Talk:Command & Conquer (1995 video game)/Archive 1

Encyclopedic status

" also, non-canon and unencyclopedic "

This claim (taken from the page its history section) is factually incorrect, as the storyline presented on PlanetCnC is indeed canon and represents a completely accurate and in-depth description of the events that transpire within the game its actual storyline. The former article's story section was indeed a direct copy & paste from the PlanetCnc website however, which thus may present copyright violations. GoodLuckDie 07:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't contradict the official storyline, but the PlanetCNC encyclopedia definitely adds details that weren't present in the games. Even though most of it is just background flavour, it's still fan speculation that isn't confirmed by Westwood or by the games themselves. Ironfrost 04:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

These details that you refer to can be considered as either more-than-logical conclusions, or simply as very well-funded deductions given the context of the games' storylines themselves. Contrary to what you appear to assume they were not exactly conjured up out of thin air, which is amplified by the fact they not only in no way take the storyline in a direction of which can be argued that it was unintented by the original authors, but also by the fact that they do not add any fanfiction-like elements to the storyline which can be readily disproven nor reasonably questioned whenever looking at the games' storylines. Feel free to provide some actual examples of what you mean should you not agree however, as you have made me quite curious, actually. But as it is, there was insufficient ground to describe the text as being 'unencyclopedic' let alone as 'non-canon', as is evidenced by the fact that many of these details have already been incorporated into the content of the various Command & Conquer pages here on Wikipedia, and this without any disputes regarding the articles their factual accuracy or neutrality ever having arisen because of them. GoodLuckDie 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

• "Unencyclopedic" in this context most likely refers to the copy-past of the information from planet cnc’s website. That move occasioned a revert for two reasons: first (and most importantly) we have no standing to use written copywrited material verbatum. That information must be reworded, and when nessicary altered to conform to a nuetral point of view. Admittedly, this does at times short change people by omitting pertinent information, however that is the policy of this website. Even if the exmples given are more than logical conclusions or very well funded deductions we would still have to provide a source for that information or insert a note that states that some of the information on the page is speculative. Secondly, most of the information added fits nicely into either the Global Defence Initiative storyline or the Brotherhood of Nod storyline, and as such should be incorprated on those pages. TomStar81 10:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Funpark missions

I'm not too sure if The Covert Operations is necessary for playing the funpark missions... I'll check it out someday to be sure. Also, shouldn't there be any info on how to access the missions? (-funpark as argument to the .exe) --ReCover 14:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I've tested it now and I'm certain that the funpark missions do not require The Covert Operations. Haven't edited the page though. --ReCover 15:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I could well be wrong (it's a long time since I played them) but I was under the impression you could play the dino missions with any disc (not just the Covert Ops one) as long as the Covert Operations was installed. Could you confirm that you tested this on a C&C install that hasn't had the expansion pack installed, rather than just using the Nod or GDI disc? Ironfrost 11:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure. And yes, the funpark missions are playable with any disc. And the fact that all the videos for Funpark are located in both the Nod and GDI movies.mix files (just made sure) confirms it.

Right, here's the complete explanation: The Covert Operations installation contains an update of the dinosaur missions. This update isn't really vital to play them, but it contains the missions' text briefings, which aren't in the original C&C. In the original DOS version of C&C, the update was needed because only (DOS) C&C versions starting from 1.20 ( = The Covert Operations) know the "Funpark" command line parameter needed to run the dino missions. However, this was later also made unnecessary when Westwood released the 1.22 patch.

To avoid confusion, (English) DOS C&C v1.22 is the same as (English) C&C95 v1.04, and C&C95 never got any patches to update it further, except for the small WinXP dll fix. But that didn't affect the version number.

So basically, yes, it's possible to play the dinosaur missions without the Covert Ops, but you won't get text briefings that way. --Nyerguds 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have covert operations, but download and install the covert operations demo you can play the missions too.

The demo only contains 2 missions, and not a trace of anything dinosaur-related. Also, that demo isn't online anymore though, except on cncworld.org's mirror of the old Westwood site. They never put it on their FTP. Nyerguds 17:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Funpark missions, part 2

The article says "reports of strange creatures", and while Kane actually says "reports of odd animal behavior". I know it sounds stupid, but that really what he says. I'm uncertain to edit because it sounds so... stupid =). --ReCover 15:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the best compromise is just to remove the quotes around it... make it

These sequential missions are accompanied by a briefing from Kane, in which he charges the player to investigate reports of strange creatures.

--Nyerguds 10:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns

The name "tiberian dawn" is wrong. It was invented by some fan. This game is called "Command & Conquer", full stop. The article should be renamed. (the article currently called "command & Conquer" should be renamed something like "the Command & Conquer series" or "command & conquer games". I played the game right when it was released 10 years ago, and I have never heard it called "Tiberian dawn" by anyone until today. I don't know who invented that name, but don't think that fictive name should be used here on Wikipedia.

Also, it is wrong to define this game "a prequel to Tiberian Sun". When it was released in 1995, Command & Conquer wasn't a prequel to anything. The person who wrote the article probably played the games in the wrong order and doesn't understand what this game was back in 1995. If anything, Command & Conquer is the sequel to "Dune II" because its gameplay and interface are based on Dune II. The reason why the game is called "Command & Conquer" "full stop" is that it wasn't designed to be a prequel to anything. Command & Conquer is a standalone game, its setting and scenario are consistent on their own, they don't require the other games of the series.

I remember playing C&C that long ago, there was a teaser trailer included on the C&C 1 CD to a sequel called Tiberian Sun. This sequel would not be a pure RTS, but appeared to be a mix between a RTS and a first person shooter. The player would conduct missions seen through the eyes of a soldier. Your claims that there were no sequels planned are false. Tiberian Sun was already planned before the release of C&C 1, although the concept was still being worked on. If you don't believe me, dust up the old C&C CDs and watch the teaser trailer yourself.

--81.246.189.148 00:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The information about "Command & Conquer 3" seems to be completely fictive too.

