Simple question:
What is the policy on third-party editorialized image descriptions?
The posts in question that I am curious about are as follows:

post #4163625
post #4163627
post #4163635
post #4163644
post #4163647

All of these posts feature image descriptions from the user who posted them which deviate significantly from descriptions attached to the original images at their source, or are just entirely fabricated by said user. I'm just wondering if there is an official stance on this sort of thing. This is just my understanding, but descriptions appear to exist to provide information that the artist has attached to the image, be it technical or narrative in nature; not for uploaders to fantasize.

Any help here is appreciated!

I think these descriptions could have been just comments instead. I'm not sure about the guidelines, but I believe descriptions are for "text made by the artist/comissioner" and "information important to the picture like translations and translation notes".

I suppose the appropriate action would be to replace the current descriptions with the official ones from the source.

Basically the only actual guidelines with the description are to "not engage in disruptive behavior" (from the code of conduct).

That said, it usually is best to take most information from the source. It doesn't have to be a direct copy, though. For instance, if a source contains multiple images then it might be best to break up the description between them. There might be a story behind a link that can be included. Typos and grammar mistakes can be fixed. Formatting can be edited to work with DText. Stuff like that.

m3g4p0n1 said:
I suppose the appropriate action would be to replace the current descriptions with the official ones from the source.

This seems like the sensible option, yeah. Went ahead and updated the three that hadn't already been taken care of.

I'd almost suspect the first example was from the commissioner themselves, not the artist. I usually check the username of the uploader if I have questions like that.

I went ahead and sent the uploader a message with link to this forum post.

scth said:
Basically the only actual guidelines with the description are to "not engage in disruptive behavior" (from the code of conduct).

That said, it usually is best to take most information from the source. It doesn't have to be a direct copy, though. For instance, if a source contains multiple images then it might be best to break up the description between them. There might be a story behind a link that can be included. Typos and grammar mistakes can be fixed. Formatting can be edited to work with DText. Stuff like that.

This, yes. There are a few exceptions to this (like including proof of permission to upload something that's normally DNP), but there should still be a clear separation between the uploader's description and the artist's description. Like here.

werideatdawn said:
This, yes. There are a few exceptions to this (like including proof of permission to upload something that's normally DNP), but there should still be a clear separation between the uploader's description and the artist's description. Like here.

In some of my examples, I barely edited the descriptions to make them fit the site, better. i.e. Copying and pasting and then removing lines with spammy text, adding URLs to imitate FA/IB's links to users, etc.