Some further context.

Tweet

Cheap and dirty google translation:

Let me tell you a slightly scary story.

I regularly check my younger brother's Pixiv account, but the other day, he left his PC on, leaving him completely vulnerable. So, fulfilling my duty as his older sister, I peeked at his bookmark history, and there, I found several of my secretly posted erotic drawings.

I'm sure I never told him my pen name...

Shouldn't these just be added as Commentary?

RustyDive132 said in comment #2603843:

Shouldn't these just be added as Commentary?

No. That tweet isn't attached to this image.

Blank_User said in comment #2603846:

No. That tweet isn't attached to this image.

I mean it being attached isn't the necessary definition as per the wiki I believe?

"The artist commentary fields are used to capture any additional information the artist has provided, namely the title and caption of the work."

Following this definition I'd assume the story behind the images would count.
Also all the arts are Quote Tweets of the story in question so, its sortaaaa attached to the image

multi-source_commentary is a thing, so if that Tweet applies to the image it can be added to the commentary field as well. It even has support for it.

If you add https://x.com/pensis_x/status/2060318998034780460 to the Source field in the commentary screen it will merge them automatically.

GabrielWB said in comment #2603856:

multi-source_commentary is a thing, so if that Tweet applies to the image it can be added to the commentary field as well. It even has support for it.

If you add https://x.com/pensis_x/status/2060318998034780460 to the Source field in the commentary screen it will merge them automatically.

Yea somehow didn't think of that, thanks!