I just was hoping to get some further clarification of what is and isn't appropriate to categorize as a copyright tag.
I know we use it for umbrella tags of shows/movies/games etc. even things like [[disney].
But where do we cut it off?
Is an individual user on FA, or some such site that commissions pieces of a number of characters that they own a valid copyright tag just because they hold some copyrights?
Is the name of a comic, or a website a good copyright tag?

I don't think an individual user nor the name of a comic should be considered a copyright tag... at all.

Personally, I think comics should be given copyright tags if they're popular. Generally, one-off comics don't have a tag, but instead a pool. Popular comics are usually webcomics and get a decent amount of fan art posted here (eg twokinds and housepets!)

Butterscotch said:
I don't think an individual user nor the name of a comic should be considered a copyright tag... at all.

You mean that twokinds, and the like, shouldn't have the copyright tag?

Damnit, 720, you ninja'd me by less than a minute. LOL.

edidaf said:
You mean that twokinds, and the like, shouldn't have the copyright tag?

Never heard of it until you named it.

Some comics make sense to have copyright tags for, like Marvel and such that have a lot of them, and are well known.

Some random 5 page comic that was commissioned from an artist probably shouldn't though.

Even the more popular and well know comics generally aren't tagged by the name of the comic, but by the name of the copyright holder, again like Marvel DC etc.

Butterscotch said:
Never heard of it until you named it.

I hadn't, 'til I saw them here.

Halite said:
Some random 5 page comic that was commissioned from an artist probably shouldn't though.

I hadn't thought of that type of comic, and I agree with you.

Personal opinion on "copyright" type of tag uses:

Comic titles: yes if known. I see no difference between this and an artist with only one uploaded picture getting an artist tag. If it's known, it should probably get tagged. Reasons: there may be more out there, it's helpful info to have if someone wants to go digging, and it groups it together if someone wants to find more related to it within the site.

Websites: no, unless it's a screencap showing the website. Or there really is no other known name for a group of obviously related pictures. In that case it would be better than nothing until something more appropriate is found. Like if the artist's old website name is known, but the artist's name isn't. I don't imagine it happens very often though.

If it's a person who commissions then I think the tag should be altered to reflect that. Like "louisa940_(commission)" instead of just "louisa940" just to make up an example. That way it's clearer. I also think that if an artist has a character, AND commissions art from other artists AND makes art themselves then they should have three versions of their tag instead of using the one tag for all three uses. Just a personal pet peeve I see around occasionally. I just think it's far clearer what is going on. It's a tag, not a personal account.

Individual pictures that have a title (like a proper painting does) don't need a tag though. In my opinion that info should go in the description if someone knows it.

furrypickle said:
... Reasons: there may be more out there, it's helpful info to have if someone wants to go digging, and it groups it together if someone wants to find more related to it within the site.
...

That's what pools are for.

Halite said:
That's what pools are for.

That was my point.

Halite said:
That's what pools are for.

Pools shouldn't be used to replace tags. They're a different type of feature altogether and aren't equatable.

Pools are perfect for things which need to be ordered, and for convenient reading of something. But they are harder to search for (mostly because it's a completely separate search box, and it's located in a different part of the site). And most searching will always happen in the tag search box on the main page. Almost no one searches both search boxes for something. Your average user doesn't even know what a pool IS.

However, if it's tagged with both a copyright tag for the comic name AND a pool for the comic's ordering, then it gets the advantages of both systems. It's twice as findable, twice as accessible and it is clearly ordered for convenience. Whichever place a person searches for it, will lead them to it. That's efficient and far more user friendly.

Also, if it has a copyright tag for the comic name then it also stands a much higher chance of someone eventually adding any newer images to the old pool, since the copyright comic name tag groups them together with the rest of the comic until someone can get there. You know pools don't get updated nearly as often as tags get added. Without a tag it's far more likely to get tagged with nothing and be a lot harder to track down after the fact.

There's really no reason we can't use both. They complement each other. Is there some bizarre reason we need to be rationing tags if they serve a clear purpose?

furrypickle said:
Pools shouldn't be used to replace tags. They're a different type of feature altogether and aren't equatable.

Pools are perfect for things which need to be ordered, and for convenient reading of something. But they are harder to search for (mostly because it's a completely separate search box, and it's located in a different part of the site). And most searching will always happen in the tag search box on the main page. Almost no one searches both search boxes for something. Your average user doesn't even know what a pool IS.

However, if it's tagged with both a copyright tag for the comic name AND a pool for the comic's ordering, then it gets the advantages of both systems. It's twice as findable, twice as accessible and it is clearly ordered for convenience. Whichever place a person searches for it, will lead them to it. That's efficient and far more user friendly.

