The bulk update request #5345 is active.

change category watermark (61800) -> general
change category distracting_watermark (2954) -> general

Reason: The watermark and distracting_watermark tags were changed to the meta category in April 2020, soon after the launch of the new site. This appears to have been prompted by their inclusion in a massive list in the OP of topic #25984, and none of the many replies objected to them, probably because they didn't notice them.

A watermark is by definition a visual element of an image, and cannot be tagged if it cannot be seen. As such, it should be a general tag.

extremely_distracting_watermark, which implies distracting_watermark, is already a general tag.

3rd_party_watermark should remain meta, as whether a watermark is official or not is outside information.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5345 (forum #373021) has been approved by @slyroon.

I feel like it's a good fit for the meta category even if it's visible element of the image, other tags like english_text, credits, compression_artifacts, signature or url are all meta and you could make the same argument for them.

I feel like the more relevant distinction is that it's not a tangible object that's part of the scene, none of the characters depicted are going to interact with the watermark in any way, it's just something slapped on top of the image.

Or we're going to have to reconsider a lot of meta tags.

faucet said:
I feel like it's a good fit for the meta category even if it's visible element of the image, other tags like english_text, credits, compression_artifacts, signature or url are all meta and you could make the same argument for them.

I feel like the more relevant distinction is that it's not a tangible object that's part of the scene, none of the characters depicted are going to interact with the watermark in any way, it's just something slapped on top of the image.

Or we're going to have to reconsider a lot of meta tags.

It's confused me for a while why tags like those are in meta. When a read meta, I think metadata. Most of the tags in meta fit into that definition. Others, like the ones you listed, absolutely don't.

I'm aware all tags are metadata, so that doesn't really make sense. I mean data about an image that isn't visually contained in it.

Am somewhat ambivalent on whether or not watermarks should go to general, but if it does, I feel signature should definitely follow.

I think it's probably important to ask what the benefit of watermark being categorised as a general tag rather than a meta tag. The tag doesn't actually refer to anything that is visually distinct, but rather says something about a visual element. For example if a watermark consists of only text you would add the text tag, and then the watermark tag would be saying something about that text tag. Just because a watermark is something you can see, doesn't mean the tag shouldn't be meta. Censored is another meta tag that refers to something that is visible within the image, but it is more of a catchall term for various visually distinct methods of censorship, such as censor_bar or blur_censorship.

The definition of a watermark is basically something added on to a post that should not be considered part of the actual artwork so I don't think it is unreasonable to keep it as a meta tag. It's also not like there is an abundance of tags in the meta category already, and as you kinda mentioned, I think most people wouldn't even notice it as being out of place in that category anyway.

As has been pointed out, watermarks are not part of the actual "scene" depicted in the artwork, so I think keeping it in the meta category is appropriate.

disagree, a Watermark isn't "part of the picture" we don't look at images and see a watermark and go, "wow what a nice watermark it really adds to the image"
No, a watermark is a pain in the ass, opinion aside, it's proof of ownership by the creator or company who produced the image. It bares no significance to the art other than to let people know who created/owns the drawing.

Therefore, I believe it suits the META tag perfectly. Becuase having the owner's name plastered on their art is pretty darn meta I would believe.

faucet said:
I feel like the more relevant distinction is that it's not a tangible object that's part of the scene, none of the characters depicted are going to interact with the watermark in any way, it's just something slapped on top of the image.

There's nothing saying it can't be part of the scene. A watermark can even be the focus of the image, with characters interacting with it. A well-designed watermark can even be it's own standalone image. A watermark is a visual element used to identify the author, beyond that it's up to the artist how they want to incorporate it into the image.

watsit said:
There's nothing saying it can't be part of the scene. A watermark can even be the focus of the image, with characters interacting with it.

maybe we should have a tag for situations where meta elements have diegesis to the acual main content of the post. there's breaking_the_fourth, but I'm not sure if that totally fits this scenario,

watsit said:
A well-designed watermark can even be it's own standalone image.

