Talk:Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri/Archive 6

Images
I'm still copy editing, but I'm not sure when I can finish it, so I figured some comments on the images would help give others something to do and discuss.

(Guyinblack25 talk 18:38, 22 November 2010 (UTC))
 * I believe that the below images should be removed per WP:NFCC
 * File:Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire.jpg
 * Game articles are allowed only one cover image. Also because the expansion cover doesn't differ much from the AC cover, it adds very little.
 * File:CentauriDawnCover.jpg
 * Criteria 3a: The cover is all but identical to the game cover, and duplicate content should be minimized
 * The remaining images need strong fair use rationales
 * File:Alpha Centauri cover.jpg
 * I recommend using for the cover. It is technically a cookie cutting template, but it works well for cover art.
 * File:SMACx-DiploScreenshot1.jpg
 * Should use to convey the fair use info and be more descriptive.
 * I also wonder if the size should be reduced some.
 * I've fixed the fair-use templates for the last two pictures, but I would appreciate someone else looking over them, as I've never done that before. I agree with removing the book cover, and I'm going to do that right now. There's no good reason to have it in. As for the Crossfire cover, I'll leave that for you guys to decide. I don't really mind either way.  Nolelover  It's football season!  16:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The crossfire expansion pack was sold for about the same price as a full game. Had seven new factions to add to the seven previous ones.  You can show the cover of any game you are mentioning, so no reason not to have both.   D r e a m Focus  16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally, I'd say that an article should only have one cover image, but given the amount of article content about Crossfire, I'd say there's a decent case for a second. But similar articles about two games (The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages, Pokémon Red and Blue, and Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire) only include one and have been debated extensively. I believe the debates centered on the fact that the second cover added very little and the covers are so similar that the identification purpose was minimized. My gut says to err on the side of caution and remove it, but I'd say this case differs just enough from the listed examples and would warrant a serious discussion at WT:VG. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC))
 * If I recall correctly, the Planetary Pack (with the two games bundled) is basically the cover for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. I am slightly in favor of both Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and Sid Meier's Alien Crossfire because of the development history. (Alien Crossfire is something between an expansion and a different game and had a different lead designer.) I agree with the suggestion about bringing this up to WT:VG. Vyeh (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep both cover arts - Alien Crossfire is a notable subject in its own right, and thus should have its own identifying artwork. The subject could stand alone in its own article, but has only been placed here for sake of organisation.  Also, what is going on with the hidden infoboxes? - hahnch e n 14:36, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The infoboxes were encroaching on subsequent sections, because of the multiple designers, multiple systems (and I don't believe the system requirements for Mac and Linux have been added). Vyeh (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted a recent change to show the Alien Crossfire cover art. Given that there is a discussion on this talk page and at WT:VG, I believe that an edit comment of "stop that" is inappropriate given that the image has been hidden since at least September 20. The reason that I hid the image is that the article is pretty long and I didn't see the image contributing to the presentation. I would prefer to see another screen shot (the current screen shot hides much of the map) rather than another box art. I will defer to Guyinblack25 and Nolelover as tie-breakers as my reason is a matter of taste. Vyeh (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to eliminate the image, either by deleting it or hiding it. And if the article is too long, you should've just kept them as two separate articles to begin with.   D r e a m Focus  04:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is discussion at WT:VG. There is no point revisiting the decision to merge the expansion article into the main article. The amount of material devoted to Alien Crossfire in the article is small. If reviewers feel the article is too long, trimming can occur in the development history and to a lesser extent in reception and legacy (given the strong positive critical reception, it might be better to end the article with the reception and eliminate the legacy section completely). I believe the lack of consensus works against the inclusion of a second cover art since one infobox per article is the norm and the article has three infoboxes. Rather than having a separate SMAX infobox in the development section, it mighty make more sense to add the SMAX info into the SMAC infobox (I believe the only differences are the designers and the release date). Vyeh (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth considering the split. The Crossfire information in the main article is self contained and could easily be forked out, leaving a paragraph behind.  You could introduce a Reception section easily into the Crossfire article too. Expansion packs can stand alone, such as The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine.  The idea of merging infobox information though, is good, there's a lot of redundancy, given its an expansion.  Oh, and the "one infobox per article" is the norm - but the norm is one notable subject, there's two here. - hahnch e n 01:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked the question about the use of the second box art at Media_copyright_questions. Vyeh (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

