Topic: [REJECTED] Simplex/toony style

The bulk update request #13523 has been rejected.

remove alias simplex (7) -> toony (45978)
change category simplex (7) -> meta

Reason: Simplex is not the same as toony, many can't agree whether a post is toony or not but i think it's easier to tell if something is simplex, and toony is always that, but not all simplex is toony. Simplex is better as an umbrella term for multiple kinds of simple styles, not as an alias for cartoony styles.

EDIT: The bulk update request #13523 (forum #484479) has been rejected by @spe.

I don't think I've ever heard of "simplex" art style before. The wiki just says "Meaning the person who has a very simple art style and may take a few minutes or seconds to learn from it," which is very vague. What counts as "a very simple art style"? How do you determine if someone "may take a few minutes or seconds to learn from it"?

Where exactly does the etymology for "simplex" come from? Why would this be the word that people default to for tagging this kind of concept? Why have only five accounts (two of them with highly similar names + bios) ever used this tag? What would a more complete wiki article look like?

lafcadio said:
Where exactly does the etymology for "simplex" come from? Why would this be the word that people default to for tagging this kind of concept? Why have only five accounts (two of them with highly similar names + bios) ever used this tag? What would a more complete wiki article look like?

i've edited it some, i assume simplex comes from simple + complex as an opposite term for it. "simplistic" could also work

forest1985 said:
i've edited it some, i assume simplex comes from simple + complex as an opposite term for it. "simplistic" could also work

Simplex, a combination of "simple" and "complex", is an art style indicating simplicity.

Art styles which are simplex include toony, chibi, and most lineless art.

These traits may indicate simplex art:
-flat colors or very simple shading
-blocky body shapes that emulate lego, minecraft, roblox and similar games
-toony eyes

Simplex art can be featured alongside a lot of detail, such as a detailed background and simplex characters.

This still feels incredibly meaningless if the qualifications are so wildly different and they're all optional. It comes across like mimiff 2.0. Grotesque Steve is a "simplex" because he's made of blocky shapes. Queen Tyr'ahnee is a "simplex" because she's completely black. Half of white_slime_(artist)'s posts are simplexes because of their eyes.

I find that tags describing art styles tend to be very vague because art styles are inherently vague; artists can pick and mix certain elements that you might think of as belonging to certain art styles. kemono is broad and vague enough. It's probably a better idea to tag the individual elements of the art style that you think are significant enough rather than the art style as a whole.

forest1985 said:
i've edited it some, i assume simplex comes from simple + complex as an opposite term for it. "simplistic" could also work

Do you have any post examples that you think are simplex but not toony? Or toony but not simplex?

usetheblacklist said:
Do you have any post examples that you think is simplex but not toony? Or toony but not simplex?

Toony, not simple: https://e621.net/posts/6083413, https://e621.net/posts/4126628

simple, not toony: https://e621.net/posts/4459709

forest1985 said:
Toony, not simple: https://e621.net/posts/6083413, https://e621.net/posts/4126628

simple, not toony: https://e621.net/posts/4459709

post #6083413
Who's toony here, exactly? This looks like pretty standard illustration to me.

post #4126628
Isn't this just the opposite of what you're describing? The rendering isn't cartoony but this is basically equivalent to a waddling head.

post #4459709
... what? Is flat color really all it takes to be "simple"? That's not a realistic use case.

forest1985 said:
Toony, not simple: post #6083413 , post #4126628

simple, not toony: post #4459709

(edited to use thumb #1234567 format so people don't have to click on it. Also helps when the server is unhappy, as it seems to be RN)

Overall I feel that while flat_colors doesn't fully nail the example given here for 'simple not toony', the missing part is really just quality: there are relatively crude works with flat_colors, and refined works with flat_colors, the latter are better calculated and make more sophisticated use of graphic design.
Well, I think that to tag level of quality is untenable, and so I suspect this tag is also untenable.

lafcadio said:
post #6083413
Who's toony here, exactly? This looks like pretty standard illustration to me.

post #4126628
Isn't this just the opposite of what you're describing? The rendering isn't cartoony but this is basically equivalent to a waddling head.

post #4459709
... what? Is flat color really all it takes to be "simple"? That's not a realistic use case.

1 it was tagged as toony, and the little guy could be in a cartoon.

2, tagged as toony

3, the style is simplistic, minimal.

forest1985 said:
1 it was tagged as toony, and the little guy could be in a cartoon.

2, tagged as toony

3, the style is simplistic, minimal.

I'm gonna have to say post #4126628 is a mistag. It wasn't toony until 11 days ago. If you're not willing to scrutinize that particular tag addition then that tells me all I could really care to know about your sponsorship of simplex.

And if flat colors is simplex, then simplex shouldn't be associated with flat colors at all. People can just use alternation syntax to find posts that are ~toony ~flat_colors.

forest1985 said:
1 it was tagged as toony, and the little guy could be in a cartoon.

"Could be in a cartoon" isn't the standard for the toony tag. The toony tag is for art styles reminiscent of Disney and WB cartoons, akin to Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Bugs Bunny, where body structures and proportions are very loose.

