Talk:Godot (game engine)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Irrelevant[edit]

Until this engine gets a stable release, I don't see why it deserves a Wikipedia article. What's next, an article for every tool out there that was released as version 0.0.0.0.0.2 and then discontinued? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malicious nonsense. Godot is pretty much THE preeminent 3D/2D engine in the open space field. Its github shows that it has over 800 people contributing to it, it powers a number of commercial games, it has institutional support from Mozilla , Github (who have sponsored their conferences) , and of course the Software Freedom Conservatory. It has features competitive with Unity and Unreal , and has a lead developer thats a minor celebrity in his own right due to his earlier work in Audio software. And its not only had a stable release, its on to version 3 of its stable releases. What an embarrassing claim for you to make 2001:44B8:6117:B100:4CF9:1E06:BE5E:E6BE (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The comment you are replying to was made in 2015. Even today, your claims are definitely somewhat based on opinion, and I doubt that many people would have considered them true in back then - Godot was quite a bit smaller. In fact, I would have considered that point valid back then, given that this article still has a dearth of non-primary sources. I've went ahead and added an unsigned template to the comment you were replying to prevent future mistakes.- Axisixa T C 06:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that dismissing something as "malicious nonsense" or an "embarrassing claim" is not in line with Godot's Code of Conduct. Assuming positive intentions is a prerequisite for constructive discussion. Doing otherwise can discourage critical thinking, alienate new users of the engine, and ultimately harm the quality of the article as a consequence. Xrayez (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article Created[edit]

Significant news coverage with many many reliable sources. BlitzGreg (talk) 08:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality disputed[edit]

Statements such as "Godot has an advanced, independent, and complete 2D engine, so there's no need to fake 2D in 3D space." or "Godot contains a sophisticated and one of the best animation systems out there" make me doubt the neutrality of this article. Who believes it to be so advanced, or 'one of the best'? The developers? Why? Is the ability to avoid 'faking 2D in 3D space' a feature worth mentioning? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:b8a9:50c0:182c:2e5e:deea:e8a4 (talk) 22:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote parts of the article, trying to find references where possible (and removing some). I also removed "sales-talk"-sounding text and tried to phrase things more neutrally based on information in the Godot docs and tutorials. This should hopefully address the neutrality dispute. Starkiel (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the article I do agree with the original complaint and found Starkiels revisions to be sufficient. After reading over the whole article and moving a few things around I no longer see anything overtly biased so I am removing the template. My only remaining concern is perhaps the list of features could be moved into a table right aligned to the text for space or removed all together. Wikipedia is, as always, not an encyclopedia, it should just give a general overview of the engine. Similar to the origin of the engine's name, Wikipedia doesn't need to list every single feature Godot is waiting for. BlitzGreg (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia is, as always, not an encyclopedia, ..." Umm, isn't Wikipedia in fact "The Free Encyclopedia"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.185.114.155 (talk) 11:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Godot (game engine). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamically typed scripting language with strict typing?[edit]

Forgive me if I'm missing something, but I'm a bit confused by the Scripting section, which seems to say that the GDScript language both is dynamically typed and has strict typing of variables. Are these not contradictory? --Modus Ponens (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GDScript is dynamically typed with optional static typing. The variables defined by keyword "var" are actually all one type called Variant which are a kind of wrapper for C++ types. So inside each var is an actual C++ type including primitive types. Variants will infer the type based on what the value defined looks like for ex 1.0 is a float, 1 is an int, "one" is a string but typing can be enforced using ":". GDScript eventually gets compiled into opcodes and while Godot 3.0 has no opcode for type, Godot 4.0 does. So is Godot dynamic or static? GDScript in this case is actually both dynamic and static since it actually gets compiled with type opcodes somewhat similar to Java. The assumption that a language must be one or the other is the issue with your question. GDScript is actually part of a breed of languages dubbed loosely typed languages such as JavaScript, TypeScript, Perl etc. On the opposite end of the spectrum are strongly typed languages like C++, C#, Java in which typing is mandatory. Hope that clears things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.3.17.86 (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is called Gradual typing.
As this article explains, your statement regarding C# is not correct due to the `dynamic` type in C#. Mika92 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of VisualScript[edit]

Godot offers a visual scripting language which is similar to Unreal Engine's 'Blueprint'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:574F:AD00:D5B8:A2E6:B256:8571 (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Godot's VisualScript is removed starting from Godot 4.0. Read this comprehensive analysis as a secondary source concerning Godot's motivations, which contains links to Godot lead developer's justifications and insights surrounding this decision. Xrayez (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter, should the VisualScript screenshot, be removed to prevent any further confusion and avoid creating false expectations? There are numerous threads such as this one where people have asked whether VisualScript is going to be resurrected. Based on what Juan Linietsky has been saying, it's not going to make a comeback. I'll go ahead and remove the VisualScript screenshot if I receive no objections. Xrayez (talk) 10:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a COI editor, you should not be making edits like that to this article, as has already been explained to you multiple times. Grayfell (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a subject matter expert on Godot being a co-author of Godot, and as per WP:EXPERT, they are highly welcomed on Wikipedia. Don't marginalize editors based on their apparent affiliation, as per WP:FANATIC, especially when I provide valuable opposition-based perspectives. In addition, having WP:COI does not make me invalid as an editor, and having COI doesn't necessarily imply bias as per WP:COINOTBIAS. Given your logic, Godot members should be forbidden from making changes to the article, but this would go goes against Wikipedia's fundamental guideline WP:BOLD. There are currently several Godot members that edit Wikipedia article about Godot directly, and they have not declared their WP:COI, so I'm being transparent in contrast. Xrayez (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any "Godot member" who has a conflict of interest should follow Wikipedia:Edit requests and use Template:Edit COI, which is what you should do. If you have evidence for other editors which doesn't cross-over into WP:OUTING, post it at WP:COIN. Otherwise, do not cast aspersions. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You consistently dismiss my evidence as irrelevant; consequently, I find myself having to defend my actions and persona. Once you demonstrate that you are a welcoming editor who appreciates my suggestions, I will follow your instructions. Until then, in accordance with WP:COI, I am not obliged to utilize such templates. No one on Wikipedia exerts control over articles. Xrayez (talk) 11:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Godot3D" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Godot3D. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time to remove "Primary Sources" template?[edit]

Does anyone know why this still has the Primary Sources template? It has at least ten external links. One can and does expect the majority of links to be self-citing; Primary Sources does not apply here. There are sufficient secondary sources. Is there some history I have not seen?Charles Merriam (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Merriam: In my opinion, not yet. Many primary sources. We need add more secondary sources. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 05:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed how such secondary sources are consistently frowned upon and unjustly reverted from Godot's page. See Criticism topic. This is a serious issue. Xrayez (talk) 13:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added More Contents[edit]

I added more content to the article and made some changes to existing article. If you find any mistakes or irrelevant points, feel free to correct them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SakuraMiyazono (talk • contribs) 06:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes. I've reverted a few of your additions, and changed the organisation to be more legible and more concordant to Wikipedia standards, but overall I appreciate the work you've done. - Novov T C 04:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to add "Epic games donated xx, Mozilla donated xx"?[edit]

Godot is an open source project and it is the combined effort of both community and developers. Even there are people who are giving donations to Godot monthly by becoming its patron and there are thousands of other developers and companies who donated their code for Godot. I even checked Blender (another FOSS) and, they never mentioned donations they got from schemes like Epic Mega Grant and so on. If you find my reasoning logical, please take appropriate measures. For easing your burden I added the donations just below Godot version history on my first edit so that you can make specific changes to that part or completely remove it. -SakuraMiyazono(Wikipedia User) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SakuraMiyazono (talk • contribs) 09:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we need this. If Godot aims to be transparent as leadership declares, providing such information is vital. I would also add information such as commercial companies founded by Godot leadership (Godot PLC), including, but not limited to, W4 Games, Lone Wolf Technology, Prehensile Tales, Ramatak Inc, etc. Most of them are sponsors of Godot, according to the Godot Foundation's funding page. Therefore, it's crucial to provide such information as it is directly related to governance decisions of Godot leadership in an allegedly community-driven project. Xrayez (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Colors Ultimate[edit]

This game hasn't been officially confirmed to use Godot. I added a 'citation needed', but maybe it'd be better to remove it entirely unless someone can find a reliable source? It seems weird to include it based on rumours. The source I removed contained no proof, only second hand information. Rvanee (talk)

Hello. Fortunately, the linked article (Sonic Colors#Sonic Colors: Ultimate) does include a source for this.
  • Yin-Poole, Wesly (September 4, 2021). "Sonic Colours: Ultimate players report graphics glitches and bugs". Eurogamer. Archived from the original on 5 September 2021. Retrieved September 6, 2021.
I have copied that source to this article. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 22:51, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

notability in list of games made in Godot[edit]

Should a game be included in the list if it isn't notable enough to have its own article? I have no idea what the guidelines are for this, but seeing a game added with only a direct link to the Steam page seems a little concerning to me Maybeitsmir (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if I'm understanding it correctly, the list doesn't meet any of the criteria listed in WP:CSC with the offending game in the list, so I went ahead and removed it and renamed the list to clarify that it contains notable games only. Hopefully I didn't overstep any lines here! Maybeitsmir (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming it was a good idea. Wikipedia:Write the article first is a helpful essay on how Wikipedia normally handles these kinds of things.
While some games which do not yet have articles can, potentially, be added, we would first need reliable sources to indicate that such games are notable enough to be encyclopedically significant. To put it another way, we as editors decide which games to include and which to skip via independent sources. Wikipedia:Notability (video games) is a relevant guideline.
Even if a game is notable and already has an article with sources, we still need to verify that the game uses Godot before we add it to this list. Once a game is shown to be notable, a primary source (such as the game's own website) can be used to show that it uses Godot. Primary sources cannot be used to show notability, however. This is in part to prevent spam. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism[edit]

While I completely comprehend that the Godot community discourages criticism, especially when it's labeled as speculation, disinformation, or driven by personal agendas, I've noticed instances where editors attempted to incorporate community concerns regarding Godot. Unfortunately, these edits were unjustly reverted, even though supported by valid sources. This situation is regrettable because it would be beneficial for newcomers to the engine to explore its potential downsides, enabling them to make informed choices.