infobox
Every single article on Wikipedia about anything has an infobox showing information. There is no reason to hide that.  D r e a m Focus  04:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do have a reason, DF. It's too big! There haven't been a multitude of editors (or even two) stating "they are against this". Furthermore, they have been this way for a while. What are the exact reasons you want to expand the infoboxes? And no, I don't think "everyone else does it" is valid. Is there a policy I'm not aware of?  Nolelover  It's football season!  04:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can easily reduce the size of an image, so its not too wide. The image in the infobox however is necessary for understanding the information in the article.   D r e a m Focus  06:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When did they change it so the infobox themselves are that wide? That looks ridiculous.  Its on all articles.  Doesn't need to be that far out.  I'll go discuss this on the template talk page.   D r e a m Focus  06:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Template_talk:Infobox_video_game. Some of us see the infobox is taking up half the width of the article, while others see it as its normal size.  Even those with the newest version of Firefox see it two different ways.  Anyway, please don't try eliminating something which thousands of editors have supported in countless articles over the years, simply because some of us are having a browser error.  If anyone has any idea where to post to ask about this, let me know.   D r e a m Focus  08:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DF, we aren't "eliminating" the image! Hiding it is very different then removing it altogether. This is not a "drastic change", it's the way the infoboxes have been for a while. So far, you are the only editor who has disagreed with having them collapsed. Can we compromise on this at least: leave the SMAX infobox collapsed, at it pushes down the reception box way to far.  Nolelover  It's football season!  14:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait and let others give their opinion to this radical and very unwikipedia change.  D r e a m Focus  14:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, DF, please stop saying this is "radical". You are the only editor who has spoken against this. I'm willing to wait, but the article has been a certain way for a while and you are now coming in and demanding change to something you consider "unwikipedia".  Nolelover  It's football season!  15:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignoring what is being done in every single other Wikipedia out there, since the beginning of infoboxes, and doing something totally different is in fact quite radical.  D r e a m Focus  15:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DF, show me one policy that says that we must have the infoboxes expanded. Just one, and I'll entirely side with you. However, to the best of my knowledge, little things like this are left to the editors of a page. And on this page, consensus has been to collapse the infobpxes due to their size. So far, you are the only editor who has expressed displeasure at the infoboxes. As it is, I'm trying to compromise by leaving the lead i-box expanded and showing the image for the SMAX one. Is that enough?  Nolelover  It's football season!  18:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no comprises. There is right and there is wrong.  Read below, and tell me if that fixes your only complaint or not.   D r e a m Focus  21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Does it load up properly for everyone else, or is everyone seeing all the infoboxes on Wikipedia look like this: I asked on the help desk at Help_desk so hopefully someone will figure this out.   D r e a m Focus  14:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nolelover, we should consider removing some of the fields of the main infobox, e.g. Mode. I'm not sure if SMAC belongs in the Civ series or not, so we might consider eliminating the Series field. Vyeh (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is in that series, since its also made by Sid Meier's, his name on it like the Civilization games, and is the same exact sort of game. Same guy, and the first game of his own company, which made the later Civilization games.   D r e a m Focus  02:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DF, there are other factors involved...Vyeh, I wouldn't consider then to be in the same series.  Nolelover  It's football season!  14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * With Firefox, click View and then Zoom, and reset it to default if you had any problems with the infobox stretching out too far width wise. I just made an edit to fix the format problem by adding blank spaces, which is normally what is done.  Now the infoboxes don't push down into another section.  Does that solve everyone's problem?   D r e a m Focus  21:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Manually inserting linebreaks is not an option. It only works depending on your text size and resolution.  You do not want to hardcode layout.  