Talk:List of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas characters

Ryder

Resolved

 – Ryder will remain as a supporting character (no image)

He is a major character, isn't he? I mean he was active around as much as Big Smoke but he only died too soon. But I don't think I would consider Woozie bigger than him? Flesh-n-Bone 19:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree: Ryder is really just a pawn of Big Smoke, Tenpenny, and the Loco Syndicate, whereas Woozie is the leader of the organization that CJ not only performs tasks for in San Fierro, but also collaborates with in order to rob Caligula's Casino in Las Venturas. Furthermore, Woozie becomes CJ's major ally in both San Fierro and Las Venturas, and is justifiably included among the major characters, just like Cesar (CJ's major ally in Los Santos and San Fierro). Basically, Woozie and Cesar provide the links between CJ and non-GSF gangs throughout San Andreas. The same is true for Tenpenny and Smoke: they provide the links between CJ and the Loco Syndicate, and become his major enemies. Ryder is really secondary to this process, as he does not establish any further links between CJ and other organizations in San Andreas, nor does he become a major enemy of CJ's. Eganio^Talk 00:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You brought up an interesting point: you say he dies too soon as if to say he died before he could be considered more influential. I don't feel he should have a picture for he's not very influential. As Eganio brought up, he was more of a peon rather than a major player in the game's events. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO, even if Ryder died with Smoke in the Crack Palace in the "End of the Line" mission, I would still consider him much less consequential to the story than Smoke & Tenpenny, who are the key players in the Los Santos arm of the Loco Syndicate's operations. Ryder to me was never more than a casual opportunist who took advantage of Big Smoke's involvement with Tenpenny to make a shitload of money. Eganio^Talk 03:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

But he appears in 85% of the beginning's missions in Los Santos. I can't think of any mission where he isn't appearing, only the Big Smoke and OG Loc's first one's where you get him into rapping. But he is shooting the Ballas in House Party mission. So to me he is a major character. After the betray Big Smoke gets with the Ballas and can be seen only in the last mission where you kill him although I know he is a big character. Ryder appears in 2 missions while on San Fierro, Photo Oppunity and Pier 69 (where you kill him). --Flesh-n-Bone 13:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please realize that 85% of the beginning equals about maybe less than 25 or 30% of the game itself. Maybe not even that much. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Colonel Fuhrberger can be sniped on the mission you find him and you can visit his house whenever you want however nobody is in there. Should it be mentioned? Flesh-n-Bone 13:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, Ryder is not a major character. Saying he's in 85% of missions means absolutely nothing. His impact on the story is the issue at hand. Appearance in missions is not the only measure of a character's relevance to the plot, plain and simple. There are numerous other factors influencing this. Besides, how many missions does a character like Tenpenny show up in? Probably a lot less than Ryder, so by your estimation, Ryder is more of a major character than Tenpenny, Sweet, Big Smoke, Woozie, and Cesar, simply because he shows up in more missions? C'mon, think about it. Eganio^Talk 21:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't show up in more missions than any of these one's mentioned. But he has an impact in the game and Tenpenny's impact is something else, a lot of influential things are happening just because of Tenpenny in the story line, most notably Smoke selling out GSF and the riot in Los Santos. And in the last mission he causes a lot of problem for CJ, including when he explodes the palace and all that. Although I would say Ryder is bigger than Woozie even though Woozie is CJ's main friend along with Cesar in San Fierro. Ryder, Smoke and Sweet are all main leaders of GSF when CJ is back and the storyline begins. I know Sweet is appearing only in the start and the last missions he is still a main character leading the Groove and CJ's brother. Plus I think Kendl is a minor character, she only appears in a few cutscenes acting like tough lady. If she's a supporting character I guess it's because she is Carl's sister and Cesar girlfriend. Also should any of the other girlfriends like Katie and Helena be mentioned in the article. I know they never be seen in any missions but still can be mentioned... And one thing, why is T-Bone minor and Jizzy supporting? They are always together so I don't get why they are not considering in the same impact? --Flesh-n-Bone 20:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that Ryder has an impact on the game. Everyone in the game has some sort of impact. But I still don't agree with you that Ryder is a major character. His actions and influence throughout the game are minor. These are the criteria defining his impact on story, not his rank in GSF, not his number of mission appearances, not how, when, why, or where he gets killed, etc. Look at it this way: if all you can come up with to describe a certain character are minor details, then the character is minor. As far as Kendl being a minor character, I disagree with you there as well: Kendl does much more than just act tough (in fact, I would argue this description applies more to Ryder than Kendl). She is arguably one of the most important supporting characters, since she's the one who not only brings sense and logic to CJ's dealings (especially in San Fierro), but is also instrumental in keeping Carl "real", along with Sweet, by not letting him forget where he came from. Besides, she is the link to Cesar, and without their relationship, CJ's dealings with Los Santos gangs would be very different. BTW, Jizzy is supporting because you perform missions for him, unlike T-Bone Mendez, with whom your only real interaction is filling him with lead. Eganio^Talk 00:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You perform missions for both T-Bone and Jizzy, On the mission T-Bone Mendez it's him who you perform for, in Jizzy it's Jizzy B. who you are helping and in missions like "Mike Toreno", T-Bone is with you, on Outrider T-Bone is there as well. The only very mission you do for Jizzy is the one with his own name. Where you save one of his bitches and etc... So if Jizzy's supporting T-Bone should be the same in my opinion. And what about CJ's other girlfriends like Katie etc...--Flesh-n-Bone 17:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are just introduced to T-Bone in the eponymous mission, just as you are introduced to Kendl in the Kendl "mini-mission" in the beginning of the game. Also, no other girlfriends should be mentioned, for they play no major part in the game. 18:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klptyzm (talk • contribs)

And does Johnny die in the Meat Business cutscene where he falls down from his chair? Flesh-n-Bone 20:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

(Un-indent)Yes, and I'll kindly remind you that Wikipedia isn't a forum. Unless you asked that to correct something in the article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, but is that Woozie image good, because it's too fucking dark and you can hardly see anything, I just took when I went for a mission with him where he walks. I took with the camera you can have in the game, so I'd request a better image from him. Flesh-n-Bone 23:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the image. Yeah, it's a little too dark, unless you angle yourself just right. I'll check to see if User:ZS has one of Woozie. Eganio^Talk 23:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It will suffice, I guess. But someone should probably replace it. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image of Ryder per consensus. Eganio^Talk 23:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Non-free use rationales

