Hello. I've been working on adding the 2D Civ4 icons. I've done the regular Buildings so far, but I still have to do the Wonders, Improvements, and Leaders. The user ZeroOne kindly pointed me toward the Special:MultipleUpload page, but it's still tedious to add the resultant images to their appropriate categories. Is there a way to automate this?
I've noticed - they're an improvement over what we previously had on the Civ4 pages. Thanks for your work on them! The easiest way to categorize all of these files would probably involve a bot, so talk to either Oldag07 or Robal91. They both have bots they could use to complete the job quickly.
Also, since you seem to be designing icons and templates much like the ones we currently use for CivBE and Civ6, I'm going to suggest you use "<object> (Civ4).png" as the standard name for the big icons and follow the same naming and design conventions we currently use for the CivBE and Civ6 icon templates with your own templates. Again, it would be best to use a bot to make these kinds of changes on a large scale.
The trouble is that the "<object> (Civ4).png" (or .jpg) format is already used for the 3D models, which were uploaded long ago, so anything which has both a 3D model image and 2D icon will have a conflict there. For example, "Walls (Civ4).jpg" is the 3D model. It seems that the various image templates first try for .png and then try for .jpg, so if I made the 2D icon as "Walls (Civ4).png" then the 3D models would never be shown. That's why I made the decision to use the "<object> (icon) (Civ4).png" format. I've incorporated this format into the Template:SureIconIcon4 template which I've made and used in numerous places already.
I just want to say, that is not an easy task to automatically categorize uncategorized images, because there are many uncategorized images overall. The bot would have to categorize only images added recently by a specific user. I don't know how to do that. (Additionally, if it will be harder if the images should belong to different categories.) But I know that you can upload many images and categorize them immediately using DotNetWikiBot.dll - http://dotnetwikibot.sourceforge.net/. I did some my bot jobs with that library, but I've never used it to upload images. To use that library you need a BOT account.
It is also not easy to rename images with a bot. I've tried that already, but I've had trouble with renaming image references. But I want to give it another chance and finally implement this to work properly. Such a tool would be very convienent.
I just read that you wrote only Fighters and Jet Fighters can be loaded onto carriers. I just tested that Jet Bombers can also too. I believe bombers can be as well. The only plane unit that may not be able to is Biplane, this requires testing.
It was quite some time ago that an editor stipulated only fighter-class air units could be based on Aircraft Carriers. If you've confirmed that bomber-class air units can be based on them as well, all of the Civ6 air unit articles and the Aircraft Carrier article will need to be updated accordingly. Since there are only two classes of air units, it's probably simpler to just remove the tidbit about only the P-51 Mustang, Fighter, and Jet Fighter being able to be loaded onto Carriers and specifically mention which air units (if any) can't.
There are lot of leaders/civs/units with this trope of ability: Gain X combat strength when fighting on terrain Y, which most players misunderstand what it actually means. In Civ5, things like Mohawk Warrior or Ski Infantry gain CS when they stand on their designated terrains, but not in Civ6. I intend to add this to all related pages. So far I have confirmed this works with most units/civs/leaders: Menelik, Digger, Hojo, Khevsur, Highlander, the tier 3 promotion of Melee...
I have 1000 hours in game and I find this rather counterintuitive compared to what I learned in civ5, and I'm the one that loves mechanics and testing stuffs, so I think most casual players will find this helpful.
Is there any difference between these categories? Currently (at least in civ6) there are pages that are in both of these categories. Im planning to merge game elements into gane concepts category. Do you support this?
The difference between these categories has never been clearly delineated. The way I see it, an "element" is an object that is present in the game world and can interact with other in-game objects (e.g. civilizations, cities, or units) whereas a "concept" is an idea or mechanic that influences gameplay in some way (e.g. Loyalty, difficulty level, or sight). I wouldn't be opposed to merging these into one category, though, especially when all of the other readers and admins of this wiki probably draw distinctions between these categories that are nothing at all like mine.
