Talk:Dollz

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

Sara- Dollmakers are cheap, easy way out- dolling is an art form and you can get alot of artist experince to details and such, it is very differcult to do when you think how small pixels are- Visit this site- One of the ok ones! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.255.10 (talk) 00:18, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Links
I am a bit surprised that all doll sites were removed and all forums are still there. Why would we suddenly give forums more weight than doll sites/communities? I agree that section has to be filtered often and a lot, however it was not originally created to only discuss doll forums.... I think we should discuss the option of adding some of the major community/doll sites.


 * You have to realize that the dolling forums are the communities. When you have privately owned doll sites on the list you bring up the issue of subjectivity. Dolling has gotten so much variety as a style these days that it's hard to put down one particular site and say that that site somehow revolutionized dolling.

I removed the link to the Moonlight Garden forum. Links to forums should be avoided according to Wikipedia guidelines and this one is closed to members. At the very least, forums should be open to read without being a member. --Ingaemm 13:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the link to the Gathering forum then, as it's viewing is also limited by membership. As for major community/doll sites, how do you define one as major? Forums you could limit by number of members, say 1,000 or whatever, but you can't say any one person has contributed more to dolling than another really.  Depending on who you talk to nowadays, so many people started dolling after looking at smaller sites instead of the few really big ones that were around 5-8 years ago.

I think the links are fine as they are now, Origin of Dolls and a Tutorial Search Engine. Both are helpful and add something to the article. --Ingaemm 10:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * HM.... Inga, think we can still find some true big dollz sites around :) but I think I am ok with links now (User: alex/jess ;) )

The External Link "The Originz of Dollz" links to a parking domain site. Dont know what to do, so im sorry for no action --217.86.191.103 (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


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

Forum Links
Being one of the owners of WTM, I changed our external link description from, "A popular forum owned by some of the most well-known dollers," to, "A PG-rated forum owned by Shouri and Sally B." Hope no one minds too much, and thanks to whoever put us there in the first place. ^^~ Sally B 18:20, 26 October 2006

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

Oh, and none of the external linked sites belong to me. Icecradle 17:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

- Updated it, fixed spelling and grammatical mistakes, organised it into legibility, expanded on the history, developed section on bases, expanded on issues. ~yani, 12.52pm 13 March 2006

Remove external links or pick just one as an example?
People are abusing external links to plug their own sites, this does not look good as it is.

A link to the article was recently posted on a large dolling forum, many of the members of which don't seem to understand that Wikipedia is not a forum for self-promotion. Speaking as someone who's been dolling for several years I'd recommend removing the whole list. At the moment it's an embarassment. - T

Why remove the link to Eden Enchanted? It's the most popular dolling forum on the web, therefore I think it would be a perfectly valid addition to the article.

Removed the link to Eden Enchanted. The forums can not be read without being a member and they are not open to new members.--Ingaemm 12:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I put the link to Originz of Dollz back, as it's supposed to be the person who invented dollz. Nobody else takes credit for this, and their story seems solid, so I'm inclined to believe them, or at least let them have a link.


 * I think the section is pretty fine for now, with all of the links being well-known sites, with the possible exception of Moonlight Garden, which I'd never heard about until I saw the link, but it does seem to be a pretty large forum. So maybe the tag could be removed? Elanorea 16:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I take credit, and have supplied proof of such. Please see note below, and I have updated the history to include the very first appearance of the "dolls" ... along with a graphic that pretty much backs my story. If I could find Impy... that'd be the final nail in the coffin. I can't believe someone has been taking credit all these years. Spacestarr (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I really hate it when people add their own sites in. Everyone knows. Let's face it--we have a pixel shader (Angy Chan), a tool shader (Suzy of DHF) and Xandorra, whose tutorials and resources are very popular with beginner dollers. Anyone else isn't as good, and that's a fact.


 * People are still adding their dolls sites to this page. Do we really need a link to Eclectic Blue, and DEAC? I don't see how these sites are relevant. I've edited out Sas and the City cus it was written as 'Very famous dolls site...' which is clearly untrue, and seemed pointless to the links section. I think some of these links need to go. We should have Angy, Xandorra, DHF and possibly Josie. That's it. No others. -M
 * I think the links we have now are fine, with the possible exception of "Blue Ribbon", which doesn't seem to be a very large forum. Anyway, I propose that we remove the clean-up tag and replace it with a note saying "Please do not add any links to this section without first discussing on the talk page." or something similar. 80.235.61.165 15:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed.
 * Alright, I did the replace, and also removed a link to a forum that had closed down (Tequila Sunrise). Elanorea 15:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the three sites of Angy Chan, DHF and Xandorra should be on here, not as aform of promotion, but as a way to show how "dollz" have evolved into "dolls". I believe these three sites deserve to be here, I am sure there are LOTS of just as good sites, but the way I see it, someone who goes to read about the phenomenon of dolling and does not know what it is, will find the small selection of the original dollz-site, angy, dhf and xandorra to be just the perfect selection. -Leyonne