I don't think it'd be considered a watermark at that point, though. the watermark kinda needs to be watermarking something to be considered a watermark.

watsit said:
There's nothing saying it can't be part of the scene. A watermark can even be the focus of the image, with characters interacting with it. A well-designed watermark can even be it's own standalone image. A watermark is a visual element used to identify the author, beyond that it's up to the artist how they want to incorporate it into the image.

At that point I'd say it stops being a watermark, at least in spirit.

The bulk update request #5345 (forum #373021) has been approved by @slyroon.

This got more downvotes and neutrals than it got upvotes, and every comment except one was disagreeing

I don't see what we gain from watermark being in the general category, it definitely feels more like a meta thing

donovan_dmc said:
I don't see what we gain from watermark being in the general category, it definitely feels more like a meta thing

Same here

cloudpie said:
Same here

Same

cloudpie said:
This got more downvotes and neutrals than it got upvotes, and every comment except one was disagreeing

The recent amount of increased alias/implication/BUR reviews I think has made a lot of funky decisions.

The bulk update request #6262 is active.

change category watermark (61800) -> meta
change category distracting_watermark (2954) -> meta
change category extremely_distracting_watermark (47) -> meta

Reason: Undoing the above, and moving the aforementioned extremely_distracting_watermark into meta.

EDIT: The bulk update request #6262 (forum #387262) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

part of me understands that watermark is technically an visible twys object in the same way of text, logo, and barcode are categorized to general, though i don't understand why it was necessary to categorize distracting_watermark to general for same reason english_text and artist_logo and is categorized to meta.

all General is TWYS, does not mean all TWYS is General

I just don't see why watermark belongs in meta category. I see watermark, therefore, watermark is general.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I just don't see why watermark belongs in meta category. I see watermark, therefore, watermark is general.

signature
monochrome
comic
shaded
animated
sketch
url
censored
etc. Could make the same argument about all these and more. But they're more about the artwork than the content of the image, if that makes sense, so that's why they belong in the meta category.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I just don't see why watermark belongs in meta category. I see watermark, therefore, watermark is general.

a watermark isn't really a concrete thing like most of the general tags are, it's more of an idea than it is a visual element.

cloudpie said:
signature
monochrome
comic
shaded
animated
sketch
url
censored
etc. Could make the same argument about all these and more. But they're more about the artwork than the content of the image, if that makes sense, so that's why they belong in the meta category.

...
alpha_channel
oil_painting_(artwork)
motion_tweening
artist_name
blue_theme
credits
...

If we take the "if I can see it and it requires no outside information, it's general" route we'll end up with a meta category that contains nothing but the years, better_version_at_source and lol_comments.

IMO watermarks are not important for tagging. They are an image slapped on the image you should actually be tagging. I feel like having the watermark tags as General tags tells taggers to spend more time on them, as if the visual elements within the watermark are worth tagging, if that makes sense, and I don't want that. I don't want people spending time tagging extremely low value things more than they already do, because that only adds noise to search results and the time users spend reading tag lists to understand posts. What category the watermark tags are in shouldn't affect that, but I believe it somehow does.

snake-girl said:
part of me understands that watermark is technically an visible twys object in the same way of text, logo, and barcode are categorized to general, though i don't understand why it was necessary to categorize distracting_watermark to general for same reason english_text and artist_logo and is categorized to meta.

I think the difference between a watermark and text/logo/barcode is that the latter three things can be seen within the scene itself, for example, printed on an object in the artwork. A watermark is different - by definition, it is outside the content of the scene. It’s a graphic overlaid on the image or video itself. This is akin to other meta tags like pillarbox which, while technically "visible," are not part of the content of the artwork, just the visual appearance of it.

abadbird said:
I feel like having the watermark tags as General tags tells taggers to spend more time on them, as if the visual elements within the watermark are worth tagging, if that makes sense, and I don't want that.

