To the user removing the trans_(lore) tags from any Rivet pages containing it: please stop. All of the images tagged as such are done so due to the artist's decision to make Rivet trans, not the creators of the game. That decision overrides and creator decision. I'll be reverting any and all pages that rightfully had the tag.

You might have better luck reporting the user revoking the tag. You can do so on their profile.

yeah, seeing as that user has posted 8 total times on the forums with the last one being several years ago, I don't think posting on here is the proper method of getting their attention.

if you have a disagreement with another user it's probably best to try to hash it out in DMail, the Send message button is at the top of every person's user page. if the disagreement continues you can also report the post for tagging abuse and request a lock on the tags.

I was unsure if it would count as tag abuse or not, considering they seem to have a blatant misunderstanding of what the lore tags are meant to serve, so I'll hold off on the report for now. The DMs will likely be the best bet. Thank you.

She is also, canonically trans and lesbian. The creator of the character had said as much when asked about the game.

Technically every post of her is deserving of the tag so removing them is unjustified and baffling.

demesejha said:
She is also, canonically trans and lesbian. The creator of the character had said as much when asked about the game.

Technically every post of her is deserving of the tag so removing them is unjustified and baffling.

source or not real.

thedragonrider said:
To the user removing the trans_(lore) tags from any Rivet pages containing it: please stop. All of the images tagged as such are done so due to the artist's decision to make Rivet trans, not the creators of the game. That decision overrides and creator decision. I'll be reverting any and all pages that rightfully had the tag.

Aren't you the one incorrectly tagging? The owner of the IP (Insomniac Games I suppose) decides what she is, not an artist who worked for them.

i'm a bit confused by the wiki page for the trans_(lore) tag

Tag for characters that are deemed to be or identify as transgender whose gender identity or gender expression does not correspond with their sex assigned at birth by their creator or owner,

does the creator in this case refer to an artist or is that just a synonym for owner? this seems like a pretty crucial distinction for this case

(in my opinion; an artist's depiction of a character should affect weather a character get's tagged trans or not, there's plenty of fanart out there that turns canonically cis characters trans and i think that should be considered for what user's want to search for

dripen_arn said:
i'm a bit confused by the wiki page for the trans_(lore) tag

does the creator in this case refer to an artist or is that just a synonym for owner? this seems like a pretty crucial distinction for this case

(in my opinion; an artist's depiction of a character should affect weather a character get's tagged trans or not, there's plenty of fanart out there that turns canonically cis characters trans and i think that should be considered for what user's want to search for

lore tags are based on artist intention first and foremost and canon lore after that.

Yeah, the wiki needs to be updated on this. The artist's intention is first and foremost every time, while the original creator is second to it. The very same argument was made when I DMed the person asking them to stop.

Edit: When attempting to edit the tag definitons that imply trans_(lore) to better fit how they are defined and usee by the site, I couldn't, however I could edit trans_(lore). odd.

dripen_arn said:
i'm a bit confused by the wiki page for the trans_(lore) tag

does the creator in this case refer to an artist or is that just a synonym for owner? this seems like a pretty crucial distinction for this case

(in my opinion; an artist's depiction of a character should affect weather a character get's tagged trans or not, there's plenty of fanart out there that turns canonically cis characters trans and i think that should be considered for what user's want to search for

Huh, that's how the wiki is? Yeah I agree that that if the artist intends them to be/not be trans, that should override the canon from where the character is from, but if there's no opinion either way (from artist) then take it from the canon.

closetpossum said:
source or not real.

Can you just go back to 4chan or something

It takes 5 seconds to google it

https://twitter.com/SamMaggs/status/1508882337144082432?t=oNyxZClsuYVEGTddMvAHYQ&s=19

They have also tweeted that they support the idea that she is trans

https://twitter.com/SamMaggs/status/1508891278628425731?t=Afo8iSZhm7VFL3D0DT6wlw&s=19

This is the person who created the character and a lead writer. It is game canon that female lombaxes dont have tails by birth.

Stop sealioning please, its not helpful.

thedragonrider said:
Yeah, the wiki needs to be updated on this. The artist's intention is first and foremost every time, while the original creator is second to it. The very same argument was made when I DMed the person asking them to stop.

Edit: When attempting to edit the tag definitons that imply trans_(lore) to better fit how they are defined and usee by the site, I couldn't, however I could edit trans_(lore). odd.

This should definitely not be how it works. If someone draws my characters and suddenly says theyre not trans, they dont stop being trans thats absolute nonsense.

demesejha This should definitely not be how it works. If someone draws my characters and suddenly says theyre not trans, they dont stop being trans thats absolute nonsense.

Then how would that affect artists who draw canonically cisgender characters as trans, as with this case? In the end, the artist's depiction of a character, trans or not, will always override the character's original creator and owner. If that image ends up causing harm to the creator or owner or depicts the character in a manner they do not want, then they can request a takedown regarding it. It's stupid that it has to work that way, but it's also the way that'll allow people draw characters like Rivet as trans, who, unfortunately, got hit by the company stating that she isnt trans despite the designer's desires.

thedragonrider said:
Then how would that affect artists who draw canonically cisgender characters as trans, as with this case? In the end, the artist's depiction of a character, trans or not, will always override the character's original creator and owner. If that image ends up causing harm to the creator or owner or depicts the character in a manner they do not want, then they can request a takedown regarding it. It's stupid that it has to work that way, but it's also the way that'll allow people draw characters like Rivet as trans, who, unfortunately, got hit by the company stating that she isnt trans despite the designer's desires.

