The bulk update request #9874 is active.

change category reference_image (2112) -> meta

post #4808918 post #4737547 post #4007779

This tag applies when a post includes a standalone reference image which was used to create the primary, featured image.

The secondary image may have served as a design reference or as inspiration.

Generally the way we can tell if something is a reference image is differences in art style/medium (they're often official art, a screencap, or a photo), which is a meta thing

IDK this just feels like it should be a meta tag

EDIT: The bulk update request #9874 (forum #432806) has been approved by @spe.

But this tag refers to a reference image included/embedded inside the main image, not describing the main image itself. To me this feels like it should not be a meta tag.

Compare to model_sheet, which is a meta tag describing the main image itself, not "the main image includes a model sheet".

As a side note, I have a feeling that the name reference_image may lead to confusion with model_sheet, which multiple similar tags has been aliased to (e.g. reference, reference_picture).

stupidporkbun said:
But this tag refers to a reference image included/embedded inside the main image, not describing the main image itself. To me this feels like it should not be a meta tag.

Compare to model_sheet, which is a meta tag describing the main image itself, not "the main image includes a model sheet".

As a side note, I have a feeling that the name reference_image may lead to confusion with model_sheet, which multiple similar tags has been aliased to (e.g. reference, reference_picture).

The meta category is used for english text (and other languages, letterbox, pillarbox, etc.
Meta is for things that require outside context, but doesn't fit under copyright and isn't dictated by what the artist says. (actually there's no real definition, it's just what the community thinks it should be. the edge cases of what is or isn't meta are relatively numerous)
It's not for just the image, but also for the elements within too.

stupidporkbun said:
But this tag refers to a reference image included/embedded inside the main image, not describing the main image itself. To me this feels like it should not be a meta tag.

Compare to model_sheet, which is a meta tag describing the main image itself, not "the main image includes a model sheet".

As a side note, I have a feeling that the name reference_image may lead to confusion with model_sheet, which multiple similar tags has been aliased to (e.g. reference, reference_picture).

The meta category is more.. vibes based? I guess? Like when watermark was moved into general, that decision was subsequently reversed (topic #39753), this definitely fits the vibe of a meta tag

why not alias reference_image to model_sheet, and make a new tag for these ones, maybe reference_in_image ?

Lines up with the general meta vibes imo, it's more than just being a picture in picture (which I only discovered was already meta after writing this, so that probably would've convinced me alone) but actually requires it to be an image that was used as a reference. Some level of outside information or mental inference will be required to determine that, even if it's minuscule.

stupidporkbun said:
I have a feeling that the name reference_image may lead to confusion with model_sheet, which multiple similar tags has been aliased to (e.g. reference, reference_picture).

Yeah... that does seem to a problem. Doesn't really change whether this concept itself belongs in the meta category or not though.

manitka said:
why not alias reference_image to model_sheet, and make a new tag for these ones, maybe reference_in_image ?

I'm against aliasing to model_sheet directly. People are tagging the concept of a reference in the post as reference image and that'll lead to some mistags. Changing category to invalid (and creating a new tag for it) and pointing at both options in its wiki would be better

manitka said:
maybe reference_in_image ?

As someone who has been cleaning up the reference image tag regularly, that would not work either. People who misuse the reference image tag are also regularly adding tags like reference_to_character which by all logic should not be something that people mistake for tag intended for reference sheets. People who mistag these just add every single tag that is shown by the auto complete when you type "reference". So in other words, if it contains the word reference, it will get mistagged anyways no matter what the actual tag is.

faucet said:
Yeah... that does seem to a problem. Doesn't really change whether this concept itself belongs in the meta category or not though.

It does matter if the decision is being made to invalidate/disambiguate the 'reference_image' tag instead..

disambiguations are not meta tags.

The bulk update request #9874 (forum #432806) has been approved by @spe.

The discussion on whether or not to disambiguate the tag should have its own thread. Approving since the tag in its current state should be meta.