It's been a while since the last time we had this talk, so I figured it's time we had it again.

I won't beat around the bush. Cute is not staying. Personally, I'd be happy to just throw this tag into the sun and call it a day.

However, our last discussion brought up the possibility of disambiguation, so let's humor that for a little while.

What objective tags might we include on the cute_(disambiguation) page?

If a disambiguation will only lead to more messes that never get cleaned, I will repeat what I posted here.

Knotty_Curls said:
What objective tags might we include on the cute_(disambiguation) page?

big_head, big_eyes and chibi are the first three that come to mind.

Pretty much BlueDingo's statements. I also think something like an extra fluffy tag could fit in there; do we have one of those tags?

Cute characters are often toony in form so that might apply as well.

Too many posts, I don't see how it'd benefit from disambiguation. Instead of mistagged cute we'll just have cute_(disambiguation) that'll keep growing, because sorting through it would take forever.

Would be better off invalidated.

But if it absolutely must be disambiguated, then here's an another one: pinup. Cute gets tagged for sexy poses all the time. Just tag scripted those though, so cute pinup won't net many hits right now. But it will fill up again.

If we do get rid of cute for being too subjective, will other subjective tags like creepy follow suit?

BlueDingo said:
If we do get rid of cute for being too subjective, will other subjective tags like creepy follow suit?

I think that's a fair point. I'd also like to add nightmare_fuel to that as well. And what about other tags like big_butt, big_breasts, and small_breasts (unless those have objective definitions for what constitutes a "big butt" or "small breasts" that I'm not aware of)? With those tags, I just use my instincts for what counts as big or small by most people's standards.

UnusualParadox said:
I think that's a fair point. I'd also like to add nightmare_fuel to that as well. And what about other tags like big_butt, big_breasts, and small_breasts (unless those have objective definitions for what constitutes a "big butt" or "small breadts" that I'm not aware of)? With those tags, I just use my instincts for what counts as big or small by most people's standards.

big_breasts kinda does. It's defined as pretty big but smaller than the character's head, which actually creates some inconsistencies on where it's applied and the "pretty big" part is a little subjective.

BlueDingo said:
big_breasts kinda does. It's defined as pretty big but smaller than the character's head, which actually creates some inconsistencies on where it's applied and the "pretty big" part is a little subjective.

I guess a more objective definition for big_breasts would be DD to E cup, but less than F. Small_breasts could also be defined as B cup or smaller, but not flatchested. Probably just deconstructed my argument, but I still think that using terms like "big" or "small" regarding male or female genitalia is a bit subjective, especially for how they're currently used.

UnusualParadox said:
I guess a more objective definition for big_breasts would be DD to E cup, but less than F. Small_breasts could also be defined as B cup or smaller, but not flatchested. Probably just deconstructed my argument, but I still think that using terms like "big" or "small" regarding male or female genitalia is a bit subjective, especially for how they're currently used.

How would you determine a character's cup size without knowing a character's overall size? For tagging purposes, all measurements have to be relative to something. My suggestion was comparing breast size to torso width which would produce less odd results.

BlueDingo said:
How would you determine a character's cup size without knowing a character's overall size? For tagging purposes, all measurements have to be relative to something. My suggestion was comparing breast size to torso width which would produce less odd results.

I could just be too tired to argue or simply not care enough. But I can infer that I am partially correct in believing that the previously mentioned terms are often used subjectively?

P.S. Even if they are, I don't really have any ideas on how to fix that.

Is there any way the tag could be deleted, removing all the tag cute from all posts it applies to, and THEN make it an invalid tag, to spare all the work of cleaning out tags? If that option exists then I suggest it, but if not then making it an invalid tag will make for one hell of a cleanup.

Clitheroe said:
And the "big_eyes" and "chibi" tags won't really cut it, since their could be a non-big eyed, non-chibi things that's considered cute, like a mouse or something way too fluffy for it's own good.

It is a subjective tag and should be removed... But honestley, it's just not worth it. And like others have said, many other subjective tags would have to follow suit, and blacklists/subscriptions would be messed up, people will complain about the removal, people will still tag something as cute anyways, so on and so forth.[/section]

The likely reason why it hasn't been dealt with yet is because there'd be no easy way to find cute things without it. Many have big eyes, many don't. Many have a big head, many don't. Many are toony, many aren't. These features are also somewhat common on creepy images as well.

post #416276 <- Cute or creepy? -> post #879722

I would be lying if say that 'cute' isn't subjective, but is a thing in which lots (emphasis in lots) of people are interested.

