Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Rewriting the Introductory Paragraph

I've started making a rough cut at the introductory paragraph. Ignoring the patch paragraph (willing to move it to its own section), I have tightened the first paragraph. I have moved the description of SMAC = Sim City + Dune (somehow Civ on another planet would be more descriptive) to Reception, material about retail packaging to Availability and copied material from Reception to the opening paragraph.

I believe the theme of the encyclopedic article should be that SMAC receive exceptional critical response and the other sections should illustrate why the game was so well received critically (of course, if there are negative reviews that emerge after I check sources, they will be included under the neutrality policy). This is an important decision. I have started thinking about what is the last line of the introductory paragraph and I believe the critical acclaim is the most significant thing. I do welcome comments and my edit of the introductory paragraph should be regarded as only illustrative. Vyeh (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect completed

I went ahead and redirected Alien Crossfire to Aloha Centauri. I checked an WP:SIZE says articles that have less than 32 kB in "readable prose" do not need to be split for reasons of length. The combined article is now 33 kB, but there is some redundancy between the introductory paragraph and Reception and there is still some cruft for nolelover to eliminate. I also archived the merger discussion as well as a lot of other material in Archive 2 (this talk page was 71 kb, well beyond the 50 kB guidelines for archiving). Vyeh (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• seems good... a lot of the time there's not enough of a change that you need a separate article for a game and its expansion... Arskwad (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• In this particular case, there wasn't enough. I think it is very important to make editing decisions based on the subject matter and not on the general case. Vyeh (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Contesting a deletion

The following reason was given for the deletion of the paragraph below ("this entire section is WP:OR, straight from primary sources.")

Brendan Casey released Version 1.0 of the Unofficial SMAC/X Patch, which fixes some bugs in Alpha Centauri on May 7, 2010. His project began in February 2009 at Apolyton's Alpha Centauri site and moved in June 2009 to the Civilization Gaming Network, where he will continue developing further versions of the patch.

I have read WP:OP. Let's start with the obvious. (So obvious that I initially did not mention it. I am editing my original remark -- use the version history if you want to see my original remark):

1. the paragraph is not original research. There are four sources. The article without the paragraph has only 29 citations, of which seven are citations I have put in recently, including 6 in the modifications section. (Note that just before I merged the two articles, Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire had only five citations and I put them all in!) So there seems to be a misuse of the WP:OR designation, as one might have problems with two sentences that have four citations, but they certainly aren't original research.
   
   
2. I believe the last reference is a secondary source. Now that we have established (I believe) that we are not dealing with original research, there is an issue of whether it is strictly primary source. (Note that if primary sourced material was disallowed, much of the storyline, factions, gameplay and expansion sections would be in trouble. Fortunately, WikiPedia does allow primary sources to be used carefully: "Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." Please note that WP says that articles shouldn't be based entirely on primary sources. It does say: "A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." So while, it would be nice to say the last reference is a secondary source, it isn't necessary for inclusion of the disputed paragraph (primary sources are adequate as long as they are only being used for descriptive statements.) Now that the long parenthetical is out of the way, WP says "Secondary sources are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event. They rely for their material on primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them." The last citation comes from people who are certainly one step removed from the event. They have no part in the events described in the paragraph.

I would like to get some other opinions strictly on the issues of whether the paragraph is original research and of whether the final source is a primary or secondary source.

It is rather unfortunate that we have to deal with this issue (I was planning to look at sources today), but the individual who made that change is an admin (at least he has the right to delete talkarchives and I think it best to get some second opinions before I proceed further.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 23:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I would question the reliability of the sources instead of whether they are primary or secondary. Usually forums don't count as reliable sources. As a side note edits that admins make don't carry any extra weight; they just have a few tools that other editors don't have. Narthring (talk • contribs) 01:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind Vyeh, I added it back in the Mod section. Keeping it in the intro means it will always be the first thing cut. While it isn't well sourced (there are no great sources for such things, it seems), at least it is real-world content. The main issue with the article is the extensive coverage of the game-world itself, and lack of real-world content. We need move production info, more reveiws/reception/sales. Any Sid vs. EA drama relevant to the topic is great too. If that paragraph still has issues when we get through the rest of the article, it can be taken-out then. For now (when compared to the rest of the article), no harm done. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

JohnnyMrNinja, thank you. While I don't think it belongs there, that is as good a place as the intro to hold it while we figure out where it belongs and the rest of the article. I am going to copy your comment into a new section and address them there.

Real World Content: the Microprose/Firaxis dispute

(I have excerpted JohnnyMrNinja's comment from the above section.) The main issue with the article is the extensive coverage of the game-world itself, and lack of real-world content. We need move production info, more reveiws/reception/sales. Any Sid vs. EA drama relevant to the topic is great too. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 03:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. I will look at the sources in light of finding more production info, reviews/reception/sales. In addition to Sid vs. EA, which might be a matter of expanding our search to look at articles about Sid and EA which don't mention SMAC, but occurred in the same time frame, there was also the issue of who had the rights to Civ II. Are you familiar with the fact that Microprose published Civ and Civ II and that after Civ II, Sid left Microprose to start Firaxis. As a result there were three successors to Civ II, Civilization: Call to Power; Civilization: Test of Time and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri . (BTW, there is a box at the bottom of the article, Sid Meier's Civilization Series, which use to list Test of Time after Civilization II. Sid Meier's had nothing to do with Test of Time. I figured out it was generated by the template {{Civilization}}. I was going to ask how to edit it, but I found it and took care of it!) So I am throwing this out there, but how about if we include a big section in this article about the Microprose/Firaxis controversy and how it led to ToT, SMAC and CtP. It certainly was very notable. I'd have to check the article about Sid Meier to see how the issue was handled, but I suspect that we could make SMAC notable because it was the real successor to Civilization II, but Sid couldn't use the name "Civilization II." I believe there are reviews that mention this so the real (or spiritual) successor angle is not Original Research. Vyeh (talk) 11:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. I found this interview (http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features/gamedaily-interview-firaxis-games-jeff-briggs/67119/?biz=1) only to realize it was already being used in the Mircoprose article. Anyway, this will be great for this article; we need so much more real-world content. We'll just have to be careful to tie it in correctly. Nolelover (talk) 14:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I looked at your article and I looked the Microprose article. I didn't see its contents reflected. I'm thinking that we basically note that after Firaxis was formed, it did two Civil War games and then it did SMAC. We can then discuss Civilization II: Test of Time by Microprose and Civilization: Call to Power by Activision in terms of the real world content of the fact that Microprose, as the publisher of Civilization II, put out a sequel to Civilization II, Activision had the license to the "Civilization" name, and Firaxis had the designers of Civilization II. This could essentially make SMAC a Civilization II sequel without the name. What I would propose is that we insert a section after the introductory paragraph to talk about the real world licensing issues following the success of Civilization II. There should be plenty of sources that meet WikiPedia's standards on this topic. I wouldn't mind if we essentially had a full article in that section, as I think we could have a very informative, interesting and well-sourced discussion. Once we have covered that, in Storyline, we can first discuss how Civilization II: Test of Time went beyond 2100 AD, the ending time of Civilization II, while SMAC starts at 2100 AD. Then a paragraph about the Unity being a United Nations expedition, presumably led by the winning civilization in Civilization II, the disaster that befalls the Unity, and a little description of Chiron, including the Progenitor's experiment (even though it was only hinted at in SMAC, I believe we can have a unified SMAC/X storyline. In the factions section, we highlight the connections of the faction and faction leaders to the U.N. (showing the deliberate connections to the Civilization II storyline) and perhaps tie the factions into current ideologies of 1999, when SMAC was released. This will give us a lot of real world content, although I want to be careful to find sources and avoid anything that will cause non-gaming editors to descend (e.g. OK to say, "the Hive is based on China;" bad idea to say "the totalitarian Hive is based on China"), When we get into gameplay, we should note that SMAC uses the same engine as Civilization II (I should be able to find a source for that in a review) and check to see what we can find for Civilization III (it would be nice if Sid Meier's mentioned Alpha Centauri in interviews he did about Civilization III). As for the rest of the sections, I would care about Reception and show how SMAC received similar critical response as Civililization II. Maybe Modification can be merged into Gameplay and it can be discussed in the context of Civilization, Civilization II, Civilization III, Civilization IV and Civilization V. I am not impressed with Inspirations. I don't think we need a separate section for Technology if we note somewhere that SMAC uses the same engine as Civilization II. I wonder if we need a separate section for the expansion. JohnnyMrNinja has put in an infobox for the expansion at the top of the article. We can mention the expansion in the other sections where it is appropriate. I'd like to axe fiction. Legacy: 1st paragraph would go into intro; axe 2nd and 3rd; 4th paragraph, 2nd sentence, would be OK if there are sources for Civilization III, IV and V which explicitly mention SMAC. I would axe the Availability section. Vyeh (talk) 17:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Love the idea. BTW I meant Microprose Software, sorry. Nolelover (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I've looked at the Microprose Software article and I don't think there would be a problem reusing the quote, if it made sense. Check out Civilization (series). It already has the angle I was looking for. We would only need to repeat the essentials and link to that article. (Maybe we would find some Alpha Centauri references when we read the sources.) I roughed out an introductory section for everyone to look at. Vyeh (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of your proposal, except merging the mod section into the rest. The majority of experienced editors would just delete that stuff on sight for the reasons that it is not sourced and that it has no impact on the mainstream perception of the product. Keeping a mod section creates a lower standard for inclusion for that section, and most editors might just leave it be. I do like integrating the expansion into the article and mentioning the differences where appropriate.

Also, the phrase "the Hive is based on China" is not real-world content, this is still in-universe. It references the real world, which is not the same thing (see the MoS). Basically it's the difference between fact vs. fiction. What is meant by real-world content is development, reception, sales, even packaging or modification, etc. The amount of coverage that the factions are currently getting is already too much, as it isn't really relevant to the topic as a whole. Does is impact gameplay that the Hive is from China? Did it change sales, or the reviewer's perception? Would it make a person who has never played the game go purchase it? Sure, it may have influenced the creation of the faction, but it is still just a fictional backstory. I am re-writing a draft of the faction section to give you and idea what I mean. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 22:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Factions
Whereas players of the Civilization series chose from teams based on countries or ethnic groups, Alpha Centauri has seven factions based on distinct philosophical beliefs and/or governement models, both real and hypothetical. These are: Spartan Federation (militarism/survivalism), Gaia's Stepdaughters (environmentalism), Peacekeeping Forces (peacekeeping), Human Hive (legalism/totalitarianism), Lord's Believers (dominionism/fundamentalism), Morgan Industries (capitalism), and University of Planet (technocracy). Each faction is led by a member of the colony ship's crew most appropriate to that belief; the fundamentalist faction is led by the ship's chaplain, the militaristic faction led by the security officer (and mutineer), etc. Each faction has bonuses and penalties based on this theme; for example, the capitalist faction can easily make astronomical profits with the right social engineering, but cannot effectively maintain a large army due to their support penalties.

