User talk:Gboyers/archive3

From Grand Theft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archived talk page. Please do NOT edit. Continue any discussions at User_talk:Gboyers

Inappropriate username

Hi. Thanks for the advice on how to deal with this. And sorry for not posting here...I wasn't sure if this was something that needed to be handled privately and/or discreetly. I'll send him a note. EganioTalk 20:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Gerard...sorry to bug you with these things, but what about this username: User:Coitinator? It seems much more innocuous than the last one we discussed, but just wanted to check with you first. :-) EganioTalk 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. :-) BTW, how long should I give good ol' fuckface to change his username before I block it? EganioTalk 02:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Main Page

he problem is the title welcome to the Grand theft Wiki is overlapping the top right image Chip2007 12:18 30 june 2008 heres the link sorry i coudn provide a screenshot

I had it happen to me as well, but only on one particular (older) computer. I think this issue might be related to screen resolution and/or browser type/version. But, then again, I am not that computer savvy...those were just my assumptions. EganioTalk 01:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Gerard. Just to let you know, I'm keeping an eye on things over at Talk:Karen. :-) EganioTalk 01:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vercetti Gang

Hi, G. I saw you undid Mcanmoocanu's redirect of the Vercetti Gang article. This is actually something I've been trying to discuss with him, i.e. multiple changes to mafia family names, such as including the word Crime in the organization's name. I'm hoping this is something he and I can work out, but you may want to join in on the discussion. EganioTalk 08:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Game comparison archive

Well, here I go filling up your talk page! :-)

I'd like to ask your opinion: in response to the first post in Forum:Could GTA IV Be Better?, I have created an article designed to enumerate the differences between GTA San Andreas and GTA IV. I'm doing this in the interest of creating a catalogue of such information for all GTA games that could then be used for speculation as to future game design, discussions about gameplay, character/location reappearances, etc. I'm envisioning eventually attaching editorials to these articles for such purposes. What do you think? Is this worth my time? EganioTalk 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm thinking of sending Angies a message, but thought I'd go over it with you first...

A few things I want to bring up:

  • Some pages (like GTA IV Gripes) have two ad-boxes
  • GTA IV now has an ad-box, even though there's a table on the page (it should have a banner ad)
  • Using banner ads when an infobox is in the top-right corner

Your thoughts? --GuildKnightTalk2me 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I also have many frustrations about the adverts. It is very clear that they are financially-minded, at the expense of the community and readers experience - which is especially evident in the details. Secondly, 'they' have changed their minds about a lot of things since this idea was first made public, so whatever may appear to be a mistake is probably just another rule designed to make more money, or pretend they're doing you a favour.

The most popular pages (eg Main Page) now have 2 ads on, since they can make a lot of money from that, but that is very damaging to those pages (which naturally have a lot of content). Near-empty pages have no ads on, because they make no money from that - but we wouldn't mind ads on those pages because there is room on them.

I believe the right-ad won't be displayed if the page STARTS with a table, but I believe if there is forced to be 2 ads (ie popular pages) then there will always be 2 ads, even if there is a table there. Same goes for infoboxes - I absolutely hate the idea of shoving a banner ad AND a box ad above an infobox. And even more than that I hate having adverts inside content areas.

There has been a forum discussion here, but it seems to be a very them-vs-us discussion. Gboyers talk 20:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Quick Question

Sorry about not using the Reply Here at the top but it didn't lead anywhere so I didn't know what to do.

Also, sorry for the question that has nothing to do with the content of the site, but I recently become friends with Eganio, and I was very happy to have made my first friend on GTW, however I had to ask him what it actually means, he said he wasn't exactly sure and told me to ask you.

Thank you.

Biggest gta fan ever 09:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Gerard. I have a question about the cleanup, expand, and stub templates. Is there a way to specify what needs to be added to an article when using the expand and stub templates? I used the cleanup template in the Cutscene article because it seemed the only one that provides the "A user has the following concern" comment option. Please advise. Thanks! EganioTalk 06:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that into {{expand}} then. Gboyers talk 12:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Please leave a message when doing that to image pages. --Charitwo 18:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When doing what? All I've been doing was replacing the code from {{screenshot}} with the template tag (which doesn't change the content), and removing Category:Copyright from the images (becuase they don't belong there). Please explain your issue. Gboyers talk 18:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


Hey, I noticed you changed your age to "19" in one place on your page... Did you have a birthday? If so, happy birthday! --GuildKnightTalk2me 22:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a few weeks ago, forgot to change stuff. Thanks anyway :) Gboyers talk 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

I just want to know how did you change your user name, cause I want to change my to "Lytebrightwc" because I was just indefinitely blocked from wikipedia. and now I am about to create another account on wikipedia with that user name. Mcanmoocanu

You need to just ask User:TOR to do this for you. Leave a message on his wikia talk page - Gboyers talk 18:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


