Talk:C-evo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Formatting

The text is "wrapped" around the small square Table of Context box in order to avoid ugly gaping holes of blank space. Try alternatives yourself and see the effect . There is currently an editor going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles to satisfy some obscure personal agenda. --Wetman 21:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

This is not obscure or personal, it was the overwhelming feeling of the VfD discussion for this template. The whitespace generated by a four item Table of Contents is is no way a problem for the layout of any article, let alone this one. There is a reason for the default TOC being as it is, if most people found it ugly it certainly wouldn't be the default. There is no way TOCright or TOCleft are justified for a four item TOC. Saying "every sensible adult" would support its use on these pages is certainly not the case, most sensible adults were and are against its use except as a last resort for long TOCs, and the majority of sensible adults continue using the default TOC in their articles. If you wish to go on abusing this template by using it where it is not remotely neccesary, you may be turning those who voted to keep it as a last resort off it altogether. Joe D (t) 21:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Strategy and Tactics section

I've removed this section. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Fugg 00:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I followed that link and failed to see that stated anywhere at all in the rules. So as such I'm going to revert what you did. Mathmo 09:09, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:WWIN; point 4, "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." Marasmusine 19:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Specification useless?

Why is the article located at "C-evo (computer game)"? Is there anything else called "C-evo"? Wikipeditor 00:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

• Since C-evo was just a redirect to C-evo (computer game) I've moved this article to C-evo. Fugg 04:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Features that make this game notable

While it shows that the author has invested lots of time into development, and the community has created translations, add-ons and tools, this will also be the case for many other games. But how many games are there with a similar combination of strong points, and how many among 4X games? I don't think there's any other game quite like this.

Feel free to add/change/delete features.

• Streamlined, comparably purist strategy (but with more appealing graphics than other similarly "purist" turn-based strategy games such as The General)
  • Equal treatment of human player(s) and AI(s)
  • Full determinism
• Players can freely design units to suit their needs instead of simply "unlocking" pre-designed units. I think this feature alone makes the game stand out.
• Although it is a very complex game, it has a good AI, and rules have been carefully fine-tuned to keep the game balanced – there are no gaping flaws or weaknesses. (Of course, network play would be nice, as would more/customisable keyboard support to balance the heavy mouse use.)
• It is completely free an open and has been designed for easy customisation (graphics, city lists) and economic translation which might make the game fairly popular.

Note that "notability" on Wikipedia is nothing to do with how many unique features someone thinks it has, it's to do with third party references; how well known it is, and whether others have written about it. Mdwh (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed and I'm not seeing anything in the article that does this. The euro-gamer reference is borderline trivial, and in my mind trivial. Its a far cry from "significant"--Crossmr (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That’s all well and good, but the article survived AFD, so we can’t put a the notability template on the article. Samboy (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed - Nomination for Deletion - 3/25/07

This page was nominated for deletion on 3/25/07 on the basis of WP:N and WP:ATT. I disagree with both of these statements. Many sources can be found online regarding C-Evo and it is a notable freeware Civilization clone. I'm removing the deletion nomination on the article page. If you disagree with this, please post on my talk page. Thanks! Muchris 14:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Networkable ?

Almost nothing is said on how the game is played with other humans... up to how many players ? And is it a server-client architecture ? XApple 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the game can be played multi-player or over a network. There has been talk on the forum about this but at current date this is not supported (Oct '07) - H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.21.126.246 (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Hotseat play is possible, network play is not. Wikipeditor (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Deterministic

What does the statement "C-evo is completely deterministic, unlike Civilization II" mean? Does it mean that there's no randomness involved? Every action is a response to a player's reaction? The article should explain this. --72.43.103.251 14:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Done, except I forgot to add that playing against other humans is of course not deterministic. Wikipeditor (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

AI contains randomness.[1] --Dual Freq (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

C-Evo in the press

"Soft Computing Applications in Industry" page 308 states "Sánchez-Pelegrín et al. (Sánchez-Pelegrín et al. 2005) also developed a CBR AI module for the strategy game C-evo."; the paper in question is entitled "A CBR module for a strategy videogame" and is a pulblished paper discussing making an AI for C-Evo. In addition, "Civilizations: Webster's Quotations, facts and phrases" on page 256 has an entry for C-evo.

