Requested feature overview description.
Post title field.
Why would it be useful?
Prevents the loss of artwork titles.
What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
New text input field at upload, new text input field at edit, new text field at post pages.

I feel like artwork titles would only end up cluttering things.

I would be in support of this, presuming it wouldn't cause problems somehow. A number of posts I've made have had titles and descriptions directly relevant to the image (fleshing out a small story or addendum to what the image depicts, for instance), but getting the titles and description right hasn't been as straight forward as it could be and I'm still not sure what the "best" way to lay it out is.

Pyke said:
I feel like artwork titles would only end up cluttering things.

Only if they're abused. As it is, posts already have a description field where a title can be placed, but getting the formatting right can be tricky and different people format it differently, making it inconsistent. A dedicated title field would help as titles would then be formatted consistently, and there could be user options for how they want the title to look (either directly in the site, or from user CSS overrides or whatever).

Of course, it would be optional, just like the description is. If a title isn't provided it would simply not be shown, looking like it does now.

Absolutely no. I could see third party posters using it to write their stupid personal "sexy lioness i found from google" titles. There is already enough of this with descriptions alone. If you need to include the title, use description field for it.

How does this differ from description field? I did make similar request in past, but this was for searchability reasons as description fields can have unrelated text to what's on the image itself. forum #256766

I have already been putting stuff like original filenames, artists own titles and descriptions, notes of revival of the content, etc. anything related to image which can help immensily when next decade rolls around and someone new sees the image for the first time. Idem's Sourcing Suite even puts button to immidiately copy descriptions from many sources.

I have also constantly this dissapointment towards many users who do not even do as basic thing as provide source when they use direct image URL uploading, meaning that we pretty much know they had the source, but now it's lost unless someone goes manually to look for it.

Mairo said:
How does this differ from description field?

By giving it a bit more prominence from the description itself, as you would a title. For something like post #2007361 it helps set the overall mood or intention of the picture, and is followed by a short blurb to flesh it out a bit more. post #1971466 has a similar thing with it, but shows the problem with lack of consistency (the title's smaller, and missing a space from the following blurb; headers seem to swallow the following blank lines, a bug?). post #1920583 is yet more different (even smaller, using bold instead of the header markup, allowing it to have the separating space).

I don't think this site has any standard preference for how to format a title with the description, so people just do what they want, sometimes changing how they do it as time goes on. A separate place to insert a title would fix those issues, by allowing the site to automatically apply consistent formatting to it.

Watsit said:
By giving it a bit more prominence from the description itself, as you would a title. For something like post #2007361 it helps set the overall mood or intention of the picture, and is followed by a short blurb to flesh it out a bit more. post #1971466 has a similar thing with it, but shows the problem with lack of consistency (the title's smaller, and missing a space from the following blurb; headers seem to swallow the following blank lines, a bug?). post #1920583 is yet more different (even smaller, using bold instead of the header markup, allowing it to have the separating space).

I don't think this site has any standard preference for how to format a title with the description, so people just do what they want, sometimes changing how they do it as time goes on. A separate place to insert a title would fix those issues, by allowing the site to automatically apply consistent formatting to it.

idk man, for those who know how to use dtext using this format has been taking trend.

title

by [[artist]]

Source Description:
description

I feel like this is kind of a bad idea; Since descriptions are already hardly used, why bother with titles that are most likely going to be used even less than descriptions?

Coffey25 said:
I feel like this is kind of a bad idea; Since descriptions are already hardly used, why bother with titles that are most likely going to be used even less than descriptions?

It is just adding a few lines of code to E621 . It will not greatly increase the size of posts nor noticiably reduce performance; since most titles only are a few bytes long. E621 will be offline only a few minutes while the server reboots.

Versperus said:
idk man, for those who know how to use dtext using this format has been taking trend.

title

by [[artist]]

Source Description:
description

Other than the "Source Description" part (the image descriptions I provide are assumed to come from the image source, not me), that's basically what I've taken to doing. But it still feels somewhat weird, putting the 'by [[artist]]' part given there's already a tag shown for the artist(s) next to the picture; I tried without that part, and that's when I discovered headers swallow blank lines. And if the text blurb/description may have been based on or provided by someone else in collaboration, it feels like it's misappropriating. I also can never remember if it's better as h2 or h3 sized.

If the blank lines being removed after headers wasn't an issue (bug? feature?), I could concede that it would be simple enough to do
h2.title

description...
in the description field. But as it is, it needs the workaround of adding the redundant and potentially misleading 'by [[artist]]' directly underneath the title to get proper spacing, making it more cumbersome than necessary.

Any moderator or administrator here?

Watsit said:
h2.title

description...
in the description field. But as it is, it needs the workaround of adding the redundant and potentially misleading 'by [[artist]]' directly underneath the title to get proper spacing, making it more cumbersome than necessary.

It automatically puts proper spacing, it only faults when users try to do the spacing themselves and don't add enough lines.

Versperus said:
It automatically puts proper spacing, it only faults when users try to do the spacing themselves and don't add enough lines.

I'm not sure what you mean. If I don't add an extra space myself, it results in:

Lorem Ipsum

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

Which doesn't really look good for a proper title, having the following text pushed right up against it. If I add a blank line between the title and description, it doesn't change how it looks. I have to put something else right under the title to get the spacing:

Lorem Ipsum

by Unknown

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.

This looks better, but as mentioned, the by ... line is redundant with the artist tag, and partially misleading in cases where the artist isn't fully responsible for the description text.

felix_nermix said:
Any moderator or administrator here?

I personally see this as unnecessary, the description field should be sufficient for relaying any additional information/storytelling about the art.