Mechabare and the sorry state of mechanical_parts

BUR #26630 has been rejected.

remove alias mechabare -> mechanical_parts
create implication mechabare -> mechanical_parts
create alias mechanical_parts_focus -> mechabare

According to the mechanical parts wiki:

Do not use this tag for:

• Actual robots or mecha.
• Simple robot seam lines, robot joints or doll joints.
• Conventional machines, devices, appliances, or parts.

I would point to some posts that go against this rule, but, just take a gander at mechanical_parts. Maybe more than half of them aren't right, especially with that second rule. Some are barely mechanical at all and some are pretty much indistinguishable from a weird article of clothing. @Flopsy and I have tried gardening it a few times, but there's too many and it keeps happening. I'll try to be charitable and not speak ill of my fellow contributors to the great cardboard box, so let's blame it on the ambiguous tag name.

I say we not fight fate and just let mechanical parts go the way it's gone, and repurpose mechabare to be actually for the aesthetic and/or sexual interest of characters with distinct mechanical inner workings.

I wouldn't know what "mechabare" means if I hadn't read this thread.
Couldn't we just call it exposed mechanical parts?

I also think mechanical parts should be deprecated based on current use.

gfz said:

I wouldn't know what "mechabare" means if I hadn't read this thread.
Couldn't we just call it exposed mechanical parts?

I also think mechanical parts should be deprecated based on current use.

Picking a term that wasn't as common, I hoped would reduce the amount of false positives.

Like mouth?

mechanical parts used to be called parts exposed before they were aliased together. We even considered exposed mechanical parts originally (forum #163208) but ended up just aliasing together the two terms because there was no difference in usage. I agree though that we need a specific tag for internal components of a cyborg/android, that stuff is impossible to search right now.

I think the biggest issue here is what exactly counts as an internal component because based on vibes I would say things like post #7630341 and post #226070 qualify, but post #109628 doesn't, but I couldn't explain objectively why I'm making that distinction.

I'm going to start manually clearing out the most obvious mistags in mechanical parts and maybe we can get it nice enough to do a mass update to a better term.

gfz said:

I think the biggest issue here is what exactly counts as an internal component because based on vibes I would say things like post #7630341 and post #226070 qualify, but post #109628 doesn't, but I couldn't explain objectively why I'm making that distinction.

From your examples, two describable distinctions appear to me:

• Whether the exposed parts look like they were intended to be externally visible. Maybe that's not entirely objective, but I think it would be well enough defined to tag if there's a consensus on that being the distinction. Your non-qualifying example has parts with a certain polish and sleekness that indicates external parts, whereas "mechabare" (as far as I understand it) involves normally hidden/internal parts exposed by damage or disassembly, for example. It's pretty obvious in cases like an android girl (itou) pic where the damage/disassembly is visible, but in subtler cases you could view it as a departure from a humanoid appearance -- It follows that it only applies where the character is otherwise mostly humanoid, because full-on robots don't count either. If the character has something resembling skin and you can see what's under it (or something sticking out of it), parts are exposed. Edit: Also, a mechanical part that resembles a human internal organ or replaces the function of one would probably count as exposed even if it looks like it was meant to be on the outside, because it's something you'd normally expect to be internal.

• Whether the parts reveal mechanical workings. Not totally sure how to word it, but going back to your examples: Your counter-example has clearly non-organic parts but there are no mechanisms visible. In contrast, depictions of tubes, gears, motors, wires, etc. have a more "mechanical" aesthetic.

BUR #27117 has been rejected.

remove alias cybernetic_parts -> mechanical_parts
remove alias mechabare -> mechanical_parts
remove alias parts_exposed -> mechanical_parts
remove alias robotic_parts -> mechanical_parts
mass update mechanical_parts -> mechabare
deprecate mechanical_parts
nuke mechanical_parts
create alias mechanical_organs -> mechabare
create alias cybernetic_parts -> cyborg
deprecate parts_exposed

I'm late to this party, and I honestly haven't been doing much with mechanical_parts, but since I was pinged I'll offer my opinion on the future of this tag. Regarding the tag definition, I mostly agree with the other participants. IMO the tag should include only posts that satisfy all the following criteria:

• The subject that has their parts exposed is a humanoid/person (android, cyborg, etc.). This excludes all impersonal machines, like cars and piloted mecha (unless they have minds of their own).
• The exposed parts are clearly mechanical in nature (not biological) and reveal the inner workings of the subject (e.g. post #7569997). This excludes neat robot_joints and seam lines, as well as accessory-like external parts like robot_ears.
• The degree of exposure is unusual, due to damage, peaceful disassembly or an inherently revealing design (e.g. post #2241230).

