Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/Archive 5

Is www.eeggs.com a RS?

In the article, Billydeeuk added some material sourced by www.eeggs.com. Is this a RS? Vyeh (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have gotten responses at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Is www.eeggs.com a RS? and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is www.eeggs.com a RS? about whether www.eeggs.com is a reliable source. The unanimous consensus is that it is not:

1. Probably not. It is run by a husband and wife team, and created by user submissions. Fences&Windows 16:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
2. It's more or less user driven and has user-submitted content, so the site is self-published, more or less. Further, I'd say that even if it were an acceptable source, the text being added to that article doesn't seem to meet WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
3. No. Dlabtot (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
4. I'd say not. They're user-contributed, and sometimes entirely wrong. Reach Out to the Truth 17:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Having had WP:OWN thrown at me a few times, I wanted to be careful about reverting an edit. Please note that WP:OWN contains the following:

There is no rule against being the primary or sole editor of an article, provided that contributions and input from fellow editors is not ignored and/or immediately disregarded. Some articles have few (or one) main contributors. Being the primary editor does not equal ownership so long as the primary editor allows views of other editors. Being the primary editor does not equal ownership if the primary editor's contributions are justified. Editors familiar with the topic and in possession of broad relevant reliable sources may have watchlisted such articles and may discuss or tailor other's edits. Provided this does not marginalise valid opinions of others, and is adequately justified, it too does not equal ownership.

Since www.eeggs.com is not a reliable source (and keeping in mind WP:INDISCRIMINATE, although this is much more subjective -- I don't see the Firaxians being part of the storyline), I am reverting the addition of the Firaxian faction. I hope that I have not ignored and/or immediately disregarded the addition of the Firaxian faction. Nolelover or another editor should feel free to comment if you think I have overlooked something. Vyeh (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I also removed the Factions subheading. I believe we should eventually integrate the factions into the storyline as characters in the story. Vyeh (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with taking down eegss. Even while assuming good faith, it seemed like possible vandalism to me. Although I had heard about it, never had it been anything other then hearsay. BTW, making edits by yourself is not WP:OWN. I don't think you have to justify every edit immediately. You have been the most active editor on this article and that's nothing to apologize for. That said, I appreciate you posting your clear and (somewhat) concise reasoning :).

I was curious as to why you took down the Factions subsection divisor. The storyline section is a tad bulky and the beginning of the sixth paragraph seemed like a natural division point - both in terms of subject matter and prose. Nolelover (talk) 22:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to integrate the factions into the storyline as the characters. So after discussing the disaster, we could start introducing the faction leaders. The reason for the division was that factions was originally a separate section. Then Guyinblack25 suggested that it be merged with Storyline or Gameplay and I just put it at the end of Storyline. It also looks a little odd to have just one subsection. Vyeh (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. I just figured that until we actually integrated the factions into the storyline itself, it would look better as a subsection. I had no problem with merging the sections, but having the big, ten paragraph storyline for who-knows-how-long was a bit messy. Nolelover (talk) 14:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I restored the subheading. Vyeh (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I said, merging is fine. Until then, I think the factions subsection is the best choice. Nolelover (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As the original poster of the link, the reason why I did this was because, as the faction is an Easter Egg, a link would be needed to prove its existence (Which I believe I was right in doing, given Nolelover's suggestion that the addition could be "possible vandalism". As I said in my entry, it is an Easter Egg (and so I do accept Vyeh's arguement that they are, to an extent, non-canonical) In terms of the reliability of the source, whilst I accept what the usuer says about the reliabilty of the content on this site, in this specific example, I can assure you that the information included in this case IS correct, and it was the most reliable source I found, as the other examples were gamer forums and Yahoo Questions. The Firixan faction is included a sandbox for the Faction Editor/Creator programme that came with crossfire and fan be found when using this software under the file name sid.flv (Where the faction leader's profile contains a picture of Sid Meier) or brian.flv (where it is a picture of Brian Reynolds). I do not believe that I have violated the terms of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as I made it clear that this was an Easter Egg (the attached article defines an Easter Egg as: "an intentional hidden message, in-joke or feature in an object such as a movie, book, CD, DVD, computer program, web page or video game"), and feel it should be included for the sake of completion. --Billydeeuk (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Billydeeuk, thank you for taking an interest in the article. "Possible vandalism" was excessive, since the Firaxian factions shipped with the game. The issue of non-canonical only arose because the Factions subsection is currently in the Storyline section. The fact that the content isn't correct isn't the issue. Original research is correct, but WikiPedia insists on verifiability, one of the three core principles. In terms of completion, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. As you said, Easter Eggs are intentionally hidden. In addition, they are likely to be of interest to only a fraction of the readers who actually play the game. In our quest for Good Article status, we have to write the article for a more general audience. We have already cut out a lot of "gamecruft." As I said at the beginning, I do appreciate your interest in the article. Vyeh (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant no offense by saying it might be vandalism, but I've seen examples of editors intentionally slipping in incorrect information that is hard to prove or disprove. That is definitely vandalism, just a less obvious (and more dangerous) sort. I had heard of the Firaxian faction, but it seemed to be more of an urban legend to me. Again, sorry if I seemed harsh. As to why it doesn't belong, Vyeh is right. It qualifies as cruft in my book and isn't necessary info for the average reader. Nolelover (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote reference, official site description, infoboxes, development section nomenclature

