Jump to content

Talk:Garrett (Thief)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cukie Gherkin (talk | contribs) at 20:58, 11 April 2024 (Assessed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
[edit]

There is a dispute current over whether archive links should be included.

I believe that the reasons cited that they should not be included are:

  1. They deprive sites of their ad revenue
  2. They bloat the article
  3. Making archive.org busy

To those, I respond:

  1. This is irrelevant. Our purpose here does not depend on their ad revenue
  2. This is irrelevant. "Bloat" is not a technical problem per Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance, and there is solid reason to include such links for nontechnical reasons; see WP:Dead links.
  3. Irrelevant. Archive.org exists to archive sites, and it is their concern that they take or sustain more hits than they can handle (I can promise, they are probably fine, for the same reason we shouldn't worry about performance).

I have asked comment from the members of WP:VG to comment here. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of the three arguments to avoid archive links have any backing in WP policy or essays that I know of, while the arguments for the archive links are directly supported by several. Point #1 is somewhat moot, as archive links continue to have the original link as well. It's not wikipedia's responsibility to generate ad revenue for any site however. As for the third point, it's not our responsibly if archive.org is busy, any more than it's Google's responsibility in search results. Or any other site we frequently use as an RS, for that matter. -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It "exists to archive sites", and not to REDIRECT EVERYTHING TO IT FOR NO REASON (because there is really no reason). It's ABSOLUTELY senseless, it serves no purpose whatsoever. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I see "see WP:Dead links": "As you write articles, you can help prevent link rot in several ways. The first way to prevent link rot is to avoid bare URLs by recording as much of the exact title, author, publisher, and date of the source as possible." And it's done. Mission accomplished. NO REASON to do ANYTHING else. --Niemti (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of a good complete citation template doesn't mean that archiving should not be included. The options are not mutually exclusive, and use of the archive preemptively avoids having to locate the information later when linkrot occurs. -- ferret (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no REASON why to do it. Also, just 10 archived links for no reason are generating over 1 KB (up from only 7 KB total previously). Now imagine if this would be done everywhere on Wikipedia, rising not just loading times going up upwards 20% in any article, but also Wikipedia bandwith too - and consider this is the situation when Wikipedia is constrantly begging for money to continue its operations. You're making Wikipedia lose money, you're making IA lose money, and you're even making the original outelts not earn money too, and all this for no reason AT ALL. --Niemti (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clap, clap... clap. --Niemti (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, bandwidth is not an issue for an article that receives on average less than 100 views a day compared to 100KB articles that are receiving thousands of views a day. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah? And Jimbo lies while he begs for money and citing "the increasing cost of bandwidth" precisely? ("[donation helps us in several ways. Most importantly, you will help us cover the increasing cost of managing global traffic to one of the most popular websites on the Internet.]") And what about these "100KB articles that are receiving thousands of views a day", are their refs somehow NOT deserving to be archived for these same mysterious reasons that I say don't exist, while in this case it's so neccessary? What's a difference that this article's live refs need to be archived? What's a REASON, to make Wikipedia, IA, other webistes, some users, all of them to lose money? --Niemti (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because frankly put, it's not your problem. Wikipedia is designed to handle enormous load. Since this one article is relatively small and so few people look at it each day, adding or even removing 1 KB of data would have no noticeable effect on Wikipedia performance as a whole. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance covers neither bandwidth not traffic (none of these words are even there), it's about purely technical issues. Now, tell me, WHAT IS THIS REASON that it's essential here, while somehow not on any "100KB articles that are receiving thousands of views a day"? I'm witing for this supposed reason all the time, because I think THERE IS NO REASON AT ALL. It makes EVERYONE involved lose, and it even has no positive effects whatsoever. --Niemti (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stop shouting. Performance issues brought on by bandwidth or traffic are technical issues which are, again, not your problem. Adding or removing the archive links does not affect the overall quality of the article, nor does it violate any policies or rules. There is at least one benefit: it makes the article more robust because when the time comes that those are dead links, another edit won't be needed to fix it. This does not imply that it is needed on every article, but there is no harm to including them. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 17:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When/if time comes, than they will get fixed. It's not needed here JUST like it's not needed ANYWHERE - other than the content that is likely to change or be deleted (which is NOT a case here). Right now, EVERYONE loses, and there are just NO positive effects, and serves no purpose, at all. Just because you can, it doens't mean you should do something for no reason. Let's say that you got free resources like water (you don't pay for it) - you will still waste it if you do it just because you can, even if it doesn't affect you, or you don't care. --Niemti (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't archive links because it makes the page slightly bigger? That's ridiculous. Also- if you put in |deadurl=no in a cite template, it changes the wording to "(real link|article title), (archive link|archived) on (blah date)", so that the first, obvious link goes to the real site. --PresN 18:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also- I guarantee that you won't feel that archiving links has no purpose the first time you try to expand an article and have to delete a paragraph of useful information because the only site on the web that supported it is now dead. --PresN 18:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note, I don't prefer to add the deadurl parameter because that creates more maintenance down the road when the links inevitably die. But I've no other real objection to its use. --Izno (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nagative effect. Now come on tell me about the positive effects, if any (and for anyone: Wikipedia, IE, users, original outlets, just anyone), because I'm still waiting. And redirecting back is a solution, but there should be not be a problem created in first place. If something's not broken - don't "fix" it. --Niemti (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no possible reason to have archive links, if the original is still there. Dream Focus 19:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not how WP:Dead links reads. It doesn't have any wording that says "Only use archives if the page is dead", though it does mention that it's particularly useful for volatile sites. This indicates an expectation that it will be used for sites that are still live. -- ferret (talk) 19:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That site is for dead links. And I don't see the word "volatile" anywhere on it. I'm not sure why you are confused here. Dream Focus 19:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I guess I'll have to quote then to explain. Please read the essay. The word volatile isn't directly used but the meaning is the same: Web archiving is especially important when citing web pages that are unstable or prone to changes, like time sensitive news articles or pages hosted by financially distressed organizations. -- ferret (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia essays are just neither guidelines nor policies. I think I'm going to write an essay and then you'll feel obliged to follow it too? --Niemti (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • WP:Link rot is not an essay, though I've used that word. I apologize for that. It's bannered with the how-to template indicating that it sets forth Wikipedia EN practice/process. 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's an essay. It's in Category:Wikipedia essays on building the encyclopedia, which is in Category:Wikipedia essays. --Niemti (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Web archive does not archive every website in the world- but if you go to it to try to find an archive, it will make one a few days/weeks later. Web citation, of course, archives on-demand right then. If you archive a link that is not dead yet, then when it is dead, you don't lose the citation. Web archives are not some magic fairy- a lot of the time, if you wait for the link to die before looking up an archive, you'll find that there isn't one. It doesn't matter so much on a little start-class article. But I promise you- the first time you try to expand some article to GA or FA, and a really big, important piece of information in the development section relies on one and only one reliable source on the internet, and that source died 6 months ago and no one ever made an archive- you're going to be pissed, because the problem could have been fixed if anyone had bothered. Or maybe that's just me, who knows. --PresN 19:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an concrete example, literally last week I did this- removed a review of an album because the link was dead, and when I went to web.archive.org it had only archived a redirect page. I'm not defending the article or site- the site was a little over the line of non notable, and the article has a bunch of flaws- it was just the quickest at hand. But it happens- Web.archive.org is not a magical fairy that perfectly backs up every site in the world. Some websites have a robots.txt file that blocks it, and so when they die, no archives are left. Some sites are too small for webarchive to bother with unless you ask. Some webpages change the content on the page to focus more on new information, and the old information is lost as the only archives come from too late a date. I've literally had all of these happen to me. This is not a theoretical problem. --PresN 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said this already, sometimes it's useful, like when content is changing. It's just not useful here. And these pages are archived already, in case if something ever happens with them. As of websites dying: Internet Archive will die too, eventually (everything will, including the Sun, and actually the universe). But right now, it's all fine. --Niemti (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And unarchivable websites won't be archived, and they can make IA archived pages deleted/redirected too (I've seen it happening). It really achieves nothing. --Niemti (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still not worked out? You can not violate copyright laws by ignoring the legal source of the copyrighted material, and linking to an unapproved backup site. This violates fair usage laws surely. If the main site no longer carries the content, they probably won't mind it backed up elsewhere, but if they do, they certainly don't want people accessing it somewhere else. Dream Focus 15:26, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dream Focus has a point. I'm not convinced that this use actually violates copyright law, but it's at least on the border. A compromise would be to have {{cite web}} not display the archive to the reader. That way, we can track the archive and use it if the main link goes dead, but could not be accused of encouraging Wikipedia editors to go there.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm 99.999% certain there's no copyright issue here. Using archiveurl, even on sites that are not yet fully deadlinks, is a widespread practice on Wikipedia. WP:Link rot clearly supports the practice. There's no reason NOT to use archiveurl, and with deadurl=yes set (As Niemti has already done), the original site comes first in the template. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further research yields http://www.benedict.com/Digital/Internet/Field/Field.aspx, which seems to be a case directly on point. These kinds of caches do not violate copyright.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That involves Google caching something for use in their search engine. Different story here.
