Talk:Dota 2/Archive 2

Gameplay
A match of Dota 2 prominently features a square map with the strongholds of two opposing factions the Radiant and the Dire. The Radiant is based at the southwest corner of the map, while the Dire is based at the northeast corner while a river runs perpendicular to the two bases, dividing the map down the middle. These strongholds contain critical structures called "Ancients", surrounded with lesser buildings, towers, and three pair of key structures known as "barracks". The entrances to the bases of the two factions are connected by three main paths, referred to as "lanes", each of which contains four defensive towers.

When the game starts, both strongholds begin to spawn autonomous units called "creeps" from their barracks at regular intervals, these units traverse their respective lane attacking any enemy units or structures within their sight range. Towers serve to divide the map between the two teams, and are often the focal point of skirmishes. The Dota 2 map is appears largely symmetrical, but has a number of critical differences conferring a variety of advantages and disadvantages to each side. In order to win a match The two teams, composed of five players each, are pitted against one another with the objective of destroying the opposing teams' ancient whilst defending their own. Areas outside the lanes are referred to as the "jungle" or "woods", within these areas are locations known as "camps" which act as spawn points for "neutrals", these are creeps which are not aligned to either faction and will attack any non-neutral unit that ventures too near. Neutrals constitute a fixed but recurring resource though their strategic value may vary depending on the players' choices. Located on the southeast side of the river is a pit containing large "boss" neutral called "Roshan" who is exceptionally strong and typically takes multiple team members to kill. Following his death, Roshan drops items that can significantly alter the course of a game and simultaneously provides a significant amount of gold and experience to the team who kills him, as a result of this, teams fights will often occur at the pit in the later portions of the game when one side seeks to prevent the other from gaining an advantage.

There are seven game modes and 104 "Heroes" in Dota 2. Heroes are strategically powerful player-controlled units each with four unique special abilities. These Heroes start off very weak early in the game, but level up their abilities and statistics as they accumulate experience, up to a maximum level of twenty-five. The Heroes' methods of combat are heavily influenced by their primary property, which can be Strength, Agility, or Intelligence. Most game modes provide teams with some preparation time before the game begins so that they can balance their hero selections, as the composition of the team can significantly affect their performance throughout the match. Despite the presence of huge variety of sub-roles all heroes can generically be grouped into one of three main categories: "carry", "semi-carry" and "support". A carrys' role is to "carry" their team to victory, these heroes are typically weakest early in the game, but with sufficient time to accumulate resources or "farm" they become the most powerful heroes in the game. "Semi-carries" are typically the strongest in the mid-game and are often used in order to disrupt and kill the enemy team at that time in order to give their own team an advantage later on when they themselves start to drop off. Finally, "supports" are utility heroes that typically rely on their skills in order to aid their team, either by pushing down enemy towers, disabling and "nuking" enemy heroes, or protecting their teammates. Often strongest in the early game, they become increasingly vulnerable to the other classes as the game progresses as they are often lacking in key items and experience.

Players are given six inventory slots, which are filled by purchasing items using gold, the primary currency of the game. Items vary drastically in function: some merely enhance the statistics of a Hero, while others grant them additional active or passive abilities. Good item choice is crucial in order for each hero to reach their full potential, choices make up for each Hero's shortcomingsand synergies with their existing skills. Item price varies depending on the significance of their active effect and/or the amount of statistics they provide. Though gold is granted steadily at a slow rate, the more expensive items are typically only purchased by heroes who can accumulate gold at a much higher rate, usually by efficiently killing creeps, heroes, or structures. Killing non-player characters grants gold solely to the player who landed the final blow, whereas killing Heroes grants gold to the killer and any nearby allies, and destroying towers or Roshan gives gold to all players on the team. Along with the gold bounty, killing units and structures provides experience, allowing players to level up their heroes as they complete objectives. "Denying" is a feature of the game which allows players to inhibit the enemy's ability to accumulate gold and experience by killing an allied unit or destroying an allied structure before an enemy can do so. As there are five heroes per team and only three lanes, there will inevitably be heroes (usually two per team) lacking in gold. These heroes are almost exclusively supports who are responsible for spending most of they have on "wards"; static entities which provide autonomous vision around the map to keep track of enemy movement. As a result of this, these "ward buyers" they are usually the most vulnerable heroes on any team.

Strategies in Dota 2 are based around relative hero strength at different points in the game, typically, formal strategies are reserved for particular game modes in tournaments and high-skill games. When drafting, particularly in high skilled games, teams will devise a strategy to counter their opponents' based upon their relative hero weaknesses, a typical example of this would be a "push strategy". This is when one team will pick or "draft" their heroes entirely based around the plan of ending the game as early as possible by pushing down enemy towers with early-game heroes before the opposing team can garner enough strength to stop them. This type of strategy is used to counter "late-game" strategies, where a team will turtle until their carry is sufficiently strong that he can comfortably overpower the enemy team's opposite number. As Dota 2 is highly team-oriented, players must coordinate and plan with each other in order to have a balanced team and thus, the greatest chance of achieving victory.

Destructopuppy (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The level of detail included in your proposal would classify this article as a game guide, which Wikipedia is not. Due to that, along with the fact that this article is currently under Good Article review and not in a position to be drastically changed against standards, your request will not be fulfilled. D arth B otto talk•cont 18:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2014
Add Category:SteamPlay games

83.45.98.219 (talk) 10:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Thank you for your contribution to the English Wikipedia. Technical 13 (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Dota is NOT a MOBA
DotA 2 is NOT a MOBA. MOBA is a term created by Riot games so they don't have to refer to DotA. The Term MOBA is derived from propaganda and calling Dota a MOBA is unfair and incorrect. Valve considers Dota an RTS (will update citation). Technically, you could just call the genre dota, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.238.31 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have it in me to explain this again.. please review the talk archives. -- ferret (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Take your concerns to the MOBA page. We're not piping redirects for specific, unwarranted cases just because of personal preference. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: Talk more about the heroes,...
201.220.215.12 posted this comment on 20 January 2014 (view all feedback).

"Talk more about the heroes, their skill, etc" Frmorrison (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a game guide, so listing each hero and their skill is not proper content. See GAMEGUIDE for more information.

