pup said:
Given it's technically outside information surely having x_(va) as a meta tag would be a good temporary solution? Then move it to the new category once it's created.

Meta isn't for outside information, it's for information about the post itself rather than what's in the post. The aspect ratio, whether it's a sketch, line art, colored, etc, whether it has sound, if it's animated, the language used, if it's a comic, etc, are all visible aspects of the image (about the only sometimes-non-visible meta tag I can think of is the year, but even then it's more often tagged when the image has the year printed on it). And a properly tagged image can have a fair number of meta tags already, so dropping VAs there even temporarily would create a mess. Lore tags is a better place for outside information, and is less used in general, but only admins can create them, and I don't know if VA tags will be subject to admin approval (I doubt it, but I can't say for certain).

In either case, even if VAs are temporarily tagged under a different category, I think it should at least wait until there's an ETA for the new category. Otherwise if the category takes too long to be made or the idea just silently falls apart (e.g. the people working on it leave or can't work on it anymore, and no one else picks it up to finish it), we wouldn't want to leave a bunch of tags in a category they shouldn't be in.

watsit said:
Meta isn't for outside information, it's for information about the post itself rather than what's in the post.

Not to be rude, but, in this case, shouldn't tags like story_in_description, <language>_description, song, voice_acted be invalid, by this logic?

All of them refeer to non-visual info, and some are outside the uploaded art itself.

We don't need voice_acted or song tags since it just specifies what kind sound is in the post. /s
We don't need description related metatags since it doesn't matter much. /s

m3g4p0n1 said:
Not to be rude, but, in this case, shouldn't tags like story_in_description, <language>_description, song, voice_acted be invalid, by this logic?

<language>_description is pretty new, but I guess you're right that there is more non-visual Meta tags than I initially thought of. I guess putting credits under Meta just comes off as wrong to me, in the same way others see it wrong for holidays and such to be under Copyright.

watsit said:
<language>_description is pretty new, but I guess you're right that there is more non-visual Meta tags than I initially thought of. I guess putting credits under Meta just comes off as wrong to me, in the same way others see it wrong for holidays and such to be under Copyright.

Why wouldn't it fit with the meta?

lewddevbitches said:
Why wouldn't it fit with the meta?

https://e621.net/help/tags

meta
Tags that describe facts about the image itself, rather than what's in it, are placed in the meta category.
Some of these tags are added automatically, like hi_res. Others, like 16:9 or 1:1 are added by dedicated bots.
Tags describing what year the image was made also belong in this category, from 2022 all the way back to 6th_century_bc.

Given a recent forum post by Scaliespe pointing out that with the updated code of conduct only general tags are TWYS, and tags in other categories just have to be factually correct, I thought I'd post here again to say that name_(va) should still be fine in the meta category, and would be better than waiting for a new category.

From the rules wiki page:

Tags in the general category are considered valid if they follow the Tag What You See principle – that is, they must be describing what is visible in the post.
Tags in other categories are valid if the information they are conveying is objectively true, such as the artist's name or the image's aspect ratio.

pup said:
Given a recent forum post by Scaliespe pointing out that with the updated code of conduct only general tags are TWYS, and tags in other categories just have to be factually correct, I thought I'd post here again to say that name_(va) should still be fine in the meta category, and would be better than waiting for a new category.

The non-General categories being non-TWYS doesn't make them a free-for-all. They still have intended uses for what information they convey, and the description for what the Meta category contains hasn't changed. If they didn't fit before, they still don't fit now.

watsit said:
The non-General categories being non-TWYS doesn't make them a free-for-all. They still have intended uses for what information they convey, and the description for what the Meta category contains hasn't changed. If they didn't fit before, they still don't fit now.

The VA would still fit, just like sound fits. They're external facts that are non-visual. Would a new category be better? Sure, but it'd still work fine in the meta category till there is one.

There's no reason they shouldn't be tagged and included in the meta category other than "they don't fit perfectly into the category's description." I'd argue they fit fine in that category, but even if they don't, as you pointed out there's holiday tags in the copyright category, which would likely fit better in meta as well.

