Template talk:Grand Theft Auto/Archive 1

Archive 1

Manhunt

Regarding its merit for inclusion, even though the game is set in GTA III canon, it isn't a driving and shooting game like the entire GTA series, existing as a title with a significantly different genre (a tactical stealth-based shooter, like the Metal Gear series), hence its removal from the template. Adding a "spin-off" section in the template just for the title may be a good idea, but I would like hear a few comments about this suggestion before going ahead. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 09:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ╫

Ok would be ok to put it under "Miscellaneous topics"? Its just that the template is used in the Manhunt article.

Seems reasonable to put the link in there for now; we'll see what the other editors think about it. In the meantime, I've given the mods and Manhunt their own section in the seriesbox. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC) ╫

"Eras"

What's up with the "eras" sections? it doesn't make sense to me --Philo 07:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The games are suppose to be separated by mini-series or canon. This setup makes it easy to categorize the game's designs and graphics, and universe. Also, given that it's still not clear if the GTA1, GTA2, and GTA III series of games are connected, it would be misleading to imply that all of them take place in the same universe by clumping all of the games together. Preferably, replacing "era" with "series" would be proper; I admit that the "era" naming is improper and self-invented. Until Rockstar begins producing each GTA game with different designs and canons, I don't this these sections are a problem. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC) ╫

Merging GTA and GTA2 series

Perhaps it'd be wise to merge GTA2 (and the GTA2 series section for that matter) with the Grand Theft Auto section since 1) GTA2 wouldn't be by itself, and 2) Most fans and gamers see a distinct difference between the top-down games of GTA to GTA2 and that of GTA3 to VCS. If no one as any objections (and I don't forget), I'll be merging GTA2 into the Grand Theft Auto. Gold Stur 03:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it, consider merging all of the games into one dedicated navbox, similar to A Man In Pink's recommendation. That way, we won't have to deal with the problem of sorting by "eras" or "series." Other topics will have their own navboxes. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

I'll be going ahead with this proposed configuration and by replacing this template with specialized versions in relevant article. There a few notable articles (Hot Coffee mod for example) that would be left out, but the relevant articles should cover for some of them. This template is becoming way to big to be easily readable, and I believe it's high time we split this chunk up. I'll started by creating {{Grand Theft Auto games}}, which will replace the template used in all GTA games. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 20:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC) ╫

New template proposal

I have designed a new template that could be used to replace the current one. Does everybody approve of it? (Please note that it is not final) Also feel free to revise it and post your changed version below. In case you are wondering, the main changes needed are:

• To expand space at the left end of the left-most text and right end of right-most text.

• To move the view - talk - edit bit onto the header.

If this is accepted, I would like it to be used for the other GTA templates too (characters, games, locations ect.) .:Alex:. 17:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my template suggestion (moved from TF:GTA talk page to here, my comment is also there.) ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, as for the concerns on the navbox guide page in the CVG wikiproject about the show/hide function causing problems if not coded properly. I've avoided that issue by using Template:Navbox generic, which gets a lot of expert attention. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well my template is based off an existing template which originally had something like that underneath the header. I could re-add like that and see how it looks. .:Alex:. 15:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have made some changes, I have added all of the categories into the one template. The links also no longer link to other templates, they instead link to the appropriate section on the Grand Theft Auto page. Perhaps we could replace all of the templates with this one comprehensive template? If someone could fit in a working Show/Hide function, that would be great!

