FANDOM


Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community Noticeboard.

Archives

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


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

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

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

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


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

New Topic

Proposal: Category/Page for Stealable/Keepable Cars in GTA Online

Just a quick proposal here, one that I've wanted to exist for quite a while now just for convenience sake. Basically, I'm requesting approval to create some kind of reference page/category listing for whether a vehicle can be stolen and kept in GTA Online, or if it's considered "too hot". Ideally, this would result in one main page listing details about which cars are/aren't stealable, as well as a category tag on each GTAO vehicle as to whether it is or isn't stealable.

I'm planning to do most of the work on this myself already, just wanna get the OK from the moderators before making a somewhat big list of edits here. Daft inquisitor (talk) 04:55, July 29, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I have had discussions with Monk previously that I support more use of category pages to list this sort of thing, that's the sort of functionality the categories are ideal for. We have far too many "list of xyz" pages that would be better as categories where the component parts of the list would link to the list via categorization. There is already an (outdated) page Los Santos Customs Vehicle Prices which lists what you are looking for (linked from the online section of the main LSC page), but there is no reference to it from each vehicle page that would be served by the suggested category. Of course, we could also add a "Re-sells for:" value to vehicle infoboxes, which can apply to more than just GTAO, since there is functionality in other games to fence stolen cars (Stevie's in IV, export dock in SA etc). Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 03:33, July 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • There is the LSC page Smurf already linked, but it's outdated, I feel a category would be very useful, as well as an update to that page. In regards to resell prices, we do have a "Rewards" section in various vehicles but it isn't part of the MoS at this moment. It's on the Baller article among others. I feel we would benefit from using this on every sellable vehicle. Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 06:41, July 30, 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, sounds very doable then. I'll get started working on it here in a day or two. One thing before I start working though, is there any standard I should adhere to for the category name itself? Something like "Sellable in GTA Online"? Daft inquisitor (talk) 23:13, August 1, 2018 (UTC)

Characters who are real people

I would like your input on how we handle the addition of more real-life characters into the GTA world. That is, actors/musicians who portray themselves in physical appearances in the games (so not necessarily counting the radio DJs using their own names who are never seen).

Their pages need to be a combination of Character and Actor. I am definitely not proposing we split the pages and have dedicated actor pages.

I was originally going to propose adding real life images to the character infobox using gallery feature, but should we include both the {{Infobox people}} and {{Infobox character}} templates on each page?

Should we have game appearance at the top of the page and real life bio details at the foot (e.g. Lazlow Jones), or the other way around (e.g. Phil Collins)?

List of characters this will apply to (please feel free to add any I have missed):

An update to the character manual of style would be required to cover this.

My recommendation:

  • Page should be structured with Character info at the top, including the Character infobox with in-game physical appearance image.
  • Actor info should be at the bottom of the page, starting with a People infobox with real-life photo image.
  • Page title should be their stage names (a redirect page may be appropriate for their birth name).

Your thoughts? Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 00:56, July 21, 2018 (UTC)

Votes

  • Support - Sam Talk 19:53, July 21, 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 15:03, July 22, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I agree with your proposal Sean. To be honest this sort of thing never crossed my mind. I think the Phil Collins page is a good layout for this sort of page, maybe that could be used as a guide? Sam Talk 19:53, July 21, 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes more sense to me. How would we deal with characters/real people who don't have a physical appearance in-game; Kenny Loggins, DJ Shadow, Cara Delevingne, etc? Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 15:03, July 22, 2018 (UTC)
    • I think in the case of DJs it would probably be best to have the same layout as the actors pages. That said I think the Cara Delevingne page needs a rework as that doesn't appear consistent with the others. Sam Talk 21:42, July 22, 2018 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I mentioned in the lead lines that DJs not really physically appearing may need to be handled differently, although that did remind me to add Jesco White to the list, since he does appear. Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 22:26, July 22, 2018 (UTC)
  • Update: I have held off any implementation of this while doing the work on After Hours DLC but also because having dual infoboxes is not supported on mobile - only the first infobox will show up. Giving that some consideration, maybe a combined infobox will be the best way to handle them after all. Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 03:37, July 30, 2018 (UTC)

Retirement

Well, after 6 long years I think it has finally come to be my time to step down as a Bureaucrat of the GTA Wiki. I simply am far too inactive to have any part in running a wiki as big and great as this one.

Over the years since I joined, we have created so much together and I have met many great people, some from the other side of the world, and others from more close to home.

Since I started work at the back end of 2017, I simply haven't had any time to edit on the wiki, and when I have, my mind hasn't even crossed coming to the wiki, it's always on doing something else.

I suppose deep down I should have always known this day would come, but in truth, I never thought it would.

To all users, old and new, I wish you good luck and happiness in the future, and I hope this wiki continues to prosper way into the next GTA game and beyond.

I'll still be around from time to time making edits here and there, but I just don't think I can have the role anymore when there are far more active people here who can take the spot.

