Talk:Tiberium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tiberium article.
Article policies
Info icon This article is about Tiberium and it's role in the real world.
For a detailed description of Tiberium and it's properties within the Command & Conquer universe,
see the appropriate article on C&C Wikia.
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.
This article is supported by the Command & Conquer task force.
VG To-do:

Contents

[edit] what the....

A great detailed article has just been reduced to....scrap? you guys better resolve your goddamned conflicts. This article has been destroyed just because it describes a fictional object in too much detail???

Wikipedia has its guidelines regarding the scope of information covered for fictional content. More in-depth information regarding Tiberium and other C&C content can be found at the Command & Conquer Wiki. --Scottie_theNerd 16:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss.

I've removed the "this isn't clear that this is fictional" tag. Figured I'd explain a bit more.

As I mentioned in the edits, I think it's fairly clear that this crystal mass is a fictional material - there's many lines in the beginning that state as such. While I do want to muck with the 'Proliferation' section a bit more at a later time, I don't believe this article is written in a way that doesn't provide important information about this material - information that will be needed, since the series is getting a new game soon, and there will undoubtedly be many people who will find it inherently difficult (or impossible) to play the old games, as Wikipedia suggests. This is doubly true in the case of C&C's earlier games, which are likely to be unplayable on more modern PCs.

So, long story short: the article makes it clear Tiberium is fake from the get-go. A section needs to be dealt with, which I or someone else will go shortly. There's going to be a lot of people who will be otherwise unable to find the information therein. So that's why I removed it. Commence Wikiangst. Scumbag 08:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tiberium as fictional

Why are you referring to this as if it was real? Jogloran 01:45, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Tiberium is a very significant element of the Command & Conquer game series, and is treated to be a serious element within it. For those fans out there, this page is unbelievably informative. (and accurate too) -- D.R.E. October 9th, 2005.

This page is amazing; not only does it perfectly reference Westwood's classic series, it also pays homage to everyone's favorite resource. The fact that someone went to the lengths to put this in fills my little heart with happiness. It's almost like an EVA unit is speaking to me now! ;) --Riley, November 29th, 2005

But it still isn't real. This is an encyclopedia, not a dedicated site for games fans. I've made it a bit clearer it's entirely fictional. Carbonix 21:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I see you've removed most of my edits; I am not going to descend into an edit war on this, but you may like to consider that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia dealing in facts. Thus, although I have no interest in games (or a number of other topics!), I am clear we should have the article - but not written in a manner that implies to the casual reader that he/she is reading a genuine set of real world facts. Carbonix 12:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Carbonix is right, 99.9% of the information in this article is completely irrelevant and is, by no stretch of the imagination,encyclopedic knowledge. It belongs on a fan page, not Wikipedia. At most, an encyclopedic reference to tiberium would be something like "tiberium is a fictional substance referenced in the Command and Conquer series of video games." Period. Has this article been marked for deletion yet? --Jay Litman 12:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

this site appears to be a bit of both, an encyclopidea and a fan site for many different games. Don't belive me? search a few other fictional materials, such as phazon, for example. -- Unknown user
Wikipedia makes references to fictional people, events, places, and things in countless articles. Fictional ideas are still ideas, and there is no reason to remove an article related to one. --alhead

I'm sure there is nothing wrong with this section. I can see where Jay and Carbonix are coming from, but this is not the casual encyclopedia, this site provides many different sources of information regarding many subjects. If you don't think this is relevant information, then you should also combat all the other articles on subjects that include fictional material. Go ahead and delete the Lord of the Rings articles for example, heh. Besides, this articles provides a great deal of information the casual internet user would only be able to find on either biased forums, or on the incomplete Electronic Arts site. The same thing goes for the manual of the Games featuring tiberium, several things didn't make the final release, meaning the readme files/manuals sometimes state gibberish which doesn't appear in-game. Now, please leave this section alone like said before, It's a proper source of information. -- Yumago

[edit] A mistake

In the "Varieties" bit, someone's been a bit retarded. Fauna and flora mean animals and plants respectively... so "Tiberium Fauna" probably isn't a type of tree... I'll change that. The Fish 10:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that is a mistake in the game. The game clearly states it is 'fona', which - of course - is incorrect usage of the term. -- Yumago

[edit] Orange Tiberium?

I seam to remember Tratos examining an Orange Tiberium Crystal similar to a Tiberium Cruentus (Giant Blue crystal) during the mission you assasinate him, should this be mentioned in the article? The Varieties paragraph mentions a red strain, is that the same one? --Rim-Fire 11:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't rememember that level but my guess is as long as it was In-Game and not a cutscene, it was lighting. I used to mod the game and make maps and such and I can safely say that lighting in a map can drasticaly change collors.

--Periphelion 22:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

Just want to mention that this page and the detail of the C&C world in general on Wikipedia is something I REALLY appreciate, as it is very detailed and comprehensive. This kicks ass! Mastgrr 16:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EA

With the upcoming Tiberium wars we know that EA have already thrown 2 types of tiberium out the window. They have confirmed Vinifera (blue) is gone and the fact that there's ships in the game mean Algae is also gone (bloody EA). Should that info be worked into the wiki?--Rim-Fire 11:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • WHAT HOW CAN EA BE SO STUPID are you sure of this it sound like a rather idioatic idea considering just how cool blue isJamhawjamhaw

Renegade is proof that EA can be so stupid.--Rim-Fire 21:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Uh westwood made it the same people who were making TS. Jamhaw 01:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Its just in design stages, its not final that there won't be non-standard types ingame, they just havn't made/showed it to us yet. OAM 23:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Blue tiberium and Tiberium Algae have been confirmed for C&C3

[edit] Aren't mutated humans also called Shiners?

I remeber when I was playing tiberium sun that they called the mutated humans Shiners as a racist comment. I beleive it was during one of the FMV's. I have to replay the game again but I do remeber them saying it because the cyrstals shine. Just a little thing you might want to add in to the Mutated humans part (showing the tension between normal humans and mutated humans).--Kittyloaf 18:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, McNeil calls Umagon a shiner I believe, to which she calls McNeil a "blunt". 81.109.94.62 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Information

Wow! It looks like your chemistry is still very fresh with the chemical bonds and the nuclear fusion/ fission. Anyway, even if this mineral is fictional, this article still makes you as if you have a degree in chemistry.

[edit] Featured Article?

Hi there, just reading through this, and I'm surprised nobody's suggested this to be a featured article- the amount of info and material on this fictional material is excellent, and is very well presented. Great work, StarCraft got featured so let's get a bit of C&C going on the main page! 81.109.94.62 22:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me that this hasn't been suggested as a featured article. There is a lot of work to be done before that happens. There are grammatical errors everywhere and much of the text is innaccesible to those who have not played a C&C game before. Round up some people to clean up the article, and then we'll see about featuring it. General Aurum 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zoning section is incorrect

The information shown here does not reflect the updated video in the game demo.

[edit] Devolution

I am sorry that I do not know how to correctly use this forum, but I have to ask why this article has been so diminished? Is this vandalism? A while ago I found some great information on this article. There's essentialy nothing there now. What is going on?

It was 23K of fansite, something Wikipedia is not. It described Tiberium, at length, as though it were a real object, while completely failing to describe its (total lack of) role in the real world as a portion of a story. Given the lack of references in reliable sources and lack of hope of the same, I first removed all the fictional-world stuff, then redirected it somewhere appropriate.
WP:ATT requires sources. WP:WAF advises us to write about the role of fictional things in the real world, instead of in their fictional universes. WP:FICT counsels us to redirect or merge inappropriately overdetailed articles on fictional things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

