Redefining retro_artstyle tags

BUR #24340 has been rejected.

create implication 2000s_(style) -> retro_artstyle

I'm seeing a lot of art in the 2000s_(style) tag that isn't tagged retro_artstyle (a tag related to style_parody according to the wiki), but is art actually drawn in the 2000s and uploaded retroactively. I propose that it should be clarified in the 2000s_(style) wiki that the tag is for art drawn after the 00s that attempts to emulate the 00s style, and I will garden all posts that don't apply.

Additionally, though I'm not sure what kind of request I would submit for this, there should be a distinction between 1990s_(style) (again relating to style_parody) and art that was actually drawn in the 90s. There's no reason that art like post #7323489 and post #7295861 should be in the same tag when the latter is clearly recently produced nostalgia bait. I think the new tag for actual 90s art should simply be "1990s". Similar tags should be added for other decades, with the exception of the 2000s, as there are countless posts that were both drawn and uploaded in the 2000s when Danbooru was new and it's simply not a feasible undertaking. I am prepared to take responsibility for tag gardening.

I don't really have any opinions on the 2000s implication but you've just given me (and I'm sure many others) an old Sanae moment calling it retro.

As for separating the art actually made in those eras into dedicated tags for them, I'm not sure it's something that's widely wanted. It'd be like if we reinstated western comics as a separate tag from western comics (style) to use it as a sort of "canon" tag for comic characters/copyrights. Also, if you look at 1990s (style), you'll see that 90s and 90`s are already implicated it for it.

Tangentially related, there's a handful of posts with overlapping tagging under 1980s_(style) 1990s_(style) that should probably only have one or the other

HeeroWingZero said:

I don't really have any opinions on the 2000s implication but you've just given me (and I'm sure many others) an old Sanae moment calling it retro.

As for separating the art actually made in those eras into dedicated tags for them, I'm not sure it's something that's widely wanted. It'd be like if we reinstated western comics as a separate tag from western comics (style) to use it as a sort of "canon" tag for comic characters/copyrights. Also, if you look at 1990s (style), you'll see that 90s and 90`s are already implicated it for it.

Tangentially related, there's a handful of posts with overlapping tagging under 1980s_(style) 1990s_(style) that should probably only have one or the other

50’s-60’s style for speed racer would still be pretty distinctive.

HeeroWingZero said:

I don't really have any opinions on the 2000s implication but you've just given me (and I'm sure many others) an old Sanae moment calling it retro.

As for separating the art actually made in those eras into dedicated tags for them, I'm not sure it's something that's widely wanted. It'd be like if we reinstated western comics as a separate tag from western comics (style) to use it as a sort of "canon" tag for comic characters/copyrights. Also, if you look at 1990s (style), you'll see that 90s and 90`s are already implicated it for it.

Tangentially related, there's a handful of posts with overlapping tagging under 1980s_(style) 1990s_(style) that should probably only have one or the other

My main concern is with the definition of 2000s_style. I don't see the point of including art actually from the 00s in the tag, as this would encompass almost every piece of art uploaded to Danbooru from 2005-2009. On the other hand, it's a style that's becoming increasingly popular to (often poorly) emulate, so the tag definitely has use in a similar way to style_parody. I think this needs clarification on the wiki, but I wanted to post something about it on the forum before I went ahead and pruned the tag.

Regarding separating authentic art from specific eras, I personally think there is reason to do so. I don't think that pictures like post #7293654 should be considered "90s style" just because the artist drew Sailor Moon eye shines and put a grainy filter over top when everything else about the image—hair, face, linework, clothing, colors, etc—screams "2020s" and is clearly a kind of style parody. The majority of posts in the tag look extremely modern, but they're still next to pieces like post #7283203 and post #7226688. Two very different styles should have different tags. It's true that 90s and 90's are implicated for 1990s_(style), but simply 1990s is a tag that is not yet in use.

Alternatively, there could just be a 1990s (style parody) to which we move the modern emulations?

I'd rather just have a bulk nostalgic_style or something to that effect for faux attempts at emulating an older era. Most of them aren't accurately emulating the 80s or 90s and it feels like its own distinct thing.

zetsubousensei said:

I'd rather just have a bulk nostalgic_style or something to that effect for faux attempts at emulating an older era. Most of them aren't accurately emulating the 80s or 90s and it feels like its own distinct thing.

