Do we really need these tags?
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/62806 -thin_internal_body_cut,

https://e621.net/wiki_pages/62804 -detailless_body_cut

Personally I feel like they really don’t add enough information to the image to be valid and seem to have a lot of overlap with each other anyways, but if we keep them detailless should be aliased to detail_less_body_cut since detailless isn’t a word. Just trying to figure this out before I touch anything.

No, we do not. These are overly detailed and can already be covered by existing tags.

It seems that all of these tags have been created and populated by @Mikael_the_D.
The tags include vore_through_object, detailless_body_cut, thin_internal_body_cut, internal_wall, etc. among other things.

thegreatwolfgang said:
No, we do not. These are overly detailed and can already be covered by existing tags.

It seems that all of these tags have been created and populated by @Mikael_the_D.
The tags include vore_through_object, detailless_body_cut, thin_internal_body_cut, internal_wall, etc. among other things.

alright, I thought so but wanted to make sure before removing them, thank you!

manitka said:
alright, I thought so but wanted to make sure before removing them, thank you!

Don't manually remove the tags (otherwise it will look like tagging abuse). Do it through a BUR that either aliases the tags to an existing tag or to invalid_tag.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Don't manually remove the tags (otherwise it will look like tagging abuse). Do it through a BUR that either aliases the tags to an existing tag or to invalid_tag.

oops, a little too late for that, what do i do now?

manitka said:
oops, a little too late for that, what do i do now?

Just leave it be, don't need to undo everything.
Make a BUR to suggest aliasing them away.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Just leave it be, don't need to undo everything.
Make a BUR to suggest aliasing them away.

yeah I'm making the bur right now if i can figure it out, sorry for asking so many questions, is there a guide somewhere on how to do it? I would like to learn, but I've gotten confused every time I've tried.
and do you think i should alias them to xray_view, or to invalid_tag?

manitka said:
Do we really need these tags?
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/62806 -thin_internal_body_cut,

https://e621.net/wiki_pages/62804 -detailless_body_cut

Personally I feel like they really don’t add enough information to the image to be valid and seem to have a lot of overlap with each other anyways, but if we keep them detailless should be aliased to detail_less_body_cut since detailless isn’t a word. Just trying to figure this out before I touch anything.

I created those tags to move to it content which was on internal_wall. internal_wall has multiple conflicting use : "building walls", "a cut of body which make a wall", "internal view with wall of body".
The most common use case was the building wall, so I have move every internal use case to other tags. I just finished. Now there is only interior_walls in the internal_wall tag. The content of internal_wall should probably be moved to the clearer name "interior_wall" or just to wall to prevent future conflicting use.

I have created wiki page explaining what was those two new tags. I have not received any warning of moderation before deletion.
Sad to see this work gone to darkness...

manitka said:
detailless should be aliased to detail_less_body_cut since detailless isn’t a word.

I am not a native English speaker.
When I said detailless, I thought it was a correct way of saying "which doesn't have any details". (It is a cut which is has no details because it is just a completely flat surface).

manitka said:
yeah I'm making the bur right now if i can figure it out, sorry for asking so many questions, is there a guide somewhere on how to do it? I would like to learn, but I've gotten confused every time I've tried.
and do you think i should alias them to xray_view, or to invalid_tag?

You can look at e621:bur for more info on how to create BURs.

As for the alias target, we tend to avoid using invalid_tag unless there are no better alternatives to alias the tag to.
In this case, we could go with internal just to be on the safe side.

mikael_the_d said:
I have created wiki page explaining what was those two new tags. I have not received any warning of moderation before deletion.
Sad to see this work gone to darkness...

Warnings only happen if you get reported for adding those tags.

New tags need to go through community discussion first before they can be implemented. Otherwise, you would end up with a situation like this.
If you don't want your hard work to go to waste, consider using sets to preserve the selection for your own use.

thegreatwolfgang said:
You can look at e621:bur for more info on how to create BURs.

As for the alias target, we tend to avoid using invalid_tag unless there are no better alternatives to alias the tag to.
In this case, we could go with internal just to be on the safe side.

Warnings only happen if you get reported for adding those tags.

New tags need to go through community discussion first before they can be implemented. Otherwise, you would end up with a situation like this.
If you don't want your hard work to go to waste, consider using sets to preserve the selection for your own use.

Ok.
At least, a positive note is that internal_wall does not mix multiple use case anymore. It's only interior walls. It could potentially get merged with wall or renamed to interior_wall.

manitka said:
Do we really need these tags?
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/62806 -thin_internal_body_cut,

https://e621.net/wiki_pages/62804 -detailless_body_cut

Personally I feel like they really don’t add enough information to the image to be valid and seem to have a lot of overlap with each other anyways, but if we keep them detailless should be aliased to detail_less_body_cut since detailless isn’t a word. Just trying to figure this out before I touch anything.

It's spelled detail-less? Isn't that just bare or minimal? XD Oh weird, it actually is a word according some dictionaries I checked. TIL

mikael_the_d said:
I am not a native English speaker.
When I said detailless, I thought it was a correct way of saying "which doesn't have any details". (It is a cut which is has no details because it is just a completely flat surface).

https://www.google.com/search?q="detailless"+dictionary You meant smooth instead?

"If you don't want your hard work to go to waste, consider using sets to preserve the selection for your own use."
https://e621.net/post_versions?commit=Search&search%5Btags_added%5D=detailless_body_cut&search%5Bupdater_id%5D=1251165 Searching here will provide posts to add to the set.

alphamule said:
"If you don't want your hard work to go to waste, consider using sets to preserve the selection for your own use."
https://e621.net/post_versions?commit=Search&search%5Btags_added%5D=detailless_body_cut&search%5Bupdater_id%5D=1251165 Searching here will provide posts to add to the set.

Wow ! It is some advanced search features. I didn't know it exists.
Ok thanks. (Even if it won't go into a personal set.)

Edit : Oh, I just discovered that they were a list of filters in changes. Doesn't look so advanced with that. I may have forgot that it was here.