IMO, it'd be good at the very least for takedown purposes. If Petruz suddenly decided that all the posts using their models should no longer be on e6, I'd say the site should respect that (here's hoping that never happens). With that said, tagging them as an artist seems off, and copyright might not work if the modeller also does their own art. I'm tempted to suggest an entirely new tag category for collaborators (could maybe also include sound design, voice acting, backgrounds, etc.), but that sounds complicated and I'm not sure it's worthwhile.

Thoughts?

I would say yes if the modeler is known they should be credited. (Was this a discussion somewhere before? It feels familiar)

i mean we do that same for voice actors sometimes maybe if it's a full moon i guess so why not tag modelers

if an artist's work is found in the post, then they should be tagged, whether this is a base image for an edit, image in the background (i.e. a poster), or a 3D character model, they should be tagged. (I kinda feel like this should maybe also extended to VAs and composers/musicians, but I'm not sure, maybe that'd be better suited for the description or sources.)

versperus said:
(Was this a discussion somewhere before? It feels familiar)

this, probably.

darryus said:
if an artist's work is found in the post, then they should be tagged, whether this is a base image for an edit, image in the background (i.e. a poster), or a 3D character model, they should be tagged.

Problem I see there is a lot of times models can be stock models, or even paid for from some store or collection. Models can be created by people using parts created by other people (e.g. a dog model by one person, a penis model by another, and an anus by another, with a fourth person putting them all together, a fifth person making the skeletal animation, and a sixth person then makes a video out of it; perhaps with other characters or backgrounds made from multiple sources themselves). Verifying who made what can be impossible in many cases. Don't forget the textures, too; textures can be made separately from the model, and UV mapped by a different person also. Add in sound designers, foley recordings, voice actors, etc. You'd end up with a long list of credits that are largely unverifiable.

darryus said:
this, probably.

No, my recollection is of a much older conversation.

watsit said:
Problem I see there is a lot of times models can be stock models, or even paid for from some store or collection. Models can be created by people using parts created by other people (e.g. a dog model by one person, a penis model by another, and an anus by another, with a fourth person putting them all together, a fifth person making the skeletal animation, and a sixth person then makes a video out of it; perhaps with other characters or backgrounds made from multiple sources themselves). Verifying who made what can be impossible in many cases. Don't forget the textures, too; textures can be made separately from the model, and UV mapped by a different person also. Add in sound designers, foley recordings, voice actors, etc. You'd end up with a long list of credits that are largely unverifiable.

I think we already have a tagging issue in general with people not adding the characters that are front and center. As long as at least some people are diligent (and a lot of artists thankfully tend to give credit in the descriptions), it shouldn't be too much of a concern.

versperus said:
No, my recollection is of a much older conversation.

Probably this, which is buried inside a seemingly irrelevant thread. That said, at least one thread dedicated to this question has also been created: topic #33094

Actually, anyone who works on the code for this site: how easy/feasible would it be to add a new tag category (the "Collaborator" category I suggested)? If it's too much of the pain for whatever reason I'll drop the subject.

dripen_arn said:
i mean we do that same for voice actors sometimes maybe if it's a full moon i guess so why not tag modelers

The artist tag gets cluttered af when people add VAs, model makers, inanimate objects, background environments, etc.
Use the description field. Example

wat8548 said:
Probably this, which is buried inside a seemingly irrelevant thread. That said, at least one thread dedicated to this question has also been created: topic #33094

Yup, probably that.

cane751 said:
The artist tag gets cluttered af when people add VAs, model makers, inanimate objects, background environments, etc.
Use the description field. Example

That only works if the description actually credits everyone. Voice acting would be more tricky, but models are much more easy to recognize (and therefore tag) on sight.

strikerman said:
That only works if the description actually credits everyone.

How so? If only some people are credited in the description, how would it be any worse than if only some people are credited in the tags? The description can provide credits as well as, if not better than, tags. If someone doesn't bother to credit others in the description properly, why would they credit them in the tags properly?

The description also doesn't need us trying to find out if someone's already here under another tag that wasn't the name they were otherwise credited as, resulting in multiple tags for the same person (already a problem for artists that use different handles on different sites, don't need to make it worse). This would also avoid problems for modelers that both create models for others to use and make their own images. A new category wouldn't really help, since using the same tag name in different categories is already a bit messy, and this would make it worse (especially if the name is common and used by others).

watsit said:
How so? If only some people are credited in the description, how would it be any worse than if only some people are credited in the tags? The description can provide credits as well as, if not better than, tags. If someone doesn't bother to credit others in the description properly, why would they credit them in the tags properly?

