Talk:DeviantArt

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

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) 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". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help). 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". {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) 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. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Nope, DeviantArt requires an email in order to confirm your account.24.130.16.59 (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move back to deviantART

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page back to "deviantART", per the discussion below. As far as the comments in support of the move in the survey section, formatting of article titles is generally determined by referring to the manual of style, not to "proper names" or "proper branding". More relevant discussion below deals with the interpretation of our manual of style itself. However, as shown by the comments of other editors in the survey and most other article titles dealing with names of this kind, it is not usual to use nonstandard capitalization. Also note that WP:UCN generally comes into play in cases for which there is no more specific guideline in place. Dekimasuよ! 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

---

DeviantArt → deviantART The recent move to DeviantArt is not sensible, as deviantART is the standard form of this website's name, used throughout the site and by others referring to it; it should be reversed. —GreenReaper (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support Dan Leveille^TALK 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose WP:MOS is pretty clear on this. Since the "ART" part doesn't aren't initials, it doesn't need to be capitalized since WP:MOSTM says we shouldn't use odd capitalization just because the trademark owners wants it that way. However, IF (and that's a big if) it gets moved, then I will immediatly request TNA Impact! be moved back to TNA iMPACT! since that is the official way it's capitalized and is no different that this being at "deviantART". TJ Spyke 09:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support see above conversation at #Uncontroversial Move. Using deviantArt is tantamount to creating its own format, as it is used by a distant minority. It violates point 6 of WP:MOS-TM. Oppose per sources found by Croctotheface. If reliable sources use it, so should we. --w^{L<speak·check>} 10:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC) (updated 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC))
• Support. deviantART is the proper name for it. Proper names trump rules. --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - proposed new name fails WP:MOSTM miserably. I'm afraid 'proper names' do not 'trump rules'. William Henry Gates III for example, which would fail WP:NCP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EJF (talk • contribs)
• Oppose. DeviantArt is not an invented format, per these sources: [2], [3], [4], [5]. "deviantART" is not standard English, so the guideline applies. DeviantArt is as good as any variation that more closely resembles standard English. "deviantART" is clearly inappropriate. Croctotheface (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - my main reasoning is below, but to summarise, WP:MOSTM suggests that deviantART is incorrect. To go into a little more detail, I also disagree with various support reasons. I believe that "proper names trump rules" is incorrect. WP:COMMONNAME specifically states that it only applies where the manual of style does not, and in this case, WP:MOSTM does apply. I don't believe that using DeviantArt is creating a new format (though as it happens, I am not necessarily saying that this location is best, just that deviantART is not best), and I don't believe that the discussion above at #Uncontroversial Move results in a genuine consensus one way or the other, and I feel that consensus can change anyway, particularly after 9 or 10 months. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, per the various parts of the WP:MOS already mentioned in the discussion below. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Being an avid user and senior member of this site, "deviantArt" is incorrect, thus "DeviantArt" would be incorrect. It is not proper branding of the site. The Wikipedia article should be named "DeviantART", as the website is NAMED "deviantART"....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.14.129 (talk • contribs)
• Oppose - its the word "Art", not "A.R.T." and so we should not write it in caps. Trademark owners inventing new ways of writing their logos is why the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) guideline exists. Callmederek (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per our existing WP:MOS which suitably deals with names like this. Neier (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per the WP:MOS. As the 'senior member' of the site says, deviantART is 'branding of the site'. We are not here to help brands or trademarks. Consistancy is more important. Narson (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

I strongly disagree with the recent move of this article from deviantART to DeviantArt. This action should be reversed (along with the related changes by Cyrus XIII). The site is known everywhere as deviantART, and clearly holds itself out as such. The most recent trademark application even cites deviantART as the company (although DeviantArt has been used in a prior application). GreenReaper (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

