This has been bugging me from the start. On many posts one would be able to identify and tag as style_parody, it's not necessarily obvious to the next person who the "parent" artist is, since unlike series, you can't tag it.
Concrete example— post #934229 is a clumsy attempt at parodying domotolain, who I'd guess isn't the most renowned artist around here.
I used to tell the name of the parodied artists in the comments, but it gets dumb fast when multiple posts in the same gallery are concerned. And regardless, comment searches can't substitute to tag searches in the long run.
Thus I'd support the suggestion already made in forum #19848 to introduce <artist>_(style_parody) tags so that the parodied artists can be consistently acknowledged, and incidentally, searchable.
In addition I think it'd be useful to have a wiki list of these artists. Though you'd already find them by searching *_(style_parody) on the tags page, it'd give them some natural visibility for taggers.
But what about the pools of mimicking ZUN's style and alphes' style? (pool #267 and pool #1456 btw)
I still agree with the new [artist]_(style_parody) tag though. sk-ii is pretty good with following other artists' style when he draws his artist self-insert comics. post #922976 and post #967741 are some examples, and the former was tagged with all the artists in it.
lastsinz said: But what about the pools of mimicking ZUN's style and alphes' style? (pool #267 and pool #1456 btw)
I'd think the pools wouldn't be needed anymore. I suppose people would want to keep them to acknowledge the fact they're pixiv projects, and I'm fine with that, but at the same time we also have pixiv projects that use tags rather than pools.
T5J8F8 said: Perhaps just *_(style)? There'd be a slight disconnect with the associated tag, but I kinda like it shorter.
I find *_(style) disturbing because to me it rings terribly official, as if the artist was a personal assistant of the person he's imitating. I can see this for promotional art of series where multiple animators of a studio follow the same artistic direction, but definitely not for fanarts. *_(style) sounds like the material that defines said style rather than the material that follows it. *_(style_parody) is obvious, and it also acknowledges the degree of freedom that may exist between two imitators of the same model.
bumping. it seems the original suggestion of artist + style parody tag was not implemented. but i'm thinking of adding them in the tag group:image composition under styles like fine art parody.
i've discovered only two variants so far so i included them as well.
regarding the discussion, both suggestions seem fine to me. but as a tagger, i usually prefer the shorter one. but if artist + _(style_parody) is a must and provides much clarity a shortcut alias be most welcome. thanks.
I prefer _(style) as a qualifier. I'm not too concerned about it sounding "official" - it's a pretty neutral concept. It is what it says it is, just that person's style. Parody implies things that don't always make sense.
i was thinking of converting pool #267: Touhou - Images Mimicking alphes' Style and pool #1456: Touhou - Images Mimicking ZUN's Style into tags and make a thread about it. but since they were brought up here first might as well bump up the issue.
Cyberia-Mix said: I'd think the pools wouldn't be needed anymore. I suppose people would want to keep them to acknowledge the fact they're pixiv projects, and I'm fine with that...
i offer my support here for the pool to tag conversion. but if the pools stay, it's fine for me too. regardless if they stay or not, may i add the necessary tags alphes_(style) and zun_(style) respectively?
and regarding the posts mentioned above, i might add as well the corresponding artists for each style parody. i'm not familiar with the artists' names, so i'll trust you guys.
just thanking those that identified the artists and populated the tags as well.
may i request to rename the wiki from list of style parody to list of style parodies to those that have enough access rights? i was not thinking too well that i missed simple grammar rules. or is the error tolerable and bearable? i apologize.
