Talk:DeviantART

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 DeviantART was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: 7 September 2006
  • Archives of previous discussion: 1, 2, 3

Contents

[edit] just a note

In the version five layout there has been a feature added to hide posts on the site. One can hide any post made on their profile, deviations, journals and scraps. One can also hide comments that they made on someone else's userpage, deviations, journals, etc. However, they cannot un-hide posts made that were a) not made by them and b) hidden by the user on the user's userpage. Just thought I'd add that.

[edit] user symbol #

I've added the missing (now defunct) user symbol # for consistency reasons to the list. Not sure about also adding the £ Minister account thou. Thoughts? --rotane 22:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

its a reasonable idea - but perhaps the statement at the top should be changed to "Symbols which are currently used or have been used in the past are listed below" Tyhopho 22:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, sounds good --rotane 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I added some background information to the £ Minister symbol --Tobyf 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deletions

Jonathan Wayshak, Natalie Shau and Larafairie were proposed for deletion. I am not going to removed the prod tag unless someone else wants them here as there wasnt much enthusiasm for keeping Suzi9mm -- Astrokey44|talk 22:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with deviantART

Hasn't anyone added anything to talk about problems for the site? I was on there twice and had both of my accounts HACKED! deviantART is NOT a safe place from account hackers. sonicmaster1223

[edit] Rewriting the Intro / removing the origins section

I have completed a fairly extensive rewrite of the introduction section and in the process removed what i felt to be the redundant origins section. Part of the content of the origins section I have merged into the introduction as well as it fitted what I felt to be the tone and intention of it. I am aware that the section which I am working on contains the contentious issue of who the founders are but I am confident that I have struck a balance and avoided any pro this person or pro that person bias. Tyhopho 23:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

By nature the lead section is supposed to be redundant, or more accurately a summary. Summaries are not redundant in the clearest sense but do contain information which is also in other sections. Also, the lead section is far too long now. According to Wikipedia:Lead section The lead for this article should be 1-2 paragraphs, or possibly 3 at the very most, currently it's 5. Also, information about it's origins and mascot do not belong in the lead. In fact, as I read it only the last paragraph on the lead section seems to read like a summary. It might be preferable to move the entire lead section elsewhere and replace it with a basic summary. Vicarious 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Good points - have shortened it now to 3. Although I had to recreate the origins section, by placing it as the first main subsection i think it has more importance and a better position then its previous place langusihing at the end of the user symbols subsection Tyhopho 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Well done, looks much better, a few more minor points. First off, I think some mention of the shop should be in the lead. Secondly, because the "founders" issue is so controversial and not particularly relevant (in my opinion) to the general website I think it should be moved to the origins section. Also, it'd be nice if we could combine this list, "any artist, photographer, or writer" with this list "photography to digital art, traditional art, literature and skins for applications", they seem a bit redundant. Possible removing the first list, something like, any artist to create *second list*. Finally, it's three slim paragraphs at the moment, I think two full ones would be preferable if possible. Vicarious 11:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The shop idea i think is a definite. I have some ideas for merging those two redundant lists (fair enough that the lead summarises the rest of the article but it doesnt need to be redundant within itself). Im not too sure about turning the three slim into two large, the paragraphs deal with different themes, but I will test it on my page later tonight. I also see a way of removing the names of the founders to the origins (which might help combining the intro into two paragraphs)Tyhopho 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angelo didn't help create deviantART

While Angelo helped keep the site afloat, he didnt actually code/create the idea. I'd like to remove his name from that list.

Creating a site isnt just to do with coding it or coming up with the idea. handling the business side of it, hardware installation, documentation, heck any number of things take place which can be classified as being part of 'creating the site'. I think you are using too rigid a definition of the word, and besides the current statements regarding who was involved with creating the site have been around for a while, so starting off another 'did he found it, did he not' argument just seems like a pointless waste of time, and server space. Besides the latin 'et al' meaning 'and others' in the infobox is a nice way of saying that these were three very key individuals involved with the creation of the site as well as other individuals who many not have asmuch prominence. Then the statement in the introduction of "It was first launched on August 7, 2000 through the work of Scott Jarkoff, Angelo Sotira and Matthew Stephens at different stages of the planning and development of the site" goes a long way to remove any overly emotive feelings regarding who exactly was involved with the founding of the site at the time. Tyhopho 16:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
And unless whomever keeps removing the name starts participating in this discussion, it will in all likelyhood keep being re-added.
brenneman{L} 13:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely - Im reverting the latest deletion of angelo's name Tyhopho 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This subject was only ever contested by Scott Jarkoff *after* his departure from the company. Matt Stephens "sided" with Scott Jarkoff on this topic again *after* Scott's departure. This was never contested in the years earlier or rejected in any way. This is a very public case of sour grapes. "Angelo Sotira" is no more a co-founder and no less a co-founder than either Scott Jarkoff or Matt Stephens. Without the contributions of all three deviantART would not exist today. Actually without the contributions of Matt Stephens deviantART would exist, it just wouldn't be as interesting most likely. Spyed

