Link to placeholder

♥♦♣♠

(2...9, two...nine, jack, queen, king, ace)_of_(hearts, diamonds, clubs, spades) -> <3, ♦, ♣, ♠ as appropriate (alias or implication)
...except queen_of_hearts which needs a disambiguation since it may be queen_of_hearts_(alice_in_wonderland)

These sort of tags that are currently in use: hearts, clubs, spades, diamonds

The alt codes mentioned in the wiki aren't that hard to remember since they're so short, but some more intuitive aliases might be nice to have. Plus, I don't think the codes are the same on all platforms. I'm not sure you can even do them on a phone. Here's some non-alt code alternatives:
<> -> ♦
o8- -> ♣
<3- -> ♠

♥

butt_heart seems to need some clean up. The wiki says "a fur pattern where, with legs closed, a character's rear end makes a clear heart shape," but a significant number of butt_heart posts only show a character with a different coloration on their butt/thighs.

It seems they are being tagged for the particular fur pattern that is necessary to form a butt_heart, but that's not correct, right? Perhaps the wiki should make it clear that the heart shape needs to actually be visible? It's also not clear in the wiki whether the character's legs need to be together or not (iow, can the heart be split down the middle).

It's sometimes tagged for a heart that is on a butt as well. Disambiguation probably wouldn't be worth it though I guess.
post #343666 post #269135

♠

spade/spades -> spade_(disambiguation)
Could be shovel, ♠, or a missing underscore while tagging spade_(character), spades_(mlp), spades_hoyle, spades_(character)^†

^†spades is currently a character tag so I'm assuming there's some character named spades other than spades_(mlp).

spade_tail -> ♠ (implication)

♣

club/clubs -> club_(disambiguation)

See forum #166312
♣ should be on the disambiguation page.

♦

See forum #171121
gem_(disambiguation) should mention ♦ or diamond should have its own disambiguation page separate from the other gems.

purple.beastie said:
Link to placeholder

♥♦♣♠

(2...9, two...nine, jack, queen, king, ace)_of_(hearts, diamonds, clubs, spades) -> <3, ♦, ♣, ♠ as appropriate (alias or implication)
...except queen_of_hearts which needs a disambiguation since it may be queen_of_hearts_(alice_in_wonderland)

These sort of tags that are currently in use: hearts, clubs, spades, diamonds

The alt codes mentioned in the wiki aren't that hard to remember since they're so short, but some more intuitive aliases might be nice to have. Plus, I don't think the codes are the same on all platforms. I'm not sure you can even do them on a phone. Here's some non-alt code alternatives:
<> -> ♦
o8- -> ♣
<3- -> ♠

♥

butt_heart seems to need some clean up. The wiki says "a fur pattern where, with legs closed, a character's rear end makes a clear heart shape," but a significant number of butt_heart posts only show a character with a different coloration on their butt/thighs.

post #40450 post #418831 post #361558 post #350357 post #49848 post #303591 post #333707 post #294083 post #185937 post #196957 post #673803 post #412826 post #465403 post #68777 post #71619 post #307235 post #360638 post #370082 post #157891 post #32260 post #59826

It seems they are being tagged for the particular fur pattern that is necessary to form a butt_heart, but that's not correct, right? Perhaps the wiki should make it clear that the heart shape needs to actually be visible? It's also not clear in the wiki whether the character's legs need to be together or not (iow, can the heart be split down the middle).

It's sometimes tagged for a heart that is on a butt as well. Disambiguation probably wouldn't be worth it though I guess.
post #343666 post #269135

Aliases

<3_tail, heart_tail, tail_heart -> tail_<3
<3_butt, heart_butt, butt_heart -> butt_<3
<3_cum, cum_heart, cum_hearts, heart_cum -> cum_<3
<3_hand/s, heart_hand/s, hand_heart, hands_heart, hands_<3 -> hand_<3 (barely tagged, but I'm sure there's a decent number of images with characters making a heart with their hands)
arrow_through_heart -> arrow_through_<3

heart_nipples, heart_shaped_nipples -> <3_nipples
heart_boxers -> <3_boxers
heart_glasses -> <3_glasses
hearts_in_eyes -> <3_eyes

heart_pattern -> <3

(heart, <3, heart_shaped)_(tattoo/s, marking/s) -> <3_on_body
Currently, <3_tattoo is the main tag in use, but most of the uses do not follow the convention that tattoos must appear on skin.

Implications

heart_censor -> creative_censorship

Implicate <3:
heart_censor
arrow_through_<3
<3_nipples
<3_boxers
<3_glasses
<3_on_body
tail_<3 (maybe; there isn't always a perfect ♥ shape.)
post #285826
butt_<3 (maybe; depends on how it's defined. Even when there's a pretty clear heart shape, it doesn't always form a perfect ♥)
post #650951 post #97863

♠

spade/spades -> spade_(disambiguation)
Could be shovel, ♠, or a missing underscore while tagging spade_(character), spades_(mlp), spades_hoyle, spades_(character)^†

^†spades is currently a character tag so I'm assuming there's some character named spades other than spades_(mlp).

spade_tail -> ♠ (implication)

♣

club/clubs -> club_(disambiguation)

See forum #166312
♣ should be on the disambiguation page.

♦

See forum #171121
gem_(disambiguation) should mention ♦ or diamond should have its own disambiguation page separate from the other gems.

I would also suggest an alias for <3 -> ♥.

The aliases DO make them look prettier.

My question is, would we need to include implications for the page and/or knight of clubs/hearts/spades/diamonds? Because those are cards that exist...in French tarot decks, mind you, but my point still stands.

We had a discussion about these style symbols at some point in the past, and iirc they don't show up the same across all browsers and all platforms, so we wanted to stay away from them?

Tokaido said:
We had a discussion about these style symbols at some point in the past, and iirc they don't show up the same across all browsers and all platforms, so we wanted to stay away from them?

Maybe. Modern browsers can apparently circumvent this, if the font needed is installed on the computer. So I believe the only thing to worry about is with different platforms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_and_HTML#Web_browser_support

ShylokVakarian said:
I would also suggest an alias for <3 -> ♥.

inb4 denied

alirezatm said:
inb4 denied

>inftr 4chan reference
>inb4 topkek

Shouldn't you be saying that to both my post AND the original post?

Tokaido said:
We had a discussion about these style symbols at some point in the past, and iirc they don't show up the same across all browsers and all platforms, so we wanted to stay away from them?

U+2654 through U+2667 (chess and playing card symbols) in particular has actually been part of Unicode since at least 1.1.0 and probably since 1.0.0 (1991), and it's actually kind of hard to find a font that doesn't support them. Some newer characters have limited to no support depending on font choice, but even considering that most people don't know how to type them on a PC (other devices can only copy + paste them), and many don't know about the wiki or what convenience aliases are in place. We also don't expect users to keep track of Unicode tables or cross-platform compatibility, which is why we prefer to stick with [a-z0-9()_-] (and a few others) for the majority of tags (and prefer Latin forms over non-Latin when possible).

I would like to standardize these at the very least, but double meanings are common (a spade is a type of shovel, a king is a ruler of a monarchy) so I can't even recommend we switch to whole words for these tags. *_(symbol) might work though.

parasprite said:
U+2654 through U+2667 (chess and playing card symbols) in particular has actually been part of Unicode since at least 1.1.0 and probably since 1.0.0 (1991), and it's actually kind of hard to find a font that doesn't support them. Some newer characters have limited to no support depending on font choice, but even considering that most people don't know how to type them on a PC (other devices can only copy + paste them), and many don't know about the wiki or what convenience aliases are in place. We also don't expect users to keep track of Unicode tables or cross-platform compatibility, which is why we prefer to stick with [a-z0-9()_-] (and a few others) for the majority of tags (and prefer Latin forms over non-Latin when possible).

I would like to standardize these at the very least, but double meanings are common (a spade is a type of shovel, a king is a ruler of a monarchy) so I can't even recommend we switch to whole words for these tags. *_(symbol) might work though.

So are you suggesting aliases like diamond_(symbol) -> ♦ ? Or none at all?

I might be alone with this but I for one don't really like neither ♥ nor <3. I would favor heart_(symbol), not only because it's obvious how to search for that (and related symbols) but they can be combined with other words (as mentioned) in a way that doesn't look weird, e.g. butt_heart, heart_censor etc. (A heart is for example sometimes synonymous with love which maybe could cause problems if ♥ or <3 is used.)

Not sure how I feel about implicating spade_tail -> ♠, I mean sure it's kind of like a spade symbol. Similarly we haven't really implicated any of the *heart* tags to <3. In addition I doubt searching for ♠ means you really want spade_tail.

As for the argument that they look nicer: Tags aren't supposed to look nice, they're supposed to facilitate searching, prettiness is secondary. Sure heart_(symbol) is longer to write, but you could technically still use ♥ or <3 when searching or tagging while the suggested use of the tag is made very clear.

Denied because we avoid misc unicode in tags