GTA Wiki

Grand Theft Auto VI: Trailer 2

GRAND THEFT AUTO VI TRAILER 2 out now!

Watch the full trailer here!

As expected, this is an incredibly busy time for our contributors. We're actively working to add new content and update existing information in response to the latest trailer. We kindly ask for your patience and understanding during this period.

If you're contributing, please make sure to use the Project VI sandbox where possible and be sure to follow our Manual of Style - edits that don't comply may be reverted. Repeated violations may result in a temporary block as we strive to maintain accuracy and consistency across the site.

Many thanks for your cooperation!

READ MORE

GTA Wiki
GTA Wiki
GTA Wiki
21,837
pages

GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

Sign in to edit

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community Noticeboard.

Archives
  1. June 2011 - Early July 2011
  2. July 2011 - April 2012
  3. November 2012 - Early June 2013
  4. June 2013 - Early August 2013
  5. August 2013 - Early January 2014
  6. January 2014 - January 2015
  7. Late January 2015 - April 2015
  8. May 2015 - October 2015
  9. Late October 2015 - March 2016
  10. Late March 2016 - August 2016
  11. Late August 2016 - July 2017
  12. September 2017 - November 2018
  13. All of 2019
  14. All of 2020 - July 2021
  15. October 2021 - August 2023

Talk page rules apply here. This noticeboard is for discussion and voting on changes to the wiki, reporting vandalism and wiki rule breaking, and reporting bad or unfair behaviour from GTA Wiki staff. Votes for the expiration of a Patroller's probation will also be held here.

For requests for promotion, please go to GTA Wiki:Requests for Promotion.

Voting Rules
Since voting about a change can cause arguments, here are the rules.

  • Anyone can start a topic for a community vote.
  • Please be civil when voting, and never condemn another user's vote.
  • Voting usually lasts 3 to 5 days.


Please input your new discussions at the top by editing the "New Topic" section and adding a new heading, leaving the "New Topic" heading at the top. That way, we can easily spot it rather than looking for it and you don't have to edit the whole page each time. Staff should use the {{Resolved}} template to close successful discussions.

Resignation[]

Hi everyone. After nearly eleven years as an editor and ten years as a staff member I feel the time has come for me to step down. The last year or so has been a challenging time for me personally and my activity has severely dropped to the extent I do not believe it warrants me being a staff member. While I still enjoy the GTA series and like everyone else is looking forward to the release of GTA VI, there is a lot of work already underway from the fantastic group of editors that are on this Wiki and I feel that there are editors who are more deserving of staff roles than me at the moment.

Editing this Wiki since July 2014 has been a fantastic experience and I have met a lot of wonderful people during that time, and I know that the current staff and editors the Wiki has can only make it continue to go from strength to strength.

I will still monitor the Wiki and make the occasional edit and if anyone wants a chat or support then just drop me a line on my talk page and I'll do my best to help out.

Gracias amigos. Hasta luego. Sam Talk 17:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Discussing the Discussions[]

✔
Resolved by BolbiiS (Profile ~ Talk ~ Edits) 11:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC) - Overwhelming consensus reached and six days of no additional votes or comments.

Original Section[]

REQUEST: Please discuss before the vote

It has been almost three years[DDOS 1] since the enabling of the "discussions" feature and, as shown by the messages sent in the Discord server, it is the time to evaluate this decision and consider subsequent actions. The very important questions we should first answer here are "Has the enabling of this feature reached its target?" and "Does it improve future experience?".

A wiki is defined as "a website or database developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content"[DDOS 2]. This definition is obviously general and assumes the other fundamental components of such projects - the user to user interaction.

The current way of fulfilling this need by using Discord, Article and Talk Pages, Twitters X and the discussions page, the sensible and contested method being, obviously, the latter. Concerns have been raised that this feature is wiki-useless, and by design (instead of a forum) comports more like a Social Media platform (the closest I would associate this with being Reddit). Countless posts[DDOS 3] have been submitted that contain flat out banned content on the "classical" part of the website, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but generates questions about the validity of the localization on this type of content on this site, which could deter users away from the actual wiki content.

One of the main points of enabling this feature was that a discussion board would reduce the clutter and user pages and generally improve the organization. As stated before, the current format of this pages - a post-discussion board with categories (as opposed to a forum with subforums) make it nearly impossible to actually sort the content, as well as also finding and accessing historical posts, the sorting criteria being only "By (Recent) Hot" and "By newest" and the need to constantly click on a "Load more" button.[DDOS 4]

Continuing this, it has been suggested that the discussions would be a powerful support tool - where any user could ask every other (active) user questions. This has proven not to be the case as out of the 2090 existing posts, only 109[DDOS 5][DDOS 6] are help related, of which only 24 being wiki-editing related. One of the reasons probably being that users preferred directly asking skilled editors/staff members for help as opposed to launching questions in the void and hoping to get an answer; another being the current state of Discussions and the possible discouragement that comes from seeing only posts containing opinion related content.

Discussions are also not used by Staff members, as there are only 11 posts falling under the "Staff and Wiki Notices" category[DDOS 7], with the last being made in August 2023[DDOS 8], modalities as Twitter X, the Community Noticeboard, the Special:Community page and MediaWiki:Sitenotice being preferred.