I think this is enough notability to survive AFD; if anyone disagrees, please let us know. Samboy (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving stuff to the C-Evo wikia article

I have moved the entire section about the differences between Civilization II and C-Evo from the Wikipedia because this stuff is original research here but useful information at the C-Evo Wikia article. Samboy (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox software vs. Infobox video game

Bringing this here rather than my own talk page.

User:Shaddim, having your own opinion is fine, but it is being contested here. You can't just drive it through by edit warring. This is an article about a game, so therefore it gets the Infobox video game by default; you need to show a direct consensus this is an exception. The WP:BURDEN is on you, in other words. Also, it doesn't matter that you didn't participate in that discussion; the point is that quite a bunch of editors have rejected your preferred style of infoboxes, adding 1 extra vote to that straw poll wouldn't matter, and there's no reason to think this would be an exception.

If you truly believe you have some new point to be made, feel free to suggest that this discussion be revisited. But as is, just accept that there are different tastes than yours, and Wikipedia is a collaborative project.

(As for the Eurogamer reference, look, it's a tiny tiny tiny "article". I personally despise acting as if these mini-articles mean anything at all; wouldn't an actual review be a better source? Or at least something with more than 2 paragraphs? Just leave it out IMO.) SnowFire (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Eurogamer reference: Eurogamer nanes 5 exceptional worth mentioning games. Therefore clearly add. About unfobox, there is no consensus on the usage of infoboxes with software: the infobox software has double the amount of useful information with FOSS software than the VG box, which is a clear indication which to use. Shaddim (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

From the previous discussion, perhaps Codename Lisa is in favor of your standpoint that this is in fact "useful information"; meanwhile Izno, Ferret, Sergecross73, Czar, Dissident, Hellknowz, Lee Vilenski, and PresN all express opposition / concern to the idea that the license fields you find so pertinent are needed. Throw in myself on the "against" side and you on the "for" side, I suppose. This isn't close; there is clearly a consensus against. It's possible that this particular article is an exception, but you haven't made a case on that either. Continuing to say WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disruptive editing. You are being told, outright, that there is not in fact consensus for your position. Pick one: either give up, or start a new discussion at WT:VG and see if consensus has changed.

For Listicles that name 5 exceptional (quality) games, they are an absolute dime a dozen. Surely you know this. If this standard was applied to other games or other media, we could fill up three paragraphs with how "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron" is one of the 50 best horse movies, or that "The Typing of the Dead" is one of the 20 Best Zombie Video Games. So no, they are not auto-include. SnowFire (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

First, it is not consensus if not at least all voices were heard or it was strifed for a solution fitting all sides. As I wasn't included or invited, it wasn't consensus but maybe a majority vote. Second, VG portal cant decide alone on software; there is overlap between VG and software and specifically FOSS software. The VG portal was especially unwilling to take feedback from the community on the VG infobox; reflected by the continuous input on its talk page about missing fields which is regularly shut down where it should be taken as sign that the VG box is too rigid and limited. About references, you are welcome to find better one until then we will use what we have on reliable sources. Shaddim (talk) 07:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please actually read what I said. I am including you in the tally for, of course. It doesn't matter when nobody else, aside from one banned/vanished editor (Codename Lisa), agrees. So no, you're not being silenced, but yes, you were outvoted. Also, when you say "feedback from the community", you really seem to mean "feedback from me." Who exactly agrees with your point? Names and pings. Let's see 'em. I'm sorry, you can't just claim you have the consensus when it's utterly trivial to confirm you don't. Trust me, I'm outvoted by the community too on a number of topics where my preferences differ, but I don't pretend that everybody agrees with me.

I'm reverting again. If you really have the consensus, then prove it. Go show me some discussion - an RFC, a discussion at WT:VG you start - and I'll back off. SnowFire (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

your change is not a progress. This is not about consensus but about article editing. (and YOU would need an consensus to prevent the usage of the software box) Shaddim (talk) 20:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

and again, you don't have a consensus. Consensus is not majority vote AND the VG portal cant establish a consensus alone on software , this would need more portals /groups / authorsShaddim (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"YOU would need an consensus to prevent the usage of the software box"

Well how nice that I provided links to two separate discussions that rejected your idea (Template_talk:Infobox_video_game/Archive_15#missing_fields, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_135#Large_number_of_video_games_are_using_{{Infobox_software}} ). We're going in circles here. I've provided you the proof you demand and you're acting like I didn't. Anyway, if this needs "more portals groups authors", please go for it! I have invited you, several times, to go start just such a discussion, to bring in these mysterious supporters of yours. If you do, I'll back down! Easy! If you don't, then stop editing claiming you have community backing, when you clearly don't! SnowFire (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You avoid my argument that the the VG portal can't create a consensus for software. And that a arbitrary discussion of some random authors is not a consensus. Also, you don't give any argument why the less useful fields caring VG infobox would be here IN THIS SPECIFIC ARTICLE anybetter. If you don't have better arguments, stop right now. Please, keep your socket puppet accusations for yourself. Shaddim (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: re-reading the VG portal's discussion: it seems they would prefer over expanding the VG infobox's fields by "software" fields, the usage of the software infobox for specific articles; exactly what I'm doing, so I don't see no base for your actions also from that sideShaddim (talk) 07:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do I have to make your argument for you? It's a computer game. They get Infobox video game. There's my argument. You're the one who has to prove something different is going on here.

I don't really care about this article that much, but I do care about insane changes made when nobody else thinks it makes any sense. But like I said, I'm not the one who has to make the argument that computer games should switch from IB video game to IB software. You're the one claiming that. Yet you continually refuse to open a wider discussion and show this support. Also, sockpuppets? What? Where is that coming from? I'm asking for *real* established editors to be found that support your position. i.e. go post a notice on a Wikiproject of your choice's talk page. If you can get support, as I've said a zillion times already, I'll back off. You continually refuse to do this, so I'm going to continually revert you until you do. It is your responsibility to establish why your edits of the long-standing Infobox should be kept, not mine to prove you're wrong. See Wikipedia:Ownership of content. I don't own this page, but neither do you. There used to be a big warning when you submitted changes to Wikipedia: if you do not wish your writing to be mercilessly changed, redistributed, or rearranged, do not submit it. SnowFire (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

exactly. you should assume in WP that other editors will remove bad content and structures like unsuitable and not-well fitting infoboxes and exchange them for better ones. Don't get stuck here but let other editors fix it, don't block them, don't assume you have ownership of interpretation how to handle software and what is a game and what not. Shaddim (talk) 08:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

3O summary

I dropped a request for a Third Opinion off, since Shaddim said he was open to the idea and he was going to do it, but then didn't actually do it.

Summary of dispute:

• User:Shaddim believes very passionately that license information is incredibly key to infobox - e.g. open source, proprietary, and so on. (As a side note, his desire to improve articles related to open-source software is commendable, and it's great he wants to help.) Unfortunately, his proposals to add this field to Infobox video game have been rejected in the past. As a result, Shaddim has gone around changing various computer games to use "Infobox software" rather than "Infobox video game", because software does have a license field. As far as WP:BRD goes, there's no particular problem with that.
• User:SnowFire (me) contested Shaddim's bold change of infobox, and also as a side note would like for the article to highlight less a 2-paragraph listicle. Just because somebody lost a debate doesn't mean the "wrong" Infobox should be used. Shaddim hasn't offered any C-evo specific reasons why Software would make more sense, and has only rehashed the exact reasons that were rejected in the linked debates: that the license should really be included in an infobox, as well as procedural complaints that I find... suspect. (e.g. claiming that there is some great groundswell of support behind his position that he refuses to link to, or reading the above discussions as actually supporting his position.) Additionally, our WP:RS policy for games does not consider 2 paragraphs in a listicle as a particularly great source.

