It's about time we sit down and finally figure out what to do about all these different character model tags.
This debate has been going on for what seems like months, and I haven't seen a dedicated discussion thread about this, so I figured I'd make one.

For those not aware, when an artist uses a different artist's model, it's currently common practice to list that as a separate character tag, either with the model artist as a pre/suffix (warfare_krystal, loona_(furromantic)), or with a nickname (lovetaste_chica).

The issue with this is that it can lead to confusion of ownership. Let's use lovetaste_chica as an example.
There are many variations of Chica within the FNaF franchise (toy, withered, glamrock). The use of this nickname fits with the naming convention of the universe and could lead to confusion of ownership. "Is this official or fan-made?"
But chica_(jams3d) would also lead to confusion;
"Are there changes to Chica's design that Jams came up with to where it can be easily differentiated?" Usually, no.
"Could Jams have a character named Chica made before or after the model that the user is searching for?". Often not, but it's possible.

-

Community Discussion and Issues

It seems to be generally accepted that separate modeler tags are the best way to go, but the point of contention is how to implement them..

What would likely be the best way is for there to be a new 'modeler' category, but the moderators have been struggling to gain any headway on that:

donovan_dmc said:
We almost certainly aren't getting a new tag category any time soon, so you can practically forget about that
We've been trying internally to get a new tag category for a long time and it's yet to lead anywhere

Arguments have been made that, in lieu of a 'modeler' category, the 'artist' category could be used.
The main issue with this is the intended use of the category to credit those who have taken an active role in creating that specific work. Including modelers would lead to the inclusion of other third-party artists that make their content available for use, such as kitbash artists or sfx artists, which may not be easily identifiable.

The closest applicable category would be 'copyright', but even that is a bit out there. While modelers do have protections under DMCA, they're usually not the owners of the characters (at least, not the ones that apply in this discussion).

-

Best(?) solution

All being said, with the community leaning towards modeler tags and the copyright tag being the most appropriate out of what we have.. It seems like the best practice (at the current moment) would be to create tags for modelers, likely ending in _(modeler) or _(modeller), and alias away the model's 'character' tag to the respective character. An additional tag like third-party_model can indicate that the artist used a model from a different creator.

Of course, this is all things I've fielded from different forums and is my own opinion based on reasonings given in various discussions.

I'm still of the belief that modelers should be tagged as artists since they did a very large portion, a lot of times the majority, of the work on the visuals of a piece. I don't think we need to worry about a slippery slope regarding sfx artists, as sfx artists did not work on the visuals. There's a clear distinction there, we can tag visual artists (which model sculptors are) while not tagging sfx or voice actors.

dirtyderg said:
All being said, with the community leaning towards modeler tags and the copyright tag being the most appropriate out of what we have.. It seems like the best practice (at the current moment) would be to create tags for modelers, likely ending in _(modeler) or _(modeller), and alias away the model's 'character' tag to the respective character. An additional tag like third-party_model can indicate that the artist used a model from a different creator.

Great idea
Edit: I was thinking the *_(modeler) tags would be artist tags, not copyright

The bulk update request #8849 is pending approval.

mass update loona_(furromantic) -> furromantic_(modeller)
mass update loona_(aeridiccore) -> aeridiccore_(modeller)
mass update loona_(carbiid3) -> carbiid3_(modeller)
mass update loona_(valorlynz) -> valorlynz_(modeller)

Reason: I like the idea of a modeler suffix.

As it currently stands IIRC, the main issue with tagging modellers is that you can't differentiate between artworks they have created and artworks featuring models they have released for others to use.

I'm in the position that modellers should not be tagged as artists unless they have participated in the creation of the artwork in the first place.
Somewhat akin to a "collab" where one artist draws lineart while the other colours it in, the same should be applicable for artists collaborating with 3D modellers to create something.

However, I do not believe this should apply to modellers who release their models into the public where anybody could use it without them actually participating.
They should not deserve an artist or copyright tag in this case, but rather, be regulated to individual character tags instead (which has become a somewhat accepted alternative).

