouble. As for the connection between Red Alert and Tiberian Dawn, this is certainly not a navbox material. Fleet Command (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I might be inclined to support the most recent example with RA1 in both lists. I don't think a fourth division of "other" is necessary. Izno, do you have an opinion? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only keeping to the consensus version and have no objection to a new consensus position regarding the overall formatting. However, I would find issue with including a link twice. I think I would personally prefer RA showing up as a link only in the RA listing if we're to go with the Tiberium/RA distinction rather than the current consensus version. Don't let me stand in the way though. --Izno (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Izno. I also do not like to see two RA1 links. But I have a question for Axem. If we do not include an Others group, where do we put Canceled games and First Decade? They are video games after all. Fleet Command (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine under "Other". Template:Metal Gear does a similar thing, which we might want to do here as well, which is nest them into the List of media. I always thought it to be a bit disingenuous to treat compilations the same as new releases. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Er... you are overruling "Others" in favor of "Others"? Or do I miss something? Fleet Command (talk) 09:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was extremely unclear. I was suggesting to leave them in the same row as Music/Factions/Mods. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... Okay. No problem. So passing over the "Others" matter, am I to understand that this is the final compromise? Fleet Command (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ok with it. Anyone else? Axem Titanium (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting By Series/Universe (Again)