Talk:GDI characters of Command & Conquer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the GDI characters of Command & Conquer article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller 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:

Contents

[edit] Incorrect name

It's 'Shepherd', and not 'Sheppard'. I still owe the manual of the original Command & Conquer when it was released back in 1995, and it definitely states 'Brigadier General Mark Jamison Shepherd, Chief of Staff, United Nations Military Command'. 80.201.169.202 08:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: My interest renewed by reading through these C&C related Wikipedia articles, I've been browsing through the old manual a little bit more. Take a look at this, both are literally taken from the original 1995 manual of Command & Conquer:
Page 3, Global Defence Initiative History - Current Head of State: Brigadier General Mark Jamison Shepherd, Chief of Staff, United Nations Military Command.
Page 92, Cast Credits - General Sheppard: Eric Martin
Apparently, an oversight of Westwood themselves. Either way, it doesn't make it hard to see where the confusion regarding this character's name originates from. I'd opt to use 'Shepherd' here on Wikipedia's Command & Conquer pages though, since it does seem to have been the intended name for the character. 80.201.169.202 08:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope, looks like it's the other way around actually. Take a look at this YouTube video of the GDI ending in Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELpqg3ECzk4
You'll see that in the casting credits, it mentions the character's name as "Sheppard". Looks like "Shepherd" is in fact the typo after all, and "Sheppard" the name that was originally intended. I'll change the names in the article accordingly. 84.192.125.204 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mobius

Get the life action Mobius we used to have but someone deleted it it shows what the real Mobius looks like and is better. Jamhaw 18:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

[edit] Minor character additions

I've added Chan, Delphi, Olivetti and initials for Carter and Morelli, as per the official strategy guide by BradyGames.--CommandoSR 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shepherd - Eric Martin

The Eric Martin the article links to seems to be a completely different person than the one that played Sheherd in C&C1

Nyerguds 10:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct country?

Under Dr Mobius' story it states that he set up a hospital in the Czech Republic near Bratislava. Bratislava is the capital of the Slovak Republic, not Czech. Does anyone know if it was meant to read Prague, the Slovak Republic or if it genuinley was in the Czech Republic near the border of Slovakia?

Whoops, my bad, my bad, I stand corrected and shall incinerate myself immediatelly at the Tetragrammaton crematory. ;) Mikael GRizzly 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] delphi

someone needs to tinker with it a bit more imho; hes been captured more than once hasn't he?? (hehe excellent agent that needs a tank column to rescue him and.... err.. back to topic)


uh yeah.

wasn't he captured in a covert ops mission where the player gets a small inf. combat team ? (you then take out a noddie recon base and go on from there?? )



w/e


clarification would be a nice thing


(oh and was delphi the one who snuck into the temple and showed kane ... there... and then got shot?? a bit of continutity... )

[edit] Mobius

He was killed in an Ion Storm, confirmed in Tiberium Wars, the game. -- Warfreak 06:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brigadier/Lieutenant Generals

Since Tiberian Dawn and Renegade have both shown Brigadier Generals with three stars, should we assume that GDI's Brigadier General uniforms feature three stars in general? If this is the case, Granger is also a GDI Brigadier, though this is never stated in-game. Peptuck 05:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I think because the GDI military organization was just born at that time. After the First Tiberium War, GDI completely established becomes regular military organization & there is no reason to get any emergency field promotion again.Jogrkim 20:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that we don't know GDI's ranking system; three stars for GDI may not mean Lieutenant General, so unless we have an official source showing that three stars is LtGen, then we should simply assume the characters are Generals of an unspecified rank. Additionally, though GDI was onlyr ecently established in the First Tiberium War, they were already around as an already-existing special operations group beforehand. Any statement that three stars is an LtGen for GDI is speculation unless we have actual proof otherwise, especially considering that we already have precedent for three stars being Brigadiers, and no evidence of any kind of rank structure change.Peptuck 05:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: No evidence that I am aware of; I have the 360 version of C&C3, and First Decade, so I'll admit I lack truely "fluffy" versions of the game manuals; do any of the manuals say that Cortez and Granger are LtGens? Peptuck 23:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Granger/InOps

I've reviewed the GDI cutscenes, and as far as I've seen there is no indication that Granger is in command of InOps. At the beginning of the game he is the commanding officer of the player, who is in command of the GDI forces stationed on the Eastern Seaboard. Further, he's seen giving combat orders to the player and states that he does not trust InOps' assessments of Nod and generally refers to them as a seperate entity which he is not a part of, all indications that he is not part of GDI's InOps branch. He never makes a statement nor does anyone else say anything that indicates he is even part of InOps, and the fact that he gives combat orders to a commander alone indicates he is not intelligence; intel officers provide information, they do not give orders and cannot assume command. (NROTC repeatedly drilled this into my head while I was being instructed in how officers operated, and the Navy instructors specifically stated that any of us that went intel would not have command position and could not assume command) Lieutenant Telfair states "we've been decrypting it here at InOps" after the Scrin attack in mission 11, but Telfair herself is part of InOps and is most likely referring to InOps as a whole, and not Granger himself.

