Danbooru

Read the rules before proceeding!

Topic: Wiki Requests

Posted under General

Unbreakable

BrokenEagle98 said:

None AFAICT, except maybe the tagger didn't know about out_of_frame?

The tags are almost the same age, created with just 5 days difference. Out of frame is used on much more posts and have a wiki, should I submit an alias?

  • ID: 138975
  • Permalink
  • Unbreakable

    iridescent_slime said:

    I actually requested an alias way back in topic #13000. Should probably get around to cleaning it up sometime.

    Huh, you're right, I never checked before posting so I'll leave it up to you then.

  • ID: 138978
  • Permalink
  • poppoko

    iridescent_slime said:

    Is there a significant visual difference between fish sausage and kamaboko? @poppoko

    Fish sausage is wrapped in plastic sausage skin (usually transparent or red), and has pale pink color (JP Wikipedia).

    Kamaboko is made from whitefish so it is white naturally. It may be colored pink, but the pink color is vivid so is distinct from fish sausage (Wikipedia).

    Also, fish sausage is seldom if ever cut into thin slices, while kamaboko is frequently.

  • ID: 139015
  • Permalink
  • fossilnix

    Would it be OK to link to the Flash 9 archive in the flash wiki, since its stand-alone player the only way to view many of our flash posts, which won't load in modern versions of the plug-in?

  • ID: 139273
  • Permalink
  • ion288

    fossilnix said:

    Would it be OK to link to the Flash 9 archive in the flash wiki, since its stand-alone player the only way to view many of our flash posts, which won't load in modern versions of the plug-in?

    My question is should we keep the posts that requires a stand alone flash player. It does mean that members that want to garden tags need to install and learn to use a new program or more likely skip those posts.

    Should we put a warning on the flash wiki that the tags are not necessarily up to date?

  • ID: 139277
  • Permalink
  • BrokenEagle98

    fossilnix said:

    Would it be OK to link to the Flash 9 archive in the flash wiki, since its stand-alone player the only way to view many of our flash posts, which won't load in modern versions of the plug-in?

    Yes, though it may be even better to create a new tag to highlight these particular posts, and then post the link in the wiki of that tag. I'd like to propose either flash9, flash_9, or legacy_flash.

    ion288 said:

    My question is should we keep the posts that requires a stand alone flash player. It does mean that members that want to garden tags need to install and learn to use a new program or more likely skip those posts.

    Should we put a warning on the flash wiki that the tags are not necessarily up to date?

    Yes we should keep them just as we keep many legacy items. Also, posts that old are most likely sufficiently tagged, but if not, we could put a warning in the wiki that indicates that such posts are harder to tag and so may not necessarily be up to date.

  • ID: 139278
  • Permalink
  • fossilnix

    missing thumbnail doesn't have a wiki, despite being one of the official (meta)tags. I don't know all the details of the tag -- it's manually applied, yes? and somewhere on the forum, I remember reading something about the site automatically regenerating thumbnails of posts with this tag, is this true as well?

  • ID: 139291
  • Permalink
  • ion288

    fossilnix said:

    missing thumbnail doesn't have a wiki, despite being one of the official (meta)tags. I don't know all the details of the tag -- it's manually applied, yes? and somewhere on the forum, I remember reading something about the site automatically regenerating thumbnails of posts with this tag, is this true as well?

    There is pool #81 thats supposed to do that. Its marked as deleted though so I dont know if it still works.

  • ID: 139294
  • Permalink
  • EB

    On the wiki for floorplan:

    For top-down plans and cross-sections that look like architectural drawings, generally with no people, use blueprint instead.

    Most of what you get when you Google Image Search "floorplan" is what the wiki is saying not to use it for. There's also not really many of those kind of architectural images in "blueprint": it's more in the sense of blueprints for inventions, machines, etc. This doesn't feel intuitive at all. I see there's also a little-used layout plan tag. If we keep the current wiki definition of floorplan, perhaps it's better to redirect to that tag rather than blueprint?

