Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Rockstar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Userbox

checkY Done

I made us a userbox. And it's my first one ever! But I don't want it to say User.:Alex:./ in it. Is there a way to change this? If someone could tell me I would be most grateful. .:Alex:. 16:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

You could move the userbox code to Template:user_gtatfuserbox ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 17:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The image you used in the box is copyrighted, which cannot be used anywhere outside of article space. You'll need to find/make another image for it. --PresN 18:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the userbox location and replaced the non-free image with "GTA" for now. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

checkY Done

I suggest that we merge articles such as Degenatron, Liberty Tree (newspaper) and Citizens United Negating Technology ect. into a more stable article called Media in Grand Theft Auto or something (akin to this one from The Simpsons). They are short and I doubt that they will expand further on their own. Does anyone agree with this idea? .:Alex:. 12:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
If you haven't already, go ahead. I've frowned upon the fact that they exist as separate articles for a while now. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I've merged the pages, it actually works much better as one solid article. .:Alex:. 08:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

San Andreas myths merge

checkY Done

I've worked on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Myths for a while over the last few months, making it more encyclopedic, but I've been getting the feeling that this article is not going to get much better. My suggestion is that it's severely downsized and merged back into the San Andreas article, with any new unsourced myths removed on sight. Here are some reasons why I think this. (I'm not suggesting all are WP policy, just my reasons.)

  • Sources haven't been added for where Rockstar is cited despite fact tags for a while now. (I myself has searched a few times for some without any luck.)
  • A lot of cases contain original research.
  • Some editors feel the need to add everything they've heard to the article without sources.

Here's a version I suggested on the talk page a couple of weeks ago:

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is distinct from the first two sixth generation Grand Theft Auto games in its player-propagated myths. Shortly after the release of the game, several message boards sprouted claims of alleged Bigfoot sightings, and several photographs were released, all of which have been proven to be faked. Rockstar addressed the rumor saying that there is no Bigfoot in the game, and in an article in Electronic Gaming Monthly January 2005 edition, Rockstar CEO Terry Donovan is quoted as saying "There is no Bigfoot, just like in real life".[1]. Other myths arose containing claims that UFOs, ghosts and chainsaw killers existed in the game.
Weeks after the myths had begun, an e-mail message was received from "[email protected]" and was posted on several fan forums. The most important claim of the letter was that Bigfoot was false, and is not present in the game. Writing to the Mouthoff address concerning any of these rumors will now result in a response denying the existence of the myths. "There are no monsters, chainsaw killers, UFOs or anything of the sort".
The myth of ghost cars proved true. They are cars without visible drivers, moving with damage that isn't repairable. The most well known ghost car can be found in the remote forest region of Back O' Beyond in Flint County. It is a damaged Glendale, which spawns at the top of a hill and rolls down. These ghost cars are not actually regular Sadlers or Glendales, in fact, they are different vehicles. In the GTA3.IMG file (which contains all of the Textures and Models in the game), one can browse the index and see the files, which are named "GLENSHIT" and "SADLSHIT", respectively.

I believe this version contains the verifiability that the large version lacks for the most part. The Donovan quote can be sourced to the magazine article, the email can be verified by doing what it says, and the moving vehicle can clearly be seen in the game. Would anyone agree on a downsize and a merge back into GTA:SA? If so, should any other information be included? ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the decision. I took a look at the article and I can't see what else could fit into it that can be verified. Go ahead. .:Alex:. 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
'Bout time, heh. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
All done. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 21:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to the verifiability of this, on Monday when I proposed the merge I emailed Mouthoff, just to verify that you do get the response the article states when asking about the myths. About 30 minutes ago I got the reply that was expected.

Hi Bill,

Thanks for the email. There are no monsters, chainsaw killers, ufos or anything of the sort in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. That was all a bunch of baseless speculation on Internet message boards.

Cheers,

Rockstar Games

So that's good. I think it would have had to have been removed/reworded if they were no longer sending the email out. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Cool. That effectively shoves a stake into the "Myths" fiasco. Good job. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge GTA London Mission packs

checkY Done

Before I start, I'd just like to point out that I put the Done Template under actions that have been done, the page was filling up so it'll be a way to keep track of things that need to be completed. Anyway, back to the issue.

I suggest merging the GTA London mission packs (London 69 and London 61). Both articles are pretty short and are unlikely to expand further. They're both called "Mission Packs" #1 and #2, so they'd fit together in a single article well. I think 61 especially is pushing it for having it's own article, as it's basically just an extra map and cars and extras for the PC version. I suggest the articles be merged and moved to Grand Theft Auto Mission Packs (Mission Packs capitalised because it's the name given to them by the developers), and the GTA Games template to have Mission Packs in the brackets, linked to the page I just gave. an alternative could be Grand Theft Auto: London Mission Packs with London Mission Packs in the template. What's the consensus here on the merge and move? ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 02:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I support this merge. Both articles are relatively small and I somewhat feel they don't deserve separate articles anyway. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 02:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I have thought that they were both too small (but especially 61) and would be much better as a single article. .:Alex:. 07:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Done, the article is now Grand Theft Auto: Mission Packs. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

