Does this really need a page? It seems very trivial if you ask me, that and you can easilly find out what parodies who by going to one of the other pages. Universetwisters (talk) 17:25, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Considering the fact that five staff members (myself, DocVinewood, AndreEagle17, Monkeypolice188 and LS11sVaultBoy, who is a Bureaucrat) have edited it, I'd say yes, it does. Plus, it provides a list of all the businesses in one place. Sam Talk 17:28, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- If a list of all businesses in the same place is what you're wanting, then what's the matter with this page here? It seems redundant if you ask me, to have two pages listing the same thing. Why not just add what parodies who on the other page? Universetwisters (talk) 17:33, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- So what's the big problem with simply mentioning what it specifically parodies on the actual business' page, rather than having to make a whole new one for it? That and if everyone is so adamant on keeping this redundant page up, then at least put the effort into getting it factual. There is nothing to prove that Well Stacked is based on Pizza Hut (same with AT&T and Tinkle), and that Hawk & Little is clearly based on Smith & Wesson (not H&K like the page claims). Everything is either misinformed or added there just for the sake of finding a real life counterpart for something fictional, regardless of how little the two share. Universetwisters (talk) 17:46, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I agree with this. We should only include clear real life counterparts. The page needs to be cleaned up, but it's very recent and is still under construction. DocVinewood (talk) 18:44, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
Ooooookay[]
Can someone fill me in on why this page was created? Or what's the actual purpose of it? Or maybe what makes it not redundant?
Isn't stating on pages "based on" enough? What next? Vehicles?
And again, what's the real point of this page?
17:53, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- People, what is the problem with adding a page listing real life parodies in GTA? C'mon, if it was so unnecessary, the admins would delete it.
AndreEagle17 18:07, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- It's pointless because, as mentioned above, there's very little consistency and if you want to see what is a parody of what, what's so wrong with actually going to that page and making your own conclusions, rather than being spoonfed misinformation, per usual? Universetwisters (talk) 18:17, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree here. A paragraph for each business page to state that it is based on X is sufficient. I don't see the need for a page that lists all parodies. Especially since it is a bottomless page because of the huge amount of businesses in GTA.
And I also agree with WildBrick. If we do have this page, then why not make one about vehicles? No seriously, I don't see a need for this page. Just my opinion though. Rain - Talk 18:25, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- I have to agree here. A paragraph for each business page to state that it is based on X is sufficient. I don't see the need for a page that lists all parodies. Especially since it is a bottomless page because of the huge amount of businesses in GTA.
- It's pointless because, as mentioned above, there's very little consistency and if you want to see what is a parody of what, what's so wrong with actually going to that page and making your own conclusions, rather than being spoonfed misinformation, per usual? Universetwisters (talk) 18:17, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you're opinion, only yours. I'm sick of seeing that you think your opinions determine rules and possibilities of the wiki's future. I've had it up to my eye-balls with it. The page makes a good use for a short look, for people who want a quick look for misunderstandings. I think it highlights the significance of companies being changed and mimicked by Rockstar. Honestly, if you wanted to know what 4 companies where based off, would you rather go through each individual article, finding the right part of each paragraph, constant waiting of loading and searching, or would you rather look on one listed article, which lists all of them, and you don't need to find where it states what it's based off, looking through endless paragraphs is history with this article. 18:31, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- "I'm sick of seeing you think your opinions determine rules and possibilities of the wiki's future." Where did I claimed that my opinion was factual? I'm voicing my opinion on this page like you're doing. Not sure how's that me saying that "my opinion is right". Rain - Talk 18:34, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- "I'm sick of seeing you think your opinions determine rules and possibilities of the wiki's future." Where did I claimed that my opinion was factual? I'm voicing my opinion on this page like you're doing. Not sure how's that me saying that "my opinion is right".
- Yes, you're opinion, only yours. I'm sick of seeing that you think your opinions determine rules and possibilities of the wiki's future. I've had it up to my eye-balls with it. The page makes a good use for a short look, for people who want a quick look for misunderstandings. I think it highlights the significance of companies being changed and mimicked by Rockstar. Honestly, if you wanted to know what 4 companies where based off, would you rather go through each individual article, finding the right part of each paragraph, constant waiting of loading and searching, or would you rather look on one listed article, which lists all of them, and you don't need to find where it states what it's based off, looking through endless paragraphs is history with this article.
- Many previous edits of mine have been removed by you because of your opinion! How can you say that! Do you want me to prove it? 18:37, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Many previous edits of mine have been removed by you because of your opinion! How can you say that! Do you want me to prove it?
