Talk:Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2/Archive 1

message: As far as I can tell the article maintains NPOV with the exception that the best mod available for the game is the "devastation" mod.  I've taken a look at it, and it doesn't seem that great compared to other mods I've seen (and even partial plans for my own, incomplete mod).  I'm not about to go ahead and remove this line unless someone else agrees.  --InvaderJim42 21:27, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not anyone agrees is irrelevant; it's unencyclopedic to claim that something is "the best".  This artcile also seems primarily devoted to a long listing of units with game-specific information of questionable worth in an encyclopedia. BCampbell 15:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: I'm well aware that Wikipedia is not supposed to be an instruction manual, and that the removal of the section detailing how to get multiplayer to work across a LAN on Windows XP/Windows 2000 machines is more or less acceptable.  However, I think that this section is actually very helpful with this.  While I haven't tried this solution yet, I'm very certain that it would help me with my problems in trying to get a LAN game working.  Nowhere else have I seen instructions how to do this (though I haven't really been looking for them).  Having seen the instructions there before, it was nice knowing I had them handy should I ever want to setup a LAN game.  Now they've been deleted and I'm not too happy about that.  Even though Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, I believe that this section is incredibly useful and should be restored.  I'm not about to do it myself... mostly because I'd feel foolish if I went ahead and did that and everyone disagreed with me, and then undid my changes.  --InvaderJim42 03:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Multiplayer Section 

message: Among those, USS Arizona memorial is also in the game, which i think it is strange, as according to the plot, the original World War II did not happen, and so as Pearl Harbour. Any thoughts?
-actually the US got into a war with the Soviet controlled Asian Defence League, my guess is they fought in Iwo Jima
World War II did happen... I mean what else would you call the events of Red Alert I? Anyway, I am sure that any memorials that were put up for our worlds WWII could have easily been put up for the conflict with the soviets. WookMuff 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable structures in the game 

message: Someone needs to add the costs for the structures, descriptions for the 'Basic Structures'(aswell as make a 'Yuri Structures' section), and prices for the Yuri units. 
(Also made some minor changes earlier to the superweapons and some of the units.) Keero 14:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm afraid so. As long as there's a link to the official website, anyone interested in details can go there. --Chodorkovskiy 10:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costs/Structures 

message: So far as the Iwo Jima and USS Arizona Memorials are concerned, it is notable that neither the USA nor Japan are mentioned in the original Red Alert game, and Japan is never mentioned even in Red Alert 2 (except in the context of the two memorials). It is therefore entirely plausible that the United States could have been fighting a war against Japan at the same time the European Allies fought against the Soviets, in which case the memorials would exist. The claim that they "should not appear" may be a bit speculative. The preceding unsigned comment was originally added by 205.188.116.8.
There are many possibilities, which EA might choose to explore in any sequels. Perhaps in the RA timeline, Iwo Jima happened when the US was helping Japan fend off communist China? The Frederick 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will put it like this. I would say events in Pacific theatre in World War 2 still occured somehow. And your word showed your gross ignorance of history: please see attack on Pearl Harbor and Battle of Iwo Jima. SYSS Mouse 04:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia about Iwo Jima and USS Arizona 

message: Megaman, where is your release date info coming from?  MobyGames has it as Oct 26, 2000 for North America ( US Canada ) Oct 27, 2000 Europe .
::From the official site and from Gamfaqs -ZeroTalk 18:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release date

message: I added the comment that you could only attack Mirage tanks while by holding ctrl then clicking it--JDitto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.66.94.140 (talk • contribs) 
:When the Mirage Tank is attacking something you can see the actual tank (not the tree) so you don't need to hold ctrl.--Taida 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mirage Tanks 

message: "Volkov - A cybernetic hero unit of the Soviets who is the toughest infantry man available. He can destroy tanks from long range with a powerful machine gun and eliminate infantry quickly. His picture is on the cover of the Red Alert 2 box. He is back from Red Alert Retaliation in the Soviet Campaign, this time without his canine sidekick, Chitzkoi."
At the risk of being (rightfully) called a noob: who the hell is Volkov and where exactly is he in RA2? --Chodorkovskiy 15:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that much is clear from the article. But I passed all the RA2 and YR campaigns and haven't even seen a trace of the guy. The question is, why is he in the article? --Chodorkovskiy 04:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see what you mean. The "fact" that he's on the RA2 box is completely made up. I'll remove it. And somebody that he's only available in a mod, so he's not officially in.Jareand 19:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volkov 

