New category idea: Characters.

Posts: 8 · Views: 181
  • 17666
    Yo, seems we had a few separate minor shitstorms about this recently, so how about this: Create a fourth category: Characters. Includes any artwork/CGs/drawings/paintings/you get the idea. There are no humans - real or fictional - left in General then, and real people are in People, making it all fairly easy to tell apart and separate. The only issue I can see besides having to move all the stuff is overlap with Anime, but it seems to me like the general rule anyway is "Anime overrides everything else when applicable". How does that sound? I tend to browse General mostly for landscapes/nature and such so I'd welcome this looking from that angle.
  • 18442
    I too hate seeing people in General, fictional or not.
  • 18443
    What would define characters though. Would something like this be a character?
    loading
    1920 x 1080114
    Or this?
    loading
    1920 x 120041
    What about misc game art
    loading
    1920 x 1080200
    Or cool characters with intriguing backgrounds
    loading
    1920 x 108050
    Where would we draw the line at what a character is?
    loading
    7680 x 4320100
    The point I'm getting at is that it seems like it would either be very subjective, or a lot of general and/or anime would need to be moved. I for one am fine with the three categories and I feel that adding a "character" category would be redundant and cause issues with how people want to tag their uploads.
  • 18444
    Yes ,it would get more complicated and confusing. Let it be simple as possible and complex as necessary.
  • 18446
    We obviously have the 'People' category, where real people are sorted into. A 'Character' category could thus contain fictional characters that are not of real people. For instance, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, but the person playing the character in the TV-series Sherlock (i.e. Benedict Cumberbatch) is a real person, thus a photo of him belongs in the 'People' category even if he is (in said photo) portraying a fictional character. However, I'm not sure if an additional main category is even necessary.
  • 18646
    What about "Landscape" or "Nature" as category?. Simple and necessary.
  • 18672
    404011xz said:
    What would define characters though. Would something like this be a character?
    loading
    1920 x 1080114
    Or this?
    loading
    1920 x 120041
    What about misc game art
    loading
    1920 x 1080200
    Or cool characters with intriguing backgrounds
    loading
    1920 x 108050
    Where would we draw the line at what a character is?
    loading
    7680 x 4320100
    The point I'm getting at is that it seems like it would either be very subjective, or a lot of general and/or anime would need to be moved. I for one am fine with the three categories and I feel that adding a "character" category would be redundant and cause issues with how people want to tag their uploads.
    I think you're making it a bit overcomplicated. Characters = any artwork of people that are not actual photographs. All of these besides the wolf (animal photo = General) are digital artwork, so they're easy to sort out. Brixed said:
    We obviously have the 'People' category, where real people are sorted into. A 'Character' category could thus contain fictional characters that are not of real people. For instance, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, but the person playing the character in the TV-series Sherlock (i.e. Benedict Cumberbatch) is a real person, thus a photo of him belongs in the 'People' category even if he is (in said photo) portraying a fictional character. However, I'm not sure if an additional main category is even necessary.
    Maybe there is a better name for that. But basically, artwork of Sherlock = Character, photo of Benedict in the series = People. I wouldn't say "necessary", but it does seem like it would sort out one of the most confusing dilemmas there are at the moment (I remember at the time I made this thread, there were like 2-3 ongoing debates about this). Mirokv said:
    What about "Landscape" or "Nature" as category?. Simple and necessary.
    That's another one I was always for, although that might be just slightly more ambiguous. (E.g. photo of a person taking 2% of an epic landscape = People or Landscape?)
  • 18736
    my opinion : no over-complicating things tags fulfill all the needs one could ever have
Alpha

Message