Tag Alias: transparent_* to transparency

Remove alias transparent_gif to transparent_png.
Add alias transparent_gif to transparency.
Add alias transparent_png to transparency.

Reason: gif is not png, seeing transparent_png for gif images is silly.

I also considered terms like alpha_channel, but then an alpha_channel is just a special type of transparency and probably too technical a term anyway. If an alpha_channel tag comes into being it might be useful to add an implication to transparency for it.

I'm strongly in favor of this. Or at the very least remove the alias from transparent_gif to transparent_png. That's a seriously silly alias.

Hmm, transparent seems to be used somewhat interchangeably with see-through, so "transparency" might be confusing. So if the "transparent" images aren't edited to remove the tag, maybe use transparent_image to make it clear what the tag refers to: transparency of the image itself, not that it is an image of something that is transparent.

How about transparent_background? It's more descriptive than saying image, and the whole image typically isn't transparent.

Yes, I want something more specific than "transparency", or we'll get people using it for see through clothing and such. At least with transparent_gif/png there's no ambiguity. transparent_background is a start, but I'm open to other suggestions.

I'd suggest alpha_channel and/or chroma_key. Unfortunately I can't suggest any good term that encompasses both of those.

GIFs don't have alpha channels, and many transparent PNGs don't either. So either of these would be just as misleading as using transparent_png for gif files. And transparent_background... well it's not always the background that's transparent. And it's kind of long too.

I believe other sites refer to these images as "renders", though that term never made any sense to me. Or maybe that's just used in the wallpaper-making community.

Maybe transparency would still be best after all. It's arguably the correct term, and if transparent is discouraged and the few pics edited to see-through then it probably won't be too hard to stop people from using it incorrectly.

I like transparent_background, myself. But if it's too long for some people, maybe something different would work, like clear_background or invisible_background? Or perhaps shorthand "background" to "bg"?

piespy said:
And transparent_background... well it's not always the background that's transparent.

Care to note an example of that? I've quickly skimmed all of transparant_png and failed to find any without a transparent background.

As for length, we've got over 10,000 instances of suzumiya_haruhi_no_yuuutsu which is a longer tag. As far as typing goes, we could always have a shortcut alias.

I actually prefer transparent_png and transparent_gif to be two separate tags. Reason being, I care about transparent_png images but I can care the less about crappy transparent_gif. So I'm in favor for removing the tag alias from transparent_gif to transparent_png, but I'm AGAINST the idea of consolidating the tags into a unified tag.

I agree with chiisana. They're usually easy to distinguish, too.

chiisana said:
I actually prefer transparent_png and transparent_gif to be two separate tags. Reason being, I care about transparent_png images but I can care the less about crappy transparent_gif.

I don't get that. There's no technical difference between a 256 color GIF image with one transparent color index, and a 256 color PNG image with one transparent color index other than how the data is encoded in the bitstream. Certainly it'd be silly to shun GIF, when one can losslessly be converted to the other and vice versa (unless the transparent GIF is animated which PNG doesn't support at all). Even the GIF patent has expired now so that old crusade against GIF is dead.

Maybe you only want transparency in truecolor PNGs? Then these tags wouldn't help you because transparent_png would also apply to 256 or 16 or 4 color PNGs. Or maybe you only care about alpha channels? Then you'd miss truecolor PNGs with a chroma key for transparency. Really, I just don't get it. Having a tag for each filetype seems a silly distinction to make. Maybe what you want is a meta-tag search for color depth of the image instead? Though even if the color depth is 48 bits it might only use 2 distinct colors...

Shinjidude said:
As for length, we've got over instances of 10,000 suzumiya_haruhi_no_yuuutsu which is a longer tag. As far as typing goes, we could always have a shortcut alias.

Point taken. And I retract my statement about the background, I have some PNGs when it's the center of the image that's transparent, but arguably that makes it the background anyway.

chiisana said:
Reason being, I care about transparent_png images but I can care the less about crappy transparent_gif.

You butchered that even beyond what's described at http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/care.html .

Request the ability to search for format:png, format:jpeg, format:gif, format:flash.

Will we get rid of the flash tag, then?

piespy said:
I don't get that. There's no technical difference between a 256 color GIF image with one transparent color index, and a 256 color PNG image with one transparent color index other than how the data is encoded in the bitstream.
<snip; tl;dr>

You're thinking PNG 8, which is limiting.
I'm thinking PNG 24, which is much much better.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics#Comparison_with_Graphics_Interchange_Format_.28GIF.29

0xCCBA696 said:
You butchered that even beyond what's described at http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/care.html .

English is not my first language, and plus, this is the intarwebs, who really cares about grammar and mundane things like that ;)

That's just my subtle way of introducing you to a great website :P If English is not your first language, all the better.

chiisana said:
You're thinking PNG 8, which is limiting.
I'm thinking PNG 24, which is much much better.

Yes, that's what I guessed you were thinking, in the rest of my post. Both are PNG and both would qualify for the transparent_png tag, so what you're asking for is not what you actually want, which would apparently be transparent_truecolor_image instead. But I'd say that tagging color depth is equivalent to tagging width and height, which we don't. It would be better handled by a meta-tag. Danbooru already extracts image info so such a meta-tag should not be too difficult to add.

But keeping separate transparent_gif and transparent_png tags just because some PNGs have 24/32 bit color depth and gif never does is a bit pointless, the same as not tagging transparent 8-bit PNGs with transparent_png would be.

@piespy
As long as there is some mechanism for distinction, meta tag for example would be fine. The reason I'm opposing consolidating the two into an unified transparent tag is because there would be no way to distinct between the two (as of right now, though, granted there is no real way to distinct between the two currently via tags as well anyways), and that'd be problematic.

Alias transparent_gif and transparent_png tags to transparent_image or similar. It's very silly to have images tagged as both gif and transparent_png. I'm unsure how the new tag should be worded but this discussion needs to be revived.