message: I noticed this article is already "longer than preferable", even though there is nothing here about the storyline. People are encroaching on the Yuri article with irrelevant plot details, because the Yuri article contains more plot than this one. Here's what I had in mind: move the unit details to Red Alert 2 units and structures (Google is swarming with each and StarCraft got away with that easy), move Yuri's Revenge to Yuri's Revenge and only mention the sequel's name here. This way, we'll make room for the plot.
Now, I'm not asking for editing help, just the community's approval. --Chodorkovskiy 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done: Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge, Red Alert 2 units and structures. --Chodorkovskiy 05:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! Thanks. Jareand 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I will eventually retool the RA pages so they look like those in the Tiberian Series. At the moment, I have gotten caught up in collage work, so these updates are slow in coming. TomStar81 08:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you mean, exactly? The Tiberian Series are in gross need of clean-up themselves... Don't get me wrong, whatever is good for the article is perfect for me. It's just that... how do you mean? --Chodorkovskiy 10:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean in similar pages, like having a history page for both sides, and unit page for both sides, and so forth. I think this gives us the best chance for expanding sections. For example, I was planing on creating a page solely for Soviet armoured units that appeared in RA, RA2, and possibly RA3 when (but more probably if) it is created. By creating broadly named pages like those of the Tiberian series we can prevent several small Red Alert articles from floating around here and ending up on vfd. On a related note, I do admit that the pages for the tiberian series do need a lot of tender loving care at the moment; they went up entirely to fast. The main reson those pages are in such dire straits (like having various spelling errors, missing pictures, etc) is because at the time they went up I was racing to save several article related the tiberian series that were up for deletion. The layout of the tiberian series pages allowed the articles listed for deletion to be merged into articles that best fit there descriptions, enabling articles that would otherwise have been labaled "fancruft" by the community to remain here unmolested. TomStar81 04:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's split it 

message: That bit about Premier Romanov being a distant relation of Tsar Romanov - is that actually confirmed anywhere, or just speculation? I've often thought it was intentional (as well as the Yuri/Lenin thing), but I've never seen anything that actually confirms this; it's certainly not in any of the game documentation.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.171.16 (talk • contribs) .
:You're right, I haven't seen anything to confirm it either. There's even more of this in Alexander Romanov (Command & Conquer). --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 05:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Romanov's origin

message: Does anyone else notice that this article doesn't discuss the gameplay of the game at all?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Graphic (talk • contribs) .
:Yes. Fix it. --Chodorkovskiy (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh...how about you fix it?  I brought it up instead of fixing it because I haven't played the game. --Gяaphic 07:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gameplay

message: "The Hebrew letters yod (Y), vav (U) and reish (R) clearly seen on Yuri's forehead, spell YUR if read from left to right. If read correctly from right to left, however, they spell ROY. Given the nature of the Hebrew language, YUR could also be interpretated as YURI, the name of the character whose forehead they are printed on."
Is this an obvious typo or is my lack of knowledge about Hebrew the cause of my confusion here? Should it not be RUY? Colossus 86 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've changed it. If it's wrong, change it back. Colossus 86 12:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia point 

message: Kirov Airship should be merged with this article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirov Airship. — Deckiller 01:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kirov Airship AFD

message: In the article it says "To accelerate unit or structure production in Red Alert 2, the player must build more of the structure where the unit is built." Is this true?--Taida 17:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, if you build two, say, War Factorys, then tanks and such will be constructed faster than if you just had one War Factory. Units will emerge from whichever building you have designated "primary building", which, I think, is the second one built by default. However, if you build a dozen war factorys, I don't think you get the benifit of faster construction for each one... I'm not sure what the limit is. Also, I've never actually tried it with two Construction Yards but it stands to reason that it would work for buildings too. Colossus 86 08:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this true? 

message: First of all borders on the map are on their real life borders at the time not the ingame borders for example tiberian sun showed that Yougoslavia was at it's full extant through cut scenes but on the map did not exist like that also on the russian german border in Red alert 2 there is the german flag therefore it can be considered that poland no longer existed plus ww2 did happen what do you think the fight with the soviets was chances are it'd be called ww2 or the second great war in some european countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threadnecromancer (talk • contribs) 23:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Borders

