5,680
edits
User talk:ZS: Difference between revisions
→Re:Questions: My thoughts
(→Re:Questions: My thoughts) |
|||
| Line 490: | Line 490: | ||
*Image names should fit a [[Grand Theft Wiki: Games|standard]]. The best standard is the condensed form (GTA1, GTAVC, GTAIV). As well as 'consistency', it means we can automate things a lot more, as we're starting to do with infobox templates. For example - an infobox would be able to automatically know which image to display, just by knowing the games the vehicle/character/mission is in and its name. For example, for [[Comet]] it would automatically guess [vehiclename]-[gameid]-front.jpg so it would guess [[:File:Comet-GTAIV-front.jpg]] and find a working image. | *Image names should fit a [[Grand Theft Wiki: Games|standard]]. The best standard is the condensed form (GTA1, GTAVC, GTAIV). As well as 'consistency', it means we can automate things a lot more, as we're starting to do with infobox templates. For example - an infobox would be able to automatically know which image to display, just by knowing the games the vehicle/character/mission is in and its name. For example, for [[Comet]] it would automatically guess [vehiclename]-[gameid]-front.jpg so it would guess [[:File:Comet-GTAIV-front.jpg]] and find a working image. | ||
*I think it is important that we agree our new standards now, before [[GTA V]] hits. We already have a lot of new stuff in place, like the character/vehicle infoboxes, which is going to make SUCH a huge difference when we get all that new content. Reorganising the old games to FIT those new standards is less urgent - at the moment we really need to agree it, and get the structures/templates ready. I'd rather we held discussions about things like categories first, rather than having one user spend a thousand hours editing 50% of the images on the wiki if it could be done differently. We don't have much time left - we need to get these things discussed, agreed, and ready to go. [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | *I think it is important that we agree our new standards now, before [[GTA V]] hits. We already have a lot of new stuff in place, like the character/vehicle infoboxes, which is going to make SUCH a huge difference when we get all that new content. Reorganising the old games to FIT those new standards is less urgent - at the moment we really need to agree it, and get the structures/templates ready. I'd rather we held discussions about things like categories first, rather than having one user spend a thousand hours editing 50% of the images on the wiki if it could be done differently. We don't have much time left - we need to get these things discussed, agreed, and ready to go. [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC) | ||
::I've been watching this discussion from the sideline, and although this may be pointless, I'll just give my opinion on some of the matters covered here. I mostly agree with ZS, except for this not being a good time for organisational tasks. This is the ''perfect'' time to reorganise stuff, while not much ''new'' content is being added. | |||
::'''Image categorisation:''' I completely agree with ZS on this one. There are thousands of images on this wiki, and I'm not going to go through all of the broad screenshot categories to find a specific image. Categories aren't a navigational element of the wiki (for readers), they're an organisational element (for editors) to find all related articles/images/anything else, and categorisation should be specific. Just like I don't go to [[:Category:Missions]] to find a specific mission from a specific game, the same goes for images. I sorta like Gboyers' idea of sub-categories for images, but that has it's limitations - That only makes sense for categories that have a ''lot'' of images, otherwise it's a waste of a category to only hold two or three images. And having sub-categories for some while using the main category for others would be inconsistent and unintuitive. | |||
::'''Image naming conventions:''' As you all know, images are not my specialty at all, but I can definitely see where ZS is coming from. We don't ever use 'GTAIV', we use 'GTA IV', so the image names are already ''inconsistent'' - but I don't think that matters at all. This isn't content, it's code - And code usually follows conventions that are easy to use, rather than reflecting policies that relate to content. I think that 'GTA4' is a lot easier to read than 'GTAIV', and is no more ''inconsistent'' or ''unofficial'', considering the ''official version'' (at least on this wiki) is 'GTA IV'. To the point of professionality: I completely agree that it needs to be standardised, but I don't think that the standard needs to be based on content-based policies. | |||
::'''Redirects:''' Not that this has actually been discussed as such, but I still have an opinion. I have never agreed with the movement to abolish the use of redirects. I ''definitely'' agree with A-Dust that they aren't the nicest sight in the world (referring to the 'Redirected from' text), but either are piped links. And unlike that small link under the page title after following a redirect, piped links make the wiki more difficult to use because they make articles take longer to write, and make editing more confusing. Redirects also allow users to make links without knowing the exact title of an article. I always use redirects to simplify code, and if I link to something only to find that it's a red link, I don't change the link - I find the correct title, and create a redirect at my link. '''[[User:JFletcher|JFletcher]]<sup>''[[User talk:JFletcher|Talk]]''</sup>''' <small>(formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever)</small> 08:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC) | |||