Hi, the page for Warak'aq for some reasons has its picture gone. I think I saw this problem popping up once in a while, last time with the St. Basil's Cathedral. Can you teach me how to fix that problem so I won't have to bug you once I run into them? Thanks
I think it has something to do with the apostrophe in the filename stopping the template from displaying the image properly. I don't remember how we fixed the problem with the St. Basil's Cathedral page/image, but I'll look into it and see if I can figure it out. In the meantime, I'd tell ZeroOne about this as well.
Hi, I am back to editing the wiki after a few months of MIA :)
I really want to make adjustments to the pages of the governors, as you already know there were a lot of changes to them when transiting from R&F to GS. Right now, in those pages, the titles are in alphabetical order, not in the tier of the title order, and old R&F titles are mixed with new GS titles. All of that can confuse our readers, especially when considering that we now only have pictures of governors' titles in R&F and not GS (I am sorry about this, I really want to help with photos but I am not very proficient at it).
What I propose right now is to separate titles according to tier, from default titles to tier 3 ones, and we separate R&F from GS (similar to the effects part in buildings and tile improvements that I made when transitioning from R&F to GS). The main problem I run into is that right now, on the governor's pages, the titles are using direct link templates to their separate title pages. I am not sure if you are ok with (or if it is even possible) if I rewrite these pages without using direct link templates and just with normal text.
If you make it down here, thanks for reading these walls of text :)
Welcome back! I think organizing the titles by tier order and into separate columns for Rise and Fall and Gathering Storm is a sound idea - it'll make the Governors' pages easier to read and more informative for players who don't yet have the second expansion set. I'm not married to the current formatting of these pages and the use of direct link templates, so go ahead and make your proposed changes and we'll see if anything else needs to be done.
I've been trying to take a more hands-off approach to editing here, but I'll still be around to clean up any incidents of vandalism, fix serious errors with pages, and provide advice or assistance on page overhauls. Feel free to drop in if you have any other concerns or proposals to discuss.
Oh thanks, just one more quick question: Do you think we should have separate pages for Wildcard Legacy cards, considering now they are actual policy cards since R&F? I tried to make new pages for them but because, for example, the Monarchic Legacy card will redirect to the Monarchy page, so new pages cannot be created for them. What do you think?
I don’t think the Legacy cards need their own pages. They don’t have individual Civilopedia entries and aren’t unlocked by civics, so the fields in the infoboxes either wouldn’t be used or would contain information that’s already detailed on the government pages. Just make sure the legacy bonus for each government is accurate and the blurb about the Legacy card is in the intro of those pages, and we’re set. (Incidentally, I think your edits to some of the government pages combined the legacy bonuses with the inherent bonuses, which would mean they aren’t accurate. If so, they’ll need to be reverted.)
Well, a quick check of the in-game descriptions of each Legacy policy card reveals that the information currently in the infoboxes is accurate. The problem is that the XML files (which I usually consult first to resolve doubts or conflicts) have a very convoluted way of listing the information in question.
In any case, if there are no factual errors, I'm satisfied.
Don't worry, this is neither something bad nor creepy (I hope)! The Gaming community team at Fandom would like to reward users like you who have really made extraordinary contributions to our platform. For that, we'll need to send you a direct email to talk details. Is it okay if we contact you at the email address you have on file for your account?
If you're interested in hearing more but don't want us to email you, you can also join Fandom's Discord via https://discord.gg/XtW9bj . You'll find me there as Mira Laime#9344 !
That was the work of some insipid troll that has nothing better to do with its life than vandalize this wiki. It's created dozens of accounts in the last 18 months for no reason other than to cause as much damage as possible before being permanently banned.
If this isn't too much of an inconvience, may I ask if there is a way to tell how many edits+ which edits have been made on a page, who made those edits and how many edits have been made on this FANDOM wiki in total?
I've noticed a fellow contributor recently added a 'Strategy' section heading to all info on techs and civics. Now, if memory serves it was me that wrote that info, and I tried to make it sorta 'fictional', extending the game world idea of how this tech/civic came to be invented, and how it contributes to development. Now, at the time I was aware that this kinda repeats what the Civilopedia does... but the Civilopedia gives us a purely historical background, and I wanted to connect this background with the actual game developments enabled by the tech/civic in question. Which didn't work out very well, since the devs are constantly changing the tech trees and what each tech/civic actually does...
Which brings us to the new heading. As I see it, 'Strategy' is meant to be an input into how we would best use the item in question in the game. It certainly complies to this interpretation in all other types of articles (unit articles, buildings, improvements. etc.). And the old info definitely doesn't fall into this category.
So.... while I appreciate that guy's effort to maintain styling consistency with the rest of the wiki, I think we now have a major disrepancy between the headings of the techs/civics and the info written underneath. I think the best way to go would be to describe in what circumstances researching the tech/civic would be most beneficial, and, (since you eventually end up researching most, if not all techs/ civics) when and for what purposes you would rush or beeline it. Although this could also change in the future if the devs reshuffle the tree again...
Let me know what you think about this. Soltan Gris 16:19, June 3, 2019 (UTC)
I partially agree with you. If anything, I would say the current content of the Strategy sections makes these articles more consistent with other Civ6 articles that include your prose descriptions (which I'll hereafter call "lore"). The unit articles that you reference often include information in their Strategy sections that adds "flavor" before elaborating on their gameplay effects and uses, as your lore usually does in its last few sentences.
Now, I agree that the Strategy sections should focus primarily, if not exclusively, on how to use these elements in the game - but, as you say, when the tech and civics trees change with the addition of new game elements, the lore either ceases to serve its original purpose (in which case we could argue about whether or not we should keep it in the articles) or has to be revised to account for the changes (in which case it becomes more closely connected to the gameplay functions of the techs and civics and we can justify merging it with the Strategy section). In other words, by attempting to write lore that connects these elements to their in-game effects, you make a stronger case for combining this information with the Strategy sections of articles. And we definitely can and should include the other information you mention (when to beeline a particular tech or civic, which civs/leaders/strategies most benefit from researching it early, etc.) in.the Strategy sections, as well.
All this is to say that I don't have a strong opinion about this one way or the other, though I favor having all of the intro blurbs worded similarly. Now, if you want to keep your lore in the articles but you're convinced that it doesn't belong in the Strategy sections, you could skip a line and then place the sentences that don't explicitly deal with gameplay effects directly under the intro blurb (as we ultimately decided to do with the Civ5 social policy articles). The remaining information could be a good way to introduce the Strategy sections. This is probably the best way to make sure no one's work has to be undone, though it would also require more than a little time and effort to implement. What say you?
OK, how about I make a couple of 'trial' edits and you see if it makes better sense?
I feel reluctant to leave this 'lore' in the intro sections, which are strictly fact-driven. So, I think I'll try to reduce it a bit and make it more to the point; then add more practical advices to it. Let's see what will come out of it.
I like the edits you've made to Pottery (Civ6), Animal Husbandry (Civ6), and Mining (Civ6) so far - I think the content is a good fit for the Strategy sections without forcing you to throw out all the lore you put so much time and effort into writing. I'm attempting (yet again) to enter into a state of semi-retirement from editing here, so I'll let you and the other active editors expand and tidy up the rest of those articles. Keep up the good work, and let me know if you have questions or need a sounding board for ideas. :)
Thanks! I'm sorry to hear of your 'semi-retirement'... but I understand completely. To tell you the truth I wouldn't have the time, or nerves, to make all these micro-edits to fix grammar and styling errors. But I think I'll try to at least finish all the techs and civic edits (I'm glad you like what I did with the first three).
See you later!