Talk:Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun

Old stuff

This article contains at least variations of spelling for "Tacticus". The correct one is probably the one which matches the Roman Emperor, but someone needs to check with a canonical source (i.e. Westwood).

• I would like a screenshot. Jamhaw 19:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

The correct spelling is indeed Tacitus per the Official Prima Strategy Guide, so I would consider it canonical. Tehvolt 22:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

If by Roman emperor you mean historian...there was only one really famous Tacitus and he was a writer... ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 01:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Crap article...

This article is complete crap, it looks like typical fan-made, biased crap. Why are there no ingames of this? Just a single render? it makes this game look like Call of Duty with that render, put up some ingames(Final Release ones, not beta stuff.), and for the love of god, dont have a TS Fanboy write this!

Its not like ive written this article, but instead of being such a whinning bitch, why dont you write the article instead?. Be bold god damn it and help a little.

Hey, calm down guys! Firstly, remember to always keep a cool head. Second Always assume good faith! Dont assume that the article was written by fanboys, just because you don't like what it says. Also, be BOLD! If you think a article has a problem, then edit it, don't make agggressive comments on the talk page. Basically, just calm down! Also, remember to sign your posts.--NeoNerd 15:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but even if a fan did write this... Is it not correct? I found that the only two inaccuracies there were; was the spelling of "Tacitus" and the fact that they finished the GDI story off but not the NOD...

List

Just to note, the buildings list is very long, but as i don't know much about the game, could someone else please reduce it in size? NeoNerd 15:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe the list attempts to be complete, in which case it seems to be reduced to a minimal size. Sarah 11:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Im gonna remove it. This is game-manual material, not encyclopedia material. I don't think Wikipedia needs an all-inclusive game tech tree. -- saberwyn 04:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Originally an FPS?

"In fact this was what the game was originally intended to be but the idea was scrapped meaning the project had to be pushed back and the game ended up being a real-time strategy game like the rest of the series."

I don't believe this? Can anyone confirm this? 81.109.94.62 18:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Watch Tiberian Dawn's teasers. Mikael GRizzly 20:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Those teasers are 'not' sources in themselves, I'm removing it in a week if I don't see any actual references to the early development put in. Addyboy 20:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those are just teasers. My belief is that they are meant to hint of GDI developing mechs. Not that WW were going to make an FPS. 81.109.94.62 10:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Then again, you could be wrong. They may well have intended to make an FPS as their second Command & Conquer game, but we won't know one way or the other unless someone asks the developers. And given that the trailer is shot from a first-person perspective, it's a logical assumption that Tiberian Sun may, indeed, have been meant to be an FPS.

Just my $0.02. --Special Operative MACAVITY^{Debrief me} 16:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this written from the Nod point of view?

Why is this article written from the Nod point of view? The GDI campaign is considered canon, and there can't be any sequels without the GDI winning, otherwise the storyline of the sequels doesn't make sense--193.120.116.178 (talk) 16:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TSFirestormbox.jpg

Image:TSFirestormbox.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Great source for the article

Someone should add this; it's written by the producer and allows a behind-the-scenes perspective on production and reception. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 11:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Tiberian Sun's status as free software

'As of February 12, 2010, Electronic Arts (EA) licensed Tiberian Sun and its expansion pack Firestorm freeware, thus making it possible to be distributed and downloaded free of charge. The game was initially available for download from EA's website in order to promote their latest game in Command & Conquer series.'

Where's the reference for this? Does it legally hold true that this is free software? For instance, someone could make software available for free for a short period of time, then again sell it on the market. Are the people still allowed to supply that piece of software via torrents or download from a web page?

