Talk:SimCity 4/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Difficulty

I'm not sure about you (that's why I'm asking) I found this game rather difficult compared the others, how you must co-ordinate regions, etc for your city to get bigger. What about you? I thought of mentioning this in the page. The snare 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Horrible NPOV Issues

I worked on some serious NPOV issues. The old "problems" section was rife with blatant NPOV violations. I changed it to "criticism", and rewrote the most glaring parts. In my honest opinion, SimCity 4 was a good game to start with, and the patches were undoubtedly needed, but wikipedia deserves a better article than "OMFG SC4 suxors". Next time, write it from a more objective standpoint. DoomBringer 06:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I made a fairly significant addition/rewrite to the Criticism section. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I avoided any significant point of view issues; I simply related the facts as I witnessed them back in the time period in question. Maybe a bit of an issue in the last paragraph of the section, but again, those are the facts and it IS interesting. - toroca, August 18, 2005

I read it, and didn't see any particularly bad issues with it. I was happy with SC4 from Day 1 (got it week it came out). I don't think Maxis/EA wanted to call it the "Stage 8 bug" for whatever reasons... the name "Stage 8 bug" was pretty much invented by the community. I would argue that they indeed recognized it as a bug, because a) they listed all affected buildings instead of a nebulous "stage 8" and b) actually fixed it. DoomBringer 05:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Does SimCity4 deserve to be an article?

Does this need its own page? Much better folded into SimCity I'd say - Khendon 13:51 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Own page, which is why i took out those redirects for sim city 2000 and 3000. They all have their own information. -fonzy

They all have their own information, but enough to deserve their own page? No. And I don't think they're likely to get expanded that far either, personally. - Khendon 15:24 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think they are likely to deserve their own pages either. But I suggest leaving it for now, if nobody comes and adds anything after some time we can fold it back into the main article. Enchanter 16:02 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Having played all of them, I'd suggest that there is enough material unique to each to warrant page for each; the models each city describes are actually quite different under the hood, even if the games are superficially only improvements upon the previous one. If some sim fanatic comes along and wants to expound on the different algorithms and such, then it's probably worth leaving them as is--it's not like they're polluting the namespace. JJ 13:10 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

and SimCity 4 is Very different. -fonzy

SimCity 4 now has an expansion - Rush Hour Martin TB 22:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I do feel that each version of SimCity deserves its own page. Some of them - particularly the more recent ones - are so vastly different in appearance and function from the earlier ones, that they're not nearly the same game. A single page is, in my opinion, simply not enough for a franchise with currently four distinct versions spanning nearly two decades. - toroca, August 18, 2005

I think it should have its own page J C 03:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does, no doubt about it, you can't even compare Sim City 1 to 3. Not even a question for anyone who has actually played them.

Vandalization disguised as additions

I removed most (maybe all) of the material added by anon user 202.78... (I suspect it is all the same person). The material was poorly written and could only barely pass off as English. In short, the article was much better without the additions. I usually don't mind cleaning up rough entries, but I couldn't discern any value in any of the added material. It looked more like vandalism than an attempt at improving the article. If someone disagrees with me, go ahead and put the material back in. But please, please, clean it up first and try to make it legible. —Frecklefoot 21:40, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

System requirements

I have not heard of any of these system requirements problems. I play SC4:RH perfectly well on my 1.66Ghz AMD with 512MB RAM, with little slowdowns. Thus I'm inclined to believe that the gripes in the article are the beliefs of a small minority and I will tone down the contentions in the article unless I hear some response here. Goodralph 00:17, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Then evidently you're not very involved with the SC4 community. :) I've had SimCity 4 since February of '03, and regularly visit many boards about the game. There are more than enough complaints about its speed. (The patches fixed some of this....) [ alerante | “” 19:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC) ]

I'm in agreement with Alerante on this. If you have never heard of the complaints then you either are not or previously were not very involved with the SC4 online community. I have been a member of the two largest fansites since well before the game was released, and in the weeks following the initial release there were probably HUNDREDS of people complaining about how slow the game ran or how often it crashed. I also remember one of the most surprising discoveries in those early weeks - people who had less powerful machines were experiencing fewer problems with the game.

