So the implication strawberry_print -> strawberry won't exist.
I give in either to the democratic consensus of everybody else here, or to the dictatorial decision of jhx. (Sometimes, I'm not sure which.) Both seem reasonable to some extent, especially since even Alignn — the first to defend the implication in the thread — eventually changed his/her mind.
Now I'm going to reply to NWF, since he/she did three things in this thread that caught my attention: 1) honestly, raised some interesting and reasonable points; 2) other times, I'm still not sure what's the point, so I'll ask; 3) really annoyed me with their tone and accusations.
I do defend that implication, this time not hoping that it'd be done, but to continue a good discussion to be archived; and to clarify my thoughts and even question the current outcome.
I don't always have time to dedicate to conversations on Danbooru, but when I do I'm prepared for potentially very long discussions. Sometimes, people share that determination and together make threads with multiple pages; most often, they abandon threads with none or few replies, even when the subject is controversial or when I raise a point. (I chose the first-person pronoun in "when I raise a point" because I'm focusing on my own experiences, but maybe "when points are raised by any person" would be equally informative.) Let's see what happens this time.
Now to my replies.
Reply I
NWF_Renim said:
For example if you attempted something like strawberry_print implies strawberry, then somewhere along the line you're going to need to break an already existing implication, such as breaking the implication strawberry -> fruit or fruit -> food.
Both the original projects are simple: either we do implicate "strawberry_print -> strawberry" or we don't. What you said is so complex it's horrible. It's apparently based on the opinion that prints and "real" things should be kept as SEPARATE tags, while they are forcibly MERGED nonetheless. Having no "strawberry_print -> strawberry" implication at all is really much better than cultivating that mess. On the other hand, if the implication had been done, then I'd expect the other implications to be kept: post #974144 would be tagged strawberry panties, strawberry print, strawberry, fruit and food. (And a search for food would bring that post up, among many others.)
Reply II
NWF_Renim said:
At some point we need to draw the line of what is "real" in the image and what isn't
Which of these is the apple of post #735008?
Why someone would conceivably want to avoid seeing post #743257 when searching for cat? Or post #697883 when searching for strawberry? Sometimes, the print is more-or-less realistic or is the focus of the image. Would these be "grey areas"? If not, are there any grey areas for cats/cat_prints and strawberries/strawberry_prints?
I suppose you could always narrow down your search to find what you want. (and maybe you should sometimes, since some of these tags are flooded with pages and pages of posts) Do you know of any trouble with print/nonprint happening to someone before?
Reply III
Shinjidude said:
A depiction of something is different than an instance of that thing.
Danielx21 said:
That wording is somewhat confusing, but I disagree on principle. In drawings, all instances are depictions.
NWF_Renim said:
You choose to word this so it does not match up with what Shinjidude said.
No. I quoted exactly what Shinjidude said and said exactly what I thought. I still see that the association of words "depiction = print; instance = nonprint; something = either a print or a nonprint" is weird (thus a confusing wording).
Being "confusing" is not a crime; confusing words can simply be clarified. But, anyway, I understand the discussion well enough, so I don't really require an explanation.
Reply IV
NWF_Renim said:
Yes, all instances are depictions, but not all depictions are instances.
Yes, that's why I proposed an IMPLICATION "strawberry_print -> strawberry"
It'd naturally work this way:
- strawberry_print -> prints/depictions
- strawberry -> nonprints/instances & prints/depictions
Now, here's a crazy logical reasoning, that probably has no practical use but serves right as part of my line of thought:
"If all depictions were instances and all instances were depictions, then depiction would be a synonym of instance and strawberry_print would be an ALIAS to strawberry."
Reply V
Danielx21 said:
I understand you have great knowledge of Danbooru's tags and practices, but your statement "it would screw up the way the tags work and unnecessarily dilute one to include things that don't quite apply to that tags' intended usage" is incorrect, because it implies we have a standard, popular, usage criterion and perhaps a huge number of separated "print" and "nonprint" images to be diluted somewhere. We don't.
NWF_Renim said:
What a nice way to sugarcoat what is pretty much you saying "for all the experience you have, you're wrong, and I'm right."
That's not sugarcoating, just good manners. And applicable context. Shinjidude has the merits I mentioned. You, too, NWF. IIRC, I've been in good terms with you both, and talked nicely with you, until you (NWF) recently started to see malice in my words and attack them. Please stop, by giving me the benefit of doubt when we have a disagreement.