The scenario of Command & Conquer doesn't mention the events of Red Alert in any way. Although the following episodes expose some links, these links are completely absent in the original Command & Conquer game, therefore they shouldn't appear on the page about Command & Conquer. Apparently, the person who wrote this article thinks of Command & Conquer as just an episode of the C&C series, and keeps describing it that way. All these considerations should appear in the page about the series, not in the page about the game itself. The "Command & Conquer" game is a standalone game, and its scenario wasn't requesting for a sequel. It's only the commercial success of the game that called for sequels. The page about the original "Command & Conquer" game shoud describe the game itself, as it stands, not the conclusions that come from the rest of the series or the inventions of fans. The scenario of Command & Conquer starts with the appearance of Tiberium "in a near future" (the game was released in 1995). There is more than enough material to write about the game itself. Connections with the rest of the series can appear on the page about the series. —This unsigned comment was added by 217.18.21.2 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC).

I wrote the page, and I am well aware that the name "Tiberian Dawn" is incorrect, to be frank I am suprised that I have not been called for this by the administaters on this site. When this page was created an article titled "Command & Conquer" already existed, and I did not have the time to run the article through the move requests vote as several C&C related pages were up for deletion. What I did was to create a "fix", something suitable for the moment that would work, and I fully intend to correct this mistake. You are also right in you assertion that when this game was released in 1995 the game was not a prequel to Tiberian Sun, but after Tiberian Sun was released this game became the first in the Tiberian series. I am also aware that C&C 3 is, at this point, largely a myth, but the fact that concept art has been leaked and that it has been hinted at suggest that the game is (or was) considered for production. This is encyclopedia worthy, so the game has its own article; however the development tag on that article explicitly warns people that the information contained on the page is of a speculative nature. Lastly, while Command & Conquer does not mention Red Alert in any way, but there are scenes and lines in Red Alert that can credably support the theory that both games take place on the same timeline. It could be said that C&C is part of a Stand Alone Complex: each game is designed to be independent of one another, but they funtion as a group.

When reading this it is important to remeber two things: first, these pages are still being reengineered to better fit this new page and templete layout, therefore the page and its contents as they are now may be altered to reflect this change. Secondly, this is a wiki, which means that you have the power to change the material on the page. TomStar81 19:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• actualy Westwood themselves have called it Tiberian Dawn.

While I agree with the the topic creator's intent, Westwood has referred to the original Command & Conquer as Tiberian Dawn as far back as early 1997 with the release of Command & Conquer Gold. In the C&C Gold Frequently Asked Questions file, Westwood states "Tiberian Sun is an entirely new game, not a data disk for C&C: Tiberian Dawn" [1] and "...RED ALERT is...[a] PREQUEL to COMMAND & CONQUER: TIBERIAN DAWN" [2]. Whelkman 17:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Westwood can refer to it however they like - none of the boxes or copyrights have ever said 'Tiberian Dawn.' They're what matters. Lots of games/movies/anythings have internal names; that doesn't make them the official name.--Gwilym 18:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I agree with the topic creator's intent, but his testimony leads one to believe the title "Tiberian Dawn" has no standing whatsoever within Westwood, which is categorically false. I am by no means advocating revisionism, but the charges of "[Tiberian Dawn] was invented by some fan" is ignorantly speculative. As has been shown, Westwood has used the term since, at least, 1997. I don't advocate renaming "Star Wars" to "Episode IV: A New Hope", but it's wrong to suggest George Lucas at no point intended it to be called as such. Whelkman 19:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I've recently added a link to a 1995 Usenet posting which reposted the official C&C FAQ, showing that Westwood was using the Tiberian Dawn subtitle in 1995 or even earlier. This was before C&C Gold came out (or even the expansion pack game out) and thus refers to the DOS version. It is therefore not a fan title but a title used by the game's creators. -- Jordi·✆ 22:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what any one person or any company is calling the game - it came out as Command & Conquer. If someone wants to rewrite history, go ahead, but don't do it here.

• : I also remember the game having an official title of Tiberian Dawn from before 1996. To my understanding, the Tiberian Dawn title was used mainly in North America. I know in my country and in the UK (at least for a time) it was simply referred to as Command and Conquer. (121.45.231.239 (talk) 12:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC))

Red Alert connection

I've removed the section at the beginning of the 'story' section stating that C&C follows on from an allied victory in Red Alert. There's nothing in C&C to imply this, and as far as I can tell it's not stated in Tiberian Sun or Red Alert either. Even if it's not just fan speculation, the best it can be is a retcon, and if so it should be made clear that this is the case (preferably clarifying where the information comes from). Ironfrost 12:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this. However, I'm certainly not convinced that any mention of the connection between Red Alert and the Tiberium games should be removed from the article entirely, for three specific reasons; 1) Kane's appearances in the cutscenes of Red Alert's Soviet scenario, 2) The fact that the Brotherhood of Nod is specifically mentioned in the ending cutscene of Red Alert's Soviet scenario and 3) The Westwood-made multiplayer map in Red Alert's multiplayer mode titled 'Things To Come', which essentially was Nod's emblem in multiplayer map form when viewed from the radar dome's mini-map. All these things from Westwood themselves hint strongly that Red Alert indeed is the prequel to the original Command & Conquer, although it remains debatable precisely in what kind of capacity, storywise.

As such, I'd advocate for a seperate section on the article's main page to be added which is dedicated specifically toward this enigmatic but nonetheless substantiated connection, which exists between Red Alert's storyline and that of the Tiberium Series. 80.201.169.202 06:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Small Public Service Annoucement

It turns out I still have the original Command & Conquer manual from when the game was originally released back in 1995. If any of you writers/editors want to verify certain things based on the information contained in the manual, feel free to ask me on these pages and I will be glad to look it up for you. 80.201.169.202 08:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the original Red Alert booklet, in dutch version though. Wouter Lievens 11:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have the original booklet on Tiberian Sun, in either English or Dutch, bit I can translate if necesary. - Redmess 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I have multiple copies of it, I can check it like 5 times ^^ . Just kidding, but I do have copies of the manual of pretty much every release there has been, including the first and last (The First Decade), both DOS and C&C95 editions. --Rygir 00:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: "in need of expert" tag

Is there any real reason for it to be there? I cleaned up the article a bit and, while I wouldn't consider myself an "expert" on the C&C games, I can't see that there is an awful lot more to do. Colm O'Brien 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I added that back when the article was first recreated because I was not quite sure if I had gotten the information in the article corect. I figured it would be a good idea to tag the article with the expert template so as to get someone a bit more familar with this game to check it out. Infering from your comments my facts are in fact correct, and as you said there isn’t really all that much left to do. TomStar81 19:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

All right. Tag removed. Colm O'Brien 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

How do you get the bonus missions

I think the title asked all.

