On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Steve <dior...@gmail.com> wrote: > The reddit thread is a good discussion (yes, releases are good), but > tbh I agree that pyglet doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
My view is that if it doesn't belong, then neither does PyGame.
Pyglet is the subject of multiple print resources, as well as seeing extensive use during ludum dare and some of the pyweek challenges.
I've provided a brief couterargument on the wikipedia talk page:
I looked briefly for a published book about pyglet but couldn't find one. The guidelines say "multiple books". If any of the notability guidelines are met, post here:
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pyglet-users" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/pyglet-users/-/FzuBEdq9KGQJ.
> To post to this group, send email to pyglet-users@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pyglet-users+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pyglet-users?hl=en.
> I looked briefly for a published book about pyglet but couldn't find one.
> The guidelines say "multiple books". If any of the notability guidelines
> are met, post here:
> > I looked briefly for a published book about pyglet but couldn't find one.
> > The guidelines say "multiple books". If any of the notability guidelines
> > are met, post here:
On Apr 25, 8:37 am, Kurt Yoder <kyo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can someone refute him using one of these points:
Good luck with that. From past experience, if a Wikipedia editor
thinks something is not notable enough, you're never going to convince
them it's their ignorance that's at fault.
Look at the torturous logic employed here:
"Judging by the amazon pages the books discuss doing things with the
software, not necessarily the software itself in a great deal of
detail."
So a book about _using_ a piece of software is irrelevant, what they
want is a book that talks _about_ it (which is _not how software books
are written_).
On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 8:52 PM, alex23 <wuwe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:37 am, Kurt Yoder <kyo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can someone refute him using one of these points:
> Good luck with that. From past experience, if a Wikipedia editor
> thinks something is not notable enough, you're never going to convince
> them it's their ignorance that's at fault.
> Look at the torturous logic employed here:
> "Judging by the amazon pages the books discuss doing things with the
> software, not necessarily the software itself in a great deal of
> detail."
> So a book about _using_ a piece of software is irrelevant, what they
> want is a book that talks _about_ it (which is _not how software books
> are written_).
On those grounds, I'm fairly sure that PyGame is also failing the
notability test (despite several books with PyGame in the title).
I don't have a clear picture of the way notability guidelines are enforced,
but couldn't an argument be made based on the fact that there are only 2
major Python toolkits for games/graphics development, which makes
de-listing one of them slightly more problematic?
One of the criteria for inclusion is:
"The software is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools,
high schools, universities or post-graduate programs. This criterion
does not apply to software merely used in instruction."
I'd be amazed if pyglet isn't being taught in some CS courses at
university level. Maybe this is the thing to chase down.
The package I write (www.psychopy.org) is dependent on pyglet and does
have a wikipedia entry that isn't currently debated (it was once
before but that has been resolved). I did write a couple of articles
about it for scientific journals though and the 2nd one explicitly
mentioned its dependence on pyglet:
Peirce JW (2009) Generating stimuli for neuroscience using PsychoPy.
Front. Neuroinform. 2:10. doi:10.3389/neuro.11.010.2008
I would imagine there are other packages have similar dependence and
articles mentioning it. They might also fall foul of mentioning but
not being /about/ pyglet.
I do think having a new release would help to prevent (incorrect)
claims that it's abandonware though. There are plenty of additions and
fixes that could do with being put out there. The fact that they exist
in the repository isn't enough. For example, I have to assume that
PsychoPy's user base only has access to the latest /released/ version,
so I'm stuck at that version.