- You know, when you (or anyone) undo someone else's edit, it's also based on opinion. In addition, I'm not sure why do you try to bring in your edits in a talk page that isn't even about that. I never claimed in my first paragraph that my opinion is more significant than anyone else's. Rain - Talk 18:41, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- You know, when you (or anyone) undo someone else's edit, it's also based on opinion. In addition, I'm not sure why do you try to bring in your edits in a talk page that isn't even about that. I never claimed in my first paragraph that my opinion is more significant than anyone else's.
- Considering that 558 created this page and Monk, Sam, VaultBoy, myself and Alex edited this page and liked it, I don't think this page is that unnecessary, other users will disagree with you. AndreEagle17 18:35, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Considering that 558 created this page and Monk, Sam, VaultBoy, myself and Alex edited this page and liked it, I don't think this page is that unnecessary, other users will disagree with you.
- The point is having a list of all companies/products (the article will probably be renamed) in one single page, instead of having to go to each page to check each reference. It saves time. Having said that, I kind of understand your points, but I don't think the page is pointless. At least, not more pointless than the hundreds of articles about inaccessible stores, or unviewable movies, etc. DocVinewood (talk) 18:35, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
I can see both sides of the fence here, and I personally would not have created the page myself, but the fact that Tom edited it must suggest that he saw some use in it, otherwise he would have deleted it. And like Doc said, it's no more pointless than the pages about inaccesible shops or unwatchable movies. Sam Talk 18:40, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- "Honestly, if you wanted to know what 4 companies where based off, would you rather go through each individual article, finding the right part of each paragraph, constant waiting of loading and searching, or would you rather look on one listed article, which lists all of them, and you don't need to find where it states what it's based off, looking through endless paragraphs is history with this article."
Do they not have the search bar and "Ctrl+F" where you are? That makes this whole page redundant Universetwisters (talk) 18:47, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- The Sniper Rifles and Shotgun page shows the real life counterparts of each weapon, so if that works well there, why not here? These mentioned pages do exactly the same thing as this page. AndreEagle17 18:56, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Difference being is that those weapons have actual use in gameplay. Around 99% of the listings on this page are just background details. Universetwisters (talk) 19:00, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- I don't get your point, you're saying that weapons have actual use but infamous companies like Burger Shot doesn't? AndreEagle17 19:03, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- I don't get your point, you're saying that weapons have actual use but infamous companies like Burger Shot doesn't?
- Yeah, that's it. Weapons are important gameplay features, like vehicles. Whereas companies like Cellatowa and "Talkin' Balls" are so insignificant that they don't need much of a mention outside of their own pages. Universetwisters (talk) 19:07, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
So many quotes, too little idea on where to start. I guess I'll work from top to bottom.
Other than being a redundant waste of space, not much wrong with it. But since it is a redundant waste of space, no need to have this page. As said, how hard is it to read a little paragraph on company page which already lists the real life counterpart?
Yes, the admins would delete it... if it was marked for deletion.
This. So much this. It's not hard to read an actual page.
Thank you!
This is NOT how a staff member should behave - especially one that currently is on probation. This is a community based site, not staff based site. Other editors have as much input as the staff does. If other editors could not have an input on how this wiki is run or what content is on the wiki then why bother making it free for everyone to edit anyway?
RainingPain is a legitimate and credible editor. If he disagrees with something, he has a valid reason to back it up. If by determining the "wiki's future" you mean helping with getting rid of all the false information then okay, continue being sick of this - I mean, what's the point of correct information on a Wiki?
Unless the votes are locked to staff only, he can decide AND suggest things just like we can.
What makes it any different from the actual page?
Far better than looking through an endless list. Searching for separate articles is faster than looking through the insanely long list which turns out to be an eyesore when looking at it for a while.
Then we might as well change all info on pages into bulletpoints with key words and call it a day. Why bother writing informative paragraphs on a wiki!
And many edits of other editors were removed by you because of your opinion. Many edits of other editors were removed by me because of my opinion. etc. etc. Don't try looking for people to blame, we're all doing it - including yourself.
How hard is it to go to various different pages and find the reference? No, the list does not save time.
So pages about actual game content are more pointless than a page with a random list of companies and their real life counterpart?.... huh, okay.
Nope. A random editor created this page.
Other than Monk and Sam, did they specifically say they liked it?
And you came to that conclusion because everyone else is editing the page, thinking it's necessary?
Seems like there are some people that agree... this page is pointless.
Or he might have had a neutral opinion on this page. Just because a Bureaucrat edits a page doesn't mean it has any more point than before.
Apologies if I misunderstood it, but if what you're saying is add real life pictures of the companies into this page, we might as well make a full blown gallery of all real life locations... on GTA Wiki, a wiki related to a game that has fictional locations.
