Tag alias: card -> holding_one_card

@jxh2154: > S1eth said: I think these tags should not be...

2011-12-30T18:16:34-05:00

S1eth said: I think these tags should not be used for tags that happen to be x-colored, but instead be used for penalty cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_card)[/quote]
I would agree, we don't need to have color/card combination tags. Penalty cards would be tagworthy though.

@S1eth: Since these are also tags Danielx21 populated...

2011-12-25T04:45:01-05:00

Since these are also tags Danielx21 populated while this thread was still active, this is probably the best thread to bring this up:

I think these tags should not be used for tags that happen to be x-colored, but instead be used for penalty cards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penalty_card)

When I see yellow_card, I think of post #705089, not post #705267.

@Danielx21: > S1eth said: > Before Danialx21 suggests even...

2011-11-24T02:46:26-05:00

S1eth said:
Before Danialx21 suggests even more implications/aliases, we should all take a close look at the long blue list of tags he created (some posts above) and decide which ones are actually worth keeping. With the large number of (*) up there, naming only the tags you deem useful is more efficient than naming those we need to nuke.

See Tag group:Cards, too.

@S1eth: Before Danialx21 suggests even more...

2011-11-24T02:29:49-05:00

Before Danialx21 suggests even more implications/aliases, we should all take a close look at the long blue list of tags he created (some posts above) and decide which ones are actually worth keeping. With the large number of (*) up there, naming only the tags you deem useful is more efficient than naming those we need to nuke.

Of all the tags, I see only holding_card being necessary because of the alias.

@jxh2154: Aliased cards -> card

2011-11-23T15:48:47-05:00

Aliased cards -> card

@Danielx21: > NWF_Renim said: > And what if the character...

2011-11-14T11:40:20-05:00

NWF_Renim said:
And what if the character isn't holding the card but there is a card object in the picture? Holding_card would not cover things like that.

OK; I don't endorse your point of view, but I don't want to discuss it at this moment.

Please, jxh2154, at least create the most important alias of this conversation, which should be uncontroversial anyway since my last mass edit:

cards -> card

@NWF_Renim: And what if the character isn't holding the...

2011-11-01T20:16:49-04:00

And what if the character isn't holding the card but there is a card object in the picture? Holding_card would not cover things like that.

@Danielx21: > NWF_Renim said: > Furthermore not implicating...

2011-11-01T19:47:48-04:00

NWF_Renim said:
Furthermore not implicating it allows a search for say an image in which the whole image is a card, but also depicts a character holding a card on it.

card_(medium) holding_card

@NWF_Renim: I feel it is just as valid to not implicate...

2011-11-01T19:43:32-04:00

I feel it is just as valid to not implicate card_(medium) to card. Visually I'd say an image can be fairly distinct on whether a card is the object in the image or if the whole image is a card itself. Furthermore not implicating it allows a search for say an image in which the whole image is a card, but also depicts a character holding a card on it.

@Danielx21: > NWF_Renim said: > Users should then have to...

2011-11-01T19:08:28-04:00

NWF_Renim said:
Users should then have to add whether it's a card or card_(medium) separately.

Whew. This situation is quite complex. Where to start?

post #887904 is, without a doubt, taggable both playing card and card_(medium). (because its medium is a playing card) Additionally, because of the current implication "playing card -> cards", it is also tagged cards. Many other posts whose medium is a playing card are also tagged cards for the same reason.

In this thread, some people pointed out that card was being widely used as a substitute for card (medium). Then I and SystemXS fixed this problem. Apparently, we made sure card (medium) contains all the applicable images from card and cards.

Contrariwise, I said here that card (medium) does not contain any image that fits either card or cards alone. I failed at that, because of the "playing card -> cards" implication.

However, on second thought, that implication is not a Bad Thing™. I think the tag card should serve as a perfect catch-all for all instances of cards. If someone uses the tag card, I think he should see all the applicable posts, without exception. post #851124 is a card, too.

So, I propose this implication:

card (medium) -> card

And I stand by this other, aforementioned, implication:

playing card -> card

@NWF_Renim: > Danielx21 said: > > * (Remove implication...

2011-11-01T18:42:53-04:00

Danielx21 said:

(Remove implication playing card -> cards)

Add implication playing card -> card

It should be pointed out that the playing_card tag, as it is defined in the wiki, makes it more like tarot or pactio and that the images can either be the card (object) or the whole image is a card (medium). So the implication should just be removed, and no new implication established with it. Users should then have to add whether it's a card or card_(medium) separately.

@Danielx21: [Here is my long report. Short version: I...