I've noticed in previous discussions that you are quite strongly against "over-categorization." I wanted to verify exactly what you meant by that. At one point, you stated that, "Having categories all categorised into a tree is absolutely NOT what we want," "If I want to look at a list of cars, I should be able to go to Category:Vehicles to see every car in every game," and also, "If Category:Vehicles only had subcategories in, then stuff would be a lot harder to find." What I am envisioning is a little hard to explain, but here goes: For example, Category:Vehicles would have every vehicle's page in the "Pages in category "Vehicles"" section, but then would also have "Subcategories" such as "Vehicles by Game", "Vehicles by Brand", "Vehicles by Type", etc. This would address your concern that Category:Vehicles should list all vehicles, but would also make things easier for myself and other editors who like to browse by categories. Just to make it clear, I'm not committed to either way, I just wanted to see what you think. I definitely do not want categories to only list other categories; it's very convenient to have a category that lists all articles in the category. I simply think that it would also be convenient to have a progression of categories to browse by. Like I said, I'm fine with either way, just wanted to know what you think. --GuildKnightTalk2me 07:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This is something that has changed as we have grown. Early on we were incomplete, and a few users attempted to devise a massive category structure... with nothing in it. That just meant stuff was incredibly hard to find, forcing you to dig through dozens of unfamiliar categories - they weren't all consistent either, and we had multiple categories for several things. Thats why I preferred Category:Vehicles having a list of all vehicles etc, so everything is in one place (which is the point of a category).
However, these days those categories are insanely big, so stuff is hard to find through that method. This is why we subcategorise - but ONLY when we need to. For example when we have hundreds of vehicles per game, we might as well use Vehicles in GTA San Andreas etc. This is useful when they all have an obvious logical connection, such as being in the same game. Some of these connections are logical but have more blurry boundaries (eg Category:Sports Cars, Category:Gangsters), which is when we have to be careful. Other categories are simply made-up ways of grouping things, as decided by our editors - like Category:Infrastructure.
Here's an example: I have just deleted Category:Places by cities, because it is a grouping within a category (classic overcategorisation). Those subcategories (eg Category:Places in Los Santos should be subcategories of Category:Places. They don't need to be separately grouped unless they are a totally separate group. A good method I use for categorising things (especially categorising categories) is expaining the title. For example Category:Places in San Andreas goes into Category: Places and Category:San Andreas. In turn, Places is a type of Location; and San Andreas is a Category: City in Category: GTA San Andreas.
If you work backwards, it is logical to go backwards all the way - like Category: Locations being a top-level navigational structure; the "root" of the locations "tree". Nothing logically goes above it (it isn't a type of anything), except Category:GTA (it's a type of thing in a gta game). It is better to put something in too many categories than to leave it with none.
As for vehicles, it should not be Category:Vehicles by brand, it should be Category:Vehicle Brands (which it currently is, and this fits in Category:Vehicles). Within that find all the brands, but they should also have categories. In those categories you would naturally find all vehicles related to that brand. For example, the Turismo would be in Category:Grotti.
Another example of overcategorisation would be if we had a category for each vehicle, eg Category:Cheetah. Individual vehicles are the "leaf" of the category tree, because nothing goes underneath it. We don't have multiple pages per vehicle, we don't have different renditions of vehicles. The only time that would be useful is for grouping screenshots of a particular vehicle, but that is something that has never been done on this wiki, and would be an absolutely massive job. It is hard to enforce categorisation of images (its hard enough to get people to use {{screenshot}}). This would only be useful if everyone did it, and that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
Your suggestion is pretty much what I said above, but it is also strange, because that is pretty much what happens already. If you go to the last page of Category:Vehicles you can see several subcategories to that effect. Yes that category is completely unbrowseable, and we need a creative solution to that. Perhaps a second category for All vehicles? Or a separate category for vehicle "types" (could be messy)? Or just list the useful links at the top of the page (as I've tried to do)? Sorry about the rant, hope that helps - Gboyers talk 13:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, nevermind! I simply assumed that all the subcategories would be on the first page. It seems like they should be; it seems counter-intuitive to have some subcategories, then a bunch of articles, then a bunch of images, then more articles, then more images, then more subcategories, then more articles. I don't suppose you have a creative solution in mind for "categorical browsing made easy"?  ;) --GuildKnightTalk2me 03:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes it's silly because it works completely alphabetically. The only way to circumvent it is to physically list subcategories in the text above, or to put them (or the individual vehicles) into different categories. Gboyers talk 14:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Main Page Overlap

On the Main Page the bar at the bottom that says "Grand Theft Auto Series" and has a show/hide thing on the right, overlaps the recent activity section. I know it's a stupid thing to mention but it's really starting to annoy me. Also, I know that it could have something to do with my computer, if it doesn't happen to anyone else, please ignore this message. Biggest gta fan ever 10:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The blue "Grand Theft Auto series" box at {{gta}} (with all the links on) doesn't have a show/hide thing on the right. It is just a box full of links. For me it just goes right up to the edge of the Site Activity section, where it is supposed. Upload a screenshot so we can see the problem better. Gboyers talk 14:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a screen-size/resolution issue... I've never had a problem when the window is maximized, but when I reduce the size of this window, this is what I get. --GuildKnightTalk2me 04:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the screenshot by GuildKnight is exactly what happens to me, except there is a show/hide thing and the links disappear when I press hide so only the blue bar remains. If you still want me to uplaod a screenshot so you can see the show/hide thing, just ask. Biggest gta fan ever 06:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you GuildKnight, for directing me to this talk. Biggest gta fan ever, the same thing happens to me, and I have the 'hide' option. I tried to upload a pic of mine but it doesn't accept .bmp's.--Aussiebushmatt 09:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem seems to have stopped for me, if someone looked into it and found the problem, Thank You. Biggest gta fan ever 08:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Same, the box seems to have been moved a little to the left so it is now longer in a vertical fashion and does not conflict with the recent edits box. Thanks to whoever fixed it.--Aussiebushmatt 09:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image Attributions

