Nuke three-quarter_view

BUR #23008 has been rejected.

nuke three_quarter_view
deprecate three_quarter_view

This tag sounds useful on the surface, but in reality it's nothing more than complete padding. A three-quarter view is the default angle to draw a character when an artist doesn't have anything more specific in mind, and as such it likely applies to at least 70% of solo posts that aren't ass posts. Don't believe me? Well, here's a fun drinking game. Scroll through solo ~sitting ~standing -from_behind and take a shot every time the majority of the posts on a page qualify for three_quarter_view. You'll be dead before you reach a thousand posts.

More damning evidence: despite only having had two days' worth of gardening, three_quarter_view already has over two thousand posts, with a big reason why being just how ubiquitous it is. It's incredibly easy to scroll through posts and click on all the three_quarter_view thumbnails since there's so damn many of them. Even from_behind, a fairly common POV due to ass posts, doesn't break 200k posts - yet, it would be dwarfed by a fully populated three_quarter_view several times over. When it's this easy to find without the tag even existing, then it becomes pointless to tag it at all. We didn't nuke bangs for no reason.

There are so many posts under this tag where I can't even see how they would qualify as three quarter view in a world where this is a useful tag. post #7161623, post #7156641, post #7155820, post #7150662 and post #7144622 are all just from side looking at viewer. And, what was even the rationale for adding this one? post #7164456

This was discussed before with the conclusion being that it was for portraits and other non comic things and the depreciation was removed in case someone wanted to "actually populate this properly" which is what I'm working on.

forum #259674

wispydreamer said:

There are so many posts under this tag where I can't even see how they would qualify as three quarter view in a world where this is a useful tag. post #7161623, post #7156641, post #7155820, post #7150662 and post #7144622 are all just from side looking at viewer. And, what was even the rationale for adding this one? post #7164456

The definition actually shows are suprising amount of the face.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_painting#three-quarter_view

War6t2 said:

This was discussed before with the conclusion being that it was for portraits and other non comic things and the depreciation was removed in case someone wanted to "actually populate this properly" which is what I'm working on.

forum #259674

I similarly agree with OP post that it is unnecessary and the "default" state which is most often not tagged since we tag the unique pieces of an image. That being said if you are trying to fill out the tag there is a lot of from side like post #7107292 post #7070319 post #6893770 ect.

In fact "three_quarter_view from_side" yields 571 results currently, both in mis-tagged from_side and mis-tagged three_quarter_view if nuke doesn't go through this would need to be cleaned.

War6t2 said:

This was discussed before with the conclusion being that it was for portraits and other non comic things and the depreciation was removed in case someone wanted to "actually populate this properly" which is what I'm working on.

forum #259674

Forgive me, but as zetsubo described, you are most definitely not "populating it properly". From the three_quarter_view wiki:

A perspective that is in between being viewed from the side and from the front.

It's difficult to see your population of the tag as anything but an elaborate joke when you're adding it to all of this. I mean, come on - post #7165959? Really?

War6t2 said:

The definition actually shows are suprising amount of the face.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_painting#three-quarter_view

Danbooru does not follow Wikipedia's wikis. Danbooru follows Danbooru's wikis, and Danbooru's three_quarter_view wiki (which you wrote) has no mention of it being exclusively for faces. Furthermore, the name "three_quarter_view" does not imply this either.

In any case, none of this actually refutes anything I've said in the original BUR proposal. In fact, all it does is give even further reason to nuke it, since the one user populating the tag is already muddying the waters of what actually qualifies.

diagonal

After preview: Oh, well I guess it's been taken

Bionicman76 said:

diagonal

After preview: Oh, well I guess it's been taken

Not anymore.

VR-Man said:

Not anymore.

Was he a banned artist?

Bionicman76 said:

Was he a banned artist?

Looking at the BUR history, it used to be naname_(plot0825), but the old name was bad anyway.