Ok, to play the bonus missions you must create a shortcut to the c&c executable, then go to properties for the shortcut, apply "-funpark" as an argument to the c&c executable. It could look like this "...\Command & Conquer\c&c95.exe -funpark" (don't forget the space between the c&c executable and "-funpark").

We probably should write how to do it on the article page... (please sign your entries on talk pages) --ReCover 17:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

the parameter is "funpark", without the "-". If you use "-funpark" it will NOT work.

Nyerguds (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• I agree it should bee on the article page Jamhaw 16:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Ok, I added some info, feel free to make it sound smoother... --ReCover 16:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added the info, I don't think it should be shortened beause not everyone knows how to insert a parameter. - Redmess 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just added a link to the Wikipedia article on command line parameters. That should be sufficient. --Nyerguds 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note that WP is NOT intended to describe game-guide content, and the method for gaining access to the bonus missions is included for completeness' sake, and nothing else. I have reverted the article to the last revision before the addition of the game-guide content. Please do not re-revert. -FrostyBytes 15:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Win95 version without CovertOps?

Was there a Windows '95 release of CnC Gold which did not include the Covert Ops expansion disk? A recent edit added The expansion pack also features the DOS version's soundtrack, which includes music that was strangely absent from the Windows 95 version. which does not make sense to me: the only releases for Win95 I know of are CnC Gold and the later re-releases of this in the compilations, which in all cases came with the CovOps disk included. -- Jordi·✆ 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The version of C&C95 I have definitly doesn't have the expansion pack. Also, it's kind of funny how all the new releases are really just the same CDs, it's a C&C95 with the original DOS covert operations, meaning the installer isn't under windows. A good thing to be honest, the original installer was kickass. Also, I've never seen anything called "C&C Gold"? Where does this name come from? Can I see a scan or something that shows a box that says gold? --Rygir 00:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Look in the C&C95 readme.txt file. It is officially called "Command & Conquer Gold". Not to mention, that's the actual name of the game directory on the old Westwood FTP site. The readme file README.WRI on the CD calls it "C&C Gold" as well. In the index, it lists section 1.1 as "Installing Covert Ops over Command & Conquer 95". However, when you scroll down to said section, it says "Installing Covert Ops over Command & Conquer Gold". So basically, the WW people use both names.

--Nyerguds 15:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Extra Movies

There is a Mobius movie that is not scene because of a typo or something it shouild be mentioned not to mention how to get it.

It should be mentioned not to mention...? As a matter of fact, there are 2 movies that don't run because the names in the map .ini files (which are embedded inside the MIX files) are spelt incorrectly. It is neither a hack nor is it illegal...so what are you trying to say? --Rygir 00:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he probably just has bad grammar and meant to say, "There is a Mobius movie that is not seen because of a typo or something; it should be mentioned in the article (possibly with reference to a means of viewing it like extracting it with XCC)." I tend to agree with him. I assume you guys are talking about the one with Mobius describing Tiberium's apparent terraforming behaviour but between the GDI, Nod & Covert Ops CDs there's at least 5 or 6 that I've found including one that shows a cargo plane screwing up on approach & crash landing, another with a vehicle like the Quad Cannon from Generals shooting down a plane, and a really awesome one of the view from a chopper flying through a canyon full of Tiberium vein-holes & visceroids. That last one's especially interesting since it shows the vein-hole monsters that didn't show up in-game until Tiberian Sun. UndeadSocrates 04:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Grain Trade Center?

I assumed it was 'Grand,' just pronounced kind of weirdly.--Gwilym 02:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed "Grain", as far as I can tell. --Nyerguds 10:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The French and german dubs of the intro video confirm this. Nyerguds (talk) 10:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Shouldn't there be at least one picture? --Foolzter

Isn't there? Or doesn't the box shot count? Personally I think a screenshot of the DOS version and one of the C&C95 version would be a good idea.--Rygir 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiberian Dawn

Considering it was never used for any kind of publicity materials I figured it had no busines in the infobox. However, I'm wondering now if it shouldn't be mentioned that originally the story was planned as a trilogy (which EA didn't like because that would mean C&C3 would be the end and killing of such a cash cow would likely make the financial department break out in tears). Hence, a second proposal was made and shot down (but I don't know what that story entailed), and finally the C&C3 version of events was made. It's obvious that the sun-related words are a metaphor for the rise and fall of the Tiberium "infestation" (the nature of which wasn't revealed with any certainty up until C&C3 came along, and I don't know if that will reveal anything than the obvious aliens; it's very possible Kane isn't siding with the aliens for example, but rather wants to use Tiberium against them to defend mankind). Err, sorry, didn't want to go off-topic. The relevant bit is that originally the series was envisioned as a trilogy, Tiberian Dawn, Tiberian Sun and Tiberian Twilight. The problem is, I don't know of anything that I can put up as a reference...--Rygir 01:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonetheless, Rygir, the name Tiberian Dawn IS mentioned in the official FAQ version 2.7, which is included on the Covert Ops CD as "readme.txt". IMO this counts as "one of the original game's related materials, such as the manual or the readme files."

Not to mention, the latest versions of these readme files (3.0 for DOS C&C, 1.3 for C&C95) are still online on ftp://ftp.westwood.com. Rygir, feel free to consult it.

Nyerguds 15:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The original manual of Command & Conquer

Just as a point of interest to everyone involved in this article, the original manual to Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn can be found here;

http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/replacementdocs/Command_&_Conquer_-_Manual_-_PC.zip

Take note the file requires Adobe Reader or a similar program. 84.192.125.204 09:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the validity of the http://xwis.net/td/ external link to the Command & Conquer article

NOTE: I've copied the following from my own user talk page. Any input is welcome

I'd say there are two things to take note of here.

