GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 10

New Images

Hey guys! I added a topic on the Talk page for Vehicles in GTA III but after browsing some more I see the talk pages are ignored a lot, so I hope more people might see this over here. I apologize in advance if I'm posting on the wrong place or something, I'm pretty much a noob when it comes to wikis. Anyway, my original topic on the link above is about replacing the 3D Universe's vehicle images from the PC version (at least that's where I think they are from) to the more detailed Xbox (3 and VC), Xbox 360/PS3 (SA) and Mobile (3, VC, SA, LCS and hopefully VCS). If not replacing I guess we could still use the higher-polygon models as comparison with the pictures we have already, like how Catalina's page compares her PS2, PC and Xbox models. I also said I could take some screenshots myself, but I'd need some tips on it first. Also, I'm ripping GTA Advance's vehicle sprites from other angles, and wanted some help on the best layout to proceed and post the images. Who's in for either topic? Gettoru (talk) 23:39, August 16, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Well, from my perspective, I think is a good idea to replace them, since they differs in perspective and lacking of images (i.e. rear quarter images for aerial and naval vehicles). The only thing I can suggest is that they must be consistent with the HD Universe vehicles and following the image policy. Maybe Monk could help you, since he knows how to follow that. -- SWAT Cam F 22:57, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
• From what I remember from discussions about this last year (if I can find the discussions again I will be able to clarify), the consensus was that we would replace images that were of very poor quality with higher quality ones, but not to replace them just for the sake of replacing them (e.g. when the enhanced version of GTA V came out) if they were of a good enough quality to be recognised/deciphered. Sam ^Talk 23:02, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
• As Sam said. There's no point. Unless they come out remastered. The current images are high res, high quality, and work well. Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 23:20, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
• Aside from some LCS ones (Barracks OL and Rhino, for example) and possibly VCS ones (Cholo Sabre looks too "bright"), most of these images, especially from GTA III to SA, looks alright. -- SWAT Cam F 23:38, August 17, 2016 (UTC)
  • I didn't even remember about the images not being uniform (same angles, same camera height etc), which is another reason to replace some of them IMO, but I accept the idea not being taken. If this topic ever comes up again with a different perspective you guys know where I am. Now moving on to GTA Advance's images, I still think it would be a good idea to upload them (in addition to the already present ones, or maybe as a spritesheet), because the current images only show the vehicles from the top, but in the game you can also see the vehicles from the side and diagonally. So what do you guys think about that? Gettoru (talk) 03:08, August 18, 2016 (UTC)
    • If there are indeed other angle views of 2D Universe vehicles (which includes Grand Theft Auto Advance in this case due to its resemblance graphics-wise to to those games) please do upload them, but as always, please follow the Media Policy when uploading images. Also, it is sometimes rather difficult to keep track of article Talk pages due to the fact that there is no on-screen notification, and we apologise that this matter was not addressed sooner. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 15:05, August 23, 2016 (UTC)
      • I can't speak for the 2D Era games since I've never played them, but I uploaded an example spritesheet of GTAA's Brit so you all can see the other angles (I apologize if it's against the rules to use images on this page). These can be seen when the player

        

        Example spritesheet for GTAA's Brit

        hits another car too strong from the side, or when they hit a ramp at a high speed and turning; except for the top-left one, that one can be seen while the player is slowly accelerating/reversing into a ramp. Again, I'd like to consult someone on how to proceed with these images, so anybody who's willing please contact me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettoru (talk • contribs) 14:04, August 25, 2016 (UTC) Please remember to sign your talk page messages with ~~~~.
        • First of all, it is certainly not against the Policy to post images on the Community Noticeboard, so do not worry about that. As for the spritesheet, it looks good, but you should consult my colleague "Monkeypolice188" about how to add it and others like it to the appropriate vehicle pages, as he is primarily in charge of vehicle pages. In my opinion, perhaps the spritesheets should be added in place of the "rear quarter view" images for the appropriate pages. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 23:40, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

Stunt Races

I am adding the stunt races for next-gen. However, I've only done the races on my own so I don't know the rewards for multiplayer versions. Can someone who does add them? Thanks. Leo68 (talk) 01:43, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

Updating Tabber Design

Closed as Successful by Monk ^Talk 16:27, August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Before and After (Top and Bottom).

Hey folks. I've put some lovely code in my personal css which updates my view of tabbers. I changed the color of the tabber buttons to black (inactive) and dark gray (active), and borders thicker and white. These colors and thicknesses match the latest style of infoboxes, thus I thought this was a great way to make things similar (I did a very similar thing with the stats tables). Let me know what you think. Monk ^Talk 16:27, August 2, 2016 (UTC)

The final design.

UPDATE: The background color of the active button has been changed to match the background color of pages (#222222), and the white line underneath this button has been removed so it does not look separated. Monk ^Talk 16:38, August 2, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 16:54, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes -- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 11:04, August 5, 2016 (UTC)  
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:55, August 5, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - ^{talk • contribs} 12:15, August 5, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - 12:34, August 5, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Sam ^Talk 14:29, August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I believe that this modification is a very good aesthetic improvement, and I would be pleased to see it implemented. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 16:54, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
• That looks amazing, and goes very nicely with the theme. This shouldn't even need a vote. 12:34, August 5, 2016 (UTC)

Trim down the large, unwanted skins for the Marshall (and its infobox), and vehicle databases for returning players in GTA V

