Posted under General
スラッシュ said:
No point in removing them, but I've been tagging Pixiv_fantasia_# pictures with original. I thought that was the consensus but I guess not!
Ugh, if I hadn't already gone through all of your old uploads and added original where it was missing but tagged one of the 6 tags on pixiv I would go fix these.
Haha, sorry, I didn't read your post correctly. Anyway, this pixiv_fantasia + original issue is easily fixed with a mass edit one way or another.
I thought I was pretty consistent with tagging original only when it was actually tagged/certain, but I guess I missed quite a few after all. They're tricky to me. Though the tag may have been added later (or by a third party, perhaps?).
alegria said:
watanabe_(pixiv_fantasia) - 15 images of a character from pixiv_fantasia_3, drawn by multiple artists, none of which I would tag fantasy.Many of the pixiv_fantasia images are only loosely connected to each other, and it can be hard to see the connections that are there, but that doesn't mean that they're completely independent images.
99.9% of them are completely independent and the tag conveys absolutely no information. It'd be vastly more useful to reserve pixiv_fantasia only to posts that specifically refer to the project and/or connect to established bits of continuity, what little of it there is. The rest should be edited to original + fantasy then.
If there are more cases like Watanabe, please mention them in pixiv_fantasia's wiki. Once we have a reasonably complete set of continuities there, we can use them to define the scope of the tag, and kill everything that falls outside.
This. Series. Has. No. "Information" in it. It has nothing to do with following it or not, and everything to do with it being a content free label with no useful meaning. It's not even a series by any reasonable interpretation of the word. Applying the tag to posts specifically referencing Pixiv Fantasia would give it a well-defined meaning. As it stands now, it's completely fucking useless.
I think instead of considering it a tag with no information, it'd be better to consider it a copyright that refers to a series of collaborative art books. Many images from art books don't explicitly indicate they're from the set, but that doesn't exclude them from being included in it. It also isn't mandatory that every image in the set has to have a 100% unified theme either, just being in one of the books includes them in the set.
Artbooks, however, usually have a more limited scope, and some kind of other unifying quality, such as being drawn by the same artist or circle (which tends to give you a lot of info about the style and other things you can expect from the illustrations). But an "artbook" with 900 pages in it and no theme is not a very useful demarcation, and is indistinguishable from original for all intents and purposes. What I'm proposing is a way to reduce its scope, thus giving it a useful, well-defined meaning, different from "a stupidly named, undocumented alias of original".
Still, would we want to implicate "original" to this or not? Or, do we want to manually tag original on pixiv_fantasia pictures that contain original character designs, but not on pictures where someone else redrew that design?
I'm in favor of the latter, because to me it seems like kind of a parallel to something like pixiv-tan, where you can have both the copyright (since that's the basis) and the original tag (since practically all of them are original designs).
Basically, I think people who are looking for original will want to find those pixiv_fantasia pictures, and it also gives accurate information as to what's contained in those pictures.
I'd really prefer we don't put original on them at all and instead acknowledge the opposing tags in both wikis, original is already 57k posts and growing by at least 20-100 a day depending on how much work I get done.
BRS is a Huke-original series but we don't slap original on that.
Throw it on the tofu/fried tofu + snow/snowing pile I'd say.
We have at least that one example of watanabe_(pixiv_fantasia), where a bunch of folks drew one character. While it was an original when the first artist did it, it wasn't for all the others. That's how I would define original (although I guess we don't do that for BRS as drawn by huke, even though we probably should).
Anyway, that's my reasoning. I do realize original is a big tag, but it's also one of the few tags that's instructional (ie it tells you if a design you're looking at was thought up by the artist). Although almost all pixiv_fantasia pictures are originals (and reflecting that in the wiki would be an option), not all are, and it's not as intuitive as simply having the original tag right there. Additionally I don't think we should hesitate putting a tag where it's needed just because the tag in question is very big (although I realize that whether it's needed is the very thing that's in question here).
スラッシュ said: Still, would we want to implicate "original" to this or not? Or, do we want to manually tag original on pixiv_fantasia pictures that contain original character designs, but not on pictures where someone else redrew that design?
I can get behind this approach in theory, if we have some tag gardeners lined up to take care of it. It seems like the vast majority would warrant original, but not all. If we can tell which are which then let's do this.
