[Tag Suggestion] md5 mismatch related metatags

@DanbooruBot: The tag alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision ...

2018-12-24T05:49:19-05:00

The tag alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision has conflicting wiki pages. has_bad_revision should be updated to include information from bad_revision if necessary.

@DanbooruBot: The bulk update request #1847 (forum #151991)...

2018-12-24T05:38:33-05:00

The bulk update request #1847 (forum #151991) has been approved by @Type-kun.

@DanbooruBot: The tag alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision ...

2018-12-24T05:38:33-05:00

The tag alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision has conflicting wiki pages. has_bad_revision should be updated to include information from bad_revision if necessary.

@☆♪: create alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision...

2018-11-03T16:36:19-04:00

create alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision
mass update artifacted_revision -> has_artifacted_revision
mass update downscaled_revision -> has_downscaled_revision
mass update lossy_revision -> has_lossy_revision
mass update corrupted_revision -> has_corrupted_revision
mass update censored_revision -> has_censored_revision
mass update watermarked_revision -> has_watermarked_revision
mass update cropped_revision -> has_cropped_revision

Link to request

Going to go ahead and request this. Apparently not many people care but I haven't seen anyone who actually likes the current names.

I don't think it's worth aliases for all of them. Most of them don't have many posts. I just put an alias on bad_revision which will hopefully let people used to the old names see the format of the new ones.

(Not sure if meta: works in an alias. We can just change the category afterwards.)

EDIT: The tag alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision has conflicting wiki pages. has_bad_revision should be updated to include information from bad_revision if necessary.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1847 (forum #151991) has been approved by @Type-kun.

EDIT: The tag alias bad_revision -> has_bad_revision has conflicting wiki pages. has_bad_revision should be updated to include information from bad_revision if necessary.

@nonamethanks: I agree. has_downscaled_revision etc seems to...

2018-10-29T04:09:05-04:00

I agree. has_downscaled_revision etc seems to be the best way to rename them imo.

Maybe make an alias so people used to the current naming don't get confused.

@☆♪: Bumping this one more time. A real, recent...

2018-10-29T00:29:54-04:00

Bumping this one more time. A real, recent example of confusion caused by these tag names can be seen on post #3290891.

The current tag names are just extremely non-intuitive. They still trip me up every time I see them. It's hard to "learn" because pretty much all other tags on the site are worded with respect to the post they're on, which, you know, actually makes sense. I think we should rename these tags to be clearer, even if it makes them uglier.

@☆♪: Two more ideas for the names of these tags, as...

2017-09-02T00:56:01-04:00

Two more ideas for the names of these tags, as the current ones are still very confusing IMO:

Prefix the current names with "has" - ex: has_artifacted_revision
Use the old wording and just leave out the "to be" - ex: revision_artifacted
~~∃artifacted_revision~~

@evazion: > ☆♪ said: > > Separate but related: How much...

2017-07-29T19:21:50-04:00

☆♪ said:

Separate but related: How much trouble would it cause to create a separate tag type for "technical" tags such as these? As in separate from copy, artist, char, general.

There's a list of such tags in tag group:metatags. I do think it's a good idea and in fact, Sankaku already has this. As for how much trouble it would be, it wouldn't be that hard, but it's not entirely trivial either. There are a fair number of places scattered throughout the code that are hardcoded for the 4 current tag types that would have to be fixed.

@Mikaeri: > BrokenEagle98 said: > > About a different...

2017-07-29T03:04:29-04:00

BrokenEagle98 said:

About a different tag type... relevant conversation, issue #2358.

As for the topic of tag semantics, *_available could be added to the end to clear up the meaning, and it already has precedence with the PDF available, PSD available, and video available tags.

bad_revision_available

artifacted_revision_available

downscaled_revision_available

lossy_revision_available

corrupted_revision_available

censored_revision_available

watermarked_revision_available

Ugh, I hate that wording though...

@BrokenEagle98: About a different tag type... relevant...

2017-07-29T02:44:32-04:00

About a different tag type... relevant conversation, issue #2358.

As for the topic of tag semantics, *_available could be added to the end to clear up the meaning, and it already has precedence with the PDF available, PSD available, and video available tags.

bad_revision_available
artifacted_revision_available
downscaled_revision_available
lossy_revision_available
corrupted_revision_available
censored_revision_available
watermarked_revision_available

@Mikaeri: > ☆♪ said: > > I don't like the way the tags...

