Grand Theft Wiki talk:Titles

From Grand Theft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Game Names

The biggest concern surrounding consistency here is the use of game names in text, section headings and page titles.

For example, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is the full name of the game, so absolutely must be used on that page. However, on pages about that game, do we really need to use the full title. Page titles like List of Missions in Grand Theft Auto:Vice City are cumbersome to read and to type. Shortened titles like Missions in GTA Vice City are easier in both of those respects.

There are many choices of title for that page, for example:

  • Missions in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City <-- Wikipedia version
  • Missions in GTA: Vice City
  • Missions in GTA:Vice City
  • Missions in GTA Vice City <-- Current GTW version
  • Missions in GTA VC
  • Missions in GTA: VC
  • Missions in GTA:VC
  • Missions in GTAVC
  • Missions in VC
  • Missions in Vice City <-- refers to the city, not the game, so could be VCS and GTAVC
  • Missions in Vice City (game) <-- Wikipedia sometimes does this

Sites like Wikipedia use the long "correct" titles, but pages like List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories really do look silly.

Notice that Wikipedia says "List of" at the start of the title - that is something that we do not do here on Grand Theft Wiki.

So which should we use? This is something that needs to be debated here.

I think that we should use either Missions in GTA: Vice City, or Missions in GTA Vice City, that is formal enough, especially since this website is based on Grand Theft Auto. To add to that, Rockstar also officially uses the term GTA in the same way as Grand Theft Auto for games. Adding Grand Theft Auto, would just make more clutter in my opinion. 47 21:33, 25 March 2007 (BST)
I agree entirely - it's not as if anybody here isn't going to know what "GTA" stands for - especially those viewing mission lists. The last question is whether or not to use the colon... GTA: Vice City or GTA Vice City? The full names MUST use a colon, but do the short names? If we do use it, then you should ALWAYS use the colon (except for GTA III and GTA IV). If we don't use the colon, then the only time we do use it is when the names are written in full. We need to make a decision here to achieve consistency. Xenon 22:53, 25 March 2007 (BST)
Alright I see your point. Adding the colon will further cause a lot of mess, especailly with new users, because they will get confused on whether to use it or not. It is most obvious that the "GTA Vice City" is self explanatory just like "GTA III". Like I said using it for one and not the other would cause a hell of a lot of mistakes by general users.

47 01:12, 26 March 2007 (BST)

So you think it's best to stick with what we have now, and only use the colon when the game title is written out in full? I think that is our best and simplest option. The only exceptions to that rule are the numeric titles (Grand Theft Auto 1, Grand Theft Auto 2, Grand Theft Auto III and Grand Theft Auto IV) - Xenon 18:44, 26 March 2007 (BST)

Another consistency issue

After a short discussion with Gboyers, I think it's time we discussed this publicly: I feel there should be some sort of consensus arrived at regarding how we format headings in articles, in particular whether or not to use [[links]] in the actual headings themselves. I am in agreement with Gboyers on the fact that it looks better without links in headings, as it maintains a consistent flow and aesthetic. Personally, I think links are nice to have, but should be kept within text to avoid headings being of two different colors (e.g. black and blue), since we aren't going to have a link for every heading. Thoughts? EganioTalk 21:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that links should be left out of headings. The purpose of a heading is to separate two topics that fit in the same article (eg. A page about a character could have ==Appearances in GTA Vice City== and ==Appearances in GTA San Andreas==). Links would distract from that purpose. If a link is necessary, I think that it should be formatted as follows:
==Appearances in GTA Vice City==
In GTA Vice City...
Thoughts? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 23:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

That is what you would have to do if we disallowed links in headings. In my opinion you can rarely link too much (unless it becomes confusing). If you need to link in a header, then it probably shouldn't be a header, and it should be formatted some other way, such as a table or a few separate bulleted lists with an intro line. Gboyers talk 00:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. If it was possible to link too much, we wouldn't have a page to display pages without links. If it is possible to make a link, I think that it should be done. In my opinion, even red links are a good idea, but Gboyers may disagree because it makes the wiki look empty. {like the situation with empty headers, which I don't agree on either). How about this, take a page like Radio Stations in GTA IV. It could be formatted where every station is a header, and lists what songs are played on that station. Because every header could be a link, we could allow header links. The use of headers would simply be for a larger font. But on pages where not every header can be a link we could disallow it. So my idea is for header links to be consistent with the rest of the page. Thoughts? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 08:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Place or Game in Article Names

This discussion was imported from User talk:Gboyers. The first two posts are a direct discussion between User:Gboyers and User:Biggest gta fan ever.