If you must, then use Template:-, but gulfs of whitespace don't look particular good either. - hahnch e n 01:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Both infoboxes push into the subsequent sections. I am using an iMac 20" with Safari 5.03 and my window is about 85% of the width of my monitor. If you want to take the position that there is no compromise, then I would suggest that Nolelover restores the infoboxes to the previous configuration. Nolelover has made a consistent effort on this article for the last six months and I have found him to be very reasonable. I have occasionally changed my views based on his reasons. I believe the attitude that "There are no comprises (sic). There is a right and there is a wrong." is inconsistent with being a WikiPedia editor and I have had some experience mediating at the Wikiquette board. Consensus does not require unanimity. Nolelover is a lot more patient than I would be. I would probably have dropped a note to Guyinblack25 asking for his opinion and then enforced it rather than trying to seek an accommodation. I think it would be worthwhile to seek an opinion on the board concerned with fair use regarding the second box art. My opinion at this point is that the second infobox has a lot of redundant information. I do like images and screenshots as I think they add to the visual appeal of an article. I do not like infoboxes because I think they detract visually. So my inclination would be to merge the two infoboxes listing a separate designer and a separate release date for SMAX and if WP fair use policy allows it, use the SMAX cover art in SMAX subsection of the Development History section. Vyeh (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the only different information is the release date, then add it to the top. It was there before, but someone commented it out.  And my comprise comment was about that particular issue.  You can say its alright to do it for one part, and not the other part, that just ridiculous.  Its either alright to hide infoboxes or its wrong.  As for the current revert  we aren't expecting people to change their browser settings for just one article.  If you have a problem, it affects ALL infoboxes, on thousands/millions of articles.   D r e a m Focus  02:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * DF, we are not saying it's alright in one place, and wrong in another. We are saying that the i-box looks best one way here, and looks best another here. I'm going to ask this again, what policy states that we need to have the i-boxes a certain way, or that they can't be different throughout the article? You are the only editor who has disputed this, and the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, consensus has been, coming from the three editors most involved with this article, to leave them collapsed. And no, this is not a problem for all i-boxes, just the ones that have a lot of info in them, and another info-box (on critical reception, in this case) following.  Nolelover  It's football season!  14:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed! Look at the article now.  I asked on the help page and found the Wikipedia code necessary to load things up properly.  Does that look fine to everyone?   D r e a m Focus  19:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One person said that looked fine at the video game infobox template talk page and then someone else at the Help Desk said it looked bad and undid it.  Need more opinions please.   D r e a m Focus  19:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No! you aren't going to pick and choose your third opinions! I have merged the infoboxes. Sorry Vyeh, but would you mind taking care of the specifics?  Nolelover  It's football season!  21:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I mentioned places where people have stated their opinions, and asked for additional ones. I noticed you removed the cover image from the expansion pack in its section.  Not everyone agreed on that.   D r e a m Focus  21:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It has since been restored. I did not realize I had done that, and I apologize.  Nolelover  It's football season!  22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as there is no policy against two box cover art in the same article (and no one at the Copyright desk has objected yet), I think have the second art makes the article more visually appealing. Vyeh (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Mods in the legacy section
I think we should have a mention of the Planetfall_mod for Civ4 in the legacy section, and mayby other mods. The planetfall mod for Civilization 4 is very extensive and complete mod which took years to complete. Wassname (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mods are mentioned in the article, and specific ones would only appear to be advertising. Plus, we won't find extensive, third-party coverage of player-released mods. Unfortunately, there's no way we can discuss this in the article. (Plus, this isn't the CIV4 article anyway.) Thanks for asking though.  Nolelover  It's football season!  02:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Released Jan 23, 2009. Seems like they made the game more like Civ 4 than Alpha Centauri, gameplay wise.  Only 6,725 downloaded it.  This article gets more hits than that a month.  It'd be more of an advertisement, since its not official, and there are many other mods out there, some of which have been in development since the game came out.  Feel free to add information to a side wiki though. http://sidmeiersalphacentauri.wikia.com/wiki/Mods   D r e a m Focus  15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I should have mentioned the wiki.  Nolelover  It's football season!  16:25, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok agreed Wassname (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Note from Morrowulf
This comment has been moved from the recent GA review so that it isn't as hidden.  Nolelover  Talk · Contribs  18:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just noticed a message from Vyeh a year ago about this page. I thought that the manuals might be useful sources for anyone who wants to look at them. Here's Alpha Centauri's as a downloadable PDF, and here's Alien Crossfire's as a PDF. The E3 line is indeed in the manual.Morrowulf (talk) 04:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have added these links to the "general references" section at the top of this page.  Nolelover  Talk · Contribs  18:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Extra image
