Talk:Factions in Supreme Commander
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 19 December 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was merge to Supreme Commander. |
Move
[edit]Moved from Nations in Supreme Commander. --User:Krator (t c) 12:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hilarious
[edit]Of the Aeon:
Their weapons tend to be slower firing, but more damaging, than those of their rivals.
Of the Cybran:
The Cybrans' versatility comes at the cost of having less direct firepower than the UEF or the Aeon
Of the UEF:
UEF Units tend to be physically tougher, but possess less direct firepower compared to other factions.
Could someone explain to me how it is that all three factions have "less firepower" than the other two?
--76.224.78.226 06:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, only the Aeon doesn't say that. And The Cybrans should be the other way around. The have more firepower if I remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.124.66 (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:EarthEmpire.jpg
[edit]The image Image:EarthEmpire.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Should this article be merged with Supreme Commander
[edit]TTN has attempted to redirect the article back into Supreme Commander. I believe a discussion should take place before this is done so as to establish consensus. I am against such a move, as I would like to see the content relating to the factions in Supreme Commander reduced; I feel it would be better served in a separate article. I would consider Species of Starcraft a suitable comparison. The latter is a GA, and I believe it may be possible to improve this article to a similar standard as that. I have proposed that the Command & Conquer factions be dealt with similarly, though admittedly the latter is a case of sorting out bloated individual articles.
Let us discuss this civilly and arrive at a consensus. I am approaching this subject with an open mind, I urge all other contributors to this discussion to do likewise. Thank you. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You should instead fill out the factions section in the main article with real world information if you want to emulate the Starcraft list. If such information makes the section too long, it can then be split out. There is no reason to waste time on this specifically when there is nothing of importance. Either that, or you can just find some base sources comparable to the Starcraft list, and I will withdraw the AfD for now. TTN (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's of questionable civility to launch an AFD right after having your redirect reverted - a redirect which should never have been put in place without discussion or the establishment of consensus, that being my basis for reverting. I'm perfectly happy to allow the redirect or the deletion if consensus dictates it should be so, but I really do feel that AFD is a last resort. You have made no attempt to talk things through here, and that annoys me. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The main thing is that a discussion will end up absolutely nowhere. You and I would discuss for many KB while just staying on opposite ends of the spectrum, and there is no guarantee that any other people would comment. Rather than wasting time doing that, it is just best to get it over with using an AfD even though others may feel that it is rude. TTN (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, possibly, though I'm actually a lot less inclusionist than when we previously clashed vehemently during the TV episode debate. You and Eusebeus actually won me around surprisingly enough, which is why I'm being open minded about the outcome, especially since my preoccupation with merging the Command & Conquer faction pages will probably preclude me from working too hard on this article for now. I'll see what I can do in the limited time I have anyway. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would personally focus on CNC for the moment, let this one be redirected. Get CNC done, or as close to done as you think you can get it, than have a go at this one in userspace. Much more agreeable to redirect than to delete outright, as that preserves what's already on the page in the page history for people to work on. --Izno (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Given my own time priorities, unless someone else can pick up on this one just now I'd say then yes, redirect. Certainly I'd far rather see a redirect than a straight deletion. And offtopic I apologise for my lack of CNC progress, I picked a great time for all hell to break loose in my real life *rolls eyes* Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would personally focus on CNC for the moment, let this one be redirected. Get CNC done, or as close to done as you think you can get it, than have a go at this one in userspace. Much more agreeable to redirect than to delete outright, as that preserves what's already on the page in the page history for people to work on. --Izno (talk) 00:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, possibly, though I'm actually a lot less inclusionist than when we previously clashed vehemently during the TV episode debate. You and Eusebeus actually won me around surprisingly enough, which is why I'm being open minded about the outcome, especially since my preoccupation with merging the Command & Conquer faction pages will probably preclude me from working too hard on this article for now. I'll see what I can do in the limited time I have anyway. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The main thing is that a discussion will end up absolutely nowhere. You and I would discuss for many KB while just staying on opposite ends of the spectrum, and there is no guarantee that any other people would comment. Rather than wasting time doing that, it is just best to get it over with using an AfD even though others may feel that it is rude. TTN (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's of questionable civility to launch an AFD right after having your redirect reverted - a redirect which should never have been put in place without discussion or the establishment of consensus, that being my basis for reverting. I'm perfectly happy to allow the redirect or the deletion if consensus dictates it should be so, but I really do feel that AFD is a last resort. You have made no attempt to talk things through here, and that annoys me. Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)