The description also doesn't need us trying to find out if someone's already here under another tag that wasn't the name they were otherwise credited as, resulting in multiple tags for the same person (already a problem for artists that use different handles on different sites, don't need to make it worse). This would also avoid problems for modelers that both create models for others to use and make their own images. A new category wouldn't really help, since using the same tag name in different categories is already a bit messy, and this would make it worse (especially if the name is common and used by others).

I was thinking along the lines of the original artist not adding that info in the source description, unless you mean the e6 uploader adding that info on their own.

strikerman said:
I was thinking along the lines of the original artist not adding that info in the source description, unless you mean the e6 uploader adding that info on their own.

Essentially. If the artist doesn't say who the models come from, it's unlikely the uploader/tagger will know for sure either (being aware that two models can look nearly the same but be made by different people, so you can't always tag who made some model by looks alone). But even if they do, it's relevant to the image so I see no issue with it being added to the description even if the source description didn't have it.

You can credit the model creator in the description, but please do not tag them on posts that they did not create.
It clutters their artist tag, and makes it confusing which posts they did make, and where it's made by someone else borrowing their model.

bitwolfy said:
You can credit the model creator in the description, but please do not tag them on posts that they did not create.
It clutters their artist tag, and makes it confusing which posts they did make, and where it's made by someone else borrowing their model.

Fair enough, hence why I also suggested adding them to the copyright tags

Just noticed that there is a copyright tag for Petruz (petruz_(copyright)). Is it cool if that's used for Petruz's models?

strikerman said:
Just noticed that there is a copyright tag for Petruz (petruz_(copyright)). Is it cool if that's used for Petruz's models?

I wouldn't. Seems like the kind of thing that should be invalidated, like editors and such. There's already an issue with other tags of his, like wolf_(petruz) which is a tag for just his wolf model that's not a distinct character.

Perhaps a meta, or meta-style category could be utilised for the purpose of cataloguing such things? A "component" tag, for model makers, musicians, voice actors, so on? If programmes used are being tagged, most of which they typical user has exactly no way of identifying from visuals alone, it does not seem an unreasonable thing to tag in it's own category.

watsit said:
There's already an issue with other tags of his, like wolf_(petruz) which is a tag for just his wolf model that's not a distinct character.

Eh, I'm more than fine with that. It's unique and recognizable, and helps with searching.

strikerman said:
Eh, I'm more than fine with that. It's unique and recognizable, and helps with searching.

But it's incorrect. Character tags are for characters, and if someone uses his wolf model and says it's their own character, it's not the same character, so a model shouldn't be tagged as a character.

watsit said:
But it's incorrect. Character tags are for characters, and if someone uses his wolf model and says it's their own character, it's not the same character, so a model shouldn't be tagged as a character.

Does it really matter, especially if the model's individually recognizable?

strikerman said:
Does it really matter, especially if the model's individually recognizable?

Misnaming a character, or more confusingly tagging more character names than there are characters portrayed, isn't good. It creates a problem for others that it looks like a mistag and we don't know what character tags are correct or incorrect.

There are many recognizable models, but none of them have their own name distinct from the character they're meant to portray (if any). There's a rather identifiable canine penis model I keep seeing everywhere, but it doesn't have a name tag. I don't know what it is with Petruz that they got so many of their own tags for their stuff that's so widely used, but it's definitely not the normal way to handle 3D stuff.

watsit said:
Misnaming a character, or more confusingly tagging more character names than there are characters portrayed, isn't good. It creates a problem for others that it looks like a mistag and we don't know what character tags are correct or incorrect.

It's not misnaming if you just label the model as whatever the original modeler called them.

watsit said:
I don't know what it is with Petruz that they got so many of their own tags for their stuff that's so widely used, but it's definitely not the normal way to handle 3D stuff.

slug_(wattchewant), gryphon_(untied_verbeger), shark_(warfaremachine), dino_(bluejuicyjuice), this really isn't exclusive to Petruz. It's just more visible with Petruz since he's so prolific.

strikerman said:
It's not misnaming if you just label the model as whatever the original modeler called them.

A character isn't a model. The same character can be portrayed by multiple different models (or sometimes by a 3D model, and sometimes drawn), and a model can be used by multiple different characters. Tagging a model as a character is wrong.

strikerman said:
slug_(wattchewant), gryphon_(untied_verbeger), shark_(warfaremachine), dino_(bluejuicyjuice), this really isn't exclusive to Petruz. It's just more visible with Petruz since he's so prolific.