Freeways in GTA IV was once called Freeways in the GTA IV rendition of Liberty City, which moved to Freeways in Liberty City in GTA IV, which a few days later I compressed to Freeways in GTA IV. I was thinking that Freeways in GTA IV would be much easier to find, and we all know that GTA IV takes place in Liberty City (anyone who wants to know about the freeways anyway). I noticed however that your the one that made Bridges in Liberty City in GTA IV, meaning that you have a reason for mentioning Liberty City? I think that one of them needs to be moved for consistency, but which one? Oh, and sorry for having one huge post and taking up all the space on your talk page again. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 05:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I recall a decision being made on whether to mention games or cities. Normally, you'd say city (Bridges in San Andreas). But where there are multiple 3D renditons of a city, then mention the game name instead (Bridges in GTA IV). Don't bother mentioning both (unless you have to). Create redirects and/or disambigs as much as possible (whichever is appropriate). However, if a feature is only in one rendition, you can leave it as the city name (eg: Subway in Liberty City?).
The reason for all that is because Liberty City is a place, and GTA III is a game - things to do with the place should be part of the place as much as possible. However, if Rockstar keep re-using cities, they're all going to have to be moved to the game's name. And I also don't like having different styles for different games (not that anyone would notice). So should we move to use "in GTA IV" for everything, instead of the city names? Or should we stick with using the best option, and using the 2nd best if that one is impossible, and using 3rd best if that one is impossible? Gboyers talk 05:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, your example, there is a subway in every Liberty City. Secondly, going by the current policy, we can't have Bridges in Liberty City because there are bridges in EVERY GTA game. As for the policy change, it's something that might have to be discussed, because although mentioning the place would be the absolute correct way (there are bridges in Liberty City which is in GTA IV/It would be best to place them in the city rather than the game in the name), but as the cities get re-used, we're going to find large amounts of inconsistency with the current best, or second best, or third best, etc.. For example, GTA San Andreas can have (almost) everything under the place name, games that take place in Vice City are half way there (same city in GTA Vice City and GTA Vice City Stories/and apart from GTA 1 that's the only rendition) but Liberty City? With two completeley different (3D) renditions, and one of them being used twice, it's almost always Bridges in Liberty City in GTA III Era or Bridges in Liberty City in GTA IV. That's one thing you mentioned is that you don't like different formatting accross games, which is being done, and thinking about the future, what if there is another Vice City and San Andreas?
A move to game name would ensure that it was kept consistent, however, what about the Liberty City in the GTA III Era. We couldn't have Bridges in GTA III because the same bridges are featured in GTA Liberty City Stories. This is why discussion is needed on the topic, does anyone have any ideas? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 06:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
For this reasoning, maybe it is just best to keep the current system at least for now if no one has any suggestions. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 07:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not quite what I suggested. There are a few options - I'm going to use bridges just as an example word, not a real-life suggestion:
Number 1 2 3 4
Single Rendition Bridges in San Andreas Bridges in GTA San Andreas Bridges in San Andreas Bridges in San Andreas in GTA IV
Multiple Renditions Bridges in GTA IV Bridges in GTA IV Bridges in Liberty City in GTA San Andreas Bridges in Liberty City in GTA IV
Summary Place name if possible
Game name if not
Game name always Place name if possible
Place-in-game if not
Place-in-game always
Pros Currently Used Consistent More descriptive
More obvious
More descriptive
Cons Inconsistent Relies on games, not place names Can be long / unneccessary Always long / unnecessary
We currently use #1 (although #3 is sometimes used). I suggest we move to use #2, because then it is consistent, and we don't have to change things around for every new game, although it does talk about games, not places. We could use #3 or #4, but these could be a bit too long (Police Stations in Vice City in GTA Vice City Stories). I'm just glad we use "GTA" not "Grand Theft Auto". I think #2 is the most consistent, and the best to use - even if it is slightly inaccurate. Don't forget that redirects should exist, and don't forget that this applies to categories too. Thoughts? Gboyers talk 17:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Almost entirely agreed. The only problem is, relying on game name, what happens to the bridges in Vice City? We can't use Bridges in GTA Vice City because the same city (and same bridges) appears in GTA Vice City Stories. I think that this is another reason why (in the past) #1 would have been best, but with a move to #2 being an almost important change for consistency while keeping page names short, what would we do in this case? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 04:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
That is a good exception to the rule. Perhaps that could be Bridges in Vice City, with Bridges in GTA Vice City and Bridges in GTA Vice City Stories both redirecting there. Or it could just be at one of those, with the other one redirecting. I think that keeps everything factual and consistent. Just so long as you do NOT use Bridges in GTA Vice City and GTA Vice City Stories or anything stupid!! Gboyers talk 04:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Defiantly Bridges in Vice City with the others redirecting. So we have an agreement? I guess it's time to do the task of finding all Bridges in San Andreas style articles and moving them to Bridges in GTA San Andreas. And when I moved this discussion, I kind of guessed that it would remain between us, but it was just a matter of fairness. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 05:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Wait, in that case, it would become Bridges in Liberty City (because of GTA III and GTA Liberty City Stories having the same affect of the Vice City games), defeating the purpose of the policy change because of Liberty City in GTA IV. So I think use Bridges in GTA III or Bridges in GTA Vice City and have Bridges in GTA Liberty City Stories and Bridges in GTA Vice City Stories (respectively) link back there. GTA III and GTA VC being the prominent games. Thoughts? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 05:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
We can't change everything just for one example - it's not just bridges I'm talking about, it's freeways, subway, rivers, islands, police stations, hospitals, airports, trees etc etc. For bridges, you would have: Bridges in Liberty City (for 3 and LCS, with redirects) and Bridges in GTA IV (use "did you mean" links at the top), also Bridges in Vice City (with redirects) and Bridges in GTA San Andreas. That should do it! The only other option is the one you suggested (redirecting Bridges in GTA Liberty City Stories to Bridges in GTA III, and using that for both games). Feel free to cheat (like that), but don't forget those redirects!! Gboyers talk 06:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

