Aliasing plain_background → simple_background
"Link to alias": None. (Manually created, because of the existing aliases.)

Reason:

Plain background is mainly for completely empty backgrounds.

Wiki gives conflicting information about simple_background, but the latest admin call was that it should be tagged for backgrounds with enough detail to establish a location, but not much more. Examples: post #251386, post #59731

These aren't tagged with any consistency. Partly because of the wiki, partly because of the existing implications and aliases, and partly because other boorus use simple_background the same way we use plain_background.

And I do not believe that we need to differentiate between those. Background tags tend to be used for two main purposes: to either filter out all images with undetailed backgrounds, or to find highly detailed ones.

So my proposal is to alias the two. This would simplify the background detail levels to:

• simple_background, for all images where the background is completely empty, abstract, or so undetailed that you can't easily determine where it is taking place. In short, the focus is on the character(s).
• detailed_background, for clearly defined backgrounds.
• amazing_background, for scenery porn.

This would be far easier to tag, and we could implicate tags such as abstract_background to simple_background.

Thoughts?

I support all of this. Simple and plain are synonyms and they can easily be used interchangeably. Technically plain has more of a connotation of being "flat" than simple does, but the difference isn't strong enough to matter for our purposes. White_background and black_background are the only ones that get used consistently, the others sometimes get mixed in with things like abstract_background and gradient_background (which I don't really see a problem with tbh, and doing it this way fits in nicely with your proposal).

Considerations:

• photo_background -> real - Currently I've been intermittently tagging this one with real, but only because I didn't know about photo_background. It's something to consider, otherwise I'll have to go back through real and retag those (which I can do).
• detailed - I've never been sure what to do with these. I suspect some end up getting tagged detailed invalid_tag, but I still catch myself tagging detailed for some reason.

@Genjar: Well thought-out scheme, +1.
If polka_dots_background will be renamed, I'd recommend dotted_background (sounds better to me).
You forgot transparent_background. Unless you grouped it into the color background tags.

@parasprite: You forgot to close the \black_background[b][/b] wiki link.
Also, why is post #602331 tagged with detailed? Clearly, he still has his tail. :V

EsalRider said:
If polka_dots_background will be renamed, I'd recommend dotted_background (sounds better to me).

Yeah, good idea. It's also consistent with the other tags (checkered_background, striped_background, etc). I'll edit that into op.

EsalRider said:
@Genjar: Well thought-out scheme, +1.
If polka_dots_background will be renamed, I'd recommend dotted_background (sounds better to me).
You forgot transparent_background. Unless you grouped it into the color background tags.

transparent_background is implicated to simple_background in this.
I agree with dotted_background and want to throw in texture_background -> textured_background while we're on the subject, because that one has always bugged me.

@parasprite: You forgot to close the \black_background[b][/b] wiki link.

Whoops. Thanks. ^.^

Also, why is post #602331 tagged with detailed? Clearly, he still has his tail. :V

I'll admit I'm a bit lost here.

parasprite said:
I agree with dotted_background and want to throw in texture_background -> textured_background while we're on the subject, because that one has always bugged me.

Added to the op.

parasprite said:

• detailed - I've never been sure what to do with these. I suspect some end up getting tagged detailed invalid_tag, but I still catch myself tagging detailed for some reason.

I tend to tag detailed for images with extreme level of detail. Though most of those are already covered by photorealism, and the rest tend to fall under amazing. So I'm not sure if it's actually needed.

parasprite said:
Whoops. Thanks. ^.^

You're welcome.

I'll admit I'm a bit lost here.

I'll admit, that was (partly) the intention. Currently I'm leaning towards nuking that tag, because without a proper definition, it's impossible to determine what counts as detailed enough to justify the tag and what doesn't. That tag is heavily subjective and could easily cause confusion and tag wars between users finding a particular post detailed and others who don't. (Also, that whole "still has his tail" line is just derping around :P .)

EsalRider said:

I'll admit, that was (partly) the intention. Currently I'm leaning towards nuking that tag, because without a proper definition, it's impossible to determine what counts as detailed enough to justify the tag and what doesn't. That tag is heavily subjective and could easily cause confusion and tag wars between users finding a particular post detailed and others who don't. (Also, that whole "still has his tail" line is just derping around :P .)

Oh, that's alright then.

I've never seen a tag war for that sort of thing but you never know I suppose. I think it's just something that needs to be cleaned up every now and then for ones that obviously don't fit (and amazing to a lesser, or otherwise more... different... degree).

I for one would like to have a monochromatic_background tag, but understand that it might be slightly difficult to maintain.

I went ahead and made a placeholder implication so that this one doesn't get lost. There's a lot of good ideas floating around in this thread that I don't want to get lost. :P

I've made the following changes:

• Alias: plain_background -> simple_background (approved)*
• Alias: textured_background -> texture_background (deleted)
• Alias: texture_background -> textured_background (approved)
• Alias: plain_bg -> plain_background (deleted)
• Alias: plain_bg -> simple_background (approved)
• Alias: empty_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Alias: basic_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Alias: monochrome_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Alias: monochromatic_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Alias: chromatic_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Alias: complex_background -> detailed_background (approved)
• Alias: blank_background -> white_background (deleted)
• Alias: blank_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Alias: multicolored_background, multicoloured_background, multicolor_background, multicolour_background -> invalid_background (approved all)
• Alias: desktop_background -> wallpaper (approved)
• Alias: polka_dots_background, polka_dot_background, dots_background, dot_background -> doted_background (approved)
• Alias: <many>_bg -> <many>_background (approved) - Various shorthand aliases

• Implication: <color>_background -> plain_background (deleted)
• Implication: <color>_background -> simple_background (approved)
• white_background (approved)*
• Implication: abstract_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Implication: spiral_background -> abstract_background (approved)
• Implication: blowup_background -> simple_background (pending) - I'm unsure of this one as some posts seem kind of detailed (though probably not enough for detailed_background anyways). It would probably work, but I wanted to ask before putting it through.
• Implication: gradient_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Implication: textured_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Implication: pattern_background -> simple_background (approved)
• Implication: checkered_background -> pattern_background (approved)
• Implication: halftone_background -> pattern_background (approved)
• Implication: dotted_background -> pattern_background (approved)
• Implication: striped_background -> pattern_background (approved)
• Implication: game_background -> detailed_background (approved)
• Implication: photo_background -> detailed_background (approved)
• Implication: amazing_background -> detailed_background (approved in another thread)

I'm leaving the "single color background" tags aliased to simple_background for now as with the color implications it seems like it would end up getting mistagged more often than not, and without the implications it's far too undertagged to be useful. We can always decide later needed (it's a pretty easy tagging project at any rate :P ).

*These will take a long time to run and I want to wait until the site's low traffic time to approve them (probably after midnight MDT, or ~5-6 hours from now). Approved now

parasprite said:

• Implication: blowup_background -> simple_background (pending) - I'm unsure of this one as some posts seem kind of detailed (though probably not enough for detailed_background anyways). It would probably work, but I wanted to ask before putting it through.

I think it's actually a unique enough style of background to keep it's own tag, especially since the level of detail in the background will be different depending on the level of detail on the blown-up section of the piece (which can vary significantly).