Jump to content

Talk:Civilization (series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Omissions?

No mention whatsoever of civnet or colonization?! Mathmo Talk 10:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, what about the ports? Does the version they released for the N-Gage fall neatly into one of these categories?--Bobak 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Under "Criticism," shouldn't the citation be at the end of the article? -- 21 Aug, 2007

Sid Meier is reported as saying his development of the computer game was influenced by the original board game.
Avalon Hill allegedly sold their version in the UK in breach of the licensing agreement with Hartland Trefoil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 16:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The image Image:Civ01.png 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. --23:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

History Of the Game

I quoted many sources and the section will give game users an insight on how the Civilization series evolved through the years. I myself learned a lot from researching sources for the section.

I was surprised to read that the Civilization lawsuit issue was missing.IMO it was a big deal at the time back in 1999. EconomistBR 07:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

No Civilization IV Picture?

Just thinking here, but shouldn't there be a picture for Civilization IV, because there's at least one picture from every other game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisk (talk • contribs) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Merger?

Shouldn't this be merged with Civilization_(video_game)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savedra (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, one article is about the franchise as a whole and the other about a specific game in the series (notably the first one). Most notable video game series have a separate article for the franchise. More importantly, both articles seem supported by second sources.72.89.142.185 (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

civ talked about on bbc http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9728000/9728077.stm don't know if the views and info there is any help to this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.114.99 (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Turks replaced by Germans in civ 1

That's why the german hymn was rondo alla turca. This could be mentioned somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.56.86 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? -- Nczempin (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fall from Heaven Article

I am currently in the process of writing an article in my userspace on the popular Civ IV mod Fall from Heaven. However, seeing as I am a relative n00b here on Wikipedia, I would much appreciate some help and/or support. If you wish, you can reach me on my talk page. Thanks! Willbat (talk) 01:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Why are the civs listed in their adjectival forms?

The list used to use their proper noun forms (Japan) but now I noticed it's been changed (without discussion) to their adjectival forms (Japanese). I don't agree with this being the right move. Most of the games listed the civs in their noun forms in-game, and the latest entry in the series (Civ V) also lists the civs in their noun forms. The article should follow the style the games themselves most often use.207.237.208.153 (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Add the scenario civilizations for Civ5 in the civilization/leader lists

Since we have the non-playable civilization and leaders of Colonization, my suggestion is we add the scenario based civilization and leaders of Civ5. Since they are playable to the scenario I find their inclusion more important than non-playable civilization and leaders of Colonization.

I can provide you with all the civilizations, leaders and capitals for each scenario if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sporally (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, Colonization shouldn't be on the list as it's not a standard Civ game. It makes more sense to remove them than to add the scenario civs (which shouldn't be added, IMO).207.237.208.153 (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Potential academic source

A potential source you may want to incorporate: http://journals.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/religions/article/view/12170 (see section four) czar ♔ 05:51, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Rename

This article needs to be renamed to Civilization (video game series). People looking for the far more important Civilisation (TV series) are having their time wasted clicking through this misleading title. Rwflammang (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Extraordinary falseness

The entire "other video games" section needs to be immediately dismantled and reconstituted. C-evo is not a Civilization title, nor is FreeCiv. With Avalon Hill's title in the list, the whole section is a mess of misinformation with no discernible purpose but trivia.

However, some of the titles actually are Civilization titles, and , being surprised Call to Power actually is, I'm not sure I could save all the correct ones, compounded with not being good at wikilanguage. 99.228.111.236 (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Civilization (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Leaders

I think that while not all details of Civilization VI are announced, there should be an empty space or "N/A" instead of a red "X" in the table of civs and leaders. The red "X" means that the civ/leader is not in the game, however it is not clear yet who will and will not be in Civ VI.

And also, I think there should also be a table showing city-states in each game.

--Luchador619 (talk) 07:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Civilizations table

Since the leader table had a column for Civilization IV: Colonization, I added a column for Civilization IV: Colonization to the civilizations table. Based on the info in the Civilization IV: Colonization article, I added the capitals for the European colonies. However, I didn't add the capitals for the Native American civilizations since those weren't listed. Those should be added where necessary. Since the Aztecs, Inca, Iroquois and Sioux already have a capital listed, they may not have to have a capital added, though the Iroquois capital should be specified since the Iroquois have 2 different capitals listed. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I reverted the table back. If you check the version history, the civilization table used to have a Col section (years ago, around when 5 came out). It was decided to be removed because Col is a spin-off title and because most of the native races were NPCs instead of playable factions. When Col was removed from the civ table, basically the editors were too lazy to also remove it from the leaders table, so it got left there. Frankly, Col should also be removed from the leader table. The tables are primarily meant to represent the main series, not spin off titles, but, more importantly, they depict playable factions and all of the additional native civs in Col were AI only (this is also in line with other wiki game articles that include a list/table of playable characters; NPC and boss characters are usually not included in these lists).108.46.147.132 (talk) 00:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Gameguide material