Angelo did not help create the site, he helped keep the money to set it up coming in. dA was affiliated with one of his older projects, but he did not help create it.

just as the person above said, i think you are using a too rigid definition of "creating a site". This is debate is a waste of time. He had a hand in the site's beginning. Kamiawolf 04:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's also important to note that you have no idea what contributions were made by "Angelo Sotira" during this time period. For one thing deviantART was conceived in large part within #dmusic on irc.dmusic.com and the discussion in that room was powered by many DMusic employees at the time that witnessed a lot of the foundation of the site. Some key journals to read are mikeylove.deviantart.com and symonx.deviantart.com (both DMusic employees at that time, who themselves contributed to deviantART also.) Accounts by various early deviantART account holders could not be accurate because deviantART was "founded" on April 20th of 2000, and *launched* on August 7th. In those months, a lot of things happened that early deviantART members couldn't have possibly seen. My participation in those early days was directly in attempting to "save" deviantART from catastrophe along side direct input on deviantART through Jark, the engineer managing the project. I am not a programmer, that doesn't mean I didn't have a lot of creative input on deviantART, down to if it should or shouldn't be called deviantART. I didn't talk to Matteo much, I didn't need to. He refused to even work for us as a founder requiring a salary and stuff which was provided to him by me prior to deviantART's remote capability pay for itself, less Matt. This is ridiculous! Spyed
Spyed, a quick reminder to sign your posts with ~~~~. This is an extremely old topic, and your name seems to have "stuck" on the article, so there's no point in arguing with people anymore. :-) We at Wikipedia are here to make an encyclopedia! — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Edward unfortunately my name did not "stick" in the article. It's stil constantly being changed here in the article, browse the history. :( Spyed 18:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see where you're coming from. Your name is "on" the article, but you want it listed as co-founder and not as CEO (a change which was only made recently). — Edward Z. Yang(Talk) 22:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey you two. Just FYI Did I rewrite history? - Article from 3/14/2006 with references that settles this once and for all. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of dAmn

I'm not sure that dAmn should be merged into the main deviantART article. A reference should me made to it here, but the dAmn article could defianately be extended with a list of the currently avalible clients, information about changes in the different versions of the dAmn protocol and other technical information. I could do some of it, since I wrote a dAmn client of my own, and I'm sure Kevin (known as doofsmack on deviantART) could fill in even more if he wants. ~Matt F (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it really encyclopediac to have all that extra information? essentially we are just talking about a feature provided by a website - something which i dont think needs a change log or technical guide on wikipedia. if its expanded with some relevant stuff fair enough, but the way i see it as it is (not likely to grow further) it should be merged into the main document. Tyhopho 17:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

its not really that much so it could just fit in and it is important to the website

Yes, I too think that it should be merged. Esn 10:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Im thinking about how to do this. Perhaps changing the features section into a 'Major Features' and Minor features' subsections where we can describe the big features like damn and galleries (another page i think should be merged into here) and smaller features like notes etc. any thoughts? Tyhopho 12:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Begun the process of merging by including most of the relevant info from the dAmn page into the main article. Tyhopho 16:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the dAmn article should be merged into the dA article. Its just a feature of dA, so a section on dAmn in the main article should be good. jf 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Yeah, it needs to be merged as one of the features of deviantART. mw 6:00 PM EST May 19, 2006

Merge, its part of the site. I dont see the purpose of it having its own page. Kamiawolf 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we should merge dAMN into DeviantArt too. --Starionwolf 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The content of dAmn is not very much, basically one paragraph only. It does also not make much sense by itself. My Vote: Merge into deviantART Article! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Agree - dAmn isn't notable outside of dA. - Hayter 09:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)