Another problem is the lack of a standalone policy the only identifiable regulations being points 2 and 3 of the Discussion Guidelines[DDOS 9]. The rest of the guidelines are a simple copy of the other Policy pages. Moreover the main policy pages groups Discussions and Talk pages together and refers users over to the Talk page guidelines[DDOS 10]. The Talk Pages Policy Article makes no reference to Discussions, only to Talk Pages.

Adding to this the lack of moderation and possibly this transforming in the future (as we near the launch of GTA VI) from a unmoderated section to an unmoderable section, possibly filling up with misleading claims, which would hurt the quality and reputation of the wiki.

After everything has been taken into consideration, it is important to analyze and decide accordingly. The general options are: the disabling of Discussions, somehow trying to improve them, granting more users Thread Moderator permissions (with user rights probably deming a CNB discussion of their own) or maintaining the status quo.


Thank you for reading and in anticipation of your input.


Signed,
Alex (stalk)/(mock)/(check out my mediocrity) 19:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

References[]

  1. ↑ Community Vote - Adding Discussions to the Wiki
  2. ↑ Wiki Definition
  3. ↑ Discussions
  4. ↑ Help:Discussions#Finding and following Discussions
  5. ↑ Discussion, Category:Game Help & Support
  6. ↑ Discussion, Category:Wiki Help & Support
  7. ↑ Discussion, Category:Staff News & Notices
  8. ↑ Fandom Updates (August 2023) - Made by ReverieCode on 31/08/2023
  9. ↑
    “2) Posts & Polls
    Please try to make your posts as clear and concise as possible, otherwise you may not receive responses or help. Also, please keep in mind that this Discussions board is for subjects related to Grand Theft Auto, The GTA Wiki, and Rockstar Games ONLY. Any post or poll deemed off-topic, "low-effort", spam, or otherwise unhelpful to the conversation are subject to deletion at Staff's discretion.
    3) Comments
    As with Posts, please try to keep your responses clear, concise, and on topic. Any reply deemed off-topic, "low-effort", spam, or otherwise unhelpful to the conversation are, like Posts, subject to deletion at Staff's discretion. If you find yourself derailing from the original topic of the post, it is recommended you make a post of your own to keep the discussion on-topic.”
    — Discussions - Guidelines
  10. ↑
    “Discussions in Forum spaces, Talk pages and in the Discussions area should be civilized and tidy.”
    — GTA Wiki Policy - Section #GTA Wiki Policies - Talk Page Guidelines

Pre-Voting Comments[]

  • I find the Reddit comparison very apt, as it captures the average experience I get when browsing something like the r/GTAVI subreddit: largely irrelevant & nonsensical posts sprinkled in with valid and engaging discussions. It's unfortunate that it turned out this way, as I was initially in favor of enabling Discussions with the hopes that users would find it useful, would encourage productive content, and help users who are possibly not as savvy with wikitext and/or do not use Discord. I think there may be a way to salvage a productive forum community in something like this, but that would require lots of physical moderators and ESPECIALLY more in-depth community creation and moderation tools, something that Fandom has promised since our vote 3 years ago, but has delivered on very little since. Your particular point about the Staff channel being largely abandoned is part of this, as it proved not very effective at reaching the audience, due to the lack of pinning posts, lack of restricting standard users from posting within it, and largely unproductive discussion with in the replies.
I will say that the number of Wiki/Game Support posts is likely much larger than what is in the category, but that speaks to another issue with Discussions, being the very barebones Categories system. It makes zero effort to push users towards actually organizing their posts, and thus leaving many users in the void of General, waiting for someone to help.
Put simply, especially considering the massive workload staff and regular users have on the horizon, I think I can safely say the majority of us will not have the time, energy, or ability to regularly moderate Discussions. Finding trusted users outside of Patrollers to moderate Discussions would be an exercise in futility, as there would likely be a lack of connection between higher Staff and these users compared to the relationship between trusted users/Patrollers and Staff. When the vote is live, I would likely be in favor of disabling it unless someone comes up with a more feasible solution. Trying to be a barebones Reddit ON TOP OF managing 21,000 pages (likely to double within a year) is no small feat. BolbiiS (Profile ~ Talk ~ Edits) 19:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I too was originally in favor of the Discussions section. I've seen it used really well on other wikis in the past. Here though it has definitely just turned into a cesspit of nothingness. Especially with GTA VI on the horizon I think disabling it would be for the best. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I totally am not in favor of the Discussions section existing, considering how it has become. It is now a matter of people randomly posting their opinions, and sometimes even completely inappropriate content (such as advertising their GTA Online machinimas/roleplays or posting content meant for children, as if the GTA franchise is meant to be about ponies or whatever). The amount of useful posts is very low. With GTA VI on the horizon, and the staff being made up of around 20 people, that is definitely not enough people in order for the Discussions section to be babysat on a permanent basis. The best solution is to get rid of it, as it no longer produces anything even remotely useful, actually taking away time from other, more pressing matters. If anyone wants to initiate a random discussion, Discord is the way to go nowadays. TheLuca2001 Talk 18:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Closing Statement of the Debate Period
Seeing that no additional comment has been added for 2 days, that a full voting period (3 days) has passed and the overwhelming support (both expressed and not expressed here) for removing this feature, we will hold a vote for removing Discussions. For fairness, the conditions of the original vote will apply. Alex (stalk)/(mock)/(check out my mediocrity) 19:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Votes (for removing Discussions)[]

NOTE: Fandom Staff may not vote, tho they may comment. Only a Bureaucrat may close the vote.

