Wikia

GTA Wiki

GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

11,142pages on
this wiki
Talk10

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.

Installing Standard Edit Summaries

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 11:02, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Whatddup. So, I've been looking around a tonne of wikis lately, to see what they use, and I've noticed recently that, a lot use "Standard Edit Summaries". They are basically pre-defined edit summaries that can be selected (and still allow the custom edit summary you type in yourself), most of which are commonly used, such as "Cleanup", "Formatting", "Expanded". The list appears underneath the edit summary box in the Classic editor and can be used for ease of typing. Personally I find it VERY useful and I have reason to believe you can, with the help of MediaWiki, create your own pre-defined lists to add onto these. Monk Talk 13:06, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • I saw this as well, as they're really useful. Go for it :D Mr. Ferrari (talk) 18:54, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • They're pretty useful. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 10:08, May 28, 2016 (UTC)
  • I must say that this idea is quite possibly the best I have seen in a long time! As anyone who observes my edits knows, I always leave an edit summary when editing any page, and Standard Edit Summaries would certainly save me the bother of constantly typing things like "minor grammatical corrections" or "formatting changes" every time I perform such an edit. If possible, make this addition work with the VisualEditor as well, as I use both it and the Classic editor in relatively equal measure. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 16:57, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

Allow Patrollers to move/rename pages

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 11:02, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Good day. As has been mentioned in the proposal under this one, Patrollers are not currently allowed to move or rename pages, which seems to be a rather unnecessary restriction: Patrollers are generally trustworthy users, and are highly unlikely to maliciously rename pages. Therefore I propose that all Patrollers be given the ability to move/rename pages, in addition to their Rollback rights, as this will allow for much easier management of bad image filenames in particular.

UPDATE: I also believe that it may be a reasonable idea to allow Patrollers to delete pages too, and while I am not actively proposing this in this proposal, I would like to read your thoughts on this in the comments. Thank you.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 19:49, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • I don't agree with deletions, but by all means renames. Monk Talk 20:18, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
    • I thought you might say that, which was why I only added that update as an idea instead of a proposal. To be honest, I do not truly believe wholeheartedly that it is a good idea, but I wished to hear the opinions of other Staff. To everyone else, please continue to comment on the idea. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 20:24, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds good :D Like the others, I still think deletions should be an admin-based tool rather than allowing all staff to do it, but renames are certainly something patrollers deserved A LONG time ago. Mr. Ferrari (talk) 18:54, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I kinda agree with Monk and Ferrari. I think that Rollback's should only rename pages, and deleting should be an admin tool. ---SMG 09:29, May 29, 2016 (UTC)

Renaming Files/Pages/Whatever's Article

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 10:49, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Hey. So I've come up with a much more efficient idea of having an article of GTA Wiki namespace which allows any user that isn't an Admin/Bcrat to list files, pages, and whatever else that are badly named, so that, as the list gradually builds up, so do the renames. Staff then remove each file off the list. This is a completely optional progress; if we were to go through with this idea, I wouldn't force nor expect everyone to do it, it's completely optional; if you prefer contacting an admin as it may be seen as a "quicker" or more notifying process, by all means do it that way. I just think this list may be more organizing and keeps file renames monitored better. Monk Talk 11:43, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • I feel that this method will make it easier for normal users and Patrollers to notify all Administrators/Bureaucrats efficiently that certain pages require renaming; therefore I am in favor of this proposal. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 15:30, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • As per Konan. I also think it may encourage more users to apply for staff positions, because patroller positions are somewhat limited in the actions they can take. However, I think the renaming of pages should be limited to just staff members, because on some other Wikis this can be an open opportunity for vandalism, especially on a low-usage Wiki. Of course actions like blocking should be reserved for higher positions to prevent possible abuse from users who would apply just to cause trouble, but general housekeeping like renaming files should be opened up to patrollers because it would save someone from having to notify another to a job which one person can easily do. Sam Talk 15:50, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
    • I completely agree that, if possible, Patrollers should be given the right to rename pages: I personally cannot begin to describe how irritating it was for me as Patroller to constantly have to ask a higher Staff member to rename images that violated the Media Policy, and since we take care not to select malicious users for Staff members, it should be safe enough. I am aware of some large wikis like ours (for example, the Final Fantasy Wiki) that actually allow any user to move or rename pages, but of course I am not suggesting we go that far, since that will open the floodgates for vandals. Perhaps the users at the Final Fantasy Wiki are more well behaved in general.... In any case, I second Sam's suggestion to allow Patrollers to have move/rename privileges. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 16:10, May 23, 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm glad someone brought this up. I remember that back when I was patroller (2014) I brought up this topic on someone's talk page (can't remember who, sorry). It's entirely possible to add new usergroups through Wikia staff with precise rights, and I believe patrollers should have the adequate rights to rename images and pages. I find it kind of absurb to have only admins being able to do so knowing that on this place there's a tremendous amount of media files that don't follow image guidelines, or users that can't bother follow them when uploading files. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 16:21, May 23, 2016 (UTC)

