New/repopulated tag discussion thread

Unbreakable said:

It's a surprise it took this long for someone to care about it then but I see your point, I won't remove it from valid posts.

I think perhaps because of the frequency by which it was purged, that when a tag someone would like to use doesn't exist, they just move on. I notice a tendency of useful tags like the one being discussed getting eliminated, simply for being a new tag, and not on the basis of their merit. I believe some users as a custom delete new tags, particularly in monitoring the new and repopulated tags report. I warmly suggest that more discussion like this could be had, rather than moving first to eliminate a tag because it's not understood in an instant without more consideration or discussion.

I have encountered multiple situations while artist gardening where a post actually did have the very same name of the artist entry I was trying to create, having been applied by the uploader but removed by another user, corresponding to the tag showing up in the report. The uploaders were probably either not knowledgeable in making their tag an artist tag and populating an artist entry for it, or they made some understandable mistake (I've heard it said that humans make over a hundred a day, and I certainly make plenty myself) which was left unnoticed, I use this just to serve as an example.

Thoughts on the 4 new (source) tags? Home video, dvd, blu-ray and cd.

It seems strange to have separate things for home video/dvd/blu-ray when a lot of the time the same illustrations will have been used for more than one.

Seems useless to me and I agree with skylightcrystal.

Does that mean nuke them all or move them over to cd (source)?

If I get the message "Repopulated 1 old tag", do I need to do anything? I made a new artist tag for post #4236924 and the warning popped up.

leotard2020 said:

If I get the message "Repopulated 1 old tag", do I need to do anything? I made a new artist tag for post #4236924 and the warning popped up.

Sometimes it happens that someone creates a tag for an artist but doesn't upload anything from them, so that's why you got the message. You can usually ignore it.

nonamethanks said:

Sometimes it happens that someone creates a tag for an artist but doesn't upload anything from them, so that's why you got the message. You can usually ignore it.

But should that message appear then because "re"populate implies that the tag was "populated" before.

The name of the two new tags over at post #2403028 are very ambiguous and I have no clue what else to call them, I was considering just nuking them but I don't know how useful they may be. They both have a wiki but that doesn't help much when the name of the tag is as it is.

BUR #5220 has been approved by @evazion.

create alias anal_object_push -> anal_object_insertion
create alias urethral_object_push -> urethral_insertion
create alias vaginal_object_push -> vaginal_object_insertion

The intent of these wiki-less tags seems to have been explained in topic #15422. The tags were originally populated by the topic starter (user #421250) in 2018 and 2019. The tags have been brought up in the forum a few times before (forum #152424, forum #156178, forum #172936), but nothing was done. Personally, I agree with iridescent slime in forum #152432. The distinction between an object being pushed into an orifice and simply being there is not worth tagging.

Rather than nuking them I'd mass update them into their equivalent search (for example vaginal object push -> vaginal object_insertion), since I notice some of those posts lack these tags.

That's a good point. I've updated the request to that effect.

Sorry, I didn't realize we had specific tags for the insertions, you can just do an alias then.

I could do that, but don't aliases come with a certain overhead in the site backend? If the tags are resurrected for some reason, it could be dealt with manually.

Edit: Alrighty then, we'll go with aliases. Thanks for letting me know they're not a big performance concern.

Flopsy said:

I could do that, but don't aliases come with a certain overhead in the site backend? If the tags are resurrected for some reason, it could be dealt with manually.

No, site load is not affected by aliases - not at a point where it'd be noticeable by users. That only comes up as an argument whenever someone asks why we don't do character -> copyright implications, which would result in hundreds of thousands of relationships.

In day to day manual requests like these you shouldn't concern yourself with site performance.

The bulk update request #5220 (forum #184046) has been approved by @evazion.

drenched_panties

Subjective tag that should probably be nipped in the bud now, before someone tries to populate it further. Tags that are just "another tag, but more" are nearly impossible to define in a way that isn't open to individual interpretation. This one is no exception. There's no way to quantify the difference between wet panties and those that are "drenched".

iridescent_slime said:

drenched_panties

Subjective tag that should probably be nipped in the bud now, before someone tries to populate it further. Tags that are just "another tag, but more" are nearly impossible to define in a way that isn't open to individual interpretation. This one is no exception. There's no way to quantify the difference between wet panties and those that are "drenched".

The user who made it has made several other unusually specific tags that they added a dozen or two images to the tag and then the tag was never used again. Some have been nuked in response.

This is a case where we should go through the user's edits and get rid of a bunch of junk tags like clitoral_stimulation_through_clothing and female_ejaculation_through_clothing.

BUR #9808 has been approved by @evazion.

create alias drenched_panties -> wet_panties

To avoid repopulation

The bulk update request #9808 (forum #210272) has been approved by @evazion.