GTA Myths Wiki
Don't have an account?
Register
Advertisement
Register
GTA Myths Wiki
GTA Myths Wiki
1,460
pages

GTA Myths Wiki:Community Noticeboard/Archive 1

< GTA Myths Wiki:Community Noticeboard
Sign in to edit

New Location Infobox[]


Hey there guys. I'm proud to announce a new infobox for the originally boring locations one. I changed it so that it is more related to the myths wiki. For the example on the right, I used the Ghost Tower page. (NOTE: The Ghost Town page is a myth page and will NOT be having the location infobox; I'm just using it as an example.) Starting from the bottom up, it goes: Location title; Location image; Appearances; Location; Inhabitants and then a map showing the location's location. Tell me what you think and vote for whether we should keep it for use on the location pages. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 18:12, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • Yeah, and we definately need to enforce it more. Only about 5 pages on the entire wiki used the original location infobox. This is easier to look at, and it deserves to be used. --Gunshow2 (Talk + Stalk)

[]

Closed August 1, 2014 as Unsuccessful. Bureaucrat only vote. Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:48, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Myths new logo

Ever since the Wiki recieved a new, modern theme, I've been thinking: we need a modern logo. Naturally, I created one:

Over the months, I have learned lots about Paint.net, before I used to think that the original logo I made was genius, and the remastered one I made was my magnum opus, however, with my experience, I have grown to hate the logo - it looks ugly to me. First off, you can't see the gtA and Wiki because it is blocked off by the word "myths." The splatter used in the background doesn't match up with the words, and it ends abruptly, which looks amatuer at best.

With this new logo, I've taken some inspiration by the classic logo (the 2 fonts, the lime green background,) and made it into a more minimalist, recognisable, and just plain better logo. I think that this new emblem should replace the current on so our great Wiki can look presentable with a modern theme and logo. --Gunshow2

​​Votes[]

Comments[]

  • I think this voting session will come down to each users' personal preferences, and I personally like the new one better. It's a bit neater and simpler, and I never really was a fan of that bright green spatter on the old one. I don't know how everyone else feels about this, but I like the new one better. RageQuit Talk 17:07, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm undecided because both have their individual good things and bad things. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 18:53, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
  • I decided. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 17:44, August 2, 2014 (UTC)
  • I already said to Jim this is a bureaucrat only vote but if he wants to go through the process then so be it. Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:48, August 2, 2014 (UTC)
  • I would say yes if there weren't any tildes. Until that's an option, I'd have to say no :/ --RadicalEdward2 (talk) 08:03, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

New Rule[]

Closed July 26, 2014 as Successful. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:51, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

One thing I've noticed while checking some people's edits is that if they are not pointsgaming, they're just adding useless, no shit Sherlock info. It really annoys me when I see this because I'm going to have to fix it and waste my time, but I can't tell them not to because they aren't breaking any rules. So I'm suggesting that we add a new rule to the Policy - No Sherlocking; which prohibits users from adding no shit Sherlock info to pages. I highly suggest you vote in favor of this because when useless info occur in pages, it just makes the wiki look bad.  Boomer8 (talk) 02:47, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • This idea is good, however, I fear that it may delete some info that could be very useful. This should not be a strictly enforced rule, only removing something if it is really primitive. For example, "Bigfoot is a creature" can go, but something like "Sasquatch appears in Back 'o' Beyond" has at least some value too it. --Gunshow2
  • In light the problems we have had with pointsgaming this new rule will be a welcomed edition to the Policy. Of course admins monitoring "Sherlocking" would have to use common sense. EX: The grass is green, the sky is blue - that's sherlocking. We all know what pointless edits are so it's good we have a rule for it now. Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:28, July 26, 2014 (UTC)
  • The idea is actually really good, and I think it would benefit this wiki. However it may need some work and some clarifying because we need to have a clearly defined line between what is "no shit Sherlock" info and what isn't. Otherwise, some users may get discouraged from editing here. I'm sure we could work on clarifying the rule a little bit, so new users are not confused by it. Otherwise, I think it's a great idea. RageQuit Talk 03:44, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

User of the Month[]

Closed July 26, 2014 as Successful. --Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:51, July 27, 2014 (UTC)

