Talk:Grand Theft Auto: London 1969

Edit history

• This article was started by text-splitting from Grand Theft Auto: Mission packs. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Developer change

This unlinked edit summary (16:04, 8 November 2016‎ Lordtobi (→‎Grand Theft Auto: London 1961: DMA -> R* Canada per discussion) is linked to this discussion

Remember to link discussions - X201 (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Cover art and merge

I received a talk page message about this article's cover art. We should be using the art affiliated with the original release, however that looked. I imagine it had the title/lettering based on images I quickly skimmed online. More pertinent, though, is whether this page needs to be separate from the main game's page—usually the strategy is to build a section about the expansion pack within the main article until it needs to spin out summary style.  czar 17:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: That is what I thought: The title is an important identifying feature, while platform, rating etc. is allowed to be, and should be, edited out. I had uploaded the image as a PNG but it has been replaced by another user in JPEG format. I know JPEG is perfectly acceptable as per the guidelines, however if a PNG is already in place is there any ground for replacing it with a JPEG of the exact same image? As for it being a separate article, well, a lot of prose has rececently been cut leaving it as a stub, that's one thing to bare in mind. There's a lot not mentioned in the article that really needs to be: development, plot, reception etc. There was also a stand-alone release for PlayStation so in that respect it wasn't simply an expansion pack, though again that's not mentioned. It would take quite a lot of work to get the article up to standard I'd think considering there's not much exposure, and thus sources, on this game. Dell9300 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes JPGs display better than PNGs on WP because of compression but the way the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works, if a proposed change is reverted, it's supposed to go to discussion rather than edit warring (so you would know why another editor feels compelled to change it). This said, don't see the reason for keeping it at all if the expansion pack is going to be built summary style within the parent article czar 16:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In this case the PNG definitely displays better than the JPEG (there are compression artefacts with that one) and from what we've discussed the title should be present so for now I'll revert back to the other cover until it's decided what the fate of the article shall be. Dell9300 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that if you slap a piece of JPEG (the title) onto another piece of JPEG (the cover) and export it as PNG does not mean that the compression artifacts vanish magically because of a different file format, the real difference is that the compression is now actually PNG-saved causing a loss of file space. Also, how I get it, Czar would like to use "the art affiliated with the original release" that being the full-stylized cover I originally uploaded, I guess. Please don't revert mid-discussion until he distinctively states his opinion on what to use. Lordtobi (✉) 17:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I mean the artefacts from Wikipedia scaling a JPEG to fit in an infobox. It was clear to see more damage occurred with the JPEG that doesn't happen with the PNG. PNG stops more damage from occurring when scaled. I have already reverted it though before reading this, perhaps in haste, so I'm sorry about that. Dell9300 (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• To be clear, my opinion is to merge the sourced text in this article to a section in the main game's article, and to not import either covers as a visualization of the cover is not necessary (when the original already has an image to identify itself). If the article eventually spins out, we should use the original release's cover (or, alternatively, the PS1 cover) in the infobox as identification. But it doesn't need to spin out unless we have the reliable sources and text to justify it.  czar 19:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it needs something stronger than that. The London expansions have been in and out of the main article constantly for years. We need a consensus that they don't get moved to separate articles again until they really are ready for it. Perhaps with protection on the target pages with a note for admins should yet another page move be required. - X201 (talk) 09:04, 11 November 2016 (UTC)