GTA Wiki

Help required: categories

Hi everyone, please help us by filling out this form!


We are determining how players best define and/or differentiate the terms "game modes", "missions" and "activities". This will be used to help us develop a clear and logical category tree to house articles related to this type of content.


Thank you in advance for help!

READ MORE

GTA Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
GTA Wiki
GTA Wiki
19,871
pages

GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

Sign in to edit

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community Noticeboard.

Archives

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 requests above the old ones. That way, we can easily spot it rather than looking for it.

Restriction of Staff template category additions to "User" namespace

Good day. I have noticed that the Staff templates (Template:Patroller, Template:Administrator & Template:Bureaucrat) currently add any page that they are added to to the relevant categories, including the Talk pages of Staff members who, like myself, have added their Staff templates to their Talk pages as well as their User pages: I personally regard this as rather inconsistent, since not all Staff members have the Staff templates added to their Talk pages, so therefore I propose adding a parser function which will restrict the Staff templates so that they only add pages in the "User" namespace to the relevant categories. Please vote on this matter, and if successful, someone of the rank of Administrator or higher must either add the parser function to the Staff templates or temporarily unprotect them, as I do not currently have the authority to do so myself.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 08:58, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • Don't know about this one, but a least we can avoid that any page is included in the category. Users only. TGS96 talk stalk 13:12, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Examples of modded vehicles images

Recently, me and WildBrick have begun adding examples of modified vehicles to articles (where the vehicle must have a decent amount of visual modifications to be valid) to give the reader an idea of what modifications can be added to the vehicle (rather than just seeing a stock counterpart and a list modifications). I find it really useful, and Wild and me began adding the image of 2/3/4 versions of the vehicle to the Modifications section, as it seems logical and more appropriate, and more suitable. Another user suggested they should be in the Image Gallery, as a collection of images - However, note that Performance statistics, Design Gallery and Version History Gallery images are all located outside of the main Image Gallery for the same purpose intended in the location of these "Modified vehicles" (in the Modifications section).

In short: where do you think the image should belong? Monk Talk 20:17, March 11, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • The only reason I brought it up, was because it seemed to conflict with the rules as they're laid out on the Style page for vehicles. I'm fine with whichever way the vote swings, I just think it should be clarified on the style guide when it's been decided. On the Style Guide, under Things To Avoid: "Adding images alongside text in loose form. Images should only be in the lead infobox or one of the organised galleries." Daft inquisitor (talk) 20:54, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
  • Modifications - See my reasons on Monk's Talk page. And user-modified vehicles cannot be added on the articles, but I don't see anything against putting them on Modifications instead, if they are merely used for comparison/exemplification purposes. TGS96 talk stalk 21:01, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
  • Modifications - After reviewing all the discussions, I agree with "Thegtaseeker96" that the images of player-modified vehicles should appear in the "Modifications" section of relevant vehicle pages, not the general gallery, and I also agree with "Daft inquisitor" that the Manual of Style for vehicles should be updated to reflect this allowance. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 12:17, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Modifications - I find addition of of such modified images but I think it is better to have them in Modification section rather than the main gallery because if they are kept in the main gallery then some readers might confuse them for regular vehicle model. Myth(Please leave your threats here/Wanna Stalk?) 12:50, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Election - March 2016

Closed as Thegtaseeker96 by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 08:06, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

TAlim 1994

Good day sir/madam. On the advice of "Monkeypolice188", I have decided to run for the position of Administrator in competition with "Thegtaseeker96" (it was not originally my intention to do so). I must concede that "Thegtaseeker96" has considerably more editing experience on this wiki than I have, but I believe that I might perhaps put the privileges to more use, as one of my primary roles as a Staff member is to correct badly named images, which would naturally be easier if I do not need to ask someone every time that I do so. I also feel that I can be a good mediator in editing disputes, as I am always calm and level-headed in such situations.

Unless I am mistaken, Administrator elections are generally held with a Q&A to figure out how the potential Administrator handles certain scenarios, and I would be most willing to undertake such a test to demonstrate my mediation skills.

Please vote for whomever you feel would be a better Administrator. Thank you for your time.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 18:31, March 2, 2016 (UTC)

Thegtaseeker96

Hello everyone. After the recent resignation of Leo68 and Monk's promotion to bureaucrat, I’ve decided to apply for the vacant admin position. I don’t think I have to introduce myself again, since the Staff members and other users had the opportunity to observe my work during these (almost) 5 months as a Patroller. I’ve used my tools wisely, particularly reminding new users of the Media Policy, giving warnings and dealing with troublesome users, also reporting them when necessary. I want to be an admin to help even more managing pages and files and, of course, blocking vandals. That’s all. Leave here your votes and thoughts and thank you in advance for reading this. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 15:36, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • I vote Ricardo. Go for it. Very active, very helpful user, participates in literally all fields, from files to policy enforcement. Monk Talk 15:38, February 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • Not voting yet, but shouldn't the admin election have questions for candidates like the previous two elections did? My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 18:35, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
    • I believe it should. I'll ask Tom about that. Monk Talk 18:37, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
    • Ah, according to Tom, the questions aren't necessary unless there's a lot of candidates; two isn't enough. Monk Talk 18:39, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
      • When 558 and I had our election, we weren't asked questions. Sam Talk 18:46, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • I feel that both are worthy of the position, but gtaseeker has been here a while longer and likely is more experienced at this moment in time. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:41, March 2, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nothing against TAlim, but I think Thegtaseeker is better qualified for the role. He is more than capable of doing a good job in any staff role, which is why I reccomended his patroller promotion. He gets my vote. Leo68 (talk) 01:30, March 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • Since I can't decide, I prefer to vote Neutral. --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 21:26, March 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • I also can't really decide. Neutral too. MC My Computer Master Of Ceremonies 06:36, March 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait, what? Promoted? Wasn't expecting for this xD TGS96 talk stalk 13:07, March 10, 2016 (UTC)

