"Background" as of wiki definition is used for "full background scenes". Proposal is to use "full_background" for such scenes, so as to make it distinct form the other types of backgrounds as noted in the wiki definition. After retagging, background should be aliased to "invalid_tag" since practically all images would theoretically have a background of some sort.

(I'd suggest an alias, but there's quite a few images which are mistagged background as per wiki definition.)

Lyokira said:
"Background" as of wiki definition is used for "full background scenes". Proposal is to use "full_background" for such scenes, so as to make it distinct form the other types of backgrounds as noted in the wiki definition.

i see what you mean

*searches *background* ... weeps gently*

okay.

Uhmm.

I pretty much like this idea. background is misused. Should be emptied out and filtered into other tags.

I am not sure about 'full background' though.. let me think about this..

white_background has a lot of images and it's not a bad tag. good for helping to find 'that one picture'

black_background and colored_background are really good for the same reasons.

simple_background is also good, and I think white, black and colored should all probably imply 'simple'

background_gradient should probably be lumped in with 'colored'

photo_background seems legit, blowup_background also.

background_pattern and texture_background seem like most of it should be 'colored background' stuff

gray_background should PROBABLY be either kept, or lumped also in with colored.

blank_background and plain_background and no_background need to be cleaned out.

then there are about a thousand red dark brown etc tags as well.

for the most part, though, all of these should probably be grouped up easily...
let me see...

I think... Hm.

• Simple_background
• white background
• black background
• colored background
• OR.. could be light/dark background. but I think black/white/colored is probably better.
• includes: (color)_background, background pattern, texture background, and background gradient.
• ((uncomplicated background)) -- needs a better name, but something for images where the background is.. uncomplex: post #140118 post #139843 post #139843 post #112711 etc
• photo background
• blowup background
• probably the post difficult to define and most ambiguous idea :(
• Complex_background ("full background"? detailed background?)
• any kind of scenery with lots of detail

Just a rough starting idea on the matter. this looks like it will be a pretty straightforward task, though.

the HARD part with this one is the number of image that lack ANY background tags at all

Also, wiki text can always be adjusted if definitions have changed.

I wouldn't directly implicate background_pattern, texture_background and background_gradient to coloured, since it is technically possible to have a black/white(and maybe grey) background_pattern/texture_background/background_gradient. I'd also suggest monochrome_background, which is seperately determined since any type of background can be made monochrome too.

Blowup background is simple, but I'd define strictly as the background being the blown-up of the image in focus. Blowups of other objects not in the main image wouldn't count.

I would also suggest calling it "abstract_background" rather than simple background.

Also did a big-ish cleanup of background_pattern, though I may have been a little over-sujective: I personally define background_pattern as: having a clear pattern and/or basic shape structure (basic shapes being bars, triangles, squares, rectangles, circles, other regular-sided objects, stars. Clear pattern meaning one doesn't have to stare into the image to find repetition. I moved many of the images to texture_background, which was sitting sorely underused.

The biggest thing I see is that there are SO MANY tags related to backgrounds. I may have over simplied perhaps :)

technically, though, monochrome (which is a terrible word and I hate it's usage in tags :( ) jsut means 'one color'... and generally ise used for black and white, OR thigns of a single color-ish.So.. http://www.quiltersmuse.com/images/indigo_monochrome_1800-15.jpg and http://www.art-devine-slasher.com/images/Landscapes/MONOCHROME%202.jpg are monochrome.

I don't like 'abstract' though, because it makes one thing of abstract art. while it is technically correct--it is a background that doesnot give the characters in the image a location in space... eh.. it's not intuitive. maybe something like plain? subtle?

• "simple" background
• "chromatic_background" - white, black, color fills, etc.
• "pattern", "texture" and "gradient" backgrounds

That said, is 'simple' background needed as a tag up there? maybe I'm trying to work up too many implications. Maybe it would be best suited for:

• ((simple background)) -- needs a better name, but something for images where the background is.. uncomplex. uncomplicated. Simple :P
• photo background
• blowup background -- "Blowups of other objects not in the main image doesn't count" :)

• detailed_background ("full background"? complex background?) -- any kind of scenery with lots of detail

Where should 'background' eventually alias to? hmm... invalid_background? :p

they should all imply background, and it shouldn't imply anything.

123easy said:
they should all imply background, and it shouldn't imply anything.

but, EVERYTHING has a background. everything from flat white to full glorious landscape images..

If everything listed here implied background, idealy,searching for -background (which I don't think is possible) would have no results.

and if we're looking for things to tag with background, we could just search -*_background instead.

Additional thought, something I've not considered to blowup_background is the x-ray type blowups. Idealy though that can be marked as x-ray_background (to refer to a background that displays the implied x-ray rendition of something happening in the main image).

Background as a tag shouldn't be used the same reason why we don't have a furry tag. Just alias it to "invalid_tag" and be done with it.

I still personally think abstract_background is the best tag rather than simple, plain, or the like, simply because it's precise. Other tags may be too vague to fit the definition we want. (which is basically... abstract)

I think xray's would could under blowups also.

anyway, I realized I wrote my last post when I was sleepy...

