Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
The bulk update request #1548 is active.
remove alias twink (0) -> male (2499106)
Reason: The removal of this alias is necessary so that twink can then be aliased to girly instead. Invalid tags of this kind should be aliased to their closest valid equivalents, and girly fits the definition of twink more closely.
EDIT: The bulk update request #1548 (forum #320078) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.
Updated by auto moderator
The bulk update request #1548 (forum #320078) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.
The bulk update request #1549 is active.
create alias twink (0) -> girly (0)
Reason: Sequel to the BUR above
EDIT: The bulk update request #1549 (forum #320080) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.
Updated by auto moderator
The bulk update request #1549 (forum #320080) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.
This should all be undone. People use the term twink in various different ways, not always to mean girly, but always in reference to a male. The discussion all occured in topic #20795, where there was talk about it referring to either girly or athletic males.
furrin_gok said:
This should all be undone. People use the term twink in various different ways, not always to mean girly, but always in reference to a male. The discussion all occured in topic #20795, where there was talk about it referring to either girly or athletic males.
I tend to agree. Link from Legend of Zelda is 100% a twink (originally), but is not drawn girly all the time.
post #3011423 post #1838666 post #2960129 post #2870484 post #1995267
twink that isn't girly:
post #2848449 post #2842068 post #1684220 post #1873116
furrin_gok said:
This should all be undone. People use the term twink in various different ways, not always to mean girly, but always in reference to a male. The discussion all occured in topic #20795, where there was talk about it referring to either girly or athletic males.
Meh. Unless we’re going to keep twink as a separate tag entirely, girly is a much better alias. If you were to search twink before while it was aliased to male, you’d get all male results, including a lot of things that are not remotely twink. At least this way, searching twink still gives relevant results.
Personally I would rather it had been invalidated instead. girly doesn't cover all or even most of the implications of twink. As this thread demonstrates, it's subjective slang which means principally what the speaker wants it to mean. See also: himbo.
scaliespe said:
Meh. Unless we’re going to keep twink as a separate tag entirely, girly is a much better alias. If you were to search twink before while it was aliased to male, you’d get all male results, including a lot of things that are not remotely twink. At least this way, searching twink still gives relevant results.
wat8548 said:
Personally I would rather it had been invalidated instead. girly doesn't cover all or even most of the implications of twink. As this thread demonstrates, it's subjective slang which means principally what the speaker wants it to mean. See also: himbo.
Twink always (or should always) refers to a male though. The tag girly should only ever be tagged on images that feature a feminine male, so aliasing to male is still perfectly valid.
furrin_gok said:
Twink always (or should always) refers to a male though. The tag girly should only ever be tagged on images that feature a feminine male, so aliasing to male is still perfectly valid.
Apples are always fruits, but if I do a search for apple I'm gonna be fairly miffed if I got results that mostly featured grapes and bananas. But if I can't have an apple tag, I'd be at least a little mollified if my search returned a combination of mostly apples, pomegranates, and pears. They aren't apples, but they're closer than bananas and grapes.
I'd prefer twink be its own tag with a better definition and more aggressive curation/moderation on the tag, but since that's not at all realistic I'd rather it be aliased to girly (which is at least a roommate of the right body type) than left connected to male (which is wrong more often than right). It's just as subjective as something like bara or even girly and has a specific "I'll know it when I see it" definition, but like a lot of body-type descriptors it's hard to describe properly without just drowning someone with examples, so it gets mistagged. A lot.
aerotan said:
Apples are always fruits, but if I do a search for apple I'm gonna be fairly miffed if I got results that mostly featured grapes and bananas. But if I can't have an apple tag, I'd be at least a little mollified if my search returned a combination of mostly apples, pomegranates, and pears. They aren't apples, but they're closer than bananas and grapes.
But people also won't like seeing pomegranates being tagged pear because someone didn't realize the apple tag they tried to use was aliased to pear. For the tags on an image, aliasing twink to male makes more sense since any potential use of twink must also be a valid use of male, while it may not be a valid use of girly, so with the current alias, someone trying to tag a non-girly character as twink will cause the post to erroneously get girly. Whether or not searching for twink results in all male posts or just girly posts is irrelevant, since it shouldn't be used for searching as it gains you nothing. If you want twink aliased to girly so searching for twink will give results for girly, you can just search for girly to get the same results without a bad alias creating mistags.