Merge: Helicopter

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 21:14, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Yo. So we have about 6 articles all named "Helicopter", yet they're all for each individual game. Don't you think they should all be merged? We're not gonna be like the German wiki (I think that's the one) where they create a new page for every rendition of a vehicle, are we?. Monk Talk 15:51, February 29, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • If they’re not named differently in game, I don’t see any problem. Just one page is necessary, provided that we split all the game appearances into dedicate sections. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 16:09, February 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure why not? They're no different, just unnamed helicopters so they can all be shared on the same page but just with different headers and galleries to split them apart from one another. Smashbro8 (Talk) 16:30, February 29, 2016 (UTC)Smashbro8
  • I agree that, since the vehicles are very similar - if not the same - between games, their pages should be merged. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:36, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, it does seem pretty pointless. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 15:45, March 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • Will start tomorrow. Monk Talk 21:14, March 7, 2016 (UTC)

Resignation

I don't think it comes as any surprise. I have been inactive since around November, and this place isn't what it used to be, and the resignation of users such as Andre have just added fuel to the situtation. Thanks to Tom, Jamal, Monk & Sam for support and friendship. Leo68 (talk) 19:50, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

  • Aww man. This kinda makes me sad. You've been a really, really good friend, and this place won't be the same without you. I hope to see you around in chat, you know, I'll need advice from you in future. Take care, bro, and enjoy your life ;) Monk Talk 19:54, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • Shame to see you leave Leon, but I guess it has been coming for a while. Good luck in whatever you go on to do now. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 20:27, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • Shame to see you leave Leon but I can understand why. Look after yourself. Sam Talk 22:02, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

Staff description

Closed as successful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 23:34, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys. So I've had an idea: I'd like to propose the addition of small personal descriptions to each staff member on the GTA Wiki:Staff article, which should be preferably under 60 words 40 characters and summarizes your main objectives, focuses, jobs or specialities on-site. I really feel this would benefit in new users who need a user experienced in a particular field, rather than them manually having to do the research through staff descriptions on their user pages, or in contributions. Seen this feature in many wikis before. Isn't much to ask for. Monk Talk 22:36, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • Good idea, so that's a yes for this vote. JohnSignature 22:42, February 19, 2016 (UTC)
  • I love this idea! Would really benefit in the community navigating to a user of suitable choice for help, and increases the likelihood of good feeback for our experienced users, so users will automatically know which user is good at what! Awesome suggestion Monk! :) Mr. Ferrari (talk) 22:53, February 20, 2016 (UTC)
    • ^^^Exactly :P Monk Talk 08:47, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • Your idea is a good one. For example, I specialize in general grammatical corrections and checking for Media Policy violations, so it would be good to let ordinary users be aware of this and the specialties of other Staff members. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 23:05, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • Helpful idea, but instead of writing a text, I'd prefer summarizing the specialties into something like "vehicle expert", "cleanup expert", "uploader", etc. We should be as briefly as possible in our descriptions. Just saying. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 23:14, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
    • Too non-descript. What about users who are two or three or four of these? I feel some need some expansion on their main focuses. Mr. Ferrari (talk) 23:20, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
      • That is a fair idea, but the descriptions must still be brief; it would look cluttered if there was a long block of text that describes the specialties of each and every Staff member. For example, in my case, the description should look something like this: "Spelling & Grammar Expert; Media Policy Enforcer". TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 23:27, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
        • So I don't know much else to describe myself xD. I don't have any main focus/specialty, so how would that be for me? Writing a long text to explain all of my work so far? Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 23:37, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 23:30, February 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd love that. This idea was pitched in via user talk pages a couple or so years ago but the then-bureaucrats denied it, saying that users should go to their profile pages for info. --Tony42898 (Talker - Blogger - Stalker)-- 00:06, February 22, 2016 (UTC)
  • Figured I'd add to my description. Think it's a good idea. Leo68 (talk) 04:13, February 22, 2016 (UTC)
User Description Recommended Status
User:LS11sVaultBoy Skilled in terms of spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc. Add lots of images and create pages. Can help solve conflicts and will block if necessary. ALWAYS watching. Media Specialist. General editor Done
User:Smashbro8 Awaiting
User:558050 Awaiting
User:Camilo Flores File management. Janitor. Done
User:Monkeypolice188 Vehicle Specialist, Chat Maintenance Done
User:SJWalker Verification. Janitor. Spelling/Grammar expert. Done
User:WildBrick142 Media specialist. Article creator. Awaiting
User:MarcusCheeKJ Media Specialist Media specialist Done
User:Mortsnarg Awaiting
User:Myth hunter Awaiting
User:TAlim 1994 Spelling/Grammar Expert, File Manager, Policy Enforcer, Janitor, Very Active Done
User:That Ferrari Guy Janitor, Policy reinforcement. Janitor. Policy reinforcement. Done
User:Thegtaseeker96 General Editor, Media Specialist, Policy Enforcer, Janitor Janitor. Policy reinforcement. Done
User:Tony_1998 Housekeeper, Spelling/Grammar Expert Janitor, Policy enforcer Done

Stuck? Here's some suggestions.

  • Media Specialist - commonly uploading files.
  • File Management - renaming or updating file licensing.
  • Vehicle Specialist - hence.
  • Storyline Specialist - hence.
  • Character Specialist - hence.
  • Weaponry specialist - hence.
  • General housekeeper - keeping the place free of damage.
  • Policy reinforcement - hence.
  • Chat maintenance - helping out in chat.
  • Account management - blocking or deleting accounts.
  • Blogger - commonly blogging.
  • Researcher - hence.
  • Verification specialistic - helping verify content.
  • Article creator - hence.
  • Spelling/Grammar expert - hence.
  • Janitor - cleaning those messy articles
  • General editor - last resort.

If the User has not chosen or specified a description for themselves after 7 days, the recommended description will be added, however, users may change this and any of their own future descriptions if they wish to.

