I want to get some insight on what everyone thinks about the TWYS policy and the use of external sources. First, here's my pitch/rant.

Since this topic is usually debated quite often whenever there is a post that provokes users to "challenge"- if you will- the accuracy of the Tag What You See policy.
Now, I can see how this policy can be seen as arbitrary in a sense and be quite effective at the same time when it involves tagging an image.

But on the other hand, I like to see proper tagging just as much as the administrators and everyone else who actually gives a shit about accurate search results and black-listings. To me, this involves proper tags(character, artist, metatags, and the such) and external sources. The reason why I think it's an important factor to consider is because it gives the original intention on what the image is supposed to be. That and I've always have had this peeve where if the creator of something says there product is, it is.

I'm aware of what the site rules state about the TWYS policy and the reasoning behind it, added with the few flaws/problems it pertains. But one thing I'm wondering is the consideration from external sources of a post, regarding character names.

Exception for character names only:
You may use an OFFICIAL external source of information (the artist, commissioner, or character owner's gallery/website) when tagging a character name ONLY under the following conditions:

1) The external source of information is the artist, commissioner, or character owner's own words on their own gallery or website.

2) The post must have at least SOME evidence of the claimed character and can not have any evidence that CONFLICTS with what the external source is saying (e.g. a post can't be tagged "Character A" just because the external source says so, when the post does not actually contain any evidence of "Character A", or in fact looks more like "Character B" instead.) Again, there must be at least SOME evidence that the character is who it's claimed to be, but it does not have to be definitive proof.

As you can see from the bold, if I haven't fudged up with that, the policy can be sticky at times. But there have supposedly been previous exceptions where an image where the artist says one thing about said post, but we only see it as something else, and the image is tagged as to what the artist labeled it as. But as the policy says, there must be some, indefinite or not.

Here are two contradictory examples of the TWYS policy vs. external sources, but then again, the reasoning for the tags may be the cause of something else entirely:
https://e621.net/post/show/455431/breasts-bust-clothed-clothing-doxy-female-flashing
Here we have a very well drawn image done by one of this side of the internet's favorite artists, Doxy. According to the source to his page, the image is supposed to be Twilight Sparkle humanized. But we have perceived it as an unspecified human, besides the purple hair that can give away the impersonation. Since it does look as such, it only seems fair to deem it as such.
But there is another case where one of Doxy's works was also a humanized mlp character.
https://e621.net/post/show/304236/doxy-female-fluttershy_-mlp-friendship_is_magic-ha
Here, we have a humanized Fluttershy. Nothing specific about it identifies it as such but we have deemed it worthy of having an identifiable character tag simply because- from what I can see-
pink hair. Not much to work with but it is here, apparently. Both images have some identifiable proof of who they are but only with an external source to prove otherwise for certain.
Another example was on a Fluttershy image, according to the official source. https://e621.net/post/show/482468/2014-anthro-butt-clitoris-close-up-detailed-female
Again, not much detail as to who it could be specifically. But we have deemed it as the contrary. An unspecified character, even though the artist himself says it was Fluttershy.
Quite the quandary here.
What I think is that the Tag What You See policy should apply to all images to the site, unless an external source, if any are available, of a post says otherwise specifically.
Tell me what everyone thinks about tagging and the purposes of involving an official source to help with tags. Tell me how you think tagging should work when it comes to factual and accurate information of posts, not interpretations because people can interpret images differently. Not everyone has the same view as everyone else.
Note: And I intentionally just wanted this to be an open debate/discussion.

Lieutenant_Derpy said:
...
But there is another case where one of Doxy's works was also a humanized mlp character.
https://e621.net/post/show/304236/doxy-female-fluttershy_-mlp-friendship_is_magic-ha
Here, we have a humanized Fluttershy. Nothing specific about it identifies it as such but we have deemed it worthy of having an identifiable character tag simply because- from what I can see-
pink hair. Not much to work with but it is here, apparently. Both images have some identifiable proof of who they are but only with an external source to prove otherwise for certain. ...

