I am a fan of Civ since 1991 when I purchased the original Civ1 box in UK. Needless to say that it is my super-favourite game. I would like to start an Italian page. That would consist almost totally in the transIation from the English one. I do not see an option for doing this in the wiki...
Thanks for your message! Since this is an English wiki, we prefer to keep all of the pages on it in the English language. However, I appreciate what you want to do, and I managed to find an Italian Civilization Wiki that has only 4 pages at this time. You could do a lot to help expand it, and could even add interwiki links from this wiki to that one and vice versa (by adding [[en:<pagename>]] to the bottom of Italian wiki pages or [[it:<pagename>]] to the bottom of English wiki pages) in order to direct readers to the page they want to see.
If you have any questions, please let me know. Good luck with this project! :)
Hi Mythril, thanks for reverting the edits here. Like I said, I'm a beginner. I think it would make more sense to newbies if it something like this was added to that sentence (addition in italics): Their effects aren't cumulative within a city, though: a city with both a Commercial Hub/Market and a Harbor/Lighthouse only increases Trading Capacity by one for that city, though it increases your empire's[?] capacity by one.
Do you see the confusion I have? Thanks for all your work! - RK7
Thank you for your message. Since the first paragraph of the Trading Capacity subsection defines it as the number of Trade Routes an empire can support, I think any references to "city Trading Capacity" would be more confusing than helpful. I rewrote the second paragraph of that subsection in a way that should make the concept clearer, and also added some information from Gathering Storm that had not yet been mentioned.
Okay. I see your extensive edits, and I appreciate it. Still, I would have stated the sentence this way for clarity (italics are what I would add):
for example, a city with both a Commercial Hub/Market and a Harbor/Lighthouse adds only one Trading Capacity to your empire, not two
I see what you're saying and maybe you're right. The text said Empire a few sentences before. But it still strikes me as not making the underscored point, right at the place the text should be making it. We're talking about the empire, not the city.
In my experience, if someone brings up a point, there are probably dozens - or in the case of a game wiki, 10k - who are not understanding it, but not saying anything. If the suggested edit doesn't actually make the resulting text wrong, than I just accept it, even if it is arguably a little more verbose than needed.
Anyway. That's all I'll say about this.
And thanks for your careful curation of the Civ6 Fandom wiki! You are a very good soul.
Hello, I am back to the editing game. I will try to brush up the strategy section on a lot of these pages by dividing them into sections. I will also replace the last strategy placeholder on the England page, since GS has been out for more than a year now, just like I did with the Maori before I left.
I have one question because you know my OCD gets triggered when all the tidbits on different pages do not align with one another. Remember one time I bugged out about the infobox on a lot of Tech pages (Rifling, for example) do not correctly reflect the era that it is from? I contacted ZeroOne shortly before I went MIA on this page and he explained to me the infobox populated the era for the tech automatically based on its cost and here is what I found (copied and pasted from our convo):
"As you know, Firaxis introduced multiple patches making Tech cost more to make the game last longer. The editor that edited the Rifling page didn't do the same for every other tech pages that were affected by the changes. You can see Economics and Rifling, which are supposed to be 2 equivalent techs, but have 2 different costs, cuz the cost of Rifling is the updated one while on Economics page, it is the old one. Since they edited the cost of Rifling, the template, which is outdated, mistakes that the tech may be in a later era. Same thing happens for Steel, Replaceable Parts, which is updated to have the new cost so they are considered by the template to be in a later era, but not Flight, which is equivalent to those two techs, but has an outdated Science cost, thus in its correct era.
I suppose this happened before I came to be a frequent editor, because if one page gets updated but its equivalent doesn't, it will bother me a lot. What I suggest is to update the template so that it is in line with the new Science cost, then I will make sure that every tech page will display this new cost. I also suggest that we use the Vanilla version tech cost for now, since the June patch just introduce another wave of new tech costs for GS players alone, sticking with the Vanilla costs seems to make more sense cuz it gives everyone a general and uniform feel of how each tech costs relatively to each other."
I know that updating the entire template is a tall ask, since there are multiple version with multiple tech costs, and most likely there may be another patch rolling out to mess it up again. What I suggest is to revert all tech costs to the Vanilla values, since they won't change, and I don't think readers will look up the tech cost on wiki regularly, but the contradictions between the introduction sentence of the tech and the info on the infobox may confuse them.
