A fact from Civilization: Beyond Earth appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 16 April 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
We need other sources to note the user score difference from critic sources. User scores can always be manipulated so we need a source to make the assessment that user scores represent a different opinion than the press. --
MASEM (
t)
15:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)reply
We can't use the Steam user reviews either - again, those can be manipulated because of being self-published (I'm not saying they are in this case, but that's a point in general). --
MASEM (
t)
14:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Ok, I don't get it. I think it is important to note that for this game, user reviews seem to be largely less critical than official reviews. It is the case in 2 independent cases. What more do you want as a measure?
Charnger (
talk)
14:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)reply
Totally missing user reviews means not providing accurate information as well. They ARE generally less favourable, and though exact figures could differ, the trend itself looks clear. What about saying that "user reviews were generally less favourable"? I understand the desire not to rely on self-published materials, but really, I never check the critics score and just read user reviews. Critics are hardly ever accurate, they get paid for writing these (correct) reviews.
Atr577 (
talk)
09:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
The problem is that we have a verifyability and reliable source policy that simply because user review exist does not mean that is valid information to include due to the lack of authority and potential of manipulation. It would also be original research to review user review scores and make a conclusion that they were different from critic review scores. We need a secondary source to note that there's a disconnect and possible why that exists and then we could mention that. --
MASEM (
t)
14:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Right, why just not mention these user scores "as is", just like official ones? I understand and support that simply writing "I asked 1000 people and most of them like/dislike that" is inappropriate, but in this case there is a source that can be quoted. Referring to it shouldn't express any opinion about the game, it should just acknowledge the fact of a user review score at some site, with a link to it for verifying purposes. Why official reviews are considered reliable while user reviews at the same sites are not is not very clear as well; both are written by people, who can be influenced in a number of ways. What should be done - is simply referring to existing scores, leaving it to the reader whether to trust them or not.
Atr577 (
talk)
10:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Rising Tide page
I disagree with the notion that Rising Tide should be the same page. All of the other Civilization expansions have a separate page.
The spinoff page, Rising Tide needs some work no doubt, but I say we restore the Rising Tide page. I intended to put more information on it at a later time.
Oldag07 (
talk)
21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
None of the expansions seem appropriate for having a separate article - there's no development, only gameplay changes and reception, and the details of gameplay changes are a bit heavy (the only one that would be reasonable is Colonization which is almost a fundamental game shift). A single page for the game and its DLC makes sense. --
MASEM (
t)
21:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)reply
I am fine with DLC having their own articles, if they have got a lot of press coverage. I redirected the Rising Tide article because it basically repeat the same information in the Rising Tide subsection, and it barely has any new content besides the review table. It needs really a lot more work before it can be published in the mainspace. I have moved it to
Draftspace though.
AdrianGamer (
talk)
09:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)reply
Civilization Beyond Earth RT article for deletion discussion