Everybody agreed, the dAmn Article was almost nothing, so I took the liberty and moved the article into the DeviantART article. There is a new chapter for dAmn with the original content. The dAmn Article redirects to DeviantART now and all Merge Templates were removed. I think nobody has a problem with that. Cheers. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken reference link

Incidentally, I noticed that the second reference link (Newsday) led to an error page. Can whoever linked that correct the link or provide a new one? jf 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't find another copy of the article. Sorry --Starionwolf 05:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I found the new location of the article. It's only partially available to the general public. You have to pay to see the full Article. bummer. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects useless?

Am I the only one that thinks having all three names listed in the beginning of the article (Scott Jarkoff, etc.) rediricting to the article itself silly? If it's just going to redirect them back to the very article they're looking at, why not just have their names as regular text? Namiel 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

very valid point - i think i'll remove them Tyhopho 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think such things do not require a discussion. If you see direct or indirect (redirect) references to the article itself, remove ir. If you see a broken Link to a missing or misspelled reference, correct the link if you can or remove the reference and state this in your edit comment. Just my 2 cents. BTW. thanks for the clean up Tyhopho ;) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio image

The current screenshot is a gross copyright violation, and will be deleted from the Commons:. Thanks for your understanding. I commented out the image in the source. —UED77 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

er - why? [additional thought] is it perhaps to do with the fact that it features other peoples artwork? If so perhaps we should just post the logo and the mascot in a similar way to that of other companies and websites.Tyhopho 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I acknowledge I made a mistake. There was a file with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, which I deleted, as Wikimedia Commons only accepts freely licensed content (that is not fair use, like the said image). I didn't realize there was a local copy. So, my apologies; I see that the image is now restored.
By the way, to answer your question out of context: the said image is fair use, which means that it contains copyrighted elements (e.g. dA logo, dA symbol, users' artwork), and can only qualify as an illustrative element for this article under US fair use law. Other logos and mascots of other sites are most likely similarly fair use. The Commons doesn't accept such content, so that's why I unlinked the image: it seemed to me the copy from Commons was used; that was not the case. —UED77 01:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Until Hell Freezes Over" inappropriate?

(though this was formerly called "Until Hell Freezes Over", and was deemed too inappropriate)

Can anyone provide a source for this? I don't recall any official talk about it - just a silent change with the v5 preview. --doofsmack 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be reverted until it is actually shown on the userpages. Right now "Until Hell Freezes Over" is still what is officially written. You shouldnt be changing things until they are official and the beta test was just that, BETA. Kamiawolf 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitals

Surley the Spelling of DeviantArt with out the first capital letter is just for the (Dyslexic looking) Logo?

If you view the current main page of deviantART, the actual text (not including the logo) "deviantART" appears twice. "deviantART Loves You" and "© 2006 deviantART Inc." On the About Us page, the term appears in that case multiple times more, and I'm sure the same can be said of most other pages on the site. --Dreaded Walrus 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (note: signing comment much later than comment was originally posted)

[edit] The DA bugs

Most people on deviantART do not like the new layout of the site, including myself. Here are my reasons why I believe it should be reverted.

  1. The new version removes the capability of knowing how many pictures you add as favorites.
    I didn't know that feature existed in v4.
  2. You cannot edit fanfics that you post.
    They're fixing it, but I heard you'll have to re-submit it for the moment.
  3. The pages look almost exactly like rival community SheezyArt's.
    Not that I can see.
  4. Green is such an ugly color!
    I like green, and it's not THAT green.
  5. You cannot view full-viewed pictures on seperate pages like before.
    It's disabled on small images and flash animations. But it still works for larger images
  6. The Favorites page is organized rather...wrong.
    What's so "wrong" about it?
  7. Preview pictures for fanfics have been completely removed.
    They're fixing that.

--User:Angie Y.

Well, I would say that this page is for talking about changes for the article, but I'll make an exception, (as long as it doesn't get long). dA ver5 is still bugged up, and they're fixing things right now (their fault for not making the beta testers more useful). But Jark isn't responsible, since he doesn't even work for dA anymore. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. It was a mistake. *nervously grins* --User:Angie Y.

I don't object to the new interface design so much, but to the fact that it fails to display on just about any browser except Firefox. I see Opera and Safari and IE users complaining and being ignored. It is totally unprofessional to make a release like this and not test it against multiple platforms. DonPMitchell 10:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"Most people on deviantART do not like the new layout of the site" -- yeah, right. Why does everyone who hates something assume they are in the majority? 81.158.54.105 11:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dav5 bugs cleanup

Im considering starting a cleanup of that little section which has sprung up since the new version release. Firstup - removal of the bit about jark losing his co-founder status briefly which I do not think is absolutely necessary. Tyhopho 10:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Espesually since he got it back :P Kamiawolf 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed! To anyone else - would their be any objection if I removed the rest of that DA v 5 bugs section? My reason is that its a temporary state of affairs which will have no long term bearing on the site. Tyhopho 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
And it is a kinda poorly written small section. Kamiawolf 08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pageview Bug

Recently, someone discovered that simply refreshing would increase pageviews and a few pictures have been appearing in the popular section that wouldn't normally be there. This bug seems to be causing a lot of commotion and I feel that it should be mentioned somewhere in this article. – Iggy Koopa 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this doesn't appear to be a problem anymore. – Iggy Koopa 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for not promoting to good article

Hi all,

Unfortunately this article cannot become a good article because it does not satisfy the good article criteria. Namely, it does not include any references or citations. Feel free to renominate this article once the above has been addressed.

Cedars 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Copyright vs. Trademark

The fourth paragraph in the "Copyright Issues" section bothers me a bit. Specifically, the sentence, Some may display art created by themselves, but which depicts a copyright-registered character (for example, a superhero or fantasy hero), which would also potentially infringe copyright. However, a character is not a concrete work and cannot be "copyright-registered" in any sense. I believe what is meant is trademark, but that is not at all related to copyright. It is a trademark violation if anything.

Unfortunately, I am unsure of how to reword this sentence to make it correct. In fact, it may be better just to remove it, because a mention of trademark violation does not belong in a section about copyright. Any ideas? 208.104.115.202 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symbol font

Can the font used for the Symbols be made slightly bigger?

any particular reason? Kamiawolf 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I thought it was still called "Daily Deviations"

I don't know when that edit was made, but last time I checked there was no "staff picks," it was still "Daily Deviations." Maybe someone should change that. Sporks.Are.Loverly 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Sporks.Are.Loverly

Near as i can tell, they havent changed them to "Staff Picks" yet. They are still called "Daily Deviations" and the front page link still says "Daily Deviations". They were thinking of changing it, but it hasnt been dont yet (and who knows when it will be) Kamiawolf 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why is it called DeviantART?

Why is it called deviant? Just curious.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk • contribs).

Presumably because it perceives itself to be deviant, and is targeting the kind of audience that enjoys art outside of the social norm. --Dreaded Walrus 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
That was my assumption, but curious as if there was an alternative reasoning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk • contribs).
The initial site which dA evolved from was an OS skinning site (themes for Windows, etc.). As these skins were designed to deviate from the initial design of the applications they were attached to, and they were forms of art, when the site evolved the new name "deviantART combined the reference to the initial site, along with the "ART" lending itself to wider audiences/usage. At least, that's what I read (or similar) somewhere. --Lucanos 14:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SheezyArt userpage link

It obviously does not belong here, but i cant find a trace of it in the source. Guess it must be in a template then...--NESFreak 13:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

just checked. couldn't find it cause someone else has removed it already. Only his changes weren't applied jet rofl--NESFreak 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the linkspam, yes. It was removed after not too long at all, and it appeared that way on my computer. Perhaps your browser had stored an old version of the article (from when the link was there) in the cache? Also, I hope you don't mind if I alter the title of this section.. wouldn't want her getting the external link she wanted now ;) --Dreaded Walrus 13:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flickr?

