Displeasure:
← Older revision
Revision as of 18:57, 28 November 2012
Line 198:
Line 198:
:What I'm arguing against is the how the policies set out are regarded as the definitive "rule" and thus should be applied to ''every'' article, when they clearly do not apply well in every case and wouldn't mean anything if there is barely anyone editing in this wiki; working in an environment where there is very little breathing room, especially with regards to new games, is reduced to a tedious chore because of how much time is wasted working across multiple articles (no thanks to needless article fragmentation), as well as having to correct every damned piped link (no thanks to needless capitalization), terminology (no thanks to needlessly officiated fan terms), spelling and grammatical errors, layout problems, and image placement (no thanks to a lack of proofreading) in every affected article.
:What I'm arguing against is the how the policies set out are regarded as the definitive "rule" and thus should be applied to ''every'' article, when they clearly do not apply well in every case and wouldn't mean anything if there is barely anyone editing in this wiki; working in an environment where there is very little breathing room, especially with regards to new games, is reduced to a tedious chore because of how much time is wasted working across multiple articles (no thanks to needless article fragmentation), as well as having to correct every damned piped link (no thanks to needless capitalization), terminology (no thanks to needlessly officiated fan terms), spelling and grammatical errors, layout problems, and image placement (no thanks to a lack of proofreading) in every affected article.
:I love to take your incredibly long reply as a friendly gesture, but after finding out [http://www.grandtheftwiki.com/index.php?title=Benson&diff=373630&oldid=373557 what happened] to the [[Benson]] article, I don't even know if I want to carry on, especially when whatever I do or say don't mean jack shit as all that hard work is being torn apart by needless formatting, splits, crap fan terms. And I thought something as simple as articles about a video game series would be easy for people to manage. - [[User:ZS|ZS]] ([[User talk:ZS|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ZS|edits]]) 08:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
:I love to take your incredibly long reply as a friendly gesture, but after finding out [http://www.grandtheftwiki.com/index.php?title=Benson&diff=373630&oldid=373557 what happened] to the [[Benson]] article, I don't even know if I want to carry on, especially when whatever I do or say don't mean jack shit as all that hard work is being torn apart by needless formatting, splits, crap fan terms. And I thought something as simple as articles about a video game series would be easy for people to manage. - [[User:ZS|ZS]] ([[User talk:ZS|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ZS|edits]]) 08:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
+
+
::'''''As for the tedious chores with no breathing room, I dispute that. Yes, as the wiki becomes more 'complete' (at least before GTA V), there will be less blue-sky broad-scale article creation to do, and as a result there is more cleaning up to do. I do not think big reorganisations are necessary, except when we change something like, but we do have [[User:Gtabot|Gtabot]] to do a lot of that stuff.'''''
+
+
::The "cleanup" ''is'' the tedious bit. While there are articles on nearly every topic, the contents of a lot of the articles suffer from anything from poor composition, in-universe writing, convoluted proses and the lack of organization, to missing information, missing pictures and missing formatting, problems that a bot cannot easily fix. All this requires research, screencapping, constant proofreading, and most importantly, repeated amendments and improvements, which is often tedious as it involve a lot of time spent modifying the wiki text. Even though I've long editing without the aid of a bot and would prefer to operate one on my own, I do not have the knowhow to operate one nor do I trust others to do the bot work as there has been cases when they botched editing.
+
+
::'''''I know you go around changing all redirect-links to piped-links, but I do ''not'' think that is necessary. I've certainly never asked anyone to do it and there is no policy saying that's what we should do.'''''
+
+
::Then what about efficiency in editing articles to save time? Is that not necessary? Wouldn't that help cover more articles on a daily basis, rather than having to spend longer hours working around what is effectively a broken system?
+
+
::'''''Yes, we should fix broken links, and some links do need to be piped, but there is no real benefit to going around piping every link on the wiki to a different page when a redirect serves that purpose. If this is the tedious work that you don't want to do, dont do it!'''''
