Talk:Uni-Tel

... I don't even know where to start with this. This page is of no encyclopedic value and it has nothing to do with gameplay, it doesn't even count as trivial by any sane standards. You couldn't justify including a random, unimportant building like this in a list of locations, let alone dedicate an entire article to it. Are we documenting each city one building at a time? The worst part is that someone made an entirely new category for this article alone, Travel Agents. Christ almighty.

This is a Grand Theft Auto Wiki, not the white pages. Is this just some artificial attempt to boost article count and increase the wiki's standing in the statistics, or do some people just have way too much time on their hands? If it's the latter, I suggest whoever writes pages like this devote their time to working on the real articles that need work, of which there are many. --MattyDienhoff 03:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This Wiki is an attempt to provide information on everything within the GTA universe, which does include Uni-Tel. They are an in-game business and should thus be included. You may disagree, and thats your opinion, but businesses will continue to have their own articles here, simply because they are GTA-related. Also, you can contribute to the main articles and to in-game business articles. A-Dust 09:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe we should start with lists before we start on the specifics such as this. Looking back to the very start of the wiki, we begin with a list of vehicles, then fill out the individual vehicle pages slowly and individually. We should have a list of Buildings in Los Santos or Shops (ordered by type) and THEN we can start detailing each brand/shop/building/company. For one thing, it is hard to find information buried this deep without an obvious list at the top; and secondly I don't think many people will want to visit the page about Uni-Tel, there's nothing really to gain from it. More thoughts? Gboyers talk 11:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a list at the Stores page, which granted should be moved to the Businesses page. A-Dust 11:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"I believe we should start with lists before we start on the specifics such as this. Looking back to the very start of the wiki, we begin with a list of vehicles, then fill out the individual vehicle pages slowly and individually. We should have a list of Buildings in Los Santos or Shops (ordered by type) and THEN we can start detailing each brand/shop/building/company."
 * That's exactly what I'm getting at, if there is no more than one paragraph on any one subject it's much more logical and also much tidier to put it in a list of similar subjects rather than create dozens of tiny, individual articles like this. A possible counter to this idea might be "the list will get too big/messy and will be hard to navigate through". No, it won't if it's done properly. The list items could be grouped (either by district or type) with level 2 headers, and each item would be titled with a level three header, below which would be a short description. If the list item was sufficiently important to have it's own article, the blurb under it's header in the list would be replaced by ((main|Article}} leading to it's article. This way all of the items in the list would be easy to find using the index at the top. It would be easy to keep it neat and informative. This would look more professional and it would be a heck of a lot faster to navigate than the way it is now.

"This Wiki is an attempt to provide information on everything within the GTA universe, which does include Uni-Tel."
 * You don't really believe that. The line has to be drawn somewhere and you know that as well as I do. There's a good reason you won't find Female Rollerskater or Dock Worker #3 or Elderly Female Shopper #1 in the list of minor characters, and that reason is not that they don't exist within the GTA universe, because they do; the reason is that they are not important . They are generic, just like so-called 'businesses' like Uni-Tel which is essentially just a prop with no importance whatsoever. What next? Shall we document how many sets of traffic lights there are in each district? Why don't we start documenting the trees, bushes and wildlife in each game? Flora and Fauna in GTA III, anyone? You may think I'm being extreme just to prove a point, but the question begs to be asked. I'll say it again - you have to draw the line somewhere.


 * If a building was:
 * Home to a minor or major character
 * A contact point
 * An important public building like an airport, harbor, hospital or some kind of landmark (like the the Library or the AM CO building in GTA III)
 * A service you could use in some way (like Ammu-Nation or even Rafael's)
 * Or even if it was simply enterable with some kind of pickup inside (like the "Tw@t" internet cafe in GTA III or the Laundromat in Little Havana in Vice City), then I'd agree it would deserve a mention, but buildings like the Uni-Tel Travel Agency here are mere scenery with no practical use and no significance. Even mentioning such locations in a list is a waste of time the way I see it, to say nothing of dedicating entire articles and even categories to them. It's a waste of space, time and effort.


 * The bottom line of my argument is that this wiki is very messy and policies like the one behind this article seem to be a large part of the problem. --MattyDienhoff 12:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, please do not tell me what I do and do not believe. How can you know? Second of all, I think that down the line having images of pedestrians would be an idea worth doing. Also, I find it funny that you say this wiki is messy and try to suggest that articles like this should not be here, yet none of the pages you have linked to have Uni-Tel on them. This is because it is not orphaned and is properly categorised, in a sub-category for the businesses category. A-Dust 13:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You're showing a disturbing propensity for missing my point entirely, this is not about Uni-Tel - which is merely an example of what I'm talking about - this is about the thinking behind this article, behind the wiki at large. I'm talking about with only one article in them; I'm talking about the fact that when you take several dozen small fragments of related information and scatter them all over the place rather than keeping them together, it's inevitable that you'll make a mess or at least make it all much harder to manage and organize. Say for example that you wanted to re-categorize every "Location" article in the wiki. If all of the locations were grouped together in a list, with only the most important ones given their own articles. It would be relatively easy. But as it is now, with every single location, however small or insignificant, granted it's own article, it would be much harder. Of course, there are bots, but if that's what you were about to say, you were about to miss my point again.


 * "please do not tell me what I do and do not believe. How can you know?"


 * Now, assuming you actually meant what you said about "everything", it's actually very simple. Would you or would you not draw the line at an article documenting how many street lights, stop signs and traffic lights can be found in each city...? Well, there's your answer. --MattyDienhoff 13:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Believe me when I say I get your point. You want articles like Uni-Tel deleted because you see little relevance to this wiki. However, I disagree with this idea. About half of the character pages that are currently here could be deleted at this rate, as could several articles about locations (such as Liberty City in GTA 1, Liberty City in GTA III and Liberty City in GTA IV). This wiki is an attempt to detail everything in the series and yet there are people such as yourself who continue to want certain articles deleted because they do not reach your notability criteria. This type of policy should not be implemented here, otherwise it would make this entire project a complete joke in my opinion. A-Dust 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.


 * 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 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. --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? 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. 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. - Gboyers talk 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? Gboyers talk 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 GTA 1 (London included) and 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. Hardrock182 17:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for mentioning Liberty City (3D Universe). 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. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 11:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)