1 person with 2 tag edits changed it 11 months ago, included a threat in the comments against changing it back, against all of the comments by admins on the same image.
No one noticed and changed it back, yet.
That's not a decision, it's one person screwing up tags.
Under current rules it should not have that character tag.

Halite said:
We haven't deemed anything.
1 person with 2 tag edits changed it 11 months ago, included a threat in the comments against changing it back, against all of the comments by admins on the same image.
No one noticed and changed it back, yet.
That's not a decision, it's one person screwing up tags.
Under current rules it should not have that character tag.

Think you haz wrong post der halite

Peekaboo said:
I love almost everything about TWYS.
But I do think that we need a exclusion to it, in terms of character names. The whole purpose of TWYS is to make it so that browsers can easily find what they are looking for, excluding character names to TWYS does not only make it far, far easier for people to find what they're looking for, it also doesn't have many drawbacks, if any.

We have the exclusion, and it's fair 60% of the cases, where the post in question complies with both the artist saying "it's character X" and displays the features present in said charater. The other 40% are the ones that fall in either A or B, thus, tag wars.

As far as tagging ANYTHING that a source claims, we definitely can't do that, as sometimes the things a source claims are absolutely contradictory to what's actually shown in an image. That also leads to tags like "gay, straight, male, female, dickgirl, herm, etc" becoming a mess, because the way we want to use them on the site isn't how some people expect them to be used. We have to try to be as consistent as we can, but being completely consistent is an ideal and completely impossible.

But assuming that we're ONLY talking about the exception to character names, and allowing the source to dictate what the character name tag is on e621, I feel that we should really continue doing so. The TWYS exception is very carefully worded, even if it's still not completely clear for every possible scenario.

The underlying issue is whether or not we want to allow an artist or character owner to provide additional context about an image via the tagging system, like they're used to doing already on other sites such as FA. It's important to consider what the end result is of allowing that additional context on e621, versus not allowing it.

If we DON'T allow a character to be tagged without definitive proof of the character in the post, then there would be a LOT of images where a furry's own character couldn't be tagged to the post, because "we can't tell if that fox ass belongs to that specific character, or just a generic fox". So it ends up not being tagged with ANY character name at all, which takes away from the image, in my opinion.

If we DO allow a character tag on a post without definitive proof of the character, it provides additional context that is very often desirable to have, at (almost) no expense at all; the post now just has a specific character tag instead of not having a character tag at all. There's no "change" from one character to another. This CAN be slightly problematic, as sometimes character tags imply other tags that are often blacklisted by e621 users (such as MLP character names implying "my_little_pony"). Suddenly a post is tagged with "my_little_pony", when a person who has blacklisted mlp may not actually have any problem with the specific post in question; after all, it's just a close-up crotch shot of a yellow body and a vagina, you can't even determine what species it is.

Not to mention that, often, if we don't allow a character name to be tagged on a post, the artist will just have the post removed anyways (and sometimes ALL of their posts altogether, because they disagree with the decision). That isn't to say that we should just always do what an artist or character owner asks, but when it's over something as simple as tagging a character name versus not tagging a character name at all.. it doesn't make a lot of sense to be so defensive about TWYS at that point. TWYS hurts us more than it helps us in that kind of scenario.

Again, the exception is worded very carefully; the artist or character owner can't just claim whatever they want to. But if the image has any proof of their claim at all, and DOESN'T CONFLICT with their claim, then the character tag in that post should be what they claim it is. Example: if the artist claimed that post #482468 was actually Marge Simpson, it would get the marge_simpson tag, because there's nothing in that post that says it isn't Marge Simpson. Likewise, if they said it was "my character", we would tag it with their character's name, assuming that their character had a yellow body. Again, consider that the alternative is to tag NO character name at all, and thereby remove rather crucial context from the image. We don't have any evidence to suggest that it's NOT their character, and they don't have to prove that it IS their character. There only has to be SOME evidence in the post that supports their claim, and nothing that would have users believe that it's actually some other character instead.

