Jump to content

Talk:Defold

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Draft talk:Defold)
[edit]

Pages for other game engines only couple game names with links if they themselves have articles. In particular, I'm concerned that links to Steam, itch.io, Poki, and Google Play are in violation of WP:ELNO guidelines. If a game doesn't have its own Wiki page, then it should only have a link to a source verifying its adoption of Defold in citation format DayByMyself (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

agree, changed EttorePancini (talk) 09:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should only keep popular games that have media coverage. At first glance, only Family Island and Blossom Blast Saga are relevant. 2A00:1FA0:859:7A97:8F31:5F5F:B8E9:917E (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the LÖVE page lists games that aren't exactly famous. some point to the Steam page, others to the game site itself. I believe listing a game that proofs to use defold falls under wikipedia's Verifiability concepts EttorePancini (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. If this does not contradict the rules, then it is better to keep the original list. 93.187.180.153 (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"with several other languages available for use"

[edit]

I wouldn't use the word 'several'. as far as I know, a native C/C++ API is supported and then there are mechanisms to be able to write in other languages, such as Haxe but it is only because Haxe happens to support compiling into lua EttorePancini (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree. Lua is the only language for scripting (GLSL for shaders). ALl other stuff is more platform dependent.
HolmKønøman (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It is appropriate to add that Defold is on the list of engines recommended by Google for Android development. Link: https://developer.android.com/games/engines/engines-overview 2A00:1FA0:859:7A97:8F31:5F5F:B8E9:917E (talk) 16:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

very good point EttorePancini (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you add it? maybe at the bottom of the Notable Games section? EttorePancini (talk) 20:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe at the beginning of the entire article? 93.187.180.153 (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it'd slot in nicely at Community and Support -- something like "additional documentation can be found in third party websites that recommend Defold ..." and then cite the above link, something like this article https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/gaming/playfab/sdks/lua/quickstart-defold that talks about defold and playfab, etc. DayByMyself (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PlayFab no longer supports Lua SDK, so I guess there's no need to add that link. 93.187.180.153 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found Defold guides from the official sites of Colyseus, Tiled, Gameanalytics, and Heroic Labs all of which seem to discuss integration with their products -- do you think they would be appropriate for the Community/Support section? DayByMyself (talk) 19:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's probably a good idea. 93.187.180.153 (talk) 21:01, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong opinions. either in 'Community and Support', or create a dedicated section. the LÖVE page has a somewhat similar 'Libraries & Implementations' section (although it's not exactly the same).
Just a note: I feel like there is a difference between the article 'Using a game engine on Android' which is a (surprisingly clear and well written) tutorial on how to use defold and other guides that explain how to integrate their platform with defold EttorePancini (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Defold is also in the list of "Compatible Engines" for Facebook instant games: https://developers.facebook.com/docs/games/build/instant-games/compatible-engines/
And then there is "Defold is a full-featured, turn-key solution capable of building fast, lightweight HTML5 games." in the "More info" about it. I think it might be a great reference/proof when describing Defold's key features 66.60.96.46 (talk) 15:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HolmKønøman Do you think this should be in the article? 93.187.180.153 (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on this thread:
Recommended by Android:
I personally don't think it is sufficiently noteworthy that a specific android devdoc might mention Defold in a list. If it were an article on getting started with android games or something along those lines, I would be in favor, but docs are just too raw.
Notable Games:
Notable games section should be added but kept as bare as possible. Only games which are WP:N should be listed, which right now, might be none or just Family Island and Blossom Blast Saga as previously mentioned.
Facebook engine:
I think it is reasonable to consider adding Facebook as a sidenote under the list of export target platform, but not its own section or place in history.
Löve:
I don't think Löve is the end-all-be-all for Defold's article because the two objects are very different
Community:
While Defold certainly has a strong community, it hasn't done anything deserving of specific notability (such as a user revolt or a large community organized campaign to accomplish something unique or otherwise notable)
That's my part, anyway. Dissenting opinions welcome.
HolmKønøman (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offsite organized promotion effort