Both of the patches for the original SC4 SIGNIFICANTLY improved the playability of the game. For a great many people, they virtually eliminated all crash errors in properly installed and configured copies of the game, as well as providing major improvements in game speed. The release of Rush Hour/Deluxe improved things even further. I can't remember the last time SC4:RH crashed on me without it being my own fault for testing some improperly configured new building or lot or other third-party addon. The same is commonly reported on the fansites.

Indeed, since the release of Rush Hour, people having major slowdowns or crashes probably ARE in a small minority; whereas previously they would have been in a LARGE majority. - toroca, August 18, 2005

Copying from Wikinfo

I know that Wikinfo goes to great lengths to attribute the articles it takes from Wikipedia... but on this unique occasion, something I added to SimCity 4 on Wikinfo has showed up here. Shouldn't there be similar attribution as it is a direct copy of something I did earlier today on Wikinfo? PrezKennedy 17:10, July 21, 2004 (EST)

Patches?

Sorry if this isn't directly related to this article entirely, but the article states:

"Maxis and Electronic Arts have released several patches that deal with many issues discovered in the original versions of SC4 and Rush Hour, including a reduction of the exceptionally high requirements when designing major metropolises, and the so-called "stage 8" problem, which made it nearly impossible to get higher-density buildings such as skyscrapers."

Okaaayyy... well I've only seen one patch on EA/Maxis's site for SimCity 4, and none of its fixes or changes in the accompanying documentation files mentioned fixing system requirements or high-density-building bugs. Where are these lower-system-requirements patches? This computer of mine is better than most peoples' gaming systems, it runs Doom 3 quite well (rarely dips below 40fps even on intensive moments), and yet SimCity 4 turns into a slideshow and tends to crash to the desktop often.

If there is an URL / are URLs with official patches that fix these things, EA/Maxis sure hasn't linked to any of them.

There's only one patch listed? I see two, and that's only because patch 1 is superseded by (SC4 original) patch 2. SimCity 4 chugs on even higher-end systems because of all the calculations it has to do. [ alerante | “” 16:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) ]

Maxis did indeed release a total of three patches for the game. You will only find two at the official site nowadays because the very first patch was replaced by the second one. All of the changes made by both of the first two patches were included in Rush Hour/Deluxe when it was released. Maxis then released a third patch, which is only intended for people who have Rush Hour/Deluxe. If I had the dates for all three, I'd post them for you. I could probably find them on SimCity Central; the old patch thread there no doubt contains a date/timestamp when the release of the patches was announced there.

Not "notable"

Well Dudyconstructor.com started January 6. We actually have content about the game and a good community, thanks for the edit superchad

SuperChad Productions

Refering to the recent edits by 12.203.219.158 and 12.202.192.173 [1], SuperChad Productions should not be listed yet as the team is non-notable, with no buildings released as of August 2005, although it is known that some are in production [2].

Until their have submited downloads into public and become well-known in the community, this addition is considered to be vanity. ╫ 25 ^ring-a-ding 17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ╫

Wikibooks

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of

SimCity/SimCity 4

Don't forget, you can help write a book about Sim City 4 at Wikibooks. Gerard Foley 12:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

I'm really sorry for asking something that is not about the article. My question is is there a way to use the weaknesspays cheat by pressing up on the directional keys? My friend told me there was but he forgot. Please let me know soon.69.26.107.174 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have better luck getting replies in a SimCity 4 Internet forum like Simtropolis. Wikipedia talk pages are intended to discuss changes made in the article only. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ╫

fansites

wouldn't it be better to save maxis some bandwith and place the two most visited fansites (simcitycentral and simtropolis) on the main page?