Hi @Luchador619:,

I actually did provide a reason why I removed that list: it is considered WP:GAMETRIVIA. Wikipedia is written for the general reader, not for a gamer or a person interested in politics in pop culture. Articles on video games should describe the gameplay, a possible plot, development and release, followed by a reception section. A list of real world leaders appearing in a game series doesn't add any relevant information. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC) soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 17:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Soetermans:, I myself am not a gamer and I find that information interesting. Plus, this article is not about a game, but rather a series of games. I think it is better to put this info here that on the pages of each game which civs they include. And apparently a lot of work has been put into these tables. I would agree, that maybe the leaders table is not necessary, but the civs table, I think, should be kept. Also, with Civ VI being the second game to include city states, I think there should also be a similar table for city states, solely for trivial purposes. Plus, the tables are collapsed so they don't take up much space unless you specifically want to see them.

The article you linked (WP:GAMETRIVIA) also mentions this:

"Trivia: Such information should be integrated into appropriate areas of the article."

I believe that this trivial information is in an appropriate area and as I've mentioned, doesn't take up a lot of space if you're not interested in it.

--Luchador619 (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

A lot of work is not a reason to keep something on Wikipedia. Trivial information should be integrated, not have its own huge list. City-states too are not necessary to include. Since you're not a gamer, why do you think this is necessary to include it into the article? What are the benefits of including the list? What purpose does it serve? And to make a WP:OTHERSTUFF, why not include a list of levels, controls, weapons, vehicles, cheats? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The civ series does not have a plot. The whole focus of the series is on having historical civilizations fight/out-develop one another, so it's no uncalled for to state which civilizations have been included in the series. It's no different than how several fighting game series articles include tables stating which playable characters have been in which entry (List of Street Fighter characters, List of Mortal Kombat characters).108.46.147.132 (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
I removed the table once more. It adds nothing of valuable information and says nothing about gameplay. It is trivial, and not suitable for a Wikipedia article. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh come on. You clearly didn't achieve consensus for that in July. Waiting six months and then repeating an earlier action is not a substitute for actually changing people's minds. To my mind, the analogy with the lists of characters is more persuasive than the analogy with the list of levels/controls/weapons/vehicles. Furius (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I will add my voice that the civ table is unnecessary and gameguide material. I don't find the compared to a list of characters here compelling, as there's no narrative developed for any civ as you play the game. Further while they are based on historical figures, the devs have said repeatedly this is a loose interpretation of history and thus should not be considered accurate, so there's not significant historical content to keep. Its reasonable to note a few examples of how the game uses historical civs and figures in prose, but the table fails our content guidelines. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Furius, I just happen to come across it again. I gave several valid reasons (WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:VG/MOS) why inclusion is not appropriate, and nobody gave a good argument why it should stay. It's a gigantic table of real-world historic figures and cultures that make an appearance, without any substantial information about the gameplay or narrative. Wikipedia is written for a general audience, not for players who want to know what characters appear in a game. @Masem agrees with me. Can you cite a guideline that would allow for such a list? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 15:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
@Furius, any thoughts? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It's been over two months at this point. I'm taking it out again. Feel free to go to WT:VG or WP:RFC. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:13, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the angle you are taking that the list of civilizations is over the top for a page like Wikipedia, given the articles are aimed at the general public...but in that case, why are the lists of characters in Street Fighter and Mortal Combat allowed? You at least need to be consistent; and if you cannot be, I do not see why the list of Civilizations shouldn't return. They are just as widely loved, hated, and argued over by fans as the characters in the fighting games are; and the characters in the fighting games are of no more (in-fact arguably less) importance to the casual reader. 122.62.49.114 (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC) Jonny

There are over 5 million articles on English Wikipedia. The article that "some other articles has it" isn't valid (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Those articles need to be cleaned up too, but there's only so many editors for so many articles. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Because a minority of editors do not like or care about this material is not a reason to remove it. By contrast, myself and many others do indeed find this particular content helpful for understanding the series just as an article about battle casualties in a war containing a comparative chart would be relevant as well. There is no valid reason for this content to be removed. --143.105.17.63 (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civilization_(series)/Archive_1&oldid=1261971829"