Talk:DeviantART
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
DeviantART is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
Date of review: 7 September 2006 |
[edit] user symbol #
I've added the missing (now defunct) user symbol # for consistency reasons to the list. Not sure about also adding the £ Minister account thou. Thoughts? --rotane 22:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- its a reasonable idea - but perhaps the statement at the top should be changed to "Symbols which are currently used or have been used in the past are listed below" Tyhopho 22:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, sounds good --rotane 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- I added some background information to the £ Minister symbol --Tobyf 15:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] deletions
Jonathan Wayshak, Natalie Shau and Larafairie were proposed for deletion. I am not going to removed the prod tag unless someone else wants them here as there wasnt much enthusiasm for keeping Suzi9mm -- Astrokey44|talk 22:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rewriting the Intro / removing the origins section
I have completed a fairly extensive rewrite of the introduction section and in the process removed what i felt to be the redundant origins section. Part of the content of the origins section I have merged into the introduction as well as it fitted what I felt to be the tone and intention of it. I am aware that the section which I am working on contains the contentious issue of who the founders are but I am confident that I have struck a balance and avoided any pro this person or pro that person bias. Tyhopho 23:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- By nature the lead section is supposed to be redundant, or more accurately a summary. Summaries are not redundant in the clearest sense but do contain information which is also in other sections. Also, the lead section is far too long now. According to Wikipedia:Lead section The lead for this article should be 1-2 paragraphs, or possibly 3 at the very most, currently it's 5. Also, information about it's origins and mascot do not belong in the lead. In fact, as I read it only the last paragraph on the lead section seems to read like a summary. It might be preferable to move the entire lead section elsewhere and replace it with a basic summary. Vicarious 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good points - have shortened it now to 3. Although I had to recreate the origins section, by placing it as the first main subsection i think it has more importance and a better position then its previous place langusihing at the end of the user symbols subsection Tyhopho 07:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Well done, looks much better, a few more minor points. First off, I think some mention of the shop should be in the lead. Secondly, because the "founders" issue is so controversial and not particularly relevant (in my opinion) to the general website I think it should be moved to the origins section. Also, it'd be nice if we could combine this list, "any artist, photographer, or writer" with this list "photography to digital art, traditional art, literature and skins for applications", they seem a bit redundant. Possible removing the first list, something like, any artist to create *second list*. Finally, it's three slim paragraphs at the moment, I think two full ones would be preferable if possible. Vicarious 11:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- The shop idea i think is a definite. I have some ideas for merging those two redundant lists (fair enough that the lead summarises the rest of the article but it doesnt need to be redundant within itself). Im not too sure about turning the three slim into two large, the paragraphs deal with different themes, but I will test it on my page later tonight. I also see a way of removing the names of the founders to the origins (which might help combining the intro into two paragraphs)Tyhopho 17:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
-
[edit] Angelo didn't help create deviantART
While Angelo helped keep the site afloat, he didnt actually code/create the idea. I'd like to remove his name from that list.
- Creating a site isnt just to do with coding it or coming up with the idea. handling the business side of it, hardware installation, documentation, heck any number of things take place which can be classified as being part of 'creating the site'. I think you are using too rigid a definition of the word, and besides the current statements regarding who was involved with creating the site have been around for a while, so starting off another 'did he found it, did he not' argument just seems like a pointless waste of time, and server space. Besides the latin 'et al' meaning 'and others' in the infobox is a nice way of saying that these were three very key individuals involved with the creation of the site as well as other individuals who many not have asmuch prominence. Then the statement in the introduction of "It was first launched on August 7, 2000 through the work of Scott Jarkoff, Angelo Sotira and Matthew Stephens at different stages of the planning and development of the site" goes a long way to remove any overly emotive feelings regarding who exactly was involved with the founding of the site at the time. Tyhopho 16:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Angelo did not help create the site, he helped keep the money to set it up coming in. dA was affiliated with one of his older projects, but he did not help create it.