[edit]

Noting that this article has been created in response to an offsite organized effort, on the defold forums, prompted by the software's team. I strongly urge participants to shore up the sourcing if they don't want this headed to WP:AFD. The article is very reliant on primary sources and a few unreliables. There are only a couple reliable sources in use at this time. WP:VG/S has a vetted list of reliable sources and a custom google search engine. -- ferret (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I strongly suggest returning this to draft space and unaccepting it. The sourcing is very rough, and the editors involved had been offered compensation for their efforts. This is undeclared paid editing. -- ferret (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with paid work. Where did you get this information from? Yes, maybe the article needs to be supplemented with reliable sources. But your statements seem too biased. 93.187.180.153 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no bias involved, just straight facts: the developer offered compensation on the forums to the members who made the most edits to this article. -- ferret (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ferret - I will check the anti-sources that you mention. Has this been reported to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard? I am ready to revert my acceptance if the discussion at COIN agrees. Also, I attach either zero or negative credibility to a denial of paid editing by an unregistered editor. In other words, the IP inclines me to agree with User:Ferret. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon Little need to hit COIN, it's an open and shut case. The original article creator was the project's founder, pre-PROD. The second creator was a team member (who is denoted as team on their forums). The drafts created since have been prompted by a forum post by the same team member. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ferret - In that case, I will report it to COIN after the fact. I agree it is open-and-shut in view of the public request on the developer's web page for edits. This was not so much leaving fingerprints at the site of the break-in as leaving a signature at the break-in. I've reverted my acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ferret Hello - one of the editors of the article. What steps can be taken to resolve the issues you mentioned (promised compensation, potential conflict of interest)? DayByMyself (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DayByMyself The COI and promo issues are a concern, but the biggest problem is that Defold simply doesn't meet our policies for Notability. That the team continues to make overtures to their community to create the article becomes a burden on this community (Wikipedia's editors), because of the repeated efforts to create an article that simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This article has been deleted/declined/redirected over 5 times. The sourcing simply has not developed. In our terminology, the topic is very close to earning a "salting", i.e. WP:SALTING, where the topic will be locked to prevent creation. -- ferret (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the game engine industry is in turmoil due to how Unity did a rug pull last week and changed its pricing and introduced a runtime fee. This has caused significant anger among Unity users and a lot of interest in Defold. It is even the case that the European Game Developers Federation mentioned Defold and Godot as important open source alternatives which the Commission should support (https://www.egdf.eu/egdf-unitys-install-fees-are-a-sign-of-looming-game-engine-market-failure/).
This led me to think that "hey, we still don't have a Wikipedia page for Defold" and I posted this on our forum in the original thread, without considering that there was still an offer to send some merchandise to those in the community that would help create the page draft. I have removed that offer from the original community post and I sincerely apologise to those who helped to create the new draft if they only did so in the hope to receive gifts. Britzl (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for apologizing, it is well received. Still, it would be a COI for you or other Defold employees (and to a lesser extent, other notable people in the Defold community) to make any contentful edits to the page (Punctuation and minor edits are normally fine, but disclosing your COI is considered necessary). Here on Wikipedia, COI is quite broad in its effort to avoid bias and paid actors at all costs.
You and all Defold employees are of course welcomed to contribute to pages encyclopedia-wide so long as you don't have any significant bias. We're all here to build an encyclopedia after all.
On WP, pages are typically written by Wikipedians who have some considerable knowledge in the field but do not have significant bias towards the specific subject of the article.
It is looking likely that Defold is somewhere near the edge of WP:N, however that decision is not one for people with a vested interest in the subject (such as employees) to make.
HolmKønøman (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We've learned the hard way to not meddle with the process and we will not edit the page ourselves. I would also like to point out that the page which briefly went live yesterday was created by our community with no major involvement on our part. Britzl (talk) 07:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the clarification. I am one of the main contributors to the article. I am not a Defold employee, I will not be paid in any way and I will not obtain any benefit from writing the article. I use this software and think I have sufficient knowledge to write a technically correct article. I participate in the Defold forums. Is it better for me to declare this using the 'connected contributor' template? EttorePancini (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With their retraction of the offer, I don't think you need to denoted anything. However, it would be definitely best to ensure everything is clean and clear working with established editors before this is submitted again. The COI/Promo aspect was again, a concern, but the biggest issue remains sourcing for WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. -- ferret (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
> an article that simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia
I feel like this statement is a bit too strong and unfair in an unbiased Wikipedia space. We (Defold community) will work on finding reliable sources/references. Mikatuo (talk) 16:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a strong or unfair statement, nor biased. We have no opinion on Defold as a game engine, whether it's a good one, bad one, popular or unpopular, widely used or obscure. We evaluate the topic against WP:N on the basis of available reliable secondary sourcing. We (the Wikipedia community) have spent several hours attempting to help analyse and identify the sourcing that would pass WP:N. -- ferret (talk) 16:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikatuo While by the statement in isolation I would agree seems extreme and potentially biased/pov, ferret has demonstrated that regardless of any biases that ferret is willing to help the article be improved and is not disrupting but rather encouraging improvements of it, far beyond any suspicion of pov HolmKønøman (talk) 04:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HolmKønøman True.
ferret Sorry for misjudging. I was not looking at the whole picture, but that phrase alone.
@everyone involved,
Thank you all for spending your time and trying hard to help, and for well explained decisions and answers! Mikatuo (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Source analysis

