Talk:DeviantArt/Archive 4

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)

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)

Problems with deviantART
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)

Can someone please provide a reference for the following: "Due to the large number of visitors at any given time and the constant flow of new artwork, the site experiences many stability issues where pages will load extremely slowly or fail to load at all. Sometimes the site fails to process submissions correctly, which may lead to comments or deviations being posted multiple times.". If not, it should be removed. --Dan Leveille (talk) 07:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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 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)

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)
 * And unless whomever keeps removing the name starts participating in this discussion, it will in all likelyhood keep being re-added. brenneman  {L}  13:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely - Im reverting the latest deletion of angelo's name Tyhopho 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This subject was only ever contested by Scott Jarkoff *after* his departure from the company. Matt Stephens "sided" with Scott Jarkoff on this topic again *after* Scott's departure. This was never contested in the years earlier or rejected in any way. This is a very public case of sour grapes. "Angelo Sotira" is no more a co-founder and no less a co-founder than either Scott Jarkoff or Matt Stephens. Without the contributions of all three deviantART would not exist today. Actually without the contributions of Matt Stephens deviantART would exist, it just wouldn't be as interesting most likely. Spyed

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)


 * It's also important to note that you have no idea what contributions were made by "Angelo Sotira" during this time period. For one thing deviantART was conceived in large part within #dmusic on irc.dmusic.com and the discussion in that room was powered by many DMusic employees at the time that witnessed a lot of the foundation of the site. Some key journals to read are mikeylove.deviantart.com and symonx.deviantart.com (both DMusic employees at that time, who themselves contributed to deviantART also.) Accounts by various early deviantART account holders could not be accurate because deviantART was "founded" on April 20th of 2000, and *launched* on August 7th. In those months, a lot of things happened that early deviantART members couldn't have possibly seen. My participation in those early days was directly in attempting to "save" deviantART from catastrophe along side direct input on deviantART through Jark, the engineer managing the project. I am not a programmer, that doesn't mean I didn't have a lot of creative input on deviantART, down to if it should or shouldn't be called deviantART. I didn't talk to Matteo much, I didn't need to.  He refused to even work for us as a founder requiring a salary and stuff which was provided to him by me prior to deviantART's remote capability pay for itself, less Matt. This is ridiculous! Spyed


 * Spyed, a quick reminder to sign your posts with ~ . This is an extremely old topic, and your name seems to have "stuck" on the article, so there's no point in arguing with people anymore. :-) We at Wikipedia are here to make an encyclopedia! &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 23:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Edward unfortunately my name did not "stick" in the article. It's stil constantly being changed here in the article, browse the history. :( Spyed 18:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see where you're coming from. Your name is "on" the article, but you want it listed as co-founder and not as CEO (a change which was only made recently). &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 22:33, 1 March 2007 (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&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 11:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Spyed's dA journal http://spyed.deviantart.com/journal/609173/ : "Under contract with DMusic Network, LLC, $jark built and launched deviantART on August 7th, 2000. Soon afterwards, $jark realized that he'd need his own staff, because the management of deviantART was a task he couldn't take on by himself, so he found `matteo to help him out. And `matteo was awesome, he knew many talented artists, more artists than even $jark knew, and he was great at spreading the word about deviantART. Soon afterwards, I officially hired `matteo as a consultant to the DMusic Network to help $jark - and the magic began to happen." There is no mention of Spyed having any part in launching deviantART, Spyed is only mentioned here in hiring `matteo. Anime-Junkie 04:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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&lt;sac&gt; 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&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 10:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * 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&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

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&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 09:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio image
The current screenshot is a gross copyright violation, and will be deleted from the. 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)

"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)

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)

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.


 * 1) The new version removes the capability of knowing how many pictures you add as favorites.
 * I didn't know that feature existed in v4.
 * 1) You cannot edit fanfics that you post.
 * They're fixing it, but I heard you'll have to re-submit it for the moment.
 * 1) The pages look almost exactly like rival community SheezyArt's.
 * Not that I can see.
 * 1) Green is such an ugly color!
 * I like green, and it's not THAT green.
 * 1) 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
 * 1) The Favorites page is organized rather...wrong.
 * What's so "wrong" about it?
 * 1) 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 &lt;Sp e ak o n 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Symbol font
Can the font used for the Symbols be made slightly bigger?


 * any particular reason? Kamiawolf 20:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * 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).

