Tagging tiny "watermark" characters unrelated to the main piece

@Entweihen: > evazion said: > > My ruling on this is in...

2020-02-02T17:00:38-05:00

evazion said:

My ruling on this is in forum #162792. This topic has been open for discussion for nearly a year now and that's the decision I've made. People have had a chance to make their points and I don't see a need for this to drag on forever.

I recognize not everyone agrees with this decision, but numerous people have stated they don't want these characters tagged, both in this thread and in various other posts: post #3481270, post #3552813, post #3612111, post #3333088, post #3007785, post #3449703, post #3268732, post #3122632, post #2924637. In light of this I don't think this is an unwarranted decision. I'm sorry, but I have to make a decision one way or the other, and whichever way I go one side will disagree.

This is only about this particular watermark, not about chibi insets, or spoken characters, or other kinds of easter eggs or background characters in general. There's no need to twist this into a "if we can't tag these specific characters in this specific situation, then we can't tag any other background characters ever!" slippery slope argument. That's not what this is about.

It would have been appreciative if you were upfront about your negative biases.

Good day then.

@evazion: My ruling on this is in forum #162792. This...

2020-02-02T16:49:02-05:00

My ruling on this is in forum #162792. This topic has been open for discussion for nearly a year now and that's the decision I've made. People have had a chance to make their points and I don't see a need for this to drag on forever.

I recognize not everyone agrees with this decision, but numerous people have stated they don't want these characters tagged, both in this thread and in various other posts: post #3481270, post #3552813, post #3612111, post #3333088, post #3007785, post #3449703, post #3268732, post #3122632, post #2924637. In light of this I don't think this is an unwarranted decision. I'm sorry, but I have to make a decision one way or the other, and whichever way I go one side will disagree.

This is only about this particular watermark, not about chibi insets, or spoken characters, or other kinds of easter eggs or background characters in general. There's no need to twist this into a "if we can't tag these specific characters in this specific situation, then we can't tag any other background characters ever!" slippery slope argument. That's not what this is about.

@Entweihen: > DreamFromTheLayer said: > > It's not exactly...

2020-02-02T15:54:01-05:00

DreamFromTheLayer said:

It's not exactly a hard rule against it, but there is a precedent to debate it:

From the page howto:tag_checklist :

This is essentially what's under question here, the searchability of the images. Was it important to tag them to the point that people complained consistently about them?

They appeared in the picture, did they not? That's what nonamethanks was arguing: why is this specific case supposedly 'not allowed' when there are other smaller, maybe even less visible that are supposedly off the hook?

For example, this picture: /posts/3059229?q=doge . What relation that the tag Doge have with Takao and Atago from Azur Lane? By your implied standards you should remove this tag too because there's very little connection this meme has with the two characters.

Or, what about the implication of this picture? /posts/3555319?q=eudetenis+astolfo_%28fate%29 I don't see Astolfo or Tharja being related to this, yet I don't see anyone rushing to make changes here.

I would argue that yes, it is important to tag them as they do appear in the picture and that there are other pictures like these that exist that must then be held to this specific standard that you are laying out.

I'm more than happy to accept that outcome. That is, of course, if you'll take the time to prune every picture similar to what I posted above to conform with this new standard for tagging you desire to push. It simply appears as if some people just feel that it's 'okay' to apply this but not to everything else, which was why I sense some spite rather than reason.

@DreamFromTheLayer: > Entweihen said: > > Fair. So do tell me what...

2020-02-02T15:36:56-05:00

Entweihen said:

Fair. So do tell me what rule I am precisely breaking. I've linked pictures with off references even smaller than what the uploaded commissions show, yet they're not under consideration to be cleaned up.

Otherwise, it just seems like your personal spite that's driving this, something that isn't beholden to the rules you imply to uphold.

It's not exactly a hard rule against it, but there is a precedent to debate it:

From the page howto:tag_checklist :

Priority: Level 4, Microscopic Details

These tags identify extremely minute details in the background, often missed by a glance. The importance of tagging these details may be under debate, as they can either make or break the searchability of our images depending on the situation.

This is essentially what's under question here, the searchability of the images. Was it important to tag them to the point that people complained consistently about them?

@nonamethanks: Most people not using it doesn't mean it's...

2020-02-02T15:30:14-05:00

Most people not using it doesn't mean it's useless. There's plenty of other often forgotten tags that deserve to be on posts much more than eyebrows_visible_through_hair or other abused tags. Nobody used blurry foreground before I and Unbreakable populated it either, for example, and now it's at almost 5k posts.

I think that it's also alright if we don't tag it at all.

I think colored_* tags for objects like pillows, blankets and umbrellas are worthless, but I don't remove them because I know there's people who care.
From this thread it seems there's plenty of people who care enough about this kind of information to have it in the tag list in one form or another. It's a matter of deciding how to, rather than just nuking everything and forgetting about it.

