Talk:Dollz

message: Anyone that actually likes these retarded things is too stupid to use wikipedia, or even write two words correctly... How did this article get written?!
:Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. —Mhari* 02:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful, really wonderful.  The fact is, you are confusing Dolls with Dollmakers.  Dolling is in fact a legitimate art form; would you say that anyone who paints is a moron?  Most dollers are extremely intelligent, well-spoken people (More than one that I know of are published authors) and your insults just go to prove your own ignorance.  Good day. Tomoyan 06:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're confusing me for Anonymous. I make dolls myself. —Mhari* 18:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I am REALLY confused

message: I am a bit surprised that all doll sites were removed and all forums are still there. Why would we suddenly give forums more weight than doll sites/communities? I agree that section has to be filtered often and a lot, however it was not originally created to only discuss doll forums.... I think we should discuss the option of adding some of the major community/doll sites.
:You have to realize that the dolling forums are the communities. When you have privately owned doll sites on the list you bring up the issue of subjectivity. Dolling has gotten so much variety as a style these days that it's hard to put down one particular site and say that that site somehow revolutionized dolling.
I removed the link to the Moonlight Garden forum. Links to forums should be avoided according to Wikipedia guidelines and this one is closed to members. At the very least, forums should be open to read without being a member. --Ingaemm 13:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm removing the link to the Gathering forum then, as it's viewing is also limited by membership.  As for major community/doll sites, how do you define one as major? Forums you could limit by number of members, say 1,000 or whatever, but you can't say any one person has contributed more to dolling than another really.  Depending on who you talk to nowadays, so many people started dolling after looking at smaller sites instead of the few really big ones that were around 5-8 years ago.
I think the links are fine as they are now, Origin of Dolls and a Tutorial Search Engine. Both are helpful and add something to the article. --Ingaemm 10:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: HM.... Inga, think we can still find some true big dollz sites around :) but I think I am ok with links now (User: alex/jess ;) )
The External Link "The Originz of Dollz" links to a parking domain site. Dont know what to do, so im sorry for no action --217.86.191.103 (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, "The Originz of Dollz" is down... also, why is there no longer a link to xandorra's doll tutorial search engine? I for one think it's a good resource, and it should be helpful for people curious about dolling, to get an idea for what it's all about. Gayachan (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: The page was looking a bit short and miserable so I updated it a bit... it's mainly my experiences as a doller so if anyone has any issues with what I've written, you can let me know here or on my talk page. Cheers. :) Icecradle 17:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Expanded Version

message: These should not be included in the dollz article because the switch from drag and drop to painting one's own clothes in is pretty much the point where one becomes a doller.  The mindsets are completely different. rubah 01:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not however about the "doller mindset", whatever that is, but about the dolls themselves. Plenty of dollmakers were created by "dollers" and integrated with their doll sites, and plenty of doll artists got into the hobby through dollmakers. —Mhari* 00:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nonetheless, dolling and dollmakers are two different things.  Dolling is making the pieces yourself, a painstaking and tiring process, whill dollmaker use is just playing, no different really from kisekai.  Therefore, despite similarities apparent to the untrained eye, Dolling and Dollmakers are too different to be put together.  Instead, something mentioning how most dollers come from dollmakers, with a link to there, and something similar on the dollmakers page, would be a much better representation of how the two support each other.  Tomoyan 01:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, they are different activities, which both produce the same end result.  The article is concerned with the end result, not with which method has more artistic merit. —Mhari* 03:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The same end result?  The only same result I can see is that you wind up with a doll.  Dollmakers don't give you something you make though, it's something someone else made that you pieced together.  Not to mention that the merging of these articles will only stand to increase plagarism and frankendolling, because people will think 'Oh, if Dollmakers are fine, I'll treat other people's dolls like dollmakers.'  Or there's the rising number of people that use dollmakers, and upload what they did to Deviantart or the like saying 'Look, aren't I clever?  I made a doll!' when all they did was put together a dressup.  Tomoyan 20:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nicely put, I agree. Dollmakers are completely different from the actual process of dolling. The first is an effortless game and the second an art-form. Icecradle (talk) 22:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dollmakers 