I would suggest reseting the 'cute' tag; in other words: creating a tag with a less common name, then reallocating to it the posts which fit in our standards.
If you look at the 'daww' tag you will notice how impressively harmonic it is, not only proving that is possible to make a good version of the 'cute' tag, but being a possible starting point for the aforementioned reset.

BlueDingo said:
If we do get rid of cute for being too subjective, will other subjective tags like creepy follow suit?

Dfeinitely. Creepy is too subjective to keep. I already did pre-emptive disambiguation for that a while back, by adding the related tags.

...though I seem to have forgotten one of the more obvious ones: monster.

Clitheroe said:
If we have "cute_(disambiguation)", people will still use that subjectivley. And if we invalidate it... That's gonna be a LOT of "invalid_tag" to clean up, considering that there is 504 pages of it.

The latter is not a problem. Armpits was recently invalidated, and it had at least ten times as many posts. Kira sorted it out quickly.

Genjar said:
The latter is not a problem. Armpits was recently invalidated, and it had at least ten times as many posts. Kira sorted it out quickly.

Armpits has been marked as an invalid tag? Huh. Didn't another user spend months adding that tag to posts for people with an armpit fetish and receive some sort of promotion for his effort? I think Applebaum was his name?

Late Edit: I was close. His name is Eppleblam and he's marked privileged for all that work, which no longer counts for anything really. Kind of feel sorry for him, that's a lot of work to be destroyed by one fell swoop.

I'd rather it just be invalidated. I try not to tag it because I have no idea what the standards for it are as I've seen a huge range of posts get it.

Oh, I forgot mentioning: About the tag itself I would suggest a disambiguation, not only because that may be necessary for the aforementioned reset idea¹, but because some interesting tags can be attracted from it, like the ones BlueDingo mentioned as well as 'romantic_couple', 'shy' and 'puppy_eyes'.

BlueDingo said:
[...]

post #416276 <- Cute or creepy? -> post #879722

Just saying those braces rather ruin the whole cuteness factor there^_^;

As to the tag cute, i do support a disambiguation, we do already have tags for some of the specific traits or actions pretty much always defined as cute like puppy_eyes or baby_fat for example...

PS:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqX2IzzVAcU >_>

So, a subjextive tag witch hunt is on huh?

Knotty_Curls said:
... Cute is not staying. Personally, I'd be happy to just throw this tag into the sun and call it a day ...
If a disambiguation will only lead to more messes that never get cleaned, I will repeat what I posted here.

Knots, I was with you 5 months ago, and I still have yer back ... er ... plumage ...

the cute tag needs to go the way of the armpit
(and by that, I mean 'go away forevermore').

I was on the side of invalidation months ago and I still am today. Cute might have a purpose, but peeps have a huge range on what they consider cute and it is mistagged very often. I remember someone put the cute tag on a vore pic because the uploader thought that getting eaten is cute.

Like seriously, how are these cute, in terms of how we define it in the wiki?
post #1257666 post #1255521 post #1255304 post #1254168

TheHuskyK9 said:
I was on the side of invalidation months ago and I still am today. Cute might have a purpose, but peeps have a huge range on what they consider cute and it is mistagged very often. I remember someone put the cute tag on a vore pic because the uploader thought that getting eaten is cute.

Like seriously, how are these cute, in terms of how we define it in the wiki?
post #1257666 post #1255521 post #1255304 post #1254168

As I mentioned, may exist a way to save the tag:

I say disambig and urge users to use alternative tags. Sure, it will be a never-ending garbage pile (just like any other disambig) but sorting it is more productive than burning it.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Like seriously, how are these cute, in terms of how we define it in the wiki?

Kinda hard to answer when the wiki doesn't really define what cute is.

BlueDingo said:
I say disambig and urge users to use alternative tags. Sure, it will be a never-ending garbage pile (just like any other disambig) but sorting it is more productive than burning it.