2011-10-31T13:09:55-04:00

[Here is my long report. Short version: I created many detailed tags for cards, so cards can now be an alias to card.]

A. I checked all the posts tagged either card or cards. There were about 99 pages.

B. The tags card and cards basically have the same contents. In practice, they don't follow any easy distinction mentioned here. Any of these major situations below can be tagged either card or cards:

only one card in the image
multiple cards in the image
a person holding one card
a person holding multiple cards
one card floating
multiple cards floating
one card alone
multiple cards together

C. I created new tags to clarify what happens with each card: for example, "card between breasts" and "card in mouth". The two situations most discussed in this thread became specific tags too: "holding card" and "floating card". (because in Persona 4, cards float; I don't know why, I didn't play the game) They are listed under the item "I." of this message.

D. The new tags have varying levels of detailedness and value. For example, I am sure "too many cards" is a very important tag, while "card in basket" is forgettable. I'll just leave them all, for now. If any change/renaming/deletion/creation/merger/split/etc. is necessary, it can be done anytime in the future.

E. I filled all the new tags with all the applicable posts I found. Some of the new tags reached hundreds of posts.

F. In the list of new tags, the ones marked with a parenthesized asterisk (*) are noticeably underused, because I could not find 10 taggable posts for them. The ones marked with a triple bracketed number sign [###] are inherently incomplete because the idea of introducing them came to me in the middle of the work; although I did come back to find some old taggable posts for them.

G. The tags falling card and floating card often are indistinguishable. Oftentimes I just can't tell whether gravity is pulling the card or not in a stationary image, then I just use both tags simultaneously. Depending on the image, floating card and falling card can be different and recognizable concepts, but merging them into card_in_mid-air probably would be much more helpful in practice.

H. Once again, I could not see any post tagged either loli or shota, or edit their tags, because of that boring hierarchical restriction.

animal_on_card (*)
blood-stained_card (*)
card_among_flowers (*)
card_background
card_between_breasts
card_between_toes (*)
card_creature
card_in_ass (*)
card_in_bag (*)
card_in_basket (*)
card_in_book (*)
card_in_clothes (*)
card_in_hat (*)
card_in_mouth
card_in_mouth_of_animal (*)
card_in_pocket (*)
card_on_fire
card_on_hat
card_on_mouth
card_on_person (*) [###]
card_on_necklace (*)
card_road (*) [###]
card_with_aura
falling_card
floating_card
frozen_card (*)
hair_card (*)
hand_on_card [###]
holding_card
holding_card_offscreen (*) [###]
hugging_card (*)
lying_card
piece_of_card (*)
pierced_card (*)
piercing_card (*)
pile_of_cards [###]
playing_card_theme [###]
person_on_card
suspended_card (*)
thrown_card
too_many_cards [###]
transparent_card (*)
virtual_card (*)

J. The existence of two separate tags named cards and card is the focus of this thread. Now, any distinction between them is less than merely unresolved and confusing; it's meaningless. Please create this alias:

cards -> card

K. Here are some useful implications to be created:

(all the new tags) -> card
-
card between breasts -> between breasts
card between toes -> between toes
-
falling cards -> falling card
floating cards -> floating card
holding cards -> holding card
lying cards -> lying card
-
house of cards -> card
(Remove implication playing card -> cards)
Add implication playing card -> card

@Danielx21: > SystemXS said: > Personally I'm in favor of...

2011-10-29T11:06:25-04:00

SystemXS said:
Personally I'm in favor of the alias being to the singular card for the following reasons: [...]

Shinjidude said:

Perhaps we should:

[...]

alias card → cards (or vice versa)

And I, Daniel, too support the idea of aliasing cards -> card. With three "votes", it a is pretty popular idea here.

Another popular idea is creating either holding card or holding cards. However, apparently it is a possibility to be considered, not a necessity. Shinjidude, for example, passively said "if holding_card(s) is neccessary [...]" and nobody expressed some strong opinion like "We really need the tag holding card! It would conform to some policy and whatnot!" or "It would help people who want to find these examples of images here!"

Anyway, at least holding card would be harmless and a good way to break down the tags called cards and card into a smaller big list. And, more importantly, if we had that new tag, then the possible distinctions between card and cards would be even less noticeable; the alias between the two old tags would be easier and more natural to do. That would be great.

So, I'll wait for possible answers in the near future, then I'm going to create and fill holding card (i.e. holding any number of cards) with many posts, if possible.

@Log: Yes that is what the forum is for but the forum...

2011-10-29T08:16:14-04:00

Yes that is what the forum is for but the forum is not for finding non-problems and turning them into problems.

