Possible solution to the style tags?

BUR #39529 has been rejected.

create alias 1960s_(style) -> retro_artstyle
create alias 1970s_(style) -> retro_artstyle
create alias 1980s_(style) -> retro_artstyle
create alias 1990s_(style) -> retro_artstyle
create alias 2000s_(style) -> retro_artstyle

The style tags on here have been a subject of debate for quite some time now (whether or not they were drawn in that period, where they “fit”, whether all 2000s artworks on here should all have the 2000s tag), and I think this is the way to fix it. We merge all the style tags (1960s - 2000s) into retro_artstyle so it differentiates itself with the more modern (2010s - present) styled-artwork. That way we wouldn’t gave to worry whether or not an artwork fits into either a 90s or 2000s style because they wouldn’t be drawn in a modern-way. Also, it ensures that older artworks are still recognized for their aesthetic without getting caught up in overly specific distinctions that may not always be clear.

I agree that these are a mess, but I don't like the idea of nuking them entirely. We should rather try and come to an agreement on a set policy that allows us to preserve them:

Something like:

• they only apply to art drawn in one era that references an earlier one
• they only apply to decades that are long past and show distinctive features of the decade
• both of the above (which is in practice what we seem to be doing)

Shinjidude said:

Something like:

• they only apply to art drawn in one era that references an earlier one
• they only apply to decades that are long past and show distinctive features of the decade
• both of the above (which is in practice what we seem to be doing)

I'd personally prefer if we were to shift the tags to be about art referencing the style of decades past, because that aligns with how we use artist style tags, with that formatting being decided back in topic #16534 (though those tags seem to have discussion too, per topic #17994). Otherwise you cannot search newer art in older artstyles separately from older art.

Also, related topic #22727, topic #26635, and topic #29651.

This would be useless for people actually interested in these styles.

Like... I populate and search 2000s (style) regularly because I really like that specific range of styles. Mixing it in with a bunch of other styles is meaningless to me.

Damian0358 said:

I'd personally prefer if we were to shift the tags to be about art referencing the style of decades past, because that aligns with how we use artist style tags, with that formatting being decided back in topic #16534 (though those tags seem to have discussion too, per topic #17994). Otherwise you cannot search newer art in older artstyles separately from older art.

I'd rather we add style parody to emulation posts, otherwise there is no way to search for that older art at all, especially since not all art from a given era will actually fit the tags, since they're about specific common styles.

I'd be annoyed if I couldn't just search for all art with that signature 2000s style.

Or actually, I think removing the retro artstyle implications and then repurposing that tag specifically into a tag for posts that are emulating a retro style might be the solution here. That way, users can search 2000s_(style) for all art in the style, 2000s_(style) -retro_artstyle for only the posts made in the 2000s, and 2000s_(style) retro_artstyle for only the style emulation posts.

Hm...Maybe we could umbrella the tags? For example, something like, using 2000s (style) as an example:

2000s (style) as the umbrella.
--> 2000s (period) for artwork made during the 2000s.
--> 2000s (parody) or something like that for emulations.

The way I see it, the core issue here is that one group of people want to be able to search for artwork actually from a given period of time, but gets drowned in the artists who specialize in more retro artstyles (and vice versa). However, there is another group of people who want to see all of the tag, and would consider either being missing a point of frustration.

By umbrellaing the style tag, you are able to make both groups happy. Group A can filter out the one they don't want to see, and Group B can see everything under a style tag without having to worry about something being missing. And most importantly, it'd only use up one tag for regular members in both groups, which just a flatout split would force Group B to expend a second tag to search for everything.

Is this a perfect solution? Probably not, in practice. But do I think this solution could appease both groups without kicking one to the curb? Certainly. What do you think?

Trouble_Windows said:

I'd rather we add style parody to emulation posts, otherwise there is no way to search for that older art at all, especially since not all art from a given era will actually fit the tags, since they're about specific common styles.

I'd be annoyed if I couldn't just search for all art with that signature 2000s style.

Given forum #276029, there's also folks who disagree with your assertion that not all art from the era counts and would want a tag that's literally all the art from a given period. But still, as I said, the decade style tags follow their tag format from the artist style tags, and we don't tag artist style tags on the posts of the actual artist, so it makes no sense in my eyes for the decade style tags applying to art from the decade in question.

In topic #17994, evazion did remark that the decade style tags are "time period style parod[ies], aka retro artstyle, which is considered separate from style parody," distinguishing them from the artist style tags, but this sort of inconsistency in qualifier use just makes things ambiguous (especially as game and studio style tags like Granblue Fantasy (style) and Studio Ghibli (style) follow the precedent of the artist style tags).

Or actually, I think removing the retro artstyle implications and then repurposing that tag specifically into a tag for posts that are emulating a retro style might be the solution here. That way, users can search 2000s_(style) for all art in the style, 2000s_(style) -retro_artstyle for only the posts made in the 2000s, and 2000s_(style) retro_artstyle for only the style emulation posts.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

Hm...Maybe we could umbrella the tags? For example, something like, using 2000s (style) as an example:

2000s (style) as the umbrella.
--> 2000s (period) for artwork made during the 2000s.
--> 2000s (parody) or something like that for emulations.

My issue is only in the usage of (style) for anything that isn't style parody. Any solution requires the qualifier to be changed, in my eyes, so that (style) is only for parodies and homages. In my eyes, this also counts for toon (style), western comics (style), pinup (style), and pc-98 (style).

If we made two tags, one for style parodies and one for art from the time, the umbrella cannot be (style). Same with trying to reuse retro artstyle to be specifically for period style parodies, that would require an additional rename because nothing in the name itself would indicate tag, like, retro_style_parody. Ironically, based on the early wikis of retro artstyle's predecessors, oldschool and retro, the former seemed to be for posts from the time, and the latter was for style parody (with the former gaining that definition over time), before being merged together in topic #17510 due to tag name ambiguity (and subsequent misuse as a result).

Damian0358 said:

My issue is only in the usage of (style) for anything that isn't style parody. Any solution requires the qualifier to be changed, in my eyes, so that (style) is only for parodies and homages. In my eyes, this also counts for toon (style), western comics (style), pinup (style), and pc-98 (style).

If we made two tags, one for style parodies and one for art from the time, the umbrella cannot be (style). Same with trying to reuse retro artstyle to be specifically for period style parodies, that would require an additional rename because nothing in the name itself would indicate tag, like, retro_style_parody. Ironically, based on the early wikis of retro artstyle's predecessors, oldschool and retro, the former seemed to be for posts from the time, and the latter was for style parody (with the former gaining that definition over time), before being merged together in topic #17510 due to tag name ambiguity (and subsequent misuse as a result).

Huh. I actually didn't know about that rule. Probably a good idea in that case, if we want to go this route, to change the umbrella qualifier to something else (or maybe leave it for style parodies, I don't know). I got no good ideas for a good replacement name tho.

Damian0358 said:

Given forum #276029, there's also folks who disagree with your assertion that not all art from the era counts and would want a tag that's literally all the art from a given period. But still, as I said, the decade style tags follow their tag format from the artist style tags, and we don't tag artist style tags on the posts of the actual artist, so it makes no sense in my eyes for the decade style tags applying to art from the decade in question.

I mean, to be fair, they also need (style) in order to be disambiguated from, say, 1990s fashion (I actually made that to clean up some of the mistags on 1990s style) or just posts about the 1990s in general.

Something akin to faux traditional media would be my preference for the non-authentic pieces. Faux retro artstyle?

It would also be easier than dividing each into two separate tags.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

Huh. I actually didn't know about that rule. Probably a good idea in that case, if we want to go this route, to change the umbrella qualifier to something else (or maybe leave it for style parodies, I don't know). I got no good ideas for a good replacement name tho.