message: I'm not really sure how innocents became the main credit for the prep dolls when I personally created the very first doll with hips and tits. It was all sk8ers when I came along. In fact, I've created an image that pretty much puts the exact origins that I'm telling you with the very first "official" prep body. . My original body was more detailed, and had both arms in use. It was shaded and the breasts were not whole circles, once it got out... from there, the bodies were modified like crazy. But you can see that it still retains the same basic outline, and stays true to MY original template. And while I am no longer a part of this community, I'm a little bit peaved to see someone else taking credit for my creation, because I have not been here to speak on my own behalf. If there's no one to take credit, then someone else just goes ahead and takes it? I'm not coming down on people here, as I realize that not many people would know these things, without me here telling you them now. But there are people who know they were not the first ones to draw this. And yet, I see credit taken. Maybe "one of the first" or "actual origin unknown" would have been better. I'm not sure what innocents created, as I know she did have a hand in something, but that template is mine. And it was the one that gave birth and inspiration to many girly avatars to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacestarr (talk • contribs) 10:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doll Origins 

message: I appreciate that Valerie brought this to everyone's attention with "Doll Netiquette".  However, she didn't coin this phrase. I had a creation of mine "frankendolled" back in 2001 and in a conversaton with members of DCS this phrase was developed.  I can't even say it was a single person, but more of an outcry of the group itself.  I'm not claiming to have been the first person to be "frankendolled", just one of the people to sit in that chat where the phrase developed, especially when other core members of DCS had mentioned they noticed pieces of their creations on other's claimed works.  --Mommyfeet (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankendolling 

message: The article does touch briefly on tracing images to generate bases but I find it to be down-playing the issue and behind the times. There are many dollers out there who feel that tracing (and publishing it online) is wrong and is stealing. 
I think that section needs to be expanded. At the very least, suggest that basemakers ask the original artist permission to trace their work.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.79.20.48 (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracing bases 

message: A lot of work went into this page, but it is far too long, full of microdetail, repetition, irrelevant comments and redundancies. Additionally there were no references at all, and many format and grammar mistakes. I am revising it, but further revision will be necessary. 
Done: Removed shatteredinnocents external link. It's important, but it's dead, and it doesn't look like it's coming back. Couldn't find any mirrors or pages at the Wayback Machine either. Removed references to zines, they are both defunct. Deleted some sections, and amalgamated others. Sorry, I've had to be ruthless - but the article was a bit of a mess. Centrepull (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision 

message: Why is Xandorra the only site listed? While I love the site, and have found it very useful, I don't know if it really is the best representative. After all, it hasn't been updated in more than a year. I read through the talk page, and didn't find a consensus on it - the closest thing was an agreement that Xandorra, Angy Chan and DHF should be listed, but for some reason, the other two have been omitted. I'm not saying this is a bad decision, but I'd like some explanation on why just this site was chosen. Elanorea (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The links section again 

message: I don't think it ought to be deleted, as it actually does represent a significant art community that exists on the web.
There are probably thousands of sites devoted to dolling still in existence on the web, and an entire category on the notable art site DeviantArt.
I will attempt to update the article and add credible sources later... if I can find some that aren't dead. 99.112.127.147 (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: So, this page does look a little sad.

message: First off, I wanted to say "thank you" for your continued support of my website, Veriria's Palace and that I still have a link contained in this wiki article on dolls.  I've been trying to figure out what, if anything, I could possibly contribute to the article.  I was thinking a link to Love for an Immortals website -- which is still online at http://www.lfai.8m.com/ should be included somewhere?  It's an old-school Palace avatar related website, and as a user of Palace since 1997 or thereabouts I have always said his was the FIRST website to contain tutorials on avatar (or doll) making.  I don't know what year he posted that online, but then mine went up on my old site at http://veriria.8k.com/ in 1998 I believe. I transferred my website to my own domains in 2001 (both veriria.com and rubberhouse.net) which I have maintained online ever since. 
Edited to add:
Following in Xandorra's footsteps, I have started a new cartoon doll search engine, for tutorials, articles on dolling, etc. so I added a link to that.  I ALSO added a link to a very old Palace Chat article written online -- http://www.thepalace.com/wonder/ezine/sk8ters.html which is all about the evolution of the sk8ter avatar.
Veriria (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The external links section is best used for sites that reference the history of or a description of Dollz in general - the sk8ter article seems a bit.. specific.  -KaJunl (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually read the article now, and I can see it being relevant.  However, it would be more useful if much of that background were in this Wikipedia article, such that the relevance of the sk8ter article was more apparent.  -KaJunl (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  February 2012 

message: I do think this topic is notable, but obviously the article could be improved.  I recall these being pretty popular.  I think it should be revamped in the vein of "Dollz are a certain kind of animated cartoon that were used abundantly in AIM buddy icons and on other chat services in the early 2000s" (not that exact quote, but with that approach).
Also, the intro contains information not included in the body of the article.  I generally recommend only summarizing the body of the article in the intro, not giving new information that can't be found elsewhere.  The visual descriptions, talk about "dollmakers" etc. is in the intro but nowhere else.
-KaJunl (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  thoughts