For instance, there is a wealth of information available in a book titled Waiting for Blue Robot which could provide valuable insights. Please adhere to Wikipedia's policies and avoid any ad hominem arguments when reverting changes. Let's foster an environment where differing viewpoints are respectfully considered and analyzed. A person's past or motives do not automatically invalidate their arguments if they are based on facts, evidence, and testimonies from other people. For instance, removing sources by labeling them as coming from a disgruntled person with an ax to grind does not present the Godot community as a welcoming one, to say the least. To reiterate, someone's past or motives do not automatically invalidate their argument; this is the basics of logical reasoning and Wikipedia guidelines. Xrayez (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your edit because the sources that you provided (3 YouTube videos and a forum post) aren't reliable sources, a claim that is backed up by WP:USERGENERATED. I'm not trying to step on any toes, and I don't have any issue with people criticizing Godot, I just think that if this criticism is going to be mentioned on Wikipedia, it should follow Wikipedia's guidelines. Maybeitsmir (talk) 23:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any secondary source can be unjustifiably labeled as "questionable" or "unreliable" by followers of Godot; that's the point behind this topic. For example, the edit that you reverted included a testimony of a respectable member of the Godot community (an admin of Godot forums) who has invested years into supporting Godot. Another counterargument is that Godot's page currently contains a vital piece of information from Juan, the lead developer of Godot, expressing concerns when people call Godot a cult. The source in this case is a tweet, which, according to Wikipedia:USERGENERATED that you linked, is considered questionable. However, it still exists as part of Godot's page since it comes from Godot's co-founder.
Considering that Godot is declared to be community-driven and taking into account the claim of Godot's lead developer about its horizontal structure, which implies that members have considerable weight in Godot's decision-making process, the information coming from longstanding members of Godot should not be hastily disregarded as an "unreliable" source. Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:BIASED, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.
In my opinion, you have not invested enough time to properly investigate the provided sources; therefore, your interpretations of those sources are motivated by incomplete understanding and a lack of comprehensive analysis. Without thorough research and examination of the sources, your conclusions may be influenced by preconceived notions, biases, or superficial observations. Moreover, failing to invest enough time in researching the sources may suggest a lack of commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and a disregard for the importance of presenting well-informed viewpoints.
According to Wikipedia:REV, reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. I certainly do not see how my edit could be considered a disruptive edit, especially when I provided several sources to support the claim. By reverting additions without providing alternative rephrasing, that constitutes unconstructive criticism, thereby alienating potential editors. I'm assuming that you have positive intentions; otherwise, I would interpret your revert as a disruptive edit, as explained in Wikipedia:DE. Namely, when you suggest that properly sourced content is questionable without providing any concrete rationale for your revert.
Taking all of the above into account, please explain why you see the sources that I provided as unreliable. Elaborate on your justification and provide concrete counterarguments. Xrayez (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have left way too many points here for me to reasonably address them all (especially since some of them have nothing to do with the revert at all), so I'll try to summarize here.
I agree that a section on criticisms of the engine would be a good addition, I am not here to try to defend Godot, but it needs better sources than YouTube videos and a forum post (which is now 404'd, anyway). Just because the community is involved in something, as is the case with a lot of open-source software, doesn't mean that any community-created content is suddenly a reliable source on the subject.
I stand by my claim that the sources you provided were unreliable and unencyclopedic, which, according to Wikipedia:DE, is disruptive editing (Wikipedia:DISRUPTSIGNS, point 2). mir :3 23:43, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the thread is deleted now further supports my original claim that criticism in Godot is not welcomed. I have provided larger context as a step in finding common ground and mutual understanding, but you're trying to ignore most of my arguments (as you implied) and instead generalized the issue to a supposed nature of Open Source, effectively sweeping the concrete issue under the rug. Instead of examining my arguments one by one, you generalize them, which is a fundamentally wrong thing to do when engaging in a discussion.
Additionally, in your revert comment, you stated [1] that maybe you were wrong, but now you stand by your claim that the sources are allegedly unreliable or unencyclopedic. However, you have not taken any constructive steps, such as suggesting what kind of sources would be considered reliable for criticism to be included in the context of Godot.
For your information, I am a co-author of Godot (you can find my name in Godot's "About" window). I'm not implying that my competence allows me to speak on this topic, however, my point is that the admin of Godot forums (the one who created that thread in the first place, which was deleted by the new owner weeks later) has an equivalent reputation for being a reliable source, regardless of the medium used to deliver the information, just like lead developer's tweet currently present on Godot's Wikipedia page.
To demonstrate your good faith (Wikipedia:GF), please provide examples of concrete, reliable sources that criticize Godot according to your stance, and let's add such sources to Godot's page. If you have enough time to engage in a discussion, I'm sure you can find enough time to find criticism about Godot that you believe would fit your (mis)understanding of what constitutes a reliable source, especially when you're not here to try to defend Godot, as you claim. If you are unable to find such sources, then it would make me think that perhaps you're not acting in a good faith. Xrayez (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First off, it is not any other editor's responsibility to find sources for your edits. That responsibility falls upon you and you alone.
However, to try and put and end to this conversation, I did try to find good sources for you claims, since, for some reason, you continuously refuse to. I found no reliable sources covering the matter, which, whether or not you or I or anyone else agrees with it, means that it does not belong on Wikipedia, full stop. This is not an issue of defending Godot, this is an issue of following Wikipedia's guidelines.
Wikipedia is not a place where every opinion is to be reported on, it requires any information to be supported by a reliable secondary source.
On a semi-related note, your admitted role as a "co-author of Godot' implies a potential Conflict of interest, which means that you are expected to disclose it before editing the article. mir :3 18:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of objecting to your decision, because I understand the nature of Godot. The topic is not about my edit. You replied to this topic since you've likely found a reflection of your actions in my original post, and I didn't mention you, so you're not obliged to do anything. My intention was not to ask you to find sources for my edit that you reverted. Instead, I wanted to know examples of criticism of Godot from any source you consider reliable and verifiable, not my edit, because I'm curious to know whether such sources exist in the first place according to criteria provided. I'm not asking for the specification of suitable sources, but concrete examples of such critical sources about Godot according to your perspective. Given Godot's popularity, there's a high likelihood that such sources do exist, and it would be nice to add them to Godot's wiki, don't you think?
I am genuinely interested in the topic of Godot. I'd like to repeat that the main topic of this discussion is not about me or my edit; it revolves around the possibility of including criticism in Godot's larger context. As someone who maintains Godot's wiki, I assume you share an enthusiasm for the topic. When you mentioned that "a section on criticisms of the engine would be a good addition," I assumed that you're interested in collaboration, simple as that.
I understand your concern about a potential conflict of interest, but I want to clarify that my intention is not to add my own materials on Godot's wiki. My experience with Godot is mentioned solely to provide context, mostly as a way to kick start the topic of criticism in Godot, and if you were to follow the link in the original post, you'd instantly realize that I'm a co-author of Godot, as it's written on the front page. As a counterargument to your concern, even though other devoted Godot co-authors (who also contributed to this wiki) may have their personal motives of highlighting various positive aspects of Godot that would promote their own interest, they are not being labeled as having a potential conflict of interest in contrast, and they don't explicitly denote their direct affiliation with Godot when editing Godot's wiki.
Finally, since the topic of a conflict of interest is being brought up, it is important to clarify the main issue that prevents effective collaboration here. The misrepresentation of my statements may be attributed to an excessive focus on my edit and myself rather than the broader topic of criticism in Godot. Former members of Godot are currently seen as objects of pity, ostracism, and/or scapegoating. Again, supporting evidence and explanations can be found in a referenced book Waiting for Blue Robot that addresses this prevalent phenomenon in the Godot community. Consider reviewing Wikipedia's guideline Wikipedia:PA as well, namely ad hominem attacks, a common tactic used to ostracize Godot members that express critical thinking, which overlaps with the topic of Collective narcissism, also covered in the book. Although I haven't personally experienced personal attacks on Godot's wiki specifically (yet), I mention these aspects because it is essential for readers to gain a comprehensive understanding of why criticism is generally not accepted in the Godot community, despite their claim to be interested in criticism. Xrayez (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "Godot's wiki", this is Wikipedia's article on Godot. It is entirely maintained by Wikipedia editors and should have no outside influence from the Godot community. Yours (and anybody else's) previous experience with Godot does not have any influence on how Wikipedia's guidelines are being applied here.
A section on criticism would be a fair addition to have, yes, but neither of us can find the sources necessary, and until those sources exist, that section simply does not belong here.
Additionally, your book does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability regarding books, meaning it cannot be included as a reference here. mir :3 01:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xrayez: Whatever your intentions, your comments are promoting your book. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion or advocacy, and your conflict-of-interest is obvious.
Responding to your proposal is not a personal attack. Explaining why your proposals and your editing have been inappropriate is not covered by WP:NPA.
Additionally, implying that the Godot's active developers suffers from "collective narcissism" crosses the line. If reliable sources do not say this, than neither should you on this talk page, per WP:BLP.
I will also echo maybeitsmir's comment that you have raised way too many points. This talk page isn't the place to kick start a discussion of criticisms of Godot. The purpose of this talk page, just like all the other Wikipedia article talk pages, is to discuss how to improve the corresponding Wikipedia article. By long-standing consensus, the way to do this starts with reliable sources. We do not publish original research. As has already been explained, your self-published book is not a reliable source, and personal experiences you share on this talk page are original research. If you don't know of any reliable sources, drop the stick. Grayfell (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to what has already been said, please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing#Righting great wrongs and Wikipedia:Criticism#Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. All we can do as Wikipedia editors is summarize reliable sources. "Reliable sources" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and I cannot think of many situations where deleted forum threads would fall under that definition. The 'Waiting for Blue Robot' book is also not going to be a reliable source for several reasons, and 'investing time' into these sources isn't going to make them any more reliable. The most straightforward approach is to find reliable independent sources to explain why this criticism is encyclopedically significant, and then we summarize those sources. If necessary, we could then use these primary sources to clarify specific details of the controversy or criticism, but only with caution. Grayfell (talk) 18:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    While I mentioned already that I don't intend to add my book to Wikipedia's article on Godot, I see that Wikipedia:EXPERTSPS does make exceptions, namely when self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant domain has previously been published by reliable publications.
    My expertise in Godot can be verified via Godot's officially published articles such as GDScript progress report: Feature-complete for 4.0 in the "Test Suite" section and Godot 3.3 has arrived, with a focus on optimization and reliability, etc. Given my deep involvement with the development process of Godot, and being an actual co-author of Godot, whose expertise can be verified via official Godot channels, what other requirements are needed to qualify my book as a self-published reliable source (hypothetically)? I'd highly appreciate your rationale on this concrete subject matter.
    I have actually spent more time researching Wikipedia's guidelines and I concluded that I've been misled regarding what constitutes a reliable source in this context. According to Wikipedia:USESPS, self-published doesn't mean bad, and the fact of a source being self-published should not be used as a non-negotiable argument to automatically dismiss a source as "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". Therefore, the phrase "The 'Waiting for Blue Robot' book is also not going to be a reliable source for several reasons" (what exact reasons?) and "'investing time' into these sources isn't going to make them any more reliable" (why exactly?) can be interpreted as a way to dismiss a potentially reliable source. Xrayez (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SPS, your work has to have previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Godotengine.org is not independent of Godot. Further, all sources are evaluated in a specific context. The content you added about how Godot has "faced criticism" was far, far too vague and unattributed, which makes it a WP:WEASEL issue. Virtually all projects of any significant size "face criticism" of a wide variety. We need reliable, independent sources to explain why these particular criticisms are encyclopedically significant. Forum posts, random youtube videos, and your self-published book-length website are not reliable in this context, and also, few if any sources would be reliable in this context. You can't just imply something is a "scam" and then walk away without explaining anything at all. If you have a reliable source (which in this case must also be a independent source), propose that source here so we can summarize what it says. We could then use that hypothetical source to explain what the criticism actually is and why it should matter more than any other bit of online chatter that exists. Grayfell (talk) 20:12, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation, but my question wasn't about my original edit (again). Nor was it about whether you see Godotengine.org as independent of Godot, because it's obvious that they are not. My question was about whether the credibility derived from Godot officials regarding my expertise on the subject could be viewed as sufficient evidence to classify my self-published work as reliable, due to my expertise on the subject. In other words, does the endorsement of my expertise from relevant authorities within the field hold enough weight to meet the criteria for reliability of my self-published work, without going through independent publications?
I question the requirement of having previously been published by reliable, independent publications as being the exclusive requirement as you imply. I am fairly certain that there are examples of self-published sources being recognized as reliable in other Wikipedia articles covering different topics. Would you object to this observation?
I would like to clarify that my intention is not to seek inclusion or promotion of my work here. Instead, I am seeking clear answers to my questions that could help me navigate and find reliable, independent sources that criticize Godot. Ironically, I don't believe such sources currently exist, and based on my extensive experience, I doubt they will emerge anytime soon due to the highly biased nature of Godot (this is my expert opinion as a co-author of Godot). However, despite the highly biased environment, there remains a dire need for differing viewpoints.
To quote relevant parts of Wikipedia:USESPS that support my claims above: "A self-published source can be independent, authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, and expert-approved." Furthermore, according to Wikipedia:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
Therefore, we should strive to reach a consensus on how to present critical information about Godot, even if it involves considering the inclusion of sources that may not be completely independent (as you say, Godotengine.org is not independent, yet such sources constitute the majority of current sources on Wikipedia's article about Godot). Given the current circumstances, seeking entirely independent sources could prove to be virtually impossible. This might result in the development of an Echo chamber (media) that only highlights the positive aspects of Godot with lenient fact-checking, while, on the contrary, strictly adhering to Wikipedia guidelines when presenting negative aspects of Godot as if they were absolute rules to follow.
Everything should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and allowing flexibility permits consideration of diverse perspectives and avoids imposing a one-size-fits-all approach. In light of this, we need to find a way to strike a balance and foster an environment that allows for a fair representation of different perspectives, even in the face of challenges in sourcing critical viewpoints. Xrayez (talk) 23:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more concise. Your comments are too long. If you have a specific suggestion, make it. As I already mentioned, this talk page isn't a forum for discussing the topic in general terms, it's for improving the article.
Your question has already been answered multiple times. Your self-published work is not generally reliable, and Godot's website is absolutely not reliable for demonstrating topic expertise. For one thing, the standard you are suggesting would open a loophole for spam, and that's never going to work.
But again, every source would depend on the context.
If you have a specific proposal, make it. Support that proposal with reliable sources. If such sources do not exist, than you are proposing WP:OR, and this is a dead end. The edits you made which were reverted were completely unacceptable for multiple reasons, which have already been explained.
As a point of advice from a more experienced editor: if you want to change consensus, be brief and specific. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't asked to comment on my edit (again); this is a resolved issue already, so I have absolutely no clue why you have to explain this again and again as if you want to use this against me to divert attention and ignore my other specific questions on the topic.
I'm also not interested in unsolicited advice as to how I must present my arguments. I will also use as many characters to properly deliver my message. I can provide numerous examples of even longer discussions on Wikipedia and editors do not express disapproval or discouragement of their comments and are not being labeled "too long" in contrast. It is also not prohibited to provide a larger context (labeled as "general terms") for achieving consensus, especially when the main topic is still discussing what kind of sources would be considered reliable for presenting criticism.
Unlike others on this topic, I have provided various quotes from Wikipedia guidelines to back up my arguments. If you're not prepared to engage in elaborate discussions and respond meaningfully, I suggest moving on and allowing other editors who are interested in this topic to participate, rather than acting like a gatekeeper. It would be helpful to get a third opinion on this matter as I haven't received concrete answers to my specific questions.
My arguments in this discussion are either misrepresented or misinterpreted. These factors suggest to me that you are not trying to build consensus, you move away from it in order to maintain the status quo. Exchanging questions is part of an effective consensus building process. Unfortunately, I have not seen a single question directed to me on this page, and most of my questions went unaddressed, even if you believe that you answered them.
To provide counterarguments to your remarks on how I must present my arguments, I also want to address your "book-length website" insinuation. There are numerous online books equivalent to mine, yet they are all properly referred to as "books" or "eBooks" by readers, even if they are self-published and lack physical copies. This raises a question: why do you categorize my authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked book in this devaluing manner, and what is your rationale behind labeling it as a "book-length website"? Have you actually read it to make such an inference?
It is disheartening that our discussion reached a dead end. Xrayez (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so being concise is an act of respect and a show of good faith. My advice was just that, advice, but drawing-out a discussion can easily tip-over into tendentious editing. But you're right, your arguments likely have been misinterpreted... because I still don't know what point you are trying to make. This is why I'm asking you to be concise. Your initial edits lack consensus for reasons that have already been explained, but that's pretty much all we have to go on. So what, exactly, are you proposing? If you have any specific, actionable suggestions for how to improve the article, please make them.

