The bulk update request #1727 is active.

change category rendered (323) -> invalid

Reason: It's extremely unclear what this tag is intended to mean out of context. I considered requesting an alias to 3d_(artwork) as that seems to cover most of its 76 posts, and it's redundant as I don't think non-rendered 3D art would even pass approval here. But then you have a bunch of 2D posts like post #1703214, where the artist attempted to tag it high_quality in the same edit that introduced rendered, so it seems likely it's being used as a personal gallery tag.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1727 (forum #322901) has been approved by @slyroon.

Other than the 3d meaning, rendering is a term used in illustration too. I don't have an art degree so I don't know what the difference between rendering and shading is.

rendering is already aliased to 3d_(artwork) - so this tag should probably be unaliased and made invalid just like rendered.

Regardless of the occasional 2D post, I’d rather just alias it to 3D_artwork if that’s mostly all it’s being used for. Is anybody really going to monitor rendered after it’s invalidated to see where those posts should have gone instead (ie. manually change it to 3D_artwork most of the time)?

faucet said:
Other than the 3d meaning, rendering is a term used in illustration too. I don't have an art degree so I don't know what the difference between rendering and shading is.

For 2D graphics, a rendering is just the picture itself, be it a sketch, illustration, or painting. For 3D graphics, it's the process that makes an image from a model or the image itself. Either way, the term has little relevance to e621's tagging.

Useless tag. It could also be used for a 2D image that is actually a 3D image, but by the ways of cel shading and others been made to look less like a 3D image and more like a traditional 2D image.

clawstripe said:
For 2D graphics, a rendering is just the picture itself, be it a sketch, illustration, or painting...

According to strangers on the internet, before there were computers, "rendering" meant using differences in "value" (brightness) to make 2D art look 3D. Related to shading but apparently different.

We do have similar tags for other art stuff (flat_colors, high_contrast, cel_shading etc) but the confusion with 3d_(artwork) would make it very difficult to maintain.

I support aliasing to 3d_(artwork)

matrixmash said:
I support aliasing to 3d_(artwork)

I do too; however, this thread is suggesting moving the tag to the invalid category rather than aliasing it, hence my 😐.

Bump. rendered -3d_(artwork) now has 45 results (out of 183), with nearly twice as many posted after the OP as there were before, so an alias is looking even less viable now.

The bulk update request #1727 (forum #322901) has been approved by @slyroon.

I'm thinking this should have been aliased to invalid_tag if not 3d_(artwork). It being in the invalid category won't stop people from continuing to use it, and I can't think of a reason for people to have to check what the tag may have meant; it's essentially delete-on-sight. The only potentially useful thing it could mean is 3d_(artwork), but the rendered tag doesn't need to stick around for people to see a post is 3D and not tagged as such.

urielfrys said:
Useless tag. It could also be used for a 2D image that is actually a 3D image, but by the ways of cel shading and others been made to look less like a 3D image and more like a traditional 2D image.

Visual filters are irrelevant, it's an orthographic view.

The bulk update request #6253 is pending approval.

create alias rendered (323) -> invalid_tag (1)

Reason: why don't we just get rid of it entirely

Same goes for rendering then?

scaliespe said:
The bulk update request #6253 is pending approval.

create alias rendered (323) -> invalid_tag (1)

Reason: why don't we just get rid of it entirely

It's entirely viable to be replaced with either shaded or 3d_(artwork) in almost every single instance - I am wholly against aliasing it and making invalid_tag an even larger mess.

This is something that could be cleaned up in an hour. Eventually I'll get around to editing my tagging tool to account for the fact I'm not priv anymore.

Despite popular opinion, invalid_tag isn't supposed to be something you can just blindly remove and continue on with your day (otherwise it wouldn't be at 2200 posts right now, and just get removed by a bot) but more of a flag to identify there's something else might be wrong with the post too. The tags and other information should usually be thoroughly checked before the removal of invalid_tag. It just makes it harder to remove when you don't know what tag they were trying to add in the first place.

faucet said:
Despite popular opinion, invalid_tag isn't supposed to be something you can just blindly remove and continue on with your day (otherwise it wouldn't be at 2200 posts right now, and just get removed by a bot)

It used to be. The tag used to be a lot higher until it was nuked, and some admin would regularly keep it clear. I remember there was a time when I would notice invalid_tag on a post and there'd only be a handful of uses that were easy to clear. I think it might've been bitWolfy largely responsible, though I could be wrong; but after they stepped down the tag started growing more uncontrollably again. There were times I tried to request a nuke invalid_tag since there's no way anyone's going to be able to go through and actually check all those posts, especially at the rate the tag keeps getting added, but for whatever reason normal users can't make BURs with the nuke command (even though BURs have to be approved by a moderator or admin regardless of who made the request).

faucet said:
It just makes it harder to remove when you don't know what tag they were trying to add in the first place.

That's exactly why there's a distinction between invalid_tag and tags being in the Invalid category. If it's useful to check and help determine what they were trying to add, the tag (or one like it) is put in the Invalid category. invalid_tag is supposed to be for tags that have no use and don't need checking, and should just be removed when you see it. If all invalid tags needed to be checked regardless, there'd be no reason to have invalid_tag anymore.

scaliespe said:
The bulk update request #6253 is pending approval.

create alias rendered (323) -> invalid_tag (1)

Reason: why don't we just get rid of it entirely

i feel like rendered tag should serve as a disambiguation for 3d renders, shading, and couple of things, in the same fashion of aliasing pet to pet_(disambiguation).

snake-girl said:
i feel like rendered tag should serve as a disambiguation for 3d renders, shading, and couple of things, in the same fashion of aliasing pet to pet_(disambiguation).

I don't think it needs a disambiguation, since the kind of image is already apparent without needing rendered_(disambiguation) hanging around in the tag list to be removed. It's like tagging image, which also doesn't need a disambiguation.

Though I could see an argument for aliasing it 3d_(artwork) since that's largely what people use it for, and it would result in fewer mistags that need to be cleaned up that way. But if it is used on more 2D artwork than is apparent, invalid_tag would be the best alternative, IMO.

too many people are using invalid tags to tag stuff. I don't think aliasing more tags to invalid really solves anything.