Posted under General
Does there exist a tag of some sort which indicates that portions of an image have been copy-pasted/reused by the artist in several different places? For instance:
Updated by ghostrigger
I've seen this a lot and have been wanting to tag it.
We could tag these as recurring_image or recurring_frame.
also, should this be tagged only if an artist is reusing the copy/pasted image in the same image or should this apply to any time they copy/paste from 1 picture to another?
recurring_image sounds better, as the dolls in post #1014039 are not in any kind of frame. Any other suggestions?
Probably best to keep it within one image. Parenting the other image should work.
would post #1024454 qualify for this tag too? recurrence perhaps? but if not recurring image sounds fine to me too.
any relation to zoom_layer?
^ i maybe wrong, but i'll assume that in the new tag/s, the replicated part is "in universe" in that image (post #1014039, post #1024454) or in case of *koma comics, an exact copy or minor/subtle modification of an earlier frame.
zoom layer tends to be like a design or aesthetic than a significant component.
Updated
So, are we going with recurring_image?
Doesn't seem like there's a consensus yet. I personally favor recurring_image since it seems the most appropriate, although copy-pasting/copy-pasted/copy-paste are tags that are more likely to be searched.
we can request aliases too: (helpful in searching)
copy-pasting -> recurring_image
copy-pasted -> recurring_image
copy-paste -> recurring_image
btw, are we going to split up recurrence those in a single image and those recurring frames in a comic? would recurring_image suffice or recurring frame still necessary?
Updated
ghostrigger said:
we can request aliases too: (helpful in searching)
copy-pasting -> recurring_image
copy-pasted -> recurring_image
copy-paste -> recurring_image
Done
actually implementing the tag, i have some questions.
for images like post #1017528 and post #933832, the character is copy and pasted, however, little details are changed like the color of the clothing and such. would this be tagged or would the minor changes make it not count.
basically, should the image be a 100% copy, or can there be minor changes like clothing or expressions?
and for images like post #982735, that have reused sprites (the bushes), these would be tagged correct?
and while im thinking about it, like in post #924256, that reuse the background image, would these be tagged as recurring_image as well?
Updated
oof, new can of worms opened here.
We should probably just tag the images that people will reasonably expect to see when they search "copy-paste". I wouldn't expect to see post #982735 when searching for youmu_konpaku recurring_image, for instance, but maybe the community prefers a more inclusive definition.
personally, subtle changes like color, position, expressions would be fine for me.
however, to what extent or degree of recurrence is acceptable for recurring_image? do multiple occurrence of the same weapon count?
how about gate_of_babylon images like (post #39067, post #841019, post #991691)?
ya, gate_of_babylon brings up a good question. should we tag images that have copy-pasted parts if the part has been rotated or reversed? like in post #1008178, they are the same, just that the character has been reversed on 1 side and different colors.
i accidentally discovered variations tag just now. and very much copy-pasting and with a wiki page way back in 2008. should we use this instead or make into an alias too? or move everything into recurring_image? or fine-tune the definitions and set differences?
Updated
variations seems to refer to characters only, and may not necessarily be a result of copy-pasting.