In addition, you have to remember that 3D modellers do not just create character models, but also object/prop models. This can also include scene backgrounds.
If an artist used models from an asset store or from a game, are we going to tag them all as well?

To differentiate between the artist of the scene or of a model, the artist can just be [artist name], and if that same person made a model, [artist name]_(modeler). So we could get 2 tags for the same person, but for different things they did.

We could also make [artist name]_(modeler) imply just [artist name].

Do you think [artist name]_(character modeler) is better? It’s a bit lenghty tho, maybe we can shorten it. Like, [artist name]_(chr. modeler), so there’s no ambiguity that the modeler made a character, and that we only tag character modelers.

Other problems created by all the model tags:

• Tag bloat. The model tags effectively double the amount of character tags on a post. Not a problem if there are just one or two, but as soon as group pictures with 5 or more come into play things get full. Also, there are currently over 30 tags for models of Loona (Helluva Boss) alone.

• Circumventing existing aliases. Best example is vaporunny, which got aliased away to hybrid due to being a vaporeon/lopunny hybrid, but with the model tags it gets tagged anyway.

• Model tags being applied to 2d images. Was reminded of this when looking up one of the vaporunny) tags. Another major example of this is fredina's_nightclub , which is applied to all pictures referencing CryptiaCurves’ design of the FNAF crew. Yes, Cryptia created an iconic and popular design with these models, but we don’t tag an artist’s interpretation of a character, otherwise we would need to give an extra tag to every Rouge that is inspired by Bigdad’s design (Just one example. I’m sure there are more out there.)

• Reuse of models. A model doesn’t need to be used for the character it was created for. For example in the case of disembowell’s infamous FNAF models the model of Toy Bonnie is also used for Bonnie, Shadow Bonnie, Springtrap and Spring Bonnie. Or a lopunny model for Vanny . What character would be tagged in such cases? The original character the models was created for and might still be identifiable? The character it was recolored to represent? Or both? (With users unfamiliar with the model subject we might end up on the last one, resulting in even more tag bloat.)

I REALLY want to get this topic finally to a satisfying conclusion. I took part in the BUR that many say started this mess.
I’m also pissed that we attributed the models to the wrong modeller. We tagged *_(psychojohn2), but they actually belong to disembowell. We couldn’t fix that mistake, because the discussion about model tags had started by then, but didn’t get solved.

Lastly, I just want to bring up an idea I had while thinking about the matter. How about an implication from the *_(modeller) tags to 3d_(artwork) ? Would make it clear what they are meant for and reduce the problem with the model tags on 2d artworks (Or at least these pics can be easier found and edited.) After all, these tags are solely meant for 3d stuff.

Last minute edit, because I remembered something: At the end of the day we need some kind of tag for blacklisting purposes. Even if it is just to make the people shut up that dislike disembowell's models (for example). I remember multiple people complaining about these across at least 3 different websites. This was the reason this BUR even started.

dimoretpinel said:
The bulk update request #8849 is pending approval.

mass update loona_(furromantic) -> furromantic_(modeller)
mass update loona_(aeridiccore) -> aeridiccore_(modeller)
mass update loona_(carbiid3) -> carbiid3_(modeller)
mass update loona_(valorlynz) -> valorlynz_(modeller)

Reason: I like the idea of a modeler suffix.

I think during one of the last discussions we settled for modeller, due to it being the British english version.

demonthedarkhound said:
I think during one of the last discussions we settled for modeller, due to it being the British english version.

okay, I’ll edit that extra L in

The bulk update request #8850 has been rejected.

create implication furromantic_(modeller) (202) -> furromantic (326)
create implication aeridiccore_(modeller) (0) -> aeridicore (0)
create implication carbiid3_(modeller) (0) -> carbiid3 (79)

Reason: The [artist]_(modeller) is the same person as the [artist], so I think it would be beneficial to group them together in case [artist] does things other than modelling characters.

