Do insects and super small birds count as a character?
I tend to say yes. Because a small fox, for example, in the back does count as a character too, right? But I am not sure :c
I often skip images like this, because I don't know how to tag them.

Should this be tagged solo or duo?
post #2702328

Also, small birds in the back, on the sky do they count?
post #2490361

And what about flies?
post #1570932

monsterbomb10010 said:
1st pic: duo solo_focus
2nd pic: solo ambient_bird
3rd pic: solo ambient_fly

Unless something's changed, I believe ambient_* creatures do count as characters. For the last two images I would expect them to be tagged with
2nd pic: group solo_focus ambient_bird
3rd pic: group solo_focus ambient_fly

There was a recent topic #29280 that referenced the description of duo: "Any characters or creatures in the background, regardless of distance and size difference." There was also an older topic that implied ambient_* creatures counted as characters, but I can't seem to find that one again...

sys-yok said:
Unless something's changed, I believe ambient_* creatures do count as characters.

If that's the case, then isn't that a bit broken? I don't want to expect group posts in my searches that also contain a flock of faraway birds that doesn't even interact with the main focus character. That doesn't look right to me.

monsterbomb10010 said:
If that's the case, then isn't that a bit broken? I don't want to expect group posts in my searches that also contain a flock of faraway birds that doesn't even interact with the main focus character. That doesn't look right to me.

How would it be defined otherwise? When is a background character defined enough to be included in the character count?
post #2484633 Currently duo/solo_focus.
post #2341547 Currently duo/solo_focus.
post #2278147 Currently duo/background_character.
post #2697301 Currently solo/ambient_bird.
If it's not the size of the character relative to the image as a whole, as the second and third examples have background characters smaller than the fourth, nor is it the relevance of the background character to the image focus, as the first and second examples have no bearing on the character being focused on as much as the fourth, why would the fourth one count as solo when the others don't?

I would think that a character needs to be prominent enough to count as a character in their own right and not as a prop or background scenery. Ambient whatevers are not really characters but props to help sell the setting and give it some life. They're not actual characters directly relevant to the "plot" of the picture. For example, ambient insects are often used as props, not characters, to help show that something in the picture stinks. Ambient birds are often used to show height or distance and to give some life to the background, but could easily be removed from the picture without effecting its overall "story".

clawstripe said:
I would think that a character needs to be prominent enough to count as a character in their own right and not as a prop or background scenery.

That would suggest all four of my examples should be solo and ambient_something then, as they're just props or background scenery that aren't relevant to the "plot" of the picture. The first is just adding a bit more life to the scene, but Ho-oh is completely unnecessary and could be removed without without affecting the focus on Lugia, the second is just a random irrelevant drifloon in the corner that has no bearing on the lucario, the third you need a magnifying glass to see and isn't relevant to how cute Gingy looks trying to make cupcakes, and the fourth is some random birds in a forest with a post-transformed fox.

monsterbomb10010 said:
If that's the case, then isn't that a bit broken? I don't want to expect group posts in my searches that also contain a flock of faraway birds that doesn't even interact with the main focus character. That doesn't look right to me.

That's why *_focus would also be tagged. If you wanted only non-background groups, you could search for something like group -solo_focus -duo_focus or even group -ambient_* to exclude any ambient life. Similarly, to find images with only a main character in focus (even if there is ambient life), the search could be ~solo ~solo_focus.

As others have said, trying to define what characters should count is difficult. Instead we have the focus tags to determine how many characters are important, and the regular character count tags to cover all characters (even the ones that might not be as important to the image).

Alright... I'm not tagging pictures with ambient creature and background character tags anymore. Again, it just doesn't look right, even making background characters irrelevant or something idk. It just makes me feel frustrated...

Ugh... It's REALLY hard to defend the idea that this should be tagged as group post #1570932. I'd like to say that "ambient" wildlife should not count as characters, but background characters should. However, there's always going to be ambiguity in defining what is "ambient"...
post #1570932 post #2697301 <- ambient wildlife
post #2278147 post #2484633 <- background characters. (Ho-oh is a legendary, showing that this place is home to multiple legendaries. I think that's way too interesting to be generic ambient wildlife.)
post #2341547 <- ...I'd think that ambient creatures are necessarily wildlife by definition. So the question is... are Drifloons considered wildlife?
post #2490361 <- the birds are surely ambient, but perhaps the fish aren't because the character has interacted with them???
post #2702328 <- the Furret's interest in the butterfly promoted the butterfly from ambient to a a character, I guess???

So... would ambient sponges or corals be considered characters? If so, can ambient (non-anthro) plants, fungi, etc., be considered characters? Plants can be mobile, can visibly react to stimuli, etc., so if not, why not?

Should man-o-war imply group, because they are colonial organisms?

I've said it before, trying to objectively define tags is a misunderstanding of how language works and is mostly just a way to make tagging and searching worse for the sake of pointless (and misguided) pedantry.

clawdragons said:
So... would ambient sponges or corals be considered characters? If so, can ambient (non-anthro) plants, fungi, etc., be considered characters?

Would (non-anthropomorphised) sponges, corals, plants, fungi, etc be considered characters? As far as I know, they're not, so ambient versions of them also would not be.

clawdragons said:
I've said it before, trying to objectively define tags is a misunderstanding of how language works and is mostly just a way to make tagging and searching worse for the sake of pointless (and misguided) pedantry.

It's not really about objectivity here, it's about consistency. Ensuring a tag is consistently applied by the site's standards, and not left up to whether or not a given tagger feels it should apply to a given picture, is what makes e6's search and blacklist feature one of the best around. The same picture should warrant the same tags, regardless of the subjective view of who tagged it. A post like
post #2484633
is a good example; to me, Ho-oh looks like an irrelevant background character, which is just there to help the image composition and give a little more life to the scene aside from Lugia posing, much like an ambient bird would. But CrocoGator thinks, as a legendary (not unique, mind, there can be multiple of a given legendary species) it's more interesting to consider the picture is about both of them. Whether or not it counts as solo or duo shouldn't be up to my or their subjective take... there's two characters there, it's duo, regardless of whether it's an important aspect of the picture.

"Any characters or creatures in the background, regardless of distance and size difference"
This seems like the most logical answer to me. This should be added to the other wikis.
Ambient creatures could be linked under "see also" too