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)

Godot doesn't own this talk page, so their code of conduct is irrelevant. In fact, Godot's code of conduct is irrelevant even when it comes to Godot, since the engine is available under the MIT license, which does not mention a code of conduct (as that would violate free software principles). Aside from that, I doubt that Godot would enforce their code of conduct so aggressively as to ban someone for a single mildly rude statement. I find your zealotry about equally disruptive. That is to say, not really. Dieknon (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Funny you should say that... 217.173.153.155 (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The Mirror

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)

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)

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:

• Ariel Manzur, the Co-Founder of Godot, Joins 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:

• Game From Scratch: The Mirror – Godot Powered Commercial Game Engine

Xrayez (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Update: I no longer work at The Mirror. Aaronfranke (talk) 11:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Culture in the organization

Since my edit has been removed, I want to know why the article doesn't talk about harassment and toxic culture. Even if you don't want to cite the book, a quick search on Twitter will return 100+ results of testimony. Vaquero3 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. That book isn't reliable for multiple reasons. "A quick search on Twitter" is not a reliable source, either. Similar to how we do not normally include user-reviews for movies or music, the raw number of results on social media is not automatically significant. If this is significant, that would require context, and that context must come from a reliable source. Grayfell (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The majority of the article is based on tweets. For example, the post by the Godot founder about Godot being a cult is considered a reliable source. Additionally, on GitHub (I can provide the link if you want), you can find testimonies about harassment. The issue is that you don’t want community sources on a community project. Also, the book itself is a reliable source due to the position of the author. The interest of the author is another debate. Vaquero3 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

No, the majority of this article is not based on tweets. The article cites two tweets, both for routine details which support other, more reliable sources. If you know of reliable sources for harassment allegations, please propose them. If reliable sources discuss harassment, tweets could, maybe, potentially, be used to supplement those sources, but that is extremely unlikely for multiple reasons.

As has already been explained, the book is unreliable for multiple reasons, and the author's positions do not impart reliability in the way you are suggesting. Grayfell (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I will add the full testimony by a recurrent contributor Vaquero3 (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Again, that would need reliable sources. It would also need to be explained from a neutral point of view without editorializing, loaded language, or other tabloid-style tricks. Grayfell (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

As before, we need to summarize reliable sources. If this is significant, cite and summarize a reliable, independent source explaining why it is significant. The proposed wording was far, far too vague. You cannot say in Wikipedia's voice that this is a "toxic and harassing culture" unless reliable sources directly say this, and such sources would certainly indicate how this is a "toxic and harassing culture". See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The truth is not served by vague and gossipy insinuations. Start with reliable sources, use those sources to provide context, and then, if necessary, attribute any accusations as accusations.

Including this based only on unreliable sources is also a WP:BLP violation. Harassment can be a crime, and we cannot accuse people of a crime based on original research. Grayfell (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

So if you know so much how wiki should work do your job find a "correct" source for you then when is done I will stop to edit Vaquero3 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

@Vaquero3: If you keep edit warring you will be blocked from editing. I have looked for sources many times and have not yet found anything. Since you are the one who keeps adding this, the burden is on you to find such sources. Without such sources, this doesn't belong. If you do not self-revert, this will have to go to a noticeboard. Grayfell (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I like Vaquero3's edits. Grayfell should stop edit warring. Sincerely, -Peter 21:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Charming. Why, exactly, do you "like" that edit? Are you willing to contribute to this discussion, or is this because you dislike completely unrelated edits I made to another article? Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Targeted harassment

Be aware that Godot is the latest target on the hit list of the internet hate-machine known as Gamergate. In a few days this talk page may be targeted by trolls! 46.97.170.18 (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Judging by your edit history, it seems you are the one targetting. As editors, we are only responsible with properly sourced and unbiased information as per WP:NPOV. Criticism is welcomed here as long as it's backed by reliable sources. Feel free to report/edit any unreliable sources. -Alexceltare2 (talk) 12:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe take a look at the article's edit history. It has already been vandalized by multiple bad actors. Godot is being targeted by internet trolls, because their community manager has made one post in support of the LGBTQ community. All I was trying to suggest is for this article to be protected, because it's one of the targets of the harassment campaign. The evidence is right here. 46.97.170.18 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources about forks

Should we wait for other sources to cover the subject? I only found one other source: https://tribune.com.pk/story/2499996/godot-woke-controversy-explained Ahri Boy (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, right now its far too UNDUE to include. If major reliable sources cover it, we can consider it. Masem (t) 12:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Currently, the coverage of forks like Redot, which have emerged from Godot following its recent reputational crisis, has been limited. However, the future potential is significant, and much will depend on the impact these forks have and the sources that arise to support them. Right now the only sources available are not relevant. Sergeant Batou (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no "reputational crisis", ergo, there's nothing to cover. The forks will have about as much impact as the rest of Alt-tech has, which is to say zero. The only thing that's needed here is extended protection to put a stop to the persistent disruptive editing that's been happening for almost a week now. 46.97.170.18 (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:GENSEX might apply here. Ahri Boy (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be hilarious to see the GENSEX banner on this talk page in a month and have people be confused about why it's there. No, I don't think it's justified. We don't designate the article of every single gay person as contentious, and doing it for a game engine would make even less sense. Dieknon (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that this page was already placed under ECP protection temporarily for 48h. I wouldn’t be opposed to extending this protection if necessary but what’s most likely is that the crowd will move onto the next topic du jour.  novov talk edits 21:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Not ECP but semi. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

My bad, you’ve correct. I was reading a separate conversation about extended confirmed so it was on my mind.  novov talk edits 00:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

ECP would be justified because semi cannot stop people with throwaway accounts. 46.97.170.18 (talk) 10:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I very much doubt that this fork will amount to much. given the precedent of similar attempts, and the fact that they have not even managed to change the readme.  novov talk edits 21:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"Wokot" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wokot has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28 § Wokot until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)