Forum:Vehicle page images

Could someone please replace the first picture of the banshee with something little more appealing, such as the banshee from GTA IV, this is a featured page. Optimist33gta 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a problem with most vehicle articles as no one picture is better than the other. The best thing to do is to place all images in a gallery.--Spaceeinstein 04:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But there should always be one in the top right corner of the article (see Help:Articles). We just need to choose the best image for that position, taking in to account things like camera angle (best image, not best version of the car, though if it comes down to that than why not?). Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 06:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the problem, especially for names shared by vehicles prior to GTA III (Fire Truck, Stallion, Bus, Stinger and Speeder). Your argument basically tips in favor of vehicles from GTA III and later, since they are a far more detailed. We might as well avoid lead pictures outright in cases like this. - ZS 08:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, taking out the lead picture in a featured page is just a horrible idea in my opinion. While it is true putting pictures of vehicles that have the best looks is favoring GTA III and IV era, the top down pictures just look bad and you can barely make out what that vehicle is suppose to be. That is why we should have the more detailed pictures, because that is what the people come here to see, not just some image of a few pixels put together 10 years ago. Although I do agree those top down pictures should be put into the gallery, they should never be put into the top right corner unless that is the only picture of that vehicle(Karma Bus, Medicar). Optimist33gta 13:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's amazing how shallow modern gamers are. The only way that this can be solved easily is by putting the most recent rendition at the top, but then some cars such as the Admiral were also in GTA Chinatown wars, so the whole "next-gen graphics FTW" arguement would start again. However, I think it's only fair that the earlier renditions are featured too, so maybe it would be better to just put all the images in the gallery at the bottom (unless it's the only vehicle with its name, such as the Cossie or [Mundano). Either that, or we split the article into sections "GTA 1 Rendition", "GTA III Rendition" (much like most vehicle articles at the moment already are) and feature the picture of the appropriate vehicle in each section. - Hardrock182 16:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still not fond of splitting it up this way. I've been looking up Talk:Mesa and found a valid justification for merging all renditions if they share the same name, simply to ease maintenance in the long run. This is why I'm sticking to my guns. Of course, there will be a conflict of interest, but it's a small price to pay to better manage this wiki. - ZS 16:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see your point about not splitting it up many different pages for each one, that isn't a good idea. But back to the original point, we shouldn't have an ancient picture for a car that has much better detail in a newer picture. Although I do agree GTA III era picture should be featured, on occasion. GTA III era pictures have dominated this wiki for over 4 years, I think it is time to give room for GTA IV pictures in the top right box, especially in featured pages. Optimist33gta 20:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It was only last year that I downloaded GTA1 and GTA2 from Rockstar's website. The reason I downloaded them was because I wanted to see the evolution of the series and I admit that if I had more patience for the awkward controls and things they would have been good games, and therefore in their time, I believe that they were good games. However, it's no secret that MOST (I'm not saying all) of the people reading GTW are looking for information about the GTA III/IV eras. The image in the top-right corner of the page should (in my opinion) be the most appealing we have, that doesn't necessarily mean the version of the car that has the best performance, and it's personal preference to say which version of a car looks best (I know that I don't really care). What I mean by the best image could incorporate things like camera angle (which I mentioned before), time of day (can you see the features?), location (what's in the background), etc, to get the best looking image, and GTA1/2 cars are just simple drawings and don't seem to have that same affect (always day in GTA1 and night in GTA2, always just road and roof in background, etc). Thoughts? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the kind of argument has leaves me to think that the lead space should be left empty, to leave nothing for both the pre-GTA3-er and the post-GTA3-er; anyone with sense would naturally head down to the gallery section. It also works well to avoid that dreaded Wikia ad box that shows up on the upper right corner of the page when unregistered users visit this wiki. - ZS 08:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, is this whole section, image, about the pre-GTA III era of the Banshee? Because if I read the article right it's introduced in GTA III, meaning there's no argument for putting a GTA/GTA2 car as the top-right-hand-image. And I think that the GTA III image is fine. -ScotlandTheBest 08:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is relevant. I thought it would be appropriate to simply include the first iteration of the vehicle bearing the name, followed by the gallery of succeeding variants. But the way I see it, if the choice of lead image is determined by just graphics, we might as well forgo a lead image in articles of vehicle with multiple appearances, including the Banshee. - ZS 09:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, since the first images of a vehicle's appearance in GTA/GTA2 are small, why not have the first appearance (the small one) with a larger beneath? -ScotlandTheBest 11:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is why I favour using only the gallery section to illustrate images in cases like this. I can't see a sound compromise