Dream Focus' edit summary reads "No reason not to show the cover of the expansion pack in the section reviewing it". This is patently untrue - the reason why we shouldn't include it is because Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. We are lucky enough to have a law that allows the use of fair use images when the lack of a particular image would make it difficult to understand the subject. Quoting the guideline on video game covers: "Cover art is used as identifying artwork in the game's infobox, generally, only one cover should be present, regardless of platform or regional differences". There is no critical commentary of the cover art, and there really is nothing demonstrated by the image. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Only one cover for the same game if it had different platforms or regional differences. This was sold separately.  And you never have critical commentary of any cover art anywhere, so that isn't a valid excuse to try to delete things.   D r e a m Focus  07:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In regards to the rest of DF's edit summary, "Had this discussion on the talk page previously", I think that all that has been said about this is the very last comment by Vyeh in the infobox section above. That wasn't really a discussion, and if we decide that the extra image has no use, which I sort of agree with, I see no other reasons to keep it.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  14:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a concept of "one box art for every game mentioned" would be horrifying for Space Invaders which has most of the games merged. Covers are made an exception in one case because there needs to be a representative image. If what you're saying is true, articles like Space Invaders which covers tons of games would have a bevy of copyrighted material. That's simply not how Wikipedia works. We go with the option that uses as few images as possible. Seeing a cover of an expansion pack is far and away not a necessary thing for readers to see. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have made a comment on the guideline's talk page .  D r e a m Focus  08:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Spin-off versus sequel
On January 23, an anonymous editor changed "sequel to" to "spin-off". Nolelover reverted the change saying it had been discussed many times. On March 24, the same anonymous editor (same IP at least) made the same change. I've reverted it. If this editor persist in making this change to the first sentence of a "Good Article", it should be considered vandalism and the account blocked. The reason SMAC is a sequel is that (1) it occurs directly after one of the victory conditions of Civilization (by contrast Civ 2 is a "re-make", not a "sequel" of Civ), (2) it was designed by many of the same designers of Civ 2, including Sid Meiers and Brian Reynolds and (3) it uses a lot of the same game mechanics. A lot of editors, including Nolelover and Guyinblack25, have contributed to SMAC being the only Civ article that has "Good Article" status (rising from a lowly C class). The same change that was refused (and not supported by a second editor) violates the spirit of consensus. A third attempt at this change should be referred for a block of the anonymous account, unless there is previous discussion on the talk page supporting "spin-off". Vyeh (talk) 13:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just commenting to say that I fully agree. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 13:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory statements
Emphasis added: Which is it? 134.117.137.144 (talk) 10:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC) is the critically-acclaimed science fiction 4X turn-based strategy video game sequel to the Civilization series.
 * SMAC takes place in the Civilization universe, beginning in the 22nd century, and follows the space-race victory in Civilization II.
 * While not a direct sequel of Civilization II, Alpha Centauri is considered a spiritual successor because it shares the same general principles and was made by many of the original developers.
 * Well, SMAC does follow the space-race scenario of Civ, gameplay wise, but isn't a direct sequel in name or publisher. That said, "it shares the same general principles and was made by many of the original developers", and therefore most people would consider it a sequel of sorts. The operative word is "direct" - SMAC is not a "direct" sequel of Civ.  Nolelover  It's almost football season!  21:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that Alpha Centauri did not use the Civilization game engine. I don't see these statements as contradictory, but nuanced (e.g. it is a sequel but not a 'direct' one and I think the fact that it occurs in the same universe, follows the space-race victory, shares the same general principles and was made by many of the original developers justifies saying that it is a sequel to the Civilization series. Had the game engine been the same, then it would have qualified as a 'direct' sequel). I believe the statements are an accurate reflection and do not require modification. Vyeh (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A clarification could be made by emphasizing that "Alpha Centauri" is the destination in the Space-Race victory, and perhaps a mention that Meier's games frequently have cross-game references. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good points. The clarification might go in the first line of Setting, but I'm not sure where the cross-game references line would go... Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