While deviantART may well be the "correct" name of the company/site, and what the company itself uses, and what the trademark application uses (and even, in this case, what I use myself when talking about dA), it specifically goes against our Manual of Style for trademarks. Particularly this section will be of use. Our naming conventions also go against it, see here. I won't revert your reversion just yet, I shall give you time to reply here. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, "known everywhere" is not quite correct, as several web-based venues indeed use the CamelCase variant "DeviantArt".[6][7][8][9][10] In addition to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style sub-pages already provided by Dreaded Walrus, I'd like to mention WP:MOS-CL#Mixed or non-capitalization. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I had read the Manual of Style, however I disagree with it in this particular case, and on that particular rule. I believe we should use the most common name, even if it violates standard English. It's not our job to police the use of language by others. There has been considerable debate of that area of the guidelines and I think this is an example where it makes more sense to follow common usage. GreenReaper (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict with GreenReaper) Regardless of whether we personally agree with a particular policy, it must be followed while it is a policy. I personally disagree that users should be allowed to remove legitimate vandalism warnings from their talk pages, but that is our policy, and I am obliged to follow it. If you feel the policies should be changed, it should be discussed on the relevant talk pages, but ignoring them is simply not an option. (note that this was in response to this version of the message above, so may not apply to any subsequent changes) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've now had a quick scan through the last six months of the discussion page linked, and can't seem to find anything relevant to this particular case. If there's a section in particular you're thinking of, could you link directly to it? According to the policy page's history, it also seems to be a pretty stable page, and that particular section doesn't seem to be in fluctuation much. As for WP:COMMONNAME, that is only meant to be applied when none of the other naming conventions apply, as even stated in the nutshell: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". In this case, our naming conventions do give a different indication, as mentioned above. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This very example was discussed - and rejected. As pfahlstrom said "as far as deviantART is concerned, both Deviantart and DeviantArt would be wrong." GreenReaper (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you provide does not show that DeviantArt was "rejected" unequivocally. The only issue with it was that it might be a new invention, but there was at least one source using that format at the time, and more have been provided above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do I have to provide all the sources where the correct capitalization is used? Here is another prior discussion relating to the topic of not using the common names. It covers exactly what's happened here - a batch renaming that occurred because the real world does not conform to the style guide. GreenReaper (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't have to provide all the sources where the "correct" capitalization is used. It turns out that we don't generally aim for correct when it comes to naming issues. We use the name that's the most common, and we format (i.e. capitalize) it according to our own style guide. Do I have to provide links to one thousand page moves where this principle has been applied uncontroversially? It's what we generally do here - I've closed hundreds of moves based on this principle, had very few challenged, and those stood up to review. Do I have to provide the arguments on which that consensus of hundreds of Wikipedians is based?

The fact is, it's not unambiguous or obvious what to do in a case such as this, and there's no need to act as if people who prefer one version are being slow or dense. All I did was point out that the previous discussion was not an unambiguous rejection of "DeviantArt", and it's not very helpful to pretend it was. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Asserting that the capitalization is not part of the name is incorrect. As this article itself says, "the site uses unorthodox capitalization in its title (deviantART) as a way of emphasizing its deviance, and other aspects of the site reflect this attitude as well." The same goes for iPod - which, I would note, is not at IPod. Instead, there is a redirect, so that everyone who happens to use the incorrect capitalization gets to the correct name. GreenReaper (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(after EC - reply to GreenReaper) I agree that iPod is in the right place: not at iPOD. You say "asserting that capitalization is part of the name is incorrect", but that's hardly an uncontroversial statement. It sounds like a question of semantics, on which reasonable people may differ. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I was giving my opinion. Still, I never claimed to be a reasonable person. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, no problem there. Give your opinion by all means, but I reserve the right to point out that an opinion is different from a proven fact. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