The Marshall has too many skin images which clutters up the whole page, making it difficult to navigate altogether. Since the proposal for sliders never happened, I suggest we trim down the images whole and leave only one image as a whole to make it easier to navigate the page. Sure the addition of skins are nice and all, but afterwards, it became too chaotic and difficult, to the point where scrolling down the page becomes a tedious chore. Plus, the infobox needs a bit of re-work, and to retrieve the vehicle database for it, be it as MONSTER2 or PICADOR2. Same applies for returning vehicles as well. 20:06, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• >The Marshall has too many skin images which clutters up the whole page, making it difficult to navigate altogether.
  What are you talking about? The infobox is a slider that features each variation. Could you post a screen in case you're viewing something else? The only reason the infobox is still using the pre-PI layout is because the current layout doesn't support neither the slider or multiple descriptions without making a full list. If changes have to be made to the infobox it must be done to the template page using the old layout. Rain - Talk 20:10, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • This is because I'm using MonoBook layout for all Wikia sites. The sliders are proven ineffective and am forced to scroll all the way down. I'll post up the image for you if you wanted proof of it. 20:12, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
    • No need to, it's the MB layout that causes the issue. Unfortunately it's quite difficult to adjust skins to match all layouts, and I guess the mobile layout is messed up as well. The only thing we could actually do is slap on the slider somewhere else in the article and convert the infobox to PI layout. But mind you, it's a big change for a layout that isn't particularly popular. Rain - Talk 20:16, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
    • Most users use Oasis... Monk ^Talk 20:14, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
      • Here Monk: This is with MonoBook. Not everyone uses Oasis like myself. Also note the lack of "sliders" from it, too. 20:17, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
    • tbh the entiriety of Monobook is broken. Even the Navboxes are screwed up at the bottom of the page. I have to go away for an hour or so but I'll try to think of something in the meantime. 20:22, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
      • Thanks. Unless Wikia can do something about it, I'll leave everything up to you guys. To use Oasis is like trying to use Windows 10. IMO, of course. 20:26, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
        • So I changed it up a bit, starting with a dark theme. The problem is that some things still display black/white and stuff in sliders doesn't appear anymore (so instead of 25 Marshalls, you'll see nothing at all). The whole monobook code is equivalent to holding something up with duct tape and expecting it to look good, but at least it isn't as bad as it was before. 13:51, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
          • Looks A LOT better Wild. Nice work. Monk ^Talk 14:08, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
  • Good grief, the MonoBook skin looks (in my opinion) dreadful compared to the Oasis skin. This is actually the first time that I have used the old MonoBook skin, as I did not start to use Wikia until late 2012 (on Halo Nation), which was after Wikia had already standardized the Oasis layout (which, if I remember correctly, was what triggered the community split). I expected the MonoBook skin's appearance to resemble the plain and simple layout of Wikipedia, and while it does have some similarities, the general appearance is very badly broken - the Mobile format, while it has the same issue of not showing a slideshow for the Infobox image and instead displaying every single image at once, at least does not suffer from the Infobox being on the wrong side of the page, so it actually looks slightly better. I have viewed other pages using the MonoBook skin, and there are actually three consistent issues: the background image does not appear correctly, the Infobox and Navboxes retain the gray color used as the text background on the Oasis skin, making them stick out like a sore thumb, so to speak, and the colour of some of the text in templates is incorrectly changed from white to black, making them very difficult to read against the gray template background. In my opinion, the MonoBook skin would benefit from some simple updates such as making it possible to use the gray text background instead of white or automatically changing the Infobox and Navbox colours to match the white background instead (much like Wikipedia), or correcting the issue that causes the background image to become broken. The issues like the one that occurs on the Marshall page, on the other hand, might prove more difficult to resolve, since it seems that that issue may stem from the MonoBook skin's (and also the Mobile format's) coding method, which may not support some of the Oasis skin's features. However, it does not look like Wikia have updated the MonoBook skin in some time. I will mention this issue to a Wikia Staff member at a later date unless something can be done by other Staff who have more experience with coding than I do (I am still improving with my proficiency in that field). TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 04:06, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
    • Yep. Tried fixing it myself with no success. I'm one of the few that uses MonoBook instead of Oasis and to look at the Marshall page like this was completely chaotic in my eyes. it was also a huge chore to scroll everything down to the bottom. The image I've shown earlier today speaks for itself. Now you know why. 04:10, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Like I said, this is my first time viewing the MonoBook format and seeing its dreadful issues, and I hope that something can be done about it to improve the experience for the users who, like yourself, use that skin. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 04:21, July 20, 2016 (UTC)

Resignation

Well, it is been quite a long time since I have requested a promotion for something (which it was the beginning of this year, I guess) and well, this time is completely different as the title of this message says: Yes, I am resigning.

My reasons? Simple. Over the past two months, my activity has been worsened a lot due to personal issues, and over the past month, in June, my attitude has been becoming very "toxic" as well (for those who cannot figure the context, basically I am saying that I am highly intolerant to reasonings after mistakes that are... "stupidly easy" to correct) and, therefore, that is not what an Admin should be. As many users have figured out, I was blaming a lot on edit summaries and over discussions about my edits, especially here, where it clearly shows how my behaviour has been rather... annoying (not visible, but you can see the point of said message).

So, for a mere convenience of my condition and to avoid more trouble with my actions, I have decided to resign on my own, basically because I do not want it to turn that discussion into a pointless war that would result in being demoted and banned for intimidating behaviour towards a bureaucrat (I'm not stupid to do that) and, as someone can figure out, I am not the same user as I was when started as an Admin.

I sound very insecure because this is not what I expected to leave like that and because, right now, I feel upset and sad at the same time. However, this it what I want just to stay out of trouble. Do I have to mention anything else? Well, not really, because I do not have anything more to say and I do not fell right to say something else.

With this message and hoping in that everyone can understand this (because my English is still as bad as always), thank you and goodbye. -- SWAT Cam F 19:49, July 19, 2016 (UTC)

Comments (Optional)

• Sorry to see you go. I can fully understand being a sysop can be stressful. I hope to see you here again with maybe more confidence now that you decided to let go the administrative part of your job. Rain - Talk 19:56, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
• As with Rain, I hope to see you around. I never intended to make you resign, I never even realised personal life was causing your stress - if you would've said that in the first place, I could've helped you mate. Please stay in contact, you're a good friend. I've sounded like a fucking dickhead lately, but I was frustrated because you seemed to be taking everything out on me (trust me, I've had a lot of that lately), thus I was trying my best to explain what was wrong. Please stick around to contribute, and as with Rain, I think resigning might help with relieving the stress and pressure of editing a bit. Take care lad. Monk ^Talk 20:00, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry to see you go Cam. Take care. Sam ^Talk 21:30, July 19, 2016 (UTC)
• Arrgh, it is a real shame to lose you as a fellow Staff member! I enjoyed your company, as you were excellent where it counted, and it was also a pleasure communicating with a Staff member who has the same penchant for good manners and language that I have. I hope to see you around still, and that you will one day resume your role as a Staff member. 好運氣在今後的工作中。Hǎo yùnqì zài jīnhòu de gōngzuò zhōng. Good luck in future endeavours. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 04:44, July 20, 2016 (UTC)
• Bye. Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 11:04, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Engine sounds