It is possible for a self-published book-length website to be a reliable source, but it is not assumed to be reliable. Self-publishing inherently lacks editorial oversight. Further, you are not objective when you describe your own work as "authoritative". This doesn't mean that it isn't authoritative, but content from this work will still need some sort of reliable, independent source to indicate encyclopedic significance. We need a specific reason to cite primary sources, and especially self-published primary sources, and you haven't provided a good reason yet. Grayfell (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like we're going to run out of paper or pixels on the screen! Complex topics or nuanced arguments require more extensive explanations to be properly evaluated. So while being concise is often desired, it's not always possible to achieve, and being elaborate doesn't demonstrate a lack of good faith, especially in the adversity of misunderstandings. Wikipedia is a volunteer project, so if someone lacks the time to understand what is being written, editors are free to address other, simpler topics. Nobody is obligated to engage in a complex topic in which they may not be proficient. There's also no need to re-raise the issue of my edits multiple times in a row that was already mentioned as resolved if you aim to be concise.
Please be attentive. I am not proposing; I am discussing what kinds of sources of criticism are considered reliable in the context of Godot. It is natural to have a subjective opinion about my work, but the description of my work is not based solely on a subjective perception; it is also based on reviews from others who have actually read my book, which includes industry experts outside of Godot. However, they are reluctant to make public reviews of my book to avoid retaliation from Godot leadership (yet). Have you read the book to make such assertions? If you haven't, your superficial judgment is uninformed and clearly biased.
You persist in using the dismissive term "book-length website," even though I have explicitly said that this insinuation of yours does not reflect the reality, which suggests you're not being objective here. My book meets all the essential criteria to be qualified as a book, such as length, originality, and structured content. I cannot find any other interpretation of your insistence on using the term "book-length website" other than as a way to undermine the perception of its credibility for readers of this discussion. Again, you haven't answered the question of whether you have read my book to make such assertions.
In either case, I'm not trying to force anything as you imply, but I strive to be precise and I expect you to present your arguments in a consistent manner. For the record, here's what you said regarding reliability of my source or a source similar to mine, in chronological order:
- "[...] Your self-published book is not a reliable source [...]"
- "[...] Your self-published work is not generally reliable [...]"
- "[...] It is possible for a self-published book-length website to be a reliable source [...]"
Even though you seem to be making progress in acknowledging the possibility of a self-published book being a reliable source, I noticed that you shifted away from using the term "book" and instead used the dismissive term "book-length website," which suggests a disparaging attitude. If you aim to be respectful, I urge you to use appropriate and accurate terms. However, all I wanted to achieve was to establish the possibility of a self-published book (such as those coming from co-authors of Godot) being considered reliable so that other editors can come up with concrete, actionable proposals in the future. We could have avoided these lengthy comments if you had stated this from the beginning.
Therefore, I believe that we have reached at least some consensus, namely: It is possible for a self-published book to be a reliable source. This may seem obvious, but given inconsistent and misleading discussion above, it's important to reach this intermediate step that can be used as a base for further decisions. Adding my book to Wikipedia's article about Godot is outside of the scope of our discussion. The aim of our discussion was to achieve at least some level of consensus for others to build upon. Xrayez (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is well-established that a self-published book can be a reliable source, as is clearly explained at WP:USESPS. Neither of us ever said otherwise. The only argument on the subject either of us has made is that your book is not a reliable source.
If you want to discuss what a reliable source for the subject would be, then you should probably read WP:RS and take it to heart, as those are Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. The guidelines won't change just because there aren't any reliable sources for the criticisms you want to add to the article. The fact that neither of us can find reliable sources is just clear evidence that the article simply does not need a criticisms section yet.
As far as I can tell, those are the major points that you have been trying to ask about. If I missed something, and you have more questions or concerns, I would like to kindly request that you start leaving a summary, or a bullet list of your questions at the end of your posts, as it's really getting difficult to tell what the issue is at this point. mir :3 19:43, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. If I ever said that no self published source is ever reliable, I was wrong, but I don't think I ever said that. My evaluation of this self-published book is that it is not generally reliable. This hasn't changed. I strongly doubt that this specific source is going to be necessary or even helpful to this article. This assessment is based on my experience editing Wikipedia, including reading and participating in countless discussions of self-published sources, both on article talk pages and on Wikipedia's noticeboards and similar. Any exceptions would require specific context, which is why I have repeatedly asked for a specific proposal.
As for WP:TLDR, no we're not going to run out of pixels, but we can run out of time in the day. If you want other people to spend our limited time on your comments, you should show more respect for that time. But that isn't the only reason I am asking you to be concise. This is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, and the goal of this entire project is to summarize. Wikipedia:Wikipedians are editors, not researchers. Grayfell (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can skip this and jump to the Hypothethical Proposal section below.
Questioned Evaluation
The purpose of this section is to provide a summary of the evolution regarding the consideration of self-published works, such as my book, as reliable sources in this topic. It also aims to highlight any inconsistencies in the evaluation process in hindsight.

My evaluation of this self-published book is that it is not generally reliable.
— User:Grayfell

This implies that my self-published book can be considered reliable under certain contexts, which is reassuring and we're making progress, because you previously said:

The 'Waiting for Blue Robot' book is also not going to be a reliable source for several reasons, and 'investing time' into these sources isn't going to make them any more reliable.
— User:Grayfell

While I've noticed that you now use the correct term "book" instead of the dismissive "book-length website" term, the exact reasons and extent of any potential unreliability in the content are still not defined in your statements. Contrary to what you say, investing time (work) into self-published sources can, in fact, increase their reliability, especially when the improved quality encourages independent publishers to consider reviewing them. Just as you said:

Per WP:SPS, your work has to have previously been published by reliable, independent publications.
— User:Grayfell

Thus, if I continually add content to my book, it would be reasonable to assume that it will become more reliable than before, especially for specific contexts. Failing to consider this possibility implies a disparaging attitude towards authors and their competence. Impudent statements that overtly deny the potential of a source becoming reliable can only be justified if there is consistent evidence of lacking credibility of such sources. According to WP:BLP, it is not appropriate for you to strongly assert this without reliable sources making similar assertions. These factors collectively highlight your inconsistency and bias against adding criticism directed towards Godot.