using placenames is good for GTA111 era games but the liberty city has been redesigned in GTA IV theretor uing placenames would cauce confusion Chip2007 1:22PM 18 november 2008 GMT

To me, it seems like the most logical thing to do would be (using the "Bridges" example) to have "Bridges in (game)" and if a game re-uses the same city, have the later one redirect to the earlier one. So, for instance, "Bridges in GTA Liberty City Stories" would redirect to "Bridges in GTA III", but "Bridges in GTA IV" would be a separate page. This will also allow for easier integration of new pages for later games. "Bridges in GTA Vice City Stories" would redirect to "Bridges in GTA Vice City", etc. I would think any "Bridges in (city)" should be disambigs, linking to the different "Bridges in (game)" pages. --GuildKnightTalk2me 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I was actually on my way back here to say, "Don't just say feel free to cheat, we need to choose one or the other." But I do like the cheat idea. So Agreed. Doeas anyone else have any comments or have we come to an agreement? (oh and Gboyers, turns out it was a good idea to move the discussion to a public place). Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, No one has objected, I'm going to start the moving tomorow, placing this talk page in Recent Edits and giving people one last chance to comment. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 01:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Chinatown Wars

Similar to one of the problems above, I have been seeing edits like this one to add mention of GTA CW (The Statue of Happiness is a tourist attraction in GTA IV and GTA CW). Seems GTA IV and GTA CW take place in the same city, we are going to get alot of pages about locations saying this. So should it be enough to say Liberty City in GTA IV... which automatically means it's in CW (just click the link to LC in IV to find that out), using GTA IV as the game mentioned because like we said above (saying Bridges in GTA III even though they are in LCS as well) because GTA IV was the first released (and more prominent game)? As for the fact that Alderney doesn't exist in CW, those pages don't say in Liberty City in GTA IV because Alderney isn't in Liberty City, the pages simply say in Alderney in GTA IV, so there is no problem with what is/isn't in both. For something that is only in CW (because CW does have some of it's own "locations"), it would say in Liberty City in GTA CW. Thoughts? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 02:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I think GTA Chinatown Wars is part of the GTA IV Era. So just like we have Liberty City in GTA III Era, we need Liberty City in GTA IV Era. That includes GTA IV, the DLC, and CW. So the Statue of Happiness is in LC in the IV era, rather than in LC in IV. We have separate pages for Liberty City in GTA III and Liberty City in GTA Liberty City Stories only to describe the differences. We mention things are "in GTA III and GTA LCS" quite a lot, and it's never been a problem, but the above is even simpler. That make sense? Gboyers talk 13:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense, just one thing, Liberty City in GTA III and Liberty City in GTA Liberty City Stories both redirect to Liberty City in GTA III Era (we don't have separate articles). Right now, Liberty City in GTA Chinatown Wars already redirects to Liberty City in GTA IV, so should we just move that to Liberty City in GTA IV Era, and then give it some work to add the CW stuff? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 06:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
That's the best way to start, yes. If you later decide that there is enough for a separate article, say "for more detail go to LC in GTA III" and on those articles just say "its the same as LC in III Era but...." Gboyers talk 12:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)}

Image names

I'm in disagreement with the current idea of jumbling all wordings in an image name into one big mess (i.e. [1] and [2]). It's less readable, even with capitalisation, and is even difficult to manage when used in large numbers in galleries. Isn't it a point for an image name to provide clarity? What happened to using parenthesis? - ZS 17:51, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