May I note that primary Command & Conquer storyline revolves around Tiberium? It is the key element of the series and the fact that EA has gone as far as hiring MIT scientists to further develop and explain the role of Tiberium as alone a reason to let it have such article. It's current version is small and neat thanks to all the people who have worked recently to make it keep up with all the guidelines instead of blanking it and leaving absolutely zero information, so please stop cutting it to stub-level. 87.110.149.120 19:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. Where are the references to back this up? And why are we not talking about it in the C&C series page, if it's so integral to the series? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
The references to what? I've cited each fact from the game(s) the information came from - and not stuff that players had to analyze, but flat-out told to the player. Secondly, talking about it on the C&C article would be a bad idea simply because of the length of the Tiberium article. Why is the Tiberium article so long? Because it's much more than simply the currency in-game. Hell, even the GDI vs Brotherhood of Nod conflict plays second-string to the simple question asked throughout the series - "What the hell is this substance doing to our world?" . If this was Red Alert, and Ore was an article, I'd prolly agree with you. But this is Tiberium. Scumbag 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That's your analysis and interpretation of the games, and we don't do that here. We need reliable sources independent of the games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's prolly the wrong way to have gone about it (I'm sure you'll tell me which one I should have used), but I decided to request one of these things about the article. The way I see it, this thread is just going to keep getting reverted back to its proper state (not by me, of course, just all the people that realize Tiberium is important), and you'll keep purging the article, over and over again, until something happens. Scumbag 07:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
And that is precisely what editors should not be doing. Any major changes should be discussed here instead of engaging in a revert war (see WP:3RR). As User:A Man In Black pointed out, most of the information presented in the article is simply fleshed out fan-related/researched and is in violation of original research and/or verifiability. If Tiberium is important, you will need third-party sources (i.e. not solely from the games) to back up claims. If Tiberium has no value outside of Command & Conquer, then it should not have its own article and information regarding tiberium should be restricted to the C&C page. Basically, tiberium is only important to C&C, and that's where it should be. --Scottie_theNerd 07:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
If what you say is true, what do you have to say about the existence of a category that has so many articles it has two pages worth of them? In terms of relevance, Tiberium is no different than Adamantium, Energon, Mithril, Scrith, et al. Plus, I feel the need to point out something about Attribution: Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge. Anyone can check the sources without specialist knowledge. Just pop the CD in and confirm. Scumbag 08:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The articles you linked to in your example are heavily cross-referenced with other fictional works, thus having far more notability than tiberium, which is restricted to C&C. The "categories" you pointed out are lists, not articles, and comparatively few fictional substances have their own articles. Out of those that do have articles, very few are properly referenced, and are usually reserved for materials with extensive information provided within the fictional work or from external sources.
The tiberium article, on the other hand, isn't verified by any work. You say that all it takes is to put in the CD to find that information. That is misleading; to find out about the information one has to actually play through the games (and not just one game) in order to find that information, and then come out with a conclusion based on gameplay experience, which was how the article was written. The information was firstly dangerously close to being a game guide (see WP:NOT), and contained information that was written as if someone had played the games and spewed out chunks of first-hand information, with speculation to fill in the gaps. Unlike the well-written articles, this tiberium article has very little factual information and is mostly original research, interpretation or gameplay tips twisted into something resembling encyclopedic information.
Personally, I'm not convinced that tiberium even deserves it's own article when the Command & Conquer series article contains everything important about it in regards to in-universe content. There's nothing in the original article that asserts its notability; just because GDI and NOD fight over it doesn't necessarily mean it deserves its own article. However, that also doesn't mean that the material can't be re-used. If you do have sources that verify its notability for its content, then there's no reason not to include it. But you have to remember that just because you can establish the importance of tiberium within Command & Conquer doesn't mean the article can expand into what it was before the reversion. What you're not considering is that all your sources and claims to the original content are all in-universe. There has to be something outside of it to verify it in order for content to be considered encyclopedic, and what we're trying to avoid here is creating an article that buries itself in fancruft that claims to be "verifiable". --Scottie_theNerd 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: I'm not sure if I made myself clear: the two pages of fictional chemical substances you linked to are not categories. They don't contain two pages of linked articles. --Scottie_theNerd 08:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the point in shortening a well written and verifiable article (yes, verifiable in the games, I believe that's enough) just to make it a stub? I won't resort to the Pokémon test, but cutting the article like that is just silly. Stealthbg 11:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that sourcing purely from the games is insufficient for Wikipedia. It's interesting, but if this is all the references the article can come up with, it has more place at StrategyWiki or E-Gamia rather than Wikipedia. It doesn't need to be chopped down to a stub, but the article content has exploded to clear and obvious fancruft. As I said above, the only "research" from the "sources" involves playing the game and twisting the game's features into pseudo-scientific phrases which the article is built on.
I think a lot of the content can be retained, but it desperately needs to be trimmed to a readable level; as of current it's a treasure trove of anything tiberium-related and slapped into charts and lists. Slapping "Source: C&C1" isn't proper referencing and makes the article look incredibly ugly, and before Man in Black says so, please stop reverting the article until we reach consensus. There is no point in having an edit war. --Scottie_theNerd 12:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all Man in Black has to stop blanking the article all the time, and then we can have a reasonable discussion on what should stay and what should go. The article is a bit large for a fictional element, but it is NOT a reason to cut it to 1-liner, since WP:NOT#PAPER and having a detailed article on it won't hurt anyone. So until we start cooperating, I will carry on reverting the blanking edits. I agree that slapping "Source: C&C 1" is clearly not the answer, as it makes article less readable. Erratic Communist 12:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're just carrying on with the revert war. As major changes should be brought forward on the Talk page before it is carried out, I believe Man in Black has gone ahead of himself. Nonetheless, it is pointless in continually reverting each other. I do not see a need to get administrator involvement in this. Both sides need to stop blanking and reverting. --Scottie_theNerd 12:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, whoever did this reversion isn't making any sense. The need is to have sources independent from the games to satisfy WP:V, and part of that assertion is to verify if the subject is notable enough to have its own article. Please discuss here before reverting. --Scottie_theNerd 12:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I know sources independent from the games, but they will probably be considered fancruft and the article will be blanked again. 87.110.149.120 12:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
As Man in Black stated clearly in his last reversion: Reliable sources independent from the game. If you consider your independent sources to be fancruft, they are obviously not reliable. Ideally, a reliable independent source would be a C&C factbook or other official published guide on the series, or even manuals. Using games as sources is a last resort. In any case, if you know the article is going to be blanked again, why are you aggravating the situation by reverting? --Scottie_theNerd 12:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I do not want this article to be blanked for a reason that seems to be weak to me. Why shouldn't games be used as a source if it's the only source of information? There are no books, films or anything else made in Tiberian universe - so the only source are the games, whether you like it or not. Most of the article directly cites the manuals and/or information contained in the cutscenes so there can possibly be no other interpretation of tiberium purpose/effect/significance. And editing a present article is much easier than blanking it time and time again - and devoiding it of any useful information. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go collect the sources that will (hopefully) be reliable enough. And I will keep reverting the blanking, which I personally see as vandalism. Erratic Communist 12:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
You still haven't addressed the other point I have made: the article lacks an independent, verifiable source asserting its notability. You find this and everything else falls into place. Refer to melange from the Dune series, which is much more relevant to tiberium. The article does indeed refer to in-universe texts, but it doesn't refer to the games, which also feature spice melange predominantly. Since C&C lacks texts, you're faced with the problem of actually finding references that meet Wikipedia standards. As I said above, such detailed in-universe information would be better served for sites dedicated to that universe, such as other Wikis, including Encyclopedia Gamia and StrategyWiki. You write something for Wikipedia, you follow its guidelines. What you find useful does not necessarily make it belong on Wikipedia. You're too focused on keeping this article on Wikipedia without realising that this site may not be the best place for it.
I'm not seeing what you're claiming here. I don't see an article that consistently refers to the manuals; I see information that's taken directly from gameplay experience and turned into a pseudo-science of original research and interpretation. You say it's vandalism; others may see it as starting from scratch and building a proper article. You say it's useful, but you're not saying why it belongs. Finally, you get nowhere from violating the same guidelines that you're trying to assert. If you think Man in Black is vandalising, report him. If you start or continue a revert war, others will report you. That's how it works; and you're not going to do much for this article or any others if you find your account banned.
That aside, personally I think you're digging way too deep into the games to bring forward material that is of trivial interest to readers at large. I think it's useful and interesting, but as I said above, I don't think most of it is encyclopedic. I think the content can easily be distributed among the existing game articles rather than plucked out and welded together in this lengthy article. A lot can be salvaged, but rather than reverting the same article over and over again, I suggest actually picking out what would be a fair amount of encyclopedic content instead of trying to preserve everything in the current article. Hell, I still have my doubts over whether or not it could survive an AfD process. --Scottie_theNerd 13:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I see your point but I hope you see mine as well. Indeed a lot of stuff in this article has to be taken out, but it will be much easier to trim the existing article rather than delete it and start from the scratch. It will be a much better idea if Man in Black and others who want this article trimmed clearly state what do they want to see here rather than deleting ALL the information in this article without clearly stating the reason. As users above stated, Tiberium is as significant to Command & Conquer as Kryptonite (which is a much larger article) is to the Superman saga, and I haven't seen anyone proposing to delete/trim that article.
I consider http://planetcnc.gamespy.com/View.php?view=encyclopedia.List (The most comprehensive and detailed description of C&C canon there probably is) and http://www.commandandconquer.com/community/blogs/default.aspx#allblogs (Mike Verdu's C&C 3 development blog) to be reliable sources and if they are deemed reliable by others as well, I will contribute to rewriting this article in accordance to the guidelines using these sources. However, I was not the one who started nor willing to continue the edit war, but I do not want to see this article undergoing such changes until a proper consensus has been reached. Erratic Communist 13:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Ha, I saw that one coming. Beat you by four minutes! (see below). As noted, I think the significant oversight is that the article references the games rather than the Canon Encyclopedia, which is third-party. --Scottie_theNerd 13:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, it only proves the value... valuabe.... valuability (I hate spelling that word) of the encyclopedia. I think it can be used as proper third-party source. Now all we have to do is to reach the conse...conso.. conce... consensus. Erratic Communist 14:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


On a side-note to Man in Black: What's your take on using this as a reference? It's comprehensive and, as far as I know, the authority on Command & Conquer information. The potential oversight was that it was placed in External links rather than used as a reference. Would referencing some of the content to this "encyclopedia" instead of the games be more in line with Wikipedia policy? --Scottie_theNerd 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad there's a bit of a discussion going on - at least until AMiB ignores it and blanks the article again - but I'd like to point out that within two or three weeks, there's going to be a community rivaling The Sims decending on this article, with plenty of new information about Tiberium. Unless we reach a consensus that keeps the majority of this page intact, we're just dicking around until C&C3 comes out, and a lot of people re-add the information anyway. Like the material we're talking about, this page'll quickly regenerate any damage done to it. Scumbag 16:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Iffy. It's a fansite, and it's not really analysis, but a fictional-universe-encyclopedia sort of work. It's not going to get us any closer to describing Tiberium as an artefact in the real world. It wouldn't be a bad source for citing the in-universe stuff; we just need more than in-universe stuff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm out of ideas then. But blanking the aticle is still not an option. Oh and as Scumbag has just pointed out, after March 26th this article will not only restore in case of trimming but will expand even further, since there will be a lot more information available. Erratic Communist 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not blanking the article; I'm removing all of the unsourced, inappropriate material so we can add sourced, appropriate material. It needs to be made clear that this is an encyclopedia of the real world, not a fansite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.. Tiberium is a major concept of C&C, and an encylopedic treatment of it is long, and it should be given a seperate article. Scumbag 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Describing the fictional world in explicit detail, with no reference to the real world, is not encyclopedic treatment. The only encyclopedic treatment in the article right now is the one referenced claim about The Monolith Monsters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
According WP:AFAQ, a valid primary source includes artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The facts are accurate and can reasonably be checked by those who question them. Plus, I feel obliged to point out what Wikipedia feels about the Unencyclopedic argument. Scumbag 22:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
How fortunate, then, that' I've explained that unencyclopedic in this case means "describes the fictional world as though it were real, and makes no reference to the real one, per WP:WAF."
You need more than primary sources to establish important, per WP:N. Also, you cannot merely cite an entire game as the support for specific claims, especially when those claims are very precise or highly interpretive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Man, I should have ditched the Scumpolicies, these policies are much better than I gave them credit for...
It's Monolith Monsters, and second - I don't see any proof that inspiration for Tiberium really comes from there. Erratic Communist 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
"'The idea for Tiberium,' comments Bostic, 'was inspired by the science fiction B-movie Monolith Monsters - a must-see movie, in my opinion.'"
It's in the cited reference, an article in CVG Magazine. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That site crashes my browser for some reason. Damn. Erratic Communist 11:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So what, Wikipedia should only provide detailed information on real subjects? This is absolutely rediculous. You are not going to stumble across this page by accident! You had all that information. You might as well keep it instead of censoring it because it doesn't seem like information useful to the general public.

Wikipedia is about providing free knowledge. But apparently, only knowledge allowed by the stupid rules which are destroying Wikipedia.

This is why I absolutely refuse to donate. There are these stupid rules which amount to censorship. Instead of providing knowledge for all, you only cater to the lowest denominator- the general public who won't read this type of article. I appreciate there is a vast, incredible amount of useful real life based articles great for education, but until the editors here (who hopefully don't have fake degrees, hmm?) start catering to more than the general public, it's going to lose out.

So yeah, go ahead. Cripple this article and create another stub. Because Wikipedia has a dire shortage of those. 81.109.94.62 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC) -someone who is a big C&C fan, but in a bad mood after watching mods try to speedy delete and cover up the whole Essjay thing. This project is falling to censorship!

[edit] And for something completely different

I was reading an IGN article about C&C 3, and I really, really, really like this quote. Not only for its flavor reasons, but because it's an effective way to convey Tiberium's importance in the C&C world to the average user:

Tiberium is a scientific curiosity, a catalyst to war, an environmental cataclysm, a social plague, and much more. Everything and everyone is defined by their relationship to this substance. Life in the first half of the twenty-first century is all about Tiberium. So… what is Tiberium? (Source) I was considering putting it in the text box of the Tiberium image, but I figured this is one of those things that even I'm not 100% sure I'd feel fine with putting on Wikipedia.

[edit] Periods of Information

I think this article would be clearer if an effort was made to distinguish between the different information presented by each game in which Tiberium appears. For example, all information after or resulting from C&C3 could be lumped into a single category.

It's not just that allot of the 'history' is likely to change with C&C3, it is that the previous game, Firestorm, was very consistent with both Tiberian Sun and the original Command and Conquer. This 'history' stood for several years. At the very least, it would be helpful to distinguish between information post and pre-C&C3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.206.83.152 (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Man In Black does it again...

The article is destroyed yet again. "Gave it a week", huh? Where did you state that you give a week to add the sourcing? I'm going to revert it, and mark my words, the revert war will start again, and will go even deeper on March 26th. And as User:Scumbag pointed out, why can't Kryptonite be merged with Superman article then? Erratic Communist 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there are other bad articles does not justify the continued existence of bad articles. Also, threatening to edit war is a good way to get yourself blocked.
Now, please do go find reliable, third-party sources to cite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear A Man In Black, I respect your opinion and your intentions of making this article better, but you are destroying an extremely detailed and well-written article. I think I haven't made myself clear last time. Command & Conquer universe hardly has any "secondary sources" WP:ATT demands. So the best we can do is to cite the information directly from the game manuals and/or cinematics without any original research. The article follows this information perfectly. Oh and I did NOT threaten an edit war.
About "bad articles". Ok, so Kryptonite is a bad article then (as I understood your words). Why didn't anyone make any effort to merge it with main article on Superman? Is Tiberium article some punchbag?
As for the WP:WAF... this may seem rude, but a sane person that sees this page should understand from the first line "...is a fictional material" that this page is about a fictional element. And of course, Tiberium is notable enough to have it's own article. There is much work to do on this article, but cutting it down is not an option. It is not long. WP:NOT states that there is enough space for any article there can be. So what do you want, a revert war or an organized effort on improving this article? All you do for now is cutting the article to stub, instead of helping to improve it and bring it to quaility standards of Wikipedia (no offense meant). I'd also like to notice that WP:N is a disputed guideline, and I would not rely on it. Thank you.
P.S. Can someone delete that red/yellow/blue zone image? It's inaccurate and out of date. Erratic Communist 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Then we shouldn't have any article on this subject at all, again, per WP:N. That said, I'm pretty sure there are sources, if you spend more than nine minutes looking.
Also, please read WP:WAF after the intro. We don't need explicit description of Tiberium in its fictional universe; we need description of its conception and real-world impact, with in-universe detail existing only to further that goal. Having an article that is all in-universe content (fictional biology, history, etc.) and no real-world content is not acceptable. It's not a matter of misleading the reader, but putting too much emphasis on plagiarizing the C&C story (because at that level of detail, that's what this is) and too little on describing the real world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Alright then. Set the time span during which the proper re-working of the article should be done, point out the details, and let me and the other Wikipedians who are interested in this article re-work it - but re-work it's normal version. Rebuilding existing article, no matter how bad it is, is easier than creating new one. Any assistance would be appreciated.
I prefer not to rely on WP:N, as this guideline is currently disputed. Certainly, if dispute tag is removed, I will follow it. Erratic Communist 23:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I believe I see one of your points. This article is in-universe indeed, but that can be corrected quickly. All we need are mentions of exactly when and in which game did this or another event occur. Am I right?
By the way. About the MIT scientists hired to develop the concept of Tiberium. The blog named "A little on Tiberium is my reference. Sorry for doing it so late. Erratic Communist 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


This article is in-universe indeed, but that can be corrected quickly. All we need are mentions of exactly when and in which game did this or another event occur. Am I right?

Not quite. We need real-world impact and design and such, with out-of-universe descriptions of fictional biology/history/etc. only insofar as is needed to understand the real-world content. The old version of this article had more in-universe content than we'd want on Excalibur or Superman, let alone a much lesser-in-importance fictional story element.

That reference isn't a bad start, but it's a blog writtten by a developer of the game (so it really doesn't solve the WP:N issues), but let's not worry about that right now. This blog would probably be a useful tool to get started in talking about Tiberium as a story element instead of a thing in a fictional universe.

Usually, I like to have at least two decent references to get started on an article. That blog is a good start; whatever happened to the link to that Gamespy setting bible? It'd give us something to cite that wasn't the games themselves. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now, can I revert this article one last time? Erratic Communist 00:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, no. This is far, far too much in-universe detail. There may be some worth saving from the history, but right now this is essentially plagiarism of the manual and games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
There's too much black and white when it comes to reverting or not reverting. AMIB has chopped off everything that is in-depth unreferenced in-universe detail. That gives you a good starting point for things to find. If you want to salvage information from past edits, look for them in the History of the article. Trying to work the other way around results in editors trying to keep the entire article. --Scottie_theNerd 01:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The entire article is going to keep coming back, as long as AMiB keeps purging the entire article. There's a reason why each of his purges has been reverted, and that reason is simple - Consensus. Granted, it's a bit of a catch-all, but that's really the bottom line. He's got a very strong opinion on what belongs and doesn't belong on Wikipedia (source), and is willing to go against a group of people that see much differently. Of course, in a couple of weeks that group that sees differently is going to be very interested in this article, and will most assuredly not tolerate his purging. Scumbag 06:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
What consensus? --Scottie_theNerd 08:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, there's a very strong, widely held opinion that If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.. Now, I think that this could support an article (which is why I haven't just sent it to AFD), but this in-universe plagiarism of the game lore isn't it.
Point to WP:ITANNOYSME, or to articles which have the same problems as this article, all you want, but the fact remains that we don't write articles by paraphrasing descriptions of fictional worlds from primary sources. Erratic Communist is on the right track, though, finding sources we can use to write a proper article.
Also, note that "I hate cruft" was added to my userpage as vandalism, and I kept it since it's amusing. Just like the quote at the top of that project page you may have noticed; I originally said it when I was lamenting how godawful {{Mario characters}} used to look, and A Link to the Past (talk · contribs) added it to that page. I didn't add Category:Dictator Arab Nazi Communists to my userpage, either. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to go with Scumbag and Erratic Communist on this argument. Tiberium is what the CnC universe revolves around, and there would likely be no CnC without it. Tiberium is notable, as is Kryptonite in the Superman series. If there was no Kryptonite, there would be no Superman franchise. If there was no Tiberium, there would be no CnC. I am not actually a big fan of CnC, but with the groups of fans, with people supporting to keep the article. This article could never be truly eliminated until some hard, concrete evidence is provided that this article should be purged. Give me just five reasons, other than WP:N and that it is original research and I will rethink about keeping Tiberium. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and btw, the WP:3R rule has been violated numerous times... --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 21:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are WP:ATT and WP:N not enough?

  1. This plot summary is so detailed as to constitute copyright violation.
  2. This is written in a style that takes the fictional universe as given, rather than in a detatched style with an emphasis on the role in the real world.
  3. The poorly-formed cites to primary sources make it very difficult to differentiate personal interpretation from bland observation.
  4. There is a decided lack of context to allow an uninitiated reader to separate largely unimportant background detail from details that are important to the C&C series. (Basically, it's faaaaar more important that it's the currency in the game than that it has a role in the backstory and setting.)
  5. It is far more difficult to replace such plagiaristic, unencyclopedic content bit-by-bit than in whole.

There's five, plus there's everything above. I thought the discussion with EC about finding published sources from which to build this article was quite productive. Can we go back to it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my eyes, that is 3 good reasons: 1, 3, 5. The reasons why I say that 2 and 4 are not good reasons is because Tiberium only exists in a fictional world, and that it does not actually have any connection to the real world. And yes, I am going to compare to Kryptonite again because it has the closest relation to Tiberium: a fictional element that makes up the storyline, but in a somewhat "real" world. 4 is not a good reason to me because the story causes the game to happen, and because of this story, Tiberium is used as a currency ingame. So, in a nutshell,
  1. Good.
  2. Tiberium has nothing to actually do with real life.
  3. Good.
  4. Currency and story are equally important, though I support giving the article less (Chemical Composition, History, etc.)
  5. Good.

All in all, yes, my mind has been changed, though some mention should be given to the story. And yes, we should be focusing more on published sources instead of how many bars of Tiberium a refinery can hold. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 22:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Kryptonite is not a very good example. Might I suggest Characters of Final Fantasy VIII or Solid Snake, both of which focus heavily on real-world role and development and not so much the fictional universe? It's possible to write about fictional things without taking the fictional world as a given; it takes a particular detached tone and way of thinking. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Ahhhh. This clarifies very much so. I understand what you mean, and yes, more should be referenced to graphics, evolution of graphics, etc. I see that before, you were reverting because the article contained too much useless information, instead of good info, such as graphics. I will try to get some graphics, criticisms, w/e. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 23:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

I feel that we should have a vote on whether or not we should keep the information on this page. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 21:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we discuss disagreements instead of voting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The information is far from adequate... Cmon ppl stop being pricks and just let some more info be put in :D
A story isn't information; it's a story. The old version of this page had so much story as to infringe on the copyright. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no story in the article. Only information. The only time the story is mentioned is in relation to which game series revealed the information. Also, there's a flaw in your logic - we're voting every time this page is reverted because of your purging. Scumbag 01:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
A vote is definitely a good idea. There's no other realistic means to settle something like this; the alternative is that AMIB will drag this out without making concessions, claiming that policy is on his side. If a vote showed that there was a consensus in favor of having the content, with only AMIB dissenting, that would (or should) be a strong and clear enough signal to settle the matter. Everyking 08:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
That approach isn't clean either. AMiB is asserting that the content is in violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Votes are practically never used in Wikipedia conflicts, and voting cannot override Wikipedia policy. In order to reach consensus, editors in opposition to AMiB must highlight why the content adheres to Wikipedia guidelines. --Scottie_theNerd 09:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
"Voting cannot override Wikipedia policy" is the wrong way to put it, because in these situations people don't agree about the correct application of policy. A lone dissenter can't override Wikipedia policy, either. Everyking 10:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
And a hundred editors can't override that lone dissenter if he has valid points that are not refuted. This isn't a ballot as to whether or not to keep the information in the article. If no consensus is reached here, administrator involvement must be called in to deliver decisive judgement and the policies in question should be brought into the forefront of discussion rather than having editors interpret them in different ways. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Scottie_theNerd 10:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like another fundamental disagreement, huh. Everyking 11:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Yup. One that has been solved for us, it seems. Oh well. Scumbag 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well, it's over

I had hoped asking others for help would have done something, but it seems the page has been locked to prevent anyone from editing it. Sorry, folks. Scumbag 06:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection edit request

Could someone add a page protection tag to the main page, or remove the protection? I wanted to add some additional sources, but was thoroughly confused by the lack of an "edit this page" tag.

