Talk:Demo (computer programming)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• I'm thinking about creating additional demo-related entries (BBStros, 4k/64k intros, etc...) to be able to expand on the content and give specific examples. Adding a simple overview of some of the techniques used for size-restricted productions might be a good idea as well. However, wether they all deserve their own entries is left to be seen. Comments? Nezbie 23:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

• Oops, Viznut beat me to the Demo Types merge.. I have a complete rewrite of this article coming soon (this weekend?), so don't spend too much effort changing things until then. :) --Vossanova 19:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 References 2 Article name 3 This page uses the word "nowadays" 4 Image copyright problem with Image:DemoSample.jpg

[edit] References

It seems that someone has marked this article with an "unreferred" tag. So, should we simply copy the literature section and the "scene explained" linklist from the demoscene article to every demoscene-related article, or is there a better alternative? --Viznut 07:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to add references to every demoscene-related article, but it's a good idea to have a References section for the major ones, i.e. Demoscene, Demo (this one), and Demoparty. And Demoscene already has references, doesn't it? --Vossanova ^o< 13:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

Is it just me or "computer programming" feels a) not quite fitting and b) tedious to write all the time when i wanna link? How about "Demo (demoscene)", "Demo (artform)" or "Demo (realtime)"? (Ok, these arent much better, but...) // Gargaj 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had similar thoughts - the current name is somewhat misleading. This article seems to have been originally split apart from the demo article by someone who isn't necessarily very familiar with the subject, and the name has remained the same ever since. I'd suggest either "Demo (digital art)" or "Demo (computer art)". The demoscene article has been categorized in Category:Computer art (which is a subcategory of Category:Digital art), so perhaps this would be quite a fitting context for the name as well. --Viznut 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Demo (computer art)" might be better, although they weren't really considered to be an artform in the early days. Since it's in the computer graphics category, how about "Demo (computer graphics)"? No, it's not much shorter than it is now, but it's fitting. Even more fitting would be "Demo (underground software)", but that will probably make many people cringe. :) No matter how we look at it, we're pretty much screwed with a long title, to discern scene demos from computer game demos, both of which are realtime, software, and contain programming. Oh yes, and we can't use "scene" either, because nearly every underground hobby (including music with demo albums) has a "scene". --Vossanova ^o< 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Demo (demoscene)" is probably the best option, even if it is a bit pleonastic. Not all computer art belongs to the demoscene and not all demos are programming only, so yeah. I put my vote on "Demo (demoscene)", at least until someone think of a better name. // Tobias Lind 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "demo (demoscene)". If you don't know what the demoscene is, how will it help? It's a bit vain to assume the majority of readers know about it. Plus it's a bit.. recursive.. like looking up "excellence" in the dictionary and finding "the state of being excellent". (yes, that's from a Simpsons episode..) The best solution usually seems to be putting the category in parenthesis (e.g. Doomsday (demo group) is in Category:Demo groups). So, that would make "Demo (computer graphics)" my choice. --Vossanova ^o< 16:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, but as with "computer programming" demos are not exclusively about "computer graphics", it's a combined effort between programmers, musicians and graphic artists. Nor are demos exclusively about computers (see Cellulose by Tapir, that printer demo). It's unfortunate that you sometimes have to dig deeper in an encyclopedia to get the context, but I really think that "demo (demoscene)" is the best option right now, I am, however, open for suggestions. // Tobias Lind 16:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I have with that is that this demo article is mostly intended for people unfamiliar with the demo scene. That's why I'd rather use a term for the article name that's more generic, like computer graphics. Sure, it's not all about computer graphics, but within the context of the article, it's close enough. If it were a more specific article, like "Greetings (demoscene)", then I could see it being used. --Vossanova ^o< 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That raises another problem though. Consistency, or rather lack thereof.. why should demos be "Demo (computer graphics)" when greetings are "greetings (demoscene)"? They're both parts of the demoscene. I'm still in favour for the "(demoscene)" category, because that's what it's about. You can't have big descriptions as categories, especially not when they're all misnomers. If people wanna read more about the demoscene then all they have to do is to read that article. // Tobias Lind 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

But you need a quick way of defining the term without using the term itself. If a stranger walked up to you and asked you "what is a demo?", would your answer include the word "demoscene"? Well, at least, it shouldn't. Surely you could mention the demo scene to them if you had a long talk with them about demos, but you wouldn't mention it in your first sentence. Computer graphics, art, or programming, they could possibly understand right away. But you have to tell them what a demo is first, before even mentioning the demo scene. They're not going to ask what greetings are until they know what a demo is, so they'll understand "demo scene" when they discover greetings. That's my rationale, does it make sense? --Vossanova ^o< 19:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I oppose "computer graphics". Demos are not just about graphics, especially in the era of software music synthesis. "Computer art"? Maybe. "Computer graphics"? No. That would be just shifting the focus from programming to graphics - same thing really. // Gargaj 18:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm using the loose definition of computer graphics - "the field of visual computing, where one utilizes computers [..] to generate visual images synthetically". A blank screen is not a demo. :) I don't think using the term "computer graphics" rules out any method of creating those graphics, whether it be animation software, scripts, or program code. --Vossanova ^o< 19:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, "Demo (computer graphics)" would be nearly as bad as "Demo (computer music)", limiting the focus to only one side of the whole thing. "Demo (demoscene)" would be more tolerable - not misleading, but not very informative either. If we go with "art", then "Digital art" would perhaps be better than "Computer art" because many demos have indeed been written for programmable devices that aren't "computers" in the casual sense of the word. Of course, the word "art" is still somewhat controversial, but think about it this way: can all graffiti be considered art either? --Viznut 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Like Gargaj, you're thinking of the demoscene definition of graphics, referring to just still pictures and text. The general, WP definition includes any kind of visual motion or display on a computer. That's what I had in mind. "Art" is subjective, but to be fair, it would successfully differentiate scene demos from game demos, so I would support it. --Vossanova ^o< 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I was thinking about the general definition and the fact that even if it includes all the visible stuff, it doesn't include the soundtrack. In my opinion, sound and music are so important in demos that we just can't hide them behind the visual side. --Viznut 20:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's all go for EgoBooster instead of Demo! Adok said so! // Gargaj 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How about "Demo (presentation)"? (Just to reheat the discussion a bit) // Gargaj 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't "presentation" pretty much synonymous to "demonstration"? I mean, tech demos and game demos can also quite often be regarded as presentations :) --Viznut 08:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This page uses the word "nowadays"

What does the word 'nowadays' mean? This the kind of word that should be on a wikipedia usage watchlist, if not outright banned from usage, except in quotes. Words and phrases like "these days" or "today," referring to the present, "nowadays," and other temporally-dependent qualifications can reduce the dependability and relevance of wikipedia. They require not only disambiguation, but an ongoing maintenance effort to reduce their negative impact. Any word or colloquilism that cannot remain permanent or that changes over time should be subject to this kind of scrutiny.

Credibility is Wikipedia's largest liability. Let's try to turn it into it's largest asset.

I would like to see wikipedia remain credible, reliable, free and clean, surviving the credibility onslaught that is happening... nowadays. Jshoults 16:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Boo!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.33.244.196 (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:DemoSample.jpg

The image Image:DemoSample.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)