Sign in to follow this  
Ransom

Wiki Research

Recommended Posts

Pertaining to the last topic, on accident, I discovered this topic. I forgot about it, but heres a good indicator of most of the older gangs that set off and made it or did not make it. That topic used to be a rule, that all gangs would post their rosters to it and update them (silly, i know).

http://forum.mtavc.com/viewtopic.php?t= ... c&&start=0

I'd like to see the wikipedia information about history be much more informative... at its current state its a bare minimum. Links to past videos and etc would be nice for example. I dunno if anyone has the old tv-phone conversation with cray http://forum.mtavc.com/viewtopic.php?p=37931

Check it out, im making alot of additions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MultiTheftAuto

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post

Theres been some disagreement by zircon about most of it and others the amount of content. So Im forced to make a full history elsewhere. Probably on the mta wiki. This is a more suitable place though.

Share this post


Link to post

Haveing a page explaining about the "Original Gangs" sounds like a controversal subject, why not explain what it would be like for any gang back in the day to be playing on MTA.

Share this post


Link to post

Well maybe, but we're trying to give credit to the original gangs who appeared back in 2003, and steered the way for other MTA gangs to appear afterwards. As Ransom said in another topic, 'they are the pioneers'.

Share this post


Link to post
Well maybe, but we're trying to give credit to the original gangs who appeared back in 2003, and steered the way for other MTA gangs to appear afterwards. As Ransom said in another topic, 'they are the pioneers'.

Sounds good to me.

Ransom, is this gonna be a hard thing to do? This was awhile back and it might be hard to get the info. (or is it?)

Share this post


Link to post

I believe we've been over this.

No one's intention should be to list the "original gangs," or "pioneer gangs," or whatever you want to call them. A chronological listing would be a perfectly unbiased and fair way to go about it. Otherwise, we are going to have some conflicting views with the way it's presented.

Like I said, it's impossible to draw the line between the "original gangs" and all of the others that appeared afterwards. You might say the cut-off point is 2003. I could say six months to a year later. It's simply a matter of opinion, and that doesn't belong in something that should be factual.

Share this post


Link to post

I made a nice addition to the discussion page.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.