Talk:Civilization (1980 board game)

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Civilization (1980 board game). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110306092629/http://www.civfanatics.com/sidlegacy/index2.php to http://www.civfanatics.com/sidlegacy/index2.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I could not check since since archive.org itself seems to be stuck. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: User:BOZ, it appears we have come full circle. First there were claims that Meier had knowledge of the AH game when he created his game, with dubious sourcing. This was followed by  tags. The we rewrote the article to claim there AREN'T any connections, and - as you can see in the editor window - asking wikipedians to not re-add back those claims without reliable sources:

Now you're asking us for sources to verify there ISN'T any links. Ironic, huh?
The basic fact is that the connection or not is on people's minds, Meier himself denies any connection (but is proven to have known about the board game at the time of creating the computer game) and there is no objective third party to be had. However, just deleting the section will only bring us back to square one so I wouldn't recommend it. Now then, it is possible to argue that the first claim isn't OR and don't need any particular sourcing. It is nothing more than an obvious observation on the two games. The second statement is more meant to counter the visitor coming here to see what the connection is. NOT saying there's no proven connection would lessen the usefulness of the article.
That's the best defense of the current state I can give. CapnZapp (talk) 17:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not even sure that the legacy section is needed at all, but handle it however you think is best. BOZ (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: My addition of Dawn of the Ancients in a "See also" section was reverted. I do see discussions related to this topic. However, this is a reasonable addition as they are both tabletop games from the 1980s with a similar setting, and a reviewer in a 1985 gaming magazine specifically pointed out similarities between these two games (see gameplay section in Dawn). I invite comment from @Wham2001 and others. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure where I come into this – I don't know much about the history of tabletop gaming and I don't remember editing either article (well, OK, I just added a missing  to Dawn of the Ancients, but that hardly matters).  I don't have a strong view either way on whether this article would benefit from a "See also" section, but if it is to have one it probably should have a brief annotation explaining the connection between the two games as suggested in MOS:SEEALSO – that might reduce the risk of clutter from barely related articles.  Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies @Wham2001, my mistake—was looking at the wrong article. I meant to request comment specifically from @‎CapnZapp. But since you mentioned it, a brief annotation makes sense. Airborne84 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no objections, I re-added the article in a "See also" section with a brief annotation as suggested above. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also section