The bulk update request #840 is active.

remove alias daw (0) -> daww (5493)

Reason: The wiki for daww describes it as A tag for images of crazy amounts of cuteness and a certain flavor of... tenderness or intimacy that just makes you want to go "dawww....". Cute is aliased away to invalid_tag for being too subjective and ambiguous, so a tag for "images of crazy amounts of cuteness" and "makes you want to go "dawww...."" would be similarly subjective and ambiguous. Current uses of the daww seem to be that someone thinks it's a given image is cute or has a cute character, but there's no visible trait connecting them all. Also, dawww is already aliased to invalid_tag.

This first BUR de-aliases daw from daww, so a second follow-up BUR can alias them both to invalid_tag:

alias daw -> invalid_tag
alias daww -> invalid_tag

EDIT: The bulk update request #840 (forum #308458) has been approved by @Millcore.

This tag is not even close to being as subjective, and is being used consistently and accurately.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adorable

thevileone said:
This tag is not even close to being as subjective, and is being used consistently and accurately.

By what objective standard are these three posts consistent and accurate to? Not youth, as Loona doesn't look young, not soothing atmosphere, as the midnight lycanroc appears more threatening than "cute", and not a chibi childish depiction, as the basketball player looks well proportioned.

thevileone said:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adorable

The word adorable doesn't even appear in the wiki for daww, so it's not really relevant. But more importantly, even for that definition:

1 : extremely charming or appealing
2 : worthy of adoration or veneration

How is that not subjective? What's "extremely charming or appealing", or "worthy of adoration or veneration", is in the eye of the beholder (some people may consider the beholder to be extremely charming or appealing or worthy or adoration or veneration, others may consider it's only a little charming or appealing, others don't at all). Given your previous insistence on how cute things can somehow be objectively defined, or that it's fine as long as it fits a nebulous "mainstream" stereotype, despite being completely subjective, it really sounds like you're trying to enforce your own subjective ideas onto tags, or you're trying to piggyback a more objective idea on a subjective term because it's incidentally related.

EDIT:

thevileone said:
It makes it very difficult to find images like this without such a tag. Please don't make it impossible.

post #2720972

"Like this" in what way? Excluding your personal opinion that it's cute and adorable, what can you point out in the image that you're looking for? Believe me, I understand the frustration of not being able to easily find the things I find cute and attractive, but no one else is going to have my opinion on the matter, so I'm the only one that can know it when I see it. It's even worse when it's a particular art style that you find appealing, as the image can be of almost any subject as long as it's stylized a certain way but there's no way to clearly identify and tag styles. But it is what it is, because it's not an objective identifiable thing in the image, there's no guarantee others would tag it the same way. The best you can do is find the most common elements present in images you like, find artists that regularly produce the content you like, and go from there.

watsit said:
By what objective standard are these three posts consistent and accurate to? Not youth, as Loona doesn't look young, not soothing atmosphere, as the midnight lycanroc appears more threatening than "cute", and not a chibi childish depiction, as the basketball player looks well proportioned.

The word adorable doesn't even appear in the wiki for daww, so it's not really relevant. But more importantly, even for that definition:
How is that not subjective? What's "extremely charming or appealing", or "worthy of adoration or veneration", is in the eye of the beholder (some people may consider the beholder to be extremely charming or appealing or worthy or adoration or veneration, others may consider it's only a little charming or appealing, others don't at all). Given your "previous insistence":forum_topics/22929?page=1#forum_post_307933 on how cute things can somehow be objectively defined, or that it's fine as long as it fits a nebulous "mainstream" stereotype, despite being completely subjective, it really sounds like you're trying to enforce your own subjective ideas onto tags, or you're trying to piggyback a more objective idea on a subjective term because it's incidentally related.

1. You are not trying to get rid of adorable, you are trying to get rid of daw, which is an emotional reaction.
2. I didn't say it was objective. I said it is far more objective than what cute is, and that is why it is used much more consistently as a tag.
3. You are trying to take fringe use cases and make a big deal about them. We deserve to be able to find these types of images. Invalidating these tags only serves to make it harder for people to find what they want. It has no other useful benefit.
4. I cleaned up the examples you mentioned, which were all likely mistags of the term. I'm not saying that the tag can't be abused. It is far easier to detect abuse with such a tag, because it is supposed to be for something specific.

