Deprecate parent and child

BUR #48765 has been rejected.

deprecate parent_and_child

The Wiki says not to use this tag and to use a more specific tag, and I agree. Unless the post has a parent and child where both of their genders are ambiguous, which is highly unlikely, this tag just serves as bloat.

What should be used in cases where they are both ambiguous? e.g. post #10002999

Previous topics: topic #31429 topic #27071 topic #26399 topic #20109

skylightcrystal said:

What should be used in cases where they are both ambiguous? e.g. post #10002999

Seconding this. The initial guideline seems rather short-sighted and the wiki should be changed. This isn't a niche non human issue either post #5410545. There was even talk of making this an umbrella tag once for easier blacklisting and such but it got rejected due to technical issues leading to a weird bur. More specifically, since there's a few posts already using the tag the bellow craps out and gives the "can't make up more than 90%" error.

Imply father_and_daughter -> parent_and_child
imply father_and_son -> parent_and_child
imply mother_and_daughter -> parent_and_child
imply mother_and_son -> parent_and_child

IIRC, admins now have a way to bypass that so an admin would need to make that bur. think the tag could also be nuked to make it but that would remove all the non human posts that don't have a gendered tag to imply it.

While I think any implication like "father and son" to it is flatout absurd, the main issue here is that without it we have no tag for when both the parent and the child are ambiguous, which isn't great when we need to tag it. I personally think the tag should have all the examples under any other tag should be moved to their respective tags.

I'm willing to fix the wiki and garden it into something viable if we wanna. Though considering this is like...the fifth or something attempt at deprecating it, it's probably just a matter of time...

Knowledge_Seeker said:

While I think any implication like "father and son" to it is flatout absurd, the main issue here is that without it we have no tag for when both the parent and the child are ambiguous, which isn't great when we need to tag it. I personally think the tag should have all the examples under any other tag should be moved to their respective tags.

If you want to keep it purely for cases where both are ambiguous, it needs a different name. Without that, it'll just keep being used as a catch-all.

Having parent and child as the tag name will just lead to mistags, and people can't think of this tag when the post does apply. It needs something like ambiguous parent and ambiguous child.

ANON_TOKYO said:

If you want to keep it purely for cases where both are ambiguous, it needs a different name. Without that, it'll just keep being used as a catch-all.

magcolo said:

Having parent and child as the tag name will just lead to mistags, and people can't think of this tag when the post does apply. It needs something like ambiguous parent and ambiguous child.

A new name would be the ideal scenario, because otherwise I'm pro-nuking. I think ambiguous parent and ambiguous child is a bit of a mouthful tho...Maybe other parent with other child?

Knowledge_Seeker said:

A new name would be the ideal scenario, because otherwise I'm pro-nuking. I think ambiguous parent and ambiguous child is a bit of a mouthful tho...Maybe other parent with other child?

magcolo said:

Having parent and child as the tag name will just lead to mistags, and people can't think of this tag when the post does apply. It needs something like ambiguous parent and ambiguous child.

No, that's just making the tag more niche than it needs to be. Remember the tags only use case isn't just ambigous gender but also as a way to blacklist or search for incest posts. Not to mention pointing out the gender like that just opens the door to a bunch of "other parent with daughter" "other parent with son" , "father and other child", "mother and other child" bloat. Not only should it not be nuked, it should be a catchall. Then we can maybe even have the ambigous subtag but Idk.

Zalza said:

No, that's just making the tag more niche than it needs to be. Remember the tags only use case isn't just ambigous gender but also as a way to blacklist or search for incest posts. Not to mention pointing out the gender like that just opens the door to a bunch of "other parent with daughter" "other parent with son" , "father and other child", "mother and other child" bloat. Not only should it not be nuked, it should be a catchall. Then we can maybe even have the ambigous subtag but Idk.

Then blacklist incest.

Past attempts at creating familial relationship catch-all tags were rejected. The current state is no familial catch-all tag. Even family was supposed to be mutually exclusive, though there are discussions to revise that (topic #27807).

