Requested feature overview description.
A tag categorisation ( like "Artist", "Copyright", "Character" etc.) but for "Metadata". [Idea from Gelbooru.com]
Tags like file format, animated, censored, (source_/..._)request, high/lowres, audio etc. belong in here - anything that does not really have to do with the picture itself but with it's meta properties.

Why would it be useful?
I think it really comes in handy having an overview of these properties. Short and quick. Swiftly being able to check: Does the file supposed to have sound? Is the software SFM or Blender? Which file format was this again? And whatever useful information you can put into such tag group. Normal tags are there to describe what is going on the picture itself so you can easily in-/exclude it in your search, and I don't think that's necessarily the case with these meta-tags.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
The tag list next to the image.(Re)grouping of existing tags will be necessary.

I like this idea. I'll finally have a tag group to collapse on the image view page — normally I don't care about these tags when viewing an image.

So essentially list of tags that will be about the file itself rather than what's in it. Not opposed to this, however what it will be named and what it will contain should be discussed better, because I wouldn't but censored under that because there are so many kinds of censors which will impact the post artistically as well, where something like sound should most definitely be on that.

Mario69 said:
So essentially list of tags that will be about the file itself rather than what's in it. Not opposed to this, however what it will be named and what it will contain should be discussed better, because I wouldn't but censored under that because there are so many kinds of censors which will impact the post artistically as well, where something like sound should most definitely be on that.

I wouldn't necessarily do that as well. I just took over all the tags that Gelbooru put in the group, e621 can do it completely differently. Unfortunately I have not found something like an official list of what tags they put under "Metadata". Btw, I haven't seen the file format in the tags. Am I missing something? Well anyways, some discussion need to be had but I'd heavily approve of this addition.

TeaTime said:
Btw, I haven't seen the file format in the tags. Am I missing something?

That's because we have actual metatags for those. If you want gif files, then you search type:gif and it searches all the files which have gif as filetype.

Exceptions up to this point has been animated png where I'm almost certain that's there to avoid people constantly taking away animated tag because for them they do not move. Also because .apng isn't acceptable filetype to upload, but they can still be uploaded as regular .png files regardless. Because firefox was only one supporting it since 2008, chrome started to support it in 2017, IE/Edge are still straight up not even considering it.

Another one is flash, which I have been told has been for some reason, but never been stated the reason. Altough now it makes more sense as there are devices with no support for it at all, so easier to blacklist content you cannot view.

webm and gif are both aliased to animated. Even though gif technically doesn't mean animations, modern era has made it synonym to animation.

Because firefox was only one supporting it since 2008, chrome started to support it in 2017, IE/Edge are still straight up not even considering it.

Wait. Chrome supports APNG now?! Don't tell me Firefox supports WEBP.

KinkyGlutamate said:
Wait. Chrome supports APNG now?! Don't tell me Firefox supports WEBP.

https://caniuse.com/#search=webp
Short answer: nope.

I accidently found out APNGs worked now as someone uploaded one after the update pushed trough. I had to disable third party APNG browser plugin years ago as it was introducing some amazing performance lags on me.

+1 but I'ma leave this quote here:

@leomol said in: https://e621.net/forum/show/262343
Previously suggested tag types: color/gender/actions, lore, medium or media, character basics and background detail

+1 but the admins have said this is difficult to implement.

+1 but the admins have said this is difficult to implement.

I have to say I don't understand how doing the same thing with a slightly different colour and name is that difficult, is the code really that messy?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
I have to say I don't understand how doing the same thing with a slightly different colour and name is that difficult, is the code really that messy?

There are database fields for these types of categories to facilitate searching, and it means rewriting the whole posts table on disk(this causes downtime), in addition to adding special casing for the search parser, updating configuration files, and making exceptions to the tags system and cleaning up existing tags that may overlap with the prefix. I'm probably even missing a few steps in here somewhere.

It was really poorly planned as a feature when it was created, whenever that was.

I was about to open this thread.

Codebase issues aside, if you're going to add a new tag group it should really be metadata, specifically warnings. That's sound_warning (currently the artist tag hack), sound (general), and no_preloader (which is general and on 2 posts as I write this, but I'm going to fix that). I saw a data usage thread above this one, maybe large_filesize (1 post) as well? I feel like there's one more that I can't think of...

Doing as OP suggests and putting all the "metadata" tags in a new group means you can't put it at the top of the list, or it'd block art/char/copy, so sound_warning would have to remain an artist. I counterpropose a new red group for warnings and, should OP's suggestion be implemented as well, teal.

YoshiRulz said:
I feel like there's one more that I can't think of...

epilepsy_warning?