Talk:Demoscene

message: Perhaps the list of groups should be cut down only to notable groups that people would know, like FairLight?  Wikipedia is not a web directory or advertising platform.  To that length, listing demoparties or demoshows like Pilgrimage should also be considered to be removed; instead, a link to an updated list such as that at Ojuice would be a better fit for Wikipedia.
:: No one is going to agree who is "notable" or not, and will result in some sort of flamewar.  Alternately we should consider creating a wikipedia page explicitly for demo groups or refer to the demo groups category page. -- RaD Man
::: Indenting and signing your name on the Talk page rather than re-editing your original paragraph is helpful so I know who I am speaking with.  I will reiterate that I believe this Wikipedia entry has outgrown itself and should be broken up into fragmented pages (such as demoscene, demo groups, demo parties).  As for the Pilgrimage Demo Party, it is a fully qualified and active demoparty -- certainly not something to be confused with a short-run demoshow.  Whereever the demoparties are listed on Wikipedia, it will belong. -- RaD Man
Also, PLEASE at least try to have a clue what you're saying.  It has NEVER been 'Fair Light' and the L is not capitalized.
* This list of Demoscene groups is just that, and I'm beginning to feel it's overcrowding the point of the article.  Is anyone in favor of splitting this off into a seperate article of sorts?  Radman1 22:42, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:   This entire article should be deleted.  It has no relevance in the real world of computing or software.  From what I gather, this is some "hipster" cult of amateur programmers.  How is that relevant to anything?  But hey - what do I know?  I'm just a software engineer and programmer who was cranking out Apple and C64 games in the early '80s, and I still make a living writing and publishing software today.  Just ignore me.  These people must be important.  To someone. Somehow. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 03:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Groups 

message: I just reworked the demo types section a little bit.  I took out kilodemo; I'd never heard it before and Pouet returned one title.. I could've just as well added gigademo.  I added a bunch of -tro's.  I left "storydemo" and "ravedemo" for now.. but I doubt those two terms have been used much since 1994 or so, when the genres became more common.  Anyone else think they should go?  
Actually, now that I think about it, should this whole section be moved to Demo (computer programming)?  --Vossanova 22:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great rewrite! I'm not sure whether it should be moved to Demo (computer programming), although they should probably either be kept up-to-date with each other or have their overlapping content be placed in a single article. Personally I like the idea of one big article (this one) that basically tells you everything about all the important facts and then links to other articles for the details. It's pretty hard to decide on a good level of detail for the main article and then change all the related articles to recap and expand on them. Nmrd 06:36, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Maybe you should add musicdisks, slideshows... I dunno. I kinda formatted the Demo (computer programming) article to be more descriptive about the size aspect.Also, maybe we should make a List of demoparties? // Gargaj 10:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demo Types 

message: The Demoscene entry appears to be very popular with people maintaining demoscene websites. Unfortunately, all of them feel that their site is worth mentioning at the bottom of the main article. Should we keep them there? I have two ideas about this:
* If we keep even a single link in the main article, people will just keep adding or re-adding their links, so this article will require regular maintenance, which is undesirable.
* If we remove the links section altogether (there could be an article with just Demoscene links) we'll lose some really essential links that belong in the main article.
Any ideas? Nmrd 19:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree, it's just that most of the edits on the article are basically link additions. If it's not maintained I suppose itll end up being a huge article with 80% links. As it is it's already almost 50% of the page. But I suppose we can deal with it when that happens :) Nmrd 19:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What to do with all the external links? 

message: I don't understand why there's so many pages about this. Isn't it all the same thing? Ewlyahoocom 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds really reasonable - who's up for doing it? // Gargaj 11:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I might; I worked on that section anyway.  For now, I'll just remove the current merge suggestions and put one in that section. --Vossanova 14:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: i agree with that --MilkMiruku 15:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Proposal February 2006 

message: I guess the demoparty list would be nice to be split into a standalone list where a bit more elaboration could be spent on the individual parties. My other suggestion is splitting the demoparty defintion into Demoparty, although i dont know if there would be enough to fill the article with. // Gargaj 16:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the latter suggestion, even if the new article will be stubbish at first. There's a lot to tell about parties besides a short description and a long list, and the potential content might expand far from the demoscene point of view due to the fact that many parties are now relevant to many other computer-related subcultures as well. And BTW, there already seems to be an article called copyparty which could also be merged in. Viznut 05:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Demoparty seems to be a good idea, especially since when it's removed from this article, there'll be more space here to go into the other issues in more detail. Nmrd 07:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splits 

