The bulk update request #2507 is pending approval.

change category short_story (1889) -> meta
change category medium_story (315) -> meta
change category long_story (736) -> meta
create implication short_story (1889) -> story (27050)
create implication medium_story (315) -> story (27050)
create implication long_story (736) -> story (27050)
create implication story_at_source (3728) -> story (27050)
change category story_in_picture (247) -> meta
create implication story_in_picture (247) -> story (27050)
create alias story_included (12) -> story (27050)
change category story_in_comments (25) -> invalid

Reason: To quote the wiki for story, "This tag may be used for related stories / backstories contained within the post itself, or outside of it in the description, or at the source."
Story in description is implying story, so I think the other tags should as well.

Short/Medium/Long_story tags indicate how "long" the story is. Or at least the wiki implies this usage. Although its most likely woefully undertagged.

Edit: added a few more tags

cutefox123 said:
create implication story_at_source -> story

I don't think this one should be applied. The tags are for relating what's in the image, or very occasionally in the description, but for an image to have an associated story at the source, offsite, seems a bit much to tag story since the post itself doesn't have a story on it.

watsit said:
I don't think this one should be applied. The tags are for relating what's in the image, or very occasionally in the description, but for an image to have an associated story at the source, offsite, seems a bit much to tag story since the post itself doesn't have a story on it.

The wiki states that it can also be applied if the story "..., or at the source."

Though I'm not exactly against it, I'm just doing what the wiki states, maybe the wiki needs to be changed a bit.

Also meta tags are not what's in the image, its about the image.

watsit said:
I don't think this one should be applied. The tags are for relating what's in the image, or very occasionally in the description, but for an image to have an associated story at the source, offsite, seems a bit much to tag story since the post itself doesn't have a story on it.

Not much different from alternate version at source, smaller version at source, and better version at source - all of these are already in the meta category.

And besides, I think people who are searching for posts that come with stories aren’t too concerned about whether the story is in the post itself, the description, or completely offsite - all they want, most likely, is to find posts that come with a story in some form or another. In that sense, having the umbrella story tag would be more useful than having to search ~story ~story_at_source.

cutefox123 said:
The bulk update request #2507 is pending approval.

change category short_story (1889) -> meta
change category medium_story (315) -> meta
change category long_story (736) -> meta
create implication short_story (1889) -> story (27050)
create implication medium_story (315) -> story (27050)
create implication long_story (736) -> story (27050)
create implication story_at_source (3728) -> story (27050)
change category story_in_picture (247) -> meta
create implication story_in_picture (247) -> story (27050)
create alias story_included (12) -> story (27050)
change category story_in_comments (25) -> invalid

Reason: To quote the wiki for story, "This tag may be used for related stories / backstories contained within the post itself, or outside of it in the description, or at the source."
Story in description is implying story, so I think the other tags should as well.

Short/Medium/Long_story tags indicate how "long" the story is. Or at least the wiki implies this usage. Although its most likely woefully undertagged.

A few more tags to consider:

cutefox123 said:
The wiki states that it can also be applied if the story "..., or at the source."

Yeah, I'm not sure that's a good way to use the tag. It's one thing to indicate the post has a story_at_source, but another to indicate the post has a story when it actually doesn't. That is, if I search for story, I expect to find posts that have a story, not posts that I need to go offsite for the story. Or if I blacklist/exclude -story, I wouldn't want to skip posts that don't have a story on the post here but happen to have a story on an external FA or fanfiction.net source.

scaliespe said:
Not much different from alternate version at source, smaller version at source, and better version at source - all of these are already in the meta category.

I'm not arguing against the story_at_source tag itself, just having it implicate story since the story isn't on the post. It'd be like having monochrome tagged on a color image post because one of the sources has a greyscale version of the image. alternate version at source (story at source) would be applicable, but not monochrome (story) since that's not what the post here has. Or if a post is 800x800, and is tagged better version at source which has a 4000x4000 version of the image, you wouldn't tag absurd_res here because it's large at the source.

scaliespe said:
And besides, I think people who are searching for posts that come with stories aren’t too concerned about whether the story is in the post itself, the description, or completely offsite

I'm not sure. If I'm looking for large images and search for absurd_res, wouldn't I care if the large image is here or if I need to go offsite for it? If I'm searching for something here, that usually means I want to find something here, not to find things that I have to go to other sites for.

scaliespe said:
imply story_in_comments -> story

I would not suggest this, either. story_in_comments should be invalid, since anyone can make a story to put in comments, and it's against the rules to roleplay or spam comments with stories to a picture.

watsit said:
Yeah, I'm not sure that's a good way to use the tag. It's one thing to indicate the post has a story_at_source, but another to indicate the post has a story when it actually doesn't. That is, if I search for story, I expect to find posts that have a story, not posts that I need to go offsite for the story. Or if I blacklist/exclude -story, I wouldn't want to skip posts that don't have a story on the post here but happen to have a story on an external FA or fanfiction.net source.