Thank you for the memories. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 13:11, July 13, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Well, I never thought this day would come either, but we all have to lay down our hat eventually. It's been an absolute pleasure to work with you over the past 4 years, you've set an example I've aimed to achieve and glad to have. Thank you for all the work you put into the wiki, without you this place wouldn't be what it is right now. I hope your future brings only good things. Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 13:20, July 13, 2018 (UTC)
  • Monk put it so well. It's been a pleasure to work with you Tom, and since I joined you've been nothing but a help to me and others. All the best in the future. Take care my friend. Sam Talk 14:01, July 13, 2018 (UTC)
  • Hello there, Ilan xd is speaking here from the graveyard of Bureaucrats. Vaulty, Vaulty, it fills me with pride to see how much you've grown since you first arrived here, steadily rising from a newcomer to a competent Patroller to an excellent Admin and I even glimpsed here and there to see how you're doing as a Crat. You've come far and I'm so proud of your work here, man. Whoever will succeed you will sure have huge shoes to fill, and I wish you good luck in whatever you'll do next in life. Keep riding hard, son. -- User:Raziel Reaper (Talk To MeEdits ) 17:04, July 13, 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you all. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:19, July 14, 2018 (UTC)

GTA Myths Wiki - re-evaluating affiliation

Closed as un-affiliating by Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 14:38, May 23, 2018 (UTC)

It probably won't come as a surprise when I say this, but seriously, what has this place become? Why would we want to affiliate with this site?

In case you haven't met the locals, I'll introduce you to some of them:

  • Boomer8 - former patroller at the GTA Wiki, has gone under a heft amount of trouble here before, so it's not unknown for him to be difficult to work with. He's also had history of removing community votes at the GTA Myths Wiki, which resulted in him being banned. 4 years later, he's still the same old user making edits once a blue moon and finding the latest arguments (which there is no short of, I won't provide links, you'll find one by scrolling down the recent activity, guaranteed) to quickly update himself on before initiating waves of blocks and warnings.
  • Sasquatch101 - former user here, head bureaucrat and founder of the myths wiki. I can't honestly say that much about him since he's barely active, but with respect to him, he doesn't initiate a ban wave after spending a 4 month break, so I can't criticism his actions. Unsurprisingly, his block history isn't fantastic either.
  • Mantiix - you probably won't believe me when I tell you this user is actually an admin there, but yeah, he's doing such a fantastic job at discovering very real myths. Unfortunately, he seems to hate me because I provided some technical information for several myths and apparently I support something called the "Anti-Myth policy" [1]

So, with that out of the way, the following is the previous evaluation I made about the GTA Myths wiki, which isn't really any different other than the place being 100x more cancer than it was back then.

When GTA Wiki was first launched, myths and myth hunters were a solid, relatively factual appearance on the wiki - popular, unsolved myths like Bigfoot in GTA San Andreas and later GTA V were commonly discussed on the wiki. Numerous years later, users realised that GTA Wiki should be a documentation of GTA-based confirmed information, i.e, a wikipedia, and should not contain myths. As such, GTA Myths Wiki was born, and all myth content was moved.

Years go by, many new myths are listed on the GTA Myths Wiki - At the time, GTA Wiki was proud to announce that GTA Wiki had its own separate myths wiki, dedicated to myths.

Present day, things are very different. Glancing over the wiki activity, you can see the clear problems within staff - constant childish behaviour, constant bans, blocks and ridiculous warnings, inactive bureaucracy and random demotions. Out of administration, the wiki content is, sadly, just as poor. Myths such as Bigfoot remain unsolved, bearly discussed, and instead new myths are brought in - that's how the GTA Myths Wiki works, but, unfortunately, Myths wiki refuses to believe in factual information, data and files. Just glancing through some ridiculous myth concepts:

  • Baphomet; an apparent solid pattern in the sea that was literally caught for 1 second on a video, apparently now a myth, they mark a location on the map and state this is a sighting and proves its existence. If you new how water worked in GTA V, you'd know there is nothing special about water patterns, it is consistent and there are no special patterns in the water.
  • Merryweather Plane - factually called the Cargo Plane, apparently a wreck of a plane as the result of a mission is a myth. Not sure why, we already have an article on this.
  • Ratman - another false myth where nothing has actually been found to prove its existence.
  • By far the greatest laugh on the entire site, Goatman. Despite the endless amount of evidence against this myth, nothing more can be said than:
  • Myths are true unless proven not to be,
  • ...and even then, you'll never prove a myth to be false unless you can prove the evidence was false,
  • Which is still impossible.

There are hundreds more. Just browse around - apparently factual information can actually be taken 100 million miles out further and made into random speculative bullshit.

While it's not necessarily our problem how and what the GTA Myths wiki do and go about doing, but it really does concern me that GTA Wiki "affiliates" itself with a wiki that posts this nonsense. It's basically become a really poor attempt at a fanon wiki - we have GTA Fanon Wiki, which, while is also false information, is at least uniform, civilised and impartial.

I initially removed the request because Boomer8 got triggered, but having considered the latest circumstances, I have decided to repost this. Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 14:08, May 17, 2018 (UTC)

"Yes" to un-affiliate from this site, and "No" to remain affiliated.

