Topic: [APPROVED] wplace_(artwork) to meta

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

Watsit

Privileged

I also don't think an art program should imply a type of art. Artists are clever bastards, able to make art that defies what's expected from their art programs. To say nothing of artists that may use multiple programs, perhaps making the art in some "pixel art" program, but then doing touch-ups in something else to give it a more painterly look. That pixel art program was used in its creation so should be tagged, but the effect of other programs further changes how it looks. "Pixel art" is a bit vague as it is, so I don't think we should apply it based on the art program irrespective of what the result looks like.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #12085 is pending approval.

remove implication our_world_of_pixels_(artwork) (1) -> pixel_(artwork) (18268)

Reason: What about this one?

This is a larger issue than I thought. As part of topic #44029, a lot of <program>_(artwork) tags now imply their respective artwork type (e.g., 3d_(artwork)).

Now that raises the question: For example, if a 3D source_filmmaker_(artwork) was featured as part of a screenshot/crop in the background of a usual 2D digital painting, does that make the whole post 3d_(artwork)?

SNPtheCat

Member

thegreatwolfgang said:
This is a larger issue than I thought. As part of topic #44029, a lot of <program>_(artwork) tags now imply their respective artwork type (e.g., 3d_(artwork)).

Now that raises the question: For example, if a 3D source_filmmaker_(artwork) was featured as part of a screenshot/crop in the background of a usual 2D digital painting, does that make the whole post 3d_(artwork)?

There was a similar question in the discord:

Question: Assuming that the reference image in post #2059329 is digital_media_(artwork) (as a standalone piece), does that make the tag digital media (artwork) valid on the post?
(the post is as an example for a hypothetical, im not concerned about this one post in particular)

With a response from spe

Personally, I would not use the digital tag in this case
Not like that’s official policy… I don’t know if there is an official policy, but that’s what I’d do if uploading.

The question now is, if it can't be tagged with digital_media_(artwork)/3d/etc, can we tag it with the software used to make the reference image?

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

snpthecat said:
There was a similar question in the discord:
With a response from spe
The question now is, if it can't be tagged with digital_media_(artwork)/3d/etc, can we tag it with the software used to make the reference image?

The example given was a pretty clear-cut case since it only involved a generic piece of media. In any case, be it traditional or digital, I would not tag the respective artwork type for reference_images.
Even if it wasn't a reference image, a fully detailed artwork that depicts an artist character doing a sketch on an aisle or a computer program as part of a background prop would not warrant the sketch tag from being used.

However, I cannot say the same for <program>_(artwork) since those kind of media can have distinctive characteristics that warrant it to be tagged.
Some wikis for program tags even promote the tagging of reference images; e.g., source_filmmaker_(artwork)'s wiki says "This tag is for artwork created, in whole or in part..."
Meanwhile the wiki for 3d_(artwork) does not mention whether partial 3D work are included (e.g., in the case of mixed_media).

I feel that this needs to be discussed on a separate thread on its own.

Watsit

Privileged

thegreatwolfgang said:
Now that raises the question: For example, if a 3D source_filmmaker_(artwork) was featured as part of a screenshot/crop in the background of a usual 2D digital painting, does that make the whole post 3d_(artwork)?

I don't see why the tag shouldn't apply. If you have part of a post that's line art, and another part that's colored, they both get tagged:
post #3913307
So if only part of an image is 3D, I don't see why 3d_(artwork) wouldn't apply. It still shows a 3D render.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

watsit said:
I don't see why the tag shouldn't apply. If you have part of a post that's line art, and another part that's colored, they both get tagged:
post #3913307
So if only part of an image is 3D, I don't see why 3d_(artwork) wouldn't apply. It still shows a 3D render.

That really depends on how loosely we want to define the artwork type tags, whether it should be fully in that format or partially is good enough.

This also brings into the question of "background props" as opposed to deliberate artistic choice, such as on posters, picture frames, paintings, etc.
For example, this would also include extreme cases where a small crop of a 3d_(artwork) is featured on a computer screen that is tucked away in an obscure corner of an otherwise fully 2D artwork.

Watsit

Privileged

thegreatwolfgang said:
That really depends on how loosely we want to define the artwork type tags, whether it should be fully in that format or partially is good enough.

