Aliasing clothed_female_nude_male → cfnm
Link to alias

Reason:

Or the other way around, since "cfnm" isn't very self-explanatory.
The same goes for clothed_male_nude_female and cmnf

having tags like this would just be a slippery slope

Other way around if we keep it, but I don't really see the point.

Denied

parasprite said:
Denied

May I ask what happened to the CFNM tag sitewide? Was is nuked?

Smudge_Proof said:
May I ask what happened to the CFNM tag sitewide? Was is nuked?

It had ~70 posts up until I denied the alias, so I assume whoever did it was reading this thread.

I was considering nuking it anyways, but I would have preferred replacing it with a catchall tag (something like "clothed/nude_sex", but less stupid-sounding).

Smudge_Proof said:
May I ask what happened to the CFNM tag sitewide? Was is nuked?

I recall nuking it about a month or two ago because I honestly thought the tag lacked spacing with the "_" connecting four common tags together.

parasprite said:
I was considering nuking it anyways, but I would have preferred replacing it with a catchall tag (something like "clothed/nude_sex", but less stupid-sounding).

How about "clothed_on_nude" or "clothed/nude"? If a decision is reached, I'll be certain to help support it.

GameManiac said:
I recall nuking it about a month or two ago because I honestly thought the tag lacked spacing with the "_" connecting four common tags together.

How about "clothed_on_nude" or "clothed/nude"? If a decision is reached, I'll be certain to help support it.

Being gender specific is the main part of the tag, and that's why I use or search for it. It's a specific fetish. CFNM could automatically imply clothed_on_nude.

Smudge_Proof said:
Being gender specific is the main part of the tag, and that's why I use or search for it. It's a specific fetish. CFNM could automatically imply clothed_on_nude.

May I please get an update on the situation? I feel very relevant tagging was lost when the tag was pulled.

GameManiac said:
How about "clothed_on_nude" or "clothed/nude"? If a decision is reached, I'll be certain to help support it.

I could go for this.

parasprite said:
I could go for this.

It still loses the distinction for the special fetish.

I've made the following changes:

• Alias: cfnm -> clothed_female_nude_male (approved)
• Implication: clothed_female_nude_male -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Other gender combinations can be added as needed

And some preventative cleanup:

• Alias: nude/clothed -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Alias: clothed_on_nude -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Alias: nude_on_clothed -> clothed/nude (approved)

parasprite said:
I've made the following changes:

• Alias: cfnm -> clothed_female_nude_male (approved)
• Implication: clothed_female_nude_male -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Other gender combinations can be added as needed

And some preventative cleanup:

• Alias: nude/clolthed -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Alias: clothed_on_nude -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Alias: nude_on_clothed -> clothed/nude (approved)

Now that Parasprite has said it, it must be canon.

parasprite said:

• Alias: nude/clolthed -> clothed/nude (approved)

clolthed?

parasprite said:
I've made the following changes:

• Alias: cfnm -> clothed_female_nude_male (approved)
• Implication: clothed_female_nude_male -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Other gender combinations can be added as needed

How about the opposite combination; clothed_male_nude_female?

sdrawkcaB said:
How about the opposite combination; clothed_male_nude_female?

And then clothed_cuntboy_nude_male, and clothed_female_nude_herm, etc, etc...

The possibility of it turning into a situation where we ended up doing all possible combinations was my concern on this one at start.

Wodahseht said:
And then clothed_cuntboy_nude_male, and clothed_female_nude_herm, etc, etc...

The possibility of it turning into a situation where we ended up doing all possible combinations was my concern on this one at start.

See the clothed/nude wiki :v

I don't see anything wrong with tagging the combinations, as long as they serve an actual use, rather than complexity for the sake of complexity

Genjar made a very relevant post about this sort of thing here:

forum #187714

----

could work, I suppose..

But then you have no way of knowing which was clothed or nude without manual searching

titanmelon said:
See the clothed/nude wiki :v

I don't see anything wrong with tagging the combinations, as long as they serve an actual use, rather than complexity for the sake of complexity

Genjar made a very relevant post about this sort of thing here:

forum #187714

----

clothed/nude [gender1] [gender2]

could work, I suppose..

But then you have no way of knowing which was clothed or nude without manual searching

and nude_on_clothed combined with male_on_female and stuff. ...Except that instead of implying, male_on_female was aliased to male/female so that people can't keep track of who's in charge.

I guess we're tagging everything by gender now? I give up.
Constant flood of new tags that get added to a few hundred posts, when there's tens of thousands of posts that should have them... Nobody can keep up with these.

Edit: Besides what Wodahseht said, there's also the problem of nude being constantly tagged for partially_clothed and mostly_nude. Some cultures seem to consider toplessness to be nudity... Having to check for multiple tiers of implications is going to make those even harder to clean.