Updated
aerotan said:
Apples are always fruits, but if I do a search for apple I'm gonna be fairly miffed if I got results that mostly featured grapes and bananas. But if I can't have an apple tag, I'd be at least a little mollified if my search returned a combination of mostly apples, pomegranates, and pears. They aren't apples, but they're closer than bananas and grapes.I'd prefer twink be its own tag with a better definition and more aggressive curation/moderation on the tag, but since that's not at all realistic I'd rather it be aliased to girly (which is at least a roommate of the right body type) than left connected to male (which is wrong more often than right). It's just as subjective as something like bara or even girly and has a specific "I'll know it when I see it" definition, but like a lot of body-type descriptors it's hard to describe properly without just drowning someone with examples, so it gets mistagged. A lot.
Athletes often aren't nearly girly:
omegaumbra said:
twink that isn't girly:
post #2842068
I mean, if that wound up in a girly search I'd be pretty miffed. That's not remotely girly.
You mentioned apples, pomegranates and pears, but if you actually look into what constitutes the Apple Genus, that includes crabapples, which look remarkably nothing like apples, pomegranates, or pears. Some of them look surprisingly like grapes. Y'know, the fruit you don't want to find when you look into the tag that covers "Cultivated apples, pomegranates, and pears". The definition you want to use might fit under another tag, but you also say you don't want to see the alternate definition when you run your search. Girly is still a tag, it just needs to be tagged intentionally, not accidentally on a muscular, athletic male.
watsit said:
But people also won't like seeing pomegranates being tagged pear because someone didn't realize the apple tag they tried to use was aliased to pear. For the tags on an image, aliasing twink to male makes more sense since any potential use of twink must also be a valid use of male, while it may not be a valid use of girly, so with the current alias, someone trying to tag a non-girly character as twink will cause the post to erroneously get girly. Whether or not searching for twink results in all male posts or just girly posts is irrelevant, since it shouldn't be used for searching as it gains you nothing. If you want twink aliased to girly so searching for twink will give results for girly, you can just search for girly to get the same results without a bad alias creating mistags.
But what if someone tries to tag a maleherm with twink? There’s no reason a twink has to be exclusively male, and the original alias could still result in mistagging.
scaliespe said:
But what if someone tries to tag a maleherm with twink? There’s no reason a twink has to be exclusively male, and the original alias could still result in mistagging.
The wiki page for twink says
A small male with feminine appearences
so it shouldn't be used with maleherms, or anything other than males, even if it was a completely valid tag.
watsit said:
The wiki page for twink says
so it shouldn't be used with maleherms, or anything other than males, even if it was a completely valid tag.
Generally, anything that would normally apply to males can also be applied to maleherms and andromorphs - girly or manly, for example. I think the wiki page for twink is wrong in that case. Not that it should even have a wiki page, seeing as it's been aliased to something else for a while now.
scaliespe said:
Generally, anything that would normally apply to males can also be applied to maleherms and andromorphs - girly or manly, for example.
A girly andromorph would be a female, since the thing that separates an andromorph from a flat-chested female is whether the character looks feminine or not. Maleherms are a closer call, since there may be a little wiggleroom where they can look feminine but not be classified as herm, but I don't think that's a very large window. Manly doesn't really equate to girly, since manly is used for when a classically-masculine gender has those masculine attributes made more pronounced, whereas girly is for a classically-non-feminine gender having a feminine body but not female genitals.
I think that either twink becomes its own tag again with a strong definition on it, or the tag should be invalidated completely.
If the tag should be saved, I'd suggest the definition to be:
Visual archetype for young looking male characters that have a slim to athletic body type. It's generally contrasted by tags like barazoku.
Or something to that effect...
While we're at it, barazoku's days should be numbered too. Even its own wiki page begs you to use other tags.
wat8548 said:
While we're at it, barazoku's days should be numbered too. Even its own wiki page begs you to use other tags.
https://i.imgflip.com/4uf0ds.jpg
Joking aside, I think it serves just to catch the bear body type tags... Since bear it's about literal bears.
The tags suggested are to differentiate between the western style chubby and hairy man and the Asian style muscular worker type man when you are searching.
Updated
omegaumbra said:
The tags suggested are to differentiate between the western style chubby and hairy man and the Asian style muscular worker type man when you are searching.
