Template talk:Civilization (series)
Untitled 2007
Sorry - I thought it was publisher, not developer. My bad. JAF1970 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Colonization
I see the upcoming game was added to the template. However, we need to distinguish Colonization from Warlords or BtS: Colonization is a stand-alone game, while the other two were x-paks that needed the main game.
The colonizatin stand-alone game is listed. The colonization CivIV do use the CivIV engine, but not an expansion per se. Not sure how it would be best to seperate it from the two expansions. AndySnow (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, it should go into the "Related Games" Section. 221.128.245.7 (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Someone deleted valid criticism of civ4: colonization. —Preceding 93.96.157.251 comment added by 93.96.157.251 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Might be a better to split critical reception into reception and criticism, because whilst the game stands up as a game itself, the criticism seems to be focused on the idealogy behind the game(?) 93.96.157.251 (talk)
Mods
I've been working on the
]- Sounds good. Done. talk) 23:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)]
Civilization II: Test of Time moved from Sid Meier's Civilization Series to Other Games
I moved Civilization II: Test of Time from Sid Meier's Civilization Series to Other Games. Sid Meier's had nothing to do with Test of Time. He had left Microprose to start Firaxis. Civilization II: Test of Time was done by Microprose. In addition to ToT, there was also Call to Power and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri that came out in the same period. Let me know if anyone has problems. I will watch this page. Vyeh (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor moved
- I agree with moving the Call to Power games, but I think that Test of Time should be moved back. It is considered part of the official Civilization canon according to Firaxis, which included ToT in Civilization Chronicles [1], a compliation of every Civilization game prior to IV.--PCPP (talk) 17:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Non-Civilization Games?
Why is there a section of non-Civilization games in a template relating to Civilization? That sounds like it would be more appropriate for a template about Sid Meier.
Sabre (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, the template relates to Sid Meier's Civilization series. If there is a justification for non-Sid Meier's games, then there is a justification for non-Civilization games. Vyeh (talk) 12:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
- The template now works for all Civilization games, Sid Meier's or otherwise, it even works on Civilization (disambiguation). –82.113.106.139 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this began with Francis Tresham's Civilization board game, not with Sid Meier.
redirects
I would like to argue that it is useful for the template to show a complete listing of all expansions, regardless of whether there is an article for them or not. I suggest the following strategies in descending aggreability:
- 1) listing all expansions. A blue link regardless of whether it leads to an article or a redirect into a "main" game article. Rationale: a reader wants all available information, including "merely" a section in another article
- 2) listing all expansions. Expansions without articles of their own are either red-linked or "black-linked" (i.e. unlinked). rationale: a reader wants to read articles when she clicks, but is still capable of exploring the main article for info on a listed expansion that lacks an article of its own
and only as a distant third
- 3) only having an incomplete listing, and only because of something specific to Wikipedia: the completeness of each article (full, stub, none).
What do you say?
- Redirects are not in keeping with WP:SUMMARY style articles, and so the article should be improved). --Izno (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)]
- Thank you for clarifying your position, Izno. (Izno, of course, is the editor whose edits I'm bringing up for discussion). Let's now await input from other editors. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)]
- Thank you for clarifying your position, Izno. (Izno, of course, is the editor whose edits I'm bringing up for discussion). Let's now await input from other editors. Regards,
- Izno just removed CivNet, Fantastic Worlds, Fame and Fortune, Wisdom and Warfare. Just a heads-up. CapnZapp (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)]
- Izno just removed CivNet, Fantastic Worlds, Fame and Fortune, Wisdom and Warfare. Just a heads-up.