What on earth are tri drills? It seems to be for three specific locks of drill hair going by the name and artwork with the tag, but I can't tell how useful it is at a glance.
Posted under General
What on earth are tri drills? It seems to be for three specific locks of drill hair going by the name and artwork with the tag, but I can't tell how useful it is at a glance.
Iroshi said:
@glousk You can go to the top of the page within the forum and click the button that says "Request alias/implication". If you do it here the voting will happen inside this thread, if you do it in the main forum page it will create a new topic.
Since it is just for probing opinions, you could format it as a meaningless template like this (so that it does not affect any tag if approved accidentally):create alias test1 -> test2
Thanks a lot @Iroshi I'd never have found this myself, I'll redo my post
BUR #34106 has been rejected.
I've noticed the >:) wiki specifies mouth needs to be closed, however I found myself wanting to tag images such as post #8495206 or post #8480578 with it as it 'fits' the emote which should depict a smile or a smirk that has the expected curve, open mouth or not.
I'm not sure if that's just me who is seeing it or if the wiki should be edited hence the reason I'm bringing this topic.
The same could be said with >:( tag with post #8444849 as an example even if it's not as usual as the >:)
The mention to open mouth should be removed in both these tags in my opinion.
If the closed mouth is obligatory then the >:) tag should imply the closed_mouth
What are your thoughts ?
Updated
glousk said:
BUR #34106 has been rejected.
I've noticed the >:) wiki specifies mouth needs to be closed, however I found myself wanting to tag images such as post #8495206 or post #8480578 with it as it 'fits' the emote which should depict a smile or a smirk that has the expected curve, open mouse or not.
I'm not sure if that's just me who is seeing it or if the wiki should be edited hence the reason I'm bringing this topic.The same could be said with >:( tag with post #8444849 as an example even if it's not as usual as the >:)
The mention to open mouth should be removed in both these tags in my opinion.
If the closed mouth is obligatory then the >:) tag should imply the closed_mouthWhat are your thoughts ?
I'm specifically downvoting this because it should be in a new topic instead of wiki requests (this is too controversial a change to be pushed in a megathread that normally is only intended for asking for updates to wiki pages). Also, instead of writing "test" tags in your BUR, you should write the actual tags you want to alias/imply/update/etc.
The reason BURs come with forum posts (either as a new topic or a reply in one) is for the sake of discussion and having a record. Even if you're just probing for opinions, it should contain the actual update you want to happen in case it gets accepted. This helps admins spend less time trying to sort out your request and lets votes more accurately represent opinions about the update.
Consider looking at BURs created by AngryZapdos (especially very large ones) as examples.
WRS said:
I'm specifically downvoting this because it should be in a new topic instead of wiki requests (this is too controversial a change to be pushed in a megathread that normally is only intended for asking for updates to wiki pages). Also, instead of writing "test" tags in your BUR, you should write the actual tags you want to alias/imply/update/etc.
The reason BURs come with forum posts (either as a new topic or a reply in one) is for the sake of discussion and having a record. Even if you're just probing for opinions, it should contain the actual update you want to happen in case it gets accepted. This helps admins spend less time trying to sort out your request and lets votes more accurately represent opinions about the update.
Consider looking at BURs created by AngryZapdos (especially very large ones) as examples.
Hello @WRS and thanks for your answer
I'm sorry I thought this was the good place, I've asked at forum #320691 and got an answer right after that led me to believe this was the way to do it.
There is no actual alias/imply to be made but an edit in the wiki which i'm unsure of (as it's subjective and i'd like other people opinion)
I've stated the issue I've encountered and wanted to have an opinion poll to know if you were thinking the same to know if the change needs to be made or not.
TLDR; It is about a wiki change, I just wanted to have a clear vote display
In the end what should I do as it seems there is no proper way to discuss this possible change ?
I have no clue why that other Builder suggested making a BUR if you aren't actually making a tagging update. Your initial question here was already fine, which was asking about the application of a tag or if the wiki needed adjustment. You don't need a vote for this, just a general discussion or reply from someone who knows what they're talking about. It is still particularly controversial so I would create a new topic if you want to discuss anything in depth - megathreads aren't a great way to follow conversation.
