Clean up the mess left behind with the creation of a massive amount of chastity cage tags

BUR #36310 is pending approval.

create implication padlocked_chastity_cage -> padlock
create implication padlocked_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage

WRS said:

BUR #36279 is pending approval.

nuke chastity_cage_bow
nuke chastity_cage_ribbon
nuke ball_splitter
nuke chastity_cage_strap
nuke chastity_cage_barrel_lock
mass update padlocked_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage -padlocked_chastity_cage
mass update large_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage -large_chastity_cage
mass update small_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage -small_chastity_cage
mass update double_end_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage unconventional_chastity_cage -double_end_chastity_cage
mass update inverted_chastity_cage -> unconventional_chastity_cage chastity_cage -inverted_chastity_cage

Hell no. Why?

At first I made it chastity_cage_padlock but I was told the tags were too specific and I could just search for padlock instead so I changed it padlocked_chastity_cage instead to match padlocked_collar. With this tag the padlock would need to be on the cage.

I guess you could just nuke it but if you don't tag it padlocked_chastity_cage you will have to tag it padlock so the number of tags to tag doesn't change.

Double end chastity cage and inverted chastity cages are real sex toys. I already disagreed with unconvention_chastity_cage as a tag so I think they will need their own tags.

BUR #36311 is pending approval.

remove implication flat_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage
create implication nub_chastity_cage -> small_chastity_cage
create implication flat_chastity_cage -> small_chastity_cage
create implication small_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage

WRS said:

BUR #36279 is pending approval.

nuke chastity_cage_bow
nuke chastity_cage_ribbon
nuke ball_splitter
nuke chastity_cage_strap
nuke chastity_cage_barrel_lock
mass update padlocked_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage -padlocked_chastity_cage
mass update large_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage -large_chastity_cage
mass update small_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage -small_chastity_cage
mass update double_end_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage unconventional_chastity_cage -double_end_chastity_cage
mass update inverted_chastity_cage -> unconventional_chastity_cage chastity_cage -inverted_chastity_cage

Hell no. Why?

So in pics like post #8495414 you can clearly see there's all sizes of chastity cages just like there is micro shorts, short shorts, miniskirt, microskirt, etc. Before I tagged everything there were two tags for "size" the flat_chastity_cage and nub_chastity_cage. These are both always small. Except for this post #8303700 that is flat but doesn't look small but I think we can just ignore it because it's unconventional.

The problem is that not every small chastity cage is either flat or a nub. Like post #8701402 has a flat and a non-nub. And post #8728271 you can clearly see the difference between a normal size and a small size.

So based on how they look in real life like I wrote in the wiki a small chastity cage is

A chastity cage with a short tube. The "normal" length is around enough to reach the bottom of the testicles. If the tube only reaches around the middle of the testicles then that's a small cage.

Now if you search for chastity_cage -small_chastity_cage it is pretty obvious this narrows down a lot.

WRS said:

BUR #36281 is pending approval.

mass update chastity_key -> key -chastity_key

While I figure out what to do with forum #333718, going to take care of a few small parts of it that I think should hold, such as this.

I agree with nuking chastity_key. Initially I thought there could be posts without a visible chastity cage but with an implied chastity key and that tag could be useful but in hindsight it's not. Like post #6258411 looks like it's a chastity key because it's tagged netorare but it's not explicit so I went to the pixiv to make sure before tagging it and then I figured if I had to see other images to figure out if it's a chastity key or not then it's a bad tag.

BUR #36312 is pending approval.

create implication large_chastity_cage -> chastity_cage

So I think small chastity cage is a good tag just like small_penis and there is large penis so of course there should be a large chastity cage tag. This is what I wrote in the wiki

A chastity cage that is thicker and longer than normal. A "normal" cage can fit a penis in flaccid state and isn't much longer than the testicles. A large cage is bulky and can fit a normal penis half-erect or fully erect.

It's the best I could come up with;

So in futa pics like post #5765145 and post #7659983 and gay/bara like post #6064348 and post #4983388 that would be tagged large penis or huge penis if they were uncaged now there is a tag for them caged.

I'm against using the large penis tag for this because by the same logic small chastity cage would be replaced by small penis and you can't imply small penis with flat chastity cage because sometimes you have a futa with a huge penis that gets locked in a flat chastity cage because that's just how drawings work

WRS said:

While they may not be the same, sex toy replacing penis only has two posts tagged, both of which can either be represented as tube chastity cage or vibrator on penis. So saying this allows me to review the BUR and indeed you would be correct, but in turn just reveals that these are mistags. Ergo, if they're tagged properly, then the tag itself just gets nuked. This could be a good concept to search/tag in the future so I've opted not to deprecate it. I'll figure out a better way to deal with this chunk of tags, so for the time being I'll out reject it.

