Talk:DeviantArt/Archive 4

message: I've added the missing (now defunct) user symbol # for consistency reasons to the list.  Not sure about also adding the £ Minister account thou.  Thoughts?  --rotane 22:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: its a reasonable idea - but perhaps the statement at the top should be changed to "Symbols which are currently used or have been used in the past are listed below" Tyhopho 22:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sounds good --rotane 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I added some background information to the £ Minister symbol --Tobyf 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  user symbol # 

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

message: Hasn't anyone added anything to talk about problems for the site? I was on there twice and had both of my accounts HACKED! deviantART is NOT a safe place from account hackers. sonicmaster1223
Yes, deviantArt is not a safe place, especially to girls. There are lots of girls in deviantArt who's been harass, and their picture have been stolen by fellow deviant members and use it in other site like porn site. Deviant Administration are not even doing any action to protect other deviant members for harassment and slanderous. Instead of them kicking those guys out of deviantArt, they still there harassing other girls. And suppose to be deviant is only for art, not a porn site.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Allure418 (talk • contribs) 
:Id like to see more references to the mind numbing and crippling lag that wracks the site on a daily basis regaurdless of wether or not your a paying member. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.156.140 (talk • contribs). 7/10/2007
::There is already a mention of that problem in Site functionality issues. I just experienced this myself the last week. Because many of the photography categories are now crammed full of snapshots, it is now impractical to 'browse' them looking for interesting new photos to fav'. So I've customised my front page with four searches for film-related keywords, filtering out all of the useless digital-using snapshots. Not that all digital photos are snapshots, but it's a good filter and I want to encourage fellow film users with fav's. My four searches are: Velvia, Tri-X, Ilford, and Holga. These searches usually work quite well to find new photos I might like. Well, none of these changed in the first week of July. The supposedly newest items in all four searches were from the 1st (actually one was from June 30th). It was only until the 8th or 9th that the searches showed anything different. DeviantART does have serious problems, that's for sure. I hope they fix the issues because it's a pretty good site otherwise.
::But some of the problems indicate the developers are in perhaps just a little over their heads, if you know what I mean. For example, when a community message gets sent to every user the entire site has to go into read-only mode because of the strain this act puts on the system. I'm sure anyone who knows anything about relational databases and schema design would be scratching their heads over such a shortcoming of their design. --Imroy 04:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with deviantART 

message: I have completed a fairly extensive rewrite of the introduction section and in the process removed what i felt to be the redundant origins section.  Part of the content of the  origins section I have merged into the introduction as well as it fitted what I felt to be the tone and intention of it.  I am aware that the section which I am working on contains the contentious issue of who the founders are but I am confident that I have struck a balance and avoided any pro this person or pro that person bias. Tyhopho 23:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By nature the lead section is supposed to be redundant, or more accurately a summary. Summaries are not redundant in the clearest sense but do contain information which is also in other sections. Also, the lead section is far too long now. According to Wikipedia:Lead section The lead for this article should be 1-2 paragraphs, or possibly 3 at the very most, currently it's 5. Also, information about it's origins and mascot do not belong in the lead. In fact, as I read it only the last paragraph on the lead section seems to read like a summary. It might be preferable to move the entire lead section elsewhere and replace it with a basic summary. Vicarious 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points - have shortened it now to 3.  Although I had to recreate the origins section, by placing it as the first main subsection i think it has more importance and a better position then its previous place langusihing at the end of the user symbols subsection Tyhopho 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done, looks much better, a few more minor points. First off, I think some mention of the shop should be in the lead. Secondly, because the "founders" issue is so controversial and not particularly relevant (in my opinion) to the general website I think it should be moved to the origins section. Also, it'd be nice if we could combine this list, "any artist, photographer, or writer" with this list "photography to digital art, traditional art, literature and skins for applications", they seem a bit redundant. Possible removing the first list, something like, any artist to create *second list*. Finally, it's three slim paragraphs at the moment, I think two full ones would be preferable if possible. Vicarious 11:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The shop idea i think is a definite.  I have some ideas for merging those two redundant lists (fair enough that the lead summarises the rest of the article but it doesnt need to be redundant within itself).  Im not too sure about turning the three slim into two large, the paragraphs deal with different themes, but I will test it on my page later tonight.  I also see a way of removing the names of the founders to the origins (which might help combining the intro into two paragraphs)Tyhopho 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewriting the Intro / removing the origins section 

