The bulk update request #1758 is pending approval.
create implication inside (183013) -> detailed_background (204416)
create implication outside (295078) -> detailed_background (204416)
create implication scenery_porn (536) -> amazing_background (1435)
Reason: The first implication in this BUR has been rejected before, but I think we ought to revisit this one. The important thing to note about the tag “detailed background” is that it is used in contrast to “simple background.” It does not actually have to be all that “detailed” to qualify. From the wiki: Any background detailed enough to place the scene in a clearly defined location. Note that sparse does not equal simple background. Scenery such as unfurnished rooms or clear skies with just a couple of clouds count as detailed backgrounds.
By this definition, if the scene is inside or outside, it absolutely should be a detailed_background.
This would be a very useful implication since there’s a huge number of posts missing the detailed_background tag, which this would fix. ~inside ~outside -detailed_background returns over 750 pages of results—it stops counting at 750. Every one of these fits the definition of detailed_background, but they lack the tag.
Here’s an edge case example to help make my point:
This character is clearly standing outside. How can you tell? From the sun, yes? You might be tempted to call this a simple background, but I don’t think that would be correct. This is a clearly defined location in the sense that you can say for certain that the character is standing outside. What if you replaced the background in that image with a plain white backdrop (or even plain blue; take out the sun) or something abstract like some squiggly lines and random shapes? Suddenly, you can’t even tell if he’s inside or outside. He could be anywhere. That’s when it becomes impossible to define a location, and is no longer a “detailed background.” Consider the simple_background wiki:
If there's enough scenery that you can discern the location, it should be tagged as detailed background instead.
The sun and sky are scenery, you can discern that the location is outside, during the day. Therefore, it is a detailed background. Don’t be fooled by the name of the tag. A high level of detail is not required; that’s what amazing_background is for. That’s another tag with a somewhat confusing name: an amazing background doesn’t have to be “pretty,” it just has to be highly detailed. I think this tag is used simply because “highly detailed background” is just too long and unwieldy.
abstract_background is the intermediary tag for things that are too detailed to be called “simple,” but still do not have any defined location.
scenery_porn is like amazing background except even more so, to the point where the background is actually the entire point of the image and you could remove the characters without losing much - hence the third item in this BUR, it must also qualify for amazing_background.
Here’s a little flowchart of the primary background tags as they are used according to their wiki descriptions, in order of detail:
Simple background: you can’t tell where he is; it’s just a gradient.
post #968479
||
V
Abstract background: much more detail, but you still can’t say that she’s in any particular location.
post #960001
||
V
Detailed background: you can tell that she’s inside, though it is very sparse. Just blank walls and a floor. Not much to see back there, but it is still a clearly defined location. If you removed the character, there wouldn’t really be anything worth looking at.
post #623662
||
V
Amazing background: (shameless plug) There is a high level of detail in the background. Individual branches and leaves on the tree, individual trees in the distance, everything has shading and lighting. You could remove the character and still have a fairly interesting image.
post #3050859
||
V
Scenery porn: also a very highly detailed background, but in this one, unlike the one before, the character is not the focus of the image. You could, in fact, remove the character from the image, and it would not be much different. The whole point of the image is to impress the viewer with the background as opposed to the character. Any characters in the image are more or less for decoration at this point.
post #2980942