As Nolelover knows, I am pretty sensitive about the responsibilities laid out in WP:OWN for the primary editor. I have gone through the August 7 edits by Skomorokh. As I mentioned on his talk page, the Development section is in flux as I have been putting in material from sources and I expect to reorganize it thematically rather than chronologically. So the section headings he has put in will change. I have tried to explain my edits in the edit summaries.

1. As I noted WP:Sister projects says the Wikiquote link should go in the external links section if there is no relevant section. Since we currently have a line about the game's quotes being popular, the Wikiquote link properly belongs in the Legacy section. So I have reverted the movement of the Wikiquote link from Legacy to External Links.
2. For the official site description, I think it is important to note the developer no longer hosts the official site. I think it properly implies that Firaxis no longer supports the game.
3. Following Guyinblack25's guidelines, the infobox should belong in the lead. So I have moved the expansion infobox back from development back to the lead section. Second, Skomorokh, stating that the full infobox should be displayed for the original game removed the ability of a reader to collapse the box by eliminating the "collapsible=yes" field. There is currently a discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_video_game about how many fields should be in the infobox, which I am participating in. Given the current length of the SMAC infobox (because there are Windows, Mac and Linux versions, different release dates in NA and EU) and because there are two infoboxes, I believe it is best to set the initial state to collapsed. Any reader that is interested in the information can see it with one click.
4. Following Guyinblack25's guidelines, I changed "Development History" back to "Development." Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines suggests either "Development" or "History." I think "Development History" is redundant.

These are my reasons for changing Skomorokh's edits. Of course, other editors can discuss these edits here (and we are fortunate to have Nolelover for a third opinion). By the way, according to WP:MINOR, "A good rule of thumb is that edits consisting solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content should be flagged as minor edits." Vyeh (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

1. I'll defer to policy, but it seems a tad weird to have it there. I'd have thought external links would be better. That said, you've got a point, and it should stay that way.
2. Agree
3. Agree with the expansion infobox in the lead. As to the collapsed state, is all that info really necessary? Could we shorten it?
4. Agree. I've always thought that a shorter title was a better title. Nolelover (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(1) Delete the sentence about quotations (the current source is not a RS and does not support the proposition that SMAC quotes are popular) and you can move the wikiquote link to external links. (3) There is a huge discussion going on in the infobox template talk section. The short answer is yes. I'm also thinking we can delete any information in the expansion box that is identical to the original game (or maybe we combine the two boxes, eliminating the SMAX image. Vyeh (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree with deleting the "quotes" sentence. After looking at the link, I realized it's just a collection, and, like you said, says nothing about them being "popular". Nolelover (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the "quotes" sentence and moved the Wikiquote link to External Links. The GenerationTerrorist source is used by Wikiquote. Vyeh (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete the SMAX infobox. It's puts some (IMO, necessary) emphasis on the fact that they are two separate entities. I also scanned the talk page; when they've finished, I assume you'll implement the changes? Just a few fields will make a big difference, if we don't have to collapse it. Nolelover (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

OK about not deleting the SMAX infobox, but if the field is the same as SMAC, maybe we could delete (e.g. genre) or say "same as Alpha Centauri" (e.g. System Requirements which will have listings for Windows, Mac and Linux). I certainly intend to trim the infobox down. I've gone ahead and made some changes, which we should discuss. I've limited the designer field to just the lead designer. There seems to be a developing consensus that this field should have only two names at most. My research indicates Sid Meier wasn't really involved in the day to day design process, so I think it is best to leave his name in the Director field and remove it from the Designer field. There may be some evidence that Timothy Train should be in the SMAC design field (he was producer and I have source calling him a co-desiger) and maybe Douglas Kaufman in the SMAX design field. I reduced the genre field to just "turn based strategy" and linked to just one WP article, rather than "science fiction," "4x," "turn-based" and "strategy." And I eliminated Michael Ely as writer for the SMAC field. Although he wrote the books, there is no evidence that he did more than other core members in writing the text of SMAC. If fields are eliminated based on the discussion, I don't think we will have to make the changes. Is there a reason you would want the infobox to initially be set in the expanded state? (I assume you have no problem with letting the reader collapse it.) Vyeh (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with it being collapsed; I guess I've just always thought an expanded (albeit shorter) infobox was the best thing. I agree with the genre and developer fields, we're constantly reiterated in the article that Reynolds was the lead and Meiers wasn't involved. And trimming the SMAX box is fine. But like they said, "It's somewhere between an expansion and a full-blown sequel." I think the separate boxes reflect that. Nolelover (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am creating a new section on Infoboxes. Vyeh (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Plot

