Talk:San Andreas

Split

Can we split this into two articles like Liberty City? We should have San Andreas in GTA San Andreas and San Andreas in GTA 1, with this page just being a disambigutation and overview. Alternatively, this page could be entirely about the GTASA rendition with an alternative "see also" or "did you mean" link to San Andreas in GTA 1. Thoughts? Gboyers ^talk 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think splitting it into two pages would be good. San Andreas in GTA San Andreas and San Andreas in GTA 1 sound good to me. --GuildKnight^Talk2me 22:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur. It's a little too ambiguous as it stands..."which San Andreas do you mean???" :-) Eganio^Talk 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Images

There have been recent image replacements that have been undone twice now, and I think it's time we discuss them rather than endlessly undoing and re-doing edits. The images in flux are Image:FlintCounty.jpg vs. Image:Flint.jpg; Image:BoneCounty.jpg vs. Image:Bone county.jpg; and Image:TierraRobada.jpg vs. Image:Robada.jpg. Lioshenka made a good point that Flint County is oftentimes regarded as "spooky" (e.g. as a source of Myths in GTA San Andreas), and perhaps capturing an image reflecting this aspect would be better than the "happy" one I captured, although I think Image:Flint.jpg is too dark to see when it's a thumbnail. As far as the Bone County image is concerned, I personally despise 360 degree panoramic shots, as I think they are very hard to follow with the eyes (in terms of recognizing landscape, etc.), so I would prefer the one I took. And the Tierra Robada scenery I think is better represented by the image I took, although I like the fact that there is a structure in Lioshenka's version. What do other editors think? I think we need to come to a consensus on this rather than independently reverting each other's edits. Thoughts? Eganio^Talk 20:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey-hey good idea! :) I would rather roll back the Flint County image back to mine, I think it captured the mood quite good. Regarding the panorama image - I would feel sorry for that image to simply disappear. How about putting it on the Bone County page instead, underneath the article as well as the normal pic at the top??? And I don't really care about the Tierra Robada image, but I think it is important to capture both desert part and the "green" part of it - remember, Bayside Marina is in Tierra Robada as well!!! The image I had doesn't represent the area very well, but it has both desert and a bit of green meadow, while Eganio's image only has desert which makes it very similar to the Bone country. I know that there is a small green stripe at the background, but it is not very clear. Maybe try taking a picture from that mountain that goes along the sea? I think in that case it would have both landscapes in it. I want to hear your thoughts now! :) Cheers!Lioshenka 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How about a compromise? You make a very good point about Tierra Robada being semi-arid (desert and verdant portions intermingled). How about if I work on capturing a better image for Tierra Robada? I will try to include the more lush northern part (around Bayside Marina) in it. I would then ask you to try and capture a better Flint County image. Personally, I really think the heavily forested aspect is key to any image of Flint County (which you did capture), but I must again stress that the image is too dark for thumbnail size (it's very hard to tell what the image is demonstrating when it's so small and dark). Can you take an image at dusk perhaps? I really think it needs to be lighter. Also, I like your idea of including these images in each region's main article (e.g. Bone County and Flint County). I would suggest this: let's keep my image of daylight in Flint County both here and on the main article, and include your image of the "spooky" aspect in the main article only. I think that because this article is covering the entire state, a simple, clear "here it is" thumbnail image suffices, while particular details, such as panoramic views and showing the more interesting/gritty aspects of each region should only be on each region's main article. What do you think? Eganio^Talk 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Deal ;)

Tierra Robada: Just please make sure you don't leave the deserted part of Tierra Robada out :)

Flint County: good point about the dark thumbnail; I didn't think of that. I have taken a new picture (BTW I am disgraced with myself, because the older picture was actually of Back o' Beyond and not Flint county!)

File:Flint.jpg

]]. Is that allright?

How about putting Sherman dam and Lil Prob Inn pics on the right or making them slightly smaller??? They are landmarks, not the actual towns, I think it would make more sence.Lioshenka 00:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You make a really good point about the landmarks. I hadn't even noticed they had been subsumed into the Counties and Towns heading! I think making a separate heading for Landmarks is a good idea, as there are numerous landmarks throughout San Andreas. Thanks for pointing that out!

And as far as the new images, I'll do my best to include as much of Tierra Robada as possible. Oh, and just as a reminder, Back o' Beyond is part of Flint County, so if you want to take an image there to represent Flint County, feel free! Eganio^Talk 00:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, I did not realise B o'B is a part of Flint County!!! I'll make another picture then, but it will be only tomorrow. I think the idea to move landmarks under a separate heading is great, it will help to keep the article more logical and tidy. But maybe you can make a heading which will only have a paragraph about the landmarks and will contain a link to another article with all places of interest, because the San Andreas article is getting a bit too long? I remember the Brown_Streak had a fare bit of text on the page and then it was moved into separate article.Lioshenka 01:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a link to an article on places of interest is not a bad idea at all! But I do think a few short descriptions (and a couple of images) are in order, since we should keep all summarized information pertaining to San Andreas on this page. I'm envisioning something similar to what's already there, i.e. the Major Cities and Counties and Towns headings, with a few short synopses which will then link to the more decriptive individual articles. We can then include a link to the article you envisioned, i.e. something like Places of Interest in GTA San Andreas. I think it's best to keep all information on San Andreas visible here (but brief, of course)...imagine someone just wanting to get "background" on the state, rather than seeking to delve into its particulars. If we have everything summarized on this page, it saves them trips all over the wiki to see examples of cities, towns, landmarks, etc. The more interested reader, on the other hand, can then just click the links to the more detailed articles if they so desire. Besides, I think maintaining the idea that San Andreas is meant to emulate real-life places is important, and adding a few prominent examples would benefit the article. What do you think? Eganio^Talk 03:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I hope you're not getting the impression that I'm trying to take ownership over this article or anything like that. Please feel free to make whatever changes you think will help. Remember, anything can be undone, if necessary...don't be shy!  :-) Eganio^Talk 03:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)