Command and Conquer Wiki:Organisation

This page is for discussion about how the Command & Conquer Wiki is organised, except for Categories, which can be found at Command & Conquer Wiki:Categories.

RA2
It is proving hard for me to have RA2 alternate universe info in simply a different namespace. This is for several reasons:


 * 1) Links. Because links in a page are not automatically configured to point to the same namespace, each link must be layed out like, for example: Predator tank . As I am sure you are aware, this is a pain.
 * 2) Categories. To keep RA2 articles away from main-universe articles, all RA2 categories are currently preceded by RA2:, i.e., Category:RA2:Factions, even though Category:RA2: is not a seperate namespace. This looks weird and is annoying.
 * 3) Titles and General Look. It doesn't exactly look "in-univese" to have all the titles (and categories at the bottom of the page) start with "RA2:".
 * 4) Templates. This is the same issue as with Categories, because many templates add articles to in-universe categories (i.e. it's weird having a RA2 article in Category:Cleanup Articles, because that's a tiberian universe category, so we have to create different templates which add them to Category:RA2:Cleanup Articles.
 * 5) Special Pages. This is the worst problem. RA2 pages do not show up in Special:Allpages, or Special:Uncategorizedpages. Furthermore, the article count of RA2 pages is not added to Special:Statistics or any total article count anywhere.

Therefore I propose two alternatives:


 * 1) As you may be aware, there is an existing dead wiki at http://ra2.gamepedia.com . We could use this, as Angela grants Sysop privileges to contributers to dead wikis.
 * 2) It is actually possible to have something like http://ra2.cnc.gamepedia.com . This is used for big wikis that have multiple languages (fr.nameofwiki.gamepedia.com for french ones). We could also use this method, if Angela allows us.

Sincerely, --Snow93 11:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The second one sounds the best out of the two beacuse it would be in the same wiki. We could make one for Generals also just so the Wiki would cover all oc C&C. Although could you link between then without using external links? --DarkMastero 20:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it would be the same format as for interlanguage links. We would only have to remove the ra2 namespace, then links starting with ra2: should be configured to point to the ra2.cnc.gamepedia.com section. --Snow|93(talk) (Edward Lilley) 15:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

How long are we going to wait for more votes? Doesn't seem like anyone else cares. --DarkMastero 00:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll alert Dthaiger and Agaiz --Snow|93(talk) (Edward Lilley) 10:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, should we continue to make RA2 and Generals articles or wait for the change? --DarkMastero 02:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Any new news to report? Did they decide not to do it? --DarkMastero 17:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't got round to asking yet. I'll do it in the next few days. Btw, I'll make you a Sysop on the Ra2 wiki if you want (and if wiki lets us have it in the first place). --Snow|93(talk) (Edward Lilley) 21:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Is a Sysop like a moderator? If so yeah I'd like to be one. Please don't forget to ask for a Generals one too. Is their any reason Angela wouldn't let us have them? --DarkMastero 01:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sysop is like admin/moderator, like dthaiger or agaiz (but only on the ra2 section atm). Of course, you won't be a bureaucrat :-) . I don't know why Angela might object, but I still have to ask her to do it for us. --Snow|93(talk) (Edward Lilley) 18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm here. I like the idea of having RA2 in a separate section, but I think it should wait. The first order of business is asking predator if there is indeed a link between RA2 and the rest of C&C. I think Generals actually was a US combat simulation that was actually performed after RA1 and before TD --Dthaiger 19:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect in a future red alert game someone will use the time machine to set in motion the events of Tiberium Dawn. And I think Kane can travel between the realities and through time, possibly with chrono technology, which is why he doesn't age and would explain his saying in the Red Alert install:

"He who controls the past commands the future, He who commands the future, conquers the past."

And when he was talking to General Solomon in Tiberium Sun:

"As you watch this battle just beginning to unfold I've already seen the final act."

And it would explain why he just disappeared in the Tiberium Sun Nod victory when the tiberium missile fired, he was actually chronoshifting. And it would explain the many pictures of the Apocalypse Tank in his personal Temple of Nod in Renegade, he just brought them with him from the other continuality.

While Generals doesn't have much of a connection yet but the GLA does bare some resemblance to Nod. They use underground networks, prefer stealth and speed and are fanatics. It could be that Generals is the reality that would have formed before Kane intervened at some point in history.

How is Predator going to tell you if their is a link between the two? If he works for the company he has likely been forbidden from releasing future game info. If not, I don't see how he could know if their is going to be a link. I beleive I heard someone planning on asking someone named Apoc about the same think earlier.

