FANDOM

Zechariah0311

aka Zack

Admin
  • I live in Canada
  • I was born on November 3
  • I am Male
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • Thanks for taking the initiative and adding these to the various building and tile improvement pages. I decided to try something a little different with the intro for Biosphère (Civ6) to see how it looked, and I'm glad to see you liked it. :)

      Loading editor
  • Why did you delete this information from Australia's page? Their colors weren't always dark green and yellow - do we want new readers to believe otherwise?

      Loading editor
    • View all 5 replies
    • Ok, let's just get the hex codes out of the way and agree that we should remove it. I want to start with an agreement because I know the two of us have not been doing a lot of that lately, so I want to start with something nice.

      Regarding removed content, I agree we should keep references of removed content. Teutonic Knight, the Sack policy card, and the removed agendas (as the matter of fact, I was the one that separate those two agendas in their own category to keep track of them better). Again, I wholeheartedly agree upon this.

      Regarding why I don't think the color change is necessary, I wonder if you remember during the GS rollout, the devs made changes to all tier 1 and tier 2 buildings in all districts in all 3 game versions without explicitly saying so in the patch note. I added a note in all of those pages saying that the cost was changed undocumentedly, after 2 months I removed those notes believing them to be useless. In this matter, what I believe is that the old colors are not qualified as a removed content, but as a changed content. I asked myself, what is the difference in usefulness between a note that says "A library used to cost 105 production, now it costs 120 production in all 3 game versions" versus "Australia used to have these colors, now it has these colors in all 3 game versions". I can't find an answer to that. It is a matter of perspective. I want you to know my perspective, just as well as I know yours. Again, I don't want tension to escalate between us, since we both serve the same cause, I yield, you can keep the color reference, although I do suggest moving the old color references to the trivia section, since it does not interfere directly with current gameplay of any Civ players, but more like an "in case you don't know" stuff.

        Loading editor
    • I'm not sure what I can say that I haven't said already. If Australia being the exception rather than the rule (i.e. the only civ whose default colors have changed) isn't a convincing reason to include this information on their page, a better analogy might be the information on the leaders' past appearances. Looking at the pages for leaders such as Teddy Roosevelt, Pedro II, and Seondeok, you can read about how their initial appearances were changed between the early builds and promotional materials and the final versions of the games in which they appear. It has no effect on gameplay and isn't something players would even be aware of if they bought Civ6 and started playing today, but we mention it all the same.

      And it does help establish precedent for including such information in the Trivia section of the page, so I'll go ahead and move it. We can use this as our basis for resolving any future disputes that arise.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • In this thread, you posted the following:

    Zechariah0311 wrote:
    https://civilization.com/ja-JP/news/entries/civilization-vi-first-look-basil-ii-leads-byzantium/
    Use Google translate to translate this from Japanese to English and you will find something amazing :)

    I tried clicking on the link and manually pasting it into my Google Chrome search bar, and got redirected to the English version of the page every time. You must be looking at a cached version of it.

    I know we're always rushing to have the most recent and comprehensive information about every Civilization game, but when you add information based on leaks, innuendo, and links that only one other user is able to follow, it seems like wild speculation and reflects poorly on our editorial practices. I think we need to institute a policy of not adding new information unless it appears in a video from the Official Sid Meier's Civilization® YouTube channel or a page on the official site - in other words, don't post new information if you can't post something that other users can view to corroborate it in the Videos or External links section of a page. We don't want to be accused of peddling rumors and damage our credibility.

    Does this seem reasonable to you, or am I being an iron-fisted tyrant who needs to stop preventing the dispersal of information?

      Loading editor
    • View all 12 replies
    • For what it's worth, in my opinion "rumors" and "speculations" are indeed wrong terms for what Zechariah0311 has been adding. I believe it's as accurate as can be without getting it directly from the game. Keep up the good work!

        Loading editor
    • Glad that the Gaul video is out and we dont have to speculate anymore :)

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Congrats, you have been promoted into an admin! Use your newly found powers for good, and keep up the great work! :)

      Loading editor
  • Hi there, the wording I used was the exact wording in the release notes . "Improved resource tiles receive +1 Faith for each copy of the resource the city owns" actually means that if you have 3 horses owned by the same city and you improve them all, you gain 9 faith instead of 3 (each horse gain you 3 faiths and you have 3 of them). The current wording ("+1 Faith from improved resources") is just wrong.

      Loading editor
  • I realize this is old business, but I feel it needs to be mentioned all the same. I was reviewing some of your edits to the Great Bath page and noticed the following lines of text:

    "Overall, this Wonder rarely sees any play, even more so on high difficulty level, and especially against human opponents..."

    "In a competitive multiplayer game against experienced human opponent, this Wonder is often cited to be an early game liability for getting invaded."