Reader feedback: USE ARTS or Dota style for t...
174.102.99.95 posted this comment on 29 December 2013 (view all feedback).

USE ARTS or Dota style for the preferred acronym in the intro. I believe it may be DOTA2 and not Dota2 but i could be wrong

No. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 05:30, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

concurrent players
Because it is a semi protected article, I can't edit it. So I will leave a message right here so people who can edit it can update this article. According to steam page (http://store.steampowered.com/stats), Dota 2 peak concurrent users has broke 700k (701,881 today). Akisora94 (talk) 12:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Free to Play
Should the information on Free to Play be removed or moved to the Free to Play article? Also rewritten to clarify that the movie is out at this point. John Wukong (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The way the movie is presented works as is. There's a sort summary of the movie, with a link to the full article if the reader needs more information. However, it does need to be updated to reveal that the movie was released. -- ferret (talk) 22:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * To go along with what Ferret said, no, it warrants its own section. I'm going to expand it further, just that gathering the sources for the integral development steps has been time-consuming. I'll add a little bit about reception, as well. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 19:07, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DotA 2 is not a MOBA
MOBA is used by Riot Games, creators of League of Legends. Valve calls the DotA action-rts (ARTS). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.92.33.178 (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Feel free to read the talk page archives, where this has been discussed into the ground already. -- ferret (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bad writing style?
"...Eul ceased developing further iterations of DotA, prompting other map makers to develop different inspired variants inspired by the original map, which included new heroes, items and other miscellaneous features. The variant that became the dominant one was DotA: Allstars, developed by Steve "Guinsoo" Feak, which incorporated features from other variants." Seneika (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You know, you could have edited that yourself. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 18:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

List of Heroes
Do you think it would appropriate to add a list of Dota 2 heroes? --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that would be excessive game guide details. It's more appropriate for sites like Wikia. -- ferret (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ferret, that's what I thought. Thank you! By the way, in the future it would be useful for you to add a Wikilink to the Userpage of the user you're replying to, as this will notify them that they have been replied to. --Joseph Yanchar (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

800,000 highest peak
Dota 2 has 826,660 con-current users today.

PS: I can't edit it. Source: http://store.steampowered.com/stats Akisora94 (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This matter is currently under discussion at the FAC page. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Resolved! D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 19:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion
The line:


 * Dota 2 is played in discrete matches involving two five-player teams, each of which occupies a stronghold at a corner of the map.

Should be:


 * Dota 2 is played in discrete matches involving two teams of five players, each of which occupies a stronghold at a corner of the map.

--68.13.84.30 (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅-Yeah it sounds more appropriate than the previous version. Thank you!-- Chamith  (talk)  21:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Dota2 Trick and Trip
There are basic but essential techniques for playing Dota2. Body Block

You can use your hero or a unit under your control to block the enemy in the direction that the enemy unit wants to travel. The reason why you should use this technique because it make enemy unable to move freely and it increase the chance to secure the score.

Animation Cancelling

When hero your attacks to enemy hero or unit, it has to cast animation before your hero can attack next times. You can cancel the animation and use that time to move your hero for keeping distance between your hero and the enemy. The reason why you should this technique because it increases the chance to kill the enemy.

Hidden in the fog of war

First, you should know about vision in dota2.It describes what a unit can and can’t see from its current location and state. Second, Fog of war is all areas that outside of range unit vision. There are many trees in map of dota2. You can use it to hide form enemy. I will explain how to use it, you must move your hero to behind the tree, assume that you are playing hide and seek with your friends. The reason why you should use this technique because it increase the chance to escape from enemy hero or unit and it increase the chance to kill enemy by stealth killing.

bodyblocking

Attack animetion

Vision and fog of war


 * Not sure what changes you want to made, but as per WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not an instruction manual nor guideline.-- Chamith  (talk)  04:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions
As I'm helping with the copyediting of this article, I'm noticing a few issues I didn't before and that I think would impede an FAC success: Tezero (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Request to change "Dota 2 is a multiplayer online battle arena game; " to "Dota 2 is an action real-time strategy game (ARTS);" as it more accurately reflects what the gameplay is like. Especially considering that the original mod was made from a real-time strategy (RTS) game, the branding of ARTS is more fitting. Source Source Source Source Obviously this change is an opinion and there is no "abolutely correct" way to brand the game, but the majority of the (dota) community seems to not like the term MOBA as it is much too broad. ARTS is a much more accurate description of the game DOTA 2 in itself. If someone looks up Dota 2 on wikipedia and they see "Action real-time strategy" (ARTS) they are much more likely to understand what the game is about rather than if they see "Multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA). as MOBA could apply to most types of competetive online games, including arena shooters such as quake or Team Fortress 2, or even fighting games since they are multiplayer (2 people) battles that take place in an arena. Overall the term ARTS provides more clarity for the average person who will view this wikipedia article. I would also like to point out that there is no source cited in the current form of this article that makes the term "Multiplayer online battle arena" correct. Given that, the evidence I have provided should absolutely warrant the edit I've requested.
 * The second paragraph of "Post-release" doesn't really give many quotes that bolster its topic sentence, only ones that basically say, "Dota 2 is amazing." Balance, for example, isn't mentioned in any of the quotes provided. I think that if all of this were appropriately expanded upon with the fluff removed, the single paragraph could easily become two.
 * "The player may command a single controllable character called a "Hero", which is chosen from a selection pool of up to 107" - Up to 107? What determines how large the pool is?
 * I think it goes into too much detail about seasonal events (one out of the four paragraphs) considering there have only been three.
 * There's a grammatically poor, confusing statement with a "clarification needed" tag.
 * ? Tezero (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems this article is having trouble attracting enough copyeditors. The GOCE has historically been unreliable, both in response time and in quality, so I'm not terribly surprised. A few years ago, I would have recommended bypassing the Guild and contacting copyeditors from WPVG directly, but most of them are retired now. However, I still have a few suggestions. Based on my recent experiences prose-reviewing FACs, I would advise you to recruit Tezero (already helping, I see) and User:CR4ZE to work on the article. I don't know whether CR4ZE is interested in copyediting others' work, but I've seen him polish his own writing very nicely. If you can get both of them to copyedit the article, I will do a complete prose review (preferably at peer review rather than FAC), if necessary as detailed as my monster review during Secret of Mana's FAC. After that, your renom should have no trouble passing. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for the suggestions, Tezero. I addressed most of your suggestions, though I still need to work in the details about the new Alpha modding tools, perhaps in an additional content subsection under release. Thoughts, Tezero? JimmyBlackwing, those are good suggestions. I'll ping CR4ZE tonight. Once we are to stage Z, I'd appreciate your presence on the FAC, as well. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the alpha modding tools; just make sure they're covered by reliable sources and you don't go too much in-depth. But yeah, ping me for the FAC if you want. (And I'd appreciate it if you'd take a look at Sonic X's, too.) Tezero (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be my pleasure, Tezero. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 07:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think my contributions for this one are gonna wrap up soon (I've had a lot going on here, like that FAC), but first I've left a few more "clarify" tags and hidden comments - both of which you can easily find by editing the whole article and searching for "

