Aliasing toddler → cub
Link to alias

Reason:

Same thing.

If anyone else has the time and patience, could you please go through toddlercon and see what that's all about? I have a feeling it's either the same thing or a lesser known age_play.

Knotty_Curls said:
Aliasing toddler → cub
Link to alias

Reason:

Same thing.

If anyone else has the time and patience, could you please go through toddlercon and see what that's all about? I have a feeling it's either the same thing or a lesser known age_play.

I always thought it was the same as shotacon (i.e. just alias that to cub too, maybe age_difference). Age_play is weirdly unused though, but maybe diaper/babyfur is just undertagged/underuploaded.

bad idea. toddler tag could apply to humans and humanoids while cub tag doesnt. it would cause bad mistagging. i suggest aliasing to young.

Only one toddler tagged post atm has a human in it, and it transforms into an animal.

Knotty_Curls said:
Only one toddler tagged post atm has a human in it, and it transforms into an animal.

...Can't argue with that logic.

Mutisija said:
bad idea. toddler tag could apply to humans and humanoids while cub tag doesnt. it would cause bad mistagging. i suggest aliasing to young.

Knotty_Curls said:
Only one toddler tagged post atm has a human in it, and it transforms into an animal.

just because it currently doesnt have any humans or humanoids doesnt mean that people wont use it on humans or humanoids in future.

Mutisija said:
bad idea. toddler tag could apply to humans and humanoids while cub tag doesnt. it would cause bad mistagging. i suggest aliasing to young.

But people are simply NOT differentiating by species whatsoever anyway when it comes to cub. Everything below teenager is tagged with that!

And besides why should only a specific age range have the human/fur differentiation anyway?

When I made this, I was thinking in terms of blacklist space. Why block cub, child and toddler when one could simply block cub?

I can understand the concern over a human being tagged cub, but we'd just be getting technical at that point. It's not like we tag baby cats as kittens, or baby birds as chicks.

basically what Circeus said

Toddler and cub aren't the same. Cub is just he animal variant to "kids" ie loli and shota. Toddler would be closer to something like babyfur.

Knotty_Curls said:
I can understand the concern over a human being tagged cub, but we'd just be getting technical at that point. It's not like we tag baby cats as kittens, or baby birds as chicks.

no this is a basic thing to be concerned about while aliasing something. aliases are NOT supposed to have high chance to create mistaggings and this one has pretty damn high chances. and cub tag's wiki state that humans are not supposed to be tagged with it.

Knotty_Curls said:
When I made this, I was thinking in terms of blacklist space. Why block cub, child and toddler when one could simply block cub?

I can understand the concern over a human being tagged cub, but we'd just be getting technical at that point. It's not like we tag baby cats as kittens, or baby birds as chicks.

basically what Circeus said

And why exactly can't you blacklist young instead?

Mutisija said:
cub tag's wiki state that humans are not supposed to be tagged with it.

Maybe it's time for a change, then.

or then we alias it to baby. but cub is literally the worst possible option right after aliasing it to loli.

Knotty_Curls said:
Maybe it's time for a change, then.

how about instead of fucking with wiki and ruining one tag, we alias it to young or baby.

Even baby is filled with both animals and humans. In fact less than 20% of baby posts have the human tag.

One one toddler post is also tagged human.

This is an age concern, not species.

also you need to consider people who use the tag for searching. blacklisting is NOT the main priority of tags. someone who types "cub" in search bar is not looking for humans and humanoids.

Then they could also use -human or blacklist it altogether. What's the problem?

Mutisija said:
also you need to consider people who use the tag for searching. blacklisting is NOT the main priority of tags. someone who types "cub" in search bar is not looking for humans and humanoids.

This

Knotty_Curls said:
Then they could also use -human or blacklist it altogether. What's the problem?

jesus fucking shit i am going to pull my hair out of my head.
again
nobody who types cub in search bar is looking for not furry content. it means that not furry content does not belong to that tag. which means that aliasing something to it that possibly contain not furry posts does not make any sense. why on earth you want to alias it to cub so hard when we have two exactly as good options that will not fill up searches with irrelevant posts???

Don't mind me, I'm just taking notes.

 ^         fetus

 |         baby          ^

 |         toddler  -    |    <-  "toddlercon"

cub    -   ???           |

           teenager -  young  <-  loli  <-   shota  

           adult    - (young)

See also: forum #168346

Knotty_Curls said:
When I made this, I was thinking in terms of blacklist space. Why block cub, child and toddler when one could simply block cub?

Or you could block young, which handles all of those without getting rid of the distinctions between the tags. Let's not impair searchability to make blacklisting slightly easier.

parasprite said:
Don't mind me, I'm just taking notes.

 ^         fetus

 |         baby          ^

 |         toddler  -    |    <-  "toddlercon"

cub    -   ???           |

           teenager -  young  <-  loli  <-   shota  

           adult    - (young)

See also: forum #168346

Is this going to be on the final?

ShylokVakarian said:
Is this going to be on the final?

The answer is obviously ^maybe

parasprite said:
The answer is obviously ^maybe

Welp, gonna have to read Chapter 34 again...

purple.beastie said:
If we're going to keep teenager, child, and baby, I think it makes sense to keep toddler as well, given that the age range of 1-2 is not covered by baby or child. It needs an implication to young though. There's also preteen, which overlaps with part of the age range of child. It should either alias to or imply child.