Administrator Election - May 2016

Cancelled - That Ferrari Guy withdrew request. Moved back to Requests for Promotion. -- TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 21:20, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

TAlim 1994

Good day, I am once again applying for the position of Administrator following my former contender's (Ricardo) decision to resign from his post. My reasons for requiring this position are the same as my last request: as I primarily enforce the Media Policy, having administrative powers will allow me to correct bad image names and/or delete images without needing to consult someone else every time. Please vote as you see fit. Thank you for your time.

TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 07:45, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

That Ferrari Guy

[Replace this text with your request message]

Votes

  • TAlim - Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 20:50, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • TAlim 1994 - Monk Talk 20:54, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Comments

  • I honestly can't decide. Monk Talk 20:35, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
  • My reasoning for TAlim has been done already on the RfP page. With respect for Ferrari, he hasn't been really active lately, even though I think he's a good editor. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 20:50, May 18, 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah. He has examinations for the next month and a half, hence inactivity. Probably best for him to apply later on, after. Monk Talk 20:54, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Resign

Hello everyone. Well, after too much thinking, I've decided to resign. It's been really hard for me to keep track of what's happening on the wiki, not only because of the internet, but now I got a job, and it's taking the rest of my freetime. I think I should now go for something more important in my life, especially my real life. I can't hold this position while there are people more capable and willing to keep this wiki running smoothly and free of vandals. Eventually, I'll come back doing some edits here and there, but not as an admin. That's all I have to say. Farewell. TGS96 talk stalk 20:51, May 17, 2016 (UTC)

Chat hacks

Closed as Reverted by Monk Talk 11:06, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
Closed as Successful subject to trial by Monk Talk 23:08, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

Hello, fellas. So, recently, a very kind gentleman friend of mine, added "Chat hacks" to my wiki's chat, after obtaining the relevant css/js and importing it from another wiki. The chat hacks are a really cool feature for those in chat, and, really, I don't wanna sit here and list all the things they do, so, go to my wiki's chat if you want to explore. Not only can random-ers have fun, but also, it allows Admins to "multi kick" users (kicking multiple users at the same time), for those annoying rants. It's a relatively simple and fun feature, but at a cost of a couple of bugs (eg, if you're the first in chat, you'll have to reload the chat to see if anyone's joined (or if you join first, you have to reload to see if anyone was in before you, etc, AFAIK). See what you think, personally I think this'd be a great addition to the wiki. :) Monk Talk 16:44, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

Votes

Comments

  • Looks good to me, however I think we'd benefit from a trial period just to see how it works and how users respond to it. Sam Talk 22:10, May 9, 2016 (UTC)
  • Same as SJ--MH007Signature MythHunter 007 Talk MH007Signature 10:47, May 10, 2016 (UTC)
  • A trial period would be good. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 20:58, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
  • I have seen the features of the "chat hacks" and experimented with them on the Driver: Parallel Lines Wiki, and they appear to be an interesting addition, but not interesting enough (for me at least) for me to recommend that it be added as a feature on the GTA Wiki Chat. I do not object to the addition of this feature, but neither am I in favor. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim (talk | contributions) 05:14, May 17, 2016 (UTC)
  • Since the chat hacks options themselves are causing issues, I have removed the options; I have kept the remaining feature of adding images and videos to the chat window. Monk Talk 11:06, May 26, 2016 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V/Title Update Notes Page Improvement

Closed as Idea 1 by Monk Talk 16:44, May 9, 2016 (UTC)

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)

Votes

Comments

  • 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)

Jobs

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)

Comments

  • 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)

Votes

Comments

  • 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)

Comments

Badges

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

Votes

Comments

  • 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