Aliasing imminent_death -> invalid_tag.

Reason: imminent_death is tagging what could happen after the image, not tagging what is in the image, therefor it isn't TWYS

If this is similar to imminent rape, then it decreases the chances of seeing a post that could've slipped through the blacklist (e.g. death)

If that's noteworthy enough to overlook the subjectiveness of the tag, then I think it's fine to stay as it's currently being used

You can have imminent_death without the image actually containing death, however. If that image is still slipping through someone's blacklist, then they need to blacklist death.

I was against imminent_rape as well, but was told it fell under the "joke/meme" category of valid tags.
Imminent anything isn't tagging what is visible in an image, it's making an assumption of what will happen after the image.
That's not TWYS, it's not even tag what you know, it's tagging an assumption.

Many assumptions are made when tagging. We are in most cases dealing with still images that depict something that an artist wishes to portray. If it is directly verifiable within the image then it is tag. So is the character dead? Is he dieing? Well he die if something is allowed to reach it's logic conclusion?

post #266062
post #246193
post #296075
So are these characters Dead, Dieing or About to die?
This tag may not be the greats tag but can be seen within an images if depicted clearly.

Hammie said:
I was against imminent_rape as well, but was told it fell under the "joke/meme" category of valid tags.
Imminent anything isn't tagging what is visible in an image, it's making an assumption of what will happen after the image.
That's not TWYS, it's not even tag what you know, it's tagging an assumption.

You can't see the images future with 100% certainty, but you can determine from what you see that a characters death will very likely occur soon, and this factor is often a key point in an image.

Enkidu6 said:
You can't see the images future with 100% certainty, but you can determine from what you see that a characters death will very likely occur soon, and this factor is often a key point in an image.

But that's not imminent, imminent means "will soon happen".
Not, will probably happen.

And in either case, it's not something in the image, it's what is happening after the image.

The TWYS rule says tag what is in the image.

But but but...... TWYS rule is rather a guideline than an absolute universal rule.
Autism have difficulty understanding this....

Tauxiera said:
But but but...... TWYS rule is rather a guideline than an absolute universal rule.
Autism have difficulty understanding this....

Well it is a rule.
It's in the "site rules"
And quite clearly outlines that the only exception to that rule is the new character names exception.
Not sure how that doesn't qualify as a universal rule.

Also, calling me autistic is both rude and uncalled for.

Hammie said:
But that's not imminent, imminent means "will soon happen".
Not, will probably happen.

And in either case, it's not something in the image, it's what is happening after the image.

The TWYS rule says tag what is in the image.

Who are you to say what not in an image, since one person doesn't mean everyone sees it that way.... It just understanding what the image is trying to depict to the viewer and the TWYS stats tags should be directly verifiable from the picture itself ... wait, you know what, I've told the reason enough times... I give up. I solute your resolve and good luck with your campaign.

Most seriously, The origin of "imminent" should come from the famous "imminent rape" Rain Silves I think.

As has already been stated, they "imminent" tags are in the field of humor and must remain so.
It is true that the use of these tags is often excessive and unnecessary because not reflect any humor and you certainly do not consider this in your massive cleanup of these tags.....
No, of course you did not consider the humor aspect being the fact that you used the edit tag script system.
I know some people who have been ban for vandalism tag for less than that.

The "script tag system" is a dangerous weapon in the inexperienced hands...
In fact, I do not even understand why I was given a privileged account to a person who uploaded three images and zero tag edit in almost 4 years
(Hammie: priviligied account receveid at January 17, 2013, three upload and zero tag edit)

I'm not sure how "imminent_death" can be viewed as a humorous tag.
it makes sense with "imminent_rape" because that's a known meme on the internet.

As to my Privileged status, first, I did have some tag edits at the time, not many, but some.
Second, I didn't request it, I was just given it, so you would need to ask the Admin about why it was given.

Me being Privileged is completely irreverent to the discussion at hand though.
The question is whether "imminent_death" falls under TWYS.

The concept of an "imminent_death" tag is that death will happen in the immediate future of the image in question.
I am not even going to argue the validity of whether or not death actually will happen at this point.
The simple fact is that what you are tagging is not something in the image, but something that will happen after the image.
That by definition is something not actually in the image itself and cannot be seen therefor is not TWYS.

Hammie said:
The question is whether "imminent_death" falls under TWYS.

There are many exceptions/gray areas of TWYS rule. (incest, rape, and so on...) Also tags are for searching. Does existence of this tags make searching/blacklisting less effective? I don't think so. Unlike gender, or character tagging it can't really harm anything.

Can it be useful? Yeah, for example I can imagine people with such fetish.
I'm for existence of this tag but I wouldn't cry much after its deletion.

Hammie said:
I'm not sure how "imminent_death" can be viewed as a humorous tag.

You can laugh at everything, even death. From the moment that the joke has landed wisely.

holala.... Falord! does not close the door, I will come...

Tauxiera said:
But but but...... TWYS rule is rather a guideline than an absolute universal rule.
Autism have difficulty understanding this....

One can take the "Privileged" user rank under several different meanings.
I mean, you're acting pretty privileged right now, calling people "autistic" and whatnot.

There were a few privileged accounts given out earlier this year that probably shouldn't have happened, but we're letting it slide since it was our own mistake and I don't think a user should be punished for that. However, I have no issue with a privileged user losing their privileged status if they're not properly representing how a privileged user should behave.

As far as implying imminent_death to invalid_tag, I don't think I really agree. To the best of my knowledge it should usually be pretty easy to figure out if a character in an image is in a situation where they're about to die. The tag should probably be reserved only for such images where that's clear (as opposed to someone that's just bleeding out but otherwise does not appear like they're about to be killed).

Imminent_death describes a situation, not an object or anything tangible. For instance: http://www.photosfan.com/images/most-famous-war-photographs1.jpg This would be tagged imminent_death, I mean the dude is about to be shot in the head, his captors very clearly intending to kill him. Does the picture SHOW him dying? No, but then we also tag male or female gender without requiring that genetalia be visible (excluding herm/dickgirl/ambiguous). Sometimes you have to rely on educated guesses and common sense. If a picture shows someone about to be shot in the head, you can safely assume that their death is imminent, and therefore the tag would apply. Even if they were miraculously rescued at the last second, they were still in an imminent-death situation.

Fair enough.

One further question if I can though.
How far does that stretch?
I ask because until recently there were a few dozen imminent/impending tags of various subjects.
Most were only 1-5 images.
Is any imminent action a valid tag, or is there some sort of limitation that we can/should place on it?