Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/Archive 2

Overhaul of External LInks; proposed Overhaul of Article

Reyk has encouraged me to be bold. I welcome comments.

I have overhauled external links. There was some broken ones and some self-serving ones. I took out the Moby Games link. It was just a review. The Planetfall link was an ad for a modification of a different game that was based on SMAC. I change the description of the Apolyton link. There was no strategy discussion there. I tweaked the description of the Civ Fanatics link (from "home of" to "features" and dropped the unnecessary "(unofficial)." I added description to Gamespot link and removed the unnecessary "Alpha Centauri on." I pointed the self-serving WePlayCiv link to their downloads section, which has unique content which will interest Wikipedia readers and changed the description. Finally, I added an external link for Civilization Gaming Networks Forum (mine) for fairness (if three of the four big forums have an external link, it would be odd if the biggest did not).

I have described what I have done, so you can check it. The only issue I think we need to discuss is how I handled the "Official Strategy" link. Unfortunately, the game company no longer links to the Official Game Site from their site. So we can either not include the company and make the official site the material about the game rather than the sales area or include both.

My intention is to overhaul the entire article. I would like to add information that would be of interest to a Wikipedia reader. Rather than just a description of the factions, I would like to discuss game play. I would also like to incorporate material from the external links into the main article, in particular the information in the orphaned Firaxis Official Game Site.

Vyeh (talk) 12:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction of WePlayCiv Revision to External Links

There was an attempt by bdanv, moderator at WePlayCiv Alpha Centauri (look at the bottom of the page of the link he provided), to introduce self-serving comments into external link. The most egregious was putting WePlayCiv link immediately after the links to the official sites. The link was changed from the downloads section, which I think has content more interesting to WikiPedia readers, to a link to bdanv's forum. Rather than undoing the change, I have placed WePlayCiv link back in alphabetical order and conformed information to what is visible to a WikiPedia reader upon arriving at the destination of the link. I have also eliminated material that I had written which was specific to the downloads area.

I will ask Narthring and Reyk to look at bdanv and my work (I admit my connection to another SMAC forum) and suggest that they follow the link and see that my edit faithfully reflects the information there.

Vyeh (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor Edit of External Links

I conformed the description of the external links to the title of the pages linked to.

Vyeh (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Video Games Article Guidelines

I've taken a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There is a lot of work to bring the article close to these guidelines. In particular, I have noted the guidelines on External Links. If there is any more modification of the WePlayCiv link, I will apply the guidelines and only include the "Appropriate external links."

Vyeh (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like that article guidelines was written by "deletionists." In any event, the article does need to have material taken out and the guidelines have the advantage of being specific.

Vyeh (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more I am convinced about the validity of Wikipedia's policy discouraging external links. I only added my forum for fairness. There was rationale about putting WePlayCiv out of order because of traffic, but if one is looking at traffic for entire site, Gamespot, CivFanatics and Apolyton should still have greater traffic. And if only looking at SMAC forums, I suspect my forum has more traffic.

Anyway I don't want to spend my time dealing with WePlayCiv external link. I'd like to get an opinion from Narthring and Reyk.

I believe the way I will proceed is to follow the Video Games Article Guidelines and go through the entire article. The Guidelines have the virtue of being very specific.

Vyeh (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure and Plan to Address Potential Conflict of Interest

I have made the following disclosure on my user page:

Disclosure: I am a super moderator at Civilization Gaming Network Forums.

My interest in editing the Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles is to apply my expert knowledge of those games to the articles to provide accurate information for readers interested in those games facilitating an informed decision on trying out the games.

To avoid conflicts of interest, I intend to follow the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines.

****

This is my plan to address the potential conflict of interest:

From Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."

From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines, "Inappropriate external links - These links should be avoided in video game articles ... Forums, even if official forums provided by the developer/publisher of the game"

I intend to remove all external links to forums, including my own.

Vyeh (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Message from Guyinblack25

I received the following message on my talk page from the Guyinblack25:

****

Per your post at WT:VG, I found some references to improve the article. I posted them on Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri at the very top of the page.

Also, myself and other editors have created a writing guide for video game articles. I believe it can give you more insight into writing a quality video game article on Wikipedia. Hope this helps. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC))

****

Vyeh (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

History of WePlayCiv External Link

On January 5, 2010, these were the external links for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri: Official site, MobyGames, Planetfall, Apolyton, Civ Fanatics, GURPS, Gamespot and these were the external links for Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire: Official site, Apolyton, Civ Fanatic, GURPS, Planetfall.

On January 7, 2010 this was posted at WePlay Civ in a new thread "WPC links in Wikipedica SMAC(X) articles,"

"I just discovered that the SMAC and SMACX articles on Wikipedia have external links at the bottom to the CFC and 'poly SMAC forums- but nothing about us. We can't let that stand, can we? We want wiki browsers to give the most active SMAC forum on the web a a look, too, don't we?

"Anyone up to a Wikipedia edit?"

Bdanv responded

"done: Sid_Meier's_Alpha_Centauri#External_links"

The links for Alpha Centauri were Official site, WePlaySMAC site, MobyGames, Planetfall, Apolyton, Civ Fanatics, GURPS, Gamespot and the links for Alien Crossfire were Official site, WePlaySMASC site, Apolyton, Civ Fanatic, GURPS, Planetfall.

