The bulk update request #9152 is pending approval.

remove alias realistic_background (0) -> detailed_background (204008)
remove alias realistic_bg (0) -> detailed_background (204008)

Reason: These are definitionally not the the same thing at all.

A realistic background can have a high level of detail(ex:outside crowd) or low level of detail(ex: empty square room) while always being realistic like photography or close to that.

Detailed backgrounds can be realistic(photography) or completely abstract(ex:Pablo Picasso) and anywhere in-between.

I feel this might have been meant to be a implication rather then a alias.

Here is the forum thread of this alias, however there was virtually no discussion and wouldnt be surprised if this was overlooked in the long list of other aliases, some others of which also seem rather questionable to be honest. topic #27625

ryu_deacon said:
Detailed backgrounds can be realistic(photography) or completely abstract(ex:Pablo Picasso) and anywhere in-between.

Detailed backgrounds can't be abstract. detailed_background is "Any background detailed enough to place the scene in a clearly defined location", while abstract_backgrounds "don't feature a distinct background. It usually entails having a solid color background with a formless, artistic design or possibly some kind of abstract imagery." If a background is detailed enough to be a clearly defined location, it needs to have a distinct background and can't be abstract imagery.

I object to restoring realistic_background because it's too subjective. What counts as "realistic"? photo_background exists for images that use a realistic photo (or filtered image of a photo) for a background, and amazing_background exists for backgrounds that exhibit an abnormally high amount of detail. realistic_background just adds unnecessary ambiguity.

watsit said:
Detailed backgrounds can't be abstract. detailed_background is "Any background detailed enough to place the scene in a clearly defined location", while abstract_backgrounds "don't feature a distinct background. It usually entails having a solid color background with a formless, artistic design or possibly some kind of abstract imagery." If a background is detailed enough to be a clearly defined location, it needs to have a distinct background and can't be abstract imagery.

I am not necessarily disagreeing with the wiki descriptions, which is why I mentioned that this might actually be intended as a implication rather than a alias.

watsit said:
I object to restoring realistic_background because it's too subjective. What counts as "realistic"? photo_background exists for images that use a realistic photo (or filtered image of a photo) for a background, and amazing_background exists for backgrounds that exhibit an abnormally high amount of detail. realistic_background just adds unnecessary ambiguity.

photorealism for backgrounds..

As far as amazing_background goes - given the flawed wiki description - , you can have excessive amounts of detail throughout and still not be portraying a location.
Level of detail,defined/identifiable location, and realism vs. abstraction are different independent things.

I will add that none of these three factors are any more subjective than the common colors we tag for on the site.

ryu_deacon said:
photorealism for backgrounds..

I don't think the concept works as well for backgrounds alone. It's one thing when a subject like a fox or deer is basically copied from a photo, giving it a high sense of accuracy to real life , but look at those "photorealistic" backgrounds:
post #3760094 post #3704411
The illusion of realism on the background only works when scaled down. When viewed full scale, they're actually kind of rough and somewhat sparse, not all that realistic-looking.

ryu_deacon said:
As far as amazing_background goes - given the flawed wiki description - , you can have excessive amounts of detail throughout and still not be portraying a location.
Level of detail,defined/identifiable location, and realism vs. abstraction are different independent things.

Sure, but we're not really talking about realistic vs abstract. It's about a subjective interpretation of what counts as a realistic_background separate from merely a detailed_background. Is
post #89652
a realistic_background? Or
post #5004142
? How do you differentiate it?

watsit said:
I don't think the concept works as well for backgrounds alone. It's one thing when a subject like a fox or deer is basically copied from a photo, giving it a high sense of accuracy to real life , but look at those "photorealistic" backgrounds:
post #3760094 post #3704411
The illusion of realism on the background only works when scaled down. When viewed full scale, they're actually kind of rough and somewhat sparse, not all that realistic-looking.

mind you the roughness or washed out appearance can similarly and does appear in actual photos of misty downpours or low lying fog in mountains for example and some environments are sparsely detailed in real life photography https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/beach-access-18607522

watsit said:
Sure, but we're not really talking about realistic vs abstract. It's about a subjective interpretation of what counts as a realistic_background separate from merely a detailed_background. Is
post #89652
a realistic_background? Or
post #5004142
? How do you differentiate it?

I literally said how, to look like a photo of real life or something very close to as if they where a photo of real life. both of these backgrounds are something that does look close to being a photo. This again would be no more subjective then how people tag for colors or what might be considered tagged on amazing_background, id argue amazing_background is far worse, what does it actually mean to be excessive/more detailed.

"[...]images where the artist clearly spent as much time, if not far more, working on the background than the characters in the image.[...]"

this definition from amazing_background does not actually imply any greater specification away from what is simply detailed_background from a objective standpoint. Can you really actually tell how much someone worked on something and besides lower detail does not always actually imply less work.
---
Do you think both these are the same thing?

post #153300 post #83971