1) From Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked, point three -- Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

2) The Wiki rule quoted by you when you specified a reason for removing the http://xwis.net/td/ link -- "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

As it is, the http://xwis.net/td/ link provides neutral and relevant material that can not be integrated into the Command & Conquer article due to copyright issues, as well as the sheer number of the available screenshots, meaning they can not be realistically imported to the article for these two reasons. This covers the Wiki rule quoted by you, as this link does constitue a unique resource for original images of this vintage game beyond what the article would contain even if it became a featured article. Thus, it's a relevant addition which meets all of Wikipedia's external linking requirements, and it should remain in the article's external links section because of this.

By the way, is Dutch of Flemish your native language? 84.192.125.204 13:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the link adds no valuable content what so ever, it is just a collection of images, so it does not provide a unique resource beyond what a featured article should contain and thus not meets the criteria for external linking. --Fogeltje 10:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, this on both counts. This is a vintage computer game which 1) is no longer in production, meaning many will no longer be able to have it in their personal possession, which makes quality screenshots of it indeed of relevance to readers of this encyclopedic article while 2) this video game is also of notable interest in general due to its distinguished status within both its own franchise as well as the real-time strategy genre as a whole. Furthermore, the notion that this link supposedly does not meet the criteria for external linking is incorrect. The third point of the first quoted Wiki policy by me in my first message on this page in fact reinforces that the link can be considered as valid -- specifically in that the http://xwis.net/td/ link contains a type of relevant content which can not be integrated into this article itself due to copyright issues, as well as due to the amount of detail it represents (in that the images are far too numerous to realistically integrate into the article even if there were no copyright issues at hand).

I've hereby validated the use of this link according to standing Wikipedia policies regarding external links, and subsequently re-added it to the article. If you continue to delete it, I will call on outside mediation on this issue. 84.192.125.204 17:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How does a page with dozens of screenshots add anything of value to the article? It has no informative value. One screenshot in the article would be considered valid, if no copyright is violated, but dozens of screenshots add nothing. --Fogeltje 21:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you carefully read my previous posts in this same topic? For they explain the rationale behind the validity of this external link in due detail, and have, this in each case, themselves been validated by the quotation of Wikipedia policies directly relevant to this issue.

It may be of note, at this point, that this is not the first instance of another user having had to revert your edits to the "external links" section of this article, in order to be able to preserve a measure of informative quality to it. This is evidenced by the recent deletion of official websites by you, just prior to edits of yours which are now the cause of this new dispute. As such, I am calling upon outside mediation to your edits. Since the link is disputed content as of now, it should stay until a verdict has been reached by the mediator(s). Thank you. 84.192.125.204 10:16, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

I do not believe that this particular external link is allowed under external link policies here on Wikipedia. A page that consists simply of a rather large screenshot, in my opinion, does not qualify as material that would, as the guidelines state, add meaningful/relevant content that is not suitable for direct inclusion. While the screenshots may provide information, I do not believe that they are worthy on being linked to as they are not of any particular meaning. One screenshot embedded within the article may be appropriate, but a large gallery, in my opinion, does not add informational value.

If you have any comments, please contact me on my talk page. P3net 21:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

4th opinion

Sorry to ruin the tie-breaker above, but I would say that a gallery of images is indeed appropriate for inclusion in the external links section.

In reading the article, I found it rather useful to see the kinds of graphics available in the game. The graphic capabilities of the game aren't evident from the picture in the article. I was glad to be able to view more images to get a feel for the experience offered by the game. (And I don't even play video games!)

Also, I'll add that plenty of other articles contain external links to galleries — particularly in articles about artists — for the same reason as the anonymous editor above describes. Insofar as computer games are highly creative works that may qualify as an art form, a gallery is appropriate here too. =Axlq 23:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that the graphics are indeed helpful, but I personally believe that a screenshot simply included in the article wouldsuffice, as opposed to having to link offsite (for reasons stated earlier) P3net 05:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with P3net. I think I voiced this in my original argumentation already, that one or maybe two ingame screenshots in the article should exist. But a page with only in-game screenshots should not be included. If this page in question where a review page with the screenshots scattered across the review, then I would probably not object, but in itself the screenshots add no real information besides illustrating gameplay, which can be achieved by placing one or two screenshots in the game. The screenshots tell no story or add any information to the article. --Fogeltje 11:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with user Axlq. For reasons I already provided above, this picture gallery is relevant because the game this article describes is vintage, and many will no longer be able to view its graphical features first-hand any longer. In addition, this link also provides a far greater informative scope on the looks of the original Command & Conquer than merely one or two hand-picked screenshots added to this article could provide. These two reasons make the addition of this link to the article both relevant and worthwhile. Lastly, as quoted above as well, this link is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia policies regarding external linking -- Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked, points three and four specifically. 84.192.125.204 11:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone can buy this game as a DVD compilation of all Command and Conquer titles has been released a few months ago. The images have no added value, you keep claiming that but don't explain. How can ten repetitive ingame screenshots post additional information? One or two in the article suffice completely. Two screenshots are really enough to illustrate a game. Since the link adds nothing of value it does not satisfy WP:EL. --Fogeltje 14:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrectly going on an assumption that the majority of new C&C players, and especially those who first came into contact with the C&C series through the recent release of Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars, are even aware of this compilation pack. These images are of relevance and of value to any visitor of this article who seeks to gain some background information on the origins of Tiberium Wars and the C&C series because of this, yet you keep claiming that they do not without explaining why, as you only keep quoting a small excerpt of Wikipedia policy that does not apply to this situation to begin with. Merely one or two randomly chosen screenshots do not weigh up to a more extensive gallery of screenshots in terms of informative quality for a reader with little to no background on the C&C series. This makes the link worthwhile and interesting to such readers, while it also is in complete accordance with points three and four of Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked. Thus, the link should stay for the benefit of all visitors of this article that lack the background knowledge on Command & Conquer that you and I have. With the release of Tiberium Wars, the number of such visitors is certain to increase over time, making this link only more relevant and of more practical use to the article. 84.192.125.204 10:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

5th opinion

I can't believe no one even noticed this...