SMAC
Copied from my talk page, although some of the points have been brought up below as well.

I'd love to contribute to the Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri page. (Great game!) But, probably shouldn't do so while it's under review. As an aside, a few years back I was advised to provide an evaluation for the possible adaption of SMAC to an online persistent browser game format. Although my evaluation of the potential success for such a venture was largely favorable, there doesn't seem to be any follow-up on the idea. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And we'd be happy to have your help :) It isn't "on review" right now btw; Vyeh and I are just tossing around the idea of going for featured status, after getting good article status a few months (year?) ago (Vyeh has been inactive for that time). In the meantime, feel free to be bold and change or bring up any possible changes you think are good. Any sources you come across would be useful as well.
 * Oh, that would have been lovely...I grew up on SMAC, Civ II and eventually switched to RuneScape mainly because I discovered the internet (I can play on any computer!?!) and then got tired of playing by myself. A browser game would have been quite interesting...Pity :( Nolelover Talk·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 23:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, should the more generalized discussion of possible changes to SMAC be done here or over on the page's discussion, or ...maybe here? For example:
 * The merger or integration of SMAX into SMAC's seems like a mash-up. Shouldn't the plot lines be separated; with the Caretaker/Usurper stuff in its own SMAX section? A reader not familiar with the games would come away with a misunderstanding of the distinction.
 * Also, IMHO the 'Characters' section should be renamed 'Factions', and reorganized accordingly, with each having its own subheading. And relating to factions, while SMAX added factions, some factions from SMAC were removed -- at least in the demo (I never had the full SMAX).
 * I imagine the use of character icons from the game has been discussed and rejected; same with faction logos (?) 'Fair use' might be a hard sell. (Btw, the 'Mind-Staple' guy makes a great avatar).
 * Before I get my feet wet → [too late], I could use a little direction. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Did some stuff here. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the SMAC talk page is the best place for any discussion, so I'm gonna copy this into a section on the talk page. I warn you that we've actually talked about many of the points you brought up already, so don't feel bad if some are shot down ;) <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 13:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Now...
 * It looks like you've done that already, and I think that's fine.
 * The main reason I think "characters" is better is because the section is about slightly more then just the factions...although that's a minor point. Pretty sure all 14 factions are available in SMAX.
 * It hasn't been discussed, but I can almost guarantee that any expansion on the current non-free images would be shot down...they just don't help the reader enough (another different/good image of the user interface, on the other hand, might be interesting). <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 18:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A Class Status for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
I've spoken with Nolelover and we're interested in bringing the article up to A class status. The article receive Good Article status one year ago. Note that Wikipedia requires reliable sources (fan forums are not reliable) for any updates since a year ago. I've suggested to Nolelover that a useful first step is to read the article and record any general impressions here (before the article becomes too familiar again. Vyeh (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Very first note is that we have three dead links (I think there was something about Gamespot going down at WT:VG a while back). Gonna look it over now... <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 19:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I think we might even just go for FA (if you have the time/effort). (I'm a really bad high-quality reviewer so I didn't see a lot that needed work.) We might ask someone who has experience with FA and A-class articles for their thoughts. The only 'big' project that we should do is go through every sourced statement to make sure that there aren't any close paraphrasing concerns...this has become a huge issue in the last few months, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few problematic sentences had snuck in. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 21:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I tended to use direct quotes, which GiB would change to paraphrases during his edits, so I doubt we have a problem. Is there a place where the criteria of close paraphrasing is discussed? Vyeh (talk) 11:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I doubt we have a problem as well, but it's something to watch out for. Like I said, it's been a hot topic lately. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that both Gamespot refs have been tagged as dead links. If we are going for A-class or FA (either way, I think we need an experienced reviewer to come in here) those two will need to be fixed/replaced. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 21:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The obvious way to fix the refs is to use the WayBack Machine. I did that for the "official site" that Firaxis no longer hosts. Is that acceptable? Vyeh (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead
The 1st paragraph is very awkward to read, but I'm not sure what to do about it. As the first impression for the article, it should be concise, yet flow well. And, the average reader should be able to get a general idea of what it is about without having to click on a bunch of blue links. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Changed ...in 1999. In 2000...  -to- ...in 1999. In the following year... -- Looks and reads better. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

