I don't know how useful it might be, but I wondered if 'media' category tags might be implemented, what with categories now more standout-ish. That is to say, the media that a piece of art is done in, rather than its content.

I was poking around and I found at least the following:

digital, 3d (and one instance of rendered), acrylic, pencil_crayon, watercolor, oils, photograph and photography (these two seem confused as to the media vs the action), painting (also misused, ought to refer to a painting or the act of painting visible within the picture)

These could be modified to media:acrylic, etc.

This might also apply to others referring to format like: animated, flash, gif, transparency.

Just a thought,
-- Acru

We have a traditional_media tag for finding art done with physical media, such as watercolors, acrylics, pencils, etc.

Still, setting it up as a category of some sort, like artist: and character: currently are, might be preferable as compared to leaving as generic tags.

I think the categories we have are fine. Media is a pretty minor subset of tags, smaller than a lot of other subsets. Then we'd have a category for sex positions, a category for body parts, a category for hair color, a category for backgrounds, etc.

Point is, I don't think this is nearly a major enough set of tags to get its own type/category.

tony311 said:
I think the categories we have are fine. Media is a pretty minor subset of tags, smaller than a lot of other subsets. Then we'd have a category for sex positions, a category for body parts, a category for hair color, a category for backgrounds, etc.

Point is, I don't think this is nearly a major enough set of tags to get its own type/category.

^
Maaaaaybe gender. maybe.

Aurali said:
^
Maaaaaybe gender. maybe.

The whole point of these categories on the side is to remove the artist and species tags and put them in an easily accessible location, because on a detailed image with lots of tags, those often get buried in different locations. Dickgirl is always in the D's, Female is always in the F's, etc. I don't think we need a gender category as well.

Rocket_Corgi said:
The whole point of these categories on the side is to remove the artist and species tags and put them in an easily accessible location, because on a detailed image with lots of tags, those often get buried in different locations. Dickgirl is always in the D's, Female is always in the F's, etc. I don't think we need a gender category as well.

How about tags separated by Letter (like a dictionary or a phonebook)?

Xch3l said:
How about tags separated by Letter (like a dictionary or a phonebook)?

Example (from Corgi's av)

• A
• ambiguous gender

• B
• black nose

• C
• canine

clouds
corgi

• D
• dog

• E
• eligecos

eyewear

• F
• feral

fire

• G
• goggles

• J
• jetpack

• O
• OK this idea is stupid

open mouth
orange fur
outside

• S
• solo

• T
• teeth

tongue
tongue out

• W
• white fur

That defeats the purpose of having the tag categories on the side, and some of the tag lists for images are enormous as it is, without also adding a bunch of letter headers to the list.

Rocket_Corgi said:
That defeats the purpose of having the tag categories on the side, and some of the tag lists for images are enormous as it is, without also adding a bunch of letter headers to the list.

You didn't read the O section then…

• O
• OK this idea is stupid

I don't know about you but have a pet peeve for tags with like 1 or 2 hits....and this will make more of those....

Moon_Moon said:
I don't know about you but have a pet peeve for tags with like 1 or 2 hits....and this will make more of those....

Moon_Moon said:
I don't know about you but have a pet peeve for tags with like 1 or 2 hits....and this will make more of those....

Technically every image is done in one media or another, it is just that most of the images are missing a tag in what could be the media category~ In any case, it was just a thought. :3

Xch3l said:

dem tags :P

• #
• ? 1 (4)
• ? 2 (4)

• A
• ? a (13)
• ? about (1)
• ? and (8)

• B
• ? but (6)

• D
• ? don't (1)

• F
• ? for (0)

• H
• ? have (0)
• ? hits (2)

• I
• ? I (3)

• K
• ? know (2)

• L
• ? like (8)

• M
• ? make (4)
• ? more (6)

• O
• ? of (1)
• ? or (0)

• P
• ? peeve (0)
• ? pet (460)

• T
• ? tags (12)
• ? this (0)
• ? those (0)

• W
• ? will (6)
• ? with (0)

• Y
• ? you (1)

huh, this popped up some less-than-3 posts tagged with. Should we proceed to clean them up?

Got it