19:28, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Your anti-social personality makes some of your points sound ignorant, as you said that it's a waste of space and that they didn't like the page, everyone in the chat was talking on how good the page was, including Sam, Doc, Smashbro and Monk, if you don't like the page, don't just say that it's totally pointless, many people like the page, just you, Rain and Universetwisters are saying that this page is pointless, and as you said, "wiki is for information, not staff", but this page clearly shows information of the companies real-life counterparts, stop being so harsh with real-life comparasions, you and Rain, GTA is based on real life, if you see a pump-action, bullpup AK-47 sniper rifle, tell me it's normal just because GTA is just a game. AndreEagle17 19:36, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Because it is based on real life, doesn't mean it should reflect real life. There's a difference between being based on real life things and being realistic. GTA is the first one, not the second one. AFAIK Rockstar never gave a shit about realism, as shown by the fact that a portable railgun that does not exist in real life somehow ends up in a gun store and is buyable by any average pedestrian. I'm not saying any IRL/GTA comparison is not relevant, but as Smurfynz once replied on my talk page, Rockstar make things based on real life, but doesn't make it identical (hence not always realistic), and there's not always need to mention what wasn't kept. Rain - Talk 19:44, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Because it is based on real life, doesn't mean it should reflect real life. There's a difference between being based on real life things and being realistic. GTA is the first one, not the second one. AFAIK Rockstar never gave a shit about realism, as shown by the fact that a portable railgun that does not exist in real life somehow ends up in a gun store and is buyable by any average pedestrian. I'm not saying any IRL/GTA comparison is not relevant, but as Smurfynz once replied on my talk page, Rockstar make things based on real life, but doesn't make it identical (hence not always realistic), and there's not always need to mention what wasn't kept.
Trust me, if I were anti-social I'd be banned from here long ago. If I were anti-social, I'd completely lash out on you all in my above quote train. But I didn't.
I said other than Monk and Sam as it's pretty obvious they agree. But fair enough (even though I didn't see Doc and Smashbro say they like it, but I'll take your word for it).
lol. So far only staff members said they like it. And that's only 5 people. That's not "many".
But does it need a dedicated page? No.
19:50, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- My good god, you both weren't in chat and said "they didn't say they liked it", how? C'mon, this is getting annoying, GTA is based on real life, so all of the unrealistic facts should be noted, like a trivia fact saying that portable Railguns doesn't even exist and that the Musket is erroneously classified as a shotgun and it has an unrealistic reload, it should reflect in real life of course... And the only people who disagree with keeping the page here are you, Rain and Universetwisters, which means what? Those who want to keep the page are in a larger number... Or are you gonna say that you're more important than the other staff members huh? Give me a break, you're trying to make my comments sound ridiculous already. AndreEagle17 19:57, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- My good god, you both weren't in chat and said "they didn't say they liked it", how? C'mon, this is getting annoying, GTA is based on real life, so all of the unrealistic facts should be noted, like a trivia fact saying that portable Railguns doesn't even exist and that the Musket is erroneously classified as a shotgun and it has an unrealistic reload, it should reflect in real life of course... And the only people who disagree with keeping the page here are you, Rain and Universetwisters, which means what? Those who want to keep the page are in a larger number... Or are you gonna say that you're more important than the other staff members huh? Give me a break, you're trying to make my comments sound ridiculous already.
I cannot comprehend this sentence so I'll explain a few things in regards the chat.
-Me and Rain weren't in chat.
-Therefore we didn't see them say they like it.
-Rain isn't even commenting on this so I dunno why you say "you both".
-I said "I'll take your word for it". Which means "Even though there is no evidence, I do believe what you're saying is true".
This is something you're discussing with Rain so I won't comment on it unless necessary (which looking at the way this is going, it might be soon).
3 to 5... we are outnumbered by two people. Yeah, that's a lot!
Nope. I'm not important. But I can still voice and question opinions, just like everyone else.
I ain't even trying.