Votes

Comments

100% agreed. While I never posted there, I visited it several times, and I've been completely baffled by what I witnessed there. Non-stop childish behavior, trolling and power abuse, not to mention how much they've been mocking our community when theirs is far from being better. Doesn't deserve to be one of our affiliates; 'nuff said. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 15:00, May 17, 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I could care less about a wiki filled with nothing but speculative nonsense. On departure, I wish them best of luck. Noirlime Talk | Contribs 15:58, May 17, 2018 (UTC)

I'm a long term editor and former staff member at GMW and I have one thing to say: YES PLEASE! I could probably write a novel on the awful behavior that has happened in the last month alone but I advice everyone to just look at the wiki and see it for yourself. And if you don't have the time, here's a summation: All myths are true because debunking them is "showing unoptimistic behavior," debating with Bureaucrats in forum posts is harassment, adding cleanup templates to articles is incivility, users get blocked for sockpuppetry simply for having the same name or birth month as another user, Bureaucrats are free to remove and change community votes at a whim, quality control for new articles is nonexistent, users regularly create 20+ pages in a single day... I think you're starting to get the picture now. And in classic GMW fashion, upon Monk posting this request, I was instantly hounded with offsite messages telling me and others to vote no on the request (if you can't tell, it wasn't very convincing.) - Gunshow (T, E)

Aw, that's a shame, I guess their votes will be removed if they do decide to vote, then :( Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 21:14, May 17, 2018 (UTC)
I mean, we were just threatened for a block for leaving comments saying we don't buy into this obvious satire video... But I guess this is just another instance of pathetic obscurity and anti-myth policy. Slash (MSG) (CTB) 14:09, May 18, 2018 (UTC)

Since I was unaware of the recent vote, I would still like to get my opinion in on the matter.

Aside from over 3/4 of this request being recycled from the one that was posted a year prior, it is just another attempt by Monkeypolice to recover his damaged ego and continue some childish feud he has with me. Its baffling how he doesn't see the irony in his ill-written request to that of the behavior he pretends he is above. Individually targeting users to ridicule by using ancient blocks, activity (really? 2/3 of bcrats here haven't even edited in over a month), or myth findings isn't in accordance to GTA Wiki:Assume Good Faith.

I'm not going to comment on the rest of this, as I already did a year ago, but for the last bit about me getting triggered; actually Monk removed the request because [2] he got exposed by my comment that he only wants the GTA Myths Wiki unaffiliated for his own personal reasons, not for the good of the GTA Wiki. Boomer8 (Contact) 01:16, May 25, 2018 (UTC)