Smitemaster (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 00:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * All of those sources are forums, and would not be considered reliable sources. A review describing it as a MOBA was cited in-line elsewhere, I've added an in-line citation to that same source in the infobox. Also, it seems that this ARTS/MOBA discussion has been hashed out in the past (and perhaps more vigorously on the talk page for MOBA), with consensus deciding that MOBA and ARTS are the same genre and MOBA is the more prevalent term (which is why MOBA is used and not ARTS on the MOBA article page). Cannolis (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The quote from Gabe Newell is legitimate. However the phrase is barely beyond the level of neologism and does not seem to be widely used in the gaming community. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  09:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright that all seems very fair. But what if the article were to include "ARTS" as a further classification method that falls under "MOBA". I still feel that MOBA is much to broad a term to classify a game by, and it could improve clarity to provide the classification of "MOBA" and "ARTS" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smitemaster (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: In order to do this, reliable sources would have to view the two labels as distinct. They do not. They view MOBA and ARTS as competing terms for the same genre name, rather than ARTS as a "sub-genre" of MOBA. We often here this reasoning on the MOBA article page, concerning the "meaning" of MOBA versus ARTS. The issue in the end is that the "broadness" of the literal definition of the words "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" are irrelevant, all that matters is how reliable sources use it and the type of games they use it with, even if those games don't really fit that "name". It's what the name represents, rather than it's strict English meaning. -- ferret (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the User Ferret above - the words used to define genre boundaries are somewhat arbitrary across many forms of media, particularly music and video games. Are "action games" the only games with action? "Strategy games" the only games with strategy? "Role-playing games" the only games where you play a role? As Dota 2, Heroes of the Storm, and League of Legends all share the same basic gameplay and deviate sufficiently from many other games, it makes sense to use a genre label. MOBA is the term I have heard from at least 100 sources whereas ARTS is a term I'm hearing for the first time here. ARTS is ambiguous. Is it something related to "art games"? If it stands for "action real-time strategy", is it an action game that requires strategy and is not turn-based? Does Dragon Age fall into this ARTS category? MOBA is a much more widely-accepted term describing a very specific type of gameplay, despite the vagueness of the acronym. Someone who is aware of MOBA games will instantly what the term means when given examples of MOBAs.Doctajohn (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Minor word confusion edit request
At Development-->Concept-->Paragraph 2, the first line reads:

With Valve's acquisition of the franchise, the company adopted the term "Dota", which deviated from the original mod's acronym for "Defense of the Ancients".

instead of "which deviated", the more appropriated correction would be "...'Dota', deriving from..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctajohn (talk • contribs) 09:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I have changed the text to "which derives from the original mod's acronym". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2015
Change the genre from MOBA to ARTS. MOBA is incorrect, after all the term MOBA didn't even exist till 6 years after DotA was created. MOBA was a term designed by riot to further themselves from DotA as part of their marketing scheme. ARTS was the official genre name for many years prior to this and still remains the correct genre name for DotA and all other Aeon of Strife style games.

There are only two games which can be referred to as MOBA's. Those are League of Legends and Smite. This is because they choose to describe their game under that genre while all other companies state that their Aeon of Strife style games are ARTS.

I hope you change this promptly as I've noticed many people within the DotA community being upset with this mistake on the wiki article. Mostly due to the tension caused by Pentadragon when he stole and destroyed DotA forums content around the same time he and riot came up with the term MOBA.

87.252.37.109 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have rejected the edit request as you have not achieved consensus for this change. As regards the change itself, this is explained ad nauseum at Talk:Multiplayer online battle arena and there are no plans to change this article based simply on your arguments. As regards ARTS was the official genre name for many years prior to this, that needs a . The first I heard of "ARTS" was when Valve moved to make Dota 2, so from that perspective "ARTS", no matter how more descriptive of the genre, is just as much a marketing scheme as "MOBA" is. So without a citation regardless, all you and I have is WP:TRUTH. --Izno (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Engine?
In the recent Dota 2 Reborn update the game actually runs on Source 2, would it be worth adding Source 2 to the list? Zelpa (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say to wait until the beta is completed. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

DotA 2 is not a Moba
Every Multiplayer game is online.

Every versus multiplayer game is a battle.

The DotA map is not an arena.

Only because Riot_Games coined the term "Multiplayer Online Battle Arena" you shouldn't call every game remotely similar to League of Legends a MOBA. Dota has been an action real time strategy game, before the term MOBA even existed (for further proof search the forums of The Playdota forums. There are posts and threads about dota being called "Action Real Time Strategy Game" as old as the forum itself.). A game doesn't change its genre only because a new term was coined.