[edit]

Source analysis of Special:Diff/1176018592:

  1. Sources 1-7: Primary.
  2. Source 8: VentureBeat, reliable, but an interview. Interviews are generally not seen as contributing heavily to WP:N.
  3. Source 9: Pocketgamer, reliable, but an interview. Interviews are generally not seen as contributing heavily to WP:N.
  4. Source 10: Primary
  5. Source 11-12: Unvetted source, but primary. Interviews by developer.
  6. Source 13-14: Primary.
  7. Source 15: Unreliable.
  8. Sources 16-19: Primary.
  9. Source 20: Unreliable. IBT.
  10. Source 21-28: Primary.

There are two reliable sources in use for this, both interviews. -- ferret (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a search through WP:VG/SE's reliable source search engine, I was unable to find much coverage of this engine besides a quick trivial mention. There are two things that stood out as being even remotely substantive. [1] and [2]. One is basically an interview as well, and the only reason I bring two up is because it is the only drop of something resembling reception or non-primary interview notability I could find.
I don't understand how this article was accepted, this subject fails the general notability guidelines. Unless this is taken back to draft space I am considering redirecting this back. NegativeMP1 23:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend a salt, which I believe Masem intended to do in 2016 based on the edit summary of old redirect's creation. The initial version of this article was created by the project founder, and PROD'd successfully. Masem then created a redirect, and another member of the software's team then tried to recreated it. That same team member then created a forum post soliciting promotional editing in return for game keys, which resulted in a 2020 draft that was G13'd, and then this one after the same team member bumped the offer. It's clear the COI editing will not end. -- ferret (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why not let them expand the paragraph on King into a section there? Defold seems haphazardly strewn in as is, separating it into a section with the compliment of the few VS it has would give them a chance to expand and grow their sources until they are properly N. We must keep in mind to WP:DONOTDEMOLISH a fresh article just because its sourcing wasn't yet up to spec a few hours after its creation.
There are many more reliable sources to support Defold and its notability.
To that end, I have a list of new sources to submit for consideration. I do in good faith believe all of them to be reliable.
RS where Defold is a central point/The subject of the article:
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/king-game-engine-defold-free
https://gameworldobserver.com/2020/06/05/defold
https://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/73390/king-defold-open-source/
https://venturebeat.com/games/heres-why-king-gave-away-its-2d-mobile-game-engine-defold/
ISBN 979-8649775151 book title: Documenting Defold Programming...
https://www.gamedeveloper.com/business/king-has-opened-up-and-relinquished-control-of-the-defold-game-engine
https://www.grantfortheweb.org/blog/defold
RS where facts about Defold are backed up (but Defold isn't the primary subject):
https://www.egdf.eu/egdf-unitys-install-fees-are-a-sign-of-looming-game-engine-market-failure/
https://builtin.com/software-engineering-perspectives/ethical-source
https://techhq.com/2022/08/open-source-coding-development-platform-dying-out/
sources which may not be as high quality as those aforementioned:
https://heroiclabs.com/blog/defold-partnership/
https://blog.gamedistribution.com/?p=407
https://godotengine.org/article/godot-consoles-all-you-need-know/
I know that after all the COI it can be hard to genuinely consider the subject N let alone NPOV but I think it deserves a proper chance for its article to be developed.