In my own opinion there is nothing wrong with the current re-naming of image files and there is no problem in reading the file names. This is also consistant with the names of character files, which was carried out over half a year due to my abscence from Grand Theft Wiki, and there was no criticism of the naming for those file names so I continued to rename files in this fashion. The renaming of images provides greater clarity from a name standpoint and there is no real problem with reading them, again, from my own experience of reading the file names. As for parenthesis, as explained above, there has been a large period of time to criticise this naming style and, as it wasn't taken, I continued to rename images in this fashion. A-Dust 18:09, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
I think having really long names can be very awkward, particularly when looking at the code. For example, names like File:Pony (GTASA) (Life's a Beach) (rear quarter).jpg or File:Yakuza Stinger (GTALCS) (rear).jpg are long and confusing, when looking at code. The names themselves provide clarity, but it's not hard to find out what an image shows (as generally it will be showing on the page). I think it would be hardest for inexperienced people who see [[File:Pony (GTASA) (Life's a Beach) (rear quarter).jpg|thumb|250|A [[pony]] in [[Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas|GTA SA]]]] and have NO idea which bits to copy, which bits to change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone tries to guess image names, so they don't need to be THAT consistent? I think keeping image names simpler (without loads of spaces and brackets) would help make things easier for everyone. How about a format like File:Pony-GTASA.jpg, which uses no confusing spaces or brackets. Extra images (such as rear) could be simply added on like File:Pony-GTASA-rear.jpg. I think that makes everything more obvious? Gboyers talk 18:42, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
A hyphen approach is good. It minimizes word bundles and should substitute the spaces well, because it's understandable how it can be confused as being part of the caption. However, we still have to be specific because vehicles in particular come in multiple variants. "Image:Pony (GTASA) (Life's a Beach) (rear quarter).jpg" is more of an exception as it can only be associated with a mission (regular Ponies in GTASA may also come with a similar stereo system as load). Surely it can be shortened to "Image:Pony-GTASA-LifesABeach-rear.jpg". Names for standard vehicle images should be more straightforward, as you stated with "Pony-GTASA-rear.jpg". - ZS 18:59, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Just a note to say that vehicle images could keep the rear quarter section by adding RQV to the name. As for the images, I can start to change the images and add a hyphen if that is best for everyone. As I said above, I have no problem with it but others may well have. As for image names, as I argued when changing the character images, the policy of consistency should be enforced, otherwise what is the point in having it in the first place? I also have no problems with continuing this. I'd also like to raise the issue of using GTA3 and GTA4 in image names. Surely this should be GTAIII and GTAIV, as that is the name of the game. A-Dust 19:09, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
Since when is Roman numerals simpler than Arabic ones? It might be understandable for template names, but given the need to balance simplicity with specification, this may seem more trivial. Anyway, The hyphen format works well (see Burrito [3] article) so it should be fair enough. - ZS 19:22, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'll start to change the character and mission file names. And you don't have to move the file names if you don't want to as I'm than willing to continue the project on my own. A-Dust 19:30, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'd strongly suggesty waiting until we have agreed before changing everything (to avoid doing it twice). "RQV" won't make any sense to most people, it's not as if "rear quarter" is a common saying (however accurate). Adding "-rear" is adequate. On this wiki (See Project:Consistency) we use "GTA_III" not "GTA3", but I suppose we could remove the space for these short image names. And keep "rear" in lowercase, everything else in their normal cases. So that would make File:Pony-GTAIII-rear.jpg Gboyers talk 19:44, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
I still find it ridiculous that this guideline is too stringent. This part of the image name is supposed to be simple to understand. - ZS 20:02, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that "GTAIV" is too hard to understand? That's what it's called, and how it always should be abbreviated, and is easily recognisable. I don't really see the problem, compared with loads of spaces and brackets and non-obvious abbreviations like "RQV". Gboyers talk 20:14, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

