medium tags to meta

BUR #3173 has been rejected.

Medium tags do not describe the art itself we are tagging, but the vector through which they are depicted. It's never made sense to me that they were lumped along with the rest of the tags.
They deserve to be separate from the general tags.

Making this topic since both type-kun and evazion agree
https://discordapp.com/channels/310432830138089472/310833975079993350/739794318306574348 (type-kun)
https://discordapp.com/channels/310432830138089472/310846683376517121/693326803783123004 (evazion)

EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3173 (forum #170576) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

I'll reiterate what I said in discord: it's good to be obsessively strict about tagging, that's what Danbooru's all about, so by all means argue and bring up ideas, but don't just use my old posts as word of God.

I didn't think of medium tags back when I was sketching up guidelines for meta, and yes, they are closer to the gray zone than points I've proposed there since they impact the contents of the image directly. However I still think they fit the concept of meta better than general: rather than some taggable object or concept related to the content of image they seem to simply describe the tool used to make it. But again, I won't go hardline on this one, it's open for discussion.

That said, this list clearly requires clean-up and wiki pages. What's photograph_(medium) supposed to mean, for example? Also, I wonder if the concept of "medium" itself might be split in the process. We're currently lumping together art tools (be it digital or traditional), materials (clay, porcelain), physical object format used to store image (calendar, swapnote, canvas, whiteboard).

Type-kun said:

That said, this list clearly requires clean-up and wiki pages. What's photograph_(medium) supposed to mean, for example? Also, I wonder if the concept of "medium" itself might be split in the process. We're currently lumping together art tools (be it digital or traditional), materials (clay, porcelain), physical object format used to store image (calendar, swapnote, canvas, whiteboard).

Photograph seems to just be photo. I'll move those posts.
I'm wondering now, should we just change that to photo (medium)? It's often mistaken for photo (object) (see here ).

As for the physical objects, we went with those because (medium) seems to be how we always classified them to distinguish them from actual objects - in essence they are no different than canvas in that they are the base on which the drawing is depicted. Not sure if there's a better way to name them but they need to be kept distinct from the actual object in a drawing since they're extremely prone to mistags.

nonamethanks said:

I'm wondering now, should we just change that to photo (medium)? It's often mistaken for photo (object) (see here ).

I’m always for disambiguations. ;)

BUR #3175 has been approved by @evazion.

rename photo -> photo_(medium)

Putting it up for a vote, though given forum #169264 evazion probably won't like it.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3175 (forum #170587) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3175 (forum #170587) has been approved by @evazion.

+1 - It's both consistent with most other media tags and is a tag that really should be a disambiguation page due to the potential (and actual) confusion.

-1 Many/most of those "medium" or whatever tags can be determined just by looking at the image itself, which makes them obviously not meta.

BrokenEagle98 said:

-1 Many/most of those "medium" or whatever tags can be determined just by looking at the image itself, which makes them obviously not meta.

That depends on the definition of "meta" we are using though. Scans are obvious too, and yet we mark those as meta. So are crease, jpeg artifacts and other tags for which the presence is visually obvious.

nonamethanks said:So are crease, jpeg artifacts and other tags for which the presence is visually obvious.

That sounds more like an argument that those tags should be general (and they should) than that medium tags should be meta. What else should be tagged as meta? greyscale? chromatic aberration?

indexador2 said:

That sounds more like an argument that those tags should be general (and they should) than that medium tags should be meta. What else should be tagged as meta? greyscale? chromatic aberration?

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but general tags are for things found inside the artwork, an intentional addition by the artist. A crease or jpeg artifacts are not something the artist intended to be there, they are unintentional flaws and not actual parts of the artwork. They describe something about the artwork that is visual, but they don't describe something within the artwork itself.

Tags like greyscale are an intentional design choice by the artist, they are part of the artwork, so no, they should not be meta tags.

Same reason why transparent backgrounds aren't meta (for reference: topic #14783)

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #3173 (forum #170576) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #3175 (forum #170587) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

The bulk update request #3175 (forum #170587) has been approved by @evazion.

This will require some backend changes to approve, we've never had a category change request this large before and currently it's too big to handle.

Also a couple of these are questionable to me. Card (medium) and mousepad (medium) aren't materials or tools like the other tags. They're more like formats or composition techniques, similar to tags like dakimakura, poster, or magazine cover.

Bump.

Now how do we handle real and photograph, since we use photo (medium)?