Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of technologies in Civilization III


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

List of technologies in Civilization III
Much as I enjoyed civ III I think this article is a bit too crufty. Wikipedia is not a game encylopedia Ydam 08:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with main Civilization III article. Wikipedia isn't a place for guides on games.-- A n d e h 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Civilization III per above. J I P  | Talk 09:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I can type in game manuals, too. Doesn't mean I should. MiracleMat 09:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Civ2 is very notable, and people may find this of interest. Most games shouldn't even have  one article about them let alone several, but Civ2 is very popular and this is probably useful to enough people.  But if it is kept, it shouldn't be a precedent for dozens of articles about non-notable, or semi-notable games.  Captainj 10:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is CIV III not II Ydam 10:41, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I realised my mistake when I saved it, and was about to correct. I feel the same arguments apply.Captainj 10:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Game guide. -- GWO
 * Keep per Ydam. -- cds(talk) 12:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What??? Ydam 12:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops - per Captainj. -- cds(talk) 12:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep It was there incomplete forever, then I take the time to finish it and now it's up for deletion. Czolgolz 12:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't take this as a comment upon your editing, indeed as an article it's quite well put together. I just don't believe the subject matter is enclopedic or is suitable content for wikipedia Ydam 12:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge with Civilization III, per Andeh. PJM 12:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - as a simple collection of information. Either people have the game and don't need this list or don't and won't care. - Peripitus 13:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful and interesting, per Captainj. - CNichols 15:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep use all the time 66.98.130.129 15:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per captainj MarineCorps 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. See StarCraft units and structures.  This article is not a game/strategy guide, but information about the game.  I think there's no reason to clutter up Civilization III from a merge. Again, see the structure of and information in the Starcraft article, which (as a featured article) has been debated before. ~ PseudoSudo 17:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Starcraft may be a featured article, but StarCraft units and structures is not a featured article. So I don't quite see how that's relevant?  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 20:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that StarCraft is a featured article to point out the fact that other, widely-publicized articles about games have in-depth detail about their components; it was mostly to address Peripitus' claim that including a list of technologies is merely a simple collection of information. ~ PseudoSudo 20:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge per JIP. bikeable (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Captain j --Guinnog 19:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT GameFAQs. Sorry to those who are arguing that this is not a game guide, but it clearly is – the constant use of second-person pronouns and references to "your civilization" makes it very difficult to read as anything else. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 20:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Civilization III. People this interested in the technologies will have bought the manual - for everyone else, a mention on the CivIII article should suffice. -RCBTDrumwolf
 * Keep As per captianj. davidzuccaro 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as the very model of fancruft: if you own the game (and manual) you already know this stuff; if you don't, it has no application: either way, it's not the slightest bit of use to you or anyone else. --Calton | Talk 07:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Calton I have no interest in several things that have entries on Wikipedia. Does THAT mean those entries should be deleted? NO.TruthCrusader 07:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you try to read the entire sentence, or just the bit you could pull out and use as part of your non sequitor disguised as an argument?
 * Let's try to make this simple: let's divide the world into precisely two groups: those who CivIII, and those who don't:
 * Those who own CivIII: already have the (rather thick) owner's manual and fold-out chart which contains all this information. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.
 * Those who do not own CivIII: have no possible use for, need of, or interest in, the information in the article. Actual usefulness of article for this group: none.
 * Total segment of world population that this article is actually useful for: none.