As to Shinjidude's statement that I said is incorrect, it really is. Or, rather, it was incorrect when he/she said it. Please don't take it personally.
1) That practice has never been never discussed on the forum. (but now it is, on this thread)
2) The tags in question (strawberry_print, etc.) have few posts, which suggests that the tag is relatively recent and/or unused. (well, I know that "few" is subjective; more on that later)
Reply VI
Danielx21 said:
Almost all instances of types of "print" ("strawberry print", etc.) have 152 posts or less, which is a small number. Most of these tags have 35 or less posts.
NWF_Renim said:
Whoever said 152 posts is a small number? I don't consider it a small number.
It seems obvious to me that 152 is a small number. But, here on Danbooru, I already had hostile disagreements about the meanings of subjective quantitative words such as "many". Taking back that word is impossible because the whole context is subjective as well, so I'll just elaborate.
- The (approximately) 5,200 most populated tags simply have more than 150 posts.
- Strawberry_print has 150 posts, or 8 pages of posts. Seeing them all at once can be so easily and quickly done, because "strawberry_print" has few posts.
- Strawberry has 2433 posts. Strawberry_print has 6% as many posts as strawberry, which I believe is a low number in this context. The practical result is:
- If strawberry contains both PRINTS ("depictions") and NONPRINTS ("instances") together and someone, for whatever reason, wants to look for NONPRINTS only, he can just ignore the few PRINTS that would appear. They don't make enough noise to warrant a full separation between these two tags. And you wouldn't even need to consider that print/nonprint distinction.
- With that in mind, don't forget that I said Most of these tags have 35 or less posts, so these arguments would apply to them as well, in larger scale.
Reply VII
NWF_Renim said:
It's also interesting that you're bringing up post numbers here, when in another thread you bragged on about how tags were underpopulated until you started going through and populating them. If it's true that tags are underpopulated, then you using the current number values now is rather pointless as because that just means that there are plenty of images that aren't tagged. So which is it? Do we have an issue of underpopulated tags or not?
1) Tags that have been created relatively recently or are relatively unused (like strawberry_print and leaf_print) often have a small number of posts, which is a key fact of my conclusion that the "print" tags had not received enough attention of the community. It does not matter, for this line of thought, that they may be better populated in the future. That said...
2) True enough. If there are drawings of strawberry prints NOT tagged strawberry_print, then they may be populated. I'd like to see that happen.
Reply VIII
Danielx21 said:
Point C:
The exceptions to that "152 posts or less" rule are:
These exceptions have 640 or more posts. They do not suggest that we should have a distinction between "depictions" and "instances". (or "print" and "nonprint") They have entirely different meanings.
- paw print does not mean "a drawing of a drawing of a paw"; it means "the mark a paw makes when moist with ink and pressed on the ground"
- floral print does not mean "a drawing of a drawing of a "flower"; it means "symbolic bidimensional patterns based on real-life flowers"
- cow print does not mean "a drawing of a drawing of a cow"; it means "the black/white pattern of spots found in cow fur"
- tiger print does not mean "a drawing of a drawing of a tiger"; it means "the black/orange pattern of stripes found in tiger fur"
The meanings were typed by me, for this thread, based on the contents of each tag.
NWF_Renim said:
We've known for awhile that not all prints depict the actual item. Trying to compare things that have a similar name but a whole different patterning type is silly. Don't try and use that as an argument against what Shinjidude said, because you're trying to use something that is completely different. Stick to the pattern types that are actually relevant.
1) You seem to have read something completely different from what I wrote there. I'm curious: how did I tried and failed to use paw_print, floral_print, cow_print and tiger_print (let's call them PFCT) against Shinjidude?
2) You are completely right that PFCT are different from cat_print, strawberry_print, leaf_print and the like (let's call them PP = print patterns). That was EXACTLY my point: these are different groups of tags, so don't confuse them with each other. I had to say that because:
- The PFCT have much more posts (640 or more), in contrast with my conclusion that the PP have few posts.
- In fact, the PFCT are older than ALL the PP, indicating that having only the PFCT was the standard practice before the PP were introduced.
- Now that I mention it, I could even request moving cow_print to cow_pattern, to look for some consistency. This idea is very on-topic, but it's off-topic enough to be better discussed elsewhere. Although, after this discussion that was initially about panties, I'm not caring much about choosing the right thread with surgical accuracy, at the moment.