I understand your point, but I sent Mcanmoocanu that message mainly in the interest of "reminding" him to add the {{screenshot}} template, as he was asked to do earlier. The attribution things was just wishful thinking, and something I would hope all editors would do when uploading images, i.e. knowing from whence they came. :-) EganioTalk 00:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, but what about things that aren't actual screenshots, and that come from other websites, e.g. maps of collectibles and such? I assume it's alright if we can't find the actual source, but I was just hoping someone could take the initiative to list where they obtained something, especially when from another website. Am I just being too anal? EganioTalk 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot Request

Hi, G. Just so you know, I placed a request on the Bot's talk page, whenever you get a chance. Thanks! EganioTalk 23:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I am now a sysop for the b7 wikia

i still like it here very much and i will nominate myself for promotion Chip2007 5:37 GMT 2008


Yeah, I spot something bad. Apparently User:sukhoi-35BM falsely accuses me for making irrelevant edits. I even edited the Shamal which has an event in Multiplayer in GTA IV where Petrovic must be escorted from the NOOSE. And everyone can edit aircrafts. he's just doing that just to falsely frame me and try and ban me. I'm not into any arguments, and he has to stop this nonsense. MetaCracken 17:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, MetaCracken repeatedly adds false/irrelevant information to articles that many others (myself included) have put time into, and will continue to do so as long as the articles are edited with information not pertaining to the topic. I'm simply trying to make GTA: Aircraft wiki as good as it can possibly be, and will continue to do so regardless of setbacks imposed by MetaCracken or any others wiling to sacrifice accuracy for the 'last word' in an article or argument. sukhoi-35bm He has also deleted this post before, so i will send you a copy of it directly. Please do something. MetaCracken is beginning to disrupt wiki activity.

I will deal with you individually on your talk pages. Gboyers talk 18:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You'll 'deal' with me? How about, "I'll talk with you." Don't like how that sounds. Far as I'm concerned, nothing to be dealt. Good day.

As far as I'm concerned, maintaining this wiki is my responsibility. As long as you're here, this is my jurisdiction. Very simple. I was simply going to ask you to discuss changes before you make them, to avoid these sorts of arguments. MetaCracken has been suspended for deleting your comment, and I will be having words about the content he puts on the pages. But if you don't think you can cope with that... Gboyers talk 18:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cope with what? If you mean devaluation of the articles by adding irrelevant/incorrect info, then no, I can't cope with that; and you should thank me for that. I everyone was to roll over and let people post incorrect information, what good would this wiki be? Likewise, people don't have time to sift through excess data. I'm just making sure GTA aircraft is accurate.

That's fine - I don't have a problem with that. The issue is that MetaCracken doesn't agree that the information was irrelevant/incorrect, so you should discuss it to come to an agreement. There is nothing to say that you are always right, or that your opinion is better than his, just as there is nothing to say that he is always right. You both have to understand that you might disagree, and one of you has to be wrong, but it doesn't matter which. For your information, most of your edits were correct (not all), but your attitude towards staff and the other editors involved is still not very good, and this must improve. Gboyers talk 18:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I mucked things up at all. Just got taken by surprise on my talk page is all. Maybe I acted a little hastily. EganioTalk 09:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Archiving

So, to get this straight in my head, what I should be doing is:

  1. Move the entire talk page to Archive 1, etc.
  2. Edit newly created redirect page (original talk page name) by cutting-and-pasting the new discussions back onto it.

Is that what you meant? Sorry, I forgot that moving preserves the edit history. :-) EganioTalk 00:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


is this username inappropriate thanks Chip2007 today at 9:58PM GMT 13 August

Continue with the Major Plot Articles?

Marcel Lopes 22:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Hi there Gboyers I was wondering if I should continue on with the articles I've been writing about the major plots and wars in GTA for example the First Gang War and Caligula's Palace War were both put for deletion so I don't know if I should continue writing these articles.-User:BloodyGTA 6:22 August,13 2008.