message: I've added this bulletpoint to the trivia bit. It's kinda a spoiler, so maybe you more experienced dudes can sort it out.
 Just before General Carville gets blown up by the Crazy Ivan, he, ironically enough, says 'Auf Wiedersen', German for 'Goodbye', to the player (Carville did not notice the suicide bomber). 
Also, added this to a previous one...
Although World War 2 has not taken place, Germany and Poland have their post-1945 borders instead of the historical 1939 borders. This problem also exists in the first Red Alert game. Also, Germany has its contemporary flag rather then that of the Weimar Republic, as Germany never became the Third Reich.
The italic bit is what I added. Think you guys can clean me up if it isn't 'accurate' enough? If the Carville's death bit is too spoilerish, maybe we can add a spoiler tag, put all the spoiler trivia points in there, and then have a close spoiler tag, rather then having a tag just for one point. Seriphyn 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the current German flag is the Weimar one: the old Empire's flag was black-white-red. See Flag of Germany. -- Jordi·✆ 08:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. I looking at the co-official German Imperial flag then. My bad. I'll get rid of that bit if it isn't gone already. 202.123.10.186 12:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A trivia point on Carville's death and a small trivia edit 

message: Note: In multiplayer games Korea is just listed as Korea but Romanov refers to them as the Republic of Korea leaving the question as to whether or not Korea was divided into the North and South in this alternate history.
If one takes a look at the map on the loading screens of certain missions where the Korean peninsula is visible, a north and south Korea is clearly present. It is probably called the 'Republic of Korea' because South Korea is officially known as that. See South Korea. Seriphyn 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is a North and South Korea 

message: Does anyone know if the section on top scores is true? Is there a website that shows the top scores? It looks to me like this section was just made up by somebody.--Taida 01:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Scores 

message: Has anyone noticed there are two US release dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Green chicken (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US release date 

message: The grammar, spelling and such in this article is atrocious.  Somebody needs to file through this thing and really check it.  I'd love to but I was just passing through at work and read it and noticed the issues.
Lots of words that don't have endings... "quickly" looks like "quickl" a lot in this article as an example (I forget the actual words that are messed up and I don't have time to look at the article again.
So, just a suggestion to clean it up a little if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GambitMG (talk • contribs) 18:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar / Proofreading 

message: In the trivia section it says that there are inconsistencies in Red alert 2 because in the universe World war 2 never happened but there is a pearl harbor memorial. Whoever wrote that needs to learn some history. America and japan would have gone to war even if there was no war in Europe. The pearl harbor attacks happened because America stopped trading valuable goods such as oil with Japan after news of the Japanese atrocities in China during the Second Sino-Japanese war. 
Because of this I'm going to remove that particular trivia entry as it makes no sense to anyone who knows some basic world war 2 history.
i see no reason for that section even being there. It has no connection to the game and really doesn't deserve to be here. If people wanted to knwo stuff like that, they could go somewhere else. This article has many usless things and this particular section does not desrve to be here. Therefore, I suggest that we delete the enitre section. 
Bigvinu 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War 2 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. Lead section should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.
*Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
*Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
*Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), armor (A) (British: armour), harbour (B) (American: harbor), defense (A) (British: defence), defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), realize (A) (British: realise), counterattack (A) (British: counter-attack), programme (B) (American: program ).
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 30 additive terms, a bit too much.
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”Avoid misplaced formality: “in order to/for” (-> to/for), “thereupon”, “notwithstanding”, etc.
*This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with THE FOOTNOTE. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add .
*The article will need references. See WP:CITE and WP:V for more information.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, May the Edit be with you, always. T-borg (drop me a line) 12:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated review 

message: It cant really be denied that theres not an ammount of info, because indeed there is, sadly it is mostly francruft, speculative and gamefaq-oriented. Using the Starcraft article as a model (which is a featured article), here are a few of the sections that must be removed or how could they be re-written:
Introduction: not much information, it specifies that Red Alert 2 is an strategy game for the pc, but what about the number of sales worldwide? and what exactly is a "tiberian" storyline?, or why is that of importance to begin with?.
Storyline: must be completely removed, and i mean the whole thing, here at wikipedia we are supposed to be looking for optimal information, not for a large quantity of it (common mistake there). In the Starcraft article, the lenghty plot description has been reduced to "plot and setting", i suggest the same thing to be done here.
Characters: who the hell is "German Commander von Esling", i know who he is, but the average user that knows nothing about Red Alert might not, and speaking of which, whats the importance of that to begin with?. The section, besides that, looks alright.
Countries: standard clean-up, too much gamefaq-like info in it, the section looks alright as it is (though it should be probably merged with the storyline).
Controversy: no sources, as it is the whole section should be deleted.
Game Structure, Game Balance: merge and delete most of the gamefaq-like info.
Original Soundtrack, Trivia: Complete removal
Is there any need for the characters section AT ALL?! There already is a main article for characters in the Red Alert series (one for each side). Do we even need a characters section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VRKatta (talk • contribs) 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Large scale editing

