GTA Wiki

GTA Wiki:Community Noticeboard

11,391pages on
this wiki
Add New Page
Add New Page Talk10

Welcome to GTA Wiki's Community Noticeboard.


Page to be archived after 30 requests, or after six months from earliest request (whichever is 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.

Merging Website Pages with Companies

I've come across numerous examples of companies and their corresponding websites across GTA IV and GTA V, and have noticed that the wiki seems to be inconsistent in terms of what should be separate and what shouldn't. For example, Legendary Motorsport was once solely a website page, but it is now both the company, its content, and the website, without the need of a separate page for the .com page. Ditto with other vehicle websites, including Los Santos Customs. On the other hand, Epsilon Program has its own page for the organisation itself, and a page for the webpage, like how Bawsaq is separate from I personally think that a page for the website itself is useless, unless of course the website is not necessarily associated with a company, to which there are quite a huge amount of examples, which, in these cases, websites should remain as .com names.

My typing isn't the best today, so I'll just some it up:

  • Merge Company pages and Website pages under the company name, mentioning the website, screenshots and any important content assessed on the website in the description of the company
  • Keeping website pages if the website has no association or relevance to a company.

Monk Talk 16:33, October 21, 2016 (UTC)



  • I have indeed noticed the essentially duplicate pages about certain companies and their websites, and it would indeed be better to merge them. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 17:35, October 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe I was the one who started this trend, as I did the merge for Legendary Motorsport. I'd hardly say no now. Leo68 (talk) 20:06, October 21, 2016 (UTC)
  • inb4 GTA Wiki page merging meltdown 2k16 V-michael-trunk-miniV-franklin-trunk-miniV-trevor-trunk-mini 10-21-2016, 06:38:45 (EDT)
  • Best request in a wild, it's something this wiki does suffer from in terms of inconsistency, as already stated. Mr. Lambo (talk) 12:07, October 22, 2016 (UTC)

Discussion Forums

Closed as Unsuccessful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 14:16, October 22, 2016 (UTC)

Some of you may be aware of discussion forums recently popping up on several big wikis across Wikia. It has now been suggested by some staff members that we too join the wikis that have this feature. Our forums are out of date and rarely used, and they're going to be replaced with this eventually anyway. The discussion forums will be easily accessible to users who don't have a profile too. There is clearly a demand for this, just checking out the Google Play Store GTA Wiki reviews you will be able to find this review saying that our wiki is perfect, other than the lack of Discussions. Please cast your vote, but bare in mind that the forums will be changed to this either way and an unsuccessful vote will only postpone the inevitable. Note: this won't be changing talk pages on user profiles or articles. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 19:44, October 13, 2016 (UTC)


Infos on Discussions from Fandom staff

In case anyone is still on the fence about which way to vote, I'd just like to point out a few things (I don't think this became quite clear below):

  • If Discussions were enabled here, nothing whatsoever would change on the wiki. Talk pages, the current forums, the Community Noticeboard, etc. would stay exactly the same. The only exceptions that would make you notice Discussions at all is that there'd be a link to it in the nav, and a separate post count on profiles (if you haven't posted in Discussions, that count would be 0, just like anyone who has never edited has a count of 0 edits).
  • This wiki's current forums are wiki-style forums, not Fandom's threaded forum feature. That means the current forums would not go away, and would not change in any way if Discussions were enabled. Discussions would just be an addition, its use completely optional.
  • Many of you might not be missing a feature like Discussions, don't need it, and may not intent to use it. But there are just as many visitors to this wiki on mobile as there are on desktop, and they can barely contribute at all at the moment. This community's app has 500.000 active users per month. That's 500.000 people who are into GTA, come to the wiki, but can't even ask a question or give article feedback, because that's not possible through the app, and extremely cumbersome even in a mobile browser. They can't even cast their vote and be represented right here, in this vote.
  • By enabling Discussions, you'd lose absolutely nothing, but you could potentially give thousands of others a way to contribute and get in touch.
  • If you're worried about spammers or trolls (vandalism isn't possible in Discussions since you can't edit other people's posts): Those can be blocked and their content deleted just like on the main wiki. Fandom staff is happy to help any admins here who are willing to take on Discussions moderation for a trial period, until good Discussions moderation candidates from within the app can be found.
  • Before you make your final decision on the vote, give Discussions a fair chance by at least checking out how it works and how it's working out for other communities - for example some of our earlier adopters, Fallout, Walking Dead, or Elder Scrolls.
  • Thanks for reading! Mira Laime @fandom  (help forum | blog) 19:39, October 18, 2016 (UTC)
    • The "mobile experience" argument is back at it again.
      I have no intention to vote. But really, if you want people on mobile to contribute, fix your damn mobile skin. A couple of years ago it was more or less acceptable, now it's even worse but advertising works even better (oh gee I really wonder why?). Whenever enhancing mobile experience is involved, we get dysfunctional "workarounds" like message walls, increased font size, portable infoboxes and now this. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 20:07, October 18, 2016 (UTC)
      • You're right about the mobile skin needing some improvement - and we're working on that parallel to Discussions. So, long-term, you'll see some significant improvements for users on mobile web as well as in the apps. That's a separate issue, though. Discussions was developed from the beginning with mobile in mind, so it's actually the first Fandom feature with full and complete mobile support, and it's working really really well on mobile so far.
      • Better accessibility for mobile users is one of the reason why we developed it, but by far not the only one. Other reasons for why we're replacing the threaded forums (again: this wiki isn't even using those!) with Discussions is that their code base is very hard to work with, which makes improvements and bug fixes way more complicated than they should be. The forums aren't searchable, and they have many shortcomings when it comes to their structure, deleting mechanisms, etc. It's far easier to build a new, superior feature with what we've learned from the forums than to fix the threaded forums so that they'd be fully mobile-ready, rid of all bugs, searchable, and adaptable to more updates and feature additions.
      • So if you're in favor of offering mobile users a really easy-to-use platform instead of clumsy workarounds, you'll like Discussions as a talking space! Mira Laime @fandom  (help forum | blog) 00:06, October 19, 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the information Mira! GTAFan86-Signature2talk contribs 19:56, October 18, 2016 (UTC)


