Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The tag implication #71929 ninetales -> fox has been rejected.
Reason: They're foxes, designed as such. Source here.
If successful it'd also be nice to alias vulpix, alolan_vulpix, and alolan_ninetales to fox too.
EDIT: The tag implication ninetales -> fox (forum #485504) has been rejected by @NullFoxIE.
Updated by auto moderator
As soon as somebody draws a Cat o' Ninetales, or a horse ninetales, or literally anything else that does not have the specific features of a fox (multi_tail is not exclusive to them!) this immediately becomes invalid.
Pokemon can be drawn as alternate_species and still be recognizable as that Pokemon, so I don't think an implication works and should be tagged on a case by case basis.
For Vulpix that's a bit scarce, but if we applied this to other more popular Pokemon, there would definitely be problems.
https://e621.net/posts?tags=ninetales+-fox
https://e621.net/posts?tags=ninetales+fox
The alternative is this, where roughly 70-80% of posts are missing a major species tag. Adding 'fox' to roughly 3,750* posts manually isn't doable and it's a much bigger issue than alternate-species ninetales being mis-tagged. Worst case, imply it and then remove the implication to give those ~3.7k posts the tag?
Updated
lafcadio said:
As soon as somebody draws a Cat o' Ninetales, or a horse ninetales, or literally anything else that does not have the specific features of a fox (multi_tail is not exclusive to them!) this immediately becomes invalid.
While true, roughly 3,750 posts are missing the 'fox' tag when they should have it. That's not something easy to fix. Compared to the very small handful of alternate-species ninetales posts (which you can explicitly blacklist or search for) it's a bigger issue. Creating and deleting the implication adds it to these posts and the handful of exceptions can be manually fixed much easier than trying to add a tag to 3.7k separate posts.
Updated
nullfoxie said:
While true, roughly 3,750 posts are missing the 'fox' tag when they should have it. That's not something easy to fix. Compared to the very small handful of alternate-species ninetales posts (which you can explicitly blacklist or search for) it's a bigger issue. Creating and deleting the implication adds it to these posts and the handful of exceptions can be manually fixed much easier than trying to add a tag to 3.7k separate posts.
It doesn't matter if it's not easy to fix, fixing it is the only option.
nullfoxie said:
While true, roughly 3,750 posts are missing the 'fox' tag when they should have it. That's not something easy to fix. Compared to the very small handful of alternate-species ninetales posts (which you can explicitly blacklist or search for) it's a bigger issue. Creating and deleting the implication adds it to these posts and the handful of exceptions can be manually fixed much easier than trying to add a tag to 3.7k separate posts.
If you're very eager about this, I can help you with adding fox because it's much easier for me to mass add tags.
Or alternatively you can make your own project here. https://tagme.dev/
nullfoxie said:
https://e621.net/posts?tags=ninetales+-fox
https://e621.net/posts?tags=ninetales+foxThe alternative is this, where roughly 70-80% of posts are missing a major species tag. Adding 'fox' to roughly 3,750* posts manually isn't doable and it's a much bigger issue than alternate-species ninetales being mis-tagged. Worst case, imply it and then remove the implication to give those ~3.7k posts the tag?
- 3.7k is the rough estimate. 250 posts per page, 15 pages without the tag.
I mean, it really is not that hard to add tags to posts, even a few thousand
Just create a https://tagme.dev project, you can make 150 edits in an hour, and if you can convince a privileged user to jump on it they can do unlimited edits
Creating an implication just to remove it should never be done, either the implication is valid 100% of the time and should be kept, or it isn't and it shouldn't be created
Tag scripting and general scripting can mass apply tags to posts, but mistagging posts is explicitly against the rules, and recklessly tagging posts would fall under that
donovan_dmc said:
I mean, it really is not that hard to add tags to posts, even a few thousand
Just create a https://tagme.dev project, you can make 150 edits in an hour, and if you can convince a privileged user to jump on it they can do unlimited editsCreating an implication just to remove it should never be done, either the implication is valid 100% of the time and should be kept, or it isn't and it shouldn't be created
Tag scripting and general scripting can mass apply tags to posts, but mistagging posts is explicitly against the rules, and recklessly tagging posts would fall under that
Okay. That solves it too, then, I guess this post can be deleted outright? It's about something else then!
Edit: Nevermind, I can't make my own project.
nullfoxie said:
Okay. That solves it too, then, I guess this post can be deleted outright? It's about something else then!
You can reject your request from here!
implication #71929
coffeeco said:
You can reject your request from here!
implication #71929
I might still need another solution, I can't create the necessary tagme project and none of the existing ones match either.
Oh, would you mind doing it? I'll reject it now, I guess, and if you don't want to I wonder if I'm allowed to ask others to?
