Move, rename or something.
Last night I created Jet aritcle. It is about the very same plane. Can someone rename or merge both pages?
By the way, this is called only Jet. It says Jet, Planes because the in game text works as "*manufacturer* *vehicle name*, *type*"
Sorry, since you said it was a 707, I thought you were refering to some other plane I had yet not seen. I guess we gotta rename this page then. (Henriquedematos (talk) 19:27, September 14, 2013 (UTC))
- What would we rename it to then? VaultBoy Tom (Talk | Edits) 19:33, September 14, 2013 (UTC)
Jets not always spawning at Los Santos International Airport in GTA V
Has anyone noticed that if you are looking at where the jets normally land and take off they don't spawn? But yet when you look away they spawn. Why does this happen? Has it happened to anyone else or is it just me? I think it may be because Rockstar programmed the game to spawn stuff when your not looking. But thats just my thought.
I think it's ridiculous to say that "similar airliners" appeared in GTA IV, they share the same body,design,engine sound and they are JETS, so why is someone saying that "similar jets" appeared in GTA IV? I consider this case for the Shamal because the previous jets on the 3D Universe are not even similar to the Shamal, except for the GTA Vice City's private jet, but in the case of the 747 Jet, it should be said that it first appeared in GTA IV as an uncontrollable scenary prop, similar to the Twinjet's case, if it appears in a future game, we'll note that it first appeared in GTA V as an uncontrollable plane which serves as a scenary prop, anyone agree? (AndreEagle17 (talk) 19:10, September 1, 2014 (UTC))
Actually, any plane can be considered a "jet". The Hydra is a "jet", the Lazer is a "jet", the Twinjet is a "jet", the Shamal is a "jet", even the Luxor is a "jet". So naming one plane "Jet" which is unconfirmed by Rockstar can cause confusion to tons of players. However, saying 747 or Jumbo Jet makes it easier to understand than simply naming it jet. () 19:52, September 16, 2014 (UTC)Smashbro8
- But shouldn't the wiki have correct information? That is the name of the plane in game. R* obviously had to write it so it's confirmed that the name is Jet (unless current-gen version will have it's name changed). By renaming the page to "747", you're basically adding false information since the page is not named by it's in game name but the real life counterpart. Police Cruiser has to be an exception because it would only mess the page if it was together. (though I actually have an idea on how to eliminate it, and keep only one Police Cruiser page for all "cruisers" without messing up everything)
- 747 already redirects here, so no point in renaming if people will get here anyway. 20:13, September 16, 2014 (UTC)
- So if you're saying about "official name" that would be the same thing if the Air Ambulance were merged with Police Maverick and separete Bullet and Bullet GT, this is not false information, but accurate information, everybody here has played GTA V and i never seen anybody actually calling it as the "Jet", and also, i agree that we can wait till the PS4 version, there is a speculation of renaming the 747 jet, but if not, i think that the page still needs to be renamed to "747" (AndreEagle17 (talk) 20:23, September 16, 2014 (UTC))
- Air Ambulance is there because R* couldn't be bothered to make a separate model for it. Really, it is just a Police Maverick with a different livery. It doesn't really matter that much, and it's better to keep this one separate because not everyone digs through the game files like me so everyone would just assume "Air Ambulance". Bullet on the other hand, R* can't decide what to actually name it. It's constantly shifting from Bullet to Bullet GT and back to Bullet.... and at the end of the day, it's still the very same car but with a different .gxt2 entry.
