Tag Proposal: Featureless Background

BUR #16004 has been rejected.

create implication simple_background -> featureless_background

this is a proposal for backgrounds which one can not identify the background with anything(a "test" for this would roughly be "does it look like the picture is taking place in an identifiable location?" post #6155521 is the current example of what this tag would be like, and i imagine there would be hashing out what exactly qualifies a background for this tag

the BUR is under the assumption that if it is a simple background, it is also a featureless background

Can you post a few more examples of the proposed featureless_background that isn't also a simple_background? It sounds like they might have almost 100% crossover making the tag useless.

Pokeball99 said:

post #6155521 is the current example of what this tag would be like, and i imagine there would be hashing out what exactly qualifies a background for this tag

I'd tag white border, not white background.

From the description in the proposal I'm guessing the featureless background tag would also include things like post #6182568 in addition to simple backgrounds?

skylightcrystal said:

From the description in the proposal I'm guessing the featureless background tag would also include things like post #6182568 in addition to simple backgrounds?

I would count that as a simple gradient background.

Username_Hidden said:

I would count that as a simple gradient background.

It's neither, though? Although if you only looked at the thumbnail it may look like it.

post #6182568 has a background that implies shading either from the sky or a dark room, and it's not a gradient because it doesn't have a smooth transition from dark to light. Actually, I'm not sure if that post would even count as having a simple background because of the wiki description.
And the picture the OP provided (post #6155521) has a similar thing going on where it might be inplying shading OR silhouettes of other people/things.

for a background to count as featureless, i feel like it would have to have a flat color.

Either way, if that doesn't count as simple background then I'm not against a tag that encompasses such artworks, but featureless background is a pretty bad name.

What about expanding simple background to all artworks that don't have any particular bg, and turn the current simple background into something like flat background?

Username_Hidden said:

Either way, if that doesn't count as simple background then I'm not against a tag that encompasses such artworks, but featureless background is a pretty bad name.

What about expanding simple background to all artworks that don't have any particular bg, and turn the current simple background into something like flat background?

i'm not against something like this.

I would tag both posts as simple background. One thing that surprises me is that we tag simple background (which is more of the default) rather than tagging detailed backgrounds.

Making a tag with 99.99% overlap (simple -> featureless) will never go through.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #16004 (forum #237255) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

BUR #19092 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

nuke featureless_background

So apparently everyone telling you it was a stupid idea wasn't enough to stop you from going through with your stupid idea.

The bulk update request #19092 (forum #250697) has been approved by @nonamethanks.