I'll have to disagree. Sorting it means less time for other projects, which in turn leads to other tags becoming messes and then needing disambiguation. Which is why this trend of disambiguating everything makes me kind of nervous.

If I spend time sorting things like cute, I'll have no time to maintain tags that I care about. Surely the same is true for at least some of the other taggers.

Genjar said:
I'll have to disagree. Sorting it means less time for other projects, which in turn leads to other tags becoming messes and then needing disambiguation. Which is why this trend of disambiguating everything makes me kind of nervous.

If I spend time sorting things like cute, I'll have no time to maintain tags that I care about. Surely the same is true for at least some of the other taggers.

pardon me but it seems you are making it out to be as if its just one person on the whole site tagging anything at all. Im going assume you have never been dealing with the tag before so why should it suddenly bother you now, no one is forcing you to invest time in it... To be claer I do not see these disambiguations really effecting anyone who already have established tag sets they are sorting thru.

Genjar said:
I'll have to disagree. Sorting it means less time for other projects, which in turn leads to other tags becoming messes and then needing disambiguation. Which is why this trend of disambiguating everything makes me kind of nervous.

If I spend time sorting things like cute, I'll have no time to maintain tags that I care about. Surely the same is true for at least some of the other taggers.

A popperly organized movement would be more efficient, hence less time-consuming. I guess we would need to proceed in the same way as long tunnels are dug: with specific segments being organized simultaneously by predetermined units.

1) X users with a historic of reliability would candidate themselves or be invited for this work.

2) anything posted until the dated of the start of the cleaning would be divided equally among X - 1 of those users (using postage date as a demarcation).

3a) a daily cleaning quota equal or superior to the medium number of posts daily tagged with 'cute' would be established for those X - 1 users.

3b) the remaining user would be in charge of anything posted after that date.

4) Eventually, everything would be cleaned, all that without consuming too much daily time of anyone.

Ruku said:
Im going assume you have never been dealing with the tag before so why should it suddenly bother you now, no one is forcing you to invest time in it...

I've been cleaning it for a few years, combined hours for that project probably number somewhere around twenty. You can imagine what the tag would look like without that.

Would've been simpler for everyone if it had been invalidated way back when it became a problem.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I was on the side of invalidation months ago and I still am today. Cute might have a purpose, but peeps have a huge range on what they consider cute and it is mistagged very often. I remember someone put the cute tag on a vore pic because the uploader thought that getting eaten is cute.

This.
Because I have searched couple times using the tag, but majority of the stuff under it right now, I would've never tagged with cute to begin with. Also most of the time when post gets explicit I wouldn't consider things to be that cute anymore.

Main issue is that there is clearly use for tag like this, but there's not many alternatives. At least with armpits it was easy to just use already exsisting tags. chibi is one, but even that is getting misstagged a lot, because it should have clearly defined feature, not just that characters head is slightly larger than it should be. big_eyes kinda works, but also contains tons of sonic and toony characters.

Mario69 said:

Main issue is that there is clearly use for tag like this, but there's not many alternatives. At least with armpits it was easy to just use already exsisting tags. chibi is one, but even that is getting misstagged a lot, because it should have clearly defined feature, not just that characters head is slightly larger than it should be. big_eyes kinda works, but also contains tons of sonic and toony characters.

As I am trying to say, may exist a way of "saving" the tag (and it probably would need this disambiguation to work).

However those "our standards" really would need to be established before.

The easiest way to "save" this tag is to

1. Put all cute posts into a public set
2. Delete all cute tags
3. Invalidate the cute tag

The same goes for armpit but it's too late for that.

leomole said:
The easiest way to "save" this tag is to

1. Put all cute posts into a public set
2. Delete all cute tags
3. Invalidate the cute tag

The same goes for armpit but it's too late for that.

Our basic tagging/searching system already may cause some problems, incorporating sets wouldn't help, quite the opposite actually.
Also, is pretty likely for most people to continue using the tag instead of adding posts to the set, then those posts would be invalidated and lost, stagnating the referred set almost entirely, if not entirely.

For some reason the 'daww' tag is basically a smaller version of what the 'cute' tag is supposed to be; this sounds like a great opportunity to me and (as far as I can see) it would need this disambiguation to be availed.