On January 25, Megaman deleted for Alien Crossfire the links WePlaySMAC, Apolyton, Civ Fanatics and Planetfall with the note, "delete unofficial non-notable sites." This left Alien Crossfire with two external links: the official site and GURPS.

The same member who had opened the thread at WePlayCiv posted the following message on February 10, 2010:

"So, I'd forgotten to mention this, but I Sunday morning I added this to the external links ending the Crossfire article:

"WePlaySMAC site - The most active SMAC community on the Web. link

"It was up for two minutes. TWO MINUTES before some [deleted] decided it was an ad that didn't meet the standards. I wasn't about to point out that it was apparently considered kosher for the Alpha Centauri article for about a month now, 'cause you know what the [deleted] would have done then. I wasn't about to get into an edit war with some sad piece of [deleted] who hangs around Wikipedia, so there it lays.

"Any ideas what to do?"

Manway had reverted the Alien Crossfire article to its previous state.

After several posts, another WePlayCiv member posted

"After judging the situation, I did it my way. Now, go see it before they erase it or pray it stays!"

He had copied over the external links from Alpha Centauri, so now the links for both articles were official site, WePlaySMAC site, MobyGames, Planetfall, Apolyton, Civ Fanatics, GURPS, Gamespot.

An administrator for WePlayCiv disclosed

"You might like to know that your efforts have not been in vain. For the month of January we got about 350 referrals from Wikipedia, which puts them straight into our top 5 referral sites (and the links weren't even up for the full month). For February we're on track for similar numbers. Mind you, it's still light years behind CFC and Google, but it's impressive all the same."

Bdanv posted

"i don't think they can ban us, so it's just a matter of being persistent"

On May 13, one of my members reported

"Incidentally CGN appears to be missing from the "External Links" section at the bottom."

So I came over and saw what a mess the External Links were. After conferring with Reyk and Narthring, I overhauled the external links on May 23, noting "Overhauled External Links, deleting broken link, changed descriptions for accuracy and utility to readers, eliminated or modified obvious self-promotion, added Civilization Gaming Forums for fairness." Civilization Gaming Forums is my forum which I have disclosed to Reyk and Narthring and in my user page.

When I finished, the external links for both articles were: official site, official strategies, Apolyton, Civ Fanatics, Civilization Gaming Network Forums, Gamespot and WePlayCiv (note the alphabetical order after the official sites).

On June 3, Bdanv reverted a portion of my overhaul with the result that the external links for both articles were: official site, official strategies, WePlaySMAC, Apolyton, Civ Fanatics, Civilization Gaming Network Forums, Gamespot. For the Alpha Centauri article, he noted, "added correct details and moved WePlayCiv external link right behing the official links in accordance with traffic numbers"

Note that if traffic numbers are compared for total site traffic, Apolyton, Civ Fanatics and Gamespot would all have significantly higher traffic than WePlayCiv. If only SMAC activity were measured, my forum has more posts in the last month than bdanv's forum.

It is clear that Bdanv is reverting the WePlayCiv link in clear violation of Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming, which says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." and he has an undisclosed conflict of interest.

I have a disclosed conflict of interest, but I am only interested in fairness, and if no forums have external links, my interest is satisfied, so I believe my interests are in line with the interests of Wikipedia.

I propose to delete all external links for both articles except for the links to the official site and the official strategies.

Vyeh (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

On July 4, the same member who opened the thread discussed above posted

Check the article now; you'll find the guilty party all over the talk page and the history. I have no way of knowing if this is the result of typical can't-leave-anything-alone ineptitude or typical malice on the part of the culprit, who was swearing revenge on us a month ago.

This is why we can't have nice things

Note that I was careful not to delete the link nor raise the issue at the External Link Noticeboard and that there was no dissenting opinions posted on either the External Links Noticeboard or the discussion page for article. Vyeh (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

On July 26, the same member who opened the thread discussed above posted

SO-

Anyone have any idea what to do about this? I think the argument that forums are a source for further information is more than valid. I further note that if I'd done the community the grave disservice of attracting attention that got the links removed, I'd be interested in making amends, if I could. Any ideas?

Note that he is insinuating that I did WePlayCiv a "grave disservice" by improving the article because it attracted attention that got their spam link removed! Vyeh (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games

Revision to Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles

I am revising Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri articles following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. There are more details on the discussion pages of those articles. I'd be interested in any comments you have.

Thank you.

Vyeh (talk) 10:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)They both suffer from usual video game article syndromes — too much in-game/gameplay/guide information and not enough development/reception. The gamecruft should be trimmed. Also, you can look in [1] for more reliable sourcing/information. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyeh (talk • contribs)

Not sure if you're inclined to, but the two would probably work better as one article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Typically combining two such articles makes the whole topic stronger and more focused. The exception would be if there's just a mountain of reliable sources on the expansion. Then I'd say it's notable enough to remain a separate article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Vyeh (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The following is part of a conversation from aVideo Game discussion. Some of what is mentioned in t concerns other games. Mentioned to avoid confusion. Dream Focus 19:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Links to unofficial sites to play games added to game articles

Having been reverting new users who have a single purpose account and sometimes anonymous IP addresses for months now, who keep reinserting the game bit about certain game sites, I wondering now if there is a reason to allow them to list things like that. They aren't connected to the company that made the game in any possible way, but do make money off other people's games, by ad banner revenue(some sites might also charge, I'm not certain). Age of Kings, Age of Conquerors, and Microsoft Ants are the articles in question. Links to Voobly and others have been added to them dozens of times, and always reverted by myself or someone else. The most recent person to add links started a conversation with me on my talk page [2], so I decided to seek more input on this subject. If their claim that over a thousand real people a day played the game, despite it being more than a decade old, was true, would that make it notable enough to link to in the related game article? Dream Focus 19:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Dream Focus, we are merely trying to make the article of more use to those who still play this game. As of now, it only links to GameSpy Arcade which has virtually zero Age of Empires activity despite being the official server. Allowing the addition I made would point new players in the right direction and enable them to join the community. Kutcherovec (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Do the links in question lead to a site which lets you play the game legally? If the sites host the games in violation of copyright law, then unquestionably we cannot link to them. If they are legal, that is one thing, but we must do nothing to help criminals make money from breaking the law. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Voobly actually hosts or endorses illegal downloading, so there shouldn't be that issue there. The AoC article only has the official MS [external link], so it can definitely have 1-2 unofficial communities/sites as well. If Voobly is one of the largest (active) communities -and- it has further research material (not just map downloads, rankings, forums, or whatnot), then it can certainly go into the article. Also, I highly doubt that "directing new users to play the game/join the community" will ever be a valid reason to include external links. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  20:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an ad space to promote the "best" webpage related to a topic. If the best webpage happens to be a reliable source then you use it as research. Otherwise let them find the community through google Shooterwalker (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would agree, I don't think linking to a generic community page offers any value. Specific things at a site may be able to go in to an article as a reference as long as they fall under Wikipedia verifiable and reliability guidelines. But Wikipedia itself is not a directory and does not exist to direct people to community sites. Not does it exist to help people with the game. I also have a problem with the intended paragraph "However, one of the most popular ones are Voobly.com and Gameranger.com. Despite the constant development of new games, there are still thousands of people playing online and also many tournaments being held in the world. The community currently resides at the international centre AoCZone.net. " which contains a ton of statements that would need to be provided with verifiable references to be allowed. That includes voobly and gameranger being "one of the most popular ones", and the "thousands of people playing online", as well as some sort of verifiable reference that Microsoft's pointing to GameSpy has been subverted by aoczone. Not to mention again, where a community "currently resides" is beyond the scope of an encyclopedic article on the game itself. We do not exist to support communities. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Official game sites require you to log in and prove you own a legal copy of the game. If thousands of people are trying to use the same ID code for a game, they know they have pirated copies. With unofficial sites that don't checked that, piracy is going to be rampart. I don't think Microsoft wants their games played on any unlicensed sites. I don't believe you can legally play their games on any site they have not approved. So we'd be linking to illegal sites. Dream Focus 17:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In any case, there does not appear to be any useful research material on the sites anyway. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  18:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyeh (talk • contribs)

Let me start by saying I have disclosed that I am a moderator at a game forum. I came to Wikipedia because a member of my forum reported that my forum did not have an external link in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire, but the other three of the major forums did. Over the last couple of weeks, I have done some research and discovered that a competitor planted the external links for Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire and even placed links to two of the other forums (presumably to create cover). (You can see the discussion page of either of the articles for more details.) I think external links should be limited to official sites. I do believe that existence of a community with 1000 users 10 years after the game came out does speak to "reception" and a case could be made for a citation.Vyeh (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes other sites have more information than the official sites. Sometimes sites have the official staff visiting the forum and discussing things with people, and a significant number of people there, plus interviews with people related to the games, and other information compiled, such as Age of Kings Heaven. But none of these do, so the hell with them. Dream Focus 00:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me put this bluntly. This is encyclopaedia. External links are there to further reader research. [3] [4] [5] [6] are nothing short of blatant advertising. Will these links be accepted in a FA or worthy as references? No. So, unless valid objections are raised, I propose to remove these four and return to improving the actual content. —  Hellknowz  ▎talk  01:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