Hey folks, I am working on writing detailed non-free use rationales for the major character images so we have something to throw back at anyone petitioning their deletion from this list. I have started with Frank Tenpenny. Please go to the image description page and see what you think. Please change things as necessary. Assuming we can craft a good rationale for Tenpenny, we can move on to the other images as well. Eganio^Talk 04:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I have completed writing the non-free use rationales for all six of the major characters' images. The only thing left is for the people who captured those images (User:Flesh-n-Bone for Woozie; User:ZS for the rest) to fill in the Source and Portion used subheadings within the rationale templates. Eganio^Talk 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion about the use of images to illustrate the List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. My argument there is that this article is a clear breach of the fair use guidelines, as it is effectively an image gallery that uses multiple images from a copyrighted source. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As we have discussed at length, the use of images on this list is limited to only those characters deemed as having major influences on the game's storyline. Additionally, I have written non-free use rationales justifying the use of each image in this article. A great deal of thought, discussion, and effort has been poured into making this list as concise as possible. The discussion you referred to seems more about cases in which list creators simply throw in numerous images without thought to justification and/or relevance to the article. Use of images here is a much different scenario, and is the result of careful strategizing. In short, I don't see how this article breaches fair use guidelines, as these guidelines were used to decide if, how, when, and where any images would be used. Eganio^Talk 00:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Toreno

Resolved

 – Mike Toreno is presumed dead after the "Toreno's Last Flight" mission, but reappears later

Is he presumed dead? It must refer to "Toreno's Last Flight" mission in that case. But how would CJ work towards him on the Desert if he would have died? Maybe I misunderstood something.--Flesh-n-Bone 15:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it say he's dead in the article? It has to be said: it's beginning to look like you using this page as a forum. You could find this information anywhere else on the Internet, if not the game itself. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

He connected his comment to the article as far as it being unclear at answering this question, which he finds relevant to the character. If there's any connection at all to improving the article, I'm in favor of keeping such comments. If Flesh's intentions are to use this page as a forum and disguise his comments so that they get answers anyway, we should err on the side of assuming good faith and answering them. If his comments start to have no connection at all to improving the article, they could then be removed. Croctotheface (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't gonna remove them. It's just that such info like this can be found easily at other parts of the Internet. But to answer the topic question, yes he is still alive and, concerning the "presumed-dead" theory, it's impossible to tell. The only people (that matter) that could really assume he is dead are the Loco Syndicate, who are killed, so they don't matter. As far as a more "general" public, you can't determine that since it's impossible. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Forum? that's what I say to some others in Wiki where they ask some random questions.. I only misundestood that thing with presumed dead and thought it says he was dead. But you perform all of the Desert missions for him and that. It is related with the article, because it states once he is presumed dead but then again you do some missions for him. --Flesh-n-Bone 17:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Presumed means "believed to be". In this case, that belief was mistaken. Croctotheface (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Where is this coming from? Where does it say he's presumed dead? He's obviously not dead, since he is still around to release Sweet from prison and send Carl to pick him up. Besides, we find out very quickly that Toreno was obviously not in the helicopter during the "Toreno's Last Flight" mission. As far as improving the article, I don't think this stuff is important. Eganio^Talk 01:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it actually does say it. The context of the sentence states "presumed dead" as of the end of the "Last Flight" mission. As the topic starter stated, he misunderstood what it said. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see it. My bad. Eganio^Talk 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive

Resolved

I have archived the lengthy discussions regarding image use etc. (Archive 2) in the interest of cleaning this page up. Eganio^Talk 02:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good one, it just took me a god awful long time to reply whenever someone wrote back in here while going through same things said over and over.--Flesh-n-Bone 13:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Other info

Shall I ask something? Does anyone know what's the story behind the killing of Jizzy, why does he get killed and what's his call all about? If anyone know it please add it to his section. I still haven't got anything out of what it says about Jizzy's final breathes on the page. And anyone thought off adding Big Poppa? Just like we have Kane, Big Poppa deserves a mention too, "he is the Vagos leader, Madd Dogg gives his mansion to him after losing his power and he is a drug dealer then CJ and the Triads attack the Vagos on the mansion and he gets out and tries to escape by a car but on a chase CJ kills him." Any thoughts? It is definitely not the best way to write it but I'm just giving some info that you can put on there as I'm currently on a wikibreak and not editing for a period. --Flesh-n-Bone 13:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think Jizzy is important enough to delve that deeply into his story. As far as Big Poppa, I don't see any problem with adding a section on him, as long as it is short (which I think will be automatically dictated by the general paucity of information on this character). Eganio^Talk 00:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm against a section on Big Poppa or the other "mission only" characters who don't appear in cutscenes or affect the plot in a way that spans more than a single mission. If the consensus of other editors here favors including those characters, of course, I'll relent. I don't mind another sentence or two about Jizzy, just not much more than that. Croctotheface (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Croctotheface, you make a good point. I'm fine with leaving Big Poppa out, but I still don't think any more needs to be added to Jizzy's description...all the vital points are there, n'est ce pas? Eganio^Talk 00:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe something should or must be added, but I wouldn't object to another couple of sentences if they added relevant information. I'm fine with the current version as well. Croctotheface (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't really care about what you add to Jizzy's section, I already see the thing I was wanting to have there, that the call you have to get from him on Ice Cold Killa is a call to the Loco Syndicate group so Carl takes it and tells Cesar about it, then they kill them all + Ryder. But if we will have these names like Colonel, Kane and Freddy, then Big Poppa is more important than Freddy. --Flesh-n-Bone 07:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Bear appears in two missions. I don't think we should have the others. Croctotheface (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel the same way. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OG Loc

I've read that in real life, the acronym "OG" stands for "Original Gangster". Is it indicated in game that OG was meant to stand for Orange Grove?--24.255.171.220 (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No. I'm sure it's for "Original Gangster," but there's no point in looking deep into it if you can't find a source. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, OG stands for original gangster. It is an indication of respect and seniority within a gang. In fact, if you progress far enough in the game, your criminal rating eventually becomes "OG". Eganio^Talk 07:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Ryder & Pulaski

I don't know what to say, but I always feel these two should be included for the major characters, yeah I know they are kinda secondary for their tasks but they are just a little less-impacted characters of Smoke and Tenpenny. Plus Ryder is one of CJ's major allies in Los Santos. This has already been discussed in a previous archive. For the Vice City one, characters are listed major much easier like some that only have side missions. Even though I clean it up yesterday and put a similar case to what we have here. I agree with the point number 2 here.

Any thoughts? --Flesh-n-Bone 13:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Add: I also think that Toreno can place there as well because his missions played big role specially for the fact he would free Sweet and let CJ continue the story-line and make him get back to his home. Plus Toreno still seems to be big enough for being one of the head supporting one's or a major because of these jobs. --Flesh-n-Bone 13:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

While I understand your contention that Ryder and Pulaski play significant roles in GTA:SA, I do not agree that they should be included among the major characters. Here is why:

