The Collection Pool-To-Tag Conversion Thread

Posted under Tags

This topic has been locked.

Damian0358

Knowledge_Seeker said:

I was going to go with the name "monsterfucking", but then remembered purely romantic images are acceptable too, which "monsterfucking" simply doesn't imply. Idk if the name should be changed or not then.

Maybe an alias to the tag would make sense, to at least make it more accessible.

Considering a lot of the solo posts I cleared out were very much in the same vein, I wonder if we need a tag for those too? It's a niche but very specific fetish that's really hard to find otherwise.

Maybe "monster sexualization" makes sense as a preliminary name?

Knowledge Seeker

Damian0358 said:

Maybe an alias to the tag would make sense, to at least make it more accessible.

Definitely an alias is needed at least. Just wanted to get the tag, yanno, existing before we start in with the utility aliases.

Maybe "monster sexualization" makes sense as a preliminary name?

Yeah, definitely not a bad idea, considering animal sexualization is already a tag. My main issue beyond NSFW is that posts featuring solely Type D in post #113417 that don't a hundred percent fall into any other tag like post #6022492 are kinda...Really hard to find as is when the tag monster girl mainly houses images like post #10524690. But a monster sexualization tag would be a good starting point at least for the fetish folks lol.

shemingwan_wen said:

You have a typo in your BUR, it should be pool:22339 in the first line, not pool:pool:22339

Whoops. Fixed now.

Damian0358

BUR #52758 has been approved by @evazion.

undeprecate dryness_squad

Depending on how forum #410239 goes, it brings into question what should be done about pool #25181 and pool #27105. But before anything could theoretically be done, we need to do something first. AkaringoP created the former pool by nuking a tag that had been made by a member-level user, and in doing so, manually deprecated the tag. Regardless of what you might think, the tag shouldn't have been deprecated. There was no reason to assume it would get populated again, especially if the wiki had been deleted (and deprecated wikis shouldn't been deleted).

CommentaryRequest Unbreakable
AkaringoP

Damian0358 said:

BUR #52758 has been approved by @evazion.

undeprecate dryness_squad

Since you mention me, let me add this: the one principle I established when first trying to use group tags in BA was whether the tag is "official." If we allow fan-made tags, this consistency will be lost, and all sorts of strange group tags could emerge. Are you going to verify every single one of them?

Certainly, this group is worth preserving. But since even that assessment is a subjective judgment, I think it is more appropriate to maintain it as a pool rather than a tag.

hasu no hassennen

AkaringoP said:

Since you mention me, let me add this: the one principle I established when first trying to use group tags in BA was whether the tag is "official." If we allow fan-made tags, this consistency will be lost, and all sorts of strange group tags could emerge. Are you going to verify every single one of them?

Certainly, this group is worth preserving. But since even that assessment is a subjective judgment, I think it is more appropriate to maintain it as a pool rather than a tag.

Seeing as collection pools are on their way out, the only way to keep it moving forward is as a tag.

NiceLittleDan

BUR #52772 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

convert pool:6856 -> skullgirls_1st_dlc_character_poll
convert pool:6907 -> skullgirls_2nd_dlc_character_poll

(Skullgirls - Character Poll #1 & #2)

More character polls. Understandably these names can be mistakenly read as the 1st dlc character and 2nd dlc character. In my research I think they're the 3rd and 5th dlc character added? Felt weird to name it that though.

CommentaryRequest user 1434626 Unbreakable Knowledge Seeker People of the Book aster1a XxCGxOblivionxX
evazion

Damian0358 said:

BUR #52758 has been approved by @evazion.

undeprecate dryness_squad

Depending on how forum #410239 goes, it brings into question what should be done about pool #25181 and pool #27105. But before anything could theoretically be done, we need to do something first. AkaringoP created the former pool by nuking a tag that had been made by a member-level user, and in doing so, manually deprecated the tag. Regardless of what you might think, the tag shouldn't have been deprecated. There was no reason to assume it would get populated again, especially if the wiki had been deleted (and deprecated wikis shouldn't been deleted).

The tag is fine, it's a specific meme based on a specific group of characters. Not tagging it would mean not tagging the entire point of these images.

1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 24