Hey there. As I've just been discussing on a couple of talk pages, I'm going to be doing something, a small change to all vehicle pages:

I'll be removing any "the engine sounds like:" or "V6 (Sound)" data - after getting into a bit of a debate and thinking carefully, I think it's come clear (and always has been, just never been thought about) that these engine sounds descriptions and identities are only based on one thing; a vague, brief summary of what you can here. An engine sound doesn't mean it is what we say it is - you can say an engine sound is a V6 just because it sounds like one, yet there's cars out there with V8's sounding like hypercar V10s (trust me, I know). It's really hard to say "it's this engine sound" when actually I can "hear a bit of this, this, this and this, and some of that". If we knew more about the engine itself, rather than A) the type of car it is and B) the performance, then we could nail down descriptions. Things like valve and fuel injection, bored exhausts, piston size, fuel type and displacement all contribute to an engine sound. Since there's barely any of these (in fact, none tbh) facts are supplied, it would be completely unsourced to say it's this engine.

And, you know me, consistency is my middle name, and while the Dominator's V8 engine sound couldn't be more obvious, or the diesel in the Landstalker, I'll be removing any of these "sounds". I'll be working off what I can see and what I'm told, rather than what I can hear; engine models and quotes are enough. Sure, we can say it has a "high revving engine" or a "high performance engine", but as soon as you add "inline 4" or "V6" or "V12", the line immediately becomes vague and unsourced. Any engine can sound like any engine, effectively. Rockstar love to mishmash sounds with others, and while you'd think that'd make it easier, it really, really does not. Now you can hear all sorts in the engine sounds of the latest cars.

So let's keep "sound" descriptions as "high performance" or "high revving", and avoid saying it "sounds like a [engine type]". Keeping models is best, since that's factual. Sounds aren't necessarily factual. Monk ^Talk 17:33, July 13, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I see no issue with this change if it improves consistency and accuracy. I must say that after reading one of your messages to "Eddieltu", in which you called the engine sounds "childlike", I cannot help but note that I personally find the engine sounds quite realistic - though of course you are the "revhead" who loves cars, and I am the book-loving nerd/geek who loves code, computer chipsets, science and aviation, so you obviously know better! :-D TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 23:43, July 17, 2016 (UTC)
  • Haha, I think they sound weird tbh xD I will help remove them. Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 11:04, July 22, 2016 (UTC)

Changing to Message Walls

Closed as Unsuccessful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 21:10, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

It has recently been suggested by Sannse that we update the GTA Wiki from talk pages to message walls. There are many benefits to this, such as all messages being kept on one page rather than having to switch between talk pages all of the time, old talk pages being archived at the bottom of the wall, and many more. The only disadvantage to them really is it may be a little hard to find old threads, but that isn't too bad as it is very rare people need to look back at them anyway. Vote below.

Votes

• Yes No - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 07:57, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Ultimate94ninja ^{talk · contribs} 08:21, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - Monk ^Talk 08:25, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Rain - Talk 08:39, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes-- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 09:05, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Sam ^Talk 09:53, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - DocVinewood (talk) 11:51, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - 12:36, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Jeff (talk·stalk) 15:05, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• No - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 19:07, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Message walls are unprofessional IMO and are kinda replicating the feel of the blog comment system, and we don't have full control over them (in terms of coding and customization) unlike the standard talk pages system. Furthermore, the notification system is rather phantom and impractical (and sometimes doesn't work properly), compared to the current pop up notification for talk pages which is far more effective. Message walls on a single topic cannot be organized into particular portions, and notifications might even come up unnecessarily when a reply wasn't intended to you. Ultimate94ninja ^{talk · contribs} 08:21, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Coding can be applied but it isn't necessarily full page width so things like examples of tables and such are always too small. It would however avoid the 'sign off' trouble. Monk ^Talk 08:25, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• It's trash. Shit layout and annoying to use. NTY. Rain - Talk 08:39, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Having edited on Wikis with both talk pages and message walls, I think talk pages work better. As U94N points out, the current notification system for talk pages is the best because you only get notifications specific to you. Sam ^Talk 09:53, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Talk pages may be "outdated", but they're still more practical. DocVinewood (talk) 11:51, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Talk pages may be outdated, but if it isn't broken there is no need to fix it. I've yet to actually find message walls practical. 12:36, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • Ohhh I'll tell ya how they're practical; practical for the 13 year ol' wikians that don't know anything about signatures, heads, subjects or indents. That's it :P Monk ^Talk 12:39, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
    • This dude gets it. Jeff (talk·stalk) 15:08, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
    • Sarcasm aside, Monk is right. It's practical for newcomers who aren't familiar with the talk page system. However, talk page system isn't particularly hard to get used to. The biggest problem being that users typically do not know that it's better for people to reply on their own talk pages so you don't have to jump from talk page to talk page just to find a whole goddamn discussion. But then, I can live with that and it's certainly not worth putting this godawful message wall system which brings a fuckload of issues.
      But yeah, Wikia loves to "imrpove" where it's not needed and throw us some half-assed system. tl;dr into the trash it goes. Rain - Talk 12:44, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• The only 'problem' with talk pages is that some people don't know how to use them. Now I'm going to get on my old fart's chair and rant for a minute... I'm not trying to be arrogant and I apologize if it comes off like I am, but I'ma give you kids a history lesson now.
  Back in the days when I came to Wikia in the first place (around 2008), most Wikia users were former Wikipedia users who fled Wikipedia for various reasons. Wikipedia was run super-strict compared to Wikia, and one of the things you had to learn to do if you wanted to edit Wikipedia was learn to use the talk pages their way, which meant learning to Threadmode and to respond on the right page. It's really a very easy system - easy to learn how to do and easy to follow.
  But as Wikia became popular, it began attracting a lot of people who had never used Wikipedia, and a lot of them younger. And since you don't have to have any qualifications to open a Wiki, Wikia was soon overrun with kids who had never edited Wikipedia and didn't know how to Threadmode, which lead to incomprehensible talk pages and discussions spread over 3 or 4 talk pages instead of on one.
  So rather than force the new editors to learn to Threadmode, Wikia came up with Message Walls, which were more like the kinds of interfaces younger users who grew up on social media were used to anyway.
  My opinion is, and was when I was a bureaucrat, and will always be, that people should be forced to learn Threadmode. However, it was always pretty much unanimous that making Threadmode mandatory was a draconian and unfair policy. Nonetheless, Wikipedia has always done that and it's doing just fine. Anyway, my vote is to keep talk pages and never instate message walls. Jeff (talk·stalk) 15:05, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as Sannse's suggestion goes, Wikia gets more money when you use message walls because they support more advertisements and that's why she wants us to switch. Jeff (talk·stalk) 15:07, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• I have thought long and hard about this matter, and I have come to the personal conclusion that Message Walls will not suit this wiki, though they may on others. I was initially somewhat keen on the idea of switching to Message Walls, but after seeing the arguments against them here in the comments of this proposal, I have reconsidered my position. However, I am not of the opinion that Wikia Staff such as Sannse are suggesting the change because of increased advertising potential, as I have seen wikis that use Message Walls (such as our sister wiki, GTA Myths Wiki), and they do not seem to have an increased amount of advertisements compared to ours. Rather, I believe that Sannse genuinely believes that Message Walls might possibly improve this wiki. Call me naïve if you wish, but that is how I feel. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 19:07, July 1, 2016 (UTC)
  • Well in fairness, I've yet to see a staff member supporting the introduction of a feature without overshilling it. Staff doesn't really care about features on individual wikis, but when it's amount ca$h, you'll be sure they will go in full shill mode. Rain - Talk 19:21, July 1, 2016 (UTC)
    • As I said, I am not of that opinion, since I personally cannot see any significant advertising increase (if any) in wikis that use Message Walls. Of course, I am not so silly as to think that Wikia do not wish to advertise - they are a for-profit organization - but in this case, I stand by my opinion that Sannse is not shilling. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 19:30, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Revamped Vehicle Statistics

