Talk:Civilization (disambiguation)

message: How does civilization makes the world different? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.128.186 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTFORUM CapnZapp (talk) 15:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Several of the computer games start with "Sid Meier's" in their names. This should be added CapnZapp (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Where is the board game version of the computer game? This board game has very little in common with the original Civilization board game. CapnZapp (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I found it and added a link from here. Not that there's anything to see at that page, but I don't know proper procedure for deleting a page. CapnZapp (talk) 06:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Board Game

message: Can't see the game table in mobile view, so games section looks empty — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.101.89 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: CapnZapp (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  mobile problem 

message: Okay, so the current situation is a mess. Each board game article starts with a nest of hatnotes, sometimes ill maintained, to refer to other civilization board games. They often link to redirect targets (a mess of its own, because we can't apparantly decide whether to refer to the games using their extremely similar-sounding names or using their year of publication) The actual article for Civilization (board game) redirects here (a section link). The newest game (new Dawn) isn't included anywhere. 
This needs to stop. We need one single place where we disambiguate between civ board games, and we need all hat notes to refer "for other Civilization board games, see" that one place.
I suggest we use the existing page for Civilization (board game) and instead refer our section (here in this article) to it (instead of vice versa). No hat notes list every game, they all just point there. A new game needs one (1) update (assuming it's got an article of course). Any editor writing up a new game will much more easily see where to integrate that new game article into our structure. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 07:33, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Situation successfully decluttered! Remaining task: moving New Dawn to standardized target, in this case Civilization (2017 board game). (I tried, I failed, see Talk:Civilization:_A_New_Dawn#Move_failure) Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "Civilization: A New Dawn" should remain the name of the page, as it is clearly the game's title.  Disambiguation is only required when games/books/ or whatever article would have the same (or too-similar) title.  I attempted to reverse the move, but was unable to do it, then saw the discussion here.  It should be moved back.--MattMauler (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  User:MattMauler Let me first of all draw your attention to the fact that only the first of the games is actually called "Civilization" only. I wouldn't want to be a stickler about policy detail, because, theoretically none of the games share the exact name (and thus mandate a disambiguation). Instead, several editors have decided that having an uniform naming scheme would help immensely, probably because two other games do have very similar names. Look through the edit histories and you will see lots of confusion, lots of mislinking and other issues that are trivially solved by the uniform naming scheme. I wasn't around when this was decided, but it was the main motivator for my move.
I'd like us to take an overall approach here: what do y'all think are the best article destinations for the games involved: 
# Civilization
# Advanced Civilization (expansion for #1)
# Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame (without the space)
# Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game (with the space)
# Sid Meier's Civilization: A New Dawn (successor to #4)
If you ask me, I can totally see a need to disambiguate between "civ games". That is, disambiguating between civilization-genre board games with the trade mark "Civilization" in them. I don't immediately see why items 1, 3, 4 warrant uniform naming and not 5; to me it appears much easier to have them all follow the Civilization (1234 board game) naming scheme.
Best regards CapnZapp (talk) 12:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks for bringing the discussion here.  The reason why 1, 3, and 4 warrant "uniform naming" is because they are very similarly titled (almost identical).  5 has a clear subtitle, which, according to WP guidelines, should be used instead of parenthetical disambiguation.--MattMauler (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

text: I understand your point about none of them sharing an exact title, but in my opinion, a difference such as adding "Sid Meier's ..." and/or changing the number of spaces is insignificant, and on an entirely different level than having an official and unique subtitle by which the game is known.  I do understand that it's a matter of interpretation, but I still think treating A New Dawn as potentially confusing is a stretch since its title stands out so much compared to the rest of the series.  When we have a policy in place recommending subtitles and countless examples of that policy in action in similar situations (Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers instead of Halloween (1995) film, despite several in the series sharing the same title, e.g.), I don't think it makes sense to disregard policy in this case (and yes, I know WP:OSE isn't an ironclad argument BUT it can be helpful in cases like this and is one of the main ways that we figure out how to apply guidelines where there's any trace of ambiguity/disagreement like this).--MattMauler (talk) 12:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but I struggle to see why #1 and 3-4 should share the same naming convention with that logic. They're not part of the same series and they aren't called the same thing or even close to it. About the only thing they have in common is the noun "civilization" somewhere in the title, and being civ-themed board games of course. But the thing is, all games discussed meet this criteria. I agree that, in isolation policy would recommend New Dawn to keep its unique name. But since we're discussing here on a disambiguation page for several Civilization board games, it isn't as clear-cut. CapnZapp (talk) 13:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad we agree what policy dictates.  Case closed! :)Just kidding.  I am not here to make a claim about how the first ones in the series should be titled, but I understand that the discussion of Civ: New Dawn's title has implications for that issue.  That said, I disagree with you here: "They're not part of the same series and are not called the same thing or even close to it."  Most people, I think, would consider "Civilization" and "Sid Meier's Civilization: The Boardgame" to be very similar titles despite the different number of words.  Meier is the name of the series creator, and it's very frequently left out, both in common usage and in Wikipedia titles.  "The Boardgame" is essentially a generic disambiguation inserted by the company itself [edit: and an ineffective disambig for our purposes, since they are both board games].  The two products are very easy to confuse.  Policy holds, I argue, for New Dawn because its title is significantly easier to distinguish, and the way it's titled is, in fact, a technique used constantly by media companies of all types to distinguish, for the public, between their own different products in a series (which is why Wikipedia policy mentions the treatment of subtitles like this in the first place).--MattMauler (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  board game disambiguation 

message: ‎User:Niceguyedc (talk | contribs)‎ made an edit with the following summary: (v2.0 - Repaired 1 link to disambiguation page - (You can help) - Civilization (board game) per WP:INTDABLINK / WP:WCW project (Spelling and typography))
I find the "per WP:INTDABLINK" rationale confusing. As far as I can understand the rationale should be "per WP:HOWTODAB". 
INTDABLINK explains the procedure of rerouting all intentional disambiguation links; how to link to a disambiguation page from a hatnote.
And that was indeed the case for the edits to the individual articles. 
But in this case it is HOWTODAB that's relevant: explaining that you should link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect. 
Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:INTDABLINK is a link to the full section about how to link to disambiguation pages. WP:HOWTODAB is a subsection of that section. For me, I find linking to WP:INTDABLINK better because of the explanation right at the top of that section explaining why these links need to go through the (disambiguation) redirect. This explanation is best answer for anyone who wants to know why I changed the link. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 04:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for responding. First you make one kind of edit (tweaking hat notes) with one rationale, then when you make another kind of edit (tweaking intra-disambig links) that deserves another rationale. My point is: your edit commentaries are identical despite you performing non-identical edits. To me, that's off. Maybe if the INTDABLINK explanation was written to anticipate a whole group of edits... but it isn't. Remember, there is only one sort of Wikipedia Shortcut. The notion that some shortcuts (like HOWTODAB) should be considered "subordinate" to others (like INTDABLINK) might be self-evident to power users like you, but not to every average user (like me). And in fact, that policy page's purpose isn't primarily to be a link target for edit summaries - after all, it's a prescriptive, not explanatory, page. That is why I reckon the onus of sending the reader directly to the relevant (sub)section should lie on the editor writing the edit summary. Hope you see my point. Anyways - appreciate your work, CapnZapp (talk) 10:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  recent edit