Posted under General
see-through_silhouette
Shouldn't "curtains" be added to this? There are some posts under this tag and it is visually basically the same. Thought to request an implicatio to see-through, but when curtains etc. would also fit, then the request would get rejected.
Changed the wiki, as obviously the tag isn't limited to clothing. I hope the changed version is okay.
Just added a blurb to Howto:Pixiv. Basically, ecd is a URL addon that allows someone to set the start for the first page of results, shifting the window of 1000 pages that can be returned as results.
Can someone look over the wordage and see if anything doesn't make sense?
Also, if anyone else has any useful tidbits like the above, then please feel free to contribute.
On a side note, what do people think about having an api set of wikis...? I.e. api:pixiv, api:twitter, api:pawoo, api:tumblr, etc.
Edited to remove a lengthy and confusing clause added by a previous user. Reasoning (as discussed in the discord with other Builder+ users) was that it was needlessly confusing since all nude filters (and/or additions of unoriginal features by anyone other than the original artist(s)) are to be deleted anyway. We don't actually enforce it anyway, and to the contrary; It sounds prohibitively strict and confusing, much to the chagrin of anyone trying to get the gallery sufficiently gardened. I'm not even sure if anyone actually engages in nude filter witch hunts as mentioned in forum #117146.
And approvers aren't dumb; I think we can tell if a post is clearly a modification of another (especially if the original artist has never drawn such and such variation of a post and never intended to, anyway). The most we should request of them is if they can provide an original image to reference and as original a source for the nude filter as possible if possible (yande.re, nude filterer's pixiv/deviantart, etc).
Mikaeri said:
Edited to remove a lengthy and confusing clause added by a previous user.
[...]
And approvers aren't dumb; I think we can tell if a post is clearly a modification of another (especially if the original artist has never drawn such and such variation of a post and never intended to, anyway).
I’m not too thrilled about removing the part about having to point out how to recognize that it’s a nude filter. Sure, approvers aren’t dumb, but maybe not motivated enough to play detective either.
Would you have detected post #1512083 being a nude filter, considering that the same artist also drew post #2169419?
Would you have detected post #9304 being a nude filter, considering that the artist does seem to draw explicit art? Hopefully yes, because it’s a bad one. How about post #482279? Okay, easy one again, but requires you to go look for a reference image because there’s none mentioned in the flag reason. How about post #320145? How much time do you have to spend to verify that it is a nude filter, considering that the artist already drew two versions in different states of undress, and would you actually take that time without me implying that it is one and that I checked properly?
Btw, I didn’t go on a witch hunt or anything. I wanted to find examples of explicit non-nude filter images by artists of whom I flagged some nude filters before. As it turned out, two of those were actually untagged nude filters.
Reasoning (as discussed in the discord with other Builder+ users) was […]
I hope that’s not going to turn into a separate communication channel, disconnected from the forum, where policies are made by a selected few who happen to be using a proprietary messenger and happen to be online at just the right time...
kittey said:
I’m not too thrilled about removing the part about having to point out how to recognize that it’s a nude filter. Sure, approvers aren’t dumb, but maybe not motivated enough to play detective either.
Would you have detected post #1512083 being a nude filter, considering that the same artist also drew post #2169419?
Would you have detected post #9304 being a nude filter, considering that the artist does seem to draw explicit art? Hopefully yes, because it’s a bad one. How about post #482279? Okay, easy one again, but requires you to go look for a reference image because there’s none mentioned in the flag reason. How about post #320145? How much time do you have to spend to verify that it is a nude filter, considering that the artist already drew two versions in different states of undress, and would you actually take that time without me implying that it is one and that I checked properly?
Btw, I didn’t go on a witch hunt or anything. I wanted to find examples of explicit non-nude filter images by artists of whom I flagged some nude filters before. As it turned out, two of those were actually untagged nude filters.
I hope that’s not going to turn into a separate communication channel, disconnected from the forum, where policies are made by a selected few who happen to be using a proprietary messenger and happen to be online at just the right time...
Hmm, you bring up a lot of good points. I just woke up so I'll try to write a more detailed response later -- but maybe it should be required to at least have some indication that such a post is a nude filter if it isn't easily obvious.
As for the separate communication channel, you are completely right it is a little contentious -- it's just that doing things in the forum takes a fairly long time as we have to wait for input from multiple users, some of which don't check that frequently. But I think being more explicit here for something important like this is probably better.
I'll edit the wiki in a few to reflect that.
The tag androgynous is often use with a boy or girl tag. Androgynous by definition means the gender cannot be determined by simply looking at the subject. So if an image has a boy or girl tag then it should not have an androgynous tag. Like wise if it has and androgynous tag then it should not have a boy or girl tag. The best alternative to androgynous would be Tom Boy or Tom girl and then the girl or boy tag could be used as well.
Updated
- 1 : having the characteristics or nature of both male and female androgynous heroines
- 2
- a : neither specifically feminine nor masculine the androgynous pronoun them
- b : suitable to or for either sex androgynous clothing
- 3 : having traditional male and female roles obscured or reversed an androgynous marriage
Androgynous should be like the above, i.e. characters with male and female characteristics.
Not sure we have a tag where it's unknown to the audience what the gender of a character is, but we probably could and should.
Thoughts?
I believe the current usage of androgynous matches the dictionary definition fairly well. Regarding tagging with boy or girl and androgynous, they still look androgynous even if their gender is known from other sources, such as story context or descriptions by the artist.
There is a tag for characters whose gender is unknown: ambiguous_gender. It seems to pretty sparsely used and could stand to be populated some more. Some posts currently tagged as androgynous should have it added, such as post #2723876, and others should be retagged, such as post #2709821.
However tags are only supposed to apply to a given image and it's contents. Tags are not supposed to be applied based on story content or content known from other sources. EX: if you know from a an anime or manga that a character in an image has a tail but in the image that tail is not visible, then the tail tag should not be used. This rule should apply to all tags on the contents of the image should be tagged. Tags re there to help you find images relevant to that tag. I should not find an image that has no visible tail but is tagged tail. Like wise I should not find an image tagged boy or girl if the gender is in question based only on the image and not back story or other contents.
You have to tag at least a little bit "what you know" for character genders, else we would be tagging otoko no ko with no obvious penis flopping around as girls. And we have characters like Frisk who are pretty much explicitly androgynous.
Can anyone explain what, precisely, tied hair is supposed to mean? It's not a new tag by any means but lately I've been seeing it used for all kinds of hairstyles, from braids to twintails to buns. Do we really intend for this tag to encompass every hairstyle where hair is gathered or bunched together?
Well, just as an example, I've been using twin braids + tied hair a lot for Darjeeling and Orange Pekoe's hairstyle. Besides that, I believe tied hair should encompass any hairstyle where the hair is tied to the head or to another part of hair, but isn't covered by another existing tag, e.g. hair bun or crown braid.
@willsolvit
Don't know why you removed the translated tags for the fate/grand_order wiki, but I've added them back for now.
If you want to remove them again, please share the reason with us.
Incredible amount of mistagging when the tag shows up as translated. Technically Fate/Grand Order has just about all the characters in fateverse, but afaik we only use that tag for characters/content that actually pertain to the game, otherwise it'd be equivalent to fate (series).
Updated
Provence said:
@willsolvit
Don't know why you removed the translated tags for the fate/grand_order wiki, but I've added them back for now.
If you want to remove them again, please share the reason with us.
Actually I'm not sure why you added then back. It states why they aren't there in the wiki.
