Talk:Grand Theft Auto/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

GTA Car Data Base

I think its about time to start an article of them, sence theres been plenty sence its beggenning day, but i will not beable to do it alone, so i'll need some help from others, i'm thinking of having them in catagories, like muscle cars, sports, roadsters/hot-rods, compacts, trucks ext, then a brief discription of it and its first appearance, noting a few minor things about it, if its been involved in a certaint in game mission & of course noting what vehicle it was made to be like/look like, example Patriot looks like Hummer H1, and i'm sure it'll be huge, knowing how many vehicles there has been since GTA on PSOne, now i can do most of them, mainly those from 1-liberty city stories, but i am missing vice city stories, so i don't know exactly what vehicles are in it, the first 3 games, GTA, GTA London & GTA2 will be pretty hard for me to find all vehicles, sence i rarely played them before, so i'll need help on those aswell, so hopefully i get some takers in this project to help me get this thing going,~~[User:Lil'Layzie-One|Lil'Layzie-One]

No, no, no. Wikipedia is not a place for lists and certainly not a list of GTA Vehicles. It's been done many times in the past and every attempt has failed and resulted in it's removal or deletion. - .:Alex:. 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Location's criteria for inclusion

District names or minor locales are not necessary in the locations section or this article. Locations only referenced in speech once or twice are not notable enough to be included, while Bullworth and Carcer City, which are not featured in any GTA games, nevertheless are featured as the settings of non-GTA games set in GTA canon. In the case of the districts or neighborhoods, it's only repeating what would be provided in articles on respectable cities (such as the inclusion of "New Guernsey", which is only a neighborhood in Liberty City). This article is only intended to provide an overview of locales, and is to be keep at a minimal (leaving out said info). ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 13:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC) ╫

In my oppionion a Grand Theft Auto City Guide and Car Database should be put into Grand Theft Wiki and not here at Wikipeda, this is far too special. --Matthias M. (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Video game sales

Obviously we need to obtain sales for the whole GTA series as a whole. I mean we all know this is obviously one of the biggest selling franchises of all time as a whole. You guys got 1 week to put it in, or that's it. I'll make up some B.S. figure. 21:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Bullworth

There are some who belive at Wikipedia that Bullworth is not in the GTA Univirse just because Bullworth hasen't been mentiond in any GTA Games yet. But in the Auto Shop Class there is a Diablo Stalion parked! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean mc sean (talk • contribs) 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

That doesn't prove anything. That could simply be an easter egg. Better yet, how can you assume it's a "Diablo Stallion". Have you seen anything else that could prove it's in the GTA universe? All of it is speculation. Find some hard proof it's connected to the GTA universe besides "there's a Diablo Stallion parked in Auto Shop Class." ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Cover Art

Has anyone else noticed that every game from III onward(excluding Adcance) has had a helicopter in the upper left corner? And if so, should this be noted? - 206.159.155.148 13:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already mentioned. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 14:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC) ╫

Have you noticed also that the number of guns depicted on the covers increases from 0 (GTA III) to 1 (GTA VC) to 6 (GTA SA)? Also, have you noticed that the helicopter in the GTA VC cover art has front cannons? When I play GTA VC (and GTA SA), I get the feeling there is someone riding in police helicopters that is firing an M60 or something similar, rather than the helicopter pilot doing the shooting.

And why did they decide to nix the car explosion scene in the cover art for GTA SA? It was seeming like a trademark for a while...I guess the "drive by" scene compensates for any lack of excitement lost by the omission. Eganio 02:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Hey what happend to the Timeline? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sean mc sean (talk • contribs) 20:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

It was deleted. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 21:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? Sean mc Sean 04:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It was unsourced and basically useless; no use outside of "fandom." ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Guerseys"

Some (perhaps, one) users believe that the Guernseys should be placed in the article, just because they (or rather, he) "think" that they, the Guernseys, are not part of Liberty City in GTA 1. First off, the only cities noted in GTA 1 are Liberty, Vice, and San Andreas, so that's disproven. Also, if 2 districts of a city are added into this, then why aren't all of the others that have real life counter parts (Note that 90% of the neighborhoods in GTA cities are based off of real ones of their respectives cities, so it would be utterly ridiculous to add all of them.). ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question was asserting that the Guerseys, he thought, are cities in their own right, and should be include. Nevertheless, this is, as I agree with you, redundant and encourages exessive listing of more neighborhoods. It's also becoming apparent he's taking this issue personally. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC) ╫

• I belive that if Rockstar Games were ever to have a gta game set in a state and city based off New Jersey and Jersey City that they would be called New Guernsey and Guernsey City. - Sean mc Sean 23:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about what you believe, but what can be proven. Even then, has it been announced that the next game's city will be based off of New Jersey of Jersey City? Even then, GTA 1 was retconned, so you can basically disregard everything in GTA 1. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

If so, then we can basically ignore everything from GTA1 right up to San Andreas, because everything that has been previously released will be retconned when GTA IV comes out. 89.217.168.59 19:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Guernsey City and New Guernsey are still probably based off New Jersey and Jersey City so it should stay. - Sean mc Sean 23:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please try to be reasonable about this. Both cities are not "stand alone" cities, such as Vice City or San Fierro, so they shouldn't be added. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia it's pretty clear that it doesn't promote writing based on personal opinion. I'm not objecting your edits based on personal reasons, but simply Wikipedia guidelines. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 10:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC) ╫

GTA Collectors Edtion

In the future I might decidingly (if thats a word) add a GTA Collectors Edtion once enough information has been gathered.
So far I know that it contains

• GTA
  
• GTA London
  
• GTA2
  

I will add the heading and further information in the future.
Discuss wether it is a good idea or not.

mickyfitz13^Talk 15:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be good. We could also add GTA: The Trilogy. The Trilogy is a box set of the first three 3-D games, III, Vice City, San Andreas.--24.224.25.26 19:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Time periods of GTA games

Shouldn't the time periods of Vice City,Vice City Stories, Liberty City Stories and San Andreas be listed here...I've added them but if someone disagrees feel free to delete but then please tell the reason. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.145.149.85 (talk) 00:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Never mind, it doesn't seem to work ah well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.145.149.85 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

I've removed the time period section because it's both redundant to the section on the games and is a liability, given the misinterpretation of the section's content (there has been several cases where the years in which the games' setting has taken place were changed into years in which the games were released, rendering the section more useless). ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 12:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

Just wondering, when it says that following the success of GTA III several standalone sequels were released then states that they chronologically preceded GTA III, well wouldn't that make them prequels? Don't wanna be pedantic but hey. And sorry if I put this in the wrong section or whatever 121.73.19.225 03:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Prequels...amen. The same should be said for GTA Vice City Stories, since it occurs prior to the GTA VC timeframe (1984 vs. 1986). Eganio 02:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of PEDS in Triva

The machinima series PEDS is based on the GTA series of games, and has produced around 30+ videos over the past 1 1/2 years. Due to its longevity and growing fanbase, it should at least be mentioned. --72.65.20.100 18:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

London

I know that Rockstar has created a fictional world, but GTA london 1969 and 1961 take place in the real city of london. So my question...even though it's a real city, is it still considered to be part of the GTA universe or is it just an alternative universe like GTA 1 seems to suggest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.172.253.22 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

We don't know. We just know that London is the only real city featured in the series, but its connection with the rest of the series is never revealed. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 05:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

Simpsons references GTA

Which episode of the simpsons is this? [1] And, someone should mention this in the section References in popular culture --89.56.45.109 14:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It is the episode Yokel_Chords --89.56.46.39 18:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Cover Art Section

I added a cover art section because the art displayed on the box art is one of Grand Theft Auto's signatures. In addition all of the box art is tagged correctly.Mets in 07 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto task force?

I was thinking of creating a GTA taskforce as part of Wikiproject Videogames. Anyone interested? .:Alex:. 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hell yes. I am. Sign me up, if you get it going. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there have been a few others who like the idea too so I've set up a page here. .:Alex:. 11:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Logo

Would anyone mind if I changed the logo to the usual black and white style? There's nothing particularly wrong with the silver and black one that is on the article page now it's just that that style of logo was only ever used once. .:Alex:. 15:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm apathetic either way. Doesn't bother me none. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Noxxa?

On Rockstar's official Zaibatsu Corporation website they list their address as: 'The Zaibatsu Corporation PO Box 478967809790890709 Noxxa, Anywhere, USA. I have never lived in America so I don't know much about it's address system but surely Noxxa would fit in with Anywhere City? Should the sentence for Anywhere City be changed to reflect this? Or am I just horribly confused? .:Alex:. 15:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe? May need a consensus...I seem to be saying that a lot. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the sake of actually taking a side on the matter, I'm not too sure this should be added; seems too trivial, but this is merely my viewpoint. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 17:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree with Klptyzm here, unless it's mentioned somewhere in the game itself. Haven't played GTA2 myself. Eganio 09:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

San Anadreas Stories

I found something about San Andreas Stories for the third quarter of 2008, since there were no links to prove it, I deleted if anybody cares. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.32.133 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 October 2007

Yeah, it's complete BS. Stuff like that gets added now and again and I for one appreciate any help removing it, so thank you. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

GTA III series?

so are vice city and san andreas under GTA III and so GTA IV is the next stage of the series? So like vice city and san andreas are more like extensions rather than new installments? I'm confused with the names here. (ZookPS3 17:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

Yep, pretty much. Vice City, San Andreas, GTA Advance, Liberty City Stories and Vice City Stories are prequels in terms of their storylines being set before GTA III. GTA IV is the start of a new stage of GTA. Hope that clears things up for you. - .:Alex:. 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Body Harvest

I find it odd that there is no mention of Body Harvest here. I think it'd be interesting to see how the game influenced the gameplay of GTA III. JohnnyMrNinja 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of August 5, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Lead should have at least two paragraphs if possible - maybe split up the current one. Reword it a bit too, read it aloud etc.
History section is verging on proseline - reword it so it isn't like a timeline. You also need one ref of some sort for each game (generally a general Gamespot etc. ref will do).
Character list is a bit pointless when not discussed. Isn't there a separate list/article for that anyway?
In popular culture section is useless with only two entries - just remove it.

2. Factually accurate?: Overview needs most statements referenced - at the moment, it's all OR the way it's written. Even citing the games is ok.

3. Broad in coverage?:

4. Neutral point of view?: I think you have a few too many unnecessary external links, personally. I'd have one official link for each game, and one for the series, max.
Grand Theft Auto III and subsequent games in the series have been best-selling blockbusters - blockbusters is a pov statement without a ref.

5. Article stability?

6. Images?: Proper fair use disclaimer needed for: [2] [3] [4]

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.