1st two sentences:


 * Currently: Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC) is the critically acclaimed science fiction 4X turn-based strategy video game sequel to the Civilization series.  Sid Meier, designer of Civilization, and Brian Reynolds, designer of Civilization II, developed Alpha Centauri after they left MicroProse to join the newly created developer Firaxis Games.

(Feel free to tinker)
 * Proposed:   Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (SMAC) is a critically acclaimed video game played as a science fiction sequel to the Civilization series. It is a turn-based strategy game of the 4X variety, created by ... [to be continued!] ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk)
 * I know what you mean...and yet I don't think we should simplify this too much...I realize this is the ultimate cop-out, but we aren't Simple Wikipedia, so I don't think we should tone it down too much (if at all). <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 19:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, they didn't "join" Firaxis -- they co-founded it. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That could certainly be changed/clarified. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 19:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As a fan I hate to point this out, but three instances of "critical acclaim" plus one "Critics praised" in the lead is a bit too much to qualify as NPOV. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whew...now that you point it out, it's all I can see... I toned down the last instance (since it was the easiest for me to copyedit), but if anyone has better wording for the others... <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 00:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there is a misunderstanding of NPOV. All of the reviews were glowing. Note that sales were disappointing and I think that was mentioned. I read a lot of references and the universal critical acclaim is one of the factors that makes SMAC "notable". In my opinion, NPOV means that the references are used accurately. The best way to proceed with this discussion is to point to a particular standard in WP:NPOV that you think is not being followed and then we can look at the article. I don't have a problem with copyediting to reduce repetition, but don't use NPOV as the reason. Vyeh (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Worthwhile?
If I remember correctly, Meir, on a number of occasions credited Reynolds with doing most of SMAC, saying essentially that Reynolds went away for awhile and returned with a nearly complete product. Would it be worthwhile for me (anybody?) to try and track down a quote or something? -- Does anybody know of a source for this? ~Eric F184.76.225.106 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I found this over on the Brian Reynolds page: ...creation and design of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri -- however, it is not cited. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Based on the following quote from this interview of Reynolds by IGN, we can attribute him as "lead designer"
 * ... I was basically on my own as a lead designer and had close collaborations with Doug Kaufman on Civilization 2 and Tim Train (and Doug again) on Alpha Centauri. E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any place you see that Brian is not adequately recognized? Or maybe you're referring to the infobox? Cause the first second of this pretty much says that he was lead. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 19:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I should read the entire article again; the first time was basically a quick scan . I'm currently starting from the top down, and am trying to figure out how the lead should go, as far as who created/founded/developed/etc. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

On the subject of "is this worthwhile mentioning?" -- There is an Activision game licenced by Meier under the Civilization banner that at least one source states was developed by the SMAC team. It is a space-based Civililization-type game vaguely resembling SMAC, and at least one source makes the comparison. It's called Civilization:_Call_to_Power. Worth mentioning? On second thought, I'd say no -- It seems to be just a Civ that allows players to progress into futuristic space-type-stuff. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is already a box at the bottom of the article that refers readers to other articles about Civ games. I think that is enough mention of CtP. Vyeh (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox photo
Since the infobox lists both games, and I assume SMAX redirects here, perhaps this photo (or similar) might be better? -- However, there is no mention of the "Planetary Pack" (2-set) in the legacy section. Unless mentioned elsewhere, the Planetary Pack should be added. (Btw, I don't have upload privileges). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This archive has a couple fairly short discussions about the images that are worth pointing out. Other than the points made there, well, I personally don't care for that image you linked too. In this case, the SMAX cover isn't really different from SMAC and for that and other reasons I don't think it's really important to try to show it as well. This image just lacks the quality....isn't as pretty....ahh, well....that's just my two cents. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 00:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While I didn't participate in the discussion removing the SMAX box image, I didn't see it adding much to the article. Vyeh (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Screenshot : Does anybody have better screenshot image? This one mostly shows a black, nearly empty pop-up box. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And here is where I regret losing my cd a few years ago... <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 00:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Misc edits
Setting:


 * 1) Reworked 1st & 2nd sentences a bit, but got stuck on whether or not Alpha Centauri was the destination of space-race in Civ1. (it's been awhile)
 * 2) Awaiting consensus as to whether or not to move SMAX plot elements to a SMAX section. -- (Having second thoughts, but could use another opinion on the matter) ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ Added 3rd sentence, [citation needed?] [redundant]. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Perhaps at some point, consider adding: In the SMAX sequel, it is learned that...→ ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 3...and is it okay to refer SMAX as a sequel rather than the clumsy "expansion pack"? ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 4. Changed experiment was a disaster to ...resulted in... ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 5. Tweaked penultimate("next-to-last") sentence, added final sentence. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 6. on the Unity spacecraft moved -- minor misplaced modifier. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