The lore tags are not for that purpose, theyre for identifying canonized information. The creator's original intent comes first.

Thats literally not how any of this works.

Unless this changed sometime in the last 3 years since the system was introduced, which those tags were introduced explicitly to stop tagwarring because trans people were really frustrated at having their characters consistently mistagged.

The sex tags, are not the same as gender lore tags.

It doesnt "have" to work that way, because it doesnt.

What youre proposing would break every lore tag and make them worthless. See the incest tags. They do not follow twys.

demesejha said:
Can you just go back to 4chan or something

It takes 5 seconds to google it

https://twitter.com/SamMaggs/status/1508882337144082432?t=oNyxZClsuYVEGTddMvAHYQ&s=19

They have also tweeted that they support the idea that she is trans

https://twitter.com/SamMaggs/status/1508891278628425731?t=Afo8iSZhm7VFL3D0DT6wlw&s=19

This is the person who created the character and a lead writer. It is game canon that female lombaxes dont have tails by birth.

Stop sealioning please, its not helpful.

This should definitely not be how it works. If someone draws my characters and suddenly says theyre not trans, they dont stop being trans thats absolute nonsense.

Well your character is still trans, but the artist's interpretation/intention of the character they drew is that they aren't.

It's also not very different from taking a character from your favourite media, headcanoning them as trans, and drawing them as such repeat of what dragonrider said

snpthecat said:
Well your character is still trans, but the artist's interpretation/intention of the character they drew is that they aren't.

It's also not very different from taking a character from your favourite media, headcanoning them as trans, and drawing them as such repeat of what dragonrider said

That does not change their *lore* though. The point of the LORE tags is to reflect LORE. Thats why theyre called that. Jfc.

Depicting a character as trans who is cis does not change the lore, that means the lore tag should reflect they are cis. Thats how it works.

You guys not understanding doesnt make you correct.

Im not even going to start with the first half of what you said and how insulting it is.

demesejha said:
The lore tags are not for that purpose, theyre for identifying canonized information. The creator's original intent comes first.

Thats literally not how any of this works.

Unless this changed sometime in the last 3 years since the system was introduced, which those tags were introduced explicitly to stop tagwarring because trans people were really frustrated at having their characters consistently mistagged.

The sex tags, are not the same as gender lore tags.

The lore tags override canonicity in its base medium form, as the artist's or commissioner's interpretation acts as the new canon. It has, in fact, been used that way for the past 3 years to depict characters in a manner that corresponds with what the image is depicting, regardless of the desires of the original creator.

Once again, if you complain about it for your character, it will likely be taken down. At the end of the day, that's something you own, and artwork doing that can be considered against your intentions for the creation, even if the work in question is fanart.

However, completely blocking that off will entirely erase a massive portion of tagged items, resulting in the inability for artist's to redefine a character's gender identity, particularly one in popular media, as a means of giving more representation or applying a headcanon.

demesejha said:
The lore tags are not for that purpose, theyre for identifying canonized information. The creator's original intent comes first.

Thats literally not how any of this works.

Unless this changed sometime in the last 3 years since the system was introduced, which those tags were introduced explicitly to stop tagwarring because trans people were really frustrated at having their characters consistently mistagged.

The sex tags, are not the same as gender lore tags.

It doesnt "have" to work that way, because it doesnt.

What youre proposing would break every lore tag and make them worthless. See the incest tags. They do not follow twys.

Actually the lore system was made for the artists, not the character creator. Usually they're the same, or align very well, but the hierarchy is artist then character creator.

There's a reason why no characters imply trans man/woman despite there being a nonzero number of verified trans characters in the media.

Edit:
Can we get a staff verdict on this, then depending on the verdict, revert the changes made or change the locked wikis, and lock trans_(lore) like how trans man/woman is locked?

snpthecat said:
Actually the lore system was made for the artists, not the character creator. Usually they're the same, or align very well, but the hierarchy is artist then character creator.

There's a reason why no characters imply trans man/woman despite there being a nonzero number of verified trans characters in the media.

This is very much what the tag is for. I have been infuriated beyond belief for some characters, such as Kris from Deltarune, that have had their creators very explicitly said who this character is, only to get them misgendered by the artist. At the end of the day, unless Toby Fox himself requests those images to be taken down for going against his wishes and desires for the character, the artist's interpretation is the one that rules. It's frustrating, especially for things like that, but it at the same time allows for good things to happen with the tag as well, such as headcanons being made to represent a character.

demesejha said:
Can you just go back to 4chan or something

It takes 5 seconds to google it

https://twitter.com/SamMaggs/status/1508882337144082432?t=oNyxZClsuYVEGTddMvAHYQ&s=19

They have also tweeted that they support the idea that she is trans

https://twitter.com/SamMaggs/status/1508891278628425731?t=Afo8iSZhm7VFL3D0DT6wlw&s=19

This is the person who created the character and a lead writer. It is game canon that female lombaxes dont have tails by birth.

Stop sealioning please, its not helpful.

This should definitely not be how it works. If someone draws my characters and suddenly says theyre not trans, they dont stop being trans thats absolute nonsense.

How very rude of you to say. Also, it doesn't "take 5 seconds to google it" as if google will just have it front row and center.
Also, your links doesn't say anything about Rivet being Trans. It says about her being Lesbian.
You have not provided the information I requested. Therefore this is fan-theory in a nutshell.

