Template talk:Grand Theft Auto games

Removal of GTA4
GTA IV should be added to this template. I've noticed that User:A Man In Black has been reverting every edit that introduces GTA4 to the template. In my opinion this is wrong.
 * The game is officially called GTA IV or Grand Theft Auto IV
 * There is an official release date of the 16th of October this year (19th for Europe)
 * A quick search will show that games like Halo, Sonic and Mario have templates that include unreleased games.

I think considering that so many people have added GTA4 to the template shows there's at least more than a couple of people that think the game should be in the template and only A Man In Black is reverting edits. See WP:OWN. I am going to put GTA IV into the template and I think User:A Man In Black must give a good reason why it should not be included, as there doesn't seem to be a clear one. --BillPP (talk 18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CVG/N. Basically, that article consists of nothing other than summaries of press releases, because it's a game that hasn't yet been shown in playable form. Prognostication about a future game isn't necessary for understanding of the other articles. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but there's a precedent on WikiPedia to include games where the articles consist of just press releases. See Untitled Halo Project, Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, Sonic and the Secret Rings, Portal (computer game). They're all in their series templates. The page you linked to is for annoucning new CVG pages. The game is the next in the series, therefore should be in the GTA Series template. Unless you can link to a policy which says that unreleased games should not be in templates, then I will consider it vandalism. You have already broken the 3 revert rule a couple of times over this without a decent excuse. --BillPP (talk 08:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Secret Rings and Quake Wars have been shown in playable form (unlike GTA4), Untitled Halo Project isn't on the Halo template, and the HL2 template has yet to be converted to standard appearance. I linked you to the guideline on standard appearance.


 * So, um. Other than precedent, which we don't use on Wikipedia anyway, was there a reason to include GTA4? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The link you gave me before doesn't link to a policy or guideline. It's the CVG new article announcment page. More reasons I believe that GTA4 should be included despite it being unreleased are: If this policy exists then I think there's a good case for WP:IAR due to the high importance of this game. It's not some rumour and it is extremely unlikely the game wont be released. --BillPP (talk 01:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's Rockstar/Take Two's biggest game and is unlikely to be cancelled.
 * There is a definite release date.
 * Microsoft has an exclusive deal and is using GTA4 as a selling point for the 360 which makes it more notable.
 * It's the first release of a GTA game on the 7th gen systems.
 * WikiProject Computer and video games/Navboxes is the link.


 * The problem is, as always, that the article is entirely speculative or promotional material. The bulk of the article will change once the game comes out, and as such the article isn't necessary for understanding of the articles on the games which actually exist.


 * Where it's relevant, it's already linked. It's just not relevant to understanding the articles on the bulk of the older games, and it doesn't help to place them in context because it's an event that hasn't happened yet. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting fucking ridiculous. GTA IV has a confirmed October 16th release date. Rockstar has an excellent record of keeping to a timeline, with few delays ever. I say this only because other reverts you have made were based on the fact that the developer (Kojima) was unreliable in the past and misinformed consumers. GTA IV should be in this template. I'm getting sick of seeing verified future games being removed from templates in my watchlist every day. And your whole "playable form" argument doesn't always apply. Rockstar rarely shows their game to the public or press until very close to launch. So even after we see a trailer in 2 weeks, and around September with the game a little over a month away, by your rules we shouldn't put it in the nav box? Give me a fucking break. —cmsJustin (talk|contribs) 12:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)