If someone both paints and makes 3D models, one tag would contain both mediums, and the [artist]_(modeller) tag would be to search / blacklist specific 3D models, while still being able to see that artist’s paintings.

Furromantic, in the BUR, not only makes 3D models, but also used to edit female versions of artwork:
post #1499445

EDIT: The bulk update request #8850 (forum #410905) has been rejected by @DimoretPinel.

dimoretpinel said:
If someone both paints and makes 3D models, one tag would contain both mediums, and the [artist]_(modeller) tag would be to search / blacklist specific 3D models, while still being able to see that artist’s paintings.

This would be a problem when people want to find 3D images someone made/posed/rendered that also contains their models (searching [artist] [artist]_(modeller) would be identical to searching [artist]_(modeller), which would contain posts they didn't make), or find 3D images someone didn't make/pose/render/etc but do include their models (searching [artist]_(modeller) -[artist] would never contain anything).

Similar reasoning as to why we don't have alternate character forms imply the main form, it makes it harder to find posts where both the main and alternate are relevant to the search.

dimoretpinel said:
The bulk update request #8850 has been rejected.

create implication furromantic_(modeller) (202) -> furromantic (326)
create implication aeridiccore_(modeller) (0) -> aeridicore (0)
create implication carbiid3_(modeller) (0) -> carbiid3 (79)

Reason: The [artist]_(modeller) is the same person as the [artist], so I think it would be beneficial to group them together in case [artist] does things other than modelling characters.

If someone both paints and makes 3D models, one tag would contain both mediums, and the [artist]_(modeller) tag would be to search / blacklist specific 3D models, while still being able to see that artist’s paintings.

Furromantic, in the BUR, not only makes 3D models, but also used to edit female versions of artwork:
post #1499445

This discards the whole point of why we don't already just tag them as an artist, they are very often not the artist of the posts

donovan_dmc said:
This discards the whole point of why we don't already just tag them as an artist, they are very often not the artist of the posts

I misunderstood the purpose of tagging modelers as to search or blacklist specific models and nothing more due to topic #39773, my apologies.

The bulk update request #8850 (forum #410905) has been rejected by @DimoretPinel.

Bumping for more discussion, more 3D model tags get created/updated every week, this problem certainly isn't going to go away until we come to an agreement on a solution. I certainly don't want them all to get nuked, but I'd be okay with rolling them all up into *_(modeller) tags if it comes to that.

Here are some related topics, in case anyone wants a rough timeline of what the debate has been:

topic #39773 <- "original" topic on the prospect of tagging specific 3D models for the purpose of blacklisting ones the OP didn't like. I don't believe 3D model tags originated with this thread but this is the oldest discussion of it in the forums _{(that I could find)}
topic #40657 <- more discussion, some staff weighing in
topic #41843 <- more discussion
topic #43654 <- more discussion, first BUR to roll up model (character) tags into "modeller" (copyright) tags
topic #45003 <- another BUR, this one tackling the many WARFAREMACHINE model tags
topic #45655 <- including this one since I've been seeing a few alias/implication requests and some simple BURs involving 3D model tags lately, some users are under the assumption that this is standard practice so it'll probably keep happening until we come to an agreement on a solution

Continuing discussion from topic #45655:

bdanimare said:
Yes, I know. Disembowelled created this version then redeye made this one and then PJ made an edit of RE's and hid that version behind a paywall. The most used version of the model on e6 is redeyes which is why I'm confused as to why it got credited to PJ in the first place.

As for the disembowell tag, it gets confusing because I know there are people who don't want to see that old model but DO want to see redeye's edit.

Being completely honest, I can barely tell a difference between any of the models in the first and second post. The leg textures look different. That's about all I caught.

This raises a very valid question which complicates the matter of 3D model tagging. Who gets credit? I can think of several examples of models that receive minor edits which end up being the more-used version, such as the 3D model of nika_sharkeh, which was originally created by warfaremachine some years ago and updated, retextured and ported to blender by AnnoAD, or renamon_(kespr), which was adjusted by Kespr from ALargeWoodenBadger's Renamon model.