message: I know this isn't the right place for stuff like this, but in case you are touched by silly deletionist fights like this: the article for Schism Tracker, the ONLY semi-decent Impulse Tracker clone for modern operating systems, was recently deleted per VfD. You may still vote for undelete in Wikipedia:Deletion review#Schism Tracker. Viznut 12:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracker articles being deleted 

message: Right now the different sections are organized in such a way that it's a bit hard to follow if you have no idea what the demoscene is. My proposal to solve this is to make the article more coherent by putting the sections in a different order and letting them introduce each other. For instance:
* Introduction (top section) (=> What's this about? What are demos?)
* Concept (=> Detailed discussion: What are demos? What kind of demos are there?)
* Demo types (=> Detailed discussion: What kind of demos are there? Who make them?)
* Sceners (=> Detailed discussion: Who make them? How are they organized?)
* Groups (=> Detailed discussion: How are they organized? Where to they gather?)
* Parties (=> Detailed discussion: Where do they gather? What do they do there?)
* Competitions (=> Detailed discussion: What do they do there?)
What would basically work I think is if each section would introduce the main point of the next section. As above, the next section starts off with a detailed discussion of something mentioned at the end of the previous section. This idea would introduce a "Scener" section which I think makes sense. Also I haven't placed the "Impact" section in this setup yet. It can probably stay at the bottom where it is now. Nmrd 21:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article flow 

message: Ok, anyone has some ideas for some Demoscene templates? Maybe something with the connected main articles listed, like either Template:Suicide or Template:Analogvideo? Or maybe even some generic infoboxes for demos and demogroups? // Gargaj 18:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that we already have an article series here, so we definitely need a navigation template. Maybe one that would stick to the upper right corner (like Template:Suicide) would be visible enough. Perhaps we could also have a "footer bar" -style template for the major demoparties. Dunno about infoboxes though. --Viznut 10:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How's this -> // Gargaj 15:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Otherwise very nice, although I somewhat disagree with the platform-specific links until we have an article for PC demos: until then, a casual reader might get an imperssion of a computer subculture mainly focusing on historical platforms. It'd be perhaps OK to replace it with links to major parties. I was also worried about the link to disk magazine, because the concept is older than the demoscene diskmags. --Viznut 10:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated the template accordingly; opinions, please. --Viznut 10:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: So is it only going on the Demoscene article?  That's okay; it just seems excessive for every article related to the demoscene. --Vossanova o< 15:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for the main ones (demoscene, demo, demogroup, demoparty) but not necessarily for websites, etc. // Gargaj 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok I added the template to Outracks. Wonder if it's good enough. // Gargaj 14:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I expanded the template to have an additional parameter for platform(s). The "product(s)" listing can get quite long for some groups, so perhaps it should only include the most notable releases and a link to a comprehensive listing (such as a pouet.net page). --Viznut 07:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd vote for the side version --Viznut 08:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added to main article. Anyone up to spread? // Gargaj 09:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's now in all of the "concepts" articles. Some additional layout work might be needed for other articles. --Viznut 11:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont know, SCEEN isn't a 100% demoscene magazine and also doesn't have an article... It is relevant, but it needs to be established first. // Gargaj 14:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Gargaj said.. anything linked in the template needs to be to a Wikipedia article, not an external site.  --Vossanova o< 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates? 

message: Since dutch colour scheme sadly redirects to color scheme (without any information) I hereby request that you give it a try: original content. It needs some improvement, but I'd like to see it as an own article, because it doesn't really fit neither in color scheme nor in demoscene. --32X 16:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a joke term used only in the demoscene (and mostly just Pouet users, really), so I wouldn't give it its own article.  It's mentioned in the PC Demoscene FAQ so you can just link to that.  --Vossanova o< 16:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, at least I was twice talking to sceners about demos/intros, mentioned the dutch colour scheme and they were like "WTF is DCS?" Since it's referenced here and there I'd go for a WP entry. --32X 16:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not notable enough for Wikipedia.  Refer them to the PC Demoscene FAQ instead. --Vossanova o< 17:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dutch colour scheme 

message: Why are there so many links? virtually no other article on wp has that many.
:I'd disagree, the more time you spend reading wikipedia the more you will see there are quite a lot like that. Sure it is on the upper end though. Mathmo Talk 06:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link fest 

message: The argument that a lack of variation caused a competitive environment that created the scene is simply not true. Would it be possible at least to find a source supporting this or clarify how a lack of variation found in early computers actually sponsored such an environment?--Frozenport 19:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable Information at the "Concept" section 

message: I took the following citaton from the wikipedia in the subject Motorola_68000
"When the 68000 was introduced, 16-bit buses were really the most practical size. However, the 68000 was designed with 32-bit registers and address spaces, on the assumption that hardware prices would fall."
both model, at the begining of yout article what you mentioned (atati st  and amiga) contained this processor,
so it is not a 16bit minicomputer... i think
tnx
:Not sure what this is in relation to, and what point you are trying to make, or who you are, but the 68000 is internally 32-bit and externally 16-bit, with a 24-bit address bus, lower 16 lines multiplexed with the 16-bit data bus. Amiga 500 was a 16-bit computer and the first entirely 32-bit Amiga was A3000 with MC68030 CPU. Needless to say this happened years before PCs became 32-bit. ;-) My real question is, why is Atari mentioned before Amiga in the article? Atari was, by far, less significant in the demo scene than the Amiga. --84.250.188.136 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I've personally seen a large number of public domain 'rom" files for various emulators that contain stand-alone demos of this type. What would I need for this to be added? Would a reference to the (legal) download sites be appropriate?
LordShonus (talk) 03:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would make more sense to post such a link in Demo (computer programming), rather than here.  However, external links on that page have been removed, suggesting that one or more editors thought that the list of links was getting out of hand.  So, while it is safe to mention in the article that emulation files are available for demos, a list of download sites could be considered incomplete or subjective.  Also, demos are not necessarily public domain; they are generally free but modification and sales without permission are usually forbidden by the authors. --Vossanova o< 19:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emulation 

message: I wonder if you could assist me in proofing the Relevance of the Buenzli Demoparty in the German Wikipedia
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschprüfung#Buenzli
Thanks a lot :-)
--82.113.121.145 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Buenzli Undeletion on German Wikipedia

message: The issues specified were resolved yesterday. Today, it is tagged with more issues than it had yesterday.
Awaiting specifics, so the alleged issue can be resolved (again). Is it good practice on Wikipedia to add issues without specifying what the issues are?
Henrik Erlandsson 11:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, the issues were not resolved. There are still countless unsourced sentences on the article, which means it still has original research and unverifiable claims. Also, some of the sources listed are not reliable. --Λeternus (talk) 08:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every sentence needs to have a reference, and if any parts of the article are particularly dubious, either tag them individually or remove them. I just added a bunch of references to academic works studying the demoscene. There's not a lot of them, but some contain interesting information, in particular Reunanen's thesis (not cited yet). QVVERTYVS (hm?) 15:03, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues tags added without tagging content with issues

message: Proposed merge of Demoscene compo, Demoparty, and List of demoparties, after removal of unsourced material, to Demoscene.  These have all be flagged for cleanup for years, and it's not happening, but one combined article might actually make it to B class or better. At very least, Demoscene compo and List of demoparties can merge, leaving two aticles, Demoscene and Demoparty.  Demoparties are simply a subtopic of demoscene, and this article is not long enough (and after merge would still not be long enough) to require splitting per WP:SUMMARY. Even more so for compos; this isn't even really a proper subtopic, it's just mostly what demoparties are about.  The list of demoparties is short. If kept as a list, its difficult-to-edit table format should be replaced with normal list format. It would actually be better to reuse the material in chronological order, combined with the existing history material, to form four normal-paragraph blocks of history content (1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s).  By way of analogy, this is mess is much like having an article on Drum and bass music, and then content-forking like mad to have separate articles on Drum and bass dancing at clubs, Drum and bass clubs, and List of drum and bass clubs. Dancing, and clubbing, and dance clubs as entities are all sourceable parts of drum-and-bass electronic music sub-subculture, but it's unhelpful to micro-fork articles in this way. It leads to trivial cruft, and to unsourced, WP:COI/WP:POV/WP:OR-inflected edits, and to a fragmentary approach to coverage of the topic that makes it harder to understand for readers, and harder to maintain or improve for editors.This proposal excludes demoscene-related articles that are on distinct topics, like software, specific notable demoparties as events, demogroups as art collectives, etc.  These four particular articles are simply increasingly nit-pickily forked, lagely-unsourced stubs on the demoscene as an organized subcultural activity, which is essentially a single topic.PS: I find it perturbing that, above, there are proposals to create things like List of Assembly demo and intro competition winners, when that can simply be an embedded list in Assembly (demoparty). This fork-everything-into-the-ground approach has to stop. But do note that proposal, and the entire thread up there (among others on these talk pages, along with the few sources), illustrate the that compos are part of the parties and are thus subtopics thereof; the compos at parties like Assembly are not distinct topical entities with their own names and histories. By contrast, if I may make some further comparisons, the World Artistic Pool Championship, which is held amid the VNEA International Pool Championships for shared venue convenience, is a separate event, including for WP purposes, being organized by unrelated organizations – rather like the common practice of having a bank branch inside a supermarket or a chain fast-food restaurant inside a huge retail store. Not true of compos at demoparties.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: , go for it czar 15:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