New template proposal

checkY Resolved

See template talk page. .:Alex:. 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the style is a bit too different to the styles currently used on Wikipedia. But I would support a more comprehensive topic navbox template. For example, something like this:
I moved it to the template talk page to put it with Alex's template ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 01:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Note: I haven't checked all the links as it's just an example, also there's more stuff that could be added. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 19:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, not too bad. I like it, at least. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How's this?
GRAND THEFT AUTO
GAMES   |   CHARACTERS   |   GANGS  |   LOCATIONS  |   SOUNDTRACK   |   MEDIA
Games Grand Theft Auto - (Mission Packs) | GTA2
GTA III | Vice City | San Andreas | GTA Advance | Liberty City Stories | Vice City Stories
GTA IV
Protagonists Claude Speed | Tommy Vercetti | Carl Johnson | Mike | Toni Cipriani | Victor Vance
Niko Bellic
Characters Gangs
GTA III | Vice City | San Andreas | GTA Advance | Liberty City Stories | Vice City Stories
GTA IV
Locations Liberty City | Vice City | San Andreas (Los Santos - San Fierro - Las Venturas)
Carcer City
Soundtracks GTA2
GTA III | Vice City | San Andreas | Liberty City Stories | Vice City Stories
Other Media | Category


.:Alex:. 15:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the colours are right for Wikipedia. And the style is a bit different to existing Navboxes. At the moment the CVG Navbox guideline is being rewritten (I checked there first for guidance) so I can't say anything that can be backed up, but in my humble opinion it should look more like existing templates used in CVG articles. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Well the style IS being used in Wikipedia as you can see here and here. They aren't being used in CVG articles at the moment, but I suppose there is nothing against that. What do you think?.:Alex:. 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Not bad it's ALSOME!! Did a good job Alex! We should use it?!--Manny Ribera 15:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats up with the heading font? "gRand theft auto" with the caital "R" looks kinda weird... Why did you change it from the traditional GTA font? i forget the name if the font... ∆ Algonquin 09:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok i just remembered the font is "Pricedown" and for some reson i don't think the computer i am currently using can display that font, which would be why i thought that the template used to use the Pricedown font. ∆ Algonquin 09:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have that font installed either. I hadn't noticed it doesn't use a standard font, most people wont have it installed. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 10:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Weird. I thought it was something Wikipedia had "installed" (for want of a better word) on the site or something. I take it that the Bank Gothic font isn't showing either? This is what it is supposed to look like: Click here. Hm.. I'm not sure what to do. There must be a way around this... - .:Alex:. 12:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Definitely looks better with the correct font. This is what it looks like to me. I don't think you can install fonts automatically in the browser, and it's probably not a good idea to ask the user to install a font just to see a template correctly. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 13:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
That last sentence made me crack up. Imagine a message popping up saying you had to download the font before you can view the page?! Anyway, I'll have to look into this. But thanks for pointing that out. I would never have noticed that myself... - .:Alex:. 19:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I am now on my computer that has Pricedown installed, and the template looks as it is supposed to be. I downloaded the font a little while ago, and i don't think that any computers come with it already installed so possibly you will have to change the font or just let the people who can see it see it. ∆ Algonquin 10:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps an image? No wait... that would interfere with copyright laws. Hm... - .:Alex:. 13:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Since Pricedown is, with the exception of R and L, the same in upper and lower case (ie. always lower case), can't you just type it all out in caps? At least that way, anyone without Pricedown will see it like GRAND THEFT AUTO, instead of gRand theft auto, and anyone with Pricedown gets the nice little bonus of seeing the proper font. I know that's not ideal, but it would surely be better than nothing. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I have done. How does it look? - .:Alex:. 09:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it looks great (although the Bank Gothic font doesn't seem to work for me for some reason, even though i've got it installed), it should definitely be used, the current navboxes are a bit generic and having everything in one box will be a lot more convenient. Dbam Talk/Contributions 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
It seems that CVG Navbox is no longer relevent, I can't see why we should delay any longer. Let's give it a go. We'll change the main template and delete all others and make them redirect to this one. .:Alex:. 15:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up: I edited the colors of the GTA template to be lighter grays for the links portion. The blue text was a bit hard to read on the darker grays. ♦TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 00:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The links are still hard to read. I think you should pick something different for the link colours and maybne brighten the box itself up a bit.Darkwarriorblake 22:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Vehicles in the Grand Theft Auto Series

checkY Resolved

Is it worth creating a page which has vehicles which are recurring throughout the series-eg Banshee, Cheeta, Infernus, Manana etc, and what their real life counterpart is? TheTrojanHought 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

For a couple of reasons I don't think it would be. Firstly, it's probably verging on an indiscriminate collection of information. Also (though I haven't checked), it might be difficult finding official sources saying that a vehicle in GTA it's definitely based on a certain real life vehicle. If the list is made by a fansite/fan then there may be disputes over the model etc. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, a similar was was deleted in an AfD; I think I was the one that nominated it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, fair enough.

