Talk:Civilization Fanatics Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

NOTE: Much of this discussion is occuring at the forum the discussion there is in the following thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=163208

I am so fucking awesome --Perfection 17:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You are so not. -From the folks at CFC OT

You don't speak for CFC OT you crazy anonymous user! CFC OT loves me!

--Perfection 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We do? MarineCorps 04:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course we do. Now Bow, BOW! Ybbor 00:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But I HATE Perfection! Ok, that's a lie. But I agree his ego is way too big. --PrinceScamp 02:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone add something about the SF Three?

Contents

[edit] Vandalism

Looks like this page has already been vandalised a few times. Meleager 22:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Someone deleted Giant Death Robots, can they explain why? --Perfection 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone wiped out the forum information along with the new page I had created for them - Meleager (at UNI)

Re deleting the Giant Death Robots? - because its an unimportant minor detail?

I disagree, it's among the most common of in-jokes among CFCers --Perfection 07:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re deleting the GDR? - Because its irrelavent to the forum culture that encompasses Civilization? Maj_Kusanagi (AKA CivGeneral)

Why must we only talk about the Civ Details? --Perfection 07:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is about the site and not about the game and since the GDR is a oart of the forum it should be included. MarineCorps 14:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking, if I hear no objection in the next 24 hours I'll repost it with GRM

hmmm... Well, my comments objecting to the GDR keep getting deleted.

Who are you? It would be helpful if you had a handle either on CFC or wikipedia --Perfection 07:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The GDR should remain off of the article since it just does nothing but expands Perfection's ego. Maj_Kusanagi (AKA CivGeneral)

The question isn't if it will or will not expand my ego, the question is is it an important enough part of the subculture to warrant mention. --Perfection 07:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It's a funny joke but it isn't nearly as important as GRM --MarineCorps 23:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll agree there but that's not the issue. The issue is does it have a significant enough effect on CFC subculture to warrant mention. I would argue that it does. --Perfection 02:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree. I rarely see it mentioned on the forums whereas GRM is seen and mention quite a bit. MarineCorps 23:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
That appears to be the consenses... ...oh well, I tried --Perfection 01:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have a problem with GDRs, as long as they are done proffessionally - Meleager (at UNI)

GDRs are not very common it seems to me, althoguh I admit I am not on the forums and OT very much anymore. I want to know why there is no mention of the Radioactive Monky though, everyone knows about it.--PrinceScamp 04:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever added the GRM. I added and/or "joke" after the "other" as it is used for that a lot too.--PrinceScamp 04:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NES Stuff

We're certainly getting a lot of NES stuff, do you think that it is becomming disproportionate? --Perfection 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I've posted a link to the this Wikipage in the NES Forum, and we NES'ers are more then happy to make our contribution. I don't think that it's too large (yet), but there has to be limits to it. We'll see how this developes. - Reno

Maybe we should take out the Crazy NESer part, as it's specific anyway. - MjM

Alright, i've taken out the part about Genocidal NES'ers. - Reno

One thing that we could do is put it in it's own section. --Perfection 14:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Why bother...? The GOTM and the like, are already under the "Other Activities" healine. Why split it any further? - Reno

K

Perhaps we could divy it up into subsejctions like our forums discription is. It's rather disorganized the way it is now --Perfection 20:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If the NES part grows further, it may warrant an Wiki entry on its own.

I don't think that NESing is a large enough activity for it to warrant a page of its own, is there NESing on any other site? --128.101.76.180 20:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)(Perfection)

There was some at Poly, but I think that has died down. But besides, there are wikipages about much unknown things then NES too. - Reno

Hmm, this is definitely getting a bit large. Perhaps we should cut this down to a bare summary and split the majority off into a new article? I'd nominate Reno for that. -Thlayli

Any action regarding this should be kept off for a while. There is a thread currently in the NES forum to discuss this matter.

---

I disagree that this section should be here at all - no sources (can they be supplied?), and totally non-notable. Mdwh 21:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demogame Stuf

I added the positions CFC finished in for both ISDG and MSDG, as well as fleshed out how those competitions were played. - Krill

[edit] Info from Soren Johnson

Some information can be added from [1]; see [2] to reference it. I'll work on it when I have the time if nobody else does. TimBentley (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup-AFD

My read of the AFD discussion is that the topic is suitable for Wikipedia. But multiple editors in the AFD also said that the article needed cleanup, primarily from better sourcing.

While Wikipedians are currently discussing a massive rewrite of our standards on sources, right now Wikipedia:Verifiability is the policy and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources is the most expansive coverage of the standards. Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ may replace these, so using either for guidance is appropriate. GRBerry 14:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modding community.

I want to adress a few points about the modding community.

First of all cummunites exist for both Civ2, Civ3 and Civ4. However it only mentions Civ4 modding. I think it's only fair with equal representation.

Secondly I'm not sure it's a good idea that some mods are being mentioned while others are not. There will never be any ultimate mod, so presenting some as being the best only draws attention away from other creations. It's better just to leave any specific name out, and just say that the mods rocks!

Regards Yoda Power.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CFC screenshot.jpg

Image:CFC screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removal of information on the CFC page

Recently the CFC page was up deletion and complete removal from Wikipedia. The nosy busy-bodies who thought CFC was only a fan-site and thus wasn't good enough for a Wiki page demanded third-party evidence that CFC had any influence outside of the CFC site. The TeamCFC folding@home entry was cited as one of the notable, verifiable external influences of CFC. As none of us want to see the CFC page removed from Wikipedia could Perfection please leave that entry there so that next time the Wikipolice want to eliminate the page they will hopefully see CFC's notability and go on to bother someone else instead. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.1.20.239 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Its inclusion in the AFD debate while mentioned certainly wasn't considered to be important evidence (whereas the mention in published material such as Civilization games, Soren Johnson's book and other developers (like Stardock), as well as its high membership and alexa rankings were). The fact that a few members banded together to work as a relatively small team on a single distributed computing project has little to do with what CivFanatics is, and what it is notable for. --Perfection (talk) 07:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree - the contribution to a Stanford University research project was considered notable and was specifically mentioned as such by non-CFC Wikipedians during the debate. Stanford University, folding@home and distributed computing all have Wiki pages, and are as such notable. A large contribution to a vast, scientifically important, notable third-party project such as folding@home is in itself notable. This entry is after all an information page about CFC, and TeamCFC is information about the actions of CFC members on behalf of CFC, with the blessings of CFC. The TeamCFC threads contain thousands of postings as a long ongoing part of the CFC forum and therefore do have something to do with what the culture of CivFanatics is. The brief mention that several dozen members of CFC actively participate together as a team to contribute to scientific advancement should be something to be proud of. Why exactly do you wish to see it removed? Considering your own desire to include your own GDR section on the page, I don't understand your objection to this by comparison as being "non-notable self-agrandizing (sp)" or "Trivia". If your objection is to the specific mention of Abaddon then edit that part alone, but the overall entry about a CFC group contribution to a notable scientific project is notable and if it in any way helps to prevent some future effort to delete the entire CFC page then it is certainly worth the one line of text it contains. 68.27.107.175 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
You're incorrect on the AfD comment. It was only brought up by a CFCer and never mentioned by anyone not affiliated with CFC (in fact it wasn't mentioned by anyone except the guy who brought it up). 200th place for a single distributed computing project is not notable, even if the projects themselves are. I now think opposite on the GDR thing, so you can't really use that against me. --Perfection (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)