The bulk update request #2473 is pending approval.

change category on_model (9395) -> meta
change category realistic (3169) -> meta
change category toony (31371) -> meta
change category photorealism (1078) -> meta

Reason: it's a statement about how something is handled in a post, which I think falls in line with meta category

It's more a statement of how closely the subject looks to "official" material. I'd consider it somewhat akin to realistic (which is a statement of how closely the subject looks to reality), which isn't meta.

watsit said:
It's more a statement of how closely the subject looks to "official" material. I'd consider it somewhat akin to realistic (which is a statement of how closely the subject looks to reality), which isn't meta.

I'd argue that should be a meta tag as well personally.

versperus said:
I'd argue that should be a meta tag as well personally.

Likewise for toony, photorealism, and probably some others. I think tags describing the artwork itself rather than what it contains are best put in meta, so the general category is limited to the content of the image alone. We have some precedent for this in tags like monochrome and dark theme.

scaliespe said:
Likewise for toony, photorealism, and probably some others. I think tags describing the artwork itself rather than what it contains are best put in meta, so the general category is limited to the content of the image alone. We have some precedent for this in tags like monochrome and dark theme.

+1, I agree, unless someone else has any objections to this.
*distant BUR noises*

scaliespe said:
Likewise for toony, photorealism, and probably some others. I think tags describing the artwork itself rather than what it contains are best put in meta, so the general category is limited to the content of the image alone. We have some precedent for this in tags like monochrome and dark theme.

I'm not sold on tags that refer to the style as seen in that lone image. On Model, sure, that's meta as it relates to how closely it matches the source (external) media, but toony and realism can be tagged based only one the image itself.

furrin_gok said:
I'm not sold on tags that refer to the style as seen in that lone image. On Model, sure, that's meta as it relates to how closely it matches the source (external) media, but toony and realism can be tagged based only one the image itself.

But the same can be said of monochrome and dark theme and flat colors and line art and so on, which are all meta. They all still relate to the format or style of the image as opposed to identifiable items within the image, which is what general category tags are mostly used for.

And even so, realistic fits in the same category as you describe on model, as it’s meant to be more realistic than the source material, which requires knowledge of the source material.

As for the original BUR: I’m also thinking along the lines of the information in the tag group:art page. Look specifically at the “The Image Itself” subheader. Most of the tags there are already in the meta category, but some (like the aforementioned toony, photorealism, realistic, etc.) are not. As they all are categorically describing the image itself rather than contents of the image, I say we go ahead and make the whole section meta, or just change the few that are still in general. However, there appear to be a few things in the The Image Itself group which probably belong in the Within The Image group (and therefore not meta - like nude modelling - also I think it’s supposed to be spelled “modeling”??) and vice versa, like the “theme” tags. But we could sort those out pretty easily and then meta the remaining tags.