Defining what

Since post #493981 brought it up, I think we need a discussion on firmer definitions for the what tag. Right now, people have been adding it to just about anything strange or out of the ordinary, rather than brain-wreckers like post #459560.

post #459560.

WAT

I've been meaning to ask this but when adding what to someone, should one think about his/her personal belief/background/whatever or the community's?

Looking at the wiki, I think it's about as well-defined as can be for a subjective tag. I think the best thing to be done is simply continue to police it appropriately, because users will still just add it to whatever they think is worth a "what." Maybe we should start giving records for people who continue to add it frivolously even after they've been told to stop?

While there are "what"-tagged posts that actually deserve the tag, there are others that elicit more of a "why?" response than "what".

As for GT's question, if by 'someone' you mean the artist, I think that's a no. On the grounds that it then becomes artist-biased, and may lead to people arguing over what the artist may or may not have intended to express, as opposed to whatever the hell they personally think it is.

Then again, having just said that myself, there's going to be an argument either way I think.

This tag will always generate an argument.

Since its subjective like the godawful squeezable tag, it should really be a pool or not taken seriously.

As long as we're defining "what", we should probably define epic and creepy while we're at it.

I think for all of these the fact that they are inherently subjective precludes them from being definable to any great degree. Like Evangeline said above, they just need to be monitored with common sense applied.

Not much can be done with what at this point apart from keeping watch over its use. You'll never get a good definition when everyone comes at an image from a different angle.

I'm actually not too against the idea of turning what into a pool. Having 'why' as a pool in parallel may be an idea also.

Do we really need a why or what tag/pool anyway? The former isn't needed at all and shouldn't be created at all. The latter always struck me as being unnecessary. I mean do people actually look up picture that have what on them?

You do have a point. It's certainly not something I'd personally go around searching for. However, it's still viable as a notable (albeit subjective) quality of an image, so nuking it on a whim isn't the best solution.

Mr_GT said:
I mean do people actually look up picture that have what on them?

I have, in the past, looked up pictures with the what tag, both because they were interesting, and because I was looking for certain pictures which I knew to be tagged as such. While I don't really have a use for it these days, I can understand why people would, so I'm not sure it should just be eliminated altogether. I wouldn't argue if it became a pool, though.

You tag what when you take a good long hard at the picture and you honestly don't know what's going on.

Take post #459560, it says slime game show but I don't know what the fuck is going on. Are they having sex? Are they producing more slime? Why is a girl disemboweling herself? Why does said girl produce slime?

Mr_GT said:
Do we really need a why or what tag/pool anyway? The former isn't needed at all and shouldn't be created at all. The latter always struck me as being unnecessary. I mean do people actually look up picture that have what on them?

I have it blacklisted, in an attempt to help preserve what remains of my sanity.

Scalar said:
Take post #459560, it says slime game show but I don't know what the fuck is going on.

hmm I don't think Paul Robertson's work is meant to be understood... just looked at. imo

I am surprised that the "what" tag, isn't called bizarre. Cause a lot of them are just funny.

Mr_GT said:
Do we really need a why or what tag/pool anyway? The former isn't needed at all and shouldn't be created at all. The latter always struck me as being unnecessary. I mean do people actually look up picture that have what on them?

Lalaca said:
You do have a point. It's certainly not something I'd personally go around searching for. However, it's still viable as a notable (albeit subjective) quality of an image, so nuking it on a whim isn't the best solution.

Just because you two don't, doesn't mean others are the same. Personally, I love the what tag and I do use the tag for searching. Do we really need to nitpick at it as a whole? I'd like to think the rules for what aren't particularly something we need to define flawlessly, although I do agree that post #493981 doesn't need the tag. Can't we be somewhat lenient?

An association with a pool can still be used as a search keyword.

As usual I'm against destroying information, and I don't see why we should kill a tag that has been around and worked more or less for most of Danbooru's history.

Lalaca said:
An association with a pool can still be used as a search keyword.

Are you suggesting that as a new feature? Cause it isn't the case now (and I do agree it would be a really useful feature, especially since we've been using pools as "subjective tags" for a while now).