Talk:Civilization IV: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 22:21, 12 February 2024

Civilization IV was nominated as a Video games good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 24, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civilization IV article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Civilization IV" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Video games Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

More Info???

I would like to see more information on civ 4, like the resources. Not to much for 'wikipedia is not a game guide' to show up, though. Articleer (talk) 01:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more information you might want to visit the Civilization IV Wiki at Wikia. The articles about the resources haven't been created yet, though, but the wiki still has almost 500 articles. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 12:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the Civilization IV Wiki now holds more than 700 articles, including articles about the resources. I think adding a link to the Civ4 wiki should be considered. To the External links section of this article, I mean. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 21:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled the stability problems section

Unreferenced for a few months now. Pulled it out for now. DP76764 (Talk) 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename/move article

I suggest moving the article to Sid Meier's Civilization IV since that is the game's full title. SharkD (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say leave it as it is, it's far more commonly known as just Civilization IV. Properly a case of WP:NC(CN). QueenCake (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More discussion has occured here. SharkD (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editions Comparison

I had to do some digging but I found what the differences are between the Special, Gold, and Complete editions. Special as someone mentioned includes a faux leather box, soundtrack, Tech Tree poster, and keyboard template. Gold includes the Warlords expansion, a Behind-the-scenes DVD, a Fantasy and aTech Tree poster. Complete includes the two expansions on a single DVD disc. Most information from mobygames.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.42.217 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rhye.civfanatics.net

I recently removed links to this site added by the site-owner

Since this issue spans Wikipedias in multiple languages, there's a discussion underway on Meta-Wiki with the owner of this site at the bottom of this page:

meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/rhye.civfanatics.net

Given the history discussed there, neither the site-owner, IPs nor new user accounts should add these links or write about these mods in article space since it's against our Conflict of Interest Guideline). If established editors wish to add neutral material about the owner or his products, that's OK. Any material should cite references that meet the requirements of our No Original Research, Reliable Sources and Verifiability standards.

It's also OK for the owner to discuss suggested changes on article talk pages, as long as he/she isn't just nagging for inclusion (see WP:CANVASS).

If you want to comment on this post, it would probably be best to leave any remarks at the link above, not here, since this discussion spans multiple articles. I think that if you're already signed in on this Wikipedia, leaving a post there will automatically set up an account there for you there but I'm not sure -- you might want to make a sandbox edit there first to be sure. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taizong (the leader) links to disambig page

Would it be correct to assume he's Emperor Taizong of Tang? Kanjo Kotr (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Best not to make assumptions. If someone has the Chinese manual, perhaps they can verify. Or this leader could be removed from the list, as this is the English Wikipedia, not the Chinese one, and we don't need to know about that version of the game. DP76764 (Talk) 16:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Info on Great People

I was thinking that perhaps there should be more detailed info on the great people. Not necessarily a list, but perhaps an organizational chart that is done similiar to the civilizations with leaders, units, etc. My reasoning is that Great People are a huge part of the game and contribute to the educational value of the game. Who hasn't googled or wp'd some of the great people to learn more about them? Anyway, if they were listed here with links to their WP page, it could be valuable to the educational merit of WP, which in the end is learning and the sharing of knowledge. Hobbamock (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a mistake about great people generation mechanic. GP:s do not generate at random, instead the player's cities gather "gp points" that are visible in the city screen. When the bar is full in a certain city, a great person will spawn there with it's type chosen random from types determined by buildings that city has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.81.36 (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Civ Tables/Trivial Lists

This is being discussed in the Civ:V article and likely to have ramifications for this previous incarnation's article too. Rather than tread the same ground over please join the debate; Talk:Civilization_V#Removal_of_tables_of_Civilizations to see if we can't reach a consensus.-Oosh (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2012

See: Talk:Civilization_V#2012
This is kicking off again, and maybe we can resolve it this time, this series of high-importance to the video gaming project but its articles are languishing in the lower ratings. This (I believe) is one of the reasons. Please join the discussion. -Oosh (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy Win for Baba Yetu

Does it bear mentioning that the theme song composed for this game, Baba Yetu, went on to later win a Grammy in 2010, the first piece of video game music to have achieved this honor? EdenMaster (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good addition. Got a good source for it? DP76764 (Talk) 23:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fall from Heaven Article

I am currently in the process of writing an article in my userspace on the popular Civ IV mod Fall from Heaven. However, seeing as I am a relative n00b here on Wikipedia, I would much appreciate some help and/or support. If you wish, you can reach me on my talk page. Thanks! Willbat (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what I'm doing, but I was reading this article and saw many different parts of the article linked back to source #3, which is called abcdefghijk and appears to have been vandalized and/or incomplete. Just wanted to give you guys who know how to do things a heads up somewhere, even if this isn't the right place... (this isn't the same person as above sorry I don't know what I'm doing)

