Donmai

imply ;D -> :D

Posted under Tags

nanashi3

I'm not in favor of nuking.

Travley said:

bypass or circumvent

This kinda sounds like a joke, but anyway the line in the ToS obviously means "no hacky stuff" or spamming the API and does not specifically mention two-tag search; if it did, it would mean no passing the search limit i.e. using 3+, not reducing 2 to 1. If anything, an otherwise-two-tags tag reduces load from users with access to more than 2 tags search.

Does red rose bypass rose and red flower?

Updated

Reply
Travley

nanashi3 said:

~

Sadly, it only applies to copytags, like creating suzumiya_haruhiko_no_yuutsu cirvumvents suzumiya_haruhi_no_yuutsu and genderswap. There's no such case in gentags... Oh wait. It was UNB in forum #166553 saying to get rid of the colour_school_swimsuit tags since they are just a combination of school_swimsuit and colour_swimsuit tags.

Reply
nonamethanks

The reason we get rid of combo tags is so that we don't end up with an endless combination of overly specifiic tags like hand_on_left_knee or red_miniskirt, it's not an absolute policy. Above all you should use common sense, not try to apply it blindly.

Reply
nanashi3

If we nuke ;d we'll have to nuke all other ;* tags. If we implicate ;d to :d we'll have to implicate all other ;* tags to their :* forms.

I support the removal of implication xd to :d. They are totally different emoticons even if they "contain the D part of :D".

Understandably the color wheel has endless possible combinations/redundancy: number of nouns * number of colors. The ; does not have such level of endlessness.

Implication of ;* to :* is debatable... Seeing that it leads to more emoticons in a post's tag list plus "we have one eye closed", I can see why someone may prefer nuking it to implication.

Reply
Unbreakable

nanashi3 said:

If we nuke ;d we'll have to nuke all other ;* tags.[...]

[...]Understandably the color wheel has endless possible combinations/redundancy: number of nouns * number of colors. The ; does not have such level of endlessness.

Implication of ;* to :* is debatable... Seeing that it leads to more emoticons in a post's tag list plus "we have one eye closed", I can see why someone may prefer nuking it to implication.

This sums up my opinions as well, I don't see a good reason that the implication makes sense.

Reply
Nacha

blindVigil said:

The :d wiki explicitly says not to use it for a character that's winking, ;d is to be used instead. :d and ;d are not the same expression, if people aren't adding both, then they're using them as intended.

Wikis aren´t set in stone.

Reply
nonamethanks

blindVigil said:

The :d wiki explicitly says not to use it for a character that's winking, ;d is to be used instead. :d and ;d are not the same expression, if people aren't adding both, then they're using them as intended.

That edit was made in 2010. The 2k posts under :D one_eye_closed solo and :D ;D solo are proof enough that, as usual, wiki clauses mean nothing if they go against common sense.

What's funnier, look at :D closed_eyes. We have 8k posts under :D closed_eyes solo alone. Do we need a separate version of :D for two closed eyes too? Come on. It's the exact same expression.

Reply
blindVigil

Guaro1238 said:

Wikis aren´t set in stone.

Of course, but that wasn't my point. The original claim was, "people are using ;d in place of :d, instead of both together." My point being that of course they were, that's what the wiki says to do.

If people agree to changing the wiki, then sure we can do that, but as of right now, the tags are being used as intended.

nonamethanks said:

That edit was made in 2010. The 2k posts under :D one_eye_closed solo and :D ;D solo are proof enough that, as usual, wiki clauses mean nothing if they go against common sense.

What's funnier, look at :D closed_eyes. We have 8k posts under :D closed_eyes solo alone. Do we need a separate version of :D for two closed eyes too? Come on. It's the exact same expression.

There are 254k posts under :d, 35k posts under ;d and 6k under :d ;d, of which who knows how many are actually correctly tagged. I don't believe for a second that 2k examples of the tags being used contrary to how they were originally intended to be is significant proof of a major conflict with the tags' intended usages.

They're not the same expression. I'm sure the only reason a "closed eyes open mouth smile" tag doesn't exist is because there's no easy way to represent that under our tag name limitations. I bet closed eye emoticon tags would absolutely exist if it were possible. And in fact they do! What do you know!

Reply
nanashi3

Comparing top 4 :* tags that aren't :) or :(:

~:d ~:o ~:3 ~:< solo one_eye_closed (3173 posts)
~;d ~;o ~;3 ~;< solo one_eye_closed (20275 posts)

~:d ~:o ~:3 ~:< solo closed_eyes (10291 posts)
~:d ~:o ~:3 ~:< solo closed_eyes -xd (9696 posts)
~:d ~:o ~:3 ~:< solo closed_eyes ->_< (8858 posts)

~:d ~:o ~:3 ~:< solo -closed_eyes (199747 posts)

~:d ~:o ~:3 ~:< solo ^_^ (4742 posts)
~:d ~:o ~:3 ~:< solo >_< (1884 posts)
^_^ solo (10445 posts)
>_< solo (4894 posts)

|d and |3 are both uncommon and ugly tags. Nuke em. Most of them fall under ^_^. For the few whose eyes are actual horizontal lines, either that, too bad or =_= if seems fitting. The more "realistically drawn" closed eyes can just be closed_eyes.

nonamethanks said:

Do we need a separate version of :D for two closed eyes too?

Well no but we have a generic mouthed ^_^ and =_= that encapsulates :* tags with closed eyes. Being the filthy centrist I am, I am no longer against ;* implications.

Reply
1