FANDOM


WelcomeEdit

Huayna Capac welcoming

Welcome!

Hi, welcome to the Civilization Wiki! Probably nobody has yet looked at your edit to the Jaguar (Civ5) page. It is live already, but you can expect it to be soon reviewed by one of our more experienced editors.

  • Now please take a few minutes to get to know the wiki: some instructions, guidelines and conventions are listed at the Civilization:Community Portal page.
  • Then please tell us something about yourself by editing your user page! At the very least, you should tell people which games you play, using a "User Box" or two or more - see Civilization:Userboxes.
  • When posting messages to talk pages or forum pages, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ That will automatically expand to your user name with a timestamp.
  • The Special:RecentChanges page is an excellent way of seeing what's being done right now.
  • For general discussions and questions about this wiki or any game, see the forums.
  • You also have a personal blog that you can use, for example, to share stories about your Civ games and the other games we cover. :)

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! Becer (talk) 15:17, May 21, 2013 (UTC)


Welcome to the Leader Board. you obviusly know your Civilization. i want to continue seeing you advancing up the leader board you contributions all seem so useful and well planed. there were some that once they got onto the leader board have stop editiong and have not been heard from again. they are no longer on the leader board becuase many new editors like yourself have sontinued to make great edits to this wikia.  Promethius20 (talk) 22:44, June 21, 2013 (UTC)

Template overflowing Edit

Hello, the image is fine, the template stretches as far as the text included in the fields for some unknown reason. It started happening a while ago. An overhaul of the Civ5 templates to be more like the Tech one is coming eventually and should fix that. --Becer (talk) 11:38, June 22, 2013 (UTC)

Domination victory Edit

That is a great idea. By all means, don't hesitate to go forward with is. I'd say the only time you might want to ask for other people's opinion is if you're going to be making wide sweeping changes.

To remove the redirect, go to Domination victory (Civ5) and click the "Redirected from Domination victory (Civ5)" link at the top of the page, then you'll be able to edit the redirect just like you would any other page. Feel free to do the same for other types of victories! --Becer (talk) 19:50, October 2, 2013 (UTC)

I've not looked at the details of the redirect mentioned, but there is rarely any good reason for removing a redirect on a wiki. Redirects minimize the chance that someone might carelessly or unknowingly re-create and work on a page that is not wanted. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:21, November 18, 2013 (UTC)

Dealing w/ Vandals Edit

Hi, I noticed you were actively editing today, so I figured I'd ask you who to contact to get vandals banned around here. Guess I'm basically wondering who the most active editor w/ administrator rights is. Thanks! Knives182 (talk) 00:48, November 17, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Deleting images Edit

At the moment only admins can delete files, which is probably a good thing in light of today's events.

There are two ways to go about resolving your issue :

  • You could give me a list of the pictures that need updating and I'll do it shortly.
  • Or you could become an admin and do it yourself. In fact I just nominated you in Civilization:Requests for adminship, as I feel you can be trusted to do it and the wiki badly needs an active admin right now.

I should probably keep a closer watch of course, but I got kind of overwhelmed a while ago and took a break of the wiki.

If you're interested do say it in the RFA page, I'm sure the other (and just as inactive) admins will be okay with it.--Becer (talk) 15:15, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

I actually do not know for sure why the icons aren't updating properly, if I did know at one point then I forgot. Might have to do with having to purge the images or something. --Becer (talk) 19:44, December 12, 2013 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here

Removing vandalism Edit

When removing vandalism, please use undo or rollback as much as possible. Undoing vandalism manually can lead to accidentally removing content. --Becer (talk) 16:17, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

RE: Brave New World icon Edit

Hello, I of course would not use an alt to edit the wiki. If you want to make changes to the way a template displays, you want to make your edits to the template itself, not on a case by case basis.

Edit Template:BNW to make changes to the template. --Becer (talk) 22:12, December 23, 2013 (UTC)

Were you to edit the template I linked you, you would find that the filenamed used is File:BNW-only.png, which you can access just like any other wiki page. Once you have access to the full resolution version of the picture you can download it (right click -> Save as) and edit it with your favourite image editing program, as long as it supports transparency. I personally use GIMP. Once the image is modified you would go back to File:BNW-only.png and click the "Upload a new version of this file" link.
Or of course you could just edit the template to add spaces before and/or after the image. Anything in the template that is not between the noinclude tags will be transcluded onto pages.
Hopefully that cleared up the confusion. --Becer (talk) 12:37, December 25, 2013 (UTC)
It looks fine to me! --Becer (talk) 20:21, December 25, 2013 (UTC)

Re:Categories Edit

Well since you want to know what I think, if it was up to me categories would almost never be inserted manually into pages, but instead come from the templates they have on them. For instance the great person template should give the great people and unit categories.