Ive been thinking of adding flickr into "see also" as they are quite similiar. Any comments? --ISeeDeadPixels 20:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts are no. Flickr is IMO nothing like deviantart. Flickr is more like facebook, its networking and photos and blogging. deviantART, although it is used to upload photos and network, this practise is a) against the idea of the site, and b) done by a relatively small amount of people methinks. dA is about sharing artwork, getting a little feedback, increasing your abilities, submitting some hopefully improved artwork, and the cycle continues. Not like Flickr IMO Triangl 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncontroversial Move

There is currently a proposal at Wikipedia:Requested Moves#Uncontroversial proposals to change the name of this article to deviantArt. The rationale is WP:MOSTM, but it strikes me as a proposal that might not be so "uncontroversial" regardless of how well it may fit WP:MOSTM, so I thought I would let you guys know, in case anyone does object. --Groggy Dice T | C 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's uncontroversial because the MoS and NC mandate it. Chris cheese whine 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    No, what makes something "uncontroversial" is that no one objects to it, not that it is "mandated." Mandates can themselves be controversial, or open to varying interpretations. At any rate, I certainly don't object to the move if the article's contributors don't have a problem with it. --Groggy Dice T | C 03:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    If it's required, you don't generally get to object to it. Chris cheese whine 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    If I understand your logic, your proposed move is automatically "uncontroversial" because it is "required," and that even if people lodge objections, they aren't really objecting because they "don't get to object." Well, I don't buy that definition of "uncontroversial." I've also just checked the talk page for WP:MOSTM, and it seems that many people disagree with the guidelines as they currently stand, and question whether MOSTM has the consensus support it ought to have to be considered a policy. Thus, the claim that there is some great mandate that has to be followed without question is itself questionable. But really, I'm only informing the regular contributors of the proposed move, not objecting myself, so why debate this? --Groggy Dice T | C 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a regular contributor (saw this on RM), and this move shouldn't go through at all, let alone uncontroversially. I've never been to the site before, but it seems that its name is clearly DeviantART given on the website. Articles are named after how their sources spell them - iPod is at iPod (with lowercase tag), not Ipod. SnowFire 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is what makes this an uncontrovertial move. deviantART is spelled with a lowercase d and capitalized A-R-T on the website while here it is not. Kevmin 09:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yet again, quite simply Wikipedia does not give a rat's backside what a site calls itself. The comparison to iPod is wrong. If we keep this here, then we would need to move iPod to iPOD, which is clearly wrong. The article title should be DeviantArt, end of story. Chris cheese whine 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If it were known as DEVIANTART at the site, then I'd say that WP:MOS-TM calls for it to be written DeviantArt. But in my view, the issue is a camel case one, and the manual says it's up to the editors to figure out if it's DeviantArt or deviantART. Also, thorught dA (notice the way I spelled it), the site itself is known as deviant in lowercase, and ART in upper, and spelled that way by users. A google search of the term "DeviantArt" outside of the site itself shows most sites referring it as "deviantART". The term "DeviantArt" in that particular spelling is a distant minority WP:MOS-TM also says not to invent new formats, So I disagree with the change. --wL<speak·check·chill> 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll guess you didn't actually read WP:MOSTM then, since you are effectively suggesting that we use a stylized capitalization for no real reason at all. (As I said before, WP doesn't care what the site logo actually says in the slightest) Chris cheese whine 10:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I guess you need to not assume that I didn't read the policy, because if I didn't, I wouldn't come up with my reply. I believe that changing to deviantArt is creating a new format, something that guideline says not to do. --wL<speak·check·chill> 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Then you believe incorrectly. I would also suggest you take your own advice. Chris cheese whine 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
(resetting indents) - I think you're basing this on the the third point of WP:MOS-TM#General_rules, but I think that point 6 cancels the other out. "CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable" Point 3 also says "but, don't invent new formats: MCI is standard English, while "Mci" is essentially never used" --wL<speak·check·chill>
(part-restore indent for clarity) So, because of that we should violate the rules of English and our naming conventions by using a stylized typography? Since when do we bend to the will of third parties in naming our articles? Chris cheesewhine 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to repeat myself. I would be fine even if we used deviantart.com as the article name. The point is that nobody uses the camel case spelling of deviantArt. To name it as such would break naming conventions by creating a new format of writing the site's title. The only way we can reach consensus on this is if we have others contribute to this debate, or take this through WP:DR. We both stand strongly on each of our stances on the name, and I ask for some outside help to deal with this. --wL<speak·check·chill> 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
So just as clarification, your disagreeing with the move from DeviantART to deviantART? I am a little confused now... Kevmin 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
No, the move would be to DeviantArt. The entry is DeviantART because Wikipedia auto-capitalizes the first letter of page names. The article currently uses the {{lowercase}} template to get around that. If you load the main article page and watch the title bar or tab bar, you will see it show a capital D, before the template kicks in and the title switches to a lowercase d. For illustration, I've added the template to this talk page below. Anyway, the people who say they oppose the move would be best advised to register their objections at Requested Moves rather than here, though I've gone ahead and noted that there is opposition here. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
You will also see the initial capital when you look at "Recent changes", when you look at its listing in a category, when you look at your watchlist, at "related changes" from some other article linking here, etc. Gene Nygaard 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The correct title of this article is Talk:deviantART. The initial letter is shown capitalized due to technical restrictions.