Following Guyinblack25's guidelines, I have reorganized the Plot section into three sections: Setting, Characters (incorporating part to the existing Factions subsection) and Story. I think Setting is finished, except for sources. I've asked Guyinblack25 for an opinion about the length for Characters. Given the reviewers' enthusiasm, maybe something more should be said, perhaps about Planet being a character. I plan to use IMdb as a source for the voice actors (it is a RS and a secondary source). I think Story might be expanded a little using material from the Interludes (they are reproduced in Prima's Strategy Guide so we won't have to use the cite video game template. Vyeh (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Note I moved material about Michael Ely's webnovels and novels from Legacy to Settings. Since they came out with the game, I think they are not properly legacy and they are part of the backstory, hence belong in Settings. Vyeh (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Following Nolelover's comments, I have set the initial state of the infoboxes to "expanded." I would appreciate it if Nolelover would read the comments on the Infobox Template talk page and edit accordingly. (It would probably be best to comment out the fields for now.) I am not very happy with the way the two infoboxes pushes down the screenshot in the Gameplay section. Note we need to have system requirements for Mac and Linux. Vyeh (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clearer. I only was referring to the SMAC infobox, not SMAX. Unless there's another policy I don't know about, can we leave the SMAX collapsed? I also noticed it pushed the gameplay shot down. That's why I figured we wouldn't do it. And I've read the infobox talk page, but I don't really feel I know enough about it to decide what stays and what doesn't. I'll defer regarding the infobox to whatever you think is better. I really don't have strong feelings either way. Nolelover (talk) 15:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is collasped or not, there should only be one infobox for it. I recommend the second instance located in the "Development" section. I also think that the SMAX cover does not add much to the article and would probably get removed during a quality review as it does not meet WP:NFCC.

If the first instance is chosen, then the gameplay image can be moved to the left side of the article, a common style edit in video game articles that have infoboxes. This will avoid the image getting bumped down. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

Vyeh, it's up to you...Nolelover (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going for collapsed. The edit buttons for Plot are messed up with the expanded state. Do we really need the second infobox located in Development? Can we eliminate it (possibly incorporating its release info along with the combined edition - Planetary Pack - in the single infobox)? I agree with moving the gameplay image to the left side. Vyeh (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for consolidating the infoboxes into a single box, especially since it looks like a chunk of the content is duplicated. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC))

I commented out (instead of outright deleting) the SMAX infobox to make it easier to move the info from that box into the single remaining infobox. Is there a place I can look to see how to put the gameplay image on the left side? Vyeh (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

the former Inspirations section

Guyinblack25 has incorporated the former Inspirations subsection (which used to be most of Development). At one point, I tried to eliminate it, but Nolelover thought it should be kept for awhile. As Guyinblack notes, there is a lot of unsourced material. Before I go on a search for sources, is the following sentence really important or is it WP:INDISCRIMINATE? "The game's cutscenes use montages of live-action video, CGI, or both; most of the former is from the 1992 experimental documentary Baraka." Vyeh (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on how much is used and how obvious. Is it just a few scenes? Are they lengthy? Would a person who's seen Baraka notice it? If it's obviously non-original or from a movie, I don't think it falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Problem is, I don't remember thinking that way. I wouldn't recommend that phrase. Plus, we don't have a citation. Nolelover (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep looking at sources. In the SMAC manual, it says Stock Footage Courtesy Of... Archive Films, Corbis, The Image Bank, WPA Film Library and "The Dancing Baby" is used with permission of Kinetix, a division of Autodesk, Inc. In doing a google search on Bareka and Alpha Centauri, I found citations to our article and articles that derived from it and to youtube. Given the nature of Baraka, it is possible that some people mistook stock footage for footage shot for Baraka. That would mean the second part of the statement is untrue in addition to being unverifiable. Vyeh (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

So that's settled? Nolelover (talk) 22:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'll find it in a source. My concern is that someone made it up. Vyeh (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

That happens... Nolelover (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Development

I have been trying to follow Guyinblack's development section guidelines as well as as his admonition that the Development section needed fixing. Given how it use to look, it is a huge improvement. At this point, I believe it needs to be reduced (maybe by half). I would appreciate some feedback following Guyinblack25's guidelines. Thanks. Vyeh (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Length

According to WP:LENGTH, an article should not be longer than 30 to 50KB of "readable prose." We are now at 31KB. Vyeh (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Next Steps

Am I the only one who thinks the sentences in "Development" and "Reception" are a bit choppy? That will be what I work on next. And what else is on our list before we get it reviewed? Nolelover (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not going to use an indent because of the length of the reply. The reason the sentences in "Development" are choppy is because I have been concerned with getting source material in. Now that we know what is supported by reliable sources, we can discuss what the Development section should say. I think the first section ("Genesis") should be about a group of refugees from Microprose (including one of the founders) looking for a turn based project but no longer having the right to the Civilization name. The second section ("Original Game") talks about issues that arose in the development of SMAC. And the third section ("Expansion") talks about the issues that arose in the development of SMAX. The "Reception" section probably needs to be expanded. Vantine84 did a good job on the "Critical Reception" section; however, I think the sources will support greater detail.