Why is it called DeviantART?
Why is it called deviant? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
 * That was my assumption, but curious as if there was an alternative reasoning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.19.42 (talk • contribs)
 * 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)

SheezyArt userpage link
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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

My thoughts are no. Flickr is IMO nothing like deviantart. Flickr is more like facebook, its networking and photos and blogging. deviantART, although it is used to upload photos and network, this practise is a) against the idea of the site, and b) done by a relatively small amount of people methinks. dA is about sharing artwork, getting a little feedback, increasing your abilities, submitting some hopefully improved artwork, and the cycle continues. Not like Flickr IMO Triangl 14:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

surely this is worth mentioning somewhere
http://news.deviantart.com/article/25036/ chick did manga style simpsons and futurama pics, posted them on dA, story was digged, now she has a job working on the official simpsons comic and may work on the upcoming futurama movies/episodes. the attention has also helped her get some original work published by Del Rey Manga (a division of Random House). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.174.173 (talk) 06:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

just a note
In the version five layout there has been a feature added to hide posts on the site. One can hide any post made on their profile, deviations, journals and scraps. One can also hide comments that they made on someone else's userpage, deviations, journals, etc. However, they cannot un-hide posts made that were a) not made by them and b) hidden by the user on the user's userpage. Just thought I'd add that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.29 (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

print accounts
the user no longer needs to pay for a print account as far as I know. I have one set up, and did not need to pay any money. Wondering if I'm interpreting this wrongly, or if it is a change that needs to be made... AllureOfTheEarth 16:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Uncontroversial Move
There is currently a proposal at Requested Moves to change the name of this article to deviantArt. The rationale is WP:MOSTM, but it strikes me as a proposal that might not be so "uncontroversial" regardless of how well it may fit WP:MOSTM, so I thought I would let you guys know, in case anyone does object. -- Groggy Dice T | C 23:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's uncontroversial because the MoS and NC mandate it. Chris cheese whine 02:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, what makes something "uncontroversial" is that no one objects to it, not that it is "mandated." Mandates can themselves be controversial, or open to varying interpretations. At any rate, I certainly don't object to the move if the article's contributors don't have a problem with it. -- Groggy Dice T | C 03:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's required, you don't generally get to object to it. Chris cheese whine 03:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If I understand your logic, your proposed move is automatically "uncontroversial" because it is "required," and that even if people lodge objections, they aren't really objecting because they "don't get to object." Well, I don't buy that definition of "uncontroversial." I've also just checked the talk page for WP:MOSTM, and it seems that many people disagree with the guidelines as they currently stand, and question whether MOSTM has the consensus support it ought to have to be considered a policy. Thus, the claim that there is some great mandate that has to be followed without question is itself questionable. But really, I'm only informing the regular contributors of the proposed move, not objecting myself, so why debate this? -- Groggy Dice T | C 04:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a regular contributor (saw this on RM), and this move shouldn't go through at all, let alone uncontroversially. I've never been to the site before, but it seems that its name is clearly DeviantART given on the website. Articles are named after how their sources spell them - iPod is at iPod (with lowercase tag), not Ipod. SnowFire 22:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually that is what makes this an uncontrovertial move. deviantART is spelled with a lowercase d and capitalized A-R-T on the website while here it is not.  Kevmin 09:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yet again, quite simply Wikipedia does not give a rat's backside what a site calls itself. The comparison to iPod is wrong.  If we keep this here, then we would need to move iPod to iPOD, which is clearly wrong.  The article title should be DeviantArt, end of story.  Chris cheese whine 09:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If it were known as DEVIANTART at the site, then I'd say that WP:MOS-TM calls for it to be written DeviantArt. But in my view, the issue is a camel case one, and the manual says it's up to the editors to figure out if it's DeviantArt or deviantART. Also, thorught dA (notice the way I spelled it), the site itself is known as deviant in lowercase, and ART in upper, and spelled that way by users. A google search of the term "DeviantArt" outside of the site itself shows most sites referring it as "deviantART". The term "DeviantArt" in that particular spelling is a distant minority WP:MOS-TM also says not to invent new formats, So I disagree with the change. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt; 21:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll guess you didn't actually read WP:MOSTM then, since you are effectively suggesting that we use a stylized capitalization for no real reason at all. (As I said before, WP doesn't care what the site logo actually says in the slightest)  Chris cheese whine 10:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess you need to not assume that I didn't read the policy, because if I didn't, I wouldn't come up with my reply. I believe that changing to deviantArt is creating a new format, something that guideline says not to do. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt; 18:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you believe incorrectly. I would also suggest you take your own advice.  Chris cheese whine 18:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (resetting indents) - I think you're basing this on the the third point of WP:MOS-TM, but I think that point 6 cancels the other out. "CamelCase may be used where it reflects general usage and makes the trademark more readable" Point 3 also says "but, don't invent new formats: MCI is standard English, while "Mci" is essentially never used" -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt;
 * (part-restore indent for clarity) So, because of that we should violate the rules of English and our naming conventions by using a stylized typography?  Since when do we bend to the will of third parties in naming our articles?  Chris cheesewhine 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to repeat myself. I would be fine even if we used deviantart.com as the article name. The point is that nobody uses the camel case spelling of deviantArt. To name it as such would break naming conventions by creating a new format of writing the site's title. The only way we can reach consensus on this is if we have others contribute to this debate, or take this through WP:DR. We both stand strongly on each of our stances on the name, and I ask for some outside help to deal with this. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt; 23:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So just as clarification, your disagreeing with the move from DeviantART to deviantART? I am a little confused now...  Kevmin 06:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the move would be to DeviantArt. The entry is DeviantART because Wikipedia auto-capitalizes the first letter of page names. The article currently uses the lowercase template to get around that. If you load the main article page and watch the title bar or tab bar, you will see it show a capital D, before the template kicks in and the title switches to a lowercase d. For illustration, I've added the template to this talk page below. Anyway, the people who say they oppose the move would be best advised to register their objections at Requested Moves rather than here, though I've gone ahead and noted that there is opposition here. -- Groggy Dice T | C 14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You will also see the initial capital when you look at "Recent changes", when you look at its listing in a category, when you look at your watchlist, at "related changes" from some other article linking here, etc. Gene Nygaard 22:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal case
There is now a Mediation Cabal case about the naming convention of this article at Mediation Cabal/Cases/deviantART. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiLeon (talk • contribs) 23:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Hello! I'm the Mediation Cabel person who has decided to take this case. Give me a bit longer to read through the comments and figure out what's going on, and then I'll ask a few questions, and then we can kiss and make up. Or at least be happy. From now on, please hold off on commenting about the deviantART vs. deviantArt thing until I post again below this message. (It will be shortly, within the next day or so.) Then, we can continue from below here. Sound good? Good. --Mechcozmo 06:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. I've read the comments, and I think I understand.  Please clarify your respective arguments if you think I'm in the wrong.  The article is currently at "DeviantART".  'chriscf' wants it moved to "DeviantArt" to respect WP:MOS-TM.  Is this correct?  (You don't have to restart your arguments, just give me a yes if I did or explain if I didn't)  --Mechcozmo 06:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and I want it to stay deviantART to respect WP:MOS-TM. We both read the guideline in different ways. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&middot;chill&gt; 06:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why this is a mediation cabal case. The article has not actually been moved, and now that it has been removed from the uncontroversial proposals, it is presumably not going to be moved at all, unless Chriscf initiates a Requested Move process. Thus, I don't see what issue there is to mediate. -- Groggy Dice T | C 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * So the case is closed? Everybody is happy with the page staying at DeviantART?  Nifty.  I'll mark the case as such.  One of my easier cases.  --Mechcozmo 01:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. I object to it staying here because it is in flagrant breach of our naming rules.  This should have been moved weeks ago already.  Why is it still here?  Chris cheese whine 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

