The bulk update request #1100 has been rejected.

change category buns_with_cinnamon (23) -> invalid

Reason: Buns With Cinnamon is apparently a group of artists with a shared account (source) rather than an artist themselves - so the applicable artist should be tagged instead of buns_with_cinnamon.

Example:
post #2428908 is currently attributed to buns_with_cinnamon but the upload by BWC's own account credits an artist named dear_crow. We should instead be tagging this as dear_crow.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1100 (forum #313363) has been rejected by @Millcore.

I don't really agree.
Each image should be attributed to an appropriate artist, but if they want to be grouped together under one name, I don't think that we should deny them that.

Arguably, this would be like an artist studio or a larger company with a franchise. In which case, we would tag both if known, so post #2428908 ought to be tagged with both the artist's name, dear_crow, and the studio's name, buns_with_cinnamon.

The proper question ought to be whether, as the studio's name rather than the specific artist's, buns_of_cinnamon ought to be an artist tag or a copyright tag, as we might tag archie_comics or marvel.

Don't we have precedent for this?

https://e621.net/artists/19

bitwolfy said:
I don't really agree.
Each image should be attributed to an appropriate artist, but if they want to be grouped together under one name, I don't think that we should deny them that.

Thanks for adding additional artist tags and sources to some of the posts - I was about to do it myself and appreciate that I don't have to do it now.

I see your point that it's what they want but initially to me, and probably many others, it's confusing. Anybody who doesn't read their Furaffinity profile isn't going to be aware it's not just one artist (honestly I don't think even some of their commissioners are aware judging by the post descriptions) and while this isn't a major problem in itself, it means that the actual artist doesn't get tagged half the time. In cases where the source image has since been deleted (post #2638953, post #2638969, post #2665419, post #2665424) this means we no longer know the artist. I've now added the unknown_artist tag to these but I'm sure somebody in the future will come along and remove it and say "buns_with_cinnamon" is the artist.

I guess I'll throw buns_with_cinnamon arttags:1 in my list of search results that should always return 0 and hopefully keep on top of it in the future.

Even if we swap it to a copyright tag like Clawstripe suggested it still raises numerous other concerns to me

• Is the buns_with_cinnamon tag only used if the art is posted to the BWC account, or for any art made by a member of the group? (presumably the former)
• If the art is posted on both their personal profile and the BWC FurAffinity account, is it still tagged as buns_with_cinnamon?
• If somebody leaves the group and all their art is purged from the account does the buns_with_cinnamon tag remain on those posts?

I would still prefer it as a copyright tag though.

wat8548 said:
Don't we have precedent for this?

https://e621.net/artists/19

The major difference here is art by Blotch is a collaborative effort, where this is just an account shared by dozens of people.

There's many, many of these shared accounts (1 2 3 4, etc. can't really be bothered to find any more.) on FurAffinity and as far as I know none of these are ever tagged.

faucet said:
The major difference here is art by Blotch is a collaborative effort

Sometimes. I wager there are some pieces that were done by just one of them, and simply put under the Blotch name for one reason or another. Their art styles could look quite similar when they wanted to be, so we would have no way of knowing who drew what (I think the only consistent thing was Kenket's coloring, but who knows, I could even be wrong on that and Teagan did it sometimes).