in this matter if they still want a lead image. - ZS 11:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I guess we will have to leave to creator of the page choose a lead image, and it can be replaced by the people of GTW if they feel if that picture is obsolete. Although there should still be a lead picture, I just think if we take it out it takes away from what a good wiki should be like. Optimist33gta 21:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with a lot of this. Every page should have an image at the top. Looking at the current revision of Police Car, the article is boring and entirely text. As for which era should be at the top, just pick an image that best shows off what that vehicle is. Geeky arguments over which era is technically correct shouldn't ruin the experience of the wiki for most people. It's not as if someone would see a GTA IV Police Car and think "oh no that's the wrong page". If the vehicles are very different, then they should be on different pages (like Tug and Tug Boat). Please ensure every vehicle page has an image at the top. Gboyers talk 10:26, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Also, looking at Banshee and Police Car, you guys have put ALL the images into the gallery, leaving NONE to illustrate the page. This goes against the format of the wiki, leaving just text which is not pleasant to look at. Yes, if we have a lot of images, most of them should go in the gallery. A big gallery is a good thing - especially to compare the vehicles in different eras. But there's no harm in illustrating the rest of the article too. See how Liberty City (HD Universe) is illustrated, do that wherever there is a large chunk of text. The image doesn't have to be relevant. It provides a point-of-reference for the eye which helps when reading large amounts of text or scrolling throught the page. Gboyers talk 10:35, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Gboyers about images on top of pages makes them much more appealing. But instead of having the first rendition's picture why not use the latest big console version, since more people are familiar with the newer games, especially considering how most of the info on the wiki is GTA IV-orientated.--Thescarydude 21:58, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Figured it's time to resolve this. I'm not ashamed to say that I have been endorsing this sort of edits for one simple reason: Unfair representation. Articles covering vehicles from nearly all GTA games, including the classical ones (i.e. Police Car, Fire Truck , Ambulance , Stallion and Stinger ), tend to use lead images from GTA III and later, implying constant bias towards the newer 3D games. I've always thought of including the earlier renditions as lead images, but the assumption is that, eventually, some post-GTA III fanboy is going to replace it with a newer rendition, reinforcing that bias again. By eliminating lead images, all renditions receive fair representation when they are all in the gallery. If you guys are so insistent of a lead image, I want assurance that at least some of these articles use a fair share of images from both the classical and 3D games as lead images, or have the gallery moved up the article instead of placing it so far below. - ZS 15:29, October 14, 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why III/IV-era bias is a problem - it's representative of the number of people that play it. I think the image that best shows the features of the vehicle should be used. I personally think that III-era images do this better than IV-era, because the colours are brighter and the designs are simpler. The 2D titles obviously show a lot less detail, and are a bit useless as lead images. It often frustrates me when people insist on being "technically" correct (fanboy style) instead of just doing what is simplest, easiest to understand, and gets the message across best. "First" and "most recent" should be secondary to "best" and "most informative" when choosing images. Gboyers talk 18:48, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine, but we'll have to be flexible with the gallery as well. There had been occasions when attempts to utilize the gallery system in other parts of an article have been met with a bit of opposition. We can in fact split it up to be moved into relevant portions of the article, associating them better with the text in hand. The problem is lots of vehicle articles have been written with inconsistent layouts, which means we can't simply apply the same gallery split guideline on all articles. I rather we do this on a case-to-case basis because (thankfully), the aforementioned (Police Car, Fire Truck, Ambulance articles, etc) are more of exceptions and most vehicle articles are fine as they are. We'll have to take into consideration length and the number of available images. - ZS 19:56, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough. The point of a gallery is to allow us to have loads of images on a page (eg to show every type of Ambulance). It's not the place where all images MUST go in EVERY article - but if it makes it less cluttered then its helpful. The gallery should be used as an optional alternative, where the normal methods of placing images alongside text are inadequate or inappropriate. We should still illustrate articles with text, and the gallery is there to provide a collection other images where appropriate. That sound fair? Gboyers talk 20:24, October 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I was thinking in the lines of using it in sections of certain recurring vehicles, explaining the design of the vehicle - where the images are the most relevant. I've left the Police Car article in this setup for a few days already. Have you seen it? - ZS 12:03, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Regarding each car's lead image on their page, I've checked out other encyclopedia sites having to do with cars. Most of the time they show the most recent model of the car. (Example: Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, Chevrolet Corvette) So how about showing the car's image based upon the in-game's chronological history rather than which game came out recently? Such as showing the 2001 model of the Stinger instead of the 1984 version. [Which technically, is the last time we saw that car.] --ChanJaoming 20:05, January 5, 2010 (UTC)