  • It has a market effect, since it eliminates their entire source of income, which are the ad banners. If the site was no longer hosting the article, then there would be no market effect. That isn't the case here. Dream Focus 17:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So does a copy in Google's cache. Even if the banners are retained, they are no longer credited to the original site that hosted them for income distribution. There's no distinction on that point.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a somewhat misdirected discussion. Use of archiveurl is perfectly acceptable, and there's no reason it shouldn't be done in this article versus any other. If you have a true issue with the use of archiveurls and the way WP:Link rot is written, I think another venue is required, perhaps the link rot article itself. I'm not sure where you go to address concerns like that, but it really isn't relevant to this particular article. -- ferret (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any other articles out there that do this? Dream Focus 19:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at our FAs (the one I myself browsed to was Defense of the Ancients). Most of them do, where they use web sources, because that ensures WP:V. --Izno (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Garrett (Thief)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved to Garrett (Thief character). There is unanimous and well-reasoned support to moving this title to something else, so it can not stay at Garrett (character). The question then becomes one of where to move it to. The title "Thief" is itself ambiguous because the primary topic of that term is a person who steals (there are, by comparison, many titles for which it is immediately obvious that the title refers to a specific fictional work). Although the argument against unnecessary additional disambiguators is a strong argument, in this case the additional term is useful to make clear to the reader that the title is not referring to an actual thief named or surnamed Garrett. I find that tips the scales in this discussion. bd2412 T 16:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett (character) → Garrett (Thief) – Naming this article "Garrett (character)" makes very little sense at all. Not only is it redundant to denote that this individual is a character in the article's title, there really is no reason why he should be given priority to be denoted as a character in his title as opposed to any other fictional character with the name "Garrett" and no surname. Granted I am no currently aware of any other fictional characters who are named Garrett, have no surname, and have their own article on Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean that this particular character should be denoted as simply "character" in his title. This title should be changed immediately. If not to "Garrett (Thief) then at the very least Garrett (video game character). Nahald (talk) 04:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Thief" is quite a poor disambiguator, as the primary game article is disambiguated; suggest "Thief videogames" instead. Garrett (Thief videogame series) / Garrett (Thief videogames) -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Garrett (Thief character). Current and proposed titles are not recognizable. Zarcadia (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use of Garrett (Thief character). Regarding the suggestion of Garrett (Thief video game character) we don't need to include video game here since the reason we use Thief (video game) is to separate the game from other articles named Thief. Unless there is separate notable character named Garrett from another work of fiction named Thief using Garrett (Thief video game character) is unnecessary--67.70.140.89 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the current and proposed titles, but I oppose anything else. Disambiguators should be precise; there's no need to use more than one word here. --BDD (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Garrett (Thief) is the correct per WP:NCVG#Disambiguation, "For characters: Disambiguate by appending "([Title of the game])" after the character's name (e.g. "Lulu (Final Fantasy X)"). If the subject appears across several titles in a series, then use "([Title of the series])" (e.g., "Cid (Final Fantasy)"). If the subject's name is the same as of the game, then use "(character)" (e.g. "Rayman (character)"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel Yuji (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 April 2014
  • Comment - "Garrett (Thief)" sounds like an article about a nonfictional larcenist. Unlike, e.g., "Final Fantasy," the word "thief" is unfortunately not clearly a video game title. Better to move to "Garrett (Thief video game)" or "Garrett (Thief video game character)" or something similar. Rinne na dTrosc (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per what I mentioned earlier I think Thief Character should be enough.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong Picture

[edit]

In the article, it is specifically expressed that the Garrett of Thief (2014) is not exactly the character the article refers to. Still, the picture displayed here is obviously concept art from Thief (2014), showcasing just this exact Garrett, not the actual original Garrett from Thief: Deadly Shadows, as falsely claimed in the subtitle beneath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.184.216.7 (talk) 02:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 July 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Garrett (Thief) (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 14:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Garrett (character) → Garrett (Thief) – Reverse the incorrect and WP:NCVG#Disambiguation-violating move by Soetermans back in 2015. I do not believe this needs to be at (Thief character) as it was before, as "Thief" is clearly capitalized. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garrett_(Thief)&oldid=1218460387"