This also brings into the question of "background props" as opposed to deliberate artistic choice, such as on posters, picture frames, paintings, etc.
For example, this would also include extreme cases where a small crop of a 3d_(artwork) is featured on a computer screen that is tucked away in an obscure corner of an otherwise fully 2D artwork.

Most other tags don't really concern themselves with how much of the picture they take up, so long as it's identifiable. If it was another artist's work in some corner or on a computer screen or in a picture frame, that artist should be tagged (e.g. post #2602438 by zaush is also tagged ancesra because their art is used in a couple picture frames). If it's something from pokemon or some other copyright, that copyright should be tagged. If it's an identifiable character, that character should be tagged. If it's clearly a penis, that should be tagged. Doesn't matter how small the thing is, as long as it's clearly identifiable, the related tags apply. The only real deviation here is with some species, like ambient_bird and such, and AFAIK, the driving impetus for that was things like glowing dots for fireflies and random m and w lines for birds; things that don't really have the detail to visually identify as fireflies or birds but are largely inferred by surrounding context (in different contexts, similar details can be seen as different things like graffiti or flashlights).

So I don't see why the artwork types shouldn't follow suit. If some part of the image is identifiable as some type of artwork, like 3d_(artwork), it should be tagged. I could maybe see an argument if someone wanted to say the whole post should be some type of artwork, but then mixed types couldn't be tagged as their individual types (my previous example couldn't be tagged as either line_art or colored, or 3D videos that have 2D intros/outros couldn't be tagged 3d_(artwork)). Trying to restrict it to needing to be some arbitrary size in relation to the whole post seems like it would be primed for confusion and inconsistency.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

watsit said:
Most other tags don't really concern themselves with how much of the picture they take up, so long as it's identifiable...

So I don't see why the artwork types shouldn't follow suit. If some part of the image is identifiable as some type of artwork, like 3d_(artwork), it should be tagged. I could maybe see an argument if someone wanted to say the whole post should be some type of artwork, but then mixed types couldn't be tagged as their individual types (my previous example couldn't be tagged as either line_art or colored, or 3D videos that have 2D intros/outros couldn't be tagged 3d_(artwork)). Trying to restrict it to needing to be some arbitrary size in relation to the whole post seems like it would be primed for confusion and inconsistency.

While I would agree you should tag the artist, copyright, character, and (to some extent) species tags on crops on posts whenever applicable, I cannot say the same for the general and meta tags.

As far as I'm concerned for the general tags, I would only selectively take tags that seem relevant (for searching/blacklisting) instead of making an exact 1-to-1 copy.
For example, while it may clearly appear to be a penis on the original artwork, the crop may feature something more akin to barely_visible_penis due to the shrunken nature of the post.
Moreover, it wouldn't make sense to tag group (from the original artwork) onto the cropped post when it could hypothetically appear as a painting in the background of the otherwise solo character's room.

In regard to the meta tags, it should not be treated the same as the general tags. It is not bound by TWYS since it is supposed to convey meta information.
The meta tags are meant to "describe facts about the image itself, rather than what's in it", so it wouldn't make sense to (for example) tag 1517 on a modern post that features a crop of the Mona Lisa.

That being said, I do agree that for mixed_media it might be beneficial to tag both artwork types. However, it warrants further discussion before we consider it as the consensus.

Updated

SNPtheCat

Member

thegreatwolfgang said:
That really depends on how loosely we want to define the artwork type tags, whether it should be fully in that format or partially is good enough.

If there are two regions with 2 distinct artwork types, the artwork wouldnt be "fully" in one format or the other tho? Or do you mean the dominant one takes precedence, up until the minor one makes up enough of the page to warrant either mixed media or its own media tag?

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

snpthecat said:
If there are two regions with 2 distinct artwork types, the artwork wouldnt be "fully" in one format or the other tho? Or do you mean the dominant one takes precedence, up until the minor one makes up enough of the page to warrant either mixed media or its own media tag?

If it has two or more "distinct/significant" artwork types (meaning it isn't part of the background or props), then it should warrant mixed_media at the very least.
What I do not think that would be appropriate is for artworks that barely feature a secondary artwork type (e.g., a pixelated Mario picture in the character's shirt) getting tagged as having said artwork type, and subsequently, being tagged as mixed_media if it does feature two or more "indistinct/insignificant" artwork types.

