Our definition of duplicate states: "An image that is the same or inferior to an already existing image." (emphasis added) In my mind, that means that an older post can't be a duplicate of a newer post. In addition: if they were two scans of the same artbook, done by different people at different times, I would consider the duplicate tag to be better founded. As is, this is a scan from a magazine (probably Megami), the other from an artbook.
I'm not necessarily arguing against deletion. I'm mostly concerned about setting a precedent for old posts getting replaced by new ones based on weak, potentially subjective criteria.
Our definition of duplicate states: "An image that is the same or inferior to an already existing image." (emphasis added) In my mind, that means that an older post can't be a duplicate of a newer post. In addition: if they were two scans of the same artbook, done by different people at different times, I would consider the duplicate tag to be better founded. As is, this is a scan from a magazine (probably Megami), the other from an artbook.
I'm not necessarily arguing against deletion. I'm mostly concerned about setting a precedent for old posts getting replaced by new ones based on weak, potentially subjective criteria.
Agreed with the above points. (Plus the additional description text at the lower left makes it unambiguously clear that it is not a duplicate.)
Also, if you can confirm that it's a Megami scan (hopefully with the issue number), I'll add it as the source.
There is a policy of deleting unsourced dupes. Determining which post is the duplicate is a mostly uncodified art but it goes something like resolution → artifacting → age → source. Weather text from a magazine scan means it is not a duplicate is still not decided. I would argue it is but that is an issue best debated on the forums.
There is a policy of deleting unsourced dupes. Determining which post is the duplicate is a mostly uncodified art but it goes something like resolution → artifacting → age → source. Weather text from a magazine scan means it is not a duplicate is still not decided. I would argue it is but that is an issue best debated on the forums.
The text here establishes provenance for the art. The artist and studio is accredited here. Ergo it functions similarly as an artist signature. The text also provides an approximate date for when the artwork was published (i.e. no later than January 2006).
Meanwhile post #4643426 has a third-party source and its provenance is far shakier. As far as I can tell it is ultimately sourced from some anime wallpaper website (and likely not a magazine scan). It could be a first-party source (Studio Deen's official wallpaper from a defunct promotional website, maybe), or second-party or third-party (edit) for all we know.
Leave a comment