Talk:Multi Theft Auto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Multi Theft Auto article.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article is on a subject of Low priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
VG To-do:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on October 10, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 26, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.

I've decided to start a project to make a real history documentation here. Check this topic: http://forum.mtavc.com/viewtopic.php?t=18126 --Lakecityransom 08:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Ransom

Pertaining to this topic http://forum.mtavc.com/viewtopic.php?p=240242#240242 it would be nice to have a full list of gangs with join dates. A small group of people dont agree of who the real first gangs were, so just list them.

fixed some page defacing probably done by some 13 year old with too much spare time -- jgw/KFCazure

I think KFCazure is a 13 your old, probably because he is calling me somone a hell of a lot gayer than him in the GTA Comminity that I am a 13 year old... PS: I speel reely gudde!

Contents

[edit] Delete this section

May 28th 2008: There is no reason why this section should still exist when the SA-MP section on wiki has been deleted. Both have the EXACT same content, they are both a multiplayer mod for GTA:SA. However, MTA has about 400 players at peak times while SA-MP has about 4000 players to 8000 players regularly. Furthermore, MTA isn't even released as a public version, which makes this whole article based on absolutely nothing. If you are fair and impartial, you will agree that either:

  • This article should be deleted, just like the sa-mp article was deleted
  • The sa-mp article should be undeleted, as it's based on a REAL GAME (while this isn't)

This is a very good example of people abusing Wikipedia for their own goals and interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.208.25 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You are free to register an account and put this article up for deletion by putting {{subst:afdx|3rd}} at the top of the article and then explain, according to deletion policy, why it should be deleted. Arguments like your first point are not valid, and as for SA-MP, it was deleted as the only sources people came up with were unreliable (forums, etc.) or trivial (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Andreas Multiplayer (3rd nomination)). By the way, calling people "commies" isn't going to help you win any arguments.--Drat (Talk) 03:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Clans

  • they should be kept in the article, as they are active and show great respect for other clans. Highly doubt that it is advertising - Vicer 09:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, they should not be kept in the article. Not only does it open the door to advertising by allowing people to add their clans and websites or forums, but it's also handpicking the clans which you think are "notable" and should be mentioned. There are too many clans in the community to be summarized all in one paragraph.

Perhaps you should read this article before contributing anything else on Wikipedia.

In other words, this is not the place to insert your personal opinions unless you have the proper citations.


  • It's not original research. Until I get some harder sources this will have to do.

http://forum.mtavc.com/viewtopic.php?t=13664 Shows part of the history of early MTA gangs. (Must be logged in to view, and I did not write that.)

" B.L.A.S.T.A. and VCK are the 2 surviving original gangs"

For the tournament with VCP, http://forum.mtavc.com/viewtopic.php?t=17379

Yes, there are too many gangs in the community but those three stand out, with (which I think have) something to describe them of being notable. I will add the sentences back in with the sources, but if you think it is not hard evidence, you can remove it until I can get it. - Vicer 11:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Autobiographies are not a reliable or reputable source. Citing a private forum thread posted by a member of the group in question does not class as an authoritative attribution of notability, especially when said forum thread cites the group's own autobiographical history as a source of information. Autobiographical information does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Your contributions to date violate many official policies regarding articles on Wikipedia. Before further contributing to Wikipedia please fully read and understand the following policy guides: Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, Verifiability. - Jaqel 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to violate Wikipedia's rules with advertising and self-important contributions you will be reported and your account could end up being locked. - Jaqel 00:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Fine. - Vicer 05:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unnotable Sources

Lovin' how the sources that I, among others, asked to be put up during the AfD discussion haven't been put up... ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The suggestions on sources were practically shovelled to you. I believe you are familiar with the text of {{sofixit}}? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't get the memo that said I was the one that should do it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 05:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Nor did any of the other users, incidentally. My point is this: Basically, if we're dealing with a matter that's basically pretty-tweaking {{cite xx}} templates and adding proper citations to the article, sarcastic complaining that it's not done is not constructive. With the same energy you put to this rambling, you could have done that yourself. Look below for how things are supposed to be done. =) (And yes, now I suck, too, for not doing this myself. See? I can waste my time too. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, please add some sources

Basically, people have hauled this article to AfD twice and wasted massive amounts of time because no one has bothered to add the media references listed right here to this article. Can someone please do something about these - and we might also benefit from verifying the sources just in case? Can't be too unreasonable to find magazines fron 2003, I guess... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Since I've been able to tear myself away from other issues, I'll go ahead and do it. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 22:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)