Here is the list:

• Lead
  • Prose - done, except for final tweaking once the rest of the article is done (it should highlight the important parts)
  • Infobox
    • System Requirements for Mac and Linux
    • Consolidate SMAX (will involve adding lines in Release Date; I don't believe we need to mention Timothy Train in the infobox as SMAX is more of an expansion pack than a new game)
    • Eliminate some unnecessary fields (which no longer show after the recent revision of the infobox template)
• Plot
  • Setting
    • We might add monoliths, alien artifacts and native life to the first paragraph. Maybe the material on the Map of the Planet belongs here.
    • For the second material, does the graphic novel and GURPS belong here?
  • Characters
    • There are voice actors for the Datalinks (male and female). I know you are interested in getting the Datalinks back into the article. This is probably a better place than Gameplay.
    • Do we want to add some additional description to the characters, keeping in mind that we don't want the Plot section to be more than 20% of the article?
  • Story
    • The sentences here are currently choppy. The narrative is that the player first encounters fungus, then mindworms, then starts having disturbing dreams, then contacts Planet, then builds Voice of Planet and then Ascent to Transcendence. So it is a story of something that resembles the most primitive Earth vegetation becoming a partner in the next evolutionary step.
• Gameplay
  • This section needs a major rewrite.
  • We need to spell out the four victory conditions (Conquest, Building Ascent SP, Outgrowing everybody, Economic) for a coalition.
  • We should say that the resources to achieve these victory conditions (or prevent someone else achieving these victory conditions) comes from the terrain modified by terraforming, facilities, secret projects, faction bonuses and social engineering.
  • We should talk about technology, which increases options for terraforming, facilities, secret projects and social engineering.
  • We should talk about diplomacy and commerce. (This would include the Planetary Council.)
  • We should talk about difficulty level.
  • We should talk about modifications (changing game rules, random maps, custom maps, custom factions, scenarios).
  • We should talk about multiplayer.
  • Obviously, we want to be careful about gamecruft, but this section should be written so a general reader can grasp the major concepts.
• Development
  • Genesis
    • Needs word polishing. When the article is finished, we could consider trimming this section if we felt the article was overly long.
    • We could put (back) in material about Chiron.
  • Original game
    • Needs editing to eliminate repetition and for narrative flow.
  • Expansion
    • Probably only needs editing to improve the narrative flow.
• Reception
  • Sales
    • We should get some figures for Civilization, Civilization II and Civilization III for comparison.
  • Critical reaction
    • Given the number of reviews, I think this should be expanded.
    • The review box should include more scores.
  • Awards
    • There was material which was taken out that had more awards. And there is a list on the Official Site. I think a separate section is warranted given the number of Game of the Year awards SMAC garnered.
• Legacy
  • This section needs major rework. In addition to the Civilization series, I wonder if there is anything in Rise of Nations that was influenced by SMAC.
• Notes
  • I need to consolidate the notes. I have been sourcing individual sentences to facilitate moving them around. When the prose is near final stage, I'll be able to consolidate them.
  • I'd like all the notes to be in short form, linked to a line in the References section.
• References
  • There are still a few references at the top of the talk page that needs to be added.
  • After that, there are references that are in the notes that need to be added.
• External Links
  • According to the VG article guidelines, we should also add external links for the developer (Firaxis) and the publisher (EA, Aspyr, Loki).
• Cite-checking
  • After we get the article prose in final form, I plan to go through all the footnotes and make sure they support the statement.
• Copy-editing
  • Fortunately, there are some editors (Narthring, Reyk, Feyre, Eponymous, PresN) who have expressed an interest in the article in the past who can give us fresh eyes.
• Review
  • I am not sure what the best way to go. I would defer to Guyinblack25's judgment.

I do appreciate your patience. At this point, I am pretty sure we could get C-class. Vyeh (talk) 14:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. It was what I was looking for. Nolelover (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

User created units link

Links to the wiki page for PC modding. the feature comes with the game and is a part of the core gameplay, not an external modding feature. link should be removed. 69.140.103.190 (talk) 09:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Nolelover, I don't understand this comment. The only link about custom units under Gameplay went to chassis. While there is a link to mod (computer gaming) in the Legacy section, that was in reference to creating scenarios and editing the alphax.txt file. I certainly wouldn't call that part of the core gameplay. Vyeh (talk) 12:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm...I'm not sure what he meant either. I'd assume he meant the mods link, but I agree, it's not really part of the "core" gameplay. They are an external modding feature. Nolelover (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Professor versus Academician