BTW, I think Uncle G has shown the way - it is trivially easy to find good sources discussing Tiberium, so maybe the interested editors can start on that. Let me know if anyone wants advice on how to find and use sources. TheronJ 14:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please find 'em then, if they are trivially easy. We can provide sources, but AMiB won't like em. Scumbag 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Scumbag 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Trivial, as I said.  ;-) Give AMiB a chance -- try writing a sourced article that meets Wikipedia's style guidelines, and see if he kicks. My guess is that the process will be a mild pain, but will produce a better article. Thanks! TheronJ 14:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to assume you're joking, since you didn't find anything that we can actually use to restore the article to its proper state. You know, like Tiberium growth, its effects on organic matter, the origins of Tiberium, varieties of Tiberium, etc. You know, the important things. I ask of you again - if it's trivially easy to find good sources about Tiberium's properties, show me. We had them, and they were purged. Scumbag 15:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I second that. There's no way TheronJ can be serious. --Scottie_theNerd 15:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm serious. This is an encyclopedia, not a fanpage. Write up the "out-of-universe" stuff first - how Tiberium is one of the first and most famous examples of a "resource management" bottleneck in strategic computer game design, and what people have had to say about that, and then write up a short summary of Tiberium's role inside the game. TheronJ 15:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, the largest fan page / fan wiki on earth. There's two problem with your argument: first off, the first part violates Wikipedia policy. The second problem? We already had a short summary of Tiberium's role inside the game. Unfortunately for Wikizealots, Tiberium has a considerable, dominating role in the game series. Scumbag 16:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The first part doesn't violate any policies if you read the "trivially easy to find" sources and use them for support . . . TheronJ 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Unless, of course, those books don't actually say anything about the first and most famous example of what you're talking about. You'd have to go do the community to do that, and Wikipedia frowns on that. I notice you didn't even try and argue against the second point, since it's... you know, unarguable. Scumbag 18:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm simply referring to the Google searching bringing up irrelevant results. --Scottie_theNerd 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you're joking, since you didn't find anything that we can actually use to restore the article to its proper state. You know, like Tiberium growth, its effects on organic matter, the origins of Tiberium, varieties of Tiberium, etc. You know, the important things

This is the problem. These are not the important things. They are in-universe details, which had come to dominate this article to the exclusion of real-world info. Uncle G's edits are what we need to be doing; describing Tiberium as an element in game design, describing the origin of Tiberium as a game design element and as an element in the story (not "It was first discovered here," but "It was inspired by this"), describe how it impacted later games, and so forth. There's a good article here, about one of the first and most prominent harvest currencies in RTS games, but we can't let it be buried under in-universe setting and story detail.

By the way, I changed the protection tag per TheronJ's request. I doubt anyone will mind. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What you're failing to realize is that its impact in later games and being the most prominent harvest currencies is a direct result of all the information you've purged. Tiberium's importance is in its properties. It's why there's no article that deals with other RTS staples, like wood, ore, food, gold, crystal. Yet, for four years, there's been one for Tiberium. Why? Just look at the article you've purged. For every piece of information the developers gave about GDI or Nod, there's two pieces of information for Tiberium. Hell, the game series has "Tiberium" in every game's title! Would the developers have asked people at MiT to describe the substance, if it were nothing mroe than a product of income. There's so much more than that, when it comes to Tiberium, and that, above all, is why your purging was constantly reverted by more than just me.Scumbag 19:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The fact that it turns plants into alien things (or that it was discovered in a fictional 1995 by a minor character or the names of the various Tiberium-influenced flora or the portion of the earth's surfface rendered uninhabitable) is not why it's important. The fact that the C&C series is successful and influential in the real world is why it's important.
Certainly, we should mention that, in the story, Tiberium is a mutagenic crystal that came to earth on a meteor, but getting into ridiculous CIA Worldbook 2040 detail on fictional settings, complete with fictional genus-species names, is not the business of this encyclopedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
And why, I ask again, is C&C successful and influential in the real world? Hint: it's the fictional material we're arguing about. Scumbag 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Then the story will be widely praised in reviews, and we can use that detail as references for this article. Again, you're saying how easy it should be to find references that aren't personal observation of the games. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It makes for a stronger argument if you don't consistently refer to the very in-universe detail that is under controversy. Also, quick fact: only Command & Conquer 3 has "tiberium" in its subtitle; the others either lack it (i.e. the Red Alert and Generals spinoffs) or use "Tiberian", a name presumably derived from the place of its discovery. Also, the claim that Wikipedia is the biggest fan site out there is incorrect. If this is your perception of Wikipedia, you are contributing to the wrong place. Consider using this information on GamerWiki, Encyclopedia Gamia or StrategyWiki, which all desperately need this sort of material. Wikipedia does not. --Scottie_theNerd 20:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
You're wrong. C&C1? Tiberian Dawn. C&C2? Tiberian Sun. It's hard to assume good faith when you willingly refuse to acknowledge that the Tiberian phrase relates to Tiberium, not the Tiber river. You're also incorrect concerning about the incorrectness of my perception of Wikipedia, but that's not the focus of this article. Besides, you know just as well as I do how many articles I can present that fly in the face of what Wikipedia is quote-unquote supposed to be. Scumbag 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I pointed out above, though your claim that Tiberian = Tiberium is vague; if Westwood wanted to name the games after the resource, they could easily have used Tiberium Sun. The fact that they didn't draws a distinction between tiberium and Tiberian. Anyway, it's only a detail I wanted to point out. --Scottie_theNerd 06:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
It's an adjective. There's no distinction. Everyking 06:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Right, disregard. --Scottie_theNerd 09:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't, and there is a distinction. "Tiberium" is a proper noun coined for a computer game, and "Tiberium Wars" is a compound phrase that employs that proper noun as an attributive noun (see also Adjective#Adjectival use of nouns — the post-position expansion is "Wars over Tiberium"). "Tiberian" is an adjective that pre-dates the computer game by at least a century. Uncle G 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. "Tiberian" is definitely referring to tiberium. There is no distinction in the context of these games. Everyking 14:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Then I suggest both that you read the helpful hyperlinks to encyclopaedia articles that were already in what I wrote, and more sources on this subject, which explain what "Tiberian" is referring to in the games, showing that it is, indeed, used in the ordinary sense of the adjective that's been around for at least a century. Uncle G 20:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. "Tiberian" does not refer to the river Tiber, the emperor Tiberius, or the Sea of Tiberias in the context of these games. Have you ever played the games? There is no question about this whatsoever. Zero. Everyking 21:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, as you'll discover, as I pointed out, if you read the sources on this subject. Stop approaching encyclopaedia article writing from the direction doing original research, and start reading the sources. You state below that you understand the issues of verifiability and original research "very well". This statement of yours above demonstrates quite the contrary, however. "Pop in the CD and play the game" is not verifiability. It is requiring readers to duplicate original research. If your own personal conclusions after playing a game are your argument, then you have no argument at all as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Our arguments are sources, here. You'll find, when you actually stop relying upon original research of your own and start instead looking at sources written by people who have done the research, that there are two competing stories of the naming of Tiberium in the game universe, one relating to the river Tiber and the other relating to the emperor Tiberius, and that indeed "Tiberian" is being used in the same ordinary senses of that adjective that have been around for at least a century. Uncle G 16:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
This is so strange. I find it baffling that you are claiming this stuff with so much certainty when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. "Tiberian" in the title refers to the mineral, which is made evident by the central role of Tiberium in the games. "Dawn" and "Sun" presumably reflect the position of the mineral in the world at the respective times of the games. The origin of the name of the mineral is of minimal importance and the games are certainly not titled based on that (it would not even make sense; how would Tiberian Sun make sense if it was referring to the river?). I don't have a source for that assertion, and I'm not trying to get it included in the article; I was simply correcting a misunderstanding in this discussion. Everyking 03:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What you should find baffling is an editor who hasn't cited a single source, and who has presented no evidence of xyr even looking for sources at all, saying to editors who have looked for, read, and cited, several sources (part of which process included wading through reams of search results that were discussion forum posts on this very subject), that they don't know what they are talking about. Uncle G 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, so where's your source, then? You provided a source for the origins of the name of the mineral (which I was already aware of), but no source for the claim I am disputing, that the title is based on one of the classic uses of the adjective instead of on the mineral. Everyking 03:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Already given. If you don't see where the river Tiber and the emperor Tiberius are discussed in the source, then you need to read it again. Uncle G 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
How many times do you want me to read it? It doesn't say anything like that. It mentions ideas about the origin of the name; it says nothing to support the idea that the use of "tiberian" in the titles is based directly on the name origin as opposed to the mineral itself. Everyking 20:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguments

I don't know if anybody would care, but I feel that we should leave the Tiberium article the way it is now, since it adheres to the Wikipedia policies. However, we should include links to the website (whom according to AMiB) that the information was plagiarized from, so that the information would still be there, albeit indirectly. I liked the information as well, but AMiB and Scottie are right: Wikipedia is NOT a fansite, and the information given has too much of an in-universe tone. I mean, the average Joe who would visit this page, thinking, "what is Tiberium" and sees all of that information would probably go "woah! There is so much information of a work of fiction? Wow!" A fan of C&C would be glad to see all of the info, but a normal person would just see it and probably not read it. If the information WAS copied from a certain website, link to the webiste, stating how this website has lots of information about Tiberium. If a person wants to see the info, then he can click on the link. That way, like I said before, the article would adhere to the Wikipedia policies, and would provide the information that certain people, like me, would seek for. If you read all of this and care, thank you. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 22:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It didn't plagiarize another article; it is a "summary" of the manual and game lore so detailed and so specific that it is a violation of EA's copyright of the games' stories and published material. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if it is a "summary" of the manual/game lore, then we can just link to a site with lots of "good" information about Tiberium, yes? --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we always could link to a site that does do detailed in-universe descriptions. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Then somebody (an admin perhaps) could do so now? For I suspect that some people are probably not happy with the article right now. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 23:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added the edit-request template (as I'd rather not make any substantial edits to this article while it's protected) to request just such an edit. Can you suggest a good link? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I know that this is probably going to be a "no" answer, but on answers.com, there is an old Tiberium article that was from the Wikipedia: http://www.answers.com/topic/tiberium. I doubt that this link would last long, but it works for the time being as I try to look for another one. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Another one: http://pc.ign.com/articles/722/722462p1.html. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 23:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh no! It's the wrong version :) May I merely comment that external links (that have information) should be encyclopedic and accurate, but outside the scope of Wikimedia Projects. Any information that could go in Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wiktionary, or Wikipedia (assuming an ideal article without original research, see #1), should go there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, after all, and thus a rationally drawn compendium of information, not a provider of raw data with little encyclopedic context. If another site can factually provide such information, then let us link to it, assuming that it is reliable and respectable. GracenotesT § 01:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. The edit protection isn't over external links; I think there's no disagreement that a few in-universe links would be useful. That's why I added {{editprotected}}, so another admin could review and be sure there was consensus to add such links. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
This argument is all well and good, but it doesn't solve the core problem for you guys: Even if I don't touch the article after it gets unprotected, it will return to the original state. Are you going to keep it protected indefinately? Scumbag 02:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
If you intend to revert to your preferred version, sources or policies or consensus be damned, you can just be blocked from editing. I think you can contribute to both this article and the project in general and I don't particularly want to see you blocked, but that's what lies at the end of that unhappy road. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Man In Black: I was just trying to help serve up some consensus on a stick :) Consensus-a-bob? A third opinion. And Scumbag: like the external links section on Insurance, overall nonconstructive edits may come, but vigilance should take care of that, I hope. And blatantly, repeatedly defying whatever consensus comes out of this is blockable as a preventative measure, if anyone chooses to do that. GracenotesT § 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Therein lies your problem. Once the page gets unprotected, the page is going to be restored to its proper form. After all, what we've got here is a Tiberium article that doesn't talk about Tiberium. I have no intention of being the one who initially reverts the article when it is unprotected. Problem for you guys is, I don't have to. As for vigilance... why are you assuming that people that agree with you will be doing the vigilance? It most assuredly will not be. It will be the very people that revert the purges in the first place. You know, kinda like what has been happening for 14+ days before I brought admins into this. That's the problem. For you guys, anyway. Scumbag 02:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Then the page can be sprotected and work can continue. In the meantime, let's work on getting this article up to Wikipedia's standards; I doubt anyone will be digging through the history if the article is brought up to snuff. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You obviously don't keep tabs on the relevant communities. Scumbag 02:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Oof, a community hell-bent on using Wikipedia as a WP:NOT#SOAPBOX? That's not good. Do you have any links to forum threads in which such meat puppetry was initiated? GracenotesT § 03:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Meat puppetry? Using Wikipedia as a soapbox? I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the terms, in this context at least. I have links, but... if you claim to know whats best for this article, shouldn't you already have them? Scumbag 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, deleting your "Scumpolicies" was supposed to be accompanying you giving up on them. Part of the ideal of Wikipedia is that users need not be experts or fans of a subject in order to understand or verify ideally-written articles. That's part of why all claims need to be attributed, so that anyone can verify them.
As for users being recruited off-wiki to revert to a specific version, that's usually pretty obvious, and pretty easy to defend against (and discouraged by admins in general, as well). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to make it clear that I've done no such thing, regarding recruiting anyone to do anything. A comment by ISBB inspired me to see if he/she was right about it people being unhappy with the current state of the article. As much as I'd like to make some subtle hint that I've drummed up some hidden-in-the-wings force to restore the article, I'm afraid I can't do so. I've given up on the Scumpolicies, but there's always going to be people on Wikipedia requesting things that they themselves cannot do. Unless fans of the series are content with the state of the article, it'll go nowhere. That's all I meant. Yeesh. Scumbag 05:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Fairy nuff. I thought it was reply to this thread in particular instead of the discussion in general. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would assume that the "keep the article and add the links" idea is scrapped... --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 03:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Nah, it just got sidetracked by another topic. I'm sure its a half-decent idea. Scumbag 03:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The key issue is notability; the other issues are obscuring it. AMiB doesn't really object to the content because of the sourcing, or because of some "in-universe" tone; those things are at best secondary, at worst a smokescreen. My opinion is that information about the fictional details is relevant and notable and should be included in substantial quantity, although information that we can all agree is granular can be excluded. To see where exactly people stand on the issue, we could present examples of fictional detail, with the highest quality source(s) available, and then see if there are objections to including that in the article. For example, that tiberium was discovered in a certain place at a certain time: do we all agree about the notability of that detail, assuming a high quality of reference? If necessary this could be done point-by-point through the article. Everyking 05:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the key issues are verifiability and prohibition of original research. As can be seen from the discussions earlier on this talk page, and from the earlier versions of the article, the arguments were that the way for readers to check the contents of the article was to perform the primary research of "popping in the CD" and actually playing the games themselves, rather than checking it against sources already written and published (by people who had played/designed/reviewed the games, for example). The solution to this is to find, to cite, and to use sources to build the article. I've already shown you by example how that is done; and, as I have pointed out twice in two separate discussions outside this talk page, it's not hard. It is disappointing that editors have taken over a fortnight to even come up with one single source (which I've added to the article for you, by the way) other than "just pop in the CD and play the game". As I pointed out on my talk page, it took me just 20 minutes to come up with three additional sources that would be useful, beyond the original sources (that I found in 10 minutes): this, this, and this.

The proper way to develop this article is to write based upon these sources. There are two ways that we can proceed with expanding the article whilst it is under protection: First, all of you can thrash out some wording, based upon these sources and any further sources that you can find, here on this talk page and either I or another administrator will put whatever you agree upon, as long as it complies with our content policies, into the article for you. Second, I can write some more content based upon these four sources, put it into the article as a starting point, and you can discuss and agree upon improvements, expansions, and alterations here, which then either I or another administrator can apply to the article.

I'm happy to give you such a starting point. And I'm pleased to see that finally, after two weeks, one of the editors in this discussion who wants more content has looked for and cited a source upon which such content can be based without violating our content policies. The proper study of encyclopaedists is finding, citing, evaluating, and using sources. Everyone here needs to do a lot more of this. Uncle G 13:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, so you're saying you don't oppose fictional detail as long as it's properly sourced, right? Everyking 14:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying what I actually wrote, above, not something else that is completely different. Verifiability and original research are the key issues. If you don't understand how they are issues, please read the earlier discussions on this talk page where editors have explained what the verifiability and original research problems are at length. Uncle G 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand the issues of verifiability and OR very well. Can you please answer the question? Everyking 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is the answer once again: I'm saying what I actually wrote, above, not something else that is completely different. Verifiability and original research are the key issues. Uncle G 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
If it suits you, you may answer this question as if it's completely unrelated to what you wrote above. The point is that I want you to answer it. Everyking 03:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess what he means is that he wants third-party sources. Not sure why, since most third-party sources I've found are, unsurprisingly, copies of the pre-purge article. I suppose, though, that's what happens when people work on an article for four years. Scumbag 18:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You're confused about what actually constitutes sources. Wikipedia mirrors are not sources at all. Once again: Please learn and adhere to our Wikipedia:Attribution policy. Uncle G 20:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia mirrors aren't sources. I just wanted to point out what the most content-rich articles about this subject are. Scumbag 02:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If a Wikipedia article contains content that can be found nowhere else, then that article contains unverifiable material. By making this argument that you are making, you are constructing a good case for not having the content that you want to have at all. Once again, for the fourth time: Please find, cite, and use sources, as encyclopaedists are supposed to. You are going down the wrong road and not adhering to our content policies. Uncle G 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Um. I am objecting to original research, bad sourcing, and in-universe tone. This article fails to explain the notability of the subject, but that's a failing of the article, not the subject. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
So, if everything that was there before is properly sourced and written from the proper "tone", then you're OK with including it? Everyking 21:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, yeah, as long as we were maintaining an appropriate level of detail. None of this fictional death tolls and fictional genus species names granularity. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know that I consider that granular, but OK, we rebuild the article, include all the stuff that both sides agree is notable, then worry about the stuff you think is granular. Everyking 22:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it's describing details that are arguably important to the fictional world, but aren't important to the real one. The fictional scientific names used by fictional scientists to describe fictional species is exactly what WP:WAF is talking about when it mentions in-universe trivia to avoid ("fictional background information on alien creatures presented as real-world science or anthropology"). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Who says it has to be presented as "real-world science or anthropology"? I'm all for writing it to make the fictional nature of it clear throughout, but I don't consider that a major issue. Everyking 22:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we actually disagree, here. Let's set aside this discussion until it is no longer hypothetical. At that point, we can talk about specifics, if we do actually disagree. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I can't tell what exactly is the requested edit, and it is not clear that there is consensus for it. Resolving tag for now; feel free to add another one along with a clear description of the edit requested. CMummert · talk 05:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unprotection

Are we ready to unprotect this and go ahead and build an article based on the sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dang Wikipedia errors...I just lost what I wrote. Anyways, the article is okay for unprotection as long as only SOURCED information is added onto the article. The moment it is reverted, then full (possibly indef) protect. Then, we could put information and sources onto this talk page in the exact format we want it as and ask the admins to put it onto the main article. If, for any reason, you request the original article back, then go here: http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Tiberium. That place has some good info, as the entire Wikicity is about the CnC franchise. For all I care, go ahead and make an article on Power Plants: it is about CnC. The Wikipedia policies overrule whatever important informations are on the main website. Therefore, I believe that it is best to adhere to these policies, as it IS the Wikipedia, after all. There are my two cents. Btw: another source: http://www.cncgeneralsworld.com/cnc3/tiberium.aspx. Might not be the best, but it works! --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 23:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Well whaddya know. A Wiki just for C&C! Just where this belongs. --Scottie_theNerd 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, maybe Wikia will grant them a wiki? GracenotesT § 03:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Edit: I checked, and they already have an article on power plants. Go figure. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 03:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well done to IngSoc BigBrother for being the one editor here so far who has put in the effort of finding and citing some sources! That's twice that xe has done that, now. I suggest that the other editors here learn from xyr good example. This is what all of you are supposed to be doing. Uncle G 16:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree that ISBB should be commended. It seems he is increasing his knowledge and understanding of the topic at hand. Scumbag 01:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, now that we have a few sources to work with, I'm going to start a draft of the new sourced article here. Remember, find new sources, and feel free to do whatever with the new draft as long as it is not vandalism. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 01:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, there is an article: http://pc.ign.com/articles/721/721138p2.html, that we probably overlooked from before, since it was stated in the "Now for something completely different" part of the article. However, I listed it there just in case somebody wants to use it, since it is too in-universe (in my opinion). --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 02:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Purge Tiberium article

Good thing you clicked the "discussion" link above. Now, if you want to see the "real" Tiberium article, click here: [1]

The current article is better because it has sources and information, not just loads of OR and other unverifiable information. If you really want to see the old article, then go search for information of the internet or go to the wikicity: http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Tiberium. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 16:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since it's already starting...

