User talk:Tagaziel

Hi,

thanks for your many contributions so far! But could you please keep your articles "in-universe" according to our guidlines? (For example in the Slavik article you wrote C&C:TS...) That would be great. --Agaiz 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome, I'll try to remember that :) Mikael Grizzly 17:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome from me too :-) --Snow|93(talk) (Edward Lilley) 19:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warm welcome, this wiki finally gives me an opportunity to exercise my english and put the knowledge to good use :) Mikael Grizzly 19:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have guessed, you english is very good. I'm from England, so it's no problem for me :-). --Snow|93(talk) (Edward Lilley) 21:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Forums
One thing I've been thinking of is to place the debate onto the EA forum. Now, I myself have my doubts, but I'd like to know: What do you think? --Dthaiger 00:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be an interesting post and may spark some discussion and feedback with hopefully few flames. Go ahead :) Mikael Grizzly 14:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. If I find the time to edit the discussion for spelling and grammatical errors, and that sort of thing, then I might go ahead and post it. --Dthaiger 16:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dthaiger's thing is posted, but unfortunately, no one really seems to care.
 * A shame that people don't care about in-universe debating anymore :( Mikael Grizzly 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A shame that people don't care about in-universe debating anymore :( Mikael Grizzly 21:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

RA2 universe Red Alert articles
I've noticed that you seem to be removing the Red Alert 2 universe Red Alert articles. The reason there needs to be both a "Tiberium" universe article and a RA2 universe article for them is because the first Red Alert takes place in both universes however many of the articles will need to mention what happens to the technology after the end of the war (such as why it went obsolete). Also many of the units went on into other games such as how the Pill Box continued on into Red Alert 2 but you could not mention this in the main namespace because of the time line thing, the same problem exists with the Turret continueing on into Tiberium Dawn which could not be mentioned in the RA2 namespace. Thus two versions of all artilcles origionating from the Red Alert game are nessasary. --24.172.194.250 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But the history of what happens to the items after Red Alert would needs to be mentioned. Such as if you were to make a page on Stalin in the RA2 name space you would want to mention that he started the Psychic corps that would lead to Yuri's war in GWWIII. You would not be able to do this in the Tiberuim universe because that never happened. For instance if someone was to see an article on the Apoclypse Tanks then see that it replaced the Mammoth Tank made after GWWII but when they click the link to Mammoth Tank and go to the main namespace and it states that the Mammoth Tank hasn't been discontinued but is instead just reentering production it would be very disorganized. Also there would be the issue of things and characters that continue into Red Alert 2 like Tanya and Tesla Coils and such. From what most users here have said they would like to keep the two universes completely serpate. --24.172.195.239 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Generals cats. on Main Page
Heh heh, sorry about the whining. Just didn't want to offend anyone by making bold changes. Well, I'll go ahead and add the Generals categories then. Cheers Makron1n 19:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mothership
What exactly is this? Dthaiger 16:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Name capitilization
The reason I moved the Gap Generator article was to make it consistent with the other article titles. Most articles for units and buildings in the game have the first letter in all words in the title in upper case (for example Construction Yard, Weapons Factory and Scorpion Tank). It just looks neater to have them all done one way. --DarkMastero 23:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Main Page
Heh, I love the reference to Robert McNamara. Nice one :) Makron1n 15:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Article titles
Shouldn't things like Battle base be considered names, and therefore have the first letters of words capitalised as in proper nouns (i.e. Battle Base)? It's done this way in the manual. Makron1n 19:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that because these were names for things, both parts of the name should have capital letters, as they are part of a title. For example, the article for the Third Tiberium War has capital letters on all the words. Same with Command & Conquer, in fact. If they weren't titles or names, then only having the first word with a capital letter would be correct...

EDIT: I've just noticed a comment above that appears to agree with my point of view.Makron1n 20:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on things like Scorpion tank, but in the case of Battle Base and the like (Sonic emitter, etc.) I think the second part of the title should have a capital letter. It's not a generic 'base' (as the Scorpion is a tank) but a specific 'thing' in the game.

EDIT: The point I'm trying to make is that while 'tank' is not part of the Scorpion's name, 'Base' and 'Emitter' are part of the names of those structures. Therefore, they should have capital letters as in the manual. Makron1n 22:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not really about the Sonic Emitter being unique. A Big Mac, for example, is not a unique burger sealed in a vault at McDonalds HQ. Both parts of 'Sonic Emitter' make up the name of the item. 'Emitter' is not a descriptive term for the item in question, in the case of Scorpion tank or Mars bar, but a part of the name. Makron1n 22:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)