Comments during the Voting period[]

None

Staff Comment[]

Hey everyone! I wanted to mention here that following up on your vote and communication with us, the Discussions have now been disabled.

I have mentioned this to admins via the help desk just now, but just as a general note: if past messages posted via Discussions need to be looked at or referenced by the admin team for any reason (such as looking into a block appeal relating to it, or anything similar to that), messages are not fully removed, so we should be able to help with that.

Also, in the event that in a distant future the community makes any decision to use Article Comments or Message Walls, the "Discussions Abuse Filter" feature would still be available for those features without needing Discussions to be enabled. (They use the same coding and DAF can be set to only target those features.)

Thank you Alex for taking the time to share the entire reasoning for the decision on this, and all of you for participating in the vote. I don't believe there will be any technical issues caused by the removal - but if anyone happens to notice anything strange, feel free to let us know! –ReverieCode 10:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-Resignation[]

Well, it seems a kinda odd time to be doing this with GTA VI just around the corner, but after a long period to think about it I think it is for the best.

I'm "semi" retiring from the position of Bureaucrat, in that I'm demoting myself down to Administrator. The reason being, I'm still going to be around the wiki a few times a week where I can, but I don't feel I have the time or capability to serve as a B'crat anymore. You can see from my activity that I only contribute in short bursts when I find a spare moment. I'll also still be running the wiki Twitter account, though I would be willing to hand it over to somebody else if they felt they could make it more active.

I've had some big life changes in the last few months, all good ones thankfully, including a chance that I may be moving from the UK to Florida or North Carolina - that still remains to be seen, but it seems the right choice if I want to be hit by a hurricane...

Anyways, Matrex and BolbiiS, and whomever should replace me, will do a great job as always serving as B'crats, and of course the rest of the staff too. Here's looking forward to the bright future we have in 2025 and beyond!

LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 13:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Character Articles: When the image info box should be included.[]

Closed as Unsuccessful by Matrexpingvin (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright. As we all know, there are many characters in the Grand Theft Auto franchise that never had a canonical appearance. There are instances of this that were intentional, and there others that just so happened to never be shown. While we know that any unseen character in the HD universe could appear in any subsequent game, the likelihood of characters from older games and/or universes getting an appearance is slim. My proposal is that we omit the image part of the info box for both the characters that were never intended to have an appearance and characters that will likely never have one. When omitted, the pages appear much cleaner for users of all platforms, and lack (what I would call) empty information. Arguably, the info boxes would be more inconsistent across the different pages, but we already omit information that we don't have, so I'm not sure why this would be much different!

Dustin (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • While I see logic in your proposal, omitting an image altogether can be confusing for the reader. Characters in particular are regularly mentioned in the series without physically appearing in-game. The lack of an image in the infobox might imply that a picture hasn't been obtained for them yet, rather than being something/someone that literally does not physically appear in-game. The use of a "?" image therefore clarifies that their appearance is unknown, not missing. Monky Talk 19:48, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Vehicle articles: split by universe[]

✔
Resolved by Matrexpingvin (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty, here goes!

This is probably going to be somewhat controversial as we have come to know a standard that has been set out and stayed relatively untouched for the past ~18 years when it comes to vehicle articles, but I feel it needs to be addressed...

It has occurred to me plenty of times that some of our vehicle articles - particularly some of the best known, frequently recurring vehicles (like the Banshee, Ambulance, Fire Truck, Stallion, etc) have some of the longest articles on the site. It goes without saying that documenting these the way we have done hasn't faced challenges before; we've previously proposed splitting, merging and sub-paging vehicles before in different ways and for different reasons, but this proposition is slightly different.

We already do this with a variety of other article types. A long time ago, we used to have no split articles. Locations were some of the first articles to be split by universe, shortly before businesses and organizations were also split. Slightly more recently, we began splitting other types of content by universe where it's necessary and appropriate, including gangs, characters, radio stations (and other media) and I think it's about time we extended this for the same reasons and more.

Why am I bringing this up now?[]

...it's a long story, feel free to read.
Well, ahead of the release of GTA VI and as part of one of our many ongoing projects, which all somewhat interweb with one-another (MOS revamp, infobox reworks, navbox reworks, category project, upcoming ProjectVI), I've been wanting to reformat the way we document the technical information in our vehicle articles - this includes all of the technical shit in the infobox (colors, flags, sounds, frequency/meta controllers, etc), as well as the performance stats (handling speed, mass, gears, etc). Both of these sections (the infobox and the performance box) stress the hell out of me for being extremely untidy, particularly for our mobile users (which, must I remind you account for more than 70% of our views)...

...the idea I had was to have one large section for all of the technical shizzle - "Specifications" (or "Technical data", I haven't decided). With the help of SRG, a template to do this in a dynamic way, per game, was built, although we still haven't quite figured out exactly how to get it working. It houses all of the useful, relevant info in one section, and reduces the need for multiple sections, tables and formats across a single article, making it easier to read and easier to find.

The issues I had with getting the template to work - or even just getting all the content to fit in the tbale, given how many games some of these vehicles appear in - led me to search elsewhere to see how other wikis approach this. I also asked about in the Fandom Community Discord to see if they had any suggestions on how to approach this. I used the Fire Truck and Banshee articles as examples of particularly large pages and how we might deal with formatting all the technical data for a vehicle appearing in 16+ titles. One of the first things that was pointed out was the fact the article is so long in the first place. It's a fairly long scroll, especially on mobile, and it was suggested that we should split stuff like this up.

My initial reaction was... no. Just no. We've gone through this a thousand times before and it's just not practical or logical (as at first seems) to split up recurring content, not to mention it would be a massive task to split all the vehicles up by game. The German GTA Wiki already does this and, while it may look tidier, it's been pointed out that a number of issues come out of this - one of which is search results become massively redundant and cluttered.

After some back and forth discussions...

.

...it was suggested we could split vehicles up by universe. This got me thinking, as it's something we already do on a regular basis and across a variety of different content types. We usually do this because of differences in lore and storyline, particularly when it comes to characters, gangs, locations, businesses and organizations... so why don't we do this with vehicles?

Unlike the aforementioned examples, vehicles and weapons are some of the only content to appear consistently throughout the series. Characters usually only make a couple of appearances and that's usually in one universe, however, businesses also frequently recur, so we have no logical reason to make an exception to vehicles on the basis of lore.

How would this work?[]

Essentially we'd do exactly what the title says. Each vehicle that occurs in multiple universes would have a main disambiguation page (for example, "Banshee"), which would contain links to the 2D, 3D and/or HD Universe disambigous pages, for example, ("Banshee (3D Universe)"). The two/three universe pages would each take the format of a regular vehicle page, containing an infobox, standard vehicle article sections, a navbox, etc. Nothing would change in the format. These pages would also make use of the {{PageTabber}} template we've been using on variants of vehicles, allowing users to navigate from each universe at the top of the page.

Not every recurring vehicle would be split. Only vehicles that appear in multiple universes need to be affected by this, and even then, there may be exceptions: if a vehicle only appears in two titles, each in different universes, we might consider whether there is any point splitting them. It should be a case-by-case basis.

How many pages would be affected?[]

In terms of numbers for this project, you'd be surprised to know that there are about 150 vehicles in the entire series which appear in more than one universe - some of which only appear in a couple of games. That means that less than 150 articles would actually require splitting at all

This is the full list of vehicles appearing in multiple universes: 

Admiral
Airtrain
Alpha
Ambulance
Angel (motorcycle)
BF Injection
BF-400
BMX
Baggage Handler
Banshee
Barracks OL
Beaters
Benson
Blade (car)
Blista
Blista Compact
Bobcat
Boxcar
Boxville
Brigham
Broadway
Buccaneer
Buffalo
Bulldozer
Bullet
Burrito
Bus
Cabbie
Caddy
Camper
Cargobob
Cheetah
Club
Coach
Combine Harvester
Comet
Crane
Cuban Jetmax
Deluxo
Dinghy
Dodo
Dozer
Dune
Emperor
Enforcer
Esperanto
Euros
Faggio
Feltzer
Fire Truck
Flatbed
Forklift
Fortune
Freeway
Furore GT
Gang Burrito
Glendale
Greenwood
Hearse
Hermes
Hotknife
Hunter
Hustler
Hydra
Impaler
Infernus
Intruder
Itali GTB
Itali GTO
Jester
Journey
Jugular
Kuruma
Landstalker
Locust
Mamba
Manana
Manchez
Marquis
Maverick
Merit
Mesa Grande
Monstrosity
Moonbeam
Mower
Mule
PCJ 600
Packer
Panto
Patriot
Penetrator
Perennial
Phoenix
Picador
Pizza Boy
Police Maverick
Pony
Predator
Premier
Previon
Primo
Rancher
Ranger
Reefer
Regina
Rhino
Romero's Hearse
Rumpo
SWAT Van
Sabre
Sabre Turbo
Sadler
Sanchez
Sea Sparrow
Securicar
Sentinel
Sentinel XS
Shamal
Slamvan
Solair
Sparrow
Speeder (boat)
Squalo
Stafford
Stallion
Stinger
Stratum
Stretch
Sultan
Super GT
Tampa
Tank
Tanker
Taxi
Tornado
Tour Bus
Tow Truck
Tractor
Train (vehicle)
Tram
Trashmaster
Tropic
Tug
Turismo
Uranus
Vincent
Virgo Classic
Voodoo
Washington
Wayfarer
Willard
Windsor
Yankee
Yosemite
Z-Type
ZR-350

Why should we do this?[]

There's a multitude of reasons why this is a good idea.

It helps us target a vehicle by its specific appearance in the series: this is particularly useful when you consider that a vehicle usually has minimal design changes in one universe compared to when they cross universes. This does lead to some complications though (see next section...)

It helps reduce the article length: This was the main concern. These articles are excessively lengthy; one user on the community Discord pointed out that this significantly reduces the loading time on mobile and even desktop (although I haven't really noticed that). Scrolling through the Fire Truck article does take a substantial amount of time, and that's without merely skimming the content, let alone actually reading it. We could also benefit from expandable sections, but it's preferable to avoid hiding content where possible.

It doesn't affect continuity like you might think: one of my main counterarguments for doing this was that it prevents users from scrolling through a vehicle article and seeing how a vehicle has changed throughout the series, but let's be honest, who does that? The majority of our readers are probably visiting the article to find out a vehicle's locations/design/performance/something else in the game they're playing right now, not seeing how the vehicle has evolved. We should always prioritize the user's experience and intentions over maintaining a standardisation and continuity. This goes for everything from the layout of the page to the very title of it. And like I mentioned before, we can still make it easy to navigate through the universes with the use of {{PageTabber}}!