TheTrojanHought 11:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling they are hybrids of various vehicles of the era, despite their following the same nomenclature, and might present a good deal of difficulty in deciphering their etiologies...might be a lost cause anyway. Eganio 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Family/Gang

checkY Done

This situation originally started on on the List of gangs page as you can see here. However it is now getting out of control and spreading over to other GTA related pages, so I have decided to bring the discussion here. .:Alex:. 10:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure this is a major problem; only 1 user is doing this and, seeing as he refuses to get a consensus on his viewpoint, I feel his edits constitute vandalism. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like he's been blocked. Maybe next time he'll listen although I sadly have my doubts. - .:Alex:. 16:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems another user is doing it too. User:Malarious. I don't know why these people cannot comprehend the fact that it should be lower case... Even a block didn't stop the other user. Perhaps this time.. - .:Alex:. 20:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Well regarding the capitalizations of "family", they need to be lower cased right? I'd thought I lower case them. You guys can can help out too. I can't do this all by myself. Agtaz 20:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at their contributions, I think it's safe to say that 86.137.133.254 and Malarious are one and the same. Dbam 22:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I guess so. Just so I understand, what d you mean by that? Agtaz 23:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no reason to reopen this discussion; Malarious' recent edits show he supports the decapitalization; I think that one he did on "List of Gangs" was an accident. Go take it up with him; in the meantime, someone put the resolved tag on this. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok people, it's been resolved. No need for help on the the capitals and lower cases. I took care of it. Agtaz 23:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Weapons

checkY Done

Is there really any need for the weapons lists that are on most of the GTA game pages? -.:Alex:. 11:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hell no. Destroy them immediately. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 14:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I've left the paragraphs in the articles as they are actually explaining about it, but the lists are gone. Done. - .:Alex:. 17:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

checkY Done

Klptyzm has made the first step. There is simply too much trivia in Grand Theft Auto related articles. I too have seen the amount of unnecessary trivia (ESPECIALLY in the Vice City Stories article) and have deleted all but relevant information in those sections that may possibly be integrated into the article. Please, do NOT add any more trivia! - .:Alex:. 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm voting that we remove practically all of the "Pop culture references" sections, in particular. These constantly grow to ridiculous proportions and are simply just not worth adding. It's practically impossible to reasonable control the size of these sections without users readding references. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 18:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Seconded ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree also! The list just keeps growing and growing!--Manny Ribera 12:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If they are well sourced and notable, i find trivia sections interesting and handy. ∆ Algonquin 09:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

List of residents

checkY Done

I've noticed this on the Vice City page and on the San Andreas page as well. Is it really necessary? I'm just not sure whether to remove it or not for some reason. - .:Alex:. 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't necessary so I removed the lists. I also got the one on the Liberty City page also. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 18:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I just wasn't sure for some unknown reason. Just one of those days... - .:Alex:. 20:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Gtasa-blank-vector.png

checkY Done

This is a map of San Andreas. Its fair use rationale is in question and it is slated for deletion on July 15. I figured that I should alert the GTA task force. Cliff smith 23:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a Fair-Use Rationale. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. - .:Alex:. 08:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Take Two stub category

checkY Done

I have propsed new stub categories for Take Two (and several others). See the proposals here. We could also make a Rockstar games template (that would lead to the Take Two stub category), but it would suck without a Rockstar SVG logo, and to use it in a template it would have to be a free original work. So if somebody has one laying around...

I have proposed several stub category name changes (see the proposals here), though these are unrelated.

~ JohnnyMrNinja {talk} 07:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

URGENT: Fair use rationale needed on images by 9 August.

checkY Resolved

As we all know, a particular user has been kind enough to propose almost every single GTA related image for deletion (among many others). The reason: All images now need a full detailed fair-use rationale. There are tons of images that need them and I can't do it all myself. Here is a list of images that need them. If you know of any more, please add them to the list. If a rationale has been added, please stike the image off of the list. Some images have not yet been tagged, but it's better to give them a rationale before that happens. If we can cover every image on GTA articles then we won't need to worry ever again.

Here is a basic template you can use for the Fair Use Rationale (change as necessary). 

