LetsDancing said:
Does this mean some of the pages we have right now don't have the right artist tags? I can see notes from the authors... (Saipin and ABBEY (who seems to have all their work under the Saipin name as well, as far as I can tell) on the second page, and Koyaki on the four-page section past the afterword... but don't know enough about kanji to tell if they confirm that's how the art was sectioned.
Yes. First section is Saipin's art with contribution of ideas from ABBEY; final four page 'epilogue' is by Koyaki (nariyan555). Thank you for finding out Koyaki's artist tag.
Think it's hard to source things directly to ABBEY, a casual glance of Saipin (the circle) works seem to indicate they are accredited as an "ideas" person instead of having a direct hand in the art. Though I may be mistaken (since it was just a quick glance).
(Generally speaking, I suspect that similar 'mistagging' probably occurs in other doujins as well. Principal artist of the circle gets tagged on all the doujin pages, including minor contribution pieces from less prolific members of the circle as well as guest art pages from other people. It can be hard to tell the difference for most people, especially if the work is untranslated.
Trying to identify and fix this though will be a chore.)
LetsDancing said:
The last two pages Danbooru has right now... should they be accredited to Koyaki, not Saipin?
Yes. I took the liberty of changing them accordingly.
LetsDancing said:
As for the sourcing (excluding the four pages that Danbooru doesn't have yet), things are a bit awkward. The two links Saipin provided with the Pixiv illustration of the cover, including one sales link, are both defunct (though from the context of the site, any previous purchase from that sales link would've been a physical copy). It does now exist for sale on Melonbooks, but that's a PDF format.
Would keeping the source referring to the physical sales event suffice for the pages Danbooru already has, or should I point out Melonbooks' release in some fashion?
Physical sales event suffices. So "(Reitaisai SP2) [Saipin] Doki! BBA darake no Suiei Taikai!".
To clarify (sorry my original post was unclear), only point out digital releases if one is sure that the version uploaded is from a digital release from a particular source. Not that the digital release version exists somewhere.
If a direct weblink exists to a page (like those for pages rereleased on Pixiv), than that takes precedence over all else. Treat this like any other art uploaded on Pixiv. There is no need to quote the sales event or circle; that is 'necessary' only for non-web_source or if the original source is unknown.
For stuff like Melonbooks or DLsite, the doujin release is generally provided as a ZIP file. So there's no direct weblink to the image. If it is a rerelease of a physical work, sourcing it as though it's the physical copy should generally suffice. If (and only if) one is sure that the version we have is a digital release from a specific vendor (usually by the presence of a credits page acknowledging this, or by comparing pixels/file hashes, or if the uploader is the one to purchase it themself) , then it may also be a good idea to acknowledge this with an additional [Vendor] 'tag' at the end of the source (e.g. [Melonbooks digital release], [Melonbooks ver.]).
DLsite meanwhile has a succinct RJ code that is synonymous with the doujin 'release' (or product). Most people (on aggregate and sharing websites) also tend to just refer to a work with just the RJ code. As such, tacking on a ( | RJ code) at the end is appropriate, as the RJ code here is basically an alternative title for that work.
Alternatively, one may point directly to the sales (or product info) page, but since this is not a direct web link per se (the user often have to download a zip and/or a PDF separately and 'manipulate' them on their computer in some way before one can upload), this approach might not be entirely appropriate. But this is still better than leaving the work unsourced. Do note that, like above, this approach should only be used if one is sure that the Danbooru post originated from a digital version released via a specific vendor. Not merely that a digital version exists.
A similar approach can also be taken for digital-only works that have not seen a physical release, and are published only on DLsite or Melonbooks or some equivalent. Easy way is to just tack on the sales/info page; more robust way is to quote the doujin circle, the title, and then the vendor/publisher and perhaps a product ID.
As a general rule, part of the reason why the sourcing system exists on Danbooru is to provide proper attribution of the images. So, even when one is completely unsure (i.e. without a weblink to work with), the user can still adapt a similar approach to how other people cite or attribute their sources (though there is no need to be as... rigorous as it is in academia). So, cite the name of the work, cite the entity or organization that produced the work (but if the same as the artist, that is just one person who goes under the same name, then that is unnecessary), and cite the 'event' it was released in if appropriate (not unlike how academic conferences are sometimes 'cited' to provide context for a published paper). Cite also the publisher if one feels it is important enough to distinguish between (possible) version differences from different publisher (or between print and digital version of the work). Cite also the ISBN number or some ID if one feels the need to be thorough, or if the work is also well known under the 'name' of said number or ID (e.g. most DLsite doujin releases).
So... using the guidelines above, a user can figure out a way to provide a a source for ANY non-web_source (or when the source is unknown and no weblink can be found). Though it is usually best to follow how most other people do it, which is why I suggested the "(Event of release) [Circle name] Title" because it is a common format used by scanners and people/websites who share and aggregate doujin works.