.:Alex:. 17:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The blue and purple text is difficult to see on the dark gray backgrounds. perhaps changing those to lighter grays? ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 00:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pricedown font

Just a concern, I haven't installed the Pricedown font and as it doesn't come with operating systems by default I'm sure most people visiting don't have the font. At the moment the "Grand Theft Auto" title on the template looks very strange (in helvetica). Personally I don't think the template should stay like this. here's what the image looks without the font (tinypic link). ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the pricedown font is unnecessary. ♦^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 00:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I had changed it a little while ago so it would look fine on both machines with it installed and machine without it installed. Someone must have changed it... .:Alex:. 09:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the font should be used. Most users don't have the font installed so for most users, it ends up looking like:
GRAND THEFT AUTO
That looks just terrible at that size. --Jtalledo (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, WP:MOSCOLOR says that specifying font families and absolute sizes should almost always be avoided. In this case, where the only reason size and font family is specified solely for decorational purposes, a specialized font is a bad idea. --Jtalledo (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Navbox colour overrides

We shouldn't be overriding the default colours without reason in the first place. Rather than fight over what colour to paint the bikeshed we should leave it the colour it was when we bought it. I'm planning on removing all colour overrides from this template as pointless. Chris Cunningham (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent reverts

There seems to be a few editors who insist on removing "Grand Theft Auto" from GTA 2, GTA III and GTA IV's names in one particular section of the template, for absolutely no given reason. I reverted the edits, for two reasons.

1. Numbers are not subtitles. For example, Grand Theft Auto IV is just that. It can only be correctly abbreviated to GTA IV or GTA 4. "IV" is incorrect. Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, can correctly be abbreviated to simply Vice City.
2. Navigation reasons. Some users may have the font or zoom at smaller sizes, and although I personally do not have my font at a small size, a quick test showed that it's incredibly difficult, almost impossible to click the tiny numbers on the template. I believe it's standard procedure on Wikipedia to make templates and fonts accessible for as many users as possible to use without problem.

I believe these reverts are just a case of WP:ILIKEIT, due to lack of edt summaries and ignorance of my reasons for revision. I write this to help quell an edit war and avoid violation of WP:3RR. --.:Alex:. 17:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What looks better?

The first is a completely re-designed infobox, with not as many groups. It is easier to read and find articles related to each topic.

This is the current one. It constantly makes lists. It would be better to have the first one so you can quickly find the game you are looking for, then see which articles under that you can choose. Just look at the Sim series template. It is much more effecient than making individual lists related to one topic.

Please discuss which one you would prefer. VG Editor (talk) 04:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

• The second infobox is better, and should have links such as Huang Lee removed when there is no article by that name. Pagrashtak 19:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• Second one looks better to me too. The large empty space doesn't look right, otherwise it would be a much more efficient way of displaying it. On my resolution of 1280x1024, over half the infobox is empty. Maybe if the Games column was made wider it wouldn't stand out so much. I don't think that the Locations row is going to be necessary soon as the VG project is cleaning up VG location articles and I think only Liberty City will remain (but that's an issue for the future). Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
• The second is better due to the reasons i have already given when reverting your edits. The Sims series and Grand Theft Auto are entirely different. The Sims have loads of expansion and contents that matches well with it. When comes to GTA it is other way around. Making the template huge and ugly to see at. It has loads of empty spaces. If this space can be filled iam fine with it. So i had to agree with others.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Redesigned

Redesigned to fill the blankness on the right. What do you think now? VG Editor (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I still prefer the second one. This one seems unnecessarily large really. As said above, although it may be for The Sims series or something, it's not really practical for GTA. --.:Alex:. 11:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Universe vs. Mainline ordering

I'm against dividing the games by "Universe", since it prioritizes the fictional continuity over the actual relevance of the games. It's pretty clear that the GBA game, the City Stories series and Chinatown Wars are not as important as the numbered titles released on PC and consoles, since they were primarily developed for portable devices and were outsourced to different developers (Digital Eclipse for the GBA game and Rockstar Leeds for the others) with Rockstar North mostly taking a supervisory role in them. It's also a bit misleading too, since the GBA game is not really in 3D and Chinatown Wars was not originally in HD. I also think people misinterpret Rockstar's official statement of each era of Grand Theft Auto being set in their own "universe" as literal alternate continuities when they also mean the development, graphical and gameplay style of the games as well. Jonny2x4 (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm also against dividing the games by "Universe", for the reasons that you put forward. It's quite misleading, and there's no real reason for it. I'd prefer to change it back to this revision. Any objections? -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)