Civilization Wiki
Forums: Index > Watercooler > Game article separation

I was wondering how much separation there is supposed to be among the articles for different games. Is there one article for each tech, nation, etc. for each game, or is there supposed to be one article for the tech/nation etc. with a section for each game? Ivan284 13:41, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

No limit on the number of pages. Any page that requires scrolling to see the bottom - maybe it could be divided up (but remain with summaries and links to the separate pages). I think it will vary between games and between units etc. For a tech or unit or building or Wonder that appears in more than one game, there is value in having the main points of each together on one page, particularly for players familiar with one game who want to switch to another and need to know what differences to expect - e.g. in Civ1 you need an Aqueduct at pop 10 but in Civ2 it's needed to go past pop 8, and in Civ1 you can build a spaceship without learning horse riding, but in Civ2 you can't. — Robin Patterson (Talk) 14:32, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad this subject was brought up. Frankly I think that pages like Pikemen look just ugly and uninviting. Compare it to the nice, clean look of, say, the newly imported Civ4:Pikeman article. :) I suggest the overview pages are formatted using a table or something like that, to allow quick comparison between different games, but so that they still link to individual, templated articles. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:28, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
Templates and/or tables for the overview pages could be good, but there's such variety that standardization would be a challenge. (I think you are a bit hard on Pikemen - it doesn't look ugly to me, and it is still saying it's a stub and INVITING additions!) Civ4:Pikeman does look nice and clean, but it is also incomplete. It would be improved with a brief note about how the Civ4 version differs from other versions, going back to Civ2, where it was introduced and cost only 40 and had different prerequisites. Lots of work still to be done on this wiki, and plenty of enthusiasm and goodwill evident for getting most of it done! — Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:56, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

I suggest using an overview page layout similar to the one at The Vault, e.g. at laser rifle. It gives all links to the relevant articles at the top, and a more detailed comparison later in the article. Ausir(talk) 21:59, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

That's great! The "business end" of the code looks like this:
   The page header:

   The infobox:
|game1     =FO1
|articles1 =[[Laser Rifle (Fallout)|Laser Rifle]]
|game2     =FO2
|articles2 =[[Laser Rifle (Fallout)|Laser Rifle]]<br>[[Laser Rifle (Ext. Cap.)]]
|game3     =FO3
|articles3 =[[Laser Rifle (Fallout 3)|Laser Rifle]]<br>[[Wazer Wifle]]<br>[[Metal Blaster]]<br>[[Tri-Beam Laser Rifle]]
|game4     =FNV
|articles4 =[[Laser Rifle (Fallout: New Vegas)|Laser Rifle]]
|game5     =FOT
|articles5 =[[Sunbeam Laser Rifle]]
|game6     =FOBOS
|articles6 =[[Home-Made Laser Rifle]]
(no mention of VB there; may need checking whether that is an error or is part of the plan)

   The link at the top of a section:
{{Gamearticle|FO1|FO2|FOT|link3=Sunbeam Laser Rifle}}
The "br" tags should probably be upgraded to "br /".
Templates are at:
They should be on
Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:39, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Robin & Ausir! I would keep the Thing (Civ #) articles strictly about the game that the title refers to. A Civ V player is most likely not interested in how things were in, say, Civ or Civ II. However, all this kind of information could and probably should be added into the overview page. Some sort of a template would be great, I'm obviously a fan of them. ;) Once we have the pages templated then changing their looks is just a question of changing the template, if the template is designed properly. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 15:14, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
Then ZeroOne is probably happy with this change: Patterson (Talk) 01:21, August 15, 2010 (UTC)