On the use of "ciV" as an abbreviation for Civilization V

[PieceOfMind]

Do you think the abbreviation "ciV" for Civilization V should be encouraged or discouraged?

Please note this is not a poll about the icon to be used for Civilization V on this forum - that is the subject of a different thread.

Feel free to post your reasons below if you want to. Any discussions should remain civil and respectful of other members.

This poll will close after a limited time.

 

[eireksten]

I don't like it myself. I have to stop and take a second look at the abbreviation every time it appears (unless it's obvious from the context), to see whether it says cIV or ciV... And I don't really see any good arguments pro this.

I like Civ5 or civ5. No confusion there.

 

[Shurdus]

Why the warning tht it should remain civil? I was only mildly sarcastic in the other thread.

I think it should be discouraged since as you pointed out, the search function is not case sensitive which results in muddy search results. Also the abbreviation is clear in a certain context, but when expressing opinions it can be very confusing. For example:

I dislike the improvements in cIV
This is posted in the civ5 forum. Is it mistyped? Does the used mean to cIV rather than ciV? Without proper context one cannot easely dismiss the doubt one may have.

In ciV, the pyramids unlocks the early 'representation' civic.
Here it is clear that the user means cIV, unless maybe the pyramids in ciV do the exact same as it did in cIV.

Even as I type this I find it confusing to use the shift key rather than numbers to distinguish between the two games. Civ IV and Civ5 are two different things entirely, one can easely recognise what I mean to say. With the ciV and cIV it can become confusing, and I am sure with a bit of work or real life examples we can come up with cases where even without typo's the discussion is confusing.

All in all I favor clarity over fanciness, therefore I think that everyone should use civ5 rather than ciV.

 

[Camikaze]

It should be discouraged in type, although I don't mind it in the logo thing. The difference is that there isn't a clear differentiation between cIV and ciV, because I and i look very similar. The difference between cIV and ciV (using black and blue instead of white and yellow, for the sake of argument) is, however, much more obvious.

 

[Shurdus]

It should be discouraged in type, although I don't mind it in the logo thing. The difference is that there isn't a clear differentiation between cIV and ciV, because I and i look very similar. The difference between cIV and ciV (using black and blue instead of white and yellow, for the sake of argument) is, however, much more obvious.

I use the dark blue layout of the forum, and to me the blue does nto really stand out. I did not notice it until you edited your post to point out what you did there.

 

[PieceOfMind]

It should be discouraged in type, although I don't mind it in the logo thing.

I will add a clarification to the OP indicating the icon is not the thing under consideration here. Thanks for bringing it up.

 

[Camikaze]

In that case, yes, I hate ciV as an abbreviation. Completely unclear. And starts without a capital letter, which just seems grating to me for some reason.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I don't like the abreviation ciV because i believe it is ridiculous. On the other hand, i wouldn't say that it sohuld be discouraged, because i do not see any importance in it. It is just futile.

 

[Kid R]

Yeah, it's ridiculous to distinguish by just the case of one letter. The name "Civilization", and also the abbreviation "Civ" containing the roman numeral for 4 - "IV" - was a neat coincidence and it's been kind of fun to make a thing about it during the lifetime of Civ 4.

For Civ 5 to do the same is just lame, even without the fact that just "V" is less cool, being only one letter and less of a coincidence. I think the roman numeral fixation should take a back seat until maybe Civ 100 (Civ) or 101 (CIv), or better still 104 (CIV) when it might be fresh again.

Edit: As an alternative suggestion "Civ" and "Five" share two letters, so "CFive" would be snappy and distinctive, and also retain a little bit of wordplay if people want that.

 

[PieceOfMind]

until maybe Civ 100 (Civ) or 101 (CIv), or better still 104 (CIV) when it might be fresh again.

lol, Maybe let us wait til around 2390AD before worrying about such matters.

 

[Ahriman]

Seriously? A poll on whether or not we should be telling people what abbreviations to use?

As long as the content of anyone's posting is clear, I think we leave them alone when it comes to what abbreviations they use.

 

[Shurdus]

I also kinda like the ciX for Civ6, since it is obviously wrong in the roman numericals but it is funny.

