Jump to content

Talk:DeviantArt/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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 LeveilleTALK 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 LeveilleTALK 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 LeveilleTALK 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 LeveilleTALK 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 LeveilleTALK 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. --wL<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 LeveilleTALK 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)

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 LeveilleTALK 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).

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 LeveilleTALK 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

deviantART portfolio

Article mentions portfolio feature. Here's some dA portfolio info (I'm not sure what wording to add to article). Main portfolio domain is daportfolio.com and http://portfolio.deviantart.com/ says "Additional domain choices including artworkfolio.com, and designbinder.com". --EarthFurst (talk) 18:38, 16 August 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)
This isn't the page to discuss the SheezyArt deletion. This is a page to discuss the DeviantArt article. Take it elsewhere if your problem is with the deletion of another article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Where should I do that? I can't do it on its talk page, it'll be deleted again. 68.185.166.207 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are there a bunch of Lady Gaga and Edward Cullen images on deviantart instead of normal avatars? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.67.45 (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Check the date of your own post, you shall have your answer. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"Worldwide American"

The intro include "... Worldwide American..." which sounds somewhat jarring. 91.110.190.226 (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for your suggestion, sorry it took so long to occur. But you are right, it did sound very strange. --Taelus (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"Features" section

The features section of the article is a disaster. This bloated section takes up over half of the physical space of the article. I still feel it should be expunged completely. It:

  • is overly detailed, going into specifics about exactly how each feature works (WP:NOTGUIDE)
  • presented in a near-advertisement format, including pricing information (WP:NOTDIR)
  • uses entirely primary sources - the sources are mostly FAQs and a few newsposts from the DeviantArt website. The information is straightforward enough that this isn't a huge issue but it's a poor way to write a mammoth section
  • has far too many subsections which is distracting and makes the ToC too long

At the most this information should be summarized into a few paragraphs. It's a massive blemish on the article in its current state. Some guy (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Error in location of headquarters

The article states that DeviantArt's headquarters as Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, UNITED KINGDOM...should be UNITED STATES...please correct

63.117.228.138 (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)Taarax

Fixed. --Zundark (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Intrusive Ads

See here. 24.240.67.71 (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

dArt occasionally does them because they have a contract with the company who is offering them discounts. I personally wouldnt call them intrusive (be glad dArt dont have pop-ups.  rdunnalbatross  10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I call them intrusive because they limit functionality until I hit a close button. 24.240.67.71 (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Request: Add Features section back

{{Request edit}}

The "features" section completely removed a while back. Before this was removed, the article was listed as a Good Article. I agree that the "features" section is very lengthy, but could easily be condensed. Similarly to Facebook's article, Facebook features, or Myspace#MySpace features. Features are listed on many major social networks' articles, and I believe it is an important part of the article to describe what the service offers.

I am requesting that the "features" section be re-included, and trimmed down to shorter descriptions at a high-level view, or requesting approval to go ahead and make this change myself and then allowing other editors to approve it.

Thanks! --Dan LeveilleTALK 18:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Please work on a trimmed-down version in a user-space draft, and then either reinstate your request or, if confident, boldly etc it yourself.  Chzz  ►  02:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I created a userpage draft and then posted it to the article. Feel free to review it and let me know if there are any potential issues with it. I tried to trim it down and remove less important features and put it into the lead paragraphs of the section. I still think the section could be trimmed down a bit more. Thoughts? --Dan LeveilleTALK 00:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

:::The section still essentially suffers from all the same problems as before:

  • is overly detailed, going into specifics about exactly how each feature works (WP:NOTGUIDE)
  • presented in a near-advertisement format, including pricing information (WP:NOTDIR)
  • uses entirely primary sources - the sources are mostly FAQs and a few newsposts from the DeviantArt website. The information is straightforward enough that this isn't a huge issue but it's a poor way to write a mammoth section
  • has far too many subsections which is distracting and makes the ToC too long

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT. YOU WORK FOR THEIR MARKETING DEPARTMENT? Please look up WP:COI.