Any exceptions would require specific context, which is why I have repeatedly asked for a specific proposal.
— User:Grayfell

I lack hope and I doubt that you'd accept any part of my book under any context. You certainly haven't shown a welcoming attitude towards my book; otherwise, I would have already made a proposal. This statement encapsulates your dismissive and careless attitude towards my book:

I strongly doubt that this specific source is going to be necessary or even helpful to this article.
— User:Grayfell

See concerns at Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic. I also hope that you won't project the "fanatic" label onto me, because I'm in a position of minority and expression of criticism on the topic. The first sentence of Wikipedia:Reliable sources clearly states:
Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered.
The current Wikipedia article about Godot is lacking in minority views. In my book, I have gathered more than 150 sources, including testimonies from others, which effectively present the perspectives of a significant minority. Despite this, I believe any proposals related to my book would be summarily dismissed under irrelevant pretexts, even if it were to be published or publicly reviewed by an independent source. The next step in gatekeeping would probably involve self-deceptive rationalization and untrue claims like:
  • This independent source is not truly independent because …
    • … it comes from an organization with an ax to grind.
    • … it is conspiring against Godot's leadership.
    • … it contains defamatory claims about Godot's leadership.

Wikipedia:Wikipedians are editors, not researchers.
— User:Grayfell

One thing doesn't interfere with the other. Please avoid conflating the evaluation of sources with original research. Providing a broader context in a discussion is also not considered original research. The length of our discussion is attributed to addressing misrepresentation and misinterpretation of arguments, primarily due to the disinterest of incorporating criticism.
While I completely understand that it's not your responsibility as per WP:FINDSOURCESFORME, it would actually be more effective for you to demonstrate which specific part of my book is reliable for a specific context, instead of me making dozens of proposals on the subject that are bound to be rejected (taking away even more time). Alas, that's not going to happen. However, as an exercise in testing your objectivity and bias, let's cover the following.
Hypothetical Proposal
The current Wikipedia article about Godot contains this passage, even if we disregard the broader context provided by the "History" section. Instead, imagine that such information is presented in a hypothetical "Development Philosophy" section:
The name "Godot" was chosen due to its relation to Samuel Beckett's play Waiting for Godot, as it represents the never-ending wish of adding new features in the engine, which would get it closer to an exhaustive product, but never will.
My book questions the supposed positive value behind this name in the chapter titled Value of Waiting . In fact, they are so tightly related to the point of using the same reliable, independent source, along with other sources that you can find in the "References" section.
For example, this is how I'd build upon the above passage to present an additional viewpoint (hypothetically):
According to one of the co-authors of Godot, the choice of the name "Godot" is viewed as unfortunate, as the experiences of the protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, in Waiting for Godot illustrate diminishing enthusiasm over time.
@Grayfell @Maybeitsmir, would you consider this addition, inferred from a self-published book authored by a long-standing co-author of Godot to be reliable in this context?
I'm not asking you to include it, but I'd like to understand how you apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in practice and whether there might be any bias on Godot's topic that could impede the inclusion of criticism in the future. I hope this will be my final reply on this topic with you, so I would sincerely appreciate a well-grounded rationale, even if it takes a bit more time to articulate your thoughts. Thank you.
I'd like to remind that according to Wikipedia:BIASED:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Xrayez (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per your advice, I have skipped to the hypothetical proposal and have not read the first section. Instead of a hypothetical proposal, you should make an actual proposal. This isn't a hypothetical article, it is an actual article. If you want advice on how to edit Wikipedia in general, broad terms, WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:HELPDESK are more useful, but yet again, Wikipedia isn't the place to promote your own work. Regardless of your stated intentions, you are promoting your own work here, and that isn't appropriate. Since you seem to insist on citing your own work (hypothetically") WP:COIN may be the next step.
If we pretended that this was an actual proposal, as I have already said, I do not view this source as reliable in general, so once again, we would need a specific reason to cite this source as a primary source of an opinion. ...is viewed as unfortunate... is both too vague and also WP:WEASEL wording, so it is not self-evident why we would include this particular opinion in this article. Who "views it as unfortunate"? You do, but you haven't really explained what this means for the project or why readers need to know this opinion. The proposal isn't an important detail, so the source is insufficient for this. The unstated question why is this project named Godot is a basic obvious question that many readers would likely ask, and primary sources are barely sufficient for answering this. What does one of the co-authors think of that name choice isn't basic, and it isn't obvious. You have not indicated why readers would need this information, nor is it clear why they would want to know what any other co-authors think of the name. This source is completely insufficient, and citing it would be promoting this one opinion for no obvious encyclopedic benefit. Grayfell (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given such a reply, I'd recommend to read the Questioned Evaluation section that you skipped. In either case, you have confirmed my concerns there. ∎
Regarding my intentions
This is for the record, for other editors who may want to evaluate our discussion, I'd like to address strawman arguments:
  • I have not asked for assistance on how to edit Wikipedia. Instead, I was curious whether you're able to apply Wikipedia guidelines objectively in relation to Godot. For instance, you may be able to apply guidelines and policies objectively in other places, but not necessarily about Godot, as bias depends on the subject matter.
  • I do not insist on anything, so there's no point in WP:COIN as the next step. It doesn't make sense for me to make an actual proposal due to the WP:COI by definition. Thus, it also does not make sense for you to propose me to make an actual proposal involving my book, as it would effectively instigate promotion. However, whether or not I have WP:COI does not automatically imply that I cannot discuss the subject matter.
  • Let others decide whether something is considered promotional. When you say "regardless of your stated intentions", you're not assuming good faith. Simply repeating this will not make it true.
Regarding hypothetical proposal
I disagree with your evaluation of my suggestion:
  • It is not WP:WEASEL wording. Weasel wording would be something along the lines of "Some users say". In contrast, the phrase According to one of the co-authors of Godot... is an example of attribution, especially when there's a limited number of Godot authors in contrast to users, and all of them are well-known since they are explicitly listed at the official Godot Engine website and their names are embedded into all binary distributions of Godot. I could effectively just use my real name, but since my book wasn't published by independent sources yet, I opted to use this kind of wording. It is also not vague as it specifies the source of the information. I also served as a respectable maintainer of Godot. This is how you devalue the credibility of an author, once again. I am the source. "You do", you say. Yes, I do.
    • If you mean the potential vagueness of ...is viewed as unfortunate... part specifically and not attribution itself, then it should be noted that Wikipedia contents aims to follow WP:NPOV to avoid judgmental language, as the source (my book) uses bolder statements. More elaborate example would be: One of the co-authors of Godot criticize the choice of the name "Godot" because the values behind it set the product into a perpetual state of incompleteness, claiming that it may adversely affect Godot’s development process, as it mirrors the experiences of the protagonists, Vladimir and Estragon, in Waiting for Godot, illustrating diminishing enthusiasm over time as a result of this uncertainty.
  • The proposal is an important detail. The reason why you may believe otherwise is because of your uninformed opinion; you may falsely believe that a name doesn't affect or represent organizational values in this context.
    • You mentioned that the "proposal isn't an important detail, so the source is insufficient". This is confusing to say the least. It's like saying, 'I don't care about the weather, but I forgot my umbrella'. If you don't care about the weather, then the umbrella doesn't matter. Similarly, if the proposal isn't important, the source's sufficiency should be irrelevant."
    • Various sources can elucidate nuances and different viewpoints, especially considering the freedom of interpretation inherent in the play "Waiting for Godot", I have no idea whether you watched it, otherwise perhaps you wouldn't make such superficial judgements.
To summarize, if you don't recognize me as a subject matter expert according to your perspective, you will naturally not acknowledge any part of my book under any context. Instead, it seems like you are merely pretending to acknowledge that my self-published book may have exceptions for specific contexts, as not acknowledging this would go against Wikipedia's guidelines and policies.
I make this assumption based on the fact that your criticism regarding my proposal (even hypothetical) is unconstructive. You haven't provided any specific suggestions to improve my proposal or offered alternative phrasing. If I am mistaken in making this assumption, I urge you to provide concrete examples. Show which specific part of my book can be considered reliable in any context of your choice, especially concerning the current contents of Wikipedia's article about Godot.
I understand that you may not want to do this, but if you did, it would contribute greatly to the understanding of other potential editors who are interested in sourcing materials that criticize Godot. However, I realize you may refuse to do so, hiding behind WP:FINDSOURCESFORME, especially given your disinterest in this topic.
This is my last reply to you, as I'm no longer interested in a discussion with you on this subject matter. End of discussion. Xrayez (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to stop responding, but consensus is still required for changes to the article. The initial edits you made were not appropriate, and your "hypothetical" proposals do not have consensus. I have explained what is required for your opinions to be encyclopedically significant. Grayfell (talk) 00:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For someone who repeatedly claims that you aren't interested in using your book as a source, you seem incredibly determined to try to tell us why we could use your book as a source. No matter how many hypothetical scenarios you think up, your book is not an appropriate source for the Wikipedia project and will not be used.
If you really, truly aren't interested in using your book as a reference, I would recommend you stop talking about it. It's hard to assume good faith here when all you're doing at this point is trying to convince us that, maybe one day, we could use your book as a reference.
Is there anything else you wanted to discuss? If not, I would suggest moving on. mir :3 23:19, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresent my arguments again. I don't insist and don't convince anyone to use my book as a source, even in the future. Instead, I'm using my book as a concrete subject matter to discuss the possibility of adding critical sources about Godot, given the scarcity of higher-quality resources criticizing Godot. However, the above discussion demonstrates that criticism will not be welcomed, the way I see it.

No matter how many hypothetical scenarios you think up, your book is not an appropriate source for the Wikipedia project and will not be used.
— User:Maybeitsmir

and given your previous statement:

It is well-established that a self-published book can be a reliable source, as is clearly explained at WP:USESPS. Neither of us ever said otherwise. The only argument on the subject either of us has made is that your book is not a reliable source.
— User:Maybeitsmir

If you read the above discussion, you will realize that you statement above is inconsistent to what @Grayfell said:

My evaluation of this self-published book is that it is not generally reliable.
— User:Grayfell

This implies that my book can be reliable under certain contexts:

Any exceptions would require specific context, which is why I have repeatedly asked for a specific proposal.
— User:Grayfell

However, it's not clear under what contexts the contents of my book could be considered reliable, and we will never find out, because neither you nor @Grayfell are interested in this.
Additionally, those who have no WP:COI will pick up the torch (or rather, other editors may realize the futility of attempting to incorporate sources that criticize Godot).
I am done and I am out.
This is my last reply to you, as I'm no longer interested in a discussion with you on this subject matter. End of discussion. Xrayez (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xrayez: Linking to my user page in this way triggers a notification. If you no longer intend to respond to me, do not ping me again. If, instead in the future, you have an actionable, non-hypothetical proposal based on a reliable source, I would be interested in looking at it. Grayfell (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Allegations[edit]

There was a revert made by Grayfell, specifically Special:Diff/1173342281, which removed the information indicating that Godot had been referred to as a cult by users of commercial software. The revert claims that the "Random tweet lacks encyclopedic significance."

  • The tweet is by no means random since it originates from Juan Linietsky, the lead developer of Godot, who is the primary source of information. To label Juan's tweet as "random" would indicate an extreme level of ignorance on the Godot topic. However, Grayfell does not seem ignorant on this topic, given their involvement in editing Wikipedia's article about Godot since 2017, as evidenced by Special:Diff/777094693.
  • I've observed that Grayfell often employs the rather ambiguous terms "encyclopedic significance" or "encyclopedically significant" (please see the Criticism section above and Grayfell's editing history across articles).
  • I've also mentioned this source in previous topic with Grayfell, see Special:Diff/1167422866 to make a point that sources like these are not removed in contrast, and it took a month for Grayfell to revert this source after our discussion above. For more than a month, nobody expressed disagreement with my addition except for Grayfell with his revert now. Why wouldn't Grayfell remove such a source immediately when I mentioned this a month ago, then?