So, we've already had a couple users posting here, complaining about the purging of the article. Quelle surprise. Since this is only going to happen more (especially if this article is kept protected when C&C3 comes out), I recommend something that, I'm sure, only people like me will actually like.:

Instead of having the protected version of the article be the purged/pointless one, restore the original, then protect it from any editing. It solves a few problems:

  • Prevents the inevitable influx of "Um, you kind of destroyed the article" posts, since the article they see is the original
  • Forces those knowledgeable in the topic to edit the Tiberium Series article, making it expand to the point of transfering to this article a priority
  • Gives editors plenty time to attempt to make an article that follows policy and doesn't make the fans immediately revert it to its original state.

Like I said, I know its not going to happen, but whatever. Scumbag 17:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Two anonymous users who think Wikipedia is the be-all and end-all of fansites. No surprise at all. --Scottie_theNerd 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Restoring original research as a sop for an editor who clearly was using this as an excuse to rant about a recent and entirely unconnected controversy and about our content policies is not the way to build an encyclopaedia. We are here to build a neutral and verifiable encyclopaedia free of original research. Those policies do not change because some people want to do something else. The people who want to do something else should find somewhere else to do it. The world is not short of places where original research can be performed. Wikipedia is not one of those places. Uncle G 17:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Anyone who is in favor of Wikipedia being based on POV and original research, please raise your hand. I think we're all in agreement on neutrality and verifiability, so why do you continue trying to portray the people on the other side of the argument as being against them? Everyking 03:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The people who are in favour of original research already have raised their hands, with talk page comments precisely to that effect. It is you who is portraying people as something that they are not, not anyone else. The people on the "other side of the argument", which is about original research, are in favour of original research. Read what the rant that the editor wrote actually said about Wikipedia's content policies. Xe is not in agreement with the prohibition against original research. Uncle G 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Fine, could you quote one of these comments for me? I'm on the other side of the argument myself, but I am completely opposed to OR, so your portrayal seems absurd to me. Everyking 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Uncle G has currently added much to a new draft, and all of the information has its sources. While it doesn't contain nearly enough as before, I believe that it has enough to not be considered a stub-class article anymore. Btw, I would add stuff, but I don't know how to cite sources, so I would appreciate it if someone showed me how. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 19:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Never mind about the sources part; Uncle G gave me some links. Anyways, I personally feel that the article is pretty much "ok'ed" for now. It has enough information, and it seems fine. I think that it has enough information for two things: one, not to be considered a stub, and two, enough information to make it so that fans of the CnC will likely not revert it. Also, should the link to the Wikia be included? I mean, it is the "official" wiki for CnC, right? --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 15:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

I'm just going to say that I'm actually kinda impressed by the way the article is. No doubt the original was far better, but there's one problem I'm seeing: We've got redirects to Tiberium that don't talk about the topic. Unless someone wants to make a crappy "list of Tiberium-related creatures" article, things like Visceroids need to be adressed. Scumbag 02:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised at the length of this talk article in itself. I mean, this talk article is 93 kb long. 93! That's larger than some of the essays that I have written for class! And almost all of it is about citing sources, reverts, story, information, whatever. Moreover, this talk page is longer than some of the talk pages for the worst (in quality) pages that I have seen. For example, the talk page for the article Stronghold is much shorter, and the quality is also much, much worse (i.e., no sources at all). This article is looking good now, however. I'm impressed. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 17:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Im sorry but no.

This article lacks in alot of details that we have available now a-days. Contrary to popular belief, EA games didnt screw around with Command & Conquer's storyline as much as most of us thought they would. Most information provided about GDI, Nod, Tiberium, Etc. can be linked with the story elements in the prequels. So for instance in Tiberium Wars, why not add information about how tiberium spreads?

Also to those of you morons reading this who think we are morons ourselves for describing fictional things with such detail- All we're doing is analyzing the story. If you dont want to have an immagination fine dont yell at us for it. But hey...You're the one who searched "Tiberium" in the first place... --Periphelion 21:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

  • However much you want the information back, we cannot allow it. The information from before just had no sources at all, and was not important. Think of it this way: if you were the average joe, and wanted to know "what is this tiberium that everyone is so obsessed about?", would you rather look at this article, or the previous article that was filled with fancruft? --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 23:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The answer, of course, is the one that you consider fancruft. After all, "Fancruft" is just another word for "information I don't consider important." Scumbag 04:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Except some of the text seem rather erroneous. For instance, this: "Partial contamination of a human, which can occur within 20 seconds, requires immediate treatment in the medical bay of an infantry support unit known as an Armory. Contamination of vehicles requires a utility vehicle known as a Rig". First mistake is easily correctable, since an Armory would rather obviously be a building and not a unit. Now, anyone whose played the game will know that vehicles sustain no damage whatsoever from tiberium regardless of exposure time. This appears to be a misreading of the quoted source, since it well... reads like fancruft. CABAL 17:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If the text is erroneous, you should be able to prove it by citing a source, that is at least as reliable as the source supporting the text, that gives the correct information. Sources are what we work with here at Wikipedia. (And no, it isn't a misreading. The source that is cited is unequivocal.) Faced with a choice between a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor who claims one thing, and a source that states something different, Wikipedia policy is to go with the source. If you have no sources, you have no argument. Uncle G 00:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
        • At the very least, its a misreading of the source: "As for healing and repair, some of the factions have the ability to restore health to their infantry and fix up damaged vehicles. For example, GDI has an infantry support center (called the Armory) that also includes a medical bay. Soldiers can be treated for Tiberium contamination and combat wounds in this facility. GDI also has a utility vehicle called the Rig that can repair damaged vehicles" The text makes no exclusive mention whatsoever to tiberium within that context for vehicles, only general repairs. CABAL 08:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
    • "We cannot allow it"? Yes we can. As long as it has a source, it should be fine. The "average Joe" argument is a very old one, and a very bad one. Are you going to make this argument for World War II also? Of course a mere summary can be more helpful to the casual reader—but we don't just serve the casual reader. Try reading Wikipedia:Summary style. Everyking 05:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • If we don't just serve the casual reader, then we've got a lot of work to do, to reinstate the important information to the article. Growth rates, forms of mutation, enviromental impacts... Scumbag 04:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes. We need to find the best possible sources for that info. Everyking 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Already found the best possible sources for that information. Confirmed, fact-checked sources, that anyone can effortlessly find and confirm. Others wish to find less-than-best sources for information, so I'll let them deal with that. Scumbag 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Let' see some sources, then. World War II is a real-life event, while Tiberium is fictional. There would be more information for a real event (a big one at that) than for a fictional event. Just stating the manual doesn't cut it, as not everybody has the manual; they cannot check to see that the information is correct. Someone could say "the Tiberium made teh sky purples" and state the manual, even though it is false, but nobody could verify if it was true or not. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense. Not everyone has access to books or journal articles that are used as references. A reliable source is reliable no matter who has it. Citing the manual isn't an uncommon method of referencing video games, so long as editors don't go overboard with using personal experience to supplement it. The point of referencing isn't to cater for readers who want to verify; it's to state where the information came from, and anyone who cares enough can check it out themselves. You can't say "Tiberium made the sky purple" because there are no sources that state that; whereas saying what's already in the article is valid because there is a source. See Gears of War for an example of an article that uses both manual and external references.
As for real life events having more sources than fictional events: where's your source to back that claim up? Granted, video games tend not to be written for elsewhere, but some fictional elements may be more documented than real life content. Look at anything related to Star Wars and Star Trek.--Scottie_theNerd 02:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
For further reference, it's worth driving into the ground just how wrong that argument is. It would mean Wikipedia-wide rejection of every single literary source, every TV show, every radio program and every interview, except those that are publicly accessible online. No. --Kizor 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Dang tests...I don't even know what I am writing on the Wikipedia anymore. Man, what I wrote is just total bs. Sorry about that...stress. I need a Wikibreak. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 02:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
No hard feelings, and sorry to hear that. Just wanted to make sure it's clear. --Kizor 06:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current problems with article

So, here's how I see it:

  • Poor sourcing or Cited sources aren't saying what some editors think they say. I suspect that this is caused by editors who don't quite understand and/or can't parse what the sources are saying. Armor isn't impacted in the slightest by Tiberium; only infantry. The Armory has nothing to do with Tiberium poisoning, nor does the Rig. That's just one of 'em.
  • Article doesn't answer the Why/What Questions. Why do both sides fight over Tiberium? Why does GDI attempt to purge it? Why does Nod fight for it and use it in their weaponry. Why did the Scrin seed the planet? What are the mutations? What are the Tiberium-based creatures that have risen in Red Zones to make them un-earthlike? These are obvious questions with obvious answers.
  • Under-reliance on the best sources. This one is painfully obvious, with an obvious solution.

There's more, of course. But this is a start.

