Talk:DotA Allstars/Archive 1

message: We need a section about all available game modes. --202.184.206.126 10:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But aren't those common to all online games, not just DotA? I don't think either game modes or internet lingo would be useful here. --Habap 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Game modes

message: Defense of the Ancients: Allstars → DotA Allstars – Rationale: Official name of modification is DotA Allstars, even though DotA is an abbreviation itself. DotA Allstars page is a redirect page with history. DeAceShooter 05:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support --1698 22:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Support --1698 22:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 11:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: great job all! thanks to Gatekreeper and Rubberband for their participation in this page =)
Debroglie 10:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  nice job! 

message: I'm upset that someone would want to merge the Allstars page back into the DotA page, since it took a lot of work to separate them in the first place. I have a feeling that whoever suggested it simply looked and thought, "Hmm, this page is based off of the same idea as this other page, so we should merge them." The DotA page was getting far too large, by wikipedia standards, and when we have such a dearth of information on something like Allstars, it's only proper that we give it its own page, rather than let it take up too much space on an already cramped wikipedia page.
--Gatekreeper 07:39, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
:why is there so much detail about how to configure and play this game? I mean, does it really belong in Wikipedia? Wikipedia is not the place for a detailed instruction manual. I know y'all have spent a lot of time putting great detail into this, but there has to be a website better suited than our encyclopedia. --Habap 17:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging 

message: As with the general DoTA page:
Please do not edit, change or delete any part of the sections of the version of DotA that you do not like. Please only make contributions and do not name clans or users that do not make consistant balance changes and new features to the map. This is a form of vandalism and your ip address and isp are so conveniently provided by this site.
Please remember that Wikipedia is a place for objective discussion and information.  As such, highly personal remarks on the game and irrelevant comparisons with other maps should generally be avoided.  Vandalism wastes effort to revert, so it really is a unfufilling act for everyone.  If you'd like to contribute more to this page, how about signing up too if you havent?
Ruberband 18:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Vandalism 

message: When I restructured the versions part of the page, since I thought 6.20 deserved it, I took out the note about the differences between the terrain types, since 6.20 once again changed terrain types to a more grassy terrain.  Someone put the note back in, but left the new layout.  Do we really need this note?  Or perhaps we could extend this note somehow (for example, I would suggest making a NOTE: This version set uses icy/grassy/whatever terrain) after every one.)  Or perhaps a brand new section specificly for telling the different versions apart?
--AlexMax 17:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The note 

message: moneyshot - Often used term by Filipino or pinoy
Some may find this highly racist, first being the fact that how in the world do you know some one is Filipino. What relevance does it really have anyway!??!??!?? I USE THE INTERNET <END-RANDOM-COMMENT>
* Thanks for taking notice. In the article, the sentence has now been edited to reflect a Neutral Point Of View. Debroglie 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism! 

message: While I was looking through this section, I noticed that the Ignis Fatuus, Shandelzare Silkwood and Juggernaut allusions are not the heroes but rather their skills. I was wondering whether we should create a new sub-section for skill allusions and replace these heroes into there instead.
----
imo the allusions mean little anyway. It's interesting to see where the map developers got hero ideas/skills from, but is rather irrevelant concerning DotA Allstars in general. But whatever, if you really feel like it.. 13urb 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hero Allusions 

message: Under "Download and Resources sites" there is a link to WBnet PvPGN Server, which is nothing more than a default webserver page.
Also is it worth adding Bored Aussie PvPGN server since there is a huge amount of DotA played there?
:One should note that PvPGN servers are actually against Blizzard's Terms of Use, and therefore should not be added. Blizzard is against the use of GG-Client for the playing of WarCraft III games in a multi-player environment as a valid CD-Key is not needed for access to GG-Client. Bored Aussie and Eurobattle.net are also examples of such servers which do not need valid CD-Keys to be accessed. This means by publicising such servers, wikipedia is advocating the use of pirated software as such pirated software have CD-Keys which are unable to access Battle.Net. Wilsonho 11:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A normal procedure would be to get consensus on which links to list and then delete any link not dicussed on the Talk page before it gets added. --Habap 20:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think any link to "National Sites" is fine, unless they hide link to non-Blizzard realm or website full of hacks/cracks. Adding links to leagues or official websites without approbation in talk page is senseless and  must be undo on sight. --DarthRahn 4:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PvPGN servers and External links 