iPod, eBay and the like are all now covered (though weren't at the time of discussions linked above) by the Manual of style for trademarks. "Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules". The same cannot be said of deviantART. And while there has been discussion on the talk page, none of this resulted in a change to the policy page, and it is that, rather than consensus-free discussion on a talk page, which we must follow first and foremost. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's consensus more than policy which we must follow (policy documents consensus), and consensus can change. If we establish a consensus for titling the article "deviantART" or "DeviantART" or "deviantArt" or "deviantart" or any other permutation, then we can do what we decide, but it will take a strong consensus to outweigh the usual practice that we've been applying for a long time when citing WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCL. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you, I think I may have just been ambiguous in my wording. What I was getting at was that discussion was being linked to that was at least half a year stale, and had no strong consensus, and had resulted in no relevant changes to the policy page. I also agree that a consensus on this talk page would be more helpful than the policies or their talk pages (as there always exceptions to rules), and it is that which we must work towards. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we're on the same page. In this case, we'll decide how the consensus at MOSTM (such as it is) applies to this case. The best way to do that is probably to bring more people to the discussion, as you can only find out so much about a consensus by talking with three people. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be best to link to this discussion on WT:MOSTM, or to file a request for comment? And if the latter, would it go under WP:RFC/ART? I'm largely unfamiliar with the RfC process. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it appears User:Danlev is doing a mediation thing. I'm pretty unfamiliar with that, too, but I'm sure I'll figure it out when the time comes.. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just retracted it. In February there was a case open and we decided to sty with deviantART. I didn't realize there was a final consensus. Unless anyone else agrees that another case should be open, let me know and I'll open it. But there was already a case open and there shouldn't be another. The page should be moved back. --Dan Leveille^TALK 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to that decision, please? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:DeviantArt#Mediation_Cabal_case and Talk:DeviantArt#Uncontroversial_Move and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-22 deviantART states the final decision. --Dan Leveille^TALK 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; those are useful links. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This may be a bit redundant now, but . . . the trouble (as usual) with the guideline is that it doesn't make sense in this particular case. Here it was being used to change the article from the official name, which is widely used, to a name which is not widely used - either on Wikipedia (until the links were changed), or elsewhere. It's fine to argue that lowercase or oddly-capped names shouldn't be used because they're not easy to read or write - but, as a practical matter, that also means that people like us who are unconnected with the businesses concerned don't use them either. "deviantART" is not the only style out there, but it is the one used by those familiar with the site, and its users, as well as by the company running it - all of which have been demonstrated by prior conversations on this very talk page (User:Spyed is a co-founder). "deviantART" has also been used throughout the article for a long time - here's an early cleaned-up version. There's been ample chance for editors to agree to change how the name is capitalized within the article itself, but they have not agreed to do so. Ideally, the move should have been discussed here before a change was made that could not be reverted without administrative action - especially considering that the previous discussions were similarly controversial. GreenReaper (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. We have already made a final decision with a discussion and a cabal case. Such a move should have been discussed if someone STILL had an issue with it. --Dan Leveille^TALK 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no "final decisions" here. Consensus can change. GreenReaper makes a good case for deviantART, but a good case has also been made for the currently accepted interpretations of WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCL. In my opinion, this article sits right in the middle of the gray area, and makes a good test case. What we decide here decides just where the line gets drawn, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. We don't copy all special formatting, nor do we ignore all special formatting. One one side of the line is iPod, and on the other side is TNA Impact!. This case could lie on either side of the line, and we have to be open to current consensus, whatever has been decided in the past. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, the iPod/eBay format was already covered by the guideline at the time of aforementioned discussion, yet a rather drawn out dispute over the rendering of "TNA Impact!"/"TNA iMPACT!" called for clarification and subsequently that bit about the "lowercase prefix" being "pronounced as a separate letter" was introduced. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 01:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I initially had some concerns that DeviantArt might be an invented format, but I did a search of the Google News archive and found these: [11], [12], [13], [14], and I'm sure there are more. We are certainly free to apply the guideline, which would call for something more standard than the "official" style. Croctotheface (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an incorrect format used in those articles. The company is incorporated exactly as "deviantART" and uses it everywhere. Third party articles are irrelevant. --Dan Leveille^TALK 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Third party articles, far from being irrelevant, are what Wikipedia is based on. This is a source-based encyclopedia. We reflect sources, rather than correcting them. I can cite literally hundreds of precedents for this principle, and that represents a broad consensus for the idea that we do not copy special formatting, even when trademark holders would insist that we do. Whether that consensus applies in this case or not is a matter that Wikipedians may, and should, discuss in an open-minded and neutral fashion. There are good arguments on both sides. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I voted against the move based on current policies and guidelines. I sorta want it to be moved though since that would give me precedent to have TNA Impact! moved back to TNA iMPACT! (the offical capitalization) which was just as controversial as this move. It caused the article to be locked for several weeks and a LONG discussion (which Cyrus was involved in). After a couple of months I just gave up since I felt it wasn't worth it anymore. So I will be paying attention to this. TJ Spyke 09:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the cases aren't all that similar, because at least "deviant" and "ART" are phonetically and semantically distinct parts of the word, whereas nobody pronounces the wrestling promotion as "eye-mpact", nor do "i" and "MPACT" have independent meanings. Consider "eye-pod", which is how we pronounce iPod. Nevertheless, I agree that this is a case to watch, because it's articles such as this where precedents are set. -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a rule that precludes proper names appearing as they should in terms of capitalization, it's not a rule that makes any sense, nor is it quite respectful. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The question is where we draw the line. We can't mimic every aspect of a trademark that trademark holders may choose to define as official. If someone were to insist that a name isn't correct unless we use special characters (macy*s, We ♥ Katamari, P!nk, KoЯn) or a particular typefont or color, then we probably wouldn't follow them all the way there. On the other hand, we do respect alternative spellings (e.g., Linkin Park) as being an essential part of a name. Are capitalization choices an essential part of a name, or are they stylistic choices akin to typefonts or special characters? One could make a case either way.

