Topic: BUR UNimply nature_background -> nature

The bulk update request #6304 is pending approval.

remove implication nature_background (16083) -> nature (31300)

Reason: nature wiki says "... Only for fully natural scenery. No elements such as fences or roads should be visible."

(nature_background currently doesn't have a wiki page.)

But some posts with nature_background tag have non-natural elements. Examples:

1) has bridge and structure that looks vaguely like a gazebo
post #4558229

2) same pool "Pool: Twink Fuzeyeen"
2a) bridge
post #4542032
2b) same bridge, but in background
post #4551762

(side-note: i think a hiking trail (or similar) should be allowed in posts tagged with nature)

3) one panel with house, one panel with Showbiz Pizza Place building
post #4538599

***
unsure of these:
a) hammocks , plus things overhead (to shield from rain?)
post #4551760 and child posts

b) throne
post #4550281

Didn't look at all nature_ground posts,
started with latest and got as far as post #4534236 ("Rating: Safe")
Time to drag myself off computer.

They're not aliased though? I suspect you would want to unimply the two

Though I wonder, should nature be less restrictive, or is it good with how it is currently.

Personally, I think nature should be aliased to nature_background (or vice-versa), since a nature_background will inherently have nature, and nature will always be part of the scene background. The current implication ensures nature isn't used how the wiki tries to define it as a strict nature-only scene.

snpthecat said:
They're not aliased though? I suspect you would want to unimply the two

Though I wonder, should nature be less restrictive, or is it good with how it is currently.

Thanks SNPtheCat for noticing my brainfail/brainfart/whatever,
I've fixed the BUR.

watsit said:
Personally, I think nature should be aliased to nature_background (or vice-versa), since a nature_background will inherently have nature, and nature will always be part of the scene background. The current implication ensures nature isn't used how the wiki tries to define it as a strict nature-only scene.

nature wiki includes: "Only for fully natural scenery. No elements such as fences or roads should be visible."

So in my opinion, some nature_background images wouldn't have "fully natural scenery",
so shouldn't imply to nature.

examples:
1) post #6266338
has towel and "pool_float" tags which make it seem less nature, but does have nature_background

*

2) post #6265961
has large structure of pyramid (taking up approx 1/6th of image space)
so could be tagged with nature_background, but not with nature.
(again: "No elements such as fences or roads should be visible.")

*

3) post #6262593
tagged with swimming pool (and poolside)
so could be tagged with nature_background, but not with nature.
(ie. feels like the swimming_pool falls under the umbrella of "No elements such as fences or roads should be visible.")

listerthesquirrel said:
nature wiki includes: "Only for fully natural scenery. No elements such as fences or roads should be visible."

So in my opinion, some nature_background images wouldn't have "fully natural scenery",
so shouldn't imply to nature.

The problem then becomes where the dividing line is for nature_background vs non-nature_background. The nature tag at least has a relatively clear line (even if it's not properly followed); no unnatural structures like fences, roads, houses, etc, at all. But if nature_background can have man-made structures, what divides a post like
post #6262593
which has some man-made structures (the swimming pool) with some vague shrubbery in the back counting as a nature_background, from a post like
post #5910908
which has some man-made structures (the buildings and roads) with some shrubbery and plants in the background with it? It shouldn't be based on vibes, that the second post just doesn't "feel like" nature_background is correct while it feels correct for the first post. It should be determined from what we can objectively see in the image.

Though honestly even nature has some ambiguity. If
post #6266338
doesn't count because of the beach towel and pool float, would
post #6027168
also not count because of the clothing and backpack? Or
post #6072134
because of the armor and sword?

It is probably worth noting that pretty much all of the examples given so far here -except for the beach side scene and store front image- would all apply to forest_background which implies to nature_background as they contain a forest as a principal backdrop..

To be frank simply having a path or fence(or object such as a towel) in the image is not sufficient to not tag something as nature, it still can be a place in nature.
A bigger question I feel that should be asked is that if these are not a nature background then what are they then?, as they may not fit urban_background or cityscape.

The bulk update request #13569 is pending approval.

remove implication forest_background (11859) -> nature_background (16083)

Reason: forests can exist at the same time as an cityscape or city featuring prominently enough to also be tagged with urban_background, the most obvious example literally being central park in new york city.

post #5220905

I think what is current definition of 'nature' should just be moved to a new tag. Maybe wilderness.

Presumably, these urban_background, forest_background, etc, tags apply when it's the dominant feature of the background. So you couldn't have a forest_background and an urban_background at the same time since they can't both be the dominant feature (multiple_scenes not withstanding, I suppose). Otherwise, if forest_background applies any time there's a forest in the background regardless of prominence, it would be identical to the forest tag since a forest will always be part of the backdrop of the scene the characters are in (i.e. part of the background). Similar for urban_background and city/town.

Regardless, it doesn't make sense to me how you could have a forest_background but not a nature_background, since a forest is nature. If the background contains a forest, the background must definitionally contain "nature". For the various *_background tags to be consistent, an implication only makes sense. Making them inconsistent will lead to confusion and mistags.