You could have left links without being a prick about it all because people challenge your own headcanons.
and your other replies, you're being very reactionary and aggressive.

closetpossum said:
Also, your links doesn't say anything about Rivet being Trans. It says about her being Lesbian.
You have not provided the information I requested. Therefore this is fan-theory in a nutshell.

The second says that they support the fan theory that the character is trans, so it cleared the bar of "doesn't say anything about Rivet being trans". It hasn't cleared the bar by much, and the the person said they haven't considered it until now, but it's definitely not "doesn't say anything".

snpthecat said:
The second says that they support the fan theory that the character is trans, so it cleared the bar of "doesn't say anything about Rivet being trans". It hasn't cleared the bar by much, and the the person said they haven't considered it until now, but it's definitely not "doesn't say anything".

Fan theories are not canon, though you're technically right due to how I worded my reply. Does it really matter at this point?
Didn't we already have forum topics about Rivet in the past, so why are we bringing up old topics and renewing past debates?

We all already know, more or less, how the Lore tags work. Artist (of the canon or created character canon artwork) intentions come first, THEN the original creator of the character
We really didn't need to start a debate over Rivet's gender, just the proper tags used.

"We all already know how the lore tags work." No we don't, the wiki doesn't say it (until a recent alteration to it a few hours ago), and demesejha definitely doesn't agree.

snpthecat said:
"We all already know how the lore tags work." No we don't, the wiki doesn't say it (until a recent alteration to it a few hours ago), and demesejha definitely doesn't agree.

post #2654143

We all SOME of us...not all of us...have a general understanding of how lore tags work. Some disagree with the definitons
and some can sometimes misunderstand or misinterpret the meaning of the tag due to the wikis not being the best. I feel it's best to leave these issues to a
admin or janitor.

this is why I fucking hate post-hoc WoG (and to some extent just WoG in general) as a source for canon information.

should we tag every image with samus_aran as trans because on develper said she was a newhalf as a joke in a Super Metroid guide book?

sipothac said:
this is why I fucking hate post-hoc WoG (and to some extent just WoG in general) as a source for canon information.

should we tag every image with samus_aran as trans because on develper said she was a newhalf as a joke in a Super Metroid guide book?

Did they?

versperus said:
Did they?

They did, in fact, call her a newhalf in a guide (not as a joke and more as a reference to her being both human and chozo), and two of the devs in interviews contradicted each other, one saying she was, one saying she wasn't. In the end, that was 30 years ago and any actual, definitive answer hasn't been given, especially for modern iterations of the character. So it still remains a fan theory and headcanon, but it's in a really weird area of it due to the history.

thedragonrider said:
They did, in fact, call her a newhalf in a guide (not as a joke and more as a reference to her being both human and chozo), and two of the devs in interviews contradicted each other, one saying she was, one saying she wasn't. In the end, that was 30 years ago and any actual, definitive answer hasn't been given, especially for modern iterations of the character. So it still remains a fan theory and headcanon, but it's in a really weird area of it due to the history.

so.. before new-half was slang for transgender? I don't know how old that term is but I've only heard it in recent years.

versperus said:
so.. before new-half was slang for transgender? I don't know how old that term is but I've only heard it in recent years.

Oldest record (afaict) is from the original Japanese in 1998 also in reference to crossdressers, so still years after Super Metroid

Also, please try to keep things calm and civil in the thread, please.

strikerman said:
Oldest record (afaict) is from the original Japanese in 1998 also in reference to crossdressers, so still years after Super Metroid

so if that does turn out to be the true time that reference was made it's understandable not to tag samus as trans as they probably weren't using it in the context at that point in time.

versperus said:
so if that does turn out to be the true time that reference was made it's understandable not to tag samus as trans as they probably weren't using it in the context at that point in time.

I agree, makes sense to me.

thedragonrider said:
They did, in fact, call her a newhalf in a guide (not as a joke and more as a reference to her being both human and chozo), and two of the devs in interviews contradicted each other, one saying she was, one saying she wasn't. In the end, that was 30 years ago and any actual, definitive answer hasn't been given, especially for modern iterations of the character. So it still remains a fan theory and headcanon, but it's in a really weird area of it due to the history.

I'm like 90% sure it was originally meant as a joke, and also it had nothing to do with her being part chozo. the exact quote was

松岡洋史 said:
サムスは女ではなく、 じつはニューハーフ である。

which translates as

Matsuoka Hiroshi said:
Samus isn't a woman, she's actually a newhalf.

it was in the "secrets only I know" section of the developer interviews for Nintendo Official Guide Book for Super Metroid. the developers that actually answered either really kinda basic information or blatantly jokes (like knowing where Samus's beauty mark is) _{and one hint about the final boss in Metroid 2 for some reason.}
if it was meant as actual canon information I doubt it'd be dropped so casually as it was and then never brought up again.

Lore tags refer to the lore provided by the creator of the image, not the creator of the things depicted in it, if that makes sense.

If someone takes a canon setting, makes an unofficial alternate universe, the lore tags reflect the "lore" of that alternate universe, not the original universe.

This applies to pretty much every iteration, regardless of whether it's an established franchise or an OC.

In the case of misused characters without consent we're assuming the occam's razor will be yeeted into a takedown form anyway and solve the tagging dispute that way. I can't fathom an instance where someone uses character without permission, draws them as the wrong gender, and not upset the owner of the character enough that they want it deleted regardless of what our tags say. And we'll respect that takedown request like any other.