• Ryder is really just a lieutenant of Big Smoke, whose criminal "empire" is represented by his being a major character...Ryder is simply there as support, albeit significant support, for the L.S. arm of the Loco Syndicate, and should remain as a minor character, since he himself cannot establish independent signficance throughout the game. In other words, his significance to the game is derived only through major characters, namely Big Smoke and C.J.
• Eddie Pulaski is a similar case: his involvement and his significance in the game's plot is derived only through his interactions with the major characters Frank Tenpenny and C.J. Like Ryder, he cannot establish independent significance in the game's storyline.
• Mike Toreno is an interesting case. He can be seen to establish independent significance in the game, but the caveat is that such significance is obfuscated from other characters and the player him/herself for quite some time during the game. Furthermore, because of his clandestine dealings with C.J., he remains as one of the minor characters for whom C.J. performs duties, such as The Truth, but whose influence on the plot remains supportive, rather than directive. This is because the missions performed aren't directly associated with the major impetus behind C.J.'s actions, which is the murder of his mother and his subsequent attempts to track down her killer(s). Eganio^Talk 20:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I find Woozie and Toreno as big as each other, mainly because Toreno lets CJ continue the story-line by freeing his brother and CJ is with Woozie only for business. I'm not saying Woozie should be moved down, but I think apart from the protagonist, Tenpenny, Smoke, Sweet, Cesar, Ryder, Woozie, Pulaski and Toreno are the one's that have more significance than anyone else in the story-line. I know Ryder and Pulaski are henchman/secondary on their role but they still should be on the major one considering that they are just a less impacted version of their boss' Big Smoke and Frank Tenpenny. So to fix up this thing I think: Ryder, Pulaski and Toreno* should move to major and T-Bone to supporting, then I don't really find any problem with the list anymore.

(*) = Alternative.

Also note that after robbing the Casino with Woozie he has NOTHING more to do with you. And I think YOU, on an above comment said Cesar is Carl's major alley in San Fierro and Los Santos, I don't know how he can be that? Neither in the first part of the story-line and neither in the last, he appears only twice on the beginning LS missions and only once in the end when you help his gang get together apart from the cutscenes. --Flesh-n-Bone 12:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather see Cesar and Woozie moved down than see anyone else moved up. As it stands, we arguably do designate too many characters as major. Really, the major characters are the people like the protagonist, and the antagonist (or in this case, two major antagonists). I think that Eganio hit on a bunch of reasons to distinguish the way the article currently does. There are likely more, but I think that we should measure characters by their importance to the storyline (how different would the story become without this character?) and by presence (how much are they in the game?). The issues with Pulaski and Ryder are mostly importance: the story would change little, if at all, if they just never existed at all. The issue with Toreno is presence: he doesn't appear more than a few times, and nearly all the missions he assigns are tangential to the actual storyline. Croctotheface (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The Toreno issue is changing alot, even though it does nothin for Carl, without Toreno, Sweet would have not been released from prison. --Flesh-n-Bone 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, that has a substantial effect on the plot, but he's not present throughout the game. Croctotheface (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cesar is C.J.'s major ally in both L.S. and S.F. In L.S., he establishes the relationship between GSF and Varrios Los Aztecas, and the subsequent re-acquisition of gang territory from the Vagos. In S.F., he acts as C.J.'s "associate" in criminal dealings, such as car theft and establishment of C.J.'s S.F. businesses. So what's the confusion you're having here??? Next, I really have yet to see a solid argument from you regarding why Toreno, Pulaski, and Ryder should be considered as major characters. Your argument seems to center around how well the character in question "enables" C.J.'s progress through the major storyline...by that measure, Toreno is not a major character because he is not the one who put Sweet in prison (Tenpenny did so...Toreno is just using this as leverage), so this entire interaction is therefore tangential to the main storyline. Next, Pulaski? C'mon, man. How the hell is he a major character??? He appears about as often and has as much impact as officer Jimmy Hernandez, so why don't we include him as well? And Ryder? We've already had this discussion, and I thought I made it perfectly clear that a lieutenant of a major character is not himself a major character. Any influence Ryder has on the main storyline is superceded by that of Big Smoke, who is his superior and deserves the major character designation. In short, none of the characters you are seeking to designate as major have independently established an impact on the main story. Each of these characters either establishes a tangential plotline, or plays a secondary role in the major plotline. Therefore, they are not major characters. This is why The Truth is not a major character: he enables C.J.'s progress through the main storyline, but only does so vis-à-vis Tenpenny's influence and direction, so is therefore not a major character. Similarly, Catalina, although certainly highly influential in C.J.'s actions, establishes a purely tangential storyline, and is therefore not a major character...see what I'm getting at? Eganio^Talk 21:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty confused, dunno why but I don't really understand what you are saying, I know Pulaski and Ryder are quite secondary, though Toreno is the one who lets CJ continue by releasing Sweet who is the main person that decides that they should go back to Groove rather than stay for money on LV and Cesar in not CJ's major ally in LS, he is your associate in SF but in LS you just race twice and is introduced to VLA then on the return you are close friend so you just help him get back their territory. I find Ryder and Pulaski as the one's that are like "armor" for Tenpenny and Smoke. Though they are secondary I think they should be major because of the link I have given here. --Flesh-n-Bone 22:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The old discussion you reference came out in favor of what's currently there, right? I'm not sure how referencing that bolsters your point. You concede that Pulaski and Ryder are "secondary" yet you want to call them "major"? That doesn't make sense to me. Again, personally, I'd rather "demote" characters from major to supporting than "promote" anyone. Croctotheface (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but I feel there should 1 or 2 more characters from Supporting to major and one from minor to supporting which will be T-Bone IMO. I just don't think the major should be only the main antagonist(s) and your main associate. --Flesh-n-Bone 10:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you play the game??? Your dealings with Cesar are integral to taking over gang territory in L.S. (he is your only non-GSF gang-affiliated ally in L.S., may I remind you), he is the one who "clues you in" on the Ryder-Big Smoke-Tenpenny link, he is your sister's boyfriend, and he provides numerous opportunities for collaboration in and between L.S. and S.F., some of which are required for advancement through the game. Therefore, I'd say his impact is quite large. And as far as Woozie is concerned, here is another example of a major ally (this time establishing C.J.'s link to S.F. gangs) that you are arguing for exclusion from the major characters, seemingly in favor of Ryder and Pulaski. However, you yourself admit that Ryder and Pulaski are "quite secondary", yet continue to argue for their inclusion amongst the major characters. What is your point??? Why in the world would you consider Ryder and Pulaski to have more of an impact on the game's plot than Cesar or Woozie??? I'm curious because so far, you have been beating around the same bush. Also, you said "I just don't think the major should be only the main antagonist(s) and your main associate." This is in large part how I define major characters...so how would you define a major character, since your definition seems to differ greatly from mine? Eganio^Talk 20:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've said, I think that the arguments against Woozie and Cesar being "major" are stronger than the arguments for Toreno. (I don't think Ryder or Pulaski warrant major character status, as they don't move the plot at all, so I don't think there's really purpose to discussing them.) So I suppose I'll say that I have a bit of sympathy for saying that Toreno is not altogether unlike Woozie, who is a much closer case than Cesar in my view. I think the current configuration gets it just right, but if we do move anyone, I'd want us to say that there are not that many major ones. I really have trouble conceiving of this game having NINE major characters. Croctotheface (talk) 02:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'm curious: has anyone looked into what R* considers to be the major characters? Now that would be not only verifiable, but indisputable as well. We could put and end to all of this, since we've all got unique ideas as to what constitutes a major character. Eganio^Talk 05:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed Ryder & Pulaski are bigger than Cesar & Woozie and the latter one's are not major. I said they should be in major too, for me the way I look @ major is apart from the main antagonist(s) and main associate, two or three of the one's that played bigger role than anybody else but no more than the actual big characters deserve to be there. Cesar & Woozie are both big. I have played the whole game and can write an article as well, I don't think I have forgotten any cut-scene either to add. But 8 or 9 major characters are how I find it the best. And Ryder & Pulaski, Toreno are definitely the biggest three of the supporting one's that are put there, plus I still don't find any difference between Jizzy & T-Bone, they are almost in the same body, you do missions for both and I feel they should be dropped in the same cat, if one is minor then the other should be, if one's supporting the other should be too. I consider them as big. --Flesh-n-Bone 14:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I know you didn't say we should exclude Woozie, but *I* said that I'd rather exclude than include at this point. The lack of really strong objective criteria for making this decision complicates things, but I believe the logic behind the current structure is reasonable and a better basis for making the decision than anything else. We need to draw the line someplace. Is there anything new to discuss here? I feel like it's becomign circular at this point. Croctotheface (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Flesh-n-Bone, please formulate a concise and concrete argument as to why you think Toreno, Ryder, and Pulaski should be included among the major characters. So far, you have inundated this discussion topic with circular logic and unconvincing arguments. Why in the world would we want to have 8 or 9 major characters?! We already have arguably too many...Croctotheface said it best: I too would rather exclude than include characters as major, since the term major insinuates not only that such characters have significant impact on the story, but also that such characters are rare, hence necessitating the categorizations of major vs. minor, etc. If we're going to consider everyone that can be argued to have some noticeable impact on the story as a major character, then why bother delineating major vs. minor vs. supporting??? Everyone has an impact, but only those with the greatest impact can be considered as major, and I think the only characters that meet this criterion are already listed. Eganio^Talk 22:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we can leave it like this, but we should create some consensus or what it's called for the Vice City version of this article. Please take a look at the discussion there because Black Kite is again trying to act like owner and puts up "image copyright" tags for the article suggesting that it's overuse of images. So discuss it there and we'll decide what it's gonna be to the end. I uploaded image for the big characters and it's good as it is all we need is to close that copyright bullshit and make our "consensus". --Flesh-n-Bone 13:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