I mean, there's a reason why I quoted evazion saying that time period style tags are different from artist style parody tags. It's a quasi-rule, quasi in that most instances of style tags are artist style tags, so the logic that fuels those tags ends up inevitably influencing how the qualifier is used. As a result of it not being a concrete rule though, the period style tags have their own set of rules that partially align with but aren't fully congruent with the artist style tags, which just annoys me in particular. That's why I would prefer consistency, like how (cosplay) is supposed to be internally consistent in its use.

zetsubousensei said:

Something akin to faux traditional media would be my preference for the non-authentic pieces. Faux retro artstyle?

It would also be easier than dividing each into two separate tags.

I like this.

Damian0358 said:

I mean, there's a reason why I quoted evazion saying that time period style tags are different from artist style parody tags. It's a quasi-rule, quasi in that most instances of style tags are artist style tags, so the logic that fuels those tags ends up inevitably influencing how the qualifier is used. As a result of it not being a concrete rule though, the period style tags have their own set of rules that partially align with but aren't fully congruent with the artist style tags, which just annoys me in particular. That's why I would prefer consistency, like how (cosplay) is supposed to be internally consistent in its use.

Yeah, kinda silly to have missed that in hindsight. The more you know, next time I end up in a thread about style tags.

zetsubousensei said:

Something akin to faux traditional media would be my preference for the non-authentic pieces. Faux retro artstyle?

It would also be easier than dividing each into two separate tags.

Yeah, this one has the same benefits of my idea, but with much less the tag upkeep to do. Much better idea, in my opinion. If anyone wants to make a proposal based on this, I'd upvote it.

BUR #39809 is pending approval.

mass update favgroup:42581 -> faux_retro_artstyle

This gives us a starting point for a faux retro artstyle tag, which as discussed above I think is the ideal solution here as it allows people to search for or filter out style emulation without taking away from the ability to search for the style overall, without creating too much tag complication.

Not touching retro artstyle at the moment, since I'm not sure how to deal with it.

The bulk update request #39529 (forum #345354) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

This makes no sense to me. You'd have to be able to tell when a piece was made to tell whether it's an original or a parody. This is like tagging a painting as faux traditional media because it was made today instead of fifty years ago.

Note that the wiki for retro artstyle says

Art drawn in the style from a prior era of at least over a decade ago

It says nothing about when it was made. Are we going to start tagging every single post not drawn in the 70s but with 1970s (style) as faux retro artstyle? What if it was drawn in the 90s? Who's going to police that?

I would think a hypothetical faux retro artstyle would only be for pieces that are distinctly modern not 90s art of Heidi Girl of the Alps. post #9065955 or post #8382997 for instance are easy to pick out of a retro artstyle search and I don't see why it'd be infeasible to tag.

nonamethanks said:

This makes no sense to me. You'd have to be able to tell when a piece was made to tell whether it's an original or a parody. This is like tagging a painting as faux traditional media because it was made today instead of fifty years ago.

Note that the wiki for retro artstyle says

It says nothing about when it was made. Are we going to start tagging every single post not drawn in the 70s but with 1970s (style) as faux retro artstyle? What if it was drawn in the 90s? Who's going to police that?

zetsubousensei said:

I would think a hypothetical faux retro artstyle would only be for pieces that are distinctly modern not 90s art of Heidi Girl of the Alps. post #9065955 or post #8382997 for instance are easy to pick out of a retro artstyle search and I don't see why it'd be infeasible to tag.

Yeah, all of the posts in that favgroup were pretty easy for me to identify from a glance either due to being fanart of newer source material, using newer techniques with older styles, being dated, or some other factor. None of them required me checking the source.

I also wouldn't apply the tag to 90s stuff in a 80s or 70s style, more for the recent popularization of deliberately drawing in older styles for nostalgia purposes. Stuff like the posts linked above, post #8947619, post #8295794, post #8257228, etc.

Overall I don't see how it could negatively impact anyone to provide a tag for those who may be interested in specifically style emulation of older styles or who may want to filter them out. This would be an additional tag, not a replacement for the existing tags. (Except maybe retro artstyle which I honestly feel could be done away with as it mostly just groups very different styles broadly, but that's unrelated to this topic.)