okay, I've gotten a LOT of complaints about the way we started to redo the background system, so I got together tonight and discussed with a few folks in IRC about some 'better' ways to do things.. and I have volunteers standing by to start retagging :D

So.. this was what we came up with, and I wanted to run it past all of y'all before setting it into motion.

Proposal:

• photo_background implies nothing.
• blowup_background implies nothing.

• plain_background implies nothing.

• black_background implies plain_background

blue_background implies plain_background
brown_background implies plain_background
grey_background implies plain_background
green_background implies plain_background
orange_background implies plain_background
pink_background implies plain_background
purple_background implies plain_background
red_background implies plain_background
white_background implies plain_background
yellow_background implies plain_background
transparent_background implies plain background
transparent_background implies alpha_channel

gradient_background, texture_background, and pattern_background are sorted into blue_background, green_background, etc tags, and only retain a gradient/texture/pattern_background tag in the event the gradient/texture/pattern effect is very prominent... in addition to a *_background tag. For example:

Would retain gradient/texture/pattern tag:
post #26569
post #143556

would not:
post #2842
post #111241

any bi-colored backgrounds would gain *_background tags for both prominent colors.

You'll notice the words Chromatic and abstract are not involved. :)

Those cover the "simple" background side of things.

ADDITIONALLY, we currently have a tag called detailed_background which is currently used as a catch all for anything with a illustrated background--that is to say, not just floating in a colorful void. These tags are NOT used to replace tags for items in the background. These tags are used to describe the level of detail used in creating the image.

I propose 3 levels:

• undetailed_background (name negotiable) for very 'simple' backgrounds -- post #49665 post #14156 post #149920 post #149908 post #100328 -- pictures with enough detail to establish a location, but not much else. (This was 'simple background' in the previous iteration. However, it was commonly mistagged.)
• detailed_background for images with a good amount of detail in the surrounding area -- post #147639 post #140109 post #139802 post #120857 post #61070 post #149990 -- enough that the character is firmly established as existing in a place with a world around them. Most images with illustrated backgrounds will probably fit here.
• amazing_background or epic_background (name also negotiable) for images with backgrounds that clearly had a lot of time and effort put into it. post #138145 post #104220 post #140248 post #58682 post #3981 -- for images where the background is as interesting to look at as the character. Vivid, detailed, images where the artist clearly spent as much time, if not far more working on the background then the characters in the image. Basically, the cream of the crop. Pictures with a background that is vividly remarkable.

Again, these tags are NOT used to replace tags used to describe items within the image--lamp, tree, bed, etc--but rather to comment on the overall quality and level of detail of the world around the characters.

So... thoughts?

Yup, I think this pretty much covers it. Not sure about the undetailed_background though. I don't think that'll catch on. If the background is just, say, a bedroom, then just tag the objects in the background like this http://e621.net/post/show/92681/2010-athlete-bed-breast_fondling-calendar-camera-c

well, the bedroom thing was more an easy to find example of detail levels. :) Not intended to replace the individual item tags :) Just... we have a lot of porn and a lot of people have sex in the bedroom ;) so bedrooms were an easy scale to point at. :)

But, if not with undetailed background, how would you tag the bed floating in void, then? just the general color, or with the 'detailed_background'?

SnowWolf said:
But, if not with undetailed background, how would you tag the bed floating in void, then? just the general color, or with the 'detailed_background'?

for that one in particular, maybe purple_background gradient_background bed ?

Since it's a detailed background, I'd not use the other background tags and tag it according to what you can find in it- bed, lamp, computer windows etc- because to me, detailed means you can actually pick out the details. The gradiant and flat colour types aren't really applicable- though tagging it with purple since it is a dominant colour in the picture I'd agree with.

The colour_backgrounds should be forthe simpler ones, not where there actually is a drawn up background.

Okay. There is apparently a lot of confuusion about my wording so I"m going to edit it and clarify.

Background tags are used to denote anything with an illustrated background. It is not a replacement, or shortcut to avoid tagging the objects in the image. It is simply a tag being used to refer to the amount of detail put into the area around and behind the characters.

Not a misunderstanding. I'm saying use detailed_background and then tag the obbjects, don't try to muddle it up with other background tags.

Where along this scale would a photo background fall under? Also, if assuming that the image is an actual photo, does it get a background tag, and if so, which?

123easy said:
Not a misunderstanding. I'm saying use detailed_background and then tag the obbjects, don't try to muddle it up with other background tags.

alright.. I think we're having one of those csases where I say something, someone repeats it back to me exactly how I mean it, and I'm terrified they're somehow misunderstanding me...

anyway, yes detailed and amazingly_detailed would all generally stand alone... and 95% of undetailed will as well :) ANYWAY.

Lyokira said:
Where along this scale would a photo background fall under? Also, if assuming that the image is an actual photo, does it get a background tag, and if so, which?

presumably the photo_background tag, which is at the top of the list. :)

SnowWolf said:

presumably the photo_background tag, which is at the top of the list. :)

Ack, misread that as alias. Makes much more sense that way..

:D alright, getting started on this :D

I'm still not entirely convinced that abstract_background should go though. Images like post #146847 clearly isn't just a flat colour or patterened background.

A;so a suggestion: rainbow_background, which is for images which has all colours, like post #121628

I actually added rainbow to the list when I was shipping it off to my background tagger :D

you raisse a goood point though regarding abstract.. hmm..

the problem is the 'jumble' of things stil ltagged abstract right now. I guess we could tag them, like, temp_abstract_background until we get abstract cleaned out, then alias temp_abstract_background over briefly.

So how bout we just keep calling undetailed_background simple_background like before. :T

Kaik said:
So how bout we just keep calling undetailed_background simple_background like before. :T

people were tagging pictures with white_background or black_background with simple_background. The best tags are the one that leave little confusion.

That said, if other people support this, we can make this adjustment. :)