5,680
edits
Talk:Uni-Tel: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Sigh) |
No edit summary |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
:::::Sorry, but I don't believe you because you just made it clear, ''yet again'', that you're making only a half-hearted attempt to understand my argument and still don't comprehend it; by suggesting that I consider a two-sentence article about an insignificant, inaccessible and completely unremarkable building to be equal in importance with articles about an entire city and the differences between each iteration of it. This is an absurdly poor comparison (in fact, there ''is'' no comparison) and only serves to prove you're not taking anything I say seriously. I suspect you simply decided that I'm advocating harsh, Wikipedia-esque practices of deleting things on the flimsiest of justification even if they're useful (which is ''not at all'' what I'm trying to achieve), but I suppose it's too late to change your opinion of me now.<br> | :::::Sorry, but I don't believe you because you just made it clear, ''yet again'', that you're making only a half-hearted attempt to understand my argument and still don't comprehend it; by suggesting that I consider a two-sentence article about an insignificant, inaccessible and completely unremarkable building to be equal in importance with articles about an entire city and the differences between each iteration of it. This is an absurdly poor comparison (in fact, there ''is'' no comparison) and only serves to prove you're not taking anything I say seriously. I suspect you simply decided that I'm advocating harsh, Wikipedia-esque practices of deleting things on the flimsiest of justification even if they're useful (which is ''not at all'' what I'm trying to achieve), but I suppose it's too late to change your opinion of me now.<br> | ||
:::::Look, all I ask is this: put aside whatever prejudice you may have about my opinion, try to keep an open mind, and carefully review everything I've said; as you apparently still don't understand what I'm trying to say and have consistently failed to respond with anything but defensive rhetoric like the travel agency = Liberty City argument. Just to make it easy, I'll re-state my point. The line that divides notable content from pointless content is a fine one, but it has to be drawn somewhere (and already is, even here), and I simply feel it should be drawn just above articles ''like'' this one (not ''just'' this one), which serve no informative or practical purpose. --[[User:MattyDienhoff|MattyDienhoff]] 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | :::::Look, all I ask is this: put aside whatever prejudice you may have about my opinion, try to keep an open mind, and carefully review everything I've said; as you apparently still don't understand what I'm trying to say and have consistently failed to respond with anything but defensive rhetoric like the travel agency = Liberty City argument. Just to make it easy, I'll re-state my point. The line that divides <s>notable</s> useful content from pointless content is a fine one, but it has to be drawn somewhere (and already is, even here), and I simply feel it should be drawn just above articles ''like'' this one (not ''just'' this one), which serve no informative or practical purpose. --[[User:MattyDienhoff|MattyDienhoff]] 14:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
(unindent) To settle this argument by consensus, do any other users have opinions on this subject? I've made my stance clear, that ingame businesses should be given their own articles like many of the characters have. As for my argument on the Liberty City articles, why should each rendition of the city be given their own article? They make comparisons difficult and can make finding the correct article difficult for new members. All the information could be stated within one article, which is what you had suggested to do for the ingame businesses that do not fit a very subjective notability criteria. Anyway, other views? [[User:A-Dust|A-Dust]] 14:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
:That isn't the only issue. Bluntly, they should have their own articles IF you can write lots of stuff about them. All you can say about Uni-Tel is where it is, and what is written on the sign. You can say more about shops/buildings that are enterable or are safehouses or are involved in missions. You could fit everything about Uni-Tel into a simple list or table. Yes you are are right that it doesn't exist anywhere else, but it SHOULD be listed on "Fake shops/businesses in GTA San Andreas" or whatever - there SHOULD be a list of them, but there should NOT be individual pages UNTIL that list is complete. THEN we can consider having individual pages for SOME of the articles which are worth writing about.<br><br>As for [[Liberty City in GTA III]] - that page can have a lot written about it. Although yes, it is currently badly organised and needs to be fixed. I'm going to have [[Liberty City in the GTA III Era]] or something which details the city, then just small sections about what changed. Obviously [[Liberty City in GTA IV]] is going to be a very different article. - [[w:c:gta:User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] <sup>[[:w:c:gta:User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 17:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
Can we continue the discussion of these articles? MattyDienhoff and I think that non-functional inaccessible unimportant shops should simply be listed on a page, such as [[Business in Vice City]] or [[Businesses in Downtown Vice City]]; since nobody would ever ''want'' to read about shops such as this, as they offer no value in the game, and there could never be more than a couple of sentences and an image at most (which could fit in a table or list-page nicely). Contrastingly, A-Dust feels that everything should have its own article, just in case, and that we shouldn't start drawing the line with 'notability' criteria. | |||
I think A-Dust has a point - if we ''do'' start drawing the line, we have to be very careful where that is drawn. Else we might end up like Wikipedia, which has monnstrous notability laws that mean random editors go round deleting random pages just because they haven't heard of the subject matter. | |||
The reason I think pages like [[Uni-Tel]] should not exist on their own is that the shop has no value in game, it is inaccessible, it is never referred to (eg by characters, websites, radio stations), and there is no reason why any page on this wiki would link to it - except a list of shops in GTA San Andreas, and possibly a list of travel agents (which again, would be useless). However we should still mention everything we can about this on a big list page. The reason we keep character pages, is because you can interact with them, and you might want to know more about it, and there might be a lot more we can find out (eg from other games, websites etc). But what is essentially a box with a picture of the shop on the front is irrelevant to most players, but I think we should still list it. Thoughts? [[w:c:gta:User:Gboyers|Gboyers]] <sup>[[:w:c:gta:User_talk:Gboyers|talk]]</sup> 13:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I'm agree with listing stores such as this within a list or table, as you said, the average two sentances and image would easily fit on a list. This, hopefully, would also significantly reduce the amount of '''empty''' and '''lonely''' pages. However, there are certain articles for vehicles (the [[Vehicles in GTA 1|GTA 1]] (London included) and [[Vehicles in GTA 2|GTA 2]] vehicles to be precise) that have similar problems, so maybe it would be worth listing those in a similar manner, thus further reducing the '''empty pages''' list. The fact that GTA 1, GTA London and GTA 2 have a relatively small amount of vehicles would also make a table or list a more convenient way of displaying them. And, yes, I did create some pages for some of the vehicles in question recently, now I realise that it probably wasn't the best idea I've had so far. [[User:Hardrock182|Hardrock182]] 17:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks for mentioning [[Liberty City in GTA III Era]]. I've been going to suggest a merge between LC in III and LC in LCS for ages (I just keep forgetting). As for this page, I see both sides of the argument, so I won't be much help. '''[[User:Biggest gta fan ever|Biggest GTA Fan Ever]]<sup>''[[User talk:Biggest gta fan ever|Talk]]''</sup>''' 11:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | |||