Treat this as a standalone game?
I've never played this, but my understanding is that this is a standalone "official related game" rather than a Civ II expansion, and as such does not require Civ II to play. Being a remake, I imagine its engine and rules are very similar, but some differences have been noted.
If that is the case, would it not make sense to treat this as its own game, in terms of categorization, overview templates, modules, etc? I first noticed this issue after looking at the Caravan (Civ2) page, which essentially has to deal with two somewhat different units on the same page.
Any thoughts or advice on this proposal would be appreciated. Russ3Z (talk) 18:25, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
- You are probably right. My personal approach, however, is thus: I don't own either of these games, so I can't verify any of the information, so I limit my edits to spelling and other minor things and leave the content to someone who knows. Exitwound 45 (talk) 22:03, June 1, 2017 (UTC)
- I've never seen the game but I'd believe the author of the article, who says "Civilization II: Test of Time, released in 1999, is a turn-based strategy game similar to the best selling game Civilization II.". That's a clear indication that it's separate. I hope we can get an actual owner or player to help here! -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 06:10, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
- I've made a small start migrating things by splitting the Caravan (Civ2) page and creating a Caravan (Civ2ToT) page. It looks like a similar situation exists with Civilization IV: Colonization, both being standalone "remakes" of sorts with similar engines and gameplay, but not requiring the original game in order to play. We can probably use some of the schemes employed by that title to guide the build of this one. I'll try to start working on modules, templates, etc needed here. Russ3Z (talk) 00:49, June 6, 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, makes sense for now. Meanwhile, whether its treated as an expansion of sorts (default for now) or as a standalone, we need a good parenthetical short-name for this (much like "PtW" is used for the Civ III "Play the World" expansion, for instance). How about "ToT"? Or, possibly "Civ2ToT" (modeled on the "Civ4Col" usage).
- That brings up another, older discussion I noticed. For expansions, we're currently using articles and categories such as "Category: Units (PtW)". I've seen it suggested that, for expansions, we might instead use something to directly show which game it's tied to, in case an expansion name is duplicated in the future. In this case, the option given above might instead become "Category:Units (Civ2 ToT)" or perhaps "Category:Units (Civ2: ToT)" or something similar. If such a scheme is adopted, we'd probably want to migrate all the other expansions over to the format "(<game> <expansion>)" or "(<game>: <expansion>)", respectively.
- I don't have a strong opinion on that part either way, but I would like to settle on an abbreviation for this, at least. Thoughts and opinions are appreciated. Russ3Z (talk) 00:31, June 2, 2017 (UTC)
- FYI, the discussion in question was found here - Forum:Categorization#Duplications, in the last paragraph of the section. It looks like we need to come to some sort of consensus not only on an abbreviation for this game, but also for all the games in general, if we choose to use a "base game plus expansion" naming scheme. For this game, it looks like everyone so far as least likes the "ToT" part. I'm not sure I have an informed opinion yet on longer versions (aka Civ2ToT vs C2ToT or something else).
- I'm not sure if this is the best location for a general discussion on naming schemes for expansions (since we'll really want to make sure to standardize All games in general), but I do feel the discussion itself has merit and will be happy to help if I can. Russ3Z (talk) 12:15, June 2, 2017 (UTC)