message: I'm not sure that dAmn should be merged into the main deviantART article. A reference should me made to it here, but the dAmn article could defianately be extended with a list of the currently avalible clients, information about changes in the different versions of the dAmn protocol and other technical information. I could do some of it, since I wrote a dAmn client of my own, and I'm sure Kevin (known as doofsmack on deviantART) could fill in even more if he wants. ~Matt F (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really encyclopediac to have all that extra information?  essentially we are just talking about a feature provided by a website - something which i dont think needs a change log or technical guide on wikipedia.  if its expanded with some relevant stuff fair enough, but the way i see it as it is (not likely to grow further) it should be merged into the main document. Tyhopho 17:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Incidentally, I noticed that the second reference link (Newsday) led to an error page. Can whoever linked that correct the link or provide a new one? jf 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find another copy of the article.  Sorry  --Starionwolf 05:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the new location of the article. It's only partially available to the general public. You have to pay to see the full Article. bummer. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken reference link 

message: Am I the only one that thinks having all three names listed in the beginning of the article (Scott Jarkoff, etc.) rediricting to the article itself silly? If it's just going to redirect them back to the very article they're looking at, why not just have their names as regular text? Namiel 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: very valid point - i think i'll remove them Tyhopho 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects useless? 

message: :(though this was formerly called "Until Hell Freezes Over", and was deemed too inappropriate)
Can anyone provide a source for this? I don't recall any official talk about it - just a silent change with the v5 preview. --doofsmack 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be reverted until it is actually shown on the userpages. Right now "Until Hell Freezes Over" is still what is officially written. You shouldnt be changing things until they are official and the beta test was just that, BETA. Kamiawolf 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Until Hell Freezes Over" inappropriate? 

message: Surley the Spelling of DeviantArt with out the first capital letter is just for the (Dyslexic looking) Logo?
:If you view the current main page of deviantART, the actual text (not including the logo) "deviantART" appears twice. "deviantART Loves You" and "© 2006 deviantART Inc." On the About Us page, the term appears in that case multiple times more, and I'm sure the same can be said of most other pages on the site. --Dreaded Walrus 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitals 

message: Most people on deviantART do not like the new layout of the site, including myself. Here are my reasons why I believe it should be reverted.
#The new version removes the capability of knowing how many pictures you add as favorites.
#:I didn't know that feature existed in v4.
#You cannot edit fanfics that you post.
#:They're fixing it, but I heard you'll have to re-submit it for the moment.
#The pages look almost exactly like rival community SheezyArt's.
#:Not that I can see.
#Green is such an ugly color!
#:I like green, and it's not THAT green.
#You cannot view full-viewed pictures on seperate pages like before.
#:It's disabled on small images and flash animations. But it still works for larger images
#The Favorites page is organized rather...wrong.
#:What's so "wrong" about it?
#Preview pictures for fanfics have been completely removed.
#:They're fixing that.
--User:Angie Y.
:Well, I would say that this page is for talking about changes for the article, but I'll make an exception, (as long as it doesn't get long). dA ver5 is still bugged up, and they're fixing things right now (their fault for not making the beta testers more useful). But Jark isn't responsible, since he doesn't even work for dA anymore. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The DA bugs 

message: Im considering starting a cleanup of that little section which has sprung up since the new version release.  Firstup - removal of the bit about jark losing his co-founder status briefly which I do not think is absolutely necessary.  Tyhopho 10:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! To anyone else - would their be any objection if I removed the rest of that DA v 5 bugs section?  My reason is that its a temporary state of affairs which will have no long term bearing on the site. Tyhopho 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And it is a kinda poorly written small section. Kamiawolf 08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dav5 bugs cleanup 

message: Recently, someone discovered that simply refreshing would increase pageviews and a few pictures have been appearing in the popular section that wouldn't normally be there. This bug seems to be causing a lot of commotion and I feel that it should be mentioned somewhere in this article. – Iggy Koopa 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, this doesn't appear to be a problem anymore. – Iggy Koopa 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pageview Bug 