This is a rewritten version of the faction section. By taking it out of a list form, it is now easier to read. Instead of listing every (fictional) detail about the factions, I left only a few but specifically explained their relevance. I was originally thinking we could use other Civ articles as a reference point, but many of them seem pretty bad-off. We should probably be looking at category:FA-Class video game articles for inspiration, and for now I think our goal should be getting to B-class status. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the mods section. I like your rewrite of the factions section. Especially the contrast with Civilization. I look at the Civ articles. They are pretty bad. I got the following message on my talk page:

If you'd like to look at similar game articles that are rated high-quality on Wikipedia, I recommend Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, Halo Wars, Populous: The Beginning, and StarCraft as examples to use as templates. Happy editing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Vyeh (talk) 03:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

JohnnyMrNinja, I hope you don't mind but I went ahead and put your faction section into the article (along with a couple of sentences about the expansion factions and a sentence about the aliens in the Storyline section). Please regard my additions as placeholders and edit freely. Vyeh (talk) 11:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Production section

I have found some material by Brian Reynolds at the Gamespot reference.[1] I have incorporated the last entry into the Production section. I have also eliminated the Development subsection, the Inspiration subsubsection, and the Technology subsection (if there is more material, these subsections can be added in). I have moved the sentence about the game engine from the introductory paragraph to the Production section. The Production section should be considered very rough and other editors should feel free to edit it freely. Note that Brian Reynolds material falls over three html pages; I have indicated change of the page at the first material. Vyeh (talk) 13:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.gamespot.com/features/alpha_dd/

The Production Quotes

From over here, packing all those Brian R. quotes in the production section looks a bit odd. There has to be a better way to get quotations in; boxes are so ugly. I'll be on the lookout for another template. Also, was taking out the inspiration sec. really necessary? I thought it was kinda cool. Nolelover (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, those quotes need editing. Some can be paraphrased. I only used the box because JohnnyMrNinja used one in the talk page. We could just use straight quotation marks and indentation. Feel free to play with the formatting. As noted, it was done very roughly. I thought it more important to go through sources and let other editors work on the presentation. I put back in the Inspirations subsection. Vyeh (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

Resolved

This was an interesting way to resolve a dispute between Dream Focus and myself. I was for axing all non-official links (see Archive 2). Dream Focus wanted to keep them. He pointed to the fact that official site linked to two of them and the extensive material in those two sites (Apolyton and Gamespot). I had suggested a compromise that we eliminated all external links except the two official site links and Apolyton and Gamespot. Then we got diverted by the merger discussion.

JohnnyMrNinja put a notice at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard. About 6 hours later, Jonkerz placed the notice above. I saw it and commented 40 minutes later. A few minutes later, DustFormsWords deleted all but the first official site. He apparently overlooked that there were two official site links (because Firaxis had broken the link to the sections about Factions, Story, Strategy, etc. I went ahead and restored the second official site link since his reasoning only applies to non-official sites. I guess the polite thing is to drop a note to Dream Focus. Vyeh (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Hi. Per my comment at External Links Noticeboard, my personal feeling is that despite being an official link, the "second official site" link adds nothing to an encyclopedic understanding of the topic that can't be integrated into the article via normal editing, but it's certainly doing no harm and is non promotional so if you feel strongly it should be there I'll defer to the longstanding editors of this article - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:06, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, User:DustFormsWords. We've had some...problems...regarding the links on this article... Nolelover (talk) 01:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The "second official site" link was part of the official site until it was cut off from the first link. There use to be a link between the "Buy It Now" and the "Downloads" links called "Official Site" Right now, the first link is just a single short sales page with an outdated link to "Buy It Now" (it points to the laptop collection at Amazon which is only available used at $30+ dollars, while the new Sold Out Software versions can be purchased for $9 including shipping). Since the first link is pretty worthless and one can get to the developer's home page from the second link, I have axed the sales page and relabeled official strategies as official site (incidentally downplaying strategies by pointing to The Story, which does have the Michael Ely fiction which for length and copyright reasons can't be integrated in to the article). Vyeh (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I have now fixed the official site External Link to everybody's satisfaction. Take a look at Internet Archive Wayback Machine (May 2008) of the original link. Note that Firaxis Games, the developer of SMAC, links to an "Official Site" between the "Buy It Now" and "Downloads" links. I think this is pretty dispositive that Firaxis intended the recipient of the link to be the "Official Site." What I have done is use the Wayback Machine to generate the recipient of the link as of May 2008. And I have used that address as the recipient of the link from our article. Vyeh (talk) 17:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the only reason the article linked to Firaxis sales page of SMAC rather than to the "Official Site" is the desire to include the sales page as well as the "Official Site." Since the sales page no longer links to the "Official Site," I think the link from the article should go to the archived version of the Official Site. I have gone ahead and put "resolved" tags at the External Links noticeboard and here. Vyeh (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Notes, References and Further Reading

