Irrlicht not notable on wikipedia

Luke · Post by **Luke** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 5:16 am

Seems Irrlicht has been marked as not notable on wikipedia, anyone have references, etc. to "establish its notability"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrlicht_Engine

CuteAlien · Post by **CuteAlien** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 7:13 am

Man - I hate it so much that some stupid wiki-editors start removing more and more articles that way. This is what happens when bureaucrats start taking over :-(

Frank Dodd · Post by **Frank Dodd** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:36 am

From the notification it appears that some references need to be added, I assume a software agent is probably responsible for it.

JP · Post by JP » Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:40 am

They're rubbish on Wikipedia... a band that i like nearly got removed due to not having released any albums, but they actually had released multiple albums!

Having said that it's a pretty hard job to keep Wikipedia in order i suppose with all the crap that gets put there!

hybrid · Post by **hybrid** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:58 am

Looks like they need some external references to avoid content which is solely based on its own website. So here's the article about Irrlicht and other 3d engines from the german computer magazine iX (one has to pay for it, but it's a published reference):
http://www.heise.de/kiosk/archiv/ix/2006/9/52_kiosk
I think there had been another article some years ago, maybe we also find some more links from online publications or so.

BlindSide · Post by **BlindSide** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:16 am

This issue of South African Game Development features Irrlicht:

http://www.sagamedev.com/magazine.aspx? ... issueid=38

Courtesy of FuzzySpoon

Not sure if it's on paper per-se, but it looks professional enough.

hybrid · Post by **hybrid** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:22 am

Ok, here are two more from c't, a computer magazine related to iX. The article requires payment as well, but the Software list in the article lists Irrlicht as well:
http://www.heise.de/kiosk/archiv/ct/2003/24/102_kiosk
http://www.heise.de/ct/03/24/links/102.shtml
And here's the software link for the iX article:
http://www.heise.de/ix/urls/0609.shtml

So for referencing the articles one should add something like this to Wikipedia (together with the links):
Clemens Gleich: Game-Baukästen - Engines und Bibliotheken für Spieleprogrammierer. c't 24/2003, S. 102-107. Heise-Verlag 2003
Oliver Grau: Antriebsmotoren - Spiele aufbauen mit Open-Source-Engines. iX 9/2006, S. 52-60. Heise Verlag 2006

hybrid · Post by **hybrid** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:31 am

Ok, seems like Awards are also a reason why webcontent can be notable, even multiple nominations. So Irrlicht has been nominated for the SF community awards for the last two years in multiple categories, guess this should also help. Please find the links on the Irrlicht website.
A link into the SVN repository (e.g. the readme.txt and the changes.txt) can also help, as it's more reliably accessible than website content.
And while we're at it: The two last links from "external links" can also be used as references, as both cite from official webzines or established communities. Also, someone should clean up some things regarding the support of languages, ports to other systems, and the SDL driver (AFAIK this does not exist, it's an SDL *device* which is part of the official Irrlicht engine).

JRowe47 · Post by **JRowe47** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:08 am

pfft. If enough people agree, then Irrlicht doesn't exist. Wikipedia has seen several cases of random crap like this, and it reflects the problem with committees and "consensus." If enough people agreed, the sun could rise in the west. According to Wikipedia. I think they need to get off the notability kick, and get on the veracity, substantiveness, and relevance kick. From there Irrlicht could obviously hold its own.

Brainsaw · Post by **Brainsaw** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 6:38 am

I just checked the german wikipedia article on irrlicht (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrlicht_(Engine)), and there are some external references in ("Quellen" ... the irrlicht homepage and some other things). Maybe just copy these references could be a start.

bitplane · Post by **bitplane** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 10:28 pm

I put some of these links on the talk page but didn't yet add references and remove the notability and unreferenced tags. The article could certainly use some work but I haven't got time at the moment.

BlindSide · Post by **BlindSide** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 11:38 pm

Very nice work bitplane, it would take a huge lack of common sense to see that as "not notable"

(I seem to be into my double negatives today

)

rogerborg · Post by **rogerborg** » Tue Nov 04, 2008 10:42 am

BlindSide wrote:it would take a huge lack of common sense to see that as "not notable"

Ooh, bad news for you:

The intartubes' definitive reference source wrote: Wikipedia is also a Massively Multiplayer Online Editing Game played by experts in redundancy, skepticism, pseudoscience, hyperlinking, reverting articles, demanding reliable sources, redundancy, verification, redundancy, identifying original research and initiating subtle flamewars over what is encyclopedic.

You'd better be in it to win it.