The tag implication ninetales -> fox (forum #485504) has been rejected by @NullFoxIE.
nullfoxie said:
Oh, would you mind doing it? I'll reject it now, I guess, and if you don't want to I wonder if I'm allowed to ask others to?
Others cannot reject them on your behalf (with exception of staff members).
ruppari said:
Others cannot reject them on your behalf (with exception of staff members).
Oh, I meant creating the tagme.dev project for it. I can't. I actually can't even contribute to them either! I gotta' do it manually, the project's mostly just so other people can help either way.
nullfoxie said:
I might still need another solution, I can't create the necessary tagme project and none of the existing ones match either.Oh, would you mind doing it? I'll reject it now, I guess, and if you don't want to I wonder if I'm allowed to ask others to?
What do you mean by not being able to create the project? Do you get an error or simply don't know how to create a new one?
coffeeco said:
What do you mean by not being able to create the project? Do you get an error or simply don't know how to create a new one?
You need some number of tag edits to be able to create a project, iirc it's 1000
Got sniped
To prevent spam and ensure higher quality tagging, only users with 100 manual post edits can resolve projects.
Additionally, once you reach 1000 edits, you may create your own tagging projects with this utility.
nullfoxie said:
It requires 1k edits, I have... uh... 37. So I'm not allowed to make tagme.dev projects. Or contribute to them. See here
Interesting.
Also there you go! https://tagme.dev/projects/ninetalesfox/
donovan_dmc said:
You need some number of tag edits to be able to create a project, iirc it's 1000Got sniped
People are surely active on this thread...
coffeeco said:
Interesting.
Also there you go! https://tagme.dev/projects/ninetalesfox/
Thank you!
nullfoxie said:
It requires 1k edits, I have... uh... 37. So I'm not allowed to make tagme.dev projects. Or contribute to them. See here
Huh, unless I'm misreading, your bio says you have only made 14 post changes so far.
donovan_dmc said:
To prevent spam and ensure higher quality tagging, only users with 100 manual post edits can resolve projects.
Additionally, once you reach 1000 edits, you may create your own tagging projects with this utility.
I guess you have to edit more to even use the project. :(
nullfoxie said:
While true, roughly 3,750 posts are missing the 'fox' tag when they should have it. That's not something easy to fix. Compared to the very small handful of alternate-species ninetales posts (which you can explicitly blacklist or search for) it's a bigger issue. Creating and deleting the implication adds it to these posts and the handful of exceptions can be manually fixed much easier than trying to add a tag to 3.7k separate posts.
Being someone who uploads lots of a fox-like Pokemon, I've looked into how Pokemon "should" be tagged. I think the consensus is that fictional species based on real ones should be tagged with their fictional species plus a very broad real-life genus (or whatever it's called), like 'ninetales canid' rather than 'ninetales fox'. Also consider digitigrade, quadruped, feral and anthro equivalents etc.
I tagged 'fox' on Braixen posts when I was starting out but it often got removed since it's not a "real fox".
braixenarchivist said:
Being someone who uploads lots of a fox-like Pokemon, I've looked into how Pokemon "should" be tagged. I think the consensus is that fictional species based on real ones should be tagged with their fictional species plus a very broad real-life genus (or whatever it's called), like 'ninetales canid' rather than 'ninetales fox'. Also consider digitigrade, quadruped, feral and anthro equivalents etc.I tagged 'fox' on Braixen posts when I was starting out but it often got removed since it's not a "real fox".
Oops, then I'll undo my edits. Thank you for the heads-up!
braixenarchivist said:
Being someone who uploads lots of a fox-like Pokemon, I've looked into how Pokemon "should" be tagged. I think the consensus is that fictional species based on real ones should be tagged with their fictional species plus a very broad real-life genus (or whatever it's called), like 'ninetales canid' rather than 'ninetales fox'. Also consider digitigrade, quadruped, feral and anthro equivalents etc.I tagged 'fox' on Braixen posts when I was starting out but it often got removed since it's not a "real fox".
There are ~1k posts that tag both, and most iterations of tagging both fox and ninetales are fairly recent. It's intuitive TWYS-wise, and I'd argue, it's a better policy anyway - see here and here for examples of how it might be superior to tag both. Like, would I really not want to see a Thievul, when searching fox? It doesn't matter if they're a 'true fox' or not, see here! In fact, that tag exists because not all foxes are true foxes, ie. grey foxes and are still tagged fox because the alternative is preventing people from seeing what they want to see under the tagging system.
There are enough posts in either direction that it's an undertaking to change it either way, and many more examples where TWYS took users towards the "wrong" (I'd argue, 'right') conclusion regarding tagging genus...
I'll hold off on tagging more until it's made obvious but idk why I wouldn't want ninetales or renamon or wixen to be included in a search for 'fox' and, in fact, a lot of reasons I would.
Updated