Some guy (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

10th birthday?

How about insert about DA's 10th Birthday under the Special event-section?

http://news.deviantart.com/article/126489/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.67.214.42 (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Viruses on DeviantArt

I had to leave DeviantArt permanently because I got attacked by a virus posing as an antivirus software THREE times while looking at deviations on tha site. It was called Vista antivirus pro 2010 on my computer. First time it was called Vista Guardian. Because it posed as antivirus, our antivirus Cyber Defender didn't detect it. We had to call the company to remove the virus. I researched online and alot of other people are having the same problem and I hear alot of people are leaving because of it. Would this be worth mentioning on the front page under critisicm? I think the viruses are getting through the site by the ads they allow to be advertised there. Oh and since I left DeviantArt, never got the virus again. So I know for sure the virus came from there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brats817 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

no it shouldn't because if you did your reasearch properly you would find that Vista Guardian or whatever it is called is a problem in more than just devArt. Also there was been problems with viruses but it has been sorted out. Any website with ads on them can get viruses.  rdunnalbatross  10:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Still alot of people are leaving DA because of the virus. But I'm still afraid to go there anymore. I hope that soon the viruses will be dealt with so I can go back. But okay I see what you mean. I hadn't gotten the virus anywhere else so I thought it was only DA. --Brats817 (talk) 22:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Alot of anti-virus softwares have now been updated to sort out Vista Guardian and the company that runs dArt have said that it is safe.  rdunnalbatross  10:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


Sounds good. I might be able to go back to DeviantArt again now that the virus is gone. Thanks! --69.235.12.11 (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Don't do it, I just got a ton of scareware on my computer and a number of trojans from using Deviant Art. I've done battle with those, but am having trouble with something called a google redirect virus. Pain in my ASS. I googled deviantart virus, and saw a news link on their site saying the virus was fixed, so I clicked it and I get this fake virus protecter "scanning" my computer almost instantly. It's ridiculous, and should be noted in this article. I actually came here to read more about it :/ 65.32.206.250 (talk) 18:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I've been using and surfing Deviantart for about eight years, and I scan and update my computer's protective programs regularly. I still managed to get a few trojans etc. from Deviantart. The problems haven't been fixed, and I won't go back unless I have proof that Deviantart has created a safe environment for me to use my account and browse. I'm very disappointed in their security. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.116.112 (talk) 01:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As of July, 12, 2011 it is reported the Virus is still on DA, poseing as Anti Virus live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.249.138.108 (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Admin hypocrisy?

I've been rooting around DeviantART for a while, and one thing I've noticed is that the site's art-thief problems are apparently getting worse... and the admins aren't doing much about it. Furthermore, the site's being littered with porn and the admins are doing nothing. Here's some links to the most concerned groups: I-Call-Bull, Uprising-Rupture, Take-Them-Down, DAramaLlamas, and dAmn-Army. --Luigifan (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum, soapbox, or advertising space for deviantArt groups. Some guy (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not advertising, I'm wondering if this could be listed on the main page as a criticism of DeviantART. --Luigifan (talk) 01:31, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
No, for the reasons I gave before. Some guy (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually the answer is "Maybe". if you can find well-sourced statements of art theft or "porn" concerns, then quite possibly. - JeffJonez (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Article for deletion

This article runs like an advertisement and there are hardly any third-party sources to back this article up. I think this article should be deleted as it is technically just promoting the website and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.117.12 (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Improve, Don't Delete

I agree that it reads a bit like an ad, and it's poorly sourced, but I also think that Deviant Art is notable enough to merit an article. Let's improve it instead. --Mark Asread 10:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Asread (talk • contribs)

