The bulk update request #3035 is active.

Reason: Implication structure of tags related to technical and scientific illustration.

References:

EDIT: The bulk update request #3035 (forum #342109) has been approved by @gattonero2001.

These seem quite vague and ambiguous. On top of being very underused, there's plenty of room for disagreement on whether it would apply to a given drawing. I could also see these things being used when such an illustration is within the picture, such as a doctor's office or a vet having a medical or zoological illustration hanging on the wall, rather than it being the picture itself.

Also, I think you mistakenly added change category exploded_view_drawing (0) -> meta, even though it's being aliased away.

On top of being very underused (...)

That's because I just created them. Help with the project would be appreciated.

(...) there's plenty of room for disagreement on whether it would apply to a given drawing.

How so? The wiki pages describe the concepts quite clearly in my opinion.

I could also see these things being used when such an illustration is within the picture, such as a doctor's office or a vet having a medical or zoological illustration hanging on the wall, rather than it being the picture itself.

Yes, would that be a problem?

Also, I think you mistakenly added change category exploded_view_drawing (0) -> meta, even though it's being aliased away.

Aliased tags can be meta too. If for some reason the alias needs to be reversed in the distant future, it will be less trouble.

gattonero2001 said:
How so? The wiki pages describe the concepts quite clearly in my opinion.

"Technical Illustration is illustration meant to visually communicate information of a technical nature."

What an illustration is "meant" to communicate is entirely dependent on the artist's intent, rather than the contents of the image. Like, you have post #3078181 as a "technical illustration", when it's just a plain drawing of a whale. It's not pointing out any particular details, it's not communicating information, it's just a whale with it's name. If that qualifies, what wouldn't? Should post #3003257 be tagged with it next?

"Biological illustration is the use of technical illustration to visually communicate the structure and specific details of biological subjects of study."

post #2620244 would qualify as it "visually communicate the structure and specific details of biological subjects of study", with the wiki also saying it "can be used to demonstrate anatomy". Which would also include things like post #3511912 or post #3477981.

gattonero2001 said:
Yes, would that be a problem?

Yes, because meta tags are meant to describe the image itself, not what's in the image. We don't tag painting_(artwork) when an image contains a framed painting (there's painting or painting_(object) for that). An image can contain a technical, biological, or medical illustration but wouldn't themselves be technical, biological, or medical illustrations, like post #2950513 or post #2950521 (as they don't and aren't meant to "communicate information of a technical nature").

gattonero2001 said:
Aliased tags can be meta too. If for some reason the alias needs to be reversed in the distant future, it will be less trouble.

Would that pose a problem to the system, to modify a tag's category when it's aliased or being aliased to another tag?

Like, you have post #3078181 as a "technical illustration", when it's just a plain drawing of a whale. It's not pointing out any particular details, it's not communicating information, it's just a whale with it's name.

It is a holotype of the Rorqual and is in fact easily visually identified as such.

Yes, because meta tags are meant to describe the image itself, not what's in the image.

In that case, we can have technical_illustration in the meta category and technical_illustration_(object) in the general category.

Would that pose a problem to the system, to modify a tag's category when it's aliased or being aliased to another tag?

I have done that countless times and it has never been a problem ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

gattonero2001 said:
It is a holotype of the Rorqual and is in fact easily visually identified as such.

It is absolutely not easily identified as such. I see no difference between post #3070546 and post #3012123, or between post #3104192 and post #2772209. I see them as realistic drawings of animals, not technical illustrations. So yeah, "plenty of room for disagreement", as I said.

And in either case they doesn't fit the wiki description of "meant to visually communicate information of a technical nature". They are not communicating information of a technical nature, any more than any other drawing of a biological subject. If that counts for zoological_illustration, then the implication to technical_illustration is invalid since an image can clearly be one and not the other (and if the implication must be valid, the posts should not be tagged zoological_illustration as they are not technical_illustration).

gattonero2001 said:
In that case, we can have technical_illustration in the meta category and technical_illustration_(object) in the general category.

How many mistags will there be of people tagging technical_illustration because it depicts a technical illustration rather than because it is one? Quite high, I wager, as people already have trouble distinguishing between meta tags describing the image, and general tags describing what's in the image. Plenty of tags have been disambiguated because of it, and people are still mixing up general tags when they meant meta tags, and vice-versa.

The bulk update request #3035 (forum #342109) has been approved by @gattonero2001.