Talk:List of demoscene groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Use of 'the' in names 2 Incorrect links 3 Where should the names link to? 4 Removal of links with no article? 5 Notability criteria 6 List replaced with category

[edit] Use of 'the' in names

Hi. I just stumbled across this page while searching for demogroup articles to fix links in Amiga demos. I noticed you have several groups whose names begin with 'the' listed under 'T'. Since initial 'the' is so common, it's usually ignored (or placed after the rest of the name) for collation purposes, so I think these should be moved to their appropriate places for the second word. What do you think?

Also, can anyone confirm or deny the presence of 'the' in certain names, especially for dangling links like The Silents? I would like links in different articles to be consistent. Thanks. Ddawson 18:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

• Considering that it's also in the acronyms (The Black Lotus -> TBL, The Silents -> TSL, ...), I assume that in most cases, it is part of the name. // Gargaj 11:56, 2005 August 26 (UTC)

• This is not entirely true, since The Silents were known on the PC platform mostly as Silents PC (without the "the"-prefix). Nmrd 19:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect links

I was going through the links and found a couple that are wrong/questionable. One was Rebels, which redirects to Rebellion -- clearly not a demogroup. However, I found REBELS in Chiptune, so I changed the link here to match.

The other is Darkage. That article is about a band; there is no mention of the demoscene. But maybe they were into the demoscene at one time? I don't know. So I put a comment next to the link. If they were into the demoscene, someone needs to add that information to the Darkage article; otherwise, change the link to [[Darkage (demogroup)|Darkage]]. Ddawson 01:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where should the names link to?

The current list is a mixed bag between links to external websites and articles. Perhaps they should all point to articles and have an additional weblink mentioned if it exists? Also, some groups have the (demogroup) suffix in their name, others have not. Perhaps they should all get them to avoid (future) confusion? Nmrd 19:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the original plan was ... link any group that has a wikipage within the wiki... anyone that doesnt external link them.  ALKIVAR™ 20:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that there is actually a typical style for combining article and external links (seperate links where the external ones are numbered automatically). I will introduce this method here as well. Nmrd 05:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've started a cleaning effort, with the following objectives:

• Change all links to articles. This way, it's easy to see whether a group has a page on Wikipedia or not.
• If a group has an external website, a link without text follows after the name. This link could be found on the article page, but not if the group doesn't have an article. Furthermore, I believe a list is more useful if it provides direct external links as well.
• Since groupnames often have several meanings, if necessary, the suffix (demogroup) should be added. Some links have to be changed as well because they have (demoscene) or (group) as suffix right now. Nmrd 06:18, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Question: If a group has an article (which possibly links to their homepage), is the external link still required? // Gargaj 14:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Late response :) I think it's good to have both links in the list. Normally I would just refer to the article, but in a list I think it's good to have both. Nmrd 11:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• New Link Format? I think that the names themselves should not be links. I propopose that the internal and extrnal links should appear after each name. For example: Fairlight ( wiki) (homepage) Groups without either can still get mentioned, but they don't necessarily have to have links. --/ Coplan 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of links with no article?

Do we REALLY need a silly listing with everyone and the kitchen sink? Also, maybe we want to state which groups are PC and which arent? // Gargaj 01:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree (right? agree?) that an attempt at a complete list of demo groups would be unproductive.. just try going through the list on Pouet.net! Most of these groups will never and probably should never have a Wikipedia article or even an external link. We could narrow down the list to groups with Wikipedia pages, but there's already "Category:Demo groups", so would it be redundant? In my opinion, we should either 1) Reduce this list to only groups with valid external or Wikipedia links, or 2) Delete this page and link to "Category:Demo groups" instead.

Also, this raises the argument of whether or not this list should be segregated into different platforms, e.g. "List of demoscene groups (PC)" or "List of PC demoscene groups", vs. Amiga, C64, etc. --Vossanova 20:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Segregating groups into differend articles depending on their platform of choice could be a good idea; but some groups would be listed in several articles, then. — Poulpy 12:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont think there are so many groups to sort, really, you might as well just separate the article with headers... // Gargaj 13:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all the redlinks for articles that did not have an external link attached. There are still a bunch of red ones, but I figured atleast the ones with external links provide a starting point for potential article creation. I am going to leave the tag at the top, because the article still fails the excessive link criteria.CharacterZero 01:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability criteria

It's time to establish objective criteria for including demo groups in this list. Here is my proposal. At least one of the following criteria should be met.

1. has a Wikipedia article
2. has a website with a certain page ranking (not yet determined)
3. has a certain ranking of followers/groupies on Pouet (not yet determined)

--Vossanova 18:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I agree with the general idea behind your proposal, I believe the second and third criteria will be hard too determine/evaluate (which is exactly why you haven't determined them yet :)) Here's an alternative proposal:

1. has a Wikipedia article
2. has released multiple multi-disciplinary productions, of which at least one has made it into the top three at a notable competition
3. has made a lasting impression on those involved in the demoscene

I realize that in these criteria "notable competition" and the entire third criterium will be hard to quantify, but it's the best I can come up with.

Something else: people will always add their groups to this list. It is after all a Wiki and most people will feel their group belongs in the list, regardless of the criteria we formulate. Do we intend to police this article forever? I'm not sure about the alternative. Nmrd 07:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In the spirit of Wikipedia, perhaps this article isn't appropriate. My initial reaction would be to put my own groups on this list...but none of my groups ever amounted to very much. So after thinking (hard) about this, I have to take the extreme route: If it doesn't have a wikipedia article, it doesn't belong on the list. But then comes in the idea of policing the article. I don't want to do that. I don't think anyone should have to. Perhaps we should move to simply create a category for "Demoscene Groups", and make sure that any article about these notable groups are in that category. That Said, any notable group that doesn't have a wiki page should have one.

Coplan 14:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Category:Demo groups actually exists already. But I agree with you. If we can't come up with any good objective notability criteria for this list, I would propose removing the list altogether in favor of the category page. --Vossanova 16:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. // Gargaj 19:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Criteria already was made... although it looks like it was never applied... Check out the Computer Underground Notability Test  ALKIVAR™ 01:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That criteria doesn't apply to a list of things, however. --Vossanova 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. One of the reasons I thought this list would be a good idea (and why I did the reorganizing) was to have a place for people to add their group. The risk of not having this list is having to clean up other places (like the main Demoscene article) every once in a while with group references. Nmrd 06:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, consider this list gone. I've searched for pages that link to it and have fixed them. What would be the proper way to dispose of this page? An Afd doesn't seem necessary, since we've already discussed it. --Vossanova 19:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

What about a simple redirect? --Coplan 21:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

To? The category? // Gargaj

Sure. That'd be okay. --Vossanova 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List replaced with category

As per the thread above, this list has been deleted because it became too difficult to finish, maintain, or establish rules for. Any reference to a list of demo groups should go to Category:Demo groups instead (don't forget to put a ":" before "Category:Demo groups" when linking to the category from an article. For more group lists, refer to the external lists on the Demogroup page. --Vossanova 18:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)