It gives us more room for the more important stuff: on the back of removing all those excessive, redundant vehicle design descriptions somebody added several years back, we gain extra room for more content. This includes my technical data project, but it may also see the article shuffled around to a better fit. We have more options.

It addresses some lore/"retcon" issues: Okay it doesn't fix them all, but there's plenty of situations our current setup doesn't address, and often results in inconsistency, even if we think we've got it covered. WildBrick pointed out to me recently that the new Euros X32 causes some lore issues due to the way we have the pages set up at the moment:

“the new euros pointed out a flaw with having 3d and hd eras together.

sa euros is named "euros" and is based on the z32 online euros is named "euros" and is based on the z34 new online euros is named "euros x32" and is based on the z32 the "euros" page has the z32 and z34 together while there's another page, "euros x32," with a similarly named car that is also the z32

irl-model-wise, the sa euros would technically be the x32 so logically the "euros x32" page would have the sa euros and the online x32 euros noting that it was "formerly called euros," while the "euros" page would only have the z34 from online. in a way it is a rename like securicar->stockade or super gt->supergt, even though the z34 euros came first”
Similar thing is also the case with the Cheetah/Cheetah Classic:
“a similar conundrum exists with the cheetah classic. entiriety of 3d era is the testarossa while the hd era is some enzo-like ferrari. cheetah classic from online is on its own with its own page. like the z32/z34, when it comes to irl models it would make more sense to have the 3d era cheetahs under cheetah classic even though the basegame cheetah came first.”
He also demonstrated how this is the case with some other vehicles, including the Super GT, the Securicar, and even the Virgo/Virgo Classic:
“and then you have an outlier that's in a state opposite from the above: virgo and virgo classic. 3d era virgo was never called "virgo classic," gtaiv virgo was simply "virgo," but since gtao added the gtaiv virgo under the name "virgo classic" it made sense to rename it as such. except that now the original gta v dlc virgo is on its own - 3d era virgos are for some reason under the "virgo classic" and not "virgo." i assume it's because the 3d era and iv virgos take some influence from the mercury cougar and lincoln continental, but then in that case what of the two examples above?”
While this proposition doesn't necessarily fix these issues to a full extent, it does certainly help separate the vehicles which have clearly undergone lore changes as the vehicle has moved into different universes.

It helps with categorisation: Stemming on the point regarding targeting a vehicle in its specific appearance, many of the differences between a vehicle's 2D, 3D and/or HD universe appearance are so different that it results in mismatching categories. For example, the Perennial, which was a station wagon in the 3D Universe, and later a minivan in the HD Universe. Or the Cheetah, which was a sports car in the 3D Universe, and a supercar in the HD Universe. Splitting pages allows us to get more specific with categories and also means some game-specific categories (such as manufacturers, manufacturer years, removed vehicles, special vehicle types, do not cross universes.

Some pages already kind of do this: Our current MOS on vehicle articles (particularly how we distinguish them and when they should be separated) results in some pages already being affected by this, to an extent, just without the naming deviation. Examples would include the Virgo and Virgo Classic (which faces a continuity issue as mentioned above), the Euros and the Euros X32, and the Infernus and the Infernus Classic. These are the result of having a "new name, different universe = new page" rule, which works well, but becomes inconsistent with those that didn't receive a new name but are still entirely different vehicles in different universes.

Pages are only going to get longer: GTA VI sees over 60 vehicles return from GTA Online, and that's only considering the ones we've seen in the first trailer. We know plenty more were seen in leaks and I'm sure there'll be even more. Half of those appeared in GTA IV before that, and half of those appeared in a 3D Universe. The point is, these articles are only going to get bigger, so we have to address this now before it gets any worse.

Pages are getting longer regardless: if the above point wasn't enough, it could also be noted that pages are getting longer with regards to each game anyway: some articles for vehicles appearing in GTA Online alone are far longer than some of the cars which appear in multiple 3D titles, largely due to extensive vehicle customization options and design galleries. In fact, the list of the largest vehicle articles by overall file size includes some vehicles which have only appeared in a couple of games, including the Sultan RS, the ZR-350 and even the Dominator ASP, which only appears in GTA Online thus far.

What might make this a bad idea?[]

With the advantages out of the way, let's take a look at some of the disadvantageous, so you can weigh it up for yourselves.

Searching for vehicles becomes more difficult: We have a multitude of vehicles with shared names, similar names, and vehicles with name variations. The Burrito, Dominator and Comet are just a few examples which demonstrate that the top 5 search results the Search feature brings up sometimes aren't enough to capture the exact article you're after unless you start getting specific. Splitting by universe will only make this worse, sadly. There isn't a way to limit this behavior, as it is restricted by Fandom ToS, but there is a way to prevent it being shown in searches at all: by moving these articles to a separate namespace (even a custom one such as Comet, 3D:Comet, HD:Comet), however, I really wouldn't recommend this as this would mean moving everything that's already separated by universe in order to maintain a standardisation, but it is an option.