Alright, I see now the difference, but I think it's small. I think we should merge it. Currently some pages are in both categories which I don't understand (for example: Barbarian (Civ6), Eureka moment (Civ6)).
I honestly haven't, but it's something we need to decide on. I think the most efficient way to display them would be to simply add them to the current pages for each leader, and include distinct subsection names if the Detailed Approach section of the Civilopedia is rewritten and new lines are recorded for each persona. It looks like the personas will feature different leader portraits, but those will be easy enough to add to the infoboxes with tabs (much like the ones we use to display portraits and icons in the unit infoboxes).
Sooooo, the thing is right now when I look at the page for Teddy, the description is a bit too long and complicated, I kinda want to make a new page for both his personas, considering both of these personas have their own names and civilopedia entries (I know the historical context parts are identical). On the main Teddy page we can leave an explanation and redirection/link to the other 2 personas.
Considering Catherine, maybe only 1 persona page should be created, considering the Black Queen persona stays the same.
Sorry to interrupt. I've had some thoughts as to a solution to this. How about tabview pages with subpages displayed in different tabs? Such as Teddy Roosevelt (Civ6) having pages for Teddy Roosevelt (Civ6)/Bull Moose and Teddy Roosevelt (Civ6)/Rough Rider.
I haven't looked over the XML files and Civilopedia entries for the new leader personas yet, but it sounds like many of their traits distinguish them from their original personas. I think creating subpages as Roger Murtaugh suggested is the best way to handle them - we could put the "See also" template at the top of the main leader pages and use it to link to the persona subpages (not unlike we currently do with the "for" template for Alexander and Simón Bolívar, who were originally Great Generals).
This is my proposal, anyway. I'm open to alternatives if anyone else has bright ideas to share.
Always glad to help. You all do a ton of work here and I am stunned by how much there is. It's a huge Wiki, so I just try to fill in where I can. It's hard, because everyone here seems to work hard at it and things are updated quickly, which is a good thing.
I went ahead and made the updates to the Teddy Roosevelt (Civ6) page so that it'd be easier for you all. I hope that you don't mind. It just seems like an easy way to give information on both versions and also keep it all together.
From what I can tell, it shows the names of both tabs. From there, you just click one and it brings you to that page. We could always add something to the main page that has the tabs that gives general information on him.
The page looks great, but what are you guys' opinion on how we should deal with the list of leaders? Right now, the list of leaders ignores the standard Teddy in favor of his 2 personas, but considering not everyone has the packs, I don't think this is great. But since Bull Moose and standard Teddy share the same art, I don't think we should list all 3 of them as 3 back to back to back entries on the list either.
I'll let you all decide for any other ones. I just wanted to help implement the feature for the Wiki. Compared to how much work others have put into this, I'm okay with the decision being left to those that have more experience here.
It's an interesting new feature to have in the series, though.
So I just cleaned up the 2 teddy persona pages, by adding new abilities, new agendas, new detailed approach and intro sections straight from the civilopedia.
On the standard/main Teddy pages, I left a note clarifying about the persona packs, that if you have it enabled, teddy will be split into 2, blah blah blah, but on each of the 2 persona pages, I don't leave any reference about the persona packs, I think it is kinda redundant and repetitive to copy and paste the clarification/reference on these pages, but you guys might have a different opinion on that.
And by the way, my idea of how to deal with the leader list is that we separate the personas in a different table. The main table will only display the standard version of Catherine and Teddy, the new table will be named "Alternate personas of leaders" or something like that.
Okay, I've spruced up Teddy's three pages (thank you so much, Roger for the work). We need to find his new dialogue, because I'm not sure what Teddy has kept what lines from his base game version (his agenda lines, for instance, make little sense for Bull Moose Teddy). Other than that, Catherine is next. I'll refrain from editing her pages until we get the tab system going.
Also, I've noticed that the tabs are only visible in the unified "Teddy Roosevelt" page, but are not visible in the Teddy Roosevelt (Base Game), (Bull Moose) and (Rough Rider) pages. Is it possible to fix that?
