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 requests above the old ones. That way, we can easily spot it rather than looking for it.

Hidden maintenance categories

Godd 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.

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]]
}}
}}

Part of Smuggler's Run
VehicleWebsite-GTAV-CapacityIcon
1
Havok-GTAO-front
Havok
$ [x]
Online Only
VehicleWebsite-GTAV-CapacityIcon
1
RhinoTank-GTAV-front
Rhino Tank
$ [x]
Story Mode
Part of Gunrunning
VehicleWebsite-GTAV-CapacityIcon
2
Ardent-GTAO-front
Ardent
$ [x]
Online Only
Part of Gunrunning
VehicleWebsite-GTAV-CapacityIcon
3
Halftrack-GTAO-front
Half-track
$2,254,350
$1,695,000
Online Only
VehicleWebsite-GTAV-CapacityIcon
4
Crusader-GTAV-front
Crusader
$ [x]
Story Mode
Part of Import/Export
VehicleWebsite-GTAV-CapacityIcon
2
RampBuggy2-GTAO-front
Ramp Buggy
$ [x]
Story Mode

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)