We were talking about the links added to the Age of Kings series, none of those links were mentioned before. I went ahead and looked at them. First off, Apolyton does list a lot of information, although with their crappy interface its hard to find it, and a lot of the links are now broken. It provides maps and scenarios for the game, which would help anyone interested in it enough to look up information on the Wikipedia about it. The forum civfanatics [7] might seem like just a common fansite, but it is still active, and has encyclopedic information about the game, including how to modify it to add to it, customize it, and extend its playability. The original game saved everything in .txt files so it was very easy to read through and change things. One thread I see has gotten over 20 thousand views! While not as popular as it once was, there is plenty of information someone curious about the game, would find useful there. External links are there for people who wish to seek out more information about a topic. The link to the post at [8] serves no purpose at all, and I see no reason for it being there. Dream Focus 02:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to the four links mentioned by Hellknowz, I also propose getting rid of the Gamespot link, [9]. The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines specifically mentions the video game's page as Gamespot as an inappropriate external link. I actually cleaned up the external links a couple of weeks ago, eliminating broken links and the more egregious self-prmotion. In terms of my forum, I could provide a very useful resource, The SMAC Academy at Civilization Gaming Network, but I think it is better to use those resources for citations. It is much simpler using the bright line of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines. I happen to be an active participant in the civfanatics forum and I would have to wonder how Dream Focus concluded civfanatics had encyclopedic information. Apolyton's creation subforum certainly has more information about modification and customization and I have just given the reference to reference articles on my site (the articles on the Scenario Editor and Alpha(x).txt editing are reference works for people creating modifications). I believe there is a lot of room for abuse and I have documented the case for one forum on the discussion pages of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire, where one forum put in its external link three times for Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire (and the second time, put in a bunch of other external links as "cover.") While I respect the idea that external links are there for people who wish to seek out more information about a topic, the example I cited shows that it is easily abused. I believe that it would be far superior to cite information that meets Wikipedia's standards and let interested readers follow citations if a particular paragraph or section interests them. I hope I am not getting anyone angry. Having actually cleaned up the external links, I saw how a lot of them were just promotion and having reviewed the history of one forum planting its link (they even had a forum thread where they discussed it), I saw the potential for abuse. For the articles I am dealing with, I believe the best solution is to restrict the external links to the official sites. For other articles, this may not be the best solution.Vyeh (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You mention your link to a newly created Wiki which says on its main page [http://www.civgaming.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page "This page has been accessed 150 times." Not a lot of information or contributors there(I only see one person and one IP address. If it ever grows though, it'll be a notable link. Someone who failed to get a link to their own stuff, shouldn't be erasing links to other people though, that seems like bitterness to me. Dream Focus 12:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Old location: Civgaming.net - SMAC Files: SMAC ACADEMY. After seeing WikiPedia, I ordered MediaWiki and ported the SMAC Academy from html to wiki. If you go into the articles and follow the comment threads, you will see plenty of discussion. I hope I haven't irritated you because of my position on external links. I came to WikiPedia because of complaint that WikiPedia wasn't treating my forum fairly. There is a danger that an aggressive forum (I assume you have read the discussion page of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri or Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire) can create the misimpression that they are the largest/most active by adding external link that says so. If you prefer sending people to the old link, I have no objections; however, my point is that in a very specific case (WePlayCiv/WePlaySMAC), there is abuse and the only way I see to prevent abuse is to be very strict with external links. As I said, I hope you are not angry. My position is fairness and I see the external links as an avenue for a new (only a year and a month) forum to misrepresent its standing. Can we at least agree that the history of the WePlayCiv link as I have documented on the discussion page of the those articles is abusive? I could have played the same game with external links. Instead I have chosen to raise the issue here as well as on the discussion pages of those articles. By the way, I looked at 20,000+ view thread. It is fun/garbage thread 1000 way you know you played Alpha Centauri too much! and is one of the least likeliest threads to find WikiPedia suitable information. So, if I have done something that has offended you, I apologize.

Vyeh (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I just saw Dream Focus' recent addition. I am new here, but isn't that the kind of personal attack we are suppose to avoid? I have been upfront about my conflict of interest. As I said, I could have played the same game and gotten my link in. I really don't understand what I have said other than to express my views about external links as they applied in the two articles I have an interest in. I did not look at Voobly and I don't express an opinion on that matter. My only opinion is that external links are open to abuse. I have only been at WikiPedia for a couple of weeks. If I have breached some standard of decorum, I apologize. I have disclosed my conflict of interest here, in the discussion pages of the articles and in my user page. To suggest that I have hidden motives seems like a rhetorical device. I find that the statement, "Someone who failed to get a link to their own stuff, shouldn't be erasing links to other people though, that seems like bitterness to me," is wrong on many levels and would be sanctioned in my forum. First, I did not fail to get a link to my stuff. My link would have remained for quite some time if I didn't raise the issue of fairness. Second, I never erased anyone's link, except for broken links and stuff that was clearly useless. What I have done is raise the issue to get the input of other editors. Finally, I am not bitter. As I said, if I have done something that offends you, I apologize. i don't understand what I have done other than raise an issue and point to a case where an external link was abused. As I have made clear, I have no opinion on Voobly and I did not mean to upset you by implying that the Voobly link shouldn't be there. I don't know enough about the facts.Vyeh (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me. That came off wrong. The thread I mentioned was to show how many people can be viewing a topic. Searching through old topics when the game was first out, would probably show other topics getting thousands of hits as well. To avoid confusion we really should keep discussions of Voobly(which makes money through ad banner or whatnot) separate from what's at the Alpha Centauri pages which are fan run things that don't exist primarily for profit. Alpha Centauri links should be discussed on those pages I think. Dream Focus 14:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• http://www.weplayciv.com/ that you mention, doesn't just have a forum with over 16 thousand post for the Alpha Centauri game, but also has a main page for news, maps, mods, and whatnot. [10] I'm going to change the link in the article to [11] though, since that list everything they have, not just the forum. Dream Focus 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you have to be careful about judging a forum by the number of posts. Apolyton has 88,000 posts in its active forum and 292,000 posts in its archives. My forum has 20,000 active posts and another 25,000 in archives. CivFanatics has 9,000 posts. In terms of ad banners, WePlayCiv and CivFanatics has them. Apolyton and CivGaming (mine) do not. View count does not show how many people are viewing a topic. Everytime I open a thread to read a new post, the view count goes up by 1. The 20,000 view thread had over 200 posts, which might mean that there were 100 people following the thread (minus the automated bots). I had edited the link to point to their downloads section, which had original scenarios, art and references, but that was changed by the forum moderator seeking more traffic. I have no objections if you change the link. I will be watching to see how long it stays. And I will be happy to take this conversation to the discussion pages of the articles.Vyeh (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Vyeh (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• The ad banners I referred to was part of the earlier conversation about sites that spam everywhere to get people to play games on unofficial sites, which is illegal, and which make money from them by that means, existing as a business designed to make money, nothing more. Many reliable sources that various articles link to have ad banners, so obviously I'm not against it for everything. Cutting half the conversation out to paste something here is going to be confusing to anyone who hasn't read the rest of it. And if you have that many people at your forum, then its a valid resource for people interested in the game. Of course, I think there is still a rule about making a link to your own site though. Dream Focus 19:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Easily remedied. I have put in the earlier conversation in this talk page and the one for Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire. I'll give you a choice about rules: either apply all of them strictly, in particular, the rule against fan forums in external links (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines) or you are reasonable about all of them. However, picking and choosing which rules to apply strictly and which to use as guidelines can lead to unfairness. I have documented the systematic abuse by a rival forum. Were it not for their deliberate efforts, there wouldn't be a link of theirs to discuss. So they certainly have violated the rule you cited. I am interested in fairness and willing to see that no forum has an external link. I already have the support for Manley for the elimination of all non-official links, but I am willing to try it your way. I will have fairness. Is there a reason that your comments seem to hint at some underlying attachment for fan forums? Or have I done something that you dislike?Vyeh (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The guidelines are suggestions, anyone able to change that, and it never more than a few people participating at a time. Most just ignore them. Anyway, if the official site links somewhere, then that must be considered a notable site of coverage for them. http://www.firaxis.com/smac/links.cfm That doesn't mean other sites can't be listed as well of course. Dream Focus 06:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

