BUR #48622 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update pool:1886 -> grand_scale
nuke pool:1886
Always thought the concept of this pool could easily be turned into a tag but I always held back on it. No better time than now to do this.
Posted under Tags
This topic has been locked.
BUR #48622 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update pool:1886 -> grand_scale
nuke pool:1886
Always thought the concept of this pool could easily be turned into a tag but I always held back on it. No better time than now to do this.
wingdings said:
the difference is there in the pool's description. as far as i'm understanding it, flashing applies to any exposure, while the intent behind "for your eyes only" is situations where the character is among bystanders, but exposing themselves in such a way that only the viewer could reasonably see.
[...]
the issue is that the pool in its present state is absolutely filled with non-examples, to the point where it almost feels like i'm the one misunderstanding the pool, but i don't know how to otherwise interpret its description in such a way that it doesn't become a flashing public_indecency duplicate tag.
I agree with your interpretation of the pool and think it should be gardened as such.
BUR #48632 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
mass update pool:13541 -> unconventional_vehicle
nuke pool:13541
redundant with this existing tag.
wingdings said:
the difference is there in the pool's description. as far as i'm understanding it, flashing applies to any exposure, while the intent behind "for your eyes only" is situations where the character is among bystanders, but exposing themselves in such a way that only the viewer could reasonably see.
[...]
the issue is that the pool in its present state is absolutely filled with non-examples, to the point where it almost feels like i'm the one misunderstanding the pool, but i don't know how to otherwise interpret its description in such a way that it doesn't become a flashing public_indecency duplicate tag.
NiceLittleDan said:
I agree with your interpretation of the pool and think it should be gardened as such.
I'm gardening the pool now. Is it an absolute requirement that other people are present in the image, or is the probability of unseen people good enough? ex: post #5629279.
Placeholder1996 said:
I'm gardening the pool now. Is it an absolute requirement that other people are present in the image, or is the probability of unseen people good enough? ex: post #5629279.
imo yes, though i figure there's some edge cases to be made where it's practically certain / strongly implied that there may be someone just off screen (such as looking over one's shoulder like in post #5081414)
BUR #48635 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update pool:2140 -> family_bonding
nuke pool:2140
Can be a tag in the same way slice of life is a tag imo. Might even have a bit of overlap. Wanted to see opinions on this before we attempt to sort through this list of pools.
BUR #48636 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update pool:3404 -> can't_choose_your_own_family
nuke pool:3404
The reverse pool of family_bonding. Similar vein to above.
What do we wanna do with things like pool #1970? We have a few pools with this name scheme, so there's gotta be a good name for a tag to alias them to.
Something like prankster or what not?
wingdings said:
the difference is there in the pool's description. as far as i'm understanding it, flashing applies to any exposure, while the intent behind "for your eyes only" is situations where the character is among bystanders, but exposing themselves in such a way that only the viewer could reasonably see.
for example:
- post #9772038 doesn't apply because there's no bystanders
- post #5674004 doesn't apply because there are bystanders, but the exposure is in such a way that everyone could see
- post #8911490, post #7518793, post #7153445, post #5440735 are examples of pool:For_Your_Eyes_Only, there are visible bystanders within visual range of the exposure, but only the viewer gets a glimpse at it.
I see I see. Yeah, I don't usually touch the NSFW pools (as I am primarily a SFW uploader; not that I don't upload NSFW, but not enough to really understand certain tags and pools specific to them, like this one). In any case, definitely sounds like a solid concept for a tag I know people who enjoy exhibitionism and the various public indecency tags would enjoy. It should be converted into a tag.
the issue is that the pool in its present state is absolutely filled with non-examples, to the point where it almost feels like i'm the one misunderstanding the pool, but i don't know how to otherwise interpret its description in such a way that it doesn't become a flashing public_indecency duplicate tag.
Yeah I'd definitely garden the pool before the BUR goes through, however. The fact the pool is so heavily polluted is probably why I was so "???" when it came to the pool lol. That has to be cleaned up if we want this pool converted into a tag.
Knowledge_Seeker said:
Yeah I'd definitely garden the pool before the BUR goes through, however. The fact the pool is so heavily polluted is probably why I was so "???" when it came to the pool lol. That has to be cleaned up if we want this pool converted into a tag.
I already gardened out the most egregious posts; I'll probably do more gardening over the next few days.
Placeholder1996 said:
I already gardened out the most egregious posts; I'll probably do more gardening over the next few days.
I've gardened out all the posts I'm confident removing. There are still a number of posts I'm uncertain about and I've left those in for now. If someone wants to peruse the pool to see if more posts need to be removed, be my guest.
BUR #48674 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update pool:1229 -> misleading_thumbnail
nuke pool:1229
Seems to be a straightforward concept.
BUR #48691 has been approved by @evazion.
mass update pool:18887 -> living_fleshlight
nuke pool:18887
Feels like a pretty objective concept, if I say so myself.
Knowledge_Seeker said:
What do we wanna do with things like pool #1970? We have a few pools with this name scheme, so there's gotta be a good name for a tag to alias them to.
Something like prankster or what not?
Still wondering what to do with those "God Damn It!" pools, as otherwise searching for pools of characters like Yakumo Yukari, Gold Ship (Umamusume), and Oma Kokichi being dicks to people as they tend to be will be a bit of a struggle to find.
Placeholder1996 said:
BUR #48599 has been rejected.
mass update pool:18912 -> for_your_eyes_only
nuke pool:18912Thoughts about this one? This seems like an objective idea and therefore convertible to a tag, however there are a number of posts that don't fit the description of the pool; it will probably need some gardening. An implication to exhibitionism could also be done.
I have always felt weird towards this tag. Wouldn't it be better a more objective name like "flashing to viewer"?
The bulk update request #48674 (forum #390741) has been approved by @evazion.
The bulk update request #48599 (forum #390512) has been rejected by @Placeholder1996.
pool #4128 combines two different things: one is revealing details of character design elements, the other is showing characters out of universe, their interaction outside the "performance". Both of those often intersect, but I think each of them could be a proper separate tag.