In other words; there's no need to create a proxy vote, just a general discussion thread and seeing what the consensus about the topic is from responders.
If you ask me personally, I would tag both of those examples with v-shaped eyebrows, open mouth and smile instead. Potentially consider some of the other tags listed on the smile wiki page. I think the wiki pages are pretty self-explanatory. Alternatively, you can post in topic #12251 for further help with tagging images rather than wiki changes.
The bulk update request #34106 (forum #320804) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.
Mexiguy said:
Sorry, I'm quite new to the forum/wiki side of danbooru, are you meaning that I should write a wiki entry for the tag full_composition?
Could we rethink the legs apart tag ?
It is described as exclusive to the standing position and evokes the spread legs tag for other postions.
However this leaves a gap between legs that are not spread and not together (legs together) on characters that are sitting and lying.
Should we uniformize this tag to have it with a description similar to spread legs and legs together and to make it more consistent and cover all positions of legs no matter the body position ?
glousk said:
Could we rethink the legs apart tag ?
It is described as exclusive to the standing position and evokes the spread legs tag for other postions.
However this leaves a gap between legs that are not spread and not together (legs together) on characters that are sitting and lying.
Should we uniformize this tag to have it with a description similar to spread legs and legs together and to make it more consistent and cover all positions of legs no matter the body position ?
Cases of a character sitting with legs nor spread nor together do not need a tag specific to that leg position because no one's gonna search for that
And the danger of letting legs apart apply to other positions is that it will result in it becoming basically a clone of spread legs because most uploaders will not care where the delineation is between the two and they will just tag one or the other at random
Mayhem-Chan said:
Cases of a character sitting with legs nor spread nor together do not need a tag specific to that leg position because no one's gonna search for that
And the danger of letting legs apart apply to other positions is that it will result in it becoming basically a clone of spread legs because most uploaders will not care where the delineation is between the two and they will just tag one or the other at random
We could make a thorougly made wiki page with clean examples that would help users (just like the great off-shoulder dress page for example) to tag properly. Spread legs could be exclusive to displaying privates or having a wide angle.
It has already been tagged for sitting position as it can seem 'natural' to tag it this way. Shouldn't we fix the wiki as it's being used instead of struggling to enforce the standing position, creating more bad tagging because the wiki is very basic and doing so only because it is not a popular search ?
glousk said:
We could make a thorougly made wiki page with clean examples that would help users (just like the great off-shoulder dress page for example) to tag properly. Spread legs could be exclusive to displaying privates or having a wide angle.
It has already been tagged for sitting position as it can seem 'natural' to tag it this way. Shouldn't we fix the wiki as it's being used instead of struggling to enforce the standing position, creating more bad tagging because the wiki is very basic and doing so only because it is not a popular search ?
When i said that most uploaders will not care where the delineation is, i meant that they will not read the wiki regardless of the modifications made to it. Only a minority of people do that unfortunately.
So that means the change of usage of the tag will basically operate on people seeing the tag even more present on non-standing characters, then start following with only a handful reading the wiki, and from there the mistags will transform from the occasional "legs_apart on non-standing character" to "legs apart getting tagged when spread legs should be instead", and vice-versa, to a much higher volume, and from there it will be even harder to clean.
I'm not saying it's completely impossible to make it work, but if that change is to be made, there has to be more proactive/effective measures than just a wiki edit
Calling on someone who has seen Yu-gi-oh GX to confirm whether or not the human version of Yubel is 1girl, 1boy, or 1other and update the wiki with that information. The English wiki refers to the character as a female but they also refer to the completely androgynous duel monster form as such because the dub changed that version of the character to be female. As such I am unsure if the human version of the character is actually 1girl.
post #525780, post #295391, post #1083249, post #8593661, and post #8116429
These are a few examples of the currently inconsistently tagged "Human Yubel" if someone more in the know could update the wiki on how to refer to them it would be most appreciated.
hair ornament description is wrong regarding the "strictly decorative" part.
If you take the tags that implicate it into account, for example a hair scrunchie or a hairclip, the description can be incompatible.
I think the description should be edited to be more permissive or we could unimply and fix the mistagged posts.