If you are able to make it down here on this wall of text, congratulations and thank you for your time :)
Welcome back! In response to your request/observation, I think the way to make the technology pages as accurate and comprehensive as possible is to have multiple tabs in the infobox (and perhaps add an era field to the template to allow it to be entered manually), much like we have in the infobox for technologies in Civ5. That way, neither the players who play only vanilla Civ6 nor those who own the expansions will be able to complain that the information on these pages is inaccurate, and if the era for a given technology changes in one of the expansions, we can display it under the appropriate tab.
That said, I'm not sure if I have the knowledge needed to make these changes to the template, and my personal and professional life haven't left me with much spare time lately. If none of the other admins (ZeroOne, Oldag07, or Exitwound 45) or regular users of the wiki are willing and able to undertake this project, I just don't know when I'll have the chance to take it on.
This is Thinking Nut. I read with interest your contributions to the main Chinese Civ 6 wiki page. It's great to see you are also writing your version of strategies for this great civ. I'd like to discuss with you two points you made:
1. You mentioned that players should refrain from getting Monument to the Gods (M.t.t.G) as their pantheon because that would duplicate the effects of First Emperor (F.E). I've extensively tested this, and M.t.t.G stacks with the F.E's effects, meaning that the original 15% would become 17.25% when combined with M.t.t.G. You might also want to consider mentioning that combining Autocracy (+10% towards Wonders), M.t.t.G (+15% towards Ancient to Classical Wonders) and Corvee (+15%) = +40%, which increases each Builder charge's worth to +21% towards any Ancient to Classical Wonder. Point is, if one is playing as China and wants to rush many Ancient to Classical Wonders, M.t.t.G would be exactly the Pantheon they would want.
2. You also mentioned that Civ 6's China has no inherent abilities that aid them towards victory conditions other than Science and Culture. I beg to differ. China's versatility means that she can pursue all the victory types with finesse. To back up this statement, here is the table I drew up in my own strategy page (for your ease of reference, I omitted the Science and Cultural Victory types to prove my point):
Rushing Stonehenge, Oracle, Jebel Barkal and Mahabodhi Temple can give a religious edge. In choosing beliefs, a setup that has worked very well for me is the following: (Pantheon) Monument to the Gods, (Follower) Divine Inspiration, (Worship) Mosque, (Founder) Pilgrimage and (Enhancer) Holy Order. Grab these whenever possible, and feel free to improvise as appropriate.
Building a huge army early and then rushing Terracotta Army can provide a military edge. This will set China up for a mid to late game domination victory. If key strategic points throughout the empire need defending, the player can fortify Crouching Tigers on tiles with the Great Wall improvement, forts and/or encampments.
 With the changes to Victor's Embrasure title, it is now possible to delegate your Production of troops to the city governed by Victor, and have your whole army come with out with a free promotion. As mentioned above, rush Terracotta Army and your army will have two free promotions possibly before any fighting has even begun! This can set up a Chinese army to be extremely deadly by the mid-game.
Beelining for the Apadana and then building as many Wonders in its parent city as possible can give China a diplomatic edge. This will maximise the two extra  Envoys per Wonder bonus and allow you to more competently compete for Suzerainty of multiple city-states. Rushing Mahabodhi Temple is also helpful.
Being a well-rounded civ, China should have no issue with overall scores.
1. Thank you for bringing that up - it certainly warrants a mention. I'll edit the Strategy section accordingly to reflect that.
2. I think you're actually reinforcing my point here. The bonuses toward Religious, Domination, and Diplomatic Victories come from Wonders, not the Chinese civilization or leader abilities or unique components. Any civ that managed to build the Wonders you mention, select the beliefs you recommend, and/or assign Victor to a city after giving him Embrasure would be able to pursue those victory conditions just as easily as China, if not moreso. However, I mention in the subsection about their leader ability that the Wonders the Chinese choose to build will have a strong impact on their path to victory, and I reiterate in the Victory Types subsection that they'll be able to pursue other victory conditions by building the right Wonders. I'll refer any readers who want to explore these possibilities to your in-depth guide - maybe it'll bring a little more traffic your way.
Thanks for the fast reply, Mythril, and for editing the main page as per my first point.
Regarding your second point: Yes, I agree that any other civ who manages to build the same Wonders would be in as good a position to win the game - if not more so. The key here is that the First Emperor ability allows China to build all these early game Wonders faster than any other civ in the game using its high builder charge + builder-rushing mechanic, and that is the direct advantage China has to win the game via Domination, Diplomatic and Religious means.
I agree with everything else you've stated.
Also, thank you for referring readers to my in-depth guide. Very kind of you.
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.