Dota 2 the continuing chronicles.
I am using the term that is the most neutral. The dota-like genre revolves around the fact that the games are similar to DotA. Because DotA is considered an ARTS by its current handler, icefrog, the whole genre is therefore an ARTS by transitivity. 'moba' is a buzzword that does not explain the dota-like genre, its origins, rather, its only use is mass-marketing and a slick off-the-tongue buzzword. It is not a game genre as every game is a multiplayer online battle in an arena if it has pvp/multiplayer. ARTS is a descriptions based on the nomenclature that a sub-genre should have its parent genre included in the name (e.g; political comedy). Please stop reverting my edits as I am using the genre which is most neutral by form of nomenclature and transitivity. Thank you. Correctingsomestuff. —Preceding undated comment added 00:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, while I don't necessarily disagree with your reasoning, the name of the genre on Wikipedia is MOBA. If you disagree, feel free to open a discussion at Multiplayer online battle arena about renaming the genre. Come armed with a great deal of reliable sources to back your position and make sure to quote relevant Wikipedia policy. Until the name of the genre is changed however, please cease editing the genre on these articles. I'm quite certain you read the hidden notes about this, since you edited them as well. -- ferret (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- "the name of the genre on Wikipedia is MOBA." This is where you are wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of information sourced from places outside of wikipedia itself. It does not claim knowledge onto any specific event or thing, it simply states and collects the knowledge we already have. You dont call Gabe Newell anything else but "Gabe Newell", because that is his given name, not the one 'wikipedia' decided he would have. So please, stop editing my changes. I am simply stating the name that the creators of DotA gave to DotA. You wouldn't vandalize someones birth name, or IP name such as "DotA," so why would you vandalize other names associated with the IP? Its non-sensible and dishonest as an editor. I have provided my relevant sources, one by third party, and one by the first party that created the IP. I have followed all guidelines as presented by wikipedia, however, I am still being vandalized because people who do not understand DotA, are editing DotA. The fact is, the genre is ARTS, the whole community of DotA2 uses ARTS, other gaming forums use ARTS (see: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/tag/dota-2/), the owner of the IP uses ARTS, because it is not a 'moba. Other games may be, but DotA2 is an ARTS, as by nomenclature, by assignment of the IP holders, and by transivity as I have stated above. Thank you for your time, I hope I have convinced you to stop the edit war. Correctingsomestuff —Preceding undated comment added 01:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Please do not change my edit on Valve's List of Games. You should not be allowed to decide what someone else names their child. Valve and Icefrog has already stated what they want their game to be called. ARTS is the most neutral term, as it followers the proper nomenclature for the naming of subgenre names, in which the parent genre name is located in the sub-genre name, e.g; political comedy. If you wish to change Valve's mind, you can try. However, in the same sense that we dont call DotA "DotI" we don't call DotA anything but an ARTS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixerupper5555642 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's nice. Having found this talk sections, and with the other editors reverting you as well, I'm sure you're aware of the consensus of Wikipedia on what the name of the genre is, and the reasons. I don't see a need to restate them yet again. -- ferret (talk) 18:17, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Portal 2 page
I undid your reversion because, while your reversion was correct at the time, it is no longer correct as I finished posting the discussion to the talk page (I had forgotten to submit it earlier).
The section I removed is invalid because the source supplied does not support the claims attributed to the source, and it contradicts the Half-Life/Portal timeline at the Half-Life Wiki and the Combine Overwiki.
Internet Police, lol
Your revert on the Source Engine
Hi, I have undone your revert on the Source engine article. The sourcing while correct, strictly only apply to Respawn's highly modified licensed fork of Source. Respawn's "Source" include an entirely new D3D11 renderer. A licensee of Source today would not gain access to these additions, and thus including them under this article is highly misleading. Please do not revert again without examining the issue in greater detail. Thanks. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 08:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)