Pages should also ideally avoid having too much redundancy in their categories, for instance the Civilization V category is a top level category that should contain other categories and almost no content, instead of appearing on every single civ5 page. They implicitly belong to it as their categories are subcategories [of subcategories] of it.

Also to remove a category, mouse over it in edit mode on the right side and click the trash can icon.

--Becer (talk) 19:30, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

The method for removing categories does work in source mod, if you can't see the categories section on the right side expand it.
Some categories are granted by the templates they have present on their page, so you would have to either change the template so that none of the pages it's included in have that category or replace it with another template if it's only that page that doesn't need the category. --Becer (talk) 21:10, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Does this fix the problem or is it a bug? Edit

Someone edited what you wrote as a bug offering a possible explanation and solution. [1] Do you see any black bit there to click on? Dream Focus 23:25, November 6, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I hadn't understood the way the construction is supposed to work. so it's not a bug. Still, it's quite unclear what are you supposed to do once you see all these black circles around the city... it DOES look like a bug. Maybe Firaxis should add a big message, something like "Select a tile to construct the .... Gate on". Thanks for noticing this, though! Soltan Gris 00:27, November 7, 2014 (UTC)

Off-wiki Edit

Hi, Sultan! I see you're an admin at CXLW. Can you help our community at Cities XXL Wiki? It would be appreciated. Thanks. AStranger195 ~~Sign my guestbook~~ 01:38, May 5, 2015 (UTC)

CivBE In Universe Information Edit

Hello, I was wondering where that information came from, on pages like Chemistry and Biochemistry. Exitwound 45 (talk) 02:03, May 30, 2015 (UTC)

RE: Game concepts (Civ5) Edit

Hey there, I haven't been active around here either but since you're asking me : What I would do is create a social policy infobox template and implement it in all social policy pages IF it was agreed that pages for each individual policy were needed to begin with? Not even sure they are but yeah. Anyway the templates would automagically add the required categories and manual categories could be purged from the pages. --Becer (talk) 23:06, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Personally I would but if it's permission and authority you're looking for ask around for opinions. You could create a forum post and ask active admins and active users who contributed to those pages to give you their opinion. There's really no hurry and being as inactive as I am I'm not about to step in and delete a bunch of (probably superfluous) work without asking. --Becer (talk) 15:01, April 24, 2016 (UTC)

Game Info sections of articles Edit

Hey! I saw your edits on some of the Social Policy articles for Civ5, and I created Strategy sections specifically for the information you added. While there was some nice prose in your edits, I support keeping the Game Info, Historical Info, and Civilopedia Entry sections as close as possible to the way they actually appear in the game. In other words, leave information out of these sections if it isn't present in the in-game Civilopedia - this isn't a historical wiki, so our main focus needs to be on giving accurate information about the content and concepts of the Civilization games.

If you have any questions or an outside source for your new content that you'd like to share, please let me know. -Mythril Wyrm (talk) 20:36, August 24, 2016 (UTC)