BlueDingo said:
Kinda hard to answer when the wiki doesn't really define what cute is.

Wiki says:
Images or animations drawn in a manner that deliberately renders the characters overly adorable.
Such images are usually not erotic in nature; think butterflies and rainbows and kittens.

TheHuskyK9 said:

And yet there are 139 pages of cute images that are explicit in nature.

Clitheroe said:
And yet there are 139 pages of cute images that are explicit in nature.

To be fair, the wiki does say usually not. ~10450 rated explicit vs. ~26600 not.

'Cute' is often associated with young characters, but the current posts that I see right now are not associated with that in anyway. Cute and adorable are vague, subjective terms at best as some people are aware of already. I'd much rather have the tag invalidated than have varying viewpoints of what is considered 'cute'; dirty anal sex in this regard is not cute in any stretch of the imagination.

Just for fun I dug up what some people might consider counterexamples. post #486032, post #659340, post #689079, post #806474, post #1015630, post #1130435.

The concept of cuteness is somewhat vague, however it doesn't seem something we can't deal with; the problem here appears to be more the polysemy of the word 'cute' itself than anything else.
Within 'cute' exists more than one meaning:

I) 'adorable', which is what we wanted, what the tag was originally supposed to represent.

II) 'attractive' in so way, which works similarly to 'sexy' (in another words: useless).

III) 'heartwarming', which is romantic or just affectionate interaction between individuals.

I believe the problem is that we tried to select one among those meanings and use it, but the word itself hold them together in a practically inseparable way.
I have been saying this for a while now: if we found a word that encompasses only the significance we want it is possible to remediate that, creating a new tag that work as intended. Also this isn't a mere speculation, because that already happened before with the 'daww' tag.

About the 'cute' tag itself; there is no reason to keep it as a functional tag, however this doesn't mean we should invalidate it, not in this case. If a new tag for "adorable things" is created, people will continue tagging 'cute' sometimes; we will need to clean out the tag time to time, picking the posts that fit in what we want and ridding of the rest of them. We will need the disambiguation for all this to work.

There was some support for alternate tags back when this became a problem (in 2015).

Such as too_cute or too_damn_cute. But that never went anywhere. Instead, the consensus was that we should just try to keep it clean.

And of course, it was all talk as usual. The users who favored that never bothered to clean it.

Genjar said:
There was some support for alternate tags back when this became a problem (in 2015).

Such as too_cute or too_damn_cute. But that never went anywhere. Instead, the consensus was that we should just try to keep it clean.

And of course, it was all talk as usual. The users who favored that never bothered to clean it.

So isn't the first time this gets suggested...

Well, since the "we will just clean it" plan failed we can opt for this one now. Also, if it got approved, I compromise myself in cleaning the disambiguation page (preferentially not alone).

Ugh I've tagged too many things as cute.
Should I be more specific in the future?

For the record your avatar (post #936429) is something I would classify as cute without hesitation and I think most users would agree. Even with its flawed implementation, I think this tag has value.

malleablecrowbar said:
Ugh I've tagged too many things as cute.
Should I be more specific in the future?

Well, yes, but I would say it isn't necessarily your fault.

I suggest you (and any person interested) to start using 'daww' for "adorable things", since it is a unambiguous and way more functional version of the 'cute' tag.

leomole said:
For the record your avatar (post #936429) is something I would classify as cute without hesitation and I think most users would agree. Even with its flawed implementation, I think this tag has value.

Ageed.
I don't know how may times I mentioned it until this point, but the problem isn't the tag's concept, it is the simple fact of 'cute' being ambiguous, hence a better name would be necessary.

I recommended seeing one of my posts on this same theread if you are interested (this one ); in which I explain that better.

thanks for your article!
animeyt # [LINK REDACTED BY HUSKY]
dragon ball super episode 107 # [LINK REDACTED BY HUSKY]

jennietodd141 said:
thanks for your article!
animeyt # [LINK REDACTED BY HUSKY]
dragon ball super episode 107 # [LINK REDACTED BY HUSKY]

Who are you talking to? Did you create a new account just to say this?

Welp, thread got "necro'd" by a spam account. Time to lock this stickied discussion thread.