If you're referring the main page to the main article (SimCity 4 article), it's already done. But the SimCity 4 fan site listing is still useful, in addition to being the official web directory for SimCity 4, albeit taking longer to load and linking to partially defunct sites. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ╫

Exit 12: Relinking our City Journals

I need people to change the links on the City Journals. -Tracker 19:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

2D/3D terminology

"sprites wrapped around polygons" - is this referring to textures? If not ... what does it mean? Cammy 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Went and read the linked article, which is very interesting. I'm guessing the above phrase refers to the fact that some building models are just drawn as a texture, and then wrapped around a 'billboard' (a polygon which is always oriented towards the user), thus producing the effect of a sprite. Others are fully 3D, and there are some which use a combination of both approaches. The engine itself is fully 3D, but using an orthographic projection for speed rather than perspective projection. I'll modify the article to make this clearer. Cammy 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The passage on large building being fully 3D is incorrect as the buildings are still depicts with sprite-like elements; larger building would map larger sprites into polygon models that mimics the sprite's design (creating "3D sprites"), just like smaller props [3][4][5]. It also contradicts the performance issue mentioned in the following paragraph, as the amount of detail on the buildings would certainly slow down the game if they were completely 3D objects. I'm rewording the passages to clarify this. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ╫

The official SC4 website also states that the user interface is excepted from the consideration of 3D treatment. This article will also be corrected in this regard. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ╫

It seems that we are using the same terminology for slightly different purposes. To make my above explanation a bit clearer: when I say '3D building', I mean that the building is modelled as more than a flat plane or a box, then textured (textures being 'sprite-like elements', I guess, at a stretch). Of course performance would be abysmal if buildings were fully rendered in 3D - this is the whole rationale behind using textures (and their more advanced cousins, bump/normal/parallax maps). Also, when I talk about the user interface being 3D, I don't mean that it's 3D modelled - I simply mean that it's rendered as a texture on a 3D plane that happens to be fixed in place relative to the viewer.

I'm re-rephrasing the article to make the point about the buildings clearer, and just removing the detail about the user interface (as it has proven to lead to confusion, and I can no longer find the article in which the reference was made) Do you think inserting the images you linked into the article would be a good idea? I find them very useful to illustrate the way in which buildings are constructed. Cammy 15:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

ban 81.104.165.184 from editing

this guy keeps removing the city journal stuff claimings its "spam" ITS NOT SPAM, PROVE IT, city journals are known by every single fansite, everybody has heard of them, and almost everybody has heard of the SCJU

this guy also removed fansites for no reasons such as simvision, sc4ever, dudy constructor, zurban, insims, and the SCJU, these are fine links simvision is one of the big fansites not the biggest but pretty well known, so please band this guy from editing he has no clue what he is doing and thinks that cjs and fansites are spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs)

Do note that Wikipedia is not a link respository. The number of fansites in the extrenal links section are excessive and provide the same form of contents repeatedly, in addition to distracting readers and downgrading the quality of the section. To an extent, I do agree with anon user that all non-notable fansites (with the exceptions) should be removed, in place of a few link directories instead. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 13:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC) ╫

some of the fansites are major, like simvision, they are one of the top fansites, and scju is well known, maybe link to scju wiki would be better, every link in the fansites were major, well known or notable, the city journals are well known, so at least keep the article describing what they where and keep the cj links in a seprate article from sc4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia presently has (and has had for a very long time) a problem where everyone wants to add their website to external links in an article. Typical rules for extlinks are that they are directly relevant to the actual content of the article, with useful further reading. In the case of games, you're looking at a couple of official links, and a small number of superlative websites. Simtropolis, for example, is evidently a major site (100,000 users, apparently), so it gets a link. Simvision, on the other hand, claims 3,000 members, much smaller, so it doesn't. Typically, we allow one, maybe two, links to each site (if there is something about it to justify the extra links). What isn't acceptable is a whole slew of around 20-30 links to individual threads on their message boards - they're just not relevant to the outside world. Of course, you have the right to your opinion, but you may have some difficulty when policy is not on your side. 81.104.165.184 11:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is not a form of advertisement.