While looking at the external links, I have been looking at the bottom of the article. (I didn't like the box for Loki Software. It looks blatantly promotional, until I discoverd that Loki Software is no longer in business.:)) We have Notes, References, Further Reading and External Links. We have reduced External Links to one. I wonder if people would be willing to eliminate the section entirely. I would also suggest that Further Reading should be eliminated. The first reference, Aldrich, Clark (2004). Simulations and the Future of Learning: an Innovative (and perhaps revolutionary) Approach to E-Learning. John Wiley and Sons. ISBN 0787969621. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) seems to be there to promote a book about e-learning. Other than being inspired by video gaming in general, there is no connection with Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. The other two probably could be integrated into the References section. I have been reading about the use of citations and I believe this article was set up using the model of Starship Troopers. I would like to use shortened footnotes (author, year, page number) and then link the note to a reference that would contain all the information. I don't think there is anything controversial about this, but I have learned not to make that assumption. Vyeh (talk) 11:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to eliminate the External Links section entirely simply because there is only one good link. I had added the further reading entry awhile back because the source contains information about Alpha Centauri and I didn't have time to make suitable references to it when I came across it. It shouldn't be in the Further Reading section, it should be suitably referenced and placed in the notes or references section. Narthring (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, it will probably be best to leave an External Links section with an official site link. Although the guidelines for External Links says there doesn't need to be any, I think readers expect to see such a link. While I do plan to use it as a source (with care since it is a primary source), that only suggests that it has worthwhile material. Also, I think the existence of an External Links section with only the official site link may be less inviting to mischief (adding promo links) than no External Links section. I assume you are referring to either the article about EA getting good sales numbers from SMAC or the article about Linux. I have taken a look at both articles. I have moved both of them to the References section and I will see about using them in the near future (usually means days in my case) for references. I think the EA article can be used for the Reception section. The Linux article has greater applicability. I eliminated book on e-Learning. From what I could tell from the summary, it did not mention Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (apparently it was a book about a new form of learning which drew its inspiration from the fact that kids spend a lot of time playing video games). I imagine that someone connected to the book went through a lot of video game articles and planted the reference. Please correct me if I am wrong. Vyeh (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I have used the Rosen1999 reference in the opening and Reception sections. Vyeh (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Production section quotes

There are too many quotes in the production section. They should be condensed down to preserve the information in them, but there should probably only be one or two quotes total. Narthring (talk • contribs) 14:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Like Vyeh said, it was done very roughly. I keep meaning to edit that section and I keep going other places...Anyway, go ahead and take out the ones you feel don't belong. Nolelover (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Nolelover and I discussed this issue under the heading "The Production Quotes" and "Production section" three and four sections above this section. To recap, I noted that it was very rough and asked other editors to edit it down by paraphrasing the quotes. And that I thought it was more important to go through the sources at the top of this discussion page and let others work on presentation. I have made a rough cut on the production section, leaving in only one quote. This is still very rough, but remember this article is rated Start-class by Video Games WikiProject. This is the editing suggestion for Start-class: "Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation." Besides the sources, I believe there is substantial in-universe material in the Gameplay section that needs to be eliminated. I'd like to confine the Gameplay section to material that is solely secondary sourced (no sourcing from the game manual). And we should rethink the subsections. Based on what Brian Reynolds said, we should have a discussion of diplomacy and interludes. I think native life is sufficiently different from Civilization to be discussed. Beyond that, I would suggest that we refer to the opening paragraph of Civilization (series) and only discuss significant changes from that description. Vyeh (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. It's no big deal, I just looked at the article for the first time in a few days and noticed it. I didn't read all the latest talk page sections, which I should have. Narthring (talk • contribs) 17:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I would rather you make a comment than not. I hope that you agree that there is still a lot of cruft to cut from the gameplay section (I would say more than 50%). Vyeh (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Storyline and Factions

"The storyline for Alpha Centauri picks up with the Civilization space-race victory. Unlike the Civilization games, Alpha Centauri develops a complex storyline of its own, using the starting video..." This doesn't make sense: does Civ not have a complex storyline? I think we should add a "which" in the second sentence for the sake of clarification. I also edited the Factions quotes and added a bit about the AI. Thoughts? Nolelover (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I edited the Storyline section to remove the "Unlike the Civilization games." I am not sure what you mean by "which." Factions look better, but I think the Alien Crossfire paragraph should follow your paragraph since Brian Reynolds was not involved with Alien Crossfire. Vyeh (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant: "Unlike the Civ games, which...and so forth. It said "unlike", but unlike what? Anyway, it looks better now. I'll also do the factions paragraph switch. Sorry, I had no idea Reynolds wasn't involved in SMAX. Nolelover (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Moving the article from Start Class to C Class

The Video Game Project correctly classifies the article as Start Class. According to the editing suggestions in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment#Quality_scale, "Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation." I will work on referring to the sources at the top of this page. Regarding content and organisation, does anyone have suggestions? Vyeh (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

RE:What is the process for promoting an article from Start Class to C Class?

Guidelines for assessments are located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment. To have the article reassed, you can put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests. In response to a request, an assessor will review the article and generally post notes about their decision on the talk page. If the article meets certain certain quality criteria, then notes may be sparse or unnecessary.

In regard to suggestions to improve the article:

1. I recommend fleshing out the "Reception" section first. I recommend checking other sources listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. These are considered reliable for video game articles. Find whatever reviews you can and paraphrase the writer's comments with proper attribution: writer's name, publication, and citation.
   • "[NAME] of [PUBLICATION] praised the graphical detail.^[#]"
2. Once that's done, the "Development" section needs work. The process is similar to the reception section. Though instead of a writer's opinion, you're looking for news pertaining to production details: inspirations, processes, deadlines, time frames, etc. And again, the content should be properly attributed with citations:
   • "[DEVELOPER] spent X years/months developing the game.^[#]"
3. The "Gameplay" section is too detailed. Trim it down to the bare essentials. Just keep in mind that the reader doesn't need to know how to play the game to understand how it works.
4. Remove unsourced statements and original research. Just keep Wikipedia:Verifiability in mind. Readers have to be able to verify content. Simple statements like "Alpha Centauri is a video game" do not need sourcing because this is very easily verifiable. But others like "Chiron is an homage to James P. Hogan's 1982 space opera novel Voyage from Yesteryear..." are very specific and require a citation to a reliable source.
5. Organization would be good to reduce excess sub-headings. Some sections can be combined into other sections to reduce undue-weight and give better context.
   • Factions → Storyline or Gameplay
   • Fiction and Modification → Legacy
   • Availability → Development
   • Expansion → Legacy or Development depending on the content