  • ID: 139574
  • Permalink
  • ion288

    EB said:

    On the wiki for floorplan:

    Most of what you get when you Google Image Search "floorplan" is what the wiki is saying not to use it for. There's also not really many of those kind of architectural images in "blueprint": it's more in the sense of blueprints for inventions, machines, etc. This doesn't feel intuitive at all. I see there's also a little-used layout plan tag. If we keep the current wiki definition of floorplan, perhaps it's better to redirect to that tag rather than blueprint?

    Changed the wiki for now. Can you think of a better tag to describe whats currently in the flooorplan tag?

  • ID: 139579
  • Permalink
  • ghostrigger

    EB said:

    On the wiki for floorplan:

    Most of what you get when you Google Image Search "floorplan" is what the wiki is saying not to use it for. There's also not really many of those kind of architectural images in "blueprint": it's more in the sense of blueprints for inventions, machines, etc. This doesn't feel intuitive at all. I see there's also a little-used layout plan tag. If we keep the current wiki definition of floorplan, perhaps it's better to redirect to that tag rather than blueprint?

    would agree on this. this is not what commonly what one would expect when looking for a floorplan.

    ion288 said:

    Changed the wiki for now. Can you think of a better tag to describe whats currently in the flooorplan tag?

    just throwing an idea, do we need a specific tag for this? i would think we can replicate this, if tagged properly, using isometric cross-section or isometric interior/isometric indoors

  • ID: 139581
  • Permalink
  • EB

    I've gone ahead and re-tagged "blueprint" images with "layout plan" wherever it appeared appropriate.

    ghostrigger said:

    just throwing an idea, do we need a specific tag for this? i would think we can replicate this, if tagged properly, using isometric cross-section or isometric interior/isometric indoors

    If that is done, what would come of floorplan's usage? Alias to layout plan, or left empty with a wiki pointing to the other tags?

    Another thing I'm wondering (if it's been discussed before, I'm not finding anything right away), is indoors supposed to be a subset of interior? I assume not as the former has vastly more posts, but a lot of images currently tagged as "interior" seem redundant with "indoors".

  • ID: 139620
  • Permalink
  • nonamethanks

    EB said:

    I've gone ahead and re-tagged "blueprint" images with "layout plan" wherever it appeared appropriate.

    If that is done, what would come of floorplan's usage? Alias to layout plan, or left empty with a wiki pointing to the other tags?

    Another thing I'm wondering (if it's been discussed before, I'm not finding anything right away), is indoors supposed to be a subset of interior? I assume not as the former has vastly more posts, but a lot of images currently tagged as "interior" seem redundant with "indoors".

    Isn't interior for vehicles? The difference between it and indoors should be clear. If anything, interior would be a subset of indoors, but I don't think it should be so because vehicles are much smaller and should be handled differently than buildings.

  • ID: 139621
  • Permalink
  • ghostrigger

    EB said:

    ...
    If that is done, what would come of floorplan's usage? Alias to layout plan, or left empty with a wiki pointing to the other tags?

    ...

    both can be a good option, but personally leaning leaving tag empty with a wiki note for other tags or a combo tag search.

    nonamethanks said:

    Isn't interior for vehicles? The difference between it and indoors should be clear. If anything, interior would be a subset of indoors, but I don't think it should be so because vehicles are much smaller and should be handled differently than buildings.

    current wiki definition includes structures like castle and colony though. it would be better to have clear definitions since indoors is already used for buildings. we also have inside.

  • ID: 139640
  • Permalink
  • nonamethanks

    ghostrigger said:

    current wiki definition includes structures like castle and colony though.

    castle interior is an empty tag, so I removed it from the wiki. Colony interior is different because it's not meant to indicate a building, but a very large spacecraft with artificial sky.

  • ID: 139641
  • Permalink