HolmKønøman (talk) 06:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be reviewing this list and DayByMyself's list some time today as my time allows, and I'll post back with which ones are reliable and contributing to WP:N, and why. May be a bit before I can focus on it. I want to mention again because I see a lot of them here: Interviews are generally seen as Primary sources, even when conducted by Secondary sources. As a result, they aren't independent and fail WP:GNG's fifth bullet. I want to point out The Video Game Wikiproject's vetted source list again. It's a long comprehensive list of sources that have been reviewed and accepted (or rejected), and has a custom Google search that will only look at those sources. -- ferret (talk) 13:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be a good idea to keep track of viable secondary sources for discussion. For instance (correct me if I'm wrong), https://heroiclabs.com/blog/defold-partnership/ would be a primary source, but https://gamefromscratch.com/heroic-labs-nakama-sponsor-defold/ would be an appropriately correspondent secondary source DayByMyself (talk) 07:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://gamefromscratch.com/heroic-labs-nakama-sponsor-defold/ (Heroic Labs sponsorship)
https://gamefromscratch.com/defold-and-rive-announce-a-partnership/ (Rive sponsorship)
https://www.pocketgamer.biz/news/73749/the-defold-foundation-adds-nintendo-switch-support/ (Switch port)
https://gameworldobserver.com/2020/06/24/defold-now-supports-nintendo-switch (Switch port)
Note that they quote the Defold team's statements and thus are not interviews
https://developer.android.com/games/engines/engines-overview (Android's recommendation of Defold)
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/king-makes-defold-engine-open-source (Defold goes open) DayByMyself (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll run through these hopefully shortly. -- ferret (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've compiled a list with sources from WP:VG/S. Hope this will be useful.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zwxff1zazm55VLJt6NdzmW967-_1t0kHHN40Ju5RDc/edit?usp=sharing 93.187.180.153 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis 2

[edit]

Based on the sourcing lists from HolmKønøman and DayByMyself:

Unfortunately, that leaves us with only 5 "for sure" sources to really look at. Four of them cover the original announcement that King had open sourced the engine (Yes, I understand some people disagree about that due to the custom license). Our two "questionable reliable" sources also focus on the announcement. We have exactly 1 source that does not focus on the release announcement, and that's the Nintendo Switch support article from PocketGamer. We've mentioned WP:GNG here a couple times, but this is where I have to bring up WP:NPRODUCT. NPRODUCT is what we call an "SNG", subject-specific notability guideline. Where "GNG" is a "general notability guideline", covering the high level policies, SNGs exist to narrow the scope for various subjects that the community has consensus for. For products, like Defold, NPRODUCT requires sustained coverage. Reliable secondary sources discussing the topic over time, indicating sustained notability versus some sort of one time burst of coverage. That is what's lacking for Defold. We have a burst of reliable source coverage when King released the engine, and then no sustained coverage beyond Pocketgamer.biz's one article for Nintendo Switch. I'll note we have no coverage prior to King's announcement either. WP:VG/S's custom search turns up nothing else, other than an additional King sponsored article by Pocketgamer.biz as well (King paid for it, so it definitely doesn't help.).

I'll be happy to review any further sources, but please strive to find:

  1. Reliable sources - WP:RS - News outlets and publications with clear editorial policies and staff, and reputation for fact checking. This is where simply googling can produce a lot of noise. Self-published works and blogs are not reliable.
  2. Independent sources - It needs to be independent. Not interviews, not press releases, not sponsorships or funding announcements.
  3. In-depth, significant coverage - The source doesn't have to solely focus on Defold, but it must give some significant degree of coverage and commentary specific to Defold. For example, this one, even if treated as a reliable secondary source (which it isn't), simply name drops Defold. This is a trivial mention. While this one, although I'm uncertain on the reliability, does discuss Defold enough even though the article is not wholly about Defold. There's multiple paragraphs specific to Defold and giving commentary on King's licensing decision.
  4. Sustained - We really have to demonstrate that sources have continued to discuss Defold. Right now, essentially every usable source focuses on King's announcement to release the engine under an "open" license.

I have to be honest, I do not believe this topic will meet the bar, so I don't want anyone to waste too much time on it, but I'll continue to answer any questions. -- ferret (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ferret, thank you for your such detailed explanations. I made a list with sources for this article, could you please take a look at it?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/15zwxff1zazm55VLJt6NdzmW967-_1t0kHHN40Ju5RDc/edit?usp=sharing
Also, I wanted to ask. While gathering information, I checked some other game engines that have their own article on WP. So, not every one of them has even the same level of mentions as Defold. That said, they do have their own article. Why might the approach be less or more stringent in different cases? 93.187.180.153 (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This runs into an argument we call WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The unfortunate fact is this is all a volunteer effort, and not every article gets reviewed to the same degree by the same volunteers. Some slip by. Some just have no one interested in them. There's numerous reasons why something might languish without effort until someone does take notice. New things, by the simple virtue of triggering watchlists and new page patrol, tend to get scrutiny sooner than things sitting forgotten. It doesn't mean those articles are correct, just that a volunteer hasn't had time to tackle it. I'll post review of the spreadsheet shortly. -- ferret (talk) 17:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, it's clear now. It’s just that, as an engine user, I’m surprised by the presence of less popular engines and the absence of Defold. 93.187.180.153 (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, even assuming volunteers have properly reviewed and worked on every engine, the press and news sites and sources simply "aren't fair". Sometimes they ignore wildly popular things while focusing on minor things no one (in our personal views) even cares about. -- ferret (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tackling the spreadsheet in order, as the rows appeared around the time of my reply above:
  1. Gamedeveloper, rows 2-4: Row 2 already evaluated above. Row 3 is trivial mention and a non-independent sponsored article. Row 4 is a new source here, and the first we've had presented that is before the 2020 release. It's a little light on details but does help.
  2. Toucharcade, rows 5 through 7: Row 5 gives a brief mention of a GDC event without actually saying anything about the engine, no good for WP:N. Row 6 is a trivial mention, simply that "this game uses Defold". No commentary on the engine. Row 7 is similar, mentioning GDC and that there were games made with Defold. No commentary on the engine at all. None of these three help WP:N.
  3. Venturebeat, row 8-9: Row 8 we've already covered. Row 9 is a trivial mention, that King was making Defold available for free. No coverage of the engine.
  4. 4gamer is interesting. There's a translation barrier here. This is a good source for the article to be using, but it gives every appearance of being an interview so may not help WP:N. This should definitely be integrated into the article regardless.
  5. Famitsu is similar. With translation, it blurs the line between Famitsu reporting on a presentation given by Defold and being an interview, but there's a wealth of information here, and pre-King open sourcing. These two need careful consideration.
