68,823
edits
User talk:Spaceeinstein: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
(→smw) |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
::Personally, I've always liked the word "era". It ties the games into neat groups and allows canon discussions focusing on these particular groups to be easier to understand. The use of "Era" is not just used on wikis. I see it all the time on GTA Forums (who divide their sidebar into "Era" sections) as well as on other GTA Fansites, so we are not the only ones. As for "Series", much like JF said, it is a word that can be used in a broarder perspective and might confuse various users who will most likley think that "Series" referes to the GTA series, which it does. The game eras are not different series. They are all part of one, which shows that this solution would not work. '''''[[User:Chimpso|Chimpso]]''''' ([[User Talk:Chimpso|Talk]]) 04:23, 13 April 2011 (BST) | ::Personally, I've always liked the word "era". It ties the games into neat groups and allows canon discussions focusing on these particular groups to be easier to understand. The use of "Era" is not just used on wikis. I see it all the time on GTA Forums (who divide their sidebar into "Era" sections) as well as on other GTA Fansites, so we are not the only ones. As for "Series", much like JF said, it is a word that can be used in a broarder perspective and might confuse various users who will most likley think that "Series" referes to the GTA series, which it does. The game eras are not different series. They are all part of one, which shows that this solution would not work. '''''[[User:Chimpso|Chimpso]]''''' ([[User Talk:Chimpso|Talk]]) 04:23, 13 April 2011 (BST) | ||
:::I understand that [[Vice City in GTA III Era]] is a bit silly, but at least it actually describes what it's about: Vice City in the GTA III era. The old title, [[Vice City in GTA Vice City]], made it easy to overlook VCS, and we ended up with a separate article: [[Vice City in GTA Vice City Stories]]. As for title capitalisation, I personally just think it looks nicer, and it's actually one of the policies that makes me prefer being a part of this wiki over others. I understand your concerns, particularly the one about links in sentences, but this why I make use of redirects; To link to [[Police Car]] for example, I would simply type [[police car]], and it wouldn't make the link look ''formal'' (although I know that A-Dust and Gta-mysteries seem to be against linking to redirects). <tt><nowiki>[[police car]]</nowiki></tt> is also easier to type than <tt><nowiki>[[Police (car)|Police]]</nowiki></tt> for example, which is useful for users not familiar with complex naming policies, for both linking and searching. '''[[User:JFletcher|JFletcher]]<sup>''[[User talk:JFletcher|Talk]]''</sup>''' <small>(formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever)</small> 06:13, 13 April 2011 (BST) '''EDIT:''' Redirects can also be used with the eras. When referring to an era within a sentence, it actually makes sense to type ''XYZ is a company in the [[GTA IV era]]'', which will redirect to the appropriate article. '''[[User:JFletcher|JFletcher]]<sup>''[[User talk:JFletcher|Talk]]''</sup>''' <small>(formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever)</small> 06:18, 13 April 2011 (BST) | :::I understand that [[Vice City in GTA III Era]] is a bit silly, but at least it actually describes what it's about: Vice City in the GTA III era. The old title, [[Vice City in GTA Vice City]], made it easy to overlook VCS, and we ended up with a separate article: [[Vice City in GTA Vice City Stories]]. As for title capitalisation, I personally just think it looks nicer, and it's actually one of the policies that makes me prefer being a part of this wiki over others. I understand your concerns, particularly the one about links in sentences, but this why I make use of redirects; To link to [[Police Car]] for example, I would simply type [[police car]], and it wouldn't make the link look ''formal'' (although I know that A-Dust and Gta-mysteries seem to be against linking to redirects). <tt><nowiki>[[police car]]</nowiki></tt> is also easier to type than <tt><nowiki>[[Police (car)|Police]]</nowiki></tt> for example, which is useful for users not familiar with complex naming policies, for both linking and searching. '''[[User:JFletcher|JFletcher]]<sup>''[[User talk:JFletcher|Talk]]''</sup>''' <small>(formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever)</small> 06:13, 13 April 2011 (BST) '''EDIT:''' Redirects can also be used with the eras. When referring to an era within a sentence, it actually makes sense to type ''XYZ is a company in the [[GTA IV Era|GTA IV era]]'', which will redirect to the appropriate article. '''[[User:JFletcher|JFletcher]]<sup>''[[User talk:JFletcher|Talk]]''</sup>''' <small>(formerly User:Biggest gta fan ever)</small> 06:18, 13 April 2011 (BST) | ||
