darryus said:
It's like you didn't even read the entire sentence, which is something you seem pretty keen on doing, let me explain it slowly.

Speaking of not reading an entire sentence I doubt you've thoroughly read anything I've posted, or else you choose to outright ignore every argument I've made. Let me explain EVEN MORE SLOWLY because apparently you need a step by step refutation of everything you've said.

darryus said:
The word can mean "heart" two things, the symbol and the organ.

I've acknowledged that multiple times, you don't need to explain that again, you're just being a jerk here.

darryus said:
If we had a tag that was just heart it would look like it could mean both of these, and that'd be bad.

It wouldn't be that bad. I've said before the wiki would still explain the difference, and that heart_(organ) images are so rare it doesn't even matter.

darryus said:
So if you want to get rid of <3 it should be moved to heart_(symbol), instead of heart.

No...you shouldn't have to qualify the rule...only the exception to the rule...read my animal analogy up top...oh hell lord knows you're too lazy to scroll up there so here it is again:

I mean lets say you have an animal...lets call it a snurf...and it's red. Then one out of every 1,000 snurfs is blue...do you start calling the all the other snurfs "red snurfs" because there's a blue one every once in a while? NO...you call that freakish blue snurf a "blue snurf" and you keep on calling the rest of the snurfs just "snurfs"!

darryus said:
And it would be clear that tag was only for the symbol and not the organ.

Again, very rare, don't care...not going to let a tag with 100 entries dictate how we handle a tag with 80,000 entries...it makes no sense.

darryus said:
Therefore we potentially avoid some mistags.

So we're going to qualify an 80k tag with (symbol) to avoid confusion with a tag that has ~100 entries...sounds completely stupid.

darryus said:
I doubt many people would actually go from typing "<3" to tag the symbol to typing "heart"/"heart_(symbol)" if this change was made. In like how most people probably don't type out "dickgirl/dickgirl" every time, and I think I've seen people still use tags like gay rather than male/male or m/m when talking about searching and blacklisting.

That's...fine? Aliasing means we can have it both ways.

darryus said:
Really the only thing that would change is that dedicated taggers wouldn't be able to instantly tell if a post with a heart symbol was missing the tag because it woudn't be at the top of the general list anymore.

I'm sure people can handle alphabetical order...H isn't exactly at the end of the alphabet.

-------------------------------------- Reply to TheGreatWolfgang ---------------------------------------------

TheGreatWolfgang said:
I'm actually agreeing with everyone on changing <3 --> heart.

At least we agree on something.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
A "snurf" would still be called a snurf regardless of their color because their physical appearance would generally be the same.

I think black sheep and blue lobsters would like a word with you. We change animal's names ALL THE TIME based on color. Get outta here.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
However, a vague tag like "heart" can mean either the symbol or the organ and having a specific tag for both (heart_symbol & heart_(organ)) does not seem like a bad idea.

Again...you are ignoring the numbers involved here...I guess maybe that's because that's the only way your arguement works? Sure, if the heart symbol and the heart organ appeared roughly the same amount or even 40/60 or even 30/70 I'd be in favor of this...however that is not the case by a LONG SHOT. It's 1/800. ONE OUT OF EVERY EIGHT HUNDRED. How many times do I have to say this?! the heart symbol WINS, OK? IT WINS. It gets to be called heart.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
We have been using disambiguation for the longest time now and it has been very useful when trying to differentiate between vague terms/tags.

I never said it wasn't useful I said "we don't need to run to disambiguation every time". My point is it's overused. It should only be used when the tags are relatively even...why is this hard to understand? If a tag is 99.9% of the time going to go a certain way then it's stupid to disambiguate it...it just clogs up the amount of posts that require disambiguation and devalues disambiguation as a whole because people aren't going to do the work of disambiguation if they notice that most of it is stupid, needless busywork.

Image you are a person who actually takes the time to disambiguate (here's where you say "I do dismbiguate" and I say to that...how many posts have you actually disambiguated? I'm guessing a laughably small amount)...and "heart_(disambiguation)" is a tag...this is going to be your experience with that: "heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol. heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol. heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol. heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol. heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol. heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol. heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol. heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol. heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol again. heart_(disambiguation)? It's the symbol AGAIN. heart_(disambiguation)? IT'S THE SYMBOL AGAIN. heart_(disambiguation)? IT'S THE FREAKIN SYMBOL AGAIN.

That will happen roughly 800 times before a heart_(organ) post will pop up in a paltry attempt to justify the existence of that (disambigution) suffix.