Bionicman76 said:

Was he a banned artist?

Renamed

zetsubousensei said:

I similarly agree with OP post that it is unnecessary and the "default" state which is most often not tagged since we tag the unique pieces of an image. That being said if you are trying to fill out the tag there is a lot of from side like post #7107292 post #7070319 post #6893770 ect.

In fact "three_quarter_view from_side" yields 571 results currently, both in mis-tagged from_side and mis-tagged three_quarter_view if nuke doesn't go through this would need to be cleaned.

It's hardly "default". I think I mentioned somewhere in the discord I went though about 130 pages of (of solo portraits) and only found about 1k posts that fits. Also relating to zapdos suspicion of how I found so many so quickly. I don't think it's that unusual. They were almost all found via seemingly contradictory tags like portrait solo from_side one_eye_closed or finding memes where a character was usually portrayed in that way, and then tagging the one that fit. Plus some new posts and things via find simmilar.

AngryZapdos said:

Forgive me, but as zetsubo described, you are most definitely not "populating it properly". From the three_quarter_view wiki:

It's difficult to see your population of the tag as anything but an elaborate joke when you're adding it to all of this. I mean, come on - post #7165959? Really?

I'm not exactly sure what you what you mean here. The tag refers to the face, not body when the head is turned. simmilar to how "looking at viewer" does.

Danbooru does not follow Wikipedia's wikis. Danbooru follows Danbooru's wikis, and Danbooru's three_quarter_view wiki (which you wrote) has no mention of it being exclusively for faces. Furthermore, the name "three_quarter_view" does not imply this either.

No but words do have meaning that the terms we use here are based on. The wiki will need to be cleaned however I agree, I am currently very afk at the moment and did a tagging spree with those 2k from earlier. So I will add fixing the wiki to the to do list.

In the mean time: evazion @nonamethanks you were the one who initially removed the depracation, do you have any more specific guidelines on what you want other than no comics or multiple views? Limiting it to only portraits? what about other solo shots like cowboy shot or full body?

War6t2 said:

In the mean time: @evazion you were the one who initially removed the depracation, do you have any more specific guidelines on what you want other than no comics or multiple views? Limiting it to only portraits? what about other solo shots like cowboy shot or full body?

@nonamethanks

War6t2 said:

I'm not exactly sure what you what you mean here. The tag refers to the face, not body when the head is turned. simmilar to how "looking at viewer" does.

If this is the intention its not clear from the wiki. Besides that most of the images in the tag would be covered by facing and looking tags such as facing_ahead or looking_ahead. Stuff like post #7165959 which Zapdos mentioned is covered by a combination of "looking_back from_behind."

BobTheBuilder_v1 said:

@nonamethanks

My bad, I mixed admins up with Evazion initially responding to it.

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 #23008 (forum #267494) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

Are we really going to keep this tag?

If we are we still never decided what even constitutes Three_quarter_view. We'd all agree post #7341994 is, but what about post #7172102, post #6095231, post #7034263, or post #5523026. We never solved the from_side three_quarter_view problem, or the from_side looking_at_viewer being tagged with it.

This tag really needs to go. If things like post #6095231 can fit into this "definition" (and be added by the main proponent, not a random user, mind you) it's flawed from the get-go. You cannot convince me the aforementioned post is not from side; even if we ignore the lenience in perspective written in the latter's wiki designed for exactly what three quarter view is trying to accomplish, this post is a textbook from side, almost directly across her shoulder. There are tens of thousands of others like it, none of which are three quarter view. We already have tag families to describe body facing direction, see from_*, and tags to describe head/eyes facing direction, see facing_* and looking_*.

Three quarter view is a random smattering of all three of said tags, and it's basically already padding with 575 posts in three_quarter_view from_side. The tag sounds fine on paper, but take one look at that search, and at things like post #6893770, and tell me this is genuinely useful, or that the average user can accurately predict what to expect when browsing it. I don't think you can.