- just as the person above said, i think you are using a too rigid definition of "creating a site". This is debate is a waste of time. He had a hand in the site's beginning. Kamiawolf 04:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Hey you two. Just FYI Did I rewrite history? - Article from 3/14/2006 with references that settles this once and for all. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 11:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merging of dAmn
I'm not sure that dAmn should be merged into the main deviantART article. A reference should me made to it here, but the dAmn article could defianately be extended with a list of the currently avalible clients, information about changes in the different versions of the dAmn protocol and other technical information. I could do some of it, since I wrote a dAmn client of my own, and I'm sure Kevin (known as doofsmack on deviantART) could fill in even more if he wants. ~Matt F (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
- Is it really encyclopediac to have all that extra information? essentially we are just talking about a feature provided by a website - something which i dont think needs a change log or technical guide on wikipedia. if its expanded with some relevant stuff fair enough, but the way i see it as it is (not likely to grow further) it should be merged into the main document. Tyhopho 17:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
its not really that much so it could just fit in and it is important to the website
- Yes, I too think that it should be merged. Esn 10:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Im thinking about how to do this. Perhaps changing the features section into a 'Major Features' and Minor features' subsections where we can describe the big features like damn and galleries (another page i think should be merged into here) and smaller features like notes etc. any thoughts? Tyhopho 12:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Begun the process of merging by including most of the relevant info from the dAmn page into the main article. Tyhopho 16:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that the dAmn article should be merged into the dA article. Its just a feature of dA, so a section on dAmn in the main article should be good. jf 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC) Yeah, it needs to be merged as one of the features of deviantART. mw 6:00 PM EST May 19, 2006
Merge, its part of the site. I dont see the purpose of it having its own page. Kamiawolf 19:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I think we should merge dAMN into DeviantArt too. --Starionwolf 05:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The content of dAmn is not very much, basically one paragraph only. It does also not make much sense by itself. My Vote: Merge into deviantART Article! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 20:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Agree - dAmn isn't notable outside of dA. - Hayter 09:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Everybody agreed, the dAmn Article was almost nothing, so I took the liberty and moved the article into the DeviantART article. There is a new chapter for dAmn with the original content. The dAmn Article redirects to DeviantART now and all Merge Templates were removed. I think nobody has a problem with that. Cheers. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Broken reference link
Incidentally, I noticed that the second reference link (Newsday) led to an error page. Can whoever linked that correct the link or provide a new one? jf 00:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
- I can't find another copy of the article. Sorry --Starionwolf 05:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Redirects useless?
Am I the only one that thinks having all three names listed in the beginning of the article (Scott Jarkoff, etc.) rediricting to the article itself silly? If it's just going to redirect them back to the very article they're looking at, why not just have their names as regular text? Namiel 00:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- very valid point - i think i'll remove them Tyhopho 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think such things do not require a discussion. If you see direct or indirect (redirect) references to the article itself, remove ir. If you see a broken Link to a missing or misspelled reference, correct the link if you can or remove the reference and state this in your edit comment. Just my 2 cents. BTW. thanks for the clean up Tyhopho ;) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyvio image
The current screenshot is a gross copyright violation, and will be deleted from the Commons:. Thanks for your understanding. I commented out the image in the source. —UED77 04:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- er - why? [additional thought] is it perhaps to do with the fact that it features other peoples artwork? If so perhaps we should just post the logo and the mascot in a similar way to that of other companies and websites.Tyhopho 16:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I acknowledge I made a mistake. There was a file with the same name on Wikimedia Commons, which I deleted, as Wikimedia Commons only accepts freely licensed content (that is not fair use, like the said image). I didn't realize there was a local copy. So, my apologies; I see that the image is now restored.
- By the way, to answer your question out of context: the said image is fair use, which means that it contains copyrighted elements (e.g. dA logo, dA symbol, users' artwork), and can only qualify as an illustrative element for this article under US fair use law. Other logos and mascots of other sites are most likely similarly fair use. The Commons doesn't accept such content, so that's why I unlinked the image: it seemed to me the copy from Commons was used; that was not the case. —UED77 01:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Until Hell Freezes Over" inappropriate?
- (though this was formerly called "Until Hell Freezes Over", and was deemed too inappropriate)
Can anyone provide a source for this? I don't recall any official talk about it - just a silent change with the v5 preview. --doofsmack 00:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I think this should be reverted until it is actually shown on the userpages. Right now "Until Hell Freezes Over" is still what is officially written. You shouldnt be changing things until they are official and the beta test was just that, BETA. Kamiawolf 01:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Capitals
Surley the Spelling of DeviantArt with out the first capital letter is just for the (Dyslexic looking) Logo?
