Rename no_humans to be more accurate to its wiki page and usage

BUR #38452 has been rejected.

create alias no_humans -> no_humanoids

The wiki page for no humans says this:

Human-like characters include androids, traditional youkai, living dolls, monster girls, furries, and anything else that looks or acts human (i.e. humanoids).

so really the tag is misnamed. No humanoids is both a simple fix to make the tag name more accurate to its actual usage and cuts down on ambiguity.

Previous topic #17100.

Damian0358 said:

Previous topic #17100.

Didn't realize this was a constant reoccurring complaint that kept not getting addressed, lol.

Jemnite said:

Didn't realize this was a constant reoccurring complaint that kept not getting addressed, lol.

Tag remains unchanged -> people keep mistagging -> people ask to change the tag again -> request doesn't go through because ??? -> go back to start

Ylimegirl said:

Tag remains unchanged -> people keep mistagging -> people ask to change the tag again -> request doesn't go through because ??? -> go back to start

I honestly don't think this would make a meaningful difference because the confusion isn't over androids and elfs it's a disagreement/confusion over if stuff like post #6312911 is humanoid. Which I would still tag as no_humanoid, but others wouldn't.

zetsubousensei said:

I honestly don't think this would make a meaningful difference because the confusion isn't over androids and elfs it's a disagreement/confusion over if stuff like post #6312911 is humanoid. Which I would still tag as no_humanoid, but others wouldn't.

Changing the tag to no_humanoids would reduce the odds of something like post #8493707 being mistagged at the very least, as mentioned back in forum #320616. There's not going to be a one-size-fits-all solution and there's always going to be some subjectivity involved, but we could at the very least make it more in-line with its intended usage.

I can't help but feel that evazion is still right. I don't think an alias or rename will ever wholly address the issues here but what about no_people instead?

Cpt_Skippy said:

I can't help but feel that evazion is still right. I don't think an alias or rename will ever wholly address the issues here but what about no_people instead?

This definitely sounds like a far better solution than the proposed BUR, but I worry that some users would get into semantics about what counts as 'people' and we'd be right back here. It would certainly fit the current usage much better though.

Cpt_Skippy said:

I can't help but feel that evazion is still right. I don't think an alias or rename will ever wholly address the issues here but what about no_people instead?

It's not about wholly addressing the issues. Whatever name we have for this tag will still result in mistags due to its actual function requiring knowledge of the wiki. However, no_humanoids is not only more accurate than no_humans, but its wording making users more likely to check the wiki to see what it's for.

Ylimegirl said:
request doesn't go through because ???

Because it's just kicking the can down the road, where "kicking" = "moving 150k+ posts and changing one of the biggest tags on site for dubious benefit", and "down the road" = "people will continue to misunderstand what this tag is for, and mistags won't disappear, they'll just move to different categories of posts".

A dragon centauroid is not a humanoid. A human head (post #6818038) is not a humanoid. post #9045299 is a humanoid. A bust of a statue is a humanoid. The first two qualify for no humans, the third and fourth (at times) don't.

A better tag name for what we actually mean would be no people, but then again our users are just going to argue over what "people" are and we just end up with the same issue as no humans.
We never moved this tag because none of the proposed solutions are actually going to solve anything. We're going to lose in whatever scenario we pick, but the status quo at least is not going to disrupt site usage for the TENS OF THOUSANDS of users that visit this tag weekly.
And what happens if we do move it to another ambiguous name? Do we just revert it back in two years, causing more disruption for the people who finally got used to the new name? Or do we just settle into a new status quo that didn't actually fix anything?

nonamethanks said:

Because it's just kicking the can down the road, where "kicking" = "moving 150k+ posts and changing one of the biggest tags on site for dubious benefit", and "down the road" = "people will continue to misunderstand what this tag is for, and mistags won't disappear, they'll just move to different categories of posts".
A dragon centauroid is not a humanoid. A human head (post #6818038) is not a humanoid. post #9045299 is a humanoid. A bust of a statue is a humanoid. The first two qualify for no humans, the third and fourth (at times) don't.

A better tag name for what we actually mean would be no people, but then again our users are just going to argue over what "people" are and we just end up with the same issue as no humans.
We never moved this tag because none of the proposed solutions are actually going to solve anything. We're going to lose in whatever scenario we pick, but the status quo at least is not going to disrupt site usage for the TENS OF THOUSANDS of users that visit this tag weekly.

You can keep saying this as much as you want, but the name for this tag is so incredibly bad given its intended usage that I genuinely can't imagine how no_humanoids would be worse. The name is bad enough that I don't even need to invent some hypothetical scenario to compare it to, because it really speaks for itself when TENS OF THOUSANDS of posts that objectively feature "no humans" don't count as no_humans. There is no tag on this site that is more unintuitive, and that's saying something.

nonamethanks said:

We never moved this tag because none of the proposed solutions are actually going to solve anything. We're going to lose in whatever scenario we pick, but the status quo at least is not going to disrupt site usage for the TENS OF THOUSANDS of users that visit this tag weekly.
And what happens if we do move it to another ambiguous name? Do we just revert it back in two years, causing more disruption for the people who finally got used to the new name? Or do we just settle into a new status quo that didn't actually fix anything?