the appearance of Ryder

shouldnt it be mentioned that the appearance of Ryder is pretty obviously based on Eazy-E? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.74.155.173 (talk) 07:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Only if there is a reliable source stating that Rockstar based him on Eazy-E, otherwise it would be original research. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 12:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay really is Rockstar gonna state that ,no, so you might as well put it as him, because it is obvious that he is

It's not that obvious to some people and there isn't a source, both 2 good reasons why it's not getting added. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 02:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a source from Rockstar; any source that we can attribute the idea to is fine. I actually think that it should go in, since in my mind it's pretty obvious. Croctotheface (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely the article could suggest the likeness and list some similarities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.121.60 (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Brian Johnson

Shouldn't Brian, the 4th Johnson child, have a mention in the article? 206.159.155.148 (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A mentioning, yes, which I'm sure is already in the article. A section, which you may or may not be hinting at, no. And if he's not mentioned, it may need to stay that way. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mexican man

I was just wondering, who is that foregein man that help CJ and all the others in the mission, Breaking th bank at Caligulas?I'm pretty sure he is the same mexican from the cutscene, where CJ says something, but the man says he lives there, and CJ comments "Okay, you can stay then."Le Rusecue (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think his the cook there. The cut scene for certain missions features them discussing in a kitchen like area. But then again wikipedia isn't the place to be discussing such things! But i've decided to answer your question anyway. JayJ47 (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

He's the janitor. Turns out CJ has decided to use the janitor's room to plan the mission heist. Lots42 (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:NFC says the images we have here are fine

If editors again want to remove the images here, they need to take that up on WP:NFC. The notion that some ANI thread supersedes the text there (and the consensus behind it) is greatly mistaken. The consensus on this talk page is to have a small number of images for the major characters. The consensus formed at the guideline is that such a method is OK, especially in a case like this where an alternative (such as a group shot) is not available. Croctotheface (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC) Also, the thread that the user who has removed the images cited in support of his argument is from May 2007, over a year ago. The discussion that resulted in the section to WP:NFC that governs use of images in articles like this one took place in December 2007 and January of this year. Croctotheface (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The subpage represented a community-wide development of consensus about our implementation of the Foundation Licensing Resolution's Exemption Doctrine Policy. This is a Wikimedia Foundation decision to limit (or eliminate) fair use. In cases such as lists, its been conclusively held that their use is excessive. -M^ask? 20:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I again refer you to the actual text of WP:NFC. There is a section called "Non-free image use in list articles." If what you are saying here is correct, that section should say, "no images of any kind should be used in any article that resembles a list in any way." That is not what it says. I'd refer you to the discussion page of that guideline, particularly archives 32 and 33, in which editors discussed precisely this issue and specifically rejected the standard that AKMask believes governs our editing here. What we have instead is the text of the guideline. It is telling that while I refer to a current consensus and text, AKMask can only refer to an older noticeboard thread, which does not have the weight of a guideline, and his own interpretation of the foundation's call to reduce non-free content. That call was available to those editors who discussed this issue; it does not supersede the consensus reached there. The consensus reached there supersedes it. You are the one who disagrees with the current consensus. Perhaps a new discussion at WP:NFC would go your way, AKMask, and I'd suggest you pursue that. Until then, your removal of images goes against the consensus reached both there and on this talk page, and they should be reinstated. I won't do it myself, this time, because this should not be a back-and-forth between two editors. However, it is clear that the current consensus supports my position here. Croctotheface (talk) 20:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep linking WP:NFC, a guideline, in response to my linking of WP:NFCC, a policy, which clearly states use must be minimal and that has long been held to apply to whole articles, not minimal per section, and require comment or criticism. -M^ask? 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, why the hell do you keep talking about me in the third person?  :) -M^ask? 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I used third person because I try to address my comments to the readers of talk pages, not the person I'm responding to. In this case, it was kind of silly and confusing to do that because I had already used "you." Anyway, I cite WP:NFC because it talks about cases like this very specifically. WP:NFCC does not talk about any specific cases. WP:NFC is a guideline for interpreting our policies, such as WP:NFCC, and applying them to specific situations, such as this article. You are more or less asserting that your interpretation is correct while the interpretation in WP:NFC, which was formed by a consensus of editors, is wrong. It could be that your interpretation is better, but the driving force in discussions at Wikipedia is consensus. It was a consensus that built the section in WP:NFC and a consensus on this talk page that interpreted it to say, basically, that we should have the images we did (before you removed them) and exclude similar images for the rest of the characters. If you want to have the article do something else, you need to sway the consensus, not merely say that it's wrong and you're right so your change should be implemented. Croctotheface (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(Note that I had an edit conflict so I have not read Croctotheface's comment above yet) Each article needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis, you cannot just blanket remove images from every article nor list. It simply does not work that way, and that is not Wikipedia's intention. After a lengthy debate, there was a consensus on the interpretation of the policy on this article and how it should be applied to this article. The subpage refers specifically to Lists of episodes where it was agreed upon that use of images in such articles were purely decorative with no (and could never ever have any) encyclopedic merit whatsoever, or indeed "critical commentary", a term which a particular few are determined to keep despite absolutely no one having a clue what it exactly means. Prosaic character lists are a completely different matter, and images can indeed and usually do have some form of "critical commentary". Also, to a great extent, general interpretation of policy does indeed reflect consensus. --.:Alex:. 21:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Every article is being dealt with on a case-by-case basis - it's just that practically all list articles which overuse non-free images fall foul of our policies and guidelines, as mentioned below. In that case, removal of such images is the only option. Black Kite 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, you have your interpretation of the policy. Your interpretation is at odds with the current consensus interpretation, which is described at Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles. Your personal opinion does not override the consensus opinion, no matter how right you think you are or how wrong you think the consensus is. If you want to make changes based on this understanding that you've articulated, you need to change the consensus. Croctotheface (talk) 00:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images in list articles

