Defense of the Ancients is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 5, 2017.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 19, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept June 7, 2006 Articles for deletion Kept January 27, 2007 Peer review Reviewed July 31, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept August 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed August 14, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 17, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games: Esports High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the esports task force. Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

This article has a lot of problems for a Featured Article, and I'm not sure if there's going to be anyone willing to pick this one up. A brief list of what I've noticed:

• Obvious spelling and grammatical errors throughout;
• A huge dearth of reliable sourcing
• The MOBA genre, which this inspired, has changed a lot, and I don't think it’s got an FA-level "legacy" section by any means.

If anyone is willing to bring this one up to snuff, let me know! Otherwise, it will eventually have to go to WP:FAR. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:44, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah this article doesn't really fit the 2021 standards of being a featured article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:ImaginesTigers can you elaborate on the issue you see with the sourcing used? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Hi, David. Sorry it took so long for me to respond to your comment here. I've taken another look over the article and do stand by my original comments. The issue, relating to sourcing, is just about the volume of content. It’s possible much of what I feel is missing doesn't belong here in the first instance, and rightfully should be placed in Dota (the series article), but to me, there's a real lack of detailed coverage in here that I'd expect of a pioneering game like DotA. That's what I meant above—not that there's unreliable sourcing in the article, but the absence of as many references as I'd expect. As the person who worked on this originally, you're the expert here, though, so I'll definitely defer to you on that! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 02:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a few stray things I've pulled on a more recent trawl for sources that I will be working on integrating, but I don't think the depth of coverage you're looking for actually exists. Most stuff focuses on Dota 2 (with a stray mention to its origins), and certainly major sources don't really bother going in-depth about its origins and legacy more than the refs that are currently in it; I think while influential, DotA was pretty niche and Dota 2 and the other big MOBAs really sucked away the attention and focus. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: I don't think that DotA was a niche game. DotA and CS were one of the most played LAN games during the mid 2000s. The main problem is, DotA existed before a broadband internet became mainstream, therefore there were not enough writters and articles about those games, compared to modern ones. EchoBlu (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs and ImaginesTigers: and other editors: Have the concerns outlined in this notice been resolved? If not, what are the outstanding issues? If so, can we mark it as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020 and remove it from WP:FARGIVEN? Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs and Z1720: I trust David on this. If he believes the article is already using the majority of the high-quality sources on the topic, I'm satisfied. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:44, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've done another check and I don't see any substantial new sources since the issue was raised that would be necessary for comprehensiveness criterion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: Sorry for this late response. I also did a quick check for sources but I think the conversation about this game was superseded with news and reviews of Dota 2, and thus no one is producing new sources for this game anymore. Are you interested in marking this article as "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A, and we can remove the notice? Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was it necessary to rename the "Franchise" section to this? I mean, phonetically & spelling-wise it's identical to the IP - the only difference is the letter case of "a". Wouldn't "Franchise" suffice? BOTTO _(T•C) 19:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to shortening it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to write this without giving context so, I've been stuck in a huge argument involving whether DotA is a map or a mod, while this is unimportant to Wikipedia, the root of the problem is what's written in multiple different Wikipedia articles surrounding modding and DotA.

Basically I'm here to ask why these articles are calling it a mod which is a clear misrepresentation of what it is, I feel that the word mod was used because it removes the awkwardness of calling it what is: a map - which is a term that's only really understood in communities like Warcraft 3 and StarCraft but this has lead to a fundamental misunderstanding of the games origins.

Basically DotA in these articles has been called a mod but no one has defined what actually makes it a mod and my personal opinion (as a former Warcraft 3 map maker) is that the idea of it being a mod was created by people who really don't know what they were talking about. This article itself also isn't consistent "DotA has its roots in the "Aeon of Strife" custom map for StarCraft." - Here it correctly identifies Aoen of Strife as a custom map and not a mod. This is also repeated again in the article "One such custom map was "Aeon of Strife"."

I created a new account for wikipedia, so I don't know of the etiquette but I'm going to just copy and paste a bunch of quotes from the article. The point of these quotes is to show that there is a lot of inconsistency in the article as it is about whether it's a mod or a map.

As with Warcraft II and StarCraft, Blizzard included a free World Editor in the game that allows players to create custom scenarios or maps for the game,"

"World Editor enabled mapmakers to create their own." -

"Eul did not update the scenario and made his map code open-source" -

"in the wake of Eul's map was DotA Allstars"

"In March 2004, map maker Steve "Guinsoo" Feak assumed control of Allstars development"

"Towards the end of Feak's association with the map in 2005, development of the map changed hands"

"While increasingly popular, DotA Allstars remained limited as a custom map in Warcraft III, relying on manual matchmaking, updates, and containing no tutorials"

"DotA showed it is much easier for a community game to be maintained by the community, and this is one of the maps' greatest strengths."

I said earlier that I think the reason the word mod has crept into DotA's origin is because calling it a map is rather awkward and it's only a term understood by people who played Starcraft or Warcraft 3 but it's a complete misunderstanding of what it is and their is plenty of inconsistency in this article to show that. BlankF (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]