That's what I meant by "fully vs. partially" when in comes to tagging the artwork types. I guess I should rephrase it to mean more of "significant vs. insignificant".

Updated

Watsit

Privileged

thegreatwolfgang said:
What I do not think that would be appropriate is for artworks that barely feature a secondary artwork type (e.g., a pixelated Mario picture in the character's shirt) getting tagged as having said artwork type, and subsequently, being tagged as mixed_media if it does feature two or more "indistinct/insignificant" artwork types.

When I think of someone searching pixel_(artwork), I would think they want to see all posts with pixel art, regardless if it's a significant part of the overall piece. Especially considering what is significant or not will depend on the tagger's opinion (what I think is insignificant, another may think is significant, and vice versa; I've noticed people have a habit of overestimating the significance of things that fit their fetish, given all the art I see tagged foot_fetish and foot_focus that simply have feet visible). People searching mario would see that post containing mario as an insignificant detail, people searching nintendo would see that post containing Nintendo's IP as an insignificant detail, yet someone searching pixel_(artwork) we'd say doesn't actually want to see that pixel art because it doesn't meet our personal threshold of significance. I don't think it should be left to our opinion whether some type of artwork that is clearly visible should be tagged as such, resulting in people who want to see that kind of artwork not seeing a post that contains it because we didn't think they'd want to see it.

If post #2059329 shouldn't be tagged digital_media_(artwork) because it's an insignificant part of the overall image, should post #4857820 not be tagged photography_(artwork) because it's a roughly similar proportion of the overall image? Given a range of insert sizes, like
post #5655239 post #5701038 post #4249499 post #5573423
how would we determine the threshold for significance to tag them with photography_(artwork), and how would we accommodate people who are looking for photography_(artwork) and want to see them regardless of us deeming it insignificant?

Updated

regsmutt

Member

This is such a weird discussion to me. If there's a drawing put on top of a cgi background of course you tag both mediums. If there's an inset of a photo behind a drawing of course both mediums get tagged. This is how it works with artist, species, copyright, and character tags. There's no reason to make a different rule for type of media.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

regsmutt said:
This is such a weird discussion to me. If there's a drawing put on top of a cgi background of course you tag both mediums. If there's an inset of a photo behind a drawing of course both mediums get tagged. This is how it works with artist, species, copyright, and character tags. There's no reason to make a different rule for type of media.

Nobody is arguing that that shouldn't be the case. The thing I'm arguing here is edge cases that none of the art medium wikis ever address.
As a matter of fact, most of the wikis are written with the assumption that you are using it with full-use cases, instead of mixed-use or obscure uses like I have tried to mention numerous times.

watsit said:
When I think of someone searching pixel_(artwork), I would think they want to see all posts with pixel art, regardless if it's a significant part of the overall piece...

For the sake of the argument, let's examine:
post #5620446

In my opinion, I wouldn't tag any of those and would only stick with what medium/artwork type the artist started on.

regsmutt

Member

thegreatwolfgang said:
Nobody is arguing that that shouldn't be the case. The thing I'm arguing here is edge cases that none of the art medium wikis ever address.
As a matter of fact, most of the wikis are written with the assumption that you are using it with full-use cases, instead of mixed-use or obscure uses like I have tried to mention numerous times.

For the sake of the argument, let's examine:
post #5620446

In my opinion, I wouldn't tag any of those and would only stick with what medium/artwork type the artist started on.

1) yes
2) yes
3) yes

This is to me like asking if you tag the artist and character of the screen image in this:
post #3825280

No, the Undertale example is probably not strictly what someone searching for 'pixel_(artwork)' is looking for, but neither is 'background computer image' what someone is looking for when searching the artist or character.

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

regsmutt said:
This is to me like asking if you tag the artist and character of the screen image in this:
post #3825280

No, the Undertale example is probably not strictly what someone searching for 'pixel_(artwork)' is looking for, but neither is 'background computer image' what someone is looking for when searching the artist or character.

Again, not the argument I'm making, see my comment above.
I'm specifically talking about the meta tags here which does not explain edge cases like this.

If that is indeed how everybody feels the meta tags are supposed to be used, then I would concede the point and consider this as the consensus.
As a result, the original BURs (i.e., BUR #12084 & BUR #12085) that started this discussion should be approved.

Original page: https://e621.net/forum_topics/59057?page=1