Imagine trying to defend your actions when you literally blocked everyone who voted positively on this request, lmao. - Gunshow (T, E)
and the block reason for everyone was "spreading lies." My comment verbatim: "All myths are true because debunking them is "showing unoptimistic behavior," debating with Bureaucrats in forum posts is harassment, adding cleanup templates to articles is incivility, users get blocked for sockpuppetry simply for having the same name or birth month as another user, Bureaucrats are free to remove and change community votes at a whim, quality control for new articles is nonexistent, users regularly create 20+ pages in a single day." Where's the lie? - Gunshow (T, E)
Oh dear, I also forgot to mention this 'you get what you give' revenge ego mindset the bureaucracy team have there. Do you really think we care if you unaffiliated from us? You do know we get absolutely no views from MW to GTAW, but quite the contrary? This was about you, not us, so well done yet again demonstrating just how triggered you are. Also, nice work reversing time GTW, good luck finding completed articles.
The fact you arrived to this discussion late is another perfect example of just how inactive you really are. Lol, too late now. At least Bureaucrats here don't return issuing insta-bans for no reason.
Take a look at what happens to people who post their opinion. Even despite both of these users being extremely dedicated to MW. Yet more knee-jerk butt-hurt reactions.
Oh look, there's that infamous policy being mentioned again, even though you've now used it so much you're actually forgotten what it means. Perhaps you read over that one again, refresh your mind, and get back to me.
Just so we lay down some ground roles, GTA Wiki's unaffiliation, which was your choice, means you can no longer host content from GTA Wiki at GTA Myths Wiki, including all media and text. This can and will be considered stolen content, which is licensed by Fandom under CC BY-SA. Since you have decided to resort to GTW, any remaining files and article content from GTA Wiki must be deleted. Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 07:00, May 25, 2018 (UTC)
Lol how did a guy so petty and immature get promoted to b'crat here? The fact that Monk uses words like "butthurt" and "triggered" only shows his true agenda of creating drama so he can feel like a big shot. Absolutely trollish behavior; not suitable for a b'crat. To be honest, the GTA MW will be fine unaffiliated from this site, and probably better off, as I believe the real beneficiary of this affiliation was the GTA Wiki. The GTA MW is referenced in almost every YouTube video covering GTA myths, and is the first thing that pops up on search results when you look up the subject. The only reason why I thought the affiliation was a good idea was because of some links on the MW that went here, but that can easily be changed as you're not the only website that covers GTA. If you attempt to remove any information from the GTA MW you will be banned for vandalism. The content on MW is not "stolen"; you do not own the rights to this wiki's information - Wikia (aka fandom) does. Wikia also owns the content on GTA MW so you have no authority what we do with our content. You seem to have a knack for pretending you know everything (game files ring a bell). Boomer8 (Contact) 21:39, May 25, 2018 (UTC)
This matter will now be taken to Fandom Staff, as I have already provided a link to the licensing which states that content cannot just be copied from wiki to wiki. You have breached Fandom's CC BY-SA licensing, and they will be notified. I have given you a chance to remove the information, but you have only made threats towards me. Furthermore, you are blocked from GTA Wiki for being uncivil towards a staff member. - Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 21:56, May 25, 2018 (UTC)
"Monk is very immature for using words like butthurt and triggered"... Are you making yourself a meme on purpose? SNS (MSG) (CTB) 09:18, May 26, 2018 (UTC)
And don't forget that it's not acceptable when Monk is "Individually targeting users to ridicule by using ancient blocks" but there is an exception when Boomer does it. - Gunshow (T, E)
Yep, classic way of Boomer playing the victim when he's been the attacker the whole time. It's really ironic how he calls other people "immature" and "trollish" when these words describe nobody but him, as seen not only on the GTW and the MW, but outside of them as well (I have links as proof, but I'd rather not escalate things further by involving other wikis). Also, when Monk removes GTW content from a couple of pages of the MW, which is perfectly justified due to the licensing stated above, Boomer threatens him of a ban 14 hours after it happened, and then just 9 minutes after this threat (meaning Monk didn't even do a single contribution to the MW during these) he proceeds to indefinitely ban him for "vandalism" and goes to call him a "vandal" everywhere (not to mention the bans against Slash and Gunshow, which were merely for personal reasons off-wiki). I mean, seriously? That's another proof of the power abuse that I mention above. Oh well, this unaffiliation was perfectly deserved, and is indeed for the good of the GTW, no matter how much Boomer wants to convince people otherwise. What else needs to be said? Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 10:22, May 26, 2018 (UTC)
Wow, are you saying the first thing that pops up in search results when you're searching for GTA myths is... the GTA Myths Wiki?? Shocking. Who would have thought! Don't worry, I'm sure this wiki will manage to survive without this affiliation. DocVinewood (talk) 12:56, May 26, 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys, you should check this out. Haha, they think you're all my meatpuppets, they think I'm seemingly asking you to vote on a request you all optionally voted on within the space of 7 days. It's called a community vote but apparently our top detectives Boomer8 and Sasquatch, and with the help of some apparent evidence, apparently they have asked one of you guys about the vote and you said you voted because you will "get into my good books". How cute is this?
They also think a wiki with the 7th highest view and contribution count across fandom, think that GTA Wiki will go down - sorry to burst your bubble, but GTA Myths Wiki was the only thing bringing that down. I mean, look what Boomer8 thinks of it.
Apparently I am also the reason the wiki will go down. Well, it's sweet of you to think of me, but with the second highest contribution count on this wiki, having proposed new, successful ideas, such as template overhauls, new policies, new pages and manual of styles, and having uploaded more than 10,000 high quality images, I can safely confirm that I am not the problem.
For the record, the un-affiliation process will not be reversed. Until your article quality is improved, your staff can actually maintain a week without causing an argument, causing drama, initiating bans or indeed being the victim of one of those bans, GTA Myths Wiki is not associated to GTA Wiki. Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 10:15, June 1, 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw this. That's the classic argument always said by people who refuse to admit when they're in the wrong: when they see folks having the same opinion as someone that they dislike, they automatically call them "cheap followers" (or "blind") and other things like this. Heck, I did have it in my mind a while ago to disaffiliate from it due to its obviously awful atmosphere, and I'm not necessarily planning to become a bureaucrat here. Besides, Sam and Vault did present relevant arguments in the previous request, so saying that "most of [us] voted without commenting" doesn't really hold water. Also funny how they call us "one of the most dysfunctional wikis" (calling the kettle black here), and how every comment disagreeing with their staff automatically gets removed, with the specific commentators getting blocked for "harassment". Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 20:43, June 1, 2018 (UTC)
That sort of thing just shows that we made the right decision to un-affiliate from the site. "Cheap followers", "meatpuppets" etc. As U94N said, Myths Wiki need to get their own house in order before passing comment over us. We've moved on, it's probably best Myths Wiki do too. Sam Talk 21:09, June 1, 2018 (UTC)

As the guy who blocked Boomer8 on this wiki so many years ago, I'd like to say a couple of the following things.