Scumbag 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd like to add a question about sourcing. Would CNC3 screenshots suffice adequately as sources? CABAL 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Would screenshots / transcripts from the various Cutscenes from Tiberium Dawn and Tiberium Sun count too? Because There is a goldmine of information in those scenes (Such as the chemical makeup of Tiberium [Tiberium Dawn/Tiberium Sun era] and gasses produced, or Dr. Mobius's comments in the Science Talk Clip (video clip from Tiberium Dawn). 216.19.115.116 17:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no reason why content from the original games shouldn't count. The Final Fantasy X article achieved FA status while using a large number of in-game quotes as sources, which indicates a consensus or at least strong support. If those insisting on legit sources say that we cannot quote the games themselves, that would be akin to insisting that none of our content about Romeo and Juliet can come from the play itself, and at that point I will scream. (No, I did not compare Westwood to Shakespeare, I said that the concept is the same.) --Kizor 00:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay I found the transcript of the "Science Talk clip", Doctor Moebius: "Molecularly, it's a non-carbon based element. It appears to have strong ferrous qualities; with non-resonating reversible energy that has a tendency to disrupt carbon based molecular structures. It has unequal positrons orbiting on the 1st, 2nd, and 9th rings." [After Host asks what that means]"The consequence of this structure is that the possibilities of Tiberium are limitless." 216.19.115.108 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

I have added a "Name" paragraph... AnoreX 20:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tag on discussion page

So that the eternal holy crusade of the reverend MiB can end. --Mikael Grizzly 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, have a medal. --Scottie_theNerd 16:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A way to destroy Tiberium?

In Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars I got to know that the GDI may have found a way to destroy Tiberium (this info can be found in the inteldatabase in the game) using some kind of sonic weapon that disrupts the monocuul structure of Tiberium (or something like that, I'm not good in chemistry). Does anybody know more? It would be nice if somebody added that information to the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.82.122.173 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

From the technobabble EA gave out, it seems all they've really said is as follows: Tiberium's resonant frequency has been discovered, and they are making use of mechanical resonance to break it down. Within the terms of the game, pulses fired by sonic emitters are at the same frequency as Tiberium's resonant one, causing the material to destabilize and break apart. CABAL 22:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Tiberium spikes are also used to gather underground Tiberium in the area, preventing it from spreading. --Kizor 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Get with the times...

Can somebody plz put some tiberium screenshots from CnC 3? Green and Blue Tiberium please (86.82.122.173 12:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC))inAbag

[edit] Remove Armory/Rig references?

I say we remove that part of the article. As it has been previously stated, not only this well-sourced and verified information (sarcasm) is incorrect (Vehicles do not suffer Tiberium contamination), it also smells of a game guide, since both Armory AND the Rig are present only in C&C3. Fails WP:NOT? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erratic Communist (talk • contribs) 20:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC).


I agree, at the very least this sentence;
'Partial contamination of a human, which can occur within 20 seconds, requires immediate treatment in the medical bay of an infantry support unit known as an Armory'
Should be changed to this;
'Partial contamination of a human, which can occur within 20 seconds, requires immediate treatment in properly equipped medical facilities.'
--Lazyjim 19:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liquid Tiberium

Can Somebody add an article about liquid Tiberium? Or does it have to be added at the CnC 3 article? inAbag(86.82.122.173 16:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Tacitus merge

Would anyone be opposed to merging the Tacitus information on the Miscellaneous technology of Command & Conquer page with this one? The Tacitus appears to have a direct connection to Tiberium, and it isn't enough to stand on its own, especially considering how sparse that other article is. Peptuck 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't you make that article even more sparser by moving the Tacitus section over here? CABAL 18:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
To tell the truth, I think the article simply needs to be deleted, and the only reason it really still exists is because of the Tacitus section. The crates section is gameplay stuff, not actual technology, and doesn't belong there at all. Unless we find some other way to expand the article....Peptuck 05:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem here however is that the main article is vigilantly maintained by a person who has never played the game and is basing his (or her) information off a rambling EA employee with a funny name. Then there's also the reference-vigilant anonymous who removes any content that does not have little numbers next to it while citing "not excellently sourced", in which case the whole article should be removed by extension anyway. How about this: Tacitus info can go into the Scrin article, and the Miscellaneous Tech page can be put up for deletion. CABAL 20:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
That can work, though its not clear yet if the Tacitus is actually Scrin in origin (I'm not sure, as I haven't played through the whole campaign yet myself due to a hard drive failure on my 360....) At the very least the Tacitus is Tiberium-related, which is why I think it should go here.Peptuck 02:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, it might not go into the Scrin article after all. There's an entry in the Intelligence Database that describes the Tacitus as similar to Scrin tech. The way its worded, the Tacitus sounds like it may have come from another similar race instead. CABAL 14:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. The Tacitus is in a weird gray area in regards to the rest of the C&C material; its not necessarily Scrin, and on its own it doesn't rate an article, but it is Tiberium-related. Peptuck 21:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Just remember to throw in references. This article is vigilantly-maintained by its own Gestapo. CABAL 03:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:OWNERSHIP :P Peptuck 05:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page

I've basically redone the entire page. Need some help on removed duplicate material as well as refs. -- Warfreak 09:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of universe clean-up

I've reverted the reversion to the older article that lacked information. Per WP:FICT in-universe information such as plot summaries and similar content can be added to an article as long as it remains from an out-of-universe perspective and is encyclopedic. I would also like to add that I think it would be better that, instead of bluntly reverting to older versions, we could instead put some effort into citing the in-universe material properly; it needs some reorganization and rewording to remain properly encyclopedic, but I can see this article looking better and providing good information on both Tiberium's external and internal signifigance if we'd put some effort into it instead of being lazy and reverting. Peptuck 06:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Two pages of in-universe description written as though this were a part of a C&C worldbook is not out-of-universe or encyclopedic. Start by taking the reliable sources (meaning, not original synthesis derived from the games and their manuals) and using those to add information from the article. Cramming a bunch of in-universe information and reverting when it's removed as unsourced with cries of "Why aren't you sourcing it?" just takes us back to last April. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
One small problem there, Tiberium is a fictional material and it has to be talked on its effect in the alternate universe from and outside universe point of view. You aren't really helping by deleting all the non universe part while you can just modify the words. And besides, it is useful to know of its effects on the other universe. In fact, if everything was encyclopedic, this article wouldn't even exist. -- Warfreak 21:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be rephrased. It needs to be deleted from this project and moved to a project that does deal with fictional universes in explicit in-universe detail, because this isn't that project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Like Peptuck said, you can help by repharasing the words to make it more encyclopedic and you are clearly not helping by blatantly revert which serves nothing. Stop be a pain and start to help and not revert the article. You can change it to make it more encyclopedic but by reverting, you are making the situation worse. If this keeps continuing, I will consider bring a third party to settle this. -- Warfreak 22:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The way it is worded isn't the problem. The problem is that it's original synthesis based on playing the games themselves, with an eye to describing a fictional universe to the exclusion of the real one. What real-world significance does the exact fictional year of the Second Tiberium War have? What real-world significance does the exact percentage of Xylene in Tiberium have?

Encyclopedia Gamia is the place for this sort of thing, and the previous article, which had exactly the same problems, was moved there and replaced with a nicely-sourced, out-of-universe article that emphasized Tiberium's place in the real world, as an element of a game, not a compound which has transformed a world. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a third party to settle this. Can you help the article for the time being till this dispute is settled for once? -- Warfreak 22:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Removing a pile of in-universe, unsourced original research is helping the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Unsourced? Surely three video games is clearly not evidence of source. Leave this argument till a third party settles it. -- Warfreak 22:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you read this talk page? We're back where we were in March; deriving conclusions by observing the games is original research. Bird isn't sourced to observing a bird in flight, and it wouldn't be well-sourced even if you observed a thousand birds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok then, using your little argument, what about the article of Scrin Exactly the same deal, in universe. What about Global Defense Initiative? Or Brotherhood of Nod? All are in universe, yet they are allow to do around continuing to exist as it is. If you want sources, explain to me how you use computer games as sources, cause I will use them just to end this argument. -- Warfreak 22:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Barely tolerated, until they're deleted or completely rewritten. I don't see how the existence of other bad articles overrides WP:WAF, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Please don't ruin the good articles by making them more like the bad ones.
The answer of how you use a computer game as a source is that you don't. The game can be cited in a very limited way to describe itself, not as the single source for an elaborate article describing the game's fictional universe. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to use this as my final reponse, I'm getting bored of this extremely pointless argument. I'm taking the line Peptuck took. The in game material needs to be cited and written from a out universe perspective. It does allow plot summaries and similar material if it is written from an outside-universe point of view and encyclopedic. As long as it is, there is no issue with the article as the WP:FICT allows this. This is not original research, it is actual in the game universe if you actually look at one of the sources, it contains all the material for history and the ilk. Just because it doesn't seem to have been cited, doesn't meant that it is. -- Warfreak 23:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Opinion

Article
  • The article is written in an in-universe style.
  • The article is not properly cited with reliable sources.
  • The article contains no encyclopaedic content.
Problems
  • On this talk page, there is a message stating: "This article is about Tiberium and it's role in the real world." Not a single mention of this role exists in the article. What does this mean?
  • A certain degree of in universe information is allowed in articles as this. For example, plot summaries with the purpose of providing background information to encyclopaedic sections are appropriate. However, in this article, there are no encyclopaedic sections. It is just one big plot summary.
  • Reliable sources focusing on the subject matter are hard to find for this article, as most sources only deal with the games. However, the Planet CNC articles are reliable, as are the two IGN articles specifically about Tiberium.
  • How to improve seems to be disputed. Whether to go for a complete rewrite approach, and making sure everything is sourced, or changing the current article to adapt to policy, is a choice to be made.
Suggestions
  • The most important issue to solve here is the lack of encyclopaedic content. Some questions that I think need to be answered here are listed below. These can all be described easily from an out of universe perspective. The answers to these questions need to be addressed by a reliable source before they can be included.
  • Note the different games (and novels?) Tiberium has appeared in, and elaborate the differences between the appearances, if any. This should be done in the lead.
  • The etymology of the name. Why was it named after a river near Rome? Was it even named after that river? The lead again.
  • Use as a plot device. The post apocalyptic world is a common setting of science fiction novels. What other fictional substances can Tiberium be compared with, or what books contain elements similar to Tiberium? Kind of a "See also" section in prose form.
  • Use as a game resource. Stone, gold, money, and energy are all common resources. In what way does Tiberium change the gameplay of the games it appears in? A section "effect on gameplay" could be made.
Besides the name and the plot, I think all of the above have been mentioned in the sources already cited, and other sources (reviews) could be found.
  • Either after or before writing up some encyclopaedic content, something akin like the suggestions above, decide what amount of plot summary is necessary. For the plot summary I must agree with the "complete rewrite" approach suggested above. Besides the general information (which could be as limited as "A toxic and valuable crystal found on earth in a near future") only relevant information should be included. For example, if the fear of Tiberium has been compared to the fear of the Outside in Asimov's Cities, the fact that Tiberium forces men to abandon the world and retreat into underground cities would be relevant to the plot summary. (Not a real example) And when asserting that Tiberium takes the place of the resource "money" in the traditional CNC game, the plot summary should include something about the use of Tiberium as currency.
  • If the above process results in a small article (very plausible) a merge into a topic like "List of Command and Conquer related topics" might be appropriate.
Conclusion

Plot summaries are to provide background for encyclopaedic content, and are not valid content by themselves, how well-sourced they might be. Rewriting a plot summary to an out of universe style is not enough alone - the article needs to include encyclopaedic content as well.