Summary: Needs more referencing. Reviewed version: [5]. Good luck! Giggy ^{Talk | Review} 07:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how the Popular Culture section got in there as it was removed ages ago, so I've removed it again. With the History section do you mean that we should get rid of the sub-headings in that section and turn it into several paragraphs (which is what I'm doing now, I'd just like some help getting it right though) or is it possible to keep the sub-headings and have proper paragraphs underneath them? .:Alex:. 10:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response...you still need more referencing throughout the article. For the history section, I'd like to have a bit more information about each individual game, as oppose to juts one sentence about them. Giggy ^Talk 23:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the changes requested, have, on the whole, not been made, I have no choice but to fail the article. Please nominate again when it meets the GA criteria. Giggy ^Talk 01:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page have a section on how contovercial the series is? --DJM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.59.46.202 (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's covered more deeply in the "video game controversy" page, whatever the exact title is. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

SVG version of the GTA logo

Could someone provide an SVG version of the Grand Theft Auto logo? Blake Gripling 03:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

hello my name is thug ni99a and i am the webmaster of my own gta community based on the gta gaming series there is alot of things to do around there including robbing banks, creating gangs etc. so please go there and create an account and play we need more member since i just completed it. to go there just go to the following link http://gtastreets.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.126.134 (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

This page is intended for discussion of the article. Please refrain from advertising here. Eganio 19:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nikoshooting.png

Image:Nikoshooting.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nikoshooting.png

Image:Nikoshooting.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted some Paragraphs and Made a Fact Check

Paragraphs delted was like some boys opinion

"Grand Theft Auto: III and subsequent games have been notable for their storylines, high quality of voice acting, and "radio stations," which simulate driving to music with satirizing DJs, radio personalities, commercials, talk radio, popular music, important news breaks, and American culture. All of this is seamlessly integrated in the realistic setting of a dysfunctional urban environment which parodies a real-life city. Players also often cite the music and humor of the series in explaining its appeal.

The game's influence on teenagers and adults alike has created a "cult" scene of GTA fans that see past the merits of the game itself and appreciate the retro feel and the good-old-days vibe the game emanates. People remember or imagine the time the games are set in and can enjoy the music, the atmosphere, the fashion, the slang and the cities from their favorite decade, namely the 1980s or the 1990s."

Also removed this:

"complete with pedestrians who obey traffic signals." since not all peds obey traffic singals... so don't put that there.

Also facted this:

"in comparison with "hero" roles that most other games offer.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› " As I recall, some past games have an anti-hero element prior to GTA III.

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on January 1, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

contains cleanup banners including, but not limited to, {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{NPOV}}, {{unreferenced}}, etc, or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{clarifyme}}, {{huh}}, or similar tags

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration.

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. The tag has been there since September 2007 and is accurate as well, since that section (as well as others) is completely lacking in citations. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— Cheers, CP 18:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Revamp

I'm submitting a few suggestions that could benefit the article: removing "Locations." Eh, i think it's time to retire this section. Seems too listy. The next is taking the "Grand Theft Auto [blank]" section titles. To me they lower the aesthetic of the article. Perhaps we could do something like "GTA 3 arch" or something to that effect? Forgive me for not being more specific in my suggestions at this time; I'm pretty tired right now. I'll suggest more as the time goes by. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 04:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I think the section titles originally said canon or something. But I think replacing the protagonist and locations lists with a detailed summary on them is an idea worth entertaining. .:Alex:. 16:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As do I. I also saw something else, or rather, didn't see something else: a "Controversy" section. We need to find secondary sources about all of the specific controversies, especially about the buttpipe Jack Thompson. That probably should be the biggest section in the article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 16:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Actually it seems strange that for one of the most controversial video game series, it doesn't even attempt to cover the controversy in this article. While I think individual major cases should be covered by the appropriate game article (Hot Coffee should stay only in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, although it can be briefly mentioned and described), controversy for the series as a whole does indeed belong in the article. I'm sure there's plenty of sources that can be used to verify information. .:Alex:. 17:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "Characters" and "Locations" sections, along with the section titles in the "History" section. To me, it's more aesthetically pleasing without the section titles, but of course that's just me. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Bishop Tutu. About controversy: I'm fine including a section on it as long as it is brief. As .:Alex:. mentioned, each controvery is detailed under the appropriate game article. Any "controversy" section on this page should therefore serve mainly to direct readers to each case, and any summarization should be generalized, inclusive, and concise. Thoughts? Eganio^Talk 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've started the "Controversy" section. It needs to be sourced and expanded and just overall cleaned. ♣ Bishop Tutu ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Did some editing. Eganio^Talk 23:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a section about the "Hot Coffee" controvery in GTA:SA. I tried to keep it brief, as .:Alex:. prompted. I think that's it, unless someone can think of another we need to cover. Eganio^Talk 09:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding GTAStunting

Well today I tried to add GTAStunting to GTA wikipedia. I think its important to have external resources on the page about all the things that can be done in GTA. I mean nowhere does it refer about the HUGE modding community. Theres so much to GTA that the public is missing by things like that no being on there. Things like stunting, modding, or MTA, VCMP, SAMP (All these are popular 3rd party multi-player programs.) If you look on the QUAKE III Wiki you will see that they have modifications and meta gaming. The "official" stuff here only idea is not good, and leaves the article incomplete. Can you please let me do some changes, or work with you guys to do some changes to this. Feron (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Popularity isn't notability. MTA actually does have it's own article, for one, and if you can such things as secondary sources and press coverage and other things of that source, some of this other information could be condsidered for inclusion in the article. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Article needs an infobox

This article could do with an infobox, which many other articles about software titles have. The logo can go in the infobox, as well as information about the game, such as the platforms it is available on. That information is difficult to attain by skimming down the article. Lester 01:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar Games

I'm not sure that the Driver sequels should be listed in the "Similar Games" section - if anything it's the other way round; GTA 3 and later are similar to Driver. GTA 2 came out in 1999, a year after Driver was released, and the GTA games were still using the top-down, A.P.B.-style view at that time. It was only when GTA 3 came out in 2001 that they used the style of gameplay that had been previously seen in Driver (1998) and Driver 2 (2000)-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the timing of the releases the two games are 'similar.' Therefore, it could be considered appropriate for Driver to be listed as similar to GTA (just as GTA is similar to Driver). TreyGeek (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think it's odd, especially given some of the things that are mentioned in the article. Driver was obviously an influence on GTA3, but the article seems to be saying that GTA was an influence on the third and fourth Driver games, when they were actually sequels to games that already used that format. Incidentally, I can remember when GTA2 came out, and most fan sites (Gouranga, Klamy's Spray Shop, Get That Azzhole and the like) were all against going 3D and were actually glad that GTA2 was still using the A.P.B.-style view!-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How was Driver an influence on GTA3? The -only- similarity between driver and GTA3 is that they are both 3D. Graphics are only a small portion of the game, and the rest was all influenced by its own predecessors (you couldn't even get out of the car in Driver for crying out loud.) And similar is a two way word, its not saying that x is influenced by y (or vice versa), its saying that x is a lot like y, just as much as y is alot like x. Nar Matteru (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If we are going to question the issues surrounding "similarity" lets question why it's in the article at all. Judging whether two games are similar to one another is very much based on one's perspective. Should such personal perspectives and personal opinions belong in an article that is intended to be factual based? If you want a more non-opinion based way of comparing GTA to other games, change it up to list games of the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TreyGeek (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Or you could just simply remove the Driver reference at all. From what I see, the sequels (which, from my knowledge, did involve a free roaming aspect that involved actually exiting and commandeering cars) had a more GTA influence anyway. But if this starts to get out of hand with people's viewpoints, then the section should probably either be removed or revamped into something else. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

The article need to be rewrited. I want this article to be featured article again. The changes should be smiliar to this [6] but with more information. Currently the article looks ugly and messed up. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, that's not necessarily a desirable version; too many lists and whatnot. I think the only thing this article needs is general cleaning and sources, the latter being truly needed. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 2, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

 If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.JayJ47 (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good job to everyone who contributed. Very much appreciated. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 15:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Summary table

A previous editor created a table that quickly and efficiently summarized the games in the series with release, and platform information. Another editor removed it because he did not like it. The table was later restored by by the first editor, and again removed by the second. This was followed by another restoration (by myself) followed quickly by removal by the second editor, this time for the reason that it was not there back when the article was recognized as a good article. That recognition does not mean that the article cannot still be improved, and as I stated I believe the table is an improvement. (See below) I am hoping for input from other editors. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 06:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Title	Developer	Platforms	First Released
Grand Theft Auto	DMA Design, Tarantula Studios	DOS, Microsoft Windows, PlayStation, Game Boy Color	1997
Grand Theft Auto: London, 1969	DMA Design, Tarantula Studios, Rockstar Canada, Runecraft	DOS, PlayStation, Microsoft Windows	April 29, 1999
Grand Theft Auto: London, 1961	DMA Design, Tarantula Studios, Rockstar Canada, Runecraft	Microsoft Windows	June 1, 1999
Grand Theft Auto 2	DMA Design, Tarantula Studios	Dreamcast, Game Boy Color, PlayStation, Microsoft Windows	October 22, 1999
Grand Theft Auto III	DMA Design, Rockstar Vienna	PlayStation 2, Microsoft Windows, Xbox	October 22, 2001
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City	Rockstar North, Rockstar Vienna	PlayStation 2, Microsoft Windows, Xbox	October 27, 2002
Grand Theft Auto	Digital Eclipse	Game Boy Advance	October 25, 2004
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas	Rockstar North	PlayStation 2, Microsoft Windows, Xbox	October 26, 2004
Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories	Rockstar North, Rockstar Leeds	PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2	October 25, 2005
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories	Rockstar North, Rockstar Leeds	PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2	October 31, 2006
Grand Theft Auto IV	Rockstar North	PlayStation 3, Xbox 360	April 29, 2008

I think it is useful, but would be better included either a)at the bottom of the article, as part of a Summary section or b)as a collapsible table in the Overview History section, like this:

Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 10:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible table is a neat idea. It must be added.--SkyWalker (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, collapsible table looks and works great. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 15:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. It's much less cluttering. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 05:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy since GTA3?

I'm certain there was controversy about the series before GTA3 - I remember the feeling of anticipation when I bought GTA2 as a cheeky young scamp below the age rating on the box. And they showed archive news reports about the first GTA on BBC News last week. --taras (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah there was. Rockstar Games even hired Max Clifford to cause controversy about the game as they believed it would get the game noticed. A lot of stories were made up as well. I'll see if I can find something. .:Alex:. 15:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Phil Cassidy Page?

