The bulk update request #4147 has been rejected.

change category blender_(software) (3) -> meta
change category source_filmmaker (15) -> meta
create implication blender_(software) (3) -> 3d_(artwork) (175024)

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

EDIT: The bulk update request #4147 (forum #357547) has been rejected by @spe.

topic #33295 here is a big wall of text about it.
my opinion: It is against TWYS. It is not useful for searching.

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.

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.

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?

clawstripe said:
Now that we have tags that are specifically for the assets

Do we? Where?

wat8548 said:
Do we? Where?

Touché. Perhaps we should.

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.

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.

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.

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.

clawstripe said:
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?

This is a year late but there is a *massive* difference between SFM and literally any other 3D program. It's exactly the visual difference between an old 2000s game vs a modern animated movie. I understand not being able to tell the difference between blender/maya/3ds max etc but SFM is a ledge on of its own along with gmod.

bdanimare said:
This is a year late but there is a *massive* difference between SFM and literally any other 3D program. It's exactly the visual difference between an old 2000s game vs a modern animated movie. I understand not being able to tell the difference between blender/maya/3ds max etc but SFM is a ledge on of its own along with gmod.

We have art program meta tags now :) blender_(artwork), source_filmmaker_(artwork)
The copyright tags for things like the logo are blender_(copyright) and source_filmmaker_(copyright)

wandering_spaniel said:
We have art program meta tags now :) blender_(artwork), source_filmmaker_(artwork)
The copyright tags for things like the logo are blender_(copyright) and source_filmmaker_(copyright)

Oh that's news to me. Glad we finally do!

bdanimare said:
This is a year late but there is a *massive* difference between SFM and literally any other 3D program. It's exactly the visual difference between an old 2000s game vs a modern animated movie. I understand not being able to tell the difference between blender/maya/3ds max etc but SFM is a ledge on of its own along with gmod.

SFM certainly doesn't look like an old 2000s game (or even an early 2010s game ). You can't say there's a massive gulf between
post #4904726 (Blender)
vs
post #4899243 (SFM)
Or maybe you could say there's a difference, but not in the direction you insinuate.

This is exactly the problem, using the program something was made in as a basis for quality or fidelity, where SFM = poor game quality and Blender = high movie quality, when there's plenty of examples showing the opposite. These things are tools, and like any set of tools, the skill an artist has with them plays a major role in the result.

watsit said:
SFM certainly doesn't look like an old 2000s game (or even an early 2010s game ). You can't say there's a massive gulf between
post #4904726 (Blender)
vs
post #4899243 (SFM)
Or maybe you could say there's a difference, but not in the direction you insinuate.

This is exactly the problem, using the program something was made in as a basis for quality or fidelity, where SFM = poor game quality and Blender = high movie quality, when there's plenty of examples showing the opposite. These things are tools, and like any set of tools, the skill an artist has with them plays a major role in the result.

That's cherrypicking though. The vast majority of sfm content on this site looks like SFM which is what I don't want to see.

watsit said:
SFM certainly doesn't look like an old 2000s game (or even an early 2010s game ). You can't say there's a massive gulf between
post #4904726 (Blender)
vs
post #4899243 (SFM)
Or maybe you could say there's a difference, but not in the direction you insinuate.

This is exactly the problem, using the program something was made in as a basis for quality or fidelity, where SFM = poor game quality and Blender = high movie quality, when there's plenty of examples showing the opposite. These things are tools, and like any set of tools, the skill an artist has with them plays a major role in the result.

I mean, the way the lights interact with the models is different. I'm not a cg artist, so I can't get technical, but the sfm example has that sfm video-gamey je-ne-sais-quois. I know there's also differences and limitations to how sfm handles things like particles and fluids.

It's not bad or inherently low quality, it's just differences that make the end result different. To use a traditional media analogy it's like oils versus acrylics. They look similar, but do slightly different things and have to be handled differently.

What makes most SFM look so much worse than Blender is the rampant use of stock models, which there's less reason to do in Blender because Blender is primarily focused on modeling while SFM is more focused on animating said models. There are of course outliers, but...

lendrimujina said:
What makes most SFM look so much worse than Blender is the rampant use of stock models, which there's less reason to do in Blender because Blender is primarily focused on modeling while SFM is more focused on animating said models. There are of course outliers, but...

It's not that. It's mostly just the look of it. If you had two exact same scenes in blender and sfm it's very obvious to tell which is which

The bulk update request #4147 (forum #357547) has been rejected by @spe.