I'm actually thinking that the "abstract-level" tag goes away. here.. let me verbalize a lil more clearly...

• chromatic_background
• pattern_background
• texture_background
• gradient_background
• simple_background -- post #116300 as example
• photo background
• blowup background
• detailed_background

Nothing implying other things, Everything stands alone.

unless... pattern_ texture_ gradient_ and chromatic_ all imply abstract_background
Also maybe blowup_?

anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. :P no one has to agree with me :) I jsut want things neatened up :D

SnowWolf said:
I think xray's would could under blowups also.

anyway, I realized I wrote my last post when I was sleepy...

I'm actually thinking that the "abstract-level" tag goes away. here.. let me verbalize a lil more clearly...

• chromatic_background
• pattern_background
• texture_background
• gradient_background
• simple_background -- post #116300 as example
• photo background
• blowup background
• detailed_background

Nothing implying other things, Everything stands alone.

unless... pattern_ texture_ gradient_ and chromatic_ all imply abstract_background
Also maybe blowup_?

anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. :P no one has to agree with me :) I jsut want things neatened up :D

The reason why I would still suggest abstract background is because there're some subset of backgrounds which can't really be described much as anything other than "abstract", such as, well... almost every image that is currently tagged abstract_background.

bah. fair enough... abstract_background has some odd things there.

How would you impliment it? just another tag like the rest? or..? implications?

SnowWolf said:
bah. fair enough... abstract_background has some odd things there.

How would you impliment it? just another tag like the rest? or..? implications?

Still the same as mentioned; chromatics, patterns, textures, gradients would all imply abstract (would make it easier since some abstracts can be questionably texture/pattern/gradient, for instance). Blowup probably shouldn't simply because I suspect many wouldn't think of blowups as abstract, though need more opinions on this.

blown up portions of the art in the background shouldn't be abstract. Neither should inside view shots.

well, looking through blowup_background a lot of them aren't posed in reference to anything. the blow up is just there to fill up the background d and fill empty space. It's abstract in the same way a random texture fill would be, is my thought.

• chromatic_background implies abstract background
• pattern_background implies abstract background
• texture_background implies abstract background
• gradient_background implies abstract background
• blowup background implies abstract background (maybe? maybe not)
• simple_background
• photo background
• detailed_background

"Having an intellectual and affective artistic content that depends solely on intrinsic form rather than on narrative content or pictorial representation" I don't think that that qualifies under the relevant-to-artistic-endeavours definition of abstract. The chromatic, pattern, texture, and gradients fit, but not blown-up portions of the image.

Every post will have a background, even if its the absence of one. You could have a null_background as well I suppose.

swamprootwolf said:
Every post will have a background, even if its the absence of one. You could have a null_background as well I suppose.

I don't think null_background is the right term. The only examples in which I can think of with no background, is when the image in focus occupies the whole image (example post #71544), and even then it's questionable. (images with details occupying the whole image instead, should probably be marked detailed_background instead) no_background is still probably a bettr way to term it, but it has to be VERY strict. Blank backgrounds don't count. Even a single bit of background somewhere should have the image marked as a proper background.

Lyokira said:
I don't think null_background is the right term. The only examples in which I can think of with no background, is when the image in focus occupies the whole image (example post #71544), and even then it's questionable. (images with details occupying the whole image instead, should probably be marked detailed_background instead) no_background is still probably a bettr way to term it, but it has to be VERY strict. Blank backgrounds don't count. Even a single bit of background somewhere should have the image marked as a proper background.

honestly, I'd go for detailed background for that myself, rather then no background. Arguably the focus of that image is the canine, and the background is the mouth.

Also, I have created tag group:background.

Since we seem to have settled on a general point of agreement, I'm going to implicate chromatic, pattern, texture, and gradient now.

Since some of these tags involved basically making new tags, I'm also goign to alias and implicate some other things that I'll detail in a few minutes.

Also, I wish that fucking_beautiful_background wouldn't be so subjective. there are some images where the background has had a lot of effort poured into it. post #3981 post #117805 post #75497 post #11830 post #104220 post #92683 come to mind. Though looking at all of them, maybe a focus_on_background?

No, it's subjective, either way... :/

Detailed_background, natch. with the ship-based one, I added painting_(style) and classical_art_style because I've seen similar pieces in art galleries before.

well, the ship one is a digital painting, so I adjsuted the tag appropriatly...

but, detailed background... post #144244 has a detailed background, by definition. I was more talking abut something with MORE details. I dunno. Gonan have to think about this a bit~~

When i think detailed background, I don't think just that it's been remarkably well done, but that it also has a lot going on (As in there's more than just wood grain on the wood or whatever) in the background. In your example of post #144244 I wouldn't say it has a detailed background simply because it is rather bland. But, that's me. The ship one has the waves and the cloudy sky, and it looks like it could skip into motion at any time- it has a feeling of detail that isn't there with the example you gave. Same with Chromamancer's art.

Okay, we're on kind of the same page, here. :) That thing you describe I think should have a tag too... as currently written, there are 2 levels of background:

simple: post #140118 post #139843 post #116300 post #112711
detailed: Everything else, from post #144244 to the ships sailing.