message: I find chrono miners inferior to war miners when it comes to the total amount of money one miner can accumulate. Two things that support the chrono miners' efficiency would be the ore purifier and the Allies' more constant flow of cash.
"When a lot of miners are working on an ore field, traffic jams at the Refineries will result, but this problem is far less prevalent with Chrono Miners than War Miners, because all traffic is moving away from the refineries instead of both towards and away. Generally, a Soviet player must build 1 refinery for every two to three War Miners, while 5 or 6 Chrono Miners can work from one refinery."
Quite untrue in my opinnion, chrono miners unload more often.
I think somebody should correct this if I'm not mistaken above.Cnfjti3 05:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efficient Ore Miners 

message: don't you think this should be resolved. Under the section "alternate world war 2" it says that a World war 3 is going on... inconsistency...
-Related to this point, I find the statement "Unlike the original Red Alert which was logically and historically possible" questionable. Lightning cannons, invincibility fields, and time travel are historically possible?  -Anonymous Idiot
**I think that's more about the USSR invading Europe might have been possible if it wasn't for Nazi Germany... plus, Tesla Coils actually exist. 89.44.241.20 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alt WW2/WW3 

message: Can we have a pic of the original WTC packaging? I can't find one.
I have a copy of the origanal packaging, later today or tomarrow ill scan it and put it there. EvilHom3r 20:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTC packaging? 

message: Why are beta screenshots used in this page? This is quite decieving to the veiwer, the screen with the Soviet Nuclear Missile launching is beta(Prism Tanks have different remap spots on them, GIs look totally different, the walls have remap on them,those civvie buildings are NOT in the final game, and that map itself is disabled ingame.) Please find some Post-beta screenshots, Wikipedia, and stop deceiving potential buyers of this game. Also the Kirov-bomb isfrom a beta release, that should be removed, too.
:Wikipedia is a community-edited encyclopedia; if you have good reason to remove or replace those parts of the article then feel free to do so. No need to blame 'Wikipedia' for deceiving people (and my, what a giant deception! A screenshot showing beta units!). By the way, Talk pages should be signed using four tildes. Aeronox 14:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prerelease screenshot(s) used in the article... 

message: I think the storyline section is in great need of change. It attempts (very poorly) to merge the Allied and Soviet storylines, despite the fact that completely different things happen in them--e.g. in the Soviet one, the Pentagon gets razed, and in the Allied one, it survives the whole thing. Perhaps we could do two seperate Allied and Soviet ones. Loyh 10:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storyline 

message: I may be mistaken (almost certainly am, as it has been a couple of years since I played Starcraft) but I am sure that some of the voices and phrases used in RA2 are the same as in Starcraft Golden Dragoon 16:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voices 

message: This page needs a list of the various superweapons available (big part of gameplay)
:This is not a faq!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.57.71 (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Superweapons 

message: Anyone else think the cutscenes (especially the intro movie) have a similarity to the movie War Games?
:There's only so many ways to present a large board with moving symbols. Other than that, I noticed no particular similarities. --Kizor 13:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Games 

message: Using as a model the Starcraft article (currently a featured article), i will begin to rewrite the Red Alert 2 article. Anyone interested in doing so, following the Starcraft article example, please do so.Kessingler 23:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Rewrite

message: :Image:C&C Red Alert 2 Box Flap.png 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 08:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:C&C Red Alert 2 Box Flap.png

message: I seriously think that there needs to be a SEPERATE section on the continuity of the Red Alert and Tiberian Universe. However, this SHOULD NOT be an section for ANY speculization (unless significant' proof. The article fails to mention any thing about the Tiberian Universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VRKatta (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiberian Connection 