::::ZS - I'm not sure why you suggest Wikipedia having aggressive editors is a good thing. Having people who care a lot about detail and organisation is really, really useful (you and A-Dust being the two here), but if everyone was like that, nothing would get done. On this wiki, we decide things by consensus. As I said, I'd like to hold a discussion (not just with staff) to decide the best way for us to proceed. Either most of us agree, or someone eventually has to make a decision, but that's a long way off. If people have a problem, it is easier for them to complain here, because they won't get their head bitten off! I really don't think we should model ourselves on Wikipedia, for two main reasons. Firstly, they cover a lot more than GTA, so their naming and conventions were not made specifically to suit a wiki about GTA. For example, because they use "series" for every other TV show, film series and game series, they use it for GTA games too; when it might not be the best term. Secondly, we got a LOT of users who don't like the way Wikipedia does things, particularly how the administrators treat the newer users. So yes, take inspiration, but we certainly shouldn't use the fact that they do it as justification for doing it here. I don't think anyone here thinks we should just copy them. | ::::ZS - I'm not sure why you suggest Wikipedia having aggressive editors is a good thing. Having people who care a lot about detail and organisation is really, really useful (you and A-Dust being the two here), but if everyone was like that, nothing would get done. On this wiki, we decide things by consensus. As I said, I'd like to hold a discussion (not just with staff) to decide the best way for us to proceed. Either most of us agree, or someone eventually has to make a decision, but that's a long way off. If people have a problem, it is easier for them to complain here, because they won't get their head bitten off! I really don't think we should model ourselves on Wikipedia, for two main reasons. Firstly, they cover a lot more than GTA, so their naming and conventions were not made specifically to suit a wiki about GTA. For example, because they use "series" for every other TV show, film series and game series, they use it for GTA games too; when it might not be the best term. Secondly, we got a LOT of users who don't like the way Wikipedia does things, particularly how the administrators treat the newer users. So yes, take inspiration, but we certainly shouldn't use the fact that they do it as justification for doing it here. I don't think anyone here thinks we should just copy them. | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
::::So let's look at our options and figure out what the best overall solution is for this wiki (rather than just the correct one, the current one, the easy one, the pretty one or the Wikipedia one). | ::::So let's look at our options and figure out what the best overall solution is for this wiki (rather than just the correct one, the current one, the easy one, the pretty one or the Wikipedia one). | ||
::::If we just used 'GTA III' to sometimes mean the era and sometimes mean the game, that would get VERY messy. This is why we use "GTA 1" which is not technically correct (the game was simply called 'Grand Theft Auto'). I don't believe that the best way to do things is to be technically correct, then disambiguate with brackets, such as "Grand Theft Auto III (series)" and "Grand Theft Auto III (game)". I find that very ugly, and very difficult for new users to use, and awkward for everyone else to use. At the moment, everyone knows exactly where a link to [[GTA III]] is going to go, and everyone can use it easily. If we adopted the Wikipedia approach, it would not be clear. It would be harder to use, less clear to new users, more awkward for old users, and would require a LOT of cleaning up when people got it wrong. I don't want everyone to go to a disambiguation page 90% of the time. One bad example is the Musewiki, where *EVERY* page has a disambiguation of brackets. It's horrible to use, and with no redirects (and correct punctuation required), it can be impossible. For example [http://www.musewiki.org/Futurism Futurism] reveals nothing, but [http://www.musewiki.org/Futurism_(song) Futurism (song)] and [http://www.musewiki.org/Futurism_(tablature) Futurism (tablature)] do. I appreciate my "Police Car" names aren't 100% accepted, but "Police (car)" and "Police (force)" are just ugly and not nice to use, and it stops us grouping similar vehicles with different names together (like [[Limo]]). I really like our sensible way of doing things, it feels more like natural speech ''"oh I drove the police car in GTA 1"'' not ''"I drove the Police (by which I mean the vehicle not a man with a moustache) in Grand Theft Auto (by which I mean the first game in the first series of the Grand Theft Auto series, rather than the entire series of series)"'' and I think it makes us stand out. | ::::If we just used 'GTA III' to sometimes mean the era and sometimes mean the game, that would get VERY messy. This is why we use "GTA 1" which is not technically correct (the game was simply called 'Grand Theft Auto'). I don't believe that the best way to do things is to be technically correct, then disambiguate with brackets, such as "Grand Theft Auto III (series)" and "Grand Theft Auto III (game)". I find that very ugly, and very difficult for new users to use, and awkward for everyone else to use. At the moment, everyone knows exactly where a link to [[Grand Theft Auto III|GTA III]] is going to go, and everyone can use it easily. If we adopted the Wikipedia approach, it would not be clear. It would be harder to use, less clear to new users, more awkward for old users, and would require a LOT of cleaning up when people got it wrong. I don't want everyone to go to a disambiguation page 90% of the time. One bad example is the Musewiki, where *EVERY* page has a disambiguation of brackets. It's horrible to use, and with no redirects (and correct punctuation required), it can be impossible. For example [http://www.musewiki.org/Futurism Futurism] reveals nothing, but [http://www.musewiki.org/Futurism_(song) Futurism (song)] and [http://www.musewiki.org/Futurism_(tablature) Futurism (tablature)] do. I appreciate my "Police Car" names aren't 100% accepted, but "Police (car)" and "Police (force)" are just ugly and not nice to use, and it stops us grouping similar vehicles with different names together (like [[Limo]]). I really like our sensible way of doing things, it feels more like natural speech ''"oh I drove the police car in GTA 1"'' not ''"I drove the Police (by which I mean the vehicle not a man with a moustache) in Grand Theft Auto (by which I mean the first game in the first series of the Grand Theft Auto series, rather than the entire series of series)"'' and I think it makes us stand out. | ||
