create alias chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration

Link to alias

As follows topic #13425. There was consensus for the tag to be nuked, but given that there are users that aren't present in the forums for these discussions and will repopulate the tag, an alias might be needed after all.

EDIT: This tag alias has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

EDIT: The tag alias chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.

+1

If anyone really cares enough about excessive use of effects like chromatic aberration, sparkles, etc., that is the sort of thing we have pools for.

If the non-forum users want the tag so badly, is it right for us to deny it to them? Since it keeps being recreated, maybe there's a need for the tag after all. I think we ought to try to bring more people into the discussion before acting.

The main person* who repopulated this was user #502072. They can't be tagged in posts due to their username.

*as in about 80% of the images currently tagged with this were done by this one person.

kuuderes_shadow said:

The main person* who repopulated this was user #502072. They can't be tagged in posts due to their username.

*as in about 80% of the images currently tagged with this were done by this one person.

I've contacted the user via a DMail, so that they know they are being mentioned :3.

fossilnix said:

If the non-forum users want the tag so badly, is it right for us to deny it to them? Since it keeps being recreated, maybe there's a need for the tag after all. I think we ought to try to bring more people into the discussion before acting.

Maybe, but as slime said, a pool would be better. Kind of like the existence of PNG Overkill. It's only concerning one user, anyway, so it isn't quite that ubiquitous.

Was there by the way a reason why this tag was created in the first place?

+1 to the alias, -1 to a pool. Making a subjective tag into a subjective pool doesn't solve anything. In fact it makes some things worse. It turns the tag from something easily ignorable into a big impossible-to-ignore pool banner, as if chromatic aberration abuse is more important than every other tag. It also makes it harder to check who added a given post to the pool, which is doubly important for subjective concepts.

Toskana said:

Was there by the way a reason why this tag was created in the first place?

I think @Fenen created it and populated it originally.

Makes sense. I'm neither for or against the presence of a pool for it (although I'm leaning more on the side of against). Subjective pools are always under contention by curators on the site, and we can't always trust their judgment for these kinds of things.

I have the tag filtered because it hurts my eyes.
I'm sure many other people do it too.
How do you filter a pool?
I like Chromatic aberration but not when it's used like a slap on effect that makes your eyes bleed. post #2488459

How do you filter a pool? Just add it to your blacklist, pool:xxxx or whatever number it was given.

You could always just blacklist chromatic aberration as a whole though. Pretty much any amount of chromatic aberration will hurt the eyes anyway, it's an intentionally polarizing effect.

Mikaeri said:
Just add it to your blacklist, pool:xxxx or whatever number it was given.

Alright, I'm all for making it into a pool.

Is not a favgroup more suited for this?
Seems more like something personal and not something that should be pooled together.

I endorse a pool for it. If favgroups could be modified by others than not but clearly it's not just I who sees significance for chromatic aberration abuse.

This tag alias has been rejected because it was not approved within 60 days.

The tag alias chromatic_aberration_abuse -> chromatic_aberration has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.