Talk:Civilization (disambiguation)

Clarification

How does civilization makes the world different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.186 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM CapnZapp (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Naming

Several of the computer games start with "Sid Meier's" in their names. This should be added CapnZapp (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Board Game

Where is the board game version of the computer game? This board game has very little in common with the original Civilization board game. CapnZapp (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it and added a link from here. Not that there's anything to see at that page, but I don't know proper procedure for deleting a page. CapnZapp (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

mobile problem

Can't see the game table in mobile view, so games section looks empty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.101.89 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

? CapnZapp (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

board game disambiguation

Okay, so the current situation is a mess. Each board game article starts with a nest of hatnotes, sometimes ill maintained, to refer to other civilization board games. They often link to redirect targets (a mess of its own, because we can't apparantly decide whether to refer to the games using their extremely similar-sounding names or using their year of publication) The actual article for Civilization (board game) redirects here (a section link). The newest game (new Dawn) isn't included anywhere.

This needs to stop. We need one single place where we disambiguate between civ board games, and we need all hat notes to refer "for other Civilization board games, see" that one place.

I suggest we use the existing page for Civilization (board game) and instead refer our section (here in this article) to it (instead of vice versa). No hat notes list every game, they all just point there. A new game needs one (1) update (assuming it's got an article of course). Any editor writing up a new game will much more easily see where to integrate that new game article into our structure. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Partially implemented Situation successfully decluttered! Remaining task: moving New Dawn to standardized target, in this case Civilization (2017 board game). (I tried, I failed, see Talk:Civilization:_A_New_Dawn#Move_failure) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

"Civilization: A New Dawn" should remain the name of the page, as it is clearly the game's title. Disambiguation is only required when games/books/ or whatever article would have the same (or too-similar) title. I attempted to reverse the move, but was unable to do it, then saw the discussion here. It should be moved back.--MattMauler (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

User:MattMauler Let me first of all draw your attention to the fact that only the first of the games is actually called "Civilization" only. I wouldn't want to be a stickler about policy detail, because, theoretically none of the games share the exact name (and thus mandate a disambiguation). Instead, several editors have decided that having an uniform naming scheme would help immensely, probably because two other games do have very similar names. Look through the edit histories and you will see lots of confusion, lots of mislinking and other issues that are trivially solved by the uniform naming scheme. I wasn't around when this was decided, but it was the main motivator for my move.

I'd like us to take an overall approach here: what do y'all think are the best article destinations for the games involved:

1. Civilization
2. Advanced Civilization (expansion for #1)
3. Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame (without the space)
4. Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game (with the space)
5. Sid Meier's Civilization: A New Dawn (successor to #4)

If you ask me, I can totally see a need to disambiguate between "civ games". That is, disambiguating between civilization-genre board games with the trade mark "Civilization" in them. I don't immediately see why items 1, 3, 4 warrant uniform naming and not 5; to me it appears much easier to have them all follow the Civilization (1234 board game) naming scheme.

Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the discussion here. The reason why 1, 3, and 4 warrant "uniform naming" is because they are very similarly titled (almost identical). 5 has a clear subtitle, which, according to WP guidelines, should be used instead of parenthetical disambiguation.--MattMauler (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point about none of them sharing an exact title, but in my opinion, a difference such as adding "Sid Meier's ..." and/or changing the number of spaces is insignificant, and on an entirely different level than having an official and unique subtitle by which the game is known. I do understand that it's a matter of interpretation, but I still think treating A New Dawn as potentially confusing is a stretch since its title stands out so much compared to the rest of the series. When we have a policy in place recommending subtitles and countless examples of that policy in action in similar situations (Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers instead of Halloween (1995) film, despite several in the series sharing the same title, e.g.), I don't think it makes sense to disregard policy in this case (and yes, I know WP:OSE isn't an ironclad argument BUT it can be helpful in cases like this and is one of the main ways that we figure out how to apply guidelines where there's any trace of ambiguity/disagreement like this).--MattMauler (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but I struggle to see why #1 and 3-4 should share the same naming convention with that logic. They're not part of the same series and they aren't called the same thing or even close to it. About the only thing they have in common is the noun "civilization" somewhere in the title, and being civ-themed board games of course. But the thing is, all games discussed meet this criteria. I agree that, in isolation policy would recommend New Dawn to keep its unique name. But since we're discussing here on a disambiguation page for several Civilization board games, it isn't as clear-cut. CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree what policy dictates. Case closed! :)
Just kidding. I am not here to make a claim about how the first ones in the series should be titled, but I understand that the discussion of Civ: New Dawn's title has implications for that issue. That said, I disagree with you here: "They're not part of the same series and are not called the same thing or even close to it." Most people, I think, would consider "Civilization" and "Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame" to be very similar titles despite the different number of words. Meier is the name of the series creator, and it's very frequently left out, both in common usage and in Wikipedia titles. "The Boardgame" is essentially a generic disambiguation inserted by the company itself [edit: and an ineffective disambig for our purposes, since they are both board games]. The two products are very easy to confuse. Policy holds, I argue, for New Dawn because its title is significantly easier to distinguish, and the way it's titled is, in fact, a technique used constantly by media companies of all types to distinguish, for the public, between their own different products in a series (which is why Wikipedia policy mentions the treatment of subtitles like this in the first place).--MattMauler (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

recent edit

‎User:Niceguyedc (talk | contribs)‎ made an edit with the following summary: (v2.0 - Repaired 1 link to disambiguation page - (You can help) - Civilization (board game) per WP:INTDABLINK / WP:WCW project (Spelling and typography))

I find the "per WP:INTDABLINK" rationale confusing. As far as I can understand the rationale should be "per WP:HOWTODAB".

INTDABLINK explains the procedure of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links; how to link to a disambiguation page from a hatnote.

And that was indeed the case for the edits to the individual articles.

But in this case it is HOWTODAB that's relevant: explaining that you should link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect.

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: WP:INTDABLINK is a link to the full section about how to link to disambiguation pages. WP:HOWTODAB is a subsection of that section. For me, I find linking to WP:INTDABLINK better because of the explanation right at the top of that section explaining why these links need to go through the (disambiguation) redirect. This explanation is best answer for anyone who wants to know why I changed the link. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 04:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. First you make one kind of edit (tweaking hat notes) with one rationale, then when you make another kind of edit (tweaking intra-disambig links) that deserves another rationale. My point is: your edit commentaries are identical despite you performing non-identical edits. To me, that's off. Maybe if the INTDABLINK explanation was written to anticipate a whole group of edits... but it isn't. Remember, there is only one sort of Wikipedia Shortcut. The notion that some shortcuts (like HOWTODAB) should be considered "subordinate" to others (like INTDABLINK) might be self-evident to power users like you, but not to every average user (like me). And in fact, that policy page's purpose isn't primarily to be a link target for edit summaries - after all, it's a prescriptive, not explanatory, page. That is why I reckon the onus of sending the reader directly to the relevant (sub)section should lie on the editor writing the edit summary. Hope you see my point. Anyways - appreciate your work, CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Complex and advanced

Recent edits by WikiDan61 [1] and CapnZapp [2] have introduced some neutrality issues into this page by describing civilizations as more advanced than other societies, inserting a value judgment that does not belong on a disambiguation page. They have also removed links to other concepts that sources describe as civilization – namely community, social group, and society. CapnZapp, could you explain your opposition to the previous version?      — Freoh 13:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

my edit reverted Freoh's edit on the grounds of neutrality. Freoh's edit changed the lead of this DAB page from

Civilization or civilisation is an advanced stage of human social development and organization.

to

A civilization or civilisation is a stratified form of human social organization. The term can also refer more broadly to other communities, social groups, and societies.

I did not introduce a neutrality issue, I addressed the introduction of a neutrality issue. The civilization article begins by defining

A civilization or civilisation is any complex society...

