A tag for a low view angle relative to the character's torso. Perhaps [[under_shot]]?

If the character is standing vertically, there is no ambiguity as to these two tags. However, if the character is lying, or, more rarely, the character is upside-down, the usage of these tags is not clear to me.

Consider post #2183268. Relative to the ground, the imaginary camera is not facing up, but rather forth (even with a slight down-tilt), so then it shouldn't be tagged from_below, right? But, at the same time, relatively to the character, we are looking at them from their relative below. If we didn't have the clues to tell us that the character is lying on their back, it could be easy to assume that it's a case of from_below.

Consider, to illustrate the above, post #3868064. Is the character lying on their back? Or are they awkwardly floating/squatting above the viewer? There are no context clues to clarify this, so what do you think.

Another side of the problem are upside-down characters. Consider post #6883080. The character is upside down, and we are looking from above. Though, relative to their body, we are looking from below. So is this really a from_above? Also is this an upskirt, if we're not even looking up the skirt? Same question for poses like post #7077670.

And, lastly, there is ambiguity for cases where the character is technically horizontal, by the viewer angle is such that, relative to the character, we're looking at them from their relative "above". For example, post #4290146 - should it be a from_above, or not really?

To conclude this post, a quick disclaimer: I didn't post this as part of topic #12251, as the aim here is to make the meaning of from_above and from_below tags more specific, and consequently make a wiki edit, rather than figure out how to tag those specific images. The image posts provided here are just examples to illustrate my point, rather than specifically the main foal of the discussion. Thank you.

post #2183268, post #3868064, post #6883080 and post #7077670 - I would tag these with from below, indeed. It might not be 100% factually correct for the reasons you outlined, the camera might not always be actually below the character, but it's still, in my opinion consistent.
Similarly, I would also tag post #4290146 with from above.

KagayakuShiningGate said:

post #2183268, post #3868064, post #6883080 and post #7077670 - I would tag these with from below, indeed. It might not be 100% factually correct for the reasons you outlined, the camera might not always be actually below the character, but it's still, in my opinion consistent.

I wouldn't tag any of those from below, because the perspective isn't below them. These tags are not open to interpretation, they say plainly in their wikis when they apply. The viewer is above the character in post #7077670, hence why it's tagged from above.

Similarly, I would also tag post #4290146 with from above.

Same thing with this one, we aren't looking down on the character, we aren't above them. The perspective is what matters, not the state of the character.

Thank you for the input, KagayakuShiningGate and blindVigil.
Based on the current wiki definition of these tags, I'd have to mostly agree with blindVigil, since wiki does talk about perspective and uses horizon location as a guideline. It should be noted though, that the existence of an objective vertical axis is only possible when something implies it - which can either be a clear direction of gravity (indicated by hair direction, long clothes being affected, pose, interaction of characters with environment), or by a background which implies the existence of the horizontal plane (and in turn the horizon).

This is a lot of words said to convey a simple idea: sometimes the concept of a horizon or a global vertical axis is not applicable. Among the image posts I initially mentioned, post #3868064 would fall in that indeterminate area: there is no background to tell whether she's lying, sitting, or floating, and neither the skirt nor the hair seem to be pulled by gravity in any direction. One might say I'm grasping at edge cases here (and they would be right), but what about illustrations of characters in space? post #7042319, post #6656487, post #3709775 all depict characters in a context with no horizon and no "up" or "down", but nevertheless with very vertical angles relative to the character. So how do from_above and from_below extend to these? Should they just not be used, or can we allow to apply them based on character's relative position here?

With all of these technicalities aside though, I personally support KagayakuShiningGate's take more, since it gives more use-cases to these tags. Additionally, if we chose not to use from_below or from_above when "below" or "above" is only relative to the character, we end up just not tagging these rather distinct angles at all. For "relative from below" there is a barely-used tag under_shot (which led to me to all of these considerations in the first place), but it's ill-defined, and also there's no tag for "relative from above" AFAIK (e.g. like in post #4290146). I'm not too sure where to draw the line if the from_above and from_below definitions end up getting expanded though... Some cases like post #7077670 would seem to be both from_above and from_below at the same time, which might or might not be okay.

Overall, I would really like to hear the opinion of some Approver (or higher) tier members to reach a consensus.

