Looks like 3rd party watermark was implemented, title updated.

etc.

This would be used for uploads that have some kind of watermark put there by anyone aside from the artist/creator

Long Version

-

Short Version

• What's an appropriate tag to use for tagging third_party_watermarks?

• Why are some (possibly a minority) people tagging artist signatures as watermarks?

• What's the distinction between a watermark, web_address, and signature?
• Should web_address imply watermark? (web_address -> watermark)
• The wiki for said articles (watermark, web_address, signature) would need to be updated

What's an appropriate tag to use for tagging third_party_watermarks?

Any of the ones you suggested would work fine. I'm more fond of 3rd_* but that's just me. :P

Why are some (possibly a minority) people tagging artist signatures as watermarks?

It probably looks like one more often than not if you're not looking too carefully. Also for some artists (particularly on tumblr) it is actually part of their signature (post #779832).

People also might be using "signature" to mean "stuff that was written on the image", which I suppose isn't completely inaccurate.

What's the distinction between a watermark, web_address, and signature?

• web_address is easy, so I won't go into that.
• signature is usually the artist's name, sometimes a URL, but generally part of the image in some way. You could say that a signature serves a similar purpose as a watermark by technicality, but they really don't belong being implied to each other.
• watermark is generally more commercial/IP related. Often has partial transparency or looks out of place. I don't really have a good description for this one. :/

Should web_address imply signature? (web_address → signature)

Nah. Signature is really intended to mean "artist's signature". Web addresses don't really fit into that one (especially 3rd party ones).

The wiki for said articles (watermark, web_address, signature) would need to be updated

This is slightly off-subject, but the tag would fit nicely under the better_version_at_source wiki.

Long Version

-
Short Version

• 3rd_party_watermark sounds good; the rest of suggested tags could be aliased to it
• Should we consider artist signatures to be a type of watermark, and have a separate tag group for signatures? (see below)

• I'll add 3rd_party_watermark to the better_version_at_source wiki

General grouping of related tags in hierarchial order:

• signature
• artist_signature
• unknown_artist_signature

• watermark
• 3rd_party_watermark
• distracting_watermark
• web-address

Possible tag implications:

• artist_signature -> signature [unsure]
• unknown_artist_signature -> signature done
• 3rd_party_watermark -> watermark done
• web-address -> watermark

• unknown_artist_signature -> watermark
• artist_signature -> watermark

-

•     :v    

Should we have a known_artist_signature, to complement unknown_artist_signature?

• signature
• artist_signature
• known_artist_signature
• unkown_artist_signature

Or maybe alias signature -> artist_signature,

since it doesn't seem to be used for anything other than artist sigs

just so i know what to look for/avoid from now on. would the "colored by" watermark in post #854587 be considered a 3rd party watermark? i know the pic was downloaded from a 3rd party site as the xhime site link in that pic leads to an expired domain so xhime comics is probably gone now. not sure about that one bit of text though.

that said, i guess i can go ahead and tag those pics with the normal watermark tag for now.

edit: also added watermark tag to a few other dim-dragon posts i skipped before. bleh, it's not even decent 3d either. blurry or just low quality textures in general. :/ at least the mongo bongo comic had good textures.

titanmelon said:

• signature
• artist_signature
• known_artist_signature

Those subtags are redundant. Known signature = every post with a signature, except ones tagged as unknown_artist_signature.

Or maybe alias signature -> artist_signature

Maybe, since that's what it is for. But why use the more complex name when the shorter one suffices?

Edit: outdated.

treos said:
just so i know what to look for/avoid from now on. would the "colored by" watermark in post #854587 be considered a 3rd party watermark?

Yeah, what Genjar said. Still gotta sort out some of the tags in this forum topic to match the updated wikis

Especially regarding all the *signature and *watermark tags, with each other

------

Genjar said:
Things

Yeah, not really too sure about most of these atm,

What do you mean by Known signature though?

Something like a search for signature -unknown_artist_signature?

--
As for the alias, I thought it would be easier to understand the usage of the tag at a glance if 'artist' was included

would still work, so it (probably) wouldn't make anything harder to do

titanmelon said:
What do you mean by Known signature though?

Something like a search for signature -unknown_artist_signature?

Yep, or 'signature -unknown_artist'. If the post has a signature and the artist is already tagged, then we know whose signature it is. I can't think of any reason for known_artist_signature to exist. Especially since it'd have to be tagged for at least 200.000 posts.

As for the alias, I thought it would be easier to understand the usage of the tag at a glance if 'artist' was included

Easier, but with less coverage.
In addition to artists, signature can be tagged for editors, etc. And I don't see much need for splitting it into multiples (artist_signature, editor_signature, etc) because it seems to be of marginal use.

Some users filter posts that contain signatures because they find those almost as distracting as watermarks. And it can also be useful for tagging (for example: signature unknown_artist -unknown_artist_signature or signature arttags:0). Some might use it to find a post they lost ("I remember it had a signature"). But besides those, I'm not sure if it has any other uses. Definitely not one of the essential tags.

Watermark wiki currently says
"A watermark is a visible overlay on an artwork or a photo consisting of text, a logo, or a copyright notice."

So watermark includes artists' logos? (I'm guessing so, but just want to make sure)

such as bottom-right corner of post #1869291 (new logo with printed name and URL)

or post #520355 (just artist logo) in bottom-right corner

or post #415505 (artist logo and printed name) in bottom-left corner.

ListerTheSquirrel said:
Watermark wiki currently says
"A watermark is a visible overlay on an artwork or a photo consisting of text, a logo, or a copyright notice."

So watermark includes artists' logos?

I'd say all those should be tagged with watermark. Also, any semi-transparent mark like that should probably be tagged as well.

With the url tag being mentioned earlier, I'd say it should only be a watermark if it's over the image, if it's in a separate black bar at the bottom, then it shouldn't be.

Also, with this being a three year old thread, it might have been better to create a new one, rather than necro this one.