My post was saying that we should have a level of detail past 'detailed' to fully compliment the level of detail that Chromamancer often applies to their art. :)

focus_on_background stunning_background very_detailed_background?

focus_on_background seems like something you'd apply to landscape type images. stunning_background is subjective. very_detailed_background would fit, but it's also subjective- Where do you determine where detailed ends and very detailed begins?

...What's the term used for those awesome sweeping views on images? Panoramic? I think that might work.

123easy said:
focus_on_background seems like something you'd apply to landscape type images

True.

stunning_background is subjective

Yes, but technically the whole concept is pretty subjective.

very_detailed_background would fit, but it's also subjective- Where do you determine where detailed ends and very detailed begins?

as with many things, it's subjective. you tag it, someone disagrees and changes it. Part of life on a booru XD

...What's the term used for those awesome sweeping views on images? Panoramic? I think that might work.

Possibly, but at the same time "panoramic" would be better as a term applied to he image itself rather then the background tag. also, landscape may also apply...

and in that same respect, not EVERY image is a candidate for panoramic OR landscape.

For example... post #5713 comes close to that level of awesome.. (if only it didn't seem like the artist had gotten bored partway through).. post #138145 post #89652 post #37621 post #140242 post #140246 post #140249

Ah.. here's another one we missed. Some: post #111989 have transparent backgrounds. *adds to list*

well Iw as thinking panoramic_background would work, because a: it's something that has a very detailed background, and b: it's usually a wide picture, meant to sweep your eyes from side to side over it all. *shrug*

I think very_detailed_background, honestly, would be best. That way it's clear as to the purpose, and where it stands on the scale of things..and then you can also have indoor scenes and other images where the focus IS still clearly the characters

I do like panoramic as a tag, but that might be more 'wide' then most images are. 'landscape' would be a nice tag to have... if we don't already :)

in other news, I jsut did a LOT of manual retagging, and aLOT of aliases and implications to file *background* down into our few tags :) http://e621.net/tag?name=*background*&type=&order=count&commit=Search

now to do:

1) get rid of whatever's in the background tag
2) go through the various *background tags and make sure that they're all tagged properly!
3) dance a while.

SnowWolf said:
Ah.. here's another one we missed. Some: post #111989 have transparent backgrounds. *adds to list*

Hm... transparent backgrounds are USUALLY tagged as alpha_channel, but I didn't want to touch that... maybe alias or implicate that one way or another? (because alpha channel affects more than just backgrounds)..

I was honestly jsut thinking to tag it manually, because some pictures have the character transparent. :)

Okay this is not good. post #55838 is now tagged chromatic background. Doesn't that hint at its background having lots of colours, like a chromatic chord has lots of notes? Or do I have to understand chromaticity to use this tag this? Ugh, this seems wrong.

Please can we use single-color background for this sort of thing? The latter makes it a bit more explicit, and it's much simpler and less technical English. Having a dictionary definition for "chromatic" that uses weaselly words like "relating to" for the colour aspect doesn't help!

(Additionally, and YMMV, but to me white is pretty much the absence of colour (so is black, and any pure grey). But I'm willing to let that slide if you rename this "chromatic background" abomination to single-color background)

Or maybe just go back to plain_background. That's even simpler.

Anomynous said:
Okay this is not good. post #55838 is now tagged chromatic background. Doesn't that hint at its background having lots of colours, like a chromatic chord has lots of notes? Or do I have to understand chromaticity to use this tag this? Ugh, this seems wrong.

Please can we use single-color background for this sort of thing? The latter makes it a bit more explicit, and it's much simpler and less technical English. Having a dictionary definition for "chromatic" that uses weaselly words like "relating to" for the colour aspect doesn't help!

(Additionally, and YMMV, but to me white is pretty much the absence of colour (so is black, and any pure grey). But I'm willing to let that slide if you rename this "chromatic background" abomination to single-color background)

Chromatic in this case means single-colour. There is no conflict.

Lyokira said:
Chromatic in this case means single-colour. There is no conflict.

I didn't say there was a conflict. I said it has too many other meanings, and isn't simple, non-technical English.

you know.. I know not everyone spends every day on the website like I do...

but it drives me nuts when things are discussed, a consensus is (seemingly) reached by the parties who care... then I spent 4 or 5 hours making aliases and implications, tagging and retagging... only then to have someoen else come along and say "all that that that you did yesterday instead of sleeping in, or drawing, or folding laundry? I don't like it."

*sighs*

Chromatic refers to color. From a computer point of view, depending on what "type" of color you use, white, or black is the presence of all color.

I like "single-color_background" as a tag, I'll admit that.

But it's also "nice" to note that there is a while page of aliases devoted to transforming green_background into chromatic_background, so people don't HAVE to type chromatic. they can type black, blank, colored, green, monochrom, white, ornge, whatever the hell and still have it pop up correctly.

I suppose, technically, i COULD make another alias that turns chromatic into single-color_background, but then, it's not always a single solid color fill. or lack of color. and I hate aliases that point to phrases that are aliased to OTHER phrases, so I'd probably end up remaking all of those aliases....