Agreed, the article needs some serious improvements. But it's about one of the most relevant art communities worldwide AND a Top 500 ranking websites. If that does not qualify as relevant, what does? Removing it would not improve Wikipedia, it would harm the informative value. --88.207.175.239 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Prpaganda de un sitio comercial. Debería ser eliminado. A mí me borraron información sobre un sitio gratuito y mucho más útil que ese tal "deviantart". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tormenta de Nieve (talk • contribs) 03:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Origin of "Deviant Art" Name -

I have always assumed that the name of the site is a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Nazi policy of declaring art by Jews, contemporary art, and any 'degenerate' art not in keeping with Nazi 'ideals' "deviant art, sometimes purchasing it or confiscating it, and keeping it from view by the public, as mentioned in this NPR article: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/11/09/131187535/-deviant-art-thought-destroyed-by-the-nazis-is-found

Anyone have information on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Asread (talk • contribs) 02:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Scott Jarkoff picked the name. He thought it would be funny to call the members "deviants" and so it's called deviantART. I'm not sure what the rest of the back story is, but I don't think it had anything to do with Nazi germany. 108.85.225.19 (talk) 06:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dated information

Been searching online for up to date information (at least from end of 2011) for the number of active users and some sort of activity counter (like uploads) per day. Searching the web has produced very little decent raw information as reported directly from the site came up, many secondary sources that read from external statis. If any one can find a more complete source of reliable information the article would benefit from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.151.158.175 (talk) 12:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Muro

Just in passing, I'd like to point out I came here looking for some information on DeviantArt's Muro web app. I think it would be appropriate to mention it in the article, as it seems to me that it is no small focus in DA's administrators' eyes. --76.120.46.145 (talk) 09:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Updates and Additions

I realize that the content here is not as informational as it could be, and plan on making a number of additions. I will endeavor to keep it all neutral, and do not plan on deleting any currently-existing information. I also have outside sources for a number of things, and will cite accordingly. However, I am new, so the citations may be a bit off.

Plan:

  1. Website
    1. Layout
    2. Submission of Art
      1. Submission Page
      2. dA Muro
      3. Comments and Notes
  2. Versions
    1. Innovations (citation: Entrepreneur magazine)
  3. Community
    1. Critique
    2. Groups
    3. Emoticons and Points
    4. Business (such as the dAShop, merchandise, as well as how it can be a publicity medium)
  4. Live Events (instead of 'Special Events')
    1. Special Events
      1. Existing + Birthday Bashes
      2. Comic-Con
    2. Outside Company Interest (cited examples: Cool-Climate contest and Dodge Dart contest)
    3. Job Networking
  5. Reception (instead of 'criticism' - will include many subheadings such as talking about 'Peer Review' and the existing content)


I also have a few screenshots to include. I will be making these changes in the next week or two; just felt like I should give a heads-up about it.

Imaginary-Shadow (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

If you work for dA then you might want to disclose that now. (Wikipedia:Conflict of interest) — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 10:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


Thank you for bringing that up, but I do not work for dA. I have been a member for a few years, and simply feel like there could be more information on Wikipedia for those who are interested. I may not have extensive descriptions on everything, but I think there needs to be more information here than there currently is, even if it is simply the fact that something exists. (like Muro, or Critiques) Imaginary-Shadow (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The edits I will be uploading currently will be the addition of the 'Web' section, and a table for 'Innovations'. I will also be changing my personal parenthetical references to footnotes. Imaginary-Shadow (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Termination of Scott Jarkoff

As someone reading this who knows very little about DeviantArt, I have to say that the entire "Termination of Scott Jarkoff" is incredibly confusing. It reads like it expects that everyone already knows all this stuff anyway so why bother really explaining it. I'm not even sure the event is relevant to an encyclopedia and not just intra-site politics, but regardless the section is pretty useless in its current form. Wickedjacob (talk) 14:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Seconded - motion to remove this section? Xquizit Decorum 23:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xquizit.decorum (talk • contribs)
Agreed, it should be removed. I was around on deviantArt at that time, and my gut feeling was to side with Scott Jarkoff, but a befriended admin told me some thins that made me doubt. So in the end, who is to be believed, without any hard evidence? It's all speculation, and has little real informative value. And it's not really relevant to the achievements and current activities of deviantArt either. --88.207.175.239 (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

