Talk:Scaleform GFx

Merge
Can List of games using Scaleform be merged into this? Neither are too long. -- Wonderfl (reply) 14:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I would recommend against it. That list is enormous and it's not even exhaustive as it is. It's not well-sourced either, and sources would clog up this article even more. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Features addition: XML/CSS I/O?
I'm removing this line:

basic HTML support for TextField objects and XML/CSS I/O support

HTML support in TextFields is covered by the aforementioned support for all major Flash display classes. I'm not sure what "XML/CSS I/O support" is expressing, and it's unsourced so I can't get any clarity. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The spin-out from Scaleform Corporation
I don't understand why the split happened. Scaleform Corporation is now just a stub of an article. The only thing we had to say about it was that it created this product, and now that this product is spun-out there's not much left. In fact that lack of notability was given as the reason for the split, but it seems like it indicates that the opposite should be the case. That is, one article should encompass both the product and the company, and the company shouldn't have its own article at all. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm responsible. Well the product is notable, not the company. And the previous version had all product info on the company page. That was weird. I split it in order to get more hits on the product page, and to make linking to the product page easier. I added notes all over the place linking to the product page (Adobe Flash, Adobe AIR, Adobe Flash Player, etc). If you can sort out the mess somehow, I'd be good. But prefer the Scaleform GFx page over Scaleform Corporation. Maybe the company info can be merged into the product page? -- Wonderfl (reply) 09:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We have examples elsewhere that do that (the article is almost completely about a product, not the company itself), but I agree that it is weird. I'dve rather seen that page moved overtop this one though, if the intention was to move the content to the more well-known name. That's not an option now because of the split. We can complete the merge totally, but that's going muddle the contribution history a bit more. I'll see if I can't dig up anything more on the company to flesh out their page before doing that, though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)