Except in very rare situations, such galleries always fail our copyright policies and guidelines - namely

• WP:NFCC#1 because they are replaceable (they don't illustrate anything that isn't replaceable with text)
• WP:NFCC#3a because there are far too many
• WP:NFCC#8 because they don't enhance the understanding of the reader
• WP:NFC#Images (#6) because they aren't being used for critical commentary

Sometimes, usage of non-free images falls very close to the borderline for inclusion and there is room for a discussion about it - these don't. If you want to use non-free images like this, you'll have to get the Wikimedia Foundation to change one of their core policies. Black Kite 00:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the policy was interpreted at WP:NFC. The result was the section I've been referencing. You are describing ways that you disagree with WP:NFC's interpretation. It's fine to disagree with it, but that does not override the consensus formed at the guideline or here at this talk page. Croctotheface (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Read specifically #6. There have been many big disucssions on this issue on this particular article, and the general consensus, interpretation and implementation of the policy among a larger group of editors is that the images are found to be acceptable on this article. --.:Alex:. 09:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And I suppose these "big discussions" mainly involve people who generally edit this article? It doesn't matter how many interested people agree to ignore a core policy - you still can't do it. For instance, I could agree with a group of people to put a libellous statement about a living person into their article - I would have "consensus", but it'd still be removed. Black Kite 10:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about a consensus to "ignore the policy." I am talking mainly about the consensus reached at WP:NFC, where I believe that I was the only person who regularly edits this article who participated. Your interpretation of the policy is that an article like this can basically never have non-free images, right? How do you explain Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles? If you're right, shouldn't it just say "list articles never get non-free images"? Everything you said about NFCC in this section is a matter of opinion. It's one interpretation of the policy. At one point, it may have been the consensus interpretation. Now, the consensus interpretation is described at WP:NFC and it is my interpretation, not yours. Croctotheface (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that at all - there may be circumstances in which it is reasonable to insert non-free images into a "list" article - for example a list of a certain artist's work where different styles of work are discussed - but that means it is the actual content of the images that is being discussed. 99% of all "List of .. characters" articles don't do this, and they don't meet the guideline you link to above, as well as failing the nonfree policies. Black Kite 17:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The "talk about the image as the image" standard was discussed during the debate at WP:NFC. It was not accepted as the standard. Could you point me to where in the guideline or policy it is mandated that all non-free images be discussed _as images_ in the text. Croctotheface (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a two-step process - you've got to remember that it's the discussion of the image which leads to it passing the NFCC policies, notably #1 and #8. To put it the other way round, if the image isn't discussed in the article and therefore necessary to the reader's understanding of that discussion, it's therefore immediately decorative and fails those two policy criteria. The guideline, whilst not policy, is more direct - "Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements." Black Kite 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The guideline does NOT say that it is necessary for the images to be discussed in detail, just that it's "preferable." Your interpretation, that the images MUST be discussed in the text, is very different from what the guideline actually says. If your interpretation were the consensus at the guideline, it would say something like, "Images must be discussed in detail in the context of the article body. Images that simply provide visual identification are unacceptable." NFC, therefore, does hold that visually identifying major characters in an article on the characters in a work of fiction is an "encyclopedic purpose" and thus interprets the policy differently from the way that you do. Croctotheface (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) OK, I'll explain this once more (I ought to add it to the FAQ, really)