Nevertheless, it needs a reference ideally to the statement anyway. Aetas volat. (talk) 16:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I found that the major German computer magazines "CHIP" and "ComputerBild" continue to offer the German version of the game as a free download. So this is 100% kosher and legal. But since the German version is censored (GDI infantry units are displayed as cyborgs instead of humans in the American original version), I am looking for a download link for the American original version. Or is it that EA only licenced the German version as freeware, while the American version remains protected ? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Reversions of see also

Why am I continuing to be reverted? Per WP:SEEALSO, if significant content within the see also section is also located in the navbox, then it can/should be removed... --Izno (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

As there's edit warring here, and I don't see any particular reason to "favor" the registered editors versus the unregistered editors, I've fully protected the article for four days. Currently, the article appears to be at Deltasim's preferred version. I expect the anon editor to explain their reverts here on the talk page in the next four days. If xe does not, and continues edit warring once the protection is lifted, I'll just semi-protect the page for a much longer time, since this is clearly all the same editor, and the IP address changes to often for blocking to be effective. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Saying that the people who have reverted Deltasim are the same editor makes it impossible to take your message here seriously, since that is not an indication of an attempt to resolve the dispute fairly. On the AIAV page, you've stated that the editors who have reverted Deltasim are not vandals, yet here you're clearly trying out for a different ruleset solely based on the personal attacks from Deltasim. Looking through the article's history, Deltasim's contributions consist 90% of the time from non-constructive editing (from changing html tags from standard <br /> to obsolete <br> [1] [2], to changing working wiki-links to redirected pages [3] [4]) and 10% of the time from adding things from other C&C games that are barely related to this article [5], including making completely nonsensical edits with no value whatsoever [6] [7].

• Many editors have reverted some of these edits, which Deltaism persistently reinserted several times [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], up to the point where you've protected his latest revision from being reverted again. If you want to try to make and keep this article biased, then go right ahead and semi-protect it, but know that Deltasim has been reverted by autoconfirmed editors in the past as well. 59.162.117.201 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish, reverting the edits I make solve nothing, nor do they serve any constructive purpose. My edits serve the primary purpose of saving a few bytes in the page plus descriptions that Repeated reverted edits without a reason entered in the "Edit Summary" if I may point out makes it highly likely the anon editor is a vandal. I suspect strongly that these reverts are related to the persistent addition of the "See Also" section Izno has been trying to put a stop to, since it has no convenient place in the article. Do you deny that you have anything to do with it 59.162.117.201? And do you also deny hopping from IP Address to IP Address? Comparison between Tiberian Dawn and Tiberian Sun is perfectly acceptable for the simple reason that Tiberian Sun is a direct sequel to Tiberian Dawn, which you cannot deny, not mention that C&C Tiberian Sun DOES have three new types of Tiberian. First someone (if you insist it isn't yourself) says that games are all related and need the See Also and then you go and say that things from other C&C games are barely related to this article. Your link examples are completely fruitless and don't prove your point. Finally what do you mean I have been reverted by autoconfirmed editors in the past? Prove it. I don't know what your game is, but you'd come up with a better explanation for your reverts or vandalism can be presumed directly of you, no matter what you say, it's the act on intent that counts. Also do not try to create an account and badly edit the page after the semi-protection has been made or you may be marked as a sock puppet. Deltasim (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Here is the link you've requested. As for Izno's WP:Wikilawyering, I'm not sure what your deal is since you are obviously not involved here, other than having an issue with another editor who reverted you for making stuff up and inventing new Wikipedia rules in an attempt to qualify your persistent removal of content (not just on this article, but others as well). 59.162.117.201 (talk) 06:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how I was wikilawyering, though it's nice that you can link the word without telling me how nor by answering the salient points I did make.

I don't need to be involved to comment. WP works by consensus, and anyone can come to the table and voice their concerns.