  1. When myself, Messi1983 and The Tom were the B-crats on this wiki, we tried very hard to make sure people couldn't get promoted to patroller due to social popularity rather than good edits. Boomer8 was the very definition of someone who never knew how to edit and never should have been promoted. He couldn't follow the image policy, he couldn't write new content, all he could do was rote clerical work and schmooze on talk pages.
  2. Sasquatch101 would have been a much better editor if Boomer8 didn't exist. Sasquatch has trouble controlling his temper but I always felt that when he wasn't raging his heart was in the right place, and he could write pretty good content as well. But for whatever reason, the second Boomer showed up he basically inhaled Sasquatch's nuts There was nothing Sasquatch could do wrong without Boomer in his ear telling him how right it was, which made it impossible to work with Sasquatch.
  3. I challenge anyone to find me one worthwhile contribution Boomer made to any wiki. Here on GTA Wiki his main contribution was a failed proposal to allow IPs to edit, wailing to the heavens that the b-crats were corrupt (very ironic given the way he conducts himself over on Myths Wiki) and lurching into every discussion with a stupid uninformed opinion while insulting everyone who disagreed with him. In particular, look at GTA_Wiki:Requests_for_Promotion/Jan_2014_Administrator_Election - Boomer's the only person to vote 'yes' on Sasquatch, and his only reason for saying yes or no is "activity."
  4. Did you know that LSS11VaultBoy unblocked Boomer against process twice? The first time he did it unilaterally, and the community called bullshit and then-bcrat Leon Davis re-blocked. The second time? Well, VaultBoy ran for B-crat on Myths Wiki in June 2015 and Boomer voted no. So in October 2015 VaultBoy quietly unblocks Boomer here against community consensus. And then in December 2015 he runs for B-crat on Myths Wiki again and makes it.

I'm going to close this by saying that although I'm shocked at how happy most of the GTA Myths Wiki regulars seem with Boomer8, I think there are enough people who think he's doing a terrible job that you could probably file a successful Request for Demotion with Wikia Staff on Community Central. Jeff (talk·stalk) 16:33, June 2, 2018 (UTC)

"How happy most of the GTA Myths Wiki regulars seem with Boomer." Understatement of the century right there (as the wiki reaches the point where it becomes indistinguishable from satire.) - Gunshow (T, E)**
Well basically, Mantiix always has to lick Boomer's boots and Sasquatch always agrees on him with everything. How ironic it is that they say GTA Wiki blocks users who disagree with their opinions for harassment while they did literally the same thing with Slash and Jim. --
mF (talk) 07:29, June 3, 2018 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing to be said about a site which trusts users who claim that adding cleanup templates to their articles is harassment, but calling someone retarded isn't with administrator rights. GTA Myths Wikia at this point is just a meme. SNS (MSG) (CTB) 13:15, June 3, 2018 (UTC)
Also, you can't criticize the admins, or else they will get very angry. SNS (MSG) (CTB) 18:14, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
You're such an emberessament, Slash, jesus. Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 18:14, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
Agreed, I even managed to harass him on facebook even though he blocked me. I mean, what pathetic obscurity. Good thing I am blocked, or else I would get in the way of splitting articles! --SNS (MSG) (CTB) 18:23, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
I love the way Boomer compulsively adds random adjectives to everything when he's trying to make a point to try and make it sound grander and more impressive. What a ostentatious, bombastic, feculent, pecksniffian way to behave. Jeff (talk·stalk) 19:42, June 4, 2018 (UTC)
"Pathetic behavior, useless user, doesn't deserve to even have banned template." with all following comments removed for "dasdasdasdas." Some of the very fine administrator work you can find on GMW. - Gunshow (T, E)
To clarify, copying content from wiki to wiki is fine, as long as the attribute source is links/credited, which you have failed to do, as content from our wiki is uncredited on GTA Myths Wiki. - Monk (Bureaucrat Bureaucrat) Talk 07:02, June 8, 2018 (UTC)

Resignation (again)

It's been quite a long time since the previous resignation because of issues with personal life and on the wiki, but this one is quite different.

Well, the reasons behind the second resignation is basically because my contributions are quite poor, other than just rewritting what is already there, my interest over the GTA series have been faded out to its highest degree (starting with the lack of the game to make worthly edits) and issues regarding personal life are on my mind, as usual.

It's a shame that I didn't manage to complete certain projects that were left behind, such as Adversary Modes, the whole Act III of Doomsday Heists, among others. I barely pay attention to vandalism and I'm just like "odd-jobing" the whole thing. I feel like I'm undeeded here because I'm not doing what I should do on the wiki, so I though a resignation was necessary.

Maybe I will return at full capacity to contribute on the wiki again. Maybe I will not return. Who knows.

Will not forget this one, though.--BodyArmor-GTACW-Android SWAT Cam F VehicleWeapon-GTACW-Android Detonator-GTACW-Android Crate-GTACW-Android 18:02, May 14, 2018 (UTC)

Possible issues with Rich Text Editor (Classic Editor) and some templates

I am encountering issues with RTE on pages with {{Stub}} and {{SectStub}} templates. Others are reporting the same or similar issues on Community Central Support. Other templates may be affected, but these are the two I have noticed so far.

A random </div> is visible in the Editor and if the page is saved, all content after that tag is wiped. If you go from the Classic editor to Source Mode, you can see the content disappear before you save.

So, in the mean time, be wary of the issue and Staff, please don't assume mass content deletions are acts of vandalism.

The "New" Visual Editor is unaffected by the bug as far as I can tell.

I am assuming it is caused by recent "improvements" to the RTE that have allowed it to be used on pages with more complex markup where we used to be forced into source mode.

Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 21:40, February 1, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I've noticed this. Really hope they fix this soon. In the mean time, please edit pages using section "edit" buttons rather than the general edit button. Monk Talk 21:43, February 1, 2018 (UTC)
  • Fixed Stub and Secstub templates. Were both missing a closing </span> tag which was being rendered as div tags and basically including all content after the template as part of the template. Any other templates you find with the issue, please list them here so we(I) can audit them. Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 02:00, February 2, 2018 (UTC)

To-Do List Pages

So... What's happening with these to-do list pages?

They've suddenly just died in recent months. Does it have a future?

LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 23:05, January 24, 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Unfortunately, it's true. It's most likely because of the effort of having to edit things twice - editing a page, then having to edit the "to do list" page to remove the requirement. Sort of like edit-inception. If the to-do list was java-scripted or automated, working like a stats table rather than having to manually add things, it'd be a lot easier. A few wikis have this but I have little to no clue about js. Someone more experienced or dedicated to that field could work on it. Monk Talk 21:43, February 1, 2018 (UTC)

GTA Wiki Home Page Overhaul

Closed as Successful by Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 10:13, December 11, 2017 (UTC) as already implemented last week.
GTAWikiHomePageNew

How the new home page will appear.

Dear all,

I have here a major proposal that I have been working on for several months and considering for even longer.

The current GTA Wiki home page is, quite frankly, out of date. Not only does its style not conform to any of the latest template and wiki-wide themes introduced in the past year by the slightest degree, but it's also a technical nightmare. Nobody on the GTA Wiki currently knows how half of the templates that it uses function - using old-age slider templates and js scripting that nobody understands as of now, and portal templates that are actively out of date in terms of template style - these templates still use the traditional inline html tags for tables, because that's what they require, making it even more difficult to use modern html and css styling.

With that said, I tried my best to update the theme. I kept the appearance simple, using local colors and border styles. For headers, I applied a gradient, making it easier to differentiate between sections. I also reduced certain font, image and header sizes.

The main GTA navigation has been completely revamped. Since the slider template uses templates and corresponding JS that we don't currently manage, I've gone for a simple yet to-the-point replacement; retaining the main title images, users can now click on the images to drop down a list of main articles relevant to that title. You can see how all of this works live at my sandbox.

While I enjoyed how the slider functioned, without knowing how exactly it works, it would be pretty pointless to keep it and update everything else.

While I was at it, I also changed the ordering of GTA titles. For some reason, GTA VC and SA were considered main titles. I've changed this to main (numbered) titles (1, 2, II, III, IV, V) and updated spin-offs. I get where we're coming from when it concerns VC as an entirely new location which was lately used again in a "spin-off" VCS, however, SA and VC were technically already in existence since the first titles. What's more, if we're talking location, London was a first-visited location but wasn't considered a main title - see where I'm going with this? Keep it simple; numbered and spin-offs are different things.

So, thoughts - this is a major overhaul, it will effect everyone who visits the wiki (unless you're like me and set Recent Activity as your home page), so it needs to be absolutely perfect. Vote away! Monk Talk 19:00, December 1, 2017 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • A much-needed overhaul. The sooner that this is implemented, the better. Good work, Monk. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 03:21, December 2, 2017 (UTC)
  • Well the justification wasn't 100% accurate in assuming nobody on staff knew the 1st thing about the layout templates, they were an ugly method and simplification was in order. The one thing I do need to school myself up on is the mobile version... because that is the ONE page we need to be 100% cross-platform compliant on. May be a project for me in the new year :) Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 10:13, December 11, 2017 (UTC)

Hidden maintenance categories

Closed as Unsuccessful by TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 21:34, November 24, 2017 (UTC)

Good day to all. I was considering implementing this change myself, but I have decided to put this to the community first: I propose that all maintenance categories (categories that serve only to list pages that require maintenance, such as Category:Cleanup and Category:Pages with unsourced statements) be hidden, since they will not provide any easier access to relevant articles to anyone other than users performing maintenance work. This method is already used on Wikipedia, and I feel that it would be useful to implement it here as well.

UPDATE: It has now been nearly a month since I made this proposal, and even though only two users have voted, the general consensus seems to be to reject it; therefore I will be closing this proposal as "Unsuccessful", though due to the sparse number of votes, I allow anyone to reopen it until the end of 2017, after which I will consider it permanently closed.

21:34, November 24, 2017 (UTC)

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 10:59, October 28, 2017 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • Sorry, but I'm against this. The whole point of categories, including maintenance is to ensure documentation is visible. I regularly go through general articles and find it useful to link hop on the category bar so I can see what other articles are in the category. I don't see why hiding it makes it any more useful. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Letting the category be visible on its respective pages isn't exactly harming readers. Monk Talk 22:18, November 6, 2017 (UTC)
  • What Monk said. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 20:54, November 12, 2017 (UTC)

All Users to be able to rename Files

Well, it has been a while! This was proposed (and passed) almost 8 months ago, and never worked. When I contacted Wikia, claiming that it didn't work, they said they would get back to me soon.

8 months later, I decided to bump the proposal, and have sent an email to Wikia asking them to fix this. Hopefully this should be sorted. As before, a quick reminder; all registered users will be able to rename files, with redirects. This will be put on a 3 month trial, and if little to no vandalism is occurred, we'll continue with this ability. The policy will be updated to reflect this once it has been fixed.