As for the name of the tag, I believe that any sufficiently unambiguous descriptive name would be way too clumsy (e.g. unusually_exposed_mechanical_humanoid_parts). A non-descriptive name that is unlikely to be misunderstood is a better alternative. I'm tentatively in favor of mechabare, since it's apparently a somewhat established term for the concept.

Keeping mechanical_parts as a superset of mechabare doesn't look like a good idea to me. It's likely to become a low-value, inconsistently applied filler tag. Based on my quick look through the first few pages, the current mechanical_parts looks salvageable (due to the efforts of gfz?), so I'm in favor of a rename instead of an implication. If other users see value in keeping a more general mechanical_parts, then I'm open to that as well.

The attached BUR is intended to implement what I'm proposing. First removing some ambiguous aliases, then replacing mechanical_parts with mechabare.

Flopsy said:

BUR #27117 has been rejected.

remove alias cybernetic_parts -> mechanical_parts
remove alias mechabare -> mechanical_parts
remove alias parts_exposed -> mechanical_parts
remove alias robotic_parts -> mechanical_parts
mass update mechanical_parts -> mechabare
deprecate mechanical_parts
nuke mechanical_parts
create alias mechanical_organs -> mechabare
create alias cybernetic_parts -> cyborg
deprecate parts_exposed

If we use a jargon term that would have logical english naming we at least alias recognizable terms to the jargon term. Just leaving it at the jargon "mechabare" which is entirely non-self evident with no assist alias will mean only the most niche of users will know what the tag is or use the tag.

GreyOmega said:

If we use a jargon term that would have logical english naming we at least alias recognizable terms to the jargon term. Just leaving it at the jargon "mechabare" which is entirely non-self evident with no assist alias will mean only the most niche of users will know what the tag is or use the tag.

The way I see it, it's better to have a tag that is niche than one that is mere filler signifying nothing. Whatever the intent of people who tag parts_exposed or robotic_parts without checking the wiki might be, it's unlikely to match our definition of mechabare. When the deprecated tags are rejected, uploaders will either just leave them off or go look for appropriate established tags to use. Either option is preferable to another tag becoming diluted into uselessness. Non-self-evident tag names are features when they prevent mistagging. "Self-evident" tag names are bugs when their self-evident meaning depends on who's doing the tagging.

Upvoted the BUR because I think it would be better than the status quo, and I agree with Flopsy's reasoning. It would be nice if we had some way to make it more discoverable, though.

How about mechanical_organs as an alias? Just throwing an idea out there. It may not be fully descriptive but I think it would be a lot harder to mistake for external stuff than "parts" (people seeing the word "organs" usually think of internal ones) and would let mechabare show up in a mechanical_* autocomplete.

"Mekabare" definitely seems like an established term in Japanese -- at least within the relevant subculture(s) -- but as far as English speakers go, to give one example, I'm pretty sure I learned it from itou's commentary and if I didn't know any Japanese I doubt I would be familiar with the term.

That's a quite good plain English tag name, actually. The "mechanical_" prefix is helpful, as you point out, and I also agree with your argument about the connotations of "organs". I've added the mechanical_organs alias to my BUR. I'd even be open to making mechabare the alias, my main concern there is that much of what would go under the proposed mechabare (cables, PCBs, etc.) doesn't resemble biological organs.

If we did go with mechabare, it wouldn't be the first time we adopt Japanese jargon for a concept, so I'm not very concerned about that.

Yeah, mechabare still feels better as the main tag. Like you said, having to check the wiki if you don't know it is a feature, and "mechanical organs" wouldn't fully/unambiguously explain it. It just needs to be easier to find.

Some name with "exposed" in it might still be nice too, but I can't think of a good one.

Flopsy said:

BUR #27117 has been rejected.

remove alias cybernetic_parts -> mechanical_parts
remove alias mechabare -> mechanical_parts
remove alias parts_exposed -> mechanical_parts
remove alias robotic_parts -> mechanical_parts
mass update mechanical_parts -> mechabare
deprecate mechanical_parts
nuke mechanical_parts
create alias mechanical_organs -> mechabare
create alias cybernetic_parts -> cyborg
deprecate parts_exposed

I'm late to this party, and I honestly haven't been doing much with mechanical_parts, but since I was pinged I'll offer my opinion on the future of this tag. Regarding the tag definition, I mostly agree with the other participants. IMO the tag should include only posts that satisfy all the following criteria:

• The subject that has their parts exposed is a humanoid/person (android, cyborg, etc.). This excludes all impersonal machines, like cars and piloted mecha (unless they have minds of their own).
• The exposed parts are clearly mechanical in nature (not biological) and reveal the inner workings of the subject (e.g. post #7569997). This excludes neat robot_joints and seam lines, as well as accessory-like external parts like robot_ears.
• The degree of exposure is unusual, due to damage, peaceful disassembly or an inherently revealing design (e.g. post #2241230).

