Nuking furry_with_non-furry_(platonic)

BUR #29999 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

mass update furry_with_non-furry_(platonic) -> -furry_with_non-furry_(platonic) furry

Pointless tag. The only possible utility I can think of is to search for all posts with at least one non-furry character, which seems like a very niche application to say the least.

@Ourobouro Please stop creating these controversial tags without any forum discussion. It's far more preferable to decide we don't want them before they're created, as opposed to having to clean them up afterwards.

I have looked for a way to tag this before since unlike tags like age difference furry_with_non-furry is strictly romantic/sexual. I do see value in either expanding furry_with_non-furry or working this tag. It is currently impossible to filter completely furry images out of searches with say a Pokemon trainer with a [lucario]]

I don't hate the idea behind this tag, honestly. It can be pretty hard to search SFW images of furry with non-furry, so I do understand why a tag like this might get created.

However, I do believe furry with non-furry (platonic) is a stupid tag name for the concept, and this feels very much like something we should've hashed out in the forums before even thinking about drafting a new tag or whatnot. This would've been much better off as its own discussion in the forums the first time around as opposed to having to nuke the tag here and then figure out what we can salvage of the concept.

Personally, I don't hate expanding the use of furry with non-furry to include SFW images (as rating searches are a free search, if you wanna see NSFW), but I wanna hear other opinions on that idea.

BUR #30115 has been rejected.

mass update small_dragon -> -small_dragon undersized_animal dragon

Yet another pointless tag, since you can just search it with dragon + undersized animal. Also this is created by the same guy as the one above.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

I don't hate the idea behind this tag, honestly. It can be pretty hard to search SFW images of furry with non-furry, so I do understand why a tag like this might get created.

However, I do believe furry with non-furry (platonic) is a stupid tag name for the concept, and this feels very much like something we should've hashed out in the forums before even thinking about drafting a new tag or whatnot. This would've been much better off as its own discussion in the forums the first time around as opposed to having to nuke the tag here and then figure out what we can salvage of the concept.

Personally, I don't hate expanding the use of furry with non-furry to include SFW images (as rating searches are a free search, if you wanna see NSFW), but I wanna hear other opinions on that idea.

Honestly I feel the same for quite a few of these tags. I understand the concept, I get why they would be created, but they really require some more discussion to work out any kinks that make the tags unworkable, and that should happen before their creation.

The bulk update request #29999 (forum #298411) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

TrueKringe said:

BUR #30115 has been rejected.

mass update small_dragon -> -small_dragon undersized_animal dragon

Yet another pointless tag, since you can just search it with dragon + undersized animal. Also this is created by the same guy as the one above.

I don't know if we want undersized animal to be used on what clearly looks like baby dragons. That'd be like calling chicks "undersized birds".

Regardless of what is ultimately done with small_dragon, it seems logical to treat mini_dragon as a synonym. The latter tag is actually much older and has more than twice as many posts.

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

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 45 days.

The bulk update request #30115 (forum #298855) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

zetsubousensei said:

I have looked for a way to tag this before since unlike tags like age difference furry_with_non-furry is strictly romantic/sexual. I do see value in either expanding furry_with_non-furry or working this tag. It is currently impossible to filter completely furry images out of searches with say a Pokemon trainer with a [lucario]]

On that note, I do think there would be utility in a tag to distinguish human-focused images with minor furry characters - currently there isn't a good way for someone blacklisting furry to exclude a trainer with a lucario or an otherwise solo image with a chibikemo character (without sacrificing the tag for someone who is looking for said characters). furry solo_focus doesn't guarantee the focus is human and doesn't work if theres multiple characters in focus.

I wouldn't know what to call it though since human_focus sounds dumb and like a bad idea. Think I'll make a favgroup for the moment.

Edit: non-furry_focus might be better? favgroup #36310

Would probably also be helpful to distinguish proper furry with non-furry from "human girl getting fucked by barely visible furry male".

Trouble_Windows said:

On that note, I do think there would be utility in a tag to distinguish human-focused images with minor furry characters - currently there isn't a good way for someone blacklisting furry to exclude a trainer with a lucario or an otherwise solo image with a chibikemo character (without sacrificing the tag for someone who is looking for said characters). furry solo_focus doesn't guarantee the focus is human and doesn't work if theres multiple characters in focus.

I wouldn't know what to call it though since human_focus sounds dumb and like a bad idea. Think I'll make a favgroup for the moment.

Edit: non-furry_focus might be better? favgroup #36310

Would probably also be helpful to distinguish proper furry with non-furry from "human girl getting fucked by barely visible furry male".

Wouldn't it be easier to make a furry_focus tag instead?

BaiserLaVerite said:

Wouldn't it be easier to make a furry_focus tag instead?

That would be like 90% of furry. The tag I'm suggesting here wouldn't apply to images that don't have any furry characters (hence why I think non-furry_focus would be more appropriate, since it's contextual)