BUR #26804 has been rejected.
create implication stitched -> third-party_edit
Stitched images are a type of third-party edit.
Posted under Tags
BUR #26804 has been rejected.
create implication stitched -> third-party_edit
Stitched images are a type of third-party edit.
To be honest, I don't understand the logic behind not counting these as third-party edits.
The consensus seems to be stitched and fixed posts aren't third-party edits because
"rejoining this kind of content cannot be counted as a third-party edit, because there's no actual change to the picture itself."
But the tag is third-party edit, not changed picture. Regardless of what the content of the edit is, I think any edit made my a third party should be considered a third-party edit, or else we should call the tag something else. The same goes for cleaned, fixed, detexted etc.
GreyOmega said:
So if you scanned two pages and merged them into a single file it's a third-party edit, but if you took those two same pages scanned them at the same time so they started out as a single file it then wouldn't be a third-party edit since no "edit" was made?
Yes, I think that's reasonable. If I scan two pages, edit them, and then post them, it's different than just scanning them and posting them isn't it?
I wonder if maybe the reason there's pushback to this is because third-party edit has a negative connotation, or is being blacklisted? If that's the case maybe we need to introduce a new tag for reasonable or allowable edits.
gfz said:
I wonder if maybe the reason there's pushback to this is because third-party edit has a negative connotation, or is being blacklisted?
It's also highlighted in the modqueue.
I wonder if maybe the reason there's pushback to this is because third-party edit has a negative connotation, or is being blacklisted?
Most posts under third-party edit outright break the rules. It's not a tag to be used lightly in my experience. The reason why stitched got deimplicated from third-party edit is to keep posts like post #7049499 for being unfairly flagged or looked over (which notably has the tag second-party source...so not a third party) due to that third-party edit tag. Not to mention all the game CGs in there that require that tag...It's just not a good idea to try and reimplicate it.
If that's the case maybe we need to introduce a new tag for reasonable or allowable edits.
The problem with that idea is that it sounds like something that could easily be abused by the people who the rule forbidding third-party edits are easily designed to stop. And I say that as someone who, if we were to live in a perfect world, would agree with that idea. But we don't, and so I simply can't support that idea knowing what the consequences could end up being.
The bulk update request #26804 (forum #282948) has been rejected by @gfz.
Also consider that if stitched were implied to be a 3rd-party edit, it would also apply to other forms of lossless image reconstruction such as unscrambling ( e.g. post #5279332 ) and transformations which mimic a game's rendering logic ( e.g. post #7278071 where a separate transparency mask was applied to produce the final PNG ).
It's really opening a can of worms if you put the 3rd-party edit label on any image where processing was done to put the art back into its original form.
I also would have objected to the implication due to the possibility of second-party_edit + stitched, as rare as that may be. Though I see detexted is already open to this pitfall.
bipface said:
Also consider that if stitched were implied to be a 3rd-party edit, it would also apply to other forms of lossless image reconstruction such as unscrambling ( e.g. post #5279332 ) and transformations which mimic a game's rendering logic ( e.g. post #7278071 where a separate transparency mask was applied to produce the final PNG ).
It's really opening a can of worms if you put the 3rd-party edit label on any image where processing was done to put the art back into its original form.I also would have objected to the implication due to the possibility of second-party_edit + stitched, as rare as that may be. Though I see detexted is already open to this pitfall.
detexted is for text removed after the image was created. The correct tag for second-party (and first-party) versions is textless version.
Nameless_Contributor said:
Tags that are taken literally without thinking of utility are useless.
I don't see much utility in "these third-party edits are third-party_edit, but these third-party edits are not" besides creating confusion on what should and should not count, and making it difficult to actually search for all third-party edits at once.
It's because in the case of scans specifically, these aren't really "edits from an original source" so much as they are "adjustments to a transformation of the original work"
Artefacts created by a scanner or a crease line where there was once a page aren't a part of the original work. All scans, by nature, are transformations of the "original work" which is in physical media.