They are tagged properly. post #7733038 is a nub chastity cage and post #8397914 is a flat chastity cage. There's a transparent dildo on top of them. A tube chastity cage is has a tube enclosing the penis like post #3776903.

btw while I was tagging it the idea was to separate chastity cages with "open" designs like post #3662299 and post #1250242 from cages with "closed" designs like post #4917725 and post #1748646. So I divided cages into flat/nub/tube and if it was "open" I tagged it revealing_chastity_cage. But this turned out be a bad idea because most revealing cages are tube cages and a lot of times I tagged something as revealing because it was obvious then forgot to tag it as tube. So yesterday I changed the tags and the wiki so now the idea is that if a cage hides the penis and it isn't a nub or flat, then it's a tube, but if it isn't a tube, then it is revealing.

So now 99% of posts tagged with chastity_cage are also tagged with one type of chastity cage: flat, nub, tube or revealing. And this tag is great because you can find "revealing nubs" like post #3944416, post #6606787 and post #8495414 just by searching for nub_chastity_cage revealing_chastity_cage. And if you search for tube_chastity_cage revealing_chastity_cage you get this design in post #6856833 and post #3575162.

My tags may be too granular but I'm not tagging anything wrong. There is logic in my "mess".

@trapster77 I warned you man, break down your tags and utilise existing tags as much you can.

scydrew said:

@trapster77 I warned you man, break down your tags and utilise existing tags as much you can.

Yeah and I heeded it that and got rid of ejaculating_in_chastity_cage and chastity_cage_drip. Instead I made chastity_cage_emission so nobody needs to guess if they're looking at precum or cum or if an ejaculation is happening or not like in this post #8366835 and this post #7430133.

Problem is there aren't color or size tags for chastity cages.

Like maybe nobody tags pink cages as pink just because nobody had made a tag for it yet and now that there is a tag people will utilise it.

Yeah I made more tags than I needed so I agree with nuking chastity_key and chastity_barrel_lock and moving chastity_cage_bow and chastity_cage_ribbon to ornate_chastity_cage, but I think the rest of the tags are okay, they just need some implications.

Like nub_chastity_cage still doesn't have an implication to chastity cage. If nub/flat was implied to small_chastity_cage nobody would even need to utilise the small tag to get the tag for free.

trapster77 said:

Problem is there aren't color or size tags for chastity cages.

You're solving a problem that doesn't exist. There's no real reason to search or filter by color for chastity cages, or most other minute details of them, which is why you're getting so much pushback. Something like shirt color is a notable part of a character's outfit, and something like hair color is a notable part of their appearance. If someone's searching for chastity cage, odds are they won't care too much about the minutia of it (especially since there aren't that many chastity cage posts on this site to begin with in the grand scheme of things—less than 1000!)

Just because a concept exists it doesn't mean it needs to be tagged, especially not when it gets super granular.

BUR #36313 has been rejected.

mass update chastity_cage_removed -> unworn_chastity_cage -chastity_cage_removed

There is a tag called chastity_cage_removed made by someone else. It should be unworn_chastity_cage instead to match all other unworn tags. I had made a thread about this before but nobody voted on it so I'm reposting it on this thread.

trapster77 said:

BUR #36313 has been rejected.

mass update chastity_cage_removed -> unworn_chastity_cage -chastity_cage_removed

There is a tag called chastity_cage_removed made by someone else. It should be unworn_chastity_cage instead to match all other unworn tags. I had made a thread about this before but nobody voted on it so I'm reposting it on this thread.

I'd say make it an alias, not a mass-update?

trapster77 said:

For femdom it's "ultimately a small part of an image" but if it's male focus / otoko no ko / futanari the chastity cage is basically panties. Danbooru has tags for all colors and designs of panties so if chastity cage is equivalent it gets the same tags.

This is an insanely bad take. The search results for panties and any other colour of them would far outshine any searches for intricate or granular tags of chastity cages. More Danbooru users are searching for tags related to female characters, which is also why a lot of our tags default to women and have a separate tag for male characters. This is a false equivalence, and it has no search utility, therefore it doesn't need the same tags at all.