a few sources that might be useful
Since I'm doing a bit of research on deviantART for an offline project, I dug up some sources that may be useful to someone writing this article, but don't currently have time to integrate them: --Delirium 04:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Vandalism
I'd consider getting a lock on editing from IPs looking at the recent vandalism. Frizzle 15:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What recent vandalism? The article has been semi-protected for the last five days. There hasn't been any vandalism in that time, or discussion for that matter. What's happening with Spyed? --Imroy 15:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing that I know of... The s-protection is lifted. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 08:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I advised him use the opportunity to be pro-active to settle this annoying back and forth while the article was semi-protected. I didn't get an answer back though. He is busy, no doubt.. well its all about priorities I guess. --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk! .oOo. 11:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

OR Tag
Whats the grounds for that tag? Id like to do some work on the article but found no discussion about it...--Alexia Death 09:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know the tag is mainly on there because of the 'Spyed vs. Jark founders' thing. Since there's no (or very little) reliable documentation about whether Angelo Sotira was actually a co-founder or not it's been a back and forth battle over 'his is, he isn't.' Additionally spyed (angelo) has publically blogged about wikipedia being 'inaccurate' with this situation and edited the entry himself, so the factual accuracy is definitely up in the air. --ImmortalGoddezz 17:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember from that mess two years ago. I think the article is well balanced and no screaming injustice seems to be done to anyone. As stability cannot be obtained with finding the truth describing both sides of the issue and thus achieving NPOV might be the right way to go. Is there any particular passage that is being contested?--Alexia Death 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just that this is the deviantART page, so it's assumed to be in a state of constant flux. :/ Kargath64 04:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clever vandal
There was a vandal that did two edits in a row. Someone undid the last part but left the first in place. Just a note to pay attention when clearing vandalism that all of it goes...--Alexia Death 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

