<p>There's no scenario format that I know of, though you're right that we could use one. </p><p>One possible way would be to structure scenarios using subpages, including any pages pertaining to that scenario. It does have the advantage of segregating scenario content away from the main content. </p><p>For instance "Scenarios/Civ2/Rome" and "Scenarios/Civ5/Paradise Found/Hiva". </p><p>It's not very pretty but it's organized neatly and essentially transparent to the users who follow links. </p>

<p>Neat enough. Maybe a bit closer to other standards if we made it "Scenario (Civ2)/Rome" and "Scenario (Civ2)/Rome/Carthaginian" etc. </p><p>I looked at Category:Scenarios and saw a jumble of article-name-formats, no obvious help, though some of the subcategories may have clearer standards. </p><p>Question, though, before going further. As I asked on a talk page earlier today, what are the differences between scenarios and mods? If they are insignificant, we could standardise on the shorter word. </p><p>-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 10:16, September 30, 2014 (UTC) </p>

<p>I actually answered on that talk page. </p><p>I believe a scenario is a type of content for the game while a mod can be any kind of user-made modification to the game. </p><p>In that optic, a scenario is only a mod if it was made by a user and for simplicity's sake we can call those user-made scenarios, though really that definition really is a gray area. </p><p>So scenarios are scenarios that come from Firaxis and user-made scenarios are, well, user-made. </p>

<p>You did reply indeed. Now I've added to that page and we should continue it there. I've provisionally used the "( )/" format for one more scenario. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:57, October 1, 2014 (UTC) </p>

<p>See third opinion at Talk:Scenario (Civ2)/Pharaoh: the Golden Age of the 18th Dynasty. </p>