Topic: [APPROVED] create implication young_GENDER -> young

The bulk update request #5983 is active.

create implication young_male (86234) -> young (289764)
create implication young_male (86234) -> male (3094664)
create implication young_female (62632) -> young (289764)
create implication young_female (62632) -> female (3090367)
create implication young_intersex (1844) -> young (289764)
create implication young_intersex (1844) -> intersex (307889)
create implication young_gynomorph (725) -> young_intersex (1844)
create implication young_gynomorph (725) -> gynomorph (241165)
create implication young_andromorph (780) -> young_intersex (1844)
create implication young_andromorph (780) -> andromorph (31036)
create implication young_herm (199) -> young_intersex (1844)
create implication young_herm (199) -> herm (31173)
create implication young_maleherm (80) -> young_intersex (1844)
create implication young_maleherm (80) -> maleherm (7691)
create implication young_ambiguous (6714) -> young (289764)
create implication young_ambiguous (6714) -> ambiguous_gender (395037)

Reason: We already have young_FORM implications

forum #368468 implies loli and shota, which we would like to avoid before a cleanup

forum #372975 is missing a few lines

EDIT: The bulk update request #5983 (forum #383514) has been approved by @slyroon.

And my aliases? Is that gonna stay? If someone wants to make a better one i'll self reject it.

With both young_FORM and young_GENDER existing, I think young_ambiguous should become and invalid tag. young_ambiguous_gender or young_ambiguous_form should be used instead. (young specificity of ambiguous_gender and ambiguous_form, respectively )
You may consider using young_ambiguous and young_ambiguous_form, however this created ambiguity that could easily be avoided.

At this time, young_ambiguous does not have a wiki definition. ambiguous on its own is not a valid tag, so I think we should avoid prefixing young_ onto tags that cannot stand on their own.

EDIT:
The format for ambiguous_gender tags, as seen by ambiguous_penetrating, ambiguous_penetrated, ambiguous_on_human, etc. implies that the tag for young_ambiguous -> ambiguous_young, although that isn't very searchable with the autocomplete.

catt0s said:
With both young_FORM and young_GENDER existing, I think young_ambiguous should become and invalid tag. young_ambiguous_gender or young_ambiguous_form should be used instead. (young specificity of ambiguous_gender and ambiguous_form, respectively )
You may consider using young_ambiguous and young_ambiguous_form, however this created ambiguity that could easily be avoided.

At this time, young_ambiguous does not have a wiki definition. ambiguous on its own is not a valid tag, so I think we should avoid prefixing young_ onto tags that cannot stand on their own.

Avoiding prefixing tags that can't stand on their own will discard a lot of tags, we shorten it to match the rest of the tags in the same category - *_ambiguous / ambiguous_* is used in many tags just fine. We don't have or need ambiguous form tags like this, so there should be no overlap.
Quite a number of tags that are used frequently have no wiki, that isn't a reason to discard the tag either.

catt0s said:
The format for ambiguous_gender tags, as seen by ambiguous_penetrating, ambiguous_penetrated, ambiguous_on_human, etc. implies that the tag for young_ambiguous -> ambiguous_young, although that isn't very searchable with the autocomplete.

Both formats exist, each has their use.

<adjective>_ambiguous

ambiguous_<noun>

Young is being used as an adjective here, thus young ambiguous is the correct form.

catt0s said:

quote

With both young_FORM and young_GENDER existing, I think young_ambiguous should become and invalid tag. young_ambiguous_gender or young_ambiguous_form should be used instead. (young specificity of ambiguous_gender and ambiguous_form, respectively )
You may consider using young_ambiguous and young_ambiguous_form, however this created ambiguity that could easily be avoided.

At this time, young_ambiguous does not have a wiki definition. ambiguous on its own is not a valid tag, so I think we should avoid prefixing young_ onto tags that cannot stand on their own.

EDIT:
The format for ambiguous_gender tags, as seen by ambiguous_penetrating, ambiguous_penetrated, ambiguous_on_human, etc. implies that the tag for young_ambiguous -> ambiguous_young, although that isn't very searchable with the autocomplete.

ambiguous_form is kinda not even a real form tag since it can't be applied to a character who's fully visible. also, in any case where the tag _would_ apply it'd likely be impossible to determine a character's age.

hmm, sounds like it isn't the solution, but some kind of corner case tag would still be good to have

catt0s said:

quote

With both young_FORM and young_GENDER existing, I think young_ambiguous should become and invalid tag. young_ambiguous_gender or young_ambiguous_form should be used instead. (young specificity of ambiguous_gender and ambiguous_form, respectively )
You may consider using young_ambiguous and young_ambiguous_form, however this created ambiguity that could easily be avoided.

At this time, young_ambiguous does not have a wiki definition. ambiguous on its own is not a valid tag, so I think we should avoid prefixing young_ onto tags that cannot stand on their own.

EDIT:
The format for ambiguous_gender tags, as seen by ambiguous_penetrating, ambiguous_penetrated, ambiguous_on_human, etc. implies that the tag for young_ambiguous -> ambiguous_young, although that isn't very searchable with the autocomplete.

I've been using it for young_ambiguous (gender) so I see your reasoning. Perhaps keeping young_ambiguous, and adding young_ambiguous_(form)? Alias young_ambiguous to young_ambiguous_gender to stay consistent with ambiguous_gender? Yeah, if male leads to young_male and female leads to young_female, then ambiguous_gender shouldn't lead to young_ambiguous but young_ambiguous_gender.

Rule of least surprise applies? Thinking from POV of a user trying to search for tag. There isn't a whole lot to go through for the edge cases, I guess.
young_ambiguous -ambiguous_gender
young_ambiguous ambiguous_species
young_ambiguous ambiguous_form

alphamule said:
I've been using it for young_ambiguous (gender) so I see your reasoning. Perhaps keeping young_ambiguous, and adding young_ambiguous_(form)? Alias young_ambiguous to young_ambiguous_gender to stay consistent with ambiguous_gender? Yeah, if male leads to young_male and female leads to young_female, then ambiguous_gender shouldn't lead to young_ambiguous but young_ambiguous_gender.

Rule of least surprise applies? Thinking from POV of a user trying to search or tag.

young_ambiguous_(form) makes it sound like a character owned by form - at one point it was suggested we use young_miscellaneous_form since it would actually fir better, since the form isn't truly "ambiguous"

My main reasoning for wanting a tag for this role is so that finding posts with incomplete tags would be easier - ie young alone without a form/gender is incomplete, but if you do not have a tag to fulfill this role, young will be a mix of posts that are both unable to be tagged with one of the form tags, or will be actually missing tags.

catt0s said:
young_ambiguous_(form) makes it sound like a character owned by form - at one point it was suggested we use young_miscellaneous_form since it would actually fir better, since the form isn't truly "ambiguous"

My main reasoning for wanting a tag for this role is so that finding posts with incomplete tags would be easier - ie young alone without a form/gender is incomplete, but if you do not have a tag to fulfill this role, young will be a mix of posts that are both unable to be tagged with one of the form tags, or will be actually missing tags.

https://e621.net/tags?commit=Search&search%5Bhide_empty%5D=1&search%5Bname_matches%5D=%2A_ambiguous&search%5Border%5D=count There's a lot of tags like this.

We'll figure that out with the miscellaneous_form thing, later?

I guess these should all be equivalent to these longer tags:
young_ambiguous ambiguous_gender (most of the results)

young_ambiguous ambiguous_species (2 results)
post #2580634 Only the adult is ambiguous_species.
post #2235734 Not sure.

young_ambiguous ambiguous_form (0 results)

young_ambiguous -ambiguous_gender Cleaned these up. Seems all of them were ambiguous_gender.

catt0s said:
young_ambiguous_(form) makes it sound like a character owned by form - at one point it was suggested we use young_miscellaneous_form since it would actually fir better, since the form isn't truly "ambiguous"

My main reasoning for wanting a tag for this role is so that finding posts with incomplete tags would be easier - ie young alone without a form/gender is incomplete, but if you do not have a tag to fulfill this role, young will be a mix of posts that are both unable to be tagged with one of the form tags, or will be actually missing tags.

I wouldn't be opposed to miscellaneous_form in concept, but at the same time, maybe we should consider expanding some the form tags we have.

like, currently we have seven gender tags that should be able to be applied to every single character on the site with no exceptions, and the categories are about as fundamental as you can get while staying within TWYS. but form, which probably holds about the same weight when describing a character, has quite a few gaps. I feel like we should at least try to patch some of these gaps before resorting to tossing all of them into the the misc. pile.

Can we get this approved? I've been waiting this to be done before starting a proper discussion on what to do with loli/shota.

pleaseletmein said:
Can we get this approved? I've been waiting this to be done before starting a proper discussion on what to do with loli/shota.

I agree it's very important to get these approved if they're going to exist - ~young_male ~young_female ~young_intersex ~young_herm ~young_andromorph ~young_gynomorph ~young_ambiguous -young currently returns 33 results, and it should be of utmost importance to make sure that the young tag is being implied to these posts.

I wondering about young and young ambiguous Wiki entry edits made by maplebytes. Some entries say "gender" and others say "sex". I thought we didn't use the term sex for that, on this site, for tagging purposes. Hmm, could have sworn I made an edit to young but it must have been one of the others. I figured this was the relevant topic and maplebytes followed it.

It was one of these I think:
cub_male/cub_on_adult/cub_fingered/male/cub/teen/cub/adult/cub/toddler/ambiguous fingering
Toddler has the closest language and formatting to the young article. That's likely why I was thinking that.

The bulk update request #5983 (forum #383514) has been approved by @slyroon.