All those images except the main menu screen are taken directly from the Westwood FTP site, from here and here.

Because of that I think the link to the FTP, which is already in the Links section, is sufficient. Also, the ingame shots are all unrealistic beta testing shots.

I personally suggest removing the link, and perhaps adding the main menu screenshot to the article.

Nyerguds 17:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right, I've managed to overlook this apparently. On the other hand though, I'd say you've countered your own argument a bit; If every single editor of this article managed to overlook these images on the FTP site, with the sole exception of yourself, there's good reason to assume that casual visitors/readers of the article are equally likely to miss out on them. And especially those readers who would benefit the most from viewing the gallery -- namely those who have little background on the C&C games in general.

All in all, I think that this comes down to judging on a case-by-base basis. Given the context of everything discussed in this topic, I still remain convinced that this direct link is of value to the informative quality of this article. 84.192.125.204 10:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case, isn't it still more logical to link to the original images, rather than to a site mirroring them? Personally I'd prefer it if someone added real ingame screenshots, preferably including some from the DOS version. I got no idea how to add images to an article though...

Nyerguds 22:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. Technically I'd say that it would be. There's an issue of user-friendlyness involved though -- this mirror site presents the images directly rather than providing a file list, while it also has all of them on a single page and thus requires but a single external link for the article.

As an aside, this screenshot gallery that I've found only provides screenshots of the Windows 95 version. Because of this, it might indeed be a good idea to add a few screens of the original DOS version directly to the article so they can complement each other. Perhaps that might also lead to a mutually acceptable compromise in this. Thoughts and opinions? 84.192.113.201 09:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Alternate versions: Sega Mega Drive

It seems this isn't an original version at all. After some research I got to the original creator's page, which, retrieved from archive.org and translated with Babelfish, can be found here. (note that links don't work because of the combination of archive.org and Babelfish translate. To browse on, go to the original archive.org page).

Now, despite the fact it's translated, this line is pretty clear... "this game only represents individual hobby".

Not to mention, he even released the tool he used to make it.

So it's pretty safe to say the Sega Mega Drive version of C&C was not commissioned by Westwood, and is thus not a real beta. It should be removed from that list, or at leasr indicated as a fan creation.

Nyerguds 12:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. I edited it and moved it to Unofficial Ports. Nyerguds 13:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

VG Assessment

This is in regards to the request at the VG Assessment page. I'm rating this article as Start-class, Mid-importance. Here are a few tips to improve it!

1- Do you seriously need 4 refs just to say the alternate title of the game? 2 at most, please! And those refs shouldn't be in the first sentence, either, they should be down at the end of the lead, where you talk about why it has an alternate name.

2- The gameplay section - base building is alright, but the combat section is way too detailed, especially about units. Remember, wikipedia is not gamefaqs, and it is not a game guide- there can be an overview of how combat works in C&C, but not a detailed description of what units the sides have. Also, once this extraneous information is taken out, the subheadings should probably be removed.

3- Bonus Missions- a bit detailed on the bug, but the section as a whole is allright, though maybe merge it into Gameplay? It could go either way.

4- Alternate versions- make it not a list, but prose, and mention only changes in gameplay, not resolution changes and the like.

5- Unnoficial ports- I'm not sure either of these are notable enough to mention, but definately not the second one.

6- Reception - you don't have this section. You need it- in it goes what reviewers said about it, the scores they gave, etc.

Overall, it's a pretty good article, but aside from the concerns above, it needs a lot more references, esp. in the plot and gameplay sections. Remember- the point of references is to prove that a statement isn't just made up by a random contributor. Any statement that could be questioned as to it's truth by someone who hasn't played the game should have a reference. Please see other video game Featured articles and Good articles for more ideas about improving the article- specifically I recommend Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, and Supreme Commander as video game FAs that are strategy games articles. --PresN 08:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

1 - This has been a serious conflict, and I've had to fight to get all the correct information in there before other people stopped editing it out. Originally this explanation was at the end, but someone replaced the entire explanation by those references because it was getting too long. Undoubtably it can be done better than it is now, but if too many of these references are removed I'm sure people will go back to questioning the validity of the name "Tiberian Dawn".

2 - About that combat section: the unit enumeration is indeed a bit too much. It should either be moved to a separate C&C1 units page, or just removed.

3 - The bug explanation is a result of several people adding tiny bits of information to it in several edits. It should probably be cleaned up, yes, although I doubt many fansites actually KNOW how to solve that bug. Of course, this probably brings us back to Original Research X_x

4 - Isn't a list a lot easier for people to look up stuff? It's pretty obvious in my opinion that a list of alternate versions should in fact be a list.

5 The second was originally under official ports, but I found out it was unofficial. If it is removed, someone will most likely make the same mistake and add it to the official ones again.

Nyerguds 16:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

As for #1, I haven't a clue why the middle 2 references were added though. The second is a link to an alternate version of the first, and the third is another alternate version of that, but as an offline document.

--Nyerguds 16:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was move due to the lack of opposing votes, and (consequently) the uncontroversial characteristics of the request.

Command & Conquer → Command & Conquer (video game) — There are several uses for "Command & Conquer" – disambiguation needed. —MrStalker ^talk 15:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• The fact that there are several uses doesn't mandate a title with a parenthetical in and of itself. The current setup indicates that this is being considered the primary topic of the phrase, so it would be better to discuss whether or not that's the case. Dekimasuよ! 14:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, in that case, no. Command & Conquer series is a much larger topic and would be considered the primary use of the phrase "Command & Conquer". --MrStalker ^talk 15:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• What other things? Aside from the series... Command and Conquer is a redirect to this article. There is no dab page. 132.205.44.5 22:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  You said it, the series. That makes it several. Command and Conquer redirects to Command & Conquer (series) as it should, since it's the primary use of the phrase. This page (Command & Conquer) should also redirect to the series for the same reason, that's also another reason why this page must be renamed. When someone talks about Command & Conquer, they usually refer to the series, not the first game. There is no dab page. Nope, so? --MrStalker ^talk 15:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if nobody opposes the move I guess the move is uncontroversial after all and can be moved without a problem. It has passed allmost five days so I'll just go ahead. If someone feels that this is wrong please feel to say so. --MrStalker ^talk 22:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: See also Final Fantasy (video game), which is a Good Article and uses this naming. --MrStalker ^talk 12:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