This signifies inattentiveness and inconsistency in general. Such behavior also gives an impression as if they hoped that nobody would notice this revert. These observations allow me to conclude that this may be a tactic to dismiss sources that do not align with the editor's confirmation bias. It's hard to assume good faith here when biased editors try to paint themselves as objective here.

I wouldn't have initiated this topic, and I don't want to object this revert, but I'm for transparency and ensuring there's no disingenuous behavior on sensitive topics like cults. However, if Juan Linietsky, the lead developer of Godot, openly admits that Godot is being called a cult, I think that the Godot community should celebrate this as a sign of success, if they really see it that way. Xrayez (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent defensive responses, I'd like to add that I'm well aware of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies by now. Tweets can be regarded as reliable sources, and there are numerous examples across Wikipedia articles that can support this view. Ultimately, decisions are made through consensus. Unfortunately, biased editors may even reach a consensus that unfairly labels independent, reliable sources as affiliated and unreliable. That's why I'm hesitant to object to such decisions, but it would be remiss of me to remain silent. Xrayez (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, this is becoming tendentious. I removed it when I noticed it. If you mentioned it earlier, I must have missed it, since you absolutely refuse to be concise for some reason. If you don't object to the edit, this is a colossal waste of time. We've already been over this. See WP:DUE, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, WP:FART, WP:TLDR etc. Grayfell (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think you're going overboard here? If you label my behavior as tendentious (or whatever your insinuations may be), I also have every right to address your problematic behavior here, not necessarily the edit itself. You conveniently ignored other points I've raised about your behavior. Xrayez (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have "ignored" them because nothing you've said needs my response and I certainly don't owe you more of an explanation than I've already provided. This talk page isn't a platform for unrestricted free speech, nor a forum for discussion, nor a platform for airing of grievances, it's for improving the article. If you have a problem with my edits, take it to a noticeboard such as WP:ANI, but be mindful of WP:BOOMERANG. Those noticeboards will require you to be more succinct and your own WP:COI edits will come under scrutiny. These veiled insults and insinuations are not appropriate, and hiding your insinuations behind false civility by speaking of "biased editors" in the abstract is not persuasive. Grayfell (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so your insinuation of my editing being allegedly tendentious is acceptable and not offensive in any manner. However, when I point out your bias as an editor who has been actively involved in editing Wikipedia's article about Godot for years, providing diffs to your prior edits as evidence, suddenly those are perceived as veiled insults and inappropriate insinuations...
Then don't be a fanatic, namely Don't over-guard articles, and stop replying. The only reason why I mentioned you in this topic is because it is polite to do so. Let others judge. I never implied that you're ought to explain anything. My task here is to bring your revert to light, the information that was there for more than a month until you decided to revert it. I also have no intention of bringing your behavior to the noticeboard, as I have no desire to indulge your illusory superiority. Perhaps the next person in this situation will do that, I don't know. In either case, you should realize that nobody can manufacture consensus, including you.
Additionally, I never said I don't object to your decision – don't put words in my mouth. I have no desire to object to your revert. Your condescending behavior makes it difficult for me to express my objection to your revert, despite having valid reasons for doing so. The problem here lies in your behavior as an extremely biased editor, including your indiscriminate use of random Wikipedia guidelines that you throw around in an attempt to make a point.
Finally, perhaps you happen to have a short attention span that doesn't allow you to read and comprehend long topics. If so, then let others chime in. For example, WP:TLDR that you linked contains this: It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing, and Being too quick to pointedly mention this essay may come across as dismissive and rude. Preferably, create a section on their talk page and politely offer advice there. If you were to be collaborative, you'd use my talk page to offer an advice on being concise, but you don't do this, and instead use it as a tactic to dismiss dissent. At the same time, long comments is not the root cause of the issue here. Given another person, I wouldn't even have to write long comments, as our interaction would be based on a sense of collaboration rather than the us-vs-them behavior that you exhibit here.
There's no need to respond. Again, let others reply, don't stifle the discussion. Xrayez (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you stated you wanted other people to reply, I agree with Grayfell here (and other editors previously upthread); the way I see it, you have bones to pick and this is not the appropriate place to do so. And in any case, a tweet by the lead developer of the engine is a primary source. Primary sources should be used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access. Saying that Godot is frequently called a “cult” is a subjective judgement and doesn’t fall under that. ― novov t c 00:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it's not surprising that you agree with Grayfell, as Godot is listed in the "Frequented pages" section of your profile, @Mir Novov. However, your statement of "having bones to pick" is a rhetorical device equivalent to "having an ax to grind," a phrase frequently employed by followers of Godot like yourself, as discussed in the Criticism section. I specifically addressed this problematic behavior in advance. You question my motives, and it wouldn't be a big problem, but you employ an ad hominem with this rhetorical device to dismiss my arguments that I've raised. To follow along Grayfell's logic that he pointed out in the Criticism section: if reliable sources do not support this, neither should you on this talk page, in accordance with WP:BLP, especially when my nickname is associated with my real name. Regardless of whether I have a WP:COI or not, I expect people to critique my arguments rather than my character or motives. I have not started this.

Saying that Godot is frequently called a “cult” is a subjective judgement and doesn’t fall under that.
— User:Mir Novov 00:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is your interpretation. Juan didn't imply frequency. Here's what he actually said:

I find surprising that many users of commercial software feel annoyed and threatened by FOSS to the point of despectively calling it a “cult” or a “circlejerk”. Seen it with Linux, Firefox, Blender and now Godot. If you don’t like it, no need to be unpolite. Live and let live..

— Juan Linietsky
There are two aspects: the fact that Juan said this, and the fact/opinion that Godot is being called a cult. Which one do you refer to? Wikipedia permits statements of opinion, and the accuracy of the Godot co-founder's opinion can be verified through secondary sources.
You said that Primary sources should be used only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access. It's a fact that Godot is being called a "cult" and that can be verified by any educated person. If you don't see it that way, this is your subjective evaluation. Some Godot followers even see this aspect as net positive, such as "lovable cult", "preaching the gospel of Godot", etc. Whether Godot is a cult may be up to a debate (and we're not debating whether Godot is a cult here), whereas Godot being called a cult is a fact that can be easily verified, as confirmed by Juan himself.
This is "encyclopedically significant" in Grayfell's terms because it signifies success of Godot as an open-source project according to Godot followers themselves, especially when Juan "seen it with Linux, Firefox, Blender and now Godot" (from the source that Grayfell reverted). I can provide other sources to solidify above, upon request. The question is: are you really interested in this and want to act in a collaborative way, or are you here for gatekeeping purposes? This is a rhetorical question.
Juan will be delighted to discover that his statement is merely a subjective judgement. 🙃 Xrayez (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xrayez I encourage you to drop the stick. I agree with the others above that citing this tweet for this ultimately trivial information isn't an appropriate or useful addition to the article. Let's move on to more important things. Sam Walton (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Samwalton9 Other Wikipedia articles on IT topics, such as Mac, contain references like The Cult of Mac, so such information is not trivial. Given the context of the existing Community section and the volunteer-driven nature of Godot, this is appropriate and encyclopedically significant. Also, keep in mind that I'm well aware of your close association with Godot as an administrator on Wikipedia. I'm able to supply equivalent sources for Godot and we can evaluate them, so why not ask questions instead of suggesting to drop the stick? Why should Godot be an exception? Xrayez (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xrayez The Cult of Mac is a published secondary source which could reasonably be considered a reliable source, unlike a single tweet. "I'm well aware of your close association with Godot as an administrator on Wikipedia." is a nonsensical statement. Bringing this back to your main argument - do you have reliable secondary source coverage of a Godot 'cult' or not? Not a tweet, not someone's blog, but something akin to The Cult of Mac? That's all that matters. Sam Walton (talk) 19:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm well aware of your close association with Godot as an administrator on Wikipedia." is a nonsensical statement.
— User:Samwalton9

As an administrator on the English Wikipedia, you have an WP:APPARENTCOI, since you have previously used Godot (this is easily verifiable, if you want me to provide evidence, I can do this). You also promoted and advocated for Godot on social media. Don't be a fanatic, this is especially relevant in the context of cultish communities. As an administrator, it is your responsibility to fully disclose those predispositions if you choose to engage in talk pages and edits on the Godot topic despite having COI and administrative powers, otherwise an "encouragement" to drop the stick reads more like an act of marginalization and over-guarding, such as your recent revert of my addition: Special:Diff/1174325864. Most of those sources are secondary, yet you don't recognize them as such, so you won't accept a secondary source on the topic of cults either, since it is "ultimately trivial information" for you anyway. You are also being too certain on what is considered important. I'm not going to engage with you on this topic anymore, you lack objectivity here. End of discussion. Xrayez (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xrayez: I have never touched Godot in my life, except via playing games made with it (e.g. Deponia), but I'm fairly sure I've played more games made with Unity, Unreal and AGS. And I agree that this clearly doesn't belong if the only source we have is a tweet. Nil Einne (talk) 18:09, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really matter. If reliable, independent sources were to exist describing Godot as a cult, such information would never be added to this article; they would come up with various excuses not to include it, they would label it as unreliable. However, if you're curious, you can check out my COI declaration at the top of this talk page. Xrayez (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It sure does seem like you're using this talk page to promote your own work. So far, the only sources you have proposed is a single tweet devoid of context. I'm keen on finding more reliable sources for this article, including more critical ones. If you know of reliable sources, propose them, but you're partially correct in that the threshold for acceptability here is high. "Cult" is a serious accusation and would need good sources. Preemptively asserting that no source would be good enough is self-defeating, and also casts aspersions. Grayfell (talk) 21:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions seem far from collaborative and more akin to alienation. Just as I said multiple times throughout this talk page, if you find my behavior inappropriate, please don't hesitate to bring it up on a noticeboard. Xrayez (talk) 18:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for reliable sources, removing spam, and explaining basic policies. If you continue to spam your work, I will take this to a noticeboard. The proper way to disclose your conflict of interest is explained at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#howtodisclose. The "otherlinks" fields are for "relevant affiliations, disclosures, article drafts or diffs showing COI contributions". That template is not a place for you to promote your own work via external links. Grayfell (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Association with companies, Revert of September 7, 2023[edit]

There was a revert Special:Diff/1174325864 by @Samwalton9. The stated reason is "unclear encyclopedic value". It is unclear what is unclear specifically, as coverage is provided by secondary sources. A concern of whether Godot leadership is involved in commercial companies (having potential conflict of interest) is substantiated by secondary sources such as:

For anyone suddenly worried — Godot Engine remains community built, owned and run and will continue to be. This is just a few of their team hoping to keep pushing open source to the masses of developers out there.

The source does not explicitly state that Juan Linietsky and Rémi Verschelde represent Godot PLC (leadership of non-profit Godot), but it is clear from other sources that W4 Games is co-founded by them. This pertains to other companies co-founded by Godot PLC, such as Lone Wolf Technology, Prehensile Tales B.V., Ramatak Inc. There exist noteworthy evidence of these companies directly affecting Godot (promotion of Lone Wolf Technology via Godot's documentation, editor binaries for Windows are code-signed by Prehensile Tales B.V., etc).