We shouldn't avoid adding tags because there isn't a perfect category for them, and instead should try and put them in the most fitting one till another category is made, which for now is the meta category. The categories don't have to be absolutely prestine and perfect, they certainly aren't at the moment.

pup said:
Tags that describe facts about the image itself, rather than what's in it, are placed in the meta category.

The VA would still fit, just like sound fits. They're external facts that are non-visual.

It's not talking about any external non-visual fact, as any non-subjective tag could be justified under that reasoning. In any case, all my point is, is that nothing's changed here. Whatever ends up happening, if anything, this change in the CoC is simply clarifying the existing conduct. If the admins are going to make a move for tagging VAs, the CoC change isn't it.

watsit said:
It's not talking about any external non-visual fact, as any non-subjective tag could be justified under that reasoning. In any case, all my point is, is that nothing's changed here. Whatever ends up happening, if anything, this change in the CoC is simply clarifying the existing conduct. If the admins are going to make a move for tagging VAs, the CoC change isn't it.

They're non-visual facts related to the post. I just don't see the reasoning for not including VA tags there. It's the most fitting category for them other than the artist category and would be good for people wanting to search all of a VA's work on the site. After all, that's the whole point of the tagging system, for users to be able to find the posts they want.

I suppose the other question is if people started tagging x_(va) would they get removed by staff, or considered fine? So far I've only seen that you shouldn't tag just the name, in case they've also drawn art, and shouldn't put them in the artist category. Other than that I don't think it'd be considered tagging abuse or incorrect.

user_1430388 said:
I'm of the opinion that restricting the artist tag category to only visual artists isn't a good way to go, nor is it a good look for the site.

The sight already allows cp and zoophilia, and even sexualizing gore.
Actually, this was a smartass response, but this might actually be the first step to making this site have some basic morality.

addisonertisement said:
The sight already allows cp and zoophilia, and even sexualizing gore.
Actually, this was a smartass response, but this might actually be the first step to making this site have some basic morality.

I also have concerns of the double standards when it comes to restricting artist tags to only visual artists.
I uploaded a sound edit of an animation a while back, and moments after uploading it my artist tag was removed from by a janitor.
Yet that same janitor approved another sound edit of the very same animation, while also leaving the artist tag of the sound editor.

I have little intention to fight for my right to have an artist tag since this is a pretty huge and popular site. Though I really must wonder how only some sound editors can retain their artist tag, and others such as myself cannot.
This is literally the very reason a user deleted over 100 artist tags belonging to sound editors, because they didn't understand why theirs was removed and others remained and thought doing so would raise awareness.

ziggyzackary said:
I also have concerns of the double standards when it comes to restricting artist tags to only visual artists.
I uploaded a sound edit of an animation a while back, and moments after uploading it my artist tag was removed from by a janitor.
Yet that same janitor approved another sound edit of the very same animation, while also leaving the artist tag of the sound editor.

Janitors aren't machines. Sometimes they'll take the time to clean up tags when approving posts, sometimes they won't, sometimes they'll only clean up some. It also depends on how obvious it is that the tag's referring solely to a sound editor or VA, rather than someone who also helped on the visual components.

watsit said:
Janitors aren't machines. Sometimes they'll take the time to clean up tags when approving posts, sometimes they won't, sometimes they'll only clean up some. It also depends on how obvious it is that the tag's referring solely to a sound editor or VA, rather than someone who also helped on the visual components.

The post in question has 5 watermarks to the sound editor with the text above saying "Sound Effects By:"
So the idea of it being missed, while mine is targeted, is something I'm still confused by.
I just wish for consistency if me and many others are being targeted for being sound editors.

ziggyzackary said:
The post in question has 5 watermarks to the sound editor with the text above saying "Sound Effects By:"
So the idea of it being missed, while mine is targeted, is something I'm still confused by.
I just wish for consistency if me and many others are being targeted for ng sound editors.

Janitors have a lot of posts to get though. I've seen them not fix an incorrect rating or bad tags plenty of times. They're more looking for the content to be applicable to e621, and then sometimes doing a little bit extra on top rather than targeting anyone. Maybe with the first post they had a little more free time, and with the second one they didn't. Who knows, automatically assuming it's due to malice helps no one.

The bulk update request #3310 (forum #345281) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3313 (forum #345286) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3312 (forum #345285) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3311 (forum #345284) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.