The tag alias #53471 facemask -> face_mask has been approved.

Reason: same thing, the latter tag is more populated.

EDIT: The tag alias facemask -> face_mask (forum #316129) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

What exactly is the difference between mask and face_mask? I know the mask wiki mentions full-body masks and finger masks, but those seem like extremely edge-case scenarios. Not to mention, all kinds of face masks (such as guy_fawkes_mask) already implicate mask rather than face_mask.

With that being said, I think both of these should be aliased to mask instead.

The tag alias facemask -> face_mask (forum #316129) has been approved by @bitWolfy.

The bulk update request #1746 is pending approval.

remove alias facemask (0) -> face_mask (1747)

Reason: Followed by:
alias face_mask -> mask
alias facemask -> mask

I know this just got approved, but I think this is an error for a number of reasons. Primarily, I don’t see why we should distinguish face masks from any other kind of mask. All the masks on this site are going to be face masks. What other kind is there? finger_mask? Note that there is not a single post tagged finger_mask, and even if there was, I don’t think it should share the mask tag with face masks. It’s too different.

Second reason: the mask tag currently has all the following face masks imply it: gas_mask, domino_mask, balaclava, sports_mask, skull_mask, gimp_mask, oxygen_mask, face_shield, guy_fawkes_mask, diving_mask, surgical_mask, sleep_mask, fukumen, animal_mask, masquerade_mask, kabuki_mask, fierce_deity_mask, noh_mask
These are all face masks. If you really do want to retain the face_mask tag for some reason, all these would have to be unimplicated and re-implicated to the face_mask tag instead, then have face_mask imply mask (as well as those currently non-existent tags for non-facial masks, perhaps).

Third reason: mask currently has 23,989 posts, all of which are apparently face masks, compared to face_mask which has only 701. So, the face_mask tag is only missing about 23,000 posts that include face masks. The face_mask tag is missing so many posts that mask is already covering. Again, why not just alias them together?

The name is a little stupid, but a face mask is a distinct type of mask, not any type of mask which goes on your face (which is just.. a mask). It includes surgical masks, respirators, dust masks, etc.

post #2892543 post #3078864 post #2991626 post #2851116 post #2872394 post #2769861 post #2816928

I'm kinda surprised this isn't common knowledge after the whole pandemic that's been going on for the past 2 years

faucet said:
The name is a little stupid, but a face mask is a distinct type of mask, not any type of mask which goes on your face (which is just.. a mask). It includes surgical masks, respirators, dust masks, etc.

post #2892543 post #3078864 post #2991626 post #2851116 post #2872394 post #2769861 post #2816928

I'm kinda surprised this isn't common knowledge after the whole pandemic that's been going on for the past 2 years

Well, no. The tag you’re looking for is surgical_mask, which already implies mask. Whether or not it’s actually used for surgery is irrelevant—that’s still the term used for that style of mask. Perhaps the name could be changed, but that’s still the tag in use for it. From the surgical_mask wiki:
A protective mask specfically worn with the intent to shield the user from either inhaling or exhaling potentially harmful airborne particles/bacteria/viruses
This was written in 2019, before the global spread of the virus.

Secondly, if you look through face_mask, especially those from before 2020, you’ll find plenty of posts featuring other kinds of face masks besides the medical variety, such as post #1203771. It’s clear that many people have been using the tag as a substitute for mask, probably unaware of the existence of the mask tag.

Thirdly, even the face_mask wiki does not agree with your assertion. The first definition of a mask is what you’re describing, but there are two more definitions given as well. From face_mask:
Another variant is the beauty face mask, which goes over the entire face with exception of the mouth. it often consists of products for cosmetic purposes to heal, vitalize or remove dead skin. Last variant can be a decorative face mask, which can be worn for cermonial, ritual, or also cosmetic purposes. these masks usually tend to cover the upper face but can be made in any way, shape or form as it often treated as an artistic or symbolic requisite, rather than with a useful purpose. A common example of such symbolism is the smiling mask that displays comedy, and frowning mask that displays tragedy. this pair of masks is a common symbol portrayed in theatrical events.

So, even if face_mask was used in the way that you claim (which, as I’ve just demonstrated, it is not, and it never has been), the name of the tag would still need to be changed since “face mask” commonly refers to many different kinds of masks. Basically, it can refer to any mask that is worn on the face (which, as I explained in my BUR reason, is essentially every mask, thus making this tag synonymous with mask). Even if you wanted to change the current definition and usage of face_mask to apply to surgical masks, it would not work very well because the name will be very prone to mistagging. You really can’t say that only surgical masks count as face masks, since all these other kinds of masks are also worn over the face. People will use the tag for any kind of mask without checking the wiki. However, as I’ve already pointed out, even this is completely unnecessary since we already have a tag in use for what you’re describing that already has the correct implication to mask set up: surgical_mask. If you really wanted to, we could perhaps set up two subtags for the disposable and reusable varieties, and have them both imply surgical_mask. But regardless, face_mask still needs to be aliased to mask because it’s a direct synonym in our case.

I support category face_mask -> invalid because 1) the tag does not sound explicit about whether they are pandemic masks or any kind of face covering and 2) five years from now, people will probably start using it for non-pandemic masks anyway.

scaliespe said:
...So, even if face_mask was used in the way that you claim (which, as I’ve just demonstrated, it is not, and it never has been)...

I strongly disagree. From personal experience in Pennsylvania, most people use "face mask" to refer specifically to a thin bit of cloth or plastic mesh that "full covers the nose and mouth". It's a very common garment. Likewise, the fact that pre-pandemic masks only become common on page 9 of the face_mask results makes it clear that usage of the term has changed. Of course, the fact that you disagree means it hasn't changed for everyone...

Moreover, just look at the usage of face_mask and mask! Most face_mask images are soft bits of cloth/mesh that only cover the lower half of the face, whereas mask images are all hard plastic or leather that cover the upper half. Even if people shouldn't be using the tags that way, they are using them consistently. If the face_mask tag is being abused, it should be invalidated, not aliased away.

scaliespe said:
...we already have a tag in use for what you’re describing that already has the correct implication to mask set up: surgical_mask....

I do agree that leaving face_mask alone is asking for trouble. The new usage of the term does not have a hard definition and is not obviously connected with pandemic masks, and five years from now when the pandemic is a bad memory, people are going to resume using the word for other things. Personally, I'd rather make a tag like pandemic_mask, cloth_half_mask, or reusable_surgical_mask, but I'd also support just using surgical_mask as you recommend.

If we do decide to alias face_mask, someone should go through first and move most of the images to surgical_mask.

matrixmash said:
I support category face_mask -> invalid because 1) the tag does not sound explicit about whether they are pandemic masks or any kind of face covering and 2) five years from now, people will probably start using it for non-pandemic masks anyway.

We really don’t need more disambiguation tags that nobody will ever clean up if we can help it. In this case, aliasing face_mask to mask is perfectly valid, and the mask wiki can list all the different kinds of masks and ask the user to be more specific. That’s the best we can do in this case without leaving a messy disambiguation tag.

I strongly disagree. From personal experience in Pennsylvania, most people use "face mask" to refer specifically to a thin bit of cloth or plastic mesh that "full covers the nose and mouth". It's a very common garment. Likewise, the fact that pre-pandemic masks only become common on page 9 of the face_mask results makes it clear that usage of the term has changed. Of course, the fact that you disagree means it hasn't changed for everyone...

I’m not talking about Pennsylvania, I’m talking about E621. The tag face_mask has never been used exclusively for medical masks.

If you look through mask you will find plenty of medical masks there, too. You know why? Mask and face mask are synonymous. I hear people referring to the covid masks as face masks all the time, but just as often, if not more often, I hear them simply called “masks.” The fact that you think they’re just called face masks is probably due to their recent cultural prevalence, but historically speaking, things like theater masks have also always been interchangeably referred to as masks or face masks. Any discrepancy in the results between the two tags is most likely just because all the specific kinds of masks (like sports mask, gimp mask, balaclava, etc.) all imply mask. So, even if they weren’t tagging mask directly, the post still gets mask added, as opposed to face_mask, which isn’t implied by anything, and so only gets the tag when it’s applied directly.

Moreover, just look at the usage of face_mask and mask! Most face_mask images are soft bits of cloth/mesh that only cover the lower half of the face, whereas mask images are all hard plastic or leather that cover the upper half. Even if people shouldn't be using the tags that way, they are using them consistently. If the face_mask tag is being abused, it should be invalidated, not aliased away.

Again, that’s the wrong solution… nobody is ever going to monitor the invalid tag and clean it up. Just take a look through all the results for *_(disambiguation) and all the other tags in the invalid category. Let’s not contribute to the already huge mess. Aliasing it away will at least apply a valid tag instead of an invalid tag that likely nobody will ever fix. People looking for more specific kinds of masks can check the mask wiki page.

I do agree that leaving face_mask alone is asking for trouble. The new usage of the term does not have a hard definition and is not obviously connected with pandemic masks, and five years from now when the pandemic is a bad memory, people are going to resume using the word for other things. Personally, I'd rather make a tag like pandemic_mask, cloth_half_mask, or reusable_surgical_mask, but I'd also support just using surgical_mask as you recommend.

If we do decide to alias face_mask, someone should go through first and move most of the images to surgical_mask.

I think separating the surgical_mask tag into reusable and disposable varieties would make sense, as these reusable kind have not been very common until recently. Furthermore, changing the name to “medical mask” might be a better idea, since it’s been a long time since these have been primarily associated with surgery.

I fully agree with Scaliespe. Face_mask is ambiguous in the type of mask it covers, yes, but all of those masks it covers are masks and imply the mask tag. Therefore aliasing to mask makes sense.

Parroting what I mentioned on topic #37224:

I'd feel it is better to turn face_mask into a disambiguation tag/invalid category instead.
The term "face mask" on Wikipedia is used to refer to multiple types of masks, commonly medical face masks and beauty facial masks.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Parroting what I mentioned on topic #37224:

Yes but all of those are masks and covered under our mask tag. I could see the case for beauty masks not being covered, I guess...? But I've also heard those just called "masks" plenty and we didn't disambiguate mask over it.

cloudpie said:
Yes but all of those are masks and covered under our mask tag. I could see the case for beauty masks not being covered, I guess...? But I've also heard those just called "masks" plenty and we didn't disambiguate mask over it.

True, but it would still leave a lot of "masks" without a specific subtag. Having a disambiguation filter would at least help to decrease this amount of non-specific masks in mask, though it would not solve the issue with mistags.

thegreatwolfgang said:
True, but it would still leave a lot of "masks" without a specific subtag.

You could say the same thing about any umbrella tag

I feel like face_mask is probably fine as a tagname for the kind of masks that cover the mouth and nose, I think anyone that's using the website that's been alive for the past few years knows what the term is generally going to be in reference to.

sipothac said:
I feel like face_mask is probably fine as a tagname for the kind of masks that cover the mouth and nose, I think anyone that's using the website that's been alive for the past few years knows what the term is generally going to be in reference to.

Are you suggesting we alias face_mask -> surgical_mask or the other way around?

cloudpie said:
Are you suggesting we alias face_mask -> surgical_mask or the other way around?

I'd I think having face_mask as a more general term for any kind of airway covering masks and then imply surgical_mask and maybe other identifiable breeds of face mask to that. I think that both tags have reasons to exist, I think surgical masks are different enough from other kinds of face masks to deserve its own tag, and I think that the general concept of a face mask is coherent enough to also have a tag.