  6. Gameindustry, rows 12-14: Row 12 is new, when King made the engine free prior to open sourcing. However, it's a very short article, 80% of which is quotes by King. Row 13 is already analyzed. Row 14 is a great source for information and details but is a non-independent interview in regards to WP:N.
  7. Igromania: Trivial mention of Defold event at DevGAMM.
  8. MCVUK, rows 16-21: 16 is another "free release" from 2016. A good find. 17 is a useful source but interview so non-independent. Source 18 is trivial, a non-notable publication award. Source 19 is the best coverage of the GDC competitions that other sources have alluded to earlier, but it doesn't really discuss the engine at all, it's more coverage of GDC. Source 20 is super trivial. Source 21 is trivial.
  9. Pocketgamer, rows 22 through 31: Row 22 is already analyzed. Row 23 is trivial. Row 24 is already analyzed. Row 25 is a non-notable publisher award. Row 26 as well. Row 27 doesn't really discuss the engine, but announces an event where King PR would be talking about it. Row 28 is similar to the MCVUK coverage about GDC competition, not really about the engine but the GDC competition. (Mentioning this in the article is fine, it just doesn't help WP:N). Row 29 is trivial. Row 30... is interesting. I'll be honest I am not sure how to rate this. I don't think it works for a reliable source, because these are just interview statements from individuals with no editorial oversight. I think this source can be used but carefully. Row 31 is trivial.
  10. Impress: This is very very similar to the 4gamer and Famitsu articles. It actually calls into question their use here. There's still details to include, but because the format of these articles are so similar they now have the appearance of a press release.
  11. Wired has already been analyzed.
Let's please use on-wiki for any further sources. Using a google spreadsheet has some privacy concerns, and also means that changes made aren't tracked on site for others to see. I'll be posting a follow up comment in a minute regarding GNG/NPRODUCT. -- ferret (talk) 18:05, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Appreciate you taking your time to analyze the sources. And I accept the claim about google spreadsheets, my mistake. I found a few more mentions of Defold on a Ru-language site about the game industry, though I'm not sure if it's a reliable source. Here are some of the articles:
https://app2top.ru/news/vy-shla-novaya-versiya-dvizhka-defold-1-5-211128.html
https://app2top.ru/biznes/belorusskaya-melsoft-games-stala-korporativny-m-partnerom-defold-foundation-170494.html
https://app2top.ru/platforms/igrovoj-dvizhok-defold-poluchil-podderzhku-nintendo-switch-167954.html
https://app2top.ru/investitsii/razrabotchiki-defold-poluchili-grant-na-podderzhku-standarta-web-monetization-v-svoem-produkte-167060.html
https://app2top.ru/industry/rossiya-pry-gnula-na-vtoroe-mesto-po-kolichestvu-novy-h-registratsij-pol-zovatelej-defold-po-dvizhku-king-startuet-gamesjam-85381.html 93.187.180.153 (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the topic of non-English sources, I found some suitable Swedish and Portuguese language sources:
Both Swedish sources are pre-open sourcing
https://feber.se/spel/defold-ar-en-svensk-spelmotor/337977/
https://www.gamereactor.se/vi-kollar-in-spelmotorn-defold-479963/
https://www.linuxadictos.com/pt/defold-o-motor-gr%C3%A1fico-multiplataforma-de-c%C3%B3digo-aberto.html
https://gamedeveloper.com.br/king-defold-engine-2d/
HolmKønøman (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Feber.se is an very trivial source, mostly primary. Gamereactor is, I believe, vetted as reliable but is another interview. Feel free to incorporate but doesn't help WP:N. What I'm seeing on Linuxadictos doesn't give me confidence it would be accepted as a reliable source, as it seems to be a independent blog. The Gamedeveloper.com.br site is a single individual's self-published blog. -- ferret (talk) 01:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On app2top, I can't make an adequate judgement of this site's reliability. Foreign sites that I can't read natively is a struggle in general for us, but I am a proponent of trying to find reliable non-English sources and getting them vetted. I would suggest posting about app2top at WT:VG/S and seeing if the experts there can make a determination. -- ferret (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


WP:N Breakdown

[edit]

Usable WP:N contributing source break down:

The picture is starting to come together. No comment on the quality of the article or whether it is appropriately written: I'm trying to ensure the most key foundation is taken care of before anyone worries about that: Is WP:N met?