Resolved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

IMDb says Professor, Manual says Academician. I went with Professor because WP favors secondary sources. Vyeh (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It should be Academician. IMDB is not a reliable source as it is user-editable, and in this case clearly wrong as it contradicts the primary source. Also, Google gives 8 results for "Professor Prokhor Zakharov" and 15800 for "Academician Prokhor Zakharov". --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted that because I specifically thought the game said "professor". I have no feelings either way. Nolelover 22:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the game does. The manual sometimes doesn't reflect the game! Vyeh (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't I know that! :) Nolelover 10:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The game says Academician in the sign-off from the quotes, look here. It may also say Professor at some point but I can't recall that now. I did however find an academic book reference in the form of the Polish Sociological Review here. Given this and the disparity in the Google results I posted above, I think we should stick with Academician. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Like I said, I don't really care and had only reverted cause I thought he was called Professor in the game. Nolelover 11:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources#Checklist says IMDb is an unreliable source. I went back to the version that was used before I put in IMDb as a source. (I don't understand why it is encouraged as an external link -- see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links if it is user edited, it is no better than fan forums!) By the way, I am not aware of any WP policy that says primary sources trump secondary sources in terms of truth/verifiability. On the contrary Wikipedia:Primary_sources#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources says primary sources must be used carefully and that WP articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Since IMDb is unreliable, I have gone back to the manual, but will go with secondary sources, even if I know it is not entirely accurate (I would probably quote in such a case) based on my experience (WP doesn't allow original research either). Just for fun, I am using the "resolved" template and the "discussion top" and "discussion bottom" templates I saw at WP:WQA. Nolelover, Pontificalibus, feel free to insert any closing comments above the "discussion bottom" template. Thank you, Pontificalibus, for pointing out that IMDb is unreliable (and thank you, 209.195.164.34, for the edit that created this discussion). Vyeh (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Caviar

I received the following information through a private message at my forum. I am not sure if it will be possible to track down sources to include this information in the article, but it would greatly add to the Development section of the article.

Although my recollections may be a bit unclear, I'll explain to you what I know about Caviar files. The trail is cold now, but it yielded more information six or seven years ago.

Animatek produced the 3d graphics used in Alpha Centuari under contract for Firaxis. Animatek's most noteworthy achievement was the Caviar 3d graphics format. Originally, they made the format, viewer, and converter (Cavier Converter 2.0 being the laster version) as a way for businesses, artists, etc., to share 3d objects. The idea was that one would convert the object to the compact and efficient Caviar format, send it by disk or internet to another to view with the simple Caviar Player program. It eliminated the need to have the original 3d program (3ds Max, Maya, Lightwave, etc.) that created the object in order to simply view the model.

The format was so lightweight and system friendly that Firaxis seems to have made the "revolutionary" choice to use it to include real 3d models rather than sprites in their next "Sci-Fi" Civilization title Alpha Centuari. Among other things, it made deformable terrain possible and the unit workshop possible and practical. I really feel that, in total, SMAC was a gamble that was ahead of its time. (It is interesting to note that Civ3 did not use 3d models but a refinement of the "old" method of 2d images/sprites.)

The disappearence of the Caviar format seems to be a little bit of a mystery. I do know that Animatek was sold to another company along with the rights to the caviar format, but the name escapes me. Some others have also wondered what happened to the efficient Caviar format and I heard rumor that the format was adapted and used for console games. Size and efficiency being important for that type of hardware.

Vyeh (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Awards subsection of Reception

I have started an Awards subsection following Guyinblack25's guidelines (it would be strange not to include this subsection for a game that won so many game of the year honors). I took some material from the May 20, 2010 version (just before I started the article) and combined it with material at the beginning of the Reception section. There was a list from the earlier version that I did not include in the article. Here it is:

• Gamespot 1999 Turn-Based Game of the Year
• Highest rated game ever - PC Gamer
• Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences "PC Strategy Game of the Year"
• PC Gamer "Editors' Choice"
• Maximum PC "KICK ASS" Award
• UGO "E3 Best of Show"
• CGW "Strategy Game of the Year" Nominee
• GameSpy "Strategy Game of the Year" Nominee
• GamePower "Game of the Year" Hon. Mention
• ImaginaryLife.com "Best of the Best"
• Denver Post - Best Game of 1999
• Toronto Sun - "Best Games of 1999"
• Game Industry News - Best Game Soundtrack 1999