Also, just because some colour tags do exist, doesn't mean they're good, and doesn't mean they should be used as justification for perpetuating colour nonsense on other insignificant items. A lot of these have been eventually dismantled when brought up. Those existing doesn't bolster your own case.

trapster77 said:

So the reason I made up chastity cage-belt is because some devices look like a chastity belt but are designed for the penis like a chastity cage. So if you only had these two tags you probably would use chastity belt for it like in post #5765145 which is futanari or post #8088724 which is flat. Then nobody is going to find it because you would never search for chastity belt if you were looking for caged penises. Like I went through all chastity cage posts and I didn't see this post #2897493 because it's tagged with chastity belt. If it was tagged with chastity cage chastity cage-belt I would find it. I think chastity belt should be used only if there is no penis inside the device.

I'll yield on this for now because you made a convincing-enough case for now that it has decent search utility, pending revisiting it in the future. The problem for me is that there ended up being so many tags generated for a hyperspecific fetish and a HUGE amount of them can and should be folded down into other tags. I can compromise on this one for the sake of finding those posts as a one-tag search because otherwise I would be suggesting using both tags (i.e. the query chastity_belt chastity_cage) as my reason for getting rid of that tag.

trapster77 said:

I didn't make chastity piercing but it isn't a nipple piercing, it's a piercing on the genitals.

trapster77 said:

I made sex toy replacing penis because of comment #2468951 that wanted a tag for it.

I found this out after revisiting the posts tagged with them. I still think they're meh tags and need to be revisited.

trapster77 said:

there are no pics of that on danbooru.

-which is exactly part of the issue. For something that has few to no pictures on Danbooru, we have other tags that can be combined to find it as well as favgroups and pools to use in other cases. Those should be thought about, and if it really doesn't fit, it might work as a tag. The current dichotomy and search utility needs to also be considered.

trapster77 said:

Someone told me hand on own penis could be used instead but is it really on the penis if the penis is inside a chastity cage?

hand_on_own_penis condom. It sounds equally as stupid to make a tag to differentiate touching the real organ and over a condom and no one would dispute that; it's largely a similar case here where there is an object between a hand and the organ itself but it's still unambiguously touching the organ. A very close tag that describes the overall concept is teasing. There may be another tag here as well. Generally all the posts around this tag are better suited as a genre tag than the action itself because it covers a broader case and lets people search them more easily as one tag.

trapster77 said:

just like there is micro shorts, short shorts, miniskirt, microskirt, etc.

False equivalence, not convinced. I can compromise on the other tags for now, i.e. why I chose not to do anything with nub chastity cage.

trapster77 said:

So I think small chastity cage is a good tag just like small_penis and there is large penis so of course there should be a large chastity cage tag.

False equivalence.

trapster77 said:

My tags may be too granular but I'm not tagging anything wrong. There is logic in my "mess".

Just because you're not tagging anything wrong (which I won't dispute for the most part), that doesn't mean having granular tags or making an absolute mess without getting some BURs and discussions going is good. You quietly created a lot of these tags and didn't bring them up in the forum at any point for implications or discussion so someone's going to notice and sooner or later we're back to the drawing board here. Especially with the colour tags. I probably would not be here if I didn't see a massive amount of colour tags being made and would sweep it under the rug.

Ylimegirl said:

You're solving a problem that doesn't exist. There's no real reason to search or filter by color for chastity cages, or most other minute details of them, which is why you're getting so much pushback. Something like shirt color is a notable part of a character's outfit, and something like hair color is a notable part of their appearance. If someone's searching for chastity cage, odds are they won't care too much about the minutia of it (especially since there aren't that many chastity cage posts on this site to begin with in the grand scheme of things—less than 1000!)

Just because a concept exists it doesn't mean it needs to be tagged, especially not when it gets super granular.

This.

gold chastity cage tends to be associated with gold jewelry and exotic outfits like post #6064348, post #4899508, post #5227045, post #6229715, post #6447717.

pink chastity cage tends to be associated with feminine outfits like post #5457817, post #8728271, post #7361615, post #5851438.

The color can be significant.

Ylimegirl said:

You're solving a problem that doesn't exist. There's no real reason to search or filter by color for chastity cages, or most other minute details of them, which is why you're getting so much pushback. Something like shirt color is a notable part of a character's outfit, and something like hair color is a notable part of their appearance. If someone's searching for chastity cage, odds are they won't care too much about the minutia of it (especially since there aren't that many chastity cage posts on this site to begin with in the grand scheme of things—less than 1000!)

Just because a concept exists it doesn't mean it needs to be tagged, especially not when it gets super granular.

