Talk:Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars (novel)

Back cover copy

The text on the back cover has been reverted several times because it is a violation of copyright. It is not allowed by Wikipedia policy, see WP:COPY. Feel free to put a plot summary of the book in this article, but it must not be a word-for-word copy from somewhere else. That would be plagiarism as well as violation of copyright, and neither is allowed. Truthanado 02:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Suggest a MERGE into Tiberium Wars article

There is little information here, just paste it over into C&C3's article and delete this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.109.94.62 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC).

No, because this article is about the novel and have little to do with the game. Besides, it's a stub, and hopefully it will be expanded. --MrStalker ^talk 07:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Kodiak crash

There were actually no indication that McNeil was on board the Kodiak when it crashed in Firestorm. And there were no survivors in the crash according to in-game information. Maybe he had already been promoted (considering his efforts in Tiberian Sun he did a major impact on the war) and Chandra was now in command, actually it Chandra we heard talking in Firestorm so it's proper to assume he was promoted as well and took command over McNeil's ship. Maybe the text should be adjusted a bit? --ReCover 16:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Vega/Kodiak

Why would a person related to Gen. Vega fight Nod? It doesn't make sense. Secondly, the Kodiak is(or was)McNeil's ship, why wouldn't he be on it? --C&C Modder 20:27, 10 October 2007

Who knows? Dysfunctional family maybe? After all, Ricardo never heard much about Vega in high esteem. For all we know, Nod Vega wasn't the popular child of the family.Dibol (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Kodiak: The ship was destroyed in a FUBARed crashlanding in Firestorm. No point in restoring a completely wrecked ship when you can just get a replacement.Dibol (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

People deleting the Continuity Sections

To achieve a complete view and understanding of this novel, the continuity & apparent continuity sections should not be removed and people giving the excuses that it is not "encyclopaedic" or see no point in that should know that what is needed in an article is relevant information which is what those sections are. Furthermore, why should people not be allowed to learn about these information? Anyone who has read the novel and has come here to look for clarification on what they had read in the novel would want to find what they need to know, and it is the job of Wikipedia to disemminate information as an encyclopedia to people. As an earlier edit has claimed, this feels like censorship. Why don't the people who edit this article take a look at others which contain "Discontinuities" or "Continuity Errors" sections? I will not be reverting this back and will leave it to the conscience of others to put it back to its original state.

137.132.3.7 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who removed it, on grounds of Wikipedia:Fancruft. I should know, as I was the one originally put that content into the article in the first place, and then I realized that it mattered only to hardcore fans, and didn't fit a general audience, and removed it on those grounds. Peptuck (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

errors and continuity

If you do not like the sources given to cite FANS, then find a better one. Do not delete the criticism because you don't like the source. Find a better source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 18:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should I bother finding a better source when you're the one who is contributing content from an unreliable source int he first place? Or have you never looked at WP:Verifiability? If anyone here is required to find a more reliable source per WP's verifiability policy, its you. Hell, by its very nature, a source citing discussion by fans isn't even a reliable third-party source in the first place! In fact, removing such content because it is provided by an unreliable source is one of the most justified examples of removing content per WP's own verifiability policy. If the information is suspect due to unreliable sources, it should be removed. Peptuck (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not unreliable, it is what FANS are saying and the hyperlink links to what FANS are saying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelersfan7roe (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fans are second-party, not third-party, and postings on a web forum are not reliable third-party sources. WP:Verifiability. Criticism in particular requires reliable third-party sourcing. If you can find a review or other third-party web source outside of a forum, then you are wlecome to use it, but fan forums are not acceptable sources for criticism. Peptuck (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sequel

I am guessing the sequel has been canceled; its been more than two years since it was announced and there has been no further word. 99.172.3.153 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)