@Background Pony #C037
Those are all very good links. I don’t really mind what system we use, but I do want a bit more organizedness. (with the minimum number of extra tags on any one image, if possible.)
The only “officially endorsed” rule on DB seems to be the use of the “monochrome” tag - which, if I can’t change (I still do think it’s a misuse as it is done right now) I’d at least like to support by making it an implied tag where needed.
I’d like to say how the ones you mentioned look to me at the moment:
color me -> I think this is essentially
translation request - people just try to signal it to artists that they’d like to see a colored version.
colored is somewhat randomly used, and for the following purposes:
- if lineart of the picture also was uploaded by the artist
-> this one seems superfluous; every image existed as lineart at some point, most artists just do not share pics of that stage.
- if lineart was created by one person, and colored by another.
-> this could even be a valid use if it indeed was made a rule to put it on every collab pic that is like this. Currently we just tag collabs as artist: + artist:. Collabs can be weird; background may come from person A, sketch from person B, vector of the sketch from person C.
grayscale is a specific type of monochrome, so maybe it should imply “monochrime” always?
black and white - is there any difference between this and grayscale (ie. grey-only monochrome) as it is now? it’d be meaningful if it included only images that are pure black and white without any shades of gray.
(but now it’s starting to look like any lineart would neeed to be tagged with lineart, black and white, grayscale, monochrome…eh…)
“partial color” looks like an OK tag, no problem with what it means.
“wip” seems…too broad to be useful to categorize, more like a casual tag. it CAN refer to pics that are literally half-finished (missing heads etc.) but a lot of people just seem to put in on sketches/linearts/flat colors they plan to finish later so it loses all meaning.