The bulk update request #841 (forum #308539) has been rejected by @TheVileOne.

thevileone said:
1. You are not trying to get rid of adorable, you are trying to get rid of daw, which is an emotional reaction.

Then what was the point of your reply? I'm looking to invalidate daw/daww because it's subjective and ambiguous, and you voted the request down and responded that "it's not as subjective as cute" (despite its definition being "images of crazy amounts of cuteness") with a dictionary link to adorable. So I can only presume your defense of keeping daww is that it can be defined in terms of adorable.

thevileone said:
2. I didn't say it was objective. I said it is far more objective than what cute is, and that is why it is used much more consistently as a tag.

Being 'less subjective' doesn't make it not subjective, and I disagree that it's "used much more consistently". The examples I gave were just that: examples. There are more that I don't see much consistency with (or are consistent within only a subset of images, but inconsistent with others).

thevileone said:
3. You are trying to take fringe use cases and make a big deal about them. We deserve to be able to find these types of images. Invalidating these tags only serves to make it harder for people to find what they want. It has no other useful benefit.

They're hardly fringe. And you still haven't defined what "these types" of images are. I get it, you find them cute and adorable. I might agree with you on some of them. But that doesn't stop it from being your or our opinion that other people don't necessarily share.

thevileone said:
4. I cleaned up the examples you mentioned, which were all likely mistags of the term. I'm not saying that the tag can't be abused. It is far easier to detect abuse with such a tag, because it is supposed to be for something specific.

It's hard to detect abuse when it's not clear what falls under its definition that could be abused. Some may find these daww-worthy, others may not (and these examples thus far are all in just the first page of results, out of 23). If everyone needs to second guess "well, I don't particularly find it daww-inspiring, but maybe someone else could?", how can you detect abuse? Great, you cleaned up the examples I mentioned... by what criteria? I listed them because I don't see what's worth 'daww'ing at them over, I might find them generally (as opposed to extremely) cute or adorable in their own way, but there's nothing specific to point to that's consistent. But I could probably find other people who would disagree and say they are extremely cute/adorable and it made them "daww...", and others who don't find it charming/adorable at all and it made them go "ugh...".

I don't really consider the subjectivity that big of a deal. It would be an example of a community sharing their ideas about a concept. Should someone really be offended by viewing someone else's take of what is daww worthy? I think we're being a bit ridiculous here. If this person exists, then they must get offended quite a lot off of undertagged images in general.

As long as the core of the tag remains on point, it shouldn't matter if there are a few edge cases that slip through. The benefits are far greater than the costs IMO. There is practically no alternative to a tag such as this.

thevileone said:
I don't really consider the subjectivity that big of a deal. It would be an example of a community sharing their ideas about a concept. Should someone really be offended by viewing someone else's take of what is daww worthy? I think we're being a bit ridiculous here. If this person exists, then they must get offended quite a lot off of undertagged images in general.

As long as the core of the tag remains on point, it shouldn't matter if there are a few edge cases that slip through. The benefits are far greater than the costs IMO. There is practically no alternative to a tag such as this.

Sets are used for such subjectivity.

The bulk update request #840 (forum #308458) has been approved by @Millcore.

The bulk update request #1591 is pending approval.

create alias daw (0) -> invalid_tag (2)
create alias daww (5493) -> invalid_tag (2) # duplicate of has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through bur

Reason: The second part, invalidating the tags as dawww already is.

Looking at the description at daww, it does seem like it could have valid uses without being overly subjective. There are pretty concrete examples there. I just don't care for the name of the tag, personally. I feel like bringing back the wholesome tag and aliasing this to that instead might be ideal.

cute would be something that would be easy to argue about and would sometimes get a person a warning about being creepy. There are people who think colourful tarantulas and pet rats are cute, and then there are people who find them disgusting. Also, human babies can be perceived as cute, or as disgustingly salivating, always crying and poopy. Never the less, however horrendous even you would perceive a character, there are circumstances where you can see how the behaviour (taking care of something, showing affection, helping in menial chores that for them are a huge effort) could invoke the "daww" reaction on someone, if not even slightly in you.