E-Mail?
Does everyone have to put in their e-mail adress before joining D.A.? What if they don't have an e-mail adress? What's gonna happen then? --Kino Lala 01:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many free e-mail clients for that reason, I would suppose. Some take only a minute or two to sign up to. --Dreaded Walrus t c 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but what if people don't have an e-mail adress? Can they still sign up without e-mail adresses and become part of DeviantArt? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.151.77 (talk • contribs).
 * I wouldn't say so, though I can't say I have ever tried signing up without an email. Most things that ask for an email address upon signup, require one. You could always give it a shot though, the worst it could do is just not let you sign up. Also, often, required fields have an asterisk or something along those lines, by the side of the field. --Dreaded Walrus t c 17:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Subscripters
What are subscripters? --76.16.151.77 23:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Kino Lala
 * I believe you mean subscribers, and they are deviantART users that pay money to the site. In exchange, they get some additional features, less hassling ad attacks (I'm still bitter about that), and a fancy symbol next to their name that non-subscribers don't get. HunterBlackLuna 05:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you "pay" to get a subscription? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

To pay for a subscription there are many methods, the most common are credit card and paypal —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Article Poorly Written?
I wasn't sure how to raise this issue or whether it was even a viable topic of dissent, but it bothered me a lot that the article is written poorly/unprofessionally/repetitively, however you'd like to word it. It does not read as if it were written from a neutral standpoint.

Some suggestions:

-Read like an entry in an encylopedia, not like an advertisement

-Paragraph 3: Don't use the word "extensive/extensively" twice. "comprehensive" may be a better choice of words, but even then not twice. Additionally, "deviantART now displays multiple forms of art and creative expression laid out in an extensive category structure." is awkward and IMHO would be better written as "deviantART features many forms of creative expression organized in an extensive category structure." I am still not comfortable with the phrase "many forms of creative expression", I am sure there is a more concise way to express this concept.

-Origins: I contend that referring to deviantART as "thoroughly original in nature" is not neutral. Also, "In order to provide a distinguishable look to the site" can be written as "In order to give the website a distinct theme". I believe the entire fragment can be omitted. The assumed reasoning behind creating Fella and the DA logo is completely superfluous information. Stop using the word "extensive" so much. "Throughout the existence of deviantART many individuals have been involved with the site in both a public and private capacity" is an unspoken truth regarding nearly every business venture known to man and is therefore also superfluous.

-Features: In this section, change "pieces of art" to "work", as it is less exclusionary.

-Growth: "The site is in a constant state of growth, and features continue to improve and increase in number" - you are not an advertisement. Please revise this accordingly. Whitetrashpalace 03:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are all great points, Whitetrashpalace, and I would be all for them. Well done for spotting. Remember that this is a wiki, so go ahead, be bold and change it yourself! :) --Dreaded Walrus t c 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 03:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I was concerned that I was 'too new' or might otherwise be missing out on some vital information that would prevent me from making these edits. Whitetrashpalace 06:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It is done, for now. Whitetrashpalace 15:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Lacking a neutral point of view
A lot of this article seems very biased in my opinion, the "Concerns over usage of deviantART" being the worst offender. It's almost written as if by a photogropher who is disgruntled by "low quality" photgraphs on dA. In my opion we need a major rewrite here. --82.20.253.243 12:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC) (aka User:Zikar on a different PC)


 * I wrote a lot of that section. I was very careful about the wording I used, and explaining that it's not simply a case of me being all snobby about other peoples photos. As the the linked news item (Deviation vs. Scrap) explains, deviantART has always meant to be an art gallery. While some peoples' tastes may vary, the problem photos are simply not art at all - they're snapshots. They belong on MySpace, Flickr, Photobucket, or somewhere else.
 * And this is not a problem confined to just photos. Check out the Flash > Games category. There seem to be a lot of illiterate morons on dA who see "games" in the name and figure it's appropriate place to put game screenshots and promotional artwork they found somewhere on the web (i.e copyright infringement).
 * I'll try to find more sources of people complaining about snapshots being submitted. And I might mention the problems that other galleries are having with inappropriate material. --Imroy 02:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No offence, and I truly mean none, but that is very biased. The section is drawing it's own conclusions, rather than letting users draw conclusions for themselves. For instance "Note that this is not simply a case of art being "in the eye of the beholder"; almost all of the problem photos are made with point and shoot cameras or even camera phones with little or no concern for proper composition, lighting (often using built-in flash), or any artistic value to justify being in the aforementioned galleries." should be removed completely, as it make assumptions of what Art is and who has the rights to post, but it's presented as factual, after all, it could be my opinion that it IS snobbery and elitism... and it's your opinion that it's not... neither should be in a Wiki article. For the record, I do agree with your stance, but I don't agree with it being on Wikipedia. --Zikar 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It should read something like this "Most of photos that are targeted are photos that are taken by point and shoot cameras or camera phones (source), some professional photographers(source) feel these lack artistic value because little attention has been paid to composition or lighting (source)." --Zikar 01:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have relevant links at hand, but I do know of a few dA news articles (primary sources) expressing concern over miscats. dA categories do have descriptions about what each submission category is intended for, however that is shown only on the submissions end and can't be verified without a dA account.  --Stratadrake 03:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone with better writing ability than myself should mention that pieces with drawn or sketched full frontal male nudity often dissapear. I lack the sources to prove so as well. --Bhree 01:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Legalities
What are the legalities in deviantART? People selling their work is illegal. --PJ Pete
 * How is selling your own work illegal? --OuroborosCobra 03:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * More like don't sell your drawing of Mario to Nintendo, any other company, or anyone else. --PJ Pete --August 26, 2007
 * Huh, do you mean people making fanart and then selling it on the site? If not, please explain what you mean.Darkcraft 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