To not mention Josie is a crime. Really, she was an inspiration to many. She really started doing dolls by hand early on, and truly started a revolution in doll world. If you talk to many dollists they would say that she was an inspiration to many including Angy Chan.-Suze.

Sas and the City?
A very famous dolls site? Is it? Are we sure the owner of this site didn't just put that there? I've edited it out, because I don't think it's relevant to the links area.

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

I vote for keeping both articles, don't merge. The dollz article is quite good as it is, it explains drawing dollz and issues faces by dollers. The end result (a cartoon doll) is one graphic that may or may not be distributed. The doll maker article is a stub and needs expanding. The issues faced by the makers of dollmakers are getting graphics, what script to use, layout, setting rules about distribution etc. Two very different things really, but what is confusing is that the end result is roughly the same, except for distribution rights. Ingaemm 11:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say keep both articles. Saying that a dollmaker is the same as dolling is like equating jigsaw puzzles and photography. I mean, you end up with a picture either way, and some photography sites/programs offer a puzzle feature. --64.180.207.196 22:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


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

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

I agree that we should say something along the lines of "actual originz unknown, but so and so takes credit. . ." I can see that the originz that innocents have put up seem valid. According to what appeared on her site, she did create the first "little people" template, as well as one version of the prep. (I think it was the one where one of the legs was bent at the knee, although I don't quite remember because the site is now down.) Furthermore, it's the only credit that we have that is DOCUMENTED and that we can reference (the site is down, but can be accessed through the wayback internet archive) --64.231.236.238 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I am rewriting the history section of the page, and removing the part that the user above has written. These claims are original research which do not have any sources anywhere else online and so they do not belong on Wikipedia. Innocent's origins story, however, is documented on her website in full detail, and other sources seem to be supporting it. --Ninique (talk) 03:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

My name is Melicia Greenwood, a.k.a. "artgrrl" and also "shatteredinnocents" back in my Palace days. I just went and downloaded the current Palace app and signed into the Avatar Palace, and was shocked to see it still running! I still have a lot of Palace-related files on my laptop, including screen-shots of the Palace while I was logged in and working in the Prop window on the dollz; if I can get it working I will make them available for reference. I had first hosted my dollz page on Asarian-host.org on my personal page, "karmagrrl." The dollz pages got so many hits at one point that the server admin asked me to move them; I moved them over to my site at shatteredinnocents.com/dollz. My very first internet nick in 1991 was "karmagrrl" (back in the days of Lynx and IRC); then "artgrrl" when I first entered the Palace for graphical chat; in 2006 I went back to my roots of creating avatars from scratch, this time in 3D in "Second Life" where I create body shapes.

I have always felt very strongly that art is for the people so I would drop my Palace avatars, prop by prop, onto other users (or into "drop rooms" )as fast as I could make them. It was great to watch 10 or 20 iterations of the same avatar appear within mere minutes! Spacestarr's above-referenced picture documents how a doll could be made by tracing over a photograph; I notice that instead of following the right arm of the woman as it bends away from her body, they simply used the awkward "behind the hip" arm I (unfortunately) created because I couldn't yet make realistic hands. This is a perfect example of how quickly dollz spread: a doll could be created and edited from pieces of other dollz and upon their first use, variations would flourish within days, hours or even minutes. The Palace pioneered a creative and competitive atmosphere where internet chatters first broke free of the constraints of static icons and text-based emoticons into a dynamic, ever-changing visual representation of the self that the user could change in an instant. Because of the large number of separate, highly-populated Palace servers open in the mid-90s, and the creative, at times chaotic atmosphere of "editing contests," it was possible to have several people creating similar images on separate servers without either seeing the other's work. When "dolling" web sites began, it was much easier to keep track of new developments and to merge all of these designs together into coherent histories. I know that many people feel a part of the creation of the original Palace dollz in many ways; the advent of dynamic graphical chat was a very exciting time in internet history and I'm glad I'm still around to report on it. Feel free to contact me for more information. - shatteredinnocents, a.k.a. &quot;karmagrrl&quot; &quot;artgrrl&quot; &quot;sadakoshikami&quot; (talk) 07:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Response to this ^ This is the one of the main reasons I left dolls all together. All of the "I did this, and she did that", and the petty things in between. Really, who cares?! I wanted to also add, that I know Val got the phrase from an old computer that was pieced together for her. Her "franken-puter". This was something she frequently said on SimFreaks (in 2000) for her second-hand machine. There was an incident where Josie's work was being compromised and pieces stolen in early 2001 before she closed her site for a few months. Valerie told Josie that one of her dolls had been "frankendolled". We all got a chuckle out of that. Coincidence? Maybe. But I do know that the first time it became widely known was when it was brought to light in Doll Netiquette. Maybe it can be edited to reflect that, that she was the one that brought it to public forefront. But let's not just re-write history, think about what you say, because we were talking about the notion of "Frankendoll" in early 2001 at SFD (Sim Freak Dollz). It's all really blurry at this point, but I can say the the whole "franken-puter" thing was trademark to Val, so naturally we assumed (at SFD) that frankendoll was her phrase to coin. But again I'm am reminded of the fact that really, no one cares about who said what first, nor should they. It was about the message. She delivered it. In the end that's what counts. You probably should've taken it up with her when she first published Doll Netiquette. I'm sure she would've given credit where credit was due. At this point I'm not even sure she's around to defend her position. She's had a note on her website for the past two years saying "she'll be back". She's moved on. We all should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.97.103 (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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



It wasn't a serious thing when we started doing it in the 90s. we were just looking for ways to set ourselves apart from others. Since it was technically not for profit, there wasn't really any law breaking going on. In recent years, as "dollmakers" have started to take themselves more seriously, has "tracing" become an issue. Back then, we weren't in a competition to be the best. We were just having fun. In it's current state, where dolls are traded and pasted, I would say it's not like it once was. Definitely not. But to understand the origins, you have to understand that it was a lot different. Tracing was common and widely accepted. Nickels151 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So many dollz traced from photos or line art came and went in the Palace. The problem with tracing was simply the wrong proportions - a realistic human figure is about 8 heads high, an avatar doll is about 4 heads high. I did try some tracing in '96 for "celebrity contests" and the results were always mangled-looking (like the example on this page; we need to add one from "Originz of Dollz" as another example of the concise, neat original avatars and I can't due to the conflict of interest. See the Sept. '11 update for more info). It was much easier to use the standard dollz head and go from there, widening the proportions to cartoon quality. Veriria created the most amazingly realistic dollz I've seen. It was a joy to edit her bases for contests and collecting. shatteredinnocents, a.k.a. "karmagrrl" "artgrrl" "sadakoshikami" 16:33, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatteredinnocents (talk • contribs)

Revision
A lot of work went into this page, but it is far too long, full of microdetail, repetition, irrelevant comments and redundancies. Additionally there were no references at all, and many format and grammar mistakes. I am revising it, but further revision will be necessary.

Done: Removed shatteredinnocents external link. It's important, but it's dead, and it doesn't look like it's coming back. Couldn't find any mirrors or pages at the Wayback Machine either. Removed references to zines, they are both defunct. Deleted some sections, and amalgamated others. Sorry, I've had to be ruthless - but the article was a bit of a mess. Centrepull (talk) 16:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

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

So, this page does look a little sad.
I don't think it ought to be deleted, as it actually does represent a significant art community that exists on the web.

There are probably thousands of sites devoted to dolling still in existence on the web, and an entire category on the notable art site DeviantArt.

I will attempt to update the article and add credible sources later... if I can find some that aren't dead. 99.112.127.147 (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sept. 2011 edit/cleanup
Cleaned up the entire article for grammar, punctuation, capitalization, references and readability. Tried to weed out all duplicate information. Modified all unverified statements such as "the best ..." or "the most popular ..." website or e-zine for those editor's conflicts of interest.

Note: I'm still not able to upload images via Wikimedia, even though I'm a verified user. I think this is due to my username being the same as the reference to my old, archived site "shatteredinnocents.com" being a conflict of interest. However, I don't intend to create a new username just to upload images, which would be dishonest. If anyone would like to grab this example of a 1995 Palace doll from my archived site at shatteredinnocents.com and upload it to Wikimedia and then add it to the Dollz page, it could be very helpful to the article.

