Forum:Merging unit articles

As of late I have been pondering whether it would be better to merge articles that are about a "series" of units, like the Nod flame tank and the GDI Titan, in a similar manner with what I did with the conyards, MCVs, and Tesla tank.

Given the sparse lore it seems more efficient just to put it all in one, although units that have good and large gameplay sections might merit their own (or perhaps just articles dedicated to gameplay). Merging would also get rid of some of the more awkward attempts by the wiki to differentiate between iterations, usually via assigning units non-canon article names. - Meco (talk, contribs) 21:52, September 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Speaking of merging articles: what about all those RA1 articles that have two different pages (one for the Tiberium Universe and one for the Red Alert Universe)?


 * Merging would also get rid of some of the more awkward attempts by the wiki to differentiate between iterations, usually via assigning units non-canon article names


 * Yeah. The titan in Tiberian Twilight is the MK2 or MKII so we'll have to something about the current MKII as well as the MKIII.
 * - Ex Machinæ 22:06, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

What would you do about units such as the Avenger? It was a Generals unit, but it was just revealed a unit of the same name is in C&C IV. (I don't know if they're similar units, other than the name.) PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 22:28, September 16, 2009 (UTC)

Units with the same name but appear in different universes can have separate articles. We probably don't need to construe that an Avenger in the Tiberium universe has anything to do with an Avenger in the Generals universe. Articles would be differentiated using the "Name (universe/game)" scheme.

The RA1/C&C1 instances (as pointed out by Ex Machinae) is where things get a bit weird. I encountered that with gunboat and I just ended up separating them into universe/game specific articles. Usually what happens is in the RA1 article I have some way of saying "go see the Tiberium universe article".

Another possible issue (not sure if it has actually happened yet) is if two units in the same universe have the same name but are not of the same lineage. It'd be like if we had a Titan "tank" walker and a Titan subterranean APC. Haven't thought that far yet. - Meco (talk, contribs) 22:56, September 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's already happened with the Grinder. We can simply differentiate them by game e.g. (Red Alert 1), (Red Alert 2). I doubt even EA's stupid enough to give two units the same name in the same game. If they are we can use Titan (APC) and Titan (tank).


 * There is another thing: how we distinguish between different tiberium games? For red alert it's obvious: (Red Alert #). However, I've seen several different formats for the tiberium series including (Tiberium wars) and (TWIII).


 * I think we should agree on a format. I propose: if the game/expansion has a subtitle then use that, otherwise use the game title and number. That would involve the least renaming. - Ex Machinæ 23:42, September 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Up to this point I was disregarding expansion titles and just using the expansions' parent game. So for the RA1 Tesla tank I would use "Tesla tank (Red Alert 1)" and not "Tesla tank (Aftermath)". One reason is to guard against the remote possibility of similarly named expansions.


 * However, if we go for the split option I think we'll need to use the expansion names somewhere in the titles, because "Tesla tank (Counterstrike)/(Red Alert 1: Counterstrike)/(whatever)" would not be considered the same as "Tesla tank (Aftermath)" (different look, and hence "distinctively different"). - Meco (talk, contribs) 00:38, September 21, 2009 (UTC)

Merging can be done for units that are obviously the same, however, if they are distinctively different (as is the case with Titan Mk. I and Titan Mk. II) they should remain separate. This is the stance we have adopted on The Vault, the Fallout wiki and it serves us well, prevents needless bloating of articles and allows for easy navigation, as the templates link to the unit page rather than section.

Besides, it increases the article count. http://images3.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/4/4a/Naglowaa_se.gif/11px-Naglowaa_se.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:28, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

How is "distinctly different" being defined? It might be better to view an amalgamated Titan article as being about the Titan-series of battle walkers. If one looks at it that way variations on the same-named theme are not only expected but acceptable. Based on that I also merged the shock troopers with the Tesla troopers; variations on the same theme (infantry with Tesla weapons).

Keeping the door open for independent articles (should the future reveal significantly more information on a past unit) can be accomplished by a judicious use of redirects without inconveniencing the user. Articles and templates may use links to redirect articles, like "Titan (Tiberian Sun)", "Titan (Tiberium Wars)", "Titan UCP" (I think that's what the Tiberium (game) one was called, no idea where Mk. III came from), and "Titan Mk. II", which link to the appropriate sections in the main article. If in the future Titan Mk. II needs its own article, a massive correction of links would not be necessary. - Meco (talk, contribs) 21:44, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * You're getting your panties in a bunch over nothing. Titan models are distinctively different, as Mike Verdu in his blog about Tiberium Wars' technology clearly refers to Juggernaut Mk. III as based on a Titan Mk. II chassis. And since the chassis has more in common with the KW than TS one, it's an indicator that the Titan Mk. II model is the Titan in KW, which is further reinforced that the Juggernaut Mk. II is present in the game. http://images3.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/4/4a/Naglowaa_se.gif/11px-Naglowaa_se.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:07, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Then we can just need the redirect to Titan Mk. II.

Of course, if the prevailing view of the small community at hand is to keep "distinctively different" units separate, then there are a great many ad-hoc amalgamations (eg. "Aircraft carrier (Red Alert)"), in addition to the ones I made, that need to be split. Different models, after all.

I can work with both, but if we go for broad splitting I better not hear anything more about "the articles are too short". I also hope there will be increased vigilance against the padding these necessarily short articles with junk fanon and the like. - Meco (talk, contribs) 22:45, September 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Define Junk Fanon. Obviously made up stuff I agree, is junk. But obvious conclusions, are they fanon or not? http://images3.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/4/4a/Naglowaa_se.gif/11px-Naglowaa_se.gif Tagaziel (call!) 10:36, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

For me, any conclusion that discards other possible conclusions is junk. This is why I've been hesitant to say anything about things like "fates"; given the dearth of information the possibilities start branching and it would be us, not EA or Westwood, making the call on what is (or what we think is) more likely.

Sort of like the last bit in the Ajay article. Yes, we know he's suffering a crisis of faith at the point but the outcome of that struggle remains unknown. He could very well quit as somebody speculated, or bounce back, or be killed in action before either of those two can happen, or whatever. Perhaps some possibilities are more likely than others but I do not believe it is our call to say which. - Meco (talk, contribs) 22:19, September 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * He quit, it's made obvious from the way the cutscene is set up. It's the same reason why Anderson dies at the end of Iron Storm, although we're never explicitly told he was shot. http://images3.wiki.nocookie.net/fallout/images/thumb/4/4a/Naglowaa_se.gif/11px-Naglowaa_se.gif Tagaziel (call!) 07:35, September 20, 2009 (UTC)

Obvious to you. Not to me. It sucks that there are loose ends, but the situation is not improved by claiming to have knowledge that doesn't exist. It is fine for you, me, and the next person to have their own idea on what happens. However the wiki cannot record these because that would make it inaccurate (claiming it is so when it is ambiguous).

The situation is worse if we are consciously adding inaccuracies (there goes more of the wiki's reliability), not to mention the resulting error accumulation as contributors start synthesizing "logical extensions".

However, at this point I request all interested parties to dial in on their preference whether we should keep articles split or merge them. It we merge, lots of work. If we split, almost every unit needs its own article based on the "distinctively different" criteria (i.e. the two Tesla tanks of RA1 need separate articles ). - Meco (talk, contribs) 00:38, September 21, 2009 (UTC)