First, link page has been "orphaned" from Firaxis. Try Firaxis SMAC. Three of the linked sites no longer exist. A fourth hasn't seen any activity in ten years. A fifth is a commercial review site specifically mentioned in the guidelines (although I am leaning toward an exception because the material is substantial and comprehensive). There use to be an official forum called "Beyond Alpha Centauri." Apolyton took it over. I believe the citation is About Apolyton. Unfortunately, it is down right now (Apoltyon has been having server issues for the last two weeks). So I expect that the link was originally to the official forum site and then was changed when Apolyton took it over. I have no problems with Apoltyon's SMAC section being an external link based on your rationale. It is not a fan forum and it contains a lot of useful information. So how about we include that link and eliminate the other three (including mine)? And we include the Gamespot link on the same rationale?Vyeh (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Game-cruft

I have played this game for years and never learned some of the incredibly minute details on this page. Thats not a good thing! There is way too much in-universe stuff in here and it has obviously prevented the article from gaining higher (featured) status. I'm going to be trimming a lot of the game-play information over the next few whatevers and would appreciate other editors looking over what I do. If you believe something I remove or modify deserves to stay in and you undo my edit, I won't be a jerk and continually redo it. But that said, I usually have a reason for doing what I'm doing and I think if you look over it as a critical editor and not an admiring player, you'll agree. I love this game and the entire series and hope I can make the article half as great. Lets get this baby featured by Christmas! Nolelover (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the cruft needs to be trimmed WAY down; it makes up over half the article. Narthring (talk • contribs) 20:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to post a disclaimer of sorts so someone doesn't think I'm blanking or vandalizing this article. I'll try to edit and not just delete whole sections in here. Nolelover (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I also agree with trimming it way down. I would like to know why you deleted a feature distinguishing SMAC from Civ. I would have taken out the entire parenthetical that began "(new chassis, weapon, ..." rather than just "chassis" and a few other things. And I would have taken out the entire sentence on how bases can be destroyed rather than just trimming it.Vyeh (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

As to the Civ comment, it was totally out of place. If you read the entire section, it stuck out like a sore thumb - especially going into the next sentence. Besides, it seems to me to be the exact cruft I'm trying to delete. If you wish to put it back though, go ahead. As for the parenthetical remark, the fact that new technology brings forth new advances seems to be in integral part of the game. I thought that part and some examples belonged. After looking over the bases section again, I sorta agree with you. My question is: what goes there instead? Nolelover (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On Civ comment, my only concern is that we do contrast SMAC and Civ. But no need for a sore thumb. We can find a better place to talk about comparing and contrasting. How about "(units, facilities, wonders and civics)"? (I know I am using Civ terminology, but I think using SMAC terminology makes it game cruft. Does something need to go there? I think we should cut out game cruft first and worry about paragraphs later.Vyeh (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Civ comment most definetly did not belong in the Gameplay section. It might work in the Units section - it's just a matter of whether or not it's esential info. As for the tech part, I don't think that using SMAC terminology is cruft. I think we could emphasize that many objects serve the same purpose but have very different names. Just a brief note, perhaps in the last paragraph of the Legacy section. I think it wouldn't be too bad. Nolelover (talk) 17:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

On Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games, JohnnyMrNinja and Guyinblack25 have suggested a merger of Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire into Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (this article). This is their rationale:

Not sure if you're inclined to, but the two would probably work better as one article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Typically combining two such articles makes the whole topic stronger and more focused. The exception would be if there's just a mountain of reliable sources on the expansion. Then I'd say it's notable enough to remain a separate article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Now that I have contacted all editors who have made a non-minor contribution to both articles (despite some objections), I believe a merger could be accomplished in a few days if there is consensus on this page. The designers of Alien Crossfire say it is something between an expansion and a sequel. It certainly is not a stand-alone game; installation of Alpha Centauri is required. It adds 7 new factions and other new things, but I think that one article trimmed of game cruft would be vastly superior to the current two articles.Vyeh (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Combining the two articles seems appropriate to me. Narthring (talk • contribs) 13:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