Since I never profited from presenting dollz on the internet (although at one point i had Google AdSense on some of the pages, I made zero), my hope is that my editing this page won't be a conflict of interest. I realize it is from the original source, however. My old laptop hard drive is so far unusable and I haven't been able to get all of the original, dated image files to present. I am trying to contact Palace user "Biks," Eric Bickernicks, who was there when dollz started and did a short film about The Palace. (If any Palace users remember, Biks was the little animated cartoon-face avatar that used the Palace "macros" to change his expression in an instant, he always hung out on the main Mansion at the bottom of the stairs, or in the Dressing Room.)

If anyone reading this is from the old Palace days, please feel free to add to the editing of the page!

My main interest in maintaining the Dollz Wikipedia page is of course for accuracy and readability; my secondary interest is maintaining it for my daughter who is starting to create pixel dolls and will want to know where they came from and where they went. shatteredinnocents, a.k.a. "karmagrrl" "artgrrl" "sadakoshikami" 16:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shatteredinnocents (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for getting involved with this article, Melissa. I had tried in the past to clean it up and remove some of the inaccurate content, but it was very difficult especially with your website being down (thank God for Wayback Machine lol). Unfortunately, a lot of duplicate information has crept into the page, especially with regards to the palace days. Today I started cleaning out those sections, only keeping the relevant, referenced, and non-duplicate info. I did remove a lot of things though.


 * I'm thinking there should probably be a short paragraph in the beginning section about copywrite issues, then we can elaborate about it in its actual section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninique (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think it would help a lot more for old Palace users to document their experience on blogs or whatever other medium, instead of trying to edit this page, since Wikipedia doesn't like when people post original content that isn't posted elsewhere on the Internet.


 * I am going to try to upload a doll of yours to the page. I have them saved on my computer from when I started dolling. However, I think it would also be beneficial to put a more recent example of a doll as well, which would help especially with all the talk about dolls being a real art form. I'm not sure how the licensing for Wikimedia would work though, I guess it would have to be a doll whose base is from the same artist.
 * --Ninique (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

February 2012
First off, I wanted to say "thank you" for your continued support of my website, Veriria's Palace and that I still have a link contained in this wiki article on dolls. I've been trying to figure out what, if anything, I could possibly contribute to the article. I was thinking a link to Love for an Immortals website -- which is still online at http://www.lfai.8m.com/ should be included somewhere? It's an old-school Palace avatar related website, and as a user of Palace since 1997 or thereabouts I have always said his was the FIRST website to contain tutorials on avatar (or doll) making. I don't know what year he posted that online, but then mine went up on my old site at http://veriria.8k.com/ in 1998 I believe. I transferred my website to my own domains in 2001 (both veriria.com and rubberhouse.net) which I have maintained online ever since.

Edited to add: Following in Xandorra's footsteps, I have started a new cartoon doll search engine, for tutorials, articles on dolling, etc. so I added a link to that. I ALSO added a link to a very old Palace Chat article written online -- http://www.thepalace.com/wonder/ezine/sk8ters.html which is all about the evolution of the sk8ter avatar. Veriria (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The external links section is best used for sites that reference the history of or a description of Dollz in general - the sk8ter article seems a bit.. specific. -KaJunl (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually read the article now, and I can see it being relevant. However, it would be more useful if much of that background were in this Wikipedia article, such that the relevance of the sk8ter article was more apparent.  -KaJunl (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

thoughts
I do think this topic is notable, but obviously the article could be improved. I recall these being pretty popular. I think it should be revamped in the vein of "Dollz are a certain kind of animated cartoon that were used abundantly in AIM buddy icons and on other chat services in the early 2000s" (not that exact quote, but with that approach).

Also, the intro contains information not included in the body of the article. I generally recommend only summarizing the body of the article in the intro, not giving new information that can't be found elsewhere. The visual descriptions, talk about "dollmakers" etc. is in the intro but nowhere else.

-KaJunl (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

WTF Why doesn't anyone know a link to these 2000 dolls that were so popular?
Help! I need to just go to a site, like I used to when I was like 10 and see all the dolls and their accessories. I just want to be nostaglic for a minute and not see this updated bullshit of barbies turned to bratz. Sincerely, everyone who ever spent hours of their life trying to find the perfect top and cover these naked dollz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.214.161 (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Lol, that's how I ended up on this page too. Try this one:
 * http://www.dollzmaniadressupgames.com/Palace_DollMaker101.htm
 * Some others here work too: http://www.dollzmania.com/Palace_Dollmakers.htm
 * I guess it's nice to know I'm not the only nostalgic one looking these things up.. -KaJunl (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)