Genjar said:
I guess we're tagging everything by gender now? I give up.
Constant flood of new tags that get added to a few hundred posts, when there's tens of thousands of posts that should have them... Nobody can keep up with these.

Indeed. So much for the effort put into combining all the male_on_female, female_on_male, female/male, etc into single tags because of undertagging/misstagging. Guess we're splitting them all apart again.

Don't worry. There's less than a million images to retag, that's all.

Edit:

Clarifying my frustration with this one: On multiple occasions it's been stated that we aren't going to do tagging specific to individuals in the image (female_cat, male_pony, dickgirl_dragon, etc.) until/unless we moved to a system that supported linked tagging. Now we're stepping that way all and all the old arguments could easily restart.

"We're tagging clothed_female_nude_male, why can't we tag bound_female_unbound_male? Or kneeling_male_standing_female?"

I'm too tired to think of all the possible pushes based on this. It's well enough to say "this is a specific kink," but everything is a specific kink to some people or group of people.

Searching male/female nude clothed isn't going to get you only clothed_female_nude_male, but it'll thin the results to reasonable levels. "But that only helps if people properly tag gender and nude/clothed!" True, but clothed_female_nude_male only helps if people know it and tag it. The more specialized tags you have, the less likely complete tagging will occur.

Added the above points to forum #187913 - Advanced Policy Discussions: Implicative/Non-Conjunctive (Mar. 2016)

Here's an excerpt from the second case, which probably illustrates what Wodahseht (and maybe Genjar et al) are trying to say about tags like these if there's no kind of limit to the combinations being made, or a set of rules in place to keep things consistent

Wodahseht said:
Searching male/female nude clothed isn't going to get you only clothed_female_nude_male, but it'll thin the results to reasonable levels. "But that only helps if people properly tag gender and nude/clothed!" True, but clothed_female_nude_male only helps if people know it and tag it. The more specialized tags you have, the less likely complete tagging will occur.

Yeah, people can be picky.

That tag is excessive

Honestly, I thought this place had gotten over it's "muh slippry slope" boner. If there are people who are going to want larger_standing_unbound_clothed_mtf_anthro_to_feral_dom_on_smaller_kneeling_bound_nude_ftm_feral_to_anthro_sub, then how likely do you think nuking this tag will be to stop them?

No, seriously, I want to know how you can possibly think your logic is any less warped than theirs.

Beanjam said:

Agreed

People seem to be very divided on this sort of thing though

Beanjam said:
Honestly, I thought this place had gotten over it's "muh slippry slope" boner. If there are people who are going to want larger_standing_unbound_clothed_mtf_anthro_to_feral_dom_on_smaller_kneeling_bound_nude_ftm_feral_to_anthro_sub, then how likely do you think nuking this tag will be to stop them?

The same arguments come back over and over, but for all the ones already settled they can be re-ended (relatively) quickly by pointing them to forum XXXX where the decision was made.

This one effectively reverses a previous decision and tag consolidation and puts massive re-tagging projects on the books where there is already plenty to do.

Beanjam said:
No, seriously, I want to know how you can possibly think your logic is any less warped than theirs.

My logic is this: there is already a way to get nearly the same result using tags that are already fairly extensively tagged. It doesn't get the exact result this tag gives, but that tag won't give the full wanted results anyway until a massive amount of tagging gets done. Until then, they'll still have to use the current approach.

I'm all for tagging linked to each pictured individual in an image to facilitate more precise searching. However, under the current system trying to do that will cause massive tag bloating and likely never get widely enough implemented *correctly* to actually be useful.

Beanjam said:
No, seriously, I want to know how you can possibly think your logic is any less warped than theirs.

On the basis that someone has to actually tag those. And it's rarely the users who keep creating such tags. At most they add the tags to a token few hundred posts, and then they expect others to tag the remaining 99%.

The example you used isn't actually anywhere as bad as many that have been added recently. It'd only apply to a handful of posts, unlike these that need to be added to tens or hundreds of thousands.

Genjar said:
...unlike these that need to be added to tens or hundreds of thousands.

And tag scripting is no help for these kinds of projects. It's got to be done one-at-a-time.

You know, Gelbooru has this tag and doesn't have any tag bloat or people screaming about lack of dickgirl_dragon. You might want to look into why that is. Just sayin.

Beanjam said:
You know, Gelbooru has this tag and doesn't have any tag bloat or people screaming about lack of dickgirl_dragon. You might want to look into why that is. Just sayin.

They also have tags like 1girl, 2boys, and futanari used for both herms and dickgirls. All of which have been phased out of our tagging set-up.

You can't really effectively compare systems running under completely different managerial guidelines.

Beanjam said:
You know, Gelbooru has this tag and doesn't have any tag bloat or people screaming about lack of dickgirl_dragon. You might want to look into why that is. Just sayin.

But we aren't Gelbooru though. You can make a burger in America and everyone will love it but you won't get the same outcome in India. Results vary.