Yes. I do want to have a page to explain major plot arcs, but only when they cannot be explained on one character/mission/game page. First Gang War is a good way to explain a massive plot arc that spans multiple games, and Caligula's Palace War (although badly named) is good. I have modified the latter, and discussed the first gang war. Gboyers talk 00:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Marcel Lopes 23:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Well I know that the articles are badly named due to the fact that GTA never names these major plots so I trie to make the best name possible that serves the plot best.-User:BloodyGTA 7:59 August 13,2008


Sorry about the archive thing... I was working on the wanted pages, seeing if there were some that weren't really "wanted", and didn't realize you'd reverted; I thought I'd just forgotten to save. I just assumed it was okay to edit archives to correct links, etc., so, again, sorry. As another option, UESP recently discussed adjusting the Wanted Pages special page to not list red links appearing solely in the User_talk namespace. Is this possible here? --GuildKnightTalk2me 06:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a problem. It's just that I personally believe an archive should be a permanent record and unaltered. As for the wanted pages idea, we don't have that level of control, but I can ask for it from Wikia Staff. Gboyers talk 10:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles

I think we should have nominations for featured aticle of the month?Andrew22k 12:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured Articles aren't run on a monthly basis. It is simply a list of the best examples of pages on the wiki. It is used by Gamespot and GameFAQs (which use their own custom skin]). A random Featured Article shows up on the homepage. If you have a suggestion for a new featured article, simply nominate it on Grand Theft Wiki talk:Featured content. Gboyers talk 16:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


hey! im working in the satchel bomb and i will full of images the page of vice city in GTA VC, so it will be completed. I only can work with vice city and gta San Andreas because that's what i've in my computer. Also i'm going to use the page of Images Needed to upload all the images, So there you can put what you want and i will uploading quickly. So you can tell to all of the gta wiki staff that in that page they can put what ever the want but only for me in GTA SA and GTA VC. In a couple of days you will have the page of Vice City in GTA VC full of image. see ya! ∈δδµ 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


There you go! the pages of Satchel Bomb, Modifications, Vice City,Vice City in GTA Vice City are now completed and full of images and information!. see ya


Ok! but the idea i've is that a screenshoter or photogapher cares more about the position of the angle, and the quality of the pictures, how you know the images makes an article or a page more interesting and more completed, so yeah i know that everyone can upload images but some other people doesn't care how they took the angle and the quality, excange other people like me, cares completely this, so i think that this have to be awarded. My idea of an official sceenshoter or official gta wiki photographer is a role, that a person have to accomplished with adding good quality photos of places, people and missions, and when an arcticle has a bad image this person have to change it quickly, when an arcticle doesn't hace a image this person have to add it. So yes it can be part of the staff beacause those people like me are dispose to help other people with adding images and give them advices to how take a good pictures so the page can be completed.User:Simonetti|∈δδµ 22:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

oh ok yeah i get it, but still i'm starting to think whats with exclusivity of been part of staff, why not? if people want to help and the word "staff" give benefits to that people to help more other people why not give then i mean and ever that person deserved not just for me i know other people that deserved, so yeah i know that you and guildknight start this wiki but The most successful and important pages on the internet has A LOT of staff like and and wikipedia and maybe thats why those are important pages. Thats my point of view and i have friends that has join to this wiki and thinks the same as i do. So that all. [User: Simonetti|∈δδµ 18:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)]


ok i see well you should keep in mind the official sreenshoter rang also we have had a group of screenshoter that the people ask they for images and they upload those. Also i wanna talk about that i've seen several people that are saving the images of other people and upload it with his copyraight names to get the credits. And also why i can put a slide from or music from in my wiki userpage? [User:Simonetti|∈δδµ 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)]


Hi, recently we had a Discussion about what redirects are really for. Your explanation made it make sense to me why Chinatown, Algonquin, Liberty City is going to be deleted. But it made me think about some other redirects on the wiki. For example, why does 1 redirect to Grand Theft Auto? That page isn't even about GTA 1, it's about the GTA series. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 00:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't, it should obviously redirect to Grand Theft Auto 1, and I just fixed it. Thanks for pointing that out! --GuildKnightTalk2me 01:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Karen Spoiler Discussion

Hi, I was thinking that now that the problem has been solved and we all agree, that the spoiler discussion might be achieved. The reason is that it is a long discussion and users wishing to add new discussions to the page need to scroll down a long way before getting to the new one. To make that problem even worst, with the protection, all edits need to go through the talk page, making more reason for users to use it (if that makes sense). Thoughts? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 03:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate User Name

Hi, In the recent activity list on the main page, I found the user user:Grove 4 life bitch. Is that an inappropriate user name? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 05:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't really have to go around scouting for usernames that might be slightly offensive. "bitch" isn't a particularly bad word, and I don't think anyone will be offended by it. There are many worse ones around. Thanks anyway. Gboyers talk 08:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi, wow, that was sudden, when I got the email saying that my talk page had been changed by Gboyers, the last thing that I expected it to be was a promotion. I also got confused when I saw you having edited my user page (for the Admin template). You can trust me to only use the powers for good, I want to help this wiki, so I won't let the new tools stop that. Now, I will do the best I can to impress you and keep the position. I will do the things that you told me about before, and I still need to get more acquainted with the admin rights just like when I first started with the wiki (I'm sure that that's understandable). My biggest concern is that I won't find anything that only an admin can do (like a page that needs protecting), and won't impress you, as in the past I have tried looking for things like spam to roll back, and have had bad luck finding it. Anyway, thanks for the trial, it's an honor that you chose me, I will talk to you soon to ask questions (I used to ask Eganio all my questions, but he's been inactive for quite a while). I am currently an Admin on an LCPD forum (see my social profile for the site, I don't know it off by heart), but that's only because I was the second person to sign up and the owner needed help, LOL. BTW, with your friendship request, I've clicked Accept and nothing happens, I will keep trying, so if when you get this message it's done, just ignore this part. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 06:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, agreed! 1. An admin that only does Admin stuff, and doesn't do regular stuff is no Admin at all. They are supposed to be the most experienced users - the users that know how to use the wiki, and can help the wiki. 2. You mentioned not to delete a page that doesn't need deleting, well my problem (right now) is the opposite. I've been through the delete category and found pages that have a perfectly good reason for deletion, that the delete tag was even added by an Admin, and left it for now. I am getting more confident with my own judgment on the wiki. I remove stub/expand tags where I see fit, I check the history to see how much expansion the page has taken and if it is enough to remove the tag. At one stage, I would always go to the talk page and ask why it was there, knowing that Eganio would be there soon (he likes to follow me around). Becoming Admin is like starting again. I'm being trusted with higher order tools, and I need to build that judgement again.
While I'm talking to you, I noticed that the expiry of the protection of Michelle (IV) is infinite. I'm guessing that that means that it's protected forever (correct me if I'm wrong). If the reason is so that new users can't add Karen info, not knowing the situation (like me at the start), I understand, but they can still (and need to) post Karen info on the talk page where players can see it. Is there another way to deal with that situation? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 22:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Since I sent you my friendship request, yours accepted, so ignore it. Sorry about that, I don't know what happened! Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 22:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Empty Headers

Hi, I don't like the idea of empty headers myself, when I get to a page and they are at the start it does make the wiki feel empty. 100% is a classic example, as the early games don't have info. When I told him/her to do that, I was simply thinking because I see it so much on the wiki anyway. I will go and correct my post. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 21:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Michelle (IV) Protection

Hi, I didn't see your answer because you posted that and ==Empty Headers== in a short time so I didn't get two emails. I don't think it's about trust, the problem is that users may not know the situation (not every user was in that discussion). The main part of that problem would probably be new users (I'm the one who caused that whole mess when I was a new user). So, yes, your right, keep it protected for the release of the PC version. My biggest concern is the fact that edits need to go through the talk page, but users who haven't seen the spoiler yet can still read the talk page. Maybe we could add a line at the top of the talk page that says something along the line of: Don't post anything about spoilers here, but the problem there is that we couldn't tell them where to post that info without linking to Karen. I will think about any ways that we could deal with that problem and get back to you. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 07:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know... I prefer keeping a discussion in one place. So (for example) reply to this here, rather than splitting it across 2 pages. It helps keep relevant things together (like on a normal talk page). The only disadvantage is that the other person might miss it, since they won't get an email, but you could always drop them a message drawing their attention to it. This isn't official policy, just personal preference.
As for Michelle, I've rolled back your edit to the link. The reason for this is because your link took people directly to the old archived (protected) discussion of the spoilers, rather than to the talk page where new discussion could/should take place. Anyone going directly to the old page would not be able to find any new discussion.
If someone wants to add something revealing to Michelle, and they see "For spoiler discussion, see this talk page", they should realise that anything to do with spoilers should go there. Yes, people who don't yet know might accidentally look at the talk page and see something someone has added there. However, we can't remove every trace of Karen from the entire site, just in case someone accidentally finds something. Similarly, if you search for michelle, you are bound to find out the secret. It's about damage limitation, not total removal of the information. We are an encyclopaedia, not a story book with dramatic tension.
If your suggestion is to protect the talk page to prevent people adding information, that would totally freeze the Michelle page and prevent anyone even suggesting edits to it. We could add "this page might contain spoilers" to the top of the talk page, but I fear that might encourage people to add spoilers to that page. Perhaps you could change the go-here link to say "All spoilers must not be discussed here, please see this talk page instead"? Gboyers talk 14:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
My intention was never to protect the talk page, that's what talk pages are for. Your idea of changing the line could be the best solution. As for me changing the link, that was a long time ago (when you made the archive), What I was thinking there is that there is now no spoiler discussion on talk:Karen. I guess that when users get there they can see the link to the archive, I just thought that that would be like linking to a disambig. Sorry about that. In fact, with it linking directly to talk:Karen we don't need to change the line, it says "For spoiler discussion see here", so users should easily know what that refers to, and go there to post Karen info (while users not knowing about Karen won't want to see it). I also understand not keeping the Karen info from users, the spoiler thing clearly makes it their decision to see it or not. Maybe the best idea is just to keep an eye on talk:Michelle (IV) and if we see spoiler info, move it and inform the user who posted it. We couldn't "Protect" every single user like that, but certainly keep the accidental viewing to a minimum. Thoughts? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
There are a select few users that we already automatically know have seen the Karen spoiler, and that's those in the original discussion. Now, everyone in that except me and the user who started it, was staff. So a good start would be to have all staff watch talk:Michelle (IV) for spoilers (if you agree to my idea). So would it be a good idea to post this on the SN? The real question here is would it qualify for the SN? (I'm still getting used to being admin). Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 05:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea to me. Go for it. This isn't what we would normally do, but because so many people see this as an issue it is worth us paying attention to it. Gboyers talk 10:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Right, (about your post on SN). BTW, I do see your point with keeping discussions in one place (I linked to this discussion, it would have been hard across two pages). Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 11:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
With how you said that reading talk pages is at your own risk, you could have said that from the start. I was actually going to ask that, but when I have huge posts that stary off topic, I tend to leave stuff out. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Patrolling Rights