Some wikis, like the Call of Duty Wiki for example, have a user of the month section on their main page. It is a great way to commend a certain user that has done exceptionally well the past month. I think this would be a great addition for the GTA Myths Wiki as it would encourage users to edit and to do their best. If we were to have it, the staff at the end of each month would vote for one of the candidates who they believe the user of the month should be. It would kind of be like the GTA Myths Wiki:Featured Article. So if you have any questions or suggestions just leave them in the comments.  Boomer8 (talk) 02:31, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • In addition to user of the month, we could tally up who has been the user of the month the most throughout the year and then that person would be the user of the year. Great idea Boomer. Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:34, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

New Wiki Theme[]

Closed July 11, 2014 as Successful. --RageQuit Talk 21:44, July 11, 2014 (UTC)

There has been some talk of the need for a new theme on the wiki, and some users have put forth their own creations. User:Radical Edward2 made these two new theme ideas, and many users agree that a new background image would be a nice change from the one we have right now. What do you guys think? Vote Yes or No, and say which theme looks best: The one with text or the one without text. RageQuit Talk 03:46, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

GTA Myth Background
GTA Myth background no font

Votes[]

  • Yes - Textless theme - RageQuit Talk 04:06, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes - Textless theme - Gunshow2
  • Natrual_ Textless theme - Aiden Pearce 2 Talk 11:04, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes - Textless theme - AK-28 (Talk ⋆ Edits) 13:30, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes - Textless theme - Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:05, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
  • YES - Textless theme - MythHunter2013  (talk alk) 18:08, July 26, 2014 (UTC)

Comments[]

  • It looks really good, and we have had the "Bigfoot in the woods" one ever since I have joined the wiki. The new one has a much creepier atmosphere to it as well. RageQuit Talk 04:06, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • The text version has incorrect stuff on it, so I'm going with the textless. --Gunshow2
  • Ummm I think this logo is too big, I think every users should make their themes and i'll create a page and name of that page is (Themes and Votes). And every staff members can vote there. Aiden Pearce 2 Talk 11:25, July 8, 2014 (UTC)
  • The textless one looks great. Bringing the wiki up to date with an HD era backround is a good idea. I like the contrast with the dark woods and the creepy urban enviroment. Also I like how Bigfoot is still included in the backround. Very professional. Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:05, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
  • UPDATE - I uploaded the textless theme for the backround but there are a few problems. The image needs to be "streched" because it doesn't fill up the screen. Also the Bigfoot image is too dark and doesn't show up. Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:11, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
  • UPDATE - I was able to get the right dimensions for the backround but the Bigfoot image in the center is too dark and does to show up. Sasquatch101 (talk) 06:21, July 9, 2014 (UTC)
  • @Sasquatch - Can you send me the image? I might be able to get it working. --Gunshow2

Warning Blocks[]

Closed May 3rd, 2014 as Successful. --CommunistOverlordJim

. I think that a user who violates the rules, gets a note from staff, and does it again should get a 'warning block'. The offending user would be blocked 5-30 minutes depending the on the seriousness, so they could calm down or loose the spirit to break rules. The next time that user commits a felony, they would get a typical block.

It's mostly just to keep editors in. Many times, users are blocked and never come back again, but with the "Warning Block" system, they could understand the consequences of their actions before they commit one again. --CommunistOverlordJim

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • That sounds like a good idea, the only problem is that the least amount of time you can be blocked for is 2 hours. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 22:51, January 18, 2014 (UTC)
  • @VaultBoy, you can give a custom time limit when administering a block. I know you use a tablet and that feature may not be there, but it is present on the PC --CommunistOverlordJim
  • This sounds not half bad. However we are going to have to add to the GTA Myths Wiki Policy specific block procedures and guidelines. At the end of the day the wiki is all about the editors, and not blocking people just because they have a diferent opinoin than you. This rule though could be a step in the right direction. Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:23, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
  • @Jim, I have a tablet but I edit using a PC. I think I know what you mean by the thing where you set it yourself. My tablet is only useful for looking at stuff, not editing. LS11sVaultBoy (Talk) 12:56, January 19, 2014 (UTC)
  • Great idea. AK-28 (Talk ★ Edits) 07:15, January 22, 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Lockdown[]

Closed January 11, 2014 as Unsuccessful.. WE ALLOW ONLY REGISTERED USERS NOW SO THIS IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. Sasquatch101 (talk) 03:10, January 12, 2014 (UTC)


After we received the message that there's going to be a huge attack by GTATurk on our wiki, I think there should be a temporary wiki lockdown. Me and RageQuit have been reverting all the vandalism that one user did from the site so I think that if a whole bunch of them come instead of just one, then we're done for. The lockdown won't be long, it will just be where the admins lock as many pages as they can until we're home free. What do you guys think?

