Topic: Tag alias: no_shading -> flat_colors

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

...some of these images have shading

post #4264357 post #4234364 post #4212174

But I don't think that should be a problem preventing this alias, adding "no_shading" to an image with shading is clearly user error, there's no ambiguity in the tag name at all.

The only problem I can see is no_shading being applied to images with no color, line art and etc.

faucet said:
...some of these images have shading

post #4264357 post #4234364 post #4212174

But I don't think that should be a problem preventing this alias, adding "no_shading" to an image with shading is clearly user error, there's no ambiguity in the tag name at all.

The only problem I can see is no_shading being applied to images with no color, line art and etc.

to be honest, i see posts are somewhat inaccurately tagged because they are actually somewhat shaded. but flat colors tag does also feature the problem with posts that are shaded or highlighted but tagged flat colors (inb4 the change).
post #4428191 post #4400346 post #4398947

Watsit

Privileged

No shading is pointless when it's just the negation of shaded. It can't be shaded if there's no shading, and if there's any shading, it can't be no shading. Flat colors is probably the best tag to alias it to, as any post its on without flat colors would be a mistag already, so trading one for the other isn't going to make it worse.

dimoretpinel said:
I am against this implication because colorless artworks or lineart could be rightfully tagged as "no shading", yet would recieve the flat colors tag despite not containing any color.

I think the implication should go the other way, with flat colors -> no shading instead of no shading -> flat colors.

It's an alias though.
And no_shading probably shouldn't be used to begin with, since searching with -shaded is the same thing.

  • 1