C&C Gold freeware verification

Does anyone have information about the original download that was hosted by EA, in terms of filenames and possibly a checksum? The alternative sites that now host the download have this annoying habit of repacking the files and who knows what else. If bandwidth costs were the problem, I wish EA would have just provided a torrent. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Both fileplanet and Gamespot are hosting a file called CnCGold.zip, I ran a CRC against them and they are the same. However, the files inside the archive are dated 9/4, which is after the game was released on EA's site. So either this file was repacked by EA before sending it to the mirror sites, or one of the sites repacked it and the other site mirrored the repack. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent weasel and verification tags by user MrStalker

Adding tags without specifying in the edit summary which parts of article content are contested is unconstructive and bad form. I'm instead expecting a detailed list on this talk page about which sentences in this intro revision you consider to be examples of weasel words and/or are lacking sources, along with an explanation as to why. Once that list and its rationale has been provided, I shall deal with it accordingly, provided there is sufficient cause for doing so. Kalamrir (talk) 16:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn (originally released as Command & Conquer)" Source?

"Met with universal acclaim by critics and consumers alike, [...] and today generally is considered as the title to have popularized as well as defined the real-time strategy genre." Unreferenced weasel words.

"its subtitle Tiberian Dawn" Source? --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Tiberian Dawn" as both official title and official sub-title is sourced by four different references within the article. --

""Met with universal acclaim by critics and consumers alike, [...] and today generally is considered as the title to have popularized as well as defined the real-time strategy genre." is sourced by two different references within the article --

Since the rationale provided appears baseless, the tags have been removed. It should be additionally noted, however, that every of the references mentioned above were present within the article at the time that the content they source was disputed by user MrStalker. Evidently, these references were intentionally ignored. Since user MrStalker's edits increasingly are demonstrating evidence of point behavior, and since they subsequently become increasingly disruptive to certain articles which the C&C task force is supporting, I will ask for an administrator to intervene if this trend continues. Kalamrir (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

These references should be placed at the end of the relevant paragraph. And please explain to me in what way I am refusing to get the point. From where I stand it's you that refuses to realize that "Tiberian Dawn" is not a part of the official title. I will not discuss this on this page futher, since we already have this discussion here. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like an explanation as to why you did not do this yourself, as a member of the C&C task force. Apparently, you both are aware and acknowledge that this would have solved the issue entirely, yet you opted for placing tags that implicated the entire article instead, and additionally did so without providing any rationale for it. Your actions appear to be substantiating my earlier remarks about intentionally disruptive behavior. Kalamrir (talk) 16:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I had some better things to do. Secondly, I figured you could do it yourself. I'm sorry that I was mistaken. --MrStalker ^(talk) 23:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Curiously, the time required to add the tag and edit summary you made is roughly identical to the copying and pasting of the references you now just added. You appear to have had sufficient time at your disposal to continue this ongoing dispute, but not to solve it. I think that is something that should be taken note of. Kalamrir (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. You may believe whatever you want. --MrStalker ^(talk) 11:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have merely been making objective observations. Kalamrir (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are rather subjective. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, and the above notes seem to substantiate that view. Kalamrir (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, alright. Whatever you say. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Appeal to rename the page to Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn

The correct naming of this article is an issue which has been brought up before, as the archived post a ways up on this discussion page demonstrates. Unfortunately, I was not yet active within the C&C task force at that time in order to present my views and arguments on it. What the recent dispute between user MrStalker and myself has, in my opinion, vehemently indicated however is that this is an issue which still asks to be solidly resolved. As such, I am going to take steps in the near future aimed at solving this dispute permanently; I will propose that this page be renamed to Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn, based on the following rationale:

• The official FAQ documents of the former intellectual property owner, Westwood Studios.
• The official publications of the current intellectual property owner, Electronic Arts.
• The precedent set by a similar dispute regarding the naming of the first Star Wars movie on Wikipedia -- Star Wars vs Star Wars: Episode 4 - A New Hope. In that dispute, the sub-title too was established as an officially sanctioned title, freely interchangeable with Star Wars whenever referencing to that particular chapter of the Star Wars saga. Incidentally, the Star Wars Episode IV - A New Hope article has since become a Featured Article on Wikipedia.

I am currently compiling a list of media from both Westwood Studios and Electronic Arts which will serve as the source material through which "Tiberian Dawn" can be established as the officially sanctioned title, as well as sub-title, of the game of Command & Conquer. I will present this at a later date, at which point I propose we also begin debating the proceedings on renaming the page. Kalamrir (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the redirect now? The offical game cover still says "Command & Conquer" not Tiberian Dawn. Star Wars' does confirm it's subtitle, say "in-game": When the original film was re-released in 1981, Episode IV: A New Hope was added above the original opening crawl. Show a newer game cover of this game, only then it makes sense. Mallerd (talk) 15:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So does C&C, in its readme file. Though admitted, not directly. Nyerguds (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dune II?

At least some mention should be made on the fact that the gameplay of Command & Conquer was heavily influenced by Westwood's earlier Dune II. I'd edit it in myself, but I can't figure out how to smoothly fit it in with the rest of the information. --Name Theft Victim (talk) 01:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

download by EA

i've searched to given source for a download of tiberian dawn and c&c gold. I did not find anything. Can someone come up with a better source or is the statement nonsense? Mallerd (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Look at the EA large downloads FTP. You'll see CnCGold.zip there; that's a zipfile with both game ISOs in it. I have a screenshot of the actual statement made by community manager Aaron 'Apoc' Kaufman that the game is freeware too, hosted on my own site, here.

Nyerguds (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Reviews

Seeing as this is the COTW, I thought I'd pitch in with this: a few print reciews of the game's various iterations. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Why were all the images removed?

