[REJECTED] Deimplicating sky

BUR #2149 has been rejected.

remove implication blue_sky -> sky
remove implication cloudy_sky -> sky
remove implication gradient_sky -> sky
remove implication multicolored_sky -> sky
remove implication night_sky -> sky
remove implication orange_sky -> sky
remove implication red_sky -> sky
remove implication starry_sky -> sky

Reason: As you all know, sky has for over twelve years been reserved by definition for posts where the sky is a focal point or the actual subject. All of these implications were apparently made without consideration for this ages-old wiki. Consequently, there are countless posts incorrectly tagged sky by implication — post #3573568, post #3628524, post #3669793, and post #3673970, to cite a few recent examples — despite the sky being only an incidental part of the backdrop.

Preserving the status quo makes no sense. If these implications are left in place, we must either:

• apply the same usage restrictions to all the tags implicating sky, so that tags like blue sky or cloudy sky can no longer be used on posts not focused around the sky, or
• open up the sky tag to incorporate all posts with any visible portion of the sky, regardless of how small or irrelevant it is to the scene.

EDIT: This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2149 (forum #160672) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

I'd personally go with the first of those bullet points for the non-colour ones. We have cloud already - why does post #3573568 need any more than that? There's not really enough sky visible in that image to tell whether the sky as a whole is cloudy or there just happens to be a cloud in the slither that is visible. Using cloudy sky on an image like that basically makes the tag into cloud -above_clouds, which is almost the same as the cloud tag (less than 1% of which currently has the above clouds tag).

Ditto with starry sky/night sky - although personally I'd leave all three tags on post #3628524 as I do think it a sufficiently significant part of the image - it may be in the background but it is still a focal point. Unlike, for instance, post #3671371...

The colour ones on the other hand I'd go with removing the implications for - the colour of the sky is relevant even when very little of it is visible, eg. post #3018404. There isn't the alternative for these as there is with the above three tags, and those looking for significant amounts of it could easily do an (e.g.) orange_sky sky

Why not create the tag sky_focus instead? It seems to me at least that such a tag would be much clearer on its usage and less likely to be abused as a tag.

@skylightcrystal I have no problem with your suggestion. It'll mean having to police a few more tags to prevent misuse, and the inconsistency between the rules for cloudy/night/starry tags and sky color tags may confuse users who don't follow the forum, but it still makes more sense than what we have at the moment.

@BrokenEagle98 Sky_focus seems like a good idea — it's consistent with tags like ass_focus and it would certainly invite far less abuse than sky — but then, what would be the point of having sky? I'd just rename sky to sky_focus and remove the implications anyway.

I am also in favor of rebranding the sky tag to sky_focus.

I'm against it.

We should made it in a way that we can search for both sky variations under one umbrella tag and when the focus is on the sky itself.
That way, the implications would still have to exist but we have to create a new "sky_focus" tag that will also be implied to sky.

Lacrimosa said:

I'm against it.

We should made it in a way that we can search for both sky variations under one umbrella tag and when the focus is on the sky itself.
That way, the implications would still have to exist but we have to create a new "sky_focus" tag that will also be implied to sky.

Well, this could be a thing if sky is/was a useful term to search for in and of itself (I'm kind of meh on that myself). However, not all color tags need/have an umbrella tag. For instance, the colored hair tags don't implicate hair (which isn't even a tag), and the colored eye tags don't implicate eyes (which has a completely different meaning of eyes focus).

On a related side topic, it seems like a lot of tags (like sky and eyes) should probably have the _focus addon so that the meaning of the tag becomes clearer. If people are for it, we could create a separate topic to discuss which tags should also be included.

Just renaming a tag to *_focus doesn't solve anything by itself. We tried that with text focus and hip focus and it failed.

It only works when there are people willing to invest significant effort into cleaning up and policing the tags, and the tags have objective rules so you have a clear basis for removing them.

evazion said:

Just renaming a tag to *_focus doesn't solve anything by itself. We tried that with text focus and hip focus and it failed.

It doesn't solve the problem but it definitely helps - there are far fewer people who think that text_focus should be used on anything with a speech bubble or a scrawled/typed word or sound effect somewhere than thought the same when the tag name was just "text", even if the occasional such person does show up occasionally. And I've not had anyone (yet) try to tell me that I'm wrong when I tell them not to use the tag for such things, as I did a couple of times before the name change.

evazion said:

Just renaming a tag to *_focus doesn't solve anything by itself. We tried that with text focus and hip focus and it failed.

