GTA Wiki


150 Edits since joining this wiki
June 25, 2011


Hi, welcome to GTA Wiki. Thanks for contributing to the Talk:Stallion page, and for taking interest in the wiki. Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything, or as alternatives, leave a post on a forum, or refer to the Help pages. -- Bunnyjoke (Talk) 02:44, June 25, 2011


Dude, please watch what you say to before you get blocked okay. Cloudkit01 (talk) 19:11, October 26, 2013 (UTC)


Well yeah my character did comit petty crimes by the age of 9 which could be kind of realistic if we're talking about stealing bags or such, I will probably change the story behind Las Venturas tho, I don't really want to involve the parents  in it so...

By the way are you the real universetwisters? (Rentedhitmanben (talk) 00:38, May 18, 2014 (UTC))


I don't know where you from but as a GTA character committing petty crimes by that age is normal... (Rentedhitmanben (talk) 12:26, May 18, 2014 (UTC))

re re re re re re

Yeah well it's pretty unclear what I meant I will improve it later... (Rentedhitmanben (talk) 17:30, May 18, 2014 (UTC))


Trevor is 45. That would mean he was born in 1968. Leon Davis (talk) 23:56, July 22, 2014 (UTC)

Merryweather Security

Hey Universetwisters. I'm going to check out the page and take a look at the quotes first, then I'll see if some can go somewhere else. Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 16:54, July 27, 2014 (UTC)Smashbro8

Okay that page has a decent amount of quotes to me. The one with Trevor and Floyd may be lengthy however, it serves as proof of how the Merryweather were going to have products stolen by Trevor, Franklin and Michael during The Merryweather Heist

Daytime Running Lights

I have made a decision that since it is an slightly important feature in GTA V, so I have removed the deletion template. Leo68 (talk) 02:48, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

They are a slightly important feature due to the fact that they are visual. I'm not going to start an edit war so just drop it. If you feel that strongly about it discuss it with it's creator and an admin or bureaucrat. I can't delete pages but I'm not going to reccomend it's deletion. Leo68 (talk) 02:59, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

As I said discuss it with a higher member of staff or it's creator. I'm saying no more on the subject, but unless an admin or higher puts on the template it will stay removed. Leo68 (talk) 03:04, August 25, 2014 (UTC)

Hey Universetwisters. I must say I disagree with the fact that the Daytime Running Lights page should be deleted. It's a feature introduced for the vehicles in GTA V and GTA Online. Your request to delete the page is like saying we should have the Door Ajar Chime page be deleted because it's nothing important. However, both are new features for vehicles that were both introduced in the HD Universe, meaning they shouldn't be deleted. Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 03:16, August 25, 2014 (UTC)Smashbro8


Trevor_Philips Later in his life, Trevor discovered that he had a talent for flying jets. He enlisted in the Royal Canadian Air Forces to pilot fighter jets, but several days prior to completing his training, Trevor was deemed mentally unstable by the "witch" in charge of psychological evaluations, thus resulting in Trevor's discharge and grounding for life.

Smurfynz (talk) 02:20, October 22, 2014 (UTC) Actually, in some ways I agree with you, I think the entire page makes an incorrect assumption from the start that the Special Airborne Unit has anything to do with US military. It actually makes more sense (since the only evidence is in Trevors trailer) that the unit was Canadian. Going to start a discussion on the talk page. Smurfynz (talk) 02:29, October 22, 2014 (UTC)


Edit summaries are not a place to insult other contributors (as you did here). In case you want to express disagreement, please refrain from swearing and be more civil. Thank you. Rain (Stalker) 14:06, November 12, 2014 (UTC)


"Who's the idiot who put in a VCS picture?"
Just so you know, this kind of edit summaries are a blatant violation of GTA Wiki:Civility. And next time you post insults in an edit summary you are reported. Rain (Stalker) 16:19, December 27, 2014 (UTC)


As far as I know, the Moonbeam is in the game files, its handling and GXT name are present if you check, just like the Clean Voodoo, the GTA IV Feltzer, the GTA IV Comet, the Willard, the Zombie and many other vehicles. Signature (talk) 12:40, January 29, 2015 (UTC)

Police Car

I agree with Smurfynz, the police car looks a bit similar to the Holden Commodore, it's not that different as you say. Signature (talk/stalk/blog) 01:18, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

They both look alike but if you ask me, I choose the Holden Commodore over the Ford LTD. Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 01:20, March 19, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8

How does it remotley resemble the Holden? Surely this is a joke, right? Universetwisters (talk) 01:21, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
The entire greenhouse design is GM-Holden. The Guards and doors could be either/or, they are similar in both RL vehicles.  The ONLY things in the design that are more Ford than GM are the grille and the taillight cluster (the things that are most noticeable to anyone who hasn't attempted to build a car in a 3d design app) which in the 3d universe are only textures.. smurfy (coms) 01:27, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

It honestly does :)

Signature (talk/stalk/blog) 01:29, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