Therefore, this is worthy to document. What other sources are required to allow listing such companies? For example, some games in Notable video games made with Godot rely on primary sources alone, yet they are there and not removed in contrast. So why Special:Diff/1174325864 deserves immediate revert with secondary sources in them? I find it a WP:BADREVERT. This decision is inconsistent to the current status of the article. Please provide the substantive rationale for your reversion, @Samwalton9. Xrayez (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Xrayez Given your stalker-like behaviour in the section above, I have no desire to engage with you further on this talk page. Reinstate the edit if you wish. Sam Walton (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I block consensus on that, at least as worded, and will revert if it is reinstated without consensus. It could be adjusted to meet WP:NPOV, perhaps, but only if consensus can be reached without the battleground attitude and wikilawyering. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think W4 Games merits inclusion (though in a manner more consistent with other articles), as that was founded by the project leads as a commercial enterprise to do console porting etc. and is pretty closely linked. But I don't see a reason to list every other company that has a Godot contributor; we don't do that on other OSS projects, e.g. Linux kernel, WebKit, or Kubernetes. These generally lists some companies but only those that are notable, and most of the companies of Godot contributors are, with all due respect to them, pretty minor and not really mentioned anywhere. ― novov (t c) 08:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't see a reason to list every other company that has a Godot contributor;
— User:Mir Novov

@Mir Novov Yet the companies I listed are not co-founded by mere contributors. They represent Godot PLC as per Governance. The Board of Directors, aka Godot PLC, should be treated equally. Even Juan Linietsky previously said that he allegedly distanced himself from the decision making process, despite remaining a permanent seat as a co-founder of Godot, read his thread. It doesn't matter who is seen as a technical lead, what matters in this context is their ability to control decisions like funding (supposedly via consensus). Another reason why I included those companies is that they refer to each other in the third-person.
Let me provide additional sources and summarize existing ones:
The list above is far from exhaustive.

I block consensus on that, at least as worded, and will revert if it is reinstated without consensus.
— User:Grayfell

@Grayfell Please suggest alternative phrasing, then. Don't block consensus without taking constructive steps. Xrayez (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you’ll find that there’s a few open source projects have founders of fancy new companies comprise some of its governance, yet Wikipedia doesn’t always list them. If they do it’s usually since those companies are notable enough to get a mention as justified by non-primary sources. ― novov (t c) 11:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mir Novov I don't want to divert the discussion away from Godot, but since you're drawing comparisons with other open-source projects, Godot strives to become a "Blender of game engines" rather than a "Linux of game engines," according to Godot users. They often draw parallels between Godot's organization and Blender's. Godot's leadership even replicates Blender's structure, such as the Godot Foundation versus the Blender Foundation, both of which are Dutch nonprofit organizations (Stichting). The reason why Wikipedia doesn't always list associated companies is that there's no need to do so. Why? Because such open-source projects already offer commercial services officially. If you examine the Blender article, you'll notice that they list Online services: Blender Studio, The Blender Development Fund, Blender Store, etc.
In contrast, Godot offers commercial services through so-called "unofficial" companies operated by the official figures of the Godot project. For example, console porting is extensively covered in the Godot article, even though it's a commercial service not officially provided by the Godot project. Among the non-primary sources, GamingOnLinux, FOSDEM, and OpenCoreVentures provide coverage of these mentioned companies. Do you disagree? By the way, GamingOnLinux is currently cited as a non-primary source throughout the Wikipedia article about Godot.
If console porting, online services, the store, etc., are justified topics in the Blender article, why shouldn't the Godot article do the same? Alternatively, we could introduce a new section, such as Commercial Services. However, since Godot is supposedly a non-profit project, it might not make much sense (console porting is already covered though). Nevertheless, listing associated companies is the least we can do here, which is why I chose to go with Associated Companies.
What are your criteria for justification? Please be specific. Xrayez (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As before, this starts with reliable, independent sources which are still sorely lacking. Unless I missed it, none of the four companies mentioned in the disputed edit are independently notable, and the only independent source used in the initial edit was the Gamingonlinux one. (Comment sections are user-generated content and should only be cited in unusual cases, almost always with attribution). If we accept that that source is reliable (which is debatable) it's still short and padded enough to justifies maybe a sentence or two, but without any of the editorializing language. Listing these companies in this way is imparting a level of importance that is not supported. Of the above sources, press releases, personal or corporate blogs posts, routine event listings, tweets/toots etc. should not be used to demonstrate notability at a stand-alone article, so they cannot be used to imply notability here. The only potentially useful source here is the GamesIndustry.biz one, which is a passing mention in the context of console ports. I don't think a single sentence, presented as an aside, is weighty enough to bother with, but if the source is used for this, it should be in that same context to preserve neutrality. To combine sources to say something that none of them do on their own is WP:SYNTH, as has already been mentioned many times.
Just for clarity, I have a lot of concerns with how the 'free software' movement became the 'open-source' movement, which I've heard referred to as "openwashing". Godot and the companies adjacent to it could be part of that, but for Wikipedia's purposes, this would only belong here if much better sources can be found. Throwing every source possible at the wall to imply-without-saying that this is a grift or a cult or whatever is self-defeating, as it just makes the article look petty without any obvious justification.
If you intend to respond, please stop pinging me with every quote. Talk pages are intended to be discussions, not formal debates, and this adversarial debate-like approach is not conducive to a collaborative project. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell As I said, please suggest alternative phrasing to my original edit that incorporates everything you've said above, eliminating any WP:SYNTH and adjusting to WP:NPOV according to your vision based on sources I listed above, including this one (that you overlooked), which notably covers all four companies. I don't want to be pounding sand whenever you move the goalposts. In the absence of constructive steps, your comments such as "I block consensus," "battleground attitude" and "adversarial debate-like approach" constitute WP:STONEWALLING, namely baseless accusations of tendentious editing, or battleground mentality, or making TLDR or DE/IDHT posts, so I don't want to bring you rocks without an end. Do the work, otherwise, I encourage you to take the dog for a walk. Xrayez (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one company which seems to have some independent support, W4 Games, has already been added, and I have already adjusted that wording. I did not overlook the OpenCoreVentures source. It is a routine corporate blog post. As I said, corporate blog posts are not useful for this purpose. If you have additional sources, propose them, but, as I said, without better sources this doesn't belong. The synthesis issues cannot be trivially adjusted away without better sources. I have already explained this issue multiple times.
As I said, if you think my behavior is inappropriate, feel free to take it to a noticeboard. I trust that those uninvolved editors would not, based on this discussion, think I'm the over-invested one here. By the way, I never mentioned DE/IDHT to you. Maybe that was some other editor. Grayfell (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I won't provide additional sources until we discuss current ones, which I find sufficient. Unlike other sources on this topic, Open Core Ventures interviewed both Ariel Manzur and HP van Braam. Have you read the "Funding an Open Core Engine" section? And why do you make a distinction like a "corporate" blog post to begin with? Why is this distinction necessary in your justification? Many reliable sources originate from corporations. Xrayez (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RS "Articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Open Core Ventures is not independent, and I do not accept that it has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking. As a primary source it's a self-published source, or to put it another way, a blog post put out by a company. This is the normal standard for sources on Wikipedia, as explained in many of the policies and guidelines already linked above. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rearranging history section[edit]

This edit rearranged the history section to move individual versions subsections under a 'version history' section, and merged info on 'Grants and awards' into the main history section. The recently added content about the Software Freedom Conservancy and W4 Games was not specific to Godot 3, so this clears that up and avoids conflating this with info about specific version changes. The info about these grants is arguably a bit more tedious now, but I'm not sure what to do about that. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems good to me. To be honest, some of those grants could probably be removed or just turned into a list (Godot has received grants from X, Y, and Z), we don't list every random grant for Blender, Python, etc and it smacks of WP:PROSELINE. I'd definitely keep the Epic grant prominent though as that was talked about quite a bit at the time as theoretically it's a competitor (even though in practice they occupy quite different segments of the game engine space which is probably why Epic did it, but this sort of speculation would need an RS). ― novov (t c) 04:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They are not competitors (even Juan Linietsky said that they don't compete with Unity or Unreal multiple times). The managing director of W4 Games (console porting for Godot), Pablo Selener, co-founded by Juan Linietsky and others, previously worked at Tesla and Epic. According to Juan Linietsky himself, he and Pablo worked on a game in 1996 in Borland Pascal for DOS. The book Video Games Around the World also mentions that Juan and Pablo worked on a game for Game Boy Advance "Nuku" in 1997. There are other connections with OKAM Studio (Godot) and Epic, such as Martina Santoro, UE Evangelist, founder of OKAM Studio and former president of ADVA, Association of Video Game Developers of Argentina, that "work to promote the growth of digital and interactive entertainment produced in Argentina," (Godot co-founders are also from Argentina), and Juan Linietsky participated in early ADVA mailing lists. In either case, Epic grants are certainly notable. See also:
Xrayez (talk) 09:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stated I agreed with keeping Epic in particular, it’s more of the some of the other companies that might not warrant mentioning IMO. FWIW, I don’t think those connections you pointed out really mean much as it’s quite normal within software to jump to different platforms/companies; there’s bound to be some overlap as Unreal is quite popular. ― novov (t c) 10:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All companies that you removed were notable. Why delete? See Special:Diff/1174740816. Please provide the substantive rationale for your reversion, @Mir Novov. I restored Kefir by adding additional sources to justify the inclusion of it (Gaming On Linux, Linux Magazine), but you reverted that as well, see Special:Diff/1174746483. Are you trying to manipulate information by concealing Russian (Kefir) and NFT (OP Games) companies that sponsor Godot Engine? Xrayez (talk) 12:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ONUS and WP:ASPECT. Even with these removed, there’s still far more info on the companies that donated than pretty much any other open source software article; if anything, the article is still unbalanced towards them. If every donation by a company is included; the article will eventually become unwieldy so it’s best to draw a line in the sand by limiting to companies that have articles of their own. The same metric is used for games made with Godot in this article, and in plenty of other places across Wikipedia. ― novov (t c) 12:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mir Novov What you say makes sense on the principal level, but does not apply to our concrete situation, please don't generalize this. Kefir is talked about by companies such as Unity, see Kefir: A Unity developer case study, hence Kefir is notable. Would you disagree? Xrayez (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Unity.com source is not independent, and per wide-spread consensus, non-independent sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability (as explained at WP:GNG and elsewhere). Grayfell (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell @Mir Novov Which of the following sources are independent as per your evaluation? Do they demonstrate notability?
Xrayez (talk) 11:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are press releases or churnalism derived from press releases which are not independent.
But yet again, all sources must be evaluated in context. This makes your question somewhat loaded. The issue at hand is that not every grant, even if it can be sourced, necessarily belongs in this article. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and we are not a press-release service. The reason I started this discussion was, in part, to figure out how to refine this part of the article to be more useful to readers. Listing every single grant doesn't seem useful, and some grants are more important than others, so where do we draw the line?
Passing mentions and routine coverage do not demonstrate notability even if the source's outlet is generally reliable. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and specifically WP:CORPDEPTH for more on this. For example, the first GamingOnLinux source you mention is borderline for reliability and says very little about Kefir itself. The source mentions only its name, the name of three games it developed without any context, and the moderate amount of money the company donated. The Linux Magazine one seems more reliable, but it says even less about Kefir. If this one grant is important enough to mention even though the studio isn't important enough to have an article, we should at least be able to explain to readers why this grant is so important. Grayfell (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you implied, it is not necessary for companies to be notable given the importance of the grant. The perception of the grant's importance by reliable, secondary sources is what matters. For instance, Linux Magazine mentions both Epic and Kefir in the same line, showing their significance by association. According to previous versions of the article, Kefir granted $120k to sustain Godot's development, while Mozilla granted $20k in contrast, all while the Mozilla grant lacks secondary sources to signify importance of the grant, not the company.
The purpose is not to list every single grant received by Godot in the past. In almost 10 years of Godot's open-source existence, only a few companies, including Epic, Meta, OP Games, and Kefir, have provided six-figure grants, so it doesn't make sense to exclude OP Games and Kefir. Given the existence of reliable sources for both OP Games and Kefir, just like other companies with equivalent sources such as GamingOnLinux (which you labeled as "borderline for reliability" despite GamingOnLinux being predominantly used by Wikipedia's article about Godot as a reliable source already), removing them would only demonstrate editor bias, an attempt to disassociate Godot from Russia and NFT, which is unacceptable.
@Grayfell @Mir Novov Unfortunately, I haven't received any convincing arguments from you to support the removal of Russian Kefir and NFT-focused OP Games. In fact, Kefir has donated $120k to Godot, which is the second largest donation after Epic's $250k. This is a significant contribution. It's not as if Kefir is laundering their money through Godot, if this motivates you to engage in stonewalling. Ironically, money laundering would certainly be significant to mention if such sources existed. There do exist sources which expose Godot's bias towards Russia, such as Juan's tweet. Also, Kefir claims to be friends with Godot. While sanctioned Russia is not directly relevant to our topic, I only mention this in an attempt to understand your contrarian attitude. In either case, it is not for us to judge those unrestricted grants, we are simply editors. The goal of Wikipedia is to summarize.
Perhaps @SakuraMiyazono can provide some perspective, see Talk:Godot_(game_engine)#Do_we_need_to_add_"Epic_games_donated_xx,_Mozilla_donated_xx"? started two years ago. Xrayez (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this one grant is important enough to mention even though the studio isn't important enough to have an article, we should at least be able to explain to readers why this grant is so important.