Also, if anyone has noticed the dreaded infobox caption error lately, I've contacted them regarding that. This isn't a GTA Wiki issue - it's everywhere that uses portable infoboxes. Hopefully that'll be fixed as well.

Cheers. Monk Talk 22:17, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Comments

  • I think it would work. I used to be against it because of the potential for vandalism but was won around by the other admins'. The potential for vandalism is relatively minor and any would be reverted quickly with the number of admins/'crats we have on patrol. I think a trial would be beneficial though. Sam Talk 22:52, October 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • I can see no reason why a trial of such a feature cannot be attempted. I have my reservations regarding vandalism, but it cannot hurt to try the feature out. The feature is already used on other popular wikis - such as the Harry Potter Wiki and the Final Fantasy Wiki (both of which actually allow all registered users to rename any page) - and it does not appear that they have major issues with vandalism, so I am willing to see how it works out here. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 10:27, October 26, 2017 (UTC)
    • Keep in mind though that nearly all wikis allow registered users to rename pages but not files, and these two wikis are simply examples of this. What we're about to do on this wiki is the opposite, and yeah tbh I find that files are a smaller target for vandalism than mainspace pages. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 10:38, October 26, 2017 (UTC)
  • Like last time, I see no problem with trialling it. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:32, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

Redirects Policy

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 22:17, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Following a discussion with "Kiwismurf", it has come to my attention that there is a great potential for misunderstanding, confusion and conflict regarding the creation of redirects due to our lack of clear guidelines concerning such creations. Therefore I propose the creation of a Policy concerning when redirect pages should and should not be created, in order to minimize the likelihood of redundant and/or unnecessary redirects.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 11:59, October 7, 2017 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • In case my position wasn't clear from recent user talk pages. I'll give some thought to wording for this policy this weekend as I'll be AFK for a long weekend here in NZ. Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 03:09, October 19, 2017 (UTC)
  • Please go ahead and create a policy for this. I have passed this proposal. Monk Talk 22:17, October 25, 2017 (UTC)

Resumption of activity

Greetings, this is a friendly notice to all users and Staff that I am resuming my activity on this wiki. I sincerely apologize for my extended hiatus, but I have had several unfortunate issues during the past few months, including my primary editing P.C. suffering water damage, my other P.C. (the one that I am using to write this message) having performance issues, and, I will admit, a temporary decline of interest in wiki editing. I now intend to attempt to maintain a daily presence on the wiki, and to resume my duties as Administrator. Thank you.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 14:01, October 4, 2017 (UTC)

Vehicle Websites - A New Layout

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 19:34, September 30, 2017 (UTC)

Hey all,

So perhaps we could actually get some community feedback this time, eh?

On with the topic, as some of you may already know, I recently started some new ideas for the vehicle websites, they are, Legendary Motorsport.net, Warstock Cache & Carry.com, Southern San Andreas Super Autos.com, Elitas Travel.net, DockTease.com, and Pedal and Metal Cycles.com. When I look at the articles, I really feel that they deserve sprucing up, especially when something so simple looks, well, so ugly. So, with that, I saw potential in the design. With that potential, I created some new designs, seen here. These designs link to the way the website appears in-game, particularly in terms of colors and gradients.

Not only do the layouts coordinate with color and design, but also with how the websites are laid out in-game - that way, players are more likely to be able to find the vehicle they need. What's more, you can now attach the occasional discount in the row dividers, and the capacity of the vehicle (along with that fancy little icon) is listed too.

Overall, I am really happy with the design, however, I have one main concern, which is the main reason I brought this to discussion with the community.

My main concern, is, well. Just look at the source code for yourself. The amount of code for one section is, well, a lot, mainly because of the colours, but also because of the very much horizontal arrangement.

So, do we potentially risk users being unable to edit this table due to its relatively complex configuration, or do we put design over practicality in this case?

Yes = Let's do it! No = Keep it the way it is

Monk Talk 20:47, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

Modulation

(If that's a word)

Here goes. The best we can do, as this is a table-based layout, it have a "row" template containing a collection of 3 individual modules for each vehicle. This way, everything remains nicely inline. Otherwise, modules could be affected by each other.


For example:

{{Expand|Example|

////////////// this is the first row, containing three vehicles ////////////////

{{WebVehicleRow|
{{WebVehicleModule
|webstyle = elitas
|name  = [[Havok]]
|image = Havok-GTAO-front.png
|discount = 
|capacity = 1
|availability = Online Only
|price = $ [x]
|dlc = Part of [[Smuggler's Run]]
}}
|
{{WebVehicleModule
|webstyle = warstock
|name  = [[Rhino Tank]]
|image = RhinoTank-GTAV-front.png
|discount = 
|capacity = 1
|availability = Story Mode
|price = $ [x]
}}
|
{{WebVehicleModule
|webstyle = ssasa
|name  = [[Ardent]]
|image = Ardent-GTAO-front.png
|discount = 
|capacity = 2
|availability = Online Only
|price = $ [x]
|dlc = Part of [[Gunrunning]]
}}
}}