--63.65.45.98 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)--63.65.45.98 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, RA2 and Generals are NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to do with the "Tiberium" storyline. We are trying to go with what Westwood/EA say. The only things we're meant to "make up" is "filling in the gaps", or "speculation", as defined here. We are not meant to play around with the Canon. And if you don't mind me saying so, it is obvious to anyone who has played RA2/YR that the storyline is a joke, and is meant to be a joke. All the characters are characertures, and the gameplay looks cartoony. That's certainly not to say it's has got great gameplay; it is really fun to play, but you really shouldn't take it seriously enough to allow it to mess up the RA-TD-TS-FS-TW canon, which, incidently, has a great storyline. Even if Apoc or Predator did say they were connected, it would be convenient to have them still a bit seperate because they are still alternate realities (i.e. if we put ra2 in a seperate section now, it would still be justified, even if we found out the universes were connected later).

I read an interview of the westwood guys on a fansite which was done for westwoods 10th anniversary (NOT C&C first decade, so this would have been in about 2002 or 3). They said that RA2 was originally meant to be some sort of alternate reality-c&c version of WWII, but EA screwed it up. (Incidentally, TD was meant to be, actually was, a study of world affairs in the year it was released in). Generals, if you don't mind me saying so, has negligible storyline, though decent gameplay, but it certainly shouldn't be a c&c game. If you really want, we could try and make a section for it, but it is definately NOT a "simulation", otherwise someone would have said so.

I agree we should ask predator (who is here), but we should also ask Apoc and anyone at petroglyph (they now have forums) such as brett sperry. We could even try and contact Edie Laramore, who, if you look at the original credits for the original C&C, co-wrote the storyline with Brett Sperry.

What we can be sure of, though, is that Westwood, or the storyline-writing people there, did have an idea of what the whole canon would be, and they thought of what we now think of as ra2 as something very different. But EA came and messed it up (and yes it was their fault- they sacked half of westwood when they took them over) by forcing them to make ra2 into something that was only slightly related to the rest of C&C, and then producing Generals which was nothing whatsoever to do with C&C.

So RA-RA2 is different to RA-TD-etc, it just might be nice if they were the same universe, but we don't know. All we can be sure of is that they must be alternate realities and it's a good idea to keep them seperate for now. --Snow|93(talk) (Edward Lilley) 16:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how RA2's "cartoony"ness has anything to do with the storylines connecting, but yes the timelines should be split up since this "in universe"ness would junk it up with multiple storylines. Though I think the reason I think they just made it comical because the games only main points were the introduction of the psychics and time machine which will likely carry on into the next game. They just filled in the rest with comedy so people wouldn't get board (at least they did better then Renegade's humor). The Generals story line just started so I don't think it'd be fair to judge it yet, it looks like it is only an introduction to a future USA vs China conflict though (as was strongly suggested in the last Chinese mission).

But yeah I guess making a http://ra2.cnc.gamepedia.com and http://generals.cnc.gamepedia.com would be the best rout to go. If their is a way mass move articles we might could make a http://tiberium.cnc.gamepedia.com and have the main one just provide links to the others, but if not it's to late to try and move them now. --DarkMastero 01:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So are we any closer to getting the Wiki divided into sections? Looks like the namespace thing has just lead to major confusion recently. --63.65.45.98 00:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to be on christmas holidays soon (or vacation for you US people) so I'll have more time to ask for things like new sections/namespaces, reminder of the password for the administrative control panel of the cncwiki mailing list (yes I will be starting an active mailing list soon) etc. --Snow|93(talk) (Edward Lilley) 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask if we can get it for Christmas. --DarkMastero 21:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

So did we get it? --DarkMastero 05:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Is all hope lost? --DarkMastero 10:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

RA3 -> namespace?
What are we going to do with RA3 specific articles? Just leave them in the RA2 namespace? --Agaiz 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Old: EVA Main Page
This discussion has finished.

There is speculation about the following idea; It would be appreciated if people would vote on this idea. It involves a major change in the way that C&C Wiki is structured. It was proposed by Agaiz, Dthaiger, and Snow93.

1. The Main Page's content is moved to a different article, which becomes titled something like 'Data Hub' or 'EVA' central.

2. The actual first page reads something like this:

Important Information

The information presented in this database is classified Red. All unauthorized viewing is a class 1 offense and is punishable by Death.

Transmission is Secure: Click Here to continue.

We move the important information off of the real main page and move it to the front page. We also change the 'Help' that one gets from clicking on the 'help' button on the side to an in-universe help. Finally, we stipulate that all 'talk' pages have to be in-universe too. Basically, once people get off that front page - everything is in-universe, from the talk pages, to the articles to the links. And unfortunately, that would include user pages as well, so we'd have to keep out-of-universe article discussion off of there as well. For example ...

OK: I'm not sure if the Nod buggy was used during the first or second tiberium war.

Not OK: I'm not sure if the Nod Buggy was used during Tiberium Dawn or Tiberium Sun.

I'd love comments about this idea.

--Dthaiger 02:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

"Forum:Poll: EVA Network" is a bit ugly, couldn't you change it to "Command & Conquer Wiki:Organisation" or something.

Also, not necessarily User Pages. --Snow93 18:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)