Talk:Defense of the Ancients/Archive 2

message: removed a portion of the article which claimed the game to use "popular heroes" (This is an opinion, not fact) and written poorly in general. I also removed a portion that completely contradicted the section before it in which it claims a sequel was made when two paragraphs earlier the article states there was no sequel...
Also removed a few pointless sentences ( (the official multiplayer gaming server network for Warcraft III by Blizzard Entertainment). ). This sentence is pointless when a simple click on the word Battle.net will suffice. --Lucavious 17:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No need for fanboyism on a Wiki article. 

message: There is already a DotA Allstars page. Why does this page exist? It should be merged or deleted. And I don't think that Dota Allstars should be merged into here - because it is the notable topic. Mention of classic dota could be included in the history section of Dota Allstars. The writing on this article is much better, I would like to see that sort of writing end up in DotA Allstars. --JRavn 19:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DotA Allstars

message: ..to the correct non-vandalized version. I accidentally rolled back to the wrong version and can't find the last decent version within the history. Bobo. 11:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please revert

message: Pardon my french, but the "Defense_of_the_Ancients#Jargon" section of the article is utter and useless Bullshit and trolling. Do we really need those made up stuff included? What's this? An encyclopedia or a "r33l h4xX0Rz' guide to da über-game"? The leet article is an example victim (lost featured status) of such trolling. Misza13 T C 16:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon

message: Is any of this published elsewhere? Can it be verified? Is it original research? This reads like a detailed game guide, updated by the developer and many gamers. Much of it is not at all encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and the parts that make this a gaming guide probably need to go. At the top of the list of items to remove would be the recent addition of "game modes". --Habap 17:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verifiability

message: Can someone provide a link that shows DotA being used at WCG 2005? All I see on the WCG 2005 website is the use of WCIII:TFT for competition, with no further details. --Habap 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WCG 2005

message: y is this in this article instead of the warcraft3 article?--1698 20:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banlist and Hacks 

message: I`ve cleaned the external links section, the links are now in order of their relevance and importance. --Cristian.
: I didnt put the clean up there, but i think only the two official links should remain --1698 03:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links cleaned 

message: I've cleaned up the article as best as I could and commented out some things; if anyone can fix them, then please do.  Here are the changes.  And how about the  tag?  x42bn6 Talk 13:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Agility in Roc Dota or as you call it classic dota isnt a strict 1% increase. Also the 25 level cap isnt in RoC dota either. Honestly some people dont appreciate you editors making it clear that the dota your mainly focusing on is Allstars. Clean this stuff up.
:The part about Wikipedia is that anyone can clean up the mess.  :)  x42bn6 Talk 02:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've commented out the killing levels and 1 Agility gives 1% increase in attack speed.  I have a feeling the latter is wrong because I've seen the Bone Fletcher attack twice as fast (minus Strafe and items) and it certainly doesn't have 100+ Agility.  Regarding the first part, I think most variants have some sort of bonus for multiple kills without dying, so if that is true, then I'll modify that part.  So, any help or confirmation?  Sources would be nice.  x42bn6 Talk 02:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have Warcraft installed at the moment so I can't...  But I'll find some reference first then uncomment it out.  x42bn6 Talk 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make it clear in the first part that its allstars. 

message: This article basically amounts to a game guide, including instructions on how to do things, on top of overly detailed descriptions. At this point, it completely fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NOT. I'd prefer to keep this article out of AfD - I believe Defense of the Ancients is probably a subject notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. However, if the unverified claims, original research and general lack of real claims to notability continue to run rampant, another AfD nomination is inevitable. I'm going to do some work on it, myself, and cut all the mentions of non-notable versions of the map, and mentions of people other than "Eul" and "Guinsoo" - vanity mentions of other people only make an AfD nomination more likely. JimmyBlackwing 20:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eul and Guinsoo are the authors of the original DotA and arguably the most popular variant DotA AllStars respectively - they should stay.  But by all means, mess around with the article.  It's not helped by the fact that so many uncited statements are around.  :(  x42bn6 Talk 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I can't pinpoint what's wrong with this article but it really doesn't seem to live up to the standards of a typical Wiki article... I think it simply needs to be rewritten completely and leave out the any names unless it's the creator. The fact that it's a popular sub genre below Warcraft III doesn't make it anymore above the rules than another article. --Lucavious 23:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is a game guide 

message: I went through the article and did a rewrite of most of the stuff. I tried to keep the article just DotA specific, since most of the original applied only to DotA Allstars (which already has its own article, no need to duplicate or confuse information). I also tried to keep everything verifiable and removed a lot of the statements which sounded like original research. It could probably use some expansion to the Gameplay section, such as a short Items subsection. --JRavn talk 16:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article rewrite 