That's my opinion on it at least. I'm sure there will be some/many who disagree. :x

Esme_Belles said:
Think you haz wrong post der halite

Quiet you, that was a really big wall of text to try to find the right chunk from :P

Also, edited the previous to fix it.

Char said:
...
Again, the exception is worded very carefully; the artist or character owner can't just claim whatever they want to. But if the image has any proof of their claim at all, and DOESN'T CONFLICT with their claim, then the character tag in that post should be what they claim it is. Example: if the artist claimed that post #482468 was actually Marge Simpson, it would get the marge_simpson tag, because there's nothing in that post that says it isn't Marge Simpson. Likewise, if they said it was "my character", we would tag it with their character's name, assuming that their character had a yellow body. Again, consider that the alternative is to tag NO character name at all, and thereby remove rather crucial context from the image. We don't have any evidence to suggest that it's NOT their character, and they don't have to prove that it IS their character. There only has to be SOME evidence in the post that supports their claim, and nothing that would have users believe that it's actually some other character instead.

That's my opinion on it at least. I'm sure there will be some/many who disagree. :x

I don't disagree per say, but it does need to be clear enough that we can apply it uniformly.

To take the 3 images that the OP mentioned as an example.
Either all 3 of those ought to have the character tags, or none of them should.
All of them do have some minor things to support the claim, without any thing significant to counter them.
If hair, or skin color is sufficient to consider it supporting evidence of a character name, then that's fine we should have tags for those.
If it isn't enough by itself to support the character tags, that's fine too, but we should then not have those tags.

Which case it is should be clear and easy to tell based on the rules, otherwise we just have tag fights.

Just hope something usable and easy to understand comes of this whole ordeal. I don't like being the badguy in these situations, most of these people who tag war with me think I'm doing it to be an ass or a troll... -sigh-

I really agree with you here. I mean, when I think about it, it seems kind of backwards to me that an artist's words about his/her own artwork holds no weight in circumstances like these.

Thinking it over, the 2nd condition for the TWYS exception could use a bit of rewording, or perhaps we need to add an exception to the exception since the argument about the character tags on the fluttershy/notfluttershy picture boils down to "skin color alone isn't enough to define a character". Perhaps we should define what is and isn't acceptable evidence?

Firespark said:

Char said:
Again, the exception is worded very carefully; the artist or character owner can't just claim whatever they want to. But if the image has any proof of their claim at all, and DOESN'T CONFLICT with their claim, then the character tag in that post should be what they claim it is. Example: if the artist claimed that post #482468 was actually Marge Simpson, it would get the marge_simpson tag, because there's nothing in that post that says it isn't Marge Simpson. Likewise, if they said it was "my character", we would tag it with their character's name, assuming that their character had a yellow body.

I really agree with you here. I mean, when I think about it, it seems kind of backwards to me that an artist's words about his/her own artwork holds no weight in circumstances like these.

Thinking it over, the 2nd condition for the TWYS exception could use a bit of rewording, or perhaps we need to add an exception to the exception since the argument about the character tags on the fluttershy/notfluttershy picture boils down to "skin color alone isn't enough to define a character". Perhaps we should define what is and isn't acceptable evidence?

That's pretty much what I was going for. I believe that the artist's word should hold some weight if his/her claim is reasonably sound and the art in question is identifiable through some evidence that clarifies that the character is what it's supposed to be.

After reading your comments, and discussing it in Committee, we have decided that a mistake was made in the post about Fluttershy, in that it should receive the character tag.

This is based on the identification variables that we took for granted, and instead realized that they should count IF used in conjunction with the verified artist's source indicating the character.

To clarify: the policy is fine, as is. As long as both of the exception criteria is met, a post can receive an external character tag to help users better locate the image.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Firespark said:
…perhaps we need to add an exception to the exception…Perhaps we should define what is and isn't acceptable evidence?

I disagree. Let's not turn e621's tagging guidelines into an equivalent of statutory law. The exception should be either interpreted in the way Char did, or annulled.