message: Hi all,
Unfortunately this article cannot become a good article because it does not satisfy the good article criteria. Namely, it does not include any references or citations. Feel free to renominate this article once the above has been addressed.
Cedars 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for not promoting to good article 

message: The fourth paragraph in the "Copyright Issues" section bothers me a bit. Specifically, the sentence, Some may display art created by themselves, but which depicts a copyright-registered character (for example, a superhero or fantasy hero), which would also potentially infringe copyright. However, a character is not a concrete work and cannot be "copyright-registered" in any sense. I believe what is meant is trademark, but that is not at all related to copyright. It is a trademark violation if anything.
Unfortunately, I am unsure of how to reword this sentence to make it correct. In fact, it may be better just to remove it, because a mention of trademark violation does not belong in a section about copyright. Any ideas? 208.104.115.202 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright vs. Trademark 

message: Can the font used for the Symbols be made slightly bigger?
:any particular reason? Kamiawolf 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol font 

message: I don't know when that edit was made, but last time I checked there was no "staff picks," it was still "Daily Deviations." Maybe someone should change that.
Sporks.Are.Loverly 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Near as i can tell, they havent changed them to "Staff Picks" yet. They are still called "Daily Deviations" and the front page link still says "Daily Deviations". They were thinking of changing it, but it hasnt been dont yet (and who knows when it will be) Kamiawolf 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed that too and changed it to "Daily Deviations" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.254.246.198 (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I thought it was still called "Daily Deviations" 

message: It obviously does not belong here, but i cant find a trace of it in the source. Guess it must be in a template then...--NESFreak 13:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: just checked. couldn't find it cause someone else has removed it already. Only his changes weren't applied jet rofl--NESFreak 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the linkspam, yes. It was removed after not too long at all, and it appeared that way on my computer. Perhaps your browser had stored an old version of the article (from when the link was there) in the cache? Also, I hope you don't mind if I alter the title of this section.. wouldn't want her getting the external link she wanted now ;) --Dreaded Walrus 13:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SheezyArt userpage link 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  surely this is worth mentioning somewhere 

message: 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.29 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  just a note 

message: 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)
thread_title:  print accounts 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, and I want it to stay deviantART to respect WP:MOS-TM. We both read the guideline in different ways. --wL<speak·check·chill> 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Mediation Cabal case 

message: 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:
*   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".
* . 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.
*  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.
*  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)
thread_title:  a few sources that might be useful 

message: I'd consider getting a lock on editing from IPs looking at the recent vandalism. Frizzle 15:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nothing that I know of... The s-protection is lifted. --wL<speak·check> 08:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  and edited the entry himself, so the factual accuracy is definitely up in the air. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  OR Tag 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Clever vandal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Please do. --wL<speak·check> 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It is done, for now. Whitetrashpalace 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Poorly Written? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  An Article of Lists? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Invisible" 

message: Where did the research for the user symbol 'x' come from?
Timmy64 10:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by  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)
thread_title:  New user symbol? 

message: I just added a bunch of citations. I encourage everyone to find citations for many of the uncited material on this article. --Dan LeveilleTALK 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article with citations 

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

text: Yup, favourites is what's used in dA, and deviantART is good. Thanks. --Dan LeveilleTALK 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Favorites vs Favourites 

message: I have removed the GA Nomination. Moni3 (talk) has brought up some good points about this article:
* You have a  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). </strike> 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 LeveilleTALK 06:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, these issues have been addressed. The article will be re-nominiated. --Dan LeveilleTALK 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed GA Nomination 

message: :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 LeveilleTALK 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Also, "known everywhere" is not quite correct, as several web-based venues indeed use the :CamelCase variant "DeviantArt". 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 LeveilleTALK 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you link to that decision, please? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Talk:DeviantArt#Mediation_Cabal_case and Talk:DeviantArt#Uncontroversial_Move and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-22 deviantART states the final decision. --Dan LeveilleTALK 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; those are useful links. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 LeveilleTALK 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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 LeveilleTALK 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion