The tag alias #59529 nature -> nature_background has been rejected.

Reason: Functionally synonymous. If nature is present, it will be a background, and if there's a nature background, there's nature. The wiki for nature says

Outdoor scenes with notable emphasis on wild plants and greenery, or other lush scenery. Not applicable to barren or artificial landscapes.

Only for fully natural scenery. No elements such as fences or roads should be visible.

However, no one is using it that way. There's only a few results in the first couple of pages of results I looked at that could be said to have a notable emphasis on wild plants and greenery, while there's plenty of examples that are barren or include unnatural elements in just the first page. Additionally, nature_background, which has no wiki and no description for proper use, implicates nature, which undoubtedly is a big factor in this rampant misuse.

A tag for "notable emphasis on wild plants and greenery" with only "fully natural scenery. No elements such as fences or roads should be visible." would need a better name than nature as it's obviously too ambiguous, and too much of what's currently under nature wouldn't apply, so it can't be renamed or mass updated to it.

EDIT: The tag alias nature -> nature_background (forum #351420) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.

What about posts with nature scenery that's primarily (or just also) in the foreground?

post #3743125 post #3742991 post #3739824 post #3736346 post #3721987

strikerman said:
What about posts with nature scenery that's primarily (or just also) in the foreground?

I think that would count for the "background" tag, since it's the backdrop of the scene the characters are placed into. There are also tags like detailed_background and amazing_background, which can similarly be primarily or only foreground elements, so there's precedent for it.

If it is in the foreground, it is not the background. But the tag description implies that it should be in the background... I can't decide.

dubsthefox said:
If it is in the foreground, it is not the background. But the tag description implies that it should be in the background... I can't decide.

The problem I see is that having separate nature_foreground and nature_background tags would be splitting hairs, while a tag like nature is too vague and could be taken to mean some element of nature in the image, including potted plants in an office room, or a rooftop garden in the middle of a future-tech city, or an abandoned city partially reclaimed by nature.

It does look like the nature tag is a mix of uses. So making it more clear does sound like a good idea.

The different themes I see tagged under it are:

• a character is in/around some amount of nature. A greenhouse, a meadow, a forest or covered by a pile of flowers for no apparent reason. (the wiki doesn't agree with this use, even though it is probably the most intuitive and common way the tag is being used at the moment. So that wiki might be better off attached to a more specific tag instead. It is one aspect to consider.) Regardless, these are a mix of foreground and background, so I don't think the proposed alias would work.

• nature is a very big and prominent part of the image. A main focus. But again, the 'untouched, unspoiled, completely 100% natural' definition on the wiki is not always a perfect fit for this. So again, it might be better off with it's own more specific tag for that untouched/unspoiled-nature purpose, or that meaning dropped entirely. Regardless, these are a mix of foreground and background, so I don't think the proposed alias would work.

• the setting has no manmade signs, it's completely pristine and untouched nature. But again, even though this IS what the wiki is specifying, the written definition narrows it even further to only lush and greenery focused + untouched types of nature. To be honest, I don't see a reason why it has to be that narrow. It almost sounds more like a personal set, tbh. ...Unless being that specific wasn't actually the point. Maybe it was only trying to give enough definition to avoid being tagged on every stray leaf or outside-located image. In which case, maybe we could come up with a better definition that has a nature focus without ruling out untouched deserts and mountainscapes, etc. Or a tag for greenery if you want to tag all the green lush nature, which huh apparently that tag does exist. We could put it to work then.

I don't see nature_background fitting all of these uses. And it will continue to be tagged with that mix. So that sounds like it would create a mess in nature_background. Which doesn't sound great. But the core idea here (to make nature more clear and less of a jumble) is a good one.

So if these three patterns are laid out, we basically have something like:

- in_nature (character located around/in nature)
- prominent_nature /nature_focus - (nature is a prominent focus in the image)
- natural_world / untouched nature / unspoiled nature - no manmade elements or structures. Although this does need some clarity, would manmade clothing still count? jewelry? tribal/traditional/ethnic/type elements?
- green or lush nature only - which could maybe just use the greenery tag for.

As it stands, I think keeping nature as an umbrella and then organising it with more specific subtags might be the least painful way to do this. Especially since the main point here is to make it more usable, but there isn't really any aspect that needs to be hardcore invalidated out. Also because nature is a likely tag for people to just type in as-is, and only when they see a list of more specific tags later on are they likely to know what else to even search for that type of thing. So making it an umbrella with more specific subtags under it sounds the most functional. And if we do that, then maybe tags like desert and forest can be implicated to it. Make it a hub for all of the nature tags. Which is an additional option to consider.

The tag alias nature -> nature_background (forum #351420) has been rejected by @gattonero2001.