Requested feature overview description.

When removing a tag from an image, a short edit reason is now required, not optional. This reason would have to follow TWYS guidelines.

If available, a link to a General tag's wiki page (which would explain the tag's usage and why it was not applicable) would also be required.

In the case of Artist, Character and Copyright tags, more documentation may be required (source links, character ref sheets, etc.).

Why would it be useful?

If users are given an opportunity to explain their reasoning for an edit, it may prevent tag wars from spilling out onto the posts comments or elsewhere.

This would also help users learn more about tags and when they are or are not applicable.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?

Tag Edit field
Edit reason

inspired by a chat from last night

Not every single tag removal/rating change should require an explanation. shitty_art would be a great example of a tag that needs no explanation to remove.
This sort of feature would also be useless without a policy change regarding edit reasons, otherwise one could just copy-paste the same edit reason into every single edit they make.

Furthermore, how would this work with tags that have been aliased since editing (these show up as +new_tag -old_tag when viewing tag history), and what about adding tags that force the post's rating to change?

+1. I absolutely hate it when major tag changes occur but are not commented. That, and I think nobody bothers reading the reason of edit, doing this could make that a bit more noticable.

if i understood correctly, this would make any tag removal and rating changes impossible if you do not give reasoning? okay please no. that would make large scale tagging projects & rating fixes slow and. just. pure hell.

Mutisija said:
if i understood correctly, this would make any tag removal and rating changes impossible if you do not give reasoning? okay please no. that would make large scale tagging projects & rating fixes slow and. just. pure hell.

This. Its a nice theory but an awful idea if ever in practice.

If it is mass tagging, just C&P a reason, and edit if necessary. Of course, I'm a mobile user, and "alt-tabbing" on this is really easy.

Agree with Muti. So -1 from me.

Siral_Exan said:
If it is mass tagging, just C&P a reason, and edit if necessary. Of course, I'm a mobile user, and "alt-tabbing" on this is really easy.

it would still at least double the time needed for the fixing. it will cause enormous amounts of extra work. like year or two ago i had a "little" project trying to to clean up a mess that was left after an user who had mistagged one specific tag on like 1000+ images. it was slow and difficult. but imagine having to ALSO add edit reason on every single of those in addition to checking if it was incorrectly tagged and removing the incorrect tag.

also how this would work with the tag script system?

Would be rather hard to enforce proper usage as people would simply copy paste the same message over and over again and if it is in fact enforced then as mutisija noted it will make tagging projects near impossible and uninteresting to new and old user alike who may have felt interested in bettering the system but no longer with the job made excessively cumbersome by this.

also i'd imagine that many people would end up just putting keysmash or just . in the reason field.

Yeah no.

First off, there are a lot of reasons to remove tags that you really don't need to explain. The other day I saw the tag big_breastscharizard on an image... It's pretty obvious why I "removed" it - it was two tags lacking a space between them.

Forcing me to state that would be obnoxious, would slow down correcting tag mistakes massively, and would discourage people from participating, and wouldn't even really solve any issues.

So yeah. Definitely, absolutely no on this.

-1. Most of my tag removals are minor things, like typos and twys violations. An extra field to fill out would discourage these small improvements. Reducing tag wars is a good idea but I don't think this is the right way to do it.

About post #455090: I think the artist is not Chalo but a Chalo look-alike who posted anonymously on image boards for a while. I've been meaning to contact them and ask if I can credit them for a whole bunch of posts that currently have unknown_artist. It's a mess tbh.

Mutisija said:
if i understood correctly, this would make any tag removal and rating changes impossible if you do not give reasoning? okay please no. that would make large scale tagging projects & rating fixes slow and. just. pure hell.

lose the ability for solo, large scale projects, but slowly make the entire tagging population better at tagging.

and make tag vandalism slower and more obvious.

If this idea isn't fine as it is, surely we can reach some sort of compromise?

I honestly can't think of any way to compromise on this. Coming up with compromises is something I like to do and generally one of my first responses, but I just think this divide is not going to be bridged by any compromise.