Still none? Message me ;) Monk Talk 00:01, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

IRL Weapon pics

Closed as successful by Monk Talk 22:36, February 19, 2016 (UTC)

Gonna keep it short: If we don't/aren't allowed pictures of IRL cars and IRL landmarks/whatever on articles, why are weapons an exception? They vary in appearance, just like cars do. It's time to crack down on this ridiculous concept. Voting to remove. Monk Talk 23:12, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • This is not Wikipedia. If people want to see RL images, they just have to go there. Simple. We already leave a lot of WP links for RL counterparts, so no harm done. Remove 'em for consistency. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 23:48, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Ditto ^^. Good time to mention that Weapon pages need some major cleanups - we have about 4 users working on vehicles and zero on weapons. They need more attention than what they're getting atm. Mr. Ferrari (talk) 23:51, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually this is one of my future projects. I have been searching for more weapons locations in GTA V for a long time and I decided I will start the cleanups when I'm done with my researchs, so I can post everything at once. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 00:11, February 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • I was the one who added the RL images to the weapon pages. Come to think of it, I don't know why I even had that idea. But I agree that for the sake of consistence, its better to get hid of then all together. - DLVIII Talk 23:55, February 15, 2016 (UTC)
  • Because this is a wiki about GTA and if anyone wants to look up real life counterparts they can just use Google or provided Wikipedia links. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 13:09, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

Merge (Cont.)

( Roosevelt Valor )

So if this vehicle does get officially added, even though it can already be spawned in through trainers on PS4, will it be it's own page? Or will it be a sub-category on this page?

Kylerfox10 (talk) 14:11, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

Just because it has a new name and an altered design, doesn't mean it has to have its A) own page or B) own infobox/section. It'll go in the Variants section. It will NOT have its own infobox or article. -Monk Talk 14:45, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Why not? I am fine with not giving an infobox to vehicles that re-use the name (DLC or not, I don't care. Re-use the name and you're not getting an infobox). But if it clearly has a different name then it should deserve it's own page, or at least it's own infobox on the page because, you know, they're meant to be separate from each other. At least that's the original compromise for not keeping separate pages while also giving it a worthy enough mention. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 18:09, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Something like the "Deluxe" variants of the Swift and Luxor? Well I don't think so, since the Roosevelt Valor would be the successor or the original Roosevelt (and it would be forever). However, it's essentially "a modern-looking Roosevelt" or a "new Roosevelt". I think it would work like the Valkyries, the Insurgents, the Velums, etc. Oh well, I dunno. --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 18:42, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
I wish, but people seem to start WWIII when it comes to making new pages for vehicles. It would work like the Insurgent and Velum; an infobox for the differently designed vehicle, which is exactly what I want since none of us can come into an agreement. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 19:47, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I agree with Cam and Monk.
Just because it has a new 'name' (hardly), and minor changes to its design, doesn't mean it needs a new page nor a separate infobox. If you're gonna follow your spec, Wild, then why wasn't Valkyrie MOD.0 in a new page, huh? It has an altered design, a new name (hardly, again), and was added in an update. Honestly, I thought we'd stopped the 'new oage for new variant' thing. It's stupid. All it needs is a tiny description under the 'Variants' heading and an image, just like the Valkyrie MOD.0 in the Valkyrie article. The stock car racing variants of their respective standard counterparts were recently changed, from separate-infobox to variant section-only, because an altered design (hardly, just a livery), a new name (hardly) and a hardly-differeny performance doesn't qualify for a new infobox; the infobox would display almost the exact same information. Guy A (Junior) - That Ferrari Guy (talk) 19:25, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Maybe because a few people get stressed over the idea of a similarly looking vehicle having it's own page that I decided to keep it in Valkyrie's page to avoid causing the wiki to have a nuclear meltdown. And if that sort of idea "is stupid" and just "needs a tiny description" under a Variants section then yeah, fine, who needs information on a wiki anyway? About the stock cars, yes, almost exact same information. The key word here being almost. If the information would be the very exact same then I could agree there's no need for an infobox. But since there are differences, it does deserve it's own infobox (inb4 past gta's counter-argument, because it's relevant and it's name the same, unlike the "variants". and yeah, past gta's) My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 19:47, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
You make good points I suppose. I'm just trying to go inline with the other articles now since everyone argues when it comes to new vehicles and variants. If every article was applied to the 'new name new article' rule you mentioned, I'd support and agree with it, as at least it would be consistent, but everytime it's brought up everyone gets mad, so now everything's a mess and inconsistent, and we cant settle with a single rule as the MOS cant be updates cos of the arguments which don't get us anywhere. Guy A (Junior) - That Ferrari Guy (talk) 19:56, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly why the "variants" have their own sections and infoboxes. Some of us wanted vehicle "variants" to have their separate pages if they're named differently. Some of us wanted vehicle "variants" to be in the page of the "parent model". Since we couldn't come into an agreement and would only cause to fire missiles at ourselves back and forth, the idea of a vehicle "variant" having it's own section, infobox, etc, in the "parent" page was made and used - as a result both sides could keep happy because the vehicle didn't have separate pages and was still kept relevant enough with it's own section and an infobox. This successfully kept everyone happy and actually ended those dumb arguments for the time being.

"New name new article" is the way it should be (otherwise R* would use the same names, no?) which WILL keep things consistent, informative, less confusing (prime examples go to any current-gen exclusive content found on a page which is in last-gen too or even past gta's), and would not be one bit messy, but it's pretty obvious by now that none of us will ever properly agree so such a compromise is necessary. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 20:15, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Now, I would say that Wild's idea is not "that bad to start a discussion" and it would work properly. The only thing is that the info barely changes from the base vehicle 's pages.
In the case of the Valkyrie MOD.0, the only thing it would change is that: it lacks the front cannon, the locations and the update it was introduced. Everything else are just like "copy-paste" from the Valkyrie page or just a short description saying "it's essentially a Valkyrie without the cannon and etc, etc, etc. In the case of the Deluxe aircraft, both are still separated from their normal counterparts, seeing it was discussed some time ago.
So yeah. From my perspective, both ideas seems to work, but these will have flaws: The idea or merging all would be less work, but it will be a bit messy. The another idea of separating all would be more organized, but it will have... well, I dunno, but I don't see a problem, considering other vehicles were renamed through updates and separated (the Oracles for example). Still don't know who decided that, but it clearly starts discussions like this. --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 20:19, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
That is true, but information is still information. All it takes is rewording it a bit and that'd be perfect. Performance section would always be different (I highly doubt it will re-use a handling line, especially DLC vehicles), all it takes for Design section is rewording a few things to make it look less like "a lazy copy-paste", and the rest of the sections will pretty much always be different. Considereing some vehicles already are split up within the page, there won't be much work necessary to separate those. The end result would be less mess, less confusion, more info, more organization, more credibility, and probably a lot more positive things (the amount of arguing would probably remain the same, though, unless a miracle happens and we will all agree on this :p ). My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 20:32, January 29, 2016 (UTC)


