i know we don't tag the commissioner of a pic in artist tags (it wouldn't be the first and certainly not the last time i've come across and had to remove a commissioners name from the artist tags of a pic.) but what about source links?

i was checking to see if there was anything new from dreiker and noticed this happening with the source links of some pics.

post #840343, post #852243, and post #853988 all have the pic in dreiker's FA gallery as well as his FA profile and a direct link to the pic in the source links but also list the pic's page in the commisioners gallery as well as said commisioners profile for FA.

so should we keep the artists links (dreiker's in this case) and remove those of whoever commisioned the pic in question?

This was discussed in a thread before, can't find it right now though. If I recall correctly, the consensus was that commissioner sources are good, more sources being better. Artist source would usually take priority though.

Also, according to NotMeNotYou and Parasprite's responses to forum #155828, tagging the commissioner is okay but generally discouraged. That was over a year ago so I'm not sure if their views are still the same.

treos said:
i know we don't tag the commissioner of a pic in artist tags (it wouldn't be the first and certainly not the last time i've come across and had to remove a commissioners name from the artist tags of a pic.) but what about source links?

i was checking to see if there was anything new from dreiker and noticed this happening with the source links of some pics.

post #840343, post #852243, and post #853988 all have the pic in dreiker's FA gallery as well as his FA profile and a direct link to the pic in the source links but also list the pic's page in the commisioners gallery as well as said commisioners profile for FA.

so should we keep the artists links (dreiker's in this case) and remove those of whoever commisioned the pic in question?

Are you talking about adding the Artist's webpage on FA or the Artist's Website in the Source Dialogue box?

Bj007pro said:
Are you talking about adding the Artist's webpage on FA or the Artist's Website in the Source Dialogue box?

if, by webpage, you mean the artists profile on FA then yes. what i'm asking about is whether or not the links concerning the commissioner, the one who paid the artist in question to draw the pic for them, should remain or not.

what source dialog box, do you mean the source links section of the page here?

Don't remove valid source links under any circumstances. Commissioner's galleries still count as valid simply because their money made it happen.
They aren't needed, but they are nice to have.

Past that, they don't need to be tagged, but if they are leave the tag as is unless it's disruptive. Chances are that it won't be disruptive, though.

NotMeNotYou said:
Don't remove valid source links under any circumstances. Commissioner's galleries still count as valid simply because their money made it happen.
They aren't needed, but they are nice to have.

Past that, they don't need to be tagged, but if they are leave the tag as is unless it's disruptive. Chances are that it won't be disruptive, though.

alright then

treos said:
if, by webpage, you mean the artists profile on FA then yes. what i'm asking about is whether or not the links concerning the commissioner, the one who paid the artist in question to draw the pic for them, should remain or not.

what source dialog box, do you mean the source links section of the page here?

I add the Artist's Webpage and Website to the source because it's respecting the Artist, and giving the people who like their artwork, a chance to find more artwork by them, or help support the Artist.

When I source posts I try to include the artist's submissions on different sites (FA, IB, SF, pixiv, DA) as well as submissions by included characters (often multiple).

Tracking down all sources ensures that we have the best version, it helps users find other pieces by that artist or with those characters, and it's respectful to all involved parties by recognizing that the post is their contribution.

I sometimes add commissioners and/or character owners under the copyright tag type (e.g. Partran). I think this is a good idea that should be used more often, personally. For example it's not obvious from the Janice Carter tag alone that a post owes credit to darkduck64 (in addition to the artist of course), so that's a sensible copyright tag.

Here's one example of why tagging the commissioner is problematic: contessaskunk. Few posts are of the character, the rest are commissions. (And the tag is stuck as general tag, because it has over 100 posts).

I would source the commissioner's own post(as a secondary source) if they had posted it on their own gallery, while remaining the artist's own post as the primary source.

I wouldn't however add in the commissioner's profile links in the source(as it's kinda irrelevant), but I can credit them by adding in their profile links in the description.

Genjar said:
Few posts are of the character, the rest are commissions.

