Talk:Civilization (1980 board game)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Games professing relation to Civilization
[edit]Please do not add games to this page without a documented connection to Civilization. This article is not meant to advertise a game just because it shares its name or game play with Civilization.
For the Editions and Expansions sections, the game should verify as an official edition/expansion of the game, or it just ain't notable. For Similar Games, supply a source making a direct comparison to Civilization. For instance, a review by a general newspaper, a trade magazine or other WP:RS specifically verifying that yes, the game is similar to Civilization. Assuming the game lacks its own Wikipedia article, doing so will also help establishing notability.
CapnZapp (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- "Official" according to whom? Did you not read the referenced link to Boardgamegeek before deleting the piece on Mega Civilization? And you couldn't be bothered to say which item you were deleting? Boardgamegeek is the encyclopedia of board games, and is a massively reputable source in that industry.
- The very first sentence of the game description is "Mega Civilization, a huge version of the legendary development game Civilization...." Note, that blurb was from the publisher, so it is their claim. But it is supported by all the other information on the site.
- Additional info: The rules to Mega Civilization, besides crediting Francis Tresham as the original designer, also say "thanks Mayfair Inc. for licensing the rights to Civilization." It is also true that the licensing of the name appears to be at issue moving forwards. But this edition: has the same name, credits the original designer, and claims to be licensed. What more do you want?
- (Don’t expect further discussion from me any time soon. I won’t be on Wikipedia again for a while.)
- Thomas Phinney (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- Okay so I'll ignore your comment then. (Talk pages are for discussions, not announcements. If you don't plan to engage, don't expect me to) Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Legacy
[edit]User:BOZ, it appears we have come full circle. First there were claims that Meier had knowledge of the AH game when he created his game, with dubious sourcing. This was followed by [citation needed] tags. The we rewrote the article to claim there AREN'T any connections, and - as you can see in the editor window - asking wikipedians to not re-add back those claims without reliable sources:
<!--- regarding "did Sid Meier play the board-game prior to creating the computer game?", please do not insert any claims not reliably sourced. Of particular note, please do not readd back contradictory claims. Thank you -->
Now you're asking us for sources to verify there ISN'T any links. Ironic, huh?
The basic fact is that the connection or not is on people's minds, Meier himself denies any connection (but is proven to have known about the board game at the time of creating the computer game) and there is no objective third party to be had. However, just deleting the section will only bring us back to square one so I wouldn't recommend it. Now then, it is possible to argue that the first claim isn't OR and don't need any particular sourcing. It is nothing more than an obvious observation on the two games. The second statement is more meant to counter the visitor coming here to see what the connection is. NOT saying there's no proven connection would lessen the usefulness of the article.
That's the best defense of the current state I can give. CapnZapp (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
- I'm not even sure that the legacy section is needed at all, but handle it however you think is best. BOZ (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
See also section
[edit]My addition of Dawn of the Ancients in a "See also" section was reverted. I do see discussions related to this topic. However, this is a reasonable addition as they are both tabletop games from the 1980s with a similar setting, and a reviewer in a 1985 gaming magazine specifically pointed out similarities between these two games (see gameplay section in Dawn). I invite comment from @Wham2001 and others. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure where I come into this – I don't know much about the history of tabletop gaming and I don't remember editing either article (well, OK, I just added a missing {{refend}} to Dawn of the Ancients, but that hardly matters). I don't have a strong view either way on whether this article would benefit from a "See also" section, but if it is to have one it probably should have a brief annotation explaining the connection between the two games as suggested in MOS:SEEALSO – that might reduce the risk of clutter from barely related articles. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies @Wham2001, my mistake—was looking at the wrong article. I meant to request comment specifically from @CapnZapp. But since you mentioned it, a brief annotation makes sense. Airborne84 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Since no objections, I re-added the article in a "See also" section with a brief annotation as suggested above. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies @Wham2001, my mistake—was looking at the wrong article. I meant to request comment specifically from @CapnZapp. But since you mentioned it, a brief annotation makes sense. Airborne84 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)