And I'll not comment on the other apparent issue to you, though you're rather vehement about it. /shrug --Izno (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to make a few points:

• On nonconstructive editing, that's not a reason to revert, though I'm sure it is an attempt to debate Delta's character.
  1. On br's, it doesn't matter whether its <br> or <br />. The parser renders them both as the latter to the end user in the HTML output. While I personally try to use the latter even in wikitext, it is not necessary.
  2. On redirects, that's a rather disingenuous characterization. You were reverting everything wholesale, regardless of whether Delta's edits were completely good or bad. This is strictly inappropriate behavior. As another compounding factor to the behavior, redirect are cheap. Whether we have them or don't have them should be worrisome. And inevitably a bot will come along and fix them as necessary. So don't worry about them for the future. Further, sometimes we would rather have a redirect than a direct link, as is the case in the manual of style with section link redirects. I'm pretty sure that isn't the case here, but sometimes redirects are good.
  3. Diff number 5 might be the only part of this which is a content dispute, but I agree with Delta when I say it is relevant to the article. The name "Tiberian Dawn" shouldn't be used, however, unless that's what EA is now calling it.
  4. Diffs 6 and 7 are pointless, I agree, and those had little reason to be performed, Delta.
• Chill, bro. Using words like "biased" without substantiating evidence directly in context only makes you look like you think you own the article. That's not necessary.
• Delta, you should also chill. I don't think this is the same IP, only a person who cares quite deeply about a favorite game.
• Qwyrxian, thanks for the protection. That was very helpful of you to notice that the article needed that. --Izno (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

User is at it again under IP number 212.87.168.36 with same reverting habits giving no reason why. Better semi-protect the page. Deltasim (talk) 10:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for 2 weeks. If the IP user would like to try to obtain consensus here for those changes, go ahead. Keep in mind that the majority of those change (like from "vgy" to "Vgy") is pointless, since it makes literally no difference in how the page is displayed. Really, I only see one sentence in dispute (about "Principle-wise...."). I would like to point out that, as an English teacher, "Principle-wise" is terrible English grammar, and the information could certainly be written in a much better way, though I have no opinion on whether the info should be there in the first place. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You obviously do have the opinion that the info should stay there, that is why you have semi-protected the article to disable IP edits. You have also said in your edit summary that "IP editors [are] refusing to discuss on talk page", yet the very IP editor that you've previously called out responded to you here with all the reasons for reverting. It should also be noted that you are arguing the changes made by Deltasim against the IP editors, therefore you're clearly not interested in resolving disputes with lies like that. That said, you might want to semi-protect this article indefinitely to keep your preferred editor uninterrupted, as I intend to revert Deltasim's edits as soon as the protection is lifted, be it after 2 weeks or after 2 months. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.54.101 (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the grammar to a better way. Adding the info was merely to describe the bulk of the gameplay in a nutshell not to mention that the three new Tiberian types are introduced in this very game. I've added info to the article before and nobody has complained. Deltasim (talk) 21:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2011

Just some cleanup suggestions: Is it possible to change the way system requirements is to bullet points? Makes it simpler to read. Otherwise, no biggie. Cheers --Chiekken (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC) Chiekken (talk) 06:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Your request has been fulfilled. Cheers Deltasim (talk) 08:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Weird links

Has anyone else noticed some weirdly specific links in this article? I'm mainly wondering about the links in the introduction that goes to articles about the anti-globalization movement and the 27th G8 summit. What does that have to do with Command & Conquer? 83.249.141.28 (talk) 20:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed much of the lead. There's no reason to go into the detail about Nod there... --Izno (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Is creating an account a Wikipedia requirement now?