Also, if it has a copyright tag for the comic name then it also stands a much higher chance of someone eventually adding any newer images to the old pool, since the copyright comic name tag groups them together with the rest of the comic until someone can get there. You know pools don't get updated nearly as often as tags get added. Without a tag it's far more likely to get tagged with nothing and be a lot harder to track down after the fact.

There's really no reason we can't use both. They complement each other. Is there some bizarre reason we need to be rationing tags if they serve a clear purpose?

You're right, pools shouldn't replace tags.

But tags also shouldn't replace the functionality of pools.

You can easily search a pool name from any page of the comic in the pool by clicking the name of the pool instead of one of the arrows.

If you want to search inside of a pool for specific content you can also search in the main search box with pool:[name] ex. Pool:Pierce_Me
or pool:# ex. pool:2933

So, it's not twice as searchable to add a copyright tag, or twice as findable.

As for adding to a pool, someone who creates a pool is extremely likely to continue adding pages to that pool.

There's no reason to ration tags when they serve a purpose, but when they don't serve a purpose then we shouldn't.

On top of all that, I'm not even saying we shouldn't tag it, why not if it makes you happy.
But if we do tag comic names, why should it be a copyright tag?
Why not a normal tag?
Since that's what this thread was about in the first place and all, not removing tags, but reclassifying them as not copyright tags.

Halite said:
You can easily search a pool name from any page of the comic in the pool by clicking the name of the pool instead of one of the arrows.

That only applies after someone has found the pool. I was talking about the step before that when someone hasn't found the pool yet. Most people stumble onto pools after searching for the comic through a tag. Then when they see at least some if not all of the comic is in a pool, they can easily click the pool link on that page to view the pool instead. But a tag is usually how they got to that page in the first place. And yes, that makes it twice as searchable, twice as findable because it's findable under both a pool and a tag.

Halite said:
As for adding to a pool, someone who creates a pool is extremely likely to continue adding pages to that pool.

Well of course the creator of the pool is likely to, but they aren't the only person who may be uploading the same comic. If it's large, or they got only partway through before getting interrupted. Or more of it is found a year later by someone else. Or the comic is ongoing in nature and therefore will always have more to add periodically. All of those are instances where it's probably not the original pool creator who'll be uploading more which needs added to that pool. And someone other than the pool creator is extremely less likely to think of adding it, or even looking for it.

Halite said:
But if we do tag comic names, why should it be a copyright tag?
Why not a normal tag?
Since that's what this thread was about in the first place and all, not removing tags, but reclassifying them as not copyright tags.

They should be copyright (or some kind of classification tag) because they are the name of something. And names of things aren't TWYS, they aren't self-explanatory in nature, and they can often resemble junk, joke or mistags if left without any context. It's useless if no one can tell just by looking at it what it's for or how it relates to the picture in question. But if you see the name of something in the copyright/character/artist etc boxes, then it clarifies that "don't expect to find this visible in the picture, or for it to even linguistically make sense. It's the name of something this pic is a part of. don't remove it for being unrelated logically."

Maybe we need another type of classification tag for titles of things so that it's not using the copyright tag. OR maybe copyright tags shouldn't be taken as literally, since technically the name of a cartoon isn't the copyright holder either, it's some company name ending in "inc" that probably holds the actual copyright. But in any case, the names/titles of anything make bad general tags. They need that classification to help give it context and tell you what it's for.

furrypickle said:
That only applies after someone has found the pool. I was talking about the step before that when someone hasn't found the pool yet. Most people stumble onto pools after searching for the comic through a tag. Then when they see at least some if not all of the comic is in a pool, they can easily click the pool link on that page to view the pool instead. But a tag is usually how they got to that page in the first place. And yes, that makes it twice as searchable, twice as findable because it's findable under both a pool and a tag.
...

By searching tags in general maybe they find new comics, but if they're searching for the comic by title, then they could just as easily do it with the pool:(name) search.
Pool names are effectively already tags, you simply have to preempt the name with a pool:
Thus tagging the comic name when there's already a pool name is adding no functionality.

Halite said:
By searching tags in general maybe they find new comics, but if they're searching for the comic by title, then they could just as easily do it with the pool:(name) search.
Pool names are effectively already tags, you simply have to preempt the name with a pool:
Thus tagging the comic name when there's already a pool name is adding no functionality.

But on multiple occasions (at least in my case) I have had to title a pool from a comic without a visible title or in a language I don't understand, so that kinda messes things up a bit because we are just tagging based on the observations we can gather.
I know I'm not the only one...

Moon_Moon said:

In that case, what specific tag would you use for a comic you don't know it's name/understand it's languaje? searching for it's regular tags (things you can see on the image) would work perfectly fine.

Yeah, you can't tag the name of a comic you don't know of either :P
And somehow I doubt we'll have anyone searching an unknown comic name to find that comic, since the name isn't known and all.