FANDOM


  • Hey Becer! 

    I'm starting to reorganise things in the main articles a bit - adding info, etc. One problem I noticed is that there are two lists of Civics - one in the Civics (Civ6), the other in Policy Cards (Civ6). We should decide where to keep a single list, since I think it's redundand to have two at the same time. 

    Another thing - it would be nice to have sort of a link pointing to the Civ 6 Article menu, so we could navigate more easily around the wiki. Right now the Civilization VI links point to the Overview article. Maybe we could add distinctive links in its beginning, the way we had it in Civ 5? And I'm thinking maybe we should replace one of the links in the Main page with Game Concepts category link (again, the way there was in Civ 5), which will serve as a hub to all other articles not covered by the main links.... 

    I hope you understand what I mean with all these 'links' and 'menus', it's becoming confusing :)Soltan Gris 18:06, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

      Loading editor
    • I think the Civics (Civ6) page list is much better and should be moved to Policy Cards (Civ6). However, the issue is that the Civics page list only contains about half of the items of the other list, so the missing ones need to be added.

      Also, what do you mean by a link pointing to the Civ6 article menu? The Civilization VI menu item at the top currently links to Civilization VI. I wouldn't point a link from the main page into the Category:Game concepts (Civ6) like the navigation box does, I think it's just not very accessible for new users to find themselves in some category view. As I see it the current main page links cover the most important topics, and you can use them to dive deeper, or just use the search box at the top of the page.

      Creating an index at the top of the main Civ6 article, like we have in Civ5, does sound like a good idea to me though! The article needs rewriting anyway, listing the new features at the top was interesting while waiting for the game, but now it's out and the article needs to be more accessible to players who are completely new to the series. They aren't benefiting from that list at all, to them all the features are new. So that section should probably be trimmed a lot and stuffed somewhere closer to the end of the article.

        Loading editor
    • Hi ZeroOne.

      What I mean about that link is the sort of link we have in most (if not all) Civ5 articles, and which poitns to the Civilization V Top Menu - the one with the index I'd like to see created. That one is formatted as a template, which makes it very easy to put on the top of articles. 

      About the Game Concepts - I disagree it's useless, or confusing. It will be just one item in the index (the way it is in Civ 5), and it will serve as a direct gateway to all other important things that aren't represented in the index. Let's say, for example, that I want to read about Espionage in Civ 6. As it stands, this topic isn't in the Top Menu, and there aren't even links in any of the items that are in the top menu (we'll need to start adding those as well). So, I'll have to do a Search for it. I'll be presented with a list of articles which, depending on the topic searched, might be long, confusing, etc. OR, I could click on the Game Concepts item in the index, and find Espionage there directly, without having to Search and sift through confusing stuff. 

      Of course, that's how I do stuff, it might not be how others do stuff, so I'm not saying that's how it SHOULD be, just how I think it should be :) Besides, the Game Concepts will be just one item in the index list - I don't see how this could be confusing to a new user, if he can click on one of the other items, like Buildings, Units, etc. 

      And I agree completely that the main Civ6 article needs rewriting. 

        Loading editor
    • Oh you mean the {{BackArrow}}! Yeah, that's definitely needed, go ahead and add it! I think all the articles that have some sort of main template on them already have that arrow, as the templates add it, but it's still missing from the main concept pages.

      I suppose my main problem with linking into the category is that it just mostly duplicates what's already in the main menu, so when you go to the category page, it looks like it just has the same links as the previous page. I think we could, however, discuss, which are the most important concepts that require links directly from the main page. I'd actually say that we could take Terrain (Civ6) out of the main page and replace it with Espionage (Civ6). It'd be nice to have a link to the Great People (Civ6) as well, though.

        Loading editor
    • Once we have a nice list of the main game concepts we want to list, we can add a "More" button to the front page that leads to a Game concepts article rather than a category, where we can list all the important articles.

        Loading editor
    • Yes, that sounds fine to me. 

      I've started adding some links to articles already. There shouldn't be a problem to use the existing BackArrowGreen [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]
      and Blue arrow right [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]], right?

        Loading editor
    • No problem at all. If we want to go back and add a custom arrow for Civ6 later that won't be hard.

        Loading editor
    • So, I've started upgrading bit by bit the Unit articles. I'm following Civ 5 style, where we have a Game info section with quick, dry facts, a Strategy section which expands, gives details and should generally hold ... well, strategies for unit use, and a Historical Context section which I think holds the Civilopedia info. 

      Let me know if you're not OK with this style, so we can discuss alternatives. 

        Loading editor
    • I'd change the "Historical Context" into just plain "Civilopedia entry". Any other way is just an invitation for edit wars. The "Game info" is also questionable to me, basically game info is everything and the only thing that this wiki should have. I'd probably leave a header out of that section entirely, just putting it there after the initial lead section.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah.... didn't we have a longuish discussion on that a while back? After the changes I can't find it, though... 

      BTW, do you know if Firaxis have some sort of feedback channel? I'd like to write some .... impressions :) I'm really loving the complexity of the game, but there simply isn't enough info to go around - I constantly have to guess stuff. For example, how do 'Occupied cities' work...

        Loading editor
    • I guess this is where we have to come in and fill in the gaps in the Civilopedia!

        Loading editor
    • Guys, a question: In the beginning of many of the Unit articles I see a line such as 'The ... is an .... Era Unit in Civilization VI". Right after that comes the much-contested Game Info section, where it says basically the same stuff all over again. I think this repetition isn't needed, anyone disagree?

        Loading editor
    • I fully agree. The first paragraph needs to be a short description, while game info tries to be more thorough, but they're both descriptions!

      So ideally the first section should have no section header, start with a simple one or two line description of the object represented on the page and then if needed go into more details. I'd personally think it'd be more useful if it focused on the information not present in the infobox, as the infobox is always going to be the first place people look at for values, but that's not a hard rule or anything.

        Loading editor
    • I also fully agree, a tiny "Foo is a bar in Civ6." lead section only makes you angry. Tell all the important stuff right in the lead, like if it's a unique unit of some civilization, or something. The "Game info" section is usually very short too, so you shouldn't need a header for it at all. Put the beef into the lead with no header, then add a header for Strategy or something, and finally a section for the Civilopedia entry. At least that's how I would do it (and I'm pretty sure I did when the only thing we had was the First look videos and I added info of some unique units, buildings, or districts).

        Loading editor
    • Right you are. Will start doing that.

        Loading editor
    • If I may jump in here: every page for a unit, tech, or whatever should mention what game it is from, in this case Civ VI. It could be on the infobox, or in the lead paragraph, or whatever, but I think it should be stated somewhere. Down at the bottom in the categories is not sufficient, IMO.

      Also, is it not desirable to use complete sentences in most cases, except in infoboxes?

        Loading editor
    • Hi Exit (I hope I may call you that?).

      The page does mention that, right in its title (the Civ6 part)? I doubt that someone researching stuff for a particular game will get so badly sidetracked as to start reading iabout stuff from another game in the series.

      Besides, many, many many units and buildings are found in multiple Civilization titles. 

      As for the complete sentences .... I don't know. I tend to agree, but I'd like to hear the opinion of other contributors first. 

        Loading editor
    • Well, we have already had new anonymous users accidentally edit the article of a wrong game. And the fact that the items appear in multiple games is just another reason to state the game in the article and not just in the title or the categories. Also, I agree with what Exitwound 45 said about complete sentences.

        Loading editor
    • Mythril Wyrm
      Mythril Wyrm removed this reply because:
      Vandalism.
      15:34, February 15, 2018
      This reply has been removed
    • 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.