I'm not arguing against the story_at_source tag itself, just having it implicate story since the story isn't on the post. It'd be like having monochrome tagged on a color image post because one of the sources has a greyscale version of the image. alternate version at source (story at source) would be applicable, but not monochrome (story) since that's not what the post here has. Or if a post is 800x800, and is tagged better version at source which has a 4000x4000 version of the image, you wouldn't tag absurd_res here because it's large at the source.

I'm not sure. If I'm looking for large images and search for absurd_res, wouldn't I care if the large image is here or if I need to go offsite for it? If I'm searching for something here, that usually means I want to find something here, not to find things that I have to go to other sites for.

By that standard, only story in picture would be a valid use of story since a description isn’t actually part of the image itself. ^{However, I am splitting hairs at this point.}

I’m still not really sure that story is comparable to something like high_res. Stories are very rarely intrinsic to the image itself (excepting story_in_picture) - that is, the image can be enjoyed just fine without the story in most cases. It’s purely supplemental. Image quality, however, is intrinsic to the image. So, still, I expect people looking for stories are simply looking for stories to read - and if it really bothers them having to click offsite to find it, they can simply search story -story_at_source or even just story_in_description. I feel like that’s an edge case, though. But essentially, E621 is an image board - hosting images is what we do here, so it wouldn’t make sense to tag images that aren’t present. We don’t host stories or text documents. They’re all, therefore, external to the post itself (ignoring story_in_picture again…) and so lumping them all together under story makes enough sense to me.

I would not suggest this, either. story_in_comments should be invalid, since anyone can make a story to put in comments, and it's against the rules to roleplay or spam comments with stories to a picture.

I think the tag has a valid use in cases like post #3091200 where the story exceeded the maximum length of the description, so the uploader pasted the rest of the story in a comment. If there was a story written in the comments by someone who isn’t the artist/uploader/commissioner or otherwise officially associated with the artwork, then the tag should simply be removed in those cases.

scaliespe said:
I think the tag has a valid use in cases like post #3091200 where the story exceeded the maximum length of the description, so the uploader pasted the rest of the story in a comment. If there was a story written in the comments by someone who isn’t the artist/uploader/commissioner or otherwise officially associated with the artwork, then the tag should simply be removed in those cases.

God damn, that's a novel right there, maybe a very long story tag is needed lol.

ok but otherwise, what use is there, story in the description is sufficient, and they will notice the continuation in the comments when they reach the end right?

Bumping this because I was about to make a long_story -> meta request myself.

My input on the story_at_source thing: If a user were to search for posts with story, what's important is the fact said posts do have a story to read. That's where story_at_source would come in to point said users to where said story is located.

Although I'd like to point out that a lot of story_at_source-tagged posts also have said story in the post's description too. So I think that it needs to be clear whether story_at_source and story_in_description should be mutually exclusive or not.
Personally I think having both is about as pointless as using alternative_version_at_source while said alternative version is also on e6. But if they are meant to be mutually exclusive, then a long story_at_source story_in_description cleanup would be needed.

yand said:
My input on the story_at_source thing: If a user were to search for posts with story, what's important is the fact said posts do have a story to read. That's where story_at_source would come in to point said users to where said story is located.

Such a tag would need regular maintenance, too. Sources go down, or the source page can be edited to remove the story, which can invalidate when the tag applies, and having it imply story would further increase maintenance since that would need to be removed with it.

What are the boundaries for when a story is considered short vs medium vs long? That seems really subjective and hard to enforce. To some, anything that's not an actual novel (like a novella) would be a short story, but few fanfictions actually get to novel length. Furry smut readers might consider a novella length story to be long in comparison to other furry smut that's just a few pages.

Maybe short, medium, and long story should be aliased to story?