13,610
edits
User talk:Hardrock182: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
:Yes, "rear quarter view" is the technical way of saying it, but I just felt that "rear view" was enough to describe the picture. If you prefer to use "rear quarter view" then I'm not stopping you, but I doubt the average viewer of the article is really bothered about the exact type of image that is being used. And to be honest, a decent front view of each vehicle - which is what you've been providing - is all that's really necessary for the article. [[User:Hardrock182|Hardrock182]] 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | :Yes, "rear quarter view" is the technical way of saying it, but I just felt that "rear view" was enough to describe the picture. If you prefer to use "rear quarter view" then I'm not stopping you, but I doubt the average viewer of the article is really bothered about the exact type of image that is being used. And to be honest, a decent front view of each vehicle - which is what you've been providing - is all that's really necessary for the article. [[User:Hardrock182|Hardrock182]] 21:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
::I'm sticking to "rear quarter", and using "rear" for shots on the rear only. On the topic of thumbnail descriptions, these screenshots were taken in way to maximize the number of variants that can be illustrated in the articles. Shortening them creates a situation where another editor may be misled to believe this just another redundancy and simply remove it. Besides, if readers find the thumbnail captions too long, they can skip it, but to have them removed outright eliminates clarity. What do we have to lose with detailed descriptions?<p>Also, the rear shot may be used as identification (i.e. when you need to spot one of them in game) and a reference point when describing the vehicle's design, so I see nothing wrong having both front and rear shots in the article (with several exceptions). - [[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | ::I'm sticking to "rear quarter", and using "rear" for shots on the rear only. On the topic of thumbnail descriptions, these screenshots were taken in way to maximize the number of variants that can be illustrated in the articles. Shortening them creates a situation where another editor may be misled to believe this just another redundancy and simply remove it. Besides, if readers find the thumbnail captions too long, they can skip it, but to have them removed outright eliminates clarity. What do we have to lose with detailed descriptions?<p>Also, the rear shot may be used as identification (i.e. when you need to spot one of them in game) and a reference point when describing the vehicle's design, so I see nothing wrong having both front and rear shots in the article (with several exceptions). - [[User:ZS|ZS]] 10:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
Special:Disambiguations | |||
== Cleanup Project == | |||
Hi Hardrock. As part of our first [[Project:Cleanup Projects|Cleanup Project]], I have assigned some tasks to [[staff]] members. This way, all the tasks get done, not just the obvious ones. Could you have a go at [[Special:Disambiguations]] and try and fix as many pages as possible? The pages there link to disambiguation pages instead of the actual pages - and most of them should be fixed. If you could do as many as you feel you can, then that would be great. Just ask if you have any questions, or read the [[Project:Cleanup Projects|project page]]. Thanks - [[w:c:gta:User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] <sup>[[:w:c:gta:User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 20:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC) | |||