fine art parody?

post #1170841, after I tagged it with fine art parody there was a brief discussion about the uploader about the validity of that tag. I put the last post defending my view, Saluki didn't replied and I thought the issue was settled. Now I noticed that the tag was stealthily removed.

I'm not going there again to discuss/edit war, so I want to get more opinions.

While it may sort of invoke the tower of babel there's far more differences than similarities so I'd say it fails to meet the standard of fine art parody.

Derivative_work?

While the definition for fine_art_parody is complete nonsense, I can see how the image does fit into the definition as it is written.

But even if this one image is not suitable for the fine art parody tag, cf still was right about the tag usage.
Image being a reference or an actual parody has no influence on if tag should be used or not.

Edit:

Pyrolight said:
While the definition for fine_art_parody is complete nonsense, I can see how the image does fit into the definition as it is written.

The tag definition is fine. It's the tag name is what causing confusion.

MyrMindservant said:

Edit:
The tag definition is fine. It's the tag name is what causing confusion.

I figure the definition should match the tag name not the other way round.

Either way the tag has both true parodies and non parodies.

I still say the parody tag (and other tags based on real words) should be cleaned up and correctly defined.

Pyrolight said:
I figure the definition should match the tag name not the other way round.

Not really, the tag usage is defined by the tag wiki and, ideally, tags should be used according to their definitions. I'm saying "ideally" because that's not always the case, and from_behind plus you_gonna_get_raped are good examples of a frequently misused tags.

That being said, I agree that it's a good practice to try to keep the tag name and definition consistent. So maybe fine_art_parody tag should be aliased to something like fine_art_reference.

I'm mostly fine with both the tag and definition.

Clearly the problem is misinterpreting the intention behind Danbooru's use of "parody", in which case I'd rather tinker with parody's definition first and explain that it need not have humorous intent and could include simple references, which would naturally apply to fine_art_parody, as well.

I'd have thought this was already understood by most of Danbooru's regular userbase, even in regards to fine_art_parody, but I suppose not.

But fine_art_reference or similar would just be splitting hairs to me.

MyrMindservant said:
Not really, the tag usage is defined by the tag wiki and, ideally, tags should be used according to their definitions. I'm saying "ideally" because that's not always the case, and from_behind plus you_gonna_get_raped are good examples of a frequently misused tags.

This is a chicken or egg argument I think.

Is the person creating the tag then giving it the wrong definition or do they have a definition in mind before they create the tag?

Either way I think we can agree the tag needs a clean up.

UnderneathTheWaves said:

I'd have thought this was already understood by most of Danbooru's regular userbase, even in regards to fine_art_parody, but I suppose not.

Maybe the older userbase.

Unless you have seen the wiki for whatever reason I suspect most people (myself included) would assume the tag would be used based on an accurate definition of the word.

But fine_art_reference or similar would just be splitting hairs to me.

I don't see correcting definitions of terms as ever just "splitting hairs".

Considering the massive discussion the whole Horo/Holo issue got (correct usage) I would think parody would be a bit more of a hot button issue.