Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community Noticeboard.

  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

Page to be archived after 30 requests,
or after six months from earliest request
(whichever occurs sooner)

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.


Well, I think the time has finally come for me to step down. Sadly my interest in the wiki and GTA has been declining lately, and I don't have the motivation to stay as administrator anymore. I'm also convinced there are other active editors that would do a better job and are ready for a promotion.

Good luck to everybody, and thanks to Monk, Sean, Sam and Cam for being great members of this community and awesome GTA fans. I've learned a lot from you. DocVinewood (talk) 14:50, June 14, 2019 (UTC)


  • Sorry to see you go again, unfortunately it does happen; losing motivation and time especially. I'm sure we'll see you around occasionally in the meantime :) Monk Talk 15:30, June 16, 2019 (UTC)

You can count on it. Take care :) DocVinewood (talk) 14:46, June 17, 2019 (UTC)

Color tables readability

I've noticed on the page Squalo, that the vehicle color table renders all text inside as white regardless of the background color of the cells. To fix the issue, I've created several templates (per game):

These templates only use white and black color, depending on the first positional parameter. White or black is chosen to have maximum contrast compared to the corresponding color in /SwitchColor templates. The code was generated by a small Python script using contrast formulas from

I've checked the results on pages Squalo, Cheetah, Cuban Jetmax, Feltzer. Feel free to ping me if you see any issues with these templates.

Question: I see that Template:CarColV uses a mix of CSS and HTML to solve the readability issue. For some colors in Template:CarColV/SwitchName, an HTML snippet <font color=black> is added, and for some colors in Template:CarColV/SwitchColor—CSS snippet ; color:black. It seems that CSS solution is a bit broken, because Template:CarColV has color:#FFFFFF in the style right after transclusion of {{CarColV/SwitchColor}}.

Should I try to unify GTA V templates with the other templates? Or maybe the correct solution would be to have both foreground and background colors in /SwitchColor templates? I went with the separate template solution, because it was the easier option—in the main templates I just replaced FFFFFF with transclusions of new templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:11, June 13, 2019 (UTC)

About the second option: if we're to have both colors inside /SwitchColor templates, then it would probably make sense to move some CSS bits over there as well. Something like:
background: #{{#switch: {{{1}}} ...lots of code... }}; color: #<another giant switch>;
—⁠andrybak (talk) 13:29, June 13, 2019 (UTC)


  • As the original developer of this template series, I appreciate the time put into fixing that. I did attempt to avert that in the V template, but forgot about the others. All looks good to me :) Monk Talk 15:32, June 16, 2019 (UTC)

Infobox readability and CSS

Is yellow and black colors of Template:Infobox mission intended? For me it looks really bad, for example, on Zeroing In. I've also posted about readability issues of yellow-on-yellow text, like in Introduction (GTA III). —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:53, June 2, 2019 (UTC)


  • Yes, it is intended. Everything is fine on my end. SlashM,C 16:29, June 2, 2019 (UTC)
    • Screenshot with poorly readable text highlighted: In addition to issue with readability: the different yellow & black background of table cells seems unnecessary. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:21, June 3, 2019 (UTC)
      • Everything looks fine to me. Try adjusting your monitor. Black background is necessary, we'd like our templates to not look terrible. SlashM,C 11:37, June 3, 2019 (UTC)
        • How about making whole infobox background black, so that it's not a checkered black-yellow board? Something like this: —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:05, June 3, 2019 (UTC)
        • Also, entered the colors into an online contrast checker, and it failed 5/5 tests: —⁠andrybak (talk) 15:09, June 3, 2019 (UTC)
          • I was mainly talking about San Andreas when I said that "everything was fine". You're definitely right about III's link colors. They should be changed up a bit, sort of like the colors for Vice City infoboxes were changed up. Multiple colors in the infoboxes (derived from themes of their separate games) should be kept. SlashM,C 15:28, June 3, 2019 (UTC)

Position of hatnotes

Good day to all. I have noticed an inconsistency with the positioning of the hatnotes (Template:Spoiler, Template:Disambiglink, etc.) on different articles. For example, Keep Your Friends Close... has the "Spoiler" hatnote above the Infobox, while Tommy Vercetti has it beside it. I have been trying to normalize the location of the "Disambiglink" template by placing it beside the Infobox for some time, but after seeing the same issue with the "Spoiler" template I have decided to raise the matter here. Should we have the hatnotes beside the Infobox, or should they be above it? Please vote and/or comment on this. Thank you in advance for your input.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 05:47, March 29, 2019 (UTC)



  • It totally depends on the size of the hatnote, in my opinion. For example, fix-width hatnotes (like "Images", "Spoiler", etc) should always be above the infobox, at the very top of an article (unless section-specific), simply because the full-width nature spreads out the text and content within the hatnote much better than it does when condensed between a 300px infobox. However, non-fixed width examples, such as Disambiglink, can vary in width. Really small disambiglinks look awkward when they're above the infobox, as you end up with unnecessary spacing at either side of the hatnote when it is placed above the infobox, hence why I've been moving such small disambiglink hatnotes beneath the infobox, that way, it tidily fits between the infobox and the left margin. Monk Talk 12:35, March 30, 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it depends on the template, and the individual page - but for slightly different reasons to Monk. As per wiki standards, a disambiguation hatnote should always be the topmost element on a page when it is rendered to the user. That doesn't mean it is necessarily the topmost element in the source code. Aligning a short one to the left of a right-aligned infobox still makes it the first element on the page (in English, where we read left-right). Where it requires 100% width, it should obviously be on top.
    Where there are other banner elements (e.g. Maintenance banners like Cleanup, Images needed, Under construction, or Notice elements like Next-gen, Spoilers) that do require 100% of the page width, then any disambig (regardless of width) needs to sit above these, so needs to be the first element in the code. We are currently quite bad at that. We're probably also a bit more relaxed on the over-use of disambigs for things that are related rather than alternates, so should really just be in "see also" sections. Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 22:45, March 30, 2019 (UTC)
  • Voted above because 1) it is a style used on many other wikis, including Wikipedia and Memory Alpha 2) this allows for better readability if the infobox to the right of notice makes it too narrow (default skin on FANDOM make pages already too narrow). I believe we should dismiss options "both" and "depends" simply as inconsistent. If there is an agreed upon placement policy/guideline/whatever, then: a) editors don't need to spend time deciding which placement is better, and b) it will always be objective. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:38, June 19, 2019 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.