I agree with that, but as you say, there'd have to be a miracle for people to agree to this. I'm sure Monk will, but if this goes forward there'll be a shit-tonne of arguments and whatnot. Great ideas and explanations but there's no hope anymore. Guy A (Junior) - That Ferrari Guy (talk) 20:36, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
tbh, if Monk agrees then we can actually go along with it. People that were against it in the past either left or are barely active, I doubt the rest of the people would actually care about that change. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 20:38, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Well, good luck with that :/ he's really upset IRL at the moment, some pretty bad shit happened to him lately IRL. But if you give him sometime I guess he'll be in a good mood to agree with this. Guy A (Junior) - That Ferrari Guy (talk) 20:47, January 29, 2016 (UTC)

In my case, I would agree. That's it. --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 20:47, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
Well then, all we can do is wait. Once he's back we can continue on this topic (or argument, who knows), until then we'll leave things as they are now.My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 20:53, January 29, 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like a fucking great idea. Might as well split everything if no one can agree to a sensible structure. Can we start this tomorrow? Plus can you list some examples that would be split? :)
  • Banshee 900R from Banshee?
  • All Customs from Stabdards?
  • Stock cars from standards?
  • SVolito from SVolito Carbon?
  • Baller LE and LWB from Baller? - armored from these too?
  • Valor from Roosevelt?
  • Armored from Kuruma?
  • Pickup from Insurgent?
  • 5 seater from Velum?
  • Mod.0 from Valkyrie?

Honestly, I'd prefer them completely separate instead of a new infobox. Completely separate articles, just for consistency of the spec.

Monk Talk 19:04, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Sure. With the examples you have mentioned, the list'll be:
  • 9F > 9F Cabrio
  • Baller > Baller LE > Baller LE LWB > Baller LE (Armored) > Baller LE LWB (Armored)
  • Banshee > Banshee 900R
  • Blista Compact > Go Go Monkey Blista
  • Buccaneer > Buccaneer Custom
  • Buffalo S > Sprunk Buffalo
  • Chino > Chino Custom
  • Cognoscenti > Cognoscenti (Armored)
  • Cognoscenti 55 > Cognoscenti 55 (Armored)
  • Dominator > Pisswasser Dominator
  • Faction > Faction Custom
  • Gauntlet > Redwood Gauntlet
  • Insurgent > Insurgent Pick-Up
  • Jester > Jester (Racecar)
  • Kuruma > Kuruma (Armored)
  • Massacro > Massacro (Racecar)
  • Moonbeam > Moonbeam Custom
  • Primo > Primo Custom
  • Rat-Loader > Rat-Truck
  • Roosevelt > Roosevelt Valor
  • Sandking > Sandking SWB > Sandking XL
  • Schafter > Schafter V12 > Schafter V12 LWB > Schafter V12 (Armored) > Schafter V12 LWB (Armored)
  • Stallion > Burger Shot Stallion
  • SuperVolito > SuperVolito Carbon
  • Valkyrie > Valkyrie MOD.0
  • Velum > Velum 5-Seater
  • Voodoo > Voodoo Custom
  • Zion > Zion Cabrio
  • Stretch E > Turreted Limo
Anything that shares the name (Mules, Cargobobs, Trashmasters, Caddys, Tornados, Boxvilles, etc.) will be left in the main infobox or variants section. I can prepare the navbox now, might even also get started on some pages. Is there anything you'd want to add to the list or share opinions? My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 21:16, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) wow! So, just to confirm, that list is showing SEPARATE pages? (So 9F and 9F cabrio will be separated, for example). If we go ahead with this, I'd like to us start the project tomorrow if thats okay with you too ;) for the sake of help and such. Monk Talk 21:31, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, "[Original page] > [Split]". That's okay with me (I might not be very active, though). I already did the Banshee 900R, which actually has quite a lot of content. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 22:28, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

::Cool. Can I do the same thing on at least all possible aircraft? --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 22:35, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Just done MOD.0. Don't worry wild, theres no rush. I'll get a few done tomorrow. Cam, no offense, but can't you finish 'your' project? XD I mean, you started it, don't lose where you are, man. :) Monk Talk 22:42, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

:::>:/ --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 22:57, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

Jeez. Was it something I said? :| Monk Talk 22:59, January 30, 2016 (UTC)

:::::Yes. And it's totally unfair >:T --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 04:52, February 5, 2016 (UTC)

Woah! Looking good! Got a lot done guys! ;) see what was all the fuss about when this is clearly more consistent and convenient. In fact, it tidies pages! :P Guy A (Junior) - That Ferrari Guy (talk) 00:32, January 31, 2016 (UTC)
This is not on. Major differences like the Buffalo and Oracle I can just understand, but just because it says armoured in the title, or has another word, like SuperVolito Carbon? Ridiculous, just cluttering the wiki with pointless clone pages of vehicles that have minor differences is pointless. I'm not getting involved this time, no matter what's brought up, it's just more pointless splits and you're wasting your time. If merging is suggested then it's all arguments and votes, when splits are suggested all the rules go out the window. Leo68 (talk) 07:36, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

Merge Compromise

Okay, this discussion again. I noticed a widespread split of several pages. Now, I can go off on one and say "It wasn't authorized" "This is a bad idea" blah, blah, blah. No, I do not want to deal with more fall out on this case. So, some vehicles, from what I've seen, have been unncessarily split. So I propose;

  • Keep Kuruma (Armored) as part of the variants on the Kuruma page.
  • Have a page for Baller LE, with armored in the variants section.
  • Have a page for Baller LWB, with armored in the variants section.
  • Have a page for Schafter LWB, with armored in the variants section.
  • Have a page for Schafter V12, with armored in the variants section.
  • Have a page for Schafter LWB, with armored in the variants section.
  • Have a page for Cognoscenti 55, with armored in the variants section.
  • Keep Cognoscenti (Armored) as part of the variants on the Cognoscenti page.

These cars (upgraded/changed Schafter, Baller & Cog) do have different design and some have different performances, but having armor doesn't warrant its own page.

The Buffalo S & Oracle XS have major differences so I can put my personal feelings to one side on this matter. Insurgent/9F/Rancher/Sentinel/Granger etc. can stay separate, because I know they're variants, but they have different performance, design and whatever else, so if it keeps the calm here, good, and if the Schafter is renamed, or the Baller or Cavalacade, then we'll split like we've done in the past. I just don't think there should be separate pages, jut because it has armor on it. The exception being Duke O'Death, because it has a different name, it's not just Dukes (Armored). Also, to close the matter on the Roosevelt Valor, if it comes out and has different performance, design and naming, that it should have its own page.

I also reccomend that we can add the note below to the MoS;

Vehicles variants that have significant changes in performance, design and naming, such as second generation vehicles, should be made as two separate pages.

I'm hoping that this issue can finally be resolved after all the issues in the last year or so surrounding it. If there's any other vehicles that have minor differences you feel need to be merged besides those listed above, or if you have any questions, comments or concerns, please leave it below. Leo68 (talk) 02:51, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • So, you want to keep the armored variants into their respective pages? Well, I was thinking on that. Also, I noticed both the Rebel and the Sanchez are listed to split, which I found it quite odd, as both has slight changes (apart of the almost-impossible Buzzard, which was dropped). As for the MoS note, well, most second gen cars has the same names as the original cars (or 1st gen in that case), so that would be confusing for the Schafter and the Baller. For me, I would agree in your point, but I don't have control of the project. --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 03:41, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
    • The beater version of the Rebel is called Rusty Rebel on the website...different name = different page. Exact same case with the Sanchez. Monk Talk 07:27, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • Can't see why the Rebel and Sanchez are split besides beater and livery changes, respectively. As for the MoS, if it's a vehicle like the Buffalo (which has S) or Oracle (XS), then it falls under the rule. Schafters, Cavalcades and Ballers, not yet, not unless R* change the name. Leo68 (talk) 03:49, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
  • honestly Wilds idea of splitting EVERYTHING with differing names still attracts me more than the idea of merging armored ones. Why? Well, because now you're making exceptions. And exceptions = no consistency. If we just stick to the rule of 'different nsme = different page', there'll be absolutely no exceptions and it will be consistent. The way its going is fine to me. Monk Talk 07:27, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes but the most of these vehicles are split because they have different design and or performance. The armored vehicles have no differences in design or performance. They only have an altered name, so we have 8 pages of armored vehicles with identical design and performance to their stock vehicles. The design and performance difference is why pages were split in the first place. Leo68 (talk) 08:51, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
    • Actually the performances between the armored versions differs, especially the new Cogs, Schafters, Ballers. Guy A (Junior) - That Ferrari Guy (talk) 15:06, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

Probation Expiry - That Ferrari Guy (Patroller)

Closed as successful by Leo68 (talk) 02:51, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

That Ferrari "Guy"'s probation is pretty much up so it's time for everyone to vote as to whether they think he has passed. Remember, only admins and bureaucrats can vote, patrollers and normal users may leave comments.

Votes

Comments

  • I think you've done really well in your second probation period. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:18, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that you have done an excellent job as a Patroller. I am quite confident that you will pass your probation. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 19:26, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • He did extremely well. Opened a little too early but tomorrow he won't be online till later (as far as I hear). Well done bud. Monk Talk 19:27, February 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • I haven't been around long enough to notice Guy's work, but he worked well last time around, and the votes above tell me he's done just as well. Closed as successful. Leo68 (talk) 02:51, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

Probation Expiry - TAlim 1994 (Patroller)

Outcome: PASS

Votes

(Admins and Bureaucrats only)

  • Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:08, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Sam Talk 12:44, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 16:09, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - Monk Talk 16:16, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes - My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 16:34, February 3, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

(Everyone)

  • I have decided to take the liberty of setting up my own probation expiry vote to save other Staff the trouble. Please vote when you are able to. Thank you. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 10:51, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
  • You've done very well during your probation and it would be good for you to continue. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:08, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
  • You made a good progress and you're efficient as a patroller. I say "yes". --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 16:09, January 28, 2016 (UTC)
  • You did great. Monk Talk 16:16, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Vehicle Variants System 2.0

Okay guys, you're probably going to shoot me for this, but I have a new idea. I suggested the idea (albeit hesitantly considering the outcome and affect it'd have on the Staff here) in Chat one evening with Leo, who agreed it was a fantastic idea. He agreed in a good manner and suggested I sent it to the Community Noticeboard to propose it. So, Leo, if you disagree now, I'm gonna kill you :P

The idea is, well, pretty simple really. Instead of shoving all the Variants into the same article of the main vehicle, create a sub-page "[Vehicle Name]/Variants" and list them all in there. I really think this makes it A LOT tidier. I have started my first example, here. I did the Granger. On the Granger article, at the variants section, you'll notice a "Main" template, which will link you to the Variants sub-page which lists all the emergency counterparts. For navigational purposes, the 4 variants are listed at the top, the links send you to the parts of the page (try it out, "Press me!" :P).

Now, I separated the pages with a "----" bar to make it clearer where each vehicle ends. I really like this system, and I'm confident it would work for many vehicles (only ones I'm concerned about are where we draw the line as what counts as a variant (example, Phantom and Rubble?), as well as when a vehicle crosses the Universe boundary but doesn't count as a variant in one of the Universes.

So, please, this is not a vote, as for now, I'm just letting you comment to see what you think. Again, this is only an alpha (not even beta) project, I want to see what you think.

Oh, one more thing, this is not a place to start an argument. If we start arguing in an uncivil manner, I'll simply close it and delete the project. Just tell me what you think, and if I get good reception, maybe I'll turn it into a vote.

