Topic: Macro Tags

Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

Vulkalu

Member

So I wound up coming across a bunch of macro related tags and was going to make a BUR for them, but... I'm not overly familiar with the macro tags, and wasn't sure how much was actually worth aliasing away vs. just manually emptying the tags. Many of them have less than 10 posts per tag, and the majority can be found by looking for tags with *macro* in them.

Of note, ones I found with a greater amount of posts per tag:

There also seems to be a few micro* tags that likely need clean-up, but I'll leave this to be focused on macro ones for the moment.

Any advice for what to do with these tags would be appreciated (or if someone wants to just go ahead and clean this up themselves, feel free).

Hatjob

Member

vulkalu said:
So I wound up coming across a bunch of macro related tags and was going to make a BUR for them, but... I'm not overly familiar with the macro tags, and wasn't sure how much was actually worth aliasing away vs. just manually emptying the tags. Many of them have less than 10 posts per tag, and the majority can be found by looking for tags with *macro* in them.

Of note, ones I found with a greater amount of posts per tag:

There also seems to be a few micro* tags that likely need clean-up, but I'll leave this to be focused on macro ones for the moment.

Any advice for what to do with these tags would be appreciated (or if someone wants to just go ahead and clean this up themselves, feel free).

As a macrophile this has always been a bit of an issue. The problem is that a lot of macrophiles have specific size groups they associate with. For example if you have

size_difference alongside macro there is a unanimous size difference but macro is more focused on a larger size difference.

Following this is where it gets a bit shaky.
The idea of the mega_macro tag basically is categorizing them at a much larger size of macro. The problem is that there's no real set guidelines for what defines mega, giga, and tera. Usually it's on a per artist basis. so aliasing it with macro would technically be incorrect. However as you saw mega_macro has a very small amount of posts. It really is kind of sad because If there were a set guideline range for these sizes it would be a lot easier to fit them into different size groups.

In a perfect world I would have mega_macro be used for building size up to city sized. giga used for city sized up to planet sized, and then terra_macro for planet sized and up,(where I'd put interplanetary_macro for example.) However this isn't a perfect world and these tags are a bit of a mess.

My best recommendation for aliasing these would be to first change the definition on the wiki for the giga tag to be more inclusive since there are already macro posts in there with macros slightly larger than cities, and then:

Alias Mega_macro,planet_sized, interplanetary_macro, and terra_macro along with any other tags relating to anything that implies anything larger than macro into giga since that seems to be the go to for simply bigger macros. Although I also give fair warning that this might set a lot of people off because it really does broaden the larger macro scale system.

Vulkalu

Member

hatjob said:
As a macrophile this has always been a bit of an issue. The problem is that a lot of macrophiles have specific size groups they associate with.

Yeah, this is part of my problem. Macro isn't exactly something I interact with at all so I'm not really familiar with the community around it, nor what's commonly done. I also don't know how this site would want to handle the tagging (beyond what tags it already has). All I know is that some sort of clean-up needs to happen here, because I don't see a point in several barely, or not at all, defined tags.

I would like to get more input on this from more people before I potentially set up a BUR for it, however.

  • 1