Recently I've been seeing cartoon get added to posts (mostly by one particular user) and I have to ask...

• What are we using this tag for?
• Should we implicate anything to it?
• If we aren't implicating anything to it, is it even useful to keep?

Even after looking at the wiki of the tag, I still don't see the red thread for the tag. The posts tagged with it are very mixed in terms of content.

Nobody seems to know for sure how to tag it.
If it's for all cartoon and animated movie characters, then that means it covers Looney Tunes, Robin Hood, Simpsons, Pokemon, Digimon, all anime, and dozens and dozens of other franchises.

Why exactly would we need to lump all of those under one tag?

And if it's just for characters with cartoony style, then it overlaps too much with toony.

In either case, I'd say... nuke it.

I think it would be worth keeping if it's used along the same lines as the video_games and character_from_animated_feature_film tags (tag added to posts where the character(s) are from a cartoon show).

Then we could use the toony tag to cover other posts which are drawn in that style (will need a lot of clean-up though).

Edit: Just seen your post Genjar. We also have tags for anime, etc but like you all said there are probably just as many mistagged posts as correct ones with all of those tags.

If there is no realistic way of separating all these tags out then nuking them is probably for the best.

The tag seems to be roughly equivalent to ~cartoon_network ~nickelodeon ~warner_brothers ~mlp ~disney ~teenage_mutant_ninja_turtles (also ~kellogg's, but I can only search 6 tags). This approximation apparently doesn't work that well because cartoon -cartoon_network -nickelodeon -warner_brothers -mlp -disney still returned 392 results as of yesterday. This is partly due to cartoon_network and nickelodeon not being commonly tagged. It's also due to it containing some anime characters and mistags of toony.

An alternative approximation is copytags:>0 -character_from_animated_feature_film -webcomic -videogames, but that has a lot of problems, notably a lot of anime characters and fnaf pics.

If we want to keep it:
Does character_from_animated_feature_film and anime fall under this category?
Does the picture have to contain a toony artstyle?

If we want to nuke it:
Should we implicate anything to cartoon_network or nickelodeon? (I don't think anybody would ever use those tags though)

I'd use the cartoon tag on images that have a "cartoony" drawing or animation style, as opposed to something with more accurate anatomy. Things that are specifically drawn to mimic the appearance of cartoon animations would be tagged as cartoons, as would actual cartoon animations.

Deh-tiger said:

If we want to keep it:
Does character_from_animated_feature_film and anime fall under this category?
Does the picture have to contain a toony artstyle?

It duplicates the toony tag and if that was done anything implicated to cartoon would also get the toony tag, which is not particularly helpful to us because they aren't always toony (see copytags:>0 realism).

If we want to nuke it:
Should we implicate anything to cartoon_network or nickelodeon? (I don't think anybody would ever use those tags though)

I don't think we should implicate anything to nintendo, hasbro, cartoon_network, bandai, nickelodeon, or any other big companies. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Yes, it's a copyright category but what it has become is more of a "franchise" category:

• nintendo: 83% pokémon. If we throw in star_fox and mario_bros that number jumps up to a whopping 95%
• bandai: 96% digimon. The rest is mostly legendz
• sega (this one's my favorite): 98.8% sonic_(series) ...lol
• disney seems to be the only one with a significant amount of variety. It is ~26% the_lion_king and a smattering of other tags for the rest.

What about subsidiaries/mergers/buyouts/international differences? Do we only tag star_wars with disney for art made after 2012? Pokémon is actually owned by The Pokémon Company and not Nintendo, so do we implicate that instead? If so what would be the point?

Sorry, I got a little off-topic there. No though, I don't think it really makes sense for us to implicate anything to those.

Catachan said:
I'd use the cartoon tag on images that have a "cartoony" drawing or animation style, as opposed to something with more accurate anatomy. Things that are specifically drawn to mimic the appearance of cartoon animations would be tagged as cartoons, as would actual cartoon animations.

Note that we actually already have toony for this purpose.