✅[more or less] I'm not married to any of this -- feel free to change/revert without my approval. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm...
 * No idea. Never played that game. Don't think so though...my gut says that the space race was on of the expansions of Civ II
 * As opposed to what you did today (moved it so the end of the paragraph)? I think the current setup is the best of the three...there's some distinction, but another paragraph/header is not needed IMO.
 * Vyeh is better at the technicals of this, but I'm pretty sure that SMAX is a clear expansion pack. (Can you tell how messy these definitions have gotten? E-pack vs. sequel vs. spin off vs. this-game-came-after vs. etc. for both Civ-to-SMAC and SMAC-to-SMAX.)
 * Changed again.
 * Not sure what this refers to...oh heck, I don't even know what "penultimate sentence" means. Your overall copyedit looks good though.
 * Looks fine.
 * Overall: <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 18:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it -- sounds like a Reynolds thing (Civ2). ✅ Well, according to the WP Civ (I) page, there was an Alpha Centauri space-race victory. And if its on Wikipedia, it must be true! -- Removed Civ2 reference, but that nullifies, ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay
 * No sense dying on this hill, "expansion" is fine (but what I had was a standalone -- probably some sort of beta-demo-thing with only a few factions, etc.) →(Box cover says "official expansion pack...") ~E [edit] (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC) ✅ ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine
 * penultimate = "next-to-last", but that is a grammatically-incorrect term.


 * Is it best to save edits one at a time, or would it be better to do a few before saving? ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * 1. Ahh, good catch. I'll look into it, but I'm a little confused as to the hidden note...I'll ask Vyeh about it when he comes around.
 * If your edits are of the same type or section, it's perfectly fine, and even widely appreciated, for you to use the preview button and make one big edit instead of many little ones. It's really up to you, since I can easily look at one diff that covers all the edits you make in a row, so just use common sense. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 00:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The designers called SMAX half way between and expansion pack (7 new factions, additional tech, additional native life) and a sequel (stand alone game). Since SMAC is required to install SMAX, I believe it is properly an expansion pack. I think "expansion" conveys the right sense, which is that SMAX is an expansion of SMAC and not a stand-alone game. Vyeh (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The hidden note was a note that the source only supported Civ 1 and Civ 2 having a space race victory condition. It does not support Civ 3, 4 and 5 having that condition since it was written before the game came out. However, since Civ 3 - 5 are essentially remakes of Civ 2, the source is sufficient to support the assertion of space race victory for the entire Civ series. Please be very careful not to delete references unless you have read the reference and verified that it no longer applies. The major work in upgrading the article was reading sources and putting in references. WP requires sourcing for every assertion. My strategy was to leave references in while editing and then later go back and check the references. If a reference is deleted from the current edit, it makes it more difficult to edit (then one has to look at previous versions). Vyeh (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV
Neutral Point of View is one of the three pillars of WikiPedia (there other two are verifiability and no original research. I read (or re-read WP:NPOW). I believe the most important sentence is "Achieving what the Wikipedia community understands as "neutrality" means carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately." I read all of the on-line "reliable sources" reviews (and some off-line "reliable sources" reviews that had been scanned by a Video Game WikiProject member) and these sources were uniformly glowing with a few reservations which were noted (if anything, the article violates NPOW by highlighting the reservations). To make a judgment that three "critical acclaims" violates NPOV is itself a violation of NPOV UNLESS one has "carefully and critically analyzing a variety of reliable sources and then attempting to convey to the reader the information contained in them clearly and accurately." Reading all of the sources was probably one of the two greatest contributions I made to improving the article (the other was a willingness to axe anything that didn't meet WP standards.) I have no problem with copyediting to reduce repetition, but the sense of the section has to be that there was critical acclaim because that clearly and accurately conveys to the readers the information in the reliable sources. Vyeh (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that...when I said "it's all I can see" earlier, I was only referring to the fact the the same phrase was showing up multiple times within a couple paragraphs. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 16:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible peer review?
According to WP:PR, peer reviews filed there are for "high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work". I think that's us, and given my inability to see this article objectively (I've told Vyeh once or twice that I really can't see much wrong with it), would a PR be a good idea? We'll get some fresh eyes, and an idea of what we need for A-class/FA. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 16:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, but perhaps wait a little while. When I get the chance, I'd like to do a more careful read-through and list any obvious things that might benefit from additional attention. -- I do have one that I'd like to suggest:

Suggestions

 * 1) List / table -- The section on the 'Characters' reads like a list; perhaps the information would be more accessible in a table: Leader | Voice | Faction | Description. ::

Discussion:


 * 1. This also allows a 'Description' column where such things as Ideology and unique abilities could be put, allowing some clean-up from other sections.


