Talk:China GDC 2010

I prefer to see this page stay here. There's no reason to add slideshow to this. Ariyen 15:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Article, image, category naming

They're all a mess.

The articles are named "China GDC 2010" and "GDC 2010 slideshow". The categories are named ":Category:China GDC 2010" and ":Category:2010 GDC slideshow". The images themselves are named "File:GDC-2010-China-arbitrary number" for the former category, and "File:GDC 2010 description" for the latter category. There's not a lot of consistency; the word order in titles, what's included in titles, and the punctuation used all differ. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

I propose the following actions:

• Use one article for all GDC slideshows, similar to how we have one article for all Gamescoms. This would be titled "Game Developers Conference".
• The category should be named something like "Category:Games Developers Conference images". There could be two subcats in there named "Category:GDC 2010 March" and "Category:GDC 2010 August" - I don't think the location is important at all.
• Screenshots should be named "File:2010 March description" and "File:2010 August description". Concept art should be named "File:Description concept art". This makes the images consistent with other screenshot and concept art names.

pling 16:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree (although I wasn't aware that we had screenshots from this show). Concept art doesn't really change over time (as the outdated weapon images show), so the category would be enough to identify them as being from the GDC. Erasculio 17:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What Eras said. And consistency is a good thing. :) - Infinite - talk 00:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, before you move anything, this isn't from the official GDC. It's from the China GDC. GDC China (it's different from China GDC) is actually in December. Here's the website http://en.chinagdc.com.cn/ It took place from July 30th to August 1st. It is hosted by a different company than the normal GDC, so it should not go within a different company's slide shows. 24.92.202.240 01:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Going in further on that, I shall change Pling's suggestion a bit/

• Make 2 articles, one being GDC (Including all the GDCs actually owned by GDC), and the other being CGDC (China GDC) titled "Game Developers Conference" and "China Game Developers Conference".
• The categories should be named something like "Category:Games Developers Conference images" and "Category:China Games Developers Conference images". There could be subcats in there named "Category:GDC 2010 March" and "Category:CGDC 2010 August".

Again, edited from the post by Pling. I'm just saying that this should be done because they are not owned by the same company, and are different. 24.92.202.240 02:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Make one article with a subsection explaining the lesser known China GDC. Same applies for the categories. I agree with the image naming, as it is completely dispensable where the images were taken from. In the end we will probably see even more already known concept arts reused at a later point (in which case we just add the category to those images when they reappear). poke | talk 16:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the different GDCs should have an impact on our categorisation or naming structure. It'd be simpler and more effective to just put them all together. pling 17:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it should have an effect, because the China GDC is a completely different company than the one that hosts GDC China. It's just common sense to separate , as they are different companies, and not related other than the fact that they both are conferences with game developers. It should be respected that they are different. 24.92.202.240 23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You do know that you can do ==China GDC== and the other as two separate companies in same article and explain all of that under "Games Developers Conference" without the need of two total separate pages for the companies that's basically for the same thing. Just hosted differently, etc., and I'm gonna shush before I confuse myself, but I don't see the problem 24 of why it all can't be done on one page, why you're insisting on multiple pages? Unless you prefer a lot of jumping around. Instead of combining the information. Like on gw1 - voice chat is hosted by different companies, but under one article, not having the company their own article for what the players use. Do you understand now of what Pling and all are trying to suggest? Ariyen 00:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand what your suggesting, and that is alright. But I do not think that is what Pling is suggesting. It is what you and Poke are suggesting though. It sounds like Pling wants to put them in the same are of GDC as in the most-known company. It's like calling the GW wiki the same thing as the GW wikia 24.92.202.240 00:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we want to name that article "Guild Wars wikis" (or "Wikis about GW") then that's fine. In the same way we have an article about game developer conferences.. It's not our fault that the (official) GDC didn't come up with a more unique name.. poke | talk 08:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So, gogogo? The concept art images category is a mess in part due to this issue. Following Pling's category structure above shouldn't cause any concerns, since the category tree wasn't questioned at all in the discussion above. Erasculio 04:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ranger Pic

The ranger at the 8:00 mins of the GCD, is not screened here as an image, Id put it in If I knew how to do so..

If you mean this, then it's already here ;) Chriskang 13:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)