The tag alias #64878 monotone_background -> simple_background is pending approval.

Reason: Separated from the other monotone thread since it has a lot of associated aliases that need to be undone and redone, too many for BURs to handle well. A monotone background is a simple background, and a simple background is a monotone background (if a background has more than one color, abstract_background should be used instead of simple_background).

watsit said:
... A monotone background is a simple background, and a simple background is a monotone background (if a background has more than one color, abstract_background should be used instead of simple_background).

A simple background is also a gradient_background, pattern_background, geometric_background, etc.

I think this tag is perfect to describe images that just have one single color as the background, and should be an implication instead.

These are ideal monotone background posts:

post #4424922 post #4444446 post #4346821 post #4081224 post #3556131

Versus other results that fit under tags that imply simple background:

post #4403501 post #4439985 post #4442042 post #826930 post #4411671

faucet said:
A simple background is also a gradient_background, pattern_background, geometric_background, etc.

The wiki says:

simple_background says:
Generally just a single color or shape, i.e. labeling characters surrounded by plain white as white_background.

I wouldn't say the examples you gave fit simple_background, except maybe the middle rabbit one (purple_background + white_border). The others aren't a single color or shape.

watsit said:
The wiki says:

simple_background says:
Generally just a single color or shape, i.e. labeling characters surrounded by plain white as white_background.

I wouldn't say the examples you gave fit simple_background, except maybe the middle rabbit one (purple_background + white_border). The others aren't a single color or shape.

I'd personally be more trusting of the fact admins have traditionally approved implications from tags like pattern_background for years over a poorly written wiki page with only a handful of contributors. Even its wording of "generally" means there's cases where it's not only a single color or shape.

I feel this may be a wiki issue rather than a tagging issue.

This tag has 1.1k posts tagged but no wiki entry detailing the reason.

I think a good wiki page would help here as some backgrounds (even while monotone) could be very stylised but not quite on the level of detailed_background or even simple_background (of which even some of those are very stylised).

This seems like it needs to be more clearly defined rather than aliased.

What do you think?

I'd say it's more of a naming issue. A simple background should be simple, and to me, once you start adding shapes, patterns, multiple colors, etc, it stops being simple and becomes more of an abstract/decoration for the character to be in front of.

watsit said:
I'd say it's more of a naming issue. A simple background should be simple, and to me, once you start adding shapes, patterns, multiple colors, etc, it stops being simple and becomes more of an abstract/decoration for the character to be in front of.

The way I'm looking at it is that a background can be very detailed even though it only uses one colour.
Taking into consideration the dead space in the image you can add very complicated designs while still staying monotone without being "crazy" enough to justify the abstract_background tag.
In these cases the simple_background tag shouldn't apply.
I'm on the fence on this one.

watsit said:
I'd say it's more of a naming issue. A simple background should be simple, and to me, once you start adding shapes, patterns, multiple colors, etc, it stops being simple and becomes more of an abstract/decoration for the character to be in front of.

ehh, I feel like filing most nonrepresentational backgrounds under simple_background would be better. I think abstract_background is better fit for stuff that's a little bit more out there.

also I'm not 100% certain that abstract_background or should be mutually exclusive from other background types. would it really not be possible to have a background that is either both abstract and detailed?

sipothac said:
would it really not be possible to have a background that is either both abstract and detailed?

detailed_background is for when the character is placed in an identifiable location, so I think it probably would be mutually exclusive

Although to be honest I'm not sure why we have both simple_background and abstract_background, i would be in favor of aliasing them... I thought simple_background was for any background that's not an identifiable location (so solid colors, gradients, patterns, everything in abstract_background...)

I'd be in favor of aliasing abstract_background -> simple_background and implying monotone_background -> simple_background

dragonfox69 said:
The way I'm looking at it is that a background can be very detailed even though it only uses one colour.

As it is, the monotone_background tag is used in place of solid color backgrounds, given all the solid_color_, solid_colored_, solid-color_, and solid-colored_ tags aliased to it, which would prevent it from being detailed (it couldn't have shading and linework to add any detail). There would need to be changes for monotone_background to be used by any monochromatic background.

sipothac said:
also I'm not 100% certain that abstract_background or should be mutually exclusive from other background types. would it really not be possible to have a background that is either both abstract and detailed?

In general, different background tags aren't mutually exclusive (e.g. pattern_background and abstract_background would be fine together), but I think simple_background, abstract_background, and detailed_background specifically are exclusive of each other. As far as e6 tags go, detailed_background is for "a clearly defined location," while abstract_background is for "images or animations that don't feature a distinct background [...] some formless, artistic design or possibly a kind of abstract imagery". Abstract, by definition, is incompatible with a clearly defined location, and IMO, being abstract stops it from being simple.

Okay, I just did a quick check of the various "background" wiki pages along with their associated posts and I can see why there is confusion. There is a lot of overlap where there really shouldn't be.
Click the "View all" link on the wiki pages related to this discussion and A-B them and you'll see what I mean.
I definitely think a cleanup of the wiki pages is a better idea in the long term.

Bumping this alias. Simple background is the best destination for the tag since its the most specific tag that still applies to all the posts. This tag is unnecessary, and the only use I can see for it is as an umbrella tag for the [color]_background tags.

One difference between this specific monotone tag and the other monotone tags is that there's not a two-tone/multicolored_* tag for it, as they've been aliased to invalid background

The main question however, is whether we actually want to keep the more populated monotone tags, or have them aliased away