I have been spending a bit of time going through Recent Edits and the Recent Activity section on the Main Page and checking (and patrolling) edits. That's how I found this edit that needed to be rolled back. Is this something that you want me to keep up? If so, what am I actually looking for in the edits I patrol (I have just been looking for users adding of info that didn't belong or deleting of important info)? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

That is the main part of what staff do - just going through pages (or recent edits) making sure everything is OK. Checking recent edits every day is a good way to keep on top of that. It isn't something that requires staff privileges (although using the patrol system is), but its still our responsibility. Its impossible to check EVERY edit, but if you regularly browse the wiki, and mark every good page you see as patrolled, then we'll find most things that need fixing. Gboyers talk 17:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, Thanks, just one thing, how do I patrol the edit that created a page (the first edit of a page)? Because it's not possible to get any diifs that put that edit on the right, I can't get a mark as patrolled link. Thanks in advance. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 05:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Just look at the page itself (not a diff), and it'll have one in the bottom-right corner. Gboyers talk 08:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm Back

I had a bit of computer trouble, it would go past the part where the bar moves (while Windows loads) but then would go black and restart after five minutes. I didn't reformat straight away because I was hoping to get my latest game off the hard drive first (I hadn't put it on removable media yet) but now I've decided that there are more important things than one little game. (I've also learnt to back up my files). I'm back now, but I'm still setting up my computer (eg. right now an Internet Explorer version so old that sites look wierd), so I will be back properley real soon. Is there any chance that we can add the time I lost to the end of my Admin trial? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 06:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. That's not a problem - it happens to all of us sometimes. If you're ever away for a few days, just make sure that either another admin has been looking after the wiki, or go through a couple of days worth of edits to make sure nothing bad has happened. Your probationary period is completely flexible, and I won't count this against you. Gboyers talk 13:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV Endings Spoiler Warning

Firstly, I'm completely back and focused now. Secondly, when you said in your edit summary "Spoiler Warning - you should know this by now"', I'm sure you were talking to me, as I created the page. I will be honest, It didn't cross my mind to add one. Now I'm not going to make excuses, but when a page is called GTA IV Endings, you expect to see spoilers about the endings don't you? Anyway, I will take that into account in the future. Thanks! Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 04:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was talking to everyone involved, rather than anyone in particular. As for the spoiler, you are correct. However remember that they might not have typed the title into the browser themselves, they probably just clicked on a link. There's no rule saying the link text has to be identical to the title of the page it links to. So you could click on Vehicles in GTA IV (or anything) and arrive at GTA IV Endings. That could either be a mistake, or a deliberate attempt to spoil the game. If that happened, you need a very quick visual warning to point out the spoilers (so that you don't start reading). It's just best practice and useful to have. Gboyers talk 08:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts

I know that it is against the rules of Grand Theft Wiki to have multiple accounts. To make the situation worst, the user that I'm suspecting is using multiple accounts to make him/her-self look like a good user. Check my recent discussion with MetaCracken, I warned him/her to stop with the recent vandalism, and thanked Captain Seven-Twenty for reverting the edit.

Hardrock182 then saw the discussion and sent me an email. He/She made me aware of this page. Check the history, clearly made by Captain Seven-Twenty. MetaCracken apart from the recent vandalism hasn't been on for 60 days, and Captain Seven-Twenty is the younger account (made after MetaCracken's last suspension). What this means is that this user is breaking the rules of GTW. I am currently researching it. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 10:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I have realized that categorization isn't as confusing as I first thought, and that you're right in what you said to Eganio, categorization is an easy, "fun", yet important task that needs to be done on the wiki. I have been going through Special:UnusedCategories to help, as well as renaming categories for capitalization, and then deleting the old category. However, I know that Eganio has been guilty of over-categorization, so when I found some empty categories created by him, I didn't know if they really have a use, or if they would be better off being deleted. My two examples are:

Category:Ground Vehicles
Category:Elevated Rail Stations in Liberty City.

With ground vehicles, it already is a subcategory of Ground Transport, so I do think that if any get deleted, it's that one. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Delete empty categories, almost always. The only times you would NOT do this is when the category was where pages live temporarily. For example Category:Delete or Category:Stubs. Almost every vehicle fits into Category:Ground Vehicles, so theres no point - I think every vehicle is "Ground" or "Land" based, unless otherwise specified.
Don't overcomplicate things - categories are used to help you find similar pages, rather than group everything. For example, we could create categories for long pages, pages written by gboyers, vehicles which can be red, vehicles with 4 wheels, missions where you kill someone etc etc. Whilst some of these are POSSIBLE (eg the last one), it is unnecessary unless there is a need for it. If you just want a list of vehicles of a particular type, create a list. Categories are more organic than that. And the Elevated Rail one is unnecessary, and we manage without it, so delete. Gboyers talk 01:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


Hey Gboyers. I wanted to give you a heads up on the edit I just made to MediaWiki:Pagetitle. We're taking a more aggressive approach to search engine optimization. I've been assigned with dropping by the top 50 gaming wikis to edit that file in order to maximize traffic from search engines. Feel free to replace and/or add words as you see fit, but leave 'Grand Theft Auto' at the far left since that's the most important thing. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to shoot me a message. JoePlay (talk) 23:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Page Move?

