The tag alias #69308 pencil_(artwork) -> graphite_(artwork) is pending approval.

Reason: In terms of tagging, graphite vs pencil is a distinction that is theoretically possible but not practically possible, and current taggings bear this out.

5 years ago pencil_(artwork) was implicated to graphite_(artwork) : "All pencil works involve the use of graphite, but not all graphite works involve pencils. Imho it seems like an appropriate implication. Also remove pencil's traditional art implication, graphite would imply it."

This is technically correct (you can use pencils, lead holders, compressed graphite sticks, spatula, graphite powder, blenders, erasers, etc in any combination to produce an artwork that would still be entirely graphite-based). BUT... Why does pencil_(artwork) even exist as a distinct tag?

a) These different ways of using graphite don't give a reliably different impression. At best, you can look at an area, see it is very smooth, and guess a blender was used at some point. There isn't even a reliable way of distinguishing actual pencil work from work with graphite sticks, lead holders, etc. This is partly because:
b) Work that ONLY uses broad ways of applying graphite, like graphite sticks, is unlikely to pass e621's quality standards. As with brushwork in general, acceptable work tends to be either done entirely with a fine method, or to include fine methods as a method of cleanup. But also:
c) Pencil work itself (without any other tools involved) is still an inadequate way of characterizing what you see. With the right sharpening and grip, you can get both fine and broad strokes out of the same pencil. So you can't even look at a given set of strokes and say 'well, this must have been done with (mechanical pencil | wood pencil | graphite stick), considering the size of the strokes I can see'.

so..
d) Items in graphite_(artwork) -pencil_(artwork) are, by and large, indistinguishable from those in pencil_(artwork). The distinction being technically correct doesn't stop it from being impractical.

The main argument I can predict against this would be along the lines of adding context ("this artwork was done specifically and only with pencils"). One problem with that argument would be it's basically a lore tag then (and one that depends on rather specific information that artists are unlikely to even think to mention)

are we also require to alias colored_pencil_(artwork) to colored_graphite on top of that?
additionally with the priority towards aliasing tool to the material tags, pen_(artwork) should alias to ink_(artwork) by this, right?
edit: i've found out danbooru alias any pencil artwork tag to graphite so i genuinely see the point of this alias.

savageorange said:
The main argument I can predict against this would be along the lines of adding context ("this artwork was done specifically and only with pencils"). One problem with that argument would be it's basically a lore tag then (and one that depends on information that artists are unlikely to even think to mention)

...Well it's a meta tag so yes, adding context is the point. Meta tags don't have to follow TWYS and they mostly exist to give context (like the year tags and the art medium tags)

snake-girl said:
are we also require to alias colored_pencil_(artwork) to colored_graphite on top of that?

.. But colored pencils aren't graphite, they are either wax or oil based.
Crayons are arguably the same media (I don't know if we have a tag for that. But if we did, IMO aliasing crayon->colored_pencil might make sense, maybe)

-- arguably, because IIRC "crayons" match 'wax based' color pencil formulations, but "pastels" match 'oil-based' color pencil formulations.

additionally with the priority towards aliasing tool to the material tags, pen_(artwork) should alias to ink_(artwork) by this, right?

Ugh. I think that is actually much more difficult. Inking with a brush, which should encompass most inking, I would say IS visually distinct from pen work in a pretty reliable way.
The simplest way of explaining that might be to think of all conventional inking as applying (very opaque) washes, whereas with pen, there just is no consistent way to apply washes: you would have to resort to mixed media (pen + marker, or pen + brush application of ink, .. pen + brush with solvent? (that would produce semi-transparent washes))

(our terminology here is also not perfectly aligned with the various terms used in the wider world -- If I use a fountain pen, is that pen, ink, or both? (I don't know, but depending on the tip, it probably would be in practice regarded as INKING, as would be the case for some but not all uses of permanent marker). It's a mess, honestly.)

So I wouldn't necessarily rule it out, but I think it would take more argumentation and examples to make a good case for. Probably argued by someone who is very familiar with both inking and pen work (not me).