Sure, you can argue that post #3868064 could be the character squatting down with a perspective aimed upwards, but logically that's not what that is. The logical implied context is that she's lying on her back with her legs spread. One doesn't normally wrap their arms behind their knees like that when squatting, and there's no reason to assume she's floating. "But it could be!" really shouldn't ever be presented as an argument. Tags are not subjective, something either is or it is not, and despite the lack of a background, the context of that image suggests a specific composition, that she is lying on her back, and arguments to the contrary are not reasonable arguments.

Sometimes tags just don't apply. If there's no distinguishable up and down, then don't use these tags. If there's no identifiable horizon, then don't use them. Trying to include every fringe 1 in a million case because it "technically kinda sorta if you tilt your head and squint real hard" applies is how you muddy tags and fill searches with things that don't belong. If I'm using from above, I'm looking for posts where I, the viewer, am looking at a character that is below me, not posts where I'm looking up at a character that is above me but they're upside-down so "relatively" I'm looking at them "from above" or posts where both the character and the perspective are horizontal.

This is just my opinion, but posts showing up in searches they don't belong in is worse than not showing up in searches at all. Incorrectly applied tags is worse than missing tags (when we're not talking about fetish and NSFW tags, obviously). You often won't notice when a post is "missing", but you'll definitely notice when one is present where it shouldn't be. If you aren't sure if it's right, then it's better to just not tag it.

What blindVigil said. post #3868064 or post #2183268 are obviously not depicted from below, so they should not be tagged with from below. When tagging, common sense should always come before technicalities.

Remember, tags are for searching first, and classification is just a side effect. In most cases, if you find yourself arguing that something should be under a tag despite common sense and reasonable expectations telling you otherwise, then you're the one in the wrong. No reasonable user would expect to open a tag called "from below" and see things depicted from above because "technically the character is lying on their back so you're the one below from their perspective".

nonamethanks said:

What blindVigil said. post #3868064 or post #2183268 are obviously not depicted from below, so they should not be tagged with from below. When tagging, common sense should always come before technicalities.

Remember, tags are for searching first, and classification is just a side effect. In most cases, if you find yourself arguing that something should be under a tag despite common sense and reasonable expectations telling you otherwise, then you're the one in the wrong. No reasonable user would expect to open a tag called "from below" and see things depicted from above because "technically the character is lying on their back so you're the one below from their perspective".

Thank you for the clarification. I will keep in mind the correct way to use these tags. Also thank you blindVigil for additional elaboration from your side.

I will not argue about the interpretation and meaning of these tags further. However, there still remains an overlooked (in my opinion) problem which lead me to create this topic in the first place. I will lay it out and try discussing other solutions for it, for which I'll create a new topic (since this topic's name does not quite correspond to the further scope of discussion).
Edit: nevermind apparently I can just change the current topic's title.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion so far.

A tag for a low view angle relative to the character's torso. Perhaps under_shot?

So, the problem that has led me to consider the need for such a tag is as follows:
For me personally I am interested in searching for artwork where I'm viewing the character from their relative bottom - basically an upskirt angle. As we established though, from_below does not apply to all such artworks, and additionally captures some artworks that do not have an "upskirt angle" at all (like post #6433308, post #6443070, post #7085121). The upskirt tag sometimes helps, but often it's just not applicable either; same goes for the pantyshot tag. I really wish there was a single recognized tag for angles like post #4846460, or post #5449841 or post #6894894, or even like post #6134722. Or many of the posts I've linked in my previous replies in this topic. The idea is simple - a tag that represents a low angle in relation to the character's torso, without the dependence on viewer's objective view angle or more specific ideas like underskirt or undershirt. Such a concept is fairly common, well-defined enough, sufficiently distinct from the other tags I've brought up, and surely poses some interest of being searched for. Well, to me at the very least :(

Now that I hopefully conveyed what the issue is, and why I believe such a tag is needed, what exactly am I hoping to discuss further in this topic?