Choosing (name) tags according to clues present in the post is, after all, TWYS. If the evidence is sufficient, tag it, if not, don't. Note that this is in itself pretty subjective. It depends on whether the available characteristics are unambiguous or unique as judged by the poster/tagger. If they are ambiguous, you can still justify use of a name tag by external verification, but wait! Now you have to make sure the depiction is not too ambiguous. What is too ambiguous? Is body color enough? Color combination? Hair style? Facial features? A weighted combination of those? Where to draw the line, the thin yet blurry line?

All this solution would do is cram another option ("almost enough evidence + external verification") between "not enough evidence" and "enough evidence: yay, I can tag what I see". You can imagine its scope of application would be very limited, seeing that posts in which there's not enough evidence as to the character's identity are themselves not that common. Those with the right amount of evidence, not too little, not too much (because then it's just TWYS), are even less so.

I don't think cluttering the guidelines with exceptions of exceptions is worth this questionable outcome, but I reserve the right to be wrong.

A good rule should be necessary, effective, plain, and clear; not seldom applicable, overly particular, and complicated. Then again, bad rules do work too… kind of.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
After reading your comments, and discussing it in Committee, we have decided that a mistake was made in the post about Fluttershy, in that it should receive the character tag.

This is based on the identification variables that we took for granted, and instead realized that they should count IF used in conjunction with the verified artist's source indicating the character.

To clarify: the policy is fine, as is. As long as both of the exception criteria is met, a post can receive an external character tag to help users better locate the image.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Question then, or at least clarification:
The 3 images mentioned in the original post, post #455431 post #304236 post #482468
Do all of these deserve the appropriate character tags based on the exception to TWYS?
Totally fine if that's the case, just want to know if that's accurate.

Halite said:
Question then, or at least clarification:
The 3 images mentioned in the original post, post #455431 post #304236 post #482468
Do all of these deserve the appropriate character tags based on the exception to TWYS?
Totally fine if that's the case, just want to know if that's accurate.

I would hope just the last one if they really want to. Possibly the middle if they really wanna argue pink hair as a trait (no more but yellow skin, but hey)

:(

CamKitty said:
I would hope just the last one if they really want to. Possibly the middle if they really wanna argue pink hair as a trait (no more but yellow skin, but hey)

:(

But then where do you draw the line?
There has to be a distinct, easy to follow line separating "Ok to use external info for character name." and "Not enough to use external information for character name."

Do we say "skin color counts, but not hair color"?

And you have to look at things from 2 directions, searching and blacklisting.

For searching you have to ask, "Does someone searching this tag want to see this image?" In all 3 of those cases, i would say definitely yes.

Blacklisting is a bit tougher, you have to ask "Does someone who blacklists this tag want to avoid seeing this image?"
I would say maybe on the first 2, and yes on the 3rd.
The only iffy nature of the first two is that they're human versions of the characters, some blacklist users would definitely still want to avoid these humanized versions because they hate anything that even hints at MLP.
Some blacklist users wouldn't mind because humans, not ponies, but these people can fairly easily add a -humanized to the blacklist if they want to see these.

So I would say for the sake of the people who want to avoid MLP in all forms, and the people who would want to find those images because they like MLP, they ought to be tagged as well.

And this is from someone who loves TWYS, but if we have an exception (and we do, no point arguing that further) then we can't make the line between applying the exception, and not applying it an arbitrary thing.
The more clear cut it is, the better, and the less fights it will cause.

Halite said:
good stuff

You're right, and this is why I personally did not even like the one exception. Personally I don't think any of those have enough proof for the character but others see shades of something. It's all a matter of what a mod decides when it comes to the truly iffy ones.

That being said, I understand and appreciate that angry artists who did not understand the point of the TWYS rule were leaving in a bit of a rage over it. This exception and the whole description thing was went to placate that a bit.