Zalza said:

No, that's just making the tag more niche than it needs to be. Remember the tags only use case isn't just ambigous gender but also as a way to blacklist or search for incest posts. Not to mention pointing out the gender like that just opens the door to a bunch of "other parent with daughter" "other parent with son" , "father and other child", "mother and other child" bloat. Not only should it not be nuked, it should be a catchall. Then we can maybe even have the ambigous subtag but Idk.

Not gonna lie, I find it rather amusing your insistence on the creation of a familial catch-all tag is superior to just creating tags like "other parent with daughter" to fit the situation, calling the latter bloat, to be rather amusing, when I personally think the former is bloat, while the latter would be the logical end step to trying to tag character relations accurately.

I'm more interested in just creating the "other with other" tags with parent and child right now tho. We're gonna have to go more niche, as that was my only protest against the tag's deprecation. Once that's taken care of, there's no other arguments I got against the tag's deprecation.

BUR #48948 has been rejected.

mass update favgroup:47836 -> other_parent_and_other_child

Here's a favgroup BUR for at least 2others having this sort of relationship with each other. Pretty small tag, as you can see. But if this goes through, parent and child can be safely deprecated then.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

BUR #48948 has been rejected.

mass update favgroup:47836 -> other_parent_and_other_child

Here's a favgroup BUR for at least 2others having this sort of relationship with each other. Pretty small tag, as you can see. But if this goes through, parent and child can be safely deprecated then.

FYI post #8290047 doesn't have that relationship, I'm not actually sure what the 2others are, but the Dragon Lord is a 1boy as his his greandson.

zetsubousensei said:

FYI post #8290047 doesn't have that relationship, I'm not actually sure what the 2others are, but the Dragon Lord is a 1boy as his his greandson.

Goddamn it. Post removed.

zetsubousensei said:

FYI post #8290047 doesn't have that relationship, I'm not actually sure what the 2others are, but the Dragon Lord is a 1boy as his his greandson.

Does that mean that they shouldn't have this tag even if they are others? Given that they're great-grandparent and great-grandchild, not parent and child.

magcolo said:

Does that mean that they shouldn't have this tag even if they are others? Given that they're great-grandparent and great-grandchild, not parent and child.

That image also shows the hero and princess with an unnamed son so the tag applies regardless. I'm just going to go ahead and remove the 2others I assume they are mistagging Dragonlord and nothing else applies in the image.

zetsubousensei said:

That image also shows the hero and princess with an unnamed son so the tag applies regardless. I'm just going to go ahead and remove the 2others I assume they are mistagging Dragonlord and nothing else applies in the image.

So I assume it's in fact missing mother and son, father and son, family and if they mated?

magcolo said:

So I assume it's in fact missing mother and son, father and son, family and if they mated?

Added, though forum #288227 still not sure if we use family with Mother_and + father_and

zetsubousensei said:

Added, though forum #288227 still not sure if we use family with Mother_and + father_and

Unfortunate that that topic turned into a different discussion and is stuck. For the meantime, I prefer tagging both family and the specific relationship tags because I discovered that otherwise it makes searching unnecessarily more difficult.

For example, there are 100 posts containing two mother and daughter characters, but 80 of them also contains the father. If family and mother and daughter are mutually exclusive, a person searching for "character_name + mother_and_daughter" will only find 20 posts.

Why not search "character_1 + character_2"? It doesn't work for wildcard searches, e.g. when there are multiple pairs of mother and daughters in a series and you want to see all of them. Additionally, this doesn't work for tags like husband and wife , in series with a longer timeline it's common to have posts depicting the characters before and after they form families.

Does that makes family redundant with mother_and_daughter father_and_daughter? No. A family post can be any random combination of mother and daughter, mother and son, mother and child, father and daughter, father and son, father and child, other parent and other child, husband and wife, husband and husband, wife and wife. We're probably adding other parent and daughter and other parent and son too. And it doesn't make sense that we exclude parent tags when we still tag other relationships like siblings normally.

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