  • I want to say yes but also have reason to say no. I don't see the problem in being up to date and meeting the standards that reviews concern, however I really do have a feeling these discussions may make the wiki look untidy - I'm really unsure how exactly these discussions work, and if discussions mean people can start using GTA Wiki like Twitter and fling absolute bollocks around people's heads saying this, that and the other about the wiki, content, games, or even users, then I will absolutely have to say no - it even seems to me that, while it's beneficial it being more "user-friendly" and "easy to reach", that is also a really big downside, as it's also a big invitation to arguments, hate comments, vandalism, etc. I like the wiki the way it is - yes the Forums are drier than the outback, but this wiki really doesn't need forums for daily use, I'd love to get the forum pumping but I'm certainly not desperate, not desperate enough to inject an entirely new and quite frankly money-earning propaganda machine just to do so - this is GTA Wiki, not exactly Twitter. I haven't gone neutral because I know I'll decide eventually, give me a few days to think about this, but at the moment, I'm leaning towards No. Monk Talk 20:01, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
    • I may also add that I am yet to actually find a high-end, top-level wiki with discussions - thus I cannot really see how it effects them, as similar wikis to us. Monk Talk 20:04, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
      • I'd say the Fallout Wiki would be a good example, the Discussions on there have helped me in the game several times. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 20:27, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
        • It's just what I expected to be honest. Yes, I can see why it would be useful, but I can kinda see this having massive disadvantages - that said, it looks neat (though I don't think css customisation is even an option -__-), and I can see why it would be helpful for people. I'm still undecided until I see advanced details of what can and has been done with discussions. Monk Talk 20:33, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
          • The Wikia Staff member I spoke to mentioned that they may butt in on the request if anyone has questions that only they can answer, so maybe wait for that. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 20:45, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
            • You can customize Discussions with the header and community avatar image you upload, and the colors you choose via Special:ThemeDesigner. CSS customization isn't possible at this point though.
            • I'd agree that Fallout as one of the best examples we have of a community that's seen a massive increase in active users and fairly high-quality conversations thanks to Discussions. Elder Scrolls and Star Wars are others. Discussions is a different playing field than talk pages or the old wiki-style forums, and so it's not surprising that many of the conversations on there are shorter, more casual and more trivial. That's to be expected since Discussions is the first place on Fandom that really works on mobile - and people on smartphones don't want to and can't type as much, and you can contribute a lot more spontaneous thoughts if all you need to do is grab your phone. I personally don't consider that a good or a bad thing. The nature of conversations is just different. Mira Laime @fandom  (help forum | blog) 18:50, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
              • I think that Discussions are also able to be found around the top of the Google search engine, as that was how I discovered the one on Fallout Wiki. I was searching for a way to get some DLC a day early on Google and the Fallout Wiki's Discussions had some other people talking about it who had found a way which worked to get what I wanted. It was really helpful. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 20:19, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm in two minds as well. I agree that the forums need updating but if the main purpose is for chat/enquiries then I feel we're relatively well covered as it is. The chat is periodically used, and if anyone has a query they can usually ask other members. Sam Talk 20:19, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd like to weigh in on this: More than half of all people reading the wiki's pages these days look at them from a mobile device. And on there, virtually no one is going to use the chat or talk pages, even if they do have a question, simply because they're cumbersome to use on a phone. They're not usable at all in the app. So yes, someone with a really pressing question can get it answered here - but lots and lots of people using the app or the mobile web version of the community see no reasonable way to ask or comment, and so you never know what kinds of contributions you're missing. With Discussions added (in the app as well), you'd open up the door to a host of new GTA fans that so far haven't really had a way to contribute. Mira Laime @fandom  (help forum | blog) 18:50, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to the Discussions feature. Since our own forums are out of date and have virtually no activity, I see no harm in giving them a new lease on life, per se, by updating them to Discussions. Also, I feel that, in order to prevent Discussions fading into obscurity like our current forums, it would be appropriate to have a wiki-wide notification that Discussions has been updated, similar to how a notification appears when the Community Corner is edited. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 03:13, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't like the way Wikia... oh, I'm sorry - Fandom is trying to force stuff down people's throats, and wikis, that they either don't want or need. The current forums aren't broken. Sure, the discussions thing is more user-friendly (and also a magnet for shitposting and spam) but do we really need it? We're a wiki, pages have talk pages anyway, and there is a dozen dedicated forums out there already. Not to mention we're not actually losing readers over the fact there are no "discussions" here. I'd say leave it as it is, until there really is no other choice - which is when Wikia... I mean Fandom - done it again, dammit - decides to make yet another terrible idea (while delusionally pretending that the truck-loads of negative responses are actually positive) of forcing stuff on everyone by entirely removing the classic talk pages/forums. V-michael-trunk-miniV-franklin-trunk-miniV-trevor-trunk-mini 10-14-2016, 10:30:37 (EDT)