message: I think the terminology section is misleading in that it implies that acronyms/phrases like: "gg", "gj/gw", "noob" and "n1" are exclusive to DotA, while almost all of the phrases predate DotA, and are widely used outside of the game. It would improve the article if this was clarified.
Ufretin 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a link to Leetspeak at the top of the section? --Habap 15:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: I'm going to remove the bizarre notice at the top of the page unless someone can point out any reason at all to have it there. All this info comes from either the game itself or the consensus among players here that the various jargon is universal in the DoTA world. --B. Phillips 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If none of this information is published elsewhere and it is only determined by consensus, then this qualifies as original research. The fact that many people contribute to it doesn't make it no longer original research. In order to appear in an encyclopedia, facts must be verifiable. These are the policies of Wikipedia. If this article is not an encyclopedic article and is instead a game guide, it's in the wrong place. So, the article either needs to come up to standards by getting sources, or have items removed, or it may face deletion from Wikipedia. --Habap 20:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps most of the jargon should, instead, appear on someone's web page instead of here? --Habap 11:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the information.Ufretin 07:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This information is verifiable because you can find most of it on the OFFICIAL dota webpage which is the source from the developer himself. -Iopq 20:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Sources?'? 

message: I see someone added a citations needed tag but there is no discussion for it. I'm not sure what needs citing. There is nothing controversial in the history, it's pretty simple and commonly accepted knowledge for anyone that plays the game. I'll remove the "most popular game" on bnet part, that is about all that needs to be changed. --JRavn 03:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few items are marked, but the entire article is based on "commonly accepted knowledge" that is not verifiable. Since verifiability is critical to an encyclopedia, it seems that a lot of the article is original research that is not published anywhere else. In order to be considered a reliable source, we cannot have articles that are not based on something published by a reliable source. If there is information here that exists nowhere else (some editors have argued for the retention of the article for that very reason), we can't have it. If there is a Warcraft wiki somewhere (I know there is WoW wiki), it might be useful to move the article there. --Habap 14:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what you are saying, but a good chunk of wikipedia is not verified line for line. A good middle ground that is accepted for the majority of articles is that statements which are controversial, or challenged by people as untrue, need citations. "Common knowledge" or uncontroversial things don't necessarily need citations. It would be nice, but due to the difficulty of getting citations we live without them.  --JRavn 18:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: After reading the article more closely and thinking about it, I've changed my position. I agree with you Habap. There are quite a lot of statements in this article which fail WP:V. For example, one such statement is "Although not the first map to have custom skills (that honor goes to the map Valley of Dissent), it was the first with custom skills to become widely popular." Since I've never heard of Valley of the Dissent, and there are no citations, I find myself unsure if this is true or not. There are other statements that could also use citations or be reworded. Let's try to get this article fully cited. If we can't cite certain things, they should be removed per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence. --JRavn talk 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and see below. The section labelled Sources. --Habap 14:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate the need for citations but there are many MANY things that are difficult to citate. There are many other articles involving games, websites, other stuff that have a difficult time finding citation but the information is mostly true. If you want to verify the changes in the history of DotA, that won't be too difficult;, if you want citations of allusions, we can make a wikipedia article on every one of those names. The guy down in sources also said that all this was available in the main websites (www.dota-allstars.com); however, i haven't been able to find the archives for older information, so I don't know what to do about that. eventine 14:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: Well seeing as how DOTA is now rising up to higher league play (such as being accepted into CAL), I was hoping to add links to major league forums that I'm aware of such as TDA, IHL, and TDT. This would serve to help anyone who wants further strategy information since it can't really be included in this article. If anyone isn't opposed to it then I'll toss in the links sometime this week.Ironstove 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, just make sure they're fairly notable forum sites (10,000+ posts). There is already a link to dota-allstars.com so probably don't need to link the forum. --JRavn talk 18:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  already done. I've added TDT seeing as someone already added IHL. I edited the link names and fixed the IHL link so it wasn't [2] Ironstove 06:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding League links 

message: I don't plan to actually add the changelog of EVERY version nor do I plan to actually submit a complete changelog, but I think generalizing the section "6.27b and above" is too broad and that area should be broken down into other sections as well so what I plan on doing is creation a section that looks like this:
6.27b
6.28-6.32
6.33-6.35
6.36 to present
basically I plan to seperate the maps based on when new heroes are added to the game and summarize any major map balances that were made within those gaps; so for example, I would move a majority of the .27b and above section into the 6.27b section and for 6.28 discuss the most major balances made and new heroes introduced. The same would occur for hero remakes and other such. If no one has a problem with this I can begin writing these sections up.
:Wikipedia is really not the place for a detailed change log. --Habap 12:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a more detailed changelog 

message: Team heY didn't win season 1 CAL, JMC did, and it didn't win season 2; coL did. Fix the vandalism please.
:: done. i changed the vandalism in the CAL section and also added in a bit more... i'm too lazy to update the strategy section and also i'm just getting too annoyed to do anything in some other areas like external links that are constantly being vandalized with bad reference sites >< Ironstove 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team heY