It sure is a good thing then that aliased tags autocomplete to finding the current tag name when punching things into the search bar then. Is the argument of "but that's what people are used to" something that stopped the alias into Otoko no Ko i'm not typing out the original tag's name back in the day? I certainly hope not.

Ylimegirl said:

It sure is a good thing then that aliased tags autocomplete to finding the current tag name when punching things into the search bar then. Is the argument of "but that's what people are used to" something that stopped the alias into Otoko no Ko i'm not typing out the original tag's name back in the day? I certainly hope not.

Didn't stop futa without pussy, either.

Anyways, echoing what AngryZapdos said - dealing with a handful of theoretical mistags on taurs and mecha is a lot less daunting of a task than dealing with a tag which has a name that actively contradicts its usage and is currently a furry, humanoid robot and Gardevoir magnet that is impossible to keep clean because it's like a hydra - each head you chop off, it grows another.

Also taurs have humanoid upper bodies, so I'd still call them humanoid anyways :P

nonamethanks said:

Because it's just kicking the can down the road, where "kicking" = "moving 150k+ posts and changing one of the biggest tags on site for dubious benefit", and "down the road" = "people will continue to misunderstand what this tag is for, and mistags won't disappear, they'll just move to different categories of posts".

A dragon centauroid is not a humanoid. A human head (post #6818038) is not a humanoid. post #9045299 is a humanoid. A bust of a statue is a humanoid. The first two qualify for no humans, the third and fourth (at times) don't.

A better tag name for what we actually mean would be no people, but then again our users are just going to argue over what "people" are and we just end up with the same issue as no humans.
We never moved this tag because none of the proposed solutions are actually going to solve anything. We're going to lose in whatever scenario we pick, but the status quo at least is not going to disrupt site usage for the TENS OF THOUSANDS of users that visit this tag weekly.
And what happens if we do move it to another ambiguous name? Do we just revert it back in two years, causing more disruption for the people who finally got used to the new name? Or do we just settle into a new status quo that didn't actually fix anything?

I still really, really don't get this. As of writing this, there are over 600 posts tagged no_humans humanoid_robot. New posts get funnelled into the tag constantly and while I used to try to keep it clean, it's not maintainable at all. The current name is actively misleading and contradictary to the tag's definition and that's not something that any amount of wiki explanations and dmails can fix. I seriously just cannot understand how your counterargument can be, barring taurs (who still, as I said above, have humanoid upper bodies)... A niche tag with less than 500 posts and literal non-living objects.

I don't agree with the no_humanoids choice because of the mecha issue, but no_people seems like a way, way better idea because it's a more broad-sounding term unlike no_humans which sounds like it's specifically excluding furries and androids. Just because users won't necessarily agree on what exactly counts as "people" doesn't mean it's useless, if at least eliminates the most-mistagged cases and significantly reduces the necessary gardening that would be an improvement.

BUR #39891 has been rejected.

create alias no_humans -> no_people

Here, so people can vote on "no people" as an alternative. I still think it's a bit too tied up in subjectivity (especially I can see arguments about how Pokemon aren't people, so humanoid Pokemon should be tagged "no people"), but I do agree it's at least better than what we currently have. I don't think there's any problem-free name, but the current name is easily the worst option.

At the very least, it's easier to explain to people in dmail that "people" includes furries and robot girls and humanoid aliens and Gardevoir than it is to try to explain that they don't count as non-humans. I remember explaining that to a user who was mistagging in dmail and their reaction being basically "huh? that's dumb, why is it called that then".

Kind of a shower thought, but I feel like "no people" is neutral-enough phrasing that if we clearly define "people" on the wiki as something like "any sentient human-like character, including (but not limited to) furries, humanoid robots, monster girls, taurs, human heads, and other humanoid creatures such as Gardevoir, Endermen, or object heads", it could work without the potential edge cases of no humanoids that NNT mentioned (even if I personally think the edge cases are unlikely to be anywhere near the issue the current name is)

The last three examples I just picked as miscellaneous-humanoid examples, it doesn't have to be those examples specifically, though I'd definitely like to have a Pokémon example in there.

tagging something "people no_people" sounds a bit strange (and there are some people no_humans, though i think some of those images might be mistagged)

tamuraakemi said:

tagging something "people no_people" sounds a bit strange (and there are some people no_humans, though i think some of those images might be mistagged)

People is kind of a poorly named tag in the first place imo. There are only 23 results currently for people no_humans and most are probably mistagged.

Ylimegirl said:

People is kind of a poorly named tag in the first place imo. There are only 23 results currently for people no_humans and most are probably mistagged.

I think no_humans is meant to convey the absence of definite foreground characters. People is for people in the background that you may have trouble spotting without looking for them so maybe it's not really mistagged in these cases.