Posted under Bugs & Features
G-SANtos said:
+1
EDIT: If we do so, shoud incest also be a metatag? What about cheating?
will not oppose such suggestion. might add spoilers as well.
fossilnix said:
Are meta tags supposed to be meta for the image file, or meta for the picture content?
the current implementation already adds weapon_request as "meta" for content and highres for the technical image file. maybe we should consider both?
If we're going in that direction wouldn't otoko no ko be considered meta too?
Unbreakable said:
If we're going in that direction wouldn't otoko no ko be considered meta too?
Otoko no ko isn't entirely a meta concept though as a flat chest or bulges may be shown. The same for reverse traps showing breasts or a flat groin. So both of these are kind of grey area.
BrokenEagle98 said:
Otoko no ko isn't entirely a meta concept though as a flat chest or bulges may be shown. The same for reverse traps showing breasts or a flat groin. So both of these are kind of grey area.
I guess that's true, my bad.
willsolvit said:
Are we aiming to turn a large portion of general tags to meta tags or just a few? Everyone seems confused so some scope should help.
I think starting out small would be good. Let things settle down and see how those work, then readjust if needed. They'll work better IMO as a select group, and would only be watered down by turning it into a second General category.
chinatsu said:
Maybe adding yet another metatag type would just complicate things but couldn't we distinguish out tags for image composition?
Baby steps. Lets figure out this meta category first. Maybe a month or so from now we could address if there is need or want for additional tag categories.
I'd say Meta tags should be kept to technical info; that is, tags describing actual content of the image should stay in general. Various *_request, bad_*, *_sample, automated tags, format-related tags, etc, most of which are already in the list. For that reason, I'm against even including tags like text in the list, strongly against including incest or cheating, but for including game_cg. Also propose including novel_cover, since that's only for actual novel covers, not "mock-up" ones.
How about establishing some hard guidelines? I propose that meta tag should, in general, fall in one of those categories:
Other tags would be added on case-but-case basis, but should have no direct relation to image content. I actually feel conflicted about animated tag, but maybe it's better to have it as an exception.
What about scan, magazine_scan and the like? Seems like that'd also fall under "related to the source but not super obvious".
Otherwise I also agree with Type-kun's guidelines. Separating tags that involve the image or upload itself makes sense, but moving actual content tags, even if technically "meta", seems like a slippery slope that could become needlessly confusing for casual users.
BrokenEagle98 said:
I think starting out small would be good. Let things settle down and see how those work, then readjust if needed. They'll work better IMO as a select group, and would only be watered down by turning it into a second General category.
Baby steps. Lets figure out this meta category first. Maybe a month or so from now we could address if there is need or want for additional tag categories.
What I mean is, for instance, something like jpeg artifacts, not stylistic tags.
Type-kun said:
I'd say Meta tags should be kept to technical info; that is, tags describing actual content of the image should stay in general. Various *_request, bad_*, *_sample, automated tags, format-related tags, etc, most of which are already in the list. For that reason, I'm against even including tags like text in the list, strongly against including incest or cheating, but for including game_cg. Also propose including novel_cover, since that's only for actual novel covers, not "mock-up" ones.
How about establishing some hard guidelines? I propose that meta tag should, in general, fall in one of those categories:
- Information describing image as a digital file: dimensions, filesize, formats
- Information about image source: various bad_id, *_reward, protected_link, inactive_account, etc. game_cg or screenshot would apply too.
- Information about other available versions of the image: revision, *_available, *_sample
- Information about third-party modifications: photoshop, cropped, stitched, 3rd-party-watermark, etc. hard-translated would fall in here, too.
- Technical tags necessary for danbooru functioning: *_request, check_*, commentary, translated, replaceme, the dreaded tagme.
- Information about reference or derivative work: derivative_work, reference_work, photoreference, vector_trace etc.
Other tags would be added on case-but-case basis, but should have no direct relation to image content. I actually feel conflicted about animated tag, but maybe it's better to have it as an exception.
+1
Should novel illustration be in there? It's often easy to tell by looking at the image if you're familiar with the sort of things that they contain, but there are plenty of cases which there'd be no way of knowing for someone unfamiliar with the source.
I've tried to prevent the tag from including 'fake' novel illustrations, although it does include images that are fuller versions of what was used in the novel, or images where text was added in the novel itself, and in at least one case (post #2303790) a heavily cropped version of what is in the novel.
Updated
BrokenEagle98 said:
Not being that familiar with the concept myself, even after reading the wiki, is there anything that normally shows up in such an image that would clue in a user that it's key visual, or is it entirely a Meta concept?
It's definitely not possible to tell them apart without knowledge of the work itself or from the picture, so it belongs in the meta category.
That's a potentially more controversial form of meta, but it is indeed meta to the image. I wouldn't be opposed to it, but since its not clear cut, I'd like to hear how a few others chime in so that we can gain a consensus.
Yeah I'm not sure either. On one hand they don't exactly belong with visual clues, but on the other hand they definitely don't belong among translation request or spoilers. I'd lean towards keeping them in the general category.
Speaking of which, spoilers is meta right?
Jarlath said:
Work_in_progress count as a meta tag?
Probably yes.
You can't sometimes distinguish between a simple sketch and a work_in_progress image and it countains therefore information that we need from the artist.
It doesn't quite fit into Type-kun's specific guidelines, but I think that jpeg artifacts should be a meta tag, because it describes a technical aspect of the image: that it was compressed poorly, enough to affect the visual quality of the image.