Tar lads. Monk Talk 12:02, January 24, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think it is a good idea. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:25, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • From what I see on the Granger examples, that would mean that pages like "Park Ranger", "FIB Granger", "Lifeguard SUV", etc. would no longer exist and be instead merged into "Granger/Variants" page. Correct? If so, no, never. They are separated for a reason, and it's pretty obvious a specific vehicle is a variant anyway - a mention such as "Main Article: [vehicle]" and a very short paragraph would be enough. It's good as it is now, and things like that are usually very volatile as evidenced from past votes/ideas. IMHO it would be a better idea to split everything, instead of having a hacky system of vehicle subsections like Kuruma (Armored), Insurgent Pick-Up, Rusty Rebel etc. have now - that would save the time and confusion of making and reading these pages - but the last time we agreed that only select vehicles would end up like the examples I mentioned so that would bring an end to these sort of ideas, and arguments resulting from them, which is why it'd be better to leave it as it is. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 12:55, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah I agree. I was pretty hesitant myself when writing this and hence why i've only decided to right this more than a month after he suggested I put it forward. Again, it's just an idea and not something I'm insisting should be done. I only insist when I'm fully confident :P Monk Talk 14:23, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • Your proposal is intriguing, but I must admit that it sounds like a monumental change, and not one which should be implemented on a whim. As "Wildbrick142" has said, it will not be a good idea to merge all the pages of different variants of vehicles that have substantially different stock performance specifications. Instead I would suggest creating a "Variants" heading on the page of the base vehicle, creating a sub-heading for each variant of the vehicle, adding a "Main" template that links to the vehicle page for that variant, and inserting a concise description on how the variant differs from the base vehicle. Also, a "Disambiglink" template should be placed at the start of the page of each variant, stating something along the lines of "For the vehicle that the [Variant Name] is based on, see [Base Vehicle Name]". TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 07:09, January 28, 2016 (UTC)

Toning Down Trivia

Alright, well it's been discussed in the past, so to make it short: let's take it easy on the trivia and reserve it for stuff we have not seen. Pages, such as the Heavy Revolver for example (which I have fixed since), had information that was best well fit in the derscription section. Other pages contain trivia that was already mentioned, too obvious, speculative (most of the time), or in some cases, it was not even worth mentioning. I just want to get the community a heads-up to tone down the trivia and to make sure that the information you found regarding to a specific page is best suited in the description, appearance, etc.

--Tony42898 (Talker - Blogger - Stalker)-- 18:21, January 18, 2016 (UTC) 

Comments

  • Agreed. Some of the GTA IV mission pages are the worst offenders for "trivia" I've seen. I'm all for Trivia sections but I personally think a section with one or two relevant facts is better than 20 irrelevant facts. Sam Talk 19:01, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:37, January 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • I completely agree that the trivia should be reserved for important and relevant facts regarding the article it refers to, but I should also point out that what one user regards as "important" might not be regarded as such by another, which may lead to potentially ugly disputes. Perhaps general guidelines for what should and should not be added to the trivia of each category of article (missions, characters, businesses, etc.) should be created to preempt such disputes. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 14:42, January 20, 2016 (UTC)
    • Here's the official policy on Trivia. Sam Talk 15:30, January 20, 2016 (UTC)

Resignation

I think it's time for me to move on and resign as administrator, as I'm busy IRL to edit here and I've also been losing interest in the GTA series lately. Besides, it's fair for the most active patrollers to leave an open admin spot so one of them can be promoted. I'm not leaving the wiki, I will still edit here, but just not as often. Good luck everybody, and see you around :) DocVinewood (talk) 10:59, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh. Sorry to hear that my friend. You've been great here man. I've always looked up to you as a great admin. Have a great New Year and enjoy your life :) take care buddy. Monk Talk 11:15, December 31, 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to see you go Doc but I can fully understand why. Look after yourself and hopefully you'll be back soon. Happy New Year. Sam Talk 14:52, December 31, 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for you comments, and happy New Year to you as well :) DocVinewood (talk) 16:52, December 31, 2015 (UTC) 
Sorry to see you go Doc. You've been great here and we really are thankful for the thousands of spectacular images you've added here. I also feel your case, as I myself am not as active as before and am losing interest in GTA as well, mostly because I'm focusing on other things in life and my future game and don't have much time for video games in general now. As I always said they're better things in life than video games. The only reason I'm not resigning is because I'm afraid to leave the wiki and all sorts of shit start up here such as vandals and what not. Anyways, I hope you find what you're looking for in life and have a happy new year.Smashbro8 (Talk) 17:42, December 31, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
I'm sorry to hear this Doc, but I understand. Happy New Year for you and your family ! General9913 (talk) 21:07, December 31, 2015 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It's a shame to see you go, Doc. I understand your point about being busy, but hey, you made it very well here, and that matters. Anyway, have a great one over there :D --Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 03:32, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

It's a shame the year ends with another resignation. Can't say I'm not disappointed, Doc, you've done great things here, but I can understand your reasoning. Good luck. Leo68 (talk) 06:05, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

It is sad to see you go. You have been a great admin. It was nice having you around here. Myth(Please leave your threats here/Wanna Stalk?) 21:28, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

Probation Expiry - Myth hunter (Patroller)

Closed as successful by Leo68 (talk) 21:58, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

(Admins and Bureaucrats only)

  • Yes - Monk Talk 15:54, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - Sam Talk 15:56, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:24, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - Smashbro8 (Talk) 17:43, December 2, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
  • Yes - DocVinewood (talk) 19:46, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - Leo68 (talk) 21:58, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

(Everyone)

  • At first his edits were okay, then they dropped a bit, but he's managed to pick it up lately, and he did tell me his internet was causing issues in logging in, etc, so we can't exactly blame some of his inactivity, He'll fair well as a Patroller and makes good contributions, as well as reinforces the policies and always informs me about vandals to block. He's very useful in chat too, blocked many sockpuppets lately. He's a great Patroller, and I'm sure if the internet issues are fixed, he'll become active even more. Good luck Myth :) Monk Talk 15:54, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Though I've been absent and a lot less active recently sadly, I know Myth has improved a lot since his first time. He deserves the position without a doubt. Smashbro8 (Talk) 17:43, December 2, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
  • Really did improve since the last probabtion expiry. You have my yes in spirit. :) --Tony42898 (Talker - Blogger - Stalker)-- 19:45, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
  • Activity was the only issue before, and that has been fixed. With my vote as the sixth yes, I am closing it as successful. Congratulations, Myth hunter. Leo68 (talk) 21:58, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Mission Numbers in Infoboxes

Closed as Unsuccessful by Monkeypolice188.

So earlier I was thinking we could have Mission Numbers in the infoboxes of missions, because the "this is the first mission given to [a] by [b]" can be slightly misleading or misinterpreted at first. This wouldn't be that hard and I can really only see it following how either the GTASeriesVideos name them, OR the order they ard listed on the main "Missiins in [gams]" article. Essentially, it makes navigation easier, makes identifying any referencs to mission numbers outside GTA Wiki easier to understand, and gives missions a simpler ordering system.

What do you think? Monk Talk 09:55, November 28, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • If you're adding mission numbers, then you're establishing a mission sequence, is it that what you mean? I didn't get your point.Because if it is, only thing I can say is that it's a sandbox game, players can choose whatever sequence they want. I see the "unlocked by" and "unlocks" thing working pretty well on infoboxes, so there's no need for mission numbers yet. Staying neutral untill further explanations. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 12:10, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, that is what I mean, but there is evidently some kind of sequence, somehow, because how are experienced Youtubers numbering them? And there's clearly an order, Rockstar ordering missions in the "Replay Mission" feature. It'd be really useful, but now you mention the "Unlocked by" and "Unlocks", I think I might close this, as that's good enough tbh. Monk Talk 12:17, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
I've not seen so many videos walkthroughs in YT other than the ones that I used to get some mission screenshots, but I guess they just pick one of the available missions and start a video for it. That's not a sequence, or at least it should not be followed. I agree about using the sequence from the "Replay Mission" in Missions in GTA V though. Do not close the discussion yet, let's just wait for other users to vote. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 12:47, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • I staying neutral on this one. On one hand I agree that a number is better than "This is the first mission (a) gave to (b)". But the only problem is that Their is not any exact order in which the missions are played. If this request is successful, I would support to use the same order as on the "Mission in (game)" page. Myth(Please leave your threats here/Wanna Stalk?) 12:59, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I don't see the point in this. Most missions have no specific order so what could be Mission #45 for someone would be #46 or #47, etc. , for someone else. We have navboxes and unlocked by/after already as well, and they do the job fine. What we could do is tweak the mission giver line to feature an "Expand" button that shows all missions available from the boss or rewrite all headings to make them less confusing while retaining the information. Following GTASeriesVideos in regards to mission numbering is exactly the same as following the average GTAO Youtuber: speculation. The only factual mission numbering is from R* themselves.

    btw, mission sequence in GTA V's replay menu is not reliable. Many missions can be placed differently, depending on when you do them - Chop for example can be done before Complications or after Complications, and it will be placed on the list whenever you do them. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 13:38, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
  • Since the only thing I agreed was the Replay Mission sequence, and it's not reliable, I'm changing to "No". In addition, I see no problem to mention "this is the [first, second, third, fourth and so on] mission to [protagonist] by [mission giver]", that's the only sequence we actually have. We can improve the "unlocked by"/"unlocks" by adding a feature used at some mission articles in GTA SA, such as Sweet's Girl (see the bottom of the page), particularly for mission series (The Truth (mission series) for example). Thoughts?. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 14:21, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
    • Okay okay...I didn't realise that the missions were not in the same order for everyone, as I didn't realise that depending on what mission you do first, it effects the order numbers. Sorry... Monk Talk 14:50, November 28, 2015 (UTC)

Character Manual of Style change

Closed as successful by TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:30, November 14, 2015 (UTC)


Good day. After a discussion with "Thegtaseeker96" regarding the Manual of Style for characters, I have decided to propose a change to it to place the gallery before the trivia, as apparently all other Manuals of Style have the format as such, with the one for characters being the only one with the trivia before the gallery. Please vote and discuss this.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 19:34, November 12, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • Trivia usually is last (many wikis are laid out like this), and it looks a lot neater, so I agree with this change. Manual of Style for Missions would need a change, too, since that one also says that gallery is last. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING! 21:50, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
    • This should also be applied to the MoS for neighborhoods and weapons. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 23:23, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • Needless to say. That's what I've been doing since I started editing here. Thegtaseeker96 (talk) 23:14, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • Sure. It was odd to have the Trivia before gallery, which is contrary to the actual one. Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 23:21, November 12, 2015 (UTC)
  • I also have been placing the gallery before the trivia on a lot of different articles since I joined the wikia. I don't know why, but placing the gallery at the very botton of the page always looked "ugly" to me. DLVIII Talk 02:12, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • Since I joined the Wiki I've always been placing Trivia sections at the foot of the page, just as a given. With regards to the MoS, it is mainly a guideline I don't think it needs to be followed to the letter as the most important points in a page is the correct information and correctly licenced and named images, but if this change will clear up any grey areas then I'm all for it. Sam Talk 10:23, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • Everyone basically pointed out all my concerns, as an admin. No need to comment anything else :P Monk Talk 16:27, November 13, 2015 (UTC)
  • I am closing this proposal as successful, and I will make changes to the Manual of Style for missions and characters. I must admit that I am a slight bit cheesed off about this change (even though I proposed it), as I will now need to return to several character articles that I have created following the (now invalid) Manual of Style for characters, and change the format. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:30, November 14, 2015 (UTC)

Resignation

Hey guys, bad news for some of you and good news for others... Unfortunately I haven't been editing very often here and I'm starting to feel a little uncomfortable to visit Wikis every day; it doesn't mean that I don't like the GTA Wiki, but that I want to change some things in my life, like, instead of sitting in front of a computer to edit video game articles, I want to do something more, how can I say? Well, I think you guys will understand my reason...

Also, I started to lose my interest in the GTA series after the Heists Update, since I myself am not a multiplayer person and I'm not really playing video games very often recently, so I'm feeling a little egoistical to occupy the admin spot, which should be taken by someone else.

That's all I wanted to say; I will still come here, especially in chat to talk to my colleagues, but no longer as an admin.