Then contessaskunk should be a copyright tag, and there should be a contessaskunk_(character) tag (or Contessa_Trueheart if we're being thorough). Contessa_Trueheart should just be treated like any other one of ContessaSkunk's 16 characters, no biggie.

leomole said:
Then contessaskunk should be a copyright tag, and there should be a contessaskunk_(character) tag (or Contessa_Trueheart if we're being thorough). Contessa_Trueheart should just be treated like any other one of ContessaSkunk's 16 characters, no biggie.

Yep, but if we didn't tag commissioners at all, we wouldn't have to spend time sorting those out. To me, commissioner info has always seemed like something that'd work better as a set, instead of as tags.

Sometimes commissioners have the stuff in differend and/or better format. Or artist themselves have stuff in differend and/or better format. Or it's identical everywhere but either or flips the table and removes their account.

I have been keeping habit of crawling trough artists and commissioners ALL accounts for stuff and add them all as source. Adding descriptions from them as they are usually on sites that require logging in to see descriptions, which usually contain information like characters, commissioners, story, creator, etc.

That way even commissioners visible in some format, as tags most definitely doesn't work that well with commissioners. Image itself doesn't contain anything from them, even though they financed it. And if it does, it's usually character from them which has seperate tag.

Genjar said:
if we didn't tag commissioners at all, we wouldn't have to spend time sorting those out.

You're not wrong, but ... that argument applies to literally everything we tag. If we didn't tag species, we wouldn't have to spend time sorting that out.

I think a better question is what benefit does tagging commissioners have? 1. It gives them due credit, which I think has the side benefit of making them less likely to submit takedown requests.

2. It lets users find related characters, for example if I like the character Spades_Hoyle from post #278704 then I can most easily find related character Roulette_Hoyle by looking through the contessaskunk copyright tag. A set doesn't provide that functionality unless users know to check Sets with this post and then go to that specific set and then View posts.

Separate commissioner tagtype?

I like Genjar's set idea for the time being

leomole said:
You're not wrong, but ... that argument applies to literally everything we tag. If we didn't tag species, we wouldn't have to spend time sorting that out.

That doesn't seem comparable.
Tagging problems are usually handled by finding alternate ways to do things, instead of sticking to a system that doesn't work. Such as those species tags you mentioned: those barely existed a couple of years ago, but after all the organization those hardly need any clean up anymore. Though that doesn't mean that there's no room for improvement.

titanmelon said:
Separate commissioner tagtype?

Might help, but those would probably still be mistagged. In the worst cases there's three categories mixed up under a single tag: the artist, who's also a commissioner, and a character who goes by the same name. Those are no fun to untangle.

The categories are so easily changed that a tag might be an artist tag one day, then a character tag next day, etc.

And what about characters owned by one but drawn by another as gift art? Even worse is a commission gift, where person A commissions person B art of person C's character.

Kaeetayel said:
And what about characters owned by one but drawn by another as gift art? Even worse is a commission gift, where person A commissions person B art of person C's character.

This is more/less the reason why we don't tag Person A or Person C (though tagging their character is fine). As a public archive we're not really in the business of tagging "Art that X gave to someone else as a gift", because the only people that would really care about such a thing would be X and whomever they gifted the art to.

Though there's no reason you can't put this sort of thing in the description.

leomole said:
When I source posts I try to include the artist's submissions on different sites (FA, IB, SF, pixiv, DA) as well as submissions by included characters (often multiple).

Tracking down all sources ensures that we have the best version, it helps users find other pieces by that artist or with those characters, and it's respectful to all involved parties by recognizing that the post is their contribution.

I sometimes add commissioners and/or character owners under the copyright tag type (e.g. Partran). I think this is a good idea that should be used more often, personally. For example it's not obvious from the Janice Carter tag alone that a post owes credit to darkduck64 (in addition to the artist of course), so that's a sensible copyright tag.

Apparently the Admins would disagree as per recent events

darkduck64 said:
Apparently the Admins would disagree as per recent events

This thread has been dead for three years, and you necroed it only to leave a passive agressive remark about you not being allowed to have personal copyright tag? Wow.