Talk:DeviantArt

Archives of previous discussion: 1, 2, 3

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yeah, sounds good --rotane 23:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

By nature the lead section is supposed to be redundant, or more accurately a summary. Summaries are not redundant in the clearest sense but do contain information which is also in other sections. Also, the lead section is far too long now. According to Wikipedia:Lead section The lead for this article should be 1-2 paragraphs, or possibly 3 at the very most, currently it's 5. Also, information about it's origins and mascot do not belong in the lead. In fact, as I read it only the last paragraph on the lead section seems to read like a summary. It might be preferable to move the entire lead section elsewhere and replace it with a basic summary. Vicarious 03:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Absolutely - Im reverting the latest deletion of angelo's name Tyhopho 23:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]