And that isn't even getting into the models that are a collaborative effort, like one person sculpts and another rigs, another maps and another adds textures and ANOTHER ports it to SFM/Blender. How are those tagged, do we always just tag the sculptor, or whoever's Patreon/Gumroad/MEGA/SFMLab it's sold/released on? Aliases can only point to one tag (I think). What do we do with models that have two or more creators? What do we do with models that are "Frankenstein"ed together, like putting one model's head onto another body?

What about models that seemed to inherit the name of the commissioner instead of the model sculptor, like loona_(eggman) (which I'm pretty sure was made by Valorlynz, NOT eggman3D)? Most Twitter posts I've seen credit this model to Eggman, some credit both Valorlynz and Eggman, but I'm relatively certain this particular model was sculpted and rigged by Valorlynz. Is it proper to tag whoever is more "known" for it?

This whole scheme is a mess, honestly. It makes it hard to tag accurately, the tagging system clearly isn't built for collaborative works, which is why I've preferred to add model credits to the description of 3D posts, lately, instead of just tagging models/modellers.

As I mentioned in my last post, I've taken to adding model credits in post descriptions as of late. I've been trying to refine the template I use, what do people think of the following?

[section=Model Credits:]
h5.{{Death_(puss_in_boots)|Death}}:
From [[puss_in_boots_(dreamworks)|Puss in Boots: The Last Wish]]
3D model created by "@valorlynz":https://twitter.com/valorlynz

h5.{{Aleu_(Balto)}}:
From the [[balto_(series)|Balto]] series
3D model created by "Petruz":https://www.furaffinity.net/user/Petruz 

h5.{{Nika_Sharkeh|Nika Sharkeh}}: 
Character owned by "@NikSharkeh":https://twitter.com/NikSharkeh
3D model created by "WARFAREMACHINE":https://www.furaffinity.net/user/mrwarfaremachine with improvements by "AnnoAD":https://www.furaffinity.net/user/annoad

This first one attributes character ownership and provides a link to each character's tag for clarity on which model is which character.

[b]{{Nika_Sharkeh|Nika Sharkeh}}[/b] character owned by "@NikSharkeh":https://twitter.com/NikSharkeh 
3D model created by
"WARFAREMACHINE":https://www.furaffinity.net/user/mrwarfaremachine (with improvements by) "AnnoAD":https://www.furaffinity.net/user/annoad | "Link to model":https://smutba.se/project/4657247c-495f-4eea-9a14-840ea7963063/

[b]{{Deathclaw}}[/b] model by 
"@VulgarVictor583":https://x.com/VulgarVictor583 | "Link to model":https://bludpl.gumroad.com/l/Lizzyclaw

[b]{{Blaziken}}[/b] model by
"@Reptilligator":https://twitter.com/Reptilligator | "Link to model":https://reptilligator.itch.io/gallenadefogovbs

This one is slightly more compact and includes a link to the model if I find it is available. If there's no direct link to somewhere the model can be obtained or if it's private I just leave the "Link to model:" part out.

h5.[u]Model Credits:[/u]
Highwire model by 
"@Reptilligator":https://twitter.com/Reptilligator

Kindred model by 
"@bluejuicyjuice":https://twitter.com/bluejuicyjuice

Loona model by 
"@BySamzan":https://twitter.com/BySamzan

This one is even more simple, just including a link to the model creator.

h5.[u]Model Credits:[/u]
Highwire by Reptilligator
Kindred by bluejuicyjuice
Loona by Samzan
Nika Sharkeh by WARFAREMACHINE and AnnoAD 

The simplest option, doesn't even need a [section], easiest to use and optimized for description search

I think I prefer option 2, to avoid drawing the eye to the model credits over the description itself, if the description lacks a distinctive header/title.