Posted under General
r0d3n7z said: Thanks for tackling that whole pile of aliases.
A simple count of hits on google suggests colored_pencil is the more common usage; I suppose we can go with that if no one pipes up with any objections.
Yeah let's just go with that. colored_pencil and colored_pencil_(medium).
jxh2154 said:
Yeah let's just go with that. colored_pencil and colored_pencil_(medium).
Okay, images moved accordingly, needs US/UK spelling aliases.
Old wiki entries for deletion
ballpoint_pen
gouache
graphite
millipen
nib_pen
watercolor
watercolor_pencil
Revisiting the OP:
implications to traditional_media
acrylic_paint_(medium)
ballpoint_pen_(medium)
chalk_(medium)
charcoal_(medium)
crayon_(medium)
colored_pencil_(medium)
marker_(medium)
oil_painting_(medium)
paint_(medium)
pastel_(medium)
watercolor_pencil_(medium)
And that should just about wrap it all up. Thanks in advance!
So, wait.
If a faux_traditional_media picture is made to look like a watercolor, we shouldn't apply the watercolor tag to it, right? (That would imply traditional_media now, which is wrong.)
Is there any set of tags to distinguish what a faux_traditional_media image is trying to look like? Or is there even a need for such tags?
My assumption until now was that medium-type tags were to be applied to both genuine traditional media and faux traditional media that is intended to look like them, because of course people could always then specify -faux_traditional_media (or specify traditional_media) when searching. But clearly an implication would say otherwise.
r0d3n7z said: Okay, images moved accordingly, needs US/UK spelling aliases.
Done.
Old wiki entries for deletion
Done.
Revisiting the OP: implications to traditional_media
Xabid just brought up a good point that I think needs to be addressed before I do these. Hmm, I'm honestly not sure.
Hmm... post #478098 is the only such case at the moment.
My understanding was that media tags were for the genuine thing, and only when you're really sure -- following the convention for the traditional_media tag.
Semantically, it doesn't seem strictly correct to use, say, watercolor for both real watercolor pieces and faux "watercolor-ish" effects. Is there precedent for a tag being used with a looser definition than what it literally means?
In practice, though, as Xabid points out, searches can be refined accordingly. Is the use case of searching by specific faux medium common and/or important enough to warrant using the loose definition of the tag? Considering that the alternative would be to have a whole host of tags like faux_watercolor, faux_graphite, etc... which is just overkill.
A potential issue, though, is incomplete tagging: if you came across an image with watercolor but neither traditional_media nor faux_traditional_media, what to make of it?
All that semantic stuff aside, I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the notion of tagging faux_traditional_media images for trying to look like a particular medium. Some cases may be obvious, but in general, without some form of artist's commentary, can we be really sure? Especially with a painted look -- is it intended to be watercolor, gouache, acrylic...? (Heck, if not for medium tagging on pixiv, we'd be having similar difficulties with genuine traditional media too.)
I think if I were searching for watercolor images, I'd also want faux_traditional_media. And since tagging on danbooru is supposed to be based on what the image shows with as little meta information as possible, it really should be on both.
Xabid said:
My assumption until now was that medium-type tags were to be applied to both genuine traditional media and faux traditional media that is intended to look like them, because of course people could always then specify -faux_traditional_media (or specify traditional_media) when searching. But clearly an implication would say otherwise.
That wasn't my impression. I've never really thought about -faux_traditional_media, but I've always seen the media tags as "apply only when the picture is certain to be made with them", which clearly doesn't hold for the faux ones. It still needs addressing, though. My personal opinion is that we simply don't go any more specific than just faux, and don't tag what exactly it's supposed to look like.
Ahh, I see what happened then! I was actually just coming to inquire about this alias as generally, when things have sketched and then given some colour later, I add the graphite (or whatever medium it is) and leave off the /trad (such as for post #174364): It's not faux_traditional_media, because it's obvious that a real pencil was used, but it's only half of the equation.
And on a side note, thanks to Arantheus, r0d3n7z, 葉月 and the rest for picking up my slack and actually rounding this group out proper like.