They sometimes are regardless. If the watermark contains controversial subjects (e.g. a nude young character), that must be tagged and the rating set appropriately, regardless of what the main image has. If it has things people don't want to see, it shouldn't be able to get passed people's blacklists on the technicality that it's part of the watermark. It's still visible in the image.

watsit said:
They sometimes are. If the watermark contains controversial subjects (e.g. a nude young character), that must be tagged and the rating set appropriately, regardless of what the main image has.

That would be a terrible watermark, and that isn't really related to tagging watermark itself

donovan_dmc said:
That would be a terrible watermark, and that isn't really related to tagging watermark itself

I was responding to the suggestion of not tagging the visual elements of the watermark, so whether or not it being in the General category causes people to tag them is really inconsequential. Whether watermark itself should be a meta tag or not is something I'm in two minds about, and can't really give a full opinion on one way or another (in general I slightly favor it being General, but I can see and don't wholly disagree with the argument for it to be Meta).

wat8548 said:
The bulk update request #5345 is active.

change category watermark (61800) -> general
change category distracting_watermark (2954) -> general

Reason: The watermark and distracting_watermark tags were changed to the meta category in April 2020, soon after the launch of the new site. This appears to have been prompted by their inclusion in a massive list in the OP of topic #25984, and none of the many replies objected to them, probably because they didn't notice them.

A watermark is by definition a visual element of an image, and cannot be tagged if it cannot be seen. As such, it should be a general tag.

extremely_distracting_watermark, which implies distracting_watermark, is already a general tag.

3rd_party_watermark should remain meta, as whether a watermark is official or not is outside information.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5345 (forum #373021) has been approved by @slyroon.

It is for these reasons that I support the original action, making watermark a general tag

cloudpie said:
signature
monochrome
comic
shaded
animated
sketch
url
censored
etc. Could make the same argument about all these and more. But they're more about the artwork than the content of the image, if that makes sense, so that's why they belong in the meta category.

I wouldn't particularly argue that the type of image (animated, sketch, etc.) should be in the general tags, watermark is not a type of image, but something that is rather a part of an image.

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I wouldn't particularly argue that the type of image (animated, sketch, etc.) should be in the general tags, watermark is not a type of image, but something that is rather a part of an image.

I personally think a watermark is equivalent to a bigger signature. If signature is meta, so should be watermark.

I’d even argue for an umbrella term for signature, artist_name, watermark, credits and possibly url, because they all identify the creator of the piece.
That way, if these tags are moved to general for being a visual part of the piece, the umbrella term could be the meta tag.

dimoretpinel said:

I’d even argue for an umbrella term for signature, artist_name, watermark, credits and possibly url, because they all identify the creator of the piece.

3rd_party_watermark

hjfduitloxtrds said:
I wouldn't particularly argue that the type of image (animated, sketch, etc.) should be in the general tags, watermark is not a type of image, but something that is rather a part of an image.

I can see your argument for those, but what are your opinions on things like monochrome and pillarbox being meta?

definitelynotafurry4 said:
The recent amount of increased alias/implication/BUR reviews I think has made a lot of funky decisions.

I would argue that the percentage of incorrect approvals is the same or slightly higher than before, it's just that the volume of decisions have went up drastically.

snpthecat said:

I can see your argument for those, but what are your opinions on things like monochrome and pillarbox being meta?

Yes pillarbox should remain meta. Unsure about monochrome.

dimoretpinel said:
I personally think a watermark is equivalent to a bigger signature. If signature is meta, so should be watermark.

I’d even argue for an umbrella term for signature, artist_name, watermark, credits and possibly url, because they all identify the creator of the piece.
That way, if these tags are moved to general for being a visual part of the piece, the umbrella term could be the meta tag.

Maybe signature should be general as well.

The bulk update request #6262 (forum #387262) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.