Unlock bump

Honestly, the 'cute' tag is hard to put on, because you need a generalized crowd to verify that tag. It's opinionated, and that's one of the big flaws of the tag.

TwentyFour said:
Honestly, the 'cute' tag is hard to put on, because you need a generalized crowd to verify that tag. It's opinionated, and that's one of the big flaws of the tag.

And yet any suggestion for what to search for instead have been pretty poor and not catching what people search for with said tag

CamKitty said:
And yet any suggestion for what to search for instead have been pretty poor and not catching what people search for with said tag

What is it that people search for with said tag?
..I've tried asking before, and got at least five distinct answers. Ranging from chibi to subjective things like 'cubs', 'fluffy kittens' or 'cute guys'.

And stuff like this, which is also tagged as cute:
post #1407075 post #1502041

I still think cute should be invalidated. Tag cleanup is too big, it will constantly require cleanup, and too many folks have different definitions of what they consider "cute" and tend to stray away from our definition, which would result in more cleanups

In my opinion, cute is too widespread of a term. As this was already mentioned, cute can mean many things.

Adjective tags like this, in general, can be subjective. Some people may find certain things cute, while others don't.

I like this website because of the accurate tagging, and this is one of the most prominent features of this website. Of course, I don't want to see images like the one below in my searches so that's why I say we should only remove a few of these subjective tags.

BlueDingo said:
The likely reason why it hasn't been dealt with yet is because there'd be no easy way to find cute things without it. Many have big eyes, many don't. Many have a big head, many don't. Many are toony, many aren't. These features are also somewhat common on creepy images as well.

post #416276 <- Cute or creepy? -> post #879722

Also, I thought I knew what was creepy was until I clicked the image on the right. XD (I have MLP blacklisted.)

leomole said:
Just for fun I dug up what some people might consider counterexamples. post #486032, post #659340, post #689079, post #806474, post #1015630, post #1130435.

I think it's mostly for that last panel. Fuckin' adorable.

Nobody ever mentioned a due date, but the time is coming up soon.

leomole said:
The easiest way to "save" this tag is to

1. Put all cute posts into a public set
2. Delete all cute tags
3. Invalidate the cute tag

The same goes for armpit but it's too late for that.

I'm liking this idea.

So the current plan is to move all current posts into a set that can't be edited. Cute will get invalidated once that's done.

Anyone willing to sort through that archive and all future posts will be able to do so without disrupting anyone else's definitions of cute.

i'm going to look dumb for posting here so late but FFS isnt the whole problem with this subjective tag just people tagging things that are widely considered NOT AT ALL cute AS cute? and are those posts not going to have tags on them that universally describe those "widely considered NOT AT ALL CUTE" things? like just fuckin forbid the cute tag from being used on posts that have those kinds of tags also on them like "vore" and shit. that would solve the whole problem, right? and then the cute tag can stay. and maybe rename it to "traditionally cute" or just make a new tag called that for the sake of having that tag for the people that want to see cute things, like me.

Trebe_No-Raa said:
i'm going to look dumb for posting here so late but FFS isnt the whole problem with this subjective tag just people tagging things that are widely considered NOT AT ALL cute AS cute? and are those posts not going to have tags on them that universally describe those "widely considered NOT AT ALL CUTE" things? like just fuckin forbid the cute tag from being used on posts that have those kinds of tags also on them like "vore" and shit. that would solve the whole problem, right? and then the cute tag can stay. and maybe rename it to "traditionally cute" or just make a new tag called that for the sake of having that tag for the people that want to see cute things, like me.

That's your own definition of cute. I think willing vore scenarios can be pretty adorable, especially when it's all cute happy faces. That's not even taking into account characters that are 'traditionally cute' like in post #966607 and post #701838 or gag images where the joke is cute characters eating/maiming each other like post #663333

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuteness
"baby schema"
it's at least somewhat objective

In my view, it depends on facial expression and art style, but that’s just me.

regsmutt said:
That's your own definition of cute. I think willing vore scenarios can be pretty adorable, especially when it's all cute happy faces. That's not even taking into account characters that are 'traditionally cute' like in post #966607 and post #701838 or gag images where the joke is cute characters eating/maiming each other like post #663333

well i understand that and respect that but why make the tag go away or keep it and let it stay inconsistent? it would make the tag more useful to anyone if we changed its rules to be more like a "traditionally_cute" tag and renamed it. imagine if you searched by the tag wanting to see cute vore pictures but its all inconsistent so you more see pictures of anthros bleeding to death or something because that was someone else's idea of cute. however you would feel then is probably how people feel when they look up by the tag and see vore or whatever else. the tag is undesirable to use in the search bar as of now supposedly. so its useless but it doesnt need to go away because we cant please all parties.