Not only this, but a DotA player will probably gut you when calling the game a MOBA. There's a rivalry between League of Legends and DotA 2 and calling DotA a MOBA, the term that got invented by Riot_Games only adds to said rivalry.
 * First of all you should know that Multiplayer online battle arena is also called action real-time strategy (ARTS). You could say DOTA is an ARTS if you don't like this whole "MOBA" thing, second of all some of your arguments are invalid.
 * "Every Multiplayer game is online". - Have you every played multiplayer games like Contra which doesn't need an internet connection at all?
 * "Every versus multiplayer game is a battle" - I'm not quite sure what you meant by that. But obviously in DOTA, two teams battle against each other. However you can't call every multiplayer game is a battle. For example you don't have to battle in SimCity, Sims online and some of those Facebook games. It's just a competition. Two different things
 * "The DOTA map is not an arena" - Real life arena? No. But in terms of gaming? Yes.


 * P.S.: Next time please sign your comments by using four tildes ( ~ ). Best -- Chamith   (talk)  17:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So why exactly are you not using the term ARTS in this wikipedia article but Multiplayer online battle arena, if both terms are basically the same?

How about clarifying on my invalid arguments? Every ONLINE multiplayer game is online. Every multiplayer game where you're playing specifically AGAINST other people is a battle. The DotA Map is indeed not an arena, not in terms of gaming, not in real life.

The term MOBA is simply too vague for describing games. Riot_Games chose this term themselves, which is why I don't mind League_of_Legends being called it, but let's apply the term MOBA to other online games.

The game Counter-Strike.

Multiplayer? Check. Online? Check. Battle? Check. Arena? If the DotA Map is an Arena, so are Counterstrike Maps. Therefor Check.


 * Comment - Does the map look like this? No, right? -- Chamith   (talk)  14:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Going further? The videogame Street Fighter.

Nosgoth.

Multiplayer? Check. Online? Check. Battle? Check. Arena? Check.


 * Comment - Is there a map in Street Fighter? -- Chamith   (talk)  14:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiplayer? Yes indeed. Online? The latest versions indeed have online play. Battle? Certainly there's battles. Arena? I'm sure there's a background you might call "Arena".


 * Comment - While most describes it as a MOBA, Kelion, the developers, said it doesn't belong to MOBA. So as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia we have to mention exactly what the source says, not what some random players say. I know you are desperate to prove that DOTA 2 is not a MOBA. But sadly for you, many sources support the claim that it is a MOBA. like User:Izno said original research is not accepted in Wikipedia. Thus we can't cite your statement as an affirm to not to call DOTA 2 a MOBA. Best --  Chamith   (talk)  14:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope I made my point clear enough.

Tyneic (talk) 08:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Tyneic
 * Please provide reliable sources which verify your original research that "MOBA" is an "incorrect term" and that it is not also the more prevalent term as used by the community. All other points are irrelevant for Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Music pack composer inclusion
For the infobox, do we add composers who have their music added as one of the music pack compendium rewards? (Chance Thomas and Julian Soule) Or do we just go with the default music composers (Tim Larkin and Jason Hayes) ~ Dissident93  (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would go with the default composers, since it is likely that a) many players keep the default one and b) many music packs will be added in the coming years. Also note that I think the Reborn client has another music pack, which may be from different composers.  08:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I can include all the composers into the article proper later. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015
Mahathirpanda2 (talk) 01:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Stickee (talk) 01:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"The" Developer?
Small technicality, but the introduction refers to Icefrog as "the" developer of the original DOTA, but his article refers to him only as the "current" developer. It is my understanding that there were several DOTA devs so "a" developer would make more sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.175 (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Are they even known? AFAIK, Dota 2 doesn't have a credits screen. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See my latest edit for the point IP is making. --Izno (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see. Still would be nice to get credits though. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is unrelated to what the IP wanted, no? I agree, would be nice, but that's a separate discussion/wish. --Izno (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * IceFrog was and is the lead developer of the mod, regardless of how many people have a hand in its development. The edit said he was "a creator", which is simply inaccurate, as he did not create the I.P., but inherited it. Therefore, "lead developer" is the best designation as it's accurate and allows for the implication that there are others who have a hand in the mod's development. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed it to designer, as developer is used for groups/companies. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Good thinking, Dissident93. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Professional comp sources
A number of the sources used towards the end of the Professional competition section are not fit for an encyclopedia. You should be able to find reliable, secondary sources that cover this info. czar 15:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I jumped on it and hopefully it suffices now. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2015
I would like to request that the term "Action Real Time Strategy (ARTS) be added to the genre description, as this has been a somewhat heated debate about DotA and other "MOBA" players, due to the invention of the term "MOBA" by Riot games as a deliberate way to differentiate their game League of Legends from DotA, and to stop people from calling them "dotalikes". ARTS was a term coined and in usage far before the term MOBA was ever conceived, so it's only proper DotA be referred to it in this way.

145.132.102.220 (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the archives. Your request has been considered before and no rationale beyond "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" has been presented for the change. If you have new rationale, please provide it. --Izno (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Valve is one of the only entities that call the genre "action real-time strategy". There is a mountain of content that makes MOBA the appropriate title. Besides... when was the lat time Valve referred to the genre? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 03:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016
please change the "Aegis of the Immortal" to "Aegis of the Champions" in the following paragraph. On September 25, 2012, Weta Workshop, the studio that developed the custom "Aegis of the Immortal" trophy for the winners of The International 2012, announced a prop product line that would include statues, weapons, and armor based on Dota 2 characters.

202.133.60.100 (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Dissident93  (talk)  22:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Prose/content review
Here is my in-progress analysis of the article.
 * General comment: the lead is too thin. As a general rule, every sub/section of an article should have its contents mentioned in the lead. In this article, that is not the case with any of the following: Concept, Design, Documentary, Transition to Source 2, Prerelease, Awards and accolades or Merchandise.
 * "Dota 2 is a multiplayer online battle arena video game, the stand-alone sequel to the Defense of the Ancients (DotA) Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos and The Frozen Throne mod." — This is not an ideal first sentence. We learn almost nothing about the game before delving into its complicated history, which confuses the reader. Also, keep in mind that the first sentence of a Wikipedia article is what Google pulls for its search results. Compare the helpfulness of these two:, . It's almost always best to stick to the WPVG template on this: "[game title] is a [release year] [genre] video game developed by [developer] and published by [publisher]." (In this case, it would be "developed and published by [developer/publisher]", since it's a self-published work.) The stuff about its being a sequel can be moved to sentence two.
 * "Dota 2 is played in matches involving two teams of five players, each of which occupies a stronghold at a corner of the map. Each stronghold contains a building called the 'Ancient', which the opposite team must destroy to win the match. Each player controls a character called a 'Hero', and focuses on leveling up, collecting gold, acquiring items, and fighting against the other team to achieve victory." — I gave this a pass last year, but I've got to disagree with my former opinion. It just isn't that clear to a non-player. Try the version below.
 * Dota 2 is played in discrete matches between two five-player teams, each of which occupies a stronghold in a corner of the playing field. A team wins by destroying the other side's "Ancient" building, located within the opposing stronghold. Each player controls one of 110 playable "Hero" characters that feature unique powers and styles of play. During a match, the player collects gold, items and experience points for their Hero, while combating Heroes of the opposite team.