::::Also, "Vehicles in GTA III" could mean the era or the game, and we'd need to disambiguate EVERY page which has anything to do with with I, 2, III, IV and V games and eras. Whereas currently "Vehicles in GTA III Era" is very clear and everyone knows what to expect, and everyone knows how to find it when they want something regarding an era. Same goes for "Vice City in GTA III Era" refers to the whole era, allowing for "Vice City in GTA Vice City" to be a sort-of sub-page. | ::::Also, "Vehicles in GTA III" could mean the era or the game, and we'd need to disambiguate EVERY page which has anything to do with with I, 2, III, IV and V games and eras. Whereas currently "Vehicles in GTA III Era" is very clear and everyone knows what to expect, and everyone knows how to find it when they want something regarding an era. Same goes for "Vice City in GTA III Era" refers to the whole era, allowing for "Vice City in GTA Vice City" to be a sort-of sub-page. | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
::The directions was an example but I was also thinking of images/files of neighbourhoods and districts to give people a better idea of where the image is taken from. We could also use more description for individual places (for example locations for businesses and the mission for character images/files). [[User:A-Dust|A-Dust]] 20:46, 18 June 2011 (BST) | ::The directions was an example but I was also thinking of images/files of neighbourhoods and districts to give people a better idea of where the image is taken from. We could also use more description for individual places (for example locations for businesses and the mission for character images/files). [[User:A-Dust|A-Dust]] 20:46, 18 June 2011 (BST) | ||
Just to jump on the bandwagon here, I think categorisation would be good for this too. We can go one step beyond [[:Category:Screenshots of GTA San Andreas]] and have [[:Category:Screenshots of Los Santos]] (or just use [[:Category:Los Santos]]), also for the more rural areas ([[:Category:Screenshots of Red County]]) and also things like [[:Category:Skyscrapers]], [[:Category:Beaches]] etc. Descriptions should be better, but not hugely detailed. I'd say an ideal one is something like ''"A screenshot of the landscape of [[Red County]] in [[GTA San Andreas]], looking South from [[Fern Ridge]] overlooking XYZ. [[San Fierro]] can be seen in the distance. In this screenshot is a [[Tractor]], [[Coach]] and [[BF-400]]."'' That gives a description, the location, a position/direction (if relevant), and quick overview of the subjects (if anyone is interested). There's no point having location descriptions for [[:File:Bravura-GTASA-front.jpg|vehicle screenshots]] or anything, and there's no point putting north/south/east/west unless it's relevant (IE if the direction is obvious, like a building only has one visible side; or if the direction is irrelevant). Hopefully that's not too hard, but I'm more bothered about categorisation and the {{template|screenshot}} tags than lengthy descriptions. Make sense? Also, I think we should start using specific "screenshot" categories so that we can empty out main categories - [[:Category:Vehicles in GTA San Andreas|this]] should not be used for images IMO. [[User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] 04:13, 19 June 2011 (BST) | Just to jump on the bandwagon here, I think categorisation would be good for this too. We can go one step beyond [[:Category:Screenshots of GTA San Andreas]] and have [[:Category:Screenshots of Los Santos]] (or just use [[:Category:Los Santos]]), also for the more rural areas ([[:Category:Screenshots of Red County]]) and also things like [[:Category:Skyscrapers]], [[:Category:Beaches]] etc. Descriptions should be better, but not hugely detailed. I'd say an ideal one is something like ''"A screenshot of the landscape of [[Red County]] in [[Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas|GTA San Andreas]], looking South from [[Fern Ridge]] overlooking XYZ. [[San Fierro]] can be seen in the distance. In this screenshot is a [[Tractor]], [[Coach]] and [[BF-400]]."'' That gives a description, the location, a position/direction (if relevant), and quick overview of the subjects (if anyone is interested). There's no point having location descriptions for [[:File:Bravura-GTASA-front.jpg|vehicle screenshots]] or anything, and there's no point putting north/south/east/west unless it's relevant (IE if the direction is obvious, like a building only has one visible side; or if the direction is irrelevant). Hopefully that's not too hard, but I'm more bothered about categorisation and the {{template|screenshot}} tags than lengthy descriptions. Make sense? Also, I think we should start using specific "screenshot" categories so that we can empty out main categories - [[:Category:Vehicles in GTA San Andreas|this]] should not be used for images IMO. [[User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] 04:13, 19 June 2011 (BST) | ||
:Wouldn't that be too cumbersome to navigate around, having two separate categories for the same topic? It makes sense to place them there.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 10:46, 19 June 2011 (BST) | :Wouldn't that be too cumbersome to navigate around, having two separate categories for the same topic? It makes sense to place them there.--'''[[User:Spaceeinstein|spaceeinstein]]''' 10:46, 19 June 2011 (BST) | ||