Talk:DarkBASIC

Discussion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus.--Jorfer 20:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge

It's hard to see why there's an article for each version of this product. With no reasonable objections in a week or so, I'll merge them. -- Mikeblas 13:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, why should they be merged? They are two different products with a large amount of information about both of them. Merging them would be like merging Visual Basic and Visual Basic .NET. If DBPro was simply an upgrade I'd say merge them but it changed how executables were created, made significant additions to the language, used a different framework, and broke compatibility with DBClassic. -DNewhall 19:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything at manufacturer's website [1] that leads me to believe they're two different languages. One is "interpretated", whatever that means, and the other is compiled. Pro also has a bunch of extra features, and this is common of SKU factoring in development products.

"A large amount of information" is a very generous description. The DarkBASIC pages says it's interpreted, and also that it has a compiler. The bulleted list reads like a marketing sheet. The DB Pro page doesn't include any of the assertions you've made about the differences between the products. Perhaps you'll be able to improve the article soon. -- Mikeblas 02:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I agree, but an additional paragraph in this article mentioning the relationship, and perhaps a comparison, would clear up any possible confusion, as well as clarifying both issues --67.116.255.5 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's mostly done in the DBPro article. - DNewhall

Can you be more specific about where? I find exactly one sentence about the required version of DirectX, and another with a shallow stream of "better" features. If these products are as different as you're asserting, and truly notable enough to deserve two separate articles, I'd expect that a detailed and insightful comparison would be very easy to create. -- Mikeblas 02:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge Darkbaisic article contains not much more than a paragraph of information. DarkBASIC Professional article has a bit more information but includes a section on Dark SDK, a different product. I think they should be merged, if future edits make the sections too big the articles can always be split again. -80.43.76.120 17:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the merge tag was (accidentally?) removed from the DarkBASIC Professional article. Despite the above objections, the articles haven't been ehanced and are still in need of some cleanup. DarkBASIC, in particular, still reads like it was typed in while reading the back of the box and reads like a spec sheet or advertisement. If no meat can be added to this article, I think the need for a merge is unquestionable. -- Mikeblas 19:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I think that in both cases the articles are poorly written, and are in need of drastic improvement, which I shall help with sometime soon when I have a free moment. However, DarkBASIC is not DarkBASIC Professional, they are different enough for me, a DB Pro user to not have a clue when it comes to helping someone with a coding error in DB classic. The difference is sort of like the difference between C and C++. As a result of seeing this proposed merge, I will do my best to get these articles edited to be more specific and hence show how different they are. - [[82.37.50.8 23:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)]]

If the articles can be make it clear what the difference is, I'm all for expanding them -- it's just that we've waited about a year for the articles to be fleshed-out (since the original AfD) and that simply hasn't happened. -- Mikeblas 23:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dark Game SDK shouldn't be in DarkBASIC's article, since it is very losely related. I spoke to members of the forums who agreed it should be removed. It relates to DBPro only. [[82.37.50.8 09:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)]]

If it relates to dbpro then it relates to DarkBASIC obviously. DarkBASIC dos not specifically mean DarkBASIC classic it refers to the whole DarkBASIC family of products in which the sdk is a part. -Axrtest 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Completely different products. Shouldn't be merged - akin to merging Win 95 with Vista DavidR1991 17:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Who said they are the same product? Windows is a good argument for merging. The page gives an overview of windows and branches out to more specific pages. Why should there not be a DarkBASIC page that gives a general overview of DarkBASIC in the same vein? Once there is actually enough content to justify a separate page for dbc. dbpro or darkgdk they can be created and linked to from the main DarkBASIC page. Also check out the Blitz Basic page for another example. -Axrtest 15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Agree with the above statement. A general DB page should be created, with a link then to DB classic DBPro, and DarkSDK. And also, perhaps, darkmatter and others like it. 81.159.150.117 19:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge I just think that the differences between the two articles are very, very minor. I was reading down the DB Pro page and there doesn't seem to be much that really stands out about the product, with the exception of the DirectX improvement. Really no need for two separate pages, at the moment they just seem to me to be 2 different pages with a rather moderate amount of information, if the two pages were to be combined it could possibly result in an article worth reading.--SteelersFan UK06 04:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Advert?

In what way does does the current version of the article or section reads like an advertisement? - DNewhall 16:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

It's just a brief introductory paragraph, followed by a long list of bulleted features. The bullets have nearly no descriptive information. It's like what one would read on the back of a software box, or in a product flyer. -- Mikeblas 18:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've cut down the bullet list and removed the ad tag. Feel free to add it back if it still needs more work 80.47.1.116 01:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have, indeed, replaced the advert tag. There's essentially no content here; just a list of bullets that make it look like a product brochure. -- Mikeblas 06:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading the advertisement link in the template I don't see how it applies here. The article appears unbiased and objective and DarkBASIC is fairly well known in gamedev circles. It may be a pretty poor article but doesn't appear to fall foul of wikipedia advertising policy. Axrtest 21:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the tag could be replaced by the Expand article tag. The article lacks information but i.m.o. doesn't read like an advertisement.Marminnetje 16:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it reads exactly like an advertisement, since it includes only a list of positive, terse, vauge statements. This is exactly how a marketing flyer is written, or copy for the box itself might be formatted. As such, I've replaced the tag. Please don't remove it unitl the article is improved. Thanks! -- Mikeblas 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Useful links

• [2] Interview with Lee Bamber on his past leading up to writing DarkBASIC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Axrtest (talk • contribs) 15:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Revert

I've reverted an addition that was unreferenced and unsummarized. There's really no point in making a very poor article even worse. -- Mikeblas 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

EAX?

This page links to EAX, which is a disambiguation page. To what was the link meant to refer? -- Mikeblas 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the link so that it refers to "Environmental_audio_extensions" which is what I believe the author meant in the beginning. NilsH 16:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -- Mikeblas 17:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The Above Merger

The proposed merger (see above) has been on this talk page for ... nearly a year now. Can something be done? Either action took, the tags should be removed and the discussion should be archived. --SteelersFan UK06 02:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Total Re-Write

As a user of DarkBASIC I plan to go through and re-write this article to be more consistant and worthwhile to the Wikipedia. Should have something up by the end of the week. Lucky Foot (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)