Talk:Civilization VI

List of leaders and civilizations

Why is this "inappropriate" exactly? --occono (talk) 00:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It falls under WP:NOT#GAMEGUIDE - a listing of the various leaders and civilizations they lead is of interest primarily only to the players, and is not the type of subject covered in an encyclopedia. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I understand that with games about fictional worlds and characters, but this is about historical leaders. An encyclopedia should absolutely serve to explain how the depiction of them in the game relates and compares to historical fact.--occono (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, in prose, and only when reliable, secondary sources cover it czar 02:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't write a strategy guide, I just listed Wikilinks to the real people and places the game features, to get a start on it in the article. I don't see how it's not relevant to general interests what aspects of history this game is representing. If that's not educationally relevant, than why even have an article on the game, or any game, at all?--occono (talk) 03:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Because the game is not attempting to be historically accurate. They've said here that they're looking at qualities that are stereotypical of the leaders, not anything specific about them beyond name and county. This is not an educational game. --MASEM (t) 03:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, but an encyclopedia that covers the game should be informative about what the game is drawing from, by listing its own articles about the historical figures and places it incorporates, surely? (Though I'd argue against it being only stereotypical, I've only played Civ 5 but the games do try and embrace lesser known history as well as the well-known aspects. It's a little educational and informative, not just theme park history. The games feature details on the civilization's culture, accomplishments and militaries, not just "name and country", even though there's a mix and match element from the game play mechanics. But it has Dido who is mostly mythological and a warmongering Gandhi, of course.) I don't see why it's not relevant to link to Wikipedia's articles, I would think it's basic information about the game and not too technical.--occono (talk) 03:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I would've liked to see a listing of leaders, cultures, wonders and other educational information. And I disagree that Civilization isn't educational. Hobbamock (talk) 13:01, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Why can’t we add a table of leaders with nations and nation bonuses and nation-specific units? This game is based off real leaders (except Gilgamesh, but there is reason to include him), real nations, and real units. Why not add this? ’’’PhilDaBirdMan’’’ 23:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

"In order to reduce congestion on the map, players are able to perform a limited amount of unit stacking (a change from Civilization V), but are only able to stack similar unit types or symbiotic units.[4] For example, a warrior unit can be assigned to a builder unit to protect that unit from barbarians in the early game.[5]" A warrior unit can be stacked with a builder unit in Civ V; how is there a difference here between Civ V and Civ VI? I also read the sources linked and they do not mention at all that similar units can be stacked. In fact, [4] reads that since Civ 5, similar units cannot be stacked.Bailiscremey (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Rebooting this discussion. I also would love to see it, because the information is already on Wikipedia, but scattered (i.e. usually under "cultural depictions" on each respective leader, etc.--Euor (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Interesting info in lead

I found the following information very borish:

Civilization VI was developed by Firaxis Games, published by 2K Games, and distributed by Take-Two Interactive.

Sorry but who cares about this info? Per wp:lead should contain the most interesting info. I would rate this at the bottom of interesting info. Doubt the average person coming to read about this knows much about those developers and thus wouldn't care. The info is listed in the section under development for those that do find it interesting. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