Notability of City Journals

everyone has heard of simvision they are not advetertising, they are a major fansite, probably the 3rd or 4th with st being the 1st and scc being the 2nd, , simvision also has a top 40 simcity site program, and a fairly large exchange and fourums, simtropolis may have over 100,000 users but a small fraction of them are active, simvision has 9,000 posts, there bigger than some of the other sites, simglobal has less members, and sims zone is not enlish so it does not belong in en wikipidea or needs to be known as an english site, and what is wrong with the city journal section

please explain why the city journal section is spam and junk, what is wrong with it, and what is wrong with the cj links no one made a big deal about them untill 81.104.165.184 came along and removed them —Preceding unsigned comment added by superchad (talk • contribs) 2006-06-05 00:19:14

I totally agree with the above, the CJ links (as i am aware) linked to the most popular cj's in SC4 history, to my knowledge, they all had won awards from at least the 2 most heavy weight SC4 websites, Simtropolis and SCC. Simcity.ea.com is an absolute joke, yet you put Simtropolis and SCC below an infobox hinting that it's spam. Have you ANY idea, the amount of work, hours and dedication people have put into custom creations such as BAT's and LOT's on those two sites alone? Yet the "official" site which is crammed full of plagurised or mediocre spam, is literally elivated on a pedestal above the "this is spam infobox" as if it deserved to be visited? It's an absolute insult and i really think that the page be reverted to its previous glory.

As for the SCJU, I believe it should have a place, it may have a small community, but it's completely unlike any other simcity fan website, it's a political interactive roleplay forum that unites many CJ authors from many SC4 websites and provides an outlet for them to further hone in their creativity. The others are simply a forum on discussions about simcity4 and to download.

You may not agree with what i have said, but as a simcity fan since the very original, I thought i would voice my dismay at these recent changes. ~6underground

Links have been deleted except for SCC and Simtrop. Nothing else is notable. Additionally, the CJ section is not notable because it is not really a part of the game. Also, it is not as popular as the section's author makes it appear. Also, Superchad (talk • contribs), please consider WP:OWN with regards to this edit summary. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

City journals are community cruft. I myself have never heard of Simvision. æ l e ✆ 2006-06-05t18:00z

city journals ARE not community cruft, its the most popular thing in the community, if you think cjs are junk, then no wonder you have never heard of simvision, because you must not be on the internet much, without cjs scc and simtropolis would be very inactive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs) 2006-06-06 21:26:50

I personally feel that a city-journal link or three (but not more) is highly appropriate here; if the mods are 'notable', then certainly journals are: they are a significant use of the game. However, they should represent the best ones, showing how SimCity users can use their game and document their city. As the previous comment states, they are probably the most popular aspect of the community. – TTD

Bark! 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

yea, they also show user creativity and can give ideas which can help other people make better city journals, consider it as a fun activity that anyone can do, maybe a seprate article for city journals with a link in the sc4 article - Superchad

I feel that city journals aren't notable enough to merit their own article: they're just an aspect of the game and should be briefly inculded as such.

Superchad, you can sign your comments automatically using "~~~~", and please use colons to indicate continuation of the discussion thread. Please refrain from personal attacks like that from the comment before the previous one. Also, don't mark additions to discussion pages or total reverts of pages as "minor edits". – TTD

Bark! 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

City journals are the SimCity equivalent of guild Web sites in, say, World of Warcraft. Neither are very notable. æ l e ✆ 2006-06-08t10:09z

It's worth adding to this discussion that we talk about mods, but don't actually list any specifically, so for me the argument that including mods means we should include city journals fals down pretty quickly. 81.104.165.184 11:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

we should have a section describing what they are, that links to a list of well know ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by superchad (talk • contribs) .

No longer playing SimCity games

I play The Sims ( site | Sims here | console )...

I'm playing Chris Sawyer's Locomotion. It's a RollerCoaster Tycoon-meets-SimCity-strategy game.

This guy no longer plays SimCity as of February 2006. --RCT Locomotion Wikipedia 00:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Developement section

I have removed the section entitled 'Development' as it was not a stub. It was an empty section. A stub should contain at least some form of expansion on the actual heading else it has no purpose. This page should be used to discuss the need to add things to it if there is no information available instead. -Localzuk ^(talk) 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How to?