It pretty much carries the same meaning, with one or two less characters. Besides, "front" or "rear" has long been used. I never mentioned using FQV or RQV as an abbreviation. - ZS 20:23, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
A-Dust did! But don't worry, I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything, just trying to figure out what would be best. Although GTA4 means the same as GTA IV, we've always tried to remain consistent and stick with one or the other (we chose IV). I also think it helps people realise it's the game's name, not "game number 4" (eg many people wrongly call GTA Vice City "GTA4", because it came after GTA III). People going around putting GTA3 and GTA4 makes things clash, especially when we end up with misnamed pages. However, maybe it would be simpler to use GTA4 with these short image names? Gboyers talk 20:28, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
It's simpler, but do keep in mind these are just image names. People tend only to be concerned about whether they can easily understand what meaning the names carry. If they want to be sure about accuracy of game titles, they consult the article itself. And such regulation is really non-essential in larger Wikias such as the Fallout wiki, TF2 wiki, or the WOWwiki. Besides, lots of game and movie series are just as confusing chronologically as GTA, so it's more unlikely now that people will confuse GTA4 as GTAVC. - ZS 09:35, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just thought it was a little silly insisting on IV on the wiki and 4 on images. But if you genuinely think that [[File:Pony-GTA4-rear.jpg|thumb|250|A [[pony]] in [[Grand Theft Auto IV|GTA IV]]]] is significantly easier to read than [[File:Pony-GTAIV-rear.jpg|thumb|250|A [[pony]] in [[Grand Theft Auto IV|GTA IV]]]], then I'll trust your judgement. Anyone else got any comments before we proceed? Gboyers talk 12:24, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

I have one, although it may be a little late. Like Image:Alderneysafehouse-GTA4-exterior.jpg as an example. As mentioned before we try not to have the same naming structure as Wikipedia, them having lowercase article whereas we have uppercase but wherever hyphens aren't used I do think it would be easier to read Image:AlderneySafehouse-GTA4-exterior.jpg as opposed to Image:Alderneysafehouse-GTA4-exterior.jpg. But then again we do need to keep the names as close to the in-game spelling as we possibly can. And some image names with punctuation marks are a little confusing. I personally think that images should not have these. Oh, and I do think that GTAIV, placed in the title would be better than GTA4. Such names on mission names. Gta-mysteries