Implicating brick_wall → wall
Link to implication

Reason:

Seems obvious.

Also implicate inside -> wall.

Nah, just kidding. That'd be mostly accurate, but do we even need the wall tag?

And imply brick too for good measure.

Genjar said:
Nah, just kidding. That'd be mostly accurate, but do we even need the wall tag?

Eh, it does sound kind of superfluous. Any objections against using wall as tag? It sounds as useful as using back, which has also been invalidated a while back.

Yeah, we could probably do without it. Any time a wall has any relevance to the image it already has a specific tag for it, such as building, against_wall, etc.

+1 for invalidating wall.

+1 for invalidating wall. +0.625 for invalidating brick_wall.

I've made the following changes:

• Implication: brick_wall -> wall (denied)
• Alias: wall -> invalid_tag (approved)
• Alias: brick_wall -> invalid_tag (pending)

Invalidate brick_wall too?

Hudson said:
Invalidate brick_wall too?

Sounds good. Tags like alley, dungeon and building pretty much cover every post it was used for anyway.

+1

DragonFox69 said:
Sounds good. Tags like alley, dungeon and building pretty much cover every post it was used for anyway.

+1

• Alias: brick_wall -> invalid_tag (approved)

...hm.
I just noticed the brick tag. If we're keeping that, might be better to alias brick_wall to it.

Genjar said:
...hm.
I just noticed the brick tag. If we're keeping that, might be better to alias brick_wall to it.

To bad it's already invalidated and invalidated for bad reasons at that since not all buildings or alleys are brick walled and nether is every brick wall apart of a building.

I feel like brick_wall was invalidated a bit too quickly, I mean, it's a fairly distinct feature, but I guess aliasing to brick would be an adequate compromise.

Invalidating brick wall seems reasonable to me when you consider that the mere presence of a brick wall means nothing to the image from the perspective of searchers.

FibS said:
Invalidating brick wall seems reasonable to me when you consider that the mere presence of a brick wall means nothing to the image from the perspective of searchers.

It can be, e.g. I've used it to quickly find images I've previously seen, not everything we tag is used as "I want to look at xyz" but also "I want to find this image which contained xyz".

Besides the brick_wall tag was hardly in the way, ambiguous, stupid or anything of the like, just assumed to be pointless. But we have lots of pure "object tags" which can be seen as pointless at first glance.

FibS said:
Invalidating brick wall seems reasonable to me when you consider that the mere presence of a brick wall means nothing to the image from the perspective of searchers.

Not really a good enough reason as that would also apply to about a 3rd of all generalized tags on this site over 500 posts

And at the end of discussion we see brick is also invalidated too.
Good for every tagger. Hooray!

+1 for invalidating brick.

Chessax said:
I feel like brick_wall was invalidated a bit too quickly, I mean, it's a fairly distinct feature, but I guess aliasing to brick would be an adequate compromise.

+1 to this. It's not unlike "red background" or such things.

Aliasing it to brick would make perfect sense though

As has been suggested, we need to either bring Brick Wall back (it's serves a purpose for searching) or alias it to brick instead.

Furrin_Gok said:
As has been suggested, we need to either bring Brick Wall back (it's serves a purpose for searching) or alias it to brick instead.

I concur with the former ("bring Brick Wall back"). I just tried it when it is very prominent to (obviously) no avail.

It's certainly distinguishable enough to have its own tag and it's not like walls are the only things made of bricks or bricks are the only thing walls are made of.

+1 to bringing back brick_wall.

Would be better to keep brick, it is an object like a teacup or a book.

kamimatsu said:
+1 to bringing back brick_wall.

If we bring back "brick_wall" we will need to do the same for "wall" and I think they are unnecessary, since we already have tags covering anything interesting that could be done to/with a wall (e.g. "against_wall", "glory_hole", "stuck", " cum_on_wall"); of course ever exists the possibility of someone simply want to see walls, but in this case this person probably is in the wrong site.

This seems like such an odd invalidation to make.

O16 said:
Would be better to keep brick, it is an object like a teacup or a book.

If we bring back "brick_wall" we will need to do the same for "wall" and I think they are unnecessary, since we already have tags covering anything interesting that could be done to/with a wall (e.g. "against_wall", "glory_hole", "stucked", " cum_on_wall") of course ever exists the possibility of someone simply want to See walls, but in this case this person probably is in the wrong site.