But in all other cases with consent of the character owner we assume the AU is intended and thus their lore goes again, which would then also most likely adhere to what the character's owner would like to have depicted in that image.

notmenotyou said:
Lore tags refer to the lore provided by the creator of the image, not the creator of the things depicted in it, if that makes sense.

If someone takes a canon setting, makes an unofficial alternate universe, the lore tags reflect the "lore" of that alternate universe, not the original universe.

This applies to pretty much every iteration, regardless of whether it's an established franchise or an OC.

In the case of misused characters without consent we're assuming the occam's razor will be yeeted into a takedown form anyway and solve the tagging dispute that way. I can't fathom an instance where someone uses character without permission, draws them as the wrong gender, and not upset the owner of the character enough that they want it deleted regardless of what our tags say. And we'll respect that takedown request like any other.

But in all other cases with consent of the character owner we assume the AU is intended and thus their lore goes again, which would then also most likely adhere to what the character's owner would like to have depicted in that image.

Thank you so much for the clarification, that definitely helps. Do you think the wiki should be updated to clarify the definition's wording, or should all the posts that were altered simply be changed back?

notmenotyou said:
Lore tags refer to the lore provided by the creator of the image, not the creator of the things depicted in it, if that makes sense.

If someone takes a canon setting, makes an unofficial alternate universe, the lore tags reflect the "lore" of that alternate universe, not the original universe.

This applies to pretty much every iteration, regardless of whether it's an established franchise or an OC.

In the case of misused characters without consent we're assuming the occam's razor will be yeeted into a takedown form anyway and solve the tagging dispute that way. I can't fathom an instance where someone uses character without permission, draws them as the wrong gender, and not upset the owner of the character enough that they want it deleted regardless of what our tags say. And we'll respect that takedown request like any other.

But in all other cases with consent of the character owner we assume the AU is intended and thus their lore goes again, which would then also most likely adhere to what the character's owner would like to have depicted in that image.

Hello. The user in question here is me: I was editing the tags to the best of my knowledge, according to the way the wiki page was written at the time. If that information isn't accurate, i'd appreciate it if the wiki page was changed to address how the lore tags are actually used, so this kind of thing can be avoided in the future.

Also, if that's the case, what about single images that present a character as intersex, when they canonically aren't? That's most of what was being changed.

thedragonrider said:
Thank you so much for the clarification, that definitely helps. Do you think the wiki should be updated to clarify the definition's wording, or should all the posts that were altered simply be changed back?

The help page for lore tags doesn’t make mention of artist overriding canon, just that it should be added if a tag is “wrong” which people are wrongly interpreting, so I agree that should be clarified there.

beeseverywhere said:
Aren't you the one incorrectly tagging? The owner of the IP (Insomniac Games I suppose) decides what she is, not an artist who worked for them.

That's what I had assumed, since they're called "lore" tags. I thought it meant the creator of the character. If lore tags are about artist interpretation instead, that kinda hurts the entire point of calling them lore tags in the first place.

notmenotyou said:
Lore tags refer to the lore provided by the creator of the image, not the creator of the things depicted in it, if that makes sense.

If someone takes a canon setting, makes an unofficial alternate universe, the lore tags reflect the "lore" of that alternate universe, not the original universe.

This applies to pretty much every iteration, regardless of whether it's an established franchise or an OC.

In the case of misused characters without consent we're assuming the occam's razor will be yeeted into a takedown form anyway and solve the tagging dispute that way. I can't fathom an instance where someone uses character without permission, draws them as the wrong gender, and not upset the owner of the character enough that they want it deleted regardless of what our tags say. And we'll respect that takedown request like any other.

But in all other cases with consent of the character owner we assume the AU is intended and thus their lore goes again, which would then also most likely adhere to what the character's owner would like to have depicted in that image.

This, doesnt make sense at all honestly. But if thats how its meant to be I guess thats how it is.

However, people do art of others characters without permission *constantly*. Its a major issue in furry spaces and the idea of doing hate art of people you dont like (its happened to me) is not unusual nor unbelievable.

temp7 said:
That's what I had assumed, since they're called "lore" tags. I thought it meant the creator of the character. If lore tags are about artist interpretation instead, that kinda hurts the entire point of calling them lore tags in the first place.

For this literal reason it does not make sense.

They shouldnt be called "lore" tags if they dont reflect "lore".

demesejha said:For this literal reason it does not make sense.

They shouldnt be called "lore" tags if they dont reflect "lore".

I don't think that's the case at all. Interpreting "lore" to solely mean the lore of only the original creation is entirely narrow in scope. At this point it's why I'm advocating for a change to the wiki definition: people misinterpreting what lore means, in the end. Lore can equivocate to that of the artist's creation as well, it doesn't have to just be the original source material.

However, people do art of others characters without permission *constantly*. Its a major issue in furry spaces and the idea of doing hate art of people you dont like (its happened to me) is not unusual nor unbelievable.

This is only one situation out of many. While hate can be spread (and frankly, will. I've been in the comments sections), outright removing people's headcanons of a character will be debilitating at large, removing the freedom artists have to create fanart of characters they love to represent themselves. The restriction is more harmful in the end, especially when there are ways to remove the hate posts when they're entirely unwanted by the artist or character hate is directed at.

