1) The majority of desktop tags are used to reference images which can conceivably be used as a wallpaper for a desktop.
2) That generally just means images of a specific dimension, from a range of dimensions.
3) Which is quite vague in itself, since there are so many possible desktop screen resolutions/sizes.
4) I propose we wipe them all. Except for the rare few which actually shows a desktop or wallpaper. (And some future functionality to search for a specific image size range)

Modern desktop environments and phones crop and scale images to fit their backdrop, which makes your points 2 and 3 invalid. Additionally, users can edit and manipulate posts tagged like that here to make them more useful for those systems that don't automatically fit the image.

desktop → some are pictures of artists' work areas. That's interesting, leave that usage alone. The ones that are wallpaper-able ought to be moved to:

wallpaper → something you can use for a computer background. You may prefer to use this for paper and glue decorative wall coverings, but it's what's stuck.

I don't like your notion of wiping the tags, since they're useful as they are. I find wallpapers for my computer here, probably others do too. Perhaps we could improve matters by making a more specific tag called something like "backdrop image" or "desktop wallpaper"? Personally I'm happy to live with the ambiguity.

We already have "simple background" though. Anything else is too subjective.

I know modern destop environments can scale, BUT my description is how it is currently used on the site.

And I do know that some are of the artist work areas, which is why I specifically mention "Except for the rare few which actually shows a desktop or wallpaper".

the tags should not be wiped.

Let's see..

desktop is a poorly used tag... Some of these are clearly wall papers, others are paper cut outs or images containing a desk or a computer. I have no idea why post #88126 is here. I don't see any artist's work ares really. There's maybe one image, maybe two where desktop would be appropriate. (post #116363 and post #88151 )

wallpaper is useful, though.

we CAN search by size: height:1200 width:1920

But what we CAN'T do is search by scale.. which is why the 16:9 16:10 and 4:3 etc tags are useful. I *can* use fullscreen wallpapers on my computer, but I much *prefer* being able to use widescreen wallpapers because they look nicer.

what 'needs' to happen is someone wanders through some of the most popular resolutions and tags good wall papery images with the appropriate aspect ratio. "wallpaper" is a perfectly reasonable word. It doesn't need changing. The computer world accepts it. and I really doubt anyone out there has a wallpaper fetish. (rule 34, I know)

simple background is for pictures with white, or otherwise plain and simple image backgrounds. Some of them may make decent wall papers, but many would not.

I agree regarding the scaling tags, however this still isn't a valid argument on why we should use wallpaper to describe an image. Any image can be used as a wallpaper.

Anomynous said:
Modern desktop environments and phones crop and scale images to fit their backdrop

And your note of specific scale tags lets you find images which would fit your screen without warping, wrapping, or blank spaces. Because of these two points, using desktop or wallpaper to describe "wall-paper-like" images serves no purpose, since what makes a good wallpaper image is entirely subjective.

Lyokira said:
I agree regarding the scaling tags, however this still isn't a valid argument on why we should use wallpaper to describe an image. Any image can be used as a wallpaper.

Yes, it is true that any image can be used as a wallpaper, but the wallpaper tag is for pictures and art that were meant to be used as a wallpaper. Not just any old picture that has 4:3/5:4/16:9/16:10 dimensions.

Lyokira said:
I agree regarding the scaling tags, however this still isn't a valid argument on why we should use wallpaper to describe an image. Any image can be used as a wallpaper.

Because some images are far more suited to be wallpaper. yo don't really want to make a 300x300 image wallpaper. likewise, you probably wouldn't make this: post #141594 wallpaper either. Wallpaper as a tag is for images of a standard desktop resolution.

In MANY cases, these are images that the artist has formated specifically to BE wallpaper: post #141588 for example or post #130681 and in this case, THOSE are what we're looking for with the wallpaper tag.

And your note of specific scale tags lets you find images which would fit your screen without warping, wrapping, or blank spaces. Because of these two points, using desktop or wallpaper to describe "wall-paper-like" images serves no purpose, since what makes a good wallpaper image is entirely subjective.

Alright...
here's how I've been working on this (off and on, as I remember):

For an image to be tagged with 'wallpaper' (by me), it must be a standard desktop resolution and aspect ratio, and be 'pleasing' for a desktop like aesthetic (this is vague, but generally it means being relatively uncluttered, so that there's a focal point, and places for icons. the first page of wallpaper is actually pretty good set of what kind of aesthetics a wallpaper should have. there's not a hard or strict "this is good"... i eye ball it :p

each 'wallpaper' image should have an aspect ratio tag on it. the aspect ratio implies wallpaper.

Some people don't mind, or even LIKE having some free space on the edges for icons :) so some people light want to search for 'wallpaper' in general, as opposed to one to specifically match their screen size.

in any regard... the tag serves purpose. just line we have 'canine' as a 'group tag' for wolf, dog, fox, etc...

post #140757 and post #136906 are certainly far too cluttered. post #88151 is a good example of someone taking a cluttered wallpaper and making it a desktop regardless. Also, the point where a tag is vague, is the point the tag is unhelpful. Eyeballing it is not a good method; It's the same reason why "pleasing" itself is not a valid tag.

EDIT: Clarifying: the problem is that what makes an image wallpaper-worthy (given it has the right dimensions) is entirely subjective.

In this case I think that we need to update the definition of the wallpaper tag, then. I was reading what you were saying and agreeing that it is entirely too subjective at the moment. Perhaps just make it so that if the image meets one of the standard scale formats- the 4:3, 3:2, and 16:9 ratios (though I notice there are no 3:2 ratio tags). We could also add the high res and absurb res tags to that through implication, if you feel that would be appropriate (And it's not already).

