Talk:Grand Theft Auto (video game)

Palm OS
I found by chance that Take-Two announced a Palm OS (PalmPilot) version of the game back in 2001, for release later that year. I found exactly one dump of the game files. The game lists Tarantula Studios as the developer, Rockstar Games as the publisher, and 2001 as the copyright date. The game was also listed for some time on Global Star Software's website as "Coming Soon" alongside a demo. Other than that, I cannot find any sources on when or even whether the game was actually released. The platform's generic name doesn't make finding info easier, so I hope someone can help with some insight. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 11:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, good find! Daily Radar and Eurogamer covered the announcement as well, and FGN claimed that it would be at PC Expo in 2001. It was also listed by the ESRB. According to Gouranga.com, it was cancelled by June 2002, but they don't appear to cite a source (and, to further muddy the waters of reliability, they say that Global Star "didn't even get permission" from Take-Two, but that makes little sense considering it was owned by Take-Two, and the latter even made the original announcement, per your source) . Seems to have just fizzled out and been quietly cancelled, sometime between February and June 2002. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 03:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that about lines up with what I found in, uh, less reliable sources. Gouranga! most likely is not reliable but at least it has some good pointers to external information. I investigated the game itself a bit more and it looks like a straight port of the GTA2 GBC game. The credits in the game files also match with only a handful of names missing. The version from PalmDB is manually patched, so I assume that it is a modified version of the demo. Do we assume that the Palm version was cancelled? We should find a way to state this cleanly in the article. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely assume it was cancelled, but I can't find any sources for us to be able to verify that in the article. Perhaps we can just mention its announcement/existence in past tense? Something like "In March 2001, Take-Two announced Global Star Software would publish a version of the game for PalmPilot by the holiday season in Europe and North America; Global Star released a demo for Palm OS on its website. Frustrating that we can't really say more than this (unless another source miraculously appears) but this seems like the only way we can really mention it for now. –  Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 02:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That should do, definitely better than nothing. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 15:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Basis of San Andreas
I corrected the article to say that the state of San Andreas is based on two U.S. states, California and Nevada. That's what the article Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas says, as well as the citation that accompanies it (Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas review). ... disco spinster   talk  17:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * In Grand Theft Auto (1997), San Andreas is a single city, and that city is based on San Francisco. Sources for that are easy to come by, e.g. . You can also find a detailed description of the city here. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was released several years later (2004) and plays in a different continuity (the 3D Universe), so I fail to see how it is relevant here. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 22:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

English-only?
I recently had my addition of the Japanese release date reverted due to "only English-language regions". Is there any reason as to why only English-language regions can be mentioned? PrincessKaori94 (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:VG/DATE, non-English countries should only be included if the game was released there first. I can only assume this is because we are on the English Wikipedia, and listing all dates could quickly become unruly. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 00:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you ^_^ PrincessKaori94 (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of a caption in the infobox
Seeing that there seems to be somewhat of a dispute on including a caption in the infobox, I've initiated a discussion here. As noted on the edit summaries; as per Template:Infobox video game, a caption is entirely optional; the other regional covers are barely used in any sources while the original is done so virtually exclusively, thus a caption here is gratuitous. Moreover, I've inserted details about the alternate covers in the body, which should address the clarification concern; hopefully this works out as a middle ground and compromise. QuestFour (talk) 10:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've restored the infobox caption, as I still see no reason for it to be removed. Per WP:VGBOX, regional differences are valid to note. I fail to see how its widespread usage in sources makes a difference; as I've said, that demonstrates why we've chosen the UK cover to represent the game, but it doesn't explain why the caption should be removed. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 10:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:VGBOX's guideline states that captions "can be used" in such cases; it very clearly advices against using captions needlessly; "While infobox video game offers a caption option to caption the cover image, use it if only necessary". Also, your comment, "Adding prose does not reduce the usefulness of the caption", I see nowhere alluded to. Your rationale for including a caption, clarification, has been addressed. Thus, per the aforementioned guideline, a caption is no longer necessary. QuestFour (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding information to the Development section does not address my rationale for the infobox caption. It appears there are at least four distinct regional variations of the cover, so it's useful to identify which version this is. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 12:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It does, as your rationale no longer corresponds with the guideline's directives; and yes, which adding the information, throughly, did. QuestFour (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's much more useful to identify the cover variant directly below the image, rather than only doing so halfway down the page. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 13:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd beg to differ; I don't see this as a necessity nor warranting to deviate from the guideline. QuestFour (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd call it a deviation from the guideline when "differences in cover art between ... region" is explicitly listed as a possible option, but to each their own. I think the caption is a useful and necessary aid. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 14:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I would, likewise for the main issue at hand. As per the above, what the guideline explicitly states is that captions should not be used unless necessary. Your response to this, that you think otherwise, is not an argument. QuestFour (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My response is that the caption is necessary. I agree with what the guideline says; I don't agree that this is in violation of it. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 23:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning for it being necessary is arbitrary and thus null. All you're doing here is WP:STONEWALLING. QuestFour (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is no more arbitrary than any other. I have provided my rationale based on guidelines and conventions, and participated in a good-faith discussion; characterise it how you like, but I'm still not convinced that removing the caption improves the article in any way. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 09:50, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is; what guidelines and conventions? Are you referring to your citing of WP:VGBOX's mention of regional differences in captions, you know, the thing that it states to not use unless necessary? Also, the nature of your participation in the discussion is impertinent here. Policies and guidelines improve articles, not you not being convinced; the latter again being a non argument. QuestFour (talk) 10:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning against the caption's necessity is no less arbitrary than mine for it. Whether or not the caption is "necessary", as the guideline puts it, is subjective and should be determined by consensus. Rather than arguing about whether or not my argument is, in fact, an argument, I've asked WP:VG to help determine said consensus. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 11:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is the guideline; you're saying that it doesn't apply here, with your reasoning being that despite the cover differences being described and elaborated in detail in the body, and the original's virtual exclusive use in sources, media and other mediums, that a caption is still necessary enough to contradict the guideline. QuestFour (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that it doesn't contradict the guideline, which is intentionally phrased to allow decision on a case-by-case basis (except in obvious cases). I'm not saying the guideline "doesn't apply here"; I'm saying the opposite—but, in my opinion, it applies in favour of the caption, not against it. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 14:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you're being a tad pedantic here—but be that as it may; have this be solely in reference to the counterargument for this, then. QuestFour (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Pedantry is my middle name—though I'd argue that such heavy focus on the guideline's use of "can" and "if necessary" is a tad more pedantic, but to each their own. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 23:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, fair enough; though I'd argue the opposite, as the emphasis made by the guideline, and not myself. QuestFour (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * To summarise this discussion for others: Grand Theft Auto has at least four regional covers, as described at § Cover art. The infobox uses the UK cover art, as described by the image caption. This discussion is about whether the infobox image caption is necessary, per WP:VGBOX. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 11:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For me personally, this goes into whether or not there is an extreme different between box/cover art to warrant a caption indicating there being a regional difference. And judging by what i have seen between the different cover art, I think the caption is warranted. Captain  Galaxy  14:05, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's basically my thinking. If it was just a different colour or logo placement (like the Japanese PC cover), I'd agree it's probably not worth noting, but they're four completely different images, so I think it's useful to specify. – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 14:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I also think the caption should be used in this case since there is a significant difference between the covers. --Mika1h (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that the original cover is used in an almost exclusive manner in sources and other mediums should be considered; as I doubt that WP:VGBOX's directive against using captions unnecessarily—"[...] use it if only necessary"—becomes obsolete merely for the existence of different regional covers that are ascribed in the main text.