That's it for now. Given the amount of material that still needs to be covered in the lead, there's a lot of work to do here. It's definitely not impossible, though. I'll return for the Gameplay section tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I implemented some of these changes, hopefully it's an improvement. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There's still a ton of work left (the lead doesn't even come close to summarizing the article), but I'm sure DarthBotto will be on that soon. He requested my review of the article over a week ago, and I've only just been able to get to it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Really sorry about all the delays. It's hardly professional—but, in my defense, Wikipedia has had to drop on the priority list recently. I'm dedicated to getting this review done, although it's going to take longer than I'd normally like. Rest assured that I will finish it no matter how long it takes me. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 07:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, no worries. I actually had already seen your suggestions and was watching the page get edited by Dissident93, but felt so exhausted from my own business way above Wikipedia in my book that I just couldn't be arsed, so we're both guilty! However, I'm taking what you said to heart and am making necessary expansions and adjustments. I'll take things from here. ;) D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 09:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given Gameplay a copyedit and working-over, because the issues I could have highlighted were too subtle and numerous to be dealt with properly in a prose review. It's not perfect, but let me know what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For "The game is the most actively played game on Steam, with peaks of up to 880,000 concurrent players as of September 2015.", how do we handle this? Updating it every month doesn't seem like the best thing to do. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you think, JimmyBlackwing? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 04:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd say stick to the third-party sources, and update the article only when a major new source covers the newest player-count high. Currently, that would be 1 million players as of February 2015, reported on here and here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's better. It still could be better written, though. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As a placeholder until I can continue the review, I should say that the lead's big issues haven't been addressed. It isn't even close to comprehensive yet—most of the article's sections aren't covered. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that really needed for FA status? In my opinion, the lead is fine, and adding stuff such as merchandise just bloats it. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A comprehensive lead is required, and, as it stands, the lead is not comprehensive. As this lead-writing guide states, "If a topic deserves a heading or subheading, then it deserves short mention in the lead." This is a good rule of thumb to prevent thin leads. As it stands, out of 14 sections and subsections, 6 are not addressed at all in the lead. That isn't going to cut it at FAC. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, JimmyBlackwing, I'll see what I can do this up and coming work week. I need to figure out how to approach this. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 10:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. If necessary, the lead can be expanded to four paragraphs. Sorry again for the review delays—I'll be back with more later today. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent, I hadn't thought too much about a fourth paragraph, but I may as well start writing and see how the structure comes to play. I'll ping you after I've implemented the proposed changes, so we can see if the prose is good before you jump in again. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I was going to work on it myself but couldn't find the best way to write it. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it takes less time for all involved (and I don't currently have a lot of that to spare for Wikipedia), I'm going to copyedit the article body myself. If any issues arise that I can't address on my own, I'll post them here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

How's this for a new addition to the lead? It needs to be fuller, which is why I haven't added it to the article proper yet. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 05:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Dota 2 has a widespread professional scene, with teams from across the world competing for prize money and glory in various competitive leagues and tournaments. The largest of the professional tournaments is known as The International, which takes place annually at the KeyArena in Seattle, Washington. The 2015 edition of The International had the then-largest prize pool in eSports history, totaling over $18 million.
 * It should work as a start, for sure. Go ahead and add it in there. I'll be back with more copyediting tomorrow. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A comment: the Development section is pretty thin and disorganized. Chronology is unclear, and a lot of the material (especially early on) is better suited to Gameplay. There isn't much meat regarding design philosophy, project milestones or the public beta phase. A whole lot more would need to be added before another FAC attempt. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I must bow out of the development of this Wikipedia article for the time being. Some personal real-world occurrences have made it so my attention can't be focused on an article that requires such meticulous concentration. However, Dissident93 seems to be doing a stellar job and I have full faith in their capability of bringing this article to FA status within the foreseeable future. I am truly sorry for this, as I put so much emphasis on this movement, but I'm simply not in any state to contribute to this kind of article for the immediate future. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 01:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * No problem, I will probably get around to it eventually. If not, there is no reason to rush it. ~ Dissident93  (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been distracted myself—sorry for not bringing it with this copyedit/review. With luck our schedules will line up next time you've got a chance to push the article forward. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * JimmyBlackwing, while I may be out of the game for now, I ask that you continue to work with Dissident93 to guide this article to FA status. He has been taking up the brunt of the work and has not let us down so far. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 00:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I can't guarantee I'll be able to start back on the CE until next week at earliest, but I'll get it done, however long it takes. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As stated in my edit summaries, there is no need to wikilink the state or country beyond the city (it's not relevant to Dota, the city being linked is good enough), nor is having the exact date mention in the lead (helps prevent Recentism, as the info will be outdated and non-notable eventually, but won't in the "Professional competition" subsection). Also, "scare quotes"? I put quotations around "Majors" because that is what Valve refers to the tournament series as, as it might prevent confusion with other definitions of the word. Nobody else who is trying to get this article to FA status had a problem with these additions when I first added them, but I'd like to hear what and  have to say about it now. ~  Dissident93  (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Starting a new topic, but should notable outside contributors with Wikipedia articles, such as deadmau5 and Chance Thomas, be mentioned in the article, and if so, where? Merchandise could be renamed to something else to include this sort of this, perhaps? ~ Dissident93  (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Dissident93, how are things coming? The page looks great! Are you considering nominating it for Featured Article status? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 08:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It still needs some adjustments that were listed above, doesn't it? Besides, I'm not familiar with the process and would rather just continue to edit the article instead. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  08:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this, any advice on how to add the missing topics from the lead (right now, critical reception and merchandise) without making it too large? Would two or three sentences in an existing paragraph be good enough? I feel like that's the only thing missing now. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  12:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon the late reply; I have only been editing a handful of articles a day, with my focus not being on video games as of late. You have done a great job with keeping the mentions of Source 2 to a minimum, as well as not hammering in how inhospitable the community is. The only thing missing is about the documentary, which really only is a minor footnote in the scheme of things, so unless an FA reviewer stomped their foot over not having that detail, I'd say it's fine. But, about the IceFrog mention? Ahhh... jeez, how do we go about this? Because, while the original DotA is practically lifeless and there were several developers in the scheme of things, he remains the final and lead developer of the mod. It seems like that sentence keeps on bouncing around from editor to editor, but I'd personally make sure it's about him being the final lead developer, rather than just saying he was one of them. Because, really, it's the distinction that allowed Valve to acquire the Dota IP in the first place. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, I'll change it back. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  03:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Dota_2 should be deleted, or alternative sources should be found. Two of the three are press releases.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) No image caption on logo
 * 3) Logo quality is low, should be vector, png or uncompressed JPG.
 * 4) The following statement is not in the source, the source references tf2 as part of the figure:
 * 5) the average Steam Workshop contributor to Dota 2 made approximately $15,000 from their creations the previous year. Same with the 3.5 million figure in the previous sentence.
 * 6) I wanted to find out more about this falling out drama, but it looks like the source is dead. IceFrog (May 14, 2009). "IceFrog.com: DotA Website News". PlayDotA.com. Retrieved January 8, 2014