As for the permission aspect, this isn't just a "furry thing," particularly with fanart of large-scale IP characters such as Rivet, the topic that started this entire subject. This is much, much larger than just individual characters, and while making art of other's characters without permission is a terrible thing to promote, I do not see it as much as you imply it's out there. There are certainly a few, but it isn't a widespread issue as much as it is one that can and should be clamped down on while it's still small. But removing the ability for artists to make fanart like this entirely is not the solution. It would simply hurt more people than it would help.

demesejha said:
However, people do art of others characters without permission *constantly*. Its a major issue in furry spaces and the idea of doing hate art of people you dont like (its happened to me) is not unusual nor unbelievable.

Correct, and we very happily delete those pieces. Which is kind of the point I was trying to make, they don't matter very much as far as tagging disputes go because the victims of the harassment generally just want them deleted entirely anyway. So it's pretty much a waste of time trying to find tagging rules that work with those situations, as those situations resolve themselves almost always via a takedown.

demesejha said:
For this literal reason it does not make sense.

They shouldnt be called "lore" tags if they dont reflect "lore".

They do reflect lore, just not specifically the one of the original creator. How many Undertale alternate universes exist now, should we tag those based on TobyFox's creation only? That would lead to more confusion than it would solve.

But yeah, I'll have to see how to properly word all that in the respective wiki pages. So far the lore tags help wiki and trans_(lore) tags are going to be looked at. Are there any others that might need a second look?

thedragonrider said:
I don't think that's the case at all. Interpreting "lore" to solely mean the lore of only the original creation is entirely narrow in scope.

That's what lore means, though. The entire point was to tag characters according to their unobserved, but true aspects, while preserving Tag What You See policy.

thedragonrider said:
This is only one situation out of many. While hate can be spread (and frankly, will. I've been in the comments sections), outright removing people's headcanons of a character will be debilitating at large, removing the freedom artists have to create fanart of characters they love to represent themselves.

I don't think you're being realistic about this. How, exactly, does tagging a character's canonical characteristics hurt anyone? The artist can still draw whatever they want.

We already tag gender according to what they appear to be in the image. Which means a character may get misgendered based on how they look. That's what lore tags were meant to address. If lore tags themselves are based on artist interpretation, they should not be called "lore" tags.

The only exception I see is if a character's gender was reinterpreted as part of an actual AU, like a comic or series of some kind. But for individual images, it makes no sense to lore tag artists interpretations over creators - I think that would do far more damage.

thedragonrider said:
But removing the ability for artists to make fanart like this

🤨
No one is removing anyone's ability to make fanart.

notmenotyou said:
But yeah, I'll have to see how to properly word all that in the respective wiki pages. So far the lore tags help wiki and trans_(lore) tags are going to be looked at. Are there any others that might need a second look?

Perhaps the sibling_(lore) lore tags? While tags for brother, sister, son, daughter, etc. all exist, the base ones that are perfect for both general descriptors and nonbinary individuals don't actually address that. I've seen nonbinary_(lore) used alongside the gendered sibling, parent, or child tags that don't actually belong. It always looks like they base it off the appearance of the characters, using male, female, etc. to base the lore tags. Maybe some clarification could be helpful on the sibling, parent, and child lore tags? That's all I can think of.

notmenotyou said:
They do reflect lore, just not specifically the one of the original creator. How many Undertale alternate universes exist now, should we tag those based on TobyFox's creation only? That would lead to more confusion than it would solve.

What about images like this one:
post #4197189
To my knowledge, this isn't part of any AU content, like Undertale has. Do we lore tag every intersex post?

temp7 said:
What about images like this one:
post #4197189
To my knowledge, this isn't part of any AU content, like Undertale has. Do we lore tag every intersex post?

How I've been adding and removing lore tags is "if the artist didn't say anything one way or another, then don't tag it." The FA tags for this one say that Rivet is "transfemme," so use the respective lore tags for that one. The only question is whether or not to apply it to every image of this character from this specific artist.

IIRC, there are a couple exceptions like incest_(lore) for copyrighted characters like Toriel/Asriel (where it's "assume canon unless artist overrides" since the default assumption is that the artist knows that these characters are related)

temp7 said:
That's what lore means, though. The entire point was to tag characters according to their unobserved, but true aspects, while preserving Tag What You See policy.

The entire point of lore tags is to present what cannot be clarified under TWYS, that we agree on. If you dislike the naming, a suggestion for a different name would be incredibly helpful.

I don't think you're being realistic about this. How, exactly, does tagging a character's canonical characteristics hurt anyone? The artist can still draw whatever they want.

We already tag gender according to what they appear to be in the image. Which means a character may get misgendered based on how they look. That's what lore tags were meant to address. If lore tags themselves are based on artist interpretation, they should not be called "lore" tags.

Just because we already misgender a character doesn't mean we should take an artist's creation and misgender it even further. That is what these tags were designed for, not just outright canonical knowledge.

And once again: If you don't like the name, provide an alternative so the mods can consider it.

The only exception I see is if a character's gender was reinterpreted as part of an actual AU, like a comic or series of some kind. But for individual images, it makes no sense to lore tag artists interpretations over creators - I think that would do far more damage.

AUs are incredibly limiting. There's only so much you can do with that terminology alone, considering it outright ignores headcanons on the characters that are still meant to coincide with canon content. Allowing people to view a character as trans is what makes it such a good method of showing representation in fan media, even if official media doesn't do it. As for creators... the entire thing is designed with the creators of the image in mind, not the creators of just the character, despite what the wiki says. If you actually paid attention to the tag, it doesn't do the damage you claim it does. At most, you see someone's headcanons and perhaps an unwanted image that gets taken down within 24 hours. That isn't harmful, which brings me to...

