CJ and Sweet are co-founders of the Grove Street Families. 2 reasons: 1.) They're brothers, and 2.) How can one brother be the leader of a gang and the other brother be a member of that same gang? It don't make no kind of sense whatsoever. So, there is my evidence. CJ and Sweet are co-founders of the GSF.— Preceding unsigned comment added by King Gemini (talk • contribs)

A rather weak argument, and OR even. Regardless of family ties, relatives still agree or disagree, and in this case, there is also the possibility of CJ, Sweet, Brian or Beverly at odds in affairs, including forming and running a gang. I want official confirmation from the game or R* to be convinced that they are co-founders. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

That is a stupid argument. Why does the gang have to be started whilst thy are alive. It could've been started by anyone on the street, or indeed the area before they were even born. So you have provided no evidence. Either this is rectified or I am removing the text which says otherwise in the article Dankru 07:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking, is this message directed to me? ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

The question was directed to King Gemini. Apologies, as it isn't crystal clear, although it is more of a rhetorical question. Dankru 00:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Maccer should be in the major characters list if Kent Paul is there. Maybe even the other way around with Paul in the minor characters list. Both of them have the same significance to the storyline, introducing CJ to Ken Rosenberg. Ctaduran 17:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of Emmet in this article. I'm going to go ahead and add one, if nobody cares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.130.138.12 (talk • contribs)

"Jizzy's name may also be a spoof to Bhangra artist Jazzy B."

I think it's silly that a San Andreas pimp (an icon of American culture) could be construed as any kind of reference to an Indian DJ. There are other parts of this section that read like "Jizzy B is a pimp. X is another reference to pimp culture contemporary to the time the game was created. Therefore Jizzy B refers to X." This seems like wishful speculation.

I think there is some New Jack City influence in GTA:SA, but Nino Brown was a gangster, not a pimp. Rick James was a disco singer, so the fact that Rick James is playing in the club when CJ meets Jizzy is perfectly reasonable. Dave Chappelle portrayed Rick James, spoofing the same era that the GTA team is spoofing. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're paying homage to Chappelle. 140.247.29.121 11:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was Guppy Ran Fa Li's assistant or the guy riding the helicopter when they did a fly-by of the Da Nang Boys' ship? The info here seems to indicate that he is both, but the guy from the helicopter mission acts and sounds more like the second Triad guy from the Casino Heist (the other was Suzie, right). --HannuMakinen 16:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right. Guppy may be a separate and very minor character from Farlie's assistant. While I couldn't catch a glimpse of the pilot during the takeoff cut scene and flight to the freighter, inspection of the crashed helicopter revealed that he looks to be only a standard Triad member, while Farlie's assistant had a more unique appearance (glasses, slim stature and ponytail). The voice may be hard to judge though.

If this is true, Guppy would be too minor of mention, but also leaves the question of the assistant's name. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 11:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

I have decided to hide Guppy's entry due to the lack of evidence up to now pointing to who is who, and the lack of input from other parties for the past months. Hell, having this entry in display without proof is also more likely to mislead readers. Feel free to include any objections and arguments here. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 12:42, 4 November 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

hey, anyone else think there may be a connected between Ryder (some of whose missions are based around vans) & Ryder, a British vehicle hire company? a sort of in joke parhaps? Shas'o sodit 20:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another thing that should be added, Woozie may have his sight, as he can be clearly seen picking up his playing card and looking at its number underneath. This implies that Woozie can see, but he may be very short sighted. (if SA gets a stories game, i can see this being further explained Shas'o sodit 10:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean he can see the card, remember, he had 47.200.112.160.47 02:45, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Green Sabre" mission when CJ saw Big Smoke and Ryder with CRASH and the Ballas, I was wondering why CJ was only talking about Smoke, saying "It's Smoke. And he in deep with Tenpenny and some Ballas. He sold us out." Ryder was in on it too.

