13,610
edits
User talk:ZS: Difference between revisions
→Re: Vehicle Infoboxes: New discussion
No edit summary |
(→Re: Vehicle Infoboxes: New discussion) |
||
| Line 513: | Line 513: | ||
Let me know if you have any questions! [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 23:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | Let me know if you have any questions! [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 23:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC) | ||
== Re: Vehicle Infoboxes == | |||
;Why we need an image at the top | |||
The point of having an image at the top of the page is to provide a quick-reference view of what the page is about. On a character page, you see a picture of the character and instantly go "Oh yeah, him." On a vehicle page, you see the vehicle, and know we're talking about a flashy sports car rather than a truck or boat. | |||
I understand the concern of choosing one image over the others, but the alternative is having no image at all there, except for the gallery lower down the page. This would mean the only thing you have to rely on at the top of the page is the opening sentence (The XYZ is an ABC in GTA 123 based on the PQR) and the data in the infobox. | |||
The difference between vehicles in different eras is not ''usually'' that great. The [[Coach]] always looks like a coach, and you can instantly tell it's different to the [[Bus]]. So having a picture of a coach in ANY era gives a pretty good idea of what the page is about. Likewise if you were looking for a character named 'Coach' (as in a coach of a sports team) you'd immediately realise you were on a vehicle page and go hunting. | |||
Having no image at all (near the top) forces people to read, which does not give the same immediate feedback that a lot of people rely on. That's why our error messages and warnings are now in big red [[Help:Message Boxes|mboxes]] rather than just a line of text. | |||
One thing I always try to cater for is the many different reasons that people use the wiki. Let's say just for vehicles - there are many different user cases. Someone might just be idly browsing ("oo that's interesting"). Someone else might be looking for a very specific piece of information ("I wonder what vehicle the [[Cheetah]] is based on"). Other people might be trying to find the name of that sports car they like ("Hmm, was it the Cheetah? No. Was it the Comet? No. Was it the Turismo? Aha, yes"). We have to cater for all of these users and more. The image at the top caters for the idle browsers ("Oh yes, I remember that plane") and the hunters ("Aha, that's the one I wanted"). Does having an image of a Cheetah in GTA IV or V really ruin the experience for them? I don't think it does. Having no image at all until you scroll down (which could be a long way if the vehicle is in many games) does ruin it. | |||
Most people do not read walls of text, it scares them off and makes them NOT want to scroll down - that's why we need SOMETHING at the top of the page to give them an idea of what we're talking about, just a clue, spark that memory, and then they have the rest of the page to find whatever specific information they require for each specific iteration. | |||
;What to do about the different images available | |||
If a vehicle is ''completely'' different between eras - as in ''totally'' unrecognisable or a totally different class - then it should have a separate page as it would be classed as just a separate vehicle. [[Ranger]] might qualify for that, as although both vehicles are a 4x4 (with one in police livery), and there's a chance the vehicles would look the same, they are not really recognisable as the same vehicle. Because the police Ranger is actually a marked [[Rancher]], it should probably be on its own page such as 'Police Rancher' even though that is not its correct name - like we do for [[Police Buffalo]]. | |||
For the special cases you mention - if you are truly concerned that one image cannot at all give a rough idea of what the page is about, that one vehicle is unrecognisable from the other, then you can create an image montage, like the one on [[Los Santos in GTA III Era]]. However, I would expect this only to be used in special situations where there are totally different renditions of the same vehicle, NOT as a regular thing. [[Bus]] might qualify for that, because although it's clearly the same vehicle, the 'modernisation' of it over the in-game decades has changed its appearance dramatically. | |||
What do they do on Wikipedia? For pages like [[Chevrolet Impala]] they have a main infobox+image at the top, then a separate infobox+image for each generation. The first one still gives you a pretty good clue of what the vehicle looks like, even if the generations are quite different. I'm NOT suggesting we need to copy/ape Wikipedia, there is a huge amount that I am proud to do differently. But if you don't like our method, what would you suggest as an alternative? | |||
;Semantics | |||
There is another reason behind all this. The vehicle infobox isn't ''just'' an infobox, it also gathers semantic data. See [[Special:Browse/Admiral]] to see all the data we collect from that page (so far) - title, images, games, categories etc. This means we can output that data in other formats across the wiki. | |||
To see that data in action, check out [[Vehicles in GTA IV/All]] and [[Characters in GTA IV/All]]. Once we add 'class' of vehicle we will be able to separate these out much more logically, and I plan to have that in place for the release of GTA V. But obviously, for this to work, every vehicle needs to have all of that information - and you can see from those tables which vehicles have images missing. | |||
(Now, there is one issue in the tables above. The image associated with the vehicle article is not necessarily from the correct game/era that we want. The only way to fix this would be to add multiple image links on a page. This could be done through the infobox code, although the images wouldn't have to show up in the infobox. Alternatively, we could make a new gallery template where you specify an image from each game.) | |||
I hope that explains everything in more detail. I do understand that you don't like the idea of choosing one image to take 'priority' at the top, but we need something there, and I'm not sure what you're suggesting as the alternative to that. As always, hit me up if you have any questions - [[User:Gboyers|gboyers]] <sup>[[User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC) | |||