What we've traditionally chosen is to follow trademark holders as regards spelling, but not as regards special formatting. Where the line is drawn is somewhere very close to the boundary between CamelCase on the one hand - which performs a semantic role, separating parts of a compound word as in MasterCard - and stylized capitalization on the other hand, which perform no such role, such as TNA iMPACT! or HoTMaiL.

It's certainly possible to change consensus, but our habit of avoiding stylized typography, and of classifying special capitalizations as such, is a pretty broadly supported one, so it would take broad support to change that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous mediation

Having read over the previous mediation (thank you for the links, Dan) it's clear that there has never been a consensus formed over what to call this article. Only a few people have discussed it. One person who wanted to move the page to DeviantArt didn't comment for a while, and withdrew a move request. Later, someone arrived to say they still objected to the DeviantART title, but the case had already been declared closed as a "nothing to mediate here". That's different from a consensus forming. The policy issues haven't even been discussed.

On one side, there's the WP:MOSTM recommendation against copying special formatting, a la P!nk or macy*s. On the other hand, we're admonished in the same guideline not to invent new formats.

The current format (DeviantArt) is not, as far as I can tell, entirely original, but it's not used by very many sources. It would appear that deviantART is considerably more common, but formatted differently than our style guide would suggest. Is that a pretty good summary of the issue? -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to go about describing something used by "very many" sources. Considering that the standard is "inventing new formats", then anything that is used in any reliable secondary sources is OK by that standard. If it were the case that zero major reliable secondary sources used a format, then we would be "inventing" it. If there exist sources that use it, then, by definition, we are not inventing it.

However, I don't think that this is really the dispute here. The argument that people who favor "deviantART" seem to most prefer is an "official" or "correctness" argument, whereby they assert that formats other than "deviantART" are "incorrect" because they are not "official", i.e. favored by the trademark owner. Obviously, this line of argument runs smack against WP:MOSTM, which says that nonstandard formats should not be used regardless of whether the trademark owner prefers them.

This is an easy case. We find that "deviantART" is nonstandard, so WP:MOSTM applies. Whether the nonstandard style is preferred by the trademark owner is irrelevant. We then see that DeviantArt, a standard English formatting, exists in reliable secondary sources. So, we use DeviantArt instead. At no point here have we "invented a format". The guideline is satisfied, and we can move on to other things. Croctotheface (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a line that could be drawn somewhere in between a "new invention" and an accepted format. If only one source used the format preferred by our style guide, and dozens of others used a different format, then we might go with commonality over consistency. If it were more evenly split, then we'd probably stick with our style guide. I don't know what the numbers are like in this case, nor where the tipping point lies, but it's in there somewhere. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the language of the guideline is "invent new formats". I don't see how you could say we are inventing a format if, for instance, CNN uses it. Croctotheface (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying that. It still remains that a truly obscure format, even if not completely original, would probably not sway a consensus. That's my guess anyway. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the notion is that WP:MOSTM is a guideline that itself represents a broad consensus of WP editors. I would hope that if there were a very straightforward case where the guideline clearly applies (say, for instance, an ALL CAPS name that 100% of reliable sources render in Title Case), it would not be possible for a group of editors who prefer the all caps formatting to prevent a consensus from forming by arguing that we should use the "official name". Croctotheface (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not whether or not it's preferred by the trademark owner, it's whether or not it's preferred by those effectively unconnected with them. We argue that deviantART is correct because it is what is generally used, just as iPod or eBay are generally used (even if they are not the only formats used). GreenReaper (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Two questions: first, it is irrelevant to your position that the company "officially" uses "deviantART"? Based on what I've read from you so far, it seems that what is "official" or "correct" is a big part of your argument. Second, how do you define "generally"? Are we tallying the number of sources who use each formatting? What is the standard you advocate using? Would you change your position to supporting "DeviantArt" if it were used by a plurality of the sources in our tally? Croctotheface (talk) 06:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I do not consider it entirely irrelevant, because it offers a refutable assumption is the "right" name for this article - the one people are likely to use when linking to it and looking for it. There needs to be a clear justification for not using this name. In my mind, the only valid justification is that it is not actually the name used by people to refer to this topic. If one format is used by a simple majority of sources, then that displays such a preference.

If there is merely a plurality, then there is no clear preference for any particular invented name - and therefore we should probably use the default. This avoids the situation where we are using an invented name that at least half of the world is going to think is wrong. Few are likely to claim that we are using the wrong title for this page when it is the one that the site itself uses, as shown prominently on the screenshot at the top of the article.

I prefer using the word people in any guideline, even if we end up having to look at sources to guage this. The more formal sources should be treated with caution, as some will have style guides similar to those of Wikipedia; and as Dreaded Walrus pointed out, people following a style guide might be forced to use a capitalization that they would not normally use themselves. I do not think we should avoid using the term "deviantART" just because (say) the New York Times has an issue with using it. We should do so only because most people have an issue with it, and prefer a different one. GreenReaper (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick response to one of the points you make - It is irrelevant what the user types into the search box, as whichever one they type, they will always be shown this article. If they type in deviantART, they will arrive automatically at the article. Likewise with DeviantArt, Deviant ART, Deviant Art, Deviantart.com, DeviantART.com, deviantart, DEVIANTART, even DevientART. So that is largely irrelevant in this case, as we have redirects for that reason. I haven't had the time to read the rest of your comment yet (just the first two sentences), but I figured that needed pointing out. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Your basic argument here is, as I said before, simply a "correctness" or "officialness" argument. The guideline that applies here, WP:MOSTM, exists to recommend against what you advocate. You regard a formatting as "default" or "right" because the company itself uses it. The MOS specifically says that we should, in cases where a name is not rendered in standard English, give no weight to the fact that the trademark owner prefers the nonstandard style. Basically, you are not suggesting that WP:MOSTM does not apply here, and you are not discussing how to apply it; rather, you are just ignoring it altogether. When guidelines apply, they should be followed, not ignored, unless there is a reason to make an exception. You haven't provided one here. Croctotheface (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with the guideline's application in situations like this, as I have also stated on the appropriate talk page. I think the guideline has lost its way - it was created to advise people on the way to handle companies which use official wording that isn't generally used (as a corollary of WP:COMMONNAME), but it has been turned into a tool to enforce names which do not match up with the reality of their usage. If more people using the official name than any other name is not a reason for an exception, then what would be? GreenReaper (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you know what "more people" use? I was puzzled by this in your previous comment. How can you possibly know what "more people" use? The only way you suggest figuring this out is to, essentially, count votes in the sources. If we accept your standard, what happens if a 51%/49% split in favor of one style flips the other way? Do we change it? if it flips back the first way, do we change back? Croctotheface (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. I don't see any problem with this. Using something that not used in the majority of primary or the majority of secondary sources does not seem at all appropriate, because we are then asserting that the name is something other than what most people think it is. GreenReaper (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we need to constantly count votes, since as soon as the majority changes, we need to switch. How often do we count? Weekly? Daily? Hourly? How do we even work this tally from a logistical standpoint? What about reliable sources that do not publish on the Internet? Is this really the way to work this? Croctotheface (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me rephrase this in a way that may highlight the problem with something that is a rule - WP:V. When we title the article "DeviantArt", we are making a factual assertion that this is the right name, as opposed to others. Where is our basis for this assertion? It cannot be the primary source, because they consistently use "deviantART". It must be secondary sources. However, nobody has so far shown that "DeviantArt" is anything other than something used by a minority of secondary sources - and a minority opinion should not be given precedence over others. GreenReaper (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this raises a few points. The name vs. formatting angle, for one. Is the wacky formatting part of the name here? I have a hard time really seeing that it is. The name is "deviant" plus "art", and it's pronounced the same either way. I'm not sure that we're asserting anything about names when we change the formatting, but the proper noun "Time", for Time magazine, should be "correctly" rendered in title case rather than all caps. Proper nouns have the first letter capitalized, and that's it. The compound word formed by "deviant" and "art" would be "correctly" rendered, according to English writing conventions, as something like DeviantArt. For standard English, "deviantART" is clearly incorrect. So, if we said that the company's formatting is DeviantArt, there would be a factual problem. Changing the formatting is a style issue, not a content issue, so there's no verifiability concern. Croctotheface (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a matter of style. My name is not any combination of any capitalization of the letters "greenreaper" in that order. It is GreenReaper. Your name is not CrocToTheFace; it is Croctotheface. There is no problem with this - a name is just the identifier that most people use (usually, but not always, because that person uses it themselves). It is not clear to me why standard writing conventions should be held to apply to names, which are clearly not standard words to start with; or why the manual of style, which is a guideline, should force the presentation of a name which does not have basis in fact. Again, if we say that this is the title, we are making the assertion that this is the "correct" use of the name - in particular, that it is the one used by "most" people, above all others. We say so as the first word in the current version of the article: "DeviantArt", and relegate deviantART to the "official typeset". Do you really think a citation is not needed there? If so, do the principles we apply to other facts not apply? GreenReaper (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Note also that the creators of the site had clear reasons for choosing the name "deviantART", and that this is mentioned in the article. It was not an arbitrary choice. It had artistic meaning. If we change the name, we change the meaning. And, in reply to your assertion that it is just a formatting problem, that does not dodge the bullet - we are similarly saying that the standard formatting used by others is DeviantArt. Again, you need to provide proof that this is the case. GreenReaper (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to make clear that this current discussion is really about the guideline, not this case. You seem to concede that the current guideline considers "deviantART" inappropriate for use. That said, names are indeed words like any other. (I don't know what "standard words" are; that's a term you seem to be inventing here. Something is either a word or it isn't. If they were not words, then we wouldn't be able to put them into sentences.) You're still on this "most people" thing, but I fail to see what good that standard does us. It's a logistical impossibility to find out what "most people" use, but aside from the huge problem of its being an unworkable standard, I don't really understand why there is any case where you're OK with changing the "official" formatting. You assert (1) that what the trademark owner uses matters and (2) that formatting is an inextricable part of the name itself. In this light, I am completely puzzled about why you are willing to change from what's "official" if "most people" use something different. It would seem, then, that you'd be willing to change just about anything about the name if "most people" use it. If most people called DeviantArt "deviantCRAP", we would then need to use it. If your standard would not call for a change in that instance, then I can't see how you can maintain that formatting is an intrinsic part of the name. Croctotheface (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I stated it clearly above? We should use what "most people" use, period. The assumption is that "most people" use the "official" name. The onus is on those that wish to change it to prove otherwise. If most people called deviantART "deviantCRAP", and this could be shown, then that would be its name. As for being a logistical impossibility, I don't see how that is the case. There are many opinions about all sorts of things represented on Wikipedia, but somehow we manage to figure out which ones are held by the majority and which are not. GreenReaper (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your test would never allow us to standardize a style, which might be what you intended. I have no idea what part of your reply that addresses logistics is supposed to say. You seem to concede that you have no idea how we would find out what "most people" use, just that "somehow we [would] manage". I have no idea what that means. To the idea that if "most people" use "deviantCRAP", it would become its name, I have no idea why you think that would be. There are lots of silly cases, like a misspelling of someone's name becoming very common, where there is no possible way to argue for what you suggest. Croctotheface (talk) 03:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel there is a need to standardize the proper names of products and corporations - or rather, that it should not be something subject to standardization, as it is a matter of fact (technically: a fact about the opinion of the population). I laid out above a method of deciding this above, by looking at what the sources used. If the majority of reliable sources used a different name, that would be the one to use. If not, we should assume that the official name is the one to use. This is a test that can be applied to any situation - as all articles must have reliable sources - and which bases our decision on those sources rather than the opinion of Wikipedia editors. GreenReaper (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your first sentence is garbled and contradictory: either the formatting a corporation chooses for its name is above editing by anyone, or it's subject to the whim of the population, not both. If the population could change someone's name against its will, then why can't our manual of style? Croctotheface (talk) 05:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's our job to represent this whim of the population, not to decide what that whim is or should be ourselves. Doing the latter is original research; only our sources have the ability to do that. Our call should be based on what they say, like every other fact in the article. GreenReaper (talk) 07:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is our choice of title a claim of fact?

(Outdenting) I would dispute the contention that our choosing a title is tantamount to a factual assertion that our choice is the correct title - we do not make such a claim. Our titles are chosen based on our naming conventions and our Manual of Style, and not because of some claim of "correctness". Titling an article in a particular way is not equivalent to asserting that the chosen title is somehow the One True Title. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It misleads people. When you read 'DeviantArt (official typeset "deviantART")', doesn't that suggest to you that most people don't use the official typeset? If they did, then there wouldn't be any need to mention "DeviantArt" - or, at best, if would be relegated to a parenthesis as an alternate spelling. But no, it is the very first first thing there. It even shows up as the page title in search results. GreenReaper (talk) 11:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It shows as the page title, because it is our page title. Our page titles are based on naming conventions and style guides, rather than exclusively on popular usage. I have never felt misled with regards to what a page being under a certain title means - I have never felt it meant that it was the most common usage (though often it is). All pages need to follow our naming conventions. If you look at, for example, our list of J-pop artists, there are a lot of bands there that have names that wouldn't follow our naming conventions. If you click on one of those links, such as ALI PROJECT, FictionJunction YUUKA, HIGH and MIGHTY COLOR, Kanjani∞ or 3B LAB.☆, you will be redirected to the article under a title that fits in with our style guides, even if it might not be the prevailing usage. It could be argued, for example, that the spelling NiGHTS Into Dreams... is more common than Nights into Dreams... (see google results for the phrase, for example), which is where our article is located, but the former spelling goes against our style guides (for a very similar reason to this one, actually). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed argue that. I do not think Wikipedia should be changing it, any more than it would choose to change the colour of a popular company logo because it didn't match the background (and not merely because it was the official logo, although there's a copyright/trademark issue in that case too). Many readers regard Wikipedia as an authority, not least because its articles are very highly ranked. They are going to come away from this article thinking that the correct way to write the name is "DeviantArt" - or perhaps that Wikipedia is merely mistaken about the term's common usage. Both are unfortunate, and the latter is likely to cause continued friction from those trying to correct the error. GreenReaper (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are they going to think that? If the article says "DeviantArt (official typeset deviantART)", then any reasonable reader will know that the company uses "deviantART". If any of the sites ranked above Wikipedia (or any site or paper encyclopedia more authoritative then Wikipedia) had a page about Wikipedia, that said "wIkIpEdIA (official typeset Wikipedia)", and all similar articles followed a similar naming convention, would any reasonable reader (who knows what a style guide is) genuinely feel that Wikipedia is mistaken about its correct name, and in fact, the correct name is wIkIpEdIA? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The example of color is pertinent. If a company always prints their name in a certain color, should we follow suit? The color may even be an aspect of the trademark, and they always use that color in all official documents. Assuming that Wikipedia has the functionality to make our article titles different colors, would we be obliged by NPOV to color the article title as the company dictates? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. And likewise for font. And while I don't know if it's possible within the software itself, I know that there are ways to override a page title, as is used, for example, on User talk:AmiDaniel. That's the only one I can remember off the top of my head, but there are other better examples of users who replace the header on their page with a different font style or colour. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

June 2009

This issue is popping up again. I'm in the standard capitalization camp, with the common exception for jamming words together, resulting in a vote for DeviantArt. Is there any chance of a consensus (one way or the other) this time around? - JeffJonez (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You can argue all you want about how you think the capitalization should be...but it's the company's name. You can't change how their name format is. Stop trying to be a nonconformist and go with their brand of "deviantART". It should only be "DeviantART" when used as first words in sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.22.130 (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to devote any more energy to this, but I can't honestly see how anyone feels that deviantART does not violate the third general rule of MOS:TM that clearly states: Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official". As for how it's generally referenced by the outside world, a quick review of Google news shows "DeviantArt" the clear favorite. - JeffJonez (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

While not commenting on the issue, I would like to note that a similar discussion occured at around the same time on the .NET Framework talkpage. There were some interesting arguments, particually about WP:NAME vs. WP:MOS. --MarkKB (talk) 06:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

General Problems

I'm finding several problems with this article. The first, and foremost, is the fact that there are too many focused details. Instead of a list of User Symbols, a short paragraph would suffice. Those interested in learning more should find a DA wikipedia, if any exists, due to some Wikipedia convention. Second, there have been multiple copyright infringement issues in the past. Some of the more unique ones should have a short sentence about them. I have more problems of this article, but I'll save them for later. 76.95.124.146 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC).