Could you at the least take the time to mark out where the greenhouses look similar? The Holden and Ford both share the same profile mostly and, given that the car has more ford features, it should be safe to assume that it's intentionally based on a Ford, rather than a Holden Universetwisters (talk) 01:32, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
The LTD: A pillar is more upright, has a much more pronounced B pillar and a triple C pillar .
The Holden/GM/Opel Commodore has a similar rake of the A pillar, the similar less pronounced B pillar and the double C pillar which matches the 3D model VCPD car. (edit - the GM has the 3rd pillar for the rear door glass too)
You could just as easily say the taillight textures are closer to inverted Opel Senator (same platform as Commodore) rather than the LTD See here. smurfy (coms) 02:05, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary,the tailights to the actual Ford LTD the police car was based is a lot more accurate than a flipped around version of the Senator/Commodore Universetwisters (talk) 02:46, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
Feature Ford LTD GM-Opel/Vauxhall/Holden
Grille and headlights definite inspiration No
Hood/Bonnet Shape No No
Hood (length) No shorter
Front guards (shape) Flatter No
Greenhouse A Pillar No Angle, width, shape
Greenhouse B Pillar No Prominence
Greenhouse C Pillar No Angle, width, shape
Doors flatter No
Trunk length and shape No Slope and shorter
Taillights Layout and color No
Rear bumper US design No

I'd say we need to work out a compromise paragraph in the description to indicate a shared design source rather than any emphasis on one or the other. smurfy (coms) 03:07, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

It seems as though you missed out on the hood/bonnet. The police car's hood looks more like the Ford's as opposed to the Holden's, which appears much flatter. Universetwisters (talk) 03:25, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

OK guys, I think that I can explain something about this.

At least for me, it has details from the Ford LTD, but looks a bit shorter than the real one, giving it a close resemblance to the Holden. Also, it has a wider black line on the sides and the rear door is more in a straight line and doesn't match with the wheel's archs, while the front doors, where the same starts, is flat as the Commodore. The side windows (the last one next to the rear doors) has only 3 lines, but the Holden ends in 4 lines. The rear bumper in the police car are together with the tail lights, but the Ford LTD doesn't end in that way, while the Holden does.

Oh... before I forget, between the Commodore and the LTD, the first one has a taller cab, but the second one has lower doors, something that the police car has in the design (taller cab and lower doors).

Probably I'm not the best at comparing (and even naming correctly) those designs, but when I can do a comparison, I can define details that will assume why those cars are listed here. Camilo Flores (talk) 03:29, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

If anything, it seems to be an LTD for me, but the fact that more compressed and "squashed down" compared to the real life counterparts (like what III did to it's police car), it resembles the Holden, but only in terms of size. Everything else screams ford. Universetwisters (talk) 03:35, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
I didn't miss the hood, I don't think it matches either "donor" model. Bearing in mind GTA VC era vehicles mostly all had flat sides (very few had bulged quarter panels or flared wheel arches) so the positive points for the guards and door shapes were won by the Ford by default.
The issue is not whether it has Ford influences, which I have not disputed, it is the fact that it does have the GM influences which you were trying to remove outright. As stated above, I will come up with a compromise description later (I am just heading out for a couple of hours). Incidentally I will be removing the Holden reference and replacing with Opel/Vauxhall given the Euro origins of Rockstar and the fact that the Holden design was sourced from Opel in the 1st place. smurfy (coms) 03:58, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
Therefore, it assumes that the police car is a combination of both cars. The only problem is that you're trying to delete the Holden as a possible inspiration, instead of giving its details, something like "Based on A wih some elements from B, C, etc.", like all vehicles.
Deleting the whole vehicle means that you're not assuming that the vehicle is partially based on the second vehicle, and this is considered wrong, as Rockstar isn't intended to replicate the vehicle itself.
If you think that the vehicle is mainly based on the Ford LTD, then place it first, without deleting the Commodore as a second base. Get it? Camilo Flores (talk) 04:06, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
 ::::I'd love to at least correct it that way if the page wasn't locked, at least a comprimise like "The car is based on a Ford LTD with inspiration from a Holden/Opel" with more precise pointing out or something to that degree, not saying it the other way around. I wouldn't think Rockstar would base an American vehicle on an Australian prototype as opposed to the other way around. Universetwisters (talk) 04:27, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
I'll unlock it for you but I don't want no more edit warring over the page. Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 04:34, March 19, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
 ::Edited, makes for a reasonable compromise Universetwisters (talk) 04:55, March 19, 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing the issue with the car and coming to an agreement while being civil :). Let us know if you have any other questions. Smashbro8-Sig-pt1 (Smashbro8-Sig-pt2) 04:58, March 19, 2015 (UTC)Smashbro8
Right, design statement updated and clarified as stated above. I'm reminded here of the recent viral dress - White and Gold or Black and Blue? 

Now that is sorted, let me draw your attention to your tactics in this debate.

You made your edit with a question in the edit summary. While it wasn't as outright rude as some of your past edits, it was hardly polite. This was reverted by another editor (in this case me, but it doesn't really matter who it was) with an appropriate specific answer in the edit summary giving the reason the information was in the article and should not be removed. Rather than discuss the reason given, you continued to revert the information while providing no further evidence to back up your claim other than "I don't think it looks like one" which I had to keep removing while I was in the process of attempting to start a discussion on the article talk page (which I had to abort once the discussion started here). This forced a 2nd admin staff member to protect the page from the edit war.

This isn't the first time you have been involved in this sort of debate and given your attitude I'm sure it won't be the last. So far, most of the time you have been at least partly right and I have agreed with many of your arguments, if not your method. All we ask is that if any edit is reverted more than once, you must take the debate to talk, do not continue to war in the edit summaries. Thanks. smurfy (coms) 08:25, March 19, 2015 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki