Aliasing back_view → rear_view
Link to alias

Reason:

obvious

Wait, I just noticed it can apparently also refer to a view of a character's back? So maybe not?

I think Rear View is the view of their groin from behind, while back view is just generically seeing the character from behind, so maybe an inverted implication.

It looks like it's been disambiguated by Genjar, I'm curious what his input is on this.

We definitely don't need both tags though.

Rear_view is view from behind. Back is view of someone's back. Those overlap a lot, but here's some examples of back without rear_view:
post #19710 post #302766 post #416154 post #469198

Back_view is an obsolete tag that was used in both ways, and should probably be aliased to back_view_(disambiguation). (We didn't have *_(disambiguation) tags back when that one was cleaned out).

Though first we should decide if the back tag is even worth keeping. We've already got rid of most bodypart tags, and that one doesn't seem useful either. I suppose it could be replaced by something like back_focus, except I have hard time finding any images where the focus is on the back instead of something else.

Furrin_Gok said:
I think Rear View is the view of their groin from behind

That'd be butt_shot or genital_focus + rear_view, depending on the angle.

Still, there is a difference between this:
post #594514 post #590924 post #591015 post #594486 post #594148 post #594053

And this:
post #593910 post #593566 post #593420 post #372520 post #74778 post #558920 post #512508

The first row is clearly rear_view. The second row is more commonly seen as back_view/back_to_camera/turned_away/facing_away/back_turned etc. Most of which have been aliased away to each other.

Back_turned was aliased away to rear_view because the tags were so messy that there was a lot of both under both, though I'm not sure if it helped or hurt sorting it out.

If we ignore all of the ones that are just tagging a body part (which is an invalid use), the rest of the images mainly boil down into either row one or row two. I don't see these two rows as being the same thing.

I also don't see rear_view as being clearly a name for both types, since it fits row one a lot better than it fits describing row two. It takes a different definition for "rear" to mean "the entire back" than it does for "rear" to mean "the bottom". I already found one in there which was tagged rear_view because of foreshortening which brought the crotch closer to the camera even though the character was front-facing. Obviously it was tagged wrongly, but the mistake illustrates how broadly interpreted "rear_view" is likely to get over time. So trying to put all of the above under "rear_view" doesn't seem like it would be better.

There is some overlap between row one and row two, maybe enough to support an implication, but I don't think getting rid of all of the back-related tags is the way to handle this one.

Top are mostly rear_view ~bent_over ~all_fours and bottom are rear_view standing. Beyond that, I don't see any real difference between those. *_view tags are used to indicate the direction from where the character or scene is viewed, and should stay completely separate from postures and such.

Genjar said:
Top are mostly rear_view ~bent_over ~all_fours and bottom are rear_view standing. Beyond that, I don't see any real difference between those. *_view tags are used to indicate the direction from there the character or scene is viewed, and should stay completely separate from postures and such.

Yeah this is how I do it. Also, in the following thread it seems that tags like back are better of invalidated as we couldn't think of another way to deal with them (and I still can't).

https://e621.net/forum/show/149452

front was aliased to front_view, why not alias back to back_view/rear_view and clean it up from there?

parasprite said:
front was aliased to front_view, why not alias back to back_view/rear_view and clean it up from there?

That would require a lot of clean up, might not be worth the trouble.
Back is a bodypart tag. Rear_view is a directional tag ('viewed from behind'). Back_view is used as a random mix of the two.

Which means that back is often tagged for images that shouldn't end up under rear_view:

post #675042 post #667930 post #667338 post #660250 post #653453 post #655991 post #639977

See back -rear_view for more.

I cleaned this up manually a couple of weeks ago and it hasn't been tagged on anything since then. If it contributes to mistags the rate would be too small to make a difference one way or the other, so I went ahead and approved this.

I don't know about back, but I think that may require a thread of it's own. :V

parasprite said:
I don't know about back, but I think that may require a thread of it's own. :V

Way ahead of you! https://e621.net/forum/show/149452 XD

DragonFox69 said:
Way ahead of you! https://e621.net/forum/show/149452 XD

:V