So would anyone object to the "official_art" tag being changed to the "artist" designation instead of general?

It does imply that it was made by the lead artists and it doesn't bump off the current artist tags.

Can I get an official ruling on this?

Wait so art made by people wouldn't be official?
It would have to be made by corporations?
That sounds silly.

Moon_Moon said:
Wait so art made by people wouldn't be official?
It would have to be made by corporations?
That sounds silly.

I think he meant "official_artwork", for example, images that appear on official websites, scans of user manuals, concepts of videogames, etc. Meaning that it was made by [artist] for [copyright, franchise]. Just look at official_art for more examples...

I agree with the change.

Shouldn't it be a copyright tag instead?

But having it stand out a bit is definitely a good thing, so it shouldn't be a general tag.

NotMeNotYou said:
Shouldn't it be a copyright tag instead?

I think this is a better idea. Having non-artists as artist tags would make arttags:<1 less effective for tagging purposes.

NotMeNotYou said:
Shouldn't it be a copyright tag instead?

I think the reasoning behind suggestion is that official art rarely has a known artist for it. I guess it could be seen as basically saying that the company itself is effectively the artist for the work.

Nyteshade said:
I think the reasoning behind suggestion is that official art rarely has a known artist for it. I guess it could be seen as basically saying that the company itself is effectively the artist for the work.

Would it be fair to suggest that the appropriate artist tag might be the name of the company, then?

I would very much prefer that art be attributed to specific artists, when possible, but I can understand that in many of these cases it's just not possible.

ikdind said:
Would it be fair to suggest that the appropriate artist tag might be the name of the company, then?

Generally with official art you have either the company name (disney/pixar) or specific show/movie (my little pony/frozen) listed as copyright holder. official_art as artist would basically just say "copyright holder is also artist."

That's my take anyway.

Nyteshade said:
I think the reasoning behind suggestion is that official art rarely has a known artist for it.

Good point. It's often impossible to find out who actually drew those, so a large chunk of official art is destined to remain tagged with unknown artist.

With official art as the artist tag, at least we'd have some 'artist' for those. And it'd give more prevalence to the tag, so maybe users would remember to tag it more often...

But I'd be fine with changing it to a copyright tag instead. Either one's better than keeping it as a general tag.

Well, making the company tag an artist tag is not a good idea, that would mean either have Nintendo tagged as artist on any and all pokemon pictures, or need two tags in addition to the official artwork which is also little more than bloat.

I would suggest to keep the company's name as copyright under all circumstances, make the official_artwork tag copyright as well to simply denote that this is work directly belonging to the company, and then add artist tags as needed, if the real artist is known add the artist, if the real artist is unknown add unknown_artist.

Because while we may know that the picture is from Nintendo, and belongs to nintendo we still may not know who the person was that drew it, thus the tags should properly reflect that.

Shouldn't "Nintendo" be a "Copyright" tag? Or perhaps we should make "Company" tags their own unique things.

And strictly speaking. "Nintendo" did not make it, a particular artist working FOR nintendo did, therefor "Nintendo" wouldn't be the artist anyways!

I vote it at LEAST become a Copyright tag. Make it stand out.

It being a general tag is really not the place for it.

I disagree. I do not see any significant demand for "official art" to warrant changing anything. It sounds like it would appease one person and cause a lot of headache and drama down the road.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
I disagree. I do not see any significant demand for "official art" to warrant changing anything. It sounds like it would appease one person and cause a lot of headache and drama down the road.

How would making it a copyright tag cause any headaches or drama?

tony311 said:
How would making it a copyright tag cause any headaches or drama?

The same as any of the tag wars we deal with.

Daneasaur said:
I vote it at LEAST become a Copyright tag. Make it stand out.

It being a general tag is really not the place for it.

I agree with making it stand out somewhat, but it is virtually the opposite of a normal copyright tag -- it tells that there IS a copyright involved with the image, but provides zero information per se about who owns it; only that whoever owns it, they are the 'official' owner.

Copyright tags normally satisfy this criteria, that you can identify whose copyright is involved, and not merely adjectives that could be attached to them.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
The same as any of the tag wars we deal with.

Official art is tagged for artwork that's been released by the original company or design team. Nintendo's official Pokemon and Mario artwork. MLP by Hasbro. Box and manual scans, etc. The opposite of fan art.

Those are pretty easy to tag, and don't seem like something that'd cause tag wars.

Yeah I'm not seeing how changing the type of a tag would cause any kind of tag war, especially seeing how it wouldn't change what posts it is or isn't on - it just changes the color of the tag. Although I wouldn't really see how it would cause any warring even if we do keep adding it to posts (which we will, because it's a tag in active use).

Made it purple.