Talk:DeviantArt

The complete replacement of the old site layout with the Eclipse layout has received a continent-sized backlash, so it's no wonder a user keeps adding the bit about that to DeviantArt#Eclipse (Version 9). I keep removing it because of lack of reliable sources (and the user keeps adding it back in), but observations of the backlash (as a DeviantArt user) have made me ponder this choice. PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Highlighting this due to a recent edit war on this article. PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly created a backlash, but you're right, it needs a legitimate citation to warrant a mention. Bkatcher (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Before I thought of checking the Talk page, I added a mention of the backlash with a reference link to dA's "Discover the New DeviantArt" newspost, where they proudly announced Eclipse was now the One True Way, and promptly received negative feedback for them to ignore (within a week there are 24k comments, most of which negative, for around 600 likes and 100k views). Medinoc (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:UGC, user reception and comments do not count, unless noted by a reliable source. PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

So we need a "reliable source" that considers dA notable enough to report on? (and which will base its finding on that very same newspost and comments...) Medinoc (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia standards, to report such backlash, we need a reliable source, most likely a reputable news article, that reports the user backlash towards Eclipse. User comments do not count as reliable due to WP:UGC, and using them to cite your observations may run afoul of WP:NOR. You may disagree with these guidelines, but Wikipedia needs them to keep a high, encyclopedic standard.

(FYI, here's the Verge's article on Eclipse which has a small bit about user reception) ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 17:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I went here after seeing a video that touched on the 2019 backlash. Finding nothing here was disappointing. An event that affected a large number of users and reduced the number of users based on paywalled traffic analytic sites. I get a desire for high quality, but no mention of it at all is not high quality, sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Lyda (talk • contribs) 05:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really a wikipedia editor, just a user of deviantart, but I noticed some outdated information and thought I'd mention it. Deviantarts policy around sexually explicit content has changed and it now allows illustrative content of that nature (no real life pornography though), with the requirement that it is behind one of Deviantarts many art paywall types. Either a subscription or a paid folder of some type. Citation 49 was updated and now states as such. There is also a journal here: https://www.deviantart.com/team/journal/An-Update-to-DeviantArt-s-Mature-Content-Policies-908472076 that details the changes, if anyone would like to read further into the date that this changed and why it changed. Hopefully someone will find a minute to update the content policy section, hope this information helped! 174.21.112.120 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Late reply, but actually, if you read the policy on mature content, you would see that the little that is allowed has to be hidden behind a paywall. And even then, only one type of content is allowed. So, don't know if it's a big enough change to be placed on the page. Depends a lot of Wikipedia requirements. EvaXenon09 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

i hid the article's =Mobile version= header because most of that section's content does not seem specific to the mobile version. i'm not taking the time right now to learn how to place an anchor so any links to that subsection keep working. Is there a way to use the What links here function to see what links to this (sub)section and not just what links to this page? --173.67.42.107 (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

I am extremely disappointed that English Wikipedia has not stand for the truth about the founding of the website. Angelo was not the founder of website, Matteo and Scott founded the website and later Angelo joined in for the financial department.

While aware that actually telling the truth about how Angelo became the CEO and "owner" of the website is unlikely to happen, due to WIX financial importance and pressure, I believe that the truth of the website's creation should be present in the page, with links to the actual founders pages, like it was years ago, before Angelo ordered the history of DeviantArt to be re-written to give him a more important place.

Because, as is, Wikipedia isn't telling the truth but spreading misinformation. I was told that Wikipedia stood by truth, no matter what.

Has that changed?siteb EvaXenon09 (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2025 (UTC)