He plays a major role in both Vice City games, A minor role in GTA 3, and owns a store in GTA:LCS. Just a question, since we have so much information on him, why don't we try to get all the articles together and make his own page since he is quite diffrent from the other characters? He makes some sort of appearance in each game in the GTA 3 Series except San Andreas. Ledgo (talk) 12:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of plot information available for him, but I've not seen much info on the development of the character or other non-plot info. To satisfy various policies it needs to have both plot info and non plot info. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

He is one of he four people who make the Bank Heist in Vice City possible, and before and after, gives missions to Tommy Vercitti until the moonshine accident, and in the first game, he is one of Vic Vances first employers. I would try to make the page myself, but I don't know alot about Wikipedia article creation. Ledgo (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The page also doesn't need to be made; he doesn't have a major impact on the story before or really after that point. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 18:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That could be argued around a bit, but in the end to avoid a debate, it's probrably best not to try. Though he does help all main characters in someway except SA (Maybe LCS and III) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ledgo (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

GTA DS

This needs to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.136.210 (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinawars?. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite likley that. It was only added to the series template after the post was made so it is likely that the person who posted this believed an article was not yet created. --76.71.210.132 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The article is created and the information which has been announced has been added. --SkyWalker (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

After GTA IV?

Has there been any information regarding a sequel to Grand Theft Auto IV (i.e. GTA III - Vice City - San Andreas) considering it is a separate series, or is it still confidential or unreleased at the time? - Crazyconan (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

All I've heard about is Chinatown Wars...and I don't know what rendition of Liberty city that one will be staged in. Does the GTA4 one even have a Chinatown in it? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does. It's very close to Little Italy on the southern end of Algonquin. --.:Alex:. 10:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I heard some where that Rockstar have written the GTA 5 script and have started the GTA 6 script, I don't know wheather this is true, is it? or am I insane? answer both please, actually this is going to be a whole new section so if anyone replies it's at the bottom. --The Ninjalemming 20:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GTA2 PC in-game screenshot.jpg

The image Image:GTA2 PC in-game screenshot.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Confusion regarding the use of Euphoria in GTAIV

The section on GTAIV states that "GTAIV's game engine is RAGE and the Euphoria physics engine," but I think it is worth clearing up that Euphoria is NOT a physics engine. I was under the impression that Euphoria was middleware, developed by NaturalMotion, used in conjuncture WITH a physics engine to produce enhanced animation effects. The Wikipedia article on Euphoria even refers to it as an animation engine. The software allows developers to blend regular keyframe animations with advanced ragdoll effects that are affected by a sort of virtual nervous system as well as the environment. As far as I know, RAGE handles all of the standard physics effects.

I've tried adjusting this section once or twice but I'm totally at a loss at how to correctly format these articles. What little editing I've ever attempted has either been changed again or never accepted to begin with, so I thought I would request it here. Ohnomelon (talk) 10:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Film veterans

I think we should reduce the number of examples to just a few of the "biggest" names. I know that's tough to do because they're all pretty famous. The sentence is really just there to establish that the GTA Series has employed big name stars, it doesn't need to list loads of names to prove that, as that's covered elsewhere in the article or articles for the games anyway. Personally I think we should have Ray Liotta, Dennis Hopper, Samuel L Jackson, James Woods and Burt Reynolds. They're a few different types of actor from different types of film. But who is in the list is up for debate, my point is that I think there's too many people listed. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

New section added

The section I have recently inserted is apparent information on the sequel to Grand Theft Auto IV or the tenth in the series. This is only a rumour but I feel it has substantial details and could be useful for GTA fanatics.

Please contact me if you feel this section is needless or invalid.

-- Mike |talk 19:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source then you can add otherwise rumors and speculation will be removed on sight. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

GTA 5/6

Yo, I'm with the guy above as I wrote in the GTA 4 bit 'I thought I heard some where that Rockstar have written the GTA 5 script and have started the GTA 6 script, I don't know wheather this is true, is it? or am I insane? answer both please, actually this is going to be a whole new section so if anyone replies it's at the bottom.' forget the last bit of it though. I can't back it up but read it in some Xbox magizine, I think; I may just be thinking I remember it. I hope not, or I will die. There are no certainties surronding the conclusion that the user shall die after lack of evidence to support his theory, however they will have a woballing bottom lip if proved wrongo --The Ninjalemming 20:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to write up new sections covering unreleased games, that's great. However, as mentioned above, if you don't have any reliable sources to back up your claims, then expect for your edits to be reverted. An I "read it in some Xbox magizine" is not a reliable source. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this could be incorporated in some way if the GTAIV section became a "seventh generation" section. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Its not GTA V GameInformer stated that It could be a sub Game like "Vice City" or "San Andreas" than just going to the next number. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 14:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, R* have recently denied this as well. [7] --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 16:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:GTAIV in-game screenshot.png

The image File:GTAIV in-game screenshot.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Expansion packs

I just saw that a edit was reverted on the expansion packs that they aern't full games. I was actually just reading game informer before and it said that the GTA IV expansion is basically a new game. Just checking on that.--VampireKen (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Basically being a new game" and "Being a new game" are two different things. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I just mentioned what i read. I haven't played GTA IV yet and the expansion (it came out today) I haven't played either so i can't tell you what it's like. but it is still an expansion like F.E.A.R. it's just longer like a game.--VampireKen (talk) 04:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It was my edit that you saw. Its a standard practise to not count expansion packs as full games. If the expansion pack generates enough info to expand into its own article then that's OK, but it is still only an expansion pack. It helps avoid problems like people claiming that there have been 40 games in The Sims series when in fact there have only been three with the rest being expansion packs. - X201 (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

criticisms

If your going to list crimes caused by people who claim to be inspired by GTA wouldn't it be more neutral to also talk about the girl who pulled her family out of a flipped car because (she claimed) she learned in GTA that they can explode. Sounds stupid but so does a story about a group of teens beating up a car with bats because of gta( teens do that stuff regardless) i would ad it but i dont know what counts as a reliable source so just an idea to run by the Wiki vets 174.42.208.159 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Got any links? Which country/year did it happen? - X201 (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

she learned in GTA that they can explode

This is kind of ridiculous, don't turn Wikipedia into a comedy show! Has GTA replaced elementary science education in the USA? As a european I am scratching my head in disbelief that americans need GTA to learn carbohydrogen fumes don't mix well with sparks from a ruined ignition system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.82.34.53 (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, it always did confuse me how every car in GTA that ends up upside down explodes within ten seconds... -mattbuck (Talk) 20:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Future section

The future section contains the following line "Rockstar Games has confirmed that another installment of the series is already in the works" Neither citation backs it up. The Escapist text is speculation, and the N4G one is Pachters speculation. Neither text supports the statement "Rockstar Games has confirmed", because Rockstar haven't said anything, apart from "no truth" in Kotaku.
To be honest, can a citation that starts "From the Wild and Unsubstantiated Rumors Department" be used as a reliable source? - X201 (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Website rumours do not even come remotely close to official confirmation. The next sentence even says that the rumors are simply not true! I've removed this statement and will revert any attempts to reinstate it into the article. --.:Alex:. 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

ONLINE INFOMATION

Actually, someone stated that GTA4 introduced an online play for GTA, but in fact the pc version of GTA SA had an unoffical mod that allowed a certin version of the game to go online. It is called MTA (Multi Theft Auto)

http://mtavc.com/

There's screenshots and videos. If sum1 could add this to where it needs tobe, thnx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.0.227 (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Multi Theft Auto (MTA) is an open-source software project that adds full on-line gaming support to Rockstar North's Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas PC game, in which this functionality is not originally found. It is the first open-source modification that adds a highly customizable network play element to a commercial closed-source single-player PC game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.0.227 (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

there is also a wiki page conserning MTA. Go on an wiki search it. Type in the search field, Mutli Theft Auto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.248.0.227 (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Drunk driving image

I uploaded an image, but I don't know if it is okay to do so, I thought it would be better for the page. If not, I apologize, and please point out to me what I did wrong.

Osh33m (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Stories

I heard a rumor that there is going to be a new game in the series called Grand Theft Auto San Andreas Stories, is this true!? Danny Boy 420 (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't ask stuff like this on an internet encyclopedia. No one is going to answer your question. Or at least they shouldn't. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There has been no official word on it from Rockstar Games. If you ask me, with the recent releases of IV and The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony coming out, I think that Rockstar Games are done with the III canon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.84.114 (talk) 13:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sales Numbers are off

Just at a glance, the sales numbers for installments of certain games are off. The 30 million + listed for Vice City and San Andreas are almost double what the individual game's page lists. Those numbers should be sourced, in any case. 128.38.168.103 (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comedy

There is no mention of comedy or parody in this article. Just killing, doping and fucking. When I play a game from this series I cant help but laughing out loud sometimes from the comments of pedestrians, radio announcers, general activities and even plot-lines. For me this game is just as much of a comedy game as a bloody action game. Would be worth mentioning, considering the image this game has.

• Agree. I came here to say the same thing. Aside from the cut scenes, just about everything that happens in the open world is firmly rooted in satire and parody. It's strange that the article doesn't even mention that. It should be in the lead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.8.21 (talk) 15:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Source

The article mentions "Rockstar Games founder, Dan Houser recently confirmed that the next game in the Grand Theft Auto series is in development and the development team has already chosen a setting and a plot but he didn't confirm which console it will be released on.[11]" That source material doesn't make the claim that Houser and company had picked a city, he merely outlines how a GTA game is made. While I am sure he has picked a city, this interview doesn't seem to make that claim. Unless someone thinks he WAS suggesting that after rereading the article, I am going to alter the wikipedia article slightly. -174.54.42.11 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree. The citation does not back up the text in the article. I have removed it. The citation merely states the process that they would go through, not that they were currently going through that process. - X201 (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

GTA IV DLC

The DLC is actually out on ps3 and PC now so why doesn't the article say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.132.239 (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look under the section "Games" -- it does state that it is available on the Playstation 3 console. 138.217.156.116 (talk) 06:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Future

Removed this section because all it is, is just rumours and those rumors were confirmed to be untrue. There is no place for rumours on Wikipedia apparently so I removed it. But if this is false, I suggest you also re-add the part about Grand Theft Auto: Vice City 2 or else I will give this article hell. Have a nice day. 121.219.61.249 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This section contains games that have been published. Referenced. Deleting the section is vandalism. Please stop.

As for the Vice City 2 addition: it was removed as the source itself claimed it was most likely a hoax. Jarkeld (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

NOTICE

San Andreas is not a fictional state ITS A REAL PLACE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.102.101 (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of the game; GTA: San Andreas; it IS a fictional state and the real place is only the "San Andreas Fault" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.78.197 (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

San Andreas (GTA1) vs (GTA San Andreas

I removed the link for "San Andreas" in the paragraph describing the original GTA, as the link redirected to "GTA San Andreas", which is a completely different location. The San Andreas in the original game represented only San Francisco, not a fictional state with several cities and towns like in the later game. 67.189.143.44 (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Jack Thompson's fine

"...was fined more than $43,675.35 by the Florida Bar Association." Perhaps $43,675.36? Ragbin (talk) 13:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Kanzler31 (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

GTA2 What does this mean?

