GTA Wiki

GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

11,127pages on
this wiki

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community Noticeboard.


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.

Grand Theft Auto V/Title Update Notes Page Improvement

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

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

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



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

Bot Jobs

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

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

Could you contact staff so they can give your bot a bot tag? It's pretty hard to keep up with the wiki activity since the bot edits clog up both WikiActivity and RecentChanges. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 16:30, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
Um, they already flagged the bot. Is that what you mean by Bot Tag? Monk Talk 16:32, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
Bot tag is a user right tag which means the bot edits don't show up in WikiActivty and only show up in RecentChanges if the "Show Bots" option is tagged. So far I can see bot edits everywhere and according to this page it isn't flagged. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 16:34, April 12, 2016 (UTC)
That's odd, I received an email saying it had been flagged. I've paused the bot in the mean time, and asked Sannse to tag it. Thanks Rain. Monk Talk 16:38, April 12, 2016 (UTC)


GTA Wiki Bot

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


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

New policy(ies) + Demotion system overhaul

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

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

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

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

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



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

Map Overhaul

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



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

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



  • What? You mean leader-board achievements? So what, people can points-game? Absolutely NO way. No. Just no. Mr. Ferrari (talk) 19:35, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't know what do you mean with "badges" on the wiki. - Body Armor Android SWAT Cam F Torpedo Android Detonator Android Crate Android 20:57, March 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • I am willing to have badges on this wiki, but only for a very restricted scope of achievements: namely the number of edits and perhaps edits to specific page categories. We already have edit badges as Userboxes, so I do not see why we cannot have a very small number (perhaps no more than 10-20, or perhaps even as little as four (one for each edit milestone - 500, 1,000, 5,000 and 10,000)) for a bit of material for bragging rights, but no more. This should prevent any "points-gaming", but also allow for a little something for editors on this wiki to work for. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 09:19, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • We've been asked this millions of times before, and I can't emphasise enough how much bullshit it causes.
  1. Pointgaming, as Ferrari already pointed out, is too much to cope with, especially on a wiki that is (usually) very hectic and active. A wiki with hundreds of users, and hundreds of active users, means this is bound to be misused.
  2. Competition - There's literally no point, some of these badges are just out of pure LUCK, so really it's hardly even fair.
  3. Users will have to "start again" - What about me? ZS? GTAInc? Wild? Tom? Why introduce this now, after we've all gained thousands of edits? It's ridiculous. Userbox "badges" are enough. Monk Talk 09:32, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • As far as I know, Konan, the limitation of badges is pretty hard, as you'd have to individually delete badges (they automatically add to the wiki when activated - loads of them). Also, there are no milestone badges AFAIK - only "you made the 1000th/2000th/3000th edit" kind of thing (out of pure luck). Monk Talk 09:32, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
    • I see. Admittedly, I know very little of how the badges system works "under the hood", but I still feel that a very limited amount of badges will do this wiki some good. I do not know exactly how difficult it is to actually remove unwanted badges, but surely there should be a way to delete them en masse? If not, and if it is too difficult to implement the feature as desired, perhaps you are right, and the badges should not be enabled. Also, do not badges automatically get awarded to users who already meet the prerequisites for earning them once the feature is turned on? I would assume that they would. Finally, with regards to your point about this wiki being very active, I wish to note that one of the other wikis that I occasionally edit on (Halo Nation) does have badges, and like this wiki, is also very active, yet still ordered. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 10:35, March 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • Over the last few years, this has come up again and again. The reason that everyone agreed on a few years ago was that we would never have badges because it would seriously mess up the wiki; users would be coming to pointsgame and won't be editing just to increase the quality. For example, Wildbrick added over 1,000 (maybe 2,000) images to the wiki last month, not for edits but for quality, whereas if we had badges he may have done that just to fly up the leaderboard and the images may have been of terrible quality. The only reason Myths Wiki has them is because it is a relatively small wiki compared to the GTA Wiki so bad edits are easier to track compared to on here. Also, as the Myths Wiki has seen countless times, pointsgaming and just general leaderboard position can lead to a lot of fights and people leaving. For a wiki the size of this one, badges are just a bad idea. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 11:53, March 27, 2016 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki