Topic: Tag implication: fire_background -> fire

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

SNPtheCat

Member

The bulk update request #12351 is pending approval.

create implication brick_background (123) -> brick (1748)
create implication brick_wall (6390) -> brick (1748)
create implication silhouette_background (160) -> silhouette (12977)
create implication star-shaped_background (430) -> star_polygon (1802)
create implication starry_background (874) -> star (49723)
create implication floral_background (467) -> flower (75011)
create implication rainbow_background (565) -> rainbow (5593)
create implication 3d_background (1020) -> 3d_(artwork) (220152)
create implication monotone_background (3888) -> simple_background (1465662)

Reason: Implying the background tags to their constituents. + some miscellaneous implications.

Do you think nature_background is a bit restrictive? It implies nature, which requires fully natural scenery. This means that it might not be possible to imply forest_background or jungle_background to it (see forest_background ~house ~road ~building).

Actually, what's the difference between the nature and nature background? (topic #42193)

Should photo_background and 3d_background and screencap background imply mixed media?

Should we use star polygon or star symbol? (topic #45828)

Should the [colour]_background tags imply or not imply simple background? This question boils down to whether it is applicable to all backgrounds which are a single colour, or if it's only applicable to backgrounds which is just the colour and nothing else.
Basically:
does post #5568172 count as orange background?

What should we do with sex toy background? As it currently is, it's just sex toy in the background/not interacted with. (topic #39179)

Edit: Removed

implicate beach_background -> beach
implicate cave_background -> cave
implicate jungle_background -> jungle
implicate sky_background -> sky
implicate desert_background -> desert
implicate field_background -> field

putting their aliases in another BUR. [location]_background is basically the same as [location]

Updated

Watsit

Privileged

Personally, I think a few of these tags are redundant. What is the difference between nature_background and nature, for example? Given that posts here should have characters, when would nature not be a nature_background and vice versa? Note that unlike blurred_background/blurred_foreground, things in front of the character usually count as the background for most tags, as "background" typically refers to what's around the characters, the scene that the subject is placed within; in front of, behind, and to the sides of the them.

sky_background is similar, defined as "A background which depicts the sky", making it no different than sky as the sky is always a background element when it appears. Maybe the intent is for when the background is only the sky, but a number of results show the ground or other structures, and it would brush up against cloudscape.

snpthecat said:
Should photo_background and 3d_background and screencap background imply mixed media?

Not sure screencap background should; it could be a screencap of a 3D game or movie, with a custom 3D model placed on it (or similar for 2D game/movie and a custom 2D drawing on top), making both parts the same media just from different sources.

The others should, though at least 3d_background is somewhat often mistagged for full 3D images or videos, rather than the intended 3D background with 2D subjects.

snpthecat said:
Should the [colour]_background tags imply or not imply simple background? This question boils down to whether it is applicable to all backgrounds which are a single colour, or if it's only applicable to backgrounds which is just the colour and nothing else.
Basically:
does post #5568172 count as orange background?

No, <color>_background is supposed to be for simple "empty void" type backgrounds that's largely that particular color. A detailed_background that's dominated by a particular color would probably be better tagged as <color>_theme.

snpthecat said:
What should we do with sex toy background? As it currently is, it's just sex toy in the background/not interacted with. (topic #39179)

If it's not a pattern background of sex toy iconography and just the presence of a sex toy in the scene, it should be aliased away to sex_toy, IMO.

SNPtheCat

Member

The bulk update request #12366 is pending approval.

create alias beach_background (692) -> beach (72311)
create alias cave_background (188) -> cave (13961)
create alias jungle_background (234) -> jungle (4623)
create alias sky_background (644) -> sky (143731)
create alias desert_background (120) -> desert (7178)
create alias field_background (167) -> field (3604)
remove implication forest_background (10852) -> forest (66210)
remove implication forest_background (10852) -> nature_background (14688)
remove implication nature_background (14688) -> nature (29618)
remove alias forest_bg (0) -> forest_background (10852)
remove alias nature_bg (0) -> nature_background (14688)
remove alias natural_bg (0) -> nature_background (14688)
remove alias natural_background (0) -> nature_background (14688)

Reason: For aliasing location background to location

Followup:
alias forest_bg -> forest
alias nature_bg -> nature
alias natural_bg -> nature
alias natural_background -> nature
alias nature_background -> nature
alias forest_background -> forest

SNPtheCat

Member

watsit said:
No, <color>_background is supposed to be for simple "empty void" type backgrounds that's largely that particular color. A detailed_background that's dominated by a particular color would probably be better tagged as <color>_theme.

Alright, so does that mean that all color_background tags should imply monotone background? (Tangentially, how many monotone tags are we going to keep, if any?) Ah, monotone is a bit stricter on that front.

What should we do about greyscale background?

Original page: https://e621.net/forum_topics/59854?page=1