 * I wouldn't be opposed to this, per se, but without seeing it I really don't know either way. The main question is where would this new table go? If all the faction info is removed, then 'Characters' becomes a mostly empty, though still necessary section that ends up looking kinda ugly. Obviously I don't know of anything wrong with a table, but for that matter a list isn't always bad too. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For the most part the 'Characters' section is fine, and should stay where it is -- but the following sentence (IMHO) has got to be a list or table -- probably at the end of 'Synopsis' (before 'Development):


 * The leaders in SMAC comprise: Lady Deirdre Skye (voiced by Carolyn Dahl) of Gaia's Stepdaughters, Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang (voiced by Lu Yu) of the Human Hive, Academician Prokhor Zakharov (voice by Yuri Nesteroff) of the University of Planet, CEO Nwabudike Morgan (voiced by Regi Davis) of Morgan Industries, Colonel Corazon Santiago (voiced by Wanda Niño) of the Spartan Federation, Sister Miriam Godwinson (voiced by Gretchen Weigel) of the Lord's Believers, and Commissioner Pravin Lal (voiced by Hesh Gordon) of the Peacekeeping Forces.[9][11] The seven additional faction leaders in SMAX are Prime Function Aki Zeta-Five (voiced by Allie Rivenbark) of The Cybernetic Consciousness, Captain Ulrik Svensgaard (voiced by James Liebman) of The Nautilus Pirates, Foreman Domai (voiced by Frederick Serafin) of The Free Drones, Datajack Sinder Roze (voiced by Christine Melton) of The Data Angels, Prophet Cha Dawn (voiced by Stacy Spenser) of The Cult of Planet, Guardian Lular H'minee (voiced by Jeff Gordon) of The Manifold Caretakers, and Conqueror Judaa Maar (voiced by Jeff Gordon) of The Manifold Usurpers. <--That is only two sentences! ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Even with that much removed, the 'Characters' section would be about the same size as 'Plot' or 'Setting'; with a little ce it would look fine. ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Example

22:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that doesn't look too bad. If you don't mind, I'll ask at the peer review which one the Featured Article process looks more favorably on. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 21:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that I have been busy. (1) I am very impressed with both of you. (2) Peer review is a good idea, once we have at least done a once over and made the obvious and semi-obvious improvements. It would probably be a good idea to reread the Wiki guidelines on style. (3) I like the idea of a table. Once the table is in, we can add more description that refers to all factions (e.g. the characters are caricatures of modern times -- I'm sure I can find something in the manual or the designer interviews about their origination). If it is OK with Nolelover, put the table in, so we can see how it looks. (4) For my convenience, could we start a checklist of issues we have identified (and it would be helpful if either of you flagged the issues you would like me to look at. (5) Looking at the changes to the article, was Frank Herbert mentioned under critical response later in the article? Vyeh (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And now its my turn to go offline for a while. I'm on a wikibreak right now, and might be much less active for as much as the next six weeks. I don't really have a preference for list vs. table, so I think that's one thing we could/should ask at the PR. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 01:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Have a nice wikibreak! I'll make an effort to check this page every day, so Eric F has company. I think a table will better express the content and I can't think of a reason not to. So let's follow the WP adage of boldness and ask Eric F to put it in. Let's aim for requesting a PR when your wikibreak is over. Vyeh (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

WIP: table
~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Or:
~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 05:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the second one. Vyeh (talk) 12:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the second. Compactness is good. --Frugen (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hiya gang, I'm back. Second one looks good to me...hopefully it complies with any applicable FA/A-class criteria as well. <b style="color:FireBrick;">Nolelover</b> <b style="color:Gold">Talk</b>·<b style="color:Gold">Contribs</b> 01:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)