🤨
No one is removing anyone's ability to make fanart.

Me not saying this at all. You took that quote out of context in a way that gets rid of what I'm trying to say: You're removing the ability for artists to make headcanons about characters by limiting this. Fan works thrive off of things like that and it would therefore make people rather upset if the character they drew holding a pride flag gets knocked off the "lore" list for anything. That is harmful, to the point of potentially being seen as outright hateful. Canonicity is only one factor to be taken into consideration, especially regarding fan works.

Edit: As an aside, you seem to be operating on a lot of bad faith arguments, depicting only the absolute extreme scenarios or outright taking quotes out of context to support your argument. The things you're saying could occur are not as large as you seem to portray them, at least to my knowledge.

werideatdawn said:
How I've been adding and removing lore tags is "if the artist didn't say anything one way or another, then don't tag it." The FA tags for this one say that Rivet is "transfemme," so use the respective lore tags for that one. The only question is whether or not to apply it to every image of this character from this specific artist.

IIRC, there are a couple exceptions like incest_(lore) for copyrighted characters like Toriel/Asriel (where it's "assume canon unless artist overrides" since the default assumption is that the artist knows that these characters are related)

I do that alongside other artist statements, such as them drawing only trans characters or supporting the idea that the character is trans (in the image) in comments and stuff. As far as I'm aware, that's how most lore tagged posts were interpreted.

werideatdawn said:
How I've been adding and removing lore tags are "if the artist didn't say anything one way or another, then don't tag it." The FA tags for this one say that Rivet is "transfemme," so use the respective lore tags for that one.

IIRC, there are a couple exceptions like incest_(lore) for copyrighted characters like Toriel/Asriel (where it's "assume canon unless artist overrides" since the default assumption is that the artist knows that these characters are related)

I was asking because that picture in particular is one of the disputed ones.

And that's what I'm talking about. It's much better when the rules are simple and don't have exceptions like that. Are we going by the creator's intentions or not? I don't want to be guilty of accidental tagging abuse. Look at what TheDragonrider just suggested a few posts above: at this point, lore tagging will become quite tedious. How do you tag all of that correctly when it changes depending on the individual artist's opinion?

temp7 said:
I was asking because that picture in particular is one of the disputed ones.

And that's what I'm talking about. It's much better when the rules are simple and don't have exceptions like that. Are we going by the creator's intentions or not? I don't want to be guilty of accidental tagging abuse. Look at what TheDragonrider just suggested a few posts above: at this point, lore tagging will become quite tedious. How do you tag all of that correctly when it changes depending on the individual artist's opinion?

The rules is "assume canon unless the artist overrides," which seems pretty simple to me. If the artist says nothing... assume canon. If there's something that the artist says, a trend of drawing only trans characters, or other artist overrides, tag it as such. As for how to do it... you tag it. You search for evidence that may support it and you tag it according to such. I've tagged thousands of posts with the lore tags this way, and it's been years-long endeavors. But it can be done, and in the end, will be done. There are a lot more people than you on this platform and many of them are willing to do it, even if you may not be. That isn't anything against you, I'm just saying there's a lot of people who can do it in yours or my stead.

Lore can and will change. That's not really up to us in the slightest. For all we know, trans Rivet can be outright retconned at a later date. It's all a matter of keeping up with it, abiding by what people know, and letting the artist or character creator make decisions about their own works. There's problems with the system, one that I wish we could address and fix, but until we have a good solution that's the way it's going to be.

thedragonrider said:
Just because we already misgender a character doesn't mean we should take an artist's creation and misgender it even further. That is what these tags were designed for, not just outright canonical knowledge. (...) AUs are incredibly limiting. There's only so much you can do with that terminology alone, considering it outright ignores headcanons on the characters that are still meant to coincide with canon content.

I don't think we need to be tagging headcanons at all, unless they are relevant to a story.

thedragonrider said:
Allowing people to view a character as trans (...)

Nobody said you can't view a character as trans.

thedragonrider said:
Me not saying this at all. You took that quote out of context in a way that gets rid of what I'm trying to say: You're removing the ability for artists to make headcanons about characters by limiting this.

No, I'm factually not. Artists can make whatever they want.

thedragonrider said:
Edit: As an aside, you seem to be operating on a lot of bad faith arguments, depicting only the absolute extreme scenarios or outright taking quotes out of context to support your argument. The things you're saying could occur are not as large as you seem to portray them, at least to my knowledge.

I don't see why you feel the need to attack my character over this. All I want is clarity.

temp7 said:
No, I'm factually not.

I won't argue this. It's just not worth it for the topic of this thread.

I don't think we need to be tagging headcanons at all, unless they are relevant to a story.

Nobody said you can't view a character as trans.

This is the problem I'm having here. You're limiting it to only story material, which is often extremely hard to identify and can needlessly muddle things. It also seems to almost contradict your second statement (key word: almost) due to you refusing to allow those same people to tag art with the correct lore identifiers to go alongside it. Nobody said that, no. But at the same time, refusing to let people use lore tags to express headcanons on a character they specifically drew to be that headcanon is simply an absurdly contradictory thing to do. In the end, it is not that difficult to simply follow the artist's design for the character. Frustrating and annoying due to a lack of clarity at times, but not outright difficult.

thedragonrider said:
The rules is "assume canon unless the artist overrides," which seems pretty simple to me. If the artist says nothing... assume canon.

