I've recently noticed a lot of posts being tagged with "Avian" when they just have low-detail "W"-style birds somewhere in the background. It's somewhat annoying when you search for a specific species and that's what you get. I don't think anyone who is looking for an Avian will be looking for those as background details, so I was wondering if those should be exempted from the Avian tag or if we maybe need a specific tag strictly for that. ("Background bird" or something like that)

Some examples:

https://e621.net/posts/3655815
https://e621.net/posts/4067961
https://e621.net/posts/4637975

That's what the ambient_* tags are for, such as ambient_bird. Though, ambient_bird implies bird, which implies avian...

crocogator said:
That's what the ambient_* tags are for, such as ambient_bird. Though, ambient_bird implies bird, which implies avian...

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining, guess I'll have to do some retagging then...

The bulk update request #7065 is active.

remove implication ambient_bird (1909) -> bird (126949)

Reason: If ambient animals do not count as characters for the purpose of solo, duo, trio and group tags then why do they matter for species tags? If somebody is looking for pictures of birds they don't wanna see pictures where the only 'bird' on the image is a giant "W" in the sky.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7065 (forum #395404) has been approved by @slyroon.

The other ambient_* tags seem to be the same. ambient_firefly implies firefly (despite often being depicted as little more than a glowing point), ambient_butterfly implies butterfly, etc.

Unsurprisingly, I think no one likes these implications.

watsit said:
ambient_firefly implies firefly (despite often being depicted as little more than a glowing point)

That's the worst one, I swear.

The whole point of ambient_* in the first place was to not have search results polluted, I'm not sure why the implications ever came to exist. +1 for removal.

post #1628378 post #4583489 post #4343126

These don't look like birds, they're just v shapes in the sky. Nobody is searching "bird" and wanting this as a result.

The bulk update request #7069 is active.

Reason: Unimplying the rest of them.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7069 (forum #395463) has been approved by @slyroon.

I feel like some of these might should still have their species implications. I think for the stuff like ambient_bird and ambient_firefly they can be drawn with such lack of detail that they're barely recognizable as anything, with ambient_bird just being ︵︵ and ⎱⎰ and ambient_firefly being usually being little more than particle effects.

also a few of these appear almost exclusively as ambient creatures and just aren't tagged as such and only get the base tag because people don't think when adding and they're probably not going to think about it when searching. ex. barnacle and coral, I don't think people tend to think of these as fauna at all, most of the time so they don't even think to treat them them as ambient.

sipothac said:
I feel like some of these might should still have their species implications. I think for the stuff like ambient_bird and ambient_firefly they can be drawn with such lack of detail that they're barely recognizable as anything, with ambient_bird just being ︵︵ and ⎱⎰ and ambient_firefly being usually being little more than particle effects.

also a few of these appear almost exclusively as ambient creatures and just aren't tagged as such and only get the base tag because people don't think when adding and they're probably not going to think about it when searching. ex. barnacle and coral, I don't think people tend to think of these as fauna at all, most of the time so they don't even think to treat them them as ambient.

Coral is a static object much like rocks, cobwebs and plants. Speaking of which plants do live, despite this they ain't ever a species tag. sunflower - To keep it consistent I reckon aliasing ambient coral to coral,then changing the category from species to general is in order.

wolfmanfur said:
Coral is a static object much like rocks, cobwebs and plants. Speaking of which plants do live, despite this they ain't ever a species tag. sunflower - To keep it consistent I reckon aliasing ambient coral to coral,then changing the category from species to general is in order.

Coral is an animal though...

nimphia said:
Coral is an animal though...

Coral is a static object, it's tag what you see, not tag what you know.

wolfmanfur said:
Coral is a static object, it's tag what you see, not tag what you know.

that's not how that works

wolfmanfur said:
Coral is a static object

no it's not, it's a living animal.

wolfmanfur said:
Coral is a static object, it's tag what you see, not tag what you know.

They're marine invertebrates in the same class as sea anemones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coral

This is one of those things where both are correct. Coral can be used to refer to the animal OR the hard exoskeleton structures produced by them, which don't necessarily have the live animals on them anymore. A piece of coral jewelry or a chunk on a shelf in a museum isn't the living animal. Hopefully.

Personally, visible depiction of the actual animals is rare enough that coral_animal or coral_polyp might be useful to distinguish them from images where only the skeleton is shown.

The bulk update request #7065 (forum #395404) has been approved by @slyroon.

The bulk update request #7069 (forum #395463) has been approved by @slyroon.