Civilization Wiki

Game names in italics?[]

Desirable - same as on Wikipedia. But possible in this template? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 14:09, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Pages with two sets of parentheses[]

How do we manage a page like Gold (resource)? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:05, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

I can answer that myself. Updated that page and all seems well. Page doesn't use the "pipe trick", which might give problems. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:10, January 2, 2012 (UTC)


See Submarine for how it's not giving links to articles where we add parameters. It should have the "Main article" link ahead of any other additions except "no". -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:33, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

What it should do[]

For each game, it always gives a game heading; and, starting in the next line:

  • If "=no", it merely says that the feature is not present in that game
  • If no coding specific to that game, it gives either:
    • "Main article" (or redirect) link in a separate line if there is an article (or redirect) with the matching name
    • The "is not present or article not created" paragraph if there is no matching page name
  • If any other coding specific to that game, it reproduces that, as ordinary wikitext (under the "Main article" line if there is an article)

Is that what we should have or can work towards? We have nearly all of it. My above comment (headed "Malfunctioning?") refers to the lack of the parenthetical bit of the last bullet point.

If the coding would be easier by reproducing the "is not present or article not written" paragraph above any added wikitext, I'd be happy with that. Would rearrange the logic like this:

For each game, it always gives a game heading; and, starting in the next line:

  • If "=no", it merely says that the feature is not present in that game
  • If there is any other coding or none specific to that game, it gives EITHER:
    • "Main article" (or redirect) link in a separate line if there is an article (or redirect) with the matching name; OR
    • The "is not present or article not created" paragraph if there is no matching page name
  • If any other coding, it then reproduces that, as ordinary wikitext

-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 01:07, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say the template is "malfunctioning" since it was never designed to show the "Main article" link in case the main article does not exist, but now that you pointed it out it does make sense to add the link even as a red one. I have now updated the template, does it work like you imagined it to? :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 23:19, January 1, 2012 (UTC)
You misunderstood my complaint. I never said it should show the "Main article" link in cases where the main article does not exist. But I can see some of the ambiguity in what I did say. Maybe Submarine was a bad example and was actually doing everything it should have but one of the pages that I thought existed didn't. I'll check some pages with the new version. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:10, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
I've checked. We shouldn't have a "Main article" link if there should never be one. So I've reverted the subtemplate. Please reread my paragraphs about what should happen. I think (contrary to what I may have implied and/or believed in writing my "malfunction" paragraph) that the template currently does what's in the first part of "What it should do" above. What I would now actually prefer is in the second part, so that if somebody has written some coding but there is no article the display will put the "is not present or article has not been created " line above the other wikitext. See Submarine - as I originally thought, there should be a link to make it easy for people to create the articles for Civ1 and Civ2, for example. A link to "Main article" (as your template change achieved) would do that, but there are cases where it would be wrong. See, on Wonder, the note for Colonization. That note should not have anything else between it and the game heading because there should not be an article Wonder (Colonization), but it would be OK if it had the "is not present or article not created" paragraph. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 04:10, January 2, 2012 (UTC)
OK, I admit I found your initial description somewhat confusing, but I got it half-right, didn't I? I mean, the point was to create a red link to the main article, but the wording was just wrong. So anyway, I've now edited the template again, how do you like it now? —ZeroOne (talk / @) 13:51, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Near perfect. But where there is other coding you have produced a different (longer) version of the "is not present or article has not been created" - see Warrior for an example: compare Civ1 with C-evo. I like the old short one with the small print. Do we need a different one for cases where there is text? -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:37, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