Thanks for your contribution (glad to see your first edit was constructive), but the link has not in fact been vandalised. The letters are all links to separate sections/pages of the Civilization IV game manual, and have been cited separately for ease of reference. Thankyou though, and keep on editing! P.S. After you post a message, please type four ~'s to sign your name, and include an edit summary where possible. It makes it a lot easier for everyone. P.P.S. If you want to post something not covered by the section heading, go to the top of the page and click the "new section" button. Thanks! Willbat (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheats for multiplayer option

My son and I followed the cheat steps of changing the "0" to "chipotle" in the civ4 Beyond the Sword config file. It worked successfully in the LAN line singleplayer mode, not in the LAN line multiplayer mode...why? Please let us know what steps we need to take in order to get this cheat step to work in multiplayer mode. Can't wait to hear back from someone with help on this matter.

76.126.37.237 (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Civilization IV/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Darkwarriorblake (talk · contribs) 23:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

First thing I notice, even as a gamer, is the use of 4X. I've never heard that term before and so I doubt any non-gamer and even just any non-strategy gamer will understand it. It seems needlessly obtuse. Link to it by all means but give it a more descriptive link, if it is a sub genre of strategy games, make the link say strategy game. Or move 4x further down the lead where it can be briefly explained what type of strategy game this means Civ 4 is.

I, Mr. Gonna, joined in the GA review just to add the definition of the 4X game in the top paragraph of the "Gamplay" section. This is just minor, since I'm not the nominator. |>(@"<) (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The game is said to have received universal acclaim, but the reception section is incredibly small, this could do with some small expansion of positive and negative reviews for neutrality.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

Remove the following duplicate links:

Lead - turn based strategy / firaxis games

Resources and buildings - technology tree

Technology, government and religion - technology tree

Customization - XML

Production and development - technology tree

Release - Firaxis games

Reception - engine, IGN, GameSpot, multiplayer

Per the Template: Infobox video game guidelines, crew should be limited to the lead people, lead designer, not sound and additional, lead artist, not ui artist. If these people are notable and you want to mention them, mention them in the prose. Paul Murphy is listed as the only writer, he doesn't need (lead) by his name.

Replace CD (2), DVD (1), with simple "Optical disk"

References should not be in hte lead, they should be in the prose.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Image is being deleted - File:Civilization4-Civics.jpg seems ok, but File:Civilization4-Tech tree.png is in the process of being deleted, and is too small to be useful anyway, a close up of a portion of the tree might be more useful if it is to be retained.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Thanks for the review! I admit since having only played the game twice, I'm not familiar with some of the video game terminology but I understand a lot of the concepts that are more familiar to real-time strategy rather than turn-based strategy games. In any case I have no idea what 4X means either (and I'll get back to reviewing the article on 4X, so maybe we could ask some of the other fellow editors at WP:Video games to chime in? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 00:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh just FYI, there was a lot more additional information that I took out while in the midst of rewriting the article, and I took out chunks of sections and saved so that the entire section could be undone in one edit if need be, while keeping the rest of the rewriting intact. Can you please also review some of my edits to see if any of them deleted information you might think warrant inclusion in the article that I've accidentally left out? I've deleted mostly what I thought of as trivia, but if you decide its notable I might work to reword it back into some encyclopedic way. Also, I'd appreciate more than one set of fresh eyes, maybe we could have a larger group of GA-video games people working on this. Not to imply that your review isn't any way bad per se, it's just that I feel having only two editors handle an article as large as this feels quite daunting. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I nominated that image for deletion myself, considering I didn't see a single bit of encyclopedic value in it. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 00:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the removed content I don't think there is any loss there and the improvements made to referencing for instance are really good. I think there is a way to put a GA on hold pending further opinions, I will look into it. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 19:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I did some more rewrite work up today here to try to prop up the reception section. Can you do a re-review to see if it still has the same problems? (I guess I'm a bad judge/reader of how my article is supposed to look like when I made the "universal acclaim" addition.) Again, thanks for taking the time to review! TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 08:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes make a big improvement. For critical reception, the only thing I'd say is go into a little more detail with some of them, for example "Game Revolution remarked that "the multiplayer... actually works this time"[24] and GameSpot added that both "single-player and multiplayer options have been improved in Civ IV." How was it improved/did it work? Also might be worth reviewing SnowFire's comments below, other than that I think the rest of the article is looking good. And I'm not rushing you, so don't feel like you need to get it done asap, I know its the holiday period. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief outsider comment: The logic in this edit is against WP:DEADLINK that deadlink citations are still valid. Either these mobile games are irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned even if the source was up, *or* the citation should stay and replaced with an archived version of the website if possible. To do otherwise would weirdly punish easily-checkable online citations - Wikipedia already accepts offline book citations that are difficult to confirm, so a cite to a website that has since moved / is down is still legit. (Of course, as already noted, maybe those mobile games shouldn't be in the article at all. I don't know how important they were.) SnowFire (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely sorry for the late reply, I haven't found some spare time to work through the article again what with the busy holiday schedule, but I think I've got some more time now during the weekends to work on it. Regarding that link, I believe it doesn't add much to the article because it's not notable enough to mention, even though the company that publishes it may be, and I've attempted repair on many of the deadlinked references here already. Plus because it's one of those websites that rotate their products on the main page now and then, it could be hard to pinpoint the exact date and time that it appears on for readers to verify it exists before the product is switched out again. The last point would be that it goes against WP:PRIMARY's discouragement of using primary sources for the article, and though admittedly I've used a few already for references, I think it's best to keep it at a minimum. But thanks for your insight! TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

