Normally this is something that would be discussed within Discord but I would like to stay away from it, please.
Posted under General
To add to what sabi said, I believe the general approach for "other stuff we don't have a specific field for" is to put it in a comment. This includes linking to a making-of, photo references, etc. These are definitely worth saving, but they really aren't commentary, so a comment is the best approach it seems.
I didn't understand either but anyway, adding to it. I think simply adding alternate sources is pointless, Idk if most are, but many images are posted on multiple websites by the artists and we can search them with reverse search engines. If I think the commentary of the alternate source (post #6736060) or a tweet reply by the artist (post #7051761, post #7048038) is important, I add it. I add making-ofs I find on the commentary, especially when I translate the commentary because I don't post videos and I consider most making-ofs not Danbooru-worthy and some are lengthy YouTube videos, so I keep them as media assets (post #6720249, post #6735841) or add the url if I can't archive it. Same for reference photos (post #6458942). Otherwise, I'd have hundreds or thousands of comments just about things like this and I find that annoying.
EDIT: Wrong example.
Updated
sabisabi said:
If it has unique commentary, do what hdk5 said. If it's just links that you yourself found, do not add them. The commentary field should be exactly what the artist wrote.
We put extra information in the commentary pretty often actually. Alternate sources probably aren't worth adding there, but commentary only being exactly what the artist themselves attached to the image hasn't been a strictly applied policy for years.
As long as it's made clear that something added wasn't part of the original commentary, I don't see anything wrong with adding things like what Sessyoin Kiara described. I at least don't think adding it as a comment is inherently a better option.
blindVigil said:
We put extra information in the commentary pretty often actually. Alternate sources probably aren't worth adding there, but commentary only being exactly what the artist themselves attached to the image hasn't been a strictly applied policy for years.
As long as it's made clear that something added wasn't part of the original commentary, I don't see anything wrong with adding things like what Sessyoin Kiara described. I at least don't think adding it as a comment is inherently a better option.
Potentially related: forum #238634. What I read from this thread is that adding extra information like you (may be) describing shouldn't be done, unless they can be considered commentary from the artist.
Updated
岩戸鈴芽 said:
Potentially related: forum #238634
That was a discussion about adding information completely unrelated to the artist, such as in-game descriptions of characters, to the commentary field. Unless NNT wants to weigh in here and establish that making-of links and similar things fully related to the image count as "random information" if they weren't in the original commentary, then I don't think the two issues are comparable.
Either way, it's still true that there are countless examples of commentaries with information that wasn't from the original source, and I've never seen much of a fuss made over it, as long as it was at least relevant.
Huh? It never occurred to me that adding commissioner request original text may be wrong.
Danbooru supports pulling those from skeb, and I've seen other doing that, so I just started adding them myself as well.
To me, it still is pretty useful info, despite not coming from the artists themselves, especially in case of original/indie virtual youtuber/vrchat/etc. posts.
Stuff related to the making of the artwork such as skeb requests or pixiv requests or commentary from alternate sources are fine in the commentary field. The linked forum post was about random in-game item descriptions, which is a pretty different case.
hdk5 said:
Huh? It never occurred to me that adding commissioner request original text may be wrong.
Danbooru supports pulling those from skeb, and I've seen other doing that, so I just started adding them myself as well.
To me, it still is pretty useful info, despite not coming from the artists themselves, especially in case of original/indie virtual youtuber/vrchat/etc. posts.
It's more about the source than the contents. If we started allowing in-game descriptions as commentary then I can already see every official art for every flavor of the month gacha or vtuber ending up with entire wiki articles in the commentary field.
Sessyoin_Kiara said:
I add making-ofs I find on the commentary, especially when I translate the commentary because I don't post videos and I consider most making-ofs not Danbooru-worthy and some are lengthy YouTube videos, so I keep them as media assets (post #6720249, post #6735841) or add the url if I can't archive it. Same for reference photos (post #6458942). Otherwise, I'd have hundreds or thousands of comments just about things like this and I find that annoying.
Basically what I am asking about.
岩戸鈴芽 said:
Potentially related: forum #238634. What I read from this thread is that adding extra information like you (may be) describing shouldn't be done, unless they can be considered commentary from the artist.
My line of thinking at the time I made that thread was that the game publisher itself would be the commissioner and since the card title / item descriptions are directly connected to the artwork, it would count as commissioner commentary. It is clear though that allowing that interpretation could lead to the slippery slope NNT described. The information may still be worth adding in some cases (such as card titles for searchability), but as comments instead of commentary.