Topic: Tag Implication: detailed_background -> detailed

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

titanmelon

Former Staff

Hm, rereading the wiki entry, maybe this one should be reversed. Which seems a bit..counter-intuitive

Thoughts welcome

Updated by anonymous

titanmelon

Former Staff

Yeah, that seems to be true, what about:

  • detailed
    • detailed_background
detailed_foreground

the latter two then would then imply the former
--
there's also some overlap with realistic and photorealism here, dunno what to do with those, maybe

  • detailed
    • realism
      • photorealism
  • [..]

Updated by anonymous

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

m3g4p0n1 said:
Bump, I think in the current moment, detailed_backgound implying detailed is a correct implication, considering other 'detailed_* -> detailed' implications have been accepted as well.

I don't think I like how detailed_background is being utilised at the moment, because it is essentially used for any background that is NOT just a simple_background.

Thus, posts such as post #3958425 will seep into the mix and is described as being "detailed".
There is also ~158k detailed_background posts as compared to the ~11k detailed posts.
Passing this implication request will massively dilute what is actually considered "detailed" here on e6.

faucet

Member

detailed_background is currently anything that isn't a simple_background, which I don't think fits under the definition "part of or the whole of an image or animation is rendered in great detail".

m3g4p0n1

Member

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't think I like how detailed_background is being utilised at the moment, because it is essentially used for any background that is NOT just a simple_background.

Thus, posts such as post #3958425 will seep into the mix and is described as being "detailed".
There is also ~158k detailed_background posts as compared to the ~11k detailed posts.
Passing this implication request will massively dilute what is actually considered "detailed" here on e6.

I think the way it's being used is good, I believe we need a way to search for "any background that isn't simple", but I can't think of an alternative name to "detailed_background".

But I agree, implying to detailed isn't a good deal.

faucet said:
detailed_background is currently anything that isn't a simple_background, which I don't think fits under the definition "part of or the whole of an image or animation is rendered in great detail".

I think that description better fits the usage of amazing_background, which implies detailed_background, which would then imply detailed. Should this implication go through.

As far as I understand, we have three tags to handle the range of background quality.

simple_background > detailed_background > amazing_background

Simple -> Minimal to no detail
Detailed -> Enough background work to identify that the artwork happens in somewhere.
Amazing -> When it's VERY detailed.

So considering this, what about implying amazing_background -> detailed instead?

TheGreatWolfgang

Privileged

m3g4p0n1 said:
I think the way it's being used is good, I believe we need a way to search for "any background that isn't simple", but I can't think of an alternative name to "detailed_background".

But I agree, implying to detailed isn't a good deal.

I think that description better fits the usage of amazing_background, which implies detailed_background, which would then imply detailed. Should this implication go through.

As far as I understand, we have three tags to handle the range of background quality.

simple_background > detailed_background > amazing_background

Simple -> Minimal to no detail
Detailed -> Enough background work to identify that the artwork happens in somewhere.
Amazing -> When it's VERY detailed.

So considering this, what about implying amazing_background -> detailed instead?

I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of implying amazing_background with detailed.

m3g4p0n1

Member

wat8548 said:
Can we please find a better name for amazing_background already? Or just ditch detailed_background and replace it with the current contents of amazing_background, since it's been scope-creeped to the point of meaninglessness.

And while we're at it, get rid of the beautiful_background tag. I first noticed it on this post, which is nothing more than a gradient_background:

post #3890684

beautiful_background sounds vague, maybe it should be aliased to invalid_background?

Detailed_background isn't useles, it just has a improper name in comparison to its current use, and it's the middle ground between simple and amazing.
My preference would be to move amazing_background to detailed_background, but before doing that there should be a replacement tag for the current detailed_background.

identifiable_background ?
not_simple_background ?

Watsit

Privileged

thegreatwolfgang said:
I don't think I like how detailed_background is being utilised at the moment, because it is essentially used for any background that is NOT just a simple_background.

It's supposed to be for "detailed enough to place the scene in a clearly defined location". There are other types of backgrounds that don't give a 'clearly defined location' but are also not simple_background (e.g. abstract_backgrounds can have intricate and complex designs, like
post #3960251 post #2100645
while simple_background is for "Posts where the background is simplistic. Generally just a single color or shape").

Wolfmanfur

Blocked

It should be approved by principle: sketch_background implicates sketch. I don't understand some of the opposition here.

I dunno if ultimately this would be rejected, but then sketch_background should no longer implicate sketch.

m3g4p0n1

Member

wolfmanfur said:
It should be approved by principle: sketch_background implicates sketch. I don't understand some of the opposition here.

I dunno if ultimately this would be rejected, but then sketch_background should no longer implicate sketch.

The tag name doesn't always match the usage. Implying right now might cause posts wrongfully tagged with the "detailed" tag.

From simple_background: "If there's enough scenery that you can discern the location, it should be tagged as detailed_background instead."
As such, we have posts like post #4053660 post #4051445 post #4053163 which would end up tagged as detailed.
...well the third one may be considered detailed, but I wouldn't tag it for the first two examples.

implying amazing_background -> detailed is just much more fitting, in my opinion.

  • 1