Topic: [APPROVED] Tag implication: fire_background -> fire

The tag implication #69380 fire_background -> fire has been approved.

Reason: If a background shows fire, then the post should be tagged fire.

EDIT: The tag implication fire_background -> fire (forum #468652) has been approved by @spe.

Makes sense, city background, nature background, forest background all imply city, nature and forest respectively

The bulk update request #12351 is active.

create implication brick_background (139) -> brick (2285)
create implication brick_wall (6810) -> brick (2285)
create implication silhouette_background (175) -> silhouette (13584)
create implication star-shaped_background (448) -> star_polygon (2136)
create implication starry_background (985) -> star (51790)
create implication floral_background (492) -> flower (78748)
create implication rainbow_background (595) -> rainbow (5966)
create implication 3d_background (910) -> 3d_(artwork) (234954)
create implication monotone_background (4406) -> simple_background (1526547)

Reason: Implying the background tags to their constituents. + some miscellaneous implications.

Do you think nature_background is a bit restrictive? It implies nature, which requires fully natural scenery. This means that it might not be possible to imply forest_background or jungle_background to it (see forest_background ~house ~road ~building).

Actually, what's the difference between the nature and nature background? (topic #42193)

Should photo_background and 3d_background and screencap background imply mixed media?

Should we use star polygon or star symbol? (topic #45828)

Should the [colour]_background tags imply or not imply simple background? This question boils down to whether it is applicable to all backgrounds which are a single colour, or if it's only applicable to backgrounds which is just the colour and nothing else.
Basically:
does post #5568172 count as orange background?

What should we do with sex toy background? As it currently is, it's just sex toy in the background/not interacted with. (topic #39179)

Edit: Removed

implicate beach_background -> beach
implicate cave_background -> cave
implicate jungle_background -> jungle
implicate sky_background -> sky
implicate desert_background -> desert
implicate field_background -> field

putting their aliases in another BUR. [location]_background is basically the same as [location]

EDIT: The bulk update request #12351 (forum #468663) has been approved by @spe.

Personally, I think a few of these tags are redundant. What is the difference between nature_background and nature, for example? Given that posts here should have characters, when would nature not be a nature_background and vice versa? Note that unlike blurred_background/blurred_foreground, things in front of the character usually count as the background for most tags, as "background" typically refers to what's around the characters, the scene that the subject is placed within; in front of, behind, and to the sides of the them.

sky_background is similar, defined as "A background which depicts the sky", making it no different than sky as the sky is always a background element when it appears. Maybe the intent is for when the background is only the sky, but a number of results show the ground or other structures, and it would brush up against cloudscape.

snpthecat said:
Should photo_background and 3d_background and screencap background imply mixed media?

Not sure screencap background should; it could be a screencap of a 3D game or movie, with a custom 3D model placed on it (or similar for 2D game/movie and a custom 2D drawing on top), making both parts the same media just from different sources.

The others should, though at least 3d_background is somewhat often mistagged for full 3D images or videos, rather than the intended 3D background with 2D subjects.

snpthecat said:
Should the [colour]_background tags imply or not imply simple background? This question boils down to whether it is applicable to all backgrounds which are a single colour, or if it's only applicable to backgrounds which is just the colour and nothing else.
Basically:
does post #5568172 count as orange background?

No, <color>_background is supposed to be for simple "empty void" type backgrounds that's largely that particular color. A detailed_background that's dominated by a particular color would probably be better tagged as <color>_theme.

snpthecat said:
What should we do with sex toy background? As it currently is, it's just sex toy in the background/not interacted with. (topic #39179)

If it's not a pattern background of sex toy iconography and just the presence of a sex toy in the scene, it should be aliased away to sex_toy, IMO.

The bulk update request #12366 is active.

create alias beach_background (7) -> beach (75266)
create alias cave_background (92) -> cave (14579)
create alias jungle_background (104) -> jungle (4859)
create alias sky_background (8) -> sky (149709)
create alias desert_background (72) -> desert (7525)
create alias field_background (82) -> field (3822)
remove implication forest_background (11857) -> forest (69239)
remove implication forest_background (11857) -> nature_background (16076)
remove implication nature_background (16076) -> nature (31297)
remove alias forest_bg (0) -> forest_background (11857)
remove alias nature_bg (0) -> nature_background (16076)
remove alias natural_bg (0) -> nature_background (16076)
remove alias natural_background (0) -> nature_background (16076)

Reason: For aliasing location background to location

Followup:
alias forest_bg -> forest
alias nature_bg -> nature
alias natural_bg -> nature
alias natural_background -> nature
alias nature_background -> nature
alias forest_background -> forest

EDIT: The bulk update request #12366 (forum #468738) has been approved by @spe.

watsit said:
No, <color>_background is supposed to be for simple "empty void" type backgrounds that's largely that particular color. A detailed_background that's dominated by a particular color would probably be better tagged as <color>_theme.

Alright, so does that mean that all color_background tags should imply monotone background? (Tangentially, how many monotone tags are we going to keep, if any?) Ah, monotone is a bit stricter on that front.

What should we do about greyscale background?

The bulk update request #12367 is active.

create implication photo_background (6517) -> mixed_media (6202)

Reason: Splitting imply 3d_background -> mixed_media so it won't hold this implication back

EDIT: The bulk update request #12367 (forum #468740) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #12368 is active.

create implication 3d_background (910) -> mixed_media (6202)

Reason: Probably should imply after the fully 3d posts are removed from it

EDIT: The bulk update request #12368 (forum #468741) has been approved by @spe.

I wasn't expecting this topic to become the new home for all background aliases and implications! :)

In topic #38451, I recently suggested another possible background implication (and its foreground equivalent):

imply blowup_background -> zoom_layer
imply blowup_foreground -> zoom_layer

What do people think about adding those two?

The tag implication fire_background -> fire (forum #468652) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #12351 (forum #468663) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #12366 (forum #468738) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #12367 (forum #468740) has been approved by @spe.

The bulk update request #12368 (forum #468741) has been approved by @spe.

Removed all the mistags from 3d_background before approving. There were kind of a lot, but I noticed that almost all of the mistags were from the same few users who just kept using it wrong, mostly self-uploading 3D artists. Just telling people to stop that would probably fix the mistagging issue much better than trying to rename the tag or whatever.

I also noticed a few mistags in monotone_background, with people mistaking it for monochrome_background. Also, that really shouldn't be aliased to simple_background since many such posts are fully detailed backgrounds, just limited to a single color. I think there should be a tag for posts where the entire background is monochromatic but the foreground/characters are full color, which is what a few of the monotone_background mistags were. Despite that, however, the mistags were rare and the current tag's usage was overwhelmingly correct, so I approved it anyway (and removed the handful of mistags I spotted). Just thinking that if we do end up reinstating monochrome_background, we might want to consider renaming monotone_background to something easier to distinguish... maybe solid_color_background or similar.