BUR #46431 has been rejected.
create implication bare_back -> back
Simple logic dictates that any example of bare back is an example of back.
Posted under Tags
BUR #46431 has been rejected.
create implication bare_back -> back
Simple logic dictates that any example of bare back is an example of back.
looking at the wiki for back, it seems it was intended to be a sort of focus tag, before somewhere along the way its meaning was diluted into being basically a duplicate of from behind, sans a few exceptions like post #9864905. echoing what evazion said: forum #228059
i'll upvote because the implication doesn't hurt, but honestly i'm not seeing the utility of back compared to more specific tags like back focus, bare back, etc.
BUR #46434 has been rejected.
create alias bare_back -> back
Barring the afore-mentioned from_behind mistags, I fail to see a clear difference between the results for bare_back and back. post #9861356, post #9859051, post #9855593, post #9864905 come from the first page of bare_back, and none of them are bare. Meanwhile (again, barring from_behind mistags), a majority of the posts in the back -bare_back search would be right at home in bare_back.
Even if we humor the other BUR and say that bare_back has value, it still can't imply back because of examples like post #9819692, similar to how barefoot can't imply feet.
wingdings said:
looking at the wiki for back, it seems it was intended to be a sort of focus tag, before somewhere along the way its meaning was diluted into being basically a duplicate of from behind, sans a few exceptions like post #9864905. echoing what evazion said: forum #228059
i'll upvote because the implication doesn't hurt, but honestly i'm not seeing the utility of back compared to more specific tags like back focus, bare back, etc.
There are plenty of from behind examples where you don't have a visible back in the image (or at least, only a very small portion is visible), whether because the upper body is out of frame (post #9638348) or because of the character's posture/positioning (post #9325712 and post #9915426). Calling it a duplicate of from behind is disingenuous.
AngryZapdos said:
BUR #46434 has been rejected.
create alias bare_back -> back
Barring the afore-mentioned from_behind mistags, I fail to see a clear difference between the results for bare_back and back. post #9861356, post #9859051, post #9855593, post #9864905 come from the first page of bare_back, and none of them are bare.
bare back's description clearly states that you only need about 3/4 of a character's back to be exposed, which applies to all but one of the examples you brought up (the exception being post #9855593, which has "only" the upper half of the back exposed).
And I do not agree with the suggestion of aliasing bare back to back, if only because we already recognize the distinction between bare and non-bare for many other body parts.
Also, I thought you're not supposed to upvote your own BURs.
Even if we humor the other BUR and say that bare_back has value, it still can't imply back because of examples like post #9819692, similar to how barefoot can't imply feet.
Fair enough, I hadn't considered non-rear viewing angles. I'll reject the BUR myself, then.
The bulk update request #46431 (forum #379795) has been rejected by @MarqFJA87.
MarqFJA87 said:
bare back's description clearly states that you only need about 3/4 of a character's back to be exposed, which applies to all but one of the examples you brought up (the exception being post #9855593, which has "only" the upper half of the back exposed).
And I do not agree with the suggestion of aliasing bare back to back, if only because we already recognize the distinction between bare and non-bare for many other body parts.
That's like if barefoot allowed stirrup_legwear, or bare_legs allowed kneehighs. It's a bad definition that should never have been put in the wiki.
In any case, look at back -bare_back - the majority of these posts are already bare backs. It's just not a useful tag.
Would the name of the tag be useful though? I feel like if it's just back, it's going to turn into a dumping ground full of anything from a bare back to a small 5cm cutout to simply just from behind and that'll lead to it needing to be deprecated and turned into something else or completely wiped out.
WRS said:
Would the name of the tag be useful though? I feel like if it's just back, it's going to turn into a dumping ground full of anything from a bare back to a small 5cm cutout to simply just from behind and that'll lead to it needing to be deprecated and turned into something else or completely wiped out.
I wondered myself if back could also be renamed to bare_back, but unfortunately with that name it wouldn't cover stuff like post #7746048. However, if you look through the back tag, most of the posts do feature fairly prominent backs. The most common mistags are actually from_behind posts, which I've submitted a utility alias to combat in forum #386314.
Bare back is supposed to be used when the back is mostly uncovered. The back can still be prominently visible when half covered, or even mostly covered in particularly see-through or skintight clothing (Zapdos already posted an example of the former, and something like post #9739015 for the latter).
EB said:
Bare back is supposed to be used when the back is mostly uncovered. The back can still be prominently visible when half covered, or even mostly covered in particularly see-through or skintight clothing (Zapdos already posted an example of the former, and something like post #9739015 for the latter).
I agree, but (barring from_behind mistags) the majority of back posts already fit the definition of bare_back. Half-covered backs, and backs under skin-tight or see-through clothing, are in the minority. There is no need for two tags for the same thing; if we really need a tag to exclude these posts, then we can make covered_back (thought I think that's unnecessary).
The bulk update request #46434 (forum #379805) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.