Be careful with Valve and the figures they release, they don't release much, but the data they do release is very carefully selected and presented.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree about the merchandise section, but logo image captions aren't necessarily needed, as they are mostly self-descriptive. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  08:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Things I still plan to do before the article is nominated: (on a related note, how come I'm the only constant editor on this article? Dota 2 is one of the more popular games in the world, yet this article feels like it's been 95% edited by me since around this time last year. Not that I'm complaining, but it's a bit odd.) ~ Dissident93  (talk)  08:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Explain the roles of Chet Faliszek, Ted Kosmatka, and Marc Laidlaw in the prose, and add references for them. (they all helped write new Dota 2 hero lore, which had to be changed from Dota 1 to avoid legal problems with Blizzard). ✅
 * 2) Add info on the voice actors who voiced the Heroes. Many of them are notable and also did work in other Valve games. ✅
 * 3) Possibly add a "global popularity" section. I think the fact that the game is highly popular in places as diverse as Russia, Mayalasia, the Philippines, China, most of Europe, Latin America, and North America should be included in the article. Might be hard finding "sources" for this, however. ON HOLD
 * 4) Add whatever featured articles require for the lead (all parts must match the sections below? So that would include the new Media coverage section, as well as the merchandise one) Possibly done already?
 * Thank you for your work. I will try to help a bit with the wording, as there are lots of long sentences and repetitions in the article, that hinder the global readability and reading flow.  09:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, every time I take a look at the article I find something else minor to fix, should be good having another active editor. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  09:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't exactly answer for why you're the only consistent contributor, as it's indeed correct that it's one of the most popular games in the world. I felt like it was too intense to be able to manage the Dota 2 page with the FAN myself, as I've made a few foes that like to jump on every last GAN or FAN, so it's always stressful for me to keep my spirits high, knowing that people will vote oppose, by default association with me. There were mentions of some voice actors back when I created the article in 2010, but they were since removed, as they were used for proof that Valve was working on something Dota-related, which made those particular cases obsolete. Remember that with a lead, you don't necessarily need every aspect, just the keynotes... I fear that this may have been imparted incorrectly with the overbearing critiques. If you do a popularity section, maybe have it a "cultural impact" section, akin to what's on StarCraft (video game). Say, Dissident93, could you enable email notifications on your profile? I have some tips for going about this. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 09:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would you say the lead is currently adequate enough? I feel like it's around the perfect size right now, and another paragraph would make it a bit too large. And yeah, that's what I was thinking, regarding the "popularity/cultural impact" part. And the email thing should be enabled now, too. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  09:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say the lead is the proper length and anymore could drown the article with an overbearing intro. The popularity and cultural impact portion is at your discretion for how it should go, as I never made a section like that when I was leading the article's restructuring, but I'd be interested to see what you have in mind. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 10:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A sentence or two wouldn't hurt though. And now that I think about it, I'm not sure if an entire section can be devoted for it. The section in StarCraft was mostly by retroactive articles discussing its legacy, which doesn't exist (yet) for Dota 2. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  10:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2016
俠武郭靖 (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC) Wanna add something new
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. -- ferret (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Correction for GENRE
Please change MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) to ARTS in compliance with Valve's naming scheme on their own website ("Dota is a competitive game of action and strategy, played both professionally and casually by millions of passionate fans worldwide.") 176.205.200.241 (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Valve's webpage doesn't say ARTS, so it's not a valid source. Besides, this discussion has been rehashed literally dozens of times. It's not changing, the reliable sources use MOBA as the name for this genre. -- ferret (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Gabe Newell did call the game an ARTS when it was first announced, but yeah, it's never called that outside of Valve. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  01:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "Action RTS" hasn't been mentioned in literally five years. Besides, we have employees of one company vs. literally the entire gaming scene for terminology, so consensus has been bolted down. We don't use a different term for the same genre for every last game. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 22:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It is used on the game's Twitter page. https://twitter.com/dota2, and the fact that one company uses the term MOBA doesn't mean that DotA 2 is also a MOBA. 176.205.200.241 (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Like DarthBotto said above, all third-party sources call Dota 2 a MOBA. Only Valve seems to prefer their own term for the game, but since it never caught on, we don't use it here. ~ Dissident93  (talk)  10:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Riot, then no, it's not the only company that uses the term "MOBA". Most companies and news outlets use the term. Valve, on the other hand, is the only company that has referred to the genre as "Action RTS". End of story. Move on. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 23:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