@Grayfell As an experienced Wikipedian, do you dare to claim that Kefir's $120k, which is the second largest contribution after Epic's $250k, has little importance to Godot? Xrayez (talk) 19:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your stated approach to WP:RS is at-odds with mine, and doesn't match my understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for reasons I have already explained in details multiple times. Citing tweets and yet more blog posts only weakens your position, here. Nobody here is claiming that the grant didn't happen, nor that Kefir wouldn't bother to post a couple of sentences wishing Godot a happy holidays.
"Six figures" is an entirely arbitrary cut-off point, whether US dollars, euros, or rubles.
But yes, I dare to claim that. As I've said many, many times, importance is decided by sources, not editors, and weak sources mean less importance. One of my main areas of activity on Wikipedia has been to remove excessively promotional content, and this edit is consistent with that. The article should not artificially promote Godot, Kefir, or Epic. Epic is a notable company which famously throws around many millions of dollars in an attempt to build goodwill. I don't personally think Epic's cynical and relatively puny donation to Godot belongs in this article, but sources are barely sufficient that I accept it's likely to remain for now. I know when to "pick my battles" in other words. Non-profits exist via donations and grants, and we don't, as a general rule, list every transaction by a company unless reliable sources indicate why it is important. Our goal is to provide context, not to rebroadcast PR. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said many, many times, importance is decided by sources, not editors, and weak sources mean less importance.

Repeating this "many, many times" does not refute my concrete arguments. You are denying the quality of sources provided by focusing on and cherry-picking those sources that are allegedly weak in an attempt to refute my position, saying something along the lines of "some sources are bad." Which ones exactly? You're not being specific. Repetition and denial is covered in WP:GASLIGHTING.

But yes, I dare to claim that.

Claiming that Kefir's grant, despite being the second largest after Epic's $250k, has little importance to Godot, goes against claims of reliable, secondary sources. This is extremely biased and, quite frankly, delusional.

I don't personally think Epic's cynical and relatively puny donation to Godot belongs in this article, but sources are barely sufficient that I accept it's likely to remain for now. I know when to "pick my battles" in other words.

@Grayfell It appears that you have a strong anti-corporate sentiment, taking into account our previous interactions here. Explain why the $20k Mozilla grant important to mention with barely sufficient sources, while ignoring Kefir's $120k grant with several reliable, secondary sources backing it up. We have already established that it is not necessary for companies to be notable given the importance of the grant itself.
Why is @Mir Novov remaining silent? You are the one who removed Russian Kefir and California-based OP Games. Should I interpret your silence as agreement with what @Grayfell claims, @Mir Novov? Xrayez (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've reached the end of this discussion. We have already established that it is not necessary for companies to be notable given the importance of the grant itself. - No, we have not established that. If you cannot or will not acknowledge what I am saying, and instead start accusing editors who don't agree with you of 'gaslighting' and being biased and delusional, then you are not assuming good faith. Go ahead and accuse me of "stonewalling" yet again, but if you cannot act civilly there's nothing more to be said. Grayfell (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have not established that.

What did you mean by this, then?

If this one grant is important enough to mention even though the studio isn't important enough to have an article, we should at least be able to explain to readers why this grant is so important.

Xrayez (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mir Novov your reverts are disruptive, see Special:Diff/1174740816, Special:Diff/1174746483, Special:Diff/1176541963. When I repeatedly asked your rationale here, you remained silent, and I haven't heard any convincing rationale from Grayfell either, as he refuses to continue the discussion by basically labeling it as stalled, and he ignored my question. I have explained that such behavior constitutes WP:STONEWALLING. Xrayez (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus among the majority of editors is to not include that information. You may deem Grayfell or I’s justification insufficient, but we can’t keep discussing this forever, see WP:DEADHORSE. I don’t see my behaviour as stonewalling; I saw Grayfell had stepped into the discussion, so my responses would be redundant
I see no compelling reason why these donations should be listed when the majority of OSS articles don’t go into detail about random grants; this has clearly been a conclusion reached by the many many editors that have written those articles over many years. Everything you have said about the sources above could also be said about articles covering the many donations the Python Foundation receives. There is nothing that differentiates this that can be backed up by reliable sources. ― novov (t c) 12:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For future editors: novov, also known as Mir Novov, exhibits a pro-Godot bias, as evident from his frequented pages in his Wikipedia profile. Another bias appears to be associated with Serbia, as indicated by his editing history of Coat of arms of Serbia and Montenegro. These connections may explain why he refuses to acknowledge the second largest grant from Russian Kefir, as it might "tarnish" Godot's image due to Russian invasion of Ukraine. You can also refer to Russia–Serbia relations for further context. He also removed other Russian-related contents from Wikipedia article about Godot. Let me remind that Mir Novov deleted the mention of Russian Kefir, I'm not proposing to add it, I oppose his removal of information that was there for years, until Mir Novov decided to "clean up" the article from anything related to Russia. Xrayez (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Xrayez: you have an undeclared WP:COI (mentioning it somewhere deep in a talk page is not a proper declaration). Please declare accordingly. Secondly, the guidelines state "COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead." You may believe your edits are justified, but a COI can blind one to ones own bias. Judging by your responses above and attempts to smear other editors when they disagree with you, the COI statement that "Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing" seems to apply in your case. Greenman (talk) 13:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Greenman Could you please answer the question: Is the phrase "you have bones to pick" considered smearing? Xrayez (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, removals to articles can be decided by majority consensus; this is far from abnormal, again see WP:ONUS and WP:ASPECT. And me editing articles related to a topic, even frequently, is not evidence that I'm biased towards said topic. I see no point in continuing this discussion further; if you have issues with my behaviour, please raise it at the appropriate dispute resolution venue. ― novov (t c) 00:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that I have "bones to pick", please raise it at the appropriate dispute resolution venue. Xrayez (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have browsed enough of your book to know that you do have a bone to pick with Godot's team. It's frankly very strange for you to insinuate otherwise, since on this talk page you accuse Godot "members" of having "collective narcissism". Above, you accuse me and other editors of a litany of bad behavior, including being biased, having conflicts of interest based on unrelated edits, 'gaslighting' etc.
If you are still insistent on adding this content, you will have to, at minimum, address what we are actually saying without these personalized insults and loaded questions. If you cannot or will not do that, the next step is, indeed, a noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 21:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless your reply implies that you're okay with a compromise, as I've stated numerous times: I do not intend to add my content to the Wikipedia article about Godot. The question is, why do you bring up this closed concern repeatedly, against me? Why do you think it's fine to point out that I have bones to pick while reproaching me for the fact that I pinpoint editor bias in response to conflict of interest accusations? Do you imply that I have no right to defend myself? Do you imply that I cannot say anything about editors who clearly have a pro-Godot bias based on existing evidence? Mind you, this is a rhetorical question for future editors to ponder upon. Xrayez (talk) 12:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having a bias and having a conflict of interest are not the same thing. You have a conflict of interest for reasons that have already been discussed. Your response to other people mentioning this has been extreme. When people point out any of the multiple problems with your edits or your comments on here on this talk page, the appropriate response is not to dig through their edit history of social media accounts (!) so you can accuse them of something similar. Absolutely nothing about the single routine edit to a coat of arms SVG two years ago supports the insinuation that an editor has a pro-Russian bias! These kinds of aspersions are far, far over the line. Grayfell (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that my behavior is problematic, please raise it at the appropriate dispute resolution venue. Xrayez (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
very surprised that this guy isn't blocked yet, you guys have the patience of a saint 2001:4451:42A:4500:8AA6:34FB:53DC:FFFA (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why are such personal attacks allowed on this talk page? I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is a collaborative platform. Disagreement is okay, as long as it doesn't get personal and you don't see other editors as enemies, as it written in WP:COLLAB. Xrayez (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Godot vs. Unity[edit]

Recent Unity pricing changes have led to an increase in interest in Godot, without a doubt. However, recent edits demonstrate unsourced claims that do not align well with WP:NPOV and contain WP:WEASEL, such as This led to renewed interest in Godot from many developers, as an alternative to Unity. In contrast, several sources exist that state Godot is not the new Unity, along with criticisms from Unity and AAA developers, such as Godot is not the new Unity - The anatomy of a Godot API call and Godot: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. We could incorporate this information to present a more balanced perspective. I realize that these sources may not be qualified as reliable or independent by editors of this article, but in any case, the quote I provided remains unsourced, which is a problem. Xrayez (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not reliable sources for this, as has already been explained to you, repeatedly. Citing poor sources to balance-out better sources is textbook false balance. Grayfell (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You ignored my main point. I never stated that those sources are reliable. However, these sources were extensively discussed both by Godot's leadership and AAA developers. But for our purpose, I linked them as a sign that we're unlikely to find reliable sources to back up the unsourced statement This led to renewed interest in Godot from many developers, as an alternative to Unity. I have not found reliable, independent sources that state Godot is an alternative to Unity. Therefore, I suggested to remove this unsourced statement. Gladly, Mir Novov removed it: Special:Diff/1177090133. No need to be so defensive about this, again, see WP:FANATIC. I kindly suggest that you cease behaving like a boss, refrain from using WP:YOU, and reconsider your frequent use of pedagogical rhetorical devices such as "I told you repeatedly." Xrayez (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Mirror[edit]

