alias object_focus -> still_life

BUR #28927 has been rejected.

create alias object_focus -> still_life

Object_focus was presumably made because it intuitively follows the naming scheme of tags like food focus, weapon focus, ect. In practice though it is just another tag for still life "A work of art depicting mostly inanimate objects. Fruit bowl paintings are a common example."

object_name + still_life would get you the same results as object_name + object_focus making this a redundant tag.

As stated above however for people unfamiliar with the term still_life this is an intuitive name so I'm suggesting an alias instead of a deprecation.

Can posts like post #7864515, post #7819073, post #6543629 be tagged with still life?

nth_color said:

Can posts like post #7864515, post #7819073, post #6543629 be tagged with still life?

No, but I also wouldn't tag them object_focus because the human element of them is just as important especially post #6543629. Much like animal_focus its being treated as a subset of no_humans primarily.

zetsubousensei said:

No, but I also wouldn't tag them object_focus because the human element of them is just as important especially post #6543629. Much like animal_focus its being treated as a subset of no_humans primarily.

object_focus is for posts that put focus on an object, but can still include humans or animals. If I was tagging, I would tag the posts post #7819073 post #7864515 post #6543629
still_life is an image that has no living creatures in it. I could argue that it does not necessarily put any focus to objects, but I am not a scholar.

I downvoted, because I agree with the argument that a picture can have object focus without being a still life. There's no reason not to have a tag for things like post #7864515 and post #7819073.

I'll also point out that a picture is NOT still life simply because there's no human or animal presence. Most scenery no_humans pictures are not still life, for example. Generally speaking, a still life is a picture that zooms in on a certain smallish object or collection of objects, not a grand vista. The wiki page should probably state this explicitly.

Flopsy said:

I downvoted, because I agree with the argument that a picture can have object focus without being a still life. There's no reason not to have a tag for things like post #7864515 and post #7819073.

The still life wiki makes no attempt to disqualify posts with a human presence, stating that the tag is simply for "works of art depicting mostly inanimate objects". I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who'd support removing the tag from post #4367146 or post #5840350. As you yourself said, "a still life is a picture that zooms in on a certain smallish object or collection of objects". If a person is in the post, but its focus is blatantly on the inanimate object(s), then it should still be tagged as still life - post #7864515 and post #7819073 fall under such a definition.

If there are purists out there who really don't want to see the occasional still life post with minor human appearances, then they can just add no humans to their search. However, I'm fairly confident even that is unnecessary, as the vast majority of still life is always going to overlap with no humans given the nature of the tag.

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 #28927 (forum #294556) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.