The bulk update request #4007 has been rejected.

change category unsigned (2684) -> meta

Reason: unsigned is used for posts without a signature. It's fitting category is the meta category.

EDIT: The bulk update request #4007 (forum #356014) has been rejected by @DubsTheFox.

Isn't it just -signature? Why have a specific tag that's just indicating the lack of another tag?

watsit said:
Isn't it just -signature? Why have a specific tag that's just indicating the lack of another tag?

I wanted the Reason for the BUR simple and short. Have a look at the wiki. I wrote how to use it. It's a little longer there. I am not even sure if it is well understandable. ^{_{I hate writing wikis...}} And yes, I know I am the main person who uses it. It's good to find images without annoying text. As a background, for instance.

dubsthefox said:
I wanted the Reason for the BUR simple and short. Have a look at the wiki. I wrote how to use it.

"Unsigned" comes across as a misnomer, then. Because "unsigned" means no signature, but a watermark and date aren't a signature. So it's at least very easy to think having just a date means it's unsigned, since there's no signature, or some kind of "For SoAndSoUser, thanks!" text without a signature, is still "unsigned".

Yeah, no.

topic #35287

I think this tag is actually useful but might need a better name to avoid a misconception that it's for signatures only, signature is only supposed to be for written signatures (e.g. post #3824743, post #3824694, post #3823894) and not any other forms of attribution. (Though it does get misused a lot)

The current wiki description for this tag seems like instead of just being equivalent to just -signature it would actually be the equivalent to a longer query like -signature -artist_name -artist_logo -watermark -url -credits, although that search could falsely filter out valid unsigned content because a url or watermark doesn't necessarily have to be relevant to the artist. I'm also seeing a lot of artist names and signatures in the results for that search anyway because most people aren't bothered to even add those tags when uploading.

I'm not particularly good with coming up with tag names, but something along the lines of no_artist_attribution would be clearer of the tag's intent.

wat8548 said:
Yeah, no.

topic #35287

Ok. give me a better name for the tag, so we can mass update it. I have no other word for it. My English vocabulary is not that big. It helps if you don't want to search for -signature -watermark -artist_name -url... You see what my intent with that tag was, and all you have to say is "yeah, no", instead of proposing a solution. It is not the same as -signature.

Btw. I am wondering why you always have to point out who added new tags to posts: "...but apparently DubsTheFox thinks it should go on every image without a signature..." What is the point of that? Does it change anything for the debate?

dubsthefox said:
Ok. give me a better name for the tag, so we can mass update it. I have no other word for it.

Perhaps unmarked_image (or just unmarked, though that may be a bit vague)? That seems it would cover the intent of no signature, watermark, date, or similar such thing marking the image. Though I'm not quite sure what "or similar" would cover.

dubsthefox said:
Ok. give me a better name for the tag, so we can mass update it. I have no other word for it.

Unattributed, non-attributed, lacking_attribution?

clawstripe said:
Unattributed, non-attributed, lacking_attribution?

That doesn't cover being non-dated. It can also be ambiguous whether character or commissioner names count for "attribution".

dubsthefox said:
Ok. give me a better name for the tag, so we can mass update it. I have no other word for it. My English vocabulary is not that big. It helps if you don't want to search for -signature -watermark -artist_name -url... You see what my intent with that tag was, and all you have to say is "yeah, no", instead of proposing a solution. It is not the same as -signature.

I don't believe the tag should exist at all. We should avoid adding to the list of compulsory tags if at all possible, and in general we do not tag the mere absence of a thing where a tag already exists for that thing. See no_sex, no_dialogue, etc. Multiple tags existing for the thing is not an excuse.

On a more personal note, I am rather suspicious of the motives of anyone using e621 specifically to search for art whose attribution is more easily "lost".

dubsthefox said:
Btw. I am wondering why you always have to point out who added new tags to posts: "...but apparently DubsTheFox thinks it should go on every image without a signature..." What is the point of that? Does it change anything for the debate?

Yes, it makes it clear that the tag did not organically spring forth from community consensus, but is instead one individual's misguided pet project. This is not in itself grounds for invalidation, but it helps demonstrate a lack of popular support for keeping the tag.

wat8548 said:
Yes, it makes it clear that the tag did not organically spring forth from community consensus

So... "community consensus" is the foundation of any new tag? The whole forum has to agree on it before it can be created? That's not how it works. Someone creates a tag, at some point another person finds it and uses it as well, and then it becomes an established tag over time. I doubt it is different for most tags we use today. If a tag changes much, in the way we are tagging, or if it needs many implications, that's definitely a reason to search for consensus in the forum first. But unsigned has a simple purpose, to make searching easier. You can disagree on the word, I used for it. But I asked in the "Do we have a tag for that" thread about it. Since I didn't get more answers, I used this one. My questions: forum #338982 answer: forum #338986

Btw. This is a "pet project" topic #34185 It would need many implications, and it is vague and useless.

dubsthefox said:
So... "community consensus" is the foundation of any new tag? The whole forum has to agree on it before it can be created? That's not how it works. Someone creates a tag, at some point another person finds it and uses it as well, and then it becomes an established tag over time.

