Posted under General
We have solo, and various character-counting tags.
Should we have a tag for images with no characters in them at all? Or no people, or however we want to define it? It might seem like an odd tag to have, but it feels like it could be useful -- it's something you can obviously tell about an image at a glance, and it tends to completely describe an important aspect of the image, anyway.
Updated by Cyberia-Mix
Ideally chartags:0 -original would be able to get you what you want, but alas, original tagging has always been incomplete for various reasons.
If we do go with a tag, we might as well do something totally obvious like no_characters.
Is there anything particularly inadequate about chartags:0? At least you can be sure that will be applied consistently. Solo and the other counting tags aren't.
EDIT: Beaten to it. Also, untagged people show up all over the place with it.
I guess your edit means you realized, but chartags don't help with original, unfortunately. Almost 6000 pages, and I bet at least 5000 of those truly are original, unnamed characters. Still well over 4000 even if you neg original.
I've never been big on counting tags (or the lack of anything to count in this case) but if any situation warrants it, it's probably this, given the inadequacy of the original tag.
Edit: okay your edited edit makes the above post redundant. =P
jxh2154 said:
I've never been big on counting tags (or the lack of anything to count in this case) but if any situation warrants it, it's probably this, given the inadequacy of the original tag.
I tend to tag solo, 2girls etc. specifically on posts tagged original, since it's where it's the most useful. And I thought it was a policy of some sort that was already applied.
The no_character situation is somewhat of a rare case but we could start tagging it as well, though I doubt we find a lot of these that weren't already tagged as scenery or something close.