For transparency sake, I notify editors that @Grayfell removed sources that mention Ariel Manzur, a co-founder of non-profit Godot and a technical advisor of The Mirror, see Special:Diff/1176768304. Another maintainer and several members/contributors of Godot also work at The Mirror. According to the list WP:RSP, while there's no consensus on whether Entrepreneur.com is reliable, it all depends on the context. The Mirror was featured on the Elevator Pitch, directly mentioning that they use Godot Engine. They also directly mention that they work with Godot contributors. Xrayez (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These kinds of call-out posts are pointless. Transparency is already provided by the article's edit history, which remains visible.
Thinking about it, I think mention of The Mirror should be removed completely. In context, the one source seems flimsy and does not really explain why this particular nondescript attempt at a metaverse is noteworthy. The standard here, as with other game engines, is WP:WTAF. If the product becomes independently noteworthy, the use of these sources could be reevaluated.
The Elevator Pitch appears to be a primary source for these details, since it is, by design, a platform for those within the project to talk about their product. It's not enough for this to be technically correct, we have to be able to explain to readers why it matters, and these sources do not allow us to do that. Grayfell (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Mirror does not have to be universally notable. For example, OKAM Studio is not notable per se, but it an essential part of Godot's history, which allows us to mention it in Wikipedia article about Godot. What makes The Mirror notable, in our context, is the fact that Ariel Manzur joined The Mirror as a technical advisor:
Therefore, I'm against removal of this information, and I encourage editors to restore it, along with other secondary sources that Grayfell conveniently ignores and labels as churnalism:
Xrayez (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, full disclaimer I work at The Mirror. I just wanted to say that I am also doubtful that it belongs on this page. The Mirror is in its very early stages. At least, this brief mention looks out-of-place by itself, since the page does not mention other development platforms like Ramatak or Gotm, other development tools like RPG in a Box, and other metaverse platforms like V-Sekai (there was one more but I forgot its name). It may be best to remove this mention, and hopefully in the future we can provide a more detailed list of platforms after they have matured, stood the test of time, and have shown long-term relevance in an encyclopedic context. Aaronfranke (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing up the other projects. However, I think the key point may have been overlooked. As mentioned earlier, what sets The Mirror apart is the involvement of Ariel Manzur as a technical advisor. Ariel is a co-founder of non-profit Godot and presently represents the Godot PLC. This alone adds significance to The Mirror in this particular context, hence it is very notable.
On the topic of Ramatak, since you brought it up, it's worth noting here too. Ariel Manzur is a co-founder of Ramatak, along with HP van Braam, who is not only involved in Godot as a plumber but is also a member of Godot PLC. W4 Games is already covered on this page for similar reasons—it's owned by Juan Linietsky and Rémi Verschelde, who happen to be the lead developer and project manager of Godot, respectively.
Additionally, it's important for transparency regarding your association with Godot. You haven't mentioned that you are a Godot maintainer, @Aaronfranke. This raises concerns about a potential conflict of interest, which should be disclosed as per WP:COI.
All above is important to mention for transparency reasons. Xrayez (talk) 12:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really feel that this reasoning for inclusion holds up. If The Mirror was notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, then it may be worth mentioning, but as of right now, this is basically a piece of trivia.
Ariel Manzur's involvement doesn't really make this any more appropriate for this article. If Jimmy Wales announced that he was the new CFO of Tumblr, you wouldn't include that in the article for Wikipedia.
It's also very strange for you to bring up Aaronfranke's potential COI for being a Godot maintainer, when you made an entire topic (directly below this one) arguing that being a Godot maintainer doesn't give you a conflict of interest, and even went so far as to remove your own COI disclosure. I'll be reinstating that for you. miranda :3 19:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to request to that Aaronfranke also declare their COI, if they do have one. miranda :3 19:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do have a COI. I both work for The Mirror and I am a maintainer of Godot. So, lots of COI. Aaronfranke (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per discussion below, I realized that I don't have a COI because I'm no longer a Godot maintainer. Despite being a respected co-author, the leadership revoked my right to contribute to Godot's development. Unlike @Aaronfranke, I have no control nor influence over Godot's development now and am not affiliated with any official Godot matters. If you still think there might be a conflict of interest, I'm open to and tolerant of having my name visible at the top of this page. It's all in the spirit of fostering transparency. Xrayez (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest Disputed[edit]

In response to the editors' demand, I have declared my conflict of interest (COI) at the top of this talk page, including relevant affiliations. However, @Grayfell reverted the link to the book titled Waiting for Blue Robot which serves as evidence of my COI. How am I supposed to properly declare my COI if I'm not allowed to back it up with evidence in the first place? It's worth noting that @Grayfell is the one who insisted that I declare my COI initially. In other words, @Grayfell accused me of having a COI, treating it as if I committed a crime where I'm supposed to self-incriminate, and now it seems that @Grayfell is attempting to make my COI declaration vague, akin to self-incrimination without appropriate evidence.

My interactions with @Grayfell on this talk page have led me to question @Grayfell's competence and suggest a bullying demeanor. Editors could declare my COI themselves, without personal accusations and making a fuss out of it. @Grayfell constantly says, "I will take this to a noticeboard," and it sounds more like intimidation than collaboration. For that matter, I'm not against @Grayfell taking matters to the noticeboard, as long as he stops intimidating. I'd advise against such remarks and recommend either doing the job or dropping the stick. Xrayez (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this comment you suggest that an editor who is "curious" read your work. Consensus is against citing this link in the article. It's clear that you are attempting to use the COI template as a way to promote this link, which is spamming.
For multiple reasons, we rarely require editors to prove that they have a conflict of interest, and only in special circumstances. As already explained, you declare a conflict of interest by declaring a conflict of interest. That means you say in clear terms that you have a conflict of interest. The currently linked comment in your COI templates doesn't do this. Instead, In this comment you praise (your) book without saying that you wrote and published it. This comment isn't a declaration, and the book itself isn't a declaration, and combining the two isn't a declaration, either, so the only purpose for including this link is to promote it.
The typical way to declare a conflict of interest is by explaining this on your user page or user talk page, where you can provide a link to your work, as long as it isn't too promotional. Template:UserboxCOI is provided for this purpose. You can then link to this declaration in the article talk page template. Grayfell (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell You've arrived at a contradiction. Well, In light of that, I'm opting to entirely remove my COI declaration from this talk page. I'm curious to see how you plan to resolve the contradiction that you have set in motion. Xrayez (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Uh huh, what I "set in motion", right.
Regardless of whether or not there is a template, you will still have to abide by WP:COI. This comment, for example, is a declaration. Grayfell (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell Are you subtly suggesting or outright proposing that I include this? How should I interpret your reflections on this matter? Xrayez (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that you include the template with a link to one of the comments where you actually disclose your conflict of interest, and without the link to the book (which you have already linked multiple times on this page).
Part of why you have received conflicting advice is because Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on this intentionally include some ambiguity. (Among other things, this is to prevent off-site harassment.) You have acknowledged that you have a conflict of interest, and the best practice is to be open and transparent about that without promoting any specific position or using that declaration to promote any external links. Grayfell (talk) 21:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell I'd appreciate it if you could pay close attention and try to grasp my perspective. You initially accused me of having a conflict of interest. However, you've introduced contradictions that seem unsolvable. Please pinpoint the specific location, sentence, or detail that substantiates my conflict of interest. I'm not interested in your persistent claims of my alleged conflict of interest; I'm interested only in factual evidence. Your linked comment does not provide any proof of a conflict of interest. After thoroughly researching Wikipedia guidelines, I want to inform you that your complaints are either unfounded or, at the very least, contradictory. I kindly ask you not to ignore my request. Xrayez (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Among other things, multiple times you have described yourself as a "co-author of Godot" and have specifically mentioned that your name is in Godot's 'about' window. Grayfell (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell How does that prove my conflict of interest? Please elaborate. Xrayez (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've already answered your question. Per the first paragraph of WP:COI: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Any external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest. Someone having a conflict of interest is a description of a situation, not a judgment about that person's opinions, integrity, or good faith. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell The thing is, I initially chose to believe that I had some form of COI based on your assertion and your never-ending accusations. However, upon conducting my own research on the matter, I have concluded that I do not possess any COI. The alleged COI is imposed by you, which made me question my perception of reality. If you still maintain the belief that a COI exists, I kindly request you to furnish substantive evidence supporting this claim. Merely being a co-author of Godot does not place me in a position of conflict. To clarify, I'm not an owner of Godot and maintain no affiliations with Godot's leadership; I am entirely independent concerning Godot. I kindly urge you to present unequivocal evidence of any COI. Please refrain from adopting an immature or denial stance; systematic proof is all that's sought.
P.S. Waiting for Godot 🙃 Xrayez (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You were, per your own comments, part of the Godot project, and are now, per your own comments, actively outspoken against that project's current leadership. Grayfell (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell What is this supposed to mean? That's completely your subjective interpretation that does not hold any validity. I asked you to provide a systematic proof of the alleged COI, not your reflections on the topic. Per your own previous comments, asserting that I actively outspoken against the project's current leadership crosses the line. If reliable sources do not say this, than neither should you on this talk page, per WP:BLP, unless you have other relevant evidence to prove otherwise. If you cannot come up with a systematic evidence, I kindly ask you to cease your never-ending accusations of me having COI throughout our interactions on Wikipedia's article about Godot. As per your own logic, an innocent question naturally arises: how will you prove that you have no conflicts of interest or bias toward me? (rhetorical question) Xrayez (talk) 11:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, in any case, if you genuinely believe that I have a conflict of interest (COI), feel free to include the template along with a link to one of my comments where you think I disclosed the COI you believe I'm having, as long as you don't touch my user page. I don't want to continue "self-incriminating" myself any longer. Xrayez (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Criticisms' section[edit]

@ABetterTomorrow101: Regarding this edit, to be blunt, there are several problems.

First, Wikipedia doesn't publish original research, which includes novel interpretations of sources or combining sources to support novel conclusions.

This section uses informal, vague, and leading language such as "garnered significant praise", "a diverse range of opinions" etc. The s weasel wording such as "Some critics argue", "concerns have been raised" etc. This kind of language is non-neutral. See WP:TONE and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch for more.

Additionally, within Wikipedia criticism sections are usually avoided because they often introduce neutrality issues.

Any such content would need reliable sources. Wikipedia also strongly prefers independent sources. Forum posts and similar are not generally reliable. Further, while primary sources can be used if necessary, these sources need to be properly summarized. An April Fools Day post would need to be cited as an April Fools Day post, not as as a source for there being "many instances of feedback and critique".

Grayfell (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. Thanks for the pointers ABetterTomorrow101 (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ABetterTomorrow101 The project manager of Godot and the executive director of Godot Foundation answer the question about changing Godot's logo at GodotCon 2023:
Xrayez (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Godot_(game_engine)&oldid=1217989549"