"Unlike the other games of the Grand Theft Auto series, Grand Theft Auto 2 was the only game released in its era of bicentennial gaming."

I have absolutely no idea what that means and I would guess other casual readers likewise, can anyone explain to me how I'm being too thick to understand it without help or fix it or remove it. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

GTA V

Is there any word on GTA V? If so is there enough to create a article revolving around this concurrent dicustion? mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No joy? When there is some give us a bell asap. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, there has been no word on the next Grand Theft Auto game and even if there was it wouldn't even be called "Grand Theft Auto V". It will be a prequel set in the same universe as IV called something like Grand Theft Auto: <Insert City Name Here.>, just like Vice City and San Andreas were prequels of III. Get it right. 203.161.84.114 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no official word on the next GTA. My friend Andy works at North and he is tight-lipped about what he knows, but he assures me he is working. We try not to get into talk of shop because he's not supposed to. But yes, he and all the other elves up there at the Rockstar North Pole are working. As for what it will be called, I doubt even Sam Houser knows, so don't tell people it will be "GTA: <insert city here>" just because that's how it was done in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.42.11 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps posting GTA V speculations from a rumour website. Considering we don't even know if the supposed next game is going to be called Grand Theft Auto V, the infomation is very unreliable and based only on fan speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.52.49 (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, speculation is speculation--whether the link says so or not. 124.176.255.84 (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to the "Future" section - Now you've explained your opinion of it, I can understand the angle that you're coming from. Feel free to remove the Future section if you want, I won't revert its removal. Sorry for any mis-understanding. - Edit Have just remembered that article is protected so have removed Future section for you. - X201 (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The speculation that is posted now is a rumour so what's the dif? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.173.196 (talk) 05:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does this section keep disappearing?? There are enough reliable sources to support the fact that GTA V is currently in development. Thamerr (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Unless if there is clear-cut sources from Rockstar Games, for which there aren't--then nothing can be proven in terms of the games development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.78.192 (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

put more controversy and corrected

I put in GTA 1's controversy in with a reliable source. Also, when I saw how there is "violent against women," with still no source, got rid of too. Thephatphilmz (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone put a box around the quote in chinatown wars? Thephatphilmz (talk) 03:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Further referencing for "Similar games"

I've removed all the sourceless games/series mentioned in this section; if you're going to make a bold statement about a game, you need to back it up with verification. As it stands, the Saints Row, True Crime, and Scarface mentions rely on reviews written by IGN journalists about just one of the games in the series there. There's a couple of issues there:

• It's relying solely on IGN reviews. I know IGN is a popular news source, but you're going to need to gather evidence from other critic sites as well.
• With Saints Row and True Crime, it's only relying on one game from a series of games. You'll need to find at least two reliable sources which can back up statements made about the entire genre.

Likewise for the other unreferenced games, which I have now removed. Thank you. CR4ZE (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Grand Theft Auto V to this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Page deleted via WP:PROD before consensus formed - X201 (talk) 09:59, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

---

It has been proposed that Grand Theft Auto V be merged into this article.

• Oppose - There is nothing of salvageable value in the GTA V article, it is 100% rumour and speculation. There is no indication if it is for the next GTA title, or other future titles. Best resolution is to delete the GTA V article and wait until there is some solid verifiable news from reliable sources. - X201 (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Um, why did you oppose the merge yet comment about it and say you agree with it?.. --BluWik (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you smoking? He opposed the merge and supported the article's deletion. The V article is crap anyway. Looks like a 14 year old wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.204.198 (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - There is no proof of a Grand Theft Auto V, and no source. DanielDPeterson (talk)`
• Redirect - the obvious thing to do would to redirect Grand Theft Auto V to the "Future" section here (just like Grand Theft Auto 5 does) and then any news can be added there until it is notable enough for a standalone article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Grand Theft Auto (disambiguation) moved to Grand Theft Auto. There was a bunch of options proposed, but this one appears to have consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto (series) → Grand Theft Auto — In line with other video game series, where the series name (Uncharted, Guitar Hero as examples) is the primary topic. Grand Theft Auto redirects here anyway. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Would have moved it myself as WP:BOLD, if it weren't for the need to have the redirect page moved/deleted first. - X201 (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the crime is the primary meaning. The disambiguation page should be at the primary location. 64.229.100.45 (talk) 06:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Why is the game series presumed as the main use of the phrase? The obvious main use is the crime. Oppose. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose – The crime is the clear primary topic. Grand Theft Auto should not redirect here. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The crime would be at Grand theft auto, not capitalised. A hatnote can be used to distinguish. --Rob Sinden (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not entirely unlikely that one would capitalize the words in Grand theft auto and mean the crime. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, but that's what hatnotes are for. Grand theft auto is not an article anyway, it's a redirect. I'd propose a hatnote saying "This article is about the video game series, for the motor vehicle crime, see Motor vehicle theft" or something. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

But the crime is commonly known as grand theft auto. At the very least, the disambiguation should be at Grand theft auto and Grand Theft Auto redirect to it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:Disambiguation, if there are only two topics, then hatnotes should be used. As far as the video game series is concerned, all other pages relate to this one. Therefore I cannot see why we can't use hatnotes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh! Scrap that. There's the film too. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• New proposal. Move Grand Theft Auto (disambiguation) to either Grand theft auto or Grand Theft Auto, with a redirect between one and the other. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Alternative proposal The game series is moved to Grand Theft Auto. Grand theft auto redirects to the disambiguation page. Hatnotes are applied on all articles where necessary. - X201 (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of what I was going for to start with, but forgot that there's a film with the same title too. That's just too many hatnotes. Making the disambiguation page the primary topic seems to be the way to keep the most people happy. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Its no wider than other hatnotes that I've seen

This page is about the video game series. For the crime, see Motor vehicle theft. For the film, see Grand Theft Auto (film). For other uses, see Grand Theft Auto (disambiguation).

- X201 (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the disambiguation page is the "primary topic" or not, there will still be a dab page so we don't have to put everything into a hatnote. The crime is the primary topic – all other uses were named after the crime. The film is definitely not a primary topic. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The crime shouldn't be at the primary location though. Whilst the series was named after it, sure, the video game franchise is huge. Therefore retract my original suggestion, in favour of instead having dab page at primary location. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• I would support moving this article to Grand Theft Auto if Grand theft auto was left as a redirect to Motor vehicle theft. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

That was the initial proposal that you opposed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - no it wasn't - I didn't look at that page until this morning, at which point you'd pointed it to Motor vehicle theft after it had pointed here for a year. Oh what a can of worms I've opened. More reason for disambig page to be at primary location I think. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Move article about game series to Grand Theft Auto and redirect Grand theft auto to dab page. In my opinion the game series is clearly the primary topic of the capitalized version. The non-capitalized version is probably split between people looking for the article about the game series and people looking for the article about the crime (though likely still favoring towards the game series, seeing as grand theft auto isn't even the common name for the crime). Just to note, Grand Theft Auto (series) had 232k views in April[8], while Motor vehicle theft had 8k views[9], and it is ofcourse stuff like that, and not what is named after what, which is the deciding factor when deciding what's primary topic on Wikipedia (case in point being Mars and Mars (mythology)).TheFreeloader (talk) 20:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Break

Right, lets get this sorted out once and for all. Put a Support tag under the option of your choice.

Option 1

Grand Theft Auto and Grand theft auto are both redirected to the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page is moved to Grand Theft Auto or Grand theft auto and this page is left as is.

• Support - X201 (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Condtional support, on the basis that the disambiguation page is moved to one of these locations and the other has a redirect. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

This option is against Wikipedia guidelines, possibly policy. The correct thing to do in this case would be to have the disambiguation page at Grand Theft Auto or Grand theft auto. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes - this is what I'm saying in my "conditional support". --Rob Sinden (talk)

• Support – I only supported Option 3 as a compromise because I thought no one else supported Option 1. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I have changed Option 1 to what it should be. I doubt it will affect the !votes.

• Support There does not appear to be a primary topic, send people to the disambig and let them decide what topic they are looking for. Monty₈₄₅ 17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Option 2

Grand Theft Auto is made the disambiguation page and Grand theft auto is redirected to the vehicle crime page.

Option 3

Grand Theft Auto is redirected to the game. Grand theft auto is redirected to the crime. Hatnotes are applied to both articles.

• Support McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support This makes the most sense, as capitalizing each letter implies a proper name. DanielDPeterson (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

None of the above

Add your suggestions below.

I'd redirect Grand Theft Auto (and any case variations such as grand theft auto) to the 1977 film. Worldwide, this is the primary topic IMO. Those who play the games are aware of the film, but many who love the film would be dimly aware of the games. The use of the term for a crime is mainly US usage; Before the film the phrase was almost unknown elsewhere. Andrewa (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The games are very well-known even amongst those, including myself, who don't play them. I have never heard of the film and it is completely unrelated to the games so I don't know how you can make the generalisation that those who play the games know the film. Yes, the usage for the crime is American but it is known outside of America (due to American films and TV). McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

This just illustrates that it is appropriate to have the disambiguation page at the primary location. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

• Grand Theft Auto (game), Grand Theft Auto (film), Grand theft auto (crime), Grand theft auto = disambiguation, Chaosdruid (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Is your proposal to redirect Grand theft auto (crime) to Motor vehicle theft? Also, what would happen to Grand theft auto and Grand Theft Auto? One of them would need to be the disambiguation page, not Grand Theft Auto (disambiguation). McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I would have thought that the crime would have warranted a page of its own, motor vehicle theft including statistics and regional variations etc.

Grand theft auto would be the db - corrected my post above.

Grand Theft Auto (game) would be the series article, Grand Theft Auto was the first in the game series was it not? (as it was not titled Grand Theft Auto I or similar and should not need a db page due to the caps) I imagine that most gamers would use GTA as their search which would take them to the GTA db page.