I wondered that too myself. Also in the mission where Carl and Ceasar take pictures of the Loco Syndicate members Carl seemed a little surprised to see Ryder. I guess Carl was so shocked at seeing Smoke he could have just ignored Ryder(possibly because the two might have had a better and longer friendship). Leegar84 22:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this isn't a forum; don't simply "chat" about the article subject. Unless you're thinking of doing something for the betterment of the article, discuss subjects more relevant to the state of the article. And to answer your question, I wouldn't even pay too much attention to that, for the only reason why CJ reacted in such a way is probably because he didn't expect Smoke to do something so frivilous. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of the issue, it seems possible, if not plausible, that the authors of the story had intended to keep Ryder's betrayal from the player until "Photo Opportunity" but changed their minds because it would be confusing to players to lose contact with Ryder in between the Los Santos missions and "Photo Opportunity". In terms of the article, I don't think there's much we could say about the matter because of WP:NOR unless a reliable source discusses it in these terms. Croctotheface 01:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I get a chance (or if someone else wants to do it), I'm going to go through and change phrases such as "Such-and-such is an obvious spoof of..." to more neutral phrasing that merely points out a similarity. In cases where the similarity is dubious, I'll either delete it or add/leave a citation tag. Croctotheface 06:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

when did this "training day" like scene occur, I don't seem to remember it and i've completed it 100% twice — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickiscoole (talk • contribs)

This has been depicted in The Introduction (a seperate prequel film of the game) during the second last scene. Hernendez has been asked by Tenpenny to kill a beaten-up police officer, or be killed with the police officer. He reluctantly complies. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Thanks, its really weird that I haven't heard about that video. - Mickiscoole 05:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can watch it on youtube, just search for it. It's split into two parts. - User:Johnnyfog 11:59, November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I can report it to the Wiki moderators, but this site has clearly and extensively been vandalized.

Note: The vandalism all originate from a single anon user. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 09:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

I don't think that's true, his first name isn't mentioned neither in the game nor on his "website". _LI^TI_S 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's vandalism. The anon user(s) who made these changes (217.230.90.145 and 217.230.123.189) have a record of adding similar nonsense in Lemming, as well as defacing Saw III and adding soapbox comments in Christian Coalition. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 17:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Judging by his actions in the game, we are not sure that Torino is a government agent, he could have his own agenda, be a cultist.

_LI^TI_S 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he states it, at an early point in his entrance into the story. There is nothing in the game that could support him being a "cultist" or that he could have his own agenda, outside being a corrupt government agent. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 06:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting it until you provide proof. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.94.122.64 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

There are 2 minor characters, who are not yet listed. There are 2 guys wearing blue clothes, who are showing up on various mission szenes. For example: in Woozie´s house in San Fierro, in the mission, when Madd dog tries to kill himself and in the room when Cj is planning the Casino robbery( that is when he says something like:" but please fuck off!"

I'm pretty sure their names aren't disclosed, so they are rather insignificant. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 06:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U can actually get the Mad Dogg Albums, can u???? There are just posters right? I wanna know if he is real or just a character, hes palyed by Ice-T are there any songs from the game w/ Ice-T where he palys Mad Dogg? RealG187 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Who told you that? ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that he's lacing blunts with PCP and not just cigars. Admittedly, I'm not an expert on the subject of drugs, but I don't think there are any in game references to him smoking weed. Is it just implied that if he's doing PCP, it's with marijuana? Croctotheface 05:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the "drug community," its common to lace marijuana with PCP. Not too many people lace plain cigars with PCP; it would be, in a sense, considered "smarter," if not more common, to smoke it on its own, in its crystalline form. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the amount of crazy vandalism and turf wars going on around this article, maybe it should just be registered users only for awhile. The Superman article got locked down for less. ==>Johnnyfog

It say's here that the Denise who calls the Electron Zone in LCS is Denise Robinson, but she only gets refered to by her first name. I can find no evidence that it is actually her. Does anyone know different? If not, it should be removed. Dbam 18:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting that you brought that up; due to my limited knowledge of LCS, I thought that her full name was given and that her voice was very similar to Robinson's in SA. Someone needs to verify this, because I'm assuming good faith that someone did this with some sort of support. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. It should probably be removed in the meantime and restored only if we get a source. Croctotheface 21:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i've removed it. Dbam 19:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the characters used to have older outfits(Smoke's white and green basketball jersey, Sweet's skullcap clothes, Ryder's pure orange(in the game art)), but I think so did Big Bear. In one of the earliest screenshots wear members of the Grove are doing a driveby in their old clothes, there's somebody in the back wearing almost all black who looks a lot like Big Bear. If anybody can find this screenshot(it's on the back of the Triple Pack), you might be able to see the resemblance.

