Talk:C-evo

message: The text is "wrapped" around the small square Table of Context box in order to avoid ugly gaping holes of blank space. Try alternatives yourself and see the effect . There is currently an editor going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles to satisfy some obscure personal agenda. --Wetman 21:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not obscure or personal, it was the overwhelming feeling of the VfD discussion for this template.  The whitespace generated by a four item Table of Contents is is no way a problem for the layout of any article, let alone this one.  There is a reason for the default TOC being as it is, if most people found it ugly it certainly wouldn't be the default.  There is no way TOCright or TOCleft are justified for a four item TOC.  Saying "every sensible adult" would support its use on these pages is certainly not the case, most sensible adults were and are against its use except as a last resort for long TOCs, and the majority of sensible adults continue using the default TOC in their articles.  If you wish to go on abusing this template by using it where it is not remotely neccesary, you may be turning those who voted to keep it as a last resort off it altogether.  Joe D (t) 21:33, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting

message: I've removed this section.   Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.  Fugg 00:37, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:WWIN; point 4, "This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes." Marasmusine 19:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strategy and Tactics section

message: Why is the article located at "C-evo (computer game)"? Is there anything else called "C-evo"? Wikipeditor 00:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specification useless? 

message: While it shows that the author has invested lots of time into development, and the community has created translations, add-ons and tools, this will also be the case for many other games.
But how many games are there with a similar combination of strong points, and how many among 4X games? I don't think there's any other game quite like this.
Feel free to add/change/delete features.
* Streamlined, comparably purist strategy (but with more appealing graphics than other similarly "purist" turn-based strategy games such as The General)
** Equal treatment of human player(s) and AI(s)
** Full determinism
* Players can freely design units to suit their needs instead of simply "unlocking" pre-designed units. I think this feature alone makes the game stand out.
* Although it is a very complex game, it has a good AI, and rules have been carefully fine-tuned to keep the game balanced – there are no gaping flaws or weaknesses. (Of course, network play would be nice, as would more/customisable keyboard support to balance the heavy mouse use.)
* It is completely free an open and has been designed for easy customisation (graphics, city lists) and economic translation which might make the game fairly popular.
:Note that "notability" on Wikipedia is nothing to do with how many unique features someone thinks it has, it's to do with third party references; how well known it is, and whether others have written about it. Mdwh (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and I'm not seeing anything in the article that does this. The euro-gamer reference is borderline trivial, and in my mind trivial. Its a far cry from "significant"--Crossmr (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That’s all well and good, but the article survived AFD, so we can’t put a the notability template on the article.  Samboy (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Features that make this game notable 

message: This page was nominated for deletion on 3/25/07 on the basis of WP:N and WP:ATT.  I disagree with both of these statements.  Many sources can be found online regarding C-Evo and it is a notable freeware Civilization clone.  I'm removing the deletion nomination on the article page.  If you disagree with this, please post on my talk page.  Thanks!
Muchris 14:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed - Nomination for Deletion - 3/25/07

message: Almost nothing is said on how the game is played with other humans... up to how many players ? And is it a server-client architecture ? XApple 15:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hotseat play is possible, network play is not. Wikipeditor (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Networkable ? 

message: What does the statement "C-evo is completely deterministic, unlike Civilization II" mean?  Does it mean that there's no randomness involved?  Every action is a response to a player's reaction?  The article should explain this. --72.43.103.251 14:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, except I forgot to add that playing against other humans is of course not deterministic. Wikipeditor (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: AI contains randomness. --Dual Freq (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deterministic 

message: "Soft Computing Applications in Industry" page 308 states "Sánchez-Pelegrín et al. (Sánchez-Pelegrín et al. 2005) also developed a CBR AI module for the strategy game C-evo."; the paper in question is entitled "A CBR module for a strategy videogame" and is a pulblished paper discussing making an AI for C-Evo.  In addition, "Civilizations: Webster's Quotations, facts and phrases" on page 256 has an entry for C-evo.  
I think this is enough notability to survive AFD; if anyone disagrees, please let us know.  Samboy (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-Evo in the press 

message: I have moved the entire section about the differences between Civilization II and C-Evo from the Wikipedia because this stuff is original research here but useful information at the C-Evo Wikia article. Samboy (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving stuff to the C-Evo wikia article 

message: Since a notability template found itself on this article yet again, I need to point out that, at this point, C-evo passes the WP:THREE test for notability:
* 
* 
*  (There has been some discussion about how substantial this 189 word mention is.  It’s not a full article, but it’s, for the purposes of establishing notability, significant coverage, enough for C-evo to cross the “three references” finish line).
A couple of other references to further cement notability:
*  (it’s an archived now-dead link, but WP:NTEMP applies here)
* 
(Depending on how we count, this is either one or two references.  Anyway, since three other references have been listed, whether this particular reference establishes notability is a moot point, since notability has already been established.)
One reference which used to be in the article: 
*  (This book can not be viewed in Google Books, so I have no idea if this is a passing mention or a significant mention)
Some other stuff not in the article; these, again, further the notability already established in the three references above.
* https://www.download-free-games.com/pc/c_evo.htm
* https://www.indiedb.com/games/c-evo
* https://www.moddb.com/games/c-evo
* https://freewargamer.com/c-evo/
* https://launchpad.net/c-evo
There’s also a two to three paragraph discussion of C-evo (and FreeCiv) in a masters level thesis where the thesis writer explained why they didn’t use C-evo for their thesis, despite the fact it has been used by other researchers.  I’m not 100% sure a thesis can be used to establish notability, though.
That in mind, C-evo clearly passes Wiki’s notability requirements.  Please do not add the “notability” template again without discussing it here first.  Samboy (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please do not add a “notability” template without discussion.