Aliasing full_body → full-length_portrait
Link to alias

Reason:

same, as well as:

fullbody -> full-length_portrait
full-body -> full-length_portrait

and also these that are one and the same, people on FA tend to use "body", not "portrait" to describe the visibility of the pose.

halfbody -> three-quarter_portrait
half-body -> three-quarter_portrait
half_body -> three-quarter_portrait

Agree, and we might as well alias some other common variants, like full-body_portrait / full_body_portrait (which is one I mistakingly enter way too often, since anything with 'full body' just sounds more natural than 'full length' to my ears).

Maybe add shot aliases too, in places where the xxx_portrait tags don't already have them included. Like:

• bust_portrait actually has bust_shot
• half-length_portrait has no aliases at all, let alone something like 'half-body_shot' or 'half-length_shot'
• three-quarter_portrait has cowboy_shot but nothing that's actually a close variant of 'three-quarter'
• full-length_portrait obviously has nothing either, hence the topic

So yeah, pretty much the entire family could use some sensible aliases (even just non-hyphenated versions) to make tagging them less of an overly specific ordeal. It can be a real pain in the neck now.

Jugofthat said:
Agree, and we might as well alias some other common variants, like full-body_portrait / full_body_portrait (which is one I mistakingly enter way too often, often since anything with 'full body' just sounds more natural than 'full length' to my ears).

Full body is photographic term, it is in dictionary, along with torso portrait (that's when we don't see anything below groin or upper part of hips). Full length isn't..but..well, what you do to snakes\dragons and other non-anthros? :P

Yep, see, so it's a pretty common term. And obviously, a few tags like three-quarter_portrait don't really work on anything that doesn't have legs, but hey, what can you do? That's not really the point here, anyhow. ;)

By the way, admin team, would it be okay if I edit the portrait wiki? All the xxx_portrait tags only appear to serve as descriptions of how much of a character's body is visible / in-frame (a pretty useful purpose by the way), yet the always implicated umbrella tag has this to say:

Portrait:

Images that capture something of a person's likeness, personality or mood, from their facial expression or body language. Typically the face is dominant.

That's... completely inconsistent with the way all its related tags are used. They don't have anything to do with capturing personalities or dominant glares being thrown at the viewer.

Swiftkill said:
...what you do to snakes\dragons and other non-anthros? :P

post #89922 post #654067 post #359262

something along these lines, found under "half-length_portrait feral solo"

As far as snakes and other limbless species, they cant fall under three-quarter portrait or bust_portrait sense they dont have shoulders or hips(visible separation between head, body, lower limb(s)) but can still fall under the other portrait tags.

bump

What about:

• full_portrait A-> full-length_portrait - Easier to type.
• half_portrait A-> half-length_portrait - Ditto

Bump

Looking at how it is being tagged, portrait is pretty much identical with solo. So I don't know why the full_body/full-length_portrait tags even exist.

By the wiki definition, full-length_portrait would apply to most of the solo posts. Doesn't seem worthwhile to tag it for that many posts, especially when it's probably not even used much in searches.

Genjar said:
Looking at how it is being tagged, portrait is pretty much identical with solo. So I don't know why the full_body/full-length_portrait tags even exist.

Some people want to see an entire character. Some people only want to see part of them. Different tags for different amounts of exposure. Also, non-solo portraits exist.

Admittedly, many images with the portrait tag probably shouldn't have it.

post #1280942

Genjar said:
By the wiki definition, full-length_portrait would apply to most of the solo posts. Doesn't seem worthwhile to tag it for that many posts, especially when it's probably not even used much in searches.

It probably shouldn't count if the character is fighting, masturbating, gaming, showering or some other sort of activity. I kinda mentioned this before when trying to tag this:

post #50725

3/4 visible, yes. 3/4 portrait, no.

Genjar said:

Looking at how it is being tagged, portrait is pretty much identical with solo. So I don't know why the full_body/full-length_portrait tags even exist.

By the wiki definition, full-length_portrait would apply to most of the solo posts. Doesn't seem worthwhile to tag it for that many posts, especially when it's probably not even used much in searches.

BlueDingo said:

Some people want to see an entire character. Some people only want to see part of them. Different tags for different amounts of exposure. Also, non-solo portraits exist.

Admittedly, many images with the portrait tag probably shouldn't have it.

post #1280942

It probably shouldn't count if the character is fighting, masturbating, gaming, showering or some other sort of activity. I kinda mentioned this before when trying to tag this:

post #50725

3/4 visible, yes. 3/4 portrait, no.