Uhhh, are you getting at something, because if you're not, then I'll please ask you to not treat this page as a forum, that is, don't create idle banter. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 19:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using it as a forum, I'm just asking whether or not this could be an addition to the article.

Aaah ok. Sorry, man. A lot of crap has been happening, putting me on edge. I don't know if it could or should, but if others find it necessary, then I'll support it. Otherwise, I don't feel it should. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this must be the screenshot in question. It certainly does bear (no pun intended!) a resemblance to Big Bear. But I think unless there is something somewhere that says it actually is him, I don't see how it can go in the article without looking like original research or speculation. Dbam 23:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Dis Shit true about the birth dates dat someone put on CJ and them
Next Fiday 17:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I'm not sure I'm no board with having the OR tag at this article. It's certainly the case that articles like these will depend a bit more on primary sources than we'd like, but there's a pretty strong precedent for having these kinds of articles despite spotty sourcing. I'm not sure that the article would be improved by having a note at the end of every other sentence pointing readers to the game's script. Croctotheface 09:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I hate when people do that. If anything, an unreferenced tag should be used. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know this for sure? I don't think it's Todd Crawford. Croctotheface 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a name for Madd Dogg's manager and I removed references to it earlier. If his name is Todd Crawford, then it should be referenced. A-Dust 21:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the spoiler tag earlier on today because I scrolled down the list to see what Tenpenny's first name was and accidentally read when he's killed in the game! >.< Why does this article not require a spoiler tag? Sean 02:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion at WP:SPOILER, and the consensus established was that readers should expect articles or sections on fictional characters to reveal major plot elements and therefore that the tag is redundant. Croctotheface 07:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know offhand what the game says, but it's certainly possible for a person to be a native of Town X despite originally hailing from Town Y. It would involve moving. Croctotheface 21:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did Hernandez have to be killed in the first place when he was a good guy? {GaryUser 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)}[reply]

Wikipedia is NOT a forum! - .:Alex:. 20:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't he be under Minor characters or whatever. he only in like what 1 or 2 missions?

Yes but Salvatore appeared as the boss of two missions and was featured as a main character in the game. Salvatore was also featured as a main character in GTA III, which may come into account here. A-Dust 20:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, why are the images in this article candidates for speedy deletion? I'd think it falls under fair use.. Th 2005 08:59, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this page makes something of an odd classification of major and minor characters. I have a hard time seeing, Maccer, for example, as a more important character than Jimmy Hernandez. These ideas aren't fully formed in my mind yet, but I think that we should change our conception of major characters here. I could see a few methods:

1. Restrict "major character" status to CJ, Sweet, Smoke, Cesar, and Tenpenny. These are characters who have a presence, although not always physical, throughout all stages of the game, and act on their own volition. Their roles are largely essential: the protagonist, main antagonists, and the hero's close friends and confidants. This would exclude Pulaski and Ryder because they are more like henchmen, and it would exclude Woozie because he has more of a secondary role as an employer/partner.
2. Include Ryder, Pulaski, and Woozie. Their roles are significant, even if they are not essential.
3. Include Toreno, Leone, Rosenberg, Madd Dogg, Catalina, and Kendl. I think this gets a little bit more difficult, I suppose this would involve saying that a constant presence in the game (Kendl) or a significant impact on certain stages of the game (the rest) is enough to qualify for major. Personally, I would want to draw the line before including these.
4. Include everything we already do. This is really Maccer territory, and he has no impact on the plot whatsoever.