- Jet is none of the above examples. It is it's own vehicle, own name and basically different than everything. 747 would confuse things even more, especially when someone did not play GTA V before. R* said they will not use real life licensed names and then a "747" appears on the wiki. Now wouldn't that generate extreme confusion? 20:36, September 16, 2014 (UTC)
- O-kay, that's the second vehicle discussion you win against me, I accept this again, but please do me a favor, don't remove the "aka" tags that i wrote on the Titan, Tractor and the 747 page itself, also, there is a speculation of this plane being renamed in the PS4 version and getting a manufactured (most probably Western Company), so if it's OFFICIALY renamed, we are certainly gonna rename this page (AndreEagle17 (talk) 20:42, September 16, 2014 (UTC))
- I believe honestly that Rockstar was rushing the game and just named the plane "Jet". It's too obvious to me. For a Boeing based plane, Jet is a horrible name for it. They had to be rushing it. I believe it should be renamed to Jumbo Jet because simply calling it "Jet", despite it being named that, can cause a lot of confusion to readers. There's lots of other jets in the GTA Series such as the Lazer, Besra, Hydra, Shamal, Luxor, etc so having a page of a Boeing plane named "Jet" is rather ridiculous. () 11:36, September 29, 2014 (UTC)Smashbro8
Horrible or not, the plane is called "Jet" in-game, so that should be the name used for the article. The Tank in GTA1 was just called "Tank", but no one's clamouring to have that article renamed Centurion, after the vehicle it's actually based on.--Leigh Burne (Talk) (Contribs) 13:32, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion we should keep the name "Jet". All the reasons have been said already: it is called this way in-game, and it's not a good idea to use real-life names. As long as the description in the article is clear about this, I don't think it will be confusing to readers. DocVinewood (talk) 13:54, September 29, 2014 (UTC)
Guys, let's do like i said: As soon as the PS4 version comes out, we gonna check the name of this plane and we'll see, it will be probably be named as "Jumbo Jet", but before we check it out, we'll let this page named "Jet" (AndreEagle17 (talk) 14:45, September 29, 2014 (UTC))
- Oh, another speculation that i want confirmation: The manufacturer, i heard somewhere that this plane will have a manufacturer, most likely Western Company (AndreEagle17 (talk) 18:49, September 29, 2014 (UTC))
- That's exactly what i said, leigh burne... I heard those rumors, but i want to wait until it's confirmed (AndreEagle17 (talk) 19:47, September 29, 2014 (UTC))
Somehow, I was playing as Trevor and I managed to go to the Los Santos International, then I picked the Jumbo Jet, police lost me for a minute, but when they found me, the police chatter said "suspect seen in a... uh... Western Company airliner (or something like airliner)", yes, i'm telling you all the truth, see by yourself (AndreEagle17 (talk) 19:45, October 5, 2014 (UTC))
I know but the chatter has a quiet voice and I sometimes barely understand, but I'll try. But most of the times she says I am in Los Santos International Airport or something like that. (Talk - Edits) 20:36, October 5, 2014 (UTC)
Oh, another interesting fact, I only heard that today, I have NEVER heard that before, I think Rockstar gave the Jet a brand in this update, but if you want confirmation of this, play as trevor and try to hear that (AndreEagle17 (talk) 20:39, October 5, 2014 (UTC))
- Only way to prove that is to check the audio files. Carl Johnson Jr. (talk) 20:43, October 5, 2014 (UTC)
The importance of mentioning the Jet as a SP / GTAV exclusive
Well, first of all, my apologies for starting an edit war with Monkeypolice188. Hopefully, we can talk this through and reach the most adequate conclusion.
So, in my opinion, it's strongly worth mentioning as an additonal paragrapher in the beginning of the page that the Jet is exclusive to singleplayer, and therefore cannot be found in GTA Online. Now, I am aware that Rockstar treats GTA V and GTAO as separate games, but this is a wiki, and it's safe to assume not everyone, or maybe not even the majority of visitors who enter this page, are completley aware of that. Someone who looks at it and sees Grand Theft Auto V in the infobox, and has no idea that Online is treated as its own separate thing, will simply assume the Jet can be found in both singleplayer and multiplayer. Hell, without the written clarification, even users who are aware of the distinction between GTAV and GTAO might think it's simply an oversight from us. Plus, let's not forget, the wikia has vehicles avalible on both modes in the same category in the navigation bar - if that doesn't distinguish them, it's relevant the page does, and as I explained, only writing "Grand Theft Auto V" in the page isn't enough by itself.
By the way, Monkeypolice188 said this same issue was explained "atleast 3 times on the page", but reading through it I only see it briefly mentioned in the trivia:
- The Jet, along with the Cargo Plane and the Train, are not listed in the BradyGames guide, strengthening the theory that the Jet might have been added very late in the game's development. The absence of the ability to control jets in GTA Online also adds as evidence.
It isn't even mentioned as its own point, only as an extra to another piece of trivia. Did I miss the other two?
Yes, checking through, it only says it twice, it says at the begining "featured in Grand Theft Auto V", and in the infobox "Appearance(s) = Grand Theft Auto V". (talk) 13:27, February 7, 2015 (UTC)
If Rockstar treats Online and V as different games, we're meant to do the same. I agree that it's a bit stupid and confusing, but since since is GTA Wiki, we'll see GTA Online from the same point of view as Rockstar, i.e. as a different game. Which is why there are editors that started adding Grand Theft Auto Online to the intro of cars that appear in both modes. So, my guess is that it is unnecessary. Rain (Stalker) 06:11, February 9, 2015 (UTC)
That shouldn't stop us from making that clarification. It should be done precisely because we are a wiki, we can't simply expect that every user who comes here to have the pre-defined distinction between GTA V and GTAO. Even if it might feel a little bit unecessary, there really isn't much to lose: it's just a brief statement clarifying it, I don't think that will even hurt the structure or presentation of the page, and frankly, it doesn't feel unecessary at all.