Notes

As the spirit of the rule is more important than the letter, I am not a fan of citing a huge number of pages starting with "WP" in my reasoning. However, these are some of the policies applied above, for reference:

  • WP:NOT - A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.
  • WP:FICT - Elaboration of the above.
  • WP:RS - Do not use the game itself as source.
  • WP:VG/GL - Contains good guidelines on similar issues.

--User:Krator (t c) 00:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

PS: Welcome back, MIB.

Thank you. I would also like to add that there are featured articles that have used plenty of primary sourcing for citations, particularly regarding in-universe material and information. For example, the Final Fantasy VIII article or the Halo 2 article. Both of them use a large number of primary source citations, particularly from the games' own scripts. And we must always remember that with few exceptions, Wikipedia's policies are not set in stone and everything must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Peptuck 01:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
After my banning for breaking the 3RR rule on this article, the admin who I talked to has created a userspace for this article. Anyone who wants to help me fix up the original article, before this incident, can feel free to do so. -- Warfreak 02:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider Final Fantasy VII and Halo 2. They recap the plot, focusing only on points important to the work as a whole, and reflecting the structure of the work as a whole. This is how to use primary sourcing, and even this is less than ideal.

Contrast it with this version of this article. It synthesizes multiple games' stories, in a form that doesn't reflect their structure (it's not retelling the story but instead taking setting bits and forming them into a whole) and often focusing on facts that aren't important to the stories ("Xylene - 2%" anyone?). These problems aren't fixable except for ditching all the original synthesis and going and doing some research.

Wikipedia's policies are fairly flexible. Feel free to ignore the wording of a rule if it doesn't serve the rule's intent. But don't blow off the intent just because you want to. Do not invoke IAR because you think by ignoring the rules you can make an article a better fanpage, because we're not making fanpages here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I'd just like to bring one thing up, namely Tiberium's etymology: The small section that described the origin of its name was removed along with the rest, and I had that bit sourced using PlanetCNC content. CABAL 05:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Stop picking on the Xylene, what did it ever do to you? Anyway, the chemical composition is important. Tiberium is a fictional substance, a substance that has a chemical composition. Consider an alloy such as brass or steel, those require composition on the minerals in it. Think of the chemical composition as the chemistry makeup of it. Just because its a bunch of numbers, doesn't mean it is an original synthesis. It has been back up by several sources. And who said about making a fanpage? We aren't paying homage to this resource, just describing what it is. And besides, an encyclopedia surely allows the makeup of a substance. Look at Petroleum and chemistry. Same thing, different format. -- Warfreak 05:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
No, the chemical composition isn't important. It isn't necessary to know to understand Tiberium as a game element. It isn't important to understand the story of the games. It isn't necessary for anything. (Contrast this with brass or steel, which exist in the real world and their composition is key to understanding how they were developed in the real world and key to comparing them to other metals in the real world.
Note that none of the references in reliable sources mention the chemical composition. All of the sources for the in-universe fanpage composition section are other fanpages, which are not particularly reliable sources.
Remember, in the real world Tiberium is a plot device and game element, and this article needs to describe it as such. It is not a compound, so comparing its article to the articles for actual compounds is not useful. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate changes to the article. Asking for mediation and then ignoring the results is not appreciated by the mediator. --User:Krator (t c) 16:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I tried but then, a heavily referenced version got reverted by AMIB so basically, I've given up on the article. -- Warfreak 03:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Which version was this supposed heavily referenced version? Please link the version you're talking about. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
This [[2]] -- Warfreak 00:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Ref #10 and #11 are fansites written by pseudonymous authors, and #12 is a mirror of an old version of this article. That's horrible sourcing. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Calm Down Everyone

Can everyone calm down for a while and not take this too seriously. Just not edit the article and leave it as it is for a few days till everyone calms down and stops arguing. Then we can decide, as a community, on what should be done to improve this article, taking the third party opinion into consideration. I'll refrain from editing, hoping others will calm down and follow by example -- Warfreak 10:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I am gone for two months and already more arguments have arisen. I watched the progress of the article, and, frankly, personally I'm not too impressed. Primarily because of the unsourced statements, such as "chemical composition of Tiberium". Petroleum is completely different; it is real, most people use it everyday, whereas Tiberium is completely fictional. However, both are similar in how they are both subjects, but whatever. This is going back in time here. View the other arguments that we made, and you should find that they are very, very similar. If you truly want in-universe content, visit the wikicity that is purely on these things. You can edit all you want there, since the creator of the wikicity would be the ruler/master/whoever. --Įиʛ§øç βїʛβяøтњєя Rant | Contributions 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Right

Does anyone know if the name "Tiberium" is protected by law? For example, if I would like to write a song about it or make a fan-video or something like that, who do I have to ask for permission? 88.77.254.141 00:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

EA has the the CnC licentcie so I think you will have to ask for EA's permission. inAbag

[edit] Appearance of tiberium changed in CnC3

Is it worth mentioning thast Tiberium does not grow as pods in C&C#? TheKillerAngel 13:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Different sections to different Tiberium?

In both Tiberian Dawn and Tiberian Sun, Westwood had their own interpretation of how Tiberium worked. When EA made Tiberium Wars, they hired the students from MIT to redefine Tiberium. This move created anger among many fans, due to EA changing what we know and love about Tiberium (and the fact that all they had to comment about it is that "it changed"). This article needs to have different articles for the different stages of Tiberium history, as currently it is focusing mainly on what EA said, and not what was said by Westwood, who had their science correct as well. Since this article is a hot seat for editing, I would like to ask your opinion; should it be divided into different sections for the different stages of Tiberium's alleged 'evolution'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omega Gastroid (talk • contribs) 23:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still not it.

In its present state, the article is STILL horrible. In the mad crusade for getting everything cited the article itself has been reduced to something incomprehensible. Half of it cites 'one single source' - Verdu's blog. With all the respect to Mr. Verdu, his blog alone isn't even nearly enough to create a comprehensible article, not to mention that it lacks information on Tiberium itself. The argument "C&C wiki has all the in-game info" won't do. This isn't C&C wiki, we're supposed to provide information 'right here'. I will try to create a version of the article in my userspace that will focus on the development of Tiberium lore in different games instead - and, of course, incorporate elements from both the present and past versions. I think the article should look like Kryptonite, which, by the way, is B-rated. Erratic Communist 21:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updating Zones

Hey everyone, just updating the Blue, Yellow, Red and Unknown zones from the opening movie in C&C3. If you edit it, please try to be specific on the locations of the zones: which countries are in what zones, what part of the countries.

I have 99% of the blue zones covered, I'm still having trouble finding which countries are in what red zones though... it's especially difficult to see which countries are in the Eastern European Red Zone and the Himalayan Red Zone.

Thanks :)

Direxmd (talk) 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna be honest. Going into the level of detail on the Zone sthat's being done in this article is unencyclopedic and fancruft, and the wording is very, very in-universe. Also, it looks like we're trudging too deeply into stuff that Wikipedia is not. This stuff really needs to get cut back and really belongs on the CNC Wikia. Peptuck (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it telling that people keep adding content to this article that thousands of Wikipedia articles do without pause? Scumbag (talk) 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that its unencyclopedic, cruft, in-universe, and in this case, can even be defined as original research. Its not our fault that people don't follow Wikipedia's policies when adding content that isn't encyclopedic. Peptuck (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
If thousands of people keep adding something to a product, enough that those that are following the quote-unquote rules are the minority, what does that say about the product? No need to answer, the real answer is staring us in the face right now. Scumbag (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Woooow, relax champ. I will forward the information to C&C wiki. Just trying to do what I thought was best. Cant crush intentions no matter how badly you want to flame someone. Where can I go to retrieve the hours of research I posted, that was deleted? And yes all this comes from the C&C website through google earth.Direxmd (talk) 08:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Tiberium-infected human - Objectional

That picture of a human infected with Tiberium grossed me out really badly. Is it that necessary to have this picture in the article? It's terrible enough just to look at it poke out of the skins of those "Forgotten" or whatever they're called in Renegade. 20:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because it looks ugly doesn't mean it needs to be removed. No censorship on Wikipedia, etc. Peptuck (talk) 20:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Becoming A Critical Issue

I mentioned before in a previous post that this page relies too much on a retcon that, as far as continuity is concerned, does not exist in any extent. The entire page uses quotes from Mike Verdu and his team of MIT scientists while completely ignoring several games that took place before this study that showed a completely different Tiberium with completely different, yet still scientifically stable and in-game, uses and properties. I believe that this can be counted as violating the the pages right to WP:NPOF (a neutral point of view), as the entire focus is on a study while completely ignoring ten years worth of studies of Tiberium made by Westwood. Even if the page is completely neutral, there still should be mention of the biological Tiberium that existed in far more games than Verdu's Tiberium, which is in a total number of one available games. Comparing that to the six games that the original Tiberium is in, along with six games having a spore method of Tiberium spread, two games with Tiberium fauna and wildlife, and four games with the adverse effect of Tiberium on biological creatures, which is far different from the current Riberium created by EA. Obviously, this article focuses on one person who directed one Tiberium game, while ignoring six games and multiple Westwood employees that show a completely different view on the topic. No retcon has ever been made, just a rethinking of Tiberium for the third installation of the series and no recognition or backtracking to say that all that was said in the games before it never happened or are incorrect. So how about we all do something about this one-sided article and clean it up? Clearly, redoing it without the consent of this page would probably be considered vandalism, so thus I come to plead to you all now. And no, this is not the responsibility of the C&C Wiki. This issue has solely to do with this page. Omega Gastroid