Technically, it's only barazoku if it comes from Japan, otherwise it's just sparkling muscular_male.
wat8548 said:
While we're at it, barazoku's days should be numbered too. Even its own wiki page begs you to use other tags.
barazoku:
On e621.net, because the tag bear is used to reference the animal, barazoku is now the replacement tag for both Western and Japanese-styles of masculine, muscular, usually gay-themed, erotic imagery.
So, what’s the replacement, exactly? It’s not just muscular_male + male/male.
watsit said:
A girly andromorph would be a female, since the thing that separates an andromorph from a flat-chested female is whether the character looks feminine or not. Maleherms are a closer call, since there may be a little wiggleroom where they can look feminine but not be classified as herm, but I don't think that's a very large window. Manly doesn't really equate to girly, since manly is used for when a classically-masculine gender has those masculine attributes made more pronounced, whereas girly is for a classically-non-feminine gender having a feminine body but not female genitals.
girly doesn’t exactly refer to a character with a feminine body. It can be that, but it’s a little more complicated.
andromorph girly
There are a few mistags in there, but these are mostly correct. An andromorph can be distinguished from a flat-chested female by certain characteristics, like the presence of defined pectorals, lower shoulder-to-hip ratio, and less curvy hips generally. This still leaves room for the character to appear girly. That is, male-bodied but still effeminate in appearance. Like, if you couldn’t see the genitals, the character would get tagged as male + girly, just like the many thousands of male girly rating:safe posts. That’s why the wiki for girly says that it can be used with andromorphs. The same principles apply to maleherms.
scaliespe said:
So, what’s the replacement, exactly? It’s not just muscular_male + male/male.
Invalidation. It's yet another tag based on little more than ~vibes~, theoretically something to do with whether the character looks "Asian" or not (but routinely tagged on any old Western meathead ), and encompassing at least three non-overlapping tags:
These are separate tags for a reason, and all of them contain more content of that type than barazoku itself (except slightly_chubby_male, but that's because nobody remembers it exists). And yet, if you search barazoku -slightly_chubby -muscular -overweight, you get 17 pages of posts which should all have had one of those three tags. It's clear that it's being used as a crutch to avoid the effort of looking up the correct tags, and since we already have well-defined tags for all of its contradictory meanings, there's no reason to allow this problem to continue.
wat8548 said:
Invalidation. It's yet another tag based on little more than ~vibes~, theoretically something to do with whether the character looks "Asian" or not (but routinely tagged on any old Western meathead ), and encompassing at least three non-overlapping tags:These are separate tags for a reason, and all of them contain more content of that type than barazoku itself (except slightly_chubby_male, but that's because nobody remembers it exists). And yet, if you search barazoku -slightly_chubby -muscular -overweight, you get 17 pages of posts which should all have had one of those three tags. It's clear that it's being used as a crutch to avoid the effort of looking up the correct tags, and since we already have well-defined tags for all of its contradictory meanings, there's no reason to allow this problem to continue.
Perhaps something does need to be done, but it has, from my experience, done a pretty good job of encompassing something much more specific. I’ve been using it as a blacklist term for quite a while to cover specifically male/male situations wherein both partners are chubby, overweight, or muscular. I don’t think there’s any other way to cover that situation that’s pretty commonly recognized as barazoku, at least not without blacklisting other stuff that doesn’t fit that mold.
I agree that it doesn’t do anything on solo posts, though.
scaliespe said:
Perhaps something does need to be done, but it has, from my experience, done a pretty good job of encompassing something much more specific. I’ve been using it as a blacklist term for quite a while to cover specifically male/male situations wherein both partners are chubby, overweight, or muscular. I don’t think there’s any other way to cover that situation that’s pretty commonly recognized as barazoku, at least not without blacklisting other stuff that doesn’t fit that mold.
I agree that it doesn’t do anything on solo posts, though.
Fine, let's remove solo too then. Still 9 pages, still all missing the correct tags. Both the wiki and usage give no hints that the tag was ever intended to refer to anything more than a type of man, and there's certainly no requirement that it be exclusive of other body types.
wat8548 said:
Fine, let's remove solo too then. Still 9 pages, still all missing the correct tags. Both the wiki and usage give no hints that the tag was ever intended to refer to anything more than a type of man, and there's certainly no requirement that it be exclusive of other body types.
So… what I’m proposing, then, is that we make the tag match exactly what I’m describing, and get rid of all the rest. At least that way, it’ll have a clear purpose and will provide some value to the tagging system. People who already use the tag for searching or blacklisting could continue to do so in roughly the same manner; it would just be a much more specific tag now.