=== Fair use in [[<article name>]] ===
Though this image is subject to copyright, I feel its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
# [[Rockstar Games]] has released no such images into the public domain, and a replacement image could not be created that would adequately provide the same information.
# The image is needed to illustrate <character name> and their appearance within the game.
# It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the video game in any way.
~~~~

List of Images that face deletion

List of images that need a Fair Use Rationale

- .:Alex:. 14:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

checkY Resolved

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was mu. This is not really the "jurisdiction" of Wikipedia:Requested moves. I suggest that you discuss it internally here or visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals if you want to turn this into a separate WikiProject. Dekimasuよ! 13:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the WikiProject should be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Grand Theft Auto, since Grand Theft Auto is notable enough for that. Not to mention all the copies San Andreas were sold. TheBlazikenMaster 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. What would be the point? JACOPLANE • 2007-10-25 10:58
  2. Not really necessary. The current scale of the project means that a task force is still the most efficient way to manage these articles. A full WikiProject with article ratings and importance levels, etc. would not be worth the effort. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 11:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    Besides, if we really wanted to, we could set up assessment for the task force, much like the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history task forces have. JACOPLANE • 2007-10-25 12:03
  3. Far too small to warrant a Wikiproject. A task force is more than enough. We're talking about a hand full of articles not something as all encompassing as Sony or Nintendo. - X201 12:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Removal of fair use images from List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

checkY Done

I feel the task force should be aware of the current debate on this article. Please see the discussion here. .:Alex:. 17:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

San Andreas

checkY Done

I'd like to petition opinions from GTA taskforce members on the recent merge of separate articles on Los Santos, San Fierro, and Las Venturas into the San Andreas article. I was thinking it would be a good idea to incorporate some of the things that were originally on the separate "city" pages into the "state" page, e.g. emulated neighborhoods and other real-life influences. I think this would help to soften the in-universe perspective, and would make the article more relevant. Thoughts? EganioTalk 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree with that on the condition that every inspiration is sourced and that it doesn't become just a description of the location. With the amount of reviews online it shouldn't be too difficult to find interviews and commentary on how in-game locations are inspired by and resemble real life locations. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. EganioTalk 23:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. I don't see anything wrong with it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, added the stuff for San Fierro. Still a work in progress...trying to get some nice references to back things up. Any help would be sincerely appreciated! EganioTalk 02:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto (video game series) discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals

checkY Done

Description

The porpuse for this project is for people who like GTA and like editing its pages. We will add new pages and make GTA pages alot nicer then they are now.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)
  1. Hardcore Hak
Comments

I see very few articles that would make sense under this project. A task force would be more appropriate. Phil Sandifer 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A Grand Theft Auto task force of the WikiProject Video games already exists. Furthermore, a discussion to create a separate WikiProject has already taken place, with clear consensus against. JACOPLANE • 2007-11-30 23:52

Merge/Deletion

checkY Done

I would like to ask others' opinions on this: I came across this page when perusing the links on the taskforce. I think it should be merged with the List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series article or deleted altogether. I think its existence is redundant, and it doesn't meet notability guidelines. Thoughts? EganioTalk 23:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That should be deleted/redirected. Nothing links to it and I expect most of the important information is already mentioned on the gangs page. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing it as we speak. I hate when people do stuff like that. It's getting redirected. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 00:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV Characters

checkY Done

Hi, I've noticed that most (not all) of the text on this page List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV is copied word for word from the following website: [1]. I'm pretty sure that this violates some policies of wikipedia UNLESS somebody has a GFDL-compatible license. What do you guys think? Please share your thoughts. Thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. No GFDL, no dice. EganioTalk 22:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
On closer inspection, it looks like all this information was added by User:74.64.14.18 on 2008-01-01 diff. They were reverted but then made again in multiple edits by User:Wikiedwin diff. It's my opinion that this information is definitely copied from the GTA4.net page instead of the other way around because of the way the information was added in chunks, rather than built up gradually like most things on Wikipedia. I think the best course of action is to revert to the last version that isn't blatant plagiarism or manually remove all the copied parts, and then reconstruct the information legally. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Do it if it hasn't been done. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. I've also left a message on the talk pages of the users to inform them that they added copyrighted material. The bottom of the webpage indicates the content is copyrighted so there's no reason to believe that the text was available for use on the encyclopedia. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 23:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV Soundtrack

checkY Done

Hi. I believe that all members of the task force should take a look at the Grand Theft Auto IV soundtrack page. I need some help improving it. Its tagged as requiring clean up but I think that the page doesnt look too bad. If you guys can improve it in anyway then please do so, because right now i'm unsure as what to do! Thanks. JayJ47 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hate to play devil's advocate, but I took a look at the page, and it seems to contain a good deal of conjecture and premature fact-building. Besides, starting off with two disclaimers stating how ambiguous the information is does not bode well for the article itself. This may be something better left for after the information is released, or upon discovery of a reliable source. EganioTalk 01:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Same here. It's crystal balling a bit. ♣ Bishop Tutu Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

GTA Series page revamping

Discussing...