Thus, as far as in-game evidence shows, Granger is not part of InOps, he simply has an intelligence officer who makes ambigious statements as part of his command.

I'm curious as to what actually indicates he is a part of InOps, as he openly states that he disagrees with InOps' assessments, which wouldn't make much sense if he was in command of InOps in the first place.Peptuck 07:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with the above.
Similarily the portrayal of Telfair is kind of superficial. It would be more effective to use the behind the scenes as a basis. Something like "hatred against nod" and so on isn't unexpected at all from GDI. I daresay it applies to every GDI that appears in CnC3, anyway. -RoSeeker 08:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Olivetti

I keep removing Olivetti from the characters page because he isn't a real character; he is a name that is mentioned a few times in passing, but he has no direct bearing on the plotline of the games, nor does he either appear in the games or have any actual lines of dialogue. While I am not disputing that he is part of the canon, he isn't a character, and at best deserves mention on the main Global Defense Initiative article as the head of GDI. From an out-of-universe perspective, he's just not that important.Peptuck 15:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The notion that Olivetti supposedly is "not a real character" on the grounds that he makes no appearance in the cutscenes seems more a matter of personal interpretation rather than rational argumentation, to be honest. Regardless, it is not shared by the majority of editors of this article at current. From my part, I disagree with virtually your entire line of reasoning in this issue, as Olliveti is indeed relevant due to his stated prominence as one of the highest figures of the GDI leadership, and also as the precursor to the Board of Directors featured in Tiberium Wars. When looked upon in that context, the name even has relevance beyond the scope of the one storyline it is both mentioned and quoted in.
Since I get the impression that it is not beneath you of turning this issue into an edit war, I will again remind that consensus among the editors of this page is against you at present. Until that changes, the Olliveti entry stays. 84.192.118.96 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, you've shown ignorance of Wikipedia's consensus policy. Consensus is not simply a case of "lol three against one you lose."
Secondly, one the main reasons you've brought up - Olivetii is an important name in GDI's leadership - is not sufficient justification for his presence in this article. That is in-universe reasoning. He has no bearing on the plot or narrative, nor does he have any dialogue or appearances, and he is barely mentioned in passing by other characters. As such he is not even a character; he is a name. While being the leader of GDI is important in-universe - and should be mentioned on the main GDI article - it doesn't provide sufficient justification from an out-of-universe perspective for an article devoted to important, noteworthy characters that paly an important role in the games' plotlines.
Thirdly, whether or not he had any influence on the Board of Directors is irrelevant. That, too, is in-universe, and has little bearing on the plot of the games, and doesn't even really involve Olivetti anyway; its a mechanism of GDI's political apparatus, and like Olivetti himself it only belongs in the main GDI article.
tl;dr, Oviletti is important in an in-universe way, but borderline irrelevant from an out of universe perspective, which is what Wikipedia needs to be written in. Peptuck 15:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, save your ad hominems dude. The "three-against-one", as you put it in confrontational terms, isn't what is warranting the inclusion of this character in itself. Indeed, the difference in level of support for my stance and your own is merely indicative of your inability to grasp that the notability of this character stems from the real-world context it provides in several ways, something clearly defined as a requirement for articles with this kind of content in "What Wikipedia is not".
The inclusion of the Olivetti character provides such real-world context because:
1) The character represents and personifies the UN Security Council, providing real-world context to the identity and philosophy of the "GDI" organization as a whole. This is the reason why this particular character establishes notability, even despite it remaining unseen, whereas the female newscaster who otherwise is an on-screen character does not, and thus would not warrant inclusion.
2) The character establishing connections between the UN Security Council of Tiberian Dawn and the Board of Directors of Tiberium Wars is not irrelevant, for it reveals that the development team/writers behind the third title are continuing the same line of story and also storytelling their predecessors behind the original game did. This too provides further real-world context to the information being covered in this article.
As such, the inclusion of this character is in no way in-universe at all, but in fact helps this article to meet one of Wikipedia's clearly outlined requirements for pages of this kind of content besides it adding directly relevant information to it. 84.192.116.7 (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
We could estabilish a separate section for minor characters. Thus sayeth the cougar. Mikael GRizzly 08:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gunner (C&CR).JPG

Image:Gunner (C&CR).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) 07:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free images in this article

 A number of non-free images have been removed from this article in line with Wikipedia's image policies. Please do not restore them without explaining on the talk page why they should be included, with reference to this policy. Thank you.