Talk:EVA Database/Archive 1

Is this from a GDI viewpoint?
Is the wiki (the main namespace, anyway) specifically from GDI's viewpoint? I saw in the Third Tiberium War article where some of the Scirn viewpoint was removed because it was declared from a "human point of view". On some other articles such as the Commando one it infers a GDI point of view where is says "Nod has also been seen training their own Commandos" as if the author was not certain. And I guess it would not make sense for GDI and Nod to share networks, nor would a neutral network be aware of the inner working of either organization. So I was just wondering if there was a consensus on the issue or wether it was just being ignored for convenience.--DarkMastero 19:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

well it's supposed to be the EVA database so yes it is GDI and Allied point of view

Opps
When I made the RA2 section category links I accidently made the buildings one link to the tiberium universe. --63.65.45.98 17:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You know it\\\'s been a really long week LOL. 61.152.93.235 18:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you guys like the updated logo? --Agaiz 17:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's spiffing... it's really good, much better than I could have done. If you want you could make it less spread out, and maybe slightly darker. --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 17:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :-) You mean darker as in drop the white background or just the EVA text? By the way, I also updated the small logo in the top left corner as you might have noticed --Agaiz 17:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we should try green out after all that is the main variant of Tiberium not sure if it would look as good though. Jamhaw 18:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)jamhaw

How about a featured Generals article? I've put in quite a lot of work into some of those (yes, I am currently unemployed...obvious ain't it), and while I know many of you hate the game ("It's not a real C&C game!" etc.) it does have its fans. Makron1n 15:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We REALLY need an article on Command and Conquer 3. As you can see, it has not been made yet. It is the newest game in the franchise, and we will seem outdated if we do not include it. -- Çяøѕѕвøщмди Rant 22:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Errm... how about Third Tiberium War, or Category:GDI TWIII Arsenal --Snow93(talk)(contrib) 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Generals: In Development? Huh? Does this simply mean that that part of this page is under development, because the Generals section itself is actually rather large...every unit and building has an article with an image. Makron1n 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I feel the Infantry, Vehicles, Buildings, and GLA/USA/China Units/Buildings categories can be included on the front page. As a lowly low user, am I authorised to insert these? Makron1n 16:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On other wikis they have a box on the upper right side showing who was fighting in a war who was the command how many troops ect. So I think we should use that for C&C universe and I think we should start on the C&C3 first since i think it would be more easy.

The box I'm talking about shows time line of war(s) who fought in it and the commanders and the armies they lead with troops strength and Casualties since I suggest C&C3 to be the first to go thought this because of the population cap that was put in the game of 50 My idea is to put 3 campaign each one show the missions as battles so 3 campaigns with show battles and the outcome and how it lead to the next battle Here were i got the idea from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ww2 look at the right of the page and it show the box I'm talking about
 * An interesting idea, but impossible to do. The best we can do is include statistics about countries from the First Tiberium War mission selection screens. We don't know all the commanders or all the battles.Shaur M. S. Grizlin 08:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)