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • I've already called staff and VTSF. CommunistOverlordJim |Talkpage
  • I have also contacted Ransomtime, one of Wikia's vandal prevention members. He's the same guy that helped us with vandals last time. It's troubling to hear that we need to lockdown the wiki, but at this point it may be the only move to take to prevent big damage. Sasquatch101 (talk) 01:02, November 12, 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree. But isn't there a registered users for the wiki only? Can't we just make ranked users to be the only ones to edit? But i will agree to a lockdown if there isn't another approach to this ridiculous madness. [XBL]gameplayer2014 (talk)
  • If a lockdown is what we need to keep these vandalous pigs away from our pages then so be it. Boomer8 (talk) 02:41, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

No anonymous users allowed[]

Closed as Successful, CommunistOverlordJim |Talkpage

We have had manny issues with the unregistered users on the wiki so this measure is presented to the community so Wikia will approve a reqistered users only rule to prevent vandalism among  other reasons from continuing here. Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:59, November 3, 2013 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • They have been a huge problem and I can't wait until all this madness stops. VaultBoy Tom (Talk | Edits) 08:21, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
  • We already have had this vote, but a 2nd time is nice. CommunistOverlordJim |Talkpage
  • Even though originally I didn't support this idea, I guess it is for the best of this wikia. I didn't like this idea because alot of times, I have seen unregistered members come here and contribute alot of very useful information. I thought that if this wikia would not allow unregistered members to edit, it would turn away alot of possible members and they will never share their knowledge with us. But after that large barrage of vandalism attacks on the wikia, I suppose I will vote yes. RageQuit Talk 15:56, November 3, 2013 (UTC)
  • I still don't believe in this idea. Even though there are vandals here and there, there's also some anoymous users who do good edits. Approving this will turn away would-be members and I don't believe in punishing everyone if only a couple of people do wrong.  Boomer8 (talk) 03:58, November 4, 2013 (UTC)

GTA V Wiki Embargo[]

Closed as Successful on 18:01, September 15, 2013 (UTC) by AK-28 (Talk Edits)

As most of you know, the GTA V Wiki stole some info from us a while back, so we declared and edit war and vandalised pages on each others Wikis. However, even after our "truce", members from that wiki are continuing to attack us, and they seemed to help conspire the 2 GTATurk attacks that happened this month, so me and Sasquatch101 devised some sort of an "embargo", nobody from this Wiki can edit their wiki, and no members from there can edit ours. CommunistOverlordJim | Talk

Votes[]

  • Yes - Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:57, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes - Easter Egg (talk) 03:05, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes - Boomer8 (talk) 04:44, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes - VaultBoy Tom (Talk | Edits) 08:43, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes - I like the AK-47, a problem?AK-28 (Talk ★ Edits) 11:19, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes- MythHunter2013 (talk) 19:50, September 15, 2013 (UTC) 

Comments[]

  • Well said Jim. We must take all necessary measures to prevent any further confrontations with the GTA V Wiki. The leader (Kujopaws)  is a proven plagiarist, who showed total disregaurd by allowing and taking part in copying pages from are wiki as well as blocking myself and jim when he was confronted about the matter. Wikia got involved but pages are still copied and we continue to be vandalized here and there by him or his users. The GTA Myths Wiki will not be a party to anything that has to do with the GTA V Wiki, and we expect our staff and users to agree to protect the wiki they have spent so much work on from petty plagiarists. Sasquatch101 (talk) 02:57, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Completely agree. We shouldn't have anything to do with a wikia that plagiarized our pages and even vandalized us various times. Easter Egg (talk) 03:05, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • The GTA V Wiki is bad news, and I really don't see any reason why anyone from this wiki would want to edit there.  Boomer8 (talk) 04:44, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • I think this will be a good idea. However, one thing I must say is that it may not have been Kujopaws who blocked you. It may have been that Johnnylevisberg guy or whatever he's called. VaultBoy Tom (Talk | Edits) 08:43, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • This is a good idea, but what about image policy? It's been more than a month since the idea was on the noticeboard. I like the AK-47, a problem?AK-28 (Talk ★ Edits) 11:19, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • @ VaultBoy, Kujopaws is the one that blocked me and Jimbo. That Joshua guy is blocked by kujopaws so he couldn't of done it. That kujopaws is nothing more than a pathetic plagiarist who doesn't follow Wikia's rules. Anyone that would even want to edit there shows total disrespect for this wiki. Sasquatch101 (talk) 19:41, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. VaultBoy Tom (Talk | Edits) 15:10, September 27, 2013 (UTC)

