Danbooru

[REJECTED] Tag implication: mountainous_horizon -> horizon

Posted under Tags

I've come to be very wary of "obvious" implication requests like this one, because nothing is ever as simple as it initially seems. There are images tagged mountainous horizon like post #2821592 that I would never, ever tag horizon, because the "true" horizon is completely obscured by terrain and flora. If we're extending the definition of horizon so broadly as to include any image where both the land and sky are present, then it would apply to tens of thousands of outdoors posts whether or not there is any horizontal line visible.

But "horizon" is by definition the line that divides earth (or sea) from sky. It would not be tagged "mountainous horizon" otherwise.

A search for mountainous_horizon -horizon reveals few pictures, and I can't see any of them where the horizon tag does not fit. post #1994797 for example has an uniform mountainline that IS a horizon. In post #2270728 the horizon is defined by the last mountain range in the background.

The key point here is that the horizon is a line that is extremely away from the viewer, at a point where minor features in it (trees, animals) are invisible.

Regardless of your feelings on this implication in question: putting "obvious" is pretty unacceptable. Somtimes it says "I didn't bother looking at the images under the tags and only looked at the names" which we have had to give refusals to before because despite looking correct from a text format the two tags don't actually get used that way. Another thing, just because it's obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone. Do the work, put forth the effort to actually write up a reason. I shouldn't have to go look up a tag and check all it's entries and variations when you're the one requesting the implication. It's easier for the mods to verify someone's reasoning than to figure it out on their own.

Log said:

Regardless of your feelings on this implication in question: putting "obvious" is pretty unacceptable. Somtimes it says "I didn't bother looking at the images under the tags and only looked at the names" which we have had to give refusals to before because despite looking correct from a text format the two tags don't actually get used that way. Another thing, just because it's obvious to you doesn't mean it's obvious to everyone. Do the work, put forth the effort to actually write up a reason. I shouldn't have to go look up a tag and check all it's entries and variations when you're the one requesting the implication. It's easier for the mods to verify someone's reasoning than to figure it out on their own.

Sorry, you're right. I'll keep that in mind in the future.

For the reasoning, as I pointed out in the post above, mountainous_horizon -horizon only displays 12 pictures, all of them deserving the horizon tag too, in my opinion.

In the context of danbooru tags, I think, there's a clear overlap between the two: Horizon is used to indicate the presence of a line that demarks a distinction between earth and sky.

I can't see a case where the two would not overlap, unless a character is standing extremely close to a mountain, however in that case mountainous_horizon would not apply at all since a horizon by definition is a line far from the viewer.

@nonamethanks A horizon is, as you said, a line. This line is normally visible only over the ocean or similarly flat terrain, as mountains and buildings obstruct one's view of the horizon from ground level. I don't think this is an unpopular definition; a Google Images search for "horizon" turns up lots of results resembling post #2593010 and post #2677502 and post #2793704 but very few that resemble post #2270728 or post #2821592.

Mountains block sight of the horizon, breaking one line into a jagged mess of lines. This alone is reason enough to call into question any implication to horizon, if not rethinking the mountainous horizon tag altogether.

iridescent_slime said:

@nonamethanks A horizon is, as you said, a line. This line is normally visible only over the ocean or similarly flat terrain, as mountains and buildings obstruct one's view of the horizon from ground level. I don't think this is an unpopular definition; a Google Images search for "horizon" turns up lots of results resembling post #2593010 and post #2677502 and post #2793704 but very few that resemble post #2270728 or post #2821592.

Mountains block sight of the horizon, breaking one line into a jagged mess of lines. This alone is reason enough to call into question any implication to horizon, if not rethinking the mountainous horizon tag altogether.

I should've clarified better what I meant. There are two definitions of horizon:

  • The flat line, or "true horizon", that only appears when there's absolutely no kind of object between the viewer and the farthest point of Earth's curvature. Of the posts you mentioned as an example for horizon, post #2677502 and post #2793704 do not fall into the definition because there's objects (buildings, trees) in front of it.
  • The "visible horizon", which is the "limit" (I called it line but I was mistaken, I blame me being a non-native english speaker for this) between the farthest visible objects and the sky. This is where 99% of the pictures tagged as horizon -ocean fall in (and excluding those that are badly tagged).

This includes mountainous horizons.

Regardless of pedantic definitions, the discussion here is about the tags and how they're used on danbooru. I think it's conceivable that someone would search for a mountainous horizon, especially for scenery pictures. This tag is used to indicate the presence of a continuous series of mountains in the background at a point where features on them are indistinguishable, and I can't see a case where someone would search for it and not expect, well, a mountainous horizon.

1