It seems to be the only way that I will be able to edit this article in the future. 92.97.97.66 (talk) 18:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be nice if you explained your reasoning on the talk page. Your continued reverts from previously were dentrimental to the article. I don't think anyone is interested in preventing you from editing the article beyond that. Please explain the issues you thought with the current version are versus what you were attempting to restore, and we can talk about those. --Izno (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see. One of the weirdest things about your reverting of my edits was removing a large quantity of text along with crucial references, and then replacing those website links with a tag about references needing to be improved. The article looks utterly ridiculous and stupid in its current state that you've reverted it back to. Also, the reason given for protecting this article indefinitely was that I'm a warrior, so it seems also weird that only your type of warriors are accepted. Did I forget to put my Stormtrooper helmet on? 92.97.97.66 (talk) 19:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the weirdest thing is that you're reverting back to an old version of the page that has been rejected by consensus multiple times in the past. You do so as soon as the semi-protection is lifted each time. Even if you did register for an account, you cannot just force your version into the article against consensus. That's edit warring; if you had registered an account, it would have been blocked by now. However, if you would like to, you know, follow our rules, and try to get consensus here on the talk page for those changes, then please do so; any edits which have consensus will be made to the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus of following the rules that you've set here, is that a joke? That is dictatorship, not consensus. I don't care either way. I will come back with an account to fix the article when I find the time. Hopefully it won't take long. 92.97.97.66 (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, getting an account does not solve the problem. If you attempt to make the same edits against consensus, I will simply block you for edit warring. This isn't about one "type" of editor being "better" than another--it's that all editors must edit collaboratively and not edit war. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It wouldn't simply be edit warring at that point, but also sockpuppetry, which is another way you could earn a block. We want to work with you, but forcing things through and big reversions aren't the way to do that. --Izno (talk) 04:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me respond to each point in turn.

1. The text changes in the lead were removal of extraneous information, most of which I would call simply sensationalist in an article not about a video game, and none of which is supported by any references in the main body of the article (WP:LEAD states that any information in the lead must be supported by references via text). The fact that it would be sensationalist indicates that it probably violates WP:NPOV.
2. Beyond that, there were a number of references which were not suitable as references per our various citation policies; chief among those policies and guidelines are WP:RS, followed by WP:ELNO. The content which was cited to those references was similarly inappropriate as well for it's lack of strong reliable secondary sourcing, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Maybe the text for those things was supported by something somewhere. But it certainly wasn't the references in the article at the time. If you're willing to work to find sourcing for those various chunks, that will help fix the article more surely than edit warring will for your version will.
3. As for the insertion of the tag, there is no consensus to remove such tags, and especially not for any perceived aesthetic reasons. You may think it looks ugly, but it serves the [imo] appropriate purpose of warning the reader and any possible editors that the article needs help. Removal of the tag for that reason won't fly, either.

Lastly, Wikipedia is collaboratively driven. If you refuse to discuss the perceived problems with the article, as you have previously, you will be blocked for disruption. It's that simple. On the other hand, if you come and say "I have these things I want to contribute, and I think they are appropriate", we can follow the bold edit, revert, and discuss process to find a solution. But you need to come to the table willing to talk about why you're attempting to change the article so drastically, especially when someone reverts you (per the above guideline). --Izno (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090301014725/http://www.gamespot.com:80/pc/strategy/commandconquertiberiansun/index.html to http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/commandconquertiberiansun/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Dawn of the Tiberian Age

I think the article should include a section about the major mod known under this name, which replicates "Tiberian Dawn" and "Red Alert 1" using the advanced engine of "Tiberian Sun". Or there should be a dedicated wiki article about it. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Source

• https://archive.org/details/PC.Games.N084.1999.09-fl0n/page/n25
• https://archive.org/details/PC.Games.N084.1999.09-fl0n/page/n35
• https://archive.org/details/PC.Games.N085.1999.10-fl0n/page/n15
• https://archive.org/details/PC.Games.N086.1999.11-fl0n/page/n27
• https://archive.org/details/PC-Player-German-Magazine-1999-03/page/n13
• https://web.archive.org/web/20000815091451/http://www.gamespot.co.uk/pc.gamespot/features/t_sun_uk/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20010724130206/http://www.gamespot.fr/stories/news/0,1610,2008089,00.html

PC Player sales analysis

• https://archive.org/details/PC-Player-German-Magazine-2000-03/page/n21

Adding Firestorm as a separate article; yay or nay?

I mean, it's not crucial to keep the article for the base game separate from that of its expansion (hypothetically speaking on the latter), but I feel it should be done for the sake of including otherwise ommitted information. Thoughts? 81.226.7.118 (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2023 (UTC)