Hope it helps, let me know if you have any other questions. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC))

I received the above comments from Guyinblack25 on my talk page. I have started looking at sources and will take care of his first two suggestions. I would like nolelover (and any other interested editors) to start looking at the third suggestion. Could we hold off eliminating unsources statements and original research until I have gone through the sources? (It will be easier for me to modify existing text to add references rather than typing new text.) I have gone ahead and implemented the fifth paragraph so we can see how it looks. There is still work to be done to harmonize those sections and eliminate redundancy. Vyeh (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Civ 5 Utopia Project in Legacy section

I added a sentence about the Civ 5 Utopia Project victory condition in the Legacy section. Please feel free to edit. As I have indicated before, I am more interested in putting more reliable sources into the article than polishing words. Vyeh (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

OTOH, I'm primarily a word-polisher... heh Eponymous (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Then we are a good team. Vyeh (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay

There seems to be a general consensus (since Dream Focus has more pressing WP matters) that there is still too much gamecruft. I was looking for an another excuse to procrastinate going through sources and I took a quick stab at cutting out the cruft. After I made a quick pass, I felt like I had taken out too much. So I went back and looked. Rather than finding anything worthwhile to restore, it still seemed too much. I ended up giving it the same treatment as the faction area (using a list rather than subsections). I want to focus on the differences from Civilization II, since we later say the game is based on the same engine. Specifically, I trimmed the introductory paragraph. I cut out datalinks (it is an in game help function), terrain (similar to Civ II), bases (similar to cities in Civ II), and society (similar to unhappiness in Civ II) and reduced units and combat, native life, diplomacy, social engineering and victory conditions to items in a list. I feel pretty good about the results (other than the usual need to have my words polished by nolelover and other editors), but I admit that my two edits were pretty drastic. I don't think this article should be for people who play SMAC (we can give them a reference to the online Gamespot guide), but for people who play Civ, for game players and for general WP readers. Please feel free to add material. I feel pretty confident that my version contains very little cruft. Vyeh (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think it would work without some in-game stuff but honestly, a 10-line gameplay section looks great. We still have to clean up certain sections (devel.) but I think we finally have the basis for a good article. I'm out this whole week but when I get back, I'll work on polishing. Nolelover (talk) 23:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Introductory section

Following Guyinblack25's guidelines for writing the lead, I have rewritten the introductory section. The only thing that concerns me is the last sentence of the first paragraph: "Electronic Arts released SMAC in 1999 and the expansion pack Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire (SMAX) in 2000 for Windows, Aspyr Media ported SMAC and SMAX (together, "SMAC/X") to Mac OS and Loki Software ported SMAC/X to Linux in 2001." For some reason, it seem rather wordy. Can someone help me out? Unlike most of my editing, I went over this section numerous times polishing the words. I would appreciate your comments. Vyeh (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a quick stab at it. Eponymous (fnord) 13:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It helped. I did some more polishing. Vyeh (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Linux release date

We were using a release date of April 2001. I believe this came from Amazon. However, see Review: Alpha Centauri for Linux. I checked the news items for Loki and in July of 2000, there was a preview for SMAC (Linux). In August was this review (it is by the same author as the source IT World Canada. Do we have a preference for CNN over IT World Canada? So I have changed the date for the Linux release to August 2000 from April 2001, because I distrust Amazon as an authoritative source for release info. Vyeh (talk) 15:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent Feedback from GuyinBlack25

This was posted on my talk page:

A few quick suggestions:

• I think you'll be fine without citations in the lead. The rest of the article that is cited will be able to back it up.
• Gameplay is probably too bare bones.
• I'd combine short paragraphs to make larger ones. 1–2 sentence paragraphs are too short to stand on their own.

The article is really improving. Keep it up. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC))

I'm still going through sources. At the end, I will remove the citations in the lead section (after making sure they are in the appropriate section). As I go through sources, I will add material back into the Gameplay section. And I have no problem with short paragraphs being combined. These are my current thoughts:

1. I'd like to have more discussion about the relationship of SMAC to other Civilization games, particularly Civilization II, Civilization V (which is being released in 80 days), Test of Time and Call to Power.
2. I'd also like to have discussion about the falling out of Firaxis and EA.
3. Maybe there should be an external link to the Gamespot Guide since we have cut out the gamecruft and that Guide has lots of cruft. There may be readers who will be interested in that material.
4. Under Legacy, I would like to mention that ten years after the release of the game, there were three active English speaking forums, one active German speaking forum and one active Polish speaking forum. I'm not talking about external links nor would I mention any names in the article, but I think Eponymous made a good point that this can show one aspect of the impact of SMAC (and similar features in the latest Civilization game shows another aspect). I have enough experience to know that there are editors who have reactions based on generalizations and I would hope that we can consider this issue in the context of this particular subject.
5. We might also want to look at other science fiction games that are comparable to SMAC, e.g. Starcraft, Galactic Civilization, Master of Orion, Deadlock. Currently, we have categorized SMAC as a 4x turn-based strategy computer game, which is the categorization for the Civilization series games. However, it seems we have overlooked the science fiction setting.
6. I think it would also be useful to note that Brian Reynolds left Firaxis after SMAC and before SMAX to start Big Huge Games. (It is relevant that he had no part in the expansion, which has been merged into this article.) Vyeh (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Civ 4 Planetfall Mod

I wanted to raise an edit I did almost a month ago because there has been a complaint going to my motives. I have disclosed my COI on my user page and have mentioned it here. When I created a couple of sentences on Modification for Eponymous, I deleted the sentence on Planetfall. It seemed so obvious I did not note it in the edit summary. (It took me awhile to find the edit!) In the overhaul of the External Links, I had deleted a link to Planetfall as obvious self-promotion and adding little to an encyclopedic understanding of SMAC. Besides being self-promotion, I don't see a fan-generated mod of another game as belonging there. (I would like to add in a discussion of features in Civ III, IV and V which are similar to SMAC.)