Closed as Successful by Monk ^Talk 22:40, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Hello there. I've being considering this for quite a while now, and I think it's time to put this forward. I have two proposals which are concluded into one.

Firstly, I would like to revamp GTA V performance statistics tables. My newest suggestion is found here. The template is not finished yet, as you may notice columns are missing. The proposal reforms the tables to contain all vehicle data in a much clearer way: in-game website claims, handling.dat files, FPV Speedometer data/observed, and newly proposed formula-based calculations.

The 'newly proposed formula-based calculations' are very well known to be used by Broughty on YouTube. He tests vehicles drag-racing them along the Senora Freeway - the flattest freeway - and passing the vehicle through a series of 4 checkpoints while reaching maximum engine revs. Once the car reaches maximum revs, the car passes the 4th checkpoint before crossing the finish line. From here, we edit the video to find the exact time taken to spread from the 4th checkpoint to the finish line - where the car is at maximum speed (revs) - and find the distance between these two checkpoints using the race creator used to create the race in the first place. Using basic D/T = S, the player can gain a value which can be converted to mph. Unfortunately Broughty tests fully modified vehicles rather than standard cars, therefore we cannot use his test results. We can, however, accept tests from users using unmodified cars, which is what I'll be doing.

As a result, MOS for Vehicles will be updated.

I find these two proposals incredibly convenient, as multiple sources for data is much better than just one, abd the table makes it much clearer.

Cast your votes and comments. I'll be working on this for a while, even after the votes close, so don't expect immediate progress. Thank you. Monk ^Talk 22:43, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I have decided to retract my proposal regarding vehicle testing speeds, as the level of variety depending on how accurately the test is done, the variety in results and the variety of ways for calculation, is way too much for this wiki to contain and subscribe to, therefore containing what we are supplied rather than what we have to calculate for ourselves is a much more affordable and reliable source of information. The table proposal is still active and I will be changing the table slightly to retract the calculation row. Monk ^Talk 21:02, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: The new table is implemented here, and the template itself is seen here. Please check it out :P Monk ^Talk 19:36, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 23:27, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes-- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 10:13, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 07:57, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 18:28, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I agree and I love the table. Consistency with this wiki's colour scheme unlike the current tables. Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 23:27, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with Guy, and I appreciate the consistency that your new table will create on vehicle pages. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 18:28, July 1, 2016 (UTC)

Probation Expiry - MythHunter 007 (Patroller)

Closed as Successful by Monk ^Talk 17:27, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

Myth's probation expires today. Please cast your votes below on the success of his trial (Administrators and Bureaucrats). Patrollers may comment. - Monk ^Talk 06:44, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - Monk ^Talk 06:44, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Sam ^Talk 14:35, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 14:37, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 23:27, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• He remained extremely active and has done a lot of cleanups, revamps and renaming tasks. He also has an extremely positive attitude, and is perfect to keep hold of the position. Monk ^Talk 06:44, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Same as Monk. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 14:37, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Great user, and has become really helpful... It's a definite pass. Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 23:27, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

GTASeriesVideos

Closed as Successful by Monk ^Talk 18:07, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

This came to me whilst I was asleep, and since I now can't get back to sleep I thought I'll take it off my mind. This site gets regularly criticised for including unsourced (and, in all honesty, sometimes completely spurious) content, especially Beta content, but since none of us have the time (or in my case, the technology) to verify each piece of information some incorrect ones can sometimes linger. GTASeriesVideos' "Hot Topic" section frequently includes removed content, so I was wondering: Would their videos be considered acceptable references? This site frequently includes their videos and walkthroughs for other things, and I personally consider it a reliable channel, but I wonder what you guys think. Sam ^Talk 05:29, June 23, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - Monk ^Talk 07:39, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes --Tony42898 (Talker - Blogger - Stalker)-- 09:13, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Rain - Talk 09:57, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes-- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 10:33, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:28, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 23:15, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:28, June 24, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Extremely reliable. No clickbait, and no 'subscribe for more' nonsense. Monk ^Talk 07:39, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • My thoughts exactly. Sam ^Talk 08:11, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• I thought they were reliable in the first place. :P 1,000,000,000 likes and I will expose my real name and my allegiance to ISIS. --Tony42898 (Talker - Blogger - Stalker)-- 09:13, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • t. Tony Muhammad. Rain - Talk 09:57, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Well yes. It's a quality channel, no b8 shit and interesting content without annoying dubstep music or ebin memes all along. Certainly one of the (if not the) best GTA-related channels out here. Rain - Talk 09:57, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Well I'm glad to see that one of my proposals went down well for a change. I haven't looked at the channel for a while but I've seen videos for Beta content from GTA III, Vice City and San Andreas, so if/when this proposal goes through they can be added and we can get a lot of stuff verified. Sam ^Talk 21:23, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• Love em. Recently discovered the channel has a voice, and thank god it isn't a squealy MrBoss, DomisLive or NaughtPointFour voice ey. Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 23:15, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
• I do not often view gaming-related YouTube videos unless I have a very specific reason to do so (as a strategy guide, information on performing a non-harmful glitch, etc.), but from the times that I have viewed the GTASeriesVideos channel's videos, they have certainly provided a very reliable and official-looking reference to information related to the Grand Theft Auto series. I am not entirely familiar with "clickbait", but since others have suggested that it is a bad addition in this case, and that the GTASeriesVideos channel does not have any, that can only be a good thing. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:28, June 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • You're not familiar with clickbait, eh? I think this, this AND this will give you a clear indication that you MUST STAY away from these egregious, idiotic, and downright annoying pieces of fecal matter. --Tony42898 (Talker - Blogger - Stalker)-- 23:36, June 24, 2016 (UTC) 
• Just want to put in my $0.02
  