And then we get to the less problematic GTA2, GTA III & GTA IV...(why they changed it to Roman numerals I have no idea). The title of GTA2 was just that I seem to remember, rather than Grand Theft Auto 2 - although the fully expanded title was adopted for III & IV. It seems that trying to wikify them has led to lots of strangeness all round. If I had my way they would be Grand Theft Auto, GTA2, Grand Theft Auto III and Grand Theft Auto IV - as per the box titles. Chaosdruid (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Grand theft auto (crime) shouldn't be a separate article from Motor vehicle theft. It's just another name for it. I doubt American car thieves are significantly different to car thieves of other nationalities. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lost & Damned sold 1 million copies

• In March 2009, Lost & Damned (Xbox 360) had sold over 1 million copies, Analyst: Lost & Damned May Sell 2m by Year-End by Kris Graft (March 6, 2009) Edge Magazine.com
• In Dec. 2009, Episodes from Liberty City (Xbox 360) had sold 160K, GTA: Episodes from Liberty City sells under 160K in Oct.-Nov. by Tor Thorsen (Dec. 11, 2009) GameSpot.com --Vic49 (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it say something about it first were going to be released with the title Race'n'Chase? [10] (There are more exampels) CompuTerror (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V release date

The article says March 24th 2012 release date. There is nothing on rockstargames.com/ about this. Am deleting this for now & also suggest locking the article from editing. 86.40.236.91 (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas sales

I could not figure out how to change the reference for the sales numbers for San Andreas, but I changed the figure to what it should be, 27.5 million instead of the original 21.5 million. My reference is from http://kotaku.com/5840484/gta-iv-overtakes-san-andreas-in-lifetime-sales. The correction at the bottom of the article references a quote directly from Rockstar to Kotaku confirming that San Andreas had sold 27.5 million copies worldwide as of September 15, 2011. If this reference can be implemented, we can clear this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soholo (talk • contribs) 03:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Rockstar North

Since the Rockstar North page gives the address which is based in Edinburgh, Scotland, shouldn't there be a part in the article that states that Rockstar North is based in Scotland? 92.22.2.144 (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is (I think) the latest discussion concerning the nationality of Rockstar North, traditionally the consensus has been that UK/Britain is the correct term for the purpose of an encyclopedia. If you wish to establish a new consensus I'd recommend raising it at WP:VG (the video games wiki-project) since it would cover a number of pages, and it might be worth noting that although based in Scotland, the company is registered in England. BulbaThor (talk) 15:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This article isn't about Rockstar North, its about the GTA series. There's no need to have the nationality of the developer in any game article, as the nationality of the developer is rarely of importance to the contents of the game. The only exceptions are usually one man efforts where the developer has based the game on their experiences of war in their homeland etc. Modern games are developed by large teams usually of multiple nationalities (and indeed multiple teams in multiple countries with multiple nationalities), the location of the company's building is of little significance to the game contents. The only time we are concerned with a developer's location is so that we use the correct version of WP:ENGVAR and the correct date format for the article. Other than that, it rarely matters. - X201 (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What constitutes a new GTA era?

What constitutes a new era? No one has played GTA V so how do we know it's a new era? Urbanus Secundus (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

request edit

It sais Grand Theft Auto has sold 119 Million copies. It's now been widely reported to be 125 Million copies.

"GTA sales hit 125 million, as 2K promise no yearly sequels"

Thank you!--Boxerboi31 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. You claim this is "widely reported" so sources should be readily available, but the burden is on you to provide them. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for edit

In the second paragraph in the overview section, the 3rd and 4th lines require some editing: " and grants a large amount of freedom to the player in deciding the traditional action games are structured as a single track series of levels with linear gameplay" 202.65.158.226 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

GTA V release date

Just stating that there has been no official confirmation of a release date for GTA V aside from "Spring 2013". The release date mentioned at the bottom of the GTA V section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.166.42.85 (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done and user warned. - X201 (talk) 09:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Raise it up further

Actually shocked than non of any GTA related article are GA or FA, while GoW series and Halo series has tons. These series is a legend and should be somhing better than this. Can't we fix it somehow. Maybe I'll start. 125.212.120.96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

GTA timeline continuity

2D universe

• 1961 – London, 1961 – no protagonist
• 1969 – London, 1969 – Sid Vacant (default)
• 1997 – Grand Theft Auto – no protagonist (break in continuity)
• 1999 – Grand Theft Auto 2 – Claude Speed (break in continuity)

3D universe

• 1984 – Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories – Victor Vance
• 1986 – Grand Theft Auto: Vice City – Tommy Vercetti
• 1992 – Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas – Carl "CJ" Johnson
• 1998 – Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories – Toni Cipriani
• 2000 – Grand Theft Auto Advance – Mike
• 2001 – Grand Theft Auto III – Claude

HD universe

• 2008 – Grand Theft Auto IV – Niko Bellic
• 2008 – Grand Theft Auto: The Lost and Damned – Johnny Klebitz
• 2008 – Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony – Luis Fernando Lopez
• 2009 – Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars – Huang Lee
• 2013 – Grand Theft Auto V – TBA

Protagonist succession boxes

Since time continuity in GTA is represented by the fictional chronology of the GTA universe, the above list would place both Grand Theft Auto 1 and Grand Theft Auto 2 (along with Claude Speed) out of continuity with the 3D and HD universes, and thus should not be included in the protagonist succession boxes, as a break in the time continuity will be created when doing so. (A break in continuity would not have occured if GTA 1 and GTA 2 took place 20 years earlier, respectively, in 1977 and 1979, instead of 1997 and 1999.) Concerning continuity, the layout should look something like this:

1984 – Victor Vance

1986 – Tommy Vercetti

1992 – Carl "CJ" Johnson

1998 – Toni Cipriani

2000 – Mike

2001 – Claude

2008 – Niko Bellic

2008 – Johnny Klebitz

2008 – Luis Fernando Lopez

2009 – Huang Lee

2013 – TBA

Best, --Discographer (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait, doesn't GTA 2 happen in fictional 2013, as stated on Wikipedia article about GTA 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.142.216.139 (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, but I don't like Succession boxes, they make Wikipedia look like MySpace. - X201 (talk) 08:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a clever idea, but I don't think it's for Wikipedia. It's probably more for a separate Wiki, since it's a fictional chronology, whereas Wikipedia tries to lean away from things written in a fictional perspective. Still a creative idea, though. Rhain1999 (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Who is Zachary Clarke and is he one of the creators of GTA?

This thing has been bugging me for a while but who is Zachary Clarke? and is he a creator of GTA? I can't find any real source or reference that states that Zachary Clarke have anything to do with the creation of the GTA that we know today. Is it only me that I can't find sources that back this info? if there is sources then we should reference them in the article. TheDeviantPro (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GTA games table

Until recently the table that lists the GTA games had a column titled "Download" that listed GTA games that had been made available via PSN and XBLM, the table also had a column that labelled the series' 2D, 3D and HD phases as "Era". Both of these columns have changed; the Download column has been removed because it lists a distribution method, not a platform. This made it a column that just re-listed the PS3 and Xbox 360 releases; a pointless task as they are already listed in the table. The Era column was relabelled as Universes, as this is a label that Rockstar themselves use to define the 2D, 3D and HD phases.

I believe the above changes are not controversial in any way, but one IP editor appears to disagree with the changes and constantly reverts the table, the same reverts are coming from two different IP addresses, but the M.O. points to it being the same person. The user doesn't leave an edit summary and doesn't start a discussion here, so we have no way of knowing which change they are in disagreement with. So the reason for this post is to gather a consensus for the changes and make the user aware that the changes are staying and their actions must stop. So please use this as a chance to register a yay or nay comment on the changes. - X201 (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The IP user has just contacted me about this on my talk page, but I feel here is the best place to discuss this, so I will direct them to comment here. It turns out that they disagree with the removal of the Download column.

In their message, User 50.13.18.242 states that because PSN is mentioned in the Platform section of the infobox on the articles for GTA 3, GTA Vice City, GTA San Andreas, GTA Liberty City Stories, and GTA Vice City Stories, this means that PSN and XLBM should be listed on this article. The problem with this is that content in those articles doesn't dictate what appears in this one. On numerous occasions WP:VG have agreed that PSN and XBLM are NOT platforms, they are distribution methods, so listing PSN and XBLM means that we are listing PS3 and Xbox 360 twice. If the download column were to stay, to be a balanced article we would need to list every download distribution store; Greenman Gaming, Gamefly, Gamersgate, Gamestop, Gametap, Steam etc. WP:VG doesn't list download platforms in its articles and the download column shouldn't be present in this one. - X201 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping that you don't mind me butting in here. Firstly, I would like to apologise, as I was the user who added the Download column in the first place, not realising what kind of problem that it was (which you have clearly highlighted; very clearly and nicely, may I add). Back to the discussion, I immediately agree with you and the point that you've made, X201. I agree that the Download section should not be in there, however it should be mentioned somewhere in that section that some of the games are on PSN and XBLM. Whether that be a little note leading underneath it (such as Template:Refn) or maybe even in the Console column, I believe that it might need to be mentioned somewhere. However, that's up to you and other contributors to this discussion. Long story short, the Download column should remain gone. --Rhain1999 (talk) 10:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point about making notes of it, how about the table below, with an added notes section?

GTA table

Year Title Developer Platform(s) Universe Console Computer Handheld Mobile 1997 Grand Theft Auto DMA Design PS1 Windows, MS-DOS GBC 2D 1999 Grand Theft Auto: London, 1969 PS1 Windows, MS-DOS Grand Theft Auto: London, 1961 Windows Grand Theft Auto 2 PS1, Dreamcast Windows GBC 2001 Grand Theft Auto III † PS2, Xbox Windows, Mac OS X iOS, Android 3D 2002 Grand Theft Auto: Vice City † Rockstar North PS2, Xbox Windows, Mac OS X iOS, Android 2004 Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas † PS2, Xbox Windows, Mac OS X Grand Theft Auto Advance Digital Eclipse GBA 2005 Grand Theft Auto: Liberty City Stories † Rockstar Leeds PS2 PSP 2006 Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories † PS2 PSP 2008 Grand Theft Auto IV Rockstar North PS3, Xbox 360 Windows HD 2009 Grand Theft Auto: The Lost and Damned PS3, Xbox 360 Windows Grand Theft Auto: Chinatown Wars Rockstar Leeds PSP, DS iOS Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony Rockstar North PS3, Xbox 360 Windows 2013 Grand Theft Auto V PS3, Xbox 360 Notes: † Re-released on PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 via the PlayStation Network and Xbox Live Marketplace respectively.