20 million dollar prizepool and new 9 million dollar winner Wings Gaming
Please correct Professional Scene section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.204.21.245 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Article lead
I do not understand why you reverted the lead I suggested. Featured article criteria suggest a "concise lead section", which is what I attempted to do, and the Manual of Style on the topic also points this way. Could you please explain in a bit more detail why you reverted that? 07:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why the text you removed is not required per the intent of MOSLEAD: It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies (emphasis mine)? --Izno (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure! I removed bits that are not necessary for an article introduction, since they are tackled further below in detail, and reworked the overall flow. It is not important to mention the supported systems (it is in the infobox if needed). The hiring of IceFrog is not important to the overall comprehension of the article, as is the fact that it uses the Source 2 game engine. All these details have no place in a lead section, which aim at providing a summary of the article, and not all details crammed in four long paragraphs. I spent lots of time doing this edit, and seeing it reverted with a few words seems unfair to me—hence the request for discussion here.
 * To reply more precisely to your comment, the topic is properly identified, the context as well (video game, sequel to the War3 mod), and the most important points are summarized (big game, main principles, professional scene and critics). Each point of the article does not deserve a place in the lead. The correct question is: if you where to talk about Dota 2 to your grandparents, what would matter?  12:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Because that's what the FAC nom brought it too, and like Izno states, you removed parts that helped summarize the article. And I disagree that IceFrog and the game's engine are not important enough to mention in the lead, they both have major parts in the article itself, and leads are suppose to mention them if they do. Also, take a look at Barack Obama's (a FA) article to see that leads do not need to be truncated in order to be a good summary. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:19, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016
122.2.44.142 (talk) 08:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC) I need to question the use of the word simulcasted, as it doesn't seem to be a valid derivation or past tense of simulcast.

✅ - Casted is not a derivative of Cast - and broadcasted is also proscribed - Arjayay (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make the use of it 100% invalid, but whatever. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2016
Please change number of playable characters from 111 to 112 in the Gameplay section (after 2nd citation) and in the Legacy section under a screenshot due to soon-to-be release of the hero Underlord on August 23rd

Source from official Dota 2 twitter: https://twitter.com/DOTA2/status/763945120081121280 https://twitter.com/DOTA2/status/763944367690092544

Invalid value (talk) 18:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * "soon-to-be" means this is not a correct edit to make, so I've deactivated the edit request. Rephrasing the edit may be possible, but I think it's probably better just to leave it and update it later. --Izno (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be changed until they are actually publicly available, and this includes Monkey King (should be 113 by the end of this year). ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Professional Dota competition article?
Would anybody support the creation of a separate "Professional Dota competition" article, in line with something like Professional Warcraft III competition and Professional Super Smash Bros. competition? I think this has to be done eventually in order to futureproof this article, as we shouldn't keep adding who won what into the section that already exists in this article. (it will just grow and become more bloated over time). Reliable sources and such shouldn't be an issue, and this would also include Dota 1 tournaments, unless people object to that. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 06:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it just have a lot of tables? Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Ideally, no, it would just be an extensive of the current section that already exists here, just without the need to stay on topic to the game itself. I don't want just an article with just tournament after tournament results (Liquidpedia exists for that). The two examples I used are admittedly bad and not how I want this one to be, but were used to show that an article of the type can exist. Stuff like lasting impact of the scene (in regards to eSports and stuff like ESPN covering them now), viewership and revenue numbers, a more in-depth history of the scene, etc, is what I've had in mind for a while. I can start a draft stub on this soon and present it here, and see how it goes from there. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 06:50, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Seems like you have a good idea in mind. Ping me when you have created the draft. Dat GuyTalkContribs 06:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's going to be ugly until the bulk of the article is done, but here it is. Feel free to add to it in the mean time. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 07:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

huh?
I do not understand the first part of this edit summary. As for the second part, the value is that people (newbies especially!) don't get hung up on the infobox (whether to edit or simply scared of the source view) and instead proceed to editing the main part of the article. --Izno (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant to say if the talk page for the infobox (where all the discussion regarding Wikidata) says this is how it should be done. If it doesn't, then I don't see why we must remove it. I still think we need more discussion regarding the replacement of the infobox, as the only consensus for this was a three year old discussion that everybody ignored until last month. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 21:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't contest its usage based on the frankly-irrelevant point of a "three year old discussion". WP:CONLOCAL applies as well, so until there's an RFC countering the former, please respect the former RFC. I'm still not parsing I meant to say if the talk page for the infobox (where all the discussion regarding Wikidata) says this is how it should be done. If it doesn't, then I don't see why we must remove it, probably because it's a little ambiguous. --Izno (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just don't see the need to remove local infobox info, even if Wikidata makes it redundant. If you could point me to whatever discussion on the infobox talk page that enabled this, I'd appreciate it. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 06:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've stated the need in my first comment in this topic; namely that there is value in not having it here. "If you could point me to whatever discussion on the infobox talk page that enabled this, I'd appreciate it." You've been involved in that discussion, no? I am confused about this statement still. --Izno (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dota 2. 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/20151114024126/http://thegameawards.com/nominees/ to http://thegameawards.com/nominees/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2017
Hi

Change: Dota 2 was first made available to the public at Gamescom in 2011, coincidence with the inaugural International championship, the game's premier eSporttournament event. To: Dota 2 was first made available to the public at Gamescom in 2011, coinciding with the inaugural International championship, the game's premier eSport tournament event.

Kind regards Dholmzzz (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- ferret (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oops, I don't know how I didn't catch that. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 23:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

5-hous-long Dota 2 match
Hi.

I just discovered this Kotaku article online: https://compete.kotaku.com/dota-match-turns-into-five-hour-melodrama-1794116543.