 * A very minimal benchmark, if that's the case, seeing that this is a standard feature in many games. QuestFour (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a reason to add the caption not to omit it, to note that this nowadays widely used cover was a region-specific cover, not globally used at the time of release. --Mika1h (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is already elaborated in the body; as per the guideline, how exactly is it necessary to state it in a caption also? QuestFour (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the function of the infobox, to summarize facts from the article body. By that logic you could omit every field from the infobox. --Mika1h (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The thing is, that logic is the guideline; which directly references the caption field, stating to not use it unless necessary—this is demonstrated above. "While infobox video game offers a caption option to caption the cover image, use it if only necessary". QuestFour (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The body specifically calls out that there are different cover arts. A caption that quickly identifies for readers which cover art is being shown is not only obvious extremely helpful, it is necessary. If the image wasn't in the infobox and was instead in the "Cover art" section, obviously it would be accompanied by the same caption. It being in the infobox shouldn't change that. As a part of the lead, the infobox's job is to quickly and concisely summerize the information presented in the body. --T orsodo gTalk 16:14, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * How exactly is a caption necessary when WP:VGBOX infers otherwise? QuestFour (talk) 16:32, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the argument for the caption's inclusion has been pretty clearly laid out. You seem to be stuck on the word "necessary" and its meaning. It's necessary because there are other, different box arts. The caption tells the reader which box art is being shown. This is pretty straight forward. --T orsodo gTalk 16:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree, as I don't see this being the case. The guideline's directive is clear, which states that Including a caption should be an anomaly, and I don't see the reasonings presented so far as such. This could probably use a wider community input through an WP:RFC. QuestFour (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * More comments were requested from the VG talk page a short while ago. Currently it is 4 to 1 in favor of including the caption. For the sake of trying to understand your position, what even would be a situation where you would think a caption is "necessary"? --T orsodo gTalk 18:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't be basing consensus on mere number counting; see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. As for your question, the series' very own Grand Theft Auto III is a perfect example of this. The cover and its regional variants are subject to substantial and extensive coverage in sources and the body, as opposed to merely existing. QuestFour (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think what Torsodog is trying to point out when mentioning user vote statistic is that you're the only one in this discussion who believes the caption isn't notable, yet under the same guidelines every other user does. In my opinion, the caption is useful because someone such as myself who is not American, I would find it useful to be able to identify what art an article is trying to use in-case I've never seen it before, which is usually the case for most articles that use the American cover art (and I'm sure is the case is for American readers seeing this article use the UK version). An article should be there to give the reader as much information as possible, when possible. And every user here, bar you, believes that the caption should be added to help inform readers as there is room for doubts like in the example I gave of myself earlier, which should cover the WP:VGBOX directive of "when necessary", as I have quite candidly pointed out and that IceWelder quite rightly pointed out below me is the example used on the guideline. Also to point this out, considering the fact that you added information about the cover art in the body of the article, much like you mention is in the GTA III article, why should we not have the caption then? Because GTA III's had added subtext of controversy surrounding it? That doesn't seem particularly balanced to me.  Captain  Galaxy  17:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * VGBOX asks to include captions only where necessary and goes on to present, verbatim, stark regional differences as an example for a useful inclusion. Thus far, your only real argument for an omission has been a vague pointing at how VGBOX is worded, despite everyone here interpreting it differently. Mentioning the cover art in the body isn't a viable point either; every well-written article has the head (lead and infobox) summarize the body. VGBOX's shining example, Ico, mentions the artist and inspiration of the box art in body, does that make it unnecessary in the caption? Also, if it wasn't for VGBOX, what would drive you to remove this caption? IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 20:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As noted above, VGBOX states a caption "can be used" in such cases—emphasis is placed on "can" for a reason; that being to refer to the criticality of the guideline's main point in this, of not using captions unless crucial. I fail to see how my pointing of the guideline is "vague", and an interpretation by a majority doesn't by itself evident its verity. As for the point concerning the mentioning of text in the body and the Ico example, see the above response to Torsodog; the example in the former is congruent in use to the one given in the latter. QuestFour (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "Can", with and without emphasis, means optionality but does not necessitate omission. Everyone else in this discussion agrees that the brief caption is helpful and should remain, with the guideline allows. I'm still curious to hear you argument for the caption's removal outside of your interpretation of the guideline. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 17:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Dropping in, summoned by WTVG. As far as I can tell, the argument against having a caption is that it's "gratuitous"? I don't buy this argument. If it helps even one reader distinguish which of what appears to be at least four very distinct cover arts, then it's worth including. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)