Any help with the dispute would be appreciated. SnowFire (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

what, the fu**: I agreed to do a 3o, but Snowfire couldn't wait some hours while i'm was busy. Shaddim (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

It takes about 30 seconds like to do, and you found enough time to revert to your preferred version and type out "wait for the third opinion, it'll be here any second!" Hopefully you can imagine why I was less than impressed. SnowFire (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I said nothing about any second. In fact, I'm not that using that often this administrative tools as I try to work normally productive as author; so forgive my slowness here. Shaddim (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the my summary: The video game infobox of C-Evo has 5 fields reasonably filled (platform, developer, released, genre, mode), "released" is then misused (forcing multiple values in due to missing alternatives). The more general software infobox has 9 fields filled reasonably (developer, platform, released, latest release version, latest release date, genre, website, repo, license); 80% more filled. From this perspective the general software infobox fits way better. From the broader perspective, while all VG are also a kind of software, especially open source games are more "software" than "games" as their development cycle & process is very different than the one from common commercial VGs. When the "software infobox" can represent a piece of software better than another one, use this one, which is the case here and motivation for my selection. (Broader view, the VG portal resisted the years multiple times the request and feedback of many authors that the VG infobox is too rigid and needs to be more more compatible with general software, Opensource, freeware and PD games. Refused was the inclusion of general software fields "license", "website", "repo" and version fields; it is not surprising that authors utilize then the more general usable "mother" infobox) Shaddim (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC) About SnowFire's edits: he removed/deleted good content (the content in the infobox) without appropriate policy and a stated edit reason. The second edit activity of him was removing of a valid, reliable source for the C-Evo, which named the game among 5 games as something special. SnowFire reduced the reception section carelessly by removing this source instead of adding more and better sources as an author with interest in this article should do. On challenging him on this fact he gave as reason that the associated text was unsuitable/non-fitting; but instead of fixing this minor problem he went on razing a good source (which was considered in a previous deletion process a crucial element). I did it then; now he found spontaneously the energy to reformulate my version of the text. This issue I considered then addressed, what was left the infobox issue where Snow Fire changed multiple times his argumentation without finding a convincing one or policy for removing the better software infobox, yet insisted on removing it. Therefore, the third-opinion. Shaddim (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi SnowFire and Shaddim. I have volunteered for this 3PO. I'm reviewing the information now but am noting this because I'm at work and not sure if I'll have time to finish reviewing immediately. If I don't, I'll finish the review this evening. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Infobox disagreement; Use of source):

I would remove the Eurogamer sentence. Despite its seeming importance in the 2009 AfD the Eurogamer citation is hardly substantial. I think its correct use would be to paraphrase some content not merely to repeat the headline which comes off as promotional. As for the infobox, first a policy note. Any discussion at WP:VT does not bind pages in its scope unless conducted as a community wide RfC (see WP:LOCALCONSENSUS). I see no indication that either linked discussion at the project had broad community consensus, so only the discussion on this talk page is relevant in thinking about this article. The relevant policy therefore seems to be WP:INFOBOXUSE which again says that this talk page should determine which (if any) template to use. Shaddim I would encourage you to review WP:BRD as edit warring against what had been a stable version of the article means you have an obligation after boldly changing and being reverted to then initiate a discussion about the change you want. It's likely that you two would have still ended up requesting a 3rd Opinion but maybe without some of the acrimony. I don't see any inherent issue with either the software or video game templates being used for computer games - it seems to fall in scope of both. The question is which template serves the reader better. While in most cases for computer games I would expect it to be the video game template, in comparing the two versions on this page, I felt better served as a reader with the software infobox because the website link to actually downloading the game is pertinent. I will have this on my watchlist for a couple days if there are any questions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of the situation and your detailed feedback. Takeaways for me are that the VG portal can't establish on their own "rules/consensus" regarding infoboxes. Regarding infobox usage there is therefore freedom per page when there are multiple suitable boxes. As Barkeep49 sees also an additional benefit in the fields of the software infobox over the VG one for the readers for C-Evo, I will wait 1 day more for potential feedback of SnowFire and then switch to the software infobox. Also, I hope that Barkeep49's feedback also opens up the position of the VG portal members that they consider now the adding several of the fields of the software infobox to the VG infobox which would relax this potential conflict field in the future.Shaddim (talk) 07:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I am having trouble following along, so if someone could move/indent my post to the proper position, I would appreciate it.

Anyway, this article kind of has two distinct groups interested in it: the Free and Open Source (FOSS) community who may appreciate the extra info that Infobox software provides; and mainstream "gamers" who probably have zero interest in this obscure game. I'm not sure if one group trumps the other just because it is a video game. Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software certainly is much smaller than Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games.

Lastly, Wikia is always an option. You can put nearly any content you want on it if things don't fly here. SharkD  Talk  19:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Thanks for your response.

For what it's worth, I disagree that the Software Infobox fields are particularly useful, like build numbers and language and the like - if they are useful, they are only useful to developers, and I can't imagine anybody wants to update 1999-era Delphi these days. The game might be obscure, but surely development is even MORE obscure. The reason why it's notable from an open source perspective is not so much updating the raw code - that was done by the developer - but for the prospective of integrating custom AIs, which have nothing to do with the fields in the software infobox. I think things like "This is a strategy game" are far more key than two separate links to the website, one of which is directly to a ZIP file rather than Github or the like!

Also, "bind" is an awfully strong word, but "take into account" might be better. The chatter was quite negative toward Shaddim's proposals earlier, and rehashing the same discussion multiple times on each talk page will be a pointless drain on resources. Also, consensus does not require RFCs to happen; WP:NOTBURO and such. That said, if you genuinely feel that software is a reasonable infobox to use, so be it.

Shaddim, do also note that Barkeep49 also advocated my original position, which was removing the Eurogamer reference from Reception entirely. SnowFire (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

thank you for voicing your position seeing the software infobox as reasonable choice, appreciated. About the Eurogamer Ref, we found a solution satisfying both so I don't see the need for change here (while I personally would like to follow the recommendation Barkeep49 reformulating the citation quote with more "meat"). About fields: there are plenty missing in the VG infobox: among the clearly useful even outside the software/FOSS context are the website and the more detailed released/version fields, which are currently with the VG box badly emulated by filling "released" with breaks. Generally spoken, I'm not interested in a ongoing conflict here: my preferred solution would be some compromise with optional fields in the VG box. Or, if not movement in this direction happens I will maybe try to bring some more VG fields in the software infobox. cheers Shaddim (talk)

Just as you misread the other discussions above, you have misread my comment. I am absolutely not saying that Infobox software is a remotely reasonable choice on this article, and I stand by that. The release fields you are going on about at length are unneeded trivia and bloat even in the Software infobox, and are definitely unneeded in the Video Game infobox; meanwhile the game-specific fields surely shouldn't be added to the software infobox as irrelevant in 99% of situations. Infoboxes, like other content, are more powerful when they only hit relevant fields, but that is a separate discussion. What I did say is that I'm happy to abide by the local consensus here - despite it being in conflict with the one elsewhere - so go ahead and switch it to Infobox software if you want.

I too am happy to end conflict, but as a general comment, you seem to interpret anything that isn't actively hostile as supporting your position. This is a bad habit, and not correct. I suggest that there will be less conflict in the future if you learn to read other's comments as they are, not as you'd like them to be. SnowFire (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

See and this is the point: "website" was specifically identified as relevant field, yet is rejected by the overly on minimization interested VG portal: the strife to find the one real, minimal set of true "vg" fields is futile. This changes over time and is different for different fields. We, and especially the VG portal, shoudl embrace a more inclusive approach regarding fields, redundancy or "relevancy" is a quite subjective and topic specific characteristic and should be applied with more leeway or we get to rigid. Which seems to me, is indeed a crippling approach in the current article editing and general activities of WP. Shaddim (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

PS: looking for overlap in all the hostility, consensus, is an approach we all should follow. ;P cheers Shaddim (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)