pool #22308 - " The Fallen Angel Lookalikes"
Redundant with fallen_angel_(painting) fine_art_parody.
Posted under General
pool #22308 - " The Fallen Angel Lookalikes"
Redundant with fallen_angel_(painting) fine_art_parody.
pool #19562
Looks like futa_(nabezoko) -comic touhou. I don't see the serial connection between the illustrations and why non-comic Touhou drawings by the artist needs to be separated into its own pool.
shemingwan_wen said:
pool #19562
Looks like futa_(nabezoko) -comic touhou. I don't see the serial connection between the illustrations and why non-comic Touhou drawings by the artist needs to be separated into its own pool.
+1. Feels pointless to me too and kinda unsure why it was made to begin with tbh.
pool #22382
Looks like it was made in response to topic #26639, but as it was pointed out that vaginal fingering is the majority of the fingering tag, the pool would bloat to an enormous size if used as the description intends. fingering vaginal -sex -implied_fingering returns nearly 2400 results and probably covers most cases.
CoffeeMilkDrinker said:
pool #22382
Looks like it was made in response to topic #26639, but as it was pointed out that vaginal fingering is the majority of the fingering tag, the pool would bloat to an enormous size if used as the description intends. fingering vaginal -sex -implied_fingering returns nearly 2400 results and probably covers most cases.
A BUR to nuke it was already proposed, but it timed out.
@Fenton Variant sets should be parented. Any reason why you undid the changes and pooled this instead?
As below.
Updated
WeakestResUser said:
@Fenton Variant sets should be parented. Any reason why you undid the changes and pooled this instead?
Well, There are 10 pictures, so I feel they need to be part of a pool.
WeakestResUser said:
@Fenton Variant sets should be parented. Any reason why you undid the changes and pooled this instead?
Because variant sets should be pooled if there are too many images. Parent/child relations weren't meant for large image sets meant to be viewed in sequence. Children can't be ordered manually, either, only automatically by upload order, so pools are more convenient for large sets.
These are already uploaded in the order they're meant to be viewed in, and honestly do not see any guideline nor threshold as to when they should be pooled instead of parented - they're still related posts. 10 counts as too much and requires pooling instead? They can still be both parented and pooled, so I'm losing the justification here on deparenting them and leaving them solely as a pool. There are definitely variant sets of 10 that are still parented. I won't have an edit war here though; I changed it once and it was reverted since apparently the pool is not pointless.
Updated
WeakestResUser said:
These are already uploaded in the order they're meant to be viewed in, and honestly do not see any guideline nor threshold as to when they should be pooled instead of parented - they're still related posts. 10 counts as too much and requires pooling instead? They can still be both parented and pooled, so I'm losing the justification here on deparenting them and leaving them solely as a pool. There are definitely variant sets of 10 that are still parented. I won't have an edit war here though; I changed it once and it was reverted since apparently the pool is not pointless.
10 is definitely the point where it should be pooled. There's no hard limit, but usually much beyond 5 gets pretty obnoxious to browse. Just because it's not always done consistently doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done though. (Technically 2-post comics deserve pools, but nobody really wants to make those).
Also, you should consider the upload order more of a "happy accident", if there's an actual order required then pools are always appropriate (what if the artist suddenly uploads a different variantg, that sometimes happens).
Oh and don't parent + pool, those two things would be used for the same purpose here, making at least one of them redundant.
Kuruma said:
Auto generated pool for princess bonnibel bubblegum and marceline abadeer having yuri, and it's with various artists. I'm pretty sure, fav group is better option for this than pool.
Are ship pools in general forbidden? Why is that? Ships pools seem to be very good to me as a user, and I don't see in what way are they against danbooru?
reg_panda said:
Are ship pools in general forbidden? Why is that? Ships pools seem to be very good to me as a user, and I don't see in what way are they against danbooru?
There are ship tags like micomet (hololive) which I think are useful. I don't think they should be pools.
HyphenSam said:
There are ship tags like micomet (hololive) which I think are useful. I don't think they should be pools.
That's not a ship tag. It's a tag for any image depicting Hoshimachi Suisei and Sakura Miko as a duo. Non-yuri images also qualify.
I pretty sure we don't actually have any ship tags, and for good reason. Can you imagine how many tags we'd need for every ship out there? Even a basic member could just search for the two characters together and easily find what they're looking for.
Which is why a two-person tag like that is not very useful on the best of days, but that's a conversation for another thread .
And thus, in turn, why a ship pool is not that useful. They fall into disrepair extremely quickly or become a pet pool that develops weird subrules based on whose pet it is.
The bulk update request #26143 (forum #280251) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
pool #22822 pool #22820 and pool #22821
strange custom pools that perform the same function as tags.
I checked the descriptions of pools and tags.. and didn't find much difference.
Maybe pools were created before tags or something 🤔.
BUR #28778 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
nuke pool:22820
nuke pool:22821
nuke pool:22822
See above post.
The pools were created three days before the tags. Both were created by the same user. My guess is the user realized after the fact that it would be better to use a tag but forgot to delete the pools afterward.
The bulk update request #28778 (forum #293832) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
The bulk update request #27153 (forum #284086) has been rejected by @GranAutismo.