I feel like an idiot for not posting this up on the GTA Task Force talk page: I'm trying to get editors to help fix up the GTA series page to its former glory. So far I've fixed the proseline-filled History section, done some edits to the Overview section, started back up the important Controversy section, and I've done some overall cleaning. Of course, it needs sources for most of the article, especially the Controversy section. Editing to this article has been pretty stable for a while, so if we can get this done fast enough, we can make this a Featured Article, if not a Candidate, at least. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 19:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You can count on my assistance. EganioTalk 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I will offer my services to fix this page also. JayJ47 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV Commercials

checkY Done

I think i've found a way to clean up this page. How about we make a list of the commercials, and instead give a brief description for each one, instead of including the lengthy dialogue which is present in the article now? Please share your thoughts, any answers and other ideas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks JayJ47 (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that because the Grand Theft Auto IV soundtrack article is really nothing more than a list of sorts, the information should be as is, i.e. the specific dialogue used. Because the commercials themselves are short enough, I think it's fine to leave it like this. Besides, summarizing the commercials would require some sort of synopsis of their meaning to the game and character, to the player, and to the real world. IMO, this would constitute original research. EganioTalk 09:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberty City

Now that floods of new information about the new Liberty City in GTA IV are coming in, the entire article will need to be rewritten to make the sections covering the GTA III canon version of the city much smaller so we include more information on the new rendition. .:Alex:. 17:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? What purpose does it serve to detract from one description in favor of expanding another? They are both representing the same city...one just happens to be more detailed. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your intent. EganioTalk 18:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, I don't think I explained it very well. I meant, the GTA III rendition of Liberty City has a lot of information, a lot of which could be shrunk as it is irrelevant. For example the "gangs" section, most of which contains a lot of unnecessary storyline information which is covered by other articles and is not really needed there. GTA IV's rendition will bring in a lot of information, not necessarily just yet, but it will cause the article to expand to a very large size. I meant that we should reduce irrelevant and unnecessary sections in the article so we can accomodate additional - necessary - information in other parts of the article. I hope that makes sense. .:Alex:. 09:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds about right. John Hayestalk 11:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, in that case, go for it. However, I feel I must admonish against the unintentional loss of aspects applying only to the GTA III rendition that may result from using GTA IV data to fill in the informational "gaps". We must be vigilant in maintaining the distinction between the two games and ensuring that people understand that although the same city, each is a distinct version of that city, and should therefore be considered as an entirely separate entity. EganioTalk 21:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

new tf icon

it's sweet ! xenocidic (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Button

Hi, instead of the text for the GTA TF userbox, I made an image that says GTA in the pricedown (actual GTA) font, and Task Force under it. Does it look nicer than just the previous one that just said

GTA?

TF

EDIT: Xenocidic, i just read your comment. Thanks!

GTA GANXTAIZE · 18 February 2008

Makes no difference to me. Be bold. EganioTalk 06:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks good, but could you perhaps move the "GTA" bit slightly higher up from "Task"? .:Alex:. 14:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of fair use images from List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series

Discussing...

OK, it's happened to the List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series page as well. Images have been wiped clean from the article without peremptory discussion. Let's get a consensus going on this page as we did for the List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas page, shall we? I will write the non-free use rationales for whichever images we deem worthy of inclusion. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please visit and help us repair the article. EganioTalk 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually considering contacting Rockstar Games about perhaps obtaining permission to publish images of their games under a free license like Ubisoft have with images of their games (obviously there would be exceptions and other specific requirements that would need to be met). Seeing as GTA images always seem to be victim of a mass exodus every few months, it's worth looking into it. .:Alex:. 09:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Definitely agreed. Go for it. EganioTalk 11:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we should plan how we are going to put foward this request to them first? .:Alex:. 14:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Capital suggestion. Let's make sure we preface the request with a clear, concise intent that includes the notion of making Rockstar and its products more visible to the general public via Wikipedia. I think they'll respond to us better if we couch it that way. Furthermore, we should play up Wikipedia's non-profit and strictly informational status, and use this to lead into the problems with non-free image use. Of course, we would have to make assurances that any copyrighted material they might supply will only be used on Wikipedia and only for the purposes outlined in our proposal. Thoughts? EganioTalk 18:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much what I was thinking. Although they will no doubt probably have some specific questions and requests of their own, such as the images cannot portray their products in a negative way for example and so on and so forth. .:Alex:. 20:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure their lawyers will have plenty of caveats and questions. Are you comfortable drafting the request? As the leader of the GTA taskforce, would you like to be our representative? I can help out if you'd like, but otherwise I'll leave it in your capable hands. EganioTalk 20:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you say there Eganio, but i'm not sure it would be necessary to put forward anything along the lines of "making Rockstar and its products more visible to the general public via Wikipedia". If the request is presented in an honest and concise fashion, then i'm sure Rockstar are capable of making up their own minds on any benefits to them. Dbam Talk/Contributions 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, but in the "free marketplace", I don't think it'll hurt. I wasn't thinking of making a huge point of it, rather as a "by the way" to pique their interest further...I dunno. Actually, you're right. Totally unnecessary, I agree. OK, forget I said it. EganioTalk 03:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, not totally unnecessary, it's just the way you led with it in your third post I thought you did mean to make a big deal of it, which was more my concern. We need to grab their attention, so it probably wouldn't hurt to subtly include something like that. Dbam Talk/Contributions 15:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's leave it up to .:Alex:., since I think he's the one drafting the request anyway. I trust his judgment. EganioTalk 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