Note the link no longer works (it stopped working about two months ago). This is an archive of the link. (Later, we can see about getting better sources.) It is part of the Official Site that is in the References. Nolelover, could you incorporate part of the list into the new Awards subsection. Thanks. Were you the one that asked in a comment in the Reception section to specify who gave SMAC game of the year honors? Vyeh (talk) 10:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who asked for a couple. It was weird to make that statement and not provide any examples. I'll try to incorporate, but I have to give you a head-up. Now that school has started again, and until a couple long summer classes end, I won't be on much. I'll try to check in every day, but can't guarantee anything. Nolelover 13:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand. If you can just leave a note on this talk page outlining your thoughts, I can make the edits if that would be quicker for you. I took a look at the criteria for B-class. For B-1, I think it would be a matter of checking all references, removing dead ones and consolidating references (to the end of the sentence or paragraph as appropriate) and eliminating the second half of the Legacy section. B-2 is covered (coverage/no obvious omissions or inaccuracies). B-3 is covered (defined structure). B-4 (well written) will probably require some fresh eyes as well as putting your sandbox into the gameplay section and consolidating the Legacy section. Fortunately, we have several editors who have expressed a willingness to help (e.g. Narthring, Reyk, Eponymous, PresN, Feyre, Vantine84). B-5 (supporting material) requires only the consolidation of the infoboxes and Mac and Linux system requirements, which will take me only a couple of hours at most. (Or maybe someone else will come along!) B-6 (written for a broad audience) is covered. GA status requires going through the article character by character. GA-1 (well-written) requires compliance with the Manual of Style. GA-2 (factually accurate and verifiable) requires that we make sure everything has a reliable source. GA-3 (broad in its coverage) is basically covered. GA-4 (neutral) is covered. GA-5 (stable) means that we basically have to be finished. GA-6 (illustrated) might require uploading a better screenshot (I would prefer a screenshot that showed the main map without the diplomatic pop-up). I have gone through the criteria for B class and GA class to help you allocate your limited time. It seems to me that the work in your sandbox would be the most valuable. Then some opinion about what should go in the Awards subsection. Finally, think about how we want to end the article. I think we either end it with the Awards subsection (deep sixing the Legacy section) or with a discussion of the features of SMAC that have found themselves into Civ 3 - 5 and possibly Rise of Nations (we can discuss how four people on the development team, including Brian Reynolds and Timothy Train left to form Big Huge Games). Anyway, I think we should write an article that we think satisfies B/GA (and A/FA as much as we can figure out what they are) criteria and then call in the other editors that have offered to help for fresh eyes, incorporate their comments and then submit the article for review. Vyeh (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I just hit my Sandbox as well. Not done yet, but for the life of me, I can't remember how directed research was set up! Also, I don't think probe teams should go in. I wrote them a sentence or two, but took it out right before I saved - its just to much like cruft. I agree with getting a new screenshot, the present one is a tad odd. Looking through the awards up top - which are really notable? Check this out. SMAC won an award from him?!? O well...he's cute, I guess. I haven't heard of a lot of these guys, so I don't know which ones real, and which ones are a bunch of guys in a basement. Nolelover 20:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the link to your sandbox. I guess you realize that I assume Guyinblack25 doesn't have time to read this talk page, so I try to be very specific with my requests to him. I'm hoping he can tell us if there are any major issues with the sections I listed for him to examine. Directed research is probably what you are use to. You get 2/3rds of the tech you have the prerequisites for and you can choose one of those. For blind research, you can choose one to four categories (explore, discover, build, conquer), but otherwise you get a random tech from the ones that you have the prerequisites for. For probe teams, you could say something as simple as: Probe teams are similar to spies in Civilization. They can steal tech, sabotage faciliites and subvert bases and units." (I don't remember what Civ 2 spies can do - it would be nice to sat what probe teams can do that spies can't.) As to awards, I guess we could check them against acceptable sources in the VG WP guidelines. Vyeh (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I realized after I read your post on his talk page. Figured I'd just make it easier for him. And actually, I have always used blind research. Do you make your choice at the beggining of the game? That's what I can't remember... Nolelover 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Awards subsection has been added to and tightened. Nolelover 13:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Blind research is one of the game rules. At the start of the game, you can go with standard rules (which has blind research) or customized the rules (see sandbox for more detail). I think once I start looking for sources (instead of using the Firaxis page), there will be more detail that can be included in the Awards section. Vyeh (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Ely books and graphic novel

I have added them to the Further Reading section, after carefully filling out the citation. They are written by someone who was on the design staff. For now, I think it is appropriate to include them in the Setting subsection. (I also moved the graphics novel from the Legacy section to the Setting subsection - it is listed on the Official Site under "The Story".) Vyeh (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

New lead

I have revised the lead section trying to highlight the important points of the article at this point. Vyeh (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

I took a rough crack at the Legacy section. I moved material into the Gameplay section (which will be supplanted by the sandbox version, but it will be easier to check the sandbox version against existing material if it is all in one section) and the Development section. I reorganized, putting similar material together. I also took the material about Caviar and put it there. Once it is sourced, some or all of it may get moved to Development. We should be thinking of how we want the article to end. Do we want it to end with a well written section about SMAC being an award winning game or do we want it to end with the influence it had on later Civilization games (and possibly Rise of Nation which was the next project of Reynolds/Train/Coleman, who were the core of the SMAC design team)? Vyeh (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a few minutes to look over your edits. Looking good so far. Do you really think Caviar will be easy to source? Either ending is good, but I think the Legacy is a neat way to end. Nolelover 16:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the information was out years ago. The issue is whether it only came out via fan site forums or is there are reliable sources. With the Wayback Machine, we can see the old site for the maker of Caviar, so we should have a source. I am hoping some RS talked about the tech. Who knows? This might be our next article! Vyeh (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Heads up

Just so you know, I have archived all the material in my sandbox. Nolelover 22:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

My read-through

I have read the first three sections:

1. The last sentence in the lead just sort of jumps out. There's no transition, and I suggest we move it to the first paragraph.
2. Second sentence in "Setting" is odd. Maybe "The premise is the U.N. sending". Or "The premise is that of..." etc.
3. The last sentence of Setting is really out of place. Maybe move it to "Characters"? There's nothing on Planet, even though it's in the topic sentence of that section.
4. Gameplay looks decent. I'm on a library computer that's about to log me off, so I g2g. Be back in two. :)

I've made a couple of other changes. They're (obviously) in the history. NLinpublic (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

External links

Dream focus took out a couple of the links. I have reverted him, but that's only temporary. Thoughts? Nolelover 12:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#External_links says "These links should be present if possible in a video game article ... [t]he developers' and publishers' home pages." I have added the developer (Firaxis) and publishers (Aspyr - Mac, EA - Windows and Loki-Linux). As we prepare the article for review, it seems to me that following the guidelines for the Video Games Wikiproject is a good thing if this is reviewed by members of the Video Game WikiProject and if an outsider questions the links, we can point them to the guidelines. Vyeh (talk) 09:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)" This is Vyeh's reasoning for including the links. It can be found in the first section of this talk page. Nolelover

As I said in the edit summary "links should be related to the article's subject, in this case the game, not sites that don't have anything about it)". No one cares about the site's of three different groups that released it, since those sites don't have any information about it at all. If they had information about it which you linked to, that'd be a different story. Dream Focus 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• WP:ELOFFICIAL says, An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

  1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
  2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

• 1 is not meant, because those sites aren't controlled by the game designers or their company Firaxis Games. And 2 is not meant because it doesn't cover the game at all. Just links to various companies which have printed out and distributed copies of it at various times. Dream Focus 16:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
• [1] Searching the Aspyr site I see no coverage or even a place to order the game. It only mentions it along with the rest of the games Firaxis made. I searched EA's site by the same method, and found zero mentions of it. And Loki Games has nothing on it but a place to buy the game, with no real information about it, and mentions in the search results that Loki Games is now defunct. None of those are valid links. Reverting back to my version now. Dream Focus 16:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

In adding links to the various publishers, I was following the VG Article Guidelines. It would be appropriate to raise the issue there. As Nolelover and I discussed, since this article is part of the VG project, we are subject to their guidelines and we do not have the right to ignore their guidelines. Even though the publishers do not contain any information on the game, I believe that some readers may be interested in seeing what additional games these publishers offer. I have a lot to do after my vacation, but I will support Nolelover in following the VG guidelines. I don't think they should be ignored merely because the publishers no longer list the games. I would suggest someone puts a notice on Guyinblack25's talk page and get his opinion. In my mind, we had done a lot of work in figuring out the External Links section (Gib25 had reviewed it critically; however, there is no reason not to discuss it again provided the earlier discussion -- it may be in an archive -- is read. Vyeh (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"See also" section seems ridiculously overloaded

Does anyone reading about the game care about Tachyons in fiction? There seems to be a very sizable list of things in the see also section. Most don't relate to the game at all, just some insignificant part of it. Dream Focus 20:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll go through them this weekend, but Vyeh and I were trying to get the more important ones in prose. Nolelover 23:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the See Also section a screen up? Nolelover 00:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I have taken out many of the links that only held a passing mention to SMAC. Nolelover 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That should be enough. Nolelover 14:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I had gone through and searched for all WP articles that mentioned SMAC and included ones that might potentially be wikilinks. The See Also was a holding place. Once we have wikilinked, we can go though and delete most of the remaining (except for the portals). Vyeh (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Game play summary

The gameplay section is covered with the expansion. About half the features it explains are not in the original. Surely these belong in the expansions section? 99.145.12.205 (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

If you mean these gameplay features should be covered under History, that would violate the VG Articles guidelines. Vyeh (talk) 12:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Dream Focus, they are not "additional references". They are the same refs! The second section spells out some shortened refs used in the first. It's not additional - it's proper citation of sources used too many times to list otherwise. They need to remain named as they are. Please see this (in the MOS) and WP:CITESHORT. And please discuss before making changes like that. I'm reverting now. Nolelover 14:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to what you are responding to? Vyeh (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

