Topic: 3D Animation Tools As Meta Tags

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

lurkmore

Member

The bulk update request #4147 is pending approval.

change category blender_(software) (3) -> meta
change category source_filmmaker (15) -> meta
create implication blender_(software) (3) -> 3d_(artwork) (156108)

Reason: TLDR: this update makes the tags more consistent with the way they're actually widely used.

Long Version

On the wiki, blender_(software) is defined as denoting the presence of the Blender product or product branding in a post. This is reflected in its categorisation. Its peer source_filmmaker shares this categorisation but not definition; it describes the product itself, with the implication that it denotes posts made with the program.

Despite this inconsistent definition, both tags are still used consistently to denote either product's use in creating a work - albeit incorrectly for the former and unintuitive to the latter. Taggers make a reasonable, casual assumption reinforced by the collective, and apply the tags based on meta-contextual knowledge of their artists' work i.e. clarification elsewhere by the artist.

While this use is not unserviceable, it is in conflict with the definition of the copyright category, as the tags do not reflect the content of the post they are attached to; the tool used to create a post is typically not apparent on a TWYS basis unless included in an internal credits roll or watermark. This results in conflict with certain advanced tag searches. For example: I want to search only for artists' original content and omit fanart from the results. In most cases, searching copytags:0 is sufficient to achieve this, but in the case of 3D artists it can omit the desired original content which carries the blender_(software) or source_filmmaker tags.

Rather than attempting to verify and correct their implementation across multiple thousands of posts, it would be more efficient and sensible to place them in the same category as the 3d_(artwork) tag which they exclusively accompany, redefining them according to the prevailing understanding of their use. Hence they can be considered as a child of 3d_(artwork) and grandchild of digital_media_(artwork), the same way pencil_(artwork) is for graphite_(artwork) and traditional_media_(artwork).

m3g4p0n1

Member

I agree with making them meta, but remove the 3d implication.

It's perfectly possible to make 2d artworks in these softwares. Search for blender's grease pencil.

Watsit

Privileged

I still say they should be nuked, since the way they're used does not provide any information about what the post looks like. They're about as useful as "made_on_windows", "made_on_mac", or "made_on_linux_(arch,_btw)" tags.

Clawstripe

Janitor

I agree with the nuking. Originally, they were only supposed to be tagged when one of the program's recognizable assets (primarily the logo) is in the picture. However, people have misused the tag since then, thinking it applied when the picture was made in the program regardless of whether the assets appear in the picture or not. Now that we have tags that are specifically for the assets, we don't really need these misused ones, especially since how do we tell the difference between something made in Blender and something made in Source Filmmaker or any other 3D/2D graphics program?

Updated

Wolfmanfur

Blocked

This post really does not make a good job at delivering why exactly these tags should not be on the copyrights category regardless.

We can argue all day long the validity of those tags and, like Clawstripe stated, I lean toward nuking them, but it is never gonna happen.
For example, DubsTheFox's own BUR to vanquish them was rejected, so it is clear to me that those tags are wanted on e6.

However, as thread starter pointed out,

it is in conflict with the definition of the copyright category, as the tags do not reflect the content of the post they are attached to

these tags should not be copyright in the first place. I think somebody needs to create a separate copyright tag like source_filmmaker_(copyright) and blender_(copyright).

And, speaking honestly, this bur would be a better alternative than to just leave the tags as they are because they are never gonna be nuked, they are never gonna be aliased away, and the category they're in make no sense. Plus, as I said on the above paragraph, I want to tag images that contain copyright to blender or sfm and it would be better to start from scratch. I don't wanna hear any "but we don't tag software like photoshop etc" because you're choosing the worse evil by allowing these tags on the copyright category instead of re-categorizing them into the meta category.

Yes, they should be nuked; no, they never will be; so, take this compromise and upvote this post to get the bur accepted.

m3g4p0n1

Member

wolfmanfur said:
[...]
Yes, they should be nuked; no, they never will be; so, take this compromise and upvote this post to get the bur accepted.

The "blender_(software) -> 3d_(artwork)" implication needs to be removed first, though.

Wolfmanfur

Blocked

m3g4p0n1 said:
The "blender_(software) -> 3d_(artwork)" implication needs to be removed first, though.

I dunno if the op is still around since it's been 2 months.
You can ask an admin to remove the implication before approving, in the past they have modified bur requests.

Beanthusiast

Member

I do agree with this suggestion. I've not been using these forums for very long, but one of the first things I found out when I did was that there were a LOT of strong opinions about these tags.

But, no matter what anyone's opinion is, there's still over ten thousand posts using the original blender tag as a meta tag, and from what I'm reading everyone's been at a complete stalemate as to what they want to do about it for over a year, maybe more. This is a decent compromise—changing the tag to fit it's widely accepted (outside this forum) use.

The wiki page for blender_(software) has already been crossed out and edited to say it's not even used for it's original purpose anymore, so might as well do this at least if no one's going to do anything at all about it.

The post does have to be edited though. One thing I've learned very quick is that everyone here gets both incredibly specific and into theoretical territory, even if the theoretical situation is unlikely to happen. People were making arguments in other posts about blender being able to make 2D art. I don't think that implication request would pass, so if it can be removed by an admin to make the other two work, that'd be great.

  • 1