It's still a fair bit of work: I won't deny that even splitting 70 articles is still a fairly big project, and that isn't the end of it, either (see next point). We already have a few ongoing projects, including a major category overhaul and MOS project, so the timing of this probably isn't the best, but it's also necessary to do this now before GTA VI releases and we get overloaded with new content, likely forgetting about this problem entirely. A similar thing has happened before.

Links to everything will need to be updated: This isn't a pressing issue, as this sort of issue fixes itself over time, but links on articles that point to vehicle pages affected by this will need to updated. This isn't something the bot can help with, either, as it's usually dependent on the context of the link.

It isn't logical: Even despite all of this, you might still be convinced it isn't logical, in the context of lore and continuity, to split pages. And I'd agree with you to a certain extent, as we're so used to seeing vehicles as one whole piece of material. But that doesn't necessarily mean change isn't a good thing, it might actually help distinguish the differences the series has on vehicles, like it has on other types of content.

TL;DR[]

  • We split other types of content (characters, businesses, locations, organizations, etc) by universe.
  • It makes articles less lengthy and gives us more space for important info.
  • It makes categorisation easier.
  • It improves accuracy.
  • It is easier to follow.
  • It fixes various continuity issues.
  • Less than 150 articles would be affected.
  • We would do this on a case-by-case basis; not everything needs to be split.
  • We should prioritise the user experience over consistency.

Example[]

Wall of text over, here's an example of how this would work. In this example, we have a vehicle that has appeared in both the 3D and the HD Universe.

Monky Talk 16:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • I ain't gonna start pretending I've ever got involved much with the vehicles side of the wiki, I've never really had the interest in them to focus on them that much, hence why I leave it to you fine people and those who have come before. Saying that, I do still obviously browse them a lot, and pretty much all your points above are bang on from what I've seen. I'm fine with a split. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 16:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This is probably the best solution we could come up with for pages like this. It's a LOT more user-friendly then just hiding the TOC or making fake headers, and it's consistent with how we've handled content like this in the past. As far as search issues go, I believe through sheer numbers and will that this will balance out. Back when we finally split Vehicles in GTA Online from Vehicles in GTA V in 2020 (!!!), there was a worry that it would be confusing and off-putting to users. However, now it's become one of our highest traffic pages on the site. Users adapted well, even with the sudden move of all the content they were searching for. I believe for the sake of user friendliness, this is the best move, especially when all existing links are updated. For these kinds of pages, click-through is much more common than a direct search. As long as the links are corrected, the vast majority of users won't have an issue in my opinion. I would not mind this change whatsoever. BolbiiS (Profile ~ Talk ~ Edits) 17:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't have an interest in editing vehicle pages, so I can only speak as an avid reader. The benefits of a universe split outweigh the drawbacks. I'd love to see it happen. Corrupt412 (Talk) 17:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • This issue has been debated upon for quite some time now, and while I do actually believe it is quite controversial to perform this (the reasons have already been stated), I believe it's the approach we must take in some cases. As it has been said, not everything must be split up. However, some cases do require for such a measure: vehicles with varying classes, leading to contradictory categories that are assigned to the page (the Perennial example comes to mind), vehicles with controversial renames (Virgo, Securicar/Stockade) and maybe vehicles that remain perpetually the same design/naming-wise, but that appear in more than three titles across the three universes. The naming is going indeed to be controversial, but maybe our best bet is making sure that a disambiguation page (like it is shown in the example on Monky's sandbox page) is always the top result when searching for such a vehicle. TheLuca2001 (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I think if we are going to split articles between universes we should be consistent. Vehicles logically should be split across universes as they are the majority of items to cross universes. If around 70 at present are split between universes that is not an insurmountable undertaking and it will give us preparation for the arrival of GTA VI and what may come from there. I have a question regarding splitting businesses but that is probably a discussion for another day and better to focus on the vehicles first. Sam Talk 14:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Initially, I was opposed to the idea because it could lead to further fragmentation of the articles in the future, similar to what happened on the German wiki (and it's terrible), but you do make some valid points. Let's be honest, we all saw Banshee navbox... This could also be a good opportunity to update and improve the 3D Era and 2D Era pages. The current information is luckluster at best and and often contains dead links that go nowhere. Nevertheless, if the split does occur, I believe one thing should be changed: separate headers for everything. We had started removing them and finding workarounds because of navboxes; I think they should be reverted to their original state. In my opinion, it's just easier to read when everything is categorized by the game; it could potentially help with article navigation, etc. MGgames100 (talk) 06:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

GTA The Trilogy: The Definitive Edition - removal of character "DE" images from infoboxes (and return to sanity)[]

✔
Resolved

Well well well, look what we have here,

Several years on from the absolutely amazingly successful[1][2][3][4] release of The Defective Edition, I think it's time to reevaulate some of the decisions we collectively staff made.

For those who are not aware of the occurrence of 2021, to which I was unfortunately absent on, here it is.

TL;DR:

  • Staff member questions whether images of the newly-released DE version of GTA Trilogy characters should replace the pre-existing Original PS2/Xbox/PSP images. A simple "Original version" or "Definitive edition" choice.
  • The absolute majority of users vote "Original".
  • Somehow, the vote is closed as "Compromise"... The resulting "compromise" is both images are included in the infobox, with the DE image taking precedence. Democracy fails.

