Talk:Command & Conquer: Tiberian Sun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Low | This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
| This article is supported by the Command & Conquer task force. | ||
|
VG To-do:
|
||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of Mid priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
Strategy games To-do:
|
||
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)
Contents |
[edit] 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...
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