sub-article Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV

I broke off the "Promotion" section of Grand Theft Auto IV into it's own article , Marketing for Grand Theft Auto IV , per a discussion on the talk page. your assistance in fleshing out the new article would be appreciated! xenocidic (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Sub-article for New Features in Grand Theft Auto IV

checkY Done

I am asking members of the task force to consider whether or not it would be appropiate to create a sub article (similar to this) for the "New Features" section in the Grand Theft Auto IV page. JayJ47 (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. In it's current state I would say no, firstly it needs rewriting and sourcing, and secondly I wouldn't say the subject would be notable. A article comparing all the games might be an idea, but again would it be notable? John Hayestalk 07:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
We did this because we were having notability issues in the main article. There was dispute whether the new official website section should be included or not. I suggested the new article because Halo 3 has a similar article and we had all the refs to cite there. However we don't have enough refs to sustain the notability guidelines here. A comparison of all the games in the series as John Hayes suggested is a good idea and would be notable. But again we would have to wait until the game comes out so we would have some reliable refs and would be able to site features from the final code, when they are finalized.  UzEE  09:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I too oppose this on the grounds that the features sections simply needs to be rewritten (it's currently a list, which is not really acceptable) and that it would soon get deleted anyway. The marketing article covers the extensive marketing campaign for GTA IV with plenty of refs and because there were disputes of what belonging in the main article (some things are better suited to a marketing article but not really suited to the GTA IV article). .:Alex:. 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. EganioTalk 19:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - GA Sweeps on hold

checkY Done

Hi, just in case anyone is unaware of this, GTA: San Andreas has had it's GA status reviewed and has been found to be not up to scratch. A few problems have been identified and need to be fixed by March 21 or the article will lose its GA status. It appears to be the only listed article we have at the moment, so I think it's important we try and get this sorted. Dbam Talk/Contributions 21:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When I get enough free time from studies, I'll try to help. I was attempting to fix up the series page but I've been distracted. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 04:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Dealt with two images, and am working on more. At least the fair-use images should be reduced to 5 or less.  UzEE  11:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll help as much as I can. EganioTalk 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The article has been delisted and i've removed it from the project page. I'll continue to try and get citations for the remaining unreferenced sections and hopefully we can get it back on the list. Dbam Talk/Contributions 18:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-free image use debate

For anyone interested, a rather long and laborious debate has been ongoing since Black Kite came in and decimated our image usage on the List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series page. Please go here and here to see the discussions. So far, it seems that there exists a cadre of administrators passing judgment on our use of non-free material, and imposing their interpretations of NFCC policy on the rest of us. I, for one, am getting really tired of these folks dancing around the issue of the lack of specific wording in the policy precipitating debates such as this one. Please join in and add you two cents', as I am beginning to feel a little ganged up on here. EganioTalk 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've had enough of trying to get a straight answer from admin on this, and am quite tired of being dealt with as if some petulant, incorrigible child. Suffice to say they themselves don't really agree on how to interpret NFCC policy, yet feel as though they possess a deeper understanding of its wording, meaning, and significance than I or the rest of us do. So I'm giving up on this topic officially, and will likely remove myself from Wikipedia altogether due to the defensive nature with which Wikipedia admin deals with the inevitable issues that arise due to their own inability to provide clear wording in policies. Good luck to the rest of you! EganioTalk 20:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Your completely right, I for one have a few small things to do right now for wiki and might leave after that. I'd much rather edit to a GTA wiki and one of them have I already joined. --Flesh-n-Bone 15:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: The Classics Collection

I think Grand Theft Auto: The Classics Collection should be merged into both GTA 1 and 2 as release notes, and then redirected to the GTA Series page. I don't think this re-release deserves its own article, mainly because I can't see it expanding more than a couple of paragraphs. Bill (talk|contribs) 15:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. - X201 (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree also—if there were significant differences between this release and the originals, then fair enough; but as it is, the article is pretty much pointless. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding Rockstar Games Social Club to TF?

Should Rockstar Games Social Club be added to the GTA task force? It's a service by Rockstar that will be included in GTAIV but will be included in future Rockstar games.

I would, they are probably the people who will have the greatest interest in keeping on top of it and by the sound of things The Social Club and GTA IV are going to be fairly tightly linked any way. - X201 (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I concur. It's basically going to be driven by GTA IV. (no pun intended ;>) xenocidic (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
("no pun") I'm not convinced ;-) - X201 (talk) 20:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. GTA IV has a major role with the RGSC, and because they are actually linked I guess we could increase our scope to include that as well. To be honest, anything that has any relevance to GTA can be covered by this Task Force. .:Alex:. 15:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nomination: Grand Theft Auto (series)

Well, a few minutes ago, I nominated the GTA series page for a GA. It actually looks pretty decent; I cleared up the last few little "fact" tags, no other tags are on the article, doesn't really have major grammar errors, has a healthy amount of sources, and it seems pretty clean overall. Lets cross our fingers. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As I am both a member of this task force, and a GA Article Reviewer I will be re-viewing this article to see if it meets the Good Article Criteria. I hope I can pass this article! JayJ47 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I am proud to report that this article, Grand Theft Auto (series) has been listed as a Good Article! Well done to all the editors who have contributed to the article, especially to Klptyzm who has put a lot of effort and time into making the article what it is today. Again, congratulations to all! JayJ47 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I really do appreciate that. And thanks to all of you who contributed to the article as well. We all did a good job on it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Concerning character pages