An Article of Lists?
This article seems to be primarily a bunch of lists. Particlularly the 'Features' section should probably be written into a paragraph. I just thought I should post this here before I go ahead with the edits.Darkcraft 14:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Go for it! I've thought the same thing; just never got around to it.  Thanks!  =David ( talk )( contribs ) 14:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, finished. I checked through it, but it is likely that I made errors that I didn't detect, so it would be good if someone else read through it. Darkcraft 11:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I did the same thing to the 'Subscription' section, it would be helpful if someone read through that as well.Darkcraft 11:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Invisible"
On the site, what does it mean that the deviant is "invisible"? --PJ Pete —Preceding comment was added at 05:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It means that the public cannot see whether that deviant is logged in or not, or how long ago they were last logged in. It is an option each deviant can pick for themselves. --OuroborosCobra 05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

New user symbol?
Where did the research for the user symbol 'x' come from? Timmy64 10:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was added by in this edit. I don't see 'x' in the dA FAQ and I'm surprised it stayed in the article this long. --Imroy 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Reporting Policy Violations
When someone reports a policy violation on a deviation, could that really just ban the deviant? --PJ Pete
 * You need to try and use proper grammar, I don't understand what you are asking, and it is certainly not something I can find in the article. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if the deviation is reported for a copyright infringement, that deviant could be banned. --PJ Pete
 * Again, use proper grammar. Are you asking a question or making a statement? I can't tell what you are trying to say here. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's talking about DeviantART itself, rather than our article on it. To PJ Pete: If you have questions about deviantART, the best place to ask them would be either on the deviantART forums, reading the faqs, or by contacting the help desk. Thanks. --Dreaded Walrus t c 09:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

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

Favorites vs Favourites
One of the changes I just made to the article was changing "Favorites" to "Favourites". The latter spelling was already being used through the article in conjunction with the former, so I made the change both for consistency, but more importantly as I think it's the spelling the site itself uses. However, it may just be changing the word for me, as my account is a UK account. If the site uses the spelling "Favorites" for users in the US, then it should be changed back for real consistency with the rest of the article. Does anyone here have access to a non-UK account on the site to confirm the spelling? --Dreaded Walrus t c 14:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am on a US account, and it uses "favourites" for me. Should be fine. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, favourites is what's used in dA, and deviantART is good. Thanks. -- Dan Leveille TALK 19:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed GA Nomination
I have removed the GA Nomination. Moni3 (talk) has brought up some good points about this article:


 * You have a in the article. That's almost an immediate quick fail. Find citations for them (like quickly, too). complete
 * External links in the prose of the article are also frowned upon. You can add them at the bottom in an external link section, or just take them out. complete
 * You have a "borked" citation (#24). complete
 * The controversy over Scott Jarkoff is confusing. I've been a deviant for over a year and can't really see the importance of Jarkoff's issue. If it really is important, that needs to be clear. You might even want to consider condensing the paragraphs about Jark and Angela Sotira to make it simpler. complete

Each will be addressed and the article will be resubmitted. Feel free to help. -- Dan Leveille TALK 06:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, these issues have been addressed. The article will be re-nominiated. -- Dan Leveille TALK 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move back to deviantART

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

no consensus to move the page back to "deviantART", per the discussion below. As far as the comments in support of the move in the survey section, formatting of article titles is generally determined by referring to the manual of style, not to "proper names" or "proper branding". More relevant discussion below deals with the interpretation of our manual of style itself. However, as shown by the comments of other editors in the survey and most other article titles dealing with names of this kind, it is not usual to use nonstandard capitalization. Also note that WP:UCN generally comes into play in cases for which there is no more specific guideline in place. Dekimasu よ! 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC) DeviantArt → deviantART The recent move to DeviantArt is not sensible, as deviantART is the standard form of this website's name, used throughout the site and by others referring to it; it should be reversed. —GreenReaper (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

