Currently the tag artist tag felicity_longis is aliased to invalid_tag, as the work associated was deemed not up to standard to warrant a dedicated artist tag. Because this tag is functionally no longer in use, I would like to request that the tag category be changed to a character, and that the felicity_longis_(character) tag be aliased to the recategorized and more concise felicity_longis tag.

Didn't know those sorts of aliases happened.

furrin_gok said:
Didn't know those sorts of aliases happened.

I believe this happened because Felicity Longis would not stop tagging themselves as the artist on the posts they made unofficial edits.
It has nothing to do with artwork not being up to standard. I believe most of those posts are still on the site: [link].

felicity_longis said: . . .

I would message NotMeNotYou about it directly if I were you, since they were the one to make the alias.

bitwolfy said:
I believe this happened because Felicity Longis would not stop tagging themselves as the artist on the posts they made unofficial edits.
It has nothing to do with artwork not being up to standard. I believe most of those posts are still on the site: [link].

For what it's worth, I am relaying precisely what I was told regarding the matter by NotMeNotYou and Millcore, as it had happened once before and was then reverted prior to this final decision. The initial artist tag was approved by Ratte several years prior, but it seemed that in the intervening time the quality standard for what qualified for a dedicated artist tag changed. There was never a conduct issue brought to my attention; it was only ever presented to me as a quality issue. It was also discussed here

In any case, I appreciate the direction towards NMNY here; I will message them directly.

bitwolfy said:
I believe this happened because Felicity Longis would not stop tagging themselves as the artist on the posts they made unofficial edits.
It has nothing to do with artwork not being up to standard. I believe most of those posts are still on the site: [link].

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but isn't it normal for someone who makes an edit to also get credit as an artist on the edit?

strikerman said:
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but isn't it normal for someone who makes an edit to also get credit as an artist on the edit?

I would think so for how good the coloring on post #2553930 are, but I guess not anymore?

strikerman said:
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but isn't it normal for someone who makes an edit to also get credit as an artist on the edit?

From the way it was explained to me, simply adding flat colors to the original image does not meet the quality standard for an artist tag. Something more has to be added; it seems generally this means some form of shading at least. A good example I've found is these two edits of the same parent post:

The color edit I did:
post #2085690

Versus the edit by zeigram
post #2092985

You can see that they added some shading and highlights to the image. If you look through their artist tag, you will also see that they sometimes also include a more detailed background, or other such contribution to the overall piece. As I mentioned in my above post, at one point a while ago basically any color edit that met the minimum quality standards for approval met the criteria for an artist tag, but over time this changed. So it's not so much a quality thing in terms of "is this good from a technical/artistic standpoint" as much as a quality thing in terms of "how much of a contribution did the editor actually make to the edited image".

felicity_longis said:
From the way it was explained to me, simply adding flat colors to the original image does not meet the quality standard for an artist tag. Something more has to be added; it seems generally this means some form of shading at least. A good example I've found is these two edits of the same parent post:

The color edit I did:
post #2085690

Versus the edit by zeigram
post #2092985

You can see that they added some shading and highlights to the image. If you look through their artist tag, you will also see that they sometimes also include a more detailed background, or other such contribution to the overall piece. As I mentioned in my above post, at one point a while ago basically any color edit that met the minimum quality standards for approval met the criteria for an artist tag, but over time this changed. So it's not so much a quality thing in terms of "is this good from a technical/artistic standpoint" as much as a quality thing in terms of "how much of a contribution did the editor actually make to the edited image".

you deserve an artist tag

strikerman said:
you deserve an artist tag

Well I would like to think so, but really the coloring was more a therapeutic thing for me, which I thought would be fun to share. The artist tag was more a matter of organization. That's why I took an (unfortunately) devil-may-care attitude towards getting artist permissions, which was definitly not a great idea. Some artists, like redout, misterpickleman, and sabrotuger were supportive, others indifferent, and one took issue. It is the way it is. I appreciate the kind words, and can say that if you like my work you can always just search user:Felicity_Longis+color_edit. But in the end the call belongs to the admins, and I understand their point of view; a line had to be drawn somewhere, and I'm on the other side. That's why I'm trying to get this whole tag situation sorted out :P

felicity_longis said:
For what it's worth, I am relaying precisely what I was told regarding the matter by NotMeNotYou and Millcore, as it had happened once before and was then reverted prior to this final decision. The initial artist tag was approved by Ratte several years prior, but it seemed that in the intervening time the quality standard for what qualified for a dedicated artist tag changed. There was never a conduct issue brought to my attention; it was only ever presented to me as a quality issue. It was also discussed here

In any case, I appreciate the direction towards NMNY here; I will message them directly.

Sorry, I should not have tried to respond when I was sleep deprived. I apologize if my message sounded rude, I did not mean for it to be perceived that way.
I do not think that we have a "quality standard" for what qualifies as an artist tag or not. We do have a quality standard for approvals (see posts deleted for being low quality edits) – but that's not a factor in determining whether or not an artist gets a tag or not.

Third party editors normally do not get tagged, simple as that. Strikerman may be right in that your colorizations go beyond simple edits, but at the end of the day, the decision lies with NotMeNotYou.

strikerman said:
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but isn't it normal for someone who makes an edit to also get credit as an artist on the edit?

Collaborators: yes, absolutely.
3rd party editors: no, not really.

I believe that these might be the cases where two artists are tagged:
1. artist 1 drew the lineart specifically for artist 2 to color.
2. artist 1 drew the lineart/black & white image did it to be standalone but gave artist 2 permission to color it.
3. artist 1 drew a full colored picture but gave artist 2 permission to animate it.

bitwolfy said:
Collaborators: yes, absolutely.
3rd party editors: no, not really.

...Eh? Since when? Least of all because I've definitely seen many many third-party edits where the editor was tagged as an artist (and frankly, I agree with that).

strikerman said:
...Eh? Since when? Least of all because I've definitely seen many many third-party edits where the editor was tagged as an artist (and frankly, I agree with that).

At least since I've been here, it's been policy that people who make third-party edits don't get tagged as an artist, unless there was significant work done to the original, such as adding a background or whole new characters that weren't in the original. And things like simply adding a splash of color or adding a penis doesn't count.

bitwolfy said:
Sorry, I should not have tried to respond when I was sleep deprived. I apologize if my message sounded rude, I did not mean for it to be perceived that way.
I do not think that we have a "quality standard" for what qualifies as an artist tag or not. We do have a quality standard for approvals (see posts deleted for being low quality edits) – but that's not a factor in determining whether or not an artist gets a tag or not.

Third party editors normally do not get tagged, simple as that. Strikerman may be right in that your colorizations go beyond simple edits, but at the end of the day, the decision lies with NotMeNotYou.

Collaborators: yes, absolutely.
3rd party editors: no, not really.

I believe that these might be the cases where two artists are tagged:
1. artist 1 drew the lineart specifically for artist 2 to color.
2. artist 1 drew the lineart/black & white image did it to be standalone but gave artist 2 permission to color it.
3. artist 1 drew a full colored picture but gave artist 2 permission to animate it.

I very much appreciate the response. Thank you.

As I mentioned, my initial artist tag was approved a long time ago by Ratte, and basically the explanation given to me at the time was that if it's good enough to stay, it's good enough for a tag. For the sake of making sure the proper people get the right amount of credit for their work, I understand why what I do doesn't qualify. It'd be nice if I had an artist tag, but with only a handful of exceptions I'd have to say that the work I put into color edits wasn't on the same level as the original artist put into the lineart. Even if not in terms of time spent, the fact that they conceptualized and produced the initial piece already puts their efforts far ahead of mine, and so to put my name beside theirs for a simple color edit may, understandably, not seem justified.

I certainly feel that I do put a good amount of effort into my coloring work, if only to do justice to the work I chose to edit; not asking permission in many cases was one issue entirely, but producing shitty color edits of those images would be (in my opinion) just as, if not even more disrespectful. The point being that, while I did put a good amount of care and effort into producing quality edits, they simply do not match up to what the original artists had to offer in a relative sense. This may be a case for having a dedicated "editor" tag category, but that seems likely to be overcomplicating things to solve a relatively niche issue.

It may also be worth pointing out that several of my edits were of art of my own characters, which I did have permission to edit based on the artists' ToS at the time. Likewise, a few images (namely those by sabrotiger and redout) were done with permission informally granted. Again, I understand why just making the decision regarding everything as a batch, rather than on a case-by-case basis was made. It is what it is; I'm not thrilled but I certainly get where NMNY is coming from on the matter and respect their authority to make that call. I've contacted them about the subject of this thread, so it's in their hands now.