It's nowhere near common, though. There are plenty of widely used and identifiable models, which aren't tagged with a name. The description would be the place for this (e.g. "Wolf model by Petruz", "Penis model by Whoever"), not tagging the model as a particular character when it's not.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I haven't seen anyone (until now) be confused by the presence of these tags on posts, and given previous threads I'd say more than a few people appreciate being able to search for them. For the sake of the user, I don't mind sacrificing some stuff. But,

watsit said:
The description would be the place for this (e.g. "Wolf model by Petruz", "Penis model by Whoever")

That sounds like a nightmare for searching. I haven't gotten searching for phrases in descriptions (in fairness there's likely a syntax I'm unaware of), but even then you're not gonna be able to get taggers to use the exact same format for crediting the artist and model. Anyone searching for a specific model would have to cycle through any possible variations, instead of just looking up one simple tag.

watsit said:
if someone uses his wolf model and says it's their own character, it's not the same character

I just want to highlight this is actively hostile to TWYS in a similar manner to people's characters having multiple distinct forms with no visual correlation under the one tag.
I know we have the TWYS-bending ruling for character names where if there's not enough distinguishing features you can use external statement to tag characters, but I don't ever recall seeing a ruling that external knowledge overrides all visual elements.

magnuseffect said:
I just want to highlight this is actively hostile to TWYS in a similar manner to people's characters having multiple distinct forms with no visual correlation under the one tag.
I know we have the TWYS-bending ruling for character names where if there's not enough distinguishing features you can use external statement to tag characters, but I don't ever recall seeing a ruling that external knowledge overrides all visual elements.

Character tags are exempt from TWYS. It would be nearly impossible to tag characters at all if they needed to follow TWYS, as there's many cases where a character is known only by external information. Characters like Silver Soul, who appear as many different forms in various different comics (and within a single comic sometimes, too), would be impossible to tag if not using outside info. Some characters' details are so vague, they could apply to multiple different characters.

watsit said:
Character tags are exempt from TWYS. It would be nearly impossible to tag characters at all if they needed to follow TWYS, as there's many cases where a character is known only by external information. Characters like Silver Soul, who appear as many different forms in various different comics (and within a single comic sometimes, too), would be impossible to tag if not using outside info. Some characters' details are so vague, they could apply to multiple different characters.

I'm not sure that Silver Soul is a very good example, most of the time the character keeps most of her color scheme, facial features, and other visual signifiers, even though she has transformed species it's clearly the same character. and the same is generally other of cases of alternate_species/alternate_form posts, it's actually extremely rare to see otherwise.

darryus said:
I'm not sure that Silver Soul is a very good example, most of the time the character keeps most of her color scheme, facial features, and other visual signifiers, even though she has transformed species it's clearly the same character. and the same is generally other of cases of alternate_species/alternate_form posts.

Is a sometimes-white-haired female sometimes-humanoid really that dinstinguishable? If it wasn't for her being regularly drawn by a single artist in the same style, would these really be identifiable as the same character and not generic white-furred feline humanoids?
post #1295114 post #1225051 post #1171396

And her forms aren't always that similar:
post #3189103 post #3331991 post #2304056 post #3044864 post #1792352

watsit said:
*snip*

the Nier one and the more feralized ones are really the only ones that stray far enough from the character's base design to actually seem like it might be a diffrent character.

darryus said:
the Nier one and the more feralized ones are really the only ones that stray far enough from the character's base design to actually seem like it might be a diffrent character.

If you consider the differences between these two:
post #1295114 post #2304056
to be insignificant in visually identifying the character, you're opening a large chasm for characters to fall into. What are the constant visual elements for the character between these depictions, that makes it uniquely her?

watsit said:
And her forms aren't always that similar:

I think this only makes for good argument when a character has a lot of one-off forms. We have deku_link, link_(wolf_form), and link_(rabbit_form).
Something similar is when we get fursonas or personal characters like trout_(character), tre tre_(milligram_smile), and ethan_(pklucario) with several consistent distinct forms they flip between.
roy_arashi's 'sona is split into roy_(raichu) and roy_(chuki), too.

magnuseffect said:
I think this only makes for good argument when a character has a lot of one-off forms. We have deku_link, link_(wolf_form), and link_(rabbit_form).