I have dropped a note on Guyinblack25's talk page asking how GA/FA articles have handled discussion of online fan communities. I believe we will have to do a massive rewrite of the Legacy section to bring it up to GA standards. Some of it has already been used elsewhere and I don't like the high visibility/promotion of the out-of-print Ely novels or the graphic novel. Vyeh (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of online fan community

I'd like to get some advice about discussing the online fan community in the article (pointing to other video game articles that do so would be welcome). Recently, an IP user who put in an external link for a fansite forum half a year ago added one of its subforums to a couple of sentences I put in for Eponymous on a trial basis discussing the modding community. There has been some recent discussion in that fansite forum in a thread titled WPC links in Wikipedia SMAC(X) articles strategizing on how to get that fansite forum mentioned in the article. Vyeh (talk) 09:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that link should be taken out. The sentence "...and to support the modding community." needs references to show that there are such places, not provide links. I personally think we should keep the modding links to an absolute minimum. For the most part, they are blatant advertising/bait and switch. Although if WPC can come up with something good, I'd be open to it. Otherwise, is the average reader really gonna care? Obviously, our External Links section is small and unless we want to revive all the old arguments about who and what belongs, I say we keep it to the basics. As for discussing them and their mods, featured articles like Halo 3 and COD have section about new downloadable content, but they are official and slightly bigger/more important. I don't think we should put very much. Nolelover (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My general thoughts on the subject are that fan-generated content should be avoided. The main reason is WP:RS, which requires us to source our contributions with reliable third-party sources to ensure notability. If, however, certain mods become notable via coverage by reliable sources (Defense of the Ancients for example), then mentioning it is perfectly acceptable.

I would put fan communities fall in the same category. The lack of reliable third-party sourcing would not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC))

Guyinblack25, thanks. I am still going through sources. I'll see what those sources say about modding. Nolelover, in terms of the External Links, the only question I have is whether the one link is too many! I am using an archive of the official site because the official site is no longer hosted by the developer. At this point, I figure having one link is a better detriment to preventing further links than having no links. There might be some argument for linking to the Gamespot Guide because we don't have much gamecruft anymore. I'd like your opinion. As for the modding community language, I only put it in as a test for Eponymous because he thought it was important to discuss the moddibility. The appendix of the link I provided (which Guyinblack25 provided, so it is RS) has plenty of info on modifying files, so feel free to edit as you please. We probably should expand the Gameplay section to discuss multiplaying and customization. (I think customization more properly belongs in gameplay than legacy.) Vyeh (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought that the External Links section was to provide links to information that WP couldn't/doesn't allow and include. Regardless, we need to get a rough consensus on what belongs on our External Links section. Articles like RuneScape provide the biggest fansites as well as the official site. I think putting Gamespot and even other fansites would be okay, as long as we have a good reason for the ones we select and don't allow any others. I also agree that customization would work better in gameplay. Nolelover (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

See also

I generated this section by searching for "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri". I deleted items that were already wikilinked as well as two articles about fansites (Apolyton and CFC) and some very tangential articles (Mary had a little lamb and The battle hymn of the republic). Ideally, items should be deleted by being used as wikilinks in the appropriate place in the body of the article. If there is no appropriate place (we don't want to add trivia per WP:INDISCRIMINATE just because trivia was added to another article), then this is the criteria from WP:ALSO in WP:MOS:

Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links (wikilinks) to related Wikipedia articles. Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. For example:

• Related person – made a similar achievement on April 4, 2005
• Ischemia – restriction in blood supply

A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one. Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a "See also" section, and navigation boxes at the bottom of articles may substitute for many links (see the bottom of Pathology for example). However, whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. Indeed, a good article might not require a "See also" section at all. Thus, although some links may not naturally fit into the body of text they may be excluded from the "See also" section due to article size constraints. Links that would be included if the article were not kept relatively short for other reasons may thus be appropriate, though should be used in moderation, as always. Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links). {{Portal}} and {{Wikipedia-Books}} links are usually placed in this section.

Guyinblack25 says:

See also

• Should provide a list of internal links to related articles.
• Links already included in the body of the text are generally not repeated in this section. Because of this, this section is often not needed in most video game articles.

It would be helpful if the reason for deleting a link is stated in the edit summary or, if it is likely to be controversial, here. Thanks~

Vyeh (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Could we double-column it? That way it doesn't appear so long, assuming that all the links stay, which I doubt will happen. Nolelover 17:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How's this? Vyeh (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Until the list is shortened, and possibly even after that, I think it should remain that way. It just takes up too much space. Nolelover 19:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Think of it like the sandbox checklist for things to wikilink. (Since these articles/list mention SMAC, they might be of interest to a reader.) Vyeh (talk) 22:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Vel's SMAX Guide by Chris Hartpence

This is a self-published guide. As such it is not a reliable source. The only statement it use to source is "The game has also sparked a strategy guide by Chris Hartpence, which was later printed and published." in the Legacy section. This seems to me to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE and a self-published guide seems to have little bearing on Legacy or Cultural Impact. I have deleted the sentence and moved the Hartpence book to Further reading. WP:FURTHERREADING states:

Contents: A bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of editor-recommended publications that do not appear elsewhere in the article and were not used to verify article content. Editors may include brief annotations. This section may be substituted by an External links section; editors will occasionally merge the two if both are very short. When an article contains both sections, some editors prefer to list websites and online publications under External links. Publications listed in Further reading are cited in the same citation style used by the rest of the article.