YES that section, titled "Termination of Scott Jarkoff". It is all based off of hearsay! Not to mention it has a million "clarification needed" tags. Since when does an encyclopedia publish hearsay and then credit the source to A BLOG? Ugh. If the topic has not been dissected by a neutral third party publisher, why is Wikipedia getting in the middle? Makes no sense. ~Joel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joel Breheney (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Bs27975 (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I ran across this section and discussion and it seems like no one has gotten around to deleting it, but that was the general consensus. As a reader who knows nothing about deviantART, the termination scandal seems like it's probably not notable to the general community. I think it lean towards WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER I will go ahead and delete this section. It may be worth a brief mention in History but I'll let someone else decide that. Autumn Wind (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Someont reverted my edit who seems to have only one edit on wikipedia: this page, reverting my edit. seems like trolling or some such to me. the point is that this talk page seems to hold an agreement that this section should be removed, if not completely rewritten. reverting my deletion without discussion is uncalled for. Autumn Wind (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Can`t access dA

Last 3 days dA is not working for me. Teyandee (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Check with your ISP or something. It has been available for me the entire time. Problem is on your end. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Teyandee (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't this be called deviantART as the title? 86.186.199.101 (talk) 17:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Per our manual of style, we stick to English grammar rules as much as possible in regard to capital letters. The "camel case" seems to be an exception in practice. The Interior (Talk) 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Why {{Lowercase title}}? 93.177.171.98 (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

DeviantWear, DA Gear, DA shop, etc

As at 2013 DA has closed its shop for anything but prints, there was little reasoning substantiated to users, however lack of profitability has been suggested. It's probability not significant in itself, but it also probably does show the impact other social media websites have had on forum based communities --Orestes1984 (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

deviantART was not the first site to have commenting in pictures.

"Along with occasional version upgrades, there have been numerous features which deviantArt was using before other social websites."

"Tools for commenting in pictures rather than words" - says dA launched this in 2010 but Tegaki (and it's English variant Tegaki E) is a site and artistic community based around commenting in pictures that has existed since at least 2008.

http://tegaki.pipa.jp/ http://tewi.us/tegaki/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.34.183 (talk) 23:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Unused references

(References commented out to preserve page clarity)

--SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit by TheBoneKeeper because it requires synthesis to establish that the logos are 'nearly identical' as claimed in the article, and because forum posts are not a reliable source per the guidelines found in the section governing user generated content, which states:

...self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.

...

Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.

emphasis added.

Just because something is talked about a lot on the DeviantArt forums doesn't make it noteworthy enough to include here. All of that information should be excised from this article as unsourced speculation. The only reason I have not done so myself is to avoid the appearance of edit warring. If this continues to be an issue, I would suggest taking it to The Dispute Resolution Noticboard and making the case there. If not, I will remove the material shortly. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Coming from NFCR (where it was confirmed the russian logo was confirmed to be a free image for purposes of en.wiki), there only appear to be blog posts/SPS sourcing that are complaints about the similarities of the logos. Without any reliable sources, this is inappropriate original research and must be removed. --MASEM (t) 22:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Changing layout of article?