How does one upload screenshots on to Wikipedia?--70.189.248.92 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Upload file" link in the toolbox bar on the left allows you to upload files, but you need to create an account, and adhere to Wikipedia's image use policy. Next time, though, it may be a better idea to visit Help:Contents for directions or inquiries. Asking questions in seemingly unrelated talk pages may not produce any responses. I hope you find this useful next time. :) ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ╫

Simtropolis merge suggestion

Simtropolis was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simtropolis). I closed that discussion as no consensus. As an editor, I would like to bring here the discussion about whether or not to merge the article into SimCity 4. Personally I think the website is notable enough to get a mention, but not to get a full length article as has now so I'm suggestion it should be merged (as did some others on the AFD discussion). Petros471 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No. they are completly diffrent.--Mac Lover ^Talk 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep separate as per little duplication of material. However consider a compilation of SimCity fansites instead of one focusing on Simtropolis. There were some long-running ones spanning several SimCity versions including the currently titled SC4ever.com. Although they're dying, I think it's a shame that notable equates to current. Certainly that's not a criterion that will stand the test of time. Davilla 14:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Against the merger, unless a section were created in this article for brief descriptions of notable fansites. SimCity Central deserves at least half the mention of Simtropolis, IMHO. Following Davilla's suggestion, SC3000.COM (linked in SimCity 3000 as the SimCity 3000 Resource Center), is also worthy of mention. -AndromedaRoach 04:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I can only see a merger of Simtropolis (ST) to SimCity 4 as beneficial if the fansite has directly contributed significantly to the further development of SimCity 4 after its release, and has been referred by notable publications for this (Meeting these criteria would at most grant the site a mention in the Modd Squad section). I'm also concerned on whether creators of mods are worthy of mention in articles on computer games. Mods themselves have mostly been permitted for mention, especially those for modable games, but not many of those who help create or host them (teams or individuals). ST in particular has only been a site that hosts forum discussions, modding activities and offer user-made downloads, a reason I believe the site's mention should be kept in a bare minimum (which the article currently has) and ST article simply redirected to the SimCity 4 article, if a merge is required. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ╫

simtropolis deserves its own article [superchad]

I think fan sites in all desrve some type of article inside of this about how the add ons have helped the game survive over the 3 1/2 years.

Against. Put simply: SimTropolis is a WEBSITE. SimCity 4 is a VIDEO GAME. Nothing more needs to be said. I'm removing the merge templates. Lakeyboy 11:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sims 2 Neghboorhood layouts

it should probaly be mentioned some place in the arctcle that files from SC4 are used to form the layouts for negihboorhoods in sims 2. I mean any city you lay out in SC4, you can then make a S2 town with the same layoutLego3400: The Sage of Time 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. This would be more suited in The Sims 2 than here, the same way The Sims article doesn't mention SimCity 4 as having derived the latter's character design and objects in the game from, yet have the SimCity 4 article mentioning how it is compatible with the first Sims. Besides, this article is intended to discuss primarily SimCity 4-related topics, not the other way around. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 04:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ╫

Actually, since this article already mentions how SC4 is compatible with The Sims, I think it is suitable to add a very brief mention of its compatibility with The Sims 2 as well. --Funnykidrian 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

City length

Just a small edit, dunno where this would go, so I just shoved it at the bottom of the page:

The player also has the option of starting the city in a segment of any of three area sizes, the largest being 256 by 256 tiles, approximately 4 by 4 miles in real measurement.

Changed the wording of that sentence so it actually reads 4.096km by 4.096km - this is correct, as each tile is 16m by 16m. Just a small correction, is all. 58.168.48.29 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sectioned this message. Thanks for the input. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Game's Item

Avenue, Water Pipe, Cloverleaf junction, Hydrogen Power Plant, Small Park Green, these are some of the items that can be found in the game. I have been thinking of creating either a new section on this page about the list of items available in SimCity 4 & SimCity 4 Rush Hour or creating a new article about the list of items available in SimCity 4 & SimCity 4 Rush Hour. If you feel like adding your thoughts about my idea, feel free to write down your thoughts here. Aranho 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been some problems in Wikipedia regarding the merit of specific gameplay-related information. It's not justified by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (stating that articles should not include video game guides) and is considered by certain editors to be cruft (in fact, the amount of gameplay information is more than enough, as the other features are nothing special). Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic articles, and are only meant to provide a basic overview of a topic. Everything else can be provided in a sister Wikis, WikiBooks (which has a SimCity entry), or StrategyWiki. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Fansite Links