The lead does go on to include issues of social stratification, but this is not the most salient defining characteristic of a civilization. To concentrate on that aspect as the defining aspect on this DAB page appears to be the non-neutral stance. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

CapnZapp, could you explain your opposition to the previous version?: The disambiguation page for a topic with a primary topic should begin with a a brief explanatory sentence. You added links to other articles in the wrong place. Please see MOS:DABPRIMARY. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to independently write this explanatory sentence. Look at the primary topic and summarize its explanation instead. Which is exactly what I did; my edit summary was this is a disambiguation page - please summarize the article's definition and don't make up your own. Assuming you agree the brief explanatory sentence accurately reflects the primary article's definition, then you need to argue THAT is non-neutral and gain a consensus for a change over at Civilization. Any changes can and should then be reflected here. CapnZapp (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you not make up your own definition by stating that civilizations were advanced relative to others?      — Freoh 21:57, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: I've looked over your editing history here at Wikipedia and I have no interest in engaging you in your culture war. Do what you will; I'll have no more part of it. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:34, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: If you think I have misrepresented the article you are welcome to explain how. Note: this is another matter than what was previously discussed. I'm going to assume you accept my revert now that I have given you my reasoning, and that you understand that you need to bring your "neutrality issues" elsewhere. CapnZapp (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not accept your revert. You introduced neutrality issues that are not present in the Civilization article.

• In wikivoice, you describe civilizations as advanced relative to others. In the Civilization article, it is clear that this is an opinion, but you state it as if it is an objective fact.
• The Civilization article describes a civilization as any complex society characterized by the development of the state, social stratification, urbanization, and symbolic systems of communication beyond natural spoken language (namely, a writing system). You removed the defining characteristics of civilizations, describing a civilization simply as any complex society. Are you trying to say that civilization and complex society should be merged? In any case, your edit seems to imply that non-civilizations are simple, which is another non-neutral opinion that should not be stated in wikivoice.

This is the same matter as what was previously discussed. Where would you prefer that I discuss these issues, if not here?      — Freoh 01:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I've adopted the article's own WP:SHORTDESC. Case closed. CapnZapp (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Freoh You have repeatedly attempted to add "stratified" to the definition, and you have always been reverted. The BOLD stage of WP:BRD has passed; now you discuss first, edit later. If you take issue with me adopting SHORTDESCS as a way to stay neutral, you need to argue why this is a bad approach. CapnZapp (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I was trying to achieve an edit consensus, given your stated preference for WP:SHORTDESC. Could you explain why you take issue with me adopting SHORTDESCS as a way to stay neutral?      — Freoh 18:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Certainly I can. Because you edited those other pages without mentioning it here. Because you edited this page right after editing those other pages, without waiting for a consensus to arrive. And generally, because you have a tendency to accuse other people in order to deflect from your own shortcomings as a good-faith Wikipedia editor. Specifically, you just now assumed I was taking issue with you adopting my suggestion to adopt SHORTDESCS which is false. Earlier, you accused me and one other editor of not being neutral; again, a false and insulting assumption. This is a very unconstructive approach and it will only lead you into conflict with other editors. Case in point: WikiDan61 choosing to disengage. (They mentioned your previous editing history but I value my time so checking it out is not a priority. Thus I base my assessment of your work as a Wikipedia editor chiefly upon your interaction here) In the end you will likely get booted from Wikipedia if you persist in this approach. And by this I don't mean to make veiled threats. I mean that quite possibly you will end up giving me or another editor the energy needed to report you, and then your interactions will be reviewed as a whole, including whatever made WikiDan61 disengage.

A much shorter way of saying this is: quit the bad attitude, Freoh, and start contributing to Wikipedia in a friendly and constructive manner.