That's the issue, incest is the only lore tag I know of where copyright canon applies. If we went for assumptions on gender/age lore tags as well when the artist doesn't say anything, then we'd have people applying unsourced young_(lore) tags on canonically underage characters like Cream the Rabbit and the cub/young tags are already contentious enough as it is.

to cut to brass tax, does Rivet count as Trans? As far as I'm aware the person in question that green lit the trans information wasn't apart of the team still when the game was released. Is there any official information that solidifies the standpoint?

werideatdawn said:
That's the issue, incest is the only lore tag I know of where copyright canon applies. If we went for assumptions on gender/age lore tags as well when the artist doesn't say anything, then we'd have people applying unsourced young_(lore) tags on canonically underage characters like Cream the Rabbit and the cub/young tags are already contentious enough as it is.

While I do agree that the young tags and determining age is incredibly difficult and has spawned a pot of controversy, I don't think that it's at a level applicable to this discussion, rather being one far above it. Finding out if it's differently gendered or not is rather simple, but the fact of the matter is that the simple solution is to not tag it if you're unsure. Too many people do the opposite, and frankly I'm not altogether sure why, especially if the artist includes anything that may outright contradict the tag. That's my take on it, anyway. I'm kinda tired of arguing on the subject and at this point I'm just waiting for the mod decision on how to handle this issue.

versperus said:
to cut to brass tax, does Rivet count as Trans? As far as I'm aware the person in question that green lit the trans information wasn't apart of the team still when the game was released. Is there any official information that solidifies the standpoint?

Canonically, no. There is plenty of art on this site that depicts her with the headcanon of being trans, however, and that's what the main discussion has turned to.

thedragonrider said:
Canonically, no. There is plenty of art on this site that depicts her with the headcanon of being trans, however, and that's what the main discussion has turned to.

And that is an issue. If you're tagging headcanon, you shouldn't call it "lore". That, and tagging headcanon at all is absurd to begin with.

temp7 said:
And that is an issue. If you're tagging headcanon, you shouldn't call it "lore". That, and tagging headcanon at all is absurd to begin with.

you're tagging the lore of the post itself. not the canon of the origin series.

I sincerely doubt that creator of Rivet actually owns the character. Furthermore, by his own admission it wasn't his intent in creating her. Until we get something more solid, I prefer not to tag the character as trans in general. However, if a particular artist chooses to depict that interpretation, then it should be tagged.

sipothac said:
you're tagging the lore of the post itself. not the canon of the origin series.

As I said before, what about posts like this:
post #4197189

Do we lore tag every intersex post according to what we see in the post? That defeats the entire purpose of having lore tags in the first place, which, presumably, would involve tagging the lore that you can't see.

vulpes_artifex said:
I sincerely doubt that creator of Rivet actually owns the character. Furthermore, by his own admission it wasn't his intent in creating her. Until we get something more solid, I prefer not to tag the character as trans in general. However, if a particular artist chooses to depict that interpretation, then it should be tagged.

Isn't that redundant, since we already have various intersex tags for the purpose?

temp7 said:
As I said before, what about posts like this:
post #4197189

Do we lore tag every intersex post according to what we see in the post? That defeats the entire purpose of having lore tags in the first place, which, presumably, would involve tagging the lore that you can't see.

I suppose a post like that becomes a question of... "Is the artist drawing the character as transgender" but then how do you tag that in a way that's not conflicting with tag regulations? The only way I can see to actually do that is to go off of visibly_trans, and at which point if they're not visually then they just go off the visual tagging system. Tagging said character in the mentioned image as gynomorph.

temp7 said:
As I said before, what about posts like this:
post #4197189

Do we lore tag every intersex post according to what we see in the post? That defeats the entire purpose of having lore tags in the first place, which, presumably, would involve tagging the lore that you can't see.

That is such a strawman that I physically cannot understand how you made that leap. This has been explained, repeatedly, in as many different ways as we can muster. Lore tags are to describe the things that cannot initially be seen in the image. What is seen in the image is intersex, gynomorph, andromorph, whatever is there. If the artist has made a comment on it, whether in the past in regards to transgender characters or in the present on the post itself, then it overrides the original base the character was built off. This has worked for countless other websites that display fan works. This has worked on e621 for the past 2-3 years. This is the rules as described by the mod previously: Commissioner > Artist > Original Creator. If the Original Creator requests it be removed, then their desires override the artist or commissioner's. It is not complicated.

temp7 said:
As I said before, what about posts like this:
post #4197189

Do we lore tag every intersex post according to what we see in the post? That defeats the entire purpose of having lore tags in the first place, which, presumably, would involve taggythe lore that you can't see.

no, you tag lore based on what the artist says, it's tagged transfemme at the source, so use that to tag lore.

if there's no statement either way from the artist we assume the character is just naturally intersex (or whatever other gender).

versperus said:
I suppose a post like that becomes a question of... "Is the artist drawing the character as transgender" but then how do you tag that in a way that's not conflicting with tag regulations? The only way I can see to actually do that is to go off of visibly_trans, and at which point if they're not visually then they just go off the visual tagging system. Tagging said character in the mentioned image as gynomorph.

On the source page, the artist labels Rivet as a trans woman, which is what the lore tags are used for to distinguish intersex from an entirely different category.

temp7 said:
Isn't that redundant, since we already have various intersex tags for the purpose?

What do you mean by this? trans_(lore) is not a redundant tag.

thedragonrider said:
On the source page, the artist labels Rivet as a trane woman, which is what the lore tags are used for to distinguish intersex from an entirely different category.

