Template talk:Civilization (series)

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Jackpot World (0 participants)
Bejeweled Stars (3 participants)
Melee (game terminology) (2 participants)
Solo leveling: Unlimited (3 participants)
Godzilla 2: War of the Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Godzilla: Monster of Monsters (4 participants; relisted)
Araya (video game) (3 participants; relisted)
Chao (Sonic the Hedgehog) (8 participants; relisted)
Crazy Bus (11 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Untitled 2007

Sorry - I thought it was publisher, not developer. My bad. JAF1970 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. CapnZapp (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, it should go into the "Related Games" Section. 221.128.245.7 (talk) 07:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Rhye's and Fall of Civilization article recently, and hope to follow it up with articles about other prominent Civ mods (e.g. Fall from Heaven). What about adding a list of mods to this template? —Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 21:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Done. Gary King (talk) 23:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Civilization: Call to Power and Call to Power II are not related

An IP editor moved Civilization II: Test of Time, Civilization:Call to Power and Call to Power II from Other Games to Related Games. Please look at Civilization (series) and Call to Power II. Civ:CtP and CtP II were done by Activision, which had no relation to any of the designers or publishers of the official series. There was a trademark dispute between Avalon Hill, publisher of the Civilization (board game), and Microprose, publisher of Civilization and Civilization II over the trademark of Civilization in video games. During the dispute, Avalon Hill licensed the Civilization name to Activision, which started work on Civ: CtP. In a settlement favoring Microprose, Microprose kept all the rights to the Civilization brand for both computer and board games, Avalon Hill paid Microprose $411,000 and Activision got the right to publish Civ: CtP. See Civilization (series). However, it did not get the right to use the Civilization name for the sequel. See Call to Power II. I thought some more about Test of Time. It was published by Microprose after Sid Meier's left (note there is no "Sid Meier's" in the title) and included the original Civ II with cosmetic changes. As such, it is related. I have modified the categories. While I am not sure about the advisability of including Other Civilization-style games and Other Sid Meier's games in a box for Sid Meier's Civilization series, I'll leave this issue for another editor or another time. If anyone has problems with Call to Power and Call to Power II not being considered related to Sid Meier's Civilization series, I'd suggest taking the issue to the WP:VG for other opinions. Vyeh (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, this began with Francis Tresham's Civilization board game, not with Sid Meier. CapnZapp (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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? CapnZapp (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are not in keeping with WP:NAVBOX and are explicitly never WP:BIDIRECTIONAL (for to be bidirectional would be ludicrous). Your other suggestions regarding red links or black links are also not in keeping. You should also review WP:NAV. In short, no, navboxes are for navigating between articles, not between article parts. Redirects either a) duplicate a link already present or b) duplicate some portion of a link already present. If a user is unable to identify (somehow) that a particular article has a certain expansion or some such available in the context of that article, something about the expansion is almost always within the series article (and if it's not, that's a failure on our part to do WP:SUMMARY style articles, and so the article should be improved). --Izno (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Izno just removed CivNet, Fantastic Worlds, Fame and Fortune, Wisdom and Warfare. Just a heads-up. CapnZapp (talk) 02:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]