No objections here. Good to see people who still keep a good game going. CABAL (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. SMAX should be merged as an expansion. It makes sense and is consistent. Eponymous (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Consistent with what? If there isn't anything to write about a game's expansion pack but a single paragraph, then yes, you can merge it. If its got enough difference in it to fill an entire article, no reason to do it, just because you merged some other articles under different circumstances. Dream Focus 17:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge Reading through the Alien Crossfire information, I see it has plenty of unique content that would be lost. It has enough valid information about it to fill its own article. No reason to shove all of this together. And if you "trim" it that's the same as deleting 90% or more of it, and just ending up with some brief token mention of it in another article. Nothing gained by doing that. Dream Focus 17:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Note, I'm referring to the current version, not the previously one which had a lot of unnecessary information about the factions. [12]. Not trying to save all of that. I have preserved that information at the wiki for the games. http://sidmeiersalphacentauri.wikia.com/wiki/Factions If anyone who previously worked on it wants to continue editing it, and expanding, you can go there. Dream Focus 18:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why 90% of the Crossfire article would have to be trimmed. The article is small enough that it almost could be cut and pasted under the main article's 'Alien Crossfire' header. I don't have enough experience with the video game articles to know how most expansions are handled, but I think the Crossfire expansion is directly relevant enough to the original game to be in the same article. That's my opinion though. The Crossfire article certainly has enough reliable sources to make an argument for a separate article. Narthring (talk • contribs) 18:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral If we do this and still retain the amount of info in SMAXF, most of which is fairly essential, I think SMAC will become too big to be a good gaming article. User:Dream Focus has raised a valid point about SMAXF having enough information for it's own article. If this is true, then nothing will be hurt by leaving it as is. I don't know anything about crossfire and don't claim to; others need to decide if there is enough stuff for its own article. On the other hand, if we do eliminate as much of the cruft out of SMAC as I think we will, merging these two will be a great way to fill some major space that isn't in-universe. Obviously that has been one of the main complaints in the past. Either way, I think it'll work. I'll remain neutral but would not mind a merger at all. Nolelover (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I started looking at the sections of the Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire article. The portion of the opening paragraph devoted to the expansion can go into Section 5.1 titled "Alien Crossfire." Section 1 of Alien Crossfire would also go into Section 5.1 of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. Section 2 ("Factions") would be new 2.9.8 through 2.9.14. Section 3 ("Victory Conditions") would merge with Section 2.10 ("Victory Conditions") and there is quite a bit of overlap (only one new Victory Condition in the expansion). Section 4 ("Notes') of the Alien Crossfire article is a virtual subset of Section 8 ("Notes") of the Alpha Centauri article. And Section 5 ("External Links") of Alien Crossfire is the same as Section 11 ("External Links") of Alpha Centauri. I don't think it is length that is the issue. I would rather have one long Feature Article than two non-Feature Articles. I am not advocating eliminating any unique content other than game cruft. As much as I love SMAC and SMAC, I have to concede that SMAX does not have the same relationship to SMAC as Civ II has to Civ. And let me say that I appreciate Dream Focus keeping us honest in the discussion about merger! Vyeh (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The section for "factions" and the section called "Main differences" would make the article too long. Its long enough already, no need to merge that. This is a separate game, sold for the full price of a regular game, and having a significant amount of new content, and a totally different game play(two alien race vastly superior to humanity, focused on killing each other off, factions with totally different abilities, etc). I don't see why it shouldn't have its own article. It should've been sold as a sequel, not an expansion pack. Dream Focus 20:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Most players don't use the alien factions. I sort of remember Alien Crossfire when it first came out being sold for half the price of a new stand-alone game. Currently the two games are sold together by Sold-Out Software. And the gameplay isn't that different. Vyeh (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't really know what most people play as. I've played as alien factions before. Some would say the gameplay isn't that different between the Civilization games, and some of those are now sold together as package deals. New cutscreens, story, datalinks, and factions which weren't just updated versions of older factions. You now had the pirate guy dominating the sea straight away, a group which survived with probe teams spying on everyone and stealing their tech, and the free drones spreading out everywhere, plus the two feuding aliens with the advance tech and different mindsets than humans. Dream Focus 01:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I know what people who post in the English speaking forums say and, in particular, I know the factions that the human players in current games are playing. I've heard very strong opinions about Civ III versus Civ II and Civ IV and of Civ IV versus Civ II. I have never heard strong opinions about SMAX versus SMAC, except some players don't like the new factions and play the original 7 factions in SMAX and some players feel the Cloudbase Academy introduced in SMAX is unbalancing. Except for the introduction of the aliens, the story is very similar. The datalinks aren't that different except for the addition of ten or so new techs and a handful of new weapons and armor, a few new facilities, a few new secret projects and a few new native life forms. The AI Pirates do well because they head for the Monsoon Jungle, build a land colony pod and colonize the Jungle. Before fusion, sea colony pods and sea formers are too expensive compared to their land equivalents for a purely aquatic faction to compete. Since probe teams are available with a level 2 tech, Planetary Networks, dealing with AI probe teams isn't new. And the probe rollover bug means that the Data Angels are actually disadvantaged when they qualify for free Covert Operations Centers. Vyeh (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Google news search shows it mentioned here [13] and it sold for $29.95 when it came out, the price of some games. Only 10 dollars less than what I bought the original game for. There is significant new content, it a separate game, which got coverage, no reason not to have its own article. The expansion pack lets players control and interact with five new human and two alien factions, or create their own using a new custom faction editor. New technologies, new secret projects, new weapons, new armor types, new base facilities and new native life-forms round out Alien Crossfire's offering. Dream Focus 01:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And it is possible to win as a human faction against two AI alien factions and the new factions generally have the same abilities (with the exception of alien and aquatic attributes which tend to be more of the sam. Vyeh (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