As for the name of the tag, I believe that any sufficiently unambiguous descriptive name would be way too clumsy (e.g. unusually_exposed_mechanical_humanoid_parts). A non-descriptive name that is unlikely to be misunderstood is a better alternative. I'm tentatively in favor of mechabare, since it's apparently a somewhat established term for the concept.

Keeping mechanical_parts as a superset of mechabare doesn't look like a good idea to me. It's likely to become a low-value, inconsistently applied filler tag. Based on my quick look through the first few pages, the current mechanical_parts looks salvageable (due to the efforts of gfz?), so I'm in favor of a rename instead of an implication. If other users see value in keeping a more general mechanical_parts, then I'm open to that as well.

The attached BUR is intended to implement what I'm proposing. First removing some ambiguous aliases, then replacing mechanical_parts with mechabare.

Love this definition!

I still think if you're going to use a jargon term, you should at minimum have a non-jargon term aliased to it for ease of finding.

The underline part of the proposed definition is unnecessarily arbitrary: This excludes all impersonal machines, like cars and piloted mecha (unless they have minds of their own). You either have all piloted mecha or you have none. Drawing a line in the sand that cannot be visually distinguished from one side or the other serves no one any good. It draws a division between sentient mecha like Gundam Aerial or Chamber and non-sentient mecha like the RX-78-2 or KG-6 Sleipnir, but it is impossible to distinguish a difference between them.

GreyOmega said:

Drawing a line in the sand that cannot be visually distinguished from one side or the other serves no one any good. It draws a division between sentient mecha like Gundam Aerial or Chamber and non-sentient mecha like the RX-78-2 or KG-6 Sleipnir, but it is impossible to distinguish a difference between them.

It's very much a rule that has its origins in discourse outside of the website (one that's meant to both maintain the super robot/real robot distinction, and the distinction between manually operated mechs and alien sentient mechs that no one operates, practically giant cyborgs, i.e. Ougon Senshi Gold Lightan and Transformers), but that has no practical place on-site because as you said, they visually all look basically the same.

GreyOmega said:

I still think if you're going to use a jargon term, you should at minimum have a non-jargon term aliased to it for ease of finding.

The underline part of the proposed definition is unnecessarily arbitrary: This excludes all impersonal machines, like cars and piloted mecha (unless they have minds of their own). You either have all piloted mecha or you have none. Drawing a line in the sand that cannot be visually distinguished from one side or the other serves no one any good. It draws a division between sentient mecha like Gundam Aerial or Chamber and non-sentient mecha like the RX-78-2 or KG-6 Sleipnir, but it is impossible to distinguish a difference between them.

Yes, we're suggesting mechanical organs aliased to it.

I agree with the bit on mecha. Depicitons of mecha that are more robots than androids should be excluded regardless of outside knowledge.

GreyOmega said:

The underline part of the proposed definition is unnecessarily arbitrary: This excludes all impersonal machines, like cars and piloted mecha (unless they have minds of their own). You either have all piloted mecha or you have none. Drawing a line in the sand that cannot be visually distinguished from one side or the other serves no one any good. It draws a division between sentient mecha like Gundam Aerial or Chamber and non-sentient mecha like the RX-78-2 or KG-6 Sleipnir, but it is impossible to distinguish a difference between them.

You have a point about the exception for sentient mecha violating "tag what you see", if applied as canon tagging. However, it's also possible to treat it behavioristically, looking at whether the big hunk-a-junk is acting like a person (e.g. post #2990797, post #6172958) or just standing there waiting for someone to push its buttons (e.g. post #4606513, post #7655255). It seems reasonable to me to apply mechabare (in cases where it would otherwise apply) to what is effectively a large humanoid_robot, even though it canonically has a cockpit. The fact that it might be unclear whether it's a pilot or the mecha itself that is behaving is a fair argument to the contrary, I guess. It's not the end of the world to me either way.

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

Should cable hair on otherwise human characters be considered a mechanical parts post or is it not mecha enough?

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