• First of all, should the already existing under_shot tag be adapated for this purpose? It only has around a hundred occurences so far, and overall seems fitting. However, it does not have a wiki page, and so I feel a bit reserved about just taking this tag and repurposing it for my need. What do you (the reader) think about this?
• If it's decided to leave the under_shot tag be, and instead create a new tag for this purpose, what should it be called? "low_angle"? "bottom_view"? "from_character's_below"?
• I'd of course like to create a wiki page for the tag, and so a good definition is needed once a name is decided. If allowed, I'll write one, but I assume it's something I need to discuss publicly first and get permission for (I'm not sure, I'm still somewhat confused about how Danbooru's wiki and tags are managed, and what the conventions are).
• In order to make the tag's existence more visible to other users, as well as to make sure it's usage case is clear, the related wiki pages should also be updated. For example, pages for tag group:image composition, upskirt, from_below could all mention the new tag in question.
• Lastly, of course, an idea of a tag is cool, but it's pointless unless images are actually getting tagged with it. For now I'll be creating the tag under the temporary name "bottom_view", and I'll start tagging the corresponding images. I hope I'm not overstepping by doing so, please let me know if I am. Once the above questions are discussed publicly and there is consensus, a bulk rename could be done to finalize the result.

Thank you for your attention, and please let me know your thoughts about this tag suggestion.

How would your proposed bottom view be different from under shot? In the absence of a wiki, you can refer to how the tag has been used so far to answer that question.

Blank_User said:

How would your proposed bottom view be different from under shot? In the absence of a wiki, you can refer to how the tag has been used so far to answer that question.

I don't think it would be different. under_shot seems to have the right meaning based on how it's been used so far, and I would in fact prefer to just use it since it's an already existing tag. As I said though, I'm hesitant about doing so, since someone might interfere and tell me I'm using it wrong. If this is a dumb reservation to have, please let me know. I'm also hesitant because I'm afraid under_shot might get nuked, being a very low-count tag (as well as the difference to from_bellow probably not being immediately clear to many).

I'm not sure if it's a valid action of me to instead decide to use a new tag, even though I'm myself convinced it's equivalent to an existing one. If this is "not how things are done", once again please let me know. A large part of why I'm bringing this topic onto the forum is because I'm very unsure about what's my range of allowable action as a Member-tier user.

habil_b said:

I don't think it would be different. under_shot seems to have the right meaning based on how it's been used so far, and I would in fact prefer to just use it since it's an already existing tag. As I said though, I'm hesitant about doing so, since someone might interfere and tell me I'm using it wrong. If this is a dumb reservation to have, please let me know. I'm also hesitant because I'm afraid under_shot might get nuked, being a very low-count tag (as well as the difference to from_bellow probably not being immediately clear to many).

I'm not sure if it's a valid action of me to instead decide to use a new tag, even though I'm myself convinced it's equivalent to an existing one. If this is "not how things are done", once again please let me know. A large part of why I'm bringing this topic onto the forum is because I'm very unsure about what's my range of allowable action as a Member-tier user.

If you don't intend for your tag to be used differently from an existing tag, then you shouldn't create it.

The under shot tag won't get nuked simply because it has a low post count. If the tag is useful for identifying the concept, it will likely stay and be added to more posts. At worst, it will probably just be renamed. If someone does create a BUR to nuke the tag, you can argue for the tag to stay in the BUR's forum thread.

It seems pretty clear what under shot is being used for and populating it would probably be fine, but just in case, I posted a wiki request in topic #12858 so someone who is more confident about how to use the tag can write a description. I'd wait for some feedback about this from others in this thread before doing anything else.

Blank_User said:

If you don't intend for your tag to be used differently from an existing tag, then you shouldn't create it.

The under shot tag won't get nuked simply because it has a low post count. If the tag is useful for identifying the concept, it will likely stay and be added to more posts. At worst, it will probably just be renamed. If someone does create a BUR to nuke the tag, you can argue for the tag to stay in the BUR's forum thread.

It seems pretty clear what under shot is being used for and populating it would probably be fine, but just in case, I posted a wiki request in topic #12858 so someone who is more confident about how to use the tag can write a description. I'd wait for some feedback about this from others in this thread before doing anything else.

Thank you, Blank User. This is reassuring. I see the wiki page was created, so also thank you for requesting it. For now I'll be "populating" the tag, then.

Also, after reading the freshly provided definition of the tag, there is another point I'd like to bring up regarding under_shot:
Should similar angles be included in the tag if only the upper body is shown? What I mean is basically most upshirt images, but also stuff like post #4101068 or post #3633634.