text: Support concerning  this: At very least, Demoscene compo and List of demoparties can merge, leaving two articles, Demoscene and Demoparty. For the next step, not sure. Anyway, I think the tag is been on for too long now, don't you think? You met no opposition so far (since July 2015...). If you can work it out on just one page, I support your complete merging. I'm just afraid it's more work to merge the 4, than just cleaning up three. Thanks for that. darthbunkpakt dunfT 21:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping someone who knows more about the topic's details would do the merge. Maintenance tags need to stay until the maintenance is done. The ones to be concerned about are the sourcing and reliability ones that have been here since 2014. If the material in question is not going to be sourced properly, it should be removed promptly.  Merge stuff is a secondary cleanup matter.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that 2006. Most of the articles were completed by then. I'm sure they are reliable, but sourcing is pretty much non existent now. Times were different and editors have pissed off creators and people that care a long time ago. Just do a basic merge. All came from here originally anyway. We know as soon as someone starts referencing it, a clown can jump in not much later and remove everything that isn't sourced yet. The result will be worse. Sourcing  is not easy and harder than writing something you know all about. No need to know the topic btw. Just find good sources and see where this leads. Here's a list of the best sources. Make it one article again and ignore the other concerns for the time being. Ondertitel (talk) 03:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and merged. Klbrain (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge RfC 

message: poor article making no attempt to explain what demoscene to those who did not already know before coming here - perhaps explaining what a demo is would be a good starting point  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalt69 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The very first sentence of the article does exactly that.  Maybe you skipped over it? --Trixter (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  obscure self indulgent  twaddle  

message: We contradict ourselves: 
"...variations among demos created for one computer line were attributed to programming alone, rather than one computer having better hardware. This created a competitive environment in which demoscene groups would try to outperform each other in creating outstanding effects, and often to demonstrate why they felt one machine was better than another (for example Commodore 64 or Amiga versus Atari 8-bit family or Atari ST)."
Which is it? Is about programing, not hardware, or is it about which hardware is best? Ben Aveling 10:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  hardware independent or hardware competition? 

message: The question was seriously posed in 2018 with criteria to make a certain release a Demoscene demo ("the one that started it") and it hasn't been answered in 3 years despite lots of hindrance and some help from the general Demoscene members on Pouet.
By the criteria that make something a Demoscene demo and not a product demo, game intro, game demo, PD release or similar, it should have the same characteristics of the early demos that are not first: made for the purpose of watching it on its own, credit handles in groups, and mention handles or groups other than the authors (thereby establishing a scene). See the thread for more detailed information. Because of these criteria (see link for more details), it may be that we find the second Demoscene demo first. It may or may not reference the actual first Demoscene demo, but handles and groups that are in the scene but have not yet released. If this is the case, we will only know ever the second Demoscene demo, and this must be good enough to feature on this page, because there's no possible substitute.
Henrik Erlandsson 21:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please avoid putting a phrase similar to "first demo" in this article as it's not yet been determined - it will throw off search engines 

message: I propose merging 64K intro into Demoscene as per @Anachronist comment removing prod on 64K intro. As a standalone article 64K intro does not appear notable, but its content likely is in the context of Demoscene. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah this is so obvious that it doesn't need a proposal. The demoscene articles on Wikipedia are made of a zillion miles of WP:FANCRUFT brigading, with a tiny peppering of WP:RS. The presentation notes from Siggraph is not an WP:RS but could possibly be a situational source to back up a RS, or to have a few non-controversial specs. All those fan sites are WP:ELNO. These articles all need to be mass merged or just redirected. Countless other topics are the same way, like comics, board games, and Saturday Night Live. Thank you. — Smuckola(talk) 00:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirected in what way would be one possible solution? I am all for cleaning up wiki. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to right here. Replace all the contents with #REDIRECT Demoscene at least, as with this (WP:R). If merging, then include the WP:RS like theverge.com but not WP:ELNO because in many cases, it's just a WP:LINKFARM posed as citations. A good list of RSes is at WP:VGRS. — Smuckola(talk) 00:26, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. There is a small amount of content in 64K intro that is worth preserving in a merge. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, merge complete. @Smuckola you are welcome to remove any references you believe aren't appropriate, as I moved everything over. KeepItGoingForward (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Should https://www.dwitter.net be mentioned?
Rudxain (talk) 01:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dwitter?