message: I think this is still a Start-Class article, but a solid Start (also Low-importance). There's considerable cleanup required to get up to B or beyond. Here are some ideas to get you there:
* No references. See WP:CITE.
* Screenshots need fair use rationales: WP:FURG. The two messages for Image:C&C Red Alert 2 Box Flap.png are there for a reason.
* Have a look at Half-Life 2 to see how to format a soundtrack track listing.
* The "See also" section is unnecessary due to the inclusion of the templates.
* Gameplay section goes into too much detail per WP:NOT#GUIDE: if the information isn't useful to someone who won't play the game, don't include it.
* Character section needs expansion: look at FF7#Characters for an example of a good character list.
* Try to avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs, such as those in the lead and dotted throughout the article.
* A couple of sections usually found in video game articles are missing: Reception (what sort of reviews did RA2 get?) and development (surprisingly, details of the game's development).
Sorting out the Gameplay section and writing decent-sized Reception, Development and Character sections and including more references would bring this article up to B-standard. Have a look at some VG featured articles listed here for further guidance. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask me. Hope this helps, Una LagunaTalk 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A character section would be useful as an overview for those who don't want to wade through an entire article. It's fairly common, but if you wanted to get the article to GA then it would by no means be essential. Deus Ex is one example of a Good Article which doesn't have a character section but does have extra articles on its characters. Una LagunaTalk 13:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would disagree with the elaboration of characters in Red Alert 2 when compared to Final Fantasy VII. As an RPG, FF7's organisation places far more emphasis on character development. RA2 lacks a significant amount of character development, and compared to the storyline and gameplay, I don't think there's much that could be specifically mentioned about characters in this game alone. --Scottie_theNerd 13:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:VG]] assessment 

message: Hello to everyone. I am new around here so please forgive me if this question is not in it's right page. I want to know: Is there an online version of the game where I will be able to play the game for free? thank for the repleyers. Bravo321 22:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to my knowledge, and it's probably illegal. You're likely to get a better answer from the reference desk. Una LagunaTalk 08:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

text: There's a free version of the original Red Alert called MiniRA, which does not contain the campaign missions. Philcha 12:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give me a link to MiniRA? Bravo321 17:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a free version of the second game "Red Alert 2"? Bravo321 (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing, and this is not the place to make such enquiries. --Scottie_theNerd 16:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: I've re-phrased quite extensively, to remove ambiguities and to distinguish clearly between nations (e.g. Libya, Iraq, USA, Korea) and faction-groups (Soviet, Allied).
I've also removed 
because it's inaccurate: the Soviet-group tanks are more expensive and powerful than the Allied-group tanks, at both basic and advanced tech levels. I'm about to edit "Game balance" to deal with such issues. Philcha 12:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gameplay (general)

message: Under the Controversy section it says "Later versions of the game also replace a portion of the Intro movie, removing the part of the scene in which the statue of Liberty's head is destroyed by a missile, instead showing it already headless."
I have the original release (within the first month) and "The First Decade" collection (2006) and examined the intro videos from both. They are identical. In both, as a missile passes in front as a small missile comes from behind and hits Miss Liberty in the head. The head is destroyed and as the rest of the statue begins to crumble it fades to the next scene. Either the statement above is false or EA reverted to the original version for the "The First Decade".
Unless there is supporting information I recommend removal of the statement.
Mozepy (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Controversy 

message: The release date is listed as September 28, 2000 in the article. The cited reference lists 28 September 2001. I've got a Westwood Studios calendar that lists October 25, 2000. What is the correct date?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.102.67 (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a re-release after 9/11 to change the cover art. Perhaps that is what you're thinking of. Annihilatron (talk) 18:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Release Date? 

message: Can't really give it C-class yet: you have quite a few unreferenced sections for an article of this size, and there isn't any information on the development behind the game. Reception seems like it could be fleshed out much more too. It's off to a good start, but you definitely need to get those references and missing bits of info in there.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment as of 2008-09-07 

message: When I searched for this article in Google, the first result was titled "Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", but the article actually linked was something called XWIS, which in turn was a redirect which forced the user to read the Multiplayer section of this article which, surprise, surprise, contains a section talking up XWIS, their supposed relationship with Electronic Arts Germany and, of course, a link to their website. To me, this is blatant advertising, and the XWIS article (which exists solely to direct users) should be deleted. --FFN  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.52.182 (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for bringing this up - listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 11 for attention. I'm tempted to leave the section as it is until the matter has been resolved at RFD, and only then delete the advertising. Una LagunaTalk 11:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  XWIS redirect - advertising? 

message: Is this game and Yuri's Revenge compatible with Windows 7 Home Premium, or does it need the XP Mode virtual pc software included with Windows 7 Professional Edition to run properly? Wsmss (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Windows 7 

message: Is this really supposed to be used for fictional conflicts? Sizeofint (talk) 04:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military conflict infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2. 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:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120525114838/http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandconquerredalert2/index.html?tag=result;title;0 to http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandconquerredalert2/index.html?tag=result%3Btitle%3B0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified