Talk:DeviantArt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, DeviantArt, has edited Wikipedia as Spyed (talk · contribs)

	DeviantArt has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 7, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed January 13, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current Status: Good article

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Internet Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the Internet culture. For more information, visit the project page. GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. GA Class: This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.

This is not a forum for general discussion of DeviantArt. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Archives
26th February 2005 - 24th April 2005 28th May 2005 - 4th November 2005 15th November 2005 - 15th March 2006 14th March 2006 - 7 February 2007

[edit] surely this is worth mentioning somewhere

http://news.deviantart.com/article/25036/ chick did manga style simpsons and futurama pics, posted them on dA, story was digged, now she has a job working on the official simpsons comic and may work on the upcoming futurama movies/episodes. the attention has also helped her get some original work published by Del Rey Manga (a division of Random House). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.174.173 (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[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] print accounts

the user no longer needs to pay for a print account as far as I know. I have one set up, and did not need to pay any money. Wondering if I'm interpreting this wrongly, or if it is a change that needs to be made... AllureOfTheEarth 16:18, 28 May 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. --w^{L<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. --w^{L<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" --w^{L<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. --w^{L<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)

[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. --w^{L<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. --w^{L<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] OR Tag

Whats the grounds for that tag? Id like to do some work on the article but found no discussion about it...--Alexia Death 09:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the tag is mainly on there because of the 'Spyed vs. Jark founders' thing. Since there's no (or very little) reliable documentation about whether Angelo Sotira was actually a co-founder or not it's been a back and forth battle over 'his is, he isn't.' Additionally spyed (angelo) has publically blogged about wikipedia being 'inaccurate' with this situation [1] and edited the entry himself, so the factual accuracy is definitely up in the air. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I remember from that mess two years ago. I think the article is well balanced and no screaming injustice seems to be done to anyone. As stability cannot be obtained with finding the truth describing both sides of the issue and thus achieving NPOV might be the right way to go. Is there any particular passage that is being contested?--Alexia Death 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's just that this is the deviantART page, so it's assumed to be in a state of constant flux.  :/ Kargath64 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clever vandal

There was a vandal that did two edits in a row. Someone undid the last part but left the first in place. Just a note to pay attention when clearing vandalism that all of it goes...--Alexia Death 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-Mail?

Does everyone have to put in their e-mail adress before joining D.A.? What if they don't have an e-mail adress? What's gonna happen then? --Kino Lala 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are many free e-mail clients for that reason, I would suppose. Some take only a minute or two to sign up to. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but what if people don't have an e-mail adress? Can they still sign up without e-mail adresses and become part of DeviantArt? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk • contribs).

I wouldn't say so, though I can't say I have ever tried signing up without an email. Most things that ask for an email address upon signup, require one. You could always give it a shot though, the worst it could do is just not let you sign up. Also, often, required fields have an asterisk or something along those lines, by the side of the field. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subscripters

What are subscripters? --76.16.151.77 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Kino Lala

I believe you mean subscribers, and they are deviantART users that pay money to the site. In exchange, they get some additional features, less hassling ad attacks (I'm still bitter about that), and a fancy symbol next to their name that non-subscribers don't get. HunterBlackLuna 05:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you "pay" to get a subscription? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk) 02:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

To pay for a subscription there are many methods, the most common are credit card and paypal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.10.204.27 (talk) 06:55, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Poorly Written?

I wasn't sure how to raise this issue or whether it was even a viable topic of dissent, but it bothered me a lot that the article is written poorly/unprofessionally/repetitively, however you'd like to word it. It does not read as if it were written from a neutral standpoint.

Some suggestions:

-Read like an entry in an encylopedia, not like an advertisement

-Paragraph 3: Don't use the word "extensive/extensively" twice. "comprehensive" may be a better choice of words, but even then not twice. Additionally, "deviantART now displays multiple forms of art and creative expression laid out in an extensive category structure." is awkward and IMHO would be better written as "deviantART features many forms of creative expression organized in an extensive category structure." I am still not comfortable with the phrase "many forms of creative expression", I am sure there is a more concise way to express this concept.

-Origins: I contend that referring to deviantART as "thoroughly original in nature" is not neutral. Also, "In order to provide a distinguishable look to the site" can be written as "In order to give the website a distinct theme". I believe the entire fragment can be omitted. The assumed reasoning behind creating Fella and the DA logo is completely superfluous information. Stop using the word "extensive" so much. "Throughout the existence of deviantART many individuals have been involved with the site in both a public and private capacity" is an unspoken truth regarding nearly every business venture known to man and is therefore also superfluous.

-Features: In this section, change "pieces of art" to "work", as it is less exclusionary.

-Growth: "The site is in a constant state of growth, and features continue to improve and increase in number" - you are not an advertisement. Please revise this accordingly.
Whitetrashpalace 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are all great points, Whitetrashpalace, and I would be all for them. Well done for spotting. Remember that this is a wiki, so go ahead, be bold and change it yourself! :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do. --w^{L<speak·check>} 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I was concerned that I was 'too new' or might otherwise be missing out on some vital information that would prevent me from making these edits. Whitetrashpalace 06:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It is done, for now. Whitetrashpalace 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking a neutral point of view

A lot of this article seems very biased in my opinion, the "Concerns over usage of deviantART" being the worst offender. It's almost written as if by a photogropher who is disgruntled by "low quality" photgraphs on dA. In my opion we need a major rewrite here. --82.20.253.243 12:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (aka User:Zikar on a different PC)

I wrote a lot of that section. I was very careful about the wording I used, and explaining that it's not simply a case of me being all snobby about other peoples photos. As the the linked news item (Deviation vs. Scrap) explains, deviantART has always meant to be an art gallery. While some peoples' tastes may vary, the problem photos are simply not art at all - they're snapshots. They belong on MySpace, Flickr, Photobucket, or somewhere else.

And this is not a problem confined to just photos. Check out the Flash > Games category. There seem to be a lot of illiterate morons on dA who see "games" in the name and figure it's appropriate place to put game screenshots and promotional artwork they found somewhere on the web (i.e copyright infringement).

I'll try to find more sources of people complaining about snapshots being submitted. And I might mention the problems that other galleries are having with inappropriate material. --Imroy 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No offence, and I truly mean none, but that is very biased. The section is drawing it's own conclusions, rather than letting users draw conclusions for themselves. For instance "Note that this is not simply a case of art being "in the eye of the beholder"; almost all of the problem photos are made with point and shoot cameras or even camera phones with little or no concern for proper composition, lighting (often using built-in flash), or any artistic value to justify being in the aforementioned galleries." should be removed completely, as it make assumptions of what Art is and who has the rights to post, but it's presented as factual, after all, it could be my opinion that it IS snobbery and elitism... and it's your opinion that it's not... neither should be in a Wiki article. For the record, I do agree with your stance, but I don't agree with it being on Wikipedia. --Zikar 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It should read something like this "Most of photos that are targeted are photos that are taken by point and shoot cameras or camera phones (source), some professional photographers(source) feel these lack artistic value because little attention has been paid to composition or lighting (source)." --Zikar 01:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have relevant links at hand, but I do know of a few dA news articles (primary sources) expressing concern over miscats. dA categories do have descriptions about what each submission category is intended for, however that is shown only on the submissions end and can't be verified without a dA account. --Stratadrake 03:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone with better writing ability than myself should mention that pieces with drawn or sketched full frontal male nudity often dissapear. I lack the sources to prove so as well. --Bhree 01:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Legalities

What are the legalities in deviantART? People selling their work is illegal. --PJ Pete

How is selling your own work illegal? --OuroborosCobra 03:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

More like don't sell your drawing of Mario to Nintendo, any other company, or anyone else. --PJ Pete --August 26, 2007

Huh, do you mean people making fanart and then selling it on the site? If not, please explain what you mean.Darkcraft 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Article of Lists?

This article seems to be primarily a bunch of lists. Particlularly the 'Features' section should probably be written into a paragraph. I just thought I should post this here before I go ahead with the edits.Darkcraft 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! I've thought the same thing; just never got around to it. Thanks! =David^(talk)_(contribs) 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, finished. I checked through it, but it is likely that I made errors that I didn't detect, so it would be good if someone else read through it. Darkcraft 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I did the same thing to the 'Subscription' section, it would be helpful if someone read through that as well.Darkcraft 11:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Invisible"

On the site, what does it mean that the deviant is "invisible"? --PJ Pete —Preceding comment was added at 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It means that the public cannot see whether that deviant is logged in or not, or how long ago they were last logged in. It is an option each deviant can pick for themselves. --OuroborosCobra 05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New user symbol?

Where did the research for the user symbol 'x' come from? Timmy64 10:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It was added by 436egxcvr (talk · contribs) in this edit. I don't see 'x' in the dA FAQ and I'm surprised it stayed in the article this long. --Imroy 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting Policy Violations

When someone reports a policy violation on a deviation, could that really just ban the deviant? --PJ Pete

You need to try and use proper grammar, I don't understand what you are asking, and it is certainly not something I can find in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the deviation is reported for a copyright infringement, that deviant could be banned. --PJ Pete

Again, use proper grammar. Are you asking a question or making a statement? I can't tell what you are trying to say here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He's talking about DeviantART itself, rather than our article on it. To PJ Pete: If you have questions about deviantART, the best place to ask them would be either on the deviantART forums, reading the faqs, or by contacting the help desk. Thanks. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the article with citations

I just added a bunch of citations. I encourage everyone to find citations for many of the uncited material on this article. --Dan Leveille^TALK 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Favorites vs Favourites

One of the changes I just made to the article was changing "Favorites" to "Favourites". The latter spelling was already being used through the article in conjunction with the former, so I made the change both for consistency, but more importantly as I think it's the spelling the site itself uses. However, it may just be changing the word for me, as my account is a UK account. If the site uses the spelling "Favorites" for users in the US, then it should be changed back for real consistency with the rest of the article. Does anyone here have access to a non-UK account on the site to confirm the spelling? --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am on a US account, and it uses "favourites" for me. Should be fine. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, favourites is what's used in dA, and deviantART is good. Thanks. --Dan Leveille^TALK 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed GA Nomination

I have removed the GA Nomination. Moni3 (talk) has brought up some good points about this article:

• You have a {{fact tags}} in the article. That's almost an immediate quick fail. Find citations for them (like quickly, too). complete
• External links in the prose of the article are also frowned upon. You can add them at the bottom in an external link section, or just take them out. complete
• You have a "borked" citation (#24). complete
• The controversy over Scott Jarkoff is confusing. I've been a deviant for over a year and can't really see the importance of Jarkoff's issue. If it really is important, that needs to be clear. You might even want to consider condensing the paragraphs about Jark and Angela Sotira to make it simpler. complete

Each will be addressed and the article will be resubmitted. Feel free to help. --Dan Leveille^TALK 06:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, these issues have been addressed. The article will be re-nominiated. --Dan Leveille^TALK 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move back to deviantART

[edit] GA Review On Hold

I am putting the nomination on hold until a page name is decided. I will still read over the article and review but I will not make a decision until the argument has finished. It seems good at a glance, so I expect the same when I do a full review. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 22:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ART vs Art

In this article, it should not be "deviantArt" when referring to a reference's title. This is the title of the page - not any relation to the article title on WP. This should not be "deviantArt" - it's directly copied and pasted from the reference's <title>. Any references to the incorporation, "deviantART, Inc" should be lowercase d, capital ART. This is exactly how the company is incorporated. This is how they refer to themselves on legal documents. The changes that have been made to this by Cyrus XIII are making the article factually incorrect, regardless of the Wikipedia title. All other instances do not matter and may echo the article's current title, DeviantArt. --Dan Leveille^TALK 18:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly provide the guideline/policy that exempts citation titles and company names followed by legal status from our formatting standards? - Cyrus XIII (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It is something they wrote, not something we wrote. Would you similarly change a quote from their article? GreenReaper (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In addition, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Capitalization mentions that 'Book titles, like names of other works, are exempt from "lowercase second and subsequent words".' This indicates to me that Wikipedia naming guidelines were not intended to trump the choice of the creators of the work. The most appropriate style guide, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (titles), is silent on capitalization; however the talk page is not, and people there seem to feel that accuracy is important. The main concern I have with changing anything about the title is that it is a lie to the reader, given the aforementioned significance of capitalization. We should be as accurate as possible to the original author's intent. GreenReaper (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Then where do you draw the line? You didn't answer the question above about color, and it wasn't a rhetorical question. Just how far do we follow artist (or trademark holder) preferences?