We have various x_skin tags but no skin tag, various x_eyes tags but no eyes tag, etc. I don't see why we can't have x_wall tags without a wall tag.

O16 said:
If we bring back "brick_wall" we will need to do the same for "wall" and I think they are unnecessary

I don't see why. There's no point in searching for generic walls, those are almost as common as a ground tag would be. But tags such as stone_wall and brick_wall can be occasionally useful.

It doesn't make much sense that the former was kept, but not the latter.

^{(Random thought: could stone_wall be implicated to detailed_background...?)}

Genjar said:
I don't see why. There's no point in searching for generic walls, those are almost as common as a ground tag would be. But tags such as stone_wall and brick_wall can be occasionally useful.

It doesn't make much sense that the former was kept, but not the latter.

A ground tag actually wouldn't be as common as you'd think, considering how many images take place indoors (where they'd most likely be on a floor), in/on/underwater (unless they're on the seabed), in the air or outer space, or don't have an environment of any kind. Wall would be kinda the same, common on indoors images and some outdoor images but not forests, underwater, etc.

Genjar said:
^{(Random thought: could stone_wall be implicated to detailed_background...?)}

What if it contains very little detail? Most things can be simplified.

BlueDingo said:
We have various x_skin tags but no skin tag, various x_eyes tags but no eyes tag, etc. I don't see why we can't have x_wall tags without a wall tag.

Due to the nature of this site, to have considerable level of specificity when describing characters, clothing, actions and interactions is interesting, but describing characteristics of background objects probably is go to far; I mean, is it nescessary to have tags such "red_sandstone", "spotted_tree_bark", "magnesium_lamp", "wooden_chair" etc?

Now I notice that we actually have a "wooden_chair" tag... with almost 150 posts.

Genjar said:
^{(Random thought: could stone_wall be implicated to detailed_background...?)}

What if the stone wall is in the foreground and the viewer is looking around the corner at the scene?

Furrin_Gok said:
What if the stone wall is in the foreground and the viewer is looking around the corner at the scene?

Yeah, it wouldn't work. I already tag scripted those, and found a couple of exceptions. Including this:
post #116940

Come to think about it, 'wall' is somewhat ambiguous. There's quite a difference between that and a house wall. Then there's larger fortifications such as city and castle walls, etc..

O16 said:
Due to the nature of this site, to have considerable level of specificity when describing characters, clothing, actions and interactions is interesting, but describing characteristics of background objects probably is go to far; I mean, is it nescessary to have tags such "red_sandstone", "spotted_tree_bark", "magnesium_lamp", "wooden_chair" etc?

016 give up the relevancy card, whats irrelevant to you may well be relevant to others and that does not make this site the wrong site for them to frequent. The nature of this site is to tag all notable visible features overall, not just character/clothing/actions/interactions.

Ruku said:
016 give up the relevancy card, whats irrelevant to you may well be relevant to others and that does not make this site the wrong site for them to frequent. The nature of this site is to tag all notable visible features overall, not just character/clothing/actions/interactions.

The nature of this site is to focus on useful tags and keep down on junk. This has been a well-established since the beginning of the site.

Ruku said:
016 give up the relevancy card, whats irrelevant to you may well be relevant to others and that does not make this site the wrong site for them to frequent. The nature of this site is to tag all notable visible features overall, not just character/clothing/actions/interactions.

I) "character, clothing, actions and interactions" are few examples, but not all of them.

II) I don't mean that we shouldn't tag general features, I mean that tag them with great specificity may be unnecessary (e.g. "bouquet + rose" is OK, but "bouquet_of_yellow_roses" may be too specific).

III) I was joking when said "but in this case this person probably is in the wrong site" (for now on I will type jokes and sarcasm in italic).

`brick_wall` revalidated. validated? undeleted

Added a disambiguation page for wall. This is intended to catch instances of `cum_on_wall`, `against_wall`, etc.

I'm not against very distinct wall types, but I'm not entirely for them either. People searching for an image may remember these wall types. I'm sure I'll make up my mind on that when we get there.

Adding a tag for defensive walls could be useful.
Dunno about the name. Wall_(fortification), maybe?

No idea.

Quick note, I have not created the disambiguation page yet.

Knotty_Curls said:
No idea.

Quick note, I have not created the disambiguation page yet.

I've created a disambiguation page.