From my read, the second opinion request was regarding the use of 4X? I feel that this terminology is part of the accepted jargon regarding this game, but being jargon, should be wikilinked so that readers can understand it. I'd also note the article (4X) is a featured article. As an additional comment, this article reads well and is well-sourced, but I do feel could be significantly expanded (maybe an extra 2-3 paragraphs) in the production section. It would be interesting and relevant to read about the method and/or philosophy behind the game, including the expansion of the culture mechanic, victory conditions, and use of religion within the game. --LT910001 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second opinion request was about the article as a whole, so your comments are very useful for the nominator. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add this to my list to check through. Give me some time to review it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I like the depth you've gone to in the gameplay section, though you'll probably need more secondary sources for an FA push. In the gameplay subsections, you revisit the victory conditions of the gameplay lead, I like that - but maybe expand on how diplomacy can lead to the UN victory.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Lead - "Civilization IV is typical of most turn-based strategy gameplay...". The typical turn-based strategy game is chess, or some hexy wargame. The empire building aspect is not typical of most turn based strategy games.
Development - "a full 3D immersion of the game... ...which allowed easier readability" This is not what the source says. Play other games in the series, and you'll find that Civ IV has the worst unit/terrain readability of the lot. In general 2D is a lot more readable than 3D - Soren Johnson agrees
Reception - I'm unconvinced that GameGuru is a reliable source. I don't think it's an influential voice who's opinion we should value.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The development section is very lacking, it reads like an unconnected series of anecdotes rather than a summary of the development decisions and processes. This is the fourth game in the series, you need to explain what they set out to do differently versus the previous games, and why they chose to do it. Start with this Rock, Paper, Shotgun interview - http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008/02/20/making-of-soren-johnson-on-civ-4/
It's probably worth splitting out the music into its own paragraph, I'm not a fan of how the article just links to Music in the Civilization video game series (which isn't a particularly good article) instead of fleshing out such an important facet of the game. An interesting paper - [1][2], not peer reviewed, but it has been presented at conferences.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Both screenshots are poor representations of gameplay and do little to illustrate the game. There's no real need to nominate File:Civilization4-Tech tree.png for deletion, just remove it from the article and tag it as {{orfud}}. The most important facets of the game is its 3D representation of the game world and its interface, the game takes place between the world map and the city screen. I'd probably expect a screenshot of each. An image of a great prophet spreading a religion in a rival city would illustrate multiple points at once, and would serve the reader a lot better than the current images.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Some of the points I've mentioned above are easy to fix. But the lack of development coverage is a deal breaker which I consider an instant GA fail. - hahnch e n 05:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Darkwarriorblake, User:TeleComNasSprVen, this review has been open for some time now, and the article has had no substantive edits for around two weeks. I think it's time to close, unless you have further comment. - hahnch e n 16:13, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh I think that's fair, it's been open a while. I understand if TeleCom is too busy to make the changes right now but its not fair to keep this nomination open for so long. I would say close for now, make the necessary improvements and then re-nom when ready. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, you can do it I suppose since I'm busy on another Wikimedia wiki, but as I understand it there is no time limit between reviews so I can submit another one if/when I've improved the "Production" and "Review" sections right? TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 21:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware there are no time limits unlike FA nominations, so you can just renominate it when ready. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Civilization IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120312080743/http://uk.guides.ign.com/guides/818084/page_2.html to http://uk.guides.ign.com/guides/818084/page_2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civilization IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/dvd/article583471.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Civilization IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Civilization IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224123747/http://www.1up.com/reviews/civilization-iv_2 to http://www.1up.com/reviews/civilization-iv_2
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.elspa.com/?i=3942
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721045751/http://goty.gamespy.com/2005/overall/index10.html to http://goty.gamespy.com/2005/overall/index10.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100730043356/http://goty.gamespy.com/2005/pc/index12.html to http://goty.gamespy.com/2005/pc/index12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization 4 Community Server

Hello, scince the shutdown of Gamespy is multiplayer dead.

but 2014 zulan and dingus wrote code for gamespy server replacement. its up 4 years now can somone it insert into the article, that multiplayer is working again?

http://civ.zulan.net is all details listed. idk how to edit wikipedia and dont want corrupt article.

glitches

glitch forum. comment glitches — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackgtr (talk • contribs) 05:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]