Forum:Wiki Formatting Question: Armored Vehicle Variants

I've noticed that some of the "Armored" variants of vehicles (the Schafter, Cognoscenti) don't have their own page, but rather, are structured within the page for the non-armored vehicle itself. However, other entries (Kuruma) have a completely separate page for the Armored variant. What's more, other vehicles have separate pages for different variants as well.

Considering these armored variants can be an entirely separate category than their armored variety (the Schafter V12 is a Sports, the V12 Armored is a Sedan), should we break each of these Armored variants into its own separate page? I feel this would be the proper course of action, but wanted to post it here for discussion before separating anything into new pages.


 * Haha xD you've caught us as we're mid-way re-combining them - they were all seperqted originally but an off-site veto decided the Armored counterparts should be combined with the standard counterparts. Should all be ironed out in a few days ;) Mr. Ferrari (talk ) 23:33, February 26, 2016 (UTC)


 * The rules for variants were pretty messed up and inconsistent, but we've sorted it out now:


 * All vehicles with different names (even the 'S' in Buffalo S) have separate pages.
 * vehicles with "(Armored)" counterparts are combined with its standard counterpart.
 * Not Duke O'Death, as it's a completely changed vehicle with a didferent name.


 * Originally some Admins agreed that even armored vehicles should be separated, but an off-site veto went against it, so we can't argue with that. Once the Admins are done with the variant combinations/separations, everything should be sorted ;) Mr. Ferrari (talk ) 23:37, February 26, 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally, I feel that all variants (even the armored versions) should have their separate pages, again, because they can be a different class of vehicle, the differences in performance, etc., etc. But, I guess if it was decided this is the way it will be, I can't really argue that. It just seems... less consistent, that way. Daft inquisitor (talk) 00:55, February 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you. So does my colleague, but the off-site veto made the decision :/ Mr. Ferrari (talk ) 01:01, February 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * What off-site veto? If it wasn't discussed here, among everyone involved, it shouldn't be a valid decision. v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 13:15, February 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed Wild, but the Bcrats came to a 3-0 veto off-site. Ask Tom, Jamal or Leon. Personally, I think all should be separated now that he's mentioned the vehicle categories, which completely changes my thoughts on the combinations. Monk Talk 13:19, February 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow. So 3 people, 2 of which are barely active, can change decisions that everyone but them (well, to be honest, Tom is indifferent about it, and I haven't seen Jamal say anything against it) have already agreed on? That's unfair. Maybe if we were going to launch a nuke at some country and the b'crats veto'd against it, then yeah, I could agree about a veto, but for something that silly? This is honestly getting ridiculous at this point. And yeah, User:Daft inquisitor makes sense. Different classes on one page will be confusing. It's the reason why Mesas were split to begin with. v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 13:34, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but if we bring this up again, they'll be a fricking war xD Not sure whether to finish what I was told to do (re-combine them) or just re separate them for now. Think I might re-separate. Monk Talk 13:37, February 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * All separated for now. I think we need another discussion about this, but, I don't know :/ Monk Talk 13:46, February 27, 2016 (UTC)


 * I think we do. Hopefully we won't lose staff over it again. v-michael-trunk-mini.jpg V-franklin-trunk-mini.jpg V-trevor-trunk-mini.jpg 13:51, February 27, 2016 (UTC)