Can we nuke the light smile tag?
It's only subjective and the misuse rate is way too high.
Posted under Tags
Can we nuke the light smile tag?
It's only subjective and the misuse rate is way too high.
Chiera said:
Can we nuke the light smile tag?
It's only subjective and the misuse rate is way too high.
-1 There's no other way to indicate the degree of a smile. Besides, most of the tags on this site are subjective to a degree anyways. If there's an issue with mistagging, then it should be handled like every other instance.
Chiera said:
Midriff
This tag is very misuded right now.
One shouldn't use it on bikini, nude or similar picture.
Certainly true. Still we do seem to lack a tag for bare torso for things like post #83973 and many shirt lift images like post #2784682 and post #2827654.
ion288 said:
Certainly true. Still we do seem to lack a tag for bare torso for things like post #83973 and many shirt lift images like post #2784682 and post #2827654.
Well we do have the stomach tag.
BrokenEagle98 said:
-1 There's no other way to indicate the degree of a smile. Besides, most of the tags on this site are subjective to a degree anyways. If there's an issue with mistagging, then it should be handled like every other instance.
Well, duh.
But what are the measurements for being a "light" smile? I don't get this concept, but the only time I ever use this tag is when the character is depicted with parted_lips as well.
When the mouth is closed, I rarely if not never use this tag.
Chiera said:
Well, duh.
But what are the measurements for being a "light" smile? I don't get this concept, but the only time I ever use this tag is when the character is depicted with parted_lips as well.
When the mouth is closed, I rarely if not never use this tag.
The best example of "light smile" which doesn't fit the smile definition is post #2894812
She's showing some degree of amusement, but i would definitely not tag this a smile, as her expression has nothing in common with what most pictures tagged under smile look like. Her mouth is only barely curving upwards.
I think it's worth to keep that tag around because it defines something that would otherwise not be possible to search for.
Chiera said:
@willsolvit
I have an idea about this tag: How about we still put "FGO" and "Fate/Grand_Order" as a translated tag?
But not under the fate/grand_order wiki, but under the character's wikis? So that way we can still get the right copyright, because the characters have the fate/grand_order tag under "Other names" on their wikis.
Would that work?
Actually now that I think of it the opposite might help a lot. Remove the fate/grand order tag from the wiki of any character that does not originate from Fate/Grand Order.
Well I just found out I've been using full_body wrong according to its wiki.
I've been using it as:
The person's whole body is in the frame,
but the wiki says it requires another qualification:
The person's body has to occupy a majority of the frame.
Most images that meet the first requirement will meet the second because composition, but a lot of the wider shot images like post #2952664 or post #2951957 would not apply because of the second requirement.
CodeKyuubi said:
Well I just found out I've been using full_body wrong according to its wiki.
I've been using it as:
The person's whole body is in the frame,but the wiki says it requires another qualification:
The person's body has to occupy a majority of the frame.Most images that meet the first requirement will meet the second because composition, but a lot of the wider shot images like post #2952664 or post #2951957 would not apply because of the second requirement.
Seems to be added by @evazion , but I have to disagree with that. It doesn't seem to make sense to exclude these posts. I think one wants to find every image where the body is to 100 in frame.
Chiera said:
Seems to be added by @evazion , but I have to disagree with that. It doesn't seem to make sense to exclude these posts. I think one wants to find every image where the body is to 100 in frame.
The tag's definition never changed. Even the earliest version of the wiki (link) emphasized that this tag was intended for images in which "most of the image is occupied by a character". This was the result of the discussion at topic #7945.
iridescent_slime said:
The tag's definition never changed. Even the earliest version of the wiki (link) emphasized that this tag was intended for images in which "most of the image is occupied by a character". This was the result of the discussion at topic #7945.
Well, then you need another to tell how the body composition is for a character in an image. There is no other way to do that and if leaving this out we'll lose information.
There was a fear that it would water down the tag but I disagree with that. Full body is a really big tag with nearly 140k posts.
In a -full_body scenery search you'll get around 700 pages which are around 13500 posts. Not all posts will fit the other requirement anyway meaning that it will be a very little addition to the overall count (Yes, there might be other images, but there shouldn't be much more posts then.
Also, this isn't really a discussion if there is not even one page :P.
That came out of topic #7945, where the tag was originally created. The intent was for full body to be the next step after cowboy shot, meaning it shows the entire body but not much more.
I would suggest making a long shot tag for things further away than full body. There's a huge difference between things like post #2757069 and post #1696903.
EDIT: ninja'd.
evazion said:
That came out of topic #7945, where the tag was originally created. The intent was for full body to be the next step after cowboy shot, meaning it shows the entire body but not much more.
I would suggest making a long shot tag for things further away than full body. There's a huge difference between things like post #2757069 and post #1696903.
EDIT: ninja'd.
Well, either a new tag to cover these situations are let full body be adjusted. Like I said, there is a gap in searches then.
Chiera said:
I think one wants to find every image where the body is to 100 in frame.
Something like post #2469175 or post #2635986 is what you want to find when searching for full_body?
Edit: Also ninja’d, thanks to Danbooru/Cloudflare taking their sweet time again.
Updated
evazion said:
That came out of topic #7945, where the tag was originally created. The intent was for full body to be the next step after cowboy shot, meaning it shows the entire body but not much more.
I would suggest making a long shot tag for things further away than full body. There's a huge difference between things like post #2757069 and post #1696903.
EDIT: ninja'd.
This sounds like a good suggestion to me since adding all those to full body would be wrong imo, a new tag is good.
Should something be added to the wiki about simple background + transparent background and maybe monochrome/greyscale and colour tags?
Unbreakable said:
Should something be added to the wiki about simple background + transparent background […]
You mean mentioning not using simple_background in the transparent_background wiki? The other way round is already there.
I have to admit that I hadn’t read the simple_background wiki prior to fixing the hundreds of transparent images mistagged with white_background and thus didn’t touch the simple_background tag if it was already there. :-/
kittey said:
You mean mentioning not using simple_background in the transparent_background wiki? The other way round is already there.
I have to admit that I hadn’t read the simple_background wiki prior to fixing the hundreds of transparent images mistagged with white_background and thus didn’t touch the simple_background tag if it was already there. :-/
Err, I actually meant the list of commonly misused tags wiki (hence me posting it in this thread) but mentioning it in the transparent background wiki couldn't hurt.