Bah, it's all a grey area. I guess ideally these grey area cases are few and far between because otherwise the system (with exception) still works pretty well :o

I say that the rule should include the artist's drawing habits, like "this artist mostly draws [SHOW], so this character is probably from [SHOW]". I know this is a bit too broad, but I'm putting this as a proposition. Opinions?

Xch3l said:
I say that the rule should include the artist's drawing habits, like "this artist mostly draws [SHOW], so this character is probably from [SHOW]". I know this is a bit too broad, but I'm putting this as a proposition. Opinions?

Oh god no.

Halite said:
Oh god no.

Opinions, not statemens...

Why not? In addition to the general rule of "It's stated in the source" and "it has to look like", not just as a replacement...

Xch3l said:
Opinions, not statemens...

Why not? In addition to the general rule of "It's stated in the source" and "it has to look like", not just as a replacement...

In my opinion it's a terrible idea.

In the examples, the third one already got a character tag.

The first two, the sources do not work on either of them. As such, I cannot verify the artist's verified source of them being any character. Once we had a valid source, then we would compare that to the exception policy and go from there.

If everything checks out, then yes, they get the character tag.

Halite said:
In my opinion it's a terrible idea.

Uhh... care to share you opinion?

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
In the examples, the third one already got a character tag.

The first two, the sources do not work on either of them. As such, I cannot verify the artist's verified source of them being any character. Once we had a valid source, then we would compare that to the exception policy and go from there.

If everything checks out, then yes, they get the character tag.

That's why I suggested that (which apparently, we're still on the "why is bad" phase")

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
In the examples, the third one already got a character tag.

The first two, the sources do not work on either of them. As such, I cannot verify the artist's verified source of them being any character. Once we had a valid source, then we would compare that to the exception policy and go from there.

If everything checks out, then yes, they get the character tag.

K, fixed the source on the twilight one, the fluttershy one with the bad source, I found the image on the tumblr, but it's not tagged or labeled in any way, so sadly it will have to remain a nameless pink haired girl vagina.

Xch3l said:
Uhh... care to share you opinion?
...

I'm not entirely sure you understand the definition of opinion.

Halite said:
I'm not entirely sure you understand the definition of opinion.

I understand it. I doubt we have the same concept.

Opinion: Something someone says to contribute in the formation of an idea, either by pointing flaws or adding to it.

Xch3l said:
Uhh... care to share you opinion?

That's why I suggested that (which apparently, we're still on the "why is bad" phase")

I would venture a guess that what you suggested is really really subjective and would be entirely based on assumptions, which TWYS is avoiding in order to have an intelligent tagging system :o

Xch3l said:
I understand it. I doubt we have the same concept.

Opinion: Something someone says to contribute in the formation of an idea, either by pointing flaws or adding to it.

From google definition:

o·pin·ion
əˈpinyən/Submit
noun
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

I think he word you're looking for is "reasoning".
As in, "explain your reasoning".

CamKitty said:
I would venture a guess that what you suggested is really really subjective and would be entirely based on assumptions, which TWYS is avoiding in order to have an intelligent tagging system :o

It is a proposition, so, yes. I just put it on the table to better define it. Somehow you get a bad/simple idea an expand upon to make it more solid

Halite said:
From google definition: [...]

Same but different words (I didn't google it)

I think he word you're looking for is "reasoning".
As in, "explain your reasoning".

The word stuck... I meant as in "why?" but didn't wanted it to sound so simple

Xch3l said:
It is a proposition, so, yes. I just put it on the table to better define it. Somehow you get a bad/simple idea an expand upon to make it more solid

Same but different words (I didn't google it)

The word stuck... I meant as in "why?" but didn't wanted it to sound so simple

The "mostly and "probably" in your initial statement are just so completely non-twys that it's just a bad idea.
It wouldn't even be tagging what you know, it's at best an educated guess, and that's a terrible way to tag things.

Halite said:
The "mostly and "probably" in your initial statement are just so completely non-twys that it's just a bad idea.
It wouldn't even be tagging what you know, it's at best an educated guess, and that's a terrible way to tag things.

Was it that hard? Now I see the flaw.