 * Any questions? Or do you have any more bogosity up your sleeves? --Calton | Talk 09:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I find your remarks, not only to me but to other users as well, highly uncivil. I think it is time your adminship is reviewed, because to be honest you have a very condescending manner that i find unfit for a Wikipedia Admin. TruthCrusader 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How awful. It's a good thing I'M NOT AN ADMIN, then. Your close attention to detail -- and utter lack of substantive response -- is duly noted. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. -- cds(talk) 11:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just like to add on a side note that all this info is also available whithin the game itself in a graphical tech tree and the civopedia which also includes a lot of historical context on the technologies too Ydam 10:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not own civ III nor have I ever played it. I am however an experienced player of civ I, civ II and freeciv. The article is of interest to me as I might use the article to help me to decide whether or not I should purchase civ III. Not that this is necessarily a reason to keep this article. I am just rebutting Calton's fallacious arguments. Paper documentation can be lost or damaged. The games' electronic documentation is not able to be modified and improved by the gaming community. These are good reasons to keep the article.davidzuccaro 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is of interest to me as I might use the article to help me to decide whether or not I should purchase civ III. You -- an "experienced player" of the previous versions -- need this level of detail to make a purchasing decision? Does ANYONE need this level of detail to make a purchasing decision? Allow me to be skeptical.
 * Paper documentation can be lost or damaged. Missing a copy? Try the local used-book store, or let me know and I might send you mine.
 * The games' electronic documentation is not able to be modified and improved by the gaming community. And Wikipedia's role in "modifying and improving" game documentation is what, exactly? Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. --Calton | Talk 12:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd like to mention that TruthCrusader's point has been largely ignored. Whether this article is interesting to the average viewier (encyclopedias are practically by definition uninteresting), useful to its intended audience, contains information extractable from the game manual or the game itself, or whether any editor has played the game before, is all 100% irrelevant to the deletion discussion .  We are here to evaluate the article for Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, such as WP:NOT as the nominator alluded to.  Thanks. ~ PseudoSudo 17:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on Comment quote:encyclopedias are practically by definition uninteresting - what a brilliant insight! I think this should go into tbe mission statement of Wikipedia. or at least into that Wikipedia humour section whatever its called. Bwithh 17:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very nice job on this civilization related article. Wikipedia is a game encyclopedia. We also do quite well on porn and schools. --JJay 12:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * From WP:NOT: "While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not...Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things." --Calton | Talk 12:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's real interesting, but this is a list of technologies in the game. For a good starting point for our computer game coverage try Category:Computer_and_video_games. Let's make wikipedia the best game encyclopedia in the world. --JJay 13:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * oh my god, let's please not make wikipedia the best game encyclopedia in the world if it means a flood of walk-throughs, level maps, and lists of game skills and game items? You can set up your own wiki separate from wikipedia you know.Bwithh 17:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong, Speedy Delete Civ is a good game but this is total fancruft/listcruft. Wikipedia is NOT a game guide and is not a freakin' "game encyclopedia" whatever hellish thing that is. There are a ton of game guides and faqs and review sites on Civ and other popular games on the web. Those who say that this article is useful for people who have lost their manuals or just want to see if they want to buy the game are being ridiculous too. Wikipedia is a not a dumping ground for game manuals and reviews Bwithh 17:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, although I could live with a list ot techs at Civilization III (not at this detail, however). I really hate to say it, because this is very well done, but WP:NOT GameFAQs, and this is basically part of a game guide. Someone should really start another wiki for this sort of thing, because I hate having to vote to delete these and would much rather transwiki them somewhere. BryanG(talk) 21:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete/merge - As a player of Civ2, Civ3 and Civ4 and as a frequent contributor to CVG articles, this article is really really game specific to the point of being a game guide.  I can absolutely see why a list of technologies in civ3 may be helpful and interesting, for the players of the game who actually want to learn more about what the technologies are about and their affect in the Real World, it'd be a great starting point.  But right now, it's just the tech tree/game guide laid out in textual form.  Please just put it into a simple list in the Civilization III page, like the list of wonders and list of races. - Hahnch  e  n 20:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge: It is a bit fancrufty, but I believe that given the chance it could be retooled into something more apropriet for wikipedia. TomStar81 06:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or transwiki to a gaming wiki per WP:NOT and WP:CVG content guidelines. --Muchness 14:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per User:Calton's explanation of who this cruft is useful to: nobody. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a game guide. We don't do game guides here. My suggestion is that you take this to a game wiki or GameFAQs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete ubercruft.  Grue   13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Calton. BoojiBoy 02:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.