I think that I would want to go with either option 1 or 2. I have a hard time really seeing Toreno or Leone as major characters: they are major players in certain subplots, but the game is huge and the storyline is quite long. The main plot is about CJ being challenged by forces beyond his control and then coming into his own as a person by overcoming and defeating them. Thoughts? Croctotheface 07:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, and I admit that this is not a great option, but it could be a viable one, we may want to create a hierarchy of minor characters. In my mind, Toreno is sort of major-minor, while Millie Perkins is so minor that she's barely significant. Three tiers is less elegant, but it would be more accurate. Croctotheface 07:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got a point about being more selective and the three-tier thing would be a good way to go. I'd go with option 2 for the Major characters, but would perhaps include Toreno and The Truth as well. The second tier would be basically anyone else who has any significant role at any point during the main story. The third tier really should only be used for those who truly have very little impact on the story, such as Denise, Maria and Claude (and, of course, Tony the Parrot).

I think what might be useful as well, to try to avoid disagreements, is some sort of criteria for classification based on aspects of each characters involvement in the game, similar to those used for the list of gangs article. Something reasonably straight-forward, based on things like number of missions involved in, whether they are the boss of any missions—stuff like that. Also, I think any changes we do make should be across the board, for the sake of uniformity of the various "List of characters in..." articles. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to making similar changes in similar articles, but I'm not going to hold back on making changes here if people resist elsewhere. It's been a few days and we seem to be on the same page. Do you have ideas as far as names for the three tiers? Croctotheface 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections here then I can't imagine problems elsewhere—keeping similarly-themed articles inline style-wise seems a logical step to me. As for tier names...got to admit, that's a tricky one. My initial thoughts were along the lines of Major–Minor–Other or Major–Supporting–Minor. To be honest, if you'd rather just stick with two tiers and re-jig the characters a bit then that's fine by me, but if that is the case, then personally, I think i'd rather promote Hernandez and T-Bone Mendez to Major status as they are the two that really stand out for me in the Minor section, whereas the lower end of the Major section is a bit more hazy. I think three tiers would give a better opportunity for a more drastic overhaul of the kind you suggest. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything in the introduction about Hernandez shooting Pendlebury, or Pulaski calling Tenpenny "pal" or T-Bone beating up an accused snitch. Is this part of a special version or something, because I'm apparently missing something. Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.40.33 (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Introduction" is a film that was included with the soundtrack. It was designed to preview the storyline, and it actually gives quite a few details away. It's probably on Youtube, though I don't know for sure. Croctotheface 06:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I guess I missed that. I was real friggin' confused because I was racking my brain trying to remember where I've heard that stuff in the game, even though I never have! Thank you for saving me from much frustration and confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.40.33 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone what does it mean? Also, is it part of a gang name? Professional Gamer 20:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums --Croctotheface 20:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Professional Gamer 17:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even Woozie may be blind, I noticed that he has very good hearings and he can respond to sound whenever he hears gunshots. Professional Gamer 16:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GTASA Ryder.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Tommy Vercetti should be listed here. He makes no appearance at all, and is only mentioned in 'The Introduction'. He doesn't really have influence on the story. Larrylarp (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, I've removed it. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i hope you guys know that madd doggs managers name is Heffy it was revealed in the mission you kill him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcanmoocanu (talk • contribs) 03:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the name of Madd Doggs manager is Scipio. No one mentions 'Heffy' in the cutscene "Management Business" nor in any point of the mission. Larrylarp (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time and time and time and time again there has been debate about the removal of fair use images from "List of characters in..." type articles. EVERYtime it has ended with the images staying removed off of the article. Why? Because the Foundation has taken a very strong stance with regards to the overuse of fair use images. If a character is sufficiently notable that it deserves an image, then it deserve its own article. Such an image should not appear on this "list of" article, but on the article about the character. If the character is not notable enough for its own article, any argument that it 'needs' an image is exceptionally weak. Wikipedia is first and foremost a free content encyclopedia. We don't get to use fair use, copyrighted imagery liberally wherever and however we like to use it, even if there are fair use rationales associated with the image. This article is no different than the literally hundreds of other articles that this policy has affected. The edit warring over this will stop. If those of you who insist on pushing thes images on this article insist on edit warring to have your way, I will recommend blocks to prevent this abuse of Foundation policy. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but WHERE does it explicitly say that we cannot have images in a "List of characters" article? You keep removing the images under the claim that the Foundation does not allow it, but you have failed to provide where that is stated, and only provided links to pages that do not say anything about this at all or a discussion that does not constitute as a policy. You have mentioned about the overuse of fair use images, which is quite clearly not acceptable on Wikipedia, but this does not mean that the article cannot have any images at all. Until you provide something that states that the foundation does not allow images on this type of article, the images will remain. .:Alex:. 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many images, but doesn't mean to remove every single one there is, they are given fair use so why are you trying to bit it? Maybe the images of minor characters should be removed but not the major and supporting one's.--Flesh-n-Bone 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Policies rarely explictly state each and every example under which a policy applies. A policy does not need to state that fair use image are not permitted to be used in the manner both of you desire to have on this article. As I noted, this has been argued multiple times before with the result being that the images remained off of the articles. A relevant Signpost article is here: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-05-07/Fair use. The article CAN have an image if it is a montage of characters, a montage created by the holder of the copyright (not one we create). Examples of this include Characters of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance and Characters of Final Fantasy XII. Adding images for each character is massive abuse of fair use under guidance of the Foundation. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then if the policies doesn't have to state this example, where are you getting this from? I've read that signpost article, and it was about Lists of episodes using completely unnecessary images in a table for decorative purposes. In this character list, the images are being used to illustrate main characters that are highly significant to the game, most notably CJ and Frank Tenpenny, who are the protagonist and antagonist respectively. .:Alex:. 14:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if there as notable as you say I'm sure they deserve their own article, where an image of that character may appear. In fact, Carl "CJ" Johnson has an article, where an image already appears. Thus, having an image here is utterly redundant and abusive of fair use. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Frank Tenpenny? He is certainly very notable within the game and perhaps the series. There just isn't enough information on him to warrant an entire article about him. A few of the characters on the list have been merged in from their own articles because they were too small and would probably not get much bigger, that is no reason why they should not have an image as they are highly significant towards the game and the series. Notability, most particularly on the basis of whether they are notable enough to have their own article should not come into whether they should have an image or not. .:Alex:. 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's so little information that they don't warrant their own article, then there's hardly an argument that they warrant an image. If he's central to the game, then there might be a case for an image of him on the main article, but not on "list of characters" article. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be delving into opinions and interpretation of policies and whatnot. Reading all this, I could say that because they don't have enough info to have an article, then they deserve a picture. I could also say that we should follow what history has shown us and keep all the articles off. Another thing I could say is that if there is a fair-use for all of these images, then it should be "fair to use" them all in this article. Sooooo many interpretations of a vague policy, so little consensus. At the risk of sounding like "I like it", which I don't necessarily, I say that if the article has been fine all of this time with the pictures up, then there shouldn't be a problem with them. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And that's another argument that's frequently attempted in this type of dispute...supposedly no consensus to remove the images. I'm sorry, but the consensus does exist. This sort of removal is routine business, and has been for months. All of you need to understand that just because something is "fair use" doesn't mean it's acceptable use here. There's considerably larger hurdles to be cleared. Wikipedia was, is, and always will be a free content encyclopedia. In no respect can copyrighted works be considered free. They must be used as little as possible. Creating articles with dozens of such images, as this one had, is directly against our m:mission here. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Issue resolved, I say. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An actual consensus of editors who edit the page needs to be made now. This is becoming ridiculous. I repeat, an actual consensus needs to be reached on this matter before doing anything to the pictures. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If we were to act in such a way that we had to achieve consensus every single time a policy is implemented, NOTHING would ever got done here. The policy is as it is. Minimal fair use must be supported. This is the decree of the Foundation. This practice of removing fair use images from lists like this has been going on for months. We are not going to attempt to argue this to death every single time this policy is going to be implemented anymore than we would argue over the placement of fair use images on userboxes every time one is removed from a userbox. This is policy. Pure and simple. You don't like it. That's fine. That doesn't mean you get to ignore it. --Hammersoft (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chill out. If you'll look a few inches up the screen, you'd have realized I agree with you. But it's still possible warring is going to continue, just like what just happened on the page. If people won't stop, then a consensus will probably be the only way this issue will be resolved. That's what I was suggesting. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Hammersoft here; WP:NFC#Unacceptable images seems pretty clear on this. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm sorry, I do not agree. I have no problem with removing most of the images, because I do agree that there are a phenomenal number of them, but not all. Surely one or two images to illustrate the main antagonists would be acceptable. Hammersoft, you yourself have said we should use them as little as possible. That does not mean we should not use them at all. Wikimedia's mission statement is not a valid reason to remove all of the images. .:Alex:. 16:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikimedia's mission is absolutely fundamental to this project. If you disagree with it, and insist on operating against it, I dare say you're in the wrong place. It'd be like trying to serve Pepsi from a Coke machine. I made it clear above what the criteria here was; if the character deserves an image, they deserve an article where the image is appropriate. If they're not notable enough for an article, it's a very weak argument to state they must have an image here. Montages of characters produced by the copyright holder can be acceptable. But, individual images for depiction purposes are not. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this article qualifies as a "list", despite its title, and therefore that the "unacceptable images" section of the guideline does not apply. This article should probably be titled something like "Characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" rather than making reference to a list. As this would then be considered an ARTICLE ON the characters rather than a LIST OF them, the language of the guideline would not apply. I would be in favor of restoring at least most of the images. A compromise to include images for the "major" and "supporting" characters but omit them from the "minor" characters would also work. Croctotheface (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well that's a new argument. This "List of characters" is not really a list, and should be titled "Characters of" instead, thus getting around policy. Sorry, doesn't work. Reason; It's still overuse of fair use images no matter what title you put on the article, or how you construe this 'article' of 39 characters. We don't have lists where there's just 39 bullet points, one for each character. On Wikipedia, this is a list, pure and simple. The same sort of argumentation could be used to say that Template:User Wikia isn't really a userbox, since it's in template space, not userspace. This argument doesn't fly any better than the one you're proposing. Sorry. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, let me step in. I'd pretty much would prefer if the article had pictures on the major characters. Characters from the other GTA games have pictures. It appears, Hammersoft, that you're starting an edit war. Agtaz 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Simply because other articles have such pictures does not make it right. I can cite literally dozens of articles where there are no images of characters. Let's start, shall we? List of characters from The Office (US), List of characters from Sin City, List of characters from Felicity, List of characters from Vanished, Characters of Final Fantasy X and X-2, LEGO Rock Raiders, List of Virtual Dungeon monsters, List of characters in Heroes, List of characters in Bucky O'Hare, ...and on and on and on. And I'll state for the bazillionth time, if a character is so 'major' they deserve a picture, then they deserve an article. If you can't make the argument they deserve an article, you can't make an argument they deserve a picture. We are a free content encyclopedia. Show me how copyrighted images are somehow 'free', and show me how the Foundation is blatantly wrong in their position and mission and I'll shut up. Problem is, you can't. I'll guarantee it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that "because a subject doesn't have an article, it doesn't deserve one". I don't think that really follows. In several cases, entries here are complete enough to be articles unto themselves. I have a very difficult time seeing much of the sections here as "entries in a list", so I think that my contention that this does not really resonate as a list remains valid. The way it is used in the guideline suggests something with trivial coverage. Croctotheface (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I've apparently repeated myself until I'm blue in the face. This discussion has become circular and futile. The images will remain off, per Foundation dictum and Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it, take it up with Foundation. You may contact them at Foundation:Contact_us. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft, I don't see how this has become "circular" if you earlier described my argument as "new" and yet responded to it only as far as telling me I'm wrong. This article bears no resemblance to, say, List of dog breeds or List of scholastic philosophers, which ARE basically just bulleted lists. My contention is that the guideline was meant to address lists such as these, not articles such as this one. The stuff will not "remain off" because you say so. My belief is that, when the page does get unprotected, several images will return. I see no reason that we can't illustrate Tenpenny, Sweet, Smoke, Ryder, Toreno, Pulsaki, and Woozie, for instance. Croctotheface (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If the images are forced back on against policy, I will recommend blocks of editing privileges. Your decision. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hammersoft, you're reminding me of another user who wants to delete all pictures on WikiPedia, User:Abu badali. Now this is becoming a major issue for this article, over your dislikes of the characters' pictures. Agtax 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't like or dislike the images. I am upholding Wikipedia policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This is getting rediculous! Why did you remove the images only from the GTA:SA characters article, and not the others? Your account appears to be used for vandalism. Agtax 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]