Should we allow only registered users to edit the wiki?[]

Closed September 10, 2013 as successful.. Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:01, September 11, 2013 (UTC)

After the large vandal attack a few days ago, the question of allowing anonymous users has come up. I know people of all age groups love to contribute to the wiki and sometimes don't know how to set up an account. That's why I was standoffish at first of allowing only registered users. However after the vandal attack which required wikia's help to restore the wiki, I don't know if we should continue to allow non-registered users. A request for this would have to be sent to Wikia to decide. So what do you all think?

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • When you said "Registered users", did you mean autoconfirmed users or all the users who have an account on wikia?
  • I aren't totally sure. Could someone inform me on what happened a few days ago please? VaultBoy Tom (Talk | Edits) 11:36, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
  • @Tom, some website gathered all their users to vandalise our Wiki, similar to the GTA V Wiki situation, but instead of 1 page, it was every one. CommunistOverlordJim |  Talk
  • After that GTA Turk website made a massive attack on our wiki, it's probably a good idea to change the user policy Easter Egg (talk) 23:37, September 9, 2013 (UTC)
  • It looks like this will pass. I will send the registered user request to the Wikia team. Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:53, September 10, 2013 (UTC)
  • Even though this looks like it's going to pass, I'm still going to say what I think. I was shocked when I heared that a bunch of vandals almost ruined this wiki. But a lot of the contributors on this wiki are annonymous users; esspesially on the fourm. Allowing annonymous users to edit on this wiki encourages people create accounts. StrangeThingsGonnaHappen and many others are a perfect example of this. Getting rid of this feature I believe will lose a lot of would-be registered users. We shouldn't do an extreme change like this because of a couple losers vandalizing, as this would punish innocent annonymous users as well.  Boomer8 (talk) 05:32, September 10, 2013 (UTC)


Closed August 13, 2013 as Unsuccessful.. Reason: Bureaucrat only vote.

New Logo[]

Wikilogo

Me and Sasquatch have been arguing over what should be our logo. Either the current one or the one that I made fresh. Vote "Old" or "New" --CommunistOverlordJim (talk) 05:35, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • The older one has been the face of the site for almost a year now, and besides the old one is already advertised on other sites which would have to be changed to a new one. Also this sites name is GTA Myths Wiki, not Grand Theft Auto Myths Wiki. Furthermore the logo's print will look crunched up in the 156 x 45 pixels required to fit as a logo. Sasquatch101 (talk) 19:02, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Expansion[]

I've found some myth sites that I think we should be affiliates of, these are; GTAMyths1, the MHAI and the VGMH. CommunistOverlordJim (talk) 22:22, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • I think some of those web sites are closed because they didn't open on my browser. The 'VGMH" was the only one I found and was not a high quality site. Plus I don't think we should affiliate with other myth websites because it will distract from the GTA Myths Wiki. Sasquatch101 (talk) 05:25, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Limiting Staff[]

--Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:26, August 9, 2013 (UTC) Vote on limiting staff closed August 9, 2013 as Successful.


There is 2 admins and 3 patrollers, so I think that we should limit the staff for the time being. --CommunistOverlordJim (talk) 03:07, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • With Jimbo's recent promotion to Bueraucrat there is now one spot open for Admin. We could also open up requsts for patroller once there is a lage influx of users when GTA V is out. But otherwise we should limit to 3. Sasquatch101 (talk) 04:16, August 7, 2013 (UTC)
  • We shold have one more patroller. Kingrhem (Talk • Edits) 12:25, August 8, 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, we should have one more patroller because since Boomer appears to be about to become an admin, we would then have 3 admins but only 2 patrollers. So one or two more patrollers. VaultBoy Tom (Talk | Edits) 16:22, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

Image policy[]

Sasquatch101 (talk) 22:09, August 8, 2013 (UTC) Vote on Image policy closed August 8, 2013 as Successful.

We should have image policy, it will be very useful. Kingrhem (Talk • Edits) 08:01, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Votes[]

Comments[]

  • We have to have a basic set of rules as far as uploading censored images and the lisencing of them. Sasquatch101 (talk) 17:13, August 1, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms
Advertisement