    • Couldn't have said it better myself. Monk Talk 14:12, October 16, 2016 (UTC)
    • Same here. Chris also raises an excellent point below regarding the discussion posts count seen on userpages. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 14:30, October 16, 2016 (UTC)
      • Wild said literally all there is to say xD Wikia, shit sorry, Fandom, just want us to try new and unnecessary things to boost their income - it's simple business tactics, and quite frankly, considering this "Fandom" nonsense was changed Without any actual discussion (no Wikia...Fandom sorry, discussing it AFTER does NOT count), why the hell should we give in and accept Discussions as a new feature? If it isn't broken, don't fix it. That's literally it.
      • Quick reminder, this is Wikia, sorry Fandom, and not Twitter/Facebook/Whatever. Talk pages are there for a reason, so is chat, so are forums - we do not need anything else. Mr. Lambo (talk) 14:56, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
      • Obviously. GTAFan86-Signature2talk contribs 15:47, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
          • Do you need Discussions? No, the wiki has been doing just fine without it. It's not a question of whether you have to have Discussions and will go under without it, though. It's more a question of whether Discussions could add something new and different to the wiki, and open up the community to new members and new types of content.
          • Since you're not using Fandom's forum feature, you'd be losing absolutely nothing if you enabled Discussions. All the talk pages, chat, the notice board, etc. would stay just as they are. Anyone not interested in Discussions wouldn't have to use it.
          • What you could potentially gain is this: a platform for mobile visitors (and more than half of the people coming to the site do so on mobile) to contribute and become active community members. Right now, users in mobile browsers can barely contribute anything to the wiki. Editing a talk page is extremely cumbersome there, and it's not easy to figure out that you even have that option. Users on the app are even worse off: They can't edit or comment anything. They love GTA, too, and they'd love to express that, but right now, they can't, at least not on this community.
          • Even if you really don't care about people who visit the wiki on mobile, Discussions can add something for desktop users as well. An easy-to-use, casual platform to exchange news, ideas, theories, and to just connect with other GTA fans. That kind of content doesn't really have a place on wiki articles, and may not fit on any particular talk page, but Discussions would be the right place. Some fans like editing articles and documenting stats about the games. Others like to just talk about it. Some like both. The goal for Discussions is just to make sure everyone has a place to contribute the kind of stuff they want to contribute.
          • So even if you don't think the wiki is missing anything and if you don't like the change from Wikia to Fandom - which is fair - please consider that having Discussions enabled on the wiki doesn't take anything away from you, but it can potentially offer lots of fun and rewarding opportunities for others. Mira Laime @fandom  (help forum | blog) 18:50, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
            • I must say that I agree with "Mira Laime": I do not see any issue with the addition of Discussions, as it seems a refreshing change to me, and even if no-one uses it much (like our current forums), it is still there and an option for those who might wish to do so. By the way, I genuinely cannot see what all the fuss is about Wikia now calling themselves Fandom. As the Shakespearean saying goes, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet: Wikia may now call themselves Fandom, but they are still essentially the same. It actually reminds me somewhat of a department store franchise here in Australia called Myer, which was formerly known as Myer Grace Bros. until the parent company (Myer) decided to stop using the historical name and use its own by itself. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 15:40, October 15, 2016 (UTC)
            • Could not agree more, WB. We have no issues with the forums. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Leo68 (talk) 22:34, October 20, 2016 (UTC)
  • I say no. There's nothing wrong with the forums and Wikia's literally going around and just turning on discussions and replacing the forums with no prior consent, like on the Watch Dogs Wiki. Not to mention literally no one (on the Watch Dogs Wiki at least, as I'm admin there) even uses the discussions, as it's not as user-friendly, or even efficient for that matter, as the good ol' forums. ALSO, saying "0 discussions posts" really big on the user's main page is VERY obnoxiuous. Those are just some reasons why it's a no for me. Chris6d (talk) 19:35, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify: There's a difference between the wiki-style forums that are used here on this community and Fandom's threaded forums that the Watch Dogs Wiki is using. Only the threaded forums are being replaced by Discussions. Here on the wiki, nothing will be replaced by Discussions. Discussions would only be an addition here, everything else stays exactly as it is.
    • The main reasons why we're replacing the threaded forums with Discussions (not really relevant here, since the GTA wiki isn't using them) is that you can't search in the forums, making it really hard to rediscover older conversations. They have a number of bugs that are really difficult and time-consuming to fix because of the way the code is built there. And the forums are not very usable on mobile devices. Since more than half of Fandom's visitors read on their phones or tablets, that's a pretty important one for us.
    • Discussions is still far from being fully developed, and we're adding more functionality with each release. In time, Discussions will be able to do most of what the threaded forums can, and more (like search, reporting bad content, etc.) We're hoping that Discussions will mean an improvement over the old forums for those communities that used them. For others, like the GTA Wiki, it can just be an additional feature that lets more users discuss GTA in a way that wasn't possible so far - and those that aren't interested in that can just continue to use the wiki as before. Mira Laime @fandom  (help forum | blog)

Something a little different...

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 15:54, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys. New project I've finally got back into working on - variants tables. I've created a test template here, and you can see them in action here and in construction here. I personally think these work really well. I really like the design. They're also pre-built, which means you just need to fill in the details into fields like Infoboxes. The design also matches the wiki's template theme of black headers and gray fields, so this is really standardizing designs. Check the links out for more information. They're stackable, to an extent, so if the description isn't overly long, they won't start stacking one on one. The final template should shift any writing/content/whatever beneath them whether expanded or not. Vote away. Monk Talk 19:45, October 5, 2016 (UTC)



  • The variants tables look very good. May I ask exactly where they would be added on vehicle articles? TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 03:26, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
    • Where they always have been - variants section. Will make a work-around for livery variants and stuff like that, but for now, we'll stick to named variants. Monk Talk 15:54, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

Vehicle Databases for Bikers Update

Let's just say I've been very busy earlier today with the Bikers update, and I'm willing to busy myself further if anyone can find Internal names for the bikes in the Bikers update. I'd be willing to busy myself even further if anyone has them. Thanks. JohnSignature 20:04, October 4, 2016 (UTC)


  • This shouldn't be a request btw. But I'm about to extract data, I'll send over the necessary details and update tables. Monk Talk 20:10, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
//Those are model names only. Handling/gxts may only differ slightly if at all
blazer4 //Street Blazer
daemon2 //In-game "Daemon"
faggio //Faggio Sport
faggio3 //Faggio Mod
hakuchou2 //Hakuchou Drag
tornado6 //Tornado Rat Rod
youga2 //Youga Classic
zombiea //Zombie Bobber
zombieb //Zombie Chopper
V-michael-trunk-miniV-franklin-trunk-miniV-trevor-trunk-mini 10-04-2016, 04:12:12 (EDT)
Thanks. I know its not a request, I'm just itching for databases so I can start working on them. JohnSignature 20:14, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • All performance data updated. Faggio, Faggio2 or Faggio N? I'm really confused. Monk Talk 21:42, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
    • That's R* for you. Now all that's left are the other databases I left out on your talkpage. No rush needed. JohnSignature 21:43, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
    • faggio is the Faggio Sport, faggio2 is the Faggio we always had, faggio3 is the Faggio Mod. FAGGION is the text key and handling name for Faggio Sport. V-michael-trunk-miniV-franklin-trunk-miniV-trevor-trunk-mini 10-04-2016, 05:49:28 (EDT)
      • Obviously, don't make it an official page, but we can have them as project pages. Just link them to the user page of the creator. Leo68 (talk) 21:19, October 7, 2016 (UTC)
        • The pages are being created. I think we should come to terms - if something is in the files, it's not our fault Rockstar have already put absolutely everything about these vehicles into the game and not released them yet, it's not exactly "leaking", as it's factual information. I'd say rumors like "GTA VI", "IV Remastered" and"San Andreas Stories" are the kind of rumors that don't deserve pages. Considering everything about these cars and bikes is already in the files, I say we add the content. Monk Talk 12:29, October 8, 2016 (UTC)

Monk & Guy

Resolved by Monk Talk 18:48, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

For anyone who is unaware, Monkeypolice188 and That Ferrari Guy have both been blocked over allegations of sockpuppetry. I am not slating the accused or the accuser, but will be talking to wikia regarding their futures. We won't be demoting either of them unless wikia refuse to lift the blocks. I have spoken to Monk and told him we will stand by him through this situation. I will update the staff here once I have spoken to wikia. Leo68 (talk) 03:34, October 3, 2016 (UTC)