Is it of any use for the article?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While Kotaku is considered a reliable source, I don't see how this would help the article any. This is more trivia than information. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 21:38, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you care still, but I found a valid use for it after all. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 08:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Seperate page for Artifact
Currently Artifact (video game) redirects here. I think artifact is big enough to deserve its own page - even just a stub saying little is known about the game

TrueAnorak (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to have a page of it's own, WP:GNG needs to be met. It's not about the amount of content, but whether or not we can establish notability this early. WP:CRYSTAL also comes into play. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * True, Its just confusing to search for Artifact and have the Dota 2 article text underneath it. TrueAnorak (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked the redirect a bit to at least take you to the sentence about Artifact, rather than the larger section preceding it. -- ferret (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing currently known about it beyond it being a digital card game based on Dota and made by Valve. Once Valve announce more about the game, showing gameplay videos and features, that's when the article could be made. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 20:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's no information about the game, save for the general genre and the IP it's a part of. There's really nothing to go off of, even for a potential draft. In retrospect, when I created the Dota 2 article seven years ago, I may have had a little scant detail. D ARTH B OTTO talk • cont 02:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dota 2. 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/20170522181652/http://www.gametribute.com/2253/dota-2-course-now-being-learned-in-schools to http://www.gametribute.com/2253/dota-2-course-now-being-learned-in-schools/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete article
Here are some sources to add content about the missing information.
 * 1) About the single player tutorial:
 * 2) About the cooperative campaign Siltbreaker:
 * 3) About Valve's official custom modes:  Rupert Loup (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * A sentence or two about the tutorial (which is extremely bare bones, which is why I never bothered to previously add it) can be added, but exact gameplay and plot details of Siltbreaker (a limited edition optional gamemode) would be considered WP:GAMECRUFT, and custom game modes in general already have plenty of coverage here. Some of these sources you listed aren't reliable either, per WP:VG/RS. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:GAMECRUFT states that a concise plot summary is appropriate. Also, I'm not talking about the modding scene in Dota 2, I'm talking about the official modes made by Valve. And which sources are not RS? Rupert Loup (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * About the official modes, there is no mention of Overthrow and 10vs10, which received media coverage. Rupert Loup (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Dota 2 does not need a plot section, I 100% disagree with on you on this. Siltbreaker isn't even officially playable anymore, and was only available to people with battle passes. It was basically DLC, and we do not place plots of DLC in articles unless it was heavily story driven, like something from the Witcher or Skyrim. As for the custom games, they can be added into an existing sentence, but no more about them should be explained, because they aren't the primary type of game modes (All Pick, All Random, Turbo), just alternate custom ones that often break during updates. And WP:VG/RS already covers which sources aren't considered reliable by the VG community here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This article from PC gamer sums up the "plot" situation pretty well.  tldr; The Dota 2 universe has tons of lore, but Valve hasn't really done anything meaningful with it.  Some fans have attempted to analyse the lore, and build a cohesive plot out of it, but that falls into the realm of WP:ORIGINAL, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.  Future content may give us more to work with if Valve ever decides to take things in a more story focused direction, but for now, I agree with Dissident93 that we don't really need a plot section. CurlyWi (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That article could belong in the reception section, though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Misleading information about OpenAI?
As I read the article currently, the article seems to suggest that OpenAI's "OpenAI Five" bots have been able to master playing the full version of the game. See:

"The game has also been used in machine learning experiments, with OpenAI-curated bots playing against and defeating professional players."

and

"A year later, the ability of the bots had increased to work together as a full team of five, known as the OpenAI Five, who then played and won against a team of semi-professional players in a demonstration game in August 2018.[287] Shortly after, OpenAI Five then played two live games against more skilled players at The International 2018."

This has not yet been achieved. The bots play a simplified version of the game at this point, which I think the article should mention. It could also mention that efforts are being made to allow OpenAI Five to master the complete version of the game, if that is desirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsouth2578 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll change it because it is misleading now that they lost at TI8, but OpenAI has defeated top skill players of the game, which occurred more around TI7 when it was just a single bot playing against a single other player. Shortly before TI8, OpenAI Five also defeated a group of former professional players (who are more casters/analysts of the game). Also, the claim about playing a simplified version of the game is true, but this did not apply to the humans they were playing against (outside of the pre-planned hero pool), who still struggled at times against the bots. I don't think this has to be noted, but I wouldn't oppose it either. ~ Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 19:24, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 July 2020
Please change ""Runes", which are special items that spawn in set positions on the map every two minutes, offer heroes various temporary, but powerful power-ups when collected" to ""Power Runes", which are special items that spawn in set positions on the map every two minutes, offer heroes various temporary, but powerful power-ups when collected. "Bounty Runes" which spawn every five minutes in set positions provide gold to the hero's team ."

The reason for the change is to reflect the current changes in the Rune system of the game AJS (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ but adjusted to not mention Bounty Runes, which really are a minor thing of the game and not as important/fought over as the Power Runes. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2021
The line "Development of Dota 2 began in 2009 when IceFrog, lead designer of Defense of the Ancients" doesn't include Icefrog's real name, that is Abdul Ismail.

I would like it to be changed to Development of Dota 2 began in 2009 when IceFrog(Abdul Ismail), lead designer of Defense of the Ancients. 2405:201:6006:F015:7D0A:5B68:D2CE:48B5 (talk) 02:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , his real name is not relevant to the history of Dota nor is it his WP:COMMONNAME to begin with. Also, since the name was only ever confirmed via a legal preceding, WP:BLPNAME also applies. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 10:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request 20 April 2021
I'm tidying up the links of "Vulkan graphics API", which is a redirect, to directly point to "Vulkan (API)".

Given the locked state of this page, could someone with access please make it? It's the last non-user page which still uses it. Cheers! Roxor128 (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. You should not be changing redirects like this just to avoid the redirect. -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 June 2021
This page protected? I needed change protector 31.148.161.7 (talk) 01:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's protected because of the constant amount of vandalism and other bad edits it received when it wasn't. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 05:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cj1447. Peer reviewers: Irisnan1009.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trsv0.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

OpenAI Five
The page (under Legacy) doesn't mention anything later that 2018 about how AI has played Dota 2. More specifically, OpenAI Five (which has its own Wikipedia article) won the championship in April, 2019, and seems to have surpassed humans' abilities in this game. I think this would be a noteworthy addition to the article. Schroedinger&#39;s Mouse (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Link to a source and I'll add it. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 20:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)