The bulk update request #1613 is active.

remove alias d'aw (0) -> invalid_tag (2)
remove alias d'aww (0) -> invalid_tag (2)
remove alias d'awww (0) -> invalid_tag (2)
remove alias dawww (0) -> invalid_tag (2)
remove alias dawwww (0) -> invalid_tag (2)
remove alias dawwwww (0) -> invalid_tag (2)
remove alias dawwwwww (0) -> invalid_tag (2)
remove alias wholesome (0) -> invalid_tag (2)

Reason: These aliases should be removed pending a proper establishment of the daww tag, or another name for the daww tag if folks want to change the name to something else. I think the name suggests its usage more than an adjective would personally.

EDIT: The bulk update request #1613 (forum #321247) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

This is literally just the cute tag all over again. Subjective tags should be invalidated (properly, not with invalid_tag aliases).

post #3036369

^ Recent example of post tagged daww. I mean, really?

wat8548 said:
This is literally just the cute tag all over again. Subjective tags should be invalidated (properly, not with invalid_tag aliases).

post #3036369

^ Recent example of post tagged daww. I mean, really?

“Subjective” depends on how it’s defined. If we allow a tag like wholesome to be applied according to the tagger’s own criteria, then yes, it’s subjective and not useful. If we establish concrete criteria by which the tag should be used or not used, it no longer becomes a subjective tag. I recall seeing that there was some attempt to do this with the cute tag, but it was constantly being abused by every random user who would apply cute to any post without reading the wiki. That’s just because cute is an extremely common word. This is much less so, so I doubt it’ll get to an unmanageable level of mistagging. With that being said, I still think we need a replacement for cute—something fulfilling the same purpose, but with a less common word to avoid the fact that random users will just apply it to anything.

The bulk update request #1613 (forum #321247) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

Ehh... I wonder where this is going.
post #3638532

Hmmm, it seems we're in a bit of a pickle here. There are 3 options daww can take: aliasing to invalid_tag, invalidation, and keeping it.

My first take is to eliminate the option of invalidation from the list. It's not an incomplete tag, and it doesn't have anything else it could mean, since it is a subjective tag about the theme of the post.

That leaves aliasing to invalid_tag, and keeping it. I'm currently leaning in favour of keeping it, despite its subjective nature, giving it the same kind of treatment that tags like what and where_is_your_god_now has received.

The bulk update request #6748 is pending approval.

create alias d'aw (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias d'aww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias d'awww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias dawww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias dawwww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias dawwwww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias dawwwwww (0) -> daww (5493)

Reason: Aliasing them into a singular tag

What are your opinions on cute (and some of the cute_* tags)? It has a touch of similarity with daww, though it might not be good to alias them together.

I still say they should all be aliased to invalid_tag, including wholesome, due to being very subjective.

i feel like there are so many subjective tags like nightmare fuel and what with its why, where is your god, what science has done, etc etc to address the subjectively unusual art, making daww tag invalid has less purpose. it will just destroy the library of standardly cute drawings to find.

daww is a pretty vague tag for a casual user without knowing its existence, leaving less mistagging being a codeword for cute - if so, then it better off untagging a post.

snpthecat said:
The bulk update request #6748 is pending approval.

create alias d'aw (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias d'aww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias d'awww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias dawww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias dawwww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias dawwwww (0) -> daww (5493)
create alias dawwwwww (0) -> daww (5493)

Reason: Aliasing them into a singular tag

What are your opinions on cute (and some of the cute_* tags)? It has a touch of similarity with daww, though it might not be good to alias them together.

I like daww, but don't want cute anywhere near it. That's asking for another hot mess. To be honest, I don't think it needs these aliases either. Just leave it alone, personally.

I think what and its bretheren are a much larger issue. There's too many of them with no real reason for them being separated.

nimphia said:
I like daww, but don't want cute anywhere near it.

Considering the very definition of the tag is "posts that are intended to be cute", the two are inextricably linked. People will largely tag daww on images they find cute, that's an unavoidable fact.

watsit said:
Considering the very definition of the tag is "posts that are intended to be cute", the two are inextricably linked. People will largely tag daww on images they find cute, that's an unavoidable fact.

What I meant is I don't want the cute alias because that will just make it a disorganized mess again.