Is there a reasoning behind listing what mission/cut-scene a character appears in and which mission they die in? Neither seem relevant or important and are generally just blatant, massive spoilers to anyone who wants information on any single character and thus scrolls past other characters. When and where a character appears/dies can eb discussed in their bio part but I don't see the need to distinctly label it under their name. Is there a reason for this?Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Successful Good Article Nomination: Grand Theft Auto IV

I am proud to report that Grand Theft Auto IV has met the Good Article Criteria, and is now listed as a Good Article. Well done to everyone who have contributed to this article. JayJ47 (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Niko Bellic

I have noticed that most of the text about this character is copied exactly from the following site: [2]. This violates copyright, and the text doesn't seem to be released under a free license. JayJ47 (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove it then. John Hayestalk 10:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is copied from the website. I think the website copied it from Wikipedia. The publish date on the website is the 9th of May, 2008. Looking at the history of the article it seems that much of the content in the section was in the article before the 9th. version from the 7th of May. Much of it was added by Oodus on the 7th, 8th and 9th of May. The dates and the way it grew suggests that Oodus didn't copy it from the site. Bill (talk|contribs) 14:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I notified the site owner. User:Krator (t c) 07:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

I should probably point out that I brought the edit conflicts about his nationality to the WPVG talk page WT:WikiProject Video games#Niko.27s_nationality. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 13:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Niko Bellic Article

I have been working on what to include in the article. This is what I have so far. Please tell me what you guys think of it. Any advice or help would be much appreciated! JayJ47 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far. Do you have any non-plot information to add? Perhaps details on the development of Niko or an interview with the voice actor on the topic. Things like that. Bill (talk|contribs) 09:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Do we really need an article on him. I'd argue that he isn't notable outside the context of the game, so all the details can be included in the characters article, and his name redirected to his section. John Hayestalk 13:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Every other protagonist in the series has their own article. The article should be created when more reliable sources are available and more information becomes available. Eventually there will be enough info on the character to create an article. JayJ47 (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes good idea Bill. I'll try and find some sources about the development of the character. JayJ47 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's an excellent source for that, gents. (Interview with Hollick, the voice of Niko). Thanks to guyzero for pointing that out at the GTA IV nationality debate. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 22:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because something is done one way doesn't mean it is right. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. John Hayestalk 00:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
We are trying to make this article work. It has been re-directed numerous times and I am working on finding sources to include some more information. Our goal as members of this task force is to improve the quality of GTA related articles, thats what I'm trying to do. JayJ47 (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh by the way, thank you for the source. JayJ47 (talk) 10:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversies articles

I've noticed a couple of new articles pop up recently: Grand Theft Auto III controversies and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City controversies. I suspect a Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas controversies article will be along shortly. What i'm wondering is that since these games have much of their controversy in common, whether it would be better to merge them (and the GTA IV contoversies article) into a single Grand Theft Auto controversies article, covering the whole series. Thoughts? Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I remember suggesting this somewhere before, and I think it's the best way foward as it would create a much stronger article than if they were all seperate. There really isn't a lot of controversy per game as it all kinda intertwines with each other a little bit. I say go for it. --.:Alex:. 19:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, having looked at those new articles properly, I've decided to just redirect them back to the relevant sections at the main game articles. They were basically nothing more than rehashes of what was already at the main articles, and there was no point in using that material in one big article when it's already summerised at the GTA series article. It might be worth creating such an article one day, but at the moment it's not really worth it. Dbam Talk/Contributions 18:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll remove the article links from the template. --.:Alex:. 18:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Article list

I've created a new list covering all the articles falling into the scope of this task force along with their current ratings on the VG assessment scale. You can see it on the main TF page. Just make sure to update it if the rating changes! --.:Alex:. 09:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks great; it gives a much clearer picture of what's what. It'll look even better if we can get a few more green crosses on there, maybe some bronze stars too! :) Dbam Talk/Contributions 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I was thinking that too though! It's easy to keep track of everything, and is motivational too. I also want to change those red and yellow circles into green crosses and bronze stars! --.:Alex:. 18:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
You missed the Niko Bellic character article. JayJ47 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Aha, that one sprang up after I did it. Thanks for pointing that out. --.:Alex:. 09:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Niko Redirect

I have redirected this article to the List of Characters in GTA IV, because the article wasn't getting anywhere and a redirect would be best for now. JayJ47 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Images in character lists. Again.

Another image eradication debate has sprung up once again, on Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. We would appreciate all opinions and input on the matter. --.:Alex:. 09:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like all members of the task force to see the discussion at this page: Wikipedia_talk:NFCC. Thank you. JayJ47 (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series for Featured List status (nom page here). I think it's comprehensive, has a decent lead and is well sourced, so hopefully it should do OK. Dbam Talk/Contributions 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/86.18.83.87's sometimes unhelpful edits