Okay, turbo, I gave it a little thought and decided that a bulleted list of effects is a neater way of presenting the information. Just leave the intro out of the Game Info section, and I'll be happy with the new formatting. -Mythril Wyrm (talk) 00:54, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
Once again, the exact words written in the intro do not appear in the Game Info section of Civilopedia. Keep the two separate. -Mythril Wyrm (talk) 01:31, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure of what you are discussing, but as a side note, if there's a header "Game Info" and it presents the Civilopedia info 1:1, then why on Earth isn't it called "Civilopedia entry", then? I mean, I can see there's a "Game Info" in Civilopedia, but trying to keep a chapter by that header unchanged in the wiki is clearly a lost cause. The Game Info section in Civilopedia for the social policies is extremely short and I believe we could be formatting it better than Civilopedia does. I'd change at least the "Historical Info" sections to "Civilopedia entry", which would be a clear indication that it is not open for interpretation.
As an extreme measure we might move those "Historical info" sections to their own sub-page, such as "Professional Army (Civ5)/Civilopedia" (with <noinclude>[[Category:Civilization V historical Civilopedia entries]]</noinclude>), and make a policy that those /Civilopedia-pages should not be changed, but otherwise the pages are free to edit.
In the social policies it says "Effects:" right under the "Game Info" header. The header seems redundant to me: what else do we even have in this wiki besides "game info"? So maybe delete that header and promote "Effects" to header, if it needs a header at that point at all? Also, it's followed by the "Strategy" chapter, which then makes even less sense if the first and third sections may not be modified but the middle one may.
Just my two cents. Keep up the good work, both of you.
ZeroOne (talk) 04:47, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
The Strategy sections were the original points of contention here. Soltan rewrote the Game Info sections (which, in the original articles, were copied verbatim from Civilopedia, headings and all) to include some more creative prose, which made it harder to find the effects of the policies at a glance and didn't fit with the "flavor" of the articles. At first I reverted his edits, but then I decided there was no real harm in adding some additional information as long as it got its own section. Around this time, he decided to change the formatting of the articles, and the result is what you see now (though I've been going through and separating the intro blurbs from the Game Info header).
The articles we have at present contain all the information found in Civilopedia, and the ones Soltan has edited contain some background information he provided. (I'm still unclear on his source.) The formatting doesn't really match up with the Civilopedia entries, though it is somewhat similar what we have on the terrain and resource pages for Civ5. I honestly wouldn't mind completely removing the Strategy sections from all of those articles (because I don't like the idea of completely rewriting a section unless the way the game explains it makes no sense at all), but this seemed like the best on-the-spot compromise that didn't involve creating a new template.
If I need to stop being such a stickler or you see a good way to handle this, fire away. -Mythril Wyrm (talk) 05:20, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
My turn for a long rant :)
First of all, I have no source for the things I wrote. I'm just 'expanding' the game fantasy world, trying to cross it with the real word and the info from Civilopedia we find in the 'Historical info' (by the way I agree that this is somewhat a misnomer, if the info there is copied from the Civilopedia, and not, say, from a real Encyclopedia). I did this because I've always wanted to fantasise a bit over the Social Policies' role in the game, in the same way I did when I wrote about the separate Technologies. I'm not sure how would you guys clasify this, and if you even think it's appropriate. Me, I think it's worthy of a game series which tries to emulate so well so many aspects of the real world.
Anyway, I feel that having a whole separate article which only contains a brief intro sentence, then the effects copied straight from the game, and the Civilopedia entry is enough. So, I tried to 'prose' a bit the effects, entering some context. However, Mythril is right that this way it becomes much more difficult to spot the effects themselves at a glance. A new section with my fantasies then becomes necessary. HOWEVER, this section now ressembles a lot the Civilopedia entry, not to mention that 'Strategy' is also a bit of a misnomer for it... 
Maybe we could get rid of the Strategy header, and just put my stuff underneath the bullets, as part of Game info? Oh, and by the way, if you think the intro info should be out of the Game Info section, then I think Effects becomes useless - we could go straight to the bullet points. For me writing 'Effects' was a way to separate the two inside the same header. 
Soltan Gris 13:21, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from, and I appreciate the creativity it involves, so I don't really want to throw out the work you've done without good reason.
I think I found a (temporary) solution: we keep the Strategy sections for your "original" content, but include Game Info and Historical Info as subsections of Civilopedia Entry. That way, readers can more easily tell what page content is original and what comes directly from the game files and is presented "as-is." On a side note, there are a few cases in which the Strategy sections include information that isn't made clear in the Game Info sections (e.g. the Legalism (Civ5) page), and I think they're a welcome addition to those pages.
Think on it and let me know if you like this idea, or if you have a bright one of your own. -Mythril Wyrm (talk) 13:55, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I think my idea is more clear now. I'll complete the Strategy sections with some ... well, strategy considerations. I did some of this in the 'Social strategy article', but I'll try to expand a bit. This way the section will look more in-place, with more relevant info, besides the fantasy stuff. I'll do a couple of articles, see if you like it. 
Soltan Gris 14:05, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
Okay so I'm a bit late to the party here but after having a look at a few of the pages under contention I get the feeling that maybe we're losing track of what's important here? This is of course just my opinion but I feel like when I or any regular user visit a page, the things I want to see are, in order of importance:
  • A short but complete description of what the page's subject actually is and what it does in a vacuum. (That could be game info) If the initial civilopedia Game Info entry is lacking important information, such as an unmentioned side-effect, it definitely needs to be added here. Having precise information about what something actually does in the game is our primary mission.
  • A more thorough account of why its good, when to use it, when not to use it, its place in the meta-game. (Let's call that strategy) This is the section that I'd like to see edited the most, by as many users as possible. It would be hard for too much to be said about the use of a game element, unless you start repeating yourself or rambling. This should be the meat of our articles, and be featured right after the description of what the game element actually is. If it could contain editing incentives that'd be perfect.