DF deleted the "Notes" section and put the reflist into "References" with this edit. I AGF'd reverted him, here. A few days later, he renamed the "Notes" section "References", and "References" became "Additional References". Again, I reverted him, and posted this message. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 17:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I used the shorthand reference, where the article pointed to a shortened form of a note which links to the references. The MOS suggests this and there is also an admonition that editors should not make a change in the style without a consensus. Vyeh (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Novels

Why were the articles on the novels deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs)

First off Jamhaw, please sign your posts using four tildes ("~~~~"). About the merge (not deletion), WoodElf did that, and there was no discussion, as far as I know. Talk to him/her if you want to know why he/she did it. None of the articles had been edited in nearly a year, none were referenced, and most of the prose, in all three, was the plot. I personally wouldn't have agreed with merging the books into this article, preferring a series article, but anyway... Nolelover 00:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

• While Wikipedia has no shortage of space, some people insist on eliminating articles for various reasons. [2] The first book got hundreds of views a month it seems. Not that that matters to anyone, since even extremely popular books on the bestsellers list get deleted if no one can find a book review for them. Wikipedia madness. Dream Focus 05:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I haven't time to look at this issue, but I am generally not in favor of merging the books into the article about the game. When we finish, I estimate that the article length will be maximum (I have edited plot and gameplay to conform to these limits). Could WoodElf please reconsider and give the books a separate article? Vyeh (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message on Wood Elf. I have tightened the language, removed the subheading and removed the list structure to conform this section to the rest of the article. Unfortunately the infobox can't be collapsed, so I will move the material so the box doesn't move into the portals in the See Also section. Vyeh (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I have posted on Woodelf's talk page. Unfortunately, this editor only has 50 edits going back to March, and I don't know how soon he'll reply. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 17:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Only 50 edits and only six months. Unless Wood Elf had a previous account name or he does a lot of work as an IP editor, it seems an awfully bold move. I will move the descriptions of the novels as annotations in Further Reading. Vyeh (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

...which is the best possible move under the circumstances. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 16:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was the link to that wiki removed?

• The link to a wikia dedicated to information about this game was removed [3] by Nolelover with the edit summary "rm open wiki after e-mail from Vyeh". What reasons did he give, and why not do it here for everyone to see? You aren't suppose to communicate off wiki about Wikipedia matters. That wikia [4] does meet all requirements for an external link, having information about the game, there 91 articles there now. All information that was erased from the various Wikipedia articles(the two game articles plus the articles for the books based on the game), was transwiki, history and all, over there, and then work done on it, and it expanded over time. External links exist to provide additional information about the article's subject, which I believe this one does quite well. Note, Wikia changed their format a few days ago, so its a bit harder to navigate around and find things. Most of the categories easily accessible on the left sidebar, are nowhere to be seen on the page, as they eliminated that sidebar entirely. Still, you should be able to easily find ample information about the game there. Dream Focus 23:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO, #12. Please raise your issues at the EL Noticeboard. I couldn't do so directly because Cirtbot had blocked my account because it fell within the IP range of a multiple account abuser. Vyeh (talk) 12:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally would have found it more deceptive if I hadn't said that Vyeh emailed me. That aside, there is a good reason for it to go. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah. I had forgotten about that nonsense guideline. Since the guy that runs Wikipedia owns Wikia, I doubt he'd complain about links to there being done. When articles were being merged and a large chunk of information was being deleted, I went ahead and create that Wikia to preserve it, and let it grow. It currently has 91 articles, but not a lot of active editors. Back before they changed it, it said to move excess content to an external wiki and link to it. Then a few people decided to change it, and most didn't bother stating an opinion. Alright, whatever. I'd like to think the many contributors would like to know their deleted content was preserved somewhere. Dream Focus 17:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:EL states that material that is included in an external link should be accurate. A wikia with few active editors may have problems in that area (although the particular one does not). Vyeh (talk) 06:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bugs

Should the article contain information on bugs in the game?

There is at least one, where a citys population can get negative. The problem rises from using signed 8-bit quantaty for the population count, this then rolls over from 127 to -128. To get a city that has population over 127 one must build it in the middle of that area, which name escapes me now as it's been several years I played the game, that produces extra food for each tile. Then cultivate those tiles for more food production and build as many food production satellites as the city can handle Hey presto, the population becomes -128. The game doesn't crash but the population starts to starve as it has no producers and thus fluctuates between 127 and -128. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linkato1 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of anyone getting a city's population that high before! Plenty of supply crawlers, the cloning vats secret project no doubt, and a massive number of food satellites. Wikipedia isn't the place to list all the bugs, since they wouldn't all fit. http://sidmeiersalphacentauri.wikia.com/wiki/Bugs Post it over there with the other bugs. Dream Focus 12:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Anything in the article must have a reliable source. Vyeh (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You know, I just want to point out that this is exactly why the link to this wiki was removed (See discussion above). A random IP putting in a bug that has no other corroboration is not the definition of a reliable source. Nolelover ^{It's football season!} 17:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)