Danbooru

[Tag Discussion] Should chibi inset imply chibi?

Posted under Tags

create implication chibi_on_head -> chibi

Link to implication

create implication chibi_on_head -> on_head

Link to request (forum #145580)

create implication chibi_inset -> chibi

Link to request (forum #145592)

Last discussion was in topic #6809 6 years ago but nothing came out of it.

If there's a chibi in the picture then it should be tagged as such.

edit: changed the title so people actually check this topic.

EDIT: This tag implication is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: The tag implication chibi_on_head -> chibi (forum #145574) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

Updated by DanbooruBot

I never understood the chibi inset rule. They're chibi, they're in the picture. We don't avoid tagging characters just because they're inset, and I don't see how anyone would search for chibi and not expect to see any kind of chibi.

It's like not tagging the hair color or other features of any character that is in the background.

In the post you linked there's purple hair, how is that any more relevant than the chibi tag?

Plus, that rule was written 7 years ago and hasn't been revised since. It's probably time to put it up for discussion.

nonamethanks said:

I never understood the chibi inset rule. They're chibi, they're in the picture. We don't avoid tagging characters just because they're inset, and I don't see how anyone would search for chibi and not expect to see any kind of chibi.

It's like not tagging the hair color or other features of any character that is not in the background.

In the post you linked there's purple hair, how is that any more relevant than the chibi tag?

Plus, that rule was written 7 years ago and hasn't been revised since. It's probably time to put it up for discussion.

It's the same reasoning as yours, just in reverse in topic #5732.

Again, if that rule exists then we should also stop tagging any kind of feature that is not in the foreground, because nobody searching for it would be expecting to see background results. A perfect example is again the post you linked with hair/eye color for the chibi characters.

Provence said:

I think the reasoning is that there should be emphasis on the chibi (well, obviously).
Since chibis aren't usually to be expected in an image with normally featured characters (post #2655119) I think the distinction makes sense since chibi inset isn't describing a normal situation but instead an exception.

Here's some examples of people tagging features of chibi insets:
post #3059874
post #3049625
post #3050978
post #3034829
By your same reasoning the tags regarding those chibi characters should be removed because they are not the emphasis of the picture and people wouldn't expect to see those when they're searching for those tags.

We use the rule of "tag what you see". If a chibi is in the picture then people are going to tag it. I don't see how it makes sense to not do, or even expect, so.

nonamethanks said:

Here's some examples of people tagging features of chibi insets:
post #3059874
post #3049625
post #3050978
post #3034829
By your same reasoning the tags regarding those chibi characters should be removed because they are not the emphasis of the picture and people wouldn't expect to see those when they're searching for those tags.

We use the rule of "tag what you see". If a chibi is in the picture then people are going to tag it. I don't see how it makes sense to not do, or even expect, so.

Not really. The features are still present (-> Tag what you see), however only because something isn't the focus it should be tagged. The chibi tag is an exception so it seems. The reason is stated above since chibi characters don't usually appear with Non-Chibi chars and they aren't the focus, either. And therefore the features are taggable, however when I think of a chibi per se then I don't really want to see a chibi in the background.

We're running in circles here. You keep saying that chibi should be the exception because people don't expect to see chibi insets when they search for chibi, and yet you claim it's fine to tag the same inset chibi's hair color. This makes no sense.

Another example is people in the background of a solo_focus picture. We don't avoid tagging multiple_girls/boys just because the people in question are in the background - that makes no sense. Similarly this chibi inset rule has no ground.

nonamethanks said:

We're running in circles here. You keep saying that chibi should be the exception because people don't expect to see chibi insets when they search for chibi, and yet you claim it's fine to tag the same inset chibi's hair color. This makes no sense.

Another example is people in the background of a solo_focus picture. We don't avoid tagging multiple_girls/boys just because the people in question are in the background - that makes no sense. Similarly this chibi inset rule has no ground.

Multiple girls/boys still get tagged on a chibi inset post. They also aren't tagged with solo.
Also, wen I tag somthing with chibi inset then I still tag the features. They don't matter here, but it's about whether the chibi is focussed and directly interacting or not.

Provence said:
Multiple girls/boys still get tagged on a chibi inset post.

Not true. It depends on the post. One of the ones you linked has 1girl despite having a chibi_inset, as it should be.

Provence said:
Also, wen I tag somthing with chibi inset then I still tag the features. They don't matter here, but it's about whether the chibi is focussed and directly interacting or not

You keep ignoring the argument.

nonamethanks said:
You keep saying that chibi should be the exception because people don't expect to see chibi insets when they search for chibi, and yet you claim it's fine to tag the same inset chibi's hair color. This makes no sense.

Either you tag it all or you don't. You're claiming someone searching for purple hair would expect to see post #1154914 but they wouldn't when searching for chibi. How does that make any sense? Why would anyone searching for "multiple_girls" want to see a post like post #3100236 for the matter?

nonamethanks said:

You keep ignoring the argument.

It's just tackling a different point of this conversation.

Anyway, chibi inset isn't chibi: Right now, the chibi tag is used more as a "chibi focus" tag. And being an inset and being in the focus is different, but the features per se would still be tagged.

create implication chibi_inset -> chibi

Link to request

tapnek said:

I'm fine with chibi inset implying chibi, but the proper use of the chibi inset tag should be still be followed.

I think the chibi_inset tag is fine as a filter/modifier for the chibi tag, but it really needs populating. I'll try to go through it and tag what's missing if this request gets approved.

Claims of it diluiting the chibi tag would of course not make sense since currently the chibi tag is 42 times as big as the chibi_inset tag, and to search for all chibi one already has to search for ~chibi ~chibi_inset. This would simply change it to chibi -chibi_inset and again, there's so many mistags that it's pretty much pointless unless this request is accepted and some gardening is done.
Furthermore, the chibi_inset tag is already on-and-off tagged with chibi (sometimes missing the chibi_inset tag completley), since the name intuitively suggests just that.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1578 (forum #145592) has been approved by @Hillside_Moose.

Updated by DanbooruBot

1 2