I know that we try to keep all pages capitalized except for minor words. In my opinion Crossovers between Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and previous Grand Theft Auto games should be capitalized, however people's opinions may differ as the way it is the capitals start game names and the lower cases start "spare" words. The only thing stopping me from moving it without asking was that other admins have been there according to the history. Also, I think that it could be shortened dramatically by calling it Crossovers Between GTA San Andreas and Previous GTA Games (still very long, got any other ideas?). Anyway, do you think that it needs to be moved, and if so, to what? Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 06:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That page was copied directly from Wikipedia, and even had Wikipedia's templates still in it. That page has now been deleted.
As for capitalisation, we do have specific guidelines on that. Titles should be in title case, with capitalization of almost all words - except for internal articles, prepositions and conjunctions (eg in/the/a/is/if/to); however, when these words are capitalized in-game, they should also be capitalized as the title of the article. This is different to Wikipedia, since we place emphasis on them being titles rather than opening sentences. Gboyers talk 08:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought I had read the whole Policy, but obviousley not. Also, you told me that replying on the same user talk page (like you do here) wasn't official policy, but that page says that it is. That means that Eganio and I have broken the rules numerable times. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 09:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a difference between Policy and Rules. Policy is our official stance, and we should aim to match it - however doing something a slightly different way isn't breaking the rules directly. A lot of people make mistakes, and these are pointed out and correctly. With this particular issue, I know that personal preference can vary massively, so I'm not going to hunt down people that split conversations up in order for it to show up as a "new message" on a user's talk page. Gboyers talk 20:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

User Block

Ollygardiner's first edit after signing up was replacing the Main Page with I hate you. That creates the illusion that he/she only signed up to cause vandalism. I blocked the account for one month, but it did seem a bit long, and as my first real block, I didn't know what would normally happen, so you might shorten the block or even unblock the account and just warn the user. I have told the user of this. If you do change the time or unblock the account, please let me know so that I know for the future. Thanks! Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 01:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that is appropriate. If the user intends to cause damage, a month is usually enough time to persuade them to go away. If the user intends to become a real contributor, then a month is usually enough time for them to 'convert' and they can begin editing after that time, in the knowledge that vandalism won't be tolerated like that. Very rarely would that ever be an accident by a legitimate user. Even if they don't understand the implications of editing a wiki, the chances are they would never consider contributing. So it's fine by me - main page vandalism carries the death sentence where I come from anyway! Gboyers talk 01:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


I know that we should try to use third person perspective wherever possible. I have tried to re-write mission pages removing you for the player, only to realize that at the end, it's still in second person, saying Drive to ______ etc.. I don't know if it's even possible to have a mission page in third person and I have made a mess where I have tried. Is there anything about that, to say that mission pages can be written as walkthroughs? I am ready to go back and re-write the pages again or revert my edits. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 06:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I just realized that the pages need to be completely re-written but can become third person. Before I act though, I will see what you think about the situation. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 06:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The introduction to a mission page must be completely flat and neutral. Eg "XYZ is a mission where the player must drive down the road to a shop. When there, the shop blows up and the player must escape". If you have a dedicated walkthrough section (that is different to a "plot" or "outline" section), then you can issue instructions, but still neutrally. EG: "drive to the shop, grab the armour, walk in, wait for the cutscene, run out as fast as you can, jump in the car round the corner, drive back to the safehouse". Hope that helps - Gboyers talk 14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That helped alot. What I did before was right. I have had an idea for a new template for this. Sure, the normal cleanup template could be used, but that wouldn't tell users the problem. I know that the A user had the following concern thing can be used, so if you don't like the idea, that's fine. If you do, that is just a draft (it still uses the normal cleanup image for example), but do what you want to it, when it's ready we can move it to Template:Mission. In the description, the word standards links to the template page (this being the template page, thats why it's black and not a link). Also, for the final example, same problem. Thanks for the help before. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 22:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad you got it right! Not really sure of the value of a separate template, the only change really is that it says "mission" in it. I'm keen not to duplicate templates, like Wikipedia has ones like "this image of a dog is too small" and "this image of a brown dog is too small" and millions like that. However, if you are wanting to do a short-term cleanup of a specific area of pages, such as GTA IV missions, then by all means use a category (or even a temporary template) to group together the things you need to work on. But that's only for short-term one-off job lots, rather than to keep. I think a better idea would be to make a "perfect" mission, and use that as a guideline for writing all other mission pages. Perhaps write some policy on how to write a mission page for the layout guide, with lots of examples? Gboyers talk 00:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, actually, don't worry. I don't quite like the idea myself. That's what it's like to be me, I come up with such great ideas, but when I think about it later after I've started working on it, I think that was a pretty stupid idea. Good idea of yours there, I will work on that perfect mission page and maybe some policy. As for the Wikipedia thing, I know what your talking about. With the mission clean up template, all that need to be used is the A user has the following concern of the regular template. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 05:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolution Problem