This is standard information for the lede for any video game. We are recognizing the developers and publishers of the game (giving credit where credit is due). And in the field of video games, these are key people, developers and publishers are very important in the field. --Masem (t) 05:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Just because it is standard doesn't mean it is best for wikipedia users. The firaxis info is also repeated in the infobox so there is plenty of credit. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a standard set by the Wikiproject Video Games, and is also the same way that we credit the creators of films, books, television shows, songs, and the like in other articles. --Masem (t) 06:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a reason why it's standard. WP:LEAD says to summarize all the key information; it says nothing about only keeping the "most interesting info". And your argument regarding the infobox is invalid too, as it's meant to repeat info in the article (same with the lead). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Standard information included with every article, and basically considered to be required for GA/FA. Infoboxes are suppose to contain information that exists in the prose. -- ferret (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The same logic that would remove that sentence would also say that articles about books should bury who the author is. The answer to the question "who cares about who actually made and published the game" is "lots of people"- it's one of the most important pieces of information about a piece of media, which is why it's at the start of the lead. Additionally, the infobox is a boxed summary of key details of the article; it's not a justification for removing/burying any information in the actual article itself, any more than the idea that something being in the lead means it should be dropped from the article body. --PresN 16:45, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Saw on WPVG. Including this information is standard practice. Of course, the game's developer and publisher are important. This shapes everything about the game from conception to release. As said above, it's like not including a book's author or movie's director. This is basic encyclopedic information, even if some may not find this relevant. I see no reason why Civ VI would be an exception. "borish" or "interesting" are not really criteria we go by as this is an encyclopedia. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Being "borish" is a ludicrous (and highly subjective/unenforceable) reason for removal. The creator and publisher of a subject are always going to be noteworthy aspects for the lead. It needs to be included. Sergecross73 msg me 01:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

A rather ridiculous reason for changing the article, being that the creator is unimportant, especially when it's a very notable company. As said above, it's a standard layout you will see in almost every single video games article. Lee Vilenski(talk) 10:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

CivVI should redirect to the article about the game.

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by RTSmaniac7777 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. --ImperialSaponification (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Red Shell in controversy

I have no opinion on this product but the reference that follows it clearly identifies it as spyware. I'm not sure toning that verbiage down to "analytical ad tracking" is accurate, even though it seems more NPOV. Ifnord (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RPS doesn't call it spyware, and Kotaku's calls it "alleged spyware" which is based on the analysis of users. It was a problem because aggrevisively tracked users, but we shouldn't call it spyware without a more solid source. We can call it out for why players disliked it. --Masem (t) 18:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Boing Boing calls it spyware. [1] Doesn't matter though, the definition of spyware is clear enough. "Spyware is software that aims to gather information about a person or organization, sometimes without their knowledge, that may send such information to another entity without the consumer's consent". Do any reliable sources call it "analytics and advertising tool"? I say call it what it is. Dream Focus 19:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Red Shell is a legitimate program, and the general EULA for Civ VI and other games allow for them to track player's use of the software. The problem is that players felt that the purpose of Red Shell wasn't adequetely explained, and thus called it "spyware". It's basically like calling Windows "spyware" because of MS tracking some of what you do with it. It's fair to call the software for what its legitimate purpose is, and that it was removed because players did feel it was spyware, per Take Two's response in the Boing Boing article. --Masem (t) 03:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

How is it a legitimate program if it secretly records personal information? That is spyware. More input please. How do others feel about this issue? Dream Focus 04:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

What Red Shell did was well known, and it was collecting data that users agreed to by accepted the EULA. Of course, most players don't read the EULA in detail so when it was discovered that Red Shell was also being used to tie to browsing patterns (again, something in the EULA) then users got upset and T2 removed it. Nothing was taken without user's permission, it just was buried in a document most people don't read. It is "apparent" spyware, but it officially ad tracking software. --Masem (t) 05:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

minor inaccuracy in reference to campus

This is relatively minor but in the gameplay section there's a statement of "campuses benefit greatly from being placed adjacent to forest or jungle hexes"

Campuses do not have a bonus from forests (woods) at all. Rainforest, mountains, reef's among other things. I am not confident in my ability to word it correctly so just figured I'd provide the source for the information if anybody cared.

Screenshot from in-game below: https://i.imgur.com/v8Fyzvs.png

Bugs

Add a section about the game's many bugs. Fixciv6 (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

And I removed it. Unsourced. You need to provide reliable sources as per WP:V - X201 (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Do your own research or play the game its right there infron of you Fixciv6 (talk) 07:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't concerned with people's own research. WP:OR, only what reliable publications are saying about the subject. - X201 (talk) 07:58, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not care Fixciv6 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)