Bad idea.
I already spend far too much time on weekly cleanups, and this would at the very least triple the time spent.

Mistagged cumshots, for instance: I'd have to constantly switch between removal reasons, so copy-paste wouldn't work at all.

^{"Cumshot is not tagged for pussy ejaculation."
"Cumshot is not tagged for internal."
"Not a cumshot if there's no cum at all."
"Cumshot is not tagged for aftermath."
"That's precum, not a cumshot."}
...etc.

And I don't think many users even check the tag histories. The comments, in general, are kind of pointless if nobody reads them.

Knotty_Curls said:
lose the ability for solo, large scale projects, but slowly make the entire tagging population better at tagging.

um no it wouldnt, it would just make most people stop correcting tags all together.

And considering working tags together with good wikis is pretty much the life blood of this site and what makes people come here instead of just sites like FA. losing the ability for solo large scale projects would be a disaster.

And adding to the op in having to give a valid twys reason and how this will mitigate tag wars: this wont really stop most tag wars, this would do nothing to resolve big tag wars issues like the difference between c-boy or female(that has come up again recently) in many posts because both sides will staunchly believe they are following twys. most larger tagwars have to do with interpretation rather then not following twys.

Perhaps a drop-down box would be more in line with an option to include a custom reason. But then we would have to find out some good default answers like Missing Gender Tags or Mistagged Genitals.

Nikolaithefur said:
Perhaps a drop-down box would be more in line with an option to include a custom reason. But then we would have to find out some good default answers like Missing Gender Tags or Mistagged Genitals.

even if it was like that, it would still be horribly impractical and make any even slightly larger tagging projects take at least twice as much time.

Mutisija said:
even if it was like that, it would still be horribly impractical and make any even slightly larger tagging projects take at least twice as much time.

Yeah, the main idea that came to my mind immeadiately would be that this idea would make it hell to do tagging projects that involve the removal of tags. And how would one provide an editing reason if they are using the tag script system, as opposed to manually changing tags in the tag edit box? Overall, good idea on paper, not so good in practice.

How long will it take for e6 to become git?

I just see all those tagging projects turning into PRs from personal branches.

Also. You didn't specify a need to add a reason to add tags.

It goes both ways andwhat you propose just won't work.

GDelscribe said:
Also. You didn't specify a need to add a reason to add tags.

It goes both ways andwhat you propose just won't work.

Considering both deleting and adding tags use the same interface, it would count for both if it's coded as being required for the server to accept changes.

Ruku said:
Considering both deleting and adding tags use the same interface, it would count for both if it's coded as being required for the server to accept changes.

Precisely my point. It wouldn't just be removing tags that is slowed down. How about those guys who upload with only 3 or 4 tags? Thats gonna be hell to deal with.

I sense this is bevause of the thread the other day.

assf
[text wall about how the last editor was wrong]
none
Added [list of tags]
Added cum
blah
Added cum
Added cum
Added cum
[something that was meant to be a comment]
asdf
Added cum
missing tag
Added cum

Yeah no.

Not that it seems particularly necessary at this point, but -1 from me, too. Missing spaces, typos, and tagging stuff that isn't actually visible are a rather large portion of my tag edits.

A double -1 (-2 I guess) on making them mandatory for adding tags as well, for the various reasons mentioned by previous posters.

I do leave edit reasons if it's not obvious why something is added or removed, or for the benefit of the few who check the edit histories and weren't aware why a tag does/doesn't apply, but I don't see why making more work for tag fixers (especially the more prolific ones) will result in a net benefit for the site.

Scakk said:
I sense this is bevause of the thread the other day.

This was already expounded upon in forum #207272

This feature could work if the post is popular. A popular post have more people tagging it and more people will be affected by the tag change/removal.

This is in practice going to be like mostly tag-locking a post.. for every post.

So no.

I could see a case for setting this behaviour for just specific controversial posts; but IMO individual (post, tag) tag-locks, which IIRC are already planned, would address that better.