  • Due to the global blocks, isn't the VSTF Wiki that should be contacted? Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 09:29, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • For matters regarding global blocks, Wikia always tells you to use Special:Contact. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 09:51, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • VSTF is in charge of vandalism and spamming. These two haven't been blocked for neither offense. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 10:51, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
      • Eh right, I saw "Report:Users and IPs needing checked", but then I noticed that it's not for this current type of issue. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 11:57, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • Monk's unblocked, but his brother is still blocked. Sam Talk 14:19, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • Mondays be like this. But in all seriousness, they need to be unblocked. This has happened to me and the VSTF are known for their lack of compassion to innocent people who are wrongfully banned. JohnSignature 19:09, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • See above, it's staff that is involved and not VSTF. If TFG's block wasn't lifted then I assume Wikia had reasons for that block to be applied in the first place unless they are really that incompetent. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 19:14, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: As Sam noted, Monk has been unblocked. I spoke to him this morning via email, and he can't access his account due to his IP block. Monk has said TFG will most likely deactivate his so that the IP block can be lifted. I have also heard from Sannse, who will look into this afternoon (PST). As it stands, it looks like Monk can return, but TFG won't be back :( Leo68 (talk) 20:48, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • Well if he names them when he returns, there could be a ban if they are a wiki user. If you look at sports when people are sent off the field, people who try to force the issue can get in trouble for it. It's called stimulation, the same applies here. If this is someone with a grudge on the wiki trying to get Monk in trouble, they'll find themselves in trouble of their own. Leo68 (talk) 21:40, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • Uh, guys? Everyone's saying that Monk and Guy are unblocked, but on my screen, they're both still blocked. I'm not sure what this is about. Chris6d (talk) 22:42, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • Chris, that's because Ferrari is still IP banned, but him and Monk have same IP, (I guess). Since they have same IP and Ferrari is still blocked, Monk is also blocked. MHM, October 3, 2016
  • I highly doubt that either Monk or his brother are doing any actions that would be considered Sockpuppetry (not forgetting the fact that Wikia do actually allow Sockpuppet accounts as long as they are used in a non-malicious manner). I sincerely hope that this sorry matter will be resolved for both of them in due course. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 03:08, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • I come back to this??? --Tony42898 (Talker - Blogger - Stalker)-- 18:40, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • I know this matter was resolved, but just to clarify, was this a global block or just a simple wiki block for the two? Chris6d (talk) 18:52, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
    • Global block, the ones issued by staff. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 18:57, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • I got my account back, guys. But I saw Leo went for Admin, so that's fine. I'll still contribute wherever I can. Thanks :) Mr. Ferrari (talk) 17:25, October 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • Account reset. (Monk) MonkeyBot188 (talk) 17:33, October 7, 2016 (UTC)

Probation Expiry - RandomGTAGamer

Closed as Unsuccessful by LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 10:05, October 10, 2016 (UTC)


(Admins and Bureaucrats only)



  • I feel that you are a diligent Staff member, and will be able to continue in this capacity. However, I must note that your activity is somewhat low, so I encourage you to be more active in the future. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 22:55, September 29, 2016 (UTC)
  • He is a great staff member when he is active, the only problem is he isn't active. It's coming up to a month without being active and his last 50 edits go back to mid-July. If he was more active I would be inclined to say yes. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:35, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • As per Tom, he did some fantastic work, but he just wasn't active enough for me to come to a reasonable conclusion. I'll leave it up to you guys. Monk Talk 14:44, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • His edits are good, but as Tom highlights, 50 edits over three months is not the most prolific. I don't know if RGTAG has school/work commitments so can't comment there. If he can be more active I would vote yes. Sam Talk 15:29, September 30, 2016 (UTC)
  • I sorta agree with many of you guys, I have been really busy lately with a lot of stuff. RandomStunt (talk) 12:06, October 1, 2016 (UTC)
  • This is going nowhere, I think it's best to veto. If WildBrick and Tom can agree on a vote, it'll be enough to decide on it (granted that Monk is unable to vote right now). This is the policy if the vote is level. Leo68 (talk) 21:47, October 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • This vote was going nowhere; RandomGTAGamer's activity is not suitable for a staff position. This is not to say he can never be a staff member, but for now, no. Another spell with improved activity is needed. Leo68 (talk) 09:57, October 10, 2016 (UTC)

Something regarding warning templates

Closed by Mr. Ferrari (talk) 17:22, September 24, 2016 (UTC)

When issuing warning templates to users, we commonly add "subst:" at the start of it in order to allow the actual text coding to appear in the talk page. However, it appears that some users tend to avoid this, particularly if the template is too long (such as this one), and warned users sometimes end up accidentally editing the template instead of the section of their talk page. Ferrari recently suggested adding __NOEDITSECTION__ to the templates, but it turned out to be inefficient, because it makes it impossible to edit the sections of the whole talk page. I'm proposing three options: either we Protect the warning templates in order to prevent the issue about accidental editing/removal, or we always Add subst when issuing warning templates regardless of their length (in this case we add such a notice in the policies), or else Keep the warning system as it is and simply revert the edits if someone causes faulty changes to the templates. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 09:49, September 22, 2016 (UTC)