- If you view the current main page of deviantART, the actual text (not including the logo) "deviantART" appears twice. "deviantART Loves You" and "© 2006 deviantART Inc." On the About Us page, the term appears in that case multiple times more, and I'm sure the same can be said of most other pages on the site. --Dreaded Walrus 02:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC) (note: signing comment much later than comment was originally posted)
[edit] The DA bugs
Most people on deviantART do not like the new layout of the site, including myself. Here are my reasons why I believe it should be reverted.
- 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.
- Well, I would say that this page is for talking about changes for the article, but I'll make an exception, (as long as it doesn't get long). dA ver5 is still bugged up, and they're fixing things right now (their fault for not making the beta testers more useful). But Jark isn't responsible, since he doesn't even work for dA anymore. --LBMixPro <Speak|on|it!> 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. It was a mistake. *nervously grins* --User:Angie Y.
I don't object to the new interface design so much, but to the fact that it fails to display on just about any browser except Firefox. I see Opera and Safari and IE users complaining and being ignored. It is totally unprofessional to make a release like this and not test it against multiple platforms. DonPMitchell 10:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
"Most people on deviantART do not like the new layout of the site" -- yeah, right. Why does everyone who hates something assume they are in the majority? 81.158.54.105 11:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dav5 bugs cleanup
Im considering starting a cleanup of that little section which has sprung up since the new version release. Firstup - removal of the bit about jark losing his co-founder status briefly which I do not think is absolutely necessary. Tyhopho 10:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Espesually since he got it back :P Kamiawolf 04:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed! To anyone else - would their be any objection if I removed the rest of that DA v 5 bugs section? My reason is that its a temporary state of affairs which will have no long term bearing on the site. Tyhopho 22:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- And it is a kinda poorly written small section. Kamiawolf 08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pageview Bug
Recently, someone discovered that simply refreshing would increase pageviews and a few pictures have been appearing in the popular section that wouldn't normally be there. This bug seems to be causing a lot of commotion and I feel that it should be mentioned somewhere in this article. – Iggy Koopa 15:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Okay, this doesn't appear to be a problem anymore. – Iggy Koopa 20:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reasons for not promoting to good article
Hi all,
Unfortunately this article cannot become a good article because it does not satisfy the good article criteria. Namely, it does not include any references or citations. Feel free to renominate this article once the above has been addressed.
Cedars 00:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright vs. Trademark
The fourth paragraph in the "Copyright Issues" section bothers me a bit. Specifically, the sentence, Some may display art created by themselves, but which depicts a copyright-registered character (for example, a superhero or fantasy hero), which would also potentially infringe copyright. However, a character is not a concrete work and cannot be "copyright-registered" in any sense. I believe what is meant is trademark, but that is not at all related to copyright. It is a trademark violation if anything.
Unfortunately, I am unsure of how to reword this sentence to make it correct. In fact, it may be better just to remove it, because a mention of trademark violation does not belong in a section about copyright. Any ideas? 208.104.115.202 14:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Symbol font
Can the font used for the Symbols be made slightly bigger?
- any particular reason? Kamiawolf 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I thought it was still called "Daily Deviations"
I don't know when that edit was made, but last time I checked there was no "staff picks," it was still "Daily Deviations." Maybe someone should change that. Sporks.Are.Loverly 01:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Sporks.Are.Loverly
- Near as i can tell, they havent changed them to "Staff Picks" yet. They are still called "Daily Deviations" and the front page link still says "Daily Deviations". They were thinking of changing it, but it hasnt been dont yet (and who knows when it will be) Kamiawolf 02:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why is it called DeviantART?
Why is it called deviant? Just curious.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.191.19.42 (talk • contribs).
- Presumably because it perceives itself to be deviant, and is targeting the kind of audience that enjoys art outside of the social norm. --Dreaded Walrus 04:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
- The initial site which dA evolved from was an OS skinning site (themes for Windows, etc.). As these skins were designed to deviate from the initial design of the applications they were attached to, and they were forms of art, when the site evolved the new name "deviantART combined the reference to the initial site, along with the "ART" lending itself to wider audiences/usage. At least, that's what I read (or similar) somewhere. --Lucanos 14:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
