Talk:Golden Demon

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Warhammer 40,000, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Warhammer 40,000Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000Template:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000Warhammer 40,000 articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Academy Awards#The Oscar|the Oscar]] The anchor (#The Oscar) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Photo request[edit]

Please add photos!

Also, this article is too small, and needs more content and general cleanup. tag added.

Edited this article to reflect that the Golden Demon is not only the name of the award itself, but also and primarily, the name of the competition itself, as well as expanding details about the competition. Most of this information is taken from the Games Workshop website, and directly relates to the 2006 competition. As a note of irony, I find it interesting that the top accolade is not a Golden Demon award at all, but a full sized broadsword.

I've done a bit of clean-up. I don't know if we're allowed to use the photos from the GW site or not, so I didn't include any.JediLofty 09:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to "Golden Daemon"[edit]

In all official publications I have ever read the competition is called "Golden Daemon", not "Golden Demon". I have also edited the spelling throughout the article to reflect this change.

Incorrect. The event has never been known as Golden Daemon. It has always been spelt Demon and still is. See [[1]]. Whilst Games Workshop use the archaic spelling specifically to identify the creatures of Chaos in their created backgrounds, this does not extend to this event. It is a general demon. I have corrected all spellings, but this requires moving back again which I'm unable to do. - Heavens To Betsy 09:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion[edit]

As an event exclusively held at Games Day, I believe the two articles should be merged. This would allow a fuller article, consolidate references, etc. and I think the quality could be improved because of it. Turlo Lomon 03:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the two articles individually are not that much larger than stubs. Merging them would allow for a more rounded article and, as Turlo Lomon points out, the two are closely linked. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Against - I know that in some countries, or at least Australia, the Golden Demon competition is run separately to Games Day. Both are GW events, but Golden Demon is held in GW hobby centres, while Games Day is held at an independant location in the city of Sydney (and possibly others too). -- Seanzala ^Talk 01:28, 12 October 2007 (AEST)

Against, just - Although there is not a huge amount of encyclopedic infomation to be had from both topics, I would lean towards keeping seperate articles for the regional differences, and also the whole WP:NOTPAPER thing. Would also state I feel Golden Demon might have trouble passing notability on it's own, but this is not the current question. Raerth 13:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Links[edit]

I've noticed that the links to the cited references for this article are broken. Could someone help find current, accessible links to these references? 65.13.84.34 (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Golden Demon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]