  • Protecting is really the only way to do it. Using SUBST will just shit a load of code onto the page, which becomes problematic when several warning templates are involved. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 18:06, September 22, 2016 (UTC)
  • I believe that, as Rain has said, substituting the whole code of certain templates would result in an unnecessarily excessive amount of code in Talk pages, and additionally it would mean that any changes to the warning templates will not reflect on the substituted templates. Therefore, I feel that protecting the pages is the best course of action, and should prevent most accidents (aside from those by Staff members). TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 14:17, September 24, 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm closing this vote - this shouldn't be a vote. The templates should be protected by default, why they weren't, I have no idea, common sense says they should be anyway. It's the only way possible, sorry mate. Mr. Ferrari (talk) 17:22, September 24, 2016 (UTC)
    • It got in my mind to have them protected either way. Can someone please take care of them? They're listed in the "New Staff Banners" section of this noticeboard (the Block one is already protected though). Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 21:32, September 24, 2016 (UTC)

Probation Expiry - Ultimate94ninja (Patroller)

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 08:09, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

My probationary period expired, so I took the liberty of setting up the vote. Please leave your votes below, for administrators and bureaucrats only, while remaining users can leave comments if they'd like to. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 09:30, September 12, 2016 (UTC)



  • I think you've done pretty well during your probation and it would be good to see you continue on as a full-time Patroller. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 09:48, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • The main concern was your activity, but since becoming a patroller your activity has been consistent. A yes from me. Sam Talk 13:08, September 12, 2016 (UTC)
  • Top notch user. Did perfectly. Good luck bro. Monk Talk 18:31, September 12, 2016 (UTC)

New Staff Banners

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

4 requests in a week. Pretty busy. This time, I've give the staff banners some more style and, like tables, infoboxes, and other stuff lately, they meet up with the latest style of square 1 px white borders and a couple of padding px. The backgrounds have a bit of gradient to seem less "in the face", but the background colors also match those found on Staff user colors, green, blue, and orange. The templates are found here. I'm currently trying to make them slightly less black, to somewhat match the wikis color scheme of dark gray, rather than black, so if you want, we can stick to black or change to dark gray (the same gray found in infoboxes, to be precise). Monk Talk 13:34, September 4, 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, I have upgraded all the warning templates: that they are all consistent. These look much more like the typical banners, and the staff ones will make that more consistent.



  • I think they look really slick. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 13:52, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • As per Tom. Good work Monk. Sam Talk 15:01, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • The Warning and Block templates look very similar to the ones we have on the Watch Dogs Wiki. I like 'em, nice and simple. Chris6d (talk) 15:09, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't even be a request, it's pretty obvious they're perfect xD All looking good, they match up with the enhanced version and cross over mission bars too. Mr. Ferrari (talk) 16:12, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • As Guy said, this shouldn't even be a request. They look spectacular, Monk. Yes from me. Leo68 (talk) 06:07, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • I like them, so it's an obvious yes. V-michael-trunk-miniV-franklin-trunk-miniV-trevor-trunk-mini 09-06-2016, 11:39:13 (EDT)
  • I have no objections; the new designs look beautiful. Good job. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 16:15, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Character Icons on Character Pages

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Hey. So I thought we could add the mini-map character icons (F for Franklin, M for Michael, and other games, D for Dmitri, etc) to the respective character pages, maybe in the infobox somewhere. I'd find this a useful addition, as it also clearly outlines the color of the character. Unfortunately this can't be done for all characters, as other protags and antags have different colors depending on who takes part in the mission, especially strangers and freaks in GTA V. What d'you think? Mr. Ferrari (talk) 11:18, September 4, 2016 (UTC)



  • ...And said colors can be used for the border colors of images in the gallery. Monk Talk 12:49, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • Nice idea. And regarding the different colors depending on the protagonist, I guess the best option would be to put the three icons in the cases where a mission giver is available to the three protags. Ultimate94ninja talk · contribs 16:46, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's a great idea, it helps people who come here that are just getting into GTA. Leo68 (talk) 06:13, September 5, 2016 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, but I'd like a bit more info on that. Where exactly would the icons be? By the name? Separate infobox field? Would there be an infobox outline color in reference to the protagonist/icon color? V-michael-trunk-miniV-franklin-trunk-miniV-trevor-trunk-mini 09-06-2016, 11:44:37 (EDT)
    • I expect they'd go in the infobox, like how race symbols go next to the title of race infoboxes, y'know? Monk Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • As I have never properly played the Story Mode of Grand Theft Auto V, I am not certain as to what the protagonists' "colours" are, but I assume that they refer to the representative colours of the three protagonists. In any case I do not see any issue with this change, so I do not object. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 16:22, September 6, 2016 (UTC)

Updating Diff Changes

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

So Wikia updated the default Diff Change Reviewer and I personally found it awful compared to the prior design. I've come up with a design that is consistent with our Wiki Tables, Infoboxes, Vehicle Performance Tables and Cleanup Banners. The code is located here and basically removes that awful black background on each diff line, replacing it with the original colors, updating borders to match tables, etc. I find this much better. I have two sets of code, they are reversed color scheme (first is dark on light, second is light on dark). Please insert on of the code sets into your personal wikia.css at a time to see how it looks - remember to purge the page and view a diff. :) Monk Talk 13:57, September 3, 2016 (UTC)