@SystemXS: > Shinjidude said: > I believe the reason for...

2011-10-29T08:07:14-04:00

Shinjidude said:
I believe the reason for card and cards being distinct instead of being aliased like most nouns is so that the depiction of the face of a single card (e.g. with pactio card) can be differentiated from playing cards as objects in a scene which usually show up in sets.

Probably, but that is highly confusing and the solution seems to have been card_(medium) for a while now.

Danielx21 said:
Just to be clear about the role of my recent cleanup work:

If card and cards are merged, then card_(medium) won't be in the way. If that tag of a medium was the only obstacle, then we can just make this alias for a perfect result:

cards -> card

Sounds good to me. I've cleaned up the loli/shota version, though some cases were a bit borderline imo. But that's a slightly different topic, I've just converted them to card_(medium) for now. There wasn't much anyway.
I only saw two other problems mentioned throughout the threads.

the card wiki explicitly mentioning holding a card

very confusing. solved by using the pose/action tag holding_card or any derivative.

there was some confusion about pactio and other card types with regards to their appearance in images

solved by just using them as types and letting card and card_(medium) take care of their appearance in images.

Additionally we could have a card_deck tag (it was mentioned somewhere...) for depictions of a full deck of stacked cards. If so, it should probably imply card.

Off-topic:

Hillside_Moose said:
Wow, no one had a problem with card until Danielx21 said we did, so I guess we better change everything we do from now on!

Isn't that what this forum is mainly for? Finding problems and fixing them?

@Danielx21: Just to be clear about the role of my recent...

2011-10-29T00:10:29-04:00

Just to be clear about the role of my recent cleanup work:

If card and cards are merged, then card_(medium) won't be in the way. If that tag of a medium was the only obstacle, then we can just make this alias for a perfect result:

cards -> card

@Danielx21: I changed my mind: I'm going to reply here...

2011-10-28T19:49:08-04:00

I changed my mind: I'm going to reply here instead of editing my last message. I completed my project of mass editing. These should be the results:

card and cards don't have any image that would fit card_(medium) only.
card_(medium) doesn't have any image that would fit either card or cards only.
There are some images tagged simultaneously "card"+"card_(medium)" or "cards"+"card_(medium)" because I saw some overlap in them.
There are many images tagged card that should be tagged cards, and vice-versa, but I didn't care for now; I didn't clean them up.
I can't see lolis and shotas, so I did not edit any images with them.

Hillside_Moose said:
Wow, no one had a problem with card until Danielx21 said we did, so I guess we better change everything we do from now on!

Somebody had to point out the problems of that tag sooner or later, regardless of your sarcastic remark. There are more of them than I initially expected, but this discussion is fruitful enough, so they are solvable.

P.S.: Everyone knows what is a single braid. single_braid was mentioned as an example of what that it's not?

@Hillside_Moose: Wow, no one had a problem with card until...

2011-10-28T18:39:55-04:00

Wow, no one had a problem with card until Danielx21 said we did, so I guess we better change everything we do from now on!

And single_braid was mentioned as an example when it's not; it's meant to be a braided ponytail like post #1022799. braid covers any instance of braids, even when the bulk of the hair doesn't make up the braid, such as post #1024899.

@Danielx21: > Shinjidude said: > > * mass edit the...

2011-10-28T18:11:52-04:00

Shinjidude said:

mass edit the appropriate instances of card → card_(medium) (which already exists)

alias card → cards (or vice versa)

My replies:

Naturally, there are some images with multiple cards tagged just card anyway. Notable examples: post #961698, post #847203 and post #421825. The alias you mentioned would be a great instantaneous cleanup for images like these.
I'm in the process of quickly checking all the fifty pages of card -card_(medium) to do the mass edit you mentioned. When I finish, I'm going to edit this message to add a last line saying I'm done.

@Shinjidude: I believe the reason for card and cards being...

2011-10-28T13:19:46-04:00

I believe the reason for card and cards being distinct instead of being aliased like most nouns is so that the depiction of the face of a single card (e.g. with pactio card) can be differentiated from playing cards as objects in a scene which usually show up in sets. By the logic, the alias is actually the opposite of what was intended.

Perhaps we should:

mass edit the appropriate instances of card → card_(medium) (which already exists)
alias card → cards (or vice versa)
if holding_card(s) is neccessary alias it → card(s)

As Danielx21 notes above the single_* or one_* tags only make sense when the default is a natural pair or set.

EDIT: This was discussed in forum #23232 and seems to have never been fully resolved