Unlike External links, there are no further guidelines. In addition to the printed copy, there is also a downloadable version (provided by the author to a fan site 15 months ago), so I suppose it could be included in the external link section and justified under WP:ELYES, point 3, and WP:ELMAYBE, point 4. I certainly would recommend it to players as my printed copy is pretty worn. I have annotated it as a self-published advanced strategy guide. One of the reasons I believe this work should be included is that although the article should be written for the general reader, there may be readers who play the game and this would be very useful to them (this is the same reason the Gamespot Guide is included in the external links). Vyeh (talk) 09:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Guyinblack25 has raised the issue of whether this belongs in Further reading: "Commented out self-published material. Content is typically unsuitable for inclusion. Needs further discussion." As you can see from my comment above 5 days ago, I had problems with it being in the Legacy section. Vyeh (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

External Links

Nolelover, as you know external links are very disfavored. Wikipedia:External links states that it specifically does not cover citations. First, it says that there should be a link to the official site, if any. Our question is whether we still have an official site if it is no longer being hosted. It also says neutral and accurate material that contributes to an encyclopedic understanding and is too detailed to be integrated into the article should be included. Under to be considered are sites which are not reliable sources but contain information from knowledgeable sources. To be avoided are links intended to promote a site, links to a discussion forum and links to websites of organizations mentioned in the article, unless they otherwise qualify. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links says to include the videogame's homepage provided by the developer or publisher, the developers' and publishers' home pages, and MobyGames, Allgame and Internet Movie Database if those pages contain substantial information. It says to avoid (unless a consensus deems them valuable, which is my argument for Gamespot) 1up, GameSpot, IGN and GameSpy, fan based sites and forums. It specifically says, "Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game." Guyinblack25 says external links "should provide a link outside of Wikipedia that can provide information that wouldn't be in the article. For example, a game's official website done by the developing or publishing company." He also says that "Usually, no links to fansites are included at all."

With that as prelude, I'd like to get your opinion on two issues:

1. The official site is no longer hosted by the developer. I believe a lot of the material there can be incorporated into the article. I think the most important reason for including it if that there is an expectation among readers and GA reviewers for an official site link and the archived material is certainly better than the sales page at the Firaxis website (which use to link to the official site).
2. I was thinking we should include the Gamespot Guide (however, note that the Video Game Wikiproject article specifically warns against that). I believe there are readers who are looking for this type of material and since we are eliminating it in our quest for GA status, we should give it to them.

I did look at the MobyGames external link that use to be in the article and deleted it because it did not have substantial information.

