Talk:Europa Universalis IV

Untitled

This is clearly advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.222.65.39 (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Advertising

Is it worth taking the advertising banner off? If not, how can the page be made more neutral? Das Beta (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've started by removing most of the "Expansions and mods" section. The Gameplay section needs checking and editing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Which part of the article fails to comply with WP:NOTADVERTISING?--Kathovo talk 13:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Real time strategy

it should be explained that it is a real time strategy game opposed to turn based like civ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.253.204 (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Historical time periods

"In the game, players control a nation during the Late Middle Ages until the Early modern period (1444 to 1821)" - shouldn't this read "In the game, players control a nation from the late Middle Ages to the end of the Early Modern period"? Herbgold (talk) 07:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the list of nations

The table has been reverted for two main reasons: first, like Wikipedia itself, an open wiki is not a reliable source. Secondly, the list is excessive to the point of being useless. It's simply too much, too detailed, with no context whatsoever. Per WP:NOT, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. It would be one thing if there was a summary showing that the game contained X number of nations, but to list out every single one, when there are this many, bloats the article and gives undue focus on something that reliable sources do not. There's no reason whatsoever to include a table of every nation in the game, especially without context in this huge blog of text within tables. - Aoidh (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The EUIV wiki is the source that is available for games. It is the way those game developers publish their data. That it is editable by users doesn't mean the information on it is wrong, to the contrary; wrong information can be solved. The list indeed could blow the article, I am working on a Wiki useful list for all the nations in relation to our Wiki content. It is not "simply too much, too detailed", that is a POV that is subjective. Readers may have other interests than you and only those are relevant. The separate list will be linked in the article as it is extremely extensive, not for inclusion directly in the main article. But it serves the reader to browse through the real former countries that are represented in great detail in the game with links to the leaders of those countries. Tisquesusa (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

The issue isn't that the information is wrong. Wikipedia, for example, is not a reliable source. It's not because Wikipedia articles are necessarily wrong, but that they are unreliable. The same is true with any open wiki. Anyone can edit it, and change the information. More to the point, if the only source is from the game developers themselves as you say, then the information is WP:UNDUE because something not covered by any reliable, third-party sources should not be given that level of detail, even if that level of detail was appropriate in an article. You're right, readers may have other interests than me. However, Wikipedia is not a repository of all information that someone may find interesting. Phone books are interesting and useful, that doesn't mean phone book listings belong on Wikipedia. You say it's not too much, but when 1/3 of the article (by bytes) is dedicated to a list, without context, that not a single reliable source gives any mention to, that is excessive and WP:UNDUE. That's not subjective nor POV, but in keeping with a core Wikipedia policy. - Aoidh (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Europa Universalis IV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140131175214/http://www.paradoxplaza.com/press/2014/1/paradox-announces-europa-universalis-iv-wealth-of-nations to http://www.paradoxplaza.com/press/2014/1/paradox-announces-europa-universalis-iv-wealth-of-nations

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

"Official wiki" external link

Should the Official Paradox wikis be linked? I've added links for the official wikis to Wikipedia's Paradox pages in the past (see link) and they've been reverted for failing to comply with Wikipedia:ELNO (see rule 12). It looks like somebody added the link again though so my question is should I remove the link or should the official wikis be linked on their individual pages?

Personally I feel the official wikis do not violate "rule 12" as it does allow an exception for "those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". I believe the official wikis could be described as such, though I will admit that I'm somewhat biased as I do occasionally edit the Paradox wikis. I'd also like to point to Wookieepedia and Memory Alpha as examples of other pages linking to external wikis, in fact Memory Alpha is linked on the main Star Trek article (Star Trek#External links).

I'm not trying to start an edit war or anything so I'll refrain from editing the links until a decision is made.

Kwwhit5531 (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I presume you mean rule 12 of WP:ELNO, rather than rule 19? Personally, I'd consider it better not to include. Although the stability and reliability of the Paradox wikis are a lot better than some open wikis, they don't come close to something like Memory Alpha. There's typically a lot of out-of-date infomration on the Paradox wikis, for instance. I also think that WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is relevant here. While this also allows for exceptions in certain situations, the combination of it being both a second official website and an open wiki is what leads me to think it would be better off removed. Lowercaserho (talk) 02:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry rule 12 was what I was referring to. While I certainly understand being cautious about the number of official links used in an article, and I agree when WP:ELMINOFFICIAL states that "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence". However it also states "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content" and "In other situations, it may sometimes be appropriate to provide more than one link, such as when a business has one website for the corporate headquarters and another for consumer information.". To me paradox wikis constitute "significant unique content". In contrast I would think the Paradox Official Forums would not constitute "significant unique content" and would violate for example "if the main page of the official website for an author contains a link to the author's blog and Twitter feed, then it is not appropriate to provide links to all three.". The difference is that the official wikis provide additional useful and encyclopedic information, rather than simply another official site used primarily for advertising or social media. Plus linking to the wiki would provide readers a place to find useful information that is beyond the scope of Wikipedia and hopefully discourage potential editors from adding extraneous information to the individual pages that might potentially be useful but not appropriate for Wikipedia itself.

Kwwhit5531 (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(Fixed indentation) I do definitely see your point, and it is something of a judgement call rather than an open and shut case. We are not a bureaucracy and the provisions for exceptions certainly exist for a reason. I certainly think it's reasonable to advocate for the inclusion of a link to the official wiki and I wouldn't be upset if consensus came down that way. My own personal opinion, though, is that we'd be better off removing it. Lowercaserho (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, its been while since I used a talk page and couldn't remember the symbol. I certainly understand also the reasons for removing it and if that's the consensus that's fine. I certainly thinks its good idea that "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion" otherwise the site would just be complete chaos.Kwwhit5531 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts on this - the comparison to Memory Alpha is tenuous at best. One is run by the company, the other is run by an outside group. The Paradox wiki also has links present on the page for the games. Generally, WP:ELMINOFFICIAL says to avoid adding links like that. Personally, I lean towards not including the link for that and yes the always bad argument about the slippery slope. There has been a lot of fancruft that appears on these pages and is a pain to prune back. This may be something good to bring up at the external link noticeboard. (Side note - their website designer needs to have a serious refresher course, that might be one of the worst game developer sites for a decent sized company I've ever visited. Poor layout, pure store format and it's really hard to find info about the games.) Ravensfire (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Given that there seems to be a rough consensus against including the link (2 to 1 isn't exactly great participation, but it's what we've got), I've gone ahead and removed the link. Obviously, this can be revisited in future if needed. Lowercaserho (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)