New tag category for "technical" tags?

@Mikaeri: Can't wait for this feature to be implemented,...

2017-09-13T00:11:06-04:00

Can't wait for this feature to be implemented, thanks for the suggestion!

@BrokenEagle98: Created issue #3292 on GitHub for this.

2017-09-09T17:01:07-04:00

Created issue #3292 on GitHub for this.

@JamaisVu: Very much in favor. All the resolutions start...

2017-09-05T11:23:46-04:00

Very much in favor. All the resolutions start with different letters as well.

@BrokenEagle98: > parasol said: > > They never seem to settle...

2017-09-03T20:02:30-04:00

parasol said:

They never seem to settle on the same definition though. How much of tag group:image composition and tag group:text would you include? I think in the past suggestions like this were shot down in favour of simplicity.

It was already stated... Tag group:Metatags.

Metatags are tags that convey information about an image outside of what is visible in it. (Ref: Help:Metatags)

You can highlight tags you're interested in with CSS: forum #90672. I use hot pink (#F09) to call attention to tagme-types.

This isn't just about me or others that do active tag gardening... it's for everyone else that doesn't even look at that sea of blue since it can be too much. However, if there was a separate section for those tags, it would provide much more of a highlight, hopefully better catching more users' eyes.

@parasol: Maybe it would reduce parent/child copy-paste...

2017-09-03T19:44:21-04:00

Maybe it would reduce parent/child copy-paste accidents if all the formatting things were listed at the end (e.g. if only one version has a transparent_background, don't copy that tag).

BrokenEagle98 said:

I know a couple of the other Boorus already have more than 4 tag types, so we're a little behind the times... :p

They never seem to settle on the same definition though. How much of tag group:image composition and tag group:text would you include? I think in the past suggestions like this were shot down in favour of simplicity.

Currently when looking at a post, all *_request tags get lost in the blue.

You can highlight tags you're interested in with CSS: forum #90672. I use hot pink (#F09) to call attention to tagme-types.

@BrokenEagle98: > kittey said: > > How about calling the...

2017-09-03T15:36:16-04:00

kittey said:

How about calling the category “Meta”, though?

I like it... it has much less ambiguity.

@kittey: How about calling the category “Meta”, though?...

2017-09-03T15:27:18-04:00

How about calling the category “Meta”, though? We’re calling the tags “metatags” at the moment. Calling the category “technical” might lead to some confusion with tags for actual technical objects, such as cars.

Sure, it’s probably a minor detail, but if the category groups are hardcoded in multiple places, it would be quite annoying to change the name later.

@BrokenEagle98: Yeah, baby steps... overly increasing the...

2017-09-03T15:13:21-04:00

Yeah, baby steps... overly increasing the requirements will make it that much more likely that nothing will get implemented. Technical is a pretty solid category though, and would help users for the reasons already mentioned.

@user_525419: > G-SANtos said: > > Also, do you think we...

2017-09-03T14:39:27-04:00

G-SANtos said:

Also, do you think we should have a group for series-specific items? Example, Pokéball, Digivice, etc.

I don't think so.
Those items are still a visual element of the image ad therefore falls uder "tag what you see". Too split the tags in even more category is a bit excessive, I think.

@G-SANtos: Since we are discussing a new tag type, are...

2017-09-03T14:33:59-04:00

Since we are discussing a new tag type, are there enough character group tags for a "group type" of tags? Like, Royal Knights, Knights of the Round Table (Fate), etc.

Also, do you think we should have a group for series-specific items? Example, Pokéball, Digivice, etc.

@user_525419: > BrokenEagle98 said: > > Currently when...

2017-09-02T01:54:59-04:00

BrokenEagle98 said:

Currently when looking at a post, all *_request tags get lost in the blue. Unless you're actively searching for those tags, you have a much greater chance of missing or skipping out on those tags. That's why for some pictures, instead of just adding weapon_request or vehicle_request, I'll also add a bumping comment in order to clue other users in.

Or post in "How do I tag this" :P.

I'd welcome suh a change, especially regarding the request tags since people realize faster that the post is tagged with a *_request tag and the *_request tags are scattered across the blue tags because they start with different letters. So to collet all requests in one group seems more intuitive.
And those tags don't really describe what you can see in the image. It's mostly about tags or the image quality per se.

I'd welcome a fourth category.

@BrokenEagle98: I know a couple of the other Boorus already...

2017-09-02T01:39:46-04:00

I know a couple of the other Boorus already have more than 4 tag types, so we're a little behind the times... :p I feel that creating a technical tag category would help separate tags that are auto-added or those that are/should be only transient, such as *_request.

Currently when looking at a post, all *_request tags get lost in the blue. Unless you're actively searching for those tags, you have a much greater chance of missing or skipping out on those tags. That's why for some pictures, instead of just adding weapon_request or vehicle_request, I'll also add a bumping comment in order to clue other users in.

@☆♪: Migrated from topic #14245. For context, I'm...

2017-09-02T01:11:02-04:00

Migrated from topic #14245.

For context, I'm talking about tags like long_image, absurdres, md5_mismatch, and translation request - there are many (and that page doesn't even have them all). The idea is that these would show up in a separate list from the General tags, maybe under them and above the Information section.

☆♪ said:

How much trouble would it cause to create a separate tag type for "technical" tags such as these? As in separate from copy, artist, char, general. Right now technical tags are categorized as general but now we have a fair number of them and I think it would help to move them out of the general tag area to keep both cleaner and easier to see. Tags like highres and tall image could also go in there so that the general tags only described the actual content of the image.

Mikaeri said:

Umm, hmm. I'd be for it, but I guess it really depends on what the code maintainers think. @Type-kun @evazion Think there would be some demand now to make a separate tag type outside of general for tags that don't describe the image? A "technical" type, as ☆♪ describes.

BrokenEagle98 said:

About a different tag type... relevant conversation, issue #2358.

evazion said:

There's a list of such tags in tag group:metatags. I do think it's a good idea and in fact, Sankaku already has this. As for how much trouble it would be, it wouldn't be that hard, but it's not entirely trivial either. There are a fair number of places scattered throughout the code that are hardcoded for the 4 current tag types that would have to be fixed.

This might be more of a feature request than a topic for discussion, but I thought I'd see if anyone had a different idea of how to handle this, or thought it was a bad idea for some reason.