Which are outliers. I don't know the reason why Link is handled the way he is, but I can presume it's such a hugely popular character, and his wolf form is particularly popular among people on this site (plus all the times they appear in a square_crossover scenario), that having a distinct character tag was likely more beneficial despite breaking from normal handling.

Relatedly, it seems someone went through and recently added link to a bunch of link_(wolf_form) posts, even though only the wolf form appears.

Watsit, are you just trying to make searching more difficult because you find it funny, or do you have actual points to make? As it stands your current, primary argument seems as though it would make even so much as listing a franchise a 3D model originates from non-applicable. If it is the same exact model, and the model has a name and a source, and it's used frequently enough for it to be something that people are going to be looking for, I see no issue in this particular circumstance with treating it as a character in the same was as those created through common consensus, or generic NPCs ripped out of their source materials. Under your argument I could simply use a model of, say, Ciri or Blade Wolf, and say it's my original character donut steele, and have it not be tagged as that character, surely.

votp said:
Watsit, are you just trying to make searching more difficult because you find it funny, or do you have actual points to make?

My point is:

bitwolfy said:
You can credit the model creator in the description, but please do not tag them on posts that they did not create.

Then petruz_(copyright) was brought up, and I responded that it seems like the kind of tag that gets invalidated, like editors and such (character owners, colorists, etc). Then the argument shifted into tagging free-to-use public models as their own characters, then how to tag characters and whether TWYS applies to them.

votp said:
If it is the same exact model, and the model has a name and a source

This is the point I was making. If someone says a particular model represents a particular character, then it should be tagged as that character. However, a model on its own is not a character, and a character is not a model. The same character can be portrayed by different models, and the same model can portray different characters. If Petruz said "This is a wolf character model I created. His name is Jack, and he's a lumberjack. You can make art with him if you want." Then it would be fair to tag posts with that model as "jack_(petruz)" (someone can also make a drawing that looks like the model, and tag it as that character without having the model directly in the image). But if Petruz instead says "Here's a wolf model I made. Do whatever you want with it, idc", then it's not a character, the model just depicts a generic wolf that other people can use as the basis for their own characters. To my understanding, Petruz's models fall more towards the latter than the former.

It is still a single preset, recognisable entity, visually distinct enough to be recognised from simply looking at it. If this was something truly generic, like "bald faceless human male model #22101", by all means, I'd be with you. However, the combination of the model's style, the ease of recognition, and the fact alone that this sort of topic keeps cropping up bears consideration that perhaps some better way of making such models searchable, or at least filterable, are needed. The description field only helps with credit (and is fleetingly used), but does nothing for improvind the search experience in this circumstance. I do not see this as tag bloating, but as a useful, helpful usage of tags for filtering and searching.

What constitutes a valid name? Because if this is not applicable here we may want to go through and remove any such tags in general that are simply "species/description_(artist/source)" as there are a lot of them.

watsit said:
[..]how to tag characters and whether TWYS applies to them.

This is the point I was making. If someone says a particular model represents a particular character, then it should be tagged as that character. However, a model on its own is not a character, and a character is not a model. The same character can be portrayed by different models, and the same model can portray different characters. If Petruz said "This is a wolf character model I created. His name is Jack, and he's a lumberjack. You can make art with him if you want." Then it would be fair to tag posts with that model as "jack_(petruz)" (someone can also make a drawing that looks like the model, and tag it as that character without having the model directly in the image). But if Petruz instead says "Here's a wolf model I made. Do whatever you want with it, idc", then it's not a character, the model just depicts a generic wolf that other people can use as the basis for their own characters. To my understanding, Petruz's models fall more towards the latter than the former.

Guess we'd better axe tiger_dancer_(zootopia) because they're just a tiger model that as far as I'm aware were never given names or development. Heck we have Fortnite skins that have character tags when they all might as well be mere models. We even have third party models replicating Fortnite skins that comfortably get tagged as the design they're based on!

It feels like this whole argument is heavily coloured by the inherent ease of mix-and-matching and porting 3D assets around, where the same product made entirely in a 2D medium would be a task typically more individual to the artist. If someone drew a distinct whole 2D character design and said this design is free to use and it took off, people would absolutely want a tag grouping all instances of that distinct design. I can get using that portability as an argument against applying artist or copyright tags for every individual element because a 3D character could actually be cobbled together out of 300 unique artists' assets, but when the finished product^{at the level of what we consider to be a character design} is something visually unique is that really grounds to deprive it of tagging that represents that fact on the basis that what constitutes a character is entirely abstract and visual information is not relevant? Are character designs primarily originating from a 3D medium only legitimately taggable characters if their original media was a big-name corporate product? Or is it really suddenly different when a design is used with permission rather than without?

watsit said:
Which are outliers. I don't know the reason why Link is handled the way he is, but I can presume it's such a hugely popular character, and his wolf form is particularly popular among people on this site (plus all the times they appear in a square_crossover scenario), that having a distinct character tag was likely more beneficial despite breaking from normal handling.