From what I've seen of naming conventions being applied, on a day-to-day basis, we generally cast titles of works in "Title Case" (we tend to use the second table entry under that link), even in cases where the artist or trademark holder would have us treat their title or trademark in some "sPeCIaL" manner. To what extent do you think we should follow them? Spelling? Punctuation? Capitalization? non-standard punctuation? non-latin letters? Color?

I'm not arguing for the current title, or making a claim about precisely where the line should be drawn. What I'm hoping to do is to point out that it's not a simple matter of "do what the trademark holder says". We do, in fact, have to draw a line somewhere. We have been drawing it, for some time, just this side of capitalization. It might be helpful if we were to find examples of articles with consensus-supported titles on either side of the capitalization dispute. I know that most of the ones that come through WP:RM get their capitalization standardized in accordance with WP:MOSTM, with notable exceptions. I just noticed yesterday that apparently songs by the Pet Shop Boys are exempt from title case, which is interesting. I wonder whether they're talking with the people over at WP:MUSTARD. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I draw the line, as I have said many times in different ways, at the point where it is shown that the majority of people fail to use in real life. I think the onus is on the person challenging the current name to show that, not the reverse. If it is a truly silly name, or if it is not strongly endorsed, it should not be at all difficult to do. For example, few sources, online or off, are likely to replicate colours - perhaps not even primary sources (e.g. FedEx only uses the colours in graphics, not website text). We can verify such things from the sources available, and doing so will give us a test and a basis for deviating from what might be expected to be the "right" title. Right now it's just "this isn't how English names were meant to be", a rule which has already been compromised by a number of exceptions where the theory does not match up with reality. In many cases where no general or specific exception was made there has been considerable pushback - and I think rightly so. It does us no favours to prefer a common style and ease of rule application over accuracy. If what people think about it in the real world matters, we should be using the sources available to measure that instead. GreenReaper (talk) 10:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also deeply concerned about the alterations to the reference titles, particularly considering the very recent debate which highlighted the importance of how others used capitalization. Their choice of capitalization their work is a fact that reflects their opinion; changing it misrepresents that opinion. That this results in an inconsistency with the rest of the article merely reflects the fact that Wikipedia has chosen to use a different name to that used by the majority of the references. Again, if you change this, you will change the impression readers have about the use of the term by others. GreenReaper (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with GreenReaper. There are no WP policies that are that specific about instances like these. We're referring to a company name - that's the corporation that owns it. It should be officially typeset to provide factual information to readers. As for citations, It's the exact title of the page - it shouldn't be adjusted - it was copy and pasted. We're citing the exact title - that's how they wrote it, we're citing it, we shouldn't change it. --Dan Leveille^TALK 20:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame the GA is on indefinite hold, which basically equals a GA Fail due to instability. I do not understand rules which render a fact inaccurate, and the dedication to the rules that defies grammar and sense. (Inject irony: the name of deviantART itself defies rules of capitalization and punctuation.) The name is deviantART. It should show as deviantART throughout title, text, and reference. --Moni3 (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Moni3. Also, about the GAN - The reviewer put it on hold until the situation was resolved. Since there was no consensus, I notified her. She hasn't been active on WP since she put the article on hold, so I'm sure she'll review it once she comes back online. --Dan Leveille^TALK 20:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will take the intermediate messages as a "no" to my question and have to concede that there is probably no such exception. Hence by pushing for further use of the official typeset, that goes beyond the descriptive note required by WP:MOS-CL, one promotes inconsistency (both, with the Manual of Style and within the article itself), as well as the DeviantArt brand. Whether this is done out of personal preference or affiliation with the organization in question, I will neither inquire nor ponder.

But may I remind everyone, that this discussion only concerns a style issue and that since its inception about a week ago, next to nothing else has been contributed to this supposed GA hopeful? It is quite odd, how local regulars in particular will invest their entire editorial input for a given topic in lengthy debates over text formatting (of all things), while content-related matters, such as verifiability deficits go undiscussed, probably unnoticed and subsequently unimproved. It did not require in-depth familiarity with the article or its subject, to notice that the article as a whole relies almost exclusively on primary sources, in addition to numerous unsourced statements in the Criticism section, which, by its nature, requires very thorough referencing.

I hope this helps putting things back into perspective. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what I said above. MOSTM does not apply because we are talking about the titles of other works, not our own work. MOST applies, and it does not make a similar specification, nor is there consensus on the talk page for such a specification. As myself and others have made clear to you, it is inappropriate to change the title of another person's work to conform to our style, as it degrades the accuracy of that citation. I am changing the titles back now. GreenReaper (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) does not elaborate on matters of capitalization itself, but links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks); hence the same standards apply with or without legal status appended to a company's name. As for the titles of references, these are simply names of published works (literature, film, music, etc.), which we commonly normalize to title case. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

If you cannot see why it is inappropriate to change the case of the citations even when the use of the non-normalized casing is itself a matter of interest in the article, then I cannot help you. You do not have the consensus you require to make that change stick. GreenReaper (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is inappropriate to apply house style to URLs and to titles of articles cited, especially in a case where the case in which the title is rendered is pertinent to the subject of the article. Surely such a rule would defy common sense? In our own voice, we use our own style, but we don't modify direct quotes by others, much less URLs, which aren't even English, but code. Changing case can break a URL, can't it?

In references in general, we aren't speaking purely in our own voice, but we're rather in the midst of a hand-off to other, more authoritative voices. I'm not willing to say that I've seen demonstrated a consensus for rendering all link titles according to our house "title case". At best, such consensus is undetermined, unless there's something I'm missing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus XIII, I believe that statement is a bit hypocritical, wouldn't you say? After there was no consensus on the move back to deviantART, you were the one who tweaked these tiny little things, and you're spending quite a bit of your "editorial input" to contradict our decisions. The only reason we aren't continuing to improve the article is because you originally moved it and now you're continuing to change these little things that we don't agree with. --Dan Leveille^TALK 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a minor thing. However, there's no reason we can't subject material we introduce to our encyclopedia in the form of citation to our MoS. This seems like the same argument as before: that DA somehow owns its name and we can only format it the way they do. Changing the text formatting within citations doesn't cause any harm, and it normalizes the style throughout the article. Croctotheface (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not the rights of deviantART, Inc. that is the main issue here (to me), but the right of the author of the work concerned to title their work as they see fit, and the issue mentioned above of misrepresenting their usage. Again (and again...), if it says "DeviantArt" in the article then people will think that is how the term is being commonly used. Changing it in the article without citing verifiable proof of significant usage is at best misleading, and so wrong. Changing the citations is an outright lie that misrepresents the intent of the author and reinforces this misleading impression. The page titles do not say "DeviantArt"; they say "deviantART". Their use of the term is a material fact that has relevance to the article, and not a mere difference in style. GreenReaper (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

GreenReaper, you make a good argument. As I understand, your contention is that a significant majority of sources use "deviantART" as opposed to "DeviantArt", and that our choice of the latter title is therefore misleading. Your argument would therefore be supported by WP:COMMONNAME, whereas the contrary argument is supported by WP:MOSTM (with some consideration for semantic distinctions between "spelling", "capitalization", etc.).

This case is in such a murky gray part of the gray area of our naming conventions, that I don't think we can confidently declare what the community consensus is, based only on previously-written guidelines. IMO, this is the kind of case that determines just where the line is drawn.

I think that, if this article were to settle on "deviantART", then certain other articles would eventually move in response, or else this one would move back. The community seeks consistency in the long run, moving as few pages as possible on the way there. What happens with TNA Impact!? With Kiss? With Bell Hooks and K.D. Lang? We could just make this one an exception, if consensus supports such a decision, but eventually we'll want to sort out a consistent policy that explains why this is an exception and something else isn't. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, supergroup of the century ABBA is ABBA. Abba would look very weird. --Moni3 (talk) 13:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ABBA is an acronym, which is allowed by our naming conventions. See also NATO, NASA e.t.c. As far as I am aware, the ART in dA's name isn't an acronym. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Primary sources

A user (Cyrus XIII) tagged {{Primary sources}} on the article. I don't particularly agree with this. Most of the citations required are for terms, policies, features, and announcements within the community. I don't feel that any third party sources are needed for most of the citations, seeing how we need to cite internal references for most of the information that need references. (ex. We wouldn't want to have third party references for information about deviantART terminology - not only would it be hard to find, but it'd be an unreliable source for that type of information.)

Cyrus XIII: Could you specify specific information that needs primary sources?

Other editors: Anyone know any third party references that could replace (or be added) to the article? --Dan Leveille^TALK 22:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that any of the primary sources need to be replaced. However, it may be necessary to add additional sources (which could be primary or secondary, as appropriate), to substantiate certain matters. For example, it is not clear what supports the statement that the site "was loosely inspired by projects like Winamp facelift, customize.org, deskmod.com, screenphuck.com and skinz.org; all application skin based websites." A secondary source or two would be valuable in establishing the site's notability - reviews and suchlike can be very informative and a source of good quotes. GreenReaper (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources can be used under a certain set of criteria. When referring to dA policy, there is nothing in the article that fails those criteria. But the article is borderlining failing the last criteria, as the majority of sources refer to dA itself. For subjects not dealing with policy, or the meanings of certain icons (like "~" and "`" symbols) there should be other evidence backing it up. --w^{L<speak·check>} 08:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, the criticism section requires the most attention (due to verifiability/reliability concerns), but it is also the many features that the article lists and elaborates in great detail on, that need some sort of third-party-backup. While the site's substantial userbase (and with it, its basic notability) is covered by a reliable third party source, most of the things happening on and around planet DeviantArt are covered through primary sources, hence their own notability for a general-purpose encyclopedia goes unaccounted for. See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Congratulations. Within a minute or two of the posting of this message, DeviantArt will be a Good Article. When I read the article, most of the prose was OK. There were some minor mistakes, but I felt they did not need to affect my judging of the article. The major problem with the article is that almost all of its sources are primary. However, the sources seemed very reliable and it is unlikely that any other sources will be found. (I still recommend you look for new sources.) It definitely covers all the necessary topics relative to the main subject and, as far as I can see, is neutral and stable. As for the final criteria, images, all of the images had proper copyright templates. However, only one of them had any fair use rationale for the article, so I recommend you start writing that now if you ever want to go to FA (if you guys are looking that far into the future). Anyway, the article was not perfect, but it can be considered "Good". Good luck in the future, this article has a lot to work off of. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 23:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Searching for art in results

What is the reason why some latest art doesn't become available in the search results for more than 24 hours? --PJ Pete —Preceding comment was added at 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum for deviantART. --Dan Leveille^TALK 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Angelo Sotira Speaks Out

This whole paragraph seems very unsubtle and POV. I've edited "ranted" to "complained" because I don't think the journal in question (http://jark.deviantart.com/journal/14959691/) is a "rant". The rest of it I've left, although there's something wrong about it I can't put my finger on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeShambles (talk • contribs) 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction in DeviantART Shop Section

This section states that "Users who have bought a prints account for an annual fee of $24.95 USD (originally it was a one-time fee) may sell their work..." and later states that "The Prints account is a one time fee, will not expire, and is non-transferable." Seems to be very contradictory, to me. The statement in parentheses also seems a bit irrelevant. (As well, 4x6 prints are mentioned to have a base price of $0.32, and a pre-set price of $0.33. Is this an error, or are base prices and pre-set prices different?) Jeff.subtle (talk) 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright issues

I have found the following text in the discussion of the french page, and then on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DeviantArt&oldid=71173712

I could not see the reason why it has been deleted; things actually go this way: see http://about.deviantart.com/policy/submission/ (expecially, art 3). Can anyone make it clearer to me? Thamks.

"Historically there has been sporadic unease regarding deviantART's potential usage of uploaded art. Posting requires assent to dA's Submission Agreement, which grants deviantART the legal permissions to re-use and even modify any artwork posted on deviantART (see in particular Section 3. License), as well as the right to sublicense any of that artwork to a third party at dA's sole discretion.

Critics have argued that those usage rights are too broad and far-reaching, that the legal language is unnecessarily complex and weighed in dA's favor, and that the difficulty of terminating the agreement means that "dA effectively owns your art." Defenders assert that deviantART needs the rights to legally offer its basic services, and to enable future services and business relationships that may become desirable. (See also the official Help Desk response to questions and criticism.)