please stop removing them you say they violate wikipedias policy but they dont, they provide usefull information

here is the policy

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines

people are missinterpiting the policy, the policy says it is okay to have content-relevant links and links to a major fansite, simtropolis is the biggest SimCity 4 fansite, plus the main site hasnt been updated in about 2 years and the exchange has nothing worth downloading on it, ST has tuturials, mods, bats, and lots like mcdonalds, wendys, walmart, that are very realistic, the turorials teach how to do things that are not taught on the main site like underwater tunnels, Simtropolis even has its own wikipedia article, meaning it is very notable and is major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs)

You state that it adds content, please point us to some of the content on the site that would be acceptable to be included within the article? That is what that section means. Your claim that the site is the biggest is your opinion, and will lead to people arguing over which site is most popular, largest, most comprehensive etc... The idea of not including any is to prevent pointless edit wars. Also, I believe that guideline has been altered. Last time I read it through fully it said 'including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate'. I shall discuss this apparant alteration there now.

I still maintain that the site contains nothing, content related, that could be included within the article.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Having just looked at it, it states this: If there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate. and also Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. I think this is quite clear... -Localzuk^(talk) 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. There appears to be an inconsistency with the what wikipedia is not policy and the external links guideline. I have posted a question to find out what other people reckon.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

okay some content is the Network Addon Mod an unoffical addon that adds new interchanges for highways, new on/off ramps, no highway possiblites, el rail above roads, monorail above roads, etc. and a way to remove the pedrina plant lot, and a whole lot of mods. there is also an airport pack for custom airports, tutorials like how to make underwater tunnels, how to make split highways. there are tons of lots in the stex based off real buildings, like real stores, world trade center, landmark with jobs which allow landmarks to have jobs. there are tools like the SC4 Terraformer, a regional terraformer so you can hand terraform a region without opening every city tile.

here are some links

Mods & Downloads http://www.simtropolis.com/modding/index.cfm?page=1&view=all

Stex: http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?page=1

search thinks like wtc, simgoober, airport, and any building you can think of

--SuperchadSuperchad 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my question. How would any of that be includable in this article as content? None of that is encyclopedic in the least. Wikipedia is not a howto site or a mod's database.-Localzuk^(talk) 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

just include the link to simtropolis that way you dont have to put stuff in, its worth mention mods if they help the game, just put it in the additional resources so people wont add there fansites it is includeable but the NAM in the third party addons also if the modd squad deserves mention then so does the NAM considering it is more known, how come people where fine with the fansites untill you came along and removed them.

But that is the point. We are only supposed to include links to official sites and any site that provides information that, over time, can be written into the article itself. Not just link to related items. Also, I am not the only person who is removing the links (IIRC, I was not the first person to remove them).-Localzuk^(talk) 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SimCity 5

I was about to start a SimCity 5 article, but when googling for information I found from Google's cache that Wikipedia used to have a SimCity 5 article. Is it removed because not much information is known yet? Taskinen 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimCity 5 (working title), the current consensus is that there is still little facts revealed to have a SimCity 5 article (the only sources that the article cites are brief hints in GameSpot of the game's release). When more details about the game come about, then the article may be recreated. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) ╫

Trivia

When I was playing today I suddenly noticed High Tech Industries called "Kane Tiberium". Are there other little tributes like this in the game that could be used to form some sort of a trivia section?

Cyanara 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Simtropolis

Simtropolis was recently nominated for deletion. I've merged the article with SimCity4 in order to preserve its contents. Please let me know if you have any objections to its incorporation. I believe Simtropolis serves well within this context. Kugelmass 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has apparently been proposed before, but the general feeling seems to be that it is not an appropriate merge. Chris cheese whine 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that a merge was previously discussed. As someone who has never played SimCity 4, I found the Simtropolis content very supportive and pertinent to the subject. Where can I find an archived discussion page? Among other things, I am very curious as to why it was not deleted during the previous nomination.Kugelmass 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Scroll up a bit. Chris cheese whine 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories: Talk archives