Relatedly, it seems someone went through and recently added link to a bunch of link_(wolf_form) posts, even though only the wolf form appears.

wait, is link not supposed to be tagged on posts that only feature a Link's non-hylian forms? does that apply to all other characters with canonical, named alternate forms? should toon_link also not be tagged as link? is there some tagging guideline to that effect somewhere? because this is the first time I'm seeing anything about it, and it really does not seem like it's something that's consistently enforced.

I guess that link is kind of uniquely a shit show, since we treat all of the Links as if they're one single character when they're like a dozen separate characters that share a name and color scheme (usually). _{and maybe they also share the same spirit, but The Hero of the Winds definitely dosn't because time travel nonsense made the previous Link's spirit no longer exist in his timeline.}

magnuseffect said:
I can get using that portability as an argument against applying artist or copyright tags for every individual element because a 3D character could actually be cobbled together out of 300 unique artists' assets, but when the finished product^{at the level of what we consider to be a character design} is something visually unique is that really grounds to deprive it of tagging that represents that fact on the basis that what constitutes a character is entirely abstract and visual information is not relevant? Are character designs primarily originating from a 3D medium only legitimately taggable characters if their original media was a big-name corporate product? Or is it really suddenly different when a design is used with permission rather than without?

The way I see it, someone making a wolf model, no matter how distinctive and stylized, is just making a wolf. Same as if someone is just drawing a lucario, no matter how distinctive and stylized their art may make it look, is just drawing a lucario. "I love the way you draw X species." doesn't mean it suddenly should get a <species>_(<artist>) character tag whenever that artist draws that species, or when someone else draws that species with that artist's style. It doesn't become a character in my mind until it gets something to individualize it from a hypothetical twin, or something that can carry through a total visual overhaul. 3D models make this issue more pronounced, given how easily they can be shared and reused by multiple different artists because they can literally copy the creator's style, but a character is more than just how someone looks. Like, if someone took the wolf_(petruz) "character", and changed the genital style, is it still the same character worth the tag? If some changed its fur or eye color a bit, is is still the same character? A slight adjustment to the ears or snout? At what point is a modified model no longer the same character?

darryus said:
wait, is link not supposed to be tagged on posts that only feature a Link's non-hylian forms? does that apply to all other characters with canonical alternate forms?

If it was meant to, I'd expect implications to be set for them. Link is effectively a 'link_(hylian_form)' tag, so people looking for (or blocking) just the hylian form don't get a bunch of Wolf Link-only posts caught up with it.

watsit said:
ike, if someone took the wolf_(petruz) "character", and changed the genital style, is it still the same character worth the tag? If some changed its fur or eye color a bit, is is still the same character? A slight adjustment to the ears or snout? At what point is a modified model no longer the same character?

At the point it is no longer recognisable, the same way as any character or species tag. Slapping a horsecock on a renamon does not magically make it not a renamon, the seeming inability to decide on a lot of anime characters having blue or green eyes does not magically make them not the same character.

votp said:
At the point it is no longer recognisable, the same way as any character or species tag.

That's not how character tags work though, they don't follow TWYS.
post #1696101 post #2304053 post #1171396
Are all the same character, despite not being recognizable as the same if you aren't aware of the creator's intention (external information). And as these are all the same character despite changing species and having significant alternations that would make them unrecognizable if you didn't know, why couldn't the wolf_(petruz) character change into a feral cat and still be the same character?

watsit said:
This is the point I was making. If someone says a particular model represents a particular character, then it should be tagged as that character. However, a model on its own is not a character, and a character is not a model. The same character can be portrayed by different models, and the same model can portray different characters. If Petruz said "This is a wolf character model I created. His name is Jack, and he's a lumberjack. You can make art with him if you want." Then it would be fair to tag posts with that model as "jack_(petruz)" (someone can also make a drawing that looks like the model, and tag it as that character without having the model directly in the image). But if Petruz instead says "Here's a wolf model I made. Do whatever you want with it, idc", then it's not a character, the model just depicts a generic wolf that other people can use as the basis for their own characters. To my understanding, Petruz's models fall more towards the latter than the former.

Is your only sticking point whether or not the original modeler slapped a name on them? Is that literally it?

This is why the creation of an "asset" category is necessary. It's well known that this site was designed and optimised to archive 2D art only, and the lack of such a category is only one symptom of that. For example, we have an explicit rule against posting coloured bases, but no rule against posing someone else's 3D assets without creating any models yourself. Such images are currently handled on a subjective case-by-case basis at approval, with images the janitors deem "too unoriginal" getting deleted. This is why it is famously more difficult to get 3D posts approved than 2D ones - the ease of mass-production of superficially high-quality images raises the bar for "artistic merit" much higher.

The days in which furry art could only be produced by one weirdo in his bedroom faxing ink drawings of big tittied rabbits to the local zine publisher are long gone. Some of the highest-rated posts on this site are full-on short films featuring a huge number of backgrounds, props, character models, and voice actors. Note that in that example, currently both the characters (TWYK) and models (TWYS) have their own tags in the character section. None of the modellers are tagged as artists but an artist ambiguously credited with "additional visual content" is.

And this is assuming that all the assets were properly licensed and/or created for pornographic purposes, which is frequently not the case for video game porn. The skyrim_werewolf is currently a character tag. Even 2D art has an occasional case of the Skyrim background.

strikerman said:
Is your only sticking point whether or not the original modeler slapped a name on them? Is that literally it?

Not literally, no.

watsit said:
It doesn't become a character in my mind until it gets something to individualize it from a hypothetical twin, or something that can carry through a total visual overhaul.

A name is something to identify the character as regardless of their visual appearance. Or something to distinguish them from an identical twin. In this case, the model is not "Wolf", it's just "a wolf". Can you portray him as a cat in a different style and still tag him as the same character with alternate_species? Or portray him as a realistic looking feral wolf in a 2D drawing with the same character tag and feralized? Any other real character you can. That is my sticking point.

watsit said:
Can you portray him as a cat in a different style and still tag him as the same character with alternate_species? Or portray him as a realistic looking feral wolf in a 2D drawing with the same character tag and feralized?

...Yes? I don't think it'd be that hard to pull off.

(not by me obvs, but a commission could do the trick)

strikerman said:
...Yes? I don't think it'd be that hard to pull off.

(not by me obvs, but a commission could do the trick)

So I could commission an alternate depiction of Petruz's Wolf character, get something like post #3300493, and it would be fine to tag it as wolf_(petruz)+alternate_species since that's how I wanted to depict the character?

watsit said:
So I could commission an alternate depiction of Petruz's Wolf character, get something like post #3300493, and it would be fine to tag it as wolf_(petruz)+alternate_species since that's how I wanted to depict the character?

I feel like you're leading me into a trap, but I don't see why not.

strikerman said:
I feel like you're leading me into a trap, but I don't see why not.

No trap. I'm simply checking to see how you view these things Petruz created, whether it's simply a model with a particular visual appearance, or a distinct character that transcends appearance. As I said before, Petruz's stuff comes across more as simply models to me, but you're saying they're closer to distinct characters, in which case fair enough on that count.

I should think that the names of recognizable model assets such as those by Petruz would be better served as Meta tags rather than Character. They're meant to be generic models that can be customized by able artists into whatever character the customizer wishes them to be, thus the models don't qualify as characters in and of themselves, just the end result of the customization. Tagging them as Characters only muddles what characters really are represented in the picture. To tag a model wolf_(petruz) would be tagging meta information, albeit of the model in question rather than the picture overall.

clawstripe said:
Tagging them as Characters only muddles what characters really are represented in the picture.

Given that cosplay solo exists, I think that there are already plenty of posts that don't "truly" reflect how many characters are in it. Given the majority of posts just use the model as a character itself without any modification to distinguish it, the 3d posts won't muddle character counts that much.

Sssssssssssso.

Was brought up a couple of times, so after this I'll stop being a broken record. How feasible would it be to add an entirely new tag category? For collaborators/assets stuff

strikerman said:
Sssssssssssso.

Was brought up a couple of times, so after this I'll stop being a broken record. How feasible would it be to add an entirely new tag category? For collaborators/assets stuff

Not really feasible. It would require significant manual changes to the database.

bitwolfy said:
Not really feasible. It would require significant manual changes to the database.

Rip, but fair enough.