What if we have a conjoint of tags for the percentage of the character's body that is visible on the image, regardless of it being a portrait or not? I can see how such tags could be usefull, and quite frankly, portrait tags in general are pretty commonly mistagged (as BlueDingo mentioned).

This tag group is getting worse.
The definition is so vague that portrait could be tagged for pretty much anything. Currently it consists mostly of various solo poses, but is also getting tagged for content such as these:
post #1352497 post #1363550 post #1363107 post #1369611 post #551850

So pretty much anything except groups. And with nearly 25000 posts, cleaning it is out of question. Not sure how to fix this, might be necessary to scrap it altogether. Since thanks to the mistags, it doesn't really offer anything that's not covered by other tags.

Genjar said:
This tag group is getting worse.
The definition is so vague that portrait could be tagged for pretty much anything. Currently it consists mostly of various solo poses, but is also getting tagged for content such as these:
post #1352497 post #1363550 post #1363107 post #1369611 post #551850

So pretty much anything except groups. And with nearly 25000 posts, cleaning it is out of question. Not sure how to fix this, might be necessary to scrap it altogether. Since thanks to the mistags, it doesn't really offer anything that's not covered by other tags.

Answer me this, do we have any other tags that define how much of a character there is in the image? head, bust, head-to-waist, head-to-knees, fullbody, close-up, eta...

just because the tag has portrait in it does not mean we use it as portrait on e621, it wouldnt be first time a tag usage differs from the actual definition of the term used for the tag.

PS: admittingly portrait it self may be redundent, but the tags implicated to it are not.

Darou said:
Answer me this, do we have any other tags that define how much of a character there is in the image? head, bust, head-to-waist, head-to-knees, fullbody, close-up, eta...

Yep, mostly in the *_shot tag group (such as torso_shot). Headshot_portrait is an exception; that one used to be in the *_shot group, but got renamed because of the mistags (was tagged for actual headshots, as in, with a weapon).

No alternative for full body, and I'm not sure if there should be. Since it'd end up being one of the most common tag on the site.

Genjar said:
Yep, mostly in the *_shot tag group (such as torso_shot). Headshot_portrait is an exception; that one used to be in the *_shot group, but got renamed because of the mistags (was tagged for actual headshots, as in, with a weapon).

No alternative for full body, and I'm not sure if there should be. Since it'd end up being one of the most common tag on the site.

torso_shot excludes head and legs in most cases thou, what about those that want everything except for the legs or feet or the reverse of everything except for the head(something that may come up in images featuring old cartoon characters and humanoids)

PS: im surprized there is no eye_shot or paw_shot tags as their quite common...

Genjar said:
Headshot_portrait is an exception; that one used to be in the *_shot group, but got renamed because of the mistags (was tagged for actual headshots, as in, with a weapon).

I've lost count of how many times I've cleaned that one up.

Genjar said:
The definition is so vague that portrait could be tagged for pretty much anything. Currently it consists mostly of various solo poses, but is also getting tagged for content such as these:
post #1352497 post #1363550 post #1363107 post #1369611 post #551850

So pretty much anything except groups. And with nearly 25000 posts, cleaning it is out of question. Not sure how to fix this, might be necessary to scrap it altogether. Since thanks to the mistags, it doesn't really offer anything that's not covered by other tags.

Maybe we should restrict it to images where the characters are not performing any dynamic actions (walking, fucking, etc.). Static actions (standing, sitting, etc.) only.

Darou said:
torso_shot excludes head and legs in most cases thou, what about those that want everything except for the legs or feet or the reverse of everything except for the head(something that may come up in images featuring old cartoon characters and humanoids)

Not everything can be searchable, there's too many possible variations of 'body parts out of view'. But that one is common, there's a lot of artists who don't like drawing feet. So three-quarter_portrait is probably worth keeping, at least in some form.

As for 'everything except for the head', there's no tag for that as far as I know (portrait or otherwise). If it's common enough, I guess we could tag it as... hm, how about headless_shot?

PS: im surprized there is no eye_shot or paw_shot tags as their quite common...

Eye_shot, as in post #7116? I can't think of any way to search for those, could be worth tagging. If they can be found. Searching for close-up *_eyes certainly doesn't help.

Genjar said:
Searching for close-up *_eyes certainly doesn't help.

You got that right. Over 60 pages of false positives... Adding in -cutaway and -comic helps a bit.