    The Civilization community consists of thousands upon thousands of different players, and there are several thousand you've never played with/against no matter how much time you've invested in the game. For this reason, statements about the community's attitude toward a particular game entity (unit, district, wonder, etc.) and how often it's used in games need to be backed up by citations - links to polls or strategy discussions from forums with a large userbase, for example. If you have your finger on the pulse of the Civilization community, it should be pretty easy to find links to sites where people are saying the same thing; otherwise, it may lead readers to suspect you're using the community as false leverage. Moreover, linking to these resources will promote more and better-informed discussions among readers of this wiki.

    If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, and keep up the good work!

      Loading editor
    • I tried to find the discussions on the civforum about this, there was one one or two months ago but I couldn't find it. I will change the wording on it. It is true that it sounds pretty bad when you say " it is cited" and there is no citation to be found.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • The convention in the Civilization games is for all the words in this phrase to be lowercase. Please see the the following screenshot and the page's revision history for details.

    If you want to make changes for consistency, change how the phrase is capitalized on the unit pages instead.

      Loading editor
    • View all 7 replies
    • There are 2 columns in the game database "Max era" and "Obsolete era" in Moments table, but I don't know the difference between them. It seems like they could be merged.

      Only 3 filled min eras (and all with Ancient era) seems incomplete to me, but that's what the game database is containing. If that is indeed the case that it makes no sense to keep that information.

        Loading editor
    • If that is the case, I think we should only keep obsolete era, and delete min and max era since they are kinda redundant and cause confusions more than anything.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi there! I made a proposal on scenario article naming & categorization, you might want to comment: User blog:ZeroOne/Scenario article naming and categorization conventions.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Considering the number of contributions you have made in recent days, I figured you would be interested in this discussion. https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Talk:Civilization_VI#Trimming_Page I don't mind doing the work.

      Loading editor
    • View all 17 replies
    • Regarding #3, there is an argument to be made for purging pages that do not relate to any ingame mechanic/lore. Such articles shouldn't be around to create bad precedents.

        Loading editor
    • ZeroOne and Becer, I think Robin's list included #3 to emphasize that Rome and Babylon as civilizations consist of more than just the eponymous cities. We could turn the Rome and Babylon pages into redirects that point to the overview pages for their respective civs, but I think it's better to, at the very least, have separate pages for the capitals when there's a distinction between the city and the civilization itself.

      Now, to return to the original topic, I support keeping the adjectival forms of each civilization's name as the standard for pagenames. I say "adjectival form" instead of "demonym" because they're sometimes different (e.g. "Celtic" and "Celt"), and because the adjectival forms avoid controversies about whether to use singular or plural demonyms as the standard. I'll admit that I may have been responsible for some confusion by using the wrong term in the past, but I don't see any reason to deviate from the adjective standard.

      Becer wrote:
      My thoughts on this is this is the Civilization wiki, and that Mali and Mongolia are both civilizations.

      There is no such thing as the America, the China, the Mali or the Mongolia civilizations. These are properly named as the American, the Chinese, the Malian and the Mongolian civilizations. The adjective is the correct form to name a civilization, so it is only natural to use it in the article names.

      I think you and I are saying the same thing. My only uncertainty is what to do when different games use different adjectival forms for the same civilization...but although Mali in Civ6 is referred to as the "Mali Empire," I just checked the XML files and confirmed that "Malian" is the adjective used. I'll go ahead and rename the page for the sake of consistency.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I guess I haven't been playing close attention lately, but I recently noticed this edit you made to the Kilwa Kisiwani page and wanted to bring a couple of things to your attention.

    • You changed "pale in comparison" to "pale by comparison." "Pale in comparison" is a perfectly acceptable way of saying something is less impressive, noteworthy, or desirable than something else, and in the U.S., I see it used much more often than "pale by comparison." (See this site for details.) This is probably a dialectical issue, but the original phrasing was correct.
    • You changed "It is also available earlier and more cheaply than" to "It is also available earlier and cheaper than." The latter is grammatically incorrect at worst and stylistically questionable at best - "cheap," as an adjective, can only modify a noun, so the adverbial form ("cheaply") has to be used if it's modifying "available." It's acceptable for "cheap" to modify "it," but then you've got two consecutive adjectives that modify different words, which doesn't employ parallel structure and results in confusion about which word "cheap(ly)" is supposed to modify. I changed the wording of this sentence for style and clarity.

    I know these are niggling details, but as someone who teaches college ESL and composition courses, I'm a bit of a stickler for proper grammar and punctuation. If you have any questions or counterpoints, please let me know.

      Loading editor
    • My original edit used "pale in comparison", I'm not sure why I changed it to "by". I guess at first I used "pale" as an adjective so it goes with "in", but then it was changed to be used as a verb so I decided to use it with "by". I guess that was my reasoning then.

      Thank you for proofreading my stuffs though :)

        Loading editor
    • No worries, good sir! Thanks for all the time and effort you put into your Strategy summaries - I don't always agree with your advice, but you support it well with evidence and examples. :)

        Loading editor
    • I mean we can always customize it to fit more opinions in  :)

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.