I think this is subjective. There are lot of tags for minutia that I couldn't care about. Like post #8701402 there are many tags nobody tagged, like heart_choker, bow, pillow, cupless_bra, hand_on_another's_shoulder and I think this may be a selfie. Nobody tagged these because nobody cared, but if somebody cared they would have the tags to tag it.

But ok maybe there is too few posts for some of these. gold lips and silver lips also have very few posts but okay chastity cages < lips. These are the counts right now

metal_chastity_cage 419
black_chastity_cage 61
gold_chastity_cage 60
pink_chastity_cage 52
purple_chastity_cage 20
white_chastity_cage 15
red_chastity_cage 5
transparent_chastity_cage 4
blue_chastity_cage 3
orange_chastity_cage 1
green_chastity_cage 1
yellow_chastity_cage 1

I wish we could keep black/pink/gold but if we can't what if we did this instead

silver_chastity_cage 419
transparent_chastity_cage 4

So the only color that gets tagged is silver because half of them are silver. I'd rather not use "metal" because some of them like post #2676752 are metal and black.

Transparent ones like post #1832709 are like glass but I don't think they're actually glass so "glass" chastity cage would be wrong.

The bulk update request #36313 (forum #333865) has been rejected by @trapster77.

BUR #36315 is pending approval.

create alias chastity_cage_removed -> unworn_chastity_cage

Ylimegirl said:

I'd say make it an alias, not a mass-update?

Like this?

WRS said:

This is an insanely bad take. The search results for panties and any other colour of them would far outshine any searches for intricate or granular tags of chastity cages. More Danbooru users are searching for tags related to female characters, which is also why a lot of our tags default to women and have a separate tag for male characters. This is a false equivalence, and it has no search utility, therefore it doesn't need the same tags at all.

Also, just because some colour tags do exist, doesn't mean they're good, and doesn't mean they should be used as justification for perpetuating colour nonsense on other insignificant items. A lot of these have been eventually dismantled when brought up. Those existing doesn't bolster your own case.

Just because you're not tagging anything wrong (which I won't dispute for the most part), that doesn't mean having granular tags or making an absolute mess without getting some BURs and discussions going is good. You quietly created a lot of these tags and didn't bring them up in the forum at any point for implications or discussion so someone's going to notice and sooner or later we're back to the drawing board here. Especially with the colour tags. I probably would not be here if I didn't see a massive amount of colour tags being made and would sweep it under the rug.

I was going to create a topic on it before starting tagging but I figured it would be faster to just tag everything myself and then discuss what should be removed because then everything would be tagged so we can just look at examples. I was going to create a BUR for chastity_key and chastity_cage_barrel_lock myself, but I wasn't expecting the color tags to be so problematic, honestly.

Like I said in forum #333871 even if most colors are removed I think metal/silver should remain because it's 50% of the cages and transparent should remain because of its uniqueness. pink/gold can have connotations like forum #333870 said and black is somewhat common, but if the colors are too much and they need to be removed at least if silver is kept you can still narrow down a lot with chastity_cage -silver_chastity_cage.

mock said:

The color can be significant.

I don't agree that it's significant just from this association alone, it feels like reaching to try and prove colour tagging. Some total search statistics here on the tags with hundreds of posts would be helpful to have a point of reference but if it isn't many then that doesn't really make it a good tag.

Moreover, something that would help the chastity cage wiki itself is to include pictured examples so it's easier to have a look instead of including a tag page or linking me to some shop page for one that I will obviously not go and click. You can use media assets to upload thumbnail examples that would normally be on a storage page (so not actually worn, but what you would see if you went shopping for one digitally).

Arguing semantics and the like is not helpful (which already happened a bit off the forums) and something existing in real life doesn't mean it needs to also be reflected in tagging. They have to be useful to taggers and helpful to searchers as well as blacklisters.

WRS said:

BUR #36277 has been rejected.

rename ornate_chastity_cage -> unconventional_chastity_cage

Weird name but we can keep unconventional ones. I feel like a lot of these granular tags can be better folded into this if we give it a better tag name.

After some thinking and re-reading the discussions, I'll relent on this one. I now realise that I'm actually wrong here and I quite literally contradicted myself about the tag by bringing up a separate-but-related reason why a tag for another type of sex-related item exists. You guys are right and there's nothing inherently wrong in using ornate as a descriptor for elaborate, non-standard designs - and then folding in the more granular tags into it.

I will consider forum #333850 as a voting alternative to forum #333720 and won't reject that one because an equal argument can be made that a single small decoration isn't even worth assigning ornate towards.

The bulk update request #36277 (forum #333717) has been rejected by @WRS.