Isn't that retro artstyle already though, functionally? Anything that seems retro/old school/nostalgic in style just gets lumped into that tag. Regardless, having a vague name such as that would not be conducive to aiding in searching for stuff replicating 80s/90s art styles, especially when what is 'nostalgic' varies from person to person. Not everyone here is someone that grew up in the 80s and 90s. You'd have to go with a specific term to encapsulate that style (and even then you remember that there was no one 80s/90s style when you start dividing by target audience, genre, etc. and even those wouldn't be perfect).

In turn, when it comes to 'retro', if this BUR goes through I think we'll reach the point of awkwardness for the tag's usability. The only reason why you'd want to use retro artstyle after that point is to garden the posts into their more specific sub-tags to make them more accessible.

Meanwhile, I share in the concerns of having tags for art that actually are from those periods. Adding another point against it, related to what I had said about there not being one 80s/90s style, you can absolutely say the same for the 2000s and on. You can't make clean distinctions ala post #687154 and post #4703891, those just contain generalizations on what the artist themself thinks is appropriate (see how different the 90s section for each are, the former feels way more Araizumi Rui-inspired in contrast). It would just be tossing a bunch of art together that doesn't have to resemble one another any bit just because they were made the same decade (and that's not even accounting differences in decades, as stuff made at the start or the end of the decade might resemble the neighboring decades' styles more).

The fact that our year tags explicitly state that they are not to be used if the year is only when the image was made (ex. 2010) shows that we aren't about to change on that any time soon.

Damian0358 said:

Isn't that retro artstyle already though, functionally? Anything that seems retro/old school/nostalgic in style just gets lumped into that tag. Regardless, having a vague name such as that would not be conducive to aiding in searching for stuff replicating 80s/90s art styles, especially when what is 'nostalgic' varies from person to person. Not everyone here is someone that grew up in the 80s and 90s. You'd have to go with a specific term to encapsulate that style (and even then you remember that there was no one 80s/90s style when you start dividing by target audience, genre, etc. and even those wouldn't be perfect).

In turn, when it comes to 'retro', if this BUR goes through I think we'll reach the point of awkwardness for the tag's usability. The only reason why you'd want to use retro artstyle after that point is to garden the posts into their more specific sub-tags to make them more accessible.

Meanwhile, I share in the concerns of having tags for art that actually are from those periods. Adding another point against it, related to what I had said about there not being one 80s/90s style, you can absolutely say the same for the 2000s and on. You can't make clean distinctions ala post #687154 and post #4703891, those just contain generalizations on what the artist themself thinks is appropriate (see how different the 90s section for each are, the former feels way more Araizumi Rui-inspired in contrast). It would just be tossing a bunch of art together that doesn't have to resemble one another any bit just because they were made the same decade (and that's not even accounting differences in decades, as stuff made at the start or the end of the decade might resemble the neighboring decades' styles more).

The fact that our year tags explicitly state that they are not to be used if the year is only when the image was made (ex. 2010) shows that we aren't about to change on that any time soon.

The problem with retro_artstyle is simply that its purpose isn't clear enough on its implicated tags' wikis. The [year]_(style) wikis just say "Anime or manga drawn in a style that was popular in [decade]" without specifiying that the tag is meant for art created later that attempts to replicate the style, rather than art from the decade itself. My main concern is to make this more clear on the wikis and clean up the tags. Even the retro_artstyle wiki itself is unclear on what the tag's purpose is; the only place (as far as I'm aware) that explicitly states the tag is meant for parodies is the style_parody wiki.

I'm honestly not married to the idea of having tags for pictures actually drawn in a specific decade, it just seemed to make sense if we already have decade-specific parody tags. As someone who does a lot of style studies of older art in my own drawings, I definitely would get some use out of a new set of tags like this, but realistically it probably isn't something that's in high demand.

I wish there was a way to look exclusively at vintage art, authentic vintage art. When looking at art in the 1980s_(style) tag you have to look through so many imitations of the time, when I'm just interested in the actual art from the decade, regardless of if it fits a preconceived "style". There's plenty of art from each decade that doesn't look like it would belong in the given decade, but still does because it was quite literally made during the decade. I wish there was just tags for the decades, exclusively made for the art made from that time, and a seperate one for deliberate immitations.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #24340 (forum #272907) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.