At this point, I'm going to invite other editors of WP:VG project to give opinions on whether sourcing is sufficient to clear WP:GNG/WP:NPRODUCT. -- ferret (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saw the notification at WT:VG. It's borderline for me. NSUSTAINED is just about met, and technically that's all NPRODUCT requires, but the lack of SIGCOV would make this at risk at AFD I think. Only #1 and #4 in the "sources for 2016 'freeing'" really meet SIGCOV to me, with #3 in the same list and #2 in "source for 2020 'open sourcing'".
I say just about met for NSUSTAINED because this seems to get close to Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability, as depending on how you look at it, these are brief bursts over a four year period. It depends on whether you consider "brief bursts" to mean a brief burst at one point in time, or multiple brief bursts over a few points in time. If it's the former, then it's fine. If it's the later, maybe not. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable by a hair. Mentions are brief but from reliable sources, some decent coverage over time that are not necessarily huge bursts of news-centric sourcing, most likely enough to meet WP:NSUSTAINED. Judging by the fact that the sources are of higher quality than some of the other product articles that I have seen, and are not just complete throwaway mentions, I'd say borderline notable. Almost certainly will incur some opposition if taken to an AfD, but I think it most likely will be kept. The Night Watch (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HolmKønøman, can you please ensure the sources in this section are integrated into the article? I want to wait a little longer for feedback, but once these sources are used, I think a case for mainspace can be made. That said, the opinions thus far are all the same: The case is borderline. An AFD would not be surprising, and the outcome difficult to predict. -- ferret (talk) 14:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. I've added all of them and a few others, added more inline citations, and made some other changes to conform the text more to the sources cited. The article is just past 40 total sources and the works cited rivals the size of the article proper. I will give it another go tomorrow with fresh eyes but I'm pretty much done with most of what I can work with.
HolmKønøman (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait for your next pass, then ponder whether I'll mainspace it myself or recommend letting AFC handle it. -- ferret (talk) 23:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notable; The Night Watch's explanation of the matter explains my thoughts well. Panini! • 🥪 15:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was requested to comment here, FYI. I feel like I could offer good for insight on this - I'm knowledgeable about the video game industry and Wikipedia, but not really game engines, so I can respond from both an experienced standpoint, and the more "general audiences" viewpoint that Wikipedia strives to write for.
    • On the topic of notability - I think it squeaks by. I believe there's enough sourcing coverage and content to meet the WP:GNG and probably not be subjected to a WP:MERGE.
    • That said, I do have some suggestions for improvement. The better, more "normal" an article looks, the less likely it is to undue scrutiny down the line, and the article still looks rough and underdeveloped. So, these points are not necessarily related to notability, but still might be good to address:
      • I'd try to merge some of these shorter paragraphs into more generic, overarching sections. For example, the "Licensing" and "Funding" sections are extremely short, and uncommon section titles. Furthermore, they could even be seen as a bit promotional sounding, or could, over time, accumulate more promotional wording. The content in them is fine, they just should be compiled into a more general overview section, in my opinion.
      • I added a couple "clarification needed" tags. The article vaguely alludes to things like "suspicion" or "backlash" without really explaining what happened or why that reaction would happen. If sources cover it, it should be expanded. If there's no reliable sources on it, those words should probably be trimmed out.
      • I'm not really a tech person, so at times, it feels like the article goes a little bit more into the "tech jargon" than Wikipedia usually goes into. Might be beneficial if anything could be revised a little so it sounds less like an IT document, and more like someone breaking it down for their non-IT friend or something. I could be wrong though, maybe its already as simple as it can possibly be. As a non-tech person, I can say it wasn't exactly the best read. And that's the Wikipedia target audience too.
  • Anyways, those are my thoughts. Don't feel compelled to comply, but I do believe that addressing these things could help prevent future discussions about deleting the article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defold&oldid=1206916931"