BUR #60091 has been rejected.
create implication colored_lineart -> lineart
Should lineart be reserved for monochrome one or not?
Posted under Tags
BUR #60091 has been rejected.
create implication colored_lineart -> lineart
Should lineart be reserved for monochrome one or not?
I don't like the name of this tag. It sounds like it should also be used for posts like
post #11407583
post #11209936
But if the name is to be unchanged, then it should be true
PersonalFowl said in forum #441772:
The vast majority of this tag isn't lineart.
Just cleaned up most of them.
てはいさ said in forum #441728:
I don't like the name of this tag. It sounds like it should also be used for posts like
post #11407583
post #11209936But if the name is to be unchanged, then it should be true
Agree, the tag name makes me think of series like Osomatsu-san or No game no life where the lineart is noticeably not black.
Not sure what the name should be if these are two seperate concepts.
The bulk update request #60091 (forum #441727) has been rejected by @World_Funeral.
Blank_User said in forum #441780:
Just cleaned up most of them.
@Blank_User the tag doesn't require a post to qualify for lineart, it just requires that the lineart that is present is a color that isn't black. Something like post #11407583 has notable red lineart for example, and post #7431685 (the original example image) is also fully colored, just with pink lineart. forum #441772 is just saying the implication wouldn't work because the majority of posts don't qualify for lineart, not that the tag currently requires it. I've undone the removals.
The tag wasn't even replaced by an alternative, which would be necessary if we narrow colored lineart to only lineart posts, since it's a notable artistic feature.
I apologize for my mistake. I assumed those tags were added because of the color inside the lines, not the colors of the lines themselves. I didn't realize that was something we were currently tagging. At the time, the wiki only had the actual lineart example without inside coloring in it and the "Lineart that is distinctly a different color other than black" part in the description. Having the new example and the extra line clears it up. I will be more careful with large cases of apparent "mistags" like this moving forward.
I think the problem comes from the way the "colored_lineart" tag is written on the wiki. The first line says:
Lineart that is distinctly a different color other than black. This should be noticeable from the thumbnail.
While the definition of the "lineart" tag is as follows:
Art consisting mostly of solid lines, with no coloring or shading.
Linking the "lineart" tag to the "colored_lineart" tag on the wiki suggests that the "colored_lineart" tag is a subtype of the "lineart" tag, rather than a related, but distinct, concept
It would be best to remove this link from the first line.
BUR #60133 is pending approval.
create alias lineart -> lineart_only
I do have one idea. This might be a bit pedantic, but we could start consistently using "lineart" to refer to the lines regardless of inside coloring and change the current lineart tag to lineart_only to reflect this.
How about lineart background or lineart zoom layer? Like lineart zoom_layer.
Lineart zoom layer but not background: post #257217
Lineart background but not zoom layer: post #10977903
Updated by finalwar
Seems lineart refers to both the drawing technique of only using lines, but also refers to the drawing's interior lines themselves:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/line_art
Apparently line drawing is a synonym we could use that doesn't have this ambiguity:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/line_drawing