After looking at how you would merge the two articles, I'm a lot more open to the idea. I still wonder if we couldn't put SMAX directly into section 5 of SMAC. I think if we kept all expansion related tidbits together, it would be a lot less confusing then if we spread them out everywhere. The only problem with this is that it would most likely drown out 5.2 of SMAC. Otherwise we're having to put a little note that distinguishes SMAX from SMAC every other section. Nolelover (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and incorporated the Alien Crossfire material into the Alpha Centauri article so you can see how it looks (we'll hold off converting the Alien Crossfire article into a redirect until we are happy that the Alpha Centauri article is not too long. Is there a Wikipedia article that discusses how one knows an article is too long? Vyeh (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it'll work. Sorry, Dream focus, but all the major "differences" you've listed seem to be normal expansion add-ons, and not a totally new game. Vyeh has done a good job of drastically cutting out the cruft in SMAX and I think putting it in SMAC will be the best thing for both of them. So far, you've been the only editor to raise any objections and I think we can answer them pretty well. We can easily add the new factions, victory and plot to section 5 and unless there are other major factors, I think we should do it. From what I've heard, the gameplay isn't different, it wasn't released as a separate game and cutting the cruft in these articles has made them both short and strong; like body-building elves. :) I'm also going to delete the note under Transcendence in SMAX. It is basically trivia that doesn't belong. Nolelover (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Article doesn't seem overly long, but the TOC does. Would it make more sense to use 2 lists within one section rather than seperate subsections, more in line with the way the victory conditions are presented? 2) Has SMAX won any awards separate from SMAC? 3)Regarding Dream Focus's notes on gameplay -- my take is that gameplay is not significantly different. Strategy and tactics can certainly be signigicantly altered by the additional material, but the mechanics are not altered -- the unique elements like diplomacy, unit design, controls, tech tree, etc are essentially identical, unlike the differences between the different incarnations of Master of Orion (for example). 4) The only thing that seems glaringly missing from the merge is the modding aspect of SMAX. Eponymous (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Done, but take a look at my suggestion in "Just throwing it out there..." below. 2) No. I have been starting to look at print sources and there is a review of Alien Crossfire where the reviewer is disappointed because Alien Crossfire didn't do much beyond Alpha Centauri. 4) See my suggestion in "Just throwing it out there..." It would be best to follow up the suggestion under "Just throwing it out there..." where I moved your tweak on the Gameplay section since it did not relate to merger and the Wiki help on mergers suggests archiving the merger discussion as soon as it is settled (plus it will reduce the size of this talk page significantly). Incidentally, I have contacted JohnnyMrNinja and Guyinblack25 to see if my proposed merge is what they had in mind (their comments were originally in the Video Game Project talk page). I believe all non-cruft has been copied from Alien Crossfire into Alpha Centauri. So the final step is to turn the Alien Crossfire article into a redirect here. (I think as a matter of courtesy, we should see if other editors who I notified on their talk pages come here and object to the merger.) I have also placed a notice on the WikiPedia proposed merger page. Vyeh (talk) 11:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• MERGE and REDIRECT - Simply put, there is not enough reliable secondary coverage to generate enough content for an article on this expansion. As it is this page is mostly gameplay stuff, no real-world content. Merging would be the best shot for the main article to hit featured status, although that's still a long ways off. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The MERGE is already done. REDIRECT will be done if there are no additional objections (besides the ones Dream Focus has already brought up) after the weekend. Vyeh (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there...

Suggested small tweak to Gameplay section: "Within the game, the player assumes the role of one of the seven distinctly different faction leaders and attempts to expand their colony and achieve victory." to "Within the game, the player assumes the role of one of seven distinctly different faction leaders and attempts to expand their colony and achieve victory." I'll leave it for someone else to do so as not to muddy the waters in the article itself. It makes more sense as, since the game allows custom factions as well as the original 7 and the SMAX 7, gameplay doesn't require any specific 7 factions, merely 7. Eponymous (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks. Nolelover (talk) 02:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the contents alone, the list of factions takes up a third the space. How about taking that list (2.9) out of "gameplay" and making it section 3? Nolelover (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is better to make 2.9 a new section 2 and make the existing section 2 minus 2.9 a new section 3. I have made the change so you can see how it looks. I would suggest adding in a transition sentence from section 1 to the new section 2. Vyeh (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And we can consider whether Alpha Centauri is too long. I don't think division into two articles along game/expansion pack makes sense. However, maybe Factions could be split into a separate article with a discussion of custom factions. I am thinking that discussing customization (using the Lazymod factions and the SMAniaC factions) and the large number of unique factions (the distinctness of the factions compared to Civilization civilizations distinguishes SMAC from Civ) would meet WikiPedia criteria for notability and verifiability. "Just throwing it out there..." Vyeh (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(The following comment by Eponymous was excerpted from the Merger proposal section. Vyeh (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC))
1) Article doesn't seem overly long, but the TOC does. Would it make more sense to use 2 lists within one section rather than seperate subsections, more in line with the way the victory conditions are presented?... 4) The only thing that seems glaringly missing from the merge is the modding aspect of SMAX. Eponymous (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1) Done, but take a look at my suggestion in "Just throwing it out there..." above. 4) See my suggestion in "Just throwing it out there..." above. If a separate article is not appealing, I can put together a section on modding. Sources would include the game manual, Gamespot and SMAC Academy articles The Scenario Editor and Alpha/x Guide (v 1.3). (I am disclosing that I am administrator of the site that hosts the SMAC Academy.) Apolyton also has a dedicated Creation subforum. I am pretty sure Dream Focus will not object to listing it as an external link, but I would like to get the opinion of other editors. I am currently advising two modders -- one at Apolyton and the other at CivFanatics, so I am well qualified to write the section or article. Vyeh (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