Some of the most understandable counter-arguments for having DE images take precedence include:

  • DE not being a true representation of the art style and design choices of Rockstar Games (the remaster was not made by Rockstar, it was simply published by them)
  • DE not being considered a new release, but rather, a remaster - and, going by how we have responded to most non-title remasters in the past, DE shouldn't be an exception (this is why we don't have Mobile/DS/etc ports in the infobox).
  • The fanbase widely criticizing the quality of the overall product, and, in response, DE receiving updates to mitigate this (although this didn't fix much with regards to character art).

Since I never got to vote on this, I might bring up some of my own counterarguments which address DE being favored over OG:

  • DE is a remaster, and, up until DE, no remaster has ever been prioritized over the original release when it came to the content depicted in the infobox: Images of content from the mobile/DS ports and versions of GTA Chinatown Wars, GTA III, GTA Vice City and GTA San Andreas, which did receive quality upgrades/downgrades, did not replace existing infobox images. Nor did, initially, subsequent releases of GTA V, including the Enhanced and Expanded and Enhanced version (until the Enhanced version became where the majority of content was released, and thus naturally made it the fitting port to take images on, but again, this is not enforced by or defined in the MoS.
  • Remastered content in DE is not technically work of Rockstar Games. Unlike the original content, which was reused for the mobile/etc ports of past titles, this content has been entirely remastered, remodelled and retextured, some of which using AI, by Grove Street Games. This is not comparable to the mobile ports of games which were merely converted to a mobile format and presented in a reconfigured engine, by a different studio.
“If you want a very clear example of what happens to a wiki that does not cater to the consumers of new content, you need look no further than the GrandTheftWiki.”
  • Presenting "outdated" depictions of content in the infobox will not impact the impression viewers have on our wiki. One of the most ridiculous points made by Kiwismurf I've ever seen. His comparison to GrandTheftWiki not catering for the community by not keeping up to date with the latest GTA Online and GTA VI content/updates is completely insane, especially when you consider the fact that the original versions of all three games in the GTA Triology have much, much higher daily player counts across the majority of their platforms. I'm pretty confident that the "new players" that are coming to the wiki to view content are not looking out for DE images in the infobox and moaning that it isn't there. I.n.s.a.n.e. Unlike the remaster, GTA Online brings entirely new content on a frequent basis, so it's no surprise GTW doesn't get the viewership it used to.
“It is probably wishful thinking, but there is also a chance that our prominent display of this terrible content will contribute to the negative spotlight being universally focussed upon these DE versions at the moment and actually prompt some fixes.”
  • Presenting the latest, crappy quality content in the infobox will not, and has not contributed or prompted towards studios fixing it. The ports have received less and less updates over time and the updates that were released barely touched characters. This was not an excuse to include them in the infobox.
  • Not technically a counterargument by any means, but the amount of fuss adding images to the infobox has caused with regards to the infobox structure and the styling/wikitext behind it is hilarious. It barely works and causes a boat load of problems on mobile. Users who aren't signed in often don't see the images on mobile platforms because of DE infobox code. Great work!
  • Finally, may I also point out that characters are literally the ONLY content on the wiki which are using DE depictions in the infobox? Did we just decide that becaues they look significantly shit, we should include them in the infobox? Vehicles, buildings, etc, were also revamped/defected in the remaster.

So, with that out of the way, I suggest we return to sanity and, if anything, logic, and move DE images to an article gallery section, just like other ports. It's not a dealbreaker. Images of the original version will continue to be used in the infobox, just like any other content (vehicles, locations, brands, etc).

Move DE images out of the infobox and back to the gallery: Yes/No?

Monky Talk 13:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

References[]

  1. ↑ https://screenrant.com/gta-trilogy-definitive-edition-remasters-bad-graphics-bugs/
  2. ↑ https://metro.co.uk/2021/11/14/gta-definitive-edition-is-the-worst-thing-rockstar-has-ever-done-15598087/
  3. ↑ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15613288/reviews
  4. ↑ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15613288/?ref_=tt_urv

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • I think a lot of the decisions made at the time were likely influenced by hype. As time has gone on, I've swayed more towards the argument that the original games' images should be used. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 13:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I won't lie. I didn't bother to read the whole thing. Finally! kamikatsu_ (Talk) 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • They won't be missed. #PackWatch💯‍💨 MGgames100 (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Gimme a 'hell yeah'. SlashM,C 15:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • This is not simply an aesthetical design choice. This is a service for the public health of the community. We may also add a discretionary warning on the gallery headings, something along the way: The following gallery includes DE images. Proceeding after this point means acknowledgment of possible harm to your eyes. Agent 13 🍵 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Please. Just get rid of Defecation Edition images. They're nothing short of horrible. I've seen cartoons that look better. Let democracy win this time. No more shitty compromises. I'll gladly enhance all infoboxes by getting rid of this filthy detritus that needed a 'compromise'. TheLuca2001 (talk) 15:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Not reading all that. I'm voting yes because we're opposing kiwismurf. Matrexpingvin (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since I was the one who originally set up the DE vote post, I (for some reason) took the position of not voting on it at all. There was enough buzz around it to not warrant me getting involved, but truthfully it's because I was split on the decision. but after reading through this, it feels so obvious how foolish of a decision this was. These games were never gonna have an impact beyond being laughably bad; they were never gonna bring in a wave of new people to this community in a way where people visiting this page would expect to see it everywhere. In fact, it likely scared a lot of people away from this series entirely. The biggest consistent complaint about this wiki I see is our decision to make DE the DEfault (lol), and it's time we change that. BolbiiS (Profile ~ Talk ~ Edits) 17:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I was the one who initially suggested the dual infoboxes, having seen it previously on the Mafia wiki, but did not cast a vote at the time. I believe the original images should take precedence. Sam Talk 18:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I remember being one of several who was very vocal against this at the time, and heavily felt that the decision to prioritise the images of the hideous Defintive Edition models over the originals was extremely misguided. Glad to see a return to some normality in that regard. Randall-B (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2024 GMT)
  • Didn't notice this discussion earlier, but I'm happy to see that the original images will now take precedence. As stated above, it should have been done this way in the first place, given that the majority voted in favor of this back in 2021. Yet, a certain someone who was often known for his, um, dictatorship tendencies, blatantly ignored the vote results and decided to prioritize the defective edition's images in the "compromise" of including both images in the infobox - while ending the discussion topic with an authoritarian message disguised as a friendly closure statement. I wasn't interested in fighting about it back then, but that's history; it's good to see that the decision has now been reverted. Better late than never, I suppose. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 23:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Leaked content Policy update - GTA V and GTA VI[]

Hello everyone,

There have been numerous inquiries from editors regarding the documentation of information uncovered from various leaks over the past 12 months. Of particular interest are the recent leaks involving the GTA V source code and the 2022 GTA VI footage. Our stance on this matter has consistently aligned with the policy on leaked content, which unequivocally prohibits users from posting, sharing, distributing, or linking to leaked content on the GTA Wiki.

Recently, I revised the policy to provide clear definitions of what constitutes "leaked" content and to address scenarios where leaked content may be appropriately documented. This update was necessary to address upcoming content discovered in game files but not officially acknowledged by Rockstar Games, which is now treated similarly to beta content.

However, the recent leaks present a unique situation. The information originates from external sources and is not accessible through normal means via game files. None of this content has been officially acknowledged by Rockstar Games or Take-Two Interactive (except for the GTA VI leaks, which were confirmed as legitimate but subsequently removed). Dealing with such information has always been contentious, especially when it contains valuable and intriguing content.

Discussions regarding this matter have been ongoing between regular editors and Staff on the GTA Wiki Discord. We have termed this content "sensitive leaked content" and agreed to handle it with extreme caution. Nevertheless, we have reached a consensus that we may document information from these leaks on a case-by-case basis, and provided it adheres to the following guidelines:

  • Screenshots or video footage of sensitive leaked content may not be uploaded.
  • Files, code snippets, or data extracts of sensitive leaked content may not be added to articles or used as references.
  • Links to external sources containing any of the above may not be included in articles or references.
  • It is highly encouraged to use file paths, names, and/or line numbers of sensitive leaked content as references.

All of these rules can be overridden if Rockstar Games or Take-Two Interactive officially acknowledge specific examples and/or endorse the distribution of such content, although the likelihood of this remains unlikely.

Thank you all for your patience and compliance during this period of adjustment.

Monky Talk 11:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments[]

Article category restructuring[]

✔
Resolved

Just wanted to inform all users about an ongoing, significant project that has been underway for the past few months. A dedicated group of regular editors has been diligently working to reform our wiki categories, aiming to create a more efficient category tree. The objective is to facilitate user navigation through a well-organized hierarchy, enabling easy access to specific, dedicated game categories. This initiative aims to move away from the current method of placing numerous articles into one large generic category, such as "Weapons," "Vehicles," "Characters", and perhaps the worst offender, "Locations."

We encourage all users to minimize the use of generic categories and opt for more specific game categories. If you notice the removal of generic categories from individual articles, please refrain from reinstating them.

The project was initiated and is being led by AgentThirteen through the GTA Wiki's Discord server. Active discussions related to this project can be found in the "project-fix-categories" channel on Discord. AgentThirteen has created a comprehensive category document outlining the significance of this category restructuring and detailing the new category layout. The project involves creating many more specific categories to enhance specificity and removing or clearing outdated generic categories.

It's essential to understand that our wiki is not unique in having a vague and poorly maintained categorization system. Our goal is to model our categories after the well-organized and maintained system used on Wikipedia.

To provide you with a clear example, here is how some specific category trees may look:

For further details about the project, please visit the wiki's Discord server and check out AgentThirteen's project fix categories Sandbox.

Thank you for your cooperation and understanding as we work together to enhance the GTA Wiki experience for everyone.

Monky Talk 11:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • Thanks Monky for summarizing the project's main objectives succinctly and also for being my main partner of crime in this project. I don't think I could do better in explaining the main points in such a short read. I wanted to add a few notes:
  1. I updated the project sandbox to reflect all discussions we had in the discord. Especially project protocol section may give a better, detailed idea of what we are doing in the project.
  2. As Monky stated, we have a few diligent editors working on the project. Because things are in motion, it would be a good idea to consult in the project's discord channel before doing any major change in the category structure.
  3. Of course, everyone is welcome to contribute to the project. And, of course, we cannot ask that unless people volunteer. But, the least we can ask is not to add categories to the pages, that are hierarchically above the current category, e.g. adding Locations category to a page tagged with Locations in GTA IV in Alderney category.
  4. This is a long-term project. I appreciate the understanding and support of the staff I felt at every step.

Agent 13 🍵 20:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.