My only objection to refn, is that the notes are at the bottom of the page causing the user to have to scroll to the bottom for a trivial detail. - X201 (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I like what you've done there, rather than using refn, like I suggested. However, I was thinking, what if you used the † icon in the "Console" column instead? Only a suggestion, I'm not saying you should definitely do this, as it may not look good as well, but I feel as though the dagger icon is a little distracting in the Games column. Just a suggestion that you can consider. :) --Rhain1999 (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, the IP user recently added the Download column again, but I was quick to remove it. Hopefully he'll stop soon, or some form of blocking will have to be put into place (either for the page, or for the user. Preferably the latter.) --Rhain1999 (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've taken the bold move and added your table in myself, since I received no reply (which is fine), and the IP user will not stop adding that column into the section. I hope you're fine with my changes. --Rhain1999 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, saw your message and was going to reply later the same day, but got blown off course by other things and forgot to come back here. - X201 (talk) 15:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I hope you're fine with me making the change, though. --Rhain1999 (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Britishness: If rockstar games is a multinational company based in NY, why is this game defined as 'British.' The original design may have been done at a then British/Scottish company, but that company is no longer British/Scottish, thus, I can't see why it would be labeled as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.65.196.20 (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Rockstar North are the developers, they are in Edinburgh, Scotland. The same principle as books are authored under applies, the nationality of the author is the key fact, not the nationality of the publisher. - X201 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GTA logo deletion

Just to warn you that the "GTA logo" deletion has been requested on Wikicommons. Abaca 20:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ABACA (talk • contribs)

Separate Liberty City Page

Hi there! I would like to suggest the recreation of a page on Liberty City, instead of it redirecting to this page, since Los Santos, San Andreas has a page as well. Just for a matter of consistency, maybe. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.220.213.141 (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because another article exists is not a valid reason that a similar article should exist (although it can be a valid point as part of a reason). The Liberty City article was deleted this month (See here) due to its quality and sourcing. If you want a Liberty City article I suggest the best way is to create one on your user pages and then get it transferred to the main article space. But the sourcing and quality of it will obviously have to be better than the previous one. - X201 (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mike Dailly

I do not know who keeps adding this fictional person to these articles but....

1. Mike Dailly was not a founder of DMA Design Ltd, therefore he did not invent Grand Theft Auto
2. DMA Design was a subsidiary of DMA Design Ltd
3. Rockstar was actually founded by Sam & Dan Houser
4. Rockstar Games, bought out DMA Design Ltd
5. DMA Design Ltd invented Grand Theft Auto, not DMA Design
6. The only relevant source that this person had anything to do with Grand Theft Auto is a registered domain

owned by that very person, who clearly states in the copyright disclaimer that...

Text © Copyright 2004-2006 By Mike Dailly
All rights reserved.

dmadesign.org is in no way assosiated with DMA Design Ltd, Take-2 or Rockstar Studios.

So please remove all of this unfactual information. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.240.218.211 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 10 February 2013‎

Hi, I like to clear everything up for you 71.240.218.211.

1. Mike Dailly was a founder of DMA along with David Jones, Steve Hammond and Russell Kay. Dailly was also the designer on the original GTA.
2. DMA Design and DMA Design Ltd is the same company.
3. Sam and Dan Houser only founded Rockstar North's parent company Rockstar Games.
4. Take-Two who is the owners of Rockstar have control what studio becomes a Rockstar studio.
5. Same as #2.
6. There is pictures of Dailly with the original concept for GTA and he is credited in the game.
7. dmadesign.org is controlled by ex-DMA employees.

Please stop removing sourced info. TheDeviantPro (talk) 24:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow... first time I've ever been called "fictional" before.

1. I was a founding member of DMA Design. In point of fact, I was the first employee there. DMA Design only became DMA Design Ltd later, up until that point, it was a privately own company and was not Limited. I did come up with the game engine that spawned GTA, and I then wrote the final engine - you can see my name in the credits, and can even download the original prototype from my own personal page (http://www.mikedailly.com), or read my name on the original design doc (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikedailly/5547698947/in/set-72157602022230830)
2. DMA Design was how we all "called" DMA Design Ltd.
3. Take-2 bought GTA from Gremlin who owned DMA Design. They then employeed the old Silicon Valley team and moved them to Edinburgh and renamed them from DMA Design, to Rockstar North.
4. DMA Design evolved into DMA Design Ltd, it was simply a legal state, not a different company. It was the same staff, same employer - whether you like it or not.
5. I own dmadesign.org, and use it as a DMA Design Ltd history site. DMA's old site dma-design.com has since gone, but was not dma.com or dmadesign.com because both these domain weren't available at the time, and you weren't allowed to use .org or .net for company sites in those days.

Seriously... know what your talking about before trying to edit anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedailly (talk • contribs) 19:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Updated status about the Soundtracks in GTA 2 / GTA II

I am kinda new to this and my English knowledge is limited so I guess I can find someone who can help me out via E-mail:

I analysed the GTA 2 / GTA II movie and it's 1:50 minutes long cut intro: Search for the "Grand Theft Auto Movie" & Search for the "Grand Theft Auto Intro"

That's the order of the movie soundtracks 0:19 - 0:54 = 1. Successful Criminals - Music Madness

0:54 - 1:40 = 2. Inter Orbit Communication - Short Wave Café

1:40 - 3:00 = 3. Dom + Roland - Thunder

3:00 - 4:23 = 4. JMJ & Richie - The Score

4:26 - 5:14 = 5. PFM - Cruising Detroid `98

5:14 - 5:52 = 6. Flytronix - Past Archives

5:52 - 6:06 = 7. PFM - Cruising Detroid `98

6:06 - 7:19 = 8. E-Z Rollers - Short Change

7:20 - 8:15 = 9. PFM - Cruising Detroid `98

/

So there are a lot of missing tracknames in the soundtrack and normal article. That's more accurate: "Successful Criminals - Music Madness" & "Inter Orbit Communication - Short Wave Café" & "JMJ & Richie - The Score" & "PFM - Cruising Detroid `98" Are from the "Drumfunk Hooliganz" compilation of E-Z Rollers.

"Thunder" by "Dom + Roland" / "Dom & Roland" isn't mentioned.

The track "Short Change" from "E-Z Rollers" is cut for GTA II / GTA 2. There is a longer version on their album "Weekend World".

In the game self the movie is cut down to 1:50 and it contains a completly different track called "Rhythm" by "Engineers Without Fears". It's some kind of special GTA II / GTA 2 promo version mix.

Please contact me if you can help me in anyway. I also want to add this certain information to the German article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylversecond (talk • contribs) 01:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Title rename

I was very surprised to get a dab page at Grand Theft Auto. I'd think that the series would far and away be the primary topic for the capitalized title. (And that Grand theft auto, not the proper noun, should redirect to the crime.) Just passing through and not starting a move request, but wanted to put that out there for anyone else looking.  czar ♔ 13:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V figures in the sales section

I see recently that figures for the sales for Grand Theft Auto V once again, have been changed and reverted over, over again. Manly due because a VGChartz not being a reliable source although the figure by vg24 is speculation, meaning that the figure is also not really reliable as well. As I understand there's no source that tells us what are the actual figures of the sales are, I reckon we should leave the sales box for the Grand Theft Auto V blank for now. TheDeviantPro (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/08/05/grand-theft-auto-5-sells-over-34-million-copies Aqlpswkodejifrhugty (talk) 13:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a shipped figure, not a sold figure, IGN reported it incorrectly, I tweeted the author about it, he said he would get it fixed but never did. Google search shows that the other sources repoerted it as a shipped figure. - X201 (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Kk Aqlpswkodejifrhugty (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so why are people so unhappy with describing GTA as British?

The game is made in the UK, by British designers. Many people, in the UK and abroad believe that the game is American-made as it mainly deals with the USA in its story lines. So why are people so against highlighting that it is British? (95.148.117.63 (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC))

I assume you're referring to this edit; it's not that anyone wants to hide the fact, but that it's not customary to highlight the nationality of the video game in video game articles. The lead is there to summarize the most important aspects of the article, and rarely is its country of origin a major point. Be it British, American, Australian, or whatever, you'd be hard pressed to find an article that mentions the country of origin in the first sentence. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 17:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

SuperHamster covered it. The country of origin is more important in the developer article rather than the game. I've added the Video games developed in the United Kingdom category to the article. - X201 (talk) 20:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto)

I propose that Los Santos (Grand Theft Auto) be merged into Grand Theft Auto (series). It has been through AfD twice; in December 2007 (the result of which was to redirect), and in September 2013 (the result of which was to keep) after being created again in that month. A merge proposal in January 2014 was closed as no consensus. The article has remained largely the same for over a year: there's almost no content unique from Grand Theft Auto (series)#Setting and Development of Grand Theft Auto V#Research and open world design. Doesn't make sense to me that Los Santos needs its own article. I consider that the topic does not meet the WP:GNG, because the city has not been widely discussed outside of its role in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Grand Theft Auto V. Sure, we could evaluate the city's legacy in a few years, but until then, given the lack of content, this article should be merged and redirected. CR4ZE (t • c) 07:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge. All dedicated discussion of the location[11][12][13] is still more about GTA V than the place's own merits. This is to say that it doesn't have enough dedicated coverage for the GNG on its own and that it isn't a large enough section within either V or San Andreas to spin out summary style. Would also add that despite the continuity between the two games, the locations have almost no commentary in common. czar ♔ 19:48, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this Edge article is pretty good. I could be swayed if there was more stuff like this czar ♔ 20:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Merge. individual games and side games get their own articles not small things like cities or Niko, until Grand Theft Auto: Los Santos gets made this remains merged.--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 11:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Not to discredit your vote or opinion, but Niko Bellic is not a "small thing"; he is the highly regarded main protagonist of one of the most successful video games of all time. In addition, cities in video games can have their own articles if they're notable enough (for example, Rapture). Los Santos seems to be on the tipping point on notability, hence this discussion. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 11:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

He is a main famous protagonist, there is no dilemma there, but not even Master Chief has his own wiki page. Adding individual pages for characters would put to much strain on the editing community (well, the video game one). Save individual pages for dedicated wiki's, for example, there already is a GTA wiki. Abattoir666 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• @CR4ZE, with no objections raised, I think you're good to go  czar ⨹ 18:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. I know you all have already come to this conclusion, and you reasoning is sound, so just for further weight another merge vote. Abattoir666 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge is done. I honestly don't know what the correct protocol is with the talk page... I've left it intact, but I'm not 100% if this is what we do. @Czar: just an FYI, I didn't seem to get any notification from your ping, hence me getting to this only now. CR4ZE (t • c) 11:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Ping has all sorts of weird conditions... Protocol is to leave the talk page where it was, so you're good czar ⨹ 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto V: Grove Street Stories

MonsterEnergy1997 continues to add the game Grand Theft Auto V: Grove Street Stories to the article, without an official source. When asked for a source, s/he simply avoids the question, and adds it to the article anyway. This clearly appears to be vandalism; despite many reverts from myself, Crow, X201, TheDeviantPro, Reach Out to the Truth and others, MonsterEnergy will not give up, and I don't know what else to do about it, so I'm bringing it here. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 23:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Now he's refactoring peoples comments here.[14] I thought at first he didn't know where to discuss, but now I think we're being trolled. MonsterEnergy1997 if you wish to participate, edit below and make your case, but stop the disruptive behavior. Crow^Caw 23:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked 24h following a report at the WP:3RR noticeboard. Crow^Caw 23:29, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Now indef - X201 (talk) 05:37, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Is GTA Discontinued

Huzlers said that UN Forces Rockstar to Discontinue GTA. Is this true, and search it. It is made on December 25, 2014, and on April, they released GTA 5 PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino Dog (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I assume that you're referring to this article? Huzlers.com is not a very reliable source (it is deemed satire), so the article is very untrustworthy. If such an event had occurred, I'm sure it would have been covered by the mainstream media. – Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 13:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

How about Chicago?

