I'm curious if enough art of an original character is uploaded, is it worthy of having it's own tag?
This is simply something I'm wondering about since I do not want to tag things incorrectly.
Posted under Tags
blindVigil said:
There's no hard line on this but generally any recognizeable character with a name and a relatively consistent design gets a tag. If a character has enough art but no name then we'll usually just make one up for them.
That makes a lot of sense! Thanks for clarifying.
Yes. Recurring characters are almost always worthy of having their own chartag, so if you know the character's name, or can at least describe their appearance, feel free to create them. However, make sure to add the artist's name as a qualifier, especially if it only has a one-word name.
Edit: Sniped.
Usually I go by: if they have a name, they get a chartag right away. If not, I wait for a bit to see if they're drawn more than an arbitrary number (around 2-4 times). Go by what you find most reasonable for this, there's no strict rule about it. IMO, it's more difficult to be wrong about copyrights/characters than general tags.
Blank_User said:
However, make sure to add the artist's name as a qualifier, especially if it only has a one-word name.
This is some useful information since there's a few OC characters that I know of that deserve their own tag. But I'm assuming the use of a qualifier would also apply for the commissioner if they are the owner of that OC?
ANON_TOKYO said:
A sufficiently unambiguously named OC doesn't need a qualifier. Like Blank User said, one-word names are generally out and need to be qualified, but if they have a normal name that isn't ambiguous with another name the qualifier is just needless fluff.
You sure about that?
Because the last time I mentioned that in forum #252792 I was immediately refuted:
blindVigil said:
OC's should always have a qualifier, the unique name thing only applies to characters a person could actually expect to recognize (that is, ones belonging to copyrights). OC's end up looking like they should belong to something when you don't give them a qualifier, when they don't belong to anything but whoever created them.
GabrielWB said:
You sure about that?
Because the last time I mentioned that in forum #252792 I was immediately refuted:
That's probably what lead to topic #26794, which eventually had to be shut down because it's not a useful practice in the slightest (forum #293914, forum #297125):
nonamethanks said:
I should've known that the moment I said something I was going to regret it. This is honestly more work than it's worth, you don't need to start submitting millions of unqualified OCs. Just submit the ones that are ambiguous or the ones that are named after canon characters and could cause confusion. The rest are not so important that they need to be qualified.
ANON_TOKYO said:
That's probably what lead to topic #26794, which eventually had to be shut down because it's not a useful practice in the slightest (forum #293914, forum #297125):
Nice, gotcha 👍
GabrielWB said:
You sure about that?
Because the last time I mentioned that in forum #252792 I was immediately refuted:
Only because one Builder says A doesn't mean A is correct.
Same with admins btw. Wat they say isn't set it stone either.
A descision just has to make sense.
Personally, i'M in the camp of always adding qualifiers to any character, but what do I know.
The justification for adding qualifiers was to make it easier to identify the artist since you wouldn't expect to find information about them elsewhere. But this will only have marginal benefit for unambiguous names and given that there are so many unqualified OCs, it was decided it wasn't worth trying to qualify them all. However, I haven't heard anything official about how this applies to new OC tags.
Blank_User said:
The justification for adding qualifiers was to make it easier to identify the artist since you wouldn't expect to find information about them elsewhere. But this will only have marginal benefit for unambiguous names and given that there are so many unqualified OCs, it was decided it wasn't worth trying to qualify them all. However, I haven't heard anything official about how this applies to new OC tags.
Ideally artists with named OCs should get wikis listing them. I make them when I make chartags or come across them but it's not always done, making it difficult to track down.
nonamethanks said:
If I was making a new chartag for an OC I'd probably qualify it, but it's a personal preference and if it's unambiguous it's fine either way.
Same for me.
My main reasoning for preferring OCs be qualified is because half the time, or maybe most of the time, users making new chartags don't bother giving them wikis or updating the relevant artist wiki, so giving them a qualifier from the get go prevents anyone from needing to hunt down who or what this obscure unqualified character belongs to while tagging.