I don't know if you guys have seen this guy around, but he seems to have a penchant for formality to the extreme. I had to revert a lot of his changes to headings, changing such headers as "Playboy X" to "Trey Stewart" (I'm sure about 1% of the GTA IV players knew Playboy X's real name...) and also Sometimes Using Inappropriate Capitalization. Anyhow, I just thought I'd drop in here and ask what you guys thought should be done. He doesn't seem to respond to any of the messages left on his talk page. Some examples of the problems: Niko is not Nikolei no matter what Tom Goldberg calls him, my revert of His Strange Capitalization Choices, my revert of formality to the extreme, removing redundancy and his desire to type out the full name for every instance (here's more). Thoughts? –xenocidic (talk) 12:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he's mostly (or entirely) engaging in vandalism. Croctotheface (talk) 18:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you report him, and ask an admin to see if he/she will block the user for you. JayJ47 (talk) 00:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Being an admin myself, I wanted to get some further opinions on this before blocking for what are seemingly good faith edits completely out of line with the MOS. Looks like someone else has blocked for 24 hours to wake him up. –xeno (talk) 20:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Downsize Liberty City

As you guys may or may not have heard, there's a discussion going on at the VG project about articles on video game locations. As I said there, I think Liberty City has enough independent coverage to warrant its own article and avoid being merged. I think we can afford to shrink down the purely descriptive aspects of the article and use some sources to produce good a development section(s). Vice City was also mentioned but I wasn't able to find much about the city itself. Bill (talk|contribs) 18:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Need a spot-check at Grand Theft Auto clone

I've been working heavily on the Grand Theft Auto clone article, and just worked through the peer review process to improve the article. Everything is pretty well referenced, although it will probably need copy-editing. Before I get down to the nitty gritty of clean-up, I was hoping someone could make sure I didn't make any glaring omissions. Take a look over the article, and make sure I've covered the major information about this genre. Thanks! Randomran (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of organization, let's try to keep all discussion at this page. Randomran (talk) 01:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It's the festive season images debacle!

Alright guys, it's happening again. Let's hear your input on Talk:List of characters in Grand Theft Auto IV. --.:Alex:. 20:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The SVG.

Since I made one for WP:COUNCIL, and this project was the next one I saw, I figured I would make an SVG. Any queries or comments, please post below and notify me at my talk. :) — neuro(talk) 14:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're on a roll today neuro! This is great, as this logo was very particular about size. Thanks very much! --.:Alex:. 14:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Date vandal

There's an IP user on the 78.x.x.x range that is vandalising dates and their main target (although not exclusively) seems to be GTA and Rockstar articles. They vandalise articles with connections to GTA - Soundtracks Characters etc. but seems to avoid the actual game articles, They also attack Rockstar group company articles Rockstar Leeds Rockstar New England etc. Here's their handiwork over the last two days week
78.185.130.198
78.184.184.106
78.184.164.13,
78.185.132.160
78.184.189.173
78.184.48.52

Keep an eye out for them. - X201 (talk) 10:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

GTA IV: Lost and Damned voice credits

Does GTA IV:L&D come with an instruction manual? I'd like to update the List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto series to include L&D voice actors, but at the moment I can only cite online sources, which is OK, but ideally I'd like a full official list to make sure the info is spot on and complete. Dbam Talk/Contributions 20:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

San Andreas Multiplayer

I find it absurd that you people don't work on a proper san andreas multiplayer page, the current one got AFD'd again, and that is while the mod popularity is reaching 10.000 concurrent players almost every day, and peaking well above 10.000! So notability of it should not be in question! if you call yourself a grandtheftauto task force, help build a proper page for it on wikipedia, it's a disgrace that you don't help with it.

http://www.game-monitor.com/GameSearch/sa-mp/San_Andreas_Multiplayer.html http://gta.wikia.com/wiki/San_Andreas_Multiplayer

Jernejl (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Future of GTA

We should improve this article: Future of GTA so that it doesn't get deleted.

Claude (Grand Theft Auto)

I have been thinking about reworking Claude (Grand Theft Auto) from a redirect to a separate article that is entirely different than the mainspace article from before (P.S., you're wondering how I knew about this, I checked the article's history), and I need your consent if I should do it. I will include various sections, including the separate Grand Theft Auto 2 and Grand Theft Auto III, free-roam, biography, personality, critical response to the character, etc. I mean, the protagonist of the game behind it all (Grand Theft Auto III) should have its own article, as does Carl "CJ" Johnson. Is it okay with you? --SpaceChimp1992 (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a good idea and I certainly support it but I'm sure a lot of editors would disagree with us. I'd encourage you to go for it but I'd also advise you to find as many reliable sources as possible before proceeding. Unfortunately, chances are, once you re-create these pages they'll probably be redirected sometime later for lack of notability, lack of verifiable references etc. I'd still like to see individual pages for protagonists though. JayJ47 (talk) 01:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Revamping List of List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas characters

This page needs some serious editing so I was thinking of re-vamping it? I've already started re-writing some of the characters information and I've thought about removing some from the list as they're really not that notable. Does anyone have any suggestions on what to improve, what to remove and what information to include on characters? JayJ47 (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Soundtrack

Was looking at a merge tag on one of the San Andreas soundtrack articles - then I noticed that there is actually three: Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Official Soundtrack Box Set, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Official Soundtrack, & Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas soundtrack From what I understand, the first two pages are actual CD sets and the later is just a page discussing the ingame OST - but, I don't see any notability for each album set having its own article. Therefore it would be great if someone took a look at the articles and combined them into one disography type of page instead. --DarkCrowCaw 15:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

San Andreas page

So I was thinking that it isn't really fair that San Andreas is the only Grand Theft Auto location without its own Wikipedia page, especially since it is the most popular game in the franchise. If nobody objects, then I would be happy to start the page, and I would greatly appreciate help in organizing the information and gathering sources. ~Siriusly (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Task force cleanup

I've proposed a comprehensive cleanup of WP:VG's inactive task forces (which would include redirecting all task force talk pages and renaming this task force a "Rockstar" task force), if you'll take a look czar ♔ 02:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Rockstar/Archive_1&oldid=1146743430"