Talk:Godot (game engine)

Irrelevant

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)

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)

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)

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)

Article Created

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

Neutrality disputed

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)

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)

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)

"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)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160206061535/http://godotengine.org/projects/godot-engine/wiki/File_System to http://godotengine.org/projects/godot-engine/wiki/File_System
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160206055951/http://godotengine.org/projects/godot-engine/wiki/GDScript to http://godotengine.org/projects/godot-engine/wiki/GDScript#History
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160206051230/http://godotengine.org/projects/godot-engine/wiki/Animation to http://godotengine.org/projects/godot-engine/wiki/Animation
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://godotengine.org/projects/godot-engine/wiki/Compiling_for_Universal_Windows_Apps
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216123017/http://www.godotengine.org/wp/godot-engine-reaches-1-0-releases-first-stable/ to http://www.godotengine.org/wp/godot-engine-reaches-1-0-releases-first-stable/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150524232219/http://www.godotengine.org:80/wp/godot-1-1-out/ to http://www.godotengine.org/wp/godot-1-1-out/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

Dynamically typed scripting language with strict typing?

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)

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)

No mention of VisualScript

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)

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)

"Godot3D" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Time to remove "Primary Sources" template?

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)

@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)

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)

Added More Contents

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Sonic Colors Ultimate

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)

notability in list of games made in Godot

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)

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)

Criticism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)