message: A while back I remember seeing a Tides of Blood (a similar custom map for Warcraft) article on Wikipedia, and then saw it removed, saying custom maps are not suitable wikipedia material unless they have achieved some sort of recognition beyond the immediate scope of the parent game (like CounterStrike.)  Why is this DOTA article now permitted?  Can I make a TOB article?
:I believe the main reason is that DotA is allegedly the most popular variant and (more importantly) is used in professional tournaments. Check out the dicussions in the AfD's listed way at the top of this talk page. So, if TOB gets used in professional tournaments, it might deserve an article. --Habap 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, someone had removed it. I put it back in. Thanks. --Habap 16:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you've got citations from articles that agree with that assessment, maybe it deserves an article also. --Habap 18:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: "Widely" is a very dodgy word.  Proof is required before such statements are allowed in.  Tides of Blood may be better, but DotA is much, much, much more popular - the number of variants and games on Battle.net is proof of that.  x42bn6
This has been long debated, and there has been no concensus on multiple AfDs and merges for both articles. So they are staying, the focus now is making them high quality. I believe the current concensus is that the DotA article is for a general overview of the DotA concept, it does not apply to any particular War3 custom map. The DotA Allstars article is devoted directly to the DotA Allstars custom map released by Clan TDA. We want to avoid duplication as much as possible. --JRavn talk
There is no such thing as "DotA concept", the original concept for DotA came from the Starcraft map "Aeon of Strife" and that type of maps are called "AoS", short from "Aeon of Strife".
This article should be deleted. The "DotA Allstars" article is better and covers the same topic, if something important from it is missing just add it there.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.228.34.76 (talk • contribs) .  x42bn6 Talk 20:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you want to file another AfD go ahead. It's been done 2 or 3 times so far, with no concensus. Personally, I think our time is better spent improving the article and removing duplication. --JRavn talk 21:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The interesting thing is that there are pages on maps such as Eve of the Apocolypse, if non-proffensional-tourny maps aren't to be shown. And LOTR maps. If those deserve pages, then a map such as Tides of Blood which was, for a time, the most popular map on wc3, deserves a page. Even if you add up the amount played of all 3 eota maps, it probably doesnt get close to Tides of Blood. So there's a weird imbalance.--Uberfoop 08:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this even here? 

message: There is little reason that these articles need exist, period (note that DoTA Allstars was voted to be deleted or merged into Warcraft III, while the consensus for DoTA was keep.) Either way this info should be consolidated. David Fuchs 00:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the vote on Allstars was no consensus. I don't play, so I have no emotional attachment, but if you look at the various AfDs and merge proposals, I don't think there's a consensus in favor. --Habap 11:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge Proposal

message: In the music online game O2jam, there was somebody writing an article promoting a so-called great player from Singapore. NOW I see another article about someone claiming he's so great in DOTA. Who the heck is promoting Singaporean players!? I vote for the deletion of that section. It violates the rules and regulations in wikipedia about neutrality. Otherwise, people would start writing about each nations "greatest" player....  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.92.66.27 (talk • contribs).
:Removed fanboyism via revert.  x42bn6 Talk 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another article promoting players!? 

message: Does anyone agree with me in thinking that there should perhaps be a section mentioning Blizzard's mission in the Blood Elf/Naga campaign in which Illidan must be rescued from the cage? It seems almost identical to DotA, except with a moving cage instead of having to destroy a base. I can't remember off the top of my head which number it is, but I think the name is 'The Search for Illidan' and comes straight after the 'Tower Defence'-esque secret level, adding further weight to the argument of it being a battle.net spawned level (ie it being 'bundled' as such with the TD). Wyvern King 20:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we have any physical evidence? Not really, so I don't think we should add it. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 23:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Related to Aeon-of-Strife, but not necessarily Defense of the Ancients.  x42bn6 Talk 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frozen Throne Spin-off Mission 

message: Shouldn't this be "Each hero can learn 3 abilities with 4 levels each, and a special "ultimate" ability with 3 levels."? There are *three* abilities which can be leveled up four times. And there is one "ultimate" ability which can be leveled up three times. The current wording makes it sound like there are four abilities which can level up four times, in addition to the ultimate which levels up three times. yawgm8th 07:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the line [...] 

message: Heroes can gain up to 25 levels in the newest and most played versions of DotA. Each hero can learn 3 "standard" abilities, upgradable 4 times each, and a special "ultimate" ability, upgradable every 5 levels, starting from level 6. The heroes are divided into 3 groups which emphasize one of the 3 hero attributes: strength, agility, or intelligence.
I remember seeing some versions where there were deviations from this standard TehNomad 17:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But it is for most. If you know what other versions had, by all means add in that info. But Allstars, DSC and the original, I believe, followed that formula. Dåvid ƒuchs (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it sounds really dodgy and stoic - I cannot imagine that these mapmakers cannot think of a better formula.  If one can find a map that disagrees with it and is fairly notable, then that part will go.  I have always been against that paragraph anyway.  x42bn6 Talk 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There aren't any versions of dota that deviated that ever really got popular. The most popular aos-style map that deviates that comes to mind is Tides of Blood, which hardly has a community anymore (although there are still games played sparsely on the east gateway). But yea, it used to compete with Enfos and was extremely popular. After those 2 maps stopped updated DotA Allstars pretty much took over. But since Tides of Blood isn't a Defense of the Ancients map, it doesn't disagree. --Uberfoop 05:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This isn't true for all versions of DotA 

message: Forums are not reliable sources per WP:RS and WP:V. I've removed a section which only had a forum as its source and there is another sentence which needs to be removed if a source can't be provided. The claim of who made the first map isn't supported by the map posting and a forum thread isn't going to cut it.--Crossmr 15:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that shouldn't be a reason to kill the entire section - even if it is now "unsourced".  I've put the section back, commented out the reference and replaced it with  just so I can use this URL for finding a new link later.  x42bn6 Talk 20:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is, WP:V#Burden_of_evidence the burden of evidence is with the editor who wishes to add or restore the material. If you want the section in you're required to provide a source.--Crossmr 21:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mm, alright, but the controversy section is there to keep the article NPOV.  Can't find any non-forum sources even though the forums themselves might be notable.  x42bn6 Talk 01:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPOV under undue weight. If you can't source it, its not a neutral point of view issue. Notability of the forums isn't an issue. Forum posts just cannot be used as a reliable source except in the very limited capacity of say an official company spokesperson making a press release type statement there (but those kinds of things should be covered elsewhere). NPOV doesn't mean you have to create some sort of artificial balance. It means you should present facts without bias and without giving a verifiable point of view undue focus.--Crossmr 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources