Not sure about this one. The group wiki says it is used for three or more characters. Do the people in a crowd count as characters or background?

It's written that the solo_focus tag should not appear without duo or group.
post #703468
The above image was tagged solo_focus without duo or group. I added crowd instead. Does this seem appropriate or should it be tagged solo?

If that's correct, should there be group_focus which implies crowd and a removal of the duo_focus -> group implication, or should crowd just be considered a specific type of group with a crowd -> group implication? The former seems a bad option since crowd is so undertagged in comparison to group.

If the above crowd doesn't count as a group, what is the distinction?

Does a crowd only count as a group if the distinct shapes of individuals can be seen as seen here?
post #15193

Do they need to be equally visible to any other character?
post #592990

Or just visible enough to make out unique characteristics? Never mind that this counts as group even without the crowd—just an example.
post #284499

Related: If crowd -> group, audience probably should as well.

group is a part of a specific set of tags that are designed to narrow down the characters of a post.

• solo (1)
• duo (2)
• group (3 or more)
• zero_pictured (0, mostly useful for comic pages in a pool and tagging projects)

crowd is a lot more generic than that, but it could probably be implicated -> group. I'm less certain about audience, but we can probably condense the two somehow.

My main question is whether that first image should be solo or solo_focus. That's about as background-y as a crowd can get, but I assume when people search solo they want the character to be completely alone. So that makes me think it should be solo_focus, and if that's the case then logically crowd should implicate group to keep with the guideline that solo_focus should never appear without duo or group.

purple.beastie said:
My main question is whether that first image should be solo or solo_focus.

There's clearly more than one character even though we can't see them in detail, therefore group and solo_focus. That's exactly what the solo_focus tag is for: multiple characters with focus on only one them.

purple.beastie said:
My main question is whether that first image should be solo or solo_focus.

Oh, sorry. I must have started typing and got distracted with something else.

Yeah Genjar is right on this one. I've seen background characters not tagged if they are far in the far background and only a tiny detail (like the ones in post #1211), but technically those should be counted as well. For example if there was a character in the front looking out at the cityscape it would be solo_focus + group, but not solo. However, if I was searching for it I'd expect it to be (mis)tagged solo as characters like that are, understandably, easy to miss when tagging.

parasprite said:
Oh, sorry. I must have started typing and got distracted with something else.

Yeah Genjar is right on this one. I've seen background characters not tagged if they are far in the far background and only a tiny detail (like the ones in post #1211), but technically those should be counted as well. For example if there was a character in the front looking out at the cityscape it would be solo_focus + group, but not solo. However, if I was searching for it I'd expect it to be (mis)tagged solo as characters like that are, understandably, easy to miss when tagging.

I had a question on this actually.

post #693699 post #693701 post #693702

In the final picture, you can see clearly that there are three characters. That gets tagged with group, no doubt. The middle picture has one shadow that looks clearly like a dolphin, and one shadow that you can't quite make out (but it can be inferred that it is probably another character by the first shadow), so I went with group there as well, though I guess the case could be made for duo. The final picture is what threw me for a loop. Clearly, that shadow is the same creature as in the other pictures, but you wouldn't know that if it weren't for the other pictures. So that's outside information... Except the shadow is otherwise unexplained. I went with solo on that one, trying to follow TWYS as best I could, but would it have been better to go with duo and solo_focus on that one?

Clawdragons said:
post #693699
I went with solo on that one, trying to follow TWYS as best I could, but would it have been better to go with duo and solo_focus on that one?

I'd say the solo is the correct tag here. IIRC every post is tagged based on it's own individual content, even if it's part of a series of posts, or a comic.

Looking at that image by itself there is no way of knowing that the little smudge of black is actually a character so I would also have tagged it as solo.

Clawdragons said:
I had a question on this actually.

In the final picture, you can see clearly that there are three characters. That gets tagged with group, no doubt. The middle picture has one shadow that looks clearly like a dolphin, and one shadow that you can't quite make out (but it can be inferred that it is probably another character by the first shadow), so I went with group there as well, though I guess the case could be made for duo. The final picture is what threw me for a loop. Clearly, that shadow is the same creature as in the other pictures, but you wouldn't know that if it weren't for the other pictures. So that's outside information... Except the shadow is otherwise unexplained. I went with solo on that one, trying to follow TWYS as best I could, but would it have been better to go with duo and solo_focus on that one?

Whew, odd perspective on that one.

Looking at the first (as if I know nothing about the other two) I can't even tell what that shadow is. A shadow from the front character? (no it's too odd for that) A cloud of ink? (from a dolphin's ear fins?) A smudge from photoshop? (maybe) If the area was concealed in the two other images I might even have a hard time even associating it with the other dolphins (though it is vaguely dolphin-shaped, I guess). It's ambiguous enough that you can't even really tell that it's a character without the others as context.

So yeah, I'd say don't bother counting it. It's kind of up in the air for these just because "how ambiguous/out of focus/far away can a character be to be counted as a character" isn't a clean line (in fact it gets more out of focus the closer you get to it :V). In the end, like the cloud of flies drawn as specs around a trash can, you just kind of have to use your best judgement on how much it matters to the picture (also, let's not forget your sanity ;)).

Thank you for the clarification Genjar & parasprite. Now about those implications...

After going through crowd -group I couldn't find a single image that I felt warranted crowd but not group. I took crowd off one, but it seemed more like it must've been a copy paste mistake since it was duo and a crowd wasn't even mentioned. For the rest I added group. I think everyone agrees you need more than two people for a crowd so I say this should definitly be an implication.

I also went through audience -crowd and tagged crowd and group where appropriate. All but a few exceptions of audience could be tagged with group or crowd/group.

The exceptions (audience -group) raise two questions:
post #472573
Should an audience need to be pictured for it to be tagged audience?

post #11712 post #34233
Is one character an audience?