Ahriman: agreed, as long as it is clear, but people may think what they say is clear because it is clear to them, but anyone who reads tyour post may as well completely miss the nuances of it, especially since civ, cIV and ciV are so similar. So even when the meaning of a post is ompletely clear to the careful reader, assuming that everybody is a careful reader is pushing it. Posts should be written with the average reader as a target group in mind, as the typical person who reads it is an average reader. That is why something that is objectively clear is prefered over anything else.

 

[Chalks]

Urgh, this again!

CiV is confusing. See, when I say that at the start of a sentence, you don't even know whether I'm referring to 4 or 5. The context doesn't help since it would be valid to say either was confusing in this thread.

Although CiV (meaning 4) is kinda cute and clever, ciV is "OMG I AM TEH CLEVERORS TOO!". No, you're not, it's confusing and you can't really argue with that. If it confuses people, it's confusing. It confuses people. That's pretty much the end of the argument as to whether or not it's a good idea to use.

The fact that only 6% of the votes think it's a good idea is just the icing on the cake.

 

[Thormodr]

Urgh, this again!

CiV is confusing. See, when I say that at the start of a sentence, you don't even know whether I'm referring to 4 or 5. The context doesn't help since it would be valid to say either was confusing in this thread.

Although CiV (meaning 4) is kinda cute and clever, ciV is "OMG I AM TEH CLEVERORS TOO!". No, you're not, it's confusing and you can't really argue with that. If it confuses people, it's confusing. It confuses people. That's pretty much the end of the argument as to whether or not it's a good idea to use.

The fact that only 6% of the votes think it's a good idea is just the icing on the cake.

The poll is misleading and essentially meaningless. On scale with the rage against 1UPT ones. The Op asks us to overlook the icon that will in all likelihood be used for ciV on these boards which is *shock* *gasp* actually what he abhors the most.

It isn't really 6%.

Moderator Action: removed image

 

[civ_king]

The graphic CiV is fine, however Civ V or Civ 5 gets us to understand better

 

[Chalks]

The poll is misleading and essentially meaningless. On scale with the rage against 1UPT ones. The Op asks us to overlook the icon that will in all likelihood be used for ciV on these boards which is *shock* *gasp* actually what he abhors the most.

It isn't really 6%.

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between a graphic and the confusion that typing it in standard conversation could cause - which is the thing that most people are basing their objections on.

Unless you are proposing that we post the image instead of typing the letters or something.

The graphic is also a bad choice, but for completely different reasons. Apparently reasons which are harder for many people to grasp - ie, it looks basically identical to another icon and it would be nice if it... perhaps... didn't? Since.. you know... the whole point of the icons is so that you can easily differentiate between them....?

Merging unrelated topics is fun though.

 

[ruff_hi]

If we use ciV for Civ 5, then what happens when Civ 6 comes out ... ciVI - which looks like Civ 1.

 

[Chalks]

If we use ciV for Civ 5, then what happens when Civ 6 comes out ... ciVI - which looks like Civ 1.

I love the idea of "Cix" as a parody of all these attempts at abbreviating it just to look clever.

 

[madviking]

Just wait until Civ 104... CivCIV!

But seriously, I always use civ5 when I'm talking about it.

 

[Thormodr]

I'm pretty sure there is a difference between a graphic and the confusion that typing it in standard conversation could cause - which is the thing that most people are basing their objections on.

Unless you are proposing that we post the image instead of typing the letters or something.

The graphic is also a bad choice, but for completely different reasons. Apparently reasons which are harder for many people to grasp - ie, it looks basically identical to another icon and it would be nice if it... perhaps... didn't? Since.. you know... the whole point of the icons is so that you can easily differentiate between them....?

Merging unrelated topics is fun though.

Bull. There is a poll that's stickied that let's you choose between CiV and Civ 5. People have chosen iterations of CiV by over a 2 to 1 margin. I was merely refuting the poll on here that was trumpeting the fact that people love Civ 5 rather than CiV. Like this thread actually means anything. Just a collection of grumblers and complainers.

Let the majority decide. If you don't like it then start your own boards and use whatever you want. Clamp down with an iron fist and disallow CiV. No one is stopping you from doing that.

The amount of butthurt on these boards over the silliest little things.