On March 1, 2006, deviantART's administration issued the most dramatic revision to date in response to months of community initiative. The far-reaching usage rights remain intact, but matters of termination have been clarified, improved, and made more accessible, so that artists can reclaim their usage rights simply by removing their works from dA as they please. Though some remain concerned about the basic arrangement, many now feel reassured by the new "freedom to leave."

Outside the legal issues involved in posting art, the immense popularity of the site has made it an easy target for copyright violation, as a malicious user can easily reuse artwork displayed (usually as clip art for websites) without the author's knowledge. Also, many users either ignorant of the site's purpose or the site's submission agreement often submit art works they did not produce. Others attempt to use deviantART as a photo-hosting site for their own needs, which is also strongly discouraged.

Due to the impractical nature of researching the copyright status of any art work reused in deviations, many copyright violations remain untouched until the violation has been proven. Administrative work regarding policy violations is often viewed as one-sided and unconcerned; this is because some users are not aware of the copyright policies, and claim to be falsely or mistakenly accused. This has led to many clashes between users and staff."--Popopp (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Popopp, the revision you linked to was actually vandalism. If you look at the following revisions by B gal, he deletes the article, one section at a time. But you are correct that it was deleted. I was the one who later removed it from the article. The reason for this is because the entire section did not include a single citation or verifiable source. DeviantART explains it's copyright details. The user agreement allows deviantART to display your art in different ways, adjust, resize, make thumbnails, display in different formats, etc... If you can find verifiable sources for any of the information that was removed, and that are factually accurate, feel free to add it. (My views regarding this topic are mine alone and do not necessarily reflect those of deviantART. I do not speak on behalf of the deviantART.) --Dan Leveille^TALK 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thank you very much for your explanation, I have not gone trough the chronology to see where and when those sentences have been reinserted or redeleted. However, the whole thing continues to be completely unclear to me. It is true that deviantART asserts here "By agreeing to the Submission Agreement what you are really doing is granting deviantART the basic permissions we need in order to display, showcase, and make your artwork available to viewers using the various on-site systems and tools." But when you submit something you (Art. 3) grant to deviantART a ... license to do the following things during the Term: (boldface is mine)

"a) to prepare and encode Artist Materials ... for digital or analog transmission, manipulation and exhibition in any format and by any means now known or not yet known or invented;

b) to display, copy, reproduce, exhibit, publicly perform, broadcast, rebroadcast, transmit, retransmit, distribute through any electronic means ... or other means, ... any or all of the Artist Materials, and to include them in compilations for publication, by any and all means and media now known or not yet known or invented ; ...

d) the right to sublicense to any other person or company any of the licensed rights in the Artist Materials...

g) ... the term "Artist Materials" means any content uploaded to the deviantART Site(s) ..."

As far as I can see, this is far far more than "granting deviantART the basic permissions we need in order to display, showcase, and make your artwork available to viewers using the various on-site systems and tools." Other sites use really different policies!--Popopp (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More Controversy?

DeviantART's customization system is solely based on payment (Subscriptions) among other things; while SheezyART gives all of that for free, plus full page customization (DeviantART doesn't do full page customization.) Is this worth noting among other things money-based? Like not being able to see really old artwork? 71.150.251.120 (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you can find reliable sources discussing the controversy, feel free to cite them and add it. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Change to 'DeviantArt'

Since the change has already been made, I'm not going to put my point in the discussions over whether or not it should happen. I'm not trying to start the argument all over again, but I do think it should be changed to deviantART. If it works at this page, it can work here. Everyone keeps saying it doesn't fit into the WP:MOSTM, but yet we have a page doing exactly what everyone says is wrong. Anyone care to clarify why we can have 'edIT' and not 'deviantART'? Kiiro (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That argument is similar to WP:WAX and WP:OSE. In this case, the fact that our article on edIT goes against our naming policies does not mean that another article, or ten other articles, or every article can, or should go against our policies. The fact is that in this case, noone has put in a move request for that article. If you were to request that article be moved, and linked to the relevant policies, it would almost certainly be moved. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)