Posted under General
Alixiron said:
Would posts like post #750336, post #721446 and post #376201 still fall under the new tag? The tag name just feels a bit restrictive to me compared to the pool
i assume that's what reading together would be for, could be used like e.g. reading_together child.
BUR #48294 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update pool:26888 -> messy_eater -pool:26888
NiceLittleDan said:
Could pool #26888 (Messy Eaters) be a tag instead? There's glutton but that's slightly different.
NiceLittleDan said:
Could pool #26888 (Messy Eaters) be a tag instead? There's glutton but that's slightly different.
I don't see why it couldn't be. Two different (albeit often linked together) concepts I can imagine someone wanting to search.
BUR #48306 has been rejected.
mass update pool:13629 -> canon -pool:13629
mass update pool:4229 -> perversion_of_canon -pool:4229
this one may prove to be controversial, but hear me out. "post depicting a canon event from the media it's from" is about as objectively taggable as it gets, i.e. perfect tag material.
the concept of pool:Canon as a tag already sort of exists in the form of scene reference, but the problem is that that tag encompasses both self-references (post #7774075), as well as references to other works (post #7952301). there's probably a discussion to be had about whether canon would be a subcategory of scene reference, or if scene reference should be remodeled to only apply to references to other copyrights, but that's far out of scope for this bur.
the name canon as a tag name might be a little too vague? i'm open to any suggestions there.
BUR #48315 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
nuke pool:1567
(Touhou - Cirno - ⑨⑨⑨x⑨⑨⑨ (999x999))
Can be seen with Cirno metadata_reference or Cirno width:999 height:999. I don't think it needs one but can easily be a tag if that's not sufficient.
edit: Added pool name for consistency. No change to BUR.
Updated by NiceLittleDan
wingdings said:
BUR #48306 has been rejected.
mass update pool:13629 -> canon -pool:13629
mass update pool:4229 -> perversion_of_canon -pool:4229this one may prove to be controversial, but hear me out. "post depicting a canon event from the media it's from" is about as objectively taggable as it gets, i.e. perfect tag material.
the concept of pool:Canon as a tag already sort of exists in the form of scene reference, but the problem is that that tag encompasses both self-references (post #7774075), as well as references to other works (post #7952301). there's probably a discussion to be had about whether canon would be a subcategory of scene reference, or if scene reference should be remodeled to only apply to references to other copyrights, but that's far out of scope for this bur.
the name canon as a tag name might be a little too vague? i'm open to any suggestions there.
Unsure on the canon one but I think the perversion of canon pool would be good for a tag. Kinda similar to pool #4234 (Perversion of Powers) which might also be good for a tag.
NiceLittleDan said:
Unsure on the canon one
i don't see why not, but maybe there's a glaring flaw that i'm missing. is it more-so that turning the pool into a tag would be a bad idea, period, or that it would be better off merged into scene reference rather than its own tag?
If it doesn't work as a tag, it shouldn't work as a pool. evazion's words. The more I look at pools the more I begin to appreciate tags more than pools. Far easier to search and all, which that was what sparked the explosion of pool -> tag conversions a while back and a similar discussion took place so efforts are being (slightly) picked up again on pool maintenance.
It's probably more to do with the semantics of the tag and its naming/avoiding misuse of the resulting tag from the conversion than anything. This is why you should always submit separate BURs for different things; you're dealing with two different subjects so there should be two different BURs here. If someone disagrees with even one line, then it falls through. I for one would upvote strictly for perversion_of_canon as a tag but I don't think enough workshopping has been done about pool #13629 to be comfortable agreeing with a conversion yet.
The bulk update request #48306 (forum #389421) has been rejected by @wingdings.
BUR #48367 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
nuke pool:13722
(Touhou - Luna Child the Klutz)
Posts covered by tags. Seperate conversation to be had about the use of clumsy potentially but that's for a different thread.
Updated by NiceLittleDan
The bulk update request #48278 (forum #389315) has been approved by @evazion.
The bulk update request #48278 (forum #389315) has been approved by @evazion.
The bulk update request #48294 (forum #389371) has been approved by @evazion.
I brought this up in topic #33400 , where Evazion stated off-handedly as part of a larger discussion:
We also need more people working on converting collection pools into actual tags. There are too many cases like post #4934189 where a post is part of a comic and a bunch of other collection pools that are just glorified tags. I'm considering moving collection pools to beneath the tag list and displaying them like normal tags just to avoid this problem where a big part of the screen is taken up by pools.
Alas, I got ignored there. But considering the discussion going on there, I figured I'd be better off moving this suggestion here then.
As this is the current thread for those discussions (and as one of the aforementioned people already participating in tag conversion off and on), would it be best to create a thread for the more large-scale pool-to-tag conversions, and leave this thread for nuking and/or debating if the pool should be converted or nuked or kept? Or is this thread fine for that as is?
Knowledge_Seeker said:
As this is the current thread for those discussions (and as one of the aforementioned people already participating in tag conversion off and on), would it be best to create a thread for the more large-scale pool-to-tag conversions, and leave this thread for nuking and/or debating if the pool should be converted or nuked or kept? Or is this thread fine for that as is?
i wouldn't be opposed to creating a new thread specifically for collection-to-tag projects. though i'm assuming the larger-scale conversions that require substantial discussion beyond one or two people in this thread agreeing should get their own forum threads anyway.
wingdings said:
i wouldn't be opposed to creating a new thread specifically for collection-to-tag projects. though i'm assuming the larger-scale conversions that require substantial discussion beyond one or two people in this thread agreeing should get their own forum threads anyway.
Yeah. I imagine threads for more dedicated efforts would be a good idea, but if the pool can easily be converted to a tag in one or two shots, I think a thread just for that would be a good idea.
BUR #48514 has been rejected.
nuke pool:903
Anyway, on the note of cleaning up collection pools, sad as it is, I think if we're going to begin the process of getting rid of them (as Evazion has been planning to do), it's time to say farewell to this old pool. It's way too subjective to be a tag, unfortunately, and its current state is just a mishmash of various generically cute posts, as opposed to what the name implies.
I know the effort to kill it last time failed, but if we're really serious about removing them, let this BUR serve as a test for that then.
Knowledge_Seeker said:
BUR #48514 has been rejected.
nuke pool:903
Just outright nuking this seems a bit short-sighted for such a staple pool. Besides, despite being a very subjective concept, as far as collection pools go this one achieves its goal pretty well IMO.
ANON_TOKYO said:
Just outright nuking this seems a bit short-sighted for such a staple pool. Besides, despite being a very subjective concept, as far as collection pools go this one achieves its goal pretty well IMO.
I don't have much of an opinion on nuking it, but I definitely don't believe it's achieving its supposed goal. People just stick anything mildly cute in it. Standards for that pool are so broad, it borders on being useless. Most of the more subjective pools suffer from this, because no can be bothered to prune thousands of posts.
Well, I say "people" but it tends to be the same few users responsible for the majority of noise.