This is toony:
post #796538

This is not toony:
post #6130725

despite both being from "a cartoon".

lafcadio said:
I'm gonna have to say post #4126628 is a mistag. It wasn't toony until 11 days ago. If you're not willing to scrutinize that particular tag addition then that tells me all I could really care to know about your sponsorship of simplex.

And if flat colors is simplex, then simplex shouldn't be associated with flat colors at all. People can just use alternation syntax to find posts that are ~toony ~flat_colors.

the "simple" tag doesnt exist but simplex was right there

watsit said:
"Could be in a cartoon" isn't the standard for the toony tag. The toony tag is for art styles reminiscent of Disney and WB cartoons, akin to Mickey Mouse, Goofy, Bugs Bunny, where body structures and proportions are very loose.

If this is the case then the wiki should be revised to add this clarification, and the examples given in the wiki should be revised as well. As it stands there's nothing in the wiki that states this level of specificity.

These two examples lead to the impression that the tag is meant for cartoony art styles in general:

post #5099503 post #1933745

And that is how I've been using it.

This also means that my understanding of the tag (based on the wiki as it's written) is totally wrong and I've been using the tag wrong this whole time, which makes me unhappy as the last thing I want to do when tagging is fuck things up by mistagging.

emionix said:
If this is the case then the wiki should be revised to add this clarification, and the examples given in the wiki should be revised as well. As it stands there's nothing in the wiki that states this level of specificity.

The problem is that "in a cartoon" is incredibly broad, since "cartoon" essentially just means animated show or movie (it could also mean a comic, but that's not as common these days and not relevant to the discussion). Basically any art style can be made into a cartoon, and given that all (non-3d) art here is drawn, they can all be said to be "like in a cartoon". It needs more specificity to not apply to the whole site.

emionix said:
These two examples lead to the impression that the tag is meant for cartoony art styles in general:

post #5099503 post #1933745

Ironically neither of them are tagged toony, and they do seem like outliers in the lineup of examples in the wiki. The wiki says

• Stylized or exaggerated proportions, body shapes, facial features.
• Simplified or undefined anatomy, bone structure, musculature.

which don't really apply to examples like that. They have pretty well-defined anatomy and bone structure, and not terribly exaggerated proportions, body shapes, facial features. Maybe that second example was just referring to the top-right rendition of the character, if I were to be generous, which is notably different proportionally and stylistically compared to the others in the same post, but I would not say all depictions in that post count for toony.

emionix said:
This also means that my understanding of the tag (based on the wiki as it's written) is totally wrong and I've been using the tag wrong this whole time, which makes me unhappy as the last thing I want to do when tagging is fuck things up by mistagging.

It happens to all of us. So long as we learn and correct ourselves, it's not a big deal.

But this really goes to show the problem with tagging art styles. Not only is the style itself open to interpretation, but peoples' understanding of what's important to the style will vary.

watsit said:
The problem is that "in a cartoon" is incredibly broad, since "cartoon" essentially just means animated show or movie (it could also mean a comic, but that's not as common these days and not relevant to the discussion). Basically any art style can be made into a cartoon, and given that all (non-3d) art here is drawn, they can all be said to be "like in a cartoon". It needs more specificity to not apply to the whole site.

Yeah. As I said, the wiki should be edited to have the actual definition because as it stands it literally just means the image is in a stylized/cartoony art style. Which is what led to my confusion that toony is a tag for non-realistic art, or, at the very least, art that is sufficiently stylized.

I'm not going to edit the wiki myself since I believe that would be a bad idea.

watsit said:
Ironically neither of them are tagged toony, and they do seem like outliers in the lineup of examples in the wiki. [...]

This exact thing has happened to me before with a different tag. Like, I look at examples either on a wiki or in the tag search and see them as "valid examples" when they actually aren't. This is really eroding my tagging confidence. I'm really questioning how much I actually understand about the tag definitions I've been working with.

watsit said:
It happens to all of us. So long as we learn and correct ourselves, it's not a big deal.

I will remove the tag from the posts I've added it to, since I added it based on a complete misunderstanding of the tag's purpose. Edit: I just checked. I literally cannot do that, I've added it to way too many posts. I'm sorry to leave such a mess due to my inability to understand basic shit... but I cannot go through that many posts right now. I'm getting stressed out over this.

I'm also going to refrain from adding the tag to any posts moving forward since it seems like I really struggle to ascertain the tag's actual intended usage.

watsit said:
But this really goes to show the problem with tagging art styles. Not only is the style itself open to interpretation, but peoples' understanding of what's important to the style will vary.

Why are there style tags in the first place, then? I mean... surely they should be invalid if there isn't a clear enough criteria to tag them with...?

I personally find there to be utility in denoting the level of realism (or lack thereof) or detail in a work. It's why I started using the toony tag to begin with. So I'm not saying I'm personally in favor of invalidating style tags. But if this is a persistent issue then maybe it needs to be addressed somehow.

The bulk update request #13523 (forum #484479) has been rejected by @spe.