As for the leader list, honestly, just list them as separate leaders.
Hmm. It seems like it'll be tricky to do. I'm trying to figure out a good way to do it. I wish that it could all be done on one page with multiple tabs, but my attempt at that failed. It worked fine until you clicked one of the section edit buttons, which didn't work.
I'm going to move the pages to subpages. That way, there is a link to click back to the main page after an edit. It's not the same as having the tabs, but it's a way back to the page that shows each version.
For the Leaders page, I don't think we should exclude the standard Teddy from the list as we were doing in favor of his 2 new personas. I separated the personas into a different table from the standard leader list. I think it is a bit better this way since there are still a lot who do not have these 2 packs. If you're ok with it, please make the standard Teddy (that I just re-added) and the personas collapsible. Thanks.
In the unit list/unique unit list, I suggest we keep everything the same. Rough rider is unique to teddy roosevelt standard, if readers want to know more, they can click on the teddy pages to find more. We can leave a reference pointing out the persona split on the Rough Rider page though, but still, I suggest we leave the unit list the same.
As for the player colors, on wiki we use color per civ, but in game player color is bound to the leader. Civ only has a symbol (white on transparent background), then leader adds the colors. I don't know now how to handle persona's colors (but it's a minor problem I guess) :)
I just changed the infoboxes of all leader's unique unit according to your recommendation, I agree that it should be changed long time ago.
In terms of color, on this Catherine's page, in the In-Game section, there is a small pic on the right depicting her in game color to differentiate it from Eleanor's colors. Maybe you can use this sort of display for the Rough rider persona and the Magnificence persona? I'm not sure if this is what you are talking about or maybe I misunderstood.
Oh by the way, the two personas that receive new agendas (Bull Moose and Magnificence), their agenda approvals/disapprovals are all unvoiced right? Should we move those replies to unvoiced section on those respective pages?
I don't think we should add the personas to the civilization page. I mean if they want to find out about the personas, they can click on the Teddy and Catherine pages from the list of civ pages anyway.
I'm more in agreement with Kind-Hearted-One. Each persona is essentially a different leader, so I see no reason why we shouldn't list and link to the individual personas on the civilization page. This is particularly relevant to Teddy Roosevelt, who's very different with and without the Persona Pack, and I support giving all of the leaders and personae the same treatment.
When you went to the individual pages, there weren't tabs there. The main page has tabs, but the other ones, you'd have to go back to the main page to see them. This just makes it so that every page has an easier way to get to the other pages.
@Zechariah0311 You're welcome. My apologies for not getting that done. I'm glad to have helped.
@Mythril Wyrm Thank you for that. I didn't know what to do with the multiple tabs and didn't want to do anything without permission.
You're very welcome. Thank you for being appreciative of my work and letting me do what I can to help out. When I first made the tabs, I wasn't sure what people would make of it, but everyone here has been welcoming and thankful to me for the small part that I have played in helping out.
I appreciate you all for being a good community and being so easy to work with. It makes me glad that I did it. I hope that I can help where I can in the future.
I think after you added the hyphen to the page name, it stopped showing the correct page icon. Now that page just shows the standard cultural city-state. I'm bad with pictures so it's better to tell you.
Fandom strongly recommends that Category:Browse be renamed to Category:Civilization Wiki. In the past, Browse was standard, but more recent research has revealed non-descriptive words for top-level category names are really bad for SEO, and the sitename should be used instead.
Somehow many tech cost are outdated. Everything in the same column of Industrialization costs 930 sciences, but their fandom page say 700 or 840. I updated those. But I want to bring it to your attention that others may be wrong too.
Currently we use Standard Game values in the infoboxes, since not everyone owns expansions. The intro texts contain required details and changes that were made in the expansions.
We are working on tabbed infoboxes which will contain separate tab for vanilla and expansions.
I see that Zechariah0311 changed some PageIcon6 calls to SurePageIcon6 - this requires less parser calls, but SurePageIcon6 currently does not support 'linebreak' parameter. But there is a template SurePageIconLineBreak6.