  • I haven't even looked yet lol, I trust you. I think I'll test them soon. Anything can be better than what we have. Maybe a complete rethink on the colors themselves - yellow and blue aren't very meaningful to me. Red and green are the most obvious approach, but maybe we could consider the two colors? Mr. Ferrari (talk) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • Could you post screenshot examples? Mind you, I didn't really mind Wikia's changes because the former background colors made it impossible to see added text. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 16:53, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • I prefer the one on the left, with the green background and blue highlighting. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • Yeah so do I. I was thinking of making the text a better color but idk yet. Monk Talk 17:17, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
      • I think the text color is good enough. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:19, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Rain that the former background colors made the highlighted text in the diffs next to impossible to see, and I am glad that Wikia changed their appearance to the current one. Admittedly, I do not see any need to change the colors from their current appearance, but if it is to be done the colors of the highlighted text must starkly contrast with the background (for example, dark blue or black highlighting on a white (or any light-colored) background, or white or yellow highlighting on a dark-colored background). In my opinion none of your two examples follow this rule closely enough, and unless it is changed I will not be approving this change. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 17:57, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • That makes no sense whatsoever. My skin has light colors as background - light blue and light yellow, which are the same as those currently used to highlight the text. The text is now highlighted with a darker version of said colors and stands out fairly well. The font is also black and stands out good, and the diff words that are highlighted are also boldened to stand out from the darker highlight. These do meet your expectations as far as I can see. Monk Talk 12:53, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
      • Screenshot-CommunityNoticeboard-DiffExample
        I see that you are confused as to what I am referring to, so allow me to elaborate: the image on the right shows how the diff pages look like now: as you can see, the highlighted text is clearly visible as white highlighting on the dark grey background, and the highlighted text becomes black in colour. What I am asking you to do is to make sure that any changes you make to the appearance of the diffs maintains this highly contrasting feature. My personal suggestion would be to reverse the paragraph colours so that the unchanged paragraphs display as dark grey, while the changed paragraphs display as light grey. I hope that I have clarified myself. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 16:55, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
        • After reviewing your proposed changes again, I have changed my mind on outright objecting to them, as I now see that your changes have a fairly reasonable visibility due to the boldness of the text. However, I still do not personally see the need for any major changes to the diff appearance, and as I suggested above a simple paragraph colour reversal would be ideal in my opinion. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 10:22, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • I prefer the former colours too. The new white on black is very difficult to read. Sam Talk 19:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • You're all being a bit vague here. What "former"? The original scheme Wikia implemented before they updated it, or the "former" skin before I suggested updating it (here)? I don't see what's so bad about my skin. Monk Talk 12:51, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
    • In my opinion the new white-on-black colour scheme looks much better than the old scheme, so I have to disagree with you on that matter Sam. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 16:55, September 6, 2016 (UTC)
  • The one on left side looks good.--MythHunter 007 Talk 06:03, September 4, 2016 (UTC)
  • I like the second one more, but I don't care which one gets picked. Both look good. V-michael-trunk-miniV-franklin-trunk-miniV-trevor-trunk-mini 09-06-2016, 11:46:53 (EDT)
  • Under the basis of mix messages between either code, I will choose the first design for one week, and switch to the second design the week after, and see how people find it. Please continue to comment on the design(s) and see which you prefer. Monk Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Revamping Warnings and Blocks

Closed as Successful by Monk Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)

Heyo. Some users may have noticed I have created this personal sandbox to which I follow in order to determine warnings and blocks. I've had numerous users claimed it is both information, professional and well laid out. I created it under the basis that the current Blocks and Warnings system on GTA Wiki is rather vague in terms of specific circumstances; everything seems to be based around three topics: sockpuppetry, vandalism, and image policy. In this sandbox, I have broken down these topics and listed what I personally think qualifies a block, a warning, and/or a certain amount of warnings. The table isn't exactly finished, but I have covered the basics of files, sockpuppetry, vandalism and underage users.

The table lists, from left to right: the action users commit, the response to the committed action, the maximum amount of warnings the user can receive (if more than 1, repeated actions), whether a block would be immediate (cannot be both this and previous), what happens after the maximum warnings have been reached, and two templates; warnings and blocks - the latter two are currently only used by me, it is basically an optional message that I place as a template underneath the block/warning to state what they have done - ignore them for now, we may come to them later if necessary.

I personally find it very systematic:

  • Creating a page with nonsensical content.
    • Article deleted
    • 1st instance is Vandalism notice.
      • 2nd instance is Warning.
        • 3rd instance is 1 week block.

  • Creating a page with racism, hate speech, pornographic material, etc.
    • Article deleted
    • 1st instance is a warning.
      • 2nd instance is an infinite block.
  • Damaging an article by: removing parts
    • Rollback of edit
    • 1st instance is Vandalism notice.
      • 2nd instance is Warning notice
        • 3rd instance is 1 week block.
  • Damaging an article by, deleting all content OR removing entire/multiple sections
    • Rollback of edit
    • 1st instance is a warning.
      • 2nd instance is an infinite block.

