Donmai

Nuke three-quarter_view

Posted under Tags

AngryZapdos

nonamethanks said:

I don't see the difference between this tag and straight-on. As I recall, we didn't nuke that one even though it was polluted by specific users either - we just cleaned it up (forum #249949).

The issue with three_quarter_view is not its botched initial population, but its vast, vast ubiquitousness. As I mentioned in my initial BUR, these posts are so easy to find that there's no point in having a tag for them.

Reply
Mango2

Really, again?

nonamethanks said:

I don't see the difference between this tag and straight-on. As I recall, we didn't nuke that one even though it was polluted by specific users either - we just cleaned it up (forum #249949).

I was actually going to dm Evazion about this since he mentioned it being good for portraits as an example.

evazion said:

This tag could be useful for things like portraits to distinguish between straight-on shots, from side shots, and three-quarters shots. As it's currently used, for things like comics and multiple views where of course everything is viewed from multiple angles, it's not a good idea. Even e621 doesn't do this.

Length isn't the issue here right? Full body shots would still qualify? And would it have to be exclusive to solo posts? Also we had the aforementioned issue of whether this applies to the direction of the body or the head when the character is turning, eg post #7341994 is clearly three quarter view but which of these is post #7172102 or post #7361099? What is the consensues on that for from side and from behind?, based on body right?

The rules that apply to from side and from behind should apply to three quarter view as well.

AngryZapdos said:

The issue with three_quarter_view is not its botched initial population, but its vast, vast ubiquitous. As I mentioned in my initial BUR, these posts are so easy to find that there's no point in having a tag for them.

So are 1girl, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have a tag for it. The only example would probably be something like "open eyes". Actually I think something that adds to the amount of three quarter view is the strictness of "straight on". If we had "from front" (like from side and from behind) it would probably take a lot of the load of three quarter view for cases where the character is clearly viewed from the front but is not perfectly straight on eg, post #7353737

Updated

Reply
ignoble

Chiming in to mention that, as a new user, the wiki pages for three_quarter_view and from_side are a bit confusing.

From from_side:
>The main character or object in the image is viewed from its side. May either be 90 degrees across the subject's shoulder, or up to 45 degrees left or right.

From three_quarter_view:
>An image whose subject is viewed at a 45° angle. The subject is halfway between a straight-on view (at a 0° angle) and a from side view (at a 90° angle).

So why doesn't three_quarter_view implicate from_side? And I'm not sure the Wikipedia links helps much, since danbooru apparently gives its own meaning to terms.

In comparison, I don't think three_quarter_profile is confusing. It provides an objective description of what fits, and it seems useful:
>Almost a profile shot, but a portion of the character's other eye and/or brow is distinctly visible.

Just my two cents, hope I didn't intrude. Still learning the ropes, please send a message if I've erred.

Reply
Blank User

ignoble said:

Chiming in to mention that, as a new user, the wiki pages for three_quarter_view and from_side are a bit confusing.

From from_side:
>The main character or object in the image is viewed from its side. May either be 90 degrees across the subject's shoulder, or up to 45 degrees left or right.

From three_quarter_view:
>An image whose subject is viewed at a 45° angle. The subject is halfway between a straight-on view (at a 0° angle) and a from side view (at a 90° angle).

So why doesn't three_quarter_view implicate from_side? And I'm not sure the Wikipedia links helps much, since danbooru apparently gives its own meaning to terms.

For from side, 45° is an upper limit, but for three quarter profile, it is closer to an average. In practice, there will be some deviation from 45° in three quarter profile because it is harder to identify than straight-on or profile. If we were to implicate three quarter view to from side, we would effectively be increasing the range from side covers to angles that are facing towards us more than to the side.

In comparison, I don't think three_quarter_profile is confusing. It provides an objective description of what fits, and it seems useful:
>Almost a profile shot, but a portion of the character's other eye and/or brow is distinctly visible.

I can't comment on the usefulness of that tag, but I think it would make more sense to implicate it to from side than it would to implicate three quarter view.

Just my two cents, hope I didn't intrude. Still learning the ropes, please send a message if I've erred.

I think you're doing fine. You're adding to the conversation, which is a good way to contribute.

I will say though that if you want to make a specific request for wiki entries to be clarified, the best place to ask is topic #12858, the wiki request thread. However, that thread isn't stickied, so you may need to search for it (or just click the topic number I just gave).

Reply
1 2