It only works when there are people willing to invest significant effort into cleaning up and policing the tags, and the tags have objective rules so you have a clear basis for removing them.

IMO the problem with both tags is that text and hips were aliased to them, so users keep adding text and hips and blissfully ignore the _focus part. Not aliasing text and hips and declaring them “do not use” would make them easy to clean/police and users would get warned about adding the tags (since they would be re-creating the previously empty tags). That worked pretty well when we moved hair to severed_hair and all the $color tags to $color_(theme), for example. I find it really easy to keep them clean.

kittey said:

IMO the problem with both tags is that text and hips were aliased to them, so users keep adding text and hips and blissfully ignore the _focus part. Not aliasing text and hips and declaring them “do not use” would make them easy to clean/police and users would get warned about adding the tags (since they would be re-creating the previously empty tags). That worked pretty well when we moved hair to severed_hair and all the $color tags to $color_(theme), for example. I find it really easy to keep them clean.

+1 to that, and I believe the same should also apply to any and all current or future _focus tags. A tag we are trying to disambiguate should never have an alias. That way it doesn't "accidentally" get added when the autocomplete populates that as one of the usable terms. This strategy will still require active tag gardening for tag misuse, but the same could almost be said for many of the general-category tags.

Lacrimosa said:

I'm against it.

We should made it in a way that we can search for both sky variations under one umbrella tag and when the focus is on the sky itself.
That way, the implications would still have to exist but we have to create a new "sky_focus" tag that will also be implied to sky.

What's your objective in keeping a sky tag that applies to pretty much any image with the slightest glimpse of the sky, though? Do you really think that this would be a useful tag for search?

If we're going to do this, we might as well recreate legwear and have it be implicated by all the colored/patterned legwear tags.

kittey said:

IMO the problem with both tags is that text and hips were aliased to them, so users keep adding text and hips and blissfully ignore the _focus part. Not aliasing text and hips and declaring them “do not use” would make them easy to clean/police and users would get warned about adding the tags (since they would be re-creating the previously empty tags). That worked pretty well when we moved hair to severed_hair and all the $color tags to $color_(theme), for example. I find it really easy to keep them clean.

I'm generally opposed to aliasing oft-misused tags for that very reason. It's vastly easier to look after a tag that we all know should always have have zero posts than struggle to maintain a tag with tens of thousands of posts. Aliasing problematic tags only shifts the problem to another tag.

iridescent_slime said:

What's your objective in keeping a sky tag that applies to pretty much any image with the slightest glimpse of the sky, though? Do you really think that this would be a useful tag for search?

What's your goal here then?
We have so many *_sky tags that it makes only sense to have an umbrella tag.

Nobody searches for these tags anyway, I'd assume.

As for legwear, the types are distinct enough to not need an umbrella tag.

This bulk update request is pending automatic rejection in 5 days.

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #2149 (forum #160672) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

iridescent_slime said:

Preserving the status quo makes no sense. If these implications are left in place, we must either:

• apply the same usage restrictions to all the tags implicating sky, so that tags like blue sky or cloudy sky can no longer be used on posts not focused around the sky, or
• open up the sky tag to incorporate all posts with any visible portion of the sky, regardless of how small or irrelevant it is to the scene.

I'm going to say the first one. If it shouldn't be tagged sky, then it shouldn't be tagged with other sky tags either. Posts where the sky is barely visible should be cleaned up. In many cases of these cases other tags like outdoors or night/day are sufficient.

HUGE, huge necrobump since I've brought this back again in Discord.

The usual sky tags should've been like, opened up to incorporate all posts with any visible portion of the sky, regardless of how small or irrelevant it is to the scene, so the sky focus tag can be used if the post is focused around the sky, the same treatment as cloud and cloud focus.

NOTE: I'm not creating the sky focus tag for now.

Travley said:

HUGE, huge necrobump since I've brought this back again in Discord.

The usual sky tags should've been like, opened up to incorporate all posts with any visible portion of the sky, regardless of how small or irrelevant it is to the scene, so the sky focus tag can be used if the post is focused around the sky, the same treatment as cloud and cloud focus.

NOTE: I'm not creating the sky focus tag for now.

The *_focus tags are always a good idea.
If you want, I would say there's nothing that prevents tagging images with the tag.