I was going through all the cheats pages categorizing and adding {{Cheats}} when I came across a resolution problem on GTA Vice City Cheats (PS2) that if anyone local (not Wikia staff) can fix, it's you (maybe I can but I wouldn't know how). Another user has confirmed the problem on the talk page, so if you could take a look? Thanks! Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 07:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I worked out the problem. Sorry for contacting you too early. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 07:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

GTA IV Endings Categorization

Hi, how should GTA IV Endings be categorized? Right now it is under Missions and Missions in GTA IV, but it's not actually a mission, it takes place over many missions... so is this right? Thanks in advance. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 06:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I (purposely) haven't completed the game yet, so I'm not going to spend overly long looking at that page. Even though it isn't a mission, I think that is one logical place for it to stay. However, it should also be in the main GTA IV category, and also Category:Plot. Gboyers talk 18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
OK Thanks! When you say purposely, I don't know your reason, but you sound like my brother. I played every day, because I was addicted to the story, while my brother did the opposite. He played slowly, actually, when I was at his house once a week and we played, he always seemed to be at the same spot, with the attitude of when he finishes he won't have anything to do. Then (you already know by the page name), when he reached the part where the story splits into two, instead of saving on a separate file to come back to like me, he played the whole thing again. Anyway, you don't need to know this story, so sorry for making you read it, it was just a memory unlocked by your post. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 21:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I hope unlocking that memory gave you a few more percent towards completion! I played slowly because I wanted something to do over summer (when I would be less busy). But that soon ended up with me stopping altogether, and I've only played a handful of times since (as I've been more busy than I thought). I'm most of the way through the storyline, but not there yet. Again I'm waiting for a time for me to be less busy, then I'll have time to play. I'll get round to it! Gboyers talk 22:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I hope you realize that the memory was never locked. It wasn't long ago and there's nothing wrong with my brain (at least I hope LOL). What I meant was it's not something I think about every day, and when i read your post I thought about it. And BTW, when I saw those credits roll, I knew my brother had the right idea, because I knew that it was over. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 23:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Lol I know what you meant - hence my sarcastic reply. What did you decide to do with those categories? Gboyers talk 16:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I put the page into Missions, Missions in GTA IV, Plot and I accidentally put it into GTA IV before I put it into plot. Is this a good place, because I actually don't think so (hence, it was an accident)? BTW, less than an hour after we were talking about my brother, I found out that he broke his arm in three places the night before, One of the things he won't be able to do for six weeks is play video games. It's funny that I was thinking about playing video games with hm, because I don't think about games except when I'm playing them, and when I'm on here (except GTA IV was different because I was addicted to the storyline). Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 05:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Freeways in GTA IV

I left a message on Talk:Freeways in GTA IV a while ago, and now that I finally got a reply it was from Chip2007. So I thought that I would do things the smart (easy) way and come directly to you. The problem with Chip can be explained by the fact that every time I see his name in Recent Edits, the edit has been reverted by an admin (not always/but alot/and alot of the times that it's not it's about to be done by me). See Talk:Stevie's Car Thefts. The page used to be called Car Thefts, so we had a big discussion about a move, but with the fact that everyone in the discussion except for me was an admin, before we finally came to a decision the admins all must have removed it from their watchlists because no one would make the move. When I got promoted I finally did it, and made Car Thefts a disambig. Then a few days ago Chip came along to Talk:Stevie's Car Thefts and said he just turned that into a disambig. (an edit which I reverted). Anyway, that story was just one of many to back up why a reply from Chip didn't mean as much to me as a reply from any other user. So if you could take a look at Talk:Freeways in GTA IV and give me your thoughts that would be great. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 11:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to me. We have had a few problems with Chip (and I am aware that he can read this) - for example, this week he thanked me for making him an admin, which had never happened. Car Thefts is a great disambig, but you need to make sure that it can be easily found - it isn't in any categories at the minute. I also quite like Freeways in GTA IV - but it could be made more useful by adding a map showing which freeway is which. It should definitely be linked to from the Transportation header. The same could be done with bridges, which should be brought up to date, have a map added etc, and be linked to from the transportation header too. Hope that helps - Gboyers talk 14:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm working on getting the maps etc. for the Freeways and Bridges pages, and as soon as I finish this post I will be doing the other stuff you mentioned for those pages. As for the categorization of Car Thefts, I put it into Category:Vehicles and Category:Missions after looking through the list of categories and couldn't find anything specific for this kind of thing. Vehicles and Missions have to be the two broadest categories on the wiki and don't make it easy to find so is there another place that it could go?, and do you think that we should make a new category for that page and all the car thefts pages? Also, I realized yesterday, look back over your talk page at how much room I've taken up. It would have hardly grown without me. Biggest GTA Fan EverTalk 23:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)