Special thanks to my wiki friends: Jamal, Monk, Sam, Leo, Alex, Hunter, 558 and U94N. Say hello to the eagle! AndreEagle17 Press triangle to interact Press X to stalk Press circle to blog 19:02, November 3, 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Andre's point is understandable. I too am starting to lose a little interest in GTA, as I am also trying to focus on my personal goals, education and career, which also involves the planning and putting things together of my own future sandbox game. However, I'm holding the spot here because I know I am still needed. Until I have the feelings things will run smoothly here without me having rights, I will remain a bureaucrat. Smashbro8 (Talk) 19:19, November 3, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
  • Well, my friend, it has been really, really great, to have you as an admin here. You have been one of the best admins here, it will be a shame to see you go. All the best, Monk ;) PS It's still nice to have you around :) Monkeypolice188's Userpage • Talk to me! • Contributions 19:22, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • Ahh, this makes me a little sad, but I can understand why you're leaving. You have your whole life ahead of you, and like you said, edting information about a video game isn't a good way to spend it, create art! You've told me some about that video game idea you had, so stick with it man! It's been great having you as an editor here Andre, you'll do well at what you put your mind to. Mortsnarg (talk) 23:21, November 3, 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not surprised anymore, because most of the staff are resigning, and I feel it will be me soon. I've lost interest, and I've done enough for the wiki. Leo68 (talk) 02:44, November 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Its natural that so many people here are losing interest in GTA, after two years I'm actually surprised that we lasted that long. I will probably gonna need to resign at some point in the near future too, thanks to personal problems, hell, I'm already WAY less active then I used to be. Anyway, good luck with whatever you are trying to accomplish, dude. DLVIII Talk 03:22, November 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Ever since people are leaning towards next-gen, last-gen has been left to rot since Rockstar Games now focuses on future updates exclusive to next-gen. A shame to see you go, dude, but you've been really awesome in the end. I'm still into GTA, but not by much as I usually focus on edits on a regular basis. And no, I don't have any desire of being an admin for it, as it can only add more weight down my shoulders and will become swamped as a result of keeping the pages from future attacks by trouble-making users. All in all, best of luck on the outside world. JohnSignature 04:03, November 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Good luck and see you around :) DocVinewood (talk) 11:48, November 4, 2015 (UTC)
  • Sad to see you go. Best of luck and all the best. Sad to see others on the staff mentioning that they might resign too. I think once you lose interest in something whether it will be editing on here or on Wikia in general, then it is hard to get that interest back. I have tried numerous times to get back into editing, but after a few days I get bored and real life takes over as it should and I feel I don't have the time for it anymore. Messi1983 (talk) 00:44, November 6, 2015 (UTC)
  • It's sad to see you go. But what else can we do? It's okay considering that not everything is being on the wiki all the time. Sooner or later, our lifes takes form, and it means focusing on other important things and sucess, No?. Anyway. Take care, man and good luck. Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 15:52, November 6, 2015 (UTC)

GTA Wiki To-Do List

Closed as successful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 10:55, October 27, 2015 (UTC)


Hey! So I was looking around the highly-thought-through, sophisticated Saints Row Wiki (along with the for now-anonymous boring-as-hell user), and I saw a really useful article (many in fact), a 'To Do list'. Now, I'm aware we do/did have a to do list, but in honesty, it hasn't been updated in donkey's years, so, I was thinking we could revamp it. Of course, only staff can edit and add to it (unless, of course, you prefer not, and anyone) (as long as all types of staff can edit it permanently). I'd keep on top of it, associating it with projects put forward here would be great, and should be mandatory tbh. Benefits? Well, many in fact, sometimes, things need to be addressed, and quite a few times I've been stumbled on what to do next (despite the fact I have my own 'mini to do list'), so this would help both users and staff.

Tell me what you think, yes, or no? Monkeypolice188's Userpage • Talk to me! • Contributions 08:36, October 25, 2015 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • Would be a good idea. There are a number of mission pages which definitely need a lot of work, and delegating tasks would be beneficial in the long run. Sam Talk 09:50, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with Sam. MC My Computer Master Of Ceremonies 10:02, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
    • Brilliant! So, I've created a prototype, here, which, what I think works well, has subcategories, and furthermore, subheadings, to categorize the work into the type of work (e.g. vehicles, locations, missions, etc), and then distinguish (if applicable) what game the project or work focuses on, which are separated by headings. Took literally 5 minutes. See what you think :P Monkeypolice188's Userpage • Talk to me! • Contributions 11:10, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
      • Looks good Monk. Hopefully we'll get more support. Sam Talk 12:29, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea. One thing I would like to add is that the to do list page should bee divided into sections like Missions, Locations etc. This will make it easy for editors to find the page they can add more info about.Myth(Talk/Stalk) 14:04, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea! I think we can get a lot done here, and do it efficently with other people picking up different tasks. I think it would make a much more "united" community here. Mortsnarg (talk) 15:55, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
    • I have plenty to add if this goes through sucessful :P If it does, I'll create the articles, and I will let users (along with myself) add anything they think should be listed as a project or as something we need to finish. Monkeypolice188's Userpage • Talk to me! • Contributions 15:57, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds good. It would be beneficial for those pages that aren't checked for a long time. Agreed with that idea. Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Dispatch Data Files 16:06, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Have you seen the pages made before the community split? A.K.A everything relating to The Ballad of Gay Tony, and everything that came before it. Great idea. Leo68 (talk) 19:44, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • A wonderful idea myself I would say! Also, a good way to get the community to work together more! --Tony42898 (Talker - Blogger - Stalker)-- 20:03, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Great idea. If we also could incorporate this to-do-list to the message that appears to every single new user every time they do their first edit it would also help a lot. DLVIII Talk 20:31, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
    • I was going to point that out lol. That'd be great, make it a big thing here, make it viewable from everywhere on the wiki, we need to make this big, and when somet's big, it needs to be fancy, great quality, and full of endless projects and work for anyone to contribute; keeps the edit counts up, keeps the work going, and best of all, keeps the wiki expanding :P Monkeypolice188's Userpage • Talk to me! • Contributions 21:51, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • This should not even be a question :p I think this is an excellent idea since it will allow the wiki to be a bit more organized. A huge problem - and one of people's major complaints about the wiki - is that there is a lot of speculative/unsourced content which lowers the wiki's overall credibility. Speculation is being removed when it's spotted but there are still pages left to correct. I believe that a to-do list, such as adding references to anything even remotely questionable, would be a good start, and, as it was already said, it would get the community to help out more. My User page...Whats up?I did NOTHING!­ 21:04, October 25, 2015 (UTC)
  • Same as Sam and Hunter.-MythHunter 007 03:02, October 26, 2015 (UTC)
  • Impatience* Could we get this closed as successful so I can start the project? Or am I granted permission to start it without it being closed as successful? (Seen as it's very likely to go through as yes anyway).  Monkeypolice188's Userpage • Talk to me! • Contributions 19:47, October 26, 2015 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
Advertisement