Yeah, unsigned is missing a step there.

wat8548 said:
Yeah, unsigned is missing a step there.

"at some point"

Do you have any input besides "no, your tag is dumb", and "we don't tag the absence of something"? Btw. The latter is not true. We have tags like: faceless, no_pupils, no_sclera, mouthless, featureless_crotch. Those are all tags that describe stuff that is absence.

Your point of view was "Dubs is using unsigned instead of -signature" I can't blame you. That's exactly what the tag name suggests, and I didn't write a wiki for it. I explained what the intended purpose of the tag is, and you are ignoring it completely. There is no way to search this way without a long, annoying, tag string. That's my point.

I'd be happy if we can work out a good solution instead of standing in front of each other with crossed arms like two little kids.

I have no problem with changing the tag name.

watsit said:
unmarked_image

I like this proposal btw.

dubsthefox said:
Do you have any input besides "no, your tag is dumb", and "we don't tag the absence of something"? Btw. The latter is not true. We have tags like: faceless, no_pupils, no_sclera, mouthless, featureless_crotch. Those are all tags that describe stuff that is absence.

No they don't. faceless describes a head that is present without a face, but the head tag itself is invalid. no_pupils and no_sclera describe eyes that are present without certain features, but we don't tag eyes in themselves. mouthless is valid because mouth isn't. featureless_crotch is obviously not applicable to characters wearing pants, and of course crotch itself is invalid too.

You seeing the pattern here? All of these tags are valid because they describe an attribute of something that does exist, where we don't already have a tag for that thing in its normal state because it would apply to so many posts as to be entirely useless. Imagine tagging mouth or eyes on every picture which contains mouths or eyes. You can't simply search -mouth to find mouthless characters, so the scenarios are incomparable. Your only objection here appears to be that you don't want to search for multiple negated tags at the same time.

There is one notable exception to this rule, which is the clothing tags. At least for non-feral characters, it is generally poor form not to include at least one of clothed, mostly_nude or nude on a picture. This group of tags also gives us some more tags which you might superficially assume refer to "absence" of something, whereas in fact they mean the opposite: topless and bottomless, which include "is wearing bottomwear" and "is wearing topwear" in their definitions respectively. The actual coverage of the clothing tags is spotty at best, and the same applies to a lot of other tags which you are supposed to include on every post such as gender, species, and even artist name.

The fact that we struggle enough with consistently enforcing the presence of the few officially "important" groups of tags we do have is why I am strongly opposed to adding any more such tags. If every single post must contain at least one of signature, artist_name, watermark, etc. or unsigned, then one of those tags has got to go, in the name of not creating yet another Sisyphean task to overcome. As you just unintentionally pointed out, we have made the exact same decision many times before.

dubsthefox said:
Your point of view was "Dubs is using unsigned instead of -signature" I can't blame you. That's exactly what the tag name suggests, and I didn't write a wiki for it. I explained what the intended purpose of the tag is, and you are ignoring it completely. There is no way to search this way without a long, annoying, tag string. That's my point.

No, I understood your (new) point perfectly. It's still a bad idea. Also, it's only, what, five tags at worst? Or you could just search for -text, which I'm pretty sure is tagged by an OCR bot.

Separate from the matter of the tag's inherent validity, I also still have serious questions about your motivations for creating a tag whose meaning is synonymous with, "Psst, hey, this art could be ripped and uploaded to F-list tomorrow, and no-one would ever know."

wat8548 said:
...

Listen, I agree with most of what you are saying here.
You are right: we don't tag stuff that is considered "normal" for the character.
It's mainly done to avoid tag bloat, and to make searching for stuff more straightforward.

You could be a bit less abrasive about it, though, and not resort to callouts and strange accusations of abetting art theft.

bitwolfy said:

wat8548 said:
...

Listen, I agree with pretty most of what you are saying here.
...
You could be a bit less abrasive about it, though, and not resort to callouts and strange accusations of abetting art theft.

Yah, for real. I'm mostly on your side about this not being a necessary tag. But there's no need to be so rude about it.

The bulk update request #4007 (forum #356014) has been rejected by @DubsTheFox.

bitwolfy said:
You could be a bit less abrasive about it, though, and not resort to callouts and strange accusations of abetting art theft.

matrixmash said:
Yah, for real. I'm mostly on your side about this not being a necessary tag. But there's no need to be so rude about it.

I swear some of you don't believe a polite way to tell someone they are wrong on the facts exists. What was I supposed to say, please and thank you? Sorry about your invalid tag?

wat8548 said:
What was I supposed to say, please and thank you?

Hmm... I don't know... Maybe a little less passive-aggressive and with fewer accusations towards me that I support art theft...