tag alias parts_exposed -> exposed_parts

BUR #2287 has been approved by @evazion.

create alias parts_exposed -> mechanical_parts
create alias robotic_parts -> mechanical_parts
create alias cybernetic_parts -> mechanical_parts

Reason: Standardizing with all other exposed_* tags.

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

EDIT: This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2287 (forum #163197) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

EDIT: The bulk update request #2287 (forum #163197) has been approved by @evazion.

The "parts exposed" wording has always seemed a bit odd to me, so I don't have a problem with aliasing it.

I'm inclined to agree with the mechanical_parts implication, as the two tags are very similar in spirit, but there is one slight problem: mechanical_parts seems to be restricted to androids and cyborgs. Its definition specifically excludes mecha and nonhumanoid robots like post #577854 and post #3714986. Creating this implication would require us to either apply the same restrictions to exposed_parts or relax the definition of mechanical_parts to permit "parts" that aren't humanoid body parts.

iridescent_slime said:

The "parts exposed" wording has always seemed a bit odd to me, so I don't have a problem with aliasing it.

I'm inclined to agree with the mechanical_parts implication, as the two tags are very similar in spirit, but there is one slight problem: mechanical_parts seems to be restricted to androids and cyborgs. Its definition specifically excludes mecha and nonhumanoid robots like post #577854 and post #3714986. Creating this implication would require us to either apply the same restrictions to exposed_parts or relax the definition of mechanical_parts to permit "parts" that aren't humanoid body parts.

I think it's better to do the latter - one can always exclude mecha with "-mecha" or "-no_humans". The tag name is already ambiguous enough that we'd have to reword it otherwise. Just for the record, the pixiv tag associated with parts exposed (メカバレ) doesn't seem to discriminate, as just by casually browsing through pages I can see a bunch of examples of mecha in it.

nonamethanks said:

I think it's better to do the latter - one can always exclude mecha with "-mecha" or "-no_humans". The tag name is already ambiguous enough that we'd have to reword it otherwise. Just for the record, the pixiv tag associated with parts exposed (メカバレ) doesn't seem to discriminate, as just by casually browsing through pages I can see a bunch of examples of mecha in it.

This makes more sense to me too. Making mechanical_parts a bit more inclusive won't be too detrimental for search, I hope.

One final thought: aliasing parts_exposed to exposed_mechanisms instead might make the purpose of the tag a bit more clear. It may not be immediately obvious that the parts in exposed_parts specifically means mechanical parts.

iridescent_slime said:

This makes more sense to me too. Making mechanical_parts a bit more inclusive won't be too detrimental for search, I hope.

One final thought: aliasing parts_exposed to exposed_mechanisms instead might make the purpose of the tag a bit more clear. It may not be immediately obvious that the parts in exposed_parts specifically means mechanical parts.

What about exposed_mechanical_parts, to stay consistent with the implied tag? It's also consistent with the other mechanical_* tags we have.

nonamethanks said:

What about exposed_mechanical_parts, to stay consistent with the implied tag? It's also consistent with the other mechanical_* tags we have.

It's a bit wordy, but it's consistent and clear. +1

Updated the BUR.

I don't see a significant enough difference between parts exposed and mechanical parts to warrant having two tags. Judging by the wiki history, the author of mechanical parts didn't know about parts exposed when he wrote the mechanical parts wiki, so I would take any distinction between the two with a grain of salt.

If we were to merge them, do we want posts like post #3789792, post #3685393 and post #3626975 in the tag then?

Given the discussion in topic #16586, should the tag just be changed to exposed mechanical parts and merged with parts exposed, and the original mechanical parts be left as a disambiguation do-not-use page?

nonamethanks said:

If we were to merge them, do we want posts like post #3789792, post #3685393 and post #3626975 in the tag then?

IMHO:

• The first post should have rigging instead of mechanical_parts.
• The second is iffy. Currently the definition of rigging is KC exclusive, but I think it's past due to remove that restriction. Visually, its the same thing (hip-mounted machinery of unclear operation and interface), so ought to be tagged the same.
• The third pic should not be tagged mechanical anything. I had to look at other posts of the character to figure out why it was tagged so in the first place, which violates "tag what you see, not what you know". Instead, that post and most others of that character should be tagged with prosthetic_leg.

Bumping because I just discovered the existence of undefined cybernetic_parts and robotic_parts tags as well. Aren't these also redundant to mechanical_parts (and possibly parts_exposed)?

I agree with evazion and Arcana55, I have edited the request to be a bulk alias of those tags and the ones @iridescent_slime listed to mechanical parts.
There really isn't any difference visually speaking between cybernetic, robotic and generically mechanical parts (mostly because anything of that sort is mechanical by definition).

Once they're merged we can sort out the various prosthetics and decide whether mechanical_parts should be separated from other mechanical_* tags or be an umbrella tag for all of them (currently it's a mix, I'd rather have a way to search for mechanical parts that are not limbs etc but some major cleanup has to be done regardless).

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

This bulk update request has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The bulk update request #2287 (forum #163197) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

The bulk update request #2287 (forum #163197) has been approved by @evazion.