• 1) There is no direct policy (though there is a guideline) that states the images should be discussed in the text
• 2) However, if they are not discussed in the text, then there is a very high probability that they do not add significantly to the reader's understanding (WP:NFCC#8), in which case they fail WP:NFCC, and should be removed.
• 3) Furthermore, if they are not discussed, then the answer to the relevant section of WP:NFCC#1 ("Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the image at all?") is likely to be "Yes", and again the images fail WP:NFCC and should be removed.
• 4) This leads to the inevitable point that images in "List of ... characters" articles that are merely there to illustrate the appearance of the character, and for no other reason, are clearly decorative. This has been confirmed by many previous discussions on this subject. Black Kite 18:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You should not add it to the FAQ (or anywhere) because it is not supported by consensus. In (1), you now concede that the policy does not say what you had been claiming it said. You now misstate what the guideline actually says about the subject. As I explained in my last post, the guideline does NOT mandate that an image be discussed as an image in the text; rather, it says that doing so is preferable. You didn't explain why, as i said in my last post here, the guideline does not say "only" and "never" if it agrees with your view. Instead, there is a huge difference between what you believe the consensus interpretation is and what it actually is. You just ignore this difference completely. The other three items (2, 3, and 4 in your list) are your interpretation of the policy, but, again, they do NOT represent the consensus interpretation as described at WP:NFC. Go back and look at the archives (archives 31, 32, and 33, if I remember correctly) of the talk page if you don't believe me. I know this well because I was involved in changing the consensus from what you think it should be to what it actually is. This very article was the example I used to show that your view was flawed. You are working under an outdated understanding. Croctotheface (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with using 'consensus' to modify that policy too much, a good deal of it is derived from a wikimedia foundation resolution. There is some flexibility allowed, but no amount of people agreeing with each other will change that we are required to keep fair use to an absolute minimum, even with an EDP like en has. These images, by the very fact that you have people like Kite and I here arguing about this, are clearly not 'necessary' and stray from the foundation directive. -M^ask? 18:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am troubled by your dismissing editor consensus, which is the guiding principle here, with quote marks like that. The discussion at WP:NFC was undertaken with the full knowledge of the foundation's resolution. The resulting guideline was is an interpretation of the policy and the resolution. Are you saying that so long as someone says that a fair use image is not necessary, it automatically is not? Honestly, I think an argument could be made that no fair use image is "necessary"; every article would continue to be informative without the images. They wouldn't be as informative, but I don't think you can possibly argue that readers don't benefit from seeing an image of a character when that character is discussed. If we really want to minimize fair use images, we should just prohibit them outright. Short of that, we are not engaging in "minimal use". Croctotheface (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not dismissing consensus, I am saying that many times in this issue there is a false consensus created by many like-minded editors that they view as ironclad until the community as a whole steps in. This happens in cycles and nothing here stands out to me as saying this one is any different. If you want to argue for no fair use at all, feel free. Most other language wikipedia's go this route, de quite famously, and the de 'pedia is a quite nice reference work. We, however, are discussing the fair use we do have, not banning it outright. Stay on topic, please, instead of using 'the sky is falling!' type arguments like this and arguing against a straw man that i never actually suggested. -M^ask? 19:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you actually looked at the discussion at WP:NFC? I suspect that you have not, since you're talking in abstractions about "many times" rather than, you know, that time. I'm not saying that we should eliminate fair use (though we could) just that it's the logical conclusion of your argument. Even if you are not willing to take it that far, you are basically saying that whenever there is a dispute about whether some non-free image is "necessary," it automatically becomes unnecessary. If we accept that logic, I could go through and say, "this isn't necessary" and get every single fair use image removed. I would be fine with an encyclopedia that did not have any fair use. We don't have that right now, though, and my interpretation of the fair use policies we do have is the consensus one. Yours is not. Croctotheface (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Were these discussions advertized? Notices put up on the relevant Village Pumps and posted at AN? I have read the archives provided, and i see no community consensus, I see a limited groups of users, twenty or so, and using that number to change a core policy. I do not claim any argument is enough to remove an image, I claim a substantial argument. You have two editors here, both of whom have experience in this area, telling you this is not OK. Thats different then you running around making pointy arguments to disrupt other articles because you disagree about this one. -M^ask? 19:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So, two editors with "experience in the area" override twenty editors on the relevant guideline's talk page? I have "experience in this area," too, by virtue of my participation in that and other discussions. I can't speak for Alex, but if he also has "experience in the area," then you're talking about two editors on one side, two on the other, with one side pointing to the guideline's consensus interpretation while the other side says that the guideline is wrong. Second, it's insulting that you would bring up WP:Point. Where have I disrupted the encyclopedia? I'm saying that I could (not that I will) make an "substantial" argument that every non-free image is not necessary. As you point out, the German Wikipedia serves it's purpose well without any non-free content. If you are correct that the existence of a "substantial argument" for an image being unnecessary means that the image therefore IS unnecessary, then I don't see how any non-free content could remain. Croctotheface (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You keep bringing us off topic. Here, to make this simple for you, explain how these images don't fail WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a, WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Images. Black Kite made a nice little list and you still failed to address it. If the images pass this flawed Images in Lists segment, they still have to pass the other parts of the policy. Let's stick on topic this time, shall we? -M^ask? 19:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You keep refusing to answer my questions. I didn't address his interpretation of the policy because WP:NFC already has. (1) They can't be "replaced with text." You could write 2000 words attempting to recreate the image with text; it's not the same. (3a) There aren't "far too many"; they are reserved for major characters, per WP:NFC. (8) The reader's understanding of fictional characters in a visual medium is greatly enhanced by actually seeing the major characters. (6) "Critical commentary" is a meaningless phrase of which nobody agrees on a definition. If you actually provide a consensus definition of "critical commentary," I could actually address what it means. For now, I'd argue that information about a character is "commentary" in the sense that it is informative, and the images enhance that. But, really, during the same discussions that produced the section of the guideline that I've been citing, I kept asking people what "critical commentary" was, and, really, nobody had an adequate definition. I maintain that any "criticism" or "commentary" would violate WP:NOR, so if any articles actually have sections of it, those sections should be removed because they violate that policy. Croctotheface (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Without appearing too flippant, what of (for example) Tenpenny's image can't be replaced by text? "Tenpenny is a black middle-aged balding police officer" - there you go, the entire contents of the image summarised in 9 words. If you added that sentence to the article, would the image add anything more? No, it wouldn't. The fact that I just summed that up in 9 words shows pretty much how much it adds anyway. So that's #1 (and #8 for that matter). Black Kite 20:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Without appearing too flippant, he's bald, not balding, and I think that encapsulates the problem with the "replaced by text" concept rather well. It's not possible to represent the entirety of someone's appearance like that. I would agree that your sentence adds little to the article, but the ability to recognize and fully understand the character's appearance, which is possible only with the image, is another story. If I agreed with you that the image does not add to the reader's understanding, I wouldn't be engaging in this debate. Croctotheface (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The only pieces of information imparted by the image are his approximate age (irrelevant), his race (irrelevant), and the fact he's a police officer (mentioned in the text). So I ask again, how does the image add to the reader's understanding? Black Kite 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your declaration that something is "irrelevant" doesn't make it so. His age is irrelevant? The character would be no different if he were 85? His race is irrelevant? He would have the same relationship with CJ, the black protagonist, if he were Asian? He would have the same racial attitude toward Hernandez, his subordinate, if Tenpenny were himself Hispanic? But that's all really beside the point, since relevance is a matter of editorial opinion, not fact, and matters of opinion are decided by consensus. The consensus opinion here was to include the images. For a visual storytelling medium like a video game, a visual representation of major characters is certainly informative. How many different images could fit the "bald, black, middle-aged police officer" description? The shape of a character's face, head, eyes, mouth, and so forth all serve to characterize him. They can communicate subjective elements of the character, fit into stereotypes (or break with stereotypes) in ways that are meant to resonate with the audience/reader, and yet would not be acceptable to include in the text because of WP:NOR. Croctotheface (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

They're completely irrelevant to whether the image passes NFCC or not. If those things are important, they can be mentioned in the text. You don't need an image to tell the reader his race or age. I'd suggest this is continued at WT:NFCC now, where a discussion has been started. Black Kite 09:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There is clear concenus that fair use images may be included for the major characters in this article. It does not matter whether or not the people who you say "edit the article regularly" are the ones who agree to this. This shows that there is a clear concenus amongst a large number of editors for fair use images to be kept for the major characters. If you say that the people who are agreeing to keep the images are regular editors of the article, you are being biased and feel that these people's thoughts on the matter are irrelevant and that despite the large number of people who do agree that the images should be kept, there is no concencus to do so. JayJ47 (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2 Problems...

• Brian Johnson (BJ) vs Tommy Vercetti.

Tommy Vercetti, whose name is displayed as a MINOR CHARACTER in the article, is only twiced mentioned in the game (during The Introduction machinima and "The Meat Business" mission). And this don't happen at Brian (Carl's deceased brother). He has a part in the Johnson family and mentioned more often than Vercetti (I think). "Tragically", Brian's part was erased months ago. I think we should restore his part.

• CJ's Girlfriends Part.

As I saw a few months ago, some Carl's non-mission-obtained girlfriends, like Katie, Helena, and Barbara, still had their own part in the article. Yeah, it was erased. But, if they're "restored" (as minor characters as happened to Denise and Millie), won't it be better? Steven Andrew Scarface220995 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Tommy Vercetti from the article, which appears to have been added by some IP recently; whether he gets mentioned or not, he just isn't in the game, end of story. As far as I'm aware, all that is known about Brian is that he was killed, and it already says that elsewhere in the article. Carl's "non-mission-obtained" girlfriends aren't included because they have no impact on the storyline whatsoever. In fact, whether the player meets them or not is entirely optional, so to include them would probably be straying into game guide territory. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hardly a big deal, but the Catalina thing...

I don't see her phone calls as an attempt to "get him back." I'd prefer some other formulation. Croctotheface (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge CJ

The article Carl "CJ" Johnson has been marked as needing secondary sources for a while. It does not assert notability and I belive it should be merged into this character list. Some of the article's text may belong in the game article, as it goes into gameplay mechanics some. Pagrashtak 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as we do not lose the image through such a merge (I don't want to go through all that mess again), then I'm all for it. --.:Alex:. 19:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree that the CJ article lacks (let alone does not assert) notability, I don't have a problem with merging, so long as we preserve most of the content. Croctotheface (talk) 01:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Non-free images again

This is now the last Grand Theft character article containing non-free images. Either the characters should be split out into their own articles if they are independently notable enough (at which point a single image may be acceptable), or the images will be removed. Black Kite 00:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, not really, considering that you don't make policy by yourself. Perhaps the consensus has changed since the last time we had this discussion, but you don't get to decide that unilaterally. Croctotheface (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Posted to WT:NFCC instead. Black Kite 00:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the same conversation we've been having every six months or so, here, there, and everywhere. You persist with the impression that what you decide is "too many" is "too many" by definition. This is an interpretive issue, and your interpretation is not shared by every other editor here. I admire the temerity involved in your acting as though it is, but that doesn't make it so. Croctotheface (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How about we focus on the issue, rather than attempting to weight the dice by implying that other editors have some kind of ulterior motive? Images are clearly not compliant with the non-free content guidelines. The appearance of characters is not automatically significant, just as the appearance of album covers is not automatically significant within articles about pop musicians. The images should be added only to expand upon what is already in the prose in a way that prose alone cannot- if the appearance isn't even worthy of a mention in the prose, how can we justify an image? J Milburn (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Because the appearance of a character can only be adequately dealt with with an image. Prose is insufficient. Because images are the only way to communicate the visual style of the characters. They're the only way to communicate subjective information about the characters' look and feel. This is an old discussion, as I said, and I said that because I don't suspect that the consensus has changed. Croctotheface (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec with comment below) I didn't say that images did not adaquately display the characters' appearances, I simply said that the appearances do not need to be displayed. Why do you believe that they do? Answering questions that weren't asked isn't going to get us anywhere- perhaps this is the reason the debate has to be brought up so often. J Milburn (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" to overrule a policy does not mean a few interested editors on an article talkpage. Black Kite 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm speaking of the consensus formed the last time we had this discussion. If you were right, why is it that the images were not removed the other two times we've had this same debate in the past year? You are STILL mistaking YOUR INTERPRETATION of the policy with the policy itself. The policy makes no mention of this article or of list articles. Based on the results of the past two iterations of this debate, your interpretation of the policy is not the consensus interpretation. As I said, it's possible that the consensus has changed, but posting images depicting editors who disagree with you as terrorists doesn't somehow make it so. For now, I'm going to let others chime in lest this degenerate into three editors bickering. Croctotheface (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That consensus didn't address WP:NFCC. It was simply ignored by those wishing to keep the images. And the images weren't removed because I - who was probably the only non-free image admin watching the article - went on a 2 month Wikibreak. Indeed, at least one more non-free image was added, unless I've miscounted. Black Kite 01:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Last comment for at least a little bit, and I mean it this time; nothing will be resolved with just the three of us here. The discussion I am referencing took place on the WP:NFC talk page, which is the guideline designed to represent the consensus interpretation of that policy. You really should get out of the habit of saying that this is about "editors not following policy;" it's about how to interpret and apply the policy. And, if I recall, you went on that wikibreak because other admins at the ANI board disagreed with your interpretation and specifically refused to remove the images. Again, you could be right about this and I could be wrong, but near as I can tell, my viewpoint is closer to the consensus viewpoint than yours is. Croctotheface (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't matter. I, for one, was not involved in the previous discussion, and attempting to tar people who disagree with you so that you can effectively discount their opinions is very much an underhand tactic. Let's judge arguments based on the arguments themselves, and not the person making them, shall we? J Milburn (talk) 01:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - I'm going to recuse from this - somewhat else can deal with it this time. Oh, and the ANI thread wasn't brought by me, and the disagreements were about the nature of 3RR relating to non-free images, not to do with the actual images. Black Kite 01:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag. 5 images is not "excessive". Perhaps a different tag (notifying users of this dicussion) would be more appropiate, rather than the tag currently being used. JayJ47 (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about this anymore, definitely not enough to revert an edit over it, but is the standard really meant to be a "magic words" kind of thing? Does mentioning character appearance, all else equal, make a difference between an article that should get a few images and one that should not? Croctotheface (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In a word, yes. The images should be used to illustrate the article and to aid the readers' understanding- if the appearance is discussed in a meaningful way, it will obviously be beneficial to have an image. Leaving the images in without any specific purpose is using them decoratively. J Milburn (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding recent edit summaries, it seems to me that in the event of a lack of consensus, we should use the prior consensus, which was to include the images. I see no reference either on the guideline or policy to the notion that fair use content is presumed invalid, except that the burden is on those wishing to include that there is no free equivalent. Having said that, JayJ, just go through each of the sections and write up some magic words about character appearance, since apparently per current practice, that makes all the difference. Croctotheface (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the burden of proof is on those wishing to include images, just as, generally, the burden of proof would fall on someone wishing to change the article. Therefore, unless there is a clear consensus in favour of including the images, they should not be included. If someone was to add some decent, sourced commentary on the character appearance, and the images would illustrate that point suitably, then yes, I would have far less opposition to the image's inclusion. J Milburn (talk) 17:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the burden of proof would fall on someone wanting to change the article, and the images had been in the article for a long time even after two similar discussions, shouldn't we look for a consensus to remove them? Wouldn't that be the way to apply the "burden is on those looking to change the article" standard? It sounds like you generally favor a rule that goes something like, "so long as a handful of editors object to non-free content, it shouldn't go in." Wouldn't that allow editors who favor no fair use at all to effectively hold a veto over any case that could ever come up? Croctotheface (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The images are in the article because they keep getting re-added- the users who are more interested in the article generally prefer the images to stay. The fact that the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include images demonstrates that non-free content (along with BLP) are subject to a slightly different approach. No, anti-non-free-content advocates can obviously not prevent any usage as policy remains as it is, as those people are ignoring policy- they are looking for policy change. In this case, the disagreement is over an interpretation of policy- something that discussion about specific uses should determine, meaning that, unless there is a consensus for the images to stay (those wishing to include them providing the necessary "proof") then they should not be included. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect, your accounting of the history isn't really accurate here. It was not the case that people "kept readding" images after a consensus of editors said they should go. The version with the images stayed stable for a year or so based on a solid consensus to use them that was not overturned by either of the discussions at WT:NFC. Obviously, someone who said "I oppose all non-free content" would be arguing for a policy change, but in reality, it's possible to be far more subtle. Because the policy and guideline is so subjective, what's to stop an editor from saying that, in his view, he doesn't think that X is significant or he believes that text could convey the same idea or whatever else? My issue is that there is no way to actually "prove" that content belongs. This article is admittedly not the strongest case for inclusion, but I don't think that it's possible to construct ANY case that is airtight. Someone can always just say that it doesn't add enough, isn't significant enough, and it's impossible to "prove" that they're wrong. Couldn't that allow a handful of editors to block just about anything? Croctotheface (talk) 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes, but I guess that if it got to such a point where groups of subtle users were roving around trying to remove all non-free content, it would be time to reassess our non-free content guidelines. Furthermore, I think we need to have some faith in our current system of consensus. There are a number of cases where the images are indisputably required- no one except those who oppose all non-free content (and, even then, I would guess most are opposing for practical reasons, rather than philosophical ones) would agree that the infobox image is required on, say, The Falling Man- there's never going to be a large enough minority to veto the image use there until our non-free content guidelines themselves are on the verge of going. On the opposite end of the scale, the majority of people familiar with our non-free content rules are going to see this kind of case here as borderline- as such, it is up to those wishing to include the images to demonstrate to those who support their removal that each image is necessary to fully understanding the article. J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