GTA was set in London in the sixties, Miami in the eighties, and California in the nineties. Rockstar games even published a really great game set in LA in the forties. How about a GTA set in Chicago in the roaring twenties? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.232.85.66 (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with List of voice actors in the Grand Theft Auto

Cast list alone is never appropriate for video game articles. If we cannot do so in individual game articles we shouldn't create a standalone voice actors page for the series as well. Therefore, I proposed merging the list's lead, which seems to be quite useful, to the series article. AdrianGamer (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Support. At first I was skeptical, but then I realized, first, that the list was sourced entirely to primary sources (so it's out of our scope and belongs on another wiki) and, second, that the FLC status was from nearly a decade ago. Merge the lede from the list, possibly merge the rest off-wiki. czar 19:30, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

✓ done czar 13:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Talk

Stop editing and listen here BOTFIGHTER 12:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BOTFIGHTER (talk • contribs)

Would you like to give a policy based reason for removal of the controversy sections? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Violation of WP:NPOV in titles of controversies sub-sections

I feel that the naming of sections in the controversy sections violate WP:POVNAMING. User:Lordtobi has reverted this for not for indirect depiction of cases. but if you read the WP:POVNAMING it states In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias and the section names are definitely names of topics. I feel that the section titles should be similar to the ones expressed in this reversion [15], which adhere strongly to NPOV. Any other views on this? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would like to say that I appreciate you relying on the talk page instead of persuing an edit war. I am quite aware of WP:NPOV/WP:POVNAMING, but I feeling like you are mistinterpreting the guideline, in regards to the context of the (sub)header naming. As you correctly stated, the guideline expresses the exclusion/omission of points of view (POVs) from article text (or in this case header names), however, I feel like, especially with a controversy sup-section, that the depiction of what the controversy sourrounds: Full-frontal nudity, drunk driving, troture, etc. are the [most striking] controversial elements, and are discussed within the plaintext of every of those subsections. Using the header to give a birds-eye view on what was controversial to a game without having them to read the section without knowing what it is about. Also in regards of misinterpretation, e.g. the torture element in GTA V is a real thing, and not an opinion, except if you consider it differently, though that would again by your opinion going against the mainstream (common reliable secondary sources) "opinion", or rather depiction and evaluation of the entity. On a side-note, I also felt like the appendix of "controvery" to every sub-section of the "controversies" section is quite doubling it all, as if you were expecting the reader to not expect that the controversy section includes controversy of the game depicted. Therefore, if it is actually decided on omitting the expression of the controversial topic(s) of the game in question, the sub-section headers should have no appendix after the game title itself. Thanks! Lordtobi (✉) 19:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. For example Grand Theft Auto V: torture and sexism as a subheading makes it appear that GTAV is primarily concerned with these two topics, while the torture aspects are minimal to the game, and the sexism is debatable; it would therefore be a matter of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. Grand Theft Auto V: torture and sexism would be highly inappropriate for an article title, and section titles should also try to adhere to a NPOV aspect, and not try to infer that it is Wikipedia's opinion that these are especially prominent in the game in question. The material in the sections are appropriate as they are composed of sourced opinions; not statements of facts, which are inferred by the current POV section titles. Section titles should be neutral, as the sections should themselves be read by the reader to form a balanced opinion on the matter. Far better to have Grand Theft Auto V controversy to be neutral on the merits, and also match the article title Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V which makes no mentions of "torture and sexism" in the article title. Conclusion section titles should mirror article titles in adherence to WP:POVNAMING. They currently do no do so, and are thus against policy. WP:POVNAMING makes no distinction between article and section naming. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Grand Theft Auto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/article/previews/158028/grand-theft-auto-iv/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/articles/gta-drama-casts-daniel-radcliffe-and-bill-paxton/1100-6426802/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/05/21/rockstar-games-files-lawsuit-against-the-bbc
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/04/29/grand-theft-auto-iv-special-edition-review/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929225104/http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/action/grandtheftautovicecity/news.html?sid=6085346 to http://uk.gamespot.com/ps2/action/grandtheftautovicecity/news.html?sid=6085346
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040508045243/http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/grandtheftauto3/news_6077161.html to http://www.gamespot.com/ps2/adventure/grandtheftauto3/news_6077161.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://taketwovalue.com/documents/TTWO_Value.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy to Grand Theft Auto

I think the article should be merged to Grand Theft Auto. I don't see the need to have a separate page for this compilation. The references currently consists of only database entries and a store page. --Mika1h (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Grand Theft Auto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926072609/http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/25/disbarred to http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/09/25/disbarred
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080928054215/http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/07/09/we-have-judge039s-report-recommending-permanent-disbarment-jack-thompson to http://www.gamepolitics.com/2008/07/09/we-have-judge039s-report-recommending-permanent-disbarment-jack-thompson
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070825065157/http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/sep/25/video-game-maker-blamed-04-killing/ to http://www.abqtrib.com/news/2006/sep/25/video-game-maker-blamed-04-killing/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20080408234728/http://taketwovalue.com/documents/TTWO_Value.pdf#page=12

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Who Did It?

OK, I want to know this: who did it? Who in the FUCK merged my Vice City article with the Grand Theft Auto article? The King Gemini (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@King Gemini: Can you please rephrase that in a nicer way? There isn't a reason to curse like that. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 04:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

And also WP:OWN - X201 (talk) 07:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason. My article got merged for no reason at all SparklingPessimist. The King Gemini (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@King Gemini: Well, your cursing is inapprotiate behavior. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 23:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@King Gemini: The Vice City page is totally gamecruft and lacks sources and references (diff). That's why it got merged to the GTA article. Cursing over it like that isn't really appropriate. – Hounder4 02:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I am just sick and tired of users merging my created articles and editing my changes in articles that I edit. And it's really pissing me off. The King Gemini (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to read WP:OWN. You give up all rights to anything you contribute to Wikipedia as soon as you submit it. If you want to have control of articles Wikipedia isn't the place for that. Anything can, and usually will, be edited by others. That's the core principle of Wikipedia. - X201 (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@King Gemini: I merged the article because the whole article was purely gamecruft and lacked any sources if none at all (Which I stated in my edit summary, if you bothered to read it), so saying that there was no reason for the merge is completely untrue. Don't make articles and claim ownership on them because because that's not how Wikipedia work. If you had followed the guidelines on gamecraft to begin with and know that making articles like the Vice City article is inappropriate for Wikipedia. If you're sick and tied of users merging your articles then maybe you should make articles that follows Wikipedia's guidelines rather than making tantrums on the talk page. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

You tryin' to be an smartass DeviantPro? The King Gemini (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop the unnecessary cursing and the personal attacks and perhaps your comments will be taken seriously. A reason for the merge has been given—you can either maturely debate reasons against the merge, or you can accept that it happened and move on. Acting childish will not the article back (and that's the article, by the way, not your article). – Rhain ☔ 05:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not acting childish and I'm not attacking anybody. So think before you speak next time. The King Gemini (talk) 06:28, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

King Gemini, I know you're upset, and the article was probably a lot of work. But honestly what did you expect? It apparently fails WP:GNG with no sources cited: ...received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It also fails WP:VGSCOPE in it's written state: Non-notable articles and spinouts: Avoid creating new articles on non-notable topics. A notable topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. A smaller article should only be split from a larger topic if the new article would itself be notable. No references = no article (and wiki sources don't count). It was merged, but if it was brought to AfD the result would almost certainly been the same. Sometimes you have to accept these sort of occurrences. If you could find reliable sources for most of the content things could be different, but that will be a tall order. I strongly suspect that it fails wp notability as an independent topic. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Theft Auto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029012618/http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-20%2F1143662355218050.xml&storylist=alabamanews to http://www.al.com/newsflash/regional/index.ssf?%2Fbase%2Fnews-20%2F1143662355218050.xml&storylist=alabamanews

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand Theft Auto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6SZTbUnca?url=http://www.ign.com/articles/2008/04/29/grand-theft-auto-iv-special-edition-review/ to http://ign.com/articles/2008/04/29/grand-theft-auto-iv-special-edition-review/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:16, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected request

I noticed that a lot of links are missing in the Titles section.
Maybe it's intentional? I don't know. I think it would be better to have links on everything, but the page is semi-protected so I'm making you aware of that here.

So basically, I'm asking to add links to all the entries that should have one but have not. Eg. « DMA Design », « Rockstar North », « PS1 », « Windows ».. Links are already there on some entries, but not on every one of them.

Tell me if that's a good thought or not ^^
And if not, why (like if there is some kind of restriction on links or whatever).

Matiboux (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

 Not done there are already links to these in the "Titles" section, please look more clearly. Per MOS:REPEATLINK these links should not be repeated more than once, so not all mentions will be linked, only the first ones. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2018

112.204.202.168 (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2019

Please change the first part of the third paragraph in the lead from "British video game developer DMA Design began the series in 1997." to "British video game developer DMA Design began the series in 1997, with the release of the original Grand Theft Auto.", the reason being that there's no need to link DMA Design (linked in the first paragraph) and the year (unnecessary, almost never linked in articles of video game franchises) and that the first installment of the series should be mentioned. Also please make the semi-protected lock visible in the article, because it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.252.80 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Lordtobi (✉) 05:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

You didn't make the changes that I requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.250.21 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Lordtobi (✉) 07:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Release table

I don't see the purpose of having both the release table and a release template in the same article. @Daven20: claims that "timeline shows gaps between releases, and more importantly distinguishes main titles from spin-offs & remasters", but there is nothing preventing the table from showing the same info. I propose that due to redundancy, one of them should be removed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

"Gaps between releases" are rather trivial, any reader can make up that between 2008 and 2013 laid five years, even without visual aid. Distinguishing of main titles and spin-off titles can also be done in the table (though the only difference really is the boldness of the titles). One of them should be removed, but the table holds vastly more info, so time timeline is a better contender for deletion. Lordtobi (✉) 18:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the table has more information than the timeline. You are free to remove the timeline, I just don't see why both can't be kept. It's not as if the timeline is taking up space, it defaults to the right hand side. Daven20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Dan Houser (GTA)

Hello I think there's a missed information about the creators of GTA series it's about Dan Houser he was one of the creators of GTA his name should be there we can't just forget what he made Ahmad abusubhia (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And thanks Ahmad abusubhia (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

He didn't create the franchise. He became involved as a producer later in the development of the first game. IceWelder [✉] 17:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Compatibility with the Game Boy

The original GTA was released for the Game Boy Color and the cartridge is backwards compatible with the original Game Boy. This is not noted anywhere on the article. There is a section listing platforms (platforms, not releases), I added the original GB to the listed platforms, and the edit was undone by user Rhain. I don't want to start an edit war, so I would like to ask here what's the best way to add a note about the backwards compatibility to this page. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@ThiagoSimoes: If a reliable source (not the game cover) considers it notable enough to mention, then it may be suitable for prose on the game article, but not in the infobox or lead (per the MOS). – Rhain ☔ 02:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Detailed Map of Liberty City (GTA IV).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Other settings

Maybe, as North Yankton has been included, we should also add Cayo Perico, which is also outside of the US (the very game states it is in the Caribbean coast of Colombia) as another setting inside GTA Online 2001:EE0:4F09:7D00:40A9:FC8D:60BA:2268 (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

genesis

KILE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:8780:9D10:6092:C474:2030:83E6 (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2021

Grand Theft Auto VI (Not Vice City) Is set to be released in 2022. All info is there already because of leaks. You can add it already.