////////////////// a second row, of another three vehicles //////////////////


{{WebVehicleRow|
{{WebVehicleModule
|webstyle = docktease
|name  = [[Half-track]]
|image = Halftrack-GTAO-front.png
|discount = 
|capacity = 3
|availability = Online Only<br>(Enhanced Version)
|price = $2,254,350<br>$1,695,000
|dlc = Part of [[Gunrunning]]
}}
|
{{WebVehicleModule
|webstyle = legendaryms
|name  = [[Crusader]]
|image = Crusader-GTAV-front.png
|discount = 
|capacity = 4
|availability = Story Mode
|price = $ [x]
}}
|
{{WebVehicleModule
|webstyle = pandm
|name  = [[Ramp Buggy]]
|image = RampBuggy2-GTAO-front.png
|discount = 
|capacity = 2
|availability = Story Mode
|price = $ [x]
|dlc = Part of [[Import/Export]]
}}
}}

Archive 1 Archive 1----

Votes

Comments

  • Some other alternative ideas include:
  • I think it looks great, but implementing it as a template may be better for the page. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:04, September 26, 2017 (UTC)
  • Similar to what I am proposing to start doing to the real estate sites. No argument from me. Ideally we should try to make it modular, so we lay out a table and use templates for each vehicle within that table, so new users only have to copy a template into a new cell to add new content. Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 20:38, September 26, 2017 (UTC)
    • Working on it. Monk Talk 17:42, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems nice and works better than the early prototype I've made. BTW, I've put "full-data" on the Half-track to show how it works when comes to add availability (Story Mode/Online & Enhanced Version) and the "Buy It Now" and "Trade" prices. Honestly, it is still great, but you will see if that should be as it is. --BodyArmor-GTACW-Android SWAT Cam F VehicleWeapon-GTACW-Android Detonator-GTACW-Android Crate-GTACW-Android 20:49, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
  • I figured the objective would be to replicate these as closely as possible, but utilising the colour schemes of the detail layout page?
So our layout order is wrong? Shouldn't we be aiming for something like this:
Part of Gunrunning
VehicleWebsite-GTAV-CapacityIcon
3
Halftrack-GTAO-front
Half-track $2,254,350
$1,695,000
Online Only
(Enhanced Version)
Not on sale
Just thinking on the run here. Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 22:04, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
Seems about right. Still tweaking with initial ideas - definitely nothing 100% solid as of yet. No rush, after all. Monk Talk 22:21, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was about to delete that example as it really stuffs the colour scheme (the black background for the model looks better but doesn't fit in this layout). Needs more tweaking, but I think we're on the right (half)track. Smurfy: illuminate - communicate - spectate 22:27, September 27, 2017 (UTC)
  • {29/09/2017} Okay, the current appearance is the latest change to the module. This includes the aforementioned changes Smurf suggested (layout changes), which match that of the website. I've also made minor adjustments to the Warstock colorscheme to reflect that of the actual appearance - the initial color scheme was a reflection of colors copied from the Half-track as oppose to the actual website. After Warstock, all other website designs use colors from the website layout rather than the natural colors that vehicles on the website suggested (military, beige, etc, for warstock). Monk Talk 17:36, September 29, 2017 (UTC)
    • As well as this, some minor adjustments to sizing so minimal movement occurs when filling in different/odd values (ie, 2 prices for trade vehicles). This makes everything more inline. To fit the needs of the current color scheme, a minor top border has been added to modules to distinguish elements between and for vehicles. Monk Talk 17:37, September 29, 2017 (UTC)

Vehicle Images - The Lost and Damned

Hey guys,

So I've had a few personal opinions on the overall appearance of The Lost and Damned and its weird color scheme and grain filter (only the latter of which can be removed without mods), and a few people have claimed that it kinda ruins the way pictures of the game appear. Bike enthusiast Gettoru brought this up a while ago and I never got round to bringing it to discussion. So, here goes.

Basically, while the rule of the vehicle images state that the vehicle should appear in its respective game's natural appearance, and that the vehicle should appear in its natural form, I feel that half of the pictures of the TLAD vehicles, while good quality, do not show the true appearance of the car. For example, the Prison Bus appears almost dark green due to the TLADs colors, however when inspecting the vehicle's true color in the files, that color is in fact relatively light in tone and closer to light blue than dark green. Another example is shading and how it can sometimes appear to darken chrome parts, redefine the way fabric-roofed cars (*cough* tampa *cough* regina *cough*) appear.

With that said, within the last hour, I changed TLAD's appearance and altered the timecycles, so the game appears identical to TBOGT, which, as most people know, is the way GTA IV would essentially look without its miserable filter. TBOGT is essentially the most colorful, clear and almost "raw" version of the GTA IV era games and is the best in terms of reproducing true color and texture.

It's important to note that all the front/rear quarters, and design galleries, of current GTA IV vehicles are all done in TBOGT, so I don't see a problem in doing the TLAD vehicles in this filter either.

So, thoughts on this? Monk Talk 19:57, September 17, 2017 (UTC)