[edit] Mediation Cabal case

There is now a Mediation Cabal case about the naming convention of this article at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/deviantART. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello! I'm the Mediation Cabel person who has decided to take this case. Give me a bit longer to read through the comments and figure out what's going on, and then I'll ask a few questions, and then we can kiss and make up. Or at least be happy. From now on, please hold off on commenting about the deviantART vs. deviantArt thing until I post again below this message. (It will be shortly, within the next day or so.) Then, we can continue from below here. Sound good? Good. --Mechcozmo 06:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I've read the comments, and I think I understand. Please clarify your respective arguments if you think I'm in the wrong. The article is currently at "DeviantART". 'chriscf' wants it moved to "DeviantArt" to respect WP:MOS-TM. Is this correct? (You don't have to restart your arguments, just give me a yes if I did or explain if I didn't) --Mechcozmo 06:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and I want it to stay deviantART to respect WP:MOS-TM. We both read the guideline in different ways. --wL<speak·check·chill> 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is a mediation cabal case. The article has not actually been moved, and now that it has been removed from the uncontroversial proposals, it is presumably not going to be moved at all, unless Chriscf initiates a Requested Move process. Thus, I don't see what issue there is to mediate. --Groggy Dice T | C 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So the case is closed? Everybody is happy with the page staying at DeviantART? Nifty. I'll mark the case as such. One of my easier cases. --Mechcozmo 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
No. I object to it staying here because it is in flagrant breach of our naming rules. This should have been moved weeks ago already. Why is it still here? Chris cheese whine 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] a few sources that might be useful

Since I'm doing a bit of research on deviantART for an offline project, I dug up some sources that may be useful to someone writing this article, but don't currently have time to integrate them:

  • "World Wide Web: 10 Best Sites of the Week", The Independent, August 3, 2002, p. 66. The earliest mention in a major newspaper as far as I'm aware. The brief blurb mentions its emerging (at the time) popularity, and constrasts it with traditional art-world institutions, reading in part: "...a growing community of contributors that is helping to establish the web as a true democratic artistic forum... free from the patronage of traditional galleries, it's a perfect example of the web's unique free-for-all ethos".
  • Angelo Sotira (July 31, 2005). A Response.. Primarily a response to the swirling controversy over Jarkoff's apparent (?) firing, it also gives Sotira's views on the early history of the site.
  • Scott Jarkoff (August 6, 2005). deviantART; A Little Story, Part 1. Gives Jarkoff's views on the early history of the site, including on the contentious issue of who actually cofounded it, as well as early money and server problems, managing growth, etc., etc. There is also a Part 2 follow-up you can navigate to from that link.
  • "A face-to-face gathering of online artists puts critics on the sidelines", Chicago Tribune, June 15, 2005. Discusses the 2005 in-real-life summit (which we already cite one report on, from Wired), and in particular uses the event as an excuse to opine that deviantART (and the internet in general) is diminishing the influence of art critics as gatekeepers to art.

--Delirium 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I'd consider getting a lock on editing from IPs looking at the recent vandalism. Frizzle 15:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

What recent vandalism? The article has been semi-protected for the last five days. There hasn't been any vandalism in that time, or discussion for that matter. What's happening with Spyed? --Imroy 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing that I know of... The s-protection is lifted. --wL<speak·check> 08:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I advised him use the opportunity to be pro-active to settle this annoying back and forth while the article was semi-protected. I didn't get an answer back though. He is busy, no doubt.. well its all about priorities I guess. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name

How can anyone be sure it isn't actually devian tART? They might be talking about pastry. Alx xlA 22:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

If it were, I'd be there with F5 on the Daily Deviations. :-) Chris cheese whine 23:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/v/Talk%7EDeviantART_e0a0.html"