  • And finally any fluff that I might be curious about but won't generally seek out, such as historical information. Historical information is the only thing I care to keep free of edits. (That's a debate we've had before but the main reasons being we'd just end up copying wikipedia and the vicious edit wars from nationalist users all over the world)
At least that's my take on it. Since we're talking about it now we could decide on a format, call it a guideline and try to apply it across the wiki. What do you guys think? What are your priorities when reading an article? --Becer (talk) 15:04, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Becer. The current form we're using (look at the Liberty Policies) covers it, I think. But the problem is that the Game info, with the 'short description' is now below the Strategy section. I think the previous format (Game info - Strategy - Historical info) was more appropriate, and it matches other format we use around the wiki, such as the separate Units and Buildings articles. I propose we adopt this format, and will Edit the Meritocracy Policy for you guys to see if you like it. 
Soltan Gris 16:28, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
Valid point, and it seems like one with which we can all agree. I've gone through and fixed the formatting of the policy articles for the Liberty and Tradition trees so that they correspond to this format (and use bulleted lists to make them more readable). I'll do the same for the Piety and Honor policies, and try not to obsess so much over exact correspondence with Civilopedia going forward (except where it's appropriate). -Mythril Wyrm (talk) 19:05, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
OOOOOOOK then :) I'll proceed with adding my stuff, according to this template :) Soltan Gris 19:31, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
Cool, sounds great to me too! I agree with Becer's order of importance. So I'm just wondering about, say, the Legalism (Civ5) article now. The first chapter for its Strategy section is:
The introduction of a strict code of laws to govern the populace and its interaction with the central power puts an end to many abuses of power and translates immediately into a more stable society. The people express their gratitude by undertaking great works of culture in the empire's main cities - thus the first four of these receive a free cultural building.
And to me, that's not a part of the strategy (as defined by Becer above), but rather something of the third category of curious information. I recognize its importance as justifying why this thing called "Legalism" would have the effect it has, but to me it's in a wrong place. I don't want to delete it, but I'm not sure where to put it either.
I'm thinking of two different options: 1) promote it into the intro, as long as it stays as one short paragraph, or 2) create a new header for it and move it below the Strategy section. That section would then have some short name that conveys the idea "Justification of why this thing called 'legalism' would provide the effect that it does".
Finally, I'd be very happy if we could just change that "Historical info" title to "Civilopedia entry". That's what it is, and that'd keep edit wars from happening, when people could clearly see that it's not any Wikipedia copypaste, but Civilopedia copypaste instead.
ZeroOne (talk) 21:03, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
Well.... I tend to agree with you Zero, the 'fantasy' part doesn't belong logically under a Strategy header. Initially I had put it in Game Info, but Mythril didn't like it. Although the technologies articles have a similar blabla and it's exactly under Game Info. So... I don't know what to do. I thought it'd be cool to have something like that, kinda crossing the real-world meanings of the Policies with their in-game function, but seeing how it's creating more controversy than excitement maybe I'll just delete it?
Soltan Gris 23:26, August 25, 2016 (UTC)
I'd hate to see you delete all your hard work. I also don't believe it belongs in strategy at all (don't we just love to nitpick today?) but I do like it. I'll say like ZeroOne, it could belong either at the very start in a short form or after strategy under a new section in a longer form. I'd really hate to kill your drive since its what you chose to work on. --Becer (talk) 00:29, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
There is actually some precedent for putting that conceptual blurb in the Strategy section. Take a look at the articles for some of the Civ5 units (such as the Longswordsman, Musketman, Rifleman, and Great War Infantry), and you'll find prose descriptions integrated with information about how to best use the unit in the game.
I don't see a point to creating a completely new section for what's essentially a different take on a Civilopedia entry, especially when it would disrupt a format similar to the ones we've been following with other articles. If no one else thinks the prose descriptions should be part of the Strategy section, perhaps they should be merged with the intro - just skip a line and copy them right below the information about which tree the social policy belongs to and what policies (if any) it requires. It's a quick fix that doesn't require anyone to create a new template and allows each section of the social policy articles to serve a specific purpose.
I really wasn't expecting this topic to open such a big can of worms, but if it helps us figure out what sorts of editorial policies to follow in the future, I'm glad to have gotten people talking about it. -Mythril Wyrm (talk) 00:53, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
Me neither :) But I think this fix could work - at least we'll keep the other sections with the info that trully belongs to them. I'll go ahead and implement it. 
Soltan Gris 01:01, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
Obviously we're not talking about social policies only, but also about the units like Longswordsman that Mythril Wyrm mentioned. We should follow a constant formatting for all articles where it makes sense to do that. And like I said, I don't want the "fantasy" to be deleted, but I just feel it's in the wrong place at the start of the Strategy section. Mythril Wyrm already expressed he dislikes the idea of creating a new section for it, but how about my other idea, promoting that piece of text right into the intro section? It certainly feels intro'ish material to me. And thanks for opening the worm can, Mythril -- it's obvious that this was something that needed to be discussed. :) —ZeroOne (talk) 09:42, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I'm doing right now. I moved the 'fantasy' part in the intro, which puts it right before Game Info. I think it has a nice flow to it - a little prose to describe the functioning of the Policy, which is then defined with its exact effects in Game Info, and then discussed from strategic in-game point of view in Strategy. And finally, it's given real-world perspective in the Historical Info section. I like it this way, and I agree that we could use it as a template, probably in future articles about Civ VI!
Soltan Gris 10:58, August 26, 2016 (UTC) 
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.