My issue is that I think we have something very similar happening already. There does exist a group of editors who interpret the policy and guideline in such a way that would allow very little fair use content, and they do make a point of going from article to article to remove content. I think that it's not altogether inaccurate to say that their interpretation of the policy and guideline is extreme; it's likely more restrictive than, say, your interpretation. Considering that there's no means to demonstrate that their objections to the content are not reasonable, and I don't think that it will ever be possible to change their minds, then this is in effect the situation we already have. They are not persuadable, and they effectively possess a veto over any borderline case. This hurts the encyclopedia because, by definition, some borderline cases should go one way and some should go the other way. Therefore, we're missing out on content that we "should" have. Croctotheface (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then, if you put it that way I hope their happy. With the way their going, wikipedia will probably eventually end up with no non-free content at all. I won't be surprised when a lot of people decide to leave wikipedia and join a different wiki like wikia, like several editors have already. I would suggest to Croctotheface that you may want to join the GTA wikia project. I think I might just do that, i'm sick of debating about these images. JayJ47 (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Own Page

Tommy Vercetti has his own page because he is a protagonist and playable character in the gta series so shouldnt CJ have his own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.206.251 (talk) 13:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The Truth

I fact tagged

camped out in the desert, where they "faced the inner light, and communed with The Lizard King!"

bcz we need to be able to see whether it has any context or not. Specifically, i felt safe in lk'g to The Lizard King (meme), which if it doesn't get deleted will settle down to be about the culture's elaboration of Jim Morrison's "I am the Lizard King": surely a lizard king you can "commune" with is persona or archetype Morrison had in mind, not just the largest lizard they spotted. As to "inner light", can we tell whether that's a version of Inner light ala Quakers? At least four of the six entries on The Inner Light (disambiguation) are plausible, so i linked to that Dab using the "don't bypass" redirect. With more context, we may be able to link instead to an article.
--Jerzy•t 03:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Leone crime family

A new editor has put a tremendous amount of work into The Leone crime family and Crime structure in Grand Theft Auto series. The first was listed for [[WP:SPEEDY|speedy deletion but I turned it into a redirect to here. You can extract the original content from this edit. The second article is being considered for deletion as well.

I recommend that the editors of the Grand Theft Auto series decide where this content should go within existing articles, and spin off new articles as needed to cover subjects that are sufficiently notable to warrant their own article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Candy Suxxx

I have deleted her section since he doesn't appear in the game at all, albiet from a minor few references but not enough to be classified as a minor character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishumm (talk • contribs) 00:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Zero dies in Breaking the bank at Caligula's?

Impossible, seeing as you can start the Zeroing In and even Zero's missions afterwards, so I'm going to remove all suggestions that he did die. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.164.38 (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Marco Forelli

is missing... Perhaps he's not so important since he doesn't appear much, but he does play a part in the storyline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.221.154 (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images, yet again (2013)

I've restored the images that were removed based on the guidelines which have been outlined here. JayJ47 (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A valid non-free use rationale does not automatically exclude an image from the scrutiny of WP:NFCC#8. In my removals, I left an image I judged would accurately reflect the main characters. The others add little to nothing as a) they are not necessary to show contextual significance per #8, and b) they fail WP:NFCC#3, minimal usage as there are multiple items. To meet NFCC#8, generally sourced reception or detailed design information must be in the article to meet the need. I'm willing to ping WP:VG if you would prefer. :) --Izno (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they be included and how are they any different to the image you kept in terms of contextual significance? They depict a group of the game's central characters and keeping them does enhance a reader's understanding of the article as a whole. I took a look at Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free image use in list articles and according to those guidelines, the images here are fine. If you don't want articles on wikipedia to use non-free content at all then push for a change in policy. JayJ47 (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Do not a present a strawman. I have not argued that articles should not have any non-free content, but that the non-free content should be minimal.
2. The guideline you cite is subordinate to the policy of WP:NFCC.
3. They aren't different to a significant degree to the image I left in, but I felt that presenting an image of the main characters (as presented by the article) might possibly meet WP:NFCC#8. I could be wrong, in which case it shouldn't be included... :)

In all, the images should not be included because the images fail the must-pass criterion of enhancing the readers' understanding in such a manner that their removal would be detrimental. I could easily explain the characters' appearance through text, so without reliable sourced design or reception information with regards to the character appearance, the images should be removed. Even were there such real-world information available and presented in this article, per WP:NFCC#3, one image would probably suffice, and not the current three. --Izno (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Just go ahead and delete them all. Its clear to me now i'm fighting a losing battle. Years ago it was the issue that the images were depicting each character individually. Then it became an issue of too much non-free content on the page. Now there's an issue about the significance of the images. Even if one image was kept, some time down the track you or some other editor would find some excuse to remove it so you might as well save everyone the trouble and delete all the images now. JayJ47 (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Should Frank Tenpenny be WP:SPLIT?

Just reverted an edit by User Talk:Borxdeluxe which I initially thought was blanking of content... While CJ already has his own article, I question whether the Tenpenny article would survive in notability terms... Should consensus be gained before such a decision? The editor used no edit summary, & I see no discussion here about it... Boogerpatrol (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally think that a separate article for Tenpenny is unecessary as his role in the game is already summarised enough in the main article for GTA SA characters. Furthermore, no other antagonists from other GTA games have their own separate articles either. JayJ47 (talk) 05:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Big Smoke memes

Are the "Big Smoke's Order" and "Follow The Damn Train, CJ" memes notable enough to be featured on this page? DBZFan30 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hggvn

HGgvn Makee111 (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Yo-Yo and DJ King Assassin (crop).jpeg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)