...etc. Basically most actions have two variables - a less "damaging" one, to which we respond less harsh to, and a more damaging one, which is usually an infinite block (after 1 warning). These variables are something the current system has a lack on.

All in all I think this is really well conformed and hopefully irons out the punishment, as well as the common "hate" we receive for not having a systematic, fair blocking system. If you approve of the table (which is to be expanded), I'd also like you to tell me your personal opinion on the blocks and warnings, whatever the Staff come to a conclusion off will be what we nail down - the current blocks are just the system I have always followed, and what I think are best to punish users for bad actions.

Votes: "Yes" - to update the Warning and Blocking policies, "No" - to stick to our current, official system.

Think that's everything to say. Thanks! :) Monk Talk 13:35, September 3, 2016 (UTC)



  • Sounds good. Mr. Ferrari (talk) 14:08, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • While I am in general agreement with your new policy system, I disagree with the rule that removing an entire section (or sections) of an article, but not the whole article, should result in an immediate infinite block: rather, I believe that section removal should bypass a vandalism notice, instead going straight to a warning, then an infinite block if the same behavior continues. I regard such edits as within reasonable bounds of "good faith" edits if there is the potential that the user believed that the removed information was incorrect or inaccurate. Also, the edit summary of the offending user must also be taken into account (assuming of course that the user actually leaves an edit summary), as it may explain his/her reason(s) for removing the article section(s). Aside from that, I agree with your changes. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 17:32, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not voting because I disagree with the last part. I think article damage is to be dealt with the same way. The only change I suggest to make is to allow sysops to directly block users in case of large deletion of article content, rather than going through the warning/notice process. In fairness, first blocks should never be indefinite except in extreme cases, and I find it a shame that a lot of editors here fill up the block list because of indef bans for a single offense while a 1 or 2-week block usually does the trick. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 19:05, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
    • I kinda agree actually. I think blocks should just go up in stages of 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, but never indefinite unless sockpuppetry. Maybe that's something we should change. Monk Talk 19:11, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
      • So what do we do? Go on with this vote or we close it and start a community discussion to overhaul the blocking guidelines? Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 20:25, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • I second what Rain says. I hold my hands up and say I can be guilty of inconsistently applying block lengths (sometimes the three strikes and you're out, other times an immediate ban). The blocking policy needs to be set in stone. Sam Talk 19:15, September 3, 2016 (UTC)
  • I would change the instant permaban to a warning and then a ban. Wikia's totally advanced and sophisticated editor can sometimes glitch out and remove all content from the page/section, while sometimes it could be an honest mistake - it'd suck to get permabanned over a small mistake/bugged editor. If after getting warned/questioned, they still continue to delete all content from pages without even responding to the warning/question, then permaban would be in order. V-michael-trunk-miniV-franklin-trunk-miniV-trevor-trunk-mini 09-06-2016, 11:52:55 (EDT)
  • Okay. A lot of people seem to point out the disadvantages of the permanent bans, so the change I will be making is a warning before permanent bans. Give me a tleast a week to iron this out into the policy. Monk Talk 12:49, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: I have adjusted the blocking measures. Users who commit serious offensives, i.e. removing all content, inserting hate speech, racism, etc, will receive 1 warning, and if it happens again, they will be instantly blocked (infinite). I have, however, kept instant, infinite blocks for sockpuppetry and instant blocks for underage users - these are ToU guidelines anyway. Monk Talk 13:12, September 7, 2016 (UTC)
    • I must point out that the Terms of Use do not actually prohibit Sockpuppetry as long as Sockpuppet accounts are used in a non-malicious or evasive manner; however I do not object to that policy. However, as you know, I am personally in disagreement with the underage policy, so I hope that you do not mind if I do not enforce that particular policy. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 15:53, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
      • So you are denying to enforce a TOU policy? That means you are denying to comply with your general admin duties? This cannot be allowed. Monk Talk 15:56, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
        • Having already discussed with staffers on Comm. Central, administrators aren't required to enforce the COPPA policy. The ToU are enforced by staff, and you just have to respect them - thus, an admin that is over 13 is ok, and so does an admin over 13 that doesn't report underage users. If you want to report COPPA breaches and enforce that policy, it's the administrator's own choice. Although, the obligation to block underage users may be enforced on individual wikis, staff doesn't require admins to directly block underage users if they don't want to. Monolith Patch Rain - Talk SCS Freedom 16:21, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
          • Thank you Rain, you have pretty much covered my response. Also, not meaning to be rude Monk, but I seem to recall you saying in Chat pretty much exactly what Rain said when I brought up this matter there. More precisely, you said that I do not have to enforce the age policy or report underage users, as long as you do not catch them yourself. TAlim 1994 - Konan T-A Lim 林道安 (talk | contributions) 18:23, September 11, 2016 (UTC)
            • Rather hypocritical, Monk. -__- Mr. Ferrari (talk) 18:44, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki