Tagging tiny "watermark" characters unrelated to the main piece

nonamethanks said:

It's not a specific case though. I don't see the difference between the artist in question's signature chibis and posts like post #3741751, post #904907 (Cu chulainn), post #3673893 (Leonardo in the second panel), post #3654771, post #3677004, post #3709498 and countless others where there's cursory references that are often used as a stand-in for the artist's or audience's reaction to the image. It's pretty common for this kind of inset to be found in official manga too. The whole argument of people not expecting these posts to show up when they're searching for their character tags applies to the posts above too. There's hundreds of different examples by different artists.

I really don't see why we can't use the *_(cameo) tags for this like we've always done.

No, it really is a specific case, because people are complaining about this type of tagging but not that kind of tagging. It's different. People are fine with the chibi insets, mainly because it usually is relevant to what people are searching, and at the very least doesn't upset people.

And you don't see the difference, you say? Look harder at what you posted, then. The chibi characters are relevant to the copyright, and have something to do with the picture. This is different from the problem in this topic, so it's unlikely anything we do here will affect pretty much any other post.

I don't have a problem if you use the cameo tag or not (even though, no, it's not something we've always done because no one has really used the cameo tag), but I think that it's also alright if we don't tag it at all.

Most people not using it doesn't mean it's useless. There's plenty of other often forgotten tags that deserve to be on posts much more than eyebrows_visible_through_hair or other abused tags. Nobody used blurry foreground before I and Unbreakable populated it either, for example, and now it's at almost 5k posts.

I think that it's also alright if we don't tag it at all.

I think colored_* tags for objects like pillows, blankets and umbrellas are worthless, but I don't remove them because I know there's people who care.
From this thread it seems there's plenty of people who care enough about this kind of information to have it in the tag list in one form or another. It's a matter of deciding how to, rather than just nuking everything and forgetting about it.

Entweihen said:

Fair. So do tell me what rule I am precisely breaking. I've linked pictures with off references even smaller than what the uploaded commissions show, yet they're not under consideration to be cleaned up.

Otherwise, it just seems like your personal spite that's driving this, something that isn't beholden to the rules you imply to uphold.

It's not exactly a hard rule against it, but there is a precedent to debate it:

From the page howto:tag_checklist :

Priority: Level 4, Microscopic Details

These tags identify extremely minute details in the background, often missed by a glance. The importance of tagging these details may be under debate, as they can either make or break the searchability of our images depending on the situation.

This is essentially what's under question here, the searchability of the images. Was it important to tag them to the point that people complained consistently about them?

DreamFromTheLayer said:

It's not exactly a hard rule against it, but there is a precedent to debate it:

From the page howto:tag_checklist :

This is essentially what's under question here, the searchability of the images. Was it important to tag them to the point that people complained consistently about them?

They appeared in the picture, did they not? That's what nonamethanks was arguing: why is this specific case supposedly 'not allowed' when there are other smaller, maybe even less visible that are supposedly off the hook?

For example, this picture: post #3059229 . What relation that the tag Doge have with Takao and Atago from Azur Lane? By your implied standards you should remove this tag too because there's very little connection this meme has with the two characters.

Or, what about the implication of this picture? post #3555319 I don't see Astolfo or Tharja being related to this, yet I don't see anyone rushing to make changes here.

I would argue that yes, it is important to tag them as they do appear in the picture and that there are other pictures like these that exist that must then be held to this specific standard that you are laying out.

I'm more than happy to accept that outcome. That is, of course, if you'll take the time to prune every picture similar to what I posted above to conform with this new standard for tagging you desire to push. It simply appears as if some people just feel that it's 'okay' to apply this but not to everything else, which was why I sense some spite rather than reason.

My ruling on this is in forum #162792. This topic has been open for discussion for nearly a year now and that's the decision I've made. People have had a chance to make their points and I don't see a need for this to drag on forever.

I recognize not everyone agrees with this decision, but numerous people have stated they don't want these characters tagged, both in this thread and in various other posts: post #3481270, post #3552813, post #3612111, post #3333088, post #3007785, post #3449703, post #3268732, post #3122632, post #2924637. In light of this I don't think this is an unwarranted decision. I'm sorry, but I have to make a decision one way or the other, and whichever way I go one side will disagree.

This is only about this particular watermark, not about chibi insets, or spoken characters, or other kinds of easter eggs or background characters in general. There's no need to twist this into a "if we can't tag these specific characters in this specific situation, then we can't tag any other background characters ever!" slippery slope argument. That's not what this is about.

evazion said:

My ruling on this is in forum #162792. This topic has been open for discussion for nearly a year now and that's the decision I've made. People have had a chance to make their points and I don't see a need for this to drag on forever.

I recognize not everyone agrees with this decision, but numerous people have stated they don't want these characters tagged, both in this thread and in various other posts: post #3481270, post #3552813, post #3612111, post #3333088, post #3007785, post #3449703, post #3268732, post #3122632, post #2924637. In light of this I don't think this is an unwarranted decision. I'm sorry, but I have to make a decision one way or the other, and whichever way I go one side will disagree.

This is only about this particular watermark, not about chibi insets, or spoken characters, or other kinds of easter eggs or background characters in general. There's no need to twist this into a "if we can't tag these specific characters in this specific situation, then we can't tag any other background characters ever!" slippery slope argument. That's not what this is about.

It would have been appreciative if you were upfront about your negative biases.

Good day then.