That goes in conflict with what NotMeNotYou said about where lore tags are valid, Like I said if there was any visibly_trans evidence I'd be on board but with nothing to indicate transgenderism in the image, or the submitted canon (presumably idk anything about this series) then the tag would be invalid.

versperus said:
That goes in conflict with what NotMeNotYou said about where lore tags are valid, Like I said if there was any visibly_trans evidence I'd be on board but with nothing to indicate transgenderism in the image, or the submitted canon (presumably idk anything about this series) then the tag would be invalid.

What? "Transgenderism" is not a visual phenomena, which is why it's a lore tag. If the artist says as such, it is as such in the image. Lore tags are used to describe anything that cannot initially be seen in the image under the rules of Tag What You See

temp7 said:
Isn't that redundant, since we already have various intersex tags for the purpose?

there's a distinct difference between "character with tits and a dick" and "character who was born male but identifies as a woman, and maybe had surgery to have her body fit her gender identity".

thedragonrider said:
What? "Transgenderism" is not a visual phenomena, which is why it's a lore tag. If the artist says as such, it is as such in the image.

I think we should just wait until the administration resolves to best indicate how trans_(lore) is handled as NotMeNotYou said it's going to be officially set standard by site staff. Then there won't be any confusion about how the tag should be utilized. As I'm also going off perceived interpretation of how the tag is suppose to be used. It's a lot more difficult to understand its implication then it is to understand things you visually identify in an image, and currently the wiki page for trans is very minimalist on its description of utility.

versperus said:
I think we should just wait until the administration resolves to best indicate how trans_(lore) is handled as NotMeNotYou said it's going to be officially set standard by site staff. Then there won't be any confusion about how the tag should be utilized. As I'm also going off perceived interpretation of how the tag is suppose to be used. It's a lot more difficult to understand its implication then it is to understand things you visually identify in an image.

Fair enough. This is a tiring conversation anyway and it would just be best to step away for my own well-being. My apologies if I seemed rude or angry in my responses.

versperus said:

thedragonrider said:
On the source page, the artist labels Rivet as a trans woman, which is what the lore tags are used for to distinguish intersex from an entirely different category.

That goes in conflict with what NotMeNotYou said about where lore tags are valid,

?

notmenotyou specifically said:
Lore tags refer to the lore provided by the creator of the image, not the creator of the things depicted in it, if that makes sense.

wat8548 said:
?

ya I realized that after which is why I said lets just wait. I admittedly didn't see that part.

werideatdawn said:
How I've been adding and removing lore tags is "if the artist didn't say anything one way or another, then don't tag it."

I don't generally remove lore tags, but that's how I typically go about adding lore tags. It easily gets confusing when trying to incorporate general series lore onto images where the artist doesn't say anything for a particular piece, particularly when it comes to transformation or crossgender depictions. For instance, someone like Krystal, who in series lore is physically female, presents female, and uses female pronouns; an artist draws her male and doesn't say anything; if we incorporate series lore in lieu of any artist statement on a piece, she identifies as female while having the body of a male in the image, which would mean tagging such images as female_(lore) and/or trans_woman_(lore). As most crossgender and gender_transformation images don't mention a change in identity, most Rule63 images would be tagged trans_(lore) if general canon should be considered.

It also becomes way harder to discount lore tags if using general canon rather than only direct statements by the artist at the image source. As mentioned earlier I almost never remove lore tags, because it's nearly impossible to prove they don't apply from a general lore perspective. Even if there's reason to believe it was tagged in error, such as a species_transformation pic being tagged trans_(lore), it's way too difficult to truly verify the tags don't actually apply because I'm unaware of or missed something. Such information could be from a single line of dialog in one game/comic issue/whatever out of several, or from some random developer interview or tweet I don't know about, or a character owner journal or other image that was posted years ago on a now-defunct site. Unless I know of information contradicting the lore tag in question, I can never be sure a lore tag doesn't apply if we can use general canon.

watsit said:
I don't generally remove lore tags, but that's how I typically go about adding lore tags. It easily gets confusing when trying to incorporate general series lore onto images where the artist doesn't say anything for a particular piece, particularly when it comes to transformation or crossgender depictions. For instance, someone like Krystal, who in series lore is physically female, presents female, and uses female pronouns; an artist draws her male and doesn't say anything; if we incorporate series lore in lieu of any artist statement on a piece, she identifies as female while having the body of a male in the image, which would mean tagging such images as female_(lore) and/or trans_woman_(lore). As most crossgender and gender_transformation images don't mention a change in identity, most Rule63 images would be tagged trans_(lore) if general canon should be considered.

It also becomes way harder to discount lore tags if using general canon rather than only direct statements by the artist at the image source. As mentioned earlier I almost never remove lore tags, because it's nearly impossible to prove they don't apply from a general lore perspective. Even if there's reason to believe it was tagged in error, such as a species_transformation pic being tagged trans_(lore), it's way too difficult to truly verify the tags don't actually apply because I'm unaware of or missed something. Such information could be from a single line of dialog in one game/comic issue/whatever out of several, or from some random developer interview or tweet I don't know about, or a character owner journal or other image that was posted years ago on a now-defunct site. Unless I know of information contradicting the lore tag in question, I can never be sure a lore tag doesn't apply if we can use general canon.

Trans lore tags are hard, personally I only add them when I explicitly know the lore of the character, or can communicate with the characters owner to inform me. Otherwise I don't deal with them at all.