- https://www.gamesradar.com/gta-6-release-date-news-trailers-map-gameplay-rumours/ 145.130.27.50 (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done GTA 6 or 2022 release date is not discussed. A HD version of Vice City has been rumored, but no release date has ever been given. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto VI — Redirects for discussion

"Grand Theft Auto VI" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Grand Theft Auto VI. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Grand Theft Auto VI until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

"Grand Theft Auto 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Grand Theft Auto 6. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#Grand Theft Auto 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Kaseng55 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

"GTA VI" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GTA VI. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#GTA VI until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

"GTA 6" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect GTA 6. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 1#GTA 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 22:38, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

Under the Grand Theft Auto V heading in titles, “installment” is incorrectly spelled. 23.91.216.146 (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done and thanks Cannolis (talk) 05:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Undone This article is written in British English; "instalment" is correct. – Rhain ☔ 08:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Original Game Boy version is not the Game Boy Color version

There seems to be a misconception as to what the Game Boy Color's black "dual mode" cartridges contained. They did not have one Game Boy Color ROM that was "compatible" with the original Game Boy. These special cartridges contained two ROMS, one for the GBC and one for the GB. This is why, if there is save progress in Wario Land II on a Game Boy Color, it brings up a message saying the save is not compatible with the original Game Boy and needs to be erased or played on a Color system. Similarly, the monochrome version of Conker's Pocket Tales is an almost entirely different game than the Color version. Another example is that in Link's Awakening DX, the monochrome version does not allow the player to enter the Color Dungeon.

There was a version of the original GTA specially made for the original Game Boy, which is why the GB belongs on the platforms list. Neither the distribution medium nor release date is relevant to the platforms the game was developed for. Ozdarka (talk) 08:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Per this official list from Nintendo, Grand Theft Auto is "backwards compatible" with Game Boy Pocket and Game Boy. We don't list backwards compatible platforms in the infobox. – Rhain ☔ 08:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, I cannot find any reliable sources confirming that the cartridge holds two separate versions. The GTA wiki, as unreliable as it may be, merely says "[The GBC version] is also playable on the original Game Boy system, sacrificing only the color palette for playability." IceWelder [✉] 08:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

No, we don't list platforms with which games are backwards compatible as separate platforms. But it's not backwards compatible, the GBC version is a different game. It's the same difference between the PS5 running the PS4 and PS5 versions of GTAV; one is compatible, one is a different version. Your source uses sloppy wording; the cartridge may be backwards compatible, but the game isn't. I will locate a source that correctly identifies the technical reality of GBC cartridges. Ozdarka (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2021

Grand Theft Auto- San Andreas takes place in a city resembling Los Angeles starting off. However, you can go to two different cities. One resembling Las Vegas and the other resembling San Francisco. But San Andreas itself is Los Angeles, at the beginning of the entry it says San Francisco. 2601:445:447F:D3E0:BCA5:109D:3EE3:9827 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The city of San Andreas was based on San Francisco in the original game (1997). The city resembling Los Angeles that you're referring to is Los Santos, first seen in San Andreas (2004) There's a note clarifying this in the lead. – Rhain ☔ 06:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Do we have to always use this generic response? I clearly already responded, I don't know why this was necessary—and they weren't requesting a change, they were just making a (somewhat misguided) comment. – Rhain ☔ 13:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

It's more practical when you're responding to multiple of them at a time. If it bothers you, just don't forget to mark it as answered=yes. And my reason still stands: if this is to be reported in an encyclopedia; it needs to be cited to reliable sources (which allows us to make sure it is what the source is indeed saying); something which you did not mention in your reply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't mention it because it wasn't relevant; sourcing wasn't the issue, they just had their information mixed up. Easier to answer the question than to cite guidelines. But it doesn't matter anymore, this is solved. Thanks. – Rhain ☔ 23:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Original GTA sales figures

According to the Evening Standard [16] the game sold more than 3.5 million copies by 1999 while the LA Times source stated the game sold 2 million copies by 99 [17]. Which source should we use here? Timur9008 (talk) 13:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

LA Times seems to refer to the PlayStation version, given the "December 1997" release date. I'd say just include both with their respective attribution. IceWelder [✉] 11:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch

​In the "Titles" section I think we should list the Switch under "Handheld" as well as "Console" as it is a hybrid home and handheld system. The system is as much a handheld as it is a home system and I don't see any issue with it being listed in more than one column. Helper201 (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Helper201: I think listing it under both may be a little confusing for casual readers. (Part of me wonders if we even need to separate the platforms by their "type", but that's a different discussion.) Perhaps using footnotes for clarification will work better? We could even stick with your idea of placing it in both columns, but using the footnote to clarify.

Here are three examples

Year Title Developer Home release Universe Console Computer Handheld Mobile 2021 Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition Grove Street Games Switch PS4 PS5 Xbox One Xbox Series X/S Windows Android iOS 3D 2021 Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition Grove Street Games PS4 PS5 Xbox One Xbox Series X/S Windows Switch Android iOS 3D 2021 Grand Theft Auto: The Trilogy – The Definitive Edition Grove Street Games Switch PS4 PS5 Xbox One Xbox Series X/S Windows Switch Android iOS 3D

Interested to hear your thoughts (or anyone else's, of course). – Rhain ☔ 11:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Rhain. Thank you for taking the time to draw up these examples. I think option 3 would be the best. The first also has the reader issue where I don't think many non-editors are very aware of footnotes and won’t see what it means at a glance. The second option has the same issue as the current where it favours one specific categorisation for the Switch over another when both are equally as valid as each other. Helper201 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Helper201: I think I agree. I believe there's ultimately a better way to display the list of games, but we'll work with what we've got for now. I've made the change. – Rhain ☔ 12:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain: I was also thinking the table might look better and more consistent with other articles if we aligned the platforms to the centre of each section (e.g. <center*> and </center*>, without the *). I was in the process of doing this but I'm not sure how to align flat lists to the centre or if that can be done. I think it looks odd having boxes where there is a small amount filling it, such as one platform pushed to the left-hand side of the box in the table with the vast majority of it being empty. What are your thoughts on this? Helper201 (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Helper201: It appears there isn't a way to center a {{flatlist}}, unfortunately—at least, not without a bunch of extra code. It may make them look a little better, but thankfully I don't think it's a big deal. On the bright side, at least: while I was looking around, I (re)discovered {{hlist}}, which is much cleaner code, so I've switched to that (though it still doesn't fix the centering issue). – Rhain ☔ 12:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Thekevinbrothers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Outdated Sales figures

The sales figure of 20 million for Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is way out dated, it reflects up to 2008, 14 years have passed the game is still one of the most sold and most played globally and has been released on newer platforms such as android, please update the sales figure for this game. Heres a list from 2017 for android sales: [18] Dilbaggg (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dilbaggg: Sales figures—especially for 20-year-old games—are usually outdated, since the publisher typically stops providing updates at some point. We're unlikely to ever get an updated figure for Vice City; that Money Inc source is unreliable. – Rhain ☔ 22:48, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Rhain Then you should at least mention this in the articles that the sales figure is outdated, like for vice City sales figure: 20 million (as of 2008). Just a suggestion by me thats all, best wishes. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Leak

In light of the recent leak, which, yes, reliable sources have confirmed is legitimate, I'd like to remind editors that including plot and/or gameplay details from a (technically) unannounced game would be in direct contravention with our goal of verifiability. There's a world where the leaked build is years old, and the city and character names are completely different. Naturally, this is unlikely, but that's not the point. Please avoid adding specific game details from unauthorised leaks. — CR4ZE (T • C) 23:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Why isn’t there a Grand Theft Auto VI page yet, if Rockstar announced it to be in development months ago? Is it because there’s no confirmation on regards the game’s title? RodRabelo7 (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

change grand theft auto advance from 3d to 2d 20ashley05 (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done. Advance is part of the 3D universe. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:15, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

But its a 2 dimensional game 20ashley05 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

That's not what the column refers to. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2023

Oculus Quest 2 should be removed from the list of platforms for GTA:San Andreas because it was announced almost two years ago and we haven't heard anything about it since. Fire Ball MC (talk) 21:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done. Until we get confirmation that development is cancelled, I see no reason for removal any time soon. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 22:47, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Advertising Copy

While Wikipedia records facts and events, the articles on "Grand" Theft games can read as free advertising at times. Given the PR department/s have millions to hype media events aimed at pushing products, might not editors keep to the basic facts and delete anything that reads like Public Relations copy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.178 (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

What reads as a public relations copy to you? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:48, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Cody Posey Lawsuit

The Murders Did not take place in Albuquerque, NM these murders took place 3 Hrs away in Hondo, NM just outside of Ruidoso NM. Cody’s Trial took place in Alamogordo NM at Otero County’s 12th Judicial District. Fego23 (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2023

Change GTA VI universe from TBA to HD, as Rockstar has confirmed it is a HD universe game multiple times Ducky1440 (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Any specific sources for them saying that? Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 01:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2023

Latest Release Is Wrong The Latest Release Is GTA Online:Chop Shop Please Edit The Latest Release To GTA Online: Chop Shop Sources:- Rockstar Games Official Youtube Channel. 2409:408A:8D08:143F:0:0:44CB:5C13 (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

To un-boilerplate: The Chop Shop is an update to Grand Theft Auto Online. It is not considered a separate game and therefore not put into the infobox as the latest release. IceWelder [✉] 17:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)