2017-07-29T02:22:15-04:00

☆♪ said:

I don't like the way the tags are worded. They sound like they're describing the post itself. I presume the previous wording was "revision is downscaled" "revision is artifacted / has artifacts" and so on, which doesn't sound good but is more accurate. Removing the "to be" verbs also changed the subject so that it refers to the image being tagged rather than the unuploaded revision. IMO the old way or a different way of phrasing it would be better.

Separate but related: How much trouble would it cause to create a separate tag type for "technical" tags such as these? As in separate from copy, artist, char, general. Right now technical tags are categorized as general but now we have a fair number of them and I think it would help to move them out of the general tag area to keep both cleaner and easier to see. Tags like highres and tall image could also go in there so that the general tags only described the actual content of the image.

You do have a point there. I was contemplating that, but then I thought it was a bit wordy otherwise (and yes, the previous tags I had in mind were things like "revision is downscaled/revision is lossy" etc). Since I'm not really sure which way to go (as I'm okay with both wordings) I'll let others discuss that and choose a best route. We can always do a mass update/update with scripts.

Umm, hmm. I'd be for it, but I guess it really depends on what the code maintainers think. @Type-kun @evazion Think there would be some demand now to make a separate tag type outside of general for tags that don't describe the image? A "technical" type, as ☆♪ describes.

@☆♪: I don't like the way the tags are worded. They...

2017-07-29T02:10:06-04:00

I don't like the way the tags are worded. They sound like they're describing the post itself. I presume the previous wording was "revision is downscaled" "revision is artifacted / has artifacts" and so on, which doesn't sound good but is more accurate. Removing the "to be" verbs also changed the subject so that it refers to the image being tagged rather than the unuploaded revision. IMO the old way or a different way of phrasing it would be better.

Separate but related: How much trouble would it cause to create a separate tag type for "technical" tags such as these? As in separate from copy, artist, char, general. Right now technical tags are categorized as general but now we have a fair number of them and I think it would help to move them out of the general tag area to keep both cleaner and easier to see. Tags like highres and tall image could also go in there so that the general tags only described the actual content of the image.

@Mikaeri: I'll write wiki pages for the rest of them...

2017-07-22T11:58:06-04:00

I'll write wiki pages for the rest of them later, but for now just read bad revision. :P

@worldendDominator: > Sacriven said: > > I thought the tag should...

2017-07-22T09:59:24-04:00

Sacriven said:

I thought the tag should be used on the revised post, not on the md5 mismatched post? This will lead to some confusion.

I think it's supposed to be used on the mismatched post, to say: "there's a revision at the source, but it's bad so don't upload it".

@Sacriven: > Danaii said: > > That should be correct,...

2017-07-22T09:52:23-04:00

Danaii said:

That should be correct, it's tagged censored revision because it has a revision on Pixiv (and the one here) that is censored.

I thought the tag should be used on the revised post, not on the md5 mismatched post? This will lead to some confusion.

@Danaii: > Sacriven said: > > post #2160284 > > This...

2017-07-22T06:40:04-04:00

Sacriven said:

post #2160284

This one is both md5 and censored_revision? NSFW by the way.

That should be correct, it's tagged censored revision because it has a revision on Pixiv (and the one here) that is censored.

@Sacriven: post #2160284 This one is both md5 and...

2017-07-21T20:15:39-04:00

post #2160284

This one is both md5 and censored_revision? NSFW by the way.

@BrokenEagle98: > Mikaeri said: > > Fair enough. By the way,...

2017-07-21T18:15:49-04:00

Mikaeri said:

Fair enough. By the way, how about artifacted revision? Just to be consistent.

That works... although artifact is not really a verb. Still, artifact_revision does sound a bit unclear in its meaning, so we should go with artifacted_revision instead.

BTW, I was faced with a similar decision when I created the tag bow panties, but I decided to go with that rather than create bowed panties. I guess in the case of non-adjectival nouns, it will vary case-by-case on what form the noun should take.

@Mikaeri: > Danaii said: > > Censored revision could be...

2017-07-21T17:27:32-04:00

Danaii said:

Censored revision could be useful too.

Sounds like a good idea, I'll include it.

EDIT: I'll start to tag some of these, just to get the ball rolling. Think this'll be more useful in the future than how we currently do things (even with a favgroup and all)

@Danaii: Censored revision could be useful too.

2017-07-21T17:26:45-04:00

Censored revision could be useful too.