+
+
::You seem not to understand that by making people use inaccurate titles created both from the unnecessary need to completely capitalize titles, they are made to believe that these are all official terms. [[SWAT Tank]], [[Involuntary Ejection]], [[GTA III Era]], or [[Vehicle License Plates]], for example, are not official terms, but when people use that link in another article, they won't go to [[SWAT Tank]], for instance, to check the accurate name or take the initiative to pipe it, but simply use the "[[SWAT Tank]]" link, disregarding the accurate name. Not only does it make the article's writing look lazy, but the crappy writing also has the potential of affecting this wiki's credibility, something a low-traffic wiki like this cannot afford.
+
+
::'''''Redirects are there to help editors as well as users who are searching, and they solve the problems with capitalisation etc.'''''
+
+
::Redirects are not a completely useful workaround; forcing people to link through redirects adds to the server load due as the server is forced to retrieve ''both'' the redirect page and the actual article; redirects may also suffer from double redirects as a result of article moves, and not every unnecessarily capitalized term has a lower-case redirect, which also wrongly paints the picture that lower-case terms are not acceptable because a lot of them are redlinked.
+
+
::'''''With regards to Benson, I don't understand the problem. They are two completely unrelated articles - with nothing in common except sharing a name. Don't think of it as "reasons to split" - it's not as if we have all articles on 1 page and split them when it gets big. We have one page about each distinct thing. The Benson sports car is one thing, the Benson truck is another thing. So they should be on separate pages.
However, the actual naming of the pages is open - in fact if we adopted the LCD system, that would suggest we name them "Benson in GTA 2" rather than "Benson (car)". The idea of forcing the two articles to share the page is harmful to the content, confusing to the users, and there's no good reason for it. I can not see one single benefit of them sharing a page, except the fact that both cars would be on the same page. This has nothing to do with page size at all.'''''
+
+
::All this time, I've yet to read about how the table of contents could be used to overcome these problems. They provide directions on where a reader can skip to without having to scroll down and pass the GTA 2 section to reach the post-GTA 2 section. If the split was simply motivated by the mere presence of a different vehicle from an antiqued game seemingly disrupting the flow of a page, then what's the point of these TOCs floating on the top of so many articles? I'm sure readers are not that stupid to not make use of the TOC and distinguish which part of it covers one type of vehicle and which part covers another.
+
+
::Even assuming a split is "justified", what was done at the [[Benson]] article has bias towards newer renditions of the vehicle because the "Benson" namespace is not used by a disambiguation page as logic dictates, but the truck, when the car and truck should be moved to "Benson (car)" and "Benson (truck)" respectively.
+
+
::'''''If there are things you really hate doing, things that make you want to leave, then I'd rather you spent your time on things you did enjoy and someone else could pick that up.'''''
+
+
::I have invested way too much time on this wiki to quit, even though the amount of time I can spend here has dwindled recently because of real-life.
+
+
::You talk about people carrying on my torch, but I doubt that. For starters, this wiki barely has anyone editing. There hasn't been an output of good screenshots covering the entire series as of late, and worthwhile amendments and improvements made on articles are far under expectations in comparison to the Wikia.
+
+
::You also imply that people "could" pick up where I left of with regards to obscure GTA games, but that's just bullshit. The problem with gaming wikis is that the general demographics of editors will usually gravitate towards games which they grew up with, and since the GTA series is now 15 years old, generation gaps within the fan community are apparent and the vast majority of fans to the series are too young to care about older games. These days you will see little to no love on GTA games that are nearly or over a decade old (GTA 1 to GTASA), or are obscure due to their platform (Advance and Chinatown Wars. Pages like the [[Counthash]] ([http://gta.wikia.com/Counthash Wikia page]) or [[London]] ([http://gta.wikia.com/London Wikia page]) or [[I'd Like A Tank Please, Bob!]] ([http://gta.wikia.com/I%27d_Like_A_Tank_Please,_Bob! Wikia page]) will never ever be updated with crucial information because barely anyone care. And when those who have specialized on these games are no longer active, those pages will not only be neglected, but will be forgotten. - [[User:ZS|ZS]] ([[User talk:ZS|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/ZS|edits]]) 18:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
== Character Quotes ==
== Character Quotes ==