I thought about that... My reasoning is that the one with the small print appears to assume by default that the unit is not present in the game in question, whereas when there is some text then the unit almost always exists. So it's a bit funny if you say "The unit is not present in (or the main article has not been created for) this game" when the next sentence clearly describes that the unit indeed exists in this game. I have, however, now changed the message to include the latter part in small print and in parenthesis so it looks more like the other message. What do you think? We could also change the old text to match the new one for consistency. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 10:11, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
Well, ideally, we might have a variation on the "=no", where (as for "Col" on Wonder and for Civ1 on Warrior) the feature does not exist but something similar does exist and is worth mentioning. A sort of "=no, but...". Programmer's nightmare? In those cases, of course, the old shorter wording was better because the "not present...", the true state of affairs, was in full-size print. I can live with it as is, except for one little bug: look at Warrior: "The main article article has not been created". You need to tweak something there. (I don't think you need to call it "main" anyway - it's just the article for that game.) (I really like the existing old short statement for cases of no coding, so please leave that one. It's concise and therefore just a single line on my display, similar to your new one but with reversed ideas, and if there should actually be an article we may hope that someone creates one so that that line is replaced by a link to the created article.) -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:04, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
I've fixed the "article article" thing - easier than I thought it would be. Tweaked a couple of other parts too. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 12:15, January 19, 2012 (UTC)

Now two other templates redirect here[]

Games and InGames were versions of the same idea. They didn't have the user-editable parameter option, so their pages will have the unadorned listing that you get when the parameter is left blank. Enthusiasts may edit those pages to add "no" or a bit of detail if they like but must change the template to "overview" or nothing else will do anything.

The talk pages for those templates have some useful discussions that should be kept.

-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:53, January 29, 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinks for Template talk:Games and Template talk:InGames, if your curiosity is limited to one click. ;-)Dunnoob (talk) 02:47, January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Comment on latest version[]

As I've said somewhere else, I like the rearrangement that lists all of the actual articles at the top, with headings, then lists games for which there is no article, in a basic table without headings though with an introduction that explains the two possible reasons for listing.

However, having applied it to Tsunami I see that the "no" parameter has the effect of making no mention of the game anywhere. I think that that's a backward step. It could lead 99% of readers (i.e. those who understandably haven't studied the code!) to wonder whether anyone has worked out whether the feature appears in one of those games. The new version even makes a mockery of the former carefully-considered "small print", because the small print (as noted earlier on this page) was designed to cover the less likely of the alternatives, whereas here the less likely of the alternatives is that the feature does not appear (because someone has deliberately given it a "no").

Is it possible to have a new middle section, listing the games that have the "no" parameter and headed "Games that do not have this feature"? And maybe restore the normal-sized print in the final section.

-- Robin Patterson (Talk) 00:33, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

Hey, guys, no response here yet. Please let us have a section for games where someone has gone to the trouble of adding "no" and there is therefore almost certainly no appearance of the item and the page should say so. I can't do lua yet. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 07:01, August 4, 2017 (UTC)

That's a valid idea and I've just implemented it! What do you think? Should it just create a bulleted list instead of the "table", or something else? —ZeroOne (talk) 12:09, August 7, 2017 (UTC)
Excellent, thank you. A list is all that it needs. Now I can do some "=no" knowing that it's worth doing and it may save someone else from doing the research. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:41, August 8, 2017 (UTC)

FreeCol, not Freecol[]

Would some kind lua user please fix the coding so that pages or potential pages say "(FreeCol)", not "(Freecol)". -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 02:31, September 2, 2015 (UTC)

OK, done. —ZeroOne (talk) 12:15, August 7, 2017 (UTC)


Should Starships be added to this template? Oldag07 (talk) 16:57, October 4, 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, no. Starships doesn't have many concepts in common with the other games in the template. At most it may have something in common with Beyond Earth, but for those items we can just create some simple disambiguation pages with links to Beyond Earth and Starships only. —ZeroOne (talk) 20:04, August 15, 2017 (UTC)

Incorporate Civ6[]

Someone who knows lua should add Civ6 to this template. -- Robin Patterson (Talk) 21:39, May 13, 2016 (UTC)

User:Exitwound 45 implemented it on May 15. :) —ZeroOne (talk) 12:10, August 7, 2017 (UTC)