20:14, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Alright... Let's stop with this discussion, shall we? Let's solve this problem with the pool votes, I'm being a bit harsh here too, so I should stop with the comments either. AndreEagle17 20:17, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Unnecessary page. Leo68 (talk) 02:53, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
Just Companies[]
This seems like a really good page! But do you think that we should maybe expand on it? I saw some real-world entities (Xbox, 50 Shades Trilogy) that I think have a right being somewhere, and not on this page. Just find somewhere for it, maybe rename the page to cover more or create a new one entirely. Just my thoughts, have a good one! Mortsnarg (talk) 18:12, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, I saw the 50SOG and the Xbox counterparts, I found that quite interesting, and it's nice to have them all in one place, rather than to make independant searches. Maybe we can expand, demanding another rename of course. :) 18:13, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- My thoughts exactly! Mortsnarg (talk) 18:23, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
Poll - Closed (Keep)[]
Since this page is causing controversy, I'll ask for everyone's opinion. Keep or delete? DocVinewood (talk) 19:40, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
Votes[]
- Keep- AndreEagle17 19:44, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Sam Talk 19:45, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - 19:51, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - smurfy (coms) 20:46, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Universetwisters (talk) 02:51, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Neutral - DLVIII Talk 20:47, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
DeleteKeep - MC (MyComputer) 09:27, May 29, 2015 (UTC)- Delete - Rain - Talk 05:00, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - 08:52, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - DocVinewood (talk) 09:27, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Myth(Talk/Stalk) 13:16, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - () 16:26, May 29, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
- Delete - Leo68 (talk) 21:09, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
Voting comments[]
- I was the first staff member to edit this page and I'm not gonna lie, my first instinct when I saw this page was to put an Delete tag on it, but I decided to give this page the benefict of the doubt and see what other staff members might think of it. For my money? I think this page should be delete. But if the people who are defending this page can actually make it more presentable and organized, then we might keep the page after all. That's why my vote is neutral for the moment. Let's see what you guys can do with this. - DLVIII Talk 20:47, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- My first instinct was to delete it too, but I decided to have a go with it. As Doc said, the page was created only about six hours ago so is not going to look perfect immediately. If the vote does come to keeping it, I'd personally suggest keeping the page up for a week initially to see if it can be made better. If it can't, then it can be deleted. Sam Talk 20:52, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- I have just signed on and haven't participated in the debate, but reading through, Wildbrick has already repeatedly stated my position clearly so no need for me to repeat. smurfy (coms) 21:00, May 28, 2015 (UTC)
- After much consideration, I decided to change my vote. :) MC (MyComputer) 09:27, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- I find this highly suspicious. 09:44, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Monk did persuade me, WildBrick, but I changed by vote because I think that the information is okay, only if displayed in a "Wikitable". MC (MyComputer) 09:50, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- MC suggested we put the list into a box, rather than delete the page. He didn't realize the poll was about deleting the page altogether, I agreed with putting the info into a wikitext box, and he changed his vote due to my explanation. Don't just accuse users of suspcion when you have no real solid evidence to back up what your blaming us of. 09:54, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Here's proof, of what I said, and what he said. (prior to the text above, he mentioned about the wikitext table). 10:01, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. 10:12, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- That's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
- I find this highly suspicious.
- I don't think there is much problem in keeping this page. Who wants to several big pages just to know what a company is based off? Tgis page is useful in my opinion. Myth(Talk/Stalk) 13:16, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Though it's a page I wouldn't create myself, I would keep it and see how nicely we can get it to look, such as using the table. If no improvements are made over a few weeks, it should be deleted. () 16:26, May 29, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
- "I don't think there is much problem in keeping this page. Who wants to several big pages just to know what a company is based off? Tgis page is useful in my opinion"
- Again, is it literally too much effort to actually put whatever company you want to find in the searchbar and look for it yourself rather than being spoonfed everything, even if it's not accurate?
Universetwisters (talk) 18:39, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Half of the people dont know the correct name of companies. And having a page listing all companies and possibly on which company they are based off still provides an easier way to see the companies. Example- if someone wants to know real life counter parts of 10 GTA companies then it is easier to look at a list at one page instead of looking at 10 seperate pages. And yes typing name of 10 companies need more efort than looking at a single page.Myth(Talk/Stalk) 19:59, May 29, 2015 (UTC)
- It is open for 3 weeks and should be closed now. Myth(Talk/Stalk) 09:36, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
Keep: 7 votes
Delete: 5 votes
Neutral: 1 vote
The poll has been open enough time, the page will not be deleted. DocVinewood (talk) 11:42, June 18, 2015 (UTC)
So if this passes...[]
...If this passes, are we going to make a page for real life vehicles and people parodied in the GTA series? Universetwisters (talk) 19:58, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
- No. AndreEagle17 20:08, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
- ::Then why not? We already have a page for real life companies parodied, why not make one for vehicles parodied? Universetwisters (talk) 20:39, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
- Oh please... You gotta be joking. This page already shows what has to be shown from real life, and I'll tell you what, Vehicle Brands already shows what brands are based on in real life. AndreEagle17 21:01, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
- ::No, I'm being serious. What about people who want to know specifically what vehicle in GTA is based off a real life one, as opposed to searching through each page to find what car they're trying to find? If there's this page, and there's a page dedicated to the Pistol, Shotgun, etc. categories, why say no to a page that states which real life counterpart the vehicle is based on? And if you say no to that, then why would this page be allowed but that page not? Universetwisters (talk) 21:34, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
- Oh please... You gotta be joking. This page already shows what has to be shown from real life, and I'll tell you what, Vehicle Brands already shows what brands are based on in real life.
IMO if this passes, that table should get it's own page. It's actually more relevant information than "real life companies parodied by GTAs". 22:32, June 1, 2015 (UTC)
good article[]
it make good reading .Owen 22:37, June 1, 2015 (UTC)