Agreed on those papers Lyokira. I did not tag those as such.

but it is a generally subjective opinion, yes. which is why it's a wonderful thing that ANYONE can add tags to any image.. :) anyone can tag something as a wallpaper. and anyone can untag as well.

Also, a reason to keep 'wallpaper' is that not everyone will know to look for their aspect ratio. not everyone KNOWS what theirs is (I don't actually, off hand)... and I doubt people will thing to search by size, or by the 1280x768 tags that a few images have... but 'wallpaper' is pretty straight forward.

as for scale formats.. those are numbers. I'm really not very good with numbers, on a day to day basis... I was/am waiting for a clear headed day where i was going to sit down with a list of common PC resolutions and aspect ratios, alias, for example 1680x1050 to 16:10, implicate wallpaper, implicate widescreen (because it is), and also scamper through width:1680 height:1050 and hit up good looking wallpaper-y images with 16:10. then move on to the next one. or something.

All of the.. pertinent ratios should be tagged, though I admit I son't know of anything that takes a 3:2... is that a phone or something? the list I have pulled up lists it as Half quarter VGA, which explains nothing :P

as for high res and absurd_res, that's not a bad idea, honestly.. though I believe those two tags are also kind of subjective, without hard numbers installed, which should perhaps be fixed as well.

I think absurd-res is a subjective tag and needs to be rolled into high res. As for high res being subjective or not- If the pixel resolution is very high but the spatial resolution is also very high (so that you get a very large image but it still looks crisp and clean) that would be a high res image. For example, post #140671 is a very high res image in that the pixel resolution is 4000x3090 but also in that even though it has such a high pixel count the image does not show artifacting or compression- It looks crisp and clean.

I can't really describe it better without learning more about the actual process, but needless to say, if it looks smoothly drawn without pixelation, and has a high pixel count/line, then it should be classified as high res.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg

We really ought to get good at aspect ratio tagging. There are so many different devices out there though that exact dimensions don't matter.

• Objective: pics made by the artist to be wallpaper. Verifiable via the source link.
• Objective: it's high enough res that it can be scaled down to fit and look clean. Verifiable by looking at the dimensions.
• Objective: its height or width or both are a Standard Screen Size. Verifiable by looking at the dimensions.
• Objective: the image has a standard ratio. Again, look at the dimensions.
• Objective, may have subjective borderline cases: many will be relatively uncluttered on the left (Linux, Windows) or right (Mac) edges, compared to the sort of busy-ness of desktop icon clutter. Verifiable by looking at the image; you need about 200px at the edge in question.
• Subjective: "it looks good as a desktop backdrop to me". Not really verifiable, but some opinion-poll data can be gained from the comments.
• Objective: image can be tiled seamlessly. Verifiable by trying it and seeing.
• Objective, but can be partly handled by other tags: If it's smaller than a "nice screen size" (1024p, say), the image's background is of a single colour or is transparent. Low priority because not every DE lets the user choose a colour. Subjective corollary: it shouldn't be *too* much smaller.

Not sure how you add up the scores or what weighting you give each point though.

Honestly, I've always thought of high res and absurd res (and the little used ludicrous_res) as warnings, rather then anything else. IE, "Hang on a sec, this picture is 4000x3000! it sure looks pretty from the thumbnail, but your little dialup modem can't handle it!" or in the case of one 10000x11613 image I found the other day "those with the faint of CPU may not wish to enter"

Thus-- easily blacklistable tags for those who really don't want to wait 5 minutes for one image to load. And should be generally based on size, IMHO.

Anomynous said:
We really ought to get good at aspect ratio tagging. There are so many different devices out there though that exact dimensions don't matter.

Yup, but the aliases will make it easier for those of us who'd rather just go "uhh....1680x1050 and let the ratio autoput itself on.

• Objective: pics made by the artist to be wallpaper. Verifiable via the source link.

I don't think it needs to be verifiable. Some people have a horrible idea of what makes wallpaper. the point is for it to look good. Plus, not everything has a source, etc.

• Objective: it's high enough res that it can be scaled down to fit and look clean. Verifiable by looking at the dimensions.
• Objective: its height or width or both are a Standard Screen Size. Verifiable by looking at the dimensions.
• Objective: the image has a standard ratio. Again, look at the dimensions.

Yes.

• Objective, may have subjective borderline cases: many will be relatively uncluttered on the left (Linux, Windows) or right (Mac) edges, compared to the sort of busy-ness of desktop icon clutter. Verifiable by looking at the image; you need about 200px at the edge in question.
• Subjective: "it looks good as a desktop backdrop to me". Not really verifiable, but some opinion-poll data can be gained from the comments.

You may be over-logic-ing this. :) post #136416 does not meet this criteria exactly and would make a fine wallpaper.. likewise post #133909 or post #102063

but, generally, yes.

• Objective: image can be tiled seamlessly. Verifiable by trying it and seeing.
• Objective, but can be partly handled by other tags: If it's smaller than a "nice screen size" (1024p, say), the image's background is of a single colour or is transparent. Low priority because not every DE lets the user choose a colour. Subjective corollary: it shouldn't be *too* much smaller.

Not sure how you add up the scores or what weighting you give each point though.

personally, I don't :D but that's because I'm not a number person. but this is a REALLY GOOD rule of thumb in general.

May I put this on the wallpaper wiki?

Go for it. Of course. Feel free to polish up and add more; rules of thumb are good to have.

Yeah, the whole "icon space" thing may be vaguely objective and verifiable, but I fully admit it reflects a personal preference of mine. The dude who did some of the Vista wallpapers has a blog post on it too, and it's true of a lot of the bundled wallpapers in Natty.