Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/Archive 3

This page was originally at Talk:Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire prior to a merger. The page has been merged. Moving talk page to archives. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that most of this material (except for the first two sections) is also duplicated in Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/Archive 2. It is interesting that the consensus in 2006 was against merger. There seems to be two arguments against merging: length and unique content. After eliminating cruft, the length of the "readable prose" of the merged article is 33 kB, which is just above the 32 kB that WP says there should be no split based on length. And there is some redundancy between the opening paragraph and Reception and there is still cruft for nolelover to delete. The unique content seems to be mostly cruft. I don't think a person who doesn't have SMAX (or for that matter SMAC) would have a hard time following a statement to the effect that SMAX adds new factions. I was kind of shocked to find an Wikipedia:CSD#A3 label for a talkarchive. A3 is only suppose to apply to articles. Wikipedia:What_is_an_article? specifically exempts talk pages. I was planning to insert a link suggested by Help:Merging, Article merged: See old talk-page [[talk:PAGENAME|here]]. Vyeh (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Macintosh?

"Apple Macintosh games" Is this game available for Macintosh?

Apparently so. [1] siafu 19:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Retail price

I've noticed that the game retails very very high, (whereas you can get Alpha Centarui very very cheap)... does anyone know why?

I believe the game went out of print relatively quickly, while SMAC was kept around for much longer as a budget title. Though, back in 2003, both SMAC and SMAX were bundled (along with SimCity 3000 Unlimited, C&C: Red Alert 2 and a golf game) in a package called The Laptop Collection. Unfortunately, this is now also out of print and very expensive, but it originally retailed for around $15. Since I had always wanted to play SMAX but wasn't willing to pay eBay prices for it, I nearly had a heart attack when I saw it at Gamestop. Needless to say, I bought it right then and there :) --- SHODAN 01:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

SMACX is difficult to find, but every now and then you can find it at retail price, as SHODAN seems to have done. Generally, you can get it on E-bay, (either stand-alone, or in the combined planetary pack) for 65 - 70 dollars, which is what I recently did. Firaxis, for some reason, chose to use EA as the publisher for SMACX, and the relationship appears to have gone badly. I don't know what their contract looked like, but it seems clear that EA must have pressured Firaxis into giving them the game before they were ready. While SMACX does add a lot of interesting content to the game, it lacks the polish of SMAC. Interface annoyances from SMAC remain - and Firaxis is usually good about cleaning this sort of thing up in its expansions. And the first rate voice acting from SMAC is nowhere to be seen in SMACX - and this adds quite a bit to the problem of new factions not being quite as interesting, fleshed out, and believable as the original factions. This scenerio, one in which Firaxis may have been left slightly unsatisfied with the quality of the product, seems to me to be the only one that would account for why they have not found a new publisher for it, but left it out of print.

BTW, the main article mentions a couple of bugs in SMACX. Does anyone know if the article is referring to version 2.0? In other words, are these bugs still there after the patch? Sevenwarlocks 13:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the legalities of this, so I will not provide a link, but the expansion is available from an abandonware site (The Underdogs) although the version that is on there is cracked. The Underdogs are usually pretty prompt at removing anything that is still available for sale, so I would assume that the expansion being on there is a sign of it's unavailability. YnnaD 16:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• • What does cracked mean? Jamhaw (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)jamhaw

Merge Discussion

Is there some compelling reason why expansion packs are being given their own pages? Shador5529 15:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. Including information about the expansion packs tends to make the articles for the parent games too long. -- SHODAN 12:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge. SMACX significantly adds to SMAC, rather than being just a bunch of "new levels" or tweaks. The compelling reason specific to SMACX is that, IMHO, it represents a sufficently different gaming experience which cannot be easily differentiated in a single merged article. Rob (Talk) 12:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dont merge because really not only are most expansion packs given articles but the Alpha Centauri page would become to big if we tried sticking the info there. Jamhaw 18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)jamhaw

Don't Merge. There's a heck of a lot of unique information in both; if anything it'd soon become a candidate for its own sub-page if it were moved. --Bobak 16:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't Merge. Expansion information is absolutely useless and confusing to those who play the original game without the expansion, but it is very easily accessed on a separate page by those who do. This is particularly important in the case of SMACX, because the expansion is quite difficult to find. Sevenwarlocks 13:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial Patch Project

I added the paragraph on the Unofficial Patch Project. This is my first wiki edit. I would appreciate comments.

Vyeh (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

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) 12:16, 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) 14:25, 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) 15:09, 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) 18:15, 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) 18:27, 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) 20:24, 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) 11:11, 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)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyeh (talk • contribs)

****

Vyeh (talk) 17:04, 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) 19:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to take a look. After reading it, quite honestly, I don't remember a 4 month old edit - or even what I was doing on this page. I'm not a gamer. But at my age I can't even remember what I had for breakfast yesterday morning. FWIW, I AGREE with your proposal to delete all links. After looking, it seems that it would cut down the amount of spam. I commend you also, for disclosing your COI and being willing to discuss it. Best of luck and regards. --Manway (talk) 22:58, 4 June 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 [2] 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) 15:50, 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 [3], 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)

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. [4] [5] [6] [7] 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 [8] 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 [9] 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, [10]. 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. [11] I'm going to change the link in the article to [12] 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) 15:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Please respond to this over at Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri talk page.[13] No sense caring on a conversation in two places at once. Dream Focus 06:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

On Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games, JohnnyMrNinja and Guyinblack25 have suggested a merger of Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire (this article) into Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. 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 at Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Merger proposal. 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. Please make your comments at Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#Merger proposal Vyeh (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)