Copyright status

Could somebody please tell me what the copyright status of images displayed on the deviantART website are? Are they public domain? Can Wikipedia use them? The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 12:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, some, if not most are under a Creative Commons no-derivative something something liscence. I can't check right now because deviantART is surfcontrolled here at school. But I think the copyright status can be found underneath each image. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 19:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Checked it at home. Some are under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Others have the © [year]-[year]. I'm sure there are there are others, but my experience is those are the most common. The latter seems more common. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 21:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for that. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 22:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It depends really, it's best to consult the artist. Some people use CC-BY-NC, yet say "You are prohibited to use this artwork on other sites." Also, there are people who use (C) Artist, yet give permission for reuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.77.121 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Missing

You know, I think that there is something missing in the symbols. There should be a Xx. example Xx-Username-xX. Bioniclefreak23 (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a symbol. People may choose to put it in their username, but it isn't a DeviantART symbol. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

dA politics

someone should mention that 99% if not all of political "art" on dA is anti-israel, anti-semitic, anti-american vitriol --KpoT (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't sound very NPOV to me. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 02:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Business model

I understand that the site is a private business, and that the money side of things is secret. However the article seems to have nothing at all about the business side of things; there is a lot about the site's terminology, but very little about the business itself. Does it make a profit? Is it supposed to make a profit? Given that there are few benefits to being a subcriber, and that print sales are presumably insignificant, where does the money come from? The article also gives the impression that the site now has only two full-time employees (the three founders, minus the one who was sacked). But there is mention of "staff" further down the page. Is it run by only two people? Are the "staff" actually staff members, or is this a kind of forum-type award given out to certain users? Also, censorship; are there limits to the kind of artwork that users can upload? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Internet Pandhandling

Should this edit stand? I believe such a statement is pretty difficult to properly source. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 03:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, or source as being actually unique to DeviantART as opposed to something you will find on any internet community. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 03:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Phishing controversy

Hey, I'm a member of dA (=GyroxOpex) and I'm currently aware of a phishing scam going on there. Does this deserve to be included in the article? I mean, the whole thing's site-wide. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 15:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Hell, the method used by the scam is one that I've seen on Facebook for months. It is not noteworthy that a site as large and with as many members as dA will occasionally be hit by phishing. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, just making sure. --Gp75motorsports ^{REV LIMITER} 19:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Beta Testers

In the table that shows the types of DeviantArt users, says that beta testers have to be subscribers. I am a beta tester, but I am not a paid subscriber. So is this information incorrect? Bluedisk (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why yes, you have to be. If you click on About me, then edit, the red text says and quote: " Get a Subscription to upgrade from Member to Subscriber or Beta Tester!" ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 22:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There does seem to be a bug with some users that if they were in the past a subscriber (and became a beta tester), their beta test status doesn't end when the subscription does. Normally, this happens automatically, but in at least 2 cases I have seen, it doesn't happen at all. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I haven't seen or heard of that bug. I only heard of those who got grandfathered into a permanent Premium Print Account. ~Itzjustdrama ^{C ?} 00:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Long ago in the distant mists of time, it used to be that the beta carryied over regardless (because at this point there wernt many beta testers)  rdunnPLIB  08:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

I put the box with the information at the top of this page, but just to be sure anyone interested has the chance to see it, I have requested a community reassessment of this article at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/DeviantArt/1. Aleta ^Sing 19:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

A not-listed symbol

One of my watchers has a symbol that looks like ☃. Would this one have any specific meaning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.79.97 (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be a snowman, but many of us seem to be missing that character. It is part of this year's April Fools joke. I imagine it will be gone by the end of the week. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It is an April fools as several widle viewed editors have a ! in front of thier user when they are not banned.  rdunnPLIB  09:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a Joke sir Smurai Cerberus☃ 14:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need 3 people to say "it's an April Fools' Joke"? Anyone else want to pipe in, just to boost their edit count? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I don't see much of a need to have those really-temporary symbols. --Dan Leveille^TALK 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Web Content

DeviantART is a web content article just like sheezyart, why was sheezyart removed if this isn't removed?

Comment on the deletion log was: "A7 (web): Web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance: G4, A7, and a copyvio - take your pick" by B. 68.185.166.207 (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Which of G4, A7 and copyvio do you think the deviantART article falls foul of? --Zundark (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I just wanted to know why SA can be deleted and not DA (besides the recreation of a deleted article). I can't write an article myself that will survive a deletion by an admin/mod/etc. as I lack good faith and the ability to source reliable third-party sources. Please give sources and sentences from the deleted article that I can research so I can make a better article. 68.185.166.207 (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

DA's notability probably comes from the fact that DA has been established for longer and has a wider user base  rdunnPLIB  12:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't justify deletion. 68.185.166.207 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)