To return to the subject: you are within your rights to edit the SHORTDESCS of those other pages. Now leave off for a grace period of time, I suggest 7-10 days. If (and only if) nobody contests those edits in that time can you assume you have achieved consensus. Then you get back to this page, and you will likely no longer be reverted. CapnZapp (talk) 09:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that we would be more productive if we focus on content here rather than making personal attacks. Do you oppose my proposal, and if so, could you explain why?      — Freoh 03:20, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Stop asking questions that have already been answered. CapnZapp (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I am asking this question because I do not understand your answer. Your wall of text suggests that you are reverting for the wrong reasons, not because of true content concerns, but because you find it unnecessary, because you want to wait for consensus, or because you just don't like it. If you have no true content concerns, then I will reinstate my proposed change.      — Freoh 00:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

No, you don't get to decide other editors' reasons aren't good enough for you. If you don't understand, ask. Ask specific questions, that is. CapnZapp (talk) 06:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My specific question: are you opposed to me reverting your edit and including stratified as part of this page's content? If so, could you give a reason grounded in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?  — Freoh 13:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I oppose it. It puts undue weight on the "stratified" quality of civilizations. Per WikiDan61: this is not the most salient defining characteristic of a civilization. All of this has been discussed already. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean you get to pretend your question hasn't already been answered. Now let me ask you a question in turn: at what point are you willing to accept that you have failed to achieve consensus for your proposed edit? Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 14:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification; your comment made it clear that you do not consent to my proposal. I am unsatisfied with your edit. If civilization and complex society are different enough to warrant separate articles, then the disambiguation page for civilization should disambiguate between the two. Readers may interpret your edit to imply that they are synonymous.  — Freoh 00:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. The purpose of Wikipedia disambiguation pages is to disambiguate between topics with identical or near-identical titles. We are not to include related concepts. The article title is the only concern.

If you want to convert Civilization to a broad-concept page (WP:CONCEPTDAB), broader than today, explaining the differences between "civilization", "society" and "community", you should bring that idea up at the Talk page of those respective articles and achieve consensus for your proposed change. As long as this page remains a disambiguation page, we only disambiguate between topics starting with "Civilization" (and minor variants and spellings thereof). CapnZapp (talk) 06:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not want to convert Civilization to a broad-concept page, and I would argue that social stratification is a defining characteristic of a civilization. In any case, defining it simply as a complex society is insufficient, because in my opinion you are giving too few defining characteristics for it to be a useful explanation. Why do you oppose disambiguating between civilization and complex society?  — Freoh 14:12, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see MOS:DABPRIMARY. There are a few points worth considering there. 1) It is recommended that a link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence; 2) The brief explanatory sentence is otherwise an individual entry per MOS:DABENTRY; 3) Since it is unlikely this primary topic is what readers are looking for if they have reached the disambiguation page, it should not be mixed in with the other links. As stated above, it is recommended that the link back to the primary topic appear at the top, in a brief explanatory sentence. So, does including the term "stratified" help readers (who more likely than not have arrived at the disambiguation from the hatnote atop civilization) distinguish that primary topic from any of the other entries listed on the page? Is there any complex society that does not also have social stratification? That is, does the term provide any context that would help readers determine which of the entries listed on the disambiguation page is the one they are seeking? I agree with CapnZapp that the additional verbiage does not help readers on this dismbiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I should add that if this exhaustingly long exchange isn't hint enough, there's an active discussion over at ANI regarding this user. I will stop responding to Freoh while waiting for it to conclude. CapnZapp (talk) 10:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Bkonrad, I think that part of the problem is that these terms are used somewhat inconsistently. Some authors seem to use civilization and complex society interchangeably, and if enough reliable sources do this, then we should merge the two pages. I have also seen anthropologists describe complex social structures without social stratification. I am concerned that someone might go to the civilization page looking for a more general concept that is not necessarily stratified or writing-based and click on the link for civilization (disambiguation) when they see that the concept there is more specific. For this disambiguation page to be useful, it should be as clear as possible which link they should click on: civilization, community, society, or complex society. CapnZapp, you clearly have some strong opinions here. What do you see as the distinguishing features between these four pages?  — Freoh 13:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

References