All I was thinking, as far as the missing modding aspects go, was two or three lines mentioning that custom factions and other mods are supported and the modding community exists, w/an ext link if needed. Overall, as someone who's a watcher of the article and player of the game, I'm pleased with the way it's shaping up. Eponymous (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done -- added modification section with sources and added external link to modding community (I am not a fan of external links, but created one so you can consider whether it really is needed). How about suggesting some cruft to cut? Vyeh (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro to editing Wikipedia articles for User:Vyeh and any other interested editors.

Apparently I am required to give a course on Wikipedia policy before any edits I make to your article? First off, User:Vyeh, asking people to help with an article and then reverting a simple edit before discussion is a sure-fire way to piss people off. I guess what you actually mean is that you wish for people to give you ideas about how you can edit the article, and I'd like to point out the first of several WP pages for you to read, WP:OWN.

As far as the intro section, having a link to an unofficial patch in the intro of an article is nothing short of SPAM. Please read our guideline on lead sections (article intros). "The lead should define the topic and summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." Is it your opinion that a paragraph on an unofficial patch not mentioned in the body of the article meets this criteria? Appropriate weight means that if the article is 75% about A, 20% about B, and 5% about C, the intro should be mostly about A, a little about B, and might not even mention C. As this patch is mentioned NOWHERE in the body of the article, that means the article is 0% about it. The intro isn't for unique information, it is for summarizing the contents of the body of the article. This is why the info needs to be moved to the body of the article. Further, please see WP:UNDUE. "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." If we follow logic, if this patch fills 25% of the intro, then it should fill around 25% of the article, and have about 25% importance to the topic. Not even fan-sites give that much weight to this mod, let alone any reliable secondary source.

As far as your belief that an unofficial patch is not a mod, if you could explain how an unsanctioned piece of software that changes existing functionality in the way that this patch does (in effect, "modifying" it) is not a game mod, I'd be happy to listen. Just because it fixes perceived problems doesn't mean it isn't a mod.

As far as the idea that mods don't generally belong in game articles goes back to the very basic WP:N and WP:V, not to mention WP:UNDUE. Mods are not often covered by reliable sources, making their inclusion rarely acceptable. Some get picked up by the publisher, Counter-Strike being the most commonly-used example. Some may achieve notability by causing a totally unofficial stir (see Hot Coffee). How have the AC mods gained attention from the mainstream press? How much significant coverage have they received in reliable secondary sources? If some information has been published in the NY Times and IGN, and other information has appeared in forums and on fan-sites, how is that not putting undue weight on the latter information simply by including it in the article?

But, as I stated, I was not removing any info. I was simply moving it to a more logical location. Putting such trivial information in the intro makes anyone who is not familiar with the topic not want to read the article, because they will assume that the article will be similarly written. This topic could be made into a GA or an FA. This will never happen with so much in-universe information, and it certainly won't happen if the article's guard dog doesn't let anyone edit it. Your user talk page makes very clear your intention, which I find honorable as you could simply not have mentioned and many people might not know. Obviously this is WP:COI, but if you are genuinely interested in improving the article, then there should not be any problem. Please understand that your position will make you think differently about this article then your average editor, and please start giving other editors the benefit of the doubt. Please also acknowledge that you cannot moderate Wikipedia. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur that the patch info should be present (in that it shows that significant community development continues years after the release of the game), but shouldn't be in the lead. In addition, I would recommend that forum handles (scient, velocirix) be removed as unencyclopedic. Eponymous (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Forum names removed Vyeh (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I believe that Modifications as Eponymous wanted was for material that anybody could create. The patch is certainly not a mod as the term is commonly used. I certainly have not been doing all the edits. Eponymous has been suggesting edits that nolelover and I have been implementing. Nolelover is doing his own edits. I have been doing edits following the guidance on this talk page and the suggestion you and Guyinblack25 made at the Video Games project page. I don't think you had read the discussion page here about what Eponymous had wanted included about modifications. If I have offended you, I am truly sorry. I'm sure eventually the patch will be moved into a section, but the Modifications section is not the right place. I have just put in a lot of time working to merge the two articles together. Unfortunately, it isn't a matter of combining the two articles. As Dream Focus points out, the combined article would become too long. So we need to eliminate game cruft. I have tried very carefully to conform my edits to the general discussion on this page. I have paid attention to Dream Focus argument about length. Anyway, I suspect that most editors will see your comments for what they are and I don't need to address them further. (I almost wiped out another Eponymous comment!) Vyeh (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)