FANDOM


  • 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
    • Yes, I've been thinking about it for a long time. On that page, there is an embedded page of districts, which I think should be cut out, especially it comes with a "Strategy" part that only talks about how to use districts.

        Loading editor
    • I think we should only keep civs and leaders table.

        Loading editor
    • I have been messing with my sandbox. What about this? User:Oldag07/sandbox4 Edit, changes have been pushed to primary page

        Loading editor
    • I love this. I do like getting rids of tables, there were just too many of them. Making the civs and leaders table collapsible is a nice touch as well.

      I think Wonders and Natural Wonders should be 2 separate parts and there should be a sub-section for Pantheon under Religion. 

        Loading editor
    • Btw just a random question, since you are here for so much longer than I am. Why do we name Civ pages by their denonyms and not just the names of the civs? For example, why "American" and not just "America"? I remember when Mali was announced, there was a debate on what denonym we should use, cuz at that time the page of Mali in Civ4 was called Malinese, and then there are people who argue it should be named Malian, and now we have Malian (Civ4) and Mali (Civ6) for the same civ, which, again, is an inconsistency. We use the civ name for its infobox but use the denonym for the name (American for the page name, America for the name of the infobox), and I don't see there is an explanation for such differences on the same page. As a reader before I became an active editor, I think 9 times out of 10 I type the civ name into the search box, like France or England, and most civ players also refer to the civs as such. Of course we have redirection to those pages when we type in the civ names, but I'm just wondering.

        Loading editor
    • I love the sandbox4 version too. Good job.

        Loading editor
    • Changes have been pushed to the main page. As for the naming convention question, that is something to ask ZeroOne or Mythril Wyrm. That decision was made before I joined. I wouldn't oppose that change. However, it seems like a whole lot of work for little benefit. It is a "QWERTY" problem. As you said, we already have redirects. Of course, we could be Memory Alpha [1]. Edit: further research suggests that our Gamepedia counterpart uses Zechariah's suggestion

        Loading editor
    • Can I change the Malian (Civ4) to Mali at least? So that we don't have 2 different page names referring to the same entity, I think that's better

        Loading editor
    • Sounds good. I am sure you already did the research, according to Mythril Wyrm, "according to both the First Look video and Wikipedia, "Mali" is the adjective commonly used to refer to the Mali Empire, and "Malian" refers to people from the modern country." I also think there is a call to power version. We probably should add a note about it on the Malian page.

        Loading editor
    • To be honest with you, I don't mind going with either of the two. I just feel like we should use the same name/denonym for the same civ entity among different game reiterations, especially in Mali's case, they were led by the same leader in both games, meaning their in-game depiction is from the same time period.

        Loading editor
    • I typed up a reply to this thread previously, but it didn't post. Let's try this again...

      The decision to use the adjective forms of civilizations' names as pagenames was made several years ago after a discussion that ZeroOne, Becer, and other frequent visitors of this wiki had. I haven't been able to find the thread, but Robin Patterson posted a justification for this policy here.

      As for your proposal, Zechariah0311, I'm torn. It's true that Mali represents the same civilization in Civ4 and Civ6, but the in-game demonym/adjective for the civilization is different in each game: Civ4 uses "Malian" and Civ6 uses "Mali." I'm all for consistency, but the question is whether it's more important to be consistent with the in-game terminology or with the terminology used for similar entities in more than one game. The issue of whether to use Mongol or Mongolian (which came up and was settled after Exitwound 45 and I became admins) provides some precedent for using the adjective form from each individual game, so I lean towards saying that neither of the pages should be renamed. I do agree that the tidbit about "Mali" and "Malian" and how they differ should be added to the overview page, though (much like the similar note in the intro to the Mongol page).

      Finally, please note that we can and do have multiple redirects to each page, and their destinations will need to be changed if one of the pages is renamed.

        Loading editor
    • 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.

      Edit: I recognize that the reasoning I offered is 100% arbitrary, but it might not be possible to be objective if it is seen as desirable to adopt a standard.

        Loading editor
    • Mythril Wyrm, that was a good find: before your post I actually spent a non-negligible time going through my old edits trying to find something related to that.

      The history of this wiki is, as you may or may not know, is that there used to be this central Civilization Wiki, and a separate Civilization IV wiki, which I ran. In the Civ4 wiki we called the pages "America", "Mongolia", etc. Then Fandom (called Wikia back then) initiated the merger of the two wikis. As the Civ4 wiki was there one that was being merged into a more general one, I accepted the policy that was created before my time and the civilization pages of Civ4 were renamed into "American", "Mongolian", etc.

      So if you ask me, I'm actually all open to changing the civilization naming policy.

        Loading editor
      1. It's usually the shortest option or among the shortest, e.g. Greek is shorter than Greeks or Greece; so, less typing time.
      2. It allows easy direct links from text in most cases, e.g. [[German]] from [[German]]s or [[German]]y in text, whereas linking to "Germany" takes more work with piping links, [[Germany|German]] and [[Germany|Germans]]. It won't make that difference when you type the name of a game-specific page such as German (Civ5), but I suspect that we will be able to save time with future templates if all pages of that form have the single standard form for the nation.
      3. It distinguishes between the nation and its capital in those few cases where there may be a tendency to use one for another, e.g. Rome and Babylon
      4. Some "nations" don't even have country names (unless you add something like "Empire", which is a LOT of typing) - Aztec, Celtic, Hittite, Iroquois, Mayan, Sioux, Viking, Visigoth.

      Robin Patterson (Talk) 03:08, August 21, 2010 (UTC)"

      Looking at Robert Patterson's reasons, it would seem the 3rd and the 4th reasons make sense. The first reason, I guess I could do a count on the Civilizations page, but I think is debatable. America/American Brazil/Brazilian, China/Chinese, India/Indian, etc. The second reason doesn't apply anymore considering the fact that all Civilization pages have parenthesis after them.

      I did start a manual of style draft Manual of Style/Draft we might want to start working on.

        Loading editor
    • Regarding #3: Why would you need to distinguish between Rome the city and Rome the civilization anyway? Yes, I know, we have the article Rome, but, like... why?

      Regarding #4: The games have found a way to call those civs something, so we should just adapt the same term that they are using.

        Loading editor
    • 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
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.