What do you think? Vyeh (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not it's currently hosted by the developer, it is/was the official site. I'd say that definitely stays as long as the content remains unchanged. Same for the Gamespot link. I think WP:ELYES is our reasoning. If not, I don't think one link will keep us from GA - and we can always take it down. As to the warning against Gamespot, I hope they they use these rules on a case-by-case basis and not as sweeping generalizations. I think we put it in. Nolelover (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the Official Site is an archive, it certainly won't change! I put in the Gamespot link, so you and other editors can look at it. Please note again that it specifically counters Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links, which says "Additionally, Wikipedia is not a game guide - external links should not be added to include material that explicitly defines the gameplay on certain aspects of the video game." Note that Gamespot is a reliable source. As a secondary source, it is favored over primary sources (e.g. the SMAC manual) and can be used as a source to flesh out many areas of the article, particularly multiplayer gameplay and modifications. Vyeh (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't really look at the archive, but I say that because I remember one site going out; another site "archiving" it, and then drastically changing the content. Anyway, as to Gamespot, we either keep the link or try to carefully put some cruft back into gameplay. I don't think we want to do that. And of course, do two editors even count as a WP:CONSENSUS? Right now we'd have to follow WP:CONLIMITED, which kind of puts us behind the eight ball. We'll keep for now, but later on...Nolelover (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This archive is the Way Back Machine. The link is to the latest date the Way Back Machine had. It won't change. I followed a WikiPedia procedure intended to protect against changes. Consensus will be determined if there has been an adequate period of time and all comments have been addressed. (It is one reason I broke this discussion out in a separate section - to give the issue more visibility on the talk page.) I took a look at WP:CONLIMITED and it seems to me that rather than being behind the eight-ball, you have given us ammunition to choose the WikiPedia wide policy (which I was careful to cite in my edit summary) over the WikiProject Video Game policy. I have added an emphasis to a sentence from WP:CONLIMITED: "For instance, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right." According to WP:ELYES, the following should be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." I took a look at WP:NOT#GUIDE on which Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links bases its injunction against linking to material about gameplay. WP:NOT#GUIDE only says that the article should not read like a "how-to" game guide: it does not address what are appropriate external links. So I think the issue comes down to the following: (1) Is the site neutral? (yes) (2) Is the site accurate? (yes) (3) Is it relevant to an encyclopedic understanding? (yes otherwise why have a Gameplay section?) (4) Can it be integrated into the article (no the article is currently 46 kB; it should be no more than 50 kB in readable prose; the site is 335 pages). I think (1) and (2) are settled by the fact that Gamespot is a WP:RS. I think (4) is settled by the current length of the article and the fact that we are still putting material from sources (in the end we may be cutting sections to stay under the limit which will make the article better). So the only real issue is (3). One of the criteria listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Assessment#Quality_scale is "Reader's Experience." This is what it specifies for Good Article: "Useful to nearly all readers." I think there will be readers with experience with one of the Civilization games wanting more detail about Gameplay than the article can provide in the 50 kB limit and the Game Guide external link will make the article useful to that reader. Or there may be readers wanting more information about multiplayer or modifications. Oddly, the strongest argument against the Game Guide as an external link is that it is a reliable source. It will appear in the Reference section, so there may be editors that will say it is not necessary to be listed as an external link. (There are also some references to the official site that are now broken, e.g. notes 54 and 62 in the current version that need to point to the archived version.) At this point, I think it is important that you and other editors are aware of these issues. Once we have discussed this, we can seek Guyinblack25's opinion. While we are discussing external links, we should decide about including the developer's (Firaxis) and publisher's (EA) home pages. The Video Game WikiProject says they should be included. However, WikiPedia says "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered" should normally be avoided. If Firaxis was still hosting the official site, a link to them wouldn't be necessary because a reader could easily navigate to Firaxis home page from the official site. However, from the archived official site, the reader can only navigate to an archived home page, not the current home page. My inclination is not to include them because WP:ELOFFICIAL emphasizes minimizing the number of official links: "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites." However, if Guyinblack25 says including them will help get GA, I'll defer. In addition to MobyGames, I also looked at Allgame and Internet Movie Database. I don't think MobyGames or Allgame adds substantial information (as sources, their information can easily be integrated into the article). The Internet Movie Database does contain the cast, which I don't see integrating into the article, but I don't see that as substantial information. Vyeh (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You've thought it out well. :) I see no problem with Gamespot. Nolelover (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links says "These links should be present if possible in a video game article ... [t]he developers' and publishers' home pages." I have added the developer (Firaxis) and publishers (Aspyr - Mac, EA - Windows and Loki-Linux). As we prepare the article for review, it seems to me that following the guidelines for the Video Games Wikiproject is a good thing if this is reviewed by members of the Video Game WikiProject and if an outsider questions the links, we can point them to the guidelines. Vyeh (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Guyinblack25 has inserted the Firaxis Games: Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri page as the official site. This matter was considered at the External Links Noticeboard. In particular, note my last comment there: "I think I have now fixed the official site External Link to everybody's satisfaction. Take a look at Internet Archive Wayback Machine (May 2008) of the original link. Note that Firaxis Games, the developer of SMAC, links to an "Official Site" between the "Buy It Now" and "Downloads" links. I think this is pretty dispositive that Firaxis intended the recipient of the link to be the "Official Site." What I have done is use the Wayback Machine to generate the recipient of the link as of May 2008. And I have used that address as the recipient of the link from our article." My contention is that the "Official Site" is now only accessible via the internet archives and the "live" page is only a page at the developer's website, which is no more the official site (especially since they use to have a section titled "Official Site") than Loki Software Inc.'s page (sadly neither EA nor Aspyr has a SMAC page page now). Note that WP:ELOFFICIAL contemplates an official site being used as a source ("When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article"), so the fact that the official site is in the References does not disqualify it from appearing in the External Links section. What I will do is change the link to the archived version of the official site instead of the sales/support page of Firaxis (note the Buy It Now points to Amazon) without adding any prose. I am amenable to dropping the "Official Website" link entirely if the feeling is that since the Official Site is no longer hosted by the developer or a publisher, it is no longer official. I am also changing the developer's link to the sales/support page. Vyeh (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the archived one because it is an archived site already used as a reference. If it was just the official site also used as a reference or an archived official site not used as a reference, then I would agree. But its current status exclude it from WP:ELOFFICIAL in my mind. The fact that the old website is no longer available removes its "official" status to some extent. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

I removed the official site link (there is no requirement for an official site link). I believe it would be misleading to label the short Firaxis SMAC page (which only has a link to one of Amazon's sales pages and a link to official downloads) as the official site, when there used to be an "official site." Vyeh (talk) 17:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay

I have rewritten the gameplay section, modeling it after some featured VG articles, and it is in my sandbox. It's rough, and I didn't get to victory conditions (can you do that?) or multiplayer (I copied and pasted), but I think it's a start. You can edit there or move it, whatever you want. I think it might be easier to continue to edit it there though, until we've finished. Nolelover (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea! I'll try to get to it tomorrow morning (within the next 18 hours). Vyeh (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been 18 hours. As you requested, I took care of victory conditions and I finished the diplomacy paragraph. Besides going through my changes (we want to make sure this section would flow for a general reader), modifications should be developed. First, we can discuss the customization that is available when a game is set up. I'd like to start with using a random or custom map instead of the Map of Planet, then talk about disabling one or more victory conditions, then directed versus blind research, visible or no visible world map. After that, we can discuss scenarios. After that custom factions and alphax.txt modifications. For MP, there are two versions (sequential, which can occur through "hot seat" play or PBEM, and simultaneous). We may want to consider probe teams (this can go into diplomacy), native life (and we could mention psi combat in passing) and social engineering (which can probably go into the paragraph about factions). And it is probably worth mentioning the customization of units. Vyeh (talk) 16:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I don't know much about custom factions, the MoP or the alpha.txt file (simply cause I never used them), but I'll work on the other stuff. Nolelover 20:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Second round completed. See talk page of sandbox. Vyeh (talk) 11:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the Gameplay section with User:Nolelover/Sandbox#New_Gameplay, after first transferring footnotes from the original section to the sandbox version. Note: these footnotes need to be checked to see if they support the sentence they are attached to and to eliminate redundant sources. My objective was to preserve footnotes, unless I knew they only supported sentences that had been eliminated. In some cases, I moved them to sentences of greater generality. Credit for the sandbox version also goes to Nolelover, Guyinblack25 and Kilkakon (from Civilization Fanatics Center fansite). Vyeh (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And you, n00b! :D Nolelover 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I added "also" to my previous comment. When you have the time, it would probably be helpful for you to read through the lead, plot and gameplay sections and see how the sections work together. Vyeh (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Nolelover 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)