Trebe_No-Raa said:
well i understand that and respect that but why make the tag go away or keep it and let it stay inconsistent? it would make the tag more useful to anyone if we changed its rules to be more like a "traditionally_cute" tag and renamed it. imagine if you searched by the tag wanting to see cute vore pictures but its all inconsistent so you more see pictures of anthros bleeding to death or something because that was someone else's idea of cute. however you would feel then is probably how people feel when they look up by the tag and see vore or whatever else. the tag is undesirable to use in the search bar as of now supposedly. so its useless but it doesnt need to go away because we cant please all parties.

My point is kinda that 'traditionally cute' features and art styles aren't mutually exclusive with graphic content. Happy Tree Friends for instance is a series entirely based around the concept of 'cute characters dying graphically'. Unless 'cute' becomes a tag exclusively for safe-rated content it'd make it LESS useful to restrict it from being applied to more 'hardcore' tags (gore, vore, scat, etc) because it means that the combination of cute+gore/vore/scat can't be searched for. If you don't like seeing that stuff you can blacklist it.

regsmutt said:
My point is kinda that 'traditionally cute' features and art styles aren't mutually exclusive with graphic content. Happy Tree Friends for instance is a series entirely based around the concept of 'cute characters dying graphically'. Unless 'cute' becomes a tag exclusively for safe-rated content it'd make it LESS useful to restrict it from being applied to more 'hardcore' tags (gore, vore, scat, etc) because it means that the combination of cute+gore/vore/scat can't be searched for. If you don't like seeing that stuff you can blacklist it.

if i'm not mistaken or mislead then i assume the current plan is to invalidate the tag and i feel like that would make it an even less useful tag than how it would be if my idea went through. and i see what you mean with happy tree friends and those characters are cute and all but they turn traditionally not cute when they start up that violence. so a picture of the happy tree friends is traditionally cute but a picture of them in violence isnt.

sidenote: i dont feel like some staff should decide what to do with the cute tag once this topic is over. there should be some sort of vote and anybody on the site should see a prompt or banner that says to vote(with a link). and on the voting page there should be some info on all sides of this argument so everyone knows what to think about when they vote.

You guys forget that "cute" can also describe "acting cute", which while still not a scientific definition etched in stone it is much less objective IMHO.

I just tagged my first upload "cute" because of the gesture of the characters towards each other:
post #1582075

I always use 'cute'. 'Cute' connotes an idea of noviolence/minimal sexuality (IMHO), and may apply to uploads in which the focus is on character design and/or the scenario (if any)---something 'charming'.

The label of ‘cute’ should be differentiated. After all, if you want to see traditional cute and after you search the sexy ‘cute’instead of it, the feeling is really bad.

GameofThronesfan9999 said:
In my view, it depends on facial expression and art style, but that’s just me.

I forgot about species and age, too.

When I see "cute" ... I automatically assume "cub", "underage" and/or "pedophilia" since that's a codeword used on other sites (inkbunny especially) for underage trash.

I've pushed the alias for invalidation.

All images that had the cute tag can be accessed with set:ofc. If someone wishes to make more specific sets you can use this one as a basis, if someone wishes to maintain that set let me know and I'll add you.

The invalid_tag will be cleaned up automatically once the alias has finished running. That should all be done with and cleaned out before tomorrow.

Let the subjective tag witch hunt begin :O

https://e621.net/tag?name=*cute*&type=0&order=count

Next in line: cute_fangs
Discussed in: forum #209811

These witch hunts against subjectivity related tags are the reason everyone else uses Derpibooru for certain niches, trends, etcetera.

Rip cute tag

Popplio said:
Rip cute tag

True that

I'm not that surprised, being something so vague, but I certainly didn't mind it.

That did take some time gotta say, longer than I thought it'd be.