I think the table in versions really breaks up the flow of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenbergwillfoster (talk • contribs) 03:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

To a small degree, I agree. It's not bad, but it does mess with the flow a bit. However, the first thing I notice is that a website doesn't really have versions, because they can be updated bit by bit, and DA is no exception. I've seen numerous small changes made over the time I've been using it, and it's never been in a big enough package to call it a version. I think that section could stand to be re-written in a prosaic form. For example, look at the second version, which says "In version 2, browsing was made easier." I understand that this was part of a major re-design of the site, but does it really qualify as a "version"? It's highly debatable, but then look at version 3. There's no description at all. The whole section strikes me as trying to fit a website into the model of a piece of standalone software, which isn't really applicable, even if the designers of the site use that terminology.
Second, the "Innovations" table seems fishy in the extreme. The entire table is linked to one print interview with one of the site's founders. In addition to being a primary source, there's the issue of verifiability. None of the dates are referenced by a secondary source, and even if they were, there's an issue of synthesis. That table should probably be replaced with a one or two sentence blurb about one of the site's founders claiming that DA introduced new features earlier than others. Finally, the bit about default domain names is straight up false. I had a [username].geocities.com account in the 90's. What's described there is a built-in aspect of the internet (domains getting more specific as you move from right to left), not a feature of DA. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Stylization of DeviantArt Summit and DeviantArt World Tour

I've updated the subsections that cover these events to use the old stylization (deviantART instead of DeviantArt). At the time these events were held, the convention was to stylize it the old way, so I concluded that the old way of stylizing it is the correct/official way of stylizing the names of these events. Performing a Google search for "deviantart summit" (with quotes) turns up the old stylization most often, and the first citation for the DeviantArt World Tour also uses the old stylization.

If this change goes against a convention that I'm not aware of concerning re-stylization, or if there's disagreement with this change, feel free to revert and/or discuss here.

Wernstrom (talk) 04:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, you're in keeping with WP standards. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I changed the primary source tag to a multiple issues tag and added the issue of the article having content looking like an advertisement. The reason was because certain sections of the article seem a little positive and, well, like an advertisement. If anyone can reword these sections to be more neutral, that would be helpful. The sections are:

  • Website
    • Versions

Thanks. Linkfan321 (talk) 01:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

may be bad.

it may be bad since this marks it as malicious https://www.virustotal.com/en/url/6e56c7a8aed09dba45f7d198d629f269349aaf432b040be6c4df74c8a6e4c2fe/analysis/ 24.72.8.56 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Very End of dA?

There something going on deviantart that the website is considered to be shut down and someone has contact the FBI to force dA the website to closed down permanently, we do not know if it true or not? The Truth has been spoken, we do not know if it true or false?. 15 years this website has held for over awhile becoming the most largest social art community site ever, now this has come to the end. Who will know what would happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.43.213 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

False. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, this new layout could be the end. With how fast a rate DeviantArt is losing members, not just from the layout alone, but from a lack of moderation, the layout is just giving it an early death. 12.17.177.164 (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Petitions

I've seen petitions on users against the whole Eclipse update. I've googled it myself.

https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&sxsrf=ALeKk03wD6jXLkb_TmoJH5dBHD-KAY5w4w%3A1587689625824&ei=mTiiXr6BMu6wytMPsMKWiAQ&q=deviantART+wiki+eclipse+petition&oq=deviantART+wiki+eclipse+petition&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzoECAAQRzoGCAAQFhAeOggIIRAWEB0QHlCO_ARYnokFYNaMBWgAcAJ4AIABaIgB5wWSAQM3LjKYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj-saTh7P_oAhVumHIEHTChBUEQ4dUDCAw&uact=5

--DukeyDukeyDoo (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Lacking in citations

In DeviantArt#History, there's a paragraph on the geoblocking of DeviantArt in Syria and a paragraph on hijacking of user accounts. The only citations are posts submitted by individual users, not DeviantArt admins, which may not be reliable per WP:SPS. Are those paragraphs worth keeping or should be removed for lack of citations of reliable sources? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 16:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The source cited for the Syria geoblocking does link an official response to the issue. Would that count? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Name

Why did they name that with “Deviant”?
That means “departing from usual or accepted standards, especially in social or sexual behavior”.
2001:569:517B:EE00:CD68:FE99:CF36:8055 (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Why ask us? Ask them... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:14, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DeviantArt/Archive_5&oldid=1230609972"