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


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

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


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


 * Also, "known everywhere" is not quite correct, as several web-based venues indeed use the CamelCase variant "DeviantArt". In addition to the Manual of Style sub-pages already provided by Dreaded Walrus, I'd like to mention WP:MOS-CL. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


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


 * (after edit conflict with GreenReaper) Regardless of whether we personally agree with a particular policy, it must be followed while it is a policy. I personally disagree that users should be allowed to remove legitimate vandalism warnings from their talk pages, but that is our policy, and I am obliged to follow it. If you feel the policies should be changed, it should be discussed on the relevant talk pages, but ignoring them is simply not an option. (note that this was in response to this version of the message above, so may not apply to any subsequent changes) Dreaded Walrus t c 00:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've now had a quick scan through the last six months of the discussion page linked, and can't seem to find anything relevant to this particular case. If there's a section in particular you're thinking of, could you link directly to it? According to the policy page's history, it also seems to be a pretty stable page, and that particular section doesn't seem to be in fluctuation much. As for WP:COMMONNAME, that is only meant to be applied when none of the other naming conventions apply, as even stated in the nutshell: "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". In this case, our naming conventions do give a different indication, as mentioned above. Dreaded Walrus t c 00:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This very example was discussed - and rejected. As pfahlstrom said "as far as deviantART is concerned, both Deviantart and DeviantArt would be wrong." GreenReaper (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The link you provide does not show that DeviantArt was "rejected" unequivocally. The only issue with it was that it might be a new invention, but there was at least one source using that format at the time, and more have been provided above. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I have to provide all the sources where the correct capitalization is used? Here is another prior discussion relating to the topic of not using the common names. It covers exactly what's happened here - a batch renaming that occurred because the real world does not conform to the style guide. GreenReaper (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you don't have to provide all the sources where the "correct" capitalization is used. It turns out that we don't generally aim for correct when it comes to naming issues. We use the name that's the most common, and we format (i.e. capitalize) it according to our own style guide. Do I have to provide links to one thousand page moves where this principle has been applied uncontroversially? It's what we generally do here - I've closed hundreds of moves based on this principle, had very few challenged, and those stood up to review. Do I have to provide the arguments on which that consensus of hundreds of Wikipedians is based? The fact is, it's not unambiguous or obvious what to do in a case such as this, and there's no need to act as if people who prefer one version are being slow or dense. All I did was point out that the previous discussion was not an unambiguous rejection of "DeviantArt", and it's not very helpful to pretend it was. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Asserting that the capitalization is not part of the name is incorrect. As this article itself says, "the site uses unorthodox capitalization in its title (deviantART) as a way of emphasizing its deviance, and other aspects of the site reflect this attitude as well." The same goes for iPod - which, I would note, is not at IPod. Instead, there is a redirect, so that everyone who happens to use the incorrect capitalization gets to the correct name. GreenReaper (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (after EC - reply to GreenReaper) I agree that iPod is in the right place: not at iPOD. You say "asserting that capitalization is part of the name is incorrect", but that's hardly an uncontroversial statement. It sounds like a question of semantics, on which reasonable people may differ. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - I was giving my opinion. Still, I never claimed to be a reasonable person. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, no problem there. Give your opinion by all means, but I reserve the right to point out that an opinion is different from a proven fact. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * iPod, eBay and the like are all now covered (though weren't at the time of discussions linked above) by the Manual of style for trademarks. "Trademarks beginning with a one-letter lowercase prefix pronounced as a separate letter do not need to be capitalized if the second letter is capitalized, but should otherwise follow normal capitalization rules". The same cannot be said of deviantART. And while there has been discussion on the talk page, none of this resulted in a change to the policy page, and it is that, rather than consensus-free discussion on a talk page, which we must follow first and foremost. Dreaded Walrus t c 01:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's consensus more than policy which we must follow (policy documents consensus), and consensus can change. If we establish a consensus for titling the article "deviantART" or "DeviantART" or "deviantArt" or "deviantart" or any other permutation, then we can do what we decide, but it will take a strong consensus to outweigh the usual practice that we've been applying for a long time when citing WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCL. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree with you, I think I may have just been ambiguous in my wording. What I was getting at was that discussion was being linked to that was at least half a year stale, and had no strong consensus, and had resulted in no relevant changes to the policy page. I also agree that a consensus on this talk page would be more helpful than the policies or their talk pages (as there always exceptions to rules), and it is that which we must work towards. --Dreaded Walrus t c 01:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think we're on the same page. In this case, we'll decide how the consensus at MOSTM (such as it is) applies to this case. The best way to do that is probably to bring more people to the discussion, as you can only find out so much about a consensus by talking with three people. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be best to link to this discussion on WT:MOSTM, or to file a request for comment? And if the latter, would it go under WP:RFC/ART? I'm largely unfamiliar with the RfC process. Dreaded Walrus t c 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it appears User:Danlev is doing a mediation thing. I'm pretty unfamiliar with that, too, but I'm sure I'll figure it out when the time comes.. Dreaded Walrus t c 01:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just retracted it. In February there was a case open and we decided to sty with deviantART. I didn't realize there was a final consensus. Unless anyone else agrees that another case should be open, let me know and I'll open it. But there was already a case open and there shouldn't be another. The page should be moved back. -- Dan Leveille TALK 02:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you link to that decision, please? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:DeviantArt and Talk:DeviantArt and Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-22 deviantART states the final decision. -- Dan Leveille TALK 02:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you; those are useful links. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This may be a bit redundant now, but . . . the trouble (as usual) with the guideline is that it doesn't make sense in this particular case. Here it was being used to change the article from the official name, which is widely used, to a name which is not widely used - either on Wikipedia (until the links were changed), or elsewhere. It's fine to argue that lowercase or oddly-capped names shouldn't be used because they're not easy to read or write - but, as a practical matter, that also means that people like us who are unconnected with the businesses concerned don't use them either. "deviantART" is not the only style out there, but it is the one used by those familiar with the site, and its users, as well as by the company running it - all of which have been demonstrated by prior conversations on this very talk page (User:Spyed is a co-founder). "deviantART" has also been used throughout the article for a long time - here's an early cleaned-up version. There's been ample chance for editors to agree to change how the name is capitalized within the article itself, but they have not agreed to do so. Ideally, the move should have been discussed here before a change was made that could not be reverted without administrative action - especially considering that the previous discussions were similarly controversial. GreenReaper (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. We have already made a final decision with a discussion and a cabal case. Such a move should have been discussed if someone STILL had an issue with it. -- Dan Leveille TALK 02:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no "final decisions" here. Consensus can change. GreenReaper makes a good case for deviantART, but a good case has also been made for the currently accepted interpretations of WP:MOSTM and WP:MOSCL. In my opinion, this article sits right in the middle of the gray area, and makes a good test case. What we decide here decides just where the line gets drawn, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. We don't copy all special formatting, nor do we ignore all special formatting. One one side of the line is iPod, and on the other side is TNA Impact!. This case could lie on either side of the line, and we have to be open to current consensus, whatever has been decided in the past. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