TheHuskyK9 said:
You can make a burger in America and everyone will love it but you won't get the same outcome in India. Results vary.

Yep...

parasprite said:
I've made the following changes:

• Alias: cfnm -> clothed_female_nude_male (approved)
• Implication: clothed_female_nude_male -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Other gender combinations can be added as needed

And some preventative cleanup:

• Alias: nude/clolthed -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Alias: clothed_on_nude -> clothed/nude (approved)
• Alias: nude_on_clothed -> clothed/nude (approved)

Thanks! Would it be possible to restore the tags for images that were lost when the CFNM purge happened?

Smudge_Proof said:
Thanks! Would it be possible to restore the tags for images that were lost when the CFNM purge happened?

I can make a tagging project out if it.

Wodahseht said:
And then clothed_cuntboy_nude_male, and clothed_female_nude_herm, etc, etc...

The possibility of it turning into a situation where we ended up doing all possible combinations was my concern on this one at start.

I only had the combinations with a coined name in mind when I created this thread, clothed female naked/nude male and clothed male naked/nude female, not any other gender combination.

Wodahseht said:
clolthed?

Actual alias wasn't typoed, but I couldn't resist poking. :P

RIP

Wodahseht said:
And then clothed_cuntboy_nude_male, and clothed_female_nude_herm, etc, etc...

The possibility of it turning into a situation where we ended up doing all possible combinations was my concern on this one at start.

Stick with the generic "intersex" unless there's a need to split them up.

Genjar said:
I guess we're tagging everything by gender now? I give up.
Constant flood of new tags that get added to a few hundred posts, when there's tens of thousands of posts that should have them... Nobody can keep up with these.

CFNM is a pretty common kink, which is why I allowed it. Notice how I haven't done any other gender combinations yet; I just don't expect them to get used nearly as much.

Genjar said:
Edit: Besides what Wodahseht said, there's also the problem of nude being constantly tagged for partially_clothed and mostly_nude. Some cultures seem to consider toplessness to be nudity... Having to check for multiple tiers of implications is going to make those even harder to clean.

I'm not touching implications with this until they are well established, and even then I don't think implying nude would be a good idea.

Furrin_Gok said:
clothed_on_nude and nude_on_clothed combined with male_on_female and stuff. ...Except that instead of implying, male_on_female was aliased to male/female so that people can't keep track of who's in charge.

x_on_x was never meant to tag "who's in charge", it came from dickgirl_on_male, etc., which were our then solution to having an intersex version of straight/lesbian.

parasprite said:
x_on_x was never meant to tag "who's in charge", it came from dickgirl_on_male, etc., which were our then solution to having an intersex version of straight/lesbian.

[this is an abridged excerpt from another related post that's Coming Soon™]:

What about structuring all tags with multiple terms in ascending order? (where relevant)

What that does:

• Helps clear up any confusion about implied purposes (such as implying a Top/Bottom)

If all the relevant tags are sorted alphabetically, and people understood this, then maybe there's a lesser chance of confusion about the above arising

----
The biggest issue here though, is the question of how we're gonna let others know that everything is alphabetical
(global news announcements etc? info near the post tagging section?)

titanmelon said:
If all the relevant tags are sorted alphabetically, and people understood this, then maybe there's a lesser chance of confusion about the above arising

I've noticed that although most *_on_* tags are alphabetized, there's a couple of exceptions (human_on_feral, human_on_anthro). When I first spotted those, I thought of suggesting that they'd be flipped. But didn't, because those tags have so many posts and the last time they were changed the servers didn't take it well...

And then there's tags such as male_on_feral and female_on_feral. If those were alphabetized, they'd be female_on_feral and feral_on_male. Not good.

Genjar said:
I've noticed that although most *_on_* tags are alphabetized, there's a couple of exceptions (human_on_feral, human_on_anthro). When I first spotted those, I thought of suggesting that they'd be flipped. But didn't, because those tags have so many posts and the last time they were changed the servers didn't take it well...

And then there's tags such as male_on_feral and female_on_feral. If those were alphabetized, they'd be female_on_feral and feral_on_male. Not good.

I like to choose names in whatever way that makes them more obvious when fixing tags (which is why I prefer cuntboy/male, etc. over male/cuntboy).

GameManiac said:
I can make a tagging project out if it.

Thanks again, I guess that would be nice as I gather there's no "rollback" function for system wide tag deletions?

Smudge_Proof said:
Thanks again, I guess that would be nice as I gather there's no "rollback" function for system wide tag deletions?

There is but it's tricky to use (you can revert but it reverts it back to that point in time, which erases any edits made since then).

Should be able to find them easily enough in the tag history though.

parasprite said:
There is but it's tricky to use (you can revert but it reverts it back to that point in time, which erases any edits made since then).

Should be able to find them easily enough in the tag history though.

I see, thanks for the help!