Implicating abstract_background → simple_background
Link to implication

Reason:

abstract_backgrounds are made up of mostly just color and design and shouldn't give any setting details making them simple_backgrounds

EDIT: The tag implication abstract_background -> simple_background (forum #279378) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.

-1. Abstract doesn't have to be simple, e.g. post #593582

Watsit said:
-1. Abstract doesn't have to be simple, e.g. post #593582

no setting information, it's just a design.

and that's literally tagged simple_backgound...

sneezer22 said:
no setting information, it's just a design.

and that's literally tagged simple_backgound...

I would say that's incorrectly tagged simple_background. According to the wiki:
"Posts where the background is simplistic. Generally just a single color or shape".
That's certainly not a single (or simple) shape, nor apparently "thoughtless" or random. Simple doesn't mean not having setting information (though being digimon, which exist in a digital world, a schematic-style background is typically associated with digital realms). Being able to discern a setting from the background is an indication that it's not simple, but it's not the only way a background is not simple.

Watsit said:
According to the wiki:
"Posts where the background is simplistic. Generally just a single color or shape".

yep, that's the 1 part of the wiki's text that has been around since it's conception in 2011. I'm not entirely sure it doesn't need an update

the posts in abstract_background simple_background and abstract_background -simple_background look pretty similar.

hopefully someone else comments so we can get a third perspective on it

sneezer22 said:
yep, that's the 1 part of the wiki's text that has been around since it's conception in 2011. I'm not entirely sure it doesn't need an update

the posts in abstract_background simple_background and abstract_background -simple_background look pretty similar.

hopefully someone else comments so we can get a third perspective on it

not everyone uses abstract background correctly which doesn't help, but if you actually read the wiki for them
abstract_background
simple_background
tag_group:background

Though abstract backgrounds can be simple it's not a standard that can be implicated. so also -1.

Versperus said:
not everyone uses abstract background correctly which doesn't help... Though abstract backgrounds can be simple it's not a standard that can be implicated. so also -1.

thanks for the input. I feel like it could go either way but if people want a more narrow interpretation of the tag that's probably what should happen. that means there are probably a decent number of abstract/simple background overlap mistags to fix then though :/

might mull over a new background tag and ask for opinions in the new tag forum

This was already implied at some point, and undone because abstract backgrounds can be very complex and detailed. Simple background tag does not mean "not specific setting". It means exactly what it says on tin: simple background.

kahen_kilon_vittu said:
This was already implied at some point, and undone because abstract backgrounds can be very complex and detailed. Simple background tag does not mean "not specific setting". It means exactly what it says on tin: simple background.

oh, cool. thanks for commenting and the tag history! I do feel like there's been a bit of a shift in the tagging from that meaning though. if the stricter definition of the tag is the correct one and it's been decided that it should stay that way there are a decent number of mistags for simple_background then. maybe not a whole lot but enough to be annoying :/

The tag implication abstract_background -> simple_background (forum #279378) has been rejected by @NotMeNotYou.