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

I initially had some concerns that DeviantArt might be an invented format, but I did a search of the Google News archive and found these:, , , , and I'm sure there are more. We are certainly free to apply the guideline, which would call for something more standard than the "official" style. Croctotheface (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an incorrect format used in those articles. The company is incorporated exactly as "deviantART" and uses it everywhere. Third party articles are irrelevant. -- Dan Leveille TALK 05:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Third party articles, far from being irrelevant, are what Wikipedia is based on. This is a source-based encyclopedia. We reflect sources, rather than correcting them. I can cite literally hundreds of precedents for this principle, and that represents a broad consensus for the idea that we do not copy special formatting, even when trademark holders would insist that we do. Whether that consensus applies in this case or not is a matter that Wikipedians may, and should, discuss in an open-minded and neutral fashion. There are good arguments on both sides. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I voted against the move based on current policies and guidelines. I sorta want it to be moved though since that would give me precedent to have TNA Impact! moved back to TNA iMPACT! (the offical capitalization) which was just as controversial as this move. It caused the article to be locked for several weeks and a LONG discussion (which Cyrus was involved in). After a couple of months I just gave up since I felt it wasn't worth it anymore. So I will be paying attention to this.  TJ   Spyke   09:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the cases aren't all that similar, because at least "deviant" and "ART" are phonetically and semantically distinct parts of the word, whereas nobody pronounces the wrestling promotion as "eye-mpact", nor do "i" and "MPACT" have independent meanings. Consider "eye-pod", which is how we pronounce iPod. Nevertheless, I agree that this is a case to watch, because it's articles such as this where precedents are set. -GTBacchus(talk) 10:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If there is a rule that precludes proper names appearing as they should in terms of capitalization, it's not a rule that makes any sense, nor is it quite respectful. --Moni3 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is where we draw the line. We can't mimic every aspect of a trademark that trademark holders may choose to define as official. If someone were to insist that a name isn't correct unless we use special characters (macy*s, We ♥ Katamari, P!nk, KoЯn) or a particular typefont or color, then we probably wouldn't follow them all the way there. On the other hand, we do respect alternative spellings (e.g., Linkin Park) as being an essential part of a name. Are capitalization choices an essential part of a name, or are they stylistic choices akin to typefonts or special characters? One could make a case either way. What we've traditionally chosen is to follow trademark holders as regards spelling, but not as regards special formatting. Where the line is drawn is somewhere very close to the boundary between CamelCase on the one hand - which performs a semantic role, separating parts of a compound word as in MasterCard - and stylized capitalization on the other hand, which perform no such role, such as TNA iMPACT! or HoTMaiL. It's certainly possible to change consensus, but our habit of avoiding stylized typography, and of classifying special capitalizations as such, is a pretty broadly supported one, so it would take broad support to change that. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous mediation
Having read over the previous mediation (thank you for the links, Dan) it's clear that there has never been a consensus formed over what to call this article. Only a few people have discussed it. One person who wanted to move the page to DeviantArt didn't comment for a while, and withdrew a move request. Later, someone arrived to say they still objected to the DeviantART title, but the case had already been declared closed as a "nothing to mediate here". That's different from a consensus forming. The policy issues haven't even been discussed. On one side, there's the WP:MOSTM recommendation against copying special formatting, a la P!nk or macy*s. On the other hand, we're admonished in the same guideline not to invent new formats. The current format (DeviantArt) is not, as far as I can tell, entirely original, but it's not used by very many sources. It would appear that deviantART is considerably more common, but formatted differently than our style guide would suggest. Is that a pretty good summary of the issue? -GTBacchus(talk) 12:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not really sure how to go about describing something used by "very many" sources. Considering that the standard is "inventing new formats", then anything that is used in any reliable secondary sources is OK by that standard.  If it were the case that zero major reliable secondary sources used a format, then we would be "inventing" it.  If there exist sources that use it, then, by definition, we are not inventing it.
 * However, I don't think that this is really the dispute here. The argument that people who favor "deviantART" seem to most prefer is an "official" or "correctness" argument, whereby they assert that formats other than "deviantART" are "incorrect" because they are not "official", i.e. favored by the trademark owner.  Obviously, this line of argument runs smack against WP:MOSTM, which says that nonstandard formats should not be used regardless of whether the trademark owner prefers them.
 * This is an easy case. We find that "deviantART" is nonstandard, so WP:MOSTM applies.  Whether the nonstandard style is preferred by the trademark owner is irrelevant.  We then see that DeviantArt, a standard English formatting, exists in reliable secondary sources.  So, we use DeviantArt instead.  At no point here have we "invented a format".  The guideline is satisfied, and we can move on to other things.  Croctotheface (talk) 17:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a line that could be drawn somewhere in between a "new invention" and an accepted format. If only one source used the format preferred by our style guide, and dozens of others used a different format, then we might go with commonality over consistency. If it were more evenly split, then we'd probably stick with our style guide. I don't know what the numbers are like in this case, nor where the tipping point lies, but it's in there somewhere. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the language of the guideline is "invent new formats". I don't see how you could say we are inventing a format if, for instance, CNN uses it.  Croctotheface (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not saying that. It still remains that a truly obscure format, even if not completely original, would probably not sway a consensus. That's my guess anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * I guess I do not consider it entirely irrelevant, because it offers a refutable assumption is the "right" name for this article - the one people are likely to use when linking to it and looking for it. There needs to be a clear justification for not using this name. In my mind, the only valid justification is that it is not actually the name used by people to refer to this topic. If one format is used by a simple majority of sources, then that displays such a preference.
 * If there is merely a plurality, then there is no clear preference for any particular invented name - and therefore we should probably use the default. This avoids the situation where we are using an invented name that at least half of the world is going to think is wrong. Few are likely to claim that we are using the wrong title for this page when it is the one that the site itself uses, as shown prominently on the screenshot at the top of the article.
 * I prefer using the word people in any guideline, even if we end up having to look at sources to guage this. The more formal sources should be treated with caution, as some will have style guides similar to those of Wikipedia; and as Dreaded Walrus pointed out, people following a style guide might be forced to use a capitalization that they would not normally use themselves. I do not think we should avoid using the term "deviantART" just because (say) the New York Times has an issue with using it. We should do so only because most people have an issue with it, and prefer a different one. GreenReaper (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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


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


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


 * Good point. And likewise for font. And while I don't know if it's possible within the software itself, I know that there are ways to override a page title, as is used, for example, on User talk:AmiDaniel. That's the only one I can remember off the top of my head, but there are other better examples of users who replace the header on their page with a different font style or colour. Dreaded Walrus t c 01:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.