I got a message from a bot today that an image I'd uploaded for this page was orphaned (it was a screenshot for the N64 version, which I felt was important because it shows the many platforms the game was on). When I had a look, it appeared that it had been removed from the page almost two months ago and there was NO indication as to why it was being deleted. As it stands, the article has no screenshots or anything else of the video game in any form, even though other articles like StarCraft, a featured article, have several.

So does anybody have a good reason for why images like screenshots are being removed from this article? If not, I'll be bold and put them all back in. -Thunderforge (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and put it back in. I plan on adding screenshots of actual gameplay in the future. Again, I feel this is integral to the article and featured articles about RTS games, like StarCraft, also have screenshots including those for other versions of the game. -Thunderforge (talk) 23:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Tiberian / Tiberium

Which is it? Or is it really both? William M. Connolley (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I originally posted this on the TiberiumWeb forums:

It's the same difference as the one between "England" and "English". One is the country, the other refers to something from that country.

The difference between "Tiberian Dawn" and "Tiberium dawn" is the same as the difference between "The English queen" and "The England queen". The second is obviously wrong.

"Tiberium dawn" simply isn't correct. It should either be "Tiberium's dawn" or "the dawn of tiberium".

What people seem to miss is that the important word in the expression is different. To explain this, I'm going to kick out all poetic language and replace "Tiberian Dawn" by what it means, which is "Tiberian Origin". This statement is about the tiberium, and the second word tells us that it's about its origin.

However, in "Tiberium Wars", it's about the wars, where the extra information is that they're wars which have something to do with Tiberium.

The difference is that Tiberium Wars would still be wars without specifying that they're about tiberium. On the other hand, "tiberian" and "origin" have no clear meaning without eachother.

"Tiberian Dawn" is the origin/beginning OF the Tiberium.

"Tiberium Wars" are the wars ABOUT Tiberium.

(Tiberian Sun, after a similar kicking out of poetic language, is about the rise of Tiberium)

I hope this clears it up.

--Nyerguds (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Incompatibility Issues?

I've heard some rumors that the PC versions of Command & Conquer and Command & Conquer: Red Alert, released during the time of Windows 95 and 98, are not compatible with future Operating Systems such as Windows Me or XP and that trying to install and play them on XP would cause serious problems to the Operating System. Can anyone clarify this? --Arima (talk) 04:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. As far as I know, they both work up to Windows 7, where you have to end the "explorer" task to be able to play them properly.--SexyKick 08:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

So trying to install and run them on later Operating Systems is not unsafe? --Arima (talk) 23:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Not unsafe at all. But of course you'll need the latest patch to play the game.--SexyKick 09:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference material

I found the following material for this game.

Reviews

• Entertainment Weekly
• Electric Playground (N64)
• CGW December 1995
• Computer Games Magazine
• Game Informer (Saturn)
• Game Informer (N64)
• Game Informer (PlayStation)
• PC Gamer US
• Next Generation (PlayStation)
• Next Generation (Saturn)
• Next Generation (N64)
• Computer and Video Games (Saturn)
• Cincinnati Enquirer (N64)

Previews and other material

More later. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Command & Conquer (1995 video game)

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Command & Conquer (1995 video game)'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "gamespot":

• From Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2: http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandconquerredalert2/index.html?tag=result;title;0
• From Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath: Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath PC Review - GameSpot
• From British Open Championship Golf: McDonald, T. Liam (May 1, 1996). "British Open Championship Golf Preview". GameSpot. Archived from the original on August 18, 2003. Retrieved April 6, 2011.
• From Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge: "Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge for PC – Command & Conquer: Yuri's Revenge PC Game". GameSpot. Retrieved 2010-03-28.
• From Flight Unlimited II: MacDonald, T. Liam (June 4, 1997). "Flight Unlimited II Preview". GameSpot. Archived from the original on August 2, 2003. Retrieved January 9, 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Release section

I think release sections are pretty standard for video game articles. I'd favor including one here as well, unless there's a compelling reason not to. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've never used them, outside of the articles where release is particularly notable. For example, if there was a big release party, or if there was a lot of coverage of its release, then it would be necessary. In this case, we're dealing with information about ports and sequels and re-releases, all of which are either gameplay- or development- or legacy-related. I don't see a single release-related piece of information in that section aside from the release date itself, which generally goes at the end of the Development section if there's no Release section. If you know of release coverage of this game, that would be a great addition—but I just don't see how we could legitimately create such a section with the material we have now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I've always used that section and assumed it was standard practice, but I'm okay with reasoning. It might be possible to dig up more info on the release itself, but if nothing else comes up, it's fine as is. Tourchiest (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Reception organization

Does anyone have a preference for how to put that section together? I normally do each reviewer separately, but I've recently tried compartmentalizing by things like story, gameplay, graphics, etc, and that can come out with nice results too. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've done both, but I've found that the first method is easier. It's all a matter of how much time you're willing to invest, and of how much material you have to work with. On Flight Unlimited, I had a small number of very short reviews, so I stretched them out by focusing on one aspect at a time. It took forever, but I like the result. On the other hand, I wrote Reception sections for Destruction Derby, John Madden Football '93 and Jane's Attack Squadron in the course of one week, which was only possible because it's so easy to cover one review at a time. I would personally recommend that method for this article, so that it doesn't take all winter to get it to GA; but it's your call. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Gameplay section

I'm not sure the second paragraph of the multiplayer sub-section is really necessary. I also don't think the source used meets WP:RS. I think that paragraph could be dropped per WP:GAMEGUIDE, then we could just remove the single player and multiplayer headers and have it all under gameplay. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Go right ahead. I'll probably be cutting even more cruft from that section in the near future, myself. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Article subject as source to itself

The references to the game itself in the plot summary should really be removed, or at least minimized. As references, they never actually guide the reader to any particular part of the game that is easily identifiable (like a chapter or scene or whatever); and as notes, they only pile on a lot of excessive details about in-game dialog.

Note that articles on fiction have never had any kind of requirement to reference plot summaries, not even for FAs.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:VG/GL#Sources states that "plot sections should also be sourced; again, the user's manual and reviews may help here, but one may also find sufficient information contained within strategy guides or FAQs. Often, using quotes from within the game or transcript can help support statements via {{cite video game}}; however, take care to keep such quotes short and to the key points." This means that we can use game quotes or transcripts to support statements in the plot summary and as such, we need to keep such quotes short for key points in the game. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just chiming in: I have used citations for the plot sections of every VG FA I have ever worked on. There's nothing wrong with it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

References have no other purpose than to make articles verifiable. They do this by pointing readers to where they can look a particular fact up in those cases where it wouldn't be self-evident where to look it up. These notes say nothing but "the source for statements about the plot of this game is the game itself" over and over. I'd call such a claim self-evident and completely and absolutely uncontentious. That means they serve no meaningful purpose as far as verifiability goes.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If you care that much, then take it up with WPVG and the hundreds of other VG articles that have plot citations. We're just following standard protocol, here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously this needs to be pointed out. Even if you stick to the questionable notion that plot summaries in general need to be referenced even for minor details, these references are completely useless. Writing "Westwood Studios. Command & Conquer. (Virgin Interactive). (1995)" 14 times is nothing but a formalized way of saying "play the game described in this article to find out". That's basically padding the notes section and making the article look more well-referenced than it is, which I would say is very wrong.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt: I could not care less. I didn't even put the citations there, but whoever did it was following the majority of VG articles; and I would have done it myself if they were not placed there. If you want to pursue your agenda, then go to the WPVG talk page and complain. Get the guidelines changed through the proper channels. Make a stink at FAC whenever someone nominates a VG article with plot cites. Until then, we have no reason to listen to your demands. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The thing is these references all contain relevant quotes. --Niemti (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

These notes only repeat the information provided in the first sentence of the lead. They follow the formatting specified for references on Wikipedia, but they don't provide any additional guidence on how to verify any claims. You could just reduce them to just the quotes without actually losing anything important.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration

It's looking good so far. I'm going to be mostly useless on the gameplay and plot, since I really don't know anything about this game. Also, good job on the Reception template so far, Torchiest. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Computer Gaming World review of C&C may be located here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I hadn't noticed your previous post until just now. I had no idea you'd already collected such a huge list of reviews either. Nice job. I'll get into those soon. I'm a bit rusty on the storyline, since it's been so long since I played, but the gameplay should be no problem. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 05:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Looking at it, the Plot section actually doesn't seem to be in terrible shape. We might not even have to touch it, aside from some copyediting tweaks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
      • The article's coming along pretty fast. I don't think the Plot or Development sections need to be tweaked much more—they're solid enough for GA, in my opinion. Keep up the good work, everyone. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
• Pretty much the only sections left to be finished are Reception and Gameplay. The rest seems fairly complete, at least for a GA. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Niemti, please stop transforming perfectly appropriate sentences into ungrammatical snakes. This article needs to pass GAN. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh, but I don't think it's "perfectly appropriate sentences". That's the problem. I find them horribly awkward, hard to read, and even factually incorrect/debatable (such as with "Staff" becoming "he"). For example, starting two constructive sentences with "However," (I changed the second one to "Nevertheless,") or writing "he" repeatedly in a single sentence without mentioning the name, and so on. --Niemti (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Cirulis found the game's interface intuitive and described its online component as "sophisticated and easy-to-use", also praising its story for being "as interesting as the actual tactics and gunfire", and commented that he "would buy C&C2 just to see where things are going to end up".
      • However, according to him, that the developers failed "to correct major shortcomings" in Dune II, as its fog of war does not fit with the real-world setting, also finding fault with design choices in the game's missions, which he believed were structured like "puzzles" that allowed for only one way to win.
      • CVG's Kim Randell wrote that the Saturn version is "up there with AM2's finest games" and "a joy to play", as it "thrives on deceptively simple gameplay" despite its unimpressive graphics and sound, and adding that the later missions are "masterpieces of gaming design".
      • Do I need to say anything else? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

And did I ever bar you from correcting any mistakes that you see? I don't claim my edits are "perfectly appropriate sentences", you know, or U CAN'T TOUCH THIS (hammer time). --Niemti (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Considering that you've spent half of your time here reverting my edits, I would have to say that you have barred me from doing that. If you want to help, that's fine. But stop being disruptive, and stop rewriting sentences in broken English when a few minor tweaks would suffice. There's a reason that WPVG is tripping over itself trying to get rid of you. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I only reverted your large-scale deletions of perfectly fine and widely accepted VG article material (programmers & artists lines in the infobox and a bunch of relevant categories) and for sure it wasn't "half of time here". As of "broken English" - do you still consider your own writing to be "perfectly appropriate sentences"? --Niemti (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Good one. Also, did I ever say that all of my work has consisted of "perfectly appropriate sentences"? No. I know that you love to project your WP:OWN tendencies onto others, but it won't work here. Everyone is free to fix any mistakes I make. No one is free to make an article worse simply because they feel like it—which is essentially what you were doing with the above sentences. Now, I'm going to join Torchiest and get back to work; and I'd appreciate it if you did not interrupt the process again. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, you did - "perfectly appropriate sentences" was a quote. "Perfectly", as in perfection. And no, I don't "make an article worse". The article, when I first came here, was pretty crappy: [3] - even as you had worked on it for years.[4] --Niemti (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like the article's done. I'm going to go ahead and nominate it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Wow, that was quick. I guess many hands make light work. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrong plot interpretation? Media campaign, financial cuts etc.

The paragraph on the story describes NOD's media campaign as a success: "A major plot element is an international scandal caused by a Nod media manipulation, which convinces the world that the GDI deliberately attacked and massacred the Polish city of Białystok. This leads to a cut in GDI funding, forcing the player to play several missions with limited forces." However, in the briefing of GDI Mission 10 Shepherd/Sheppard reveals that the campaign wasn't ever successful: "We had to play that little game to lure Kane into a false sense of security." So even the limited resources at the player's disposal for several missions are just part of that trap. So to my understanding the description of these events in the article is pretty much wrong (that the player is being mislead by the game doesn't mean that so should be the reader of the plot synopsis). I would fix it myself but I don't feel confident enough about how I should properly source that information in the article. --F4LL0UT (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)