  It all depends on what content. When it comes to missions, collectibles, or DLC content, then, fine, I guess they are reliable enough. But when it comes to easter-eggs/secrets or those podcasts or whatever it is they decided to call it then no - these are not reliable and should NOT be considered as sources. A source is something where the information originates. The information does NOT originate from them. They just make quick money off someone else's findings or off all the content summarized in one video. The one, true, source for content is the actual source, be it game files or an official gaming website or forum thread, not these guys. About easter-eggs, there's also use of cheats. To find something perfectly achievable by normal means, they sometimes recommend to use cheats/trainers. Does it speed things up? Yes. It is professional? Not at all. It is useful for those who want to do things legit? Not even close. Since mods and cheats are not exactly supported here, I wouldn't actually recommend using their videos that do contain recommendations to use said things. 17:18, June 25, 2016 (UTC)
  • >Since mods and cheats are not exactly supported here, I wouldn't actually recommend using their videos that do contain recommendations to use said things.
    I think a precision has to be made here. When we opened the discussion on what to do with mods n stuff, it was mostly to get rid of mod advertising and nonsense like Bigfoot, because before you used to see in trivia shit like "guize with this mod you can make X :DDD". However, in-game content accessed through modifications, depending on the circumpstances, should be acceptable. Obviously vids full of mod content belong to the trash, but using a trainer to make things simpler is valid IMO.
    Let's take an example. Imagine someone discovered an interior that ain't featured anywhere but this interior... well, it exists. You have two ways to show it. One, the "professional" way, requires you to go through a tedious glitch that is easy to fail, and long to do. The other simply requires a trainer and noclip through a door. Which one would you pick?
    Anyway, this is just my opinion. The policy doesn't really describe precisely our rules regarding mod content as of now, but IMO it's acceptable to use videos that show in-game content with the help of a trainer/save editor, if not used in excess. Because, when you think about it, Andromada pics could go under "mod content" because it's almost impossible to use one without the help of a vehicle spawner. Same goes for the Cargo Plane. Rain - Talk 19:30, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

Proposing Sidebar Notifications

Closed as Successful by Monk ^Talk 17:04, June 22, 2016 (UTC)

An example from my wiki. (Colors and features will be based on this wiki's design)

Hello all. After developing my own wiki for many years now, I think it's time we add something pretty neat to this wiki. Have a look here. On the right rail (where "Recent Wiki Activity", "Chat", "Insights", "Hot Spot" modules appear). At the top, I have added a new module, which is random - reloading the page results in a different tip/contents box, but notice how they are all related to editing tips. I think having a similar application here would really benefit in vital things, such as image quality, policy, editing reminders and MOS reminders. This way, our viewers are likely to be aware of how they should be editing a page, uploading a file, or whatever else. The basis of the module on my own wiki is down to a template, found here, and, if you look at the source of this, you'll notice there are choose and option tags, which basically define the random options available when reloading. The code can be found at my wiki's Wikia.js and further css scripts.

All in all, don't focus on the code and background templates of this; I'll sort that out. I just want to know whether you think having these random side-bar notifications here would be a great feature, especially for new users. Leave your votes and comments.

Votes

• Yes - Monk ^Talk 14:23, June 20, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:56, June 20, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:57, June 20, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 00:12, June 21, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes -- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 06:54, June 21, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• This proposal sounds quite beneficial for the GTA Wiki, and I have no objection to it. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:56, June 20, 2016 (UTC)
• Love. Them. Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 00:12, June 21, 2016 (UTC)

Installing Standard Edit Summaries

Closed as Successful by Monk ^Talk 11:02, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Whatddup. So, I've been looking around a tonne of wikis lately, to see what they use, and I've noticed recently that, a lot use "Standard Edit Summaries". They are basically pre-defined edit summaries that can be selected (and still allow the custom edit summary you type in yourself), most of which are commonly used, such as "Cleanup", "Formatting", "Expanded". The list appears underneath the edit summary box in the Classic editor and can be used for ease of typing. Personally I find it VERY useful and I have reason to believe you can, with the help of MediaWiki, create your own pre-defined lists to add onto these. Monk ^Talk 13:06, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 18:54, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes-- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 06:32, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 10:08, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 16:57, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - SWAT Cam F 04:55, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I saw this as well, as they're really useful. Go for it :D Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 18:54, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
• They're pretty useful. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 10:08, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
• I must say that this idea is quite possibly the best I have seen in a long time! As anyone who observes my edits knows, I always leave an edit summary when editing any page, and Standard Edit Summaries would certainly save me the bother of constantly typing things like "minor grammatical corrections" or "formatting changes" every time I perform such an edit. If possible, make this addition work with the VisualEditor as well, as I use both it and the Classic editor in relatively equal measure. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 16:57, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

Allow Patrollers to move/rename pages

Closed as Rights Granted by Monk ^Talk 00:10, June 21, 2016 (UTC)

Good day. As has been mentioned in the proposal under this one, Patrollers are not currently allowed to move or rename pages, which seems to be a rather unnecessary restriction: Patrollers are generally trustworthy users, and are highly unlikely to maliciously rename pages. Therefore I propose that all Patrollers be given the ability to move/rename pages, in addition to their Rollback rights, as this will allow for much easier management of bad image filenames in particular.

UPDATE: I also believe that it may be a reasonable idea to allow Patrollers to delete pages too, and while I am not actively proposing this in this proposal, I would like to read your thoughts on this in the comments. Thank you.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 19:49, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:56, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Monk ^Talk 20:18, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes (rename only) - Sam ^Talk 21:05, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes -- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 11:14, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 18:54, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - SWAT Cam F 04:55, May 29, 2016 (UTC)
• Yeah - ---SMG 09:28, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't agree with deletions, but by all means renames. Monk ^Talk 20:18, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • I thought you might say that, which was why I only added that update as an idea instead of a proposal. To be honest, I do not truly believe wholeheartedly that it is a good idea, but I wished to hear the opinions of other Staff. To everyone else, please continue to comment on the idea. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 20:24, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
• Sounds good :D Like the others, I still think deletions should be an admin-based tool rather than allowing all staff to do it, but renames are certainly something patrollers deserved A LONG time ago. Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 18:54, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Yeah, I kinda agree with Monk and Ferrari. I think that Rollback's should only rename pages, and deleting should be an admin tool. ---SMG 09:29, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Renaming Files/Pages/Whatever's Article

Closed as Successful by Monk ^Talk 10:49, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Hey. So I've come up with a much more efficient idea of having an article of GTA Wiki namespace which allows any user that isn't an Admin/Bcrat to list files, pages, and whatever else that are badly named, so that, as the list gradually builds up, so do the renames. Staff then remove each file off the list. This is a completely optional progress; if we were to go through with this idea, I wouldn't force nor expect everyone to do it, it's completely optional; if you prefer contacting an admin as it may be seen as a "quicker" or more notifying process, by all means do it that way. I just think this list may be more organizing and keeps file renames monitored better. Monk ^Talk 11:43, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• In Favour - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:30, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
• In Favour - Sam ^Talk 15:50, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
• In Favour - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 21:19, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
• In Favour -- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 05:52, May 24, 2016 (UTC)
• In Favour ---SMG 12:51, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I feel that this method will make it easier for normal users and Patrollers to notify all Administrators/Bureaucrats efficiently that certain pages require renaming; therefore I am in favor of this proposal. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:30, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
• As per Konan. I also think it may encourage more users to apply for staff positions, because patroller positions are somewhat limited in the actions they can take. However, I think the renaming of pages should be limited to just staff members, because on some other Wikis this can be an open opportunity for vandalism, especially on a low-usage Wiki. Of course actions like blocking should be reserved for higher positions to prevent possible abuse from users who would apply just to cause trouble, but general housekeeping like renaming files should be opened up to patrollers because it would save someone from having to notify another to a job which one person can easily do. Sam ^Talk 15:50, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • I completely agree that, if possible, Patrollers should be given the right to rename pages: I personally cannot begin to describe how irritating it was for me as Patroller to constantly have to ask a higher Staff member to rename images that violated the Media Policy, and since we take care not to select malicious users for Staff members, it should be safe enough. I am aware of some large wikis like ours (for example, the Final Fantasy Wiki) that actually allow any user to move or rename pages, but of course I am not suggesting we go that far, since that will open the floodgates for vandals. Perhaps the users at the Final Fantasy Wiki are more well behaved in general.... In any case, I second Sam's suggestion to allow Patrollers to have move/rename privileges. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 16:10, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm glad someone brought this up. I remember that back when I was patroller (2014) I brought up this topic on someone's talk page (can't remember who, sorry). It's entirely possible to add new usergroups through Wikia staff with precise rights, and I believe patrollers should have the adequate rights to rename images and pages. I find it kind of absurb to have only admins being able to do so knowing that on this place there's a tremendous amount of media files that don't follow image guidelines, or users that can't bother follow them when uploading files. Rain - Talk 16:21, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Election - May 2016

Cancelled - That Ferrari Guy withdrew request. Moved back to Requests for Promotion. -- TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 21:20, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

TAlim 1994

Good day, I am once again applying for the position of Administrator following my former contender's (Ricardo) decision to resign from his post. My reasons for requiring this position are the same as my last request: as I primarily enforce the Media Policy, having administrative powers will allow me to correct bad image names and/or delete images without needing to consult someone else every time. Please vote as you see fit. Thank you for your time.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 07:45, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

That Ferrari Guy

[Replace this text with your request message]

Votes

• TAlim - Rain - Talk 20:50, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
• TAlim 1994 - Monk ^Talk 20:54, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I honestly can't decide. Monk ^Talk 20:35, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
• My reasoning for TAlim has been done already on the RfP page. With respect for Ferrari, he hasn't been really active lately, even though I think he's a good editor. Rain - Talk 20:50, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

• • Yeah. He has examinations for the next month and a half, hence inactivity. Probably best for him to apply later on, after. Monk ^Talk 20:54, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Resign

Hello everyone. Well, after too much thinking, I've decided to resign. It's been really hard for me to keep track of what's happening on the wiki, not only because of the internet, but now I got a job, and it's taking the rest of my freetime. I think I should now go for something more important in my life, especially my real life. I can't hold this position while there are people more capable and willing to keep this wiki running smoothly and free of vandals. Eventually, I'll come back doing some edits here and there, but not as an admin. That's all I have to say. Farewell. TGS96 ^{talk stalk} 20:51, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Chat hacks

Closed as Reverted by Monk ^Talk 11:06, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Closed as Successful subject to trial by Monk ^Talk 23:08, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Hello, fellas. So, recently, a very kind gentleman friend of mine, added "Chat hacks" to my wiki's chat, after obtaining the relevant css/js and importing it from another wiki. The chat hacks are a really cool feature for those in chat, and, really, I don't wanna sit here and list all the things they do, so, go to my wiki's chat if you want to explore. Not only can random-ers have fun, but also, it allows Admins to "multi kick" users (kicking multiple users at the same time), for those annoying rants. It's a relatively simple and fun feature, but at a cost of a couple of bugs (eg, if you're the first in chat, you'll have to reload the chat to see if anyone's joined (or if you join first, you have to reload to see if anyone was in before you, etc, AFAIK). See what you think, personally I think this'd be a great addition to the wiki. :) Monk ^Talk 16:44, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• In Favour - Sam ^Talk 22:10, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
• In Favour -- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 10:47, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
• In Favour - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 20:58, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 05:14, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
• In Favour - SWAT Cam F 22:42, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Looks good to me, however I think we'd benefit from a trial period just to see how it works and how users respond to it. Sam ^Talk 22:10, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
• Same as SJ-- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 10:47, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
• A trial period would be good. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 20:58, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
• I have seen the features of the "chat hacks" and experimented with them on the Driver: Parallel Lines Wiki, and they appear to be an interesting addition, but not interesting enough (for me at least) for me to recommend that it be added as a feature on the GTA Wiki Chat. I do not object to the addition of this feature, but neither am I in favor. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 05:14, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
• Since the chat hacks options themselves are causing issues, I have removed the options; I have kept the remaining feature of adding images and videos to the chat window. Monk ^Talk 11:06, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V/Title Update Notes Page Improvement

Closed as Idea 1 by Monk ^Talk 16:44, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

No big explanation needed about the problems with the page because... well, it's been discussed a bunch of times, always leading with Smurfynz being "right". I lay forth three ideas on how we can improve the page:

1. We make seperate pages of the title update notes in the year they were released in. For example: Grand Theft Auto V/Title Update Notes - 2013.
2. Or we dedicate each update list with their own page.
3. Or we use tabbers for each of the update list section... which I suggested, but y'know, Smurfy would rather go offroading in a Rolls-Royce Phantom donk than to have that.

Lemme know which idea you want by voting Idea 1, 2, or 3 (or by one, two, or three). --Tony42898 (Talker - Blogger - Stalker)-- 02:23, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Idea 1 - SWAT Cam F 02:55, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
• Idea 1 - Monk ^Talk 06:11, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
• 1 - Sam ^Talk 09:41, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
• Idea 1 -- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 11:07, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
• Idea 1 - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:11, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• The first option seems to have a lot of potential. Users would be more interested in the latest updates and this would be easy for navigation. However, the third one is still a good option. Either case, it is better than cluttering the current page, to the point it will be stuck forever. SWAT Cam F 02:55, May 1, 2016 (UTC)
• Idea 1 is both the most logical and efficient for organisation and layout. Sure it'll work. Monk ^Talk 06:11, May 1, 2016 (UTC)

Bot Jobs

Closed as Please refer to my talk page for specifying jobs by Monk ^Talk 21:06, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Please specify here what you would like the Wiki bot to do. I ain't very good at programming, so I'm taking it one step at a time, running a few trials soon. Monk ^Talk 12:58, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Could you contact staff so they can give your bot a bot tag? It's pretty hard to keep up with the wiki activity since the bot edits clog up both WikiActivity and RecentChanges. Rain - Talk 16:30, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Um, they already flagged the bot. Is that what you mean by Bot Tag? Monk ^Talk 16:32, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Bot tag is a user right tag which means the bot edits don't show up in WikiActivty and only show up in RecentChanges if the "Show Bots" option is tagged. So far I can see bot edits everywhere and according to this page it isn't flagged. Rain - Talk 16:34, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

That's odd, I received an email saying it had been flagged. I've paused the bot in the mean time, and asked Sannse to tag it. Thanks Rain. Monk ^Talk 16:38, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

Jobs

• Remove images from these categories: Category:4-Door Sedans and Coupes, Category:2-Door Sedans and Coupes and Category:Exclusive Enhanced Version Content in GTA Online. TGS96 ^{talk stalk} 13:10, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
• It'me again: Replace this template with the new image license template. BTW, the bot is awesome. TGS96 ^{talk stalk} 14:08, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
• Italicate "==Grand Theft Auto==" Monk ^Talk 15:05, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
• Various common spelling mistakes to be found and fixed. Monk ^Talk 15:05, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
• Replace <gallery> with <gallery position="center"> Monk ^Talk 15:06, April 12, 2016 (UTC)

GTA Wiki Bot

Hey guys, so I've decided to go ahead after a discussion off-site with VaultBoy, and consider creating a bot. I believe McJeff once had one and it turned out well, and Tom also was gonna create one a while back, but forgot. What do you guys think? No votes, just comments - for now. Monk ^Talk 11:12, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• I thought about using a bot a while ago when I decided to get rid of these non-existent categories: Category:4-Door Sedans and Coupes, Category:2-Door Sedans and Coupes and Category:Exclusive Enhanced Version Content in GTA Online. It is a pain to manually remove them from all the images they are listed in (over 1400 images, which is why I gave up), so we can use a bot to get this job done quicker than any normal user. Yep, a bot can be useful. TGS96 ^{talk stalk} 14:14, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • I second that. Sam ^Talk 15:11, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
• A bot will be good for doing tedious and boring tasks (like adding categories), so yeah, why not? 15:19, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
• With comments like this, I'll start at the weekend some time. It'll be named MonkeyBot188. Wild, how can I get it to do tasks like that, btw? Monk ^Talk 15:21, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • Honestly? I don't know. :p I'm not that great at programming. 15:36, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
    • No trouble mate. See, I'm gonna talk to Staff about making one, and I was thinking of just creating the account, getting the basics sorted, then from there, slowly improvise with it to get the most of its functions, with the programming and such. It requires a .net extension download which I think does most of the word for you. I'll look into it more over the coming days. Monk ^Talk 15:44, April 8, 2016 (UTC)
      • This covers most of the basics. Rain - Talk 18:00, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

New policy(ies) + Demotion system overhaul

Closed as Successful by Monk ^Talk 11:12, April 8, 2016 (UTC)

Yo guys. So, I've decided to create a new policy (two really, in the same page since they're relatively similar). Firstly, oddjob-ing. Don't be fooled by the rather humorous name. Oddjob-ing is the act of staff members carrying out minor edits on only a monthly basis to secure their staff position. Minor edits are usually coding fixes, unnoticeable spacing errors, or general single-instance grammar fixes on articles. Users caught doing this over a few month's time should be treated as inactive and a demotion should be filed against them. I have several staff in mind that act in such a way.

Similarly, my second part of the policy, Jobsworth-ing is the act of staff (only those who follow the first policy above) making edits which otherwise break articles, be it link errors (no, not incorrect links. Link errors where coding is exposed), template errors, or file breaking, and then the failure of fixing the article before becoming inactive once again. This policy demonstrates the lack of care and attention inactive staff have, outlining their poor use of revision check, and lastly, their lack of inactivity to fix such edits.

On that note, it brings me onto my last proposal: demotion overhaul. Currently, Admins are demoted after 3 month's inactivity - this doesn't need to be changed (well, see the bottom of this proposal). What does need to be changed is the exception made for patrollers under such circumstances. Patrollers are currently given a 3 month basis before they're declared inactive. But they aren't demoted. So, under that rule, forgive me if I'm wrong, but that effectively means a patroller can become inactive for 1 million years and still hold their staff position. Clearly hasn't been a policy taken into mind for JBanton and several former patrollers who were demoted for lack of activity, therefore this proves we need to stop making exceptions and nail down a firm policy to correctly handle inactive staff - patrollers. I propose the same rule as Administrator demotion applies to Patrollers - 3 month's inactivity results in demotion. As for Admins, I'd say demotion to powerusers, not Patrollers - inactive staff don't deserve to keep some form of staff position, even if it's lower in hierarchy.

That's me done. Cast your votes and comments on the change. Monk ^Talk 05:47, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes - Sam ^Talk 09:01, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes -- MythHunter 007 ^Talk 09:52, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 10:43, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - TGS96 ^{talk stalk} 14:18, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 17:36, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Just to be clear on the maintenance of this, users who go against the 2 new policies will be alerted that they are nearing the boundaries of the issue, then eventually be demoted if they continue to do so for a month more. Monk ^Talk 05:57, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
• I agree and I propose something more: a special warning template only applied to Staff Members when they break these policies. This could be useful to notify the inactive staffer and also for other users (not only Staff) to keep track of the situation should he decides to reapply or request a promotion. TGS96 ^{talk stalk} 14:18, April 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nope, not necessary at all. It's not a policy you can "break", it's a strict guideline rather than a policy. No need for an optimised warning template. A simple reminder will do just fine. Monk ^Talk 14:28, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Map Overhaul

Not many of you may have used the Maps feature here, but after noticing how bland and out-of date the maps are (mostly), I've decided to have a massive revamp of them. I recently started by deleting some of the current maps so I could get fresh new copies. It will take a while, but I'm thinking of getting all games' maps into the maps feature. There's currently a map glitch which prevents me from uploading NEW maps (only using the supplied templates is possible ATM), which Wikia staff are aware of and have told me they'll fix it ASAP. The project will be put off a little because of this, but I don't even think this needs a vote - it's self explanatory - I'm doing it anyway xD Monk ^Talk 11:05, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

Badges

Closed as unsuccessful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:55, March 27, 2016 (UTC)

Why don't this wiki have any badges. I think it should have badges. Badges will increase the users here. Fear The Thunder

Votes

• NO - Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 19:35, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
• No - Sam ^Talk 19:59, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
• Neutral - SWAT Cam F 20:57, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
• Yes (conditional) - TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 09:19, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
• No (Never) - Monk ^Talk 09:32, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
• No - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:53, March 27, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• What? You mean leader-board achievements? So what, people can points-game? Absolutely NO way. No. Just no. Mr. Ferrari ^(talk) 19:35, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know what do you mean with "badges" on the wiki. - SWAT Cam F 20:57, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that "Myth hunting master" is referring to achievement badges, such as the ones on our sister wiki, GTA Myths Wiki. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 09:31, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
• I am willing to have badges on this wiki, but only for a very restricted scope of achievements: namely the number of edits and perhaps edits to specific page categories. We already have edit badges as Userboxes, so I do not see why we cannot have a very small number (perhaps no more than 10-20, or perhaps even as little as four (one for each edit milestone - 500, 1,000, 5,000 and 10,000)) for a bit of material for bragging rights, but no more. This should prevent any "points-gaming", but also allow for a little something for editors on this wiki to work for. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 09:19, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
• We've been asked this millions of times before, and I can't emphasise enough how much bullshit it causes.

1. Pointgaming, as Ferrari already pointed out, is too much to cope with, especially on a wiki that is (usually) very hectic and active. A wiki with hundreds of users, and hundreds of active users, means this is bound to be misused.
2. Competition - There's literally no point, some of these badges are just out of pure LUCK, so really it's hardly even fair.
3. Users will have to "start again" - What about me? ZS? GTAInc? Wild? Tom? Why introduce this now, after we've all gained thousands of edits? It's ridiculous. Userbox "badges" are enough. Monk ^Talk 09:32, March 27, 2016 (UTC)

• As far as I know, Konan, the limitation of badges is pretty hard, as you'd have to individually delete badges (they automatically add to the wiki when activated - loads of them). Also, there are no milestone badges AFAIK - only "you made the 1000th/2000th/3000th edit" kind of thing (out of pure luck). Monk ^Talk 09:32, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • I see. Admittedly, I know very little of how the badges system works "under the hood", but I still feel that a very limited amount of badges will do this wiki some good. I do not know exactly how difficult it is to actually remove unwanted badges, but surely there should be a way to delete them en masse? If not, and if it is too difficult to implement the feature as desired, perhaps you are right, and the badges should not be enabled. Also, do not badges automatically get awarded to users who already meet the prerequisites for earning them once the feature is turned on? I would assume that they would. Finally, with regards to your point about this wiki being very active, I wish to note that one of the other wikis that I occasionally edit on (Halo Nation) does have badges, and like this wiki, is also very active, yet still ordered. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 10:35, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
• Over the last few years, this has come up again and again. The reason that everyone agreed on a few years ago was that we would never have badges because it would seriously mess up the wiki; users would be coming to pointsgame and won't be editing just to increase the quality. For example, Wildbrick added over 1,000 (maybe 2,000) images to the wiki last month, not for edits but for quality, whereas if we had badges he may have done that just to fly up the leaderboard and the images may have been of terrible quality. The only reason Myths Wiki has them is because it is a relatively small wiki compared to the GTA Wiki so bad edits are easier to track compared to on here. Also, as the Myths Wiki has seen countless times, pointsgaming and just general leaderboard position can lead to a lot of fights and people leaving. For a wiki the size of this one, badges are just a bad idea. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:53, March 27, 2016 (UTC)