Talk:DemonStar

Raiden/Raiden II Similarities

Should the article mention anything about the similarities between Demonstar and Raiden/Raiden II. Almost every sprite in the game looks like it was ripped from those games. The level design is really the only difference. 209.244.187.8 21:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)ShmupMan9000

Source for my edits (and a question)

Uh... How do you indicate that a sentence/phrase/whatever has a source? Because the source for my info about the boss ships is here: http://www.mking.com/demonstar/index.html ("To destroy each boss..." and I think the statement "To destroy each boss, you will have to search for the many weapons such as lasers, homing missiles, and many more." could be considered a source for the powerup info, but I'm not sure.) Davidjcobb 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I added the source for you. 209.244.187.8 22:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)ShmupMan 9000

What kind of information should be in this article?

What kind of information should we include here? I'm not quite sure... Information on kinds of power-ups? Boss ships? Or general gameplay as compared to other games? Nezard 16:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to include info on bosses and powerups, preferrably with screenshots or something similar, but that would probably be classified as original research. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidjcobb (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

Just added some contents

Please add/edit the contents, I'm not sure if I've added the right thing, and I'm not good at formatting either. Nezard 11:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Quality

Am I the only one that thinks the quality of the article doesn't meet the quality standards of most articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.206.200.130 (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

This article needs some expert attention

This article doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's quality standards because there is no expert paying attention to here (maybe, tell me if I'm wrong). I don't know how we go around this problem though... Nezard 10:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Demonstar-classic.jpg

Image:Demonstar-classic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Feature? Good?

I'm going to nominate this article for featured article good article status. I just finished cleaning it up major-ly, and besides the issue of what this article should include, I think it is good in every other way. I played this game 6 years ago and just rediscovered it again. What I remembered most was the power-ups which pretty much define the game and its gameplay - so the section about Powerups/bonuses I think has merit to be included. Let's see if wikipedia will find the article good enough! First I think it should be a good article then it can be improved further to be a featured article, if it is not worthy already ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

Upon its review on April 15, 2008, this good article nomination was quick-failed because it:

had a virtual or complete lack of reliable sources

thus making it ineligible for good article consideration. According to WP:Verifiability, "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source."

This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far.— Epass (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit reverted

I removed the section "Remastered", with the comment Removed promotional material cited only to a non-independent source. (See discussion at WP:TH#Edited a page for the first time). (I cannot find that section in the archive of the Teahouse, so I must have got that reference wrong; but it doesn't really affect the issue I am raising.) Yesterday, Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot reverted my edit and restored the section, with the comment it is by the original official dev. if that is not official, what is? why not remove entries of remasters of other old games? I believe that my removal was justified, for the reasons I gave in my edit summary: Wikipedia articles should be mostly based on independent sources, and in my view if something like a release has not been commented on by independent sources, then it doesn't belong in an article. (Mussharraf Hossen Shoikot's comment about "official" shows a misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Wikipedia has little interest in what the subject of an article says or wants to say about themselves, or what their associates say about them. Wikipedia is almost entirely interested in what people who have no connection with the subject, and who have not been prompted or fed information on behalf of the subject, have chosen to publish about the subject in reliable sources. If enough material is cited from independent sources to establish notability, a limited amount of uncontroversial factual information may be added from non-independent sources.

I have not simply removed that section again, as that would be edit warring: instead I have come here to discuss it, following BRD. But I would like to get consensus to remove it, unless somebody can find an independent reliable source that does not just mention it but discusses it. As for MHS's final comment: yes, if other articles contain inappropriate material, remove it (or make it appropriate): don't use that as an argument to allow inappropriate material here. See other stuff exists. ColinFine (talk) 01:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)