@DreamFromTheLayer: > nonamethanks said: > > It's not a specific...

2020-02-02T15:19:48-05:00

nonamethanks said:

It's not a specific case though. I don't see the difference between the artist in question's signature chibis and posts like post #3741751, post #904907 (Cu chulainn), post #3673893 (Leonardo in the second panel), post #3654771, post #3677004, post #3709498 and countless others where there's cursory references that are often used as a stand-in for the artist's or audience's reaction to the image. It's pretty common for this kind of inset to be found in official manga too. The whole argument of people not expecting these posts to show up when they're searching for their character tags applies to the posts above too. There's hundreds of different examples by different artists.

I really don't see why we can't use the *_(cameo) tags for this like we've always done.

No, it really is a specific case, because people are complaining about this type of tagging but not that kind of tagging. It's different. People are fine with the chibi insets, mainly because it usually is relevant to what people are searching, and at the very least doesn't upset people.

And you don't see the difference, you say? Look harder at what you posted, then. The chibi characters are relevant to the copyright, and have something to do with the picture. This is different from the problem in this topic, so it's unlikely anything we do here will affect pretty much any other post.

I don't have a problem if you use the cameo tag or not (even though, no, it's not something we've always done because no one has really used the cameo tag), but I think that it's also alright if we don't tag it at all.

@Entweihen: > DreamFromTheLayerFair. So do tell me what...

2020-02-02T15:15:00-05:00

DreamFromTheLayer

Fair. So do tell me what rule I am precisely breaking. I've linked pictures with off references even smaller than what the uploaded commissions show, yet they're not under consideration to be cleaned up.

Otherwise, it just seems like your personal spite that's driving this, something that isn't beholden to the rules you imply to uphold.

@nonamethanks: > DreamFromTheLayer said: > > I also think...

2020-02-02T15:10:00-05:00

DreamFromTheLayer said:

I also think it's unnecessary to change tagging rules for all pictures for what is clearly a specific case.

It's not a specific case though. I don't see the difference between the artist in question's signature chibis and posts like post #3741751, post #904907 (Cu chulainn), post #3673893 (Leonardo in the second panel), post #3654771, post #3677004, post #3709498 and countless others where there's cursory references that are often used as a stand-in for the artist's or audience's reaction to the image. It's pretty common for this kind of inset to be found in official manga too. The whole argument of people not expecting these posts to show up when they're searching for their character tags applies to the posts above too. There's hundreds of different examples by different artists.

I really don't see why we can't use the *_(cameo) tags for this like we've always done.

@DreamFromTheLayer: > nonamethanks said: > > For more examples you...

2020-02-02T14:58:57-05:00

nonamethanks said:

For more examples you can check chibi inset. A lot of those should have their character tags removed as per policy of this thread apparently.

No, not really. There's a difference between chibi characters that have something tangentially to do with the drawing and the meme spam that serves only to disrupt tag searching.

I also think it's unnecessary to change tagging rules for all pictures for what is clearly a specific case.

Entweihen said:
In fact, if I can make a suggestion, you can just blacklist Mutsu_(snail). Alot of the commissioner's works, even collaborations, always have these.

It's troubling to suggest that people have to blacklist an unrelated meme when there's no way of knowing beforehand that a searcher would have to do such a thing, and unreasonable to expect everyone to stop what they're doing just to add something to the blacklist. It's especially bad to have to blacklist it if they are looking for the snail in earnest.

Entweihen said:

Unless you feel that my case is exceptional enough that you'd change potentially hundreds (maybe even...thousands) of pictures with smaller characters or off-focus appearances to comply with what you had before. If not, then it's clearly a personal issue.

It's because this case is exceptional that we can deal with the problematic tagging without affecting all other posts en masse.

@Entweihen: Back on topic, I've yet to see any rules that...

2020-02-02T14:22:11-05:00

Back on topic, I've yet to see any rules that I've broken thus far. Sure, one can argue that what has been done by the commissioner may be unethical, but under no grounds does it fall under 'vandalization' to restore these removed yet relevant tags. Pardon me for attacking the Admin's right, but if anything, removing said relevant tags is in and of itself tag vandalism. Therefore, I don't quite see how it would be just or proper to punish for restoring relevant tags.

For the record I directly talk with the commissioner on Discord where he shares his works hence why some of the pictures I've posted thus far often constitute the uncensored versions.

However, if there is a specific rule that I am violating in tagging the pictures above with the memes present, do say and I will discuss it with the commissioner. Otherwise, I feel this is simply personal as opposed to a proper issue with regards to the rules.

nonamethanks said:

For more examples you can check chibi inset. A lot of those should have their character tags removed as per policy of this thread apparently.

Hm. That does seem like an inconvenient predicament.

Though an easier thing would either to blacklist my account so that the commissioner's work won't be seen. Though it may not be able to stop most of those pictures (I believe there were a few other pictures posted by another user for their end of a collaboration) but adding the blacklist on the Mutsu_(snail) tag would cover all bases there.

@nonamethanks: > Entweihen said: > > My concern is there are...

2020-02-02T14:11:54-05:00

Entweihen said:

My concern is there are other pictures, based on the enforcement action above, that should be 'wiped' clean also. For example, in the Mutsu_(snail) tag alone these should be scrubbed of the Mutsu_(snail) tag also:

/posts/3509911?q=mutsu_%28snail%29
/posts/3172888?q=mutsu_%28snail%29
/posts/3170358?q=mutsu_%28snail%29

Unless you feel that my case is exceptional enough that you'd change potentially hundreds (maybe even...thousands) of pictures with smaller characters or off-focus appearances to comply with what you had before. If not, then it's clearly a personal issue.

In fact, if I can make a suggestion, you can just blacklist Mutsu_(snail). Alot of the commissioner's works, even collaborations, always have these.

For more examples you can check chibi inset. A lot of those should have their character tags removed as per policy of this thread apparently.

@Entweihen: My concern is there are other pictures, based...

2020-02-02T14:06:59-05:00

My concern is there are other pictures, based on the enforcement action above, that should be 'wiped' clean also. For example, in the Mutsu_(snail) tag alone these should be scrubbed of the Mutsu_(snail) tag also:

/posts/3509911?q=mutsu_%28snail%29
/posts/3172888?q=mutsu_%28snail%29
/posts/3170358?q=mutsu_%28snail%29

Unless you feel that my case is exceptional enough that you'd change potentially hundreds (maybe even...thousands) of pictures with smaller characters or off-focus appearances to comply with what you had before. If not, then it's clearly a personal issue.

In fact, if I can make a suggestion, you can just blacklist Mutsu_(snail). Alot of the commissioner's works, even collaborations, always have these.

@Guaro1238: I have to agree with nonamethanks and...

2020-02-02T14:06:47-05:00

I have to agree with nonamethanks and Unbreakable too. Some people will still tag them and somebody has to garden it everytime - and in the worst case somebody will retag them, because they think it's right.

@nonamethanks: > Unbreakable said: > > I half agree with...

2020-02-02T14:05:41-05:00

Unbreakable said:

I half agree with nonamethanks here, I don't think character_name_(cameo) tags are a good idea (even more weird to not have the copyright tags) but I still think the characters should be tagged in some way or another.

Using the cameo tag means that it still shows in the autocomplete as a result, making the user who's searching for it aware that there's more pictures, while avoiding the copyright tag and the original character tag means it doesn't pollute the "main" tags. But not having them tagged at all is loss of information and it seems to me like one of those ideas that sound great in practice but then become unenforceable and after a year become something that nobody wants to even think about because of the mess it created.

@Mysterious_Uploader: I do agree with nonamethanks here too, his idea...

2020-02-02T14:04:32-05:00

I do agree with nonamethanks here too, his idea solves both the problem of copyright/character flooding and leaving the characters untagged.

@Unbreakable: I half agree with nonamethanks here, I don't...

2020-02-02T14:01:19-05:00

I half agree with nonamethanks here, I don't think character_name_(cameo) tags are a good idea (even more weird to not have the copyright tags) but I still think the characters should be tagged in some way or another.

@nonamethanks: I'm gonna have to go against the grain here but...

2020-02-02T13:58:06-05:00

I'm gonna have to go against the grain here but I really don't get why we can't just tag them as character_name_(cameo) like it's already done for other cases, and skip the copyright tag in case of cameos.

Not tagging them at all seems obtuse and goes against common sense. People are just gonna keep tagging them because they are in the picture, so good luck constantly trying to garden all of chartags:>1.

@Entweihen: > Mysterious_Uploader said: > > Read the...

2020-02-02T13:57:45-05:00

Mysterious_Uploader said:

Read the thread.

I have. And there is nothing that is against the rules. In fact, what is suggested here is pretty dangerous. There are other pictures with characters as small or perhaps even more out of focus than the ones posted, and yet they'd fall under this blanket adjustment people in this thread are suggesting.

Unless of course, this is some personal vendetta.

@Mysterious_Uploader: > Entweihen said: > > Why so? I don't think it...

2020-02-02T13:44:19-05:00

Entweihen said:

Why so? I don't think it violates any rules and they are pertinent on the picture as far as relevancy goes.

Is restoring something that was removed despite being relevant really vandalism?

Read the thread.

@Entweihen: > evazion said: > > @Entweihen: Please don't...

2020-02-02T13:34:32-05:00

evazion said:

@Entweihen: Please don't readd these tags. This has been discussed and the majority of people agreed these characters shouldn't be tagged. Further edit warring over these posts will be considered tag vandalism.

Why so? I don't think it violates any rules and they are pertinent on the picture as far as relevancy goes.

Is restoring something that was removed despite being relevant really vandalism?