As for toddlercon, it seems like the only information it conveys is toddler rating:e -solo or some such. I suggest just aliasing it to toddler.

Similarly, loli conveys only young_female -rating:s (for the most part), but having the tag convey information about the rating is redundant. Why not make the tag more general purpose and at the same time continue the pattern of aliasing away from Japanese terms like futa and paizuri by aliasing loli to young_female and, likewise, shota to young_male?

Why did Tagging 1400 have to be a Gen Ed requirement?

purple.beastie said:
Just be glad that, as a Member, you don't need to take any courses on Industrial Tagging Processes, Theoretical Metatagging, or Quantum Entaglement.

Oh, yeah, sure, because taking Complaining About Not Having Certain Tagging Features 1790 is fun...

cub_male
cub_female
cub_intersex

Thoughts?

parasprite said:
cub_male
cub_female
cub_intersex

Thoughts?

Implies that the subject is non-human. I would advise against it.

alias everything to cub and usher in the new age of tagging

I honestly don't see what the issue is here. We have toddler/toddlercon/babyfur for newborn to 3, and cub/loli/shota for 4 to 12. What reason is there to make everything linked to a single tag? Just to please whiny people who can't be bothered to type in a few more words in their blacklist?

My suggestion? Child should be the go-to tag for the age group. It's species-neutral, which is pretty important here.

SirBrownBear said:
I honestly don't see what the issue is here. We have toddler/toddlercon/babyfur for newborn to 3, and cub/loli/shota for 4 to 12. What reason is there to make everything linked to a single tag? Just to please whiny people who can't be bothered to type in a few more words in their blacklist?

The issue is that they aren't used consistently enough to rely on for blacklisting, so everything tends to get tagged cub or young (or loli/shota if the character is human-like enough). There's currently no standard way to tag that age range. Condensing them is one way to help ensure they end up roughly in the correct place regardless of who tags them.

purple.beastie said:
Why make the gender specifying tags have the species distinction too?

This association with humans is hindering the purpose of these tags. I think they should be renamed at least.

Agreed, I don't think purposely excluding humans is really helping us at this point.

purple.beastie said:
I favor underage though because the purpose of the tag is more self-explanatory.

That's another idea. I'd be more inclined to replace young with this since it helps make a distinction for the range it is more designed to hold (if you're age 45, 23 might seem "young", but "underage" is more/less universal (give or take a few years).

parasprite said:
Agreed, I don't think purposely excluding humans is really helping us at this point.

That's another idea. I'd be more inclined to replace young with this since it helps make a distinction for the range it is more designed to hold (if you're age 45, 23 might seem "young", but "underage" is more/less universal (give or take a few years).

Or replace with minor. On the internet, this is defined as under 18, as I painstakingly found out. Apparently, legal in your state isn't good enough. Not that I'm complaining anymore, just throwing that out there.

purple.beastie said:

Would you be in favor of having a single tag for indicating if an underage character is being portrayed sexually? Perhaps sexual_minor? We could have something like baby, toddler, child, preteen, and teenager for fine-tuning age range, underage as an umbrella for all young characters, underage_* for specifying gender, and sexual_minor as a simple and accurate way for people to blacklist.

That seems like an interesting idea. There is much less need for a tag for non-sexual situations, so having a catchall for it would be really nice to have.

As I said ^{_{(possibly in an another thread, this discussion has been all over the place)[/sup]}, combining loli and shota tags into a single 'sexualixed underage' type of tag would likely work fine for blacklisting.Loli/shota should be kept until the blacklist issue has been sorted out. There definitely needs to be some way of blacklisting those.}

Genjar said:
As I said ^{_{(possibly in an another thread, this discussion has been all over the place)[/sup]}, combining the current loli and shota tags into a single 'sexualixed underage' type of tag would likely work fine for blacklisting.And there's a definite need for such tag. We shouldn't get rid of loli/shota if it means that those become impossible to accurately blacklist.}

Ok, and what about works that aren't sexualized? Not everything fits into one snug little tag.

purple.beastie said:
I think I'd be in favor of aliasing cub to child too. It's convenient for some to search cub instead of child -human -humanoid (though this would be eased if there were a tag that encompassed humans and humanoids), but then again, maybe it's also inconvenient for some to search ~cub ~child as it currently stands (especially since ~ supposedly doesn't play well with other syntax).

Other than convenience, I don't see an issue. I don't think it's important that people be able to search specifically for nonhuman characters in that age range. If they want to search for only nonhumans because it's legally safer in their area, I think they can stand to miss a few posts from the less accurate child -human -humanoid. If they have concerns like that, a human adult with a nonhuman child is probably way too borderline for them anyway, and that's all they'd be missing.

Would you be in favor of having a single tag for indicating if an underage character is being portrayed sexually? Perhaps sexual_minor? We could have something like baby, toddler, child, preteen, and teenager for fine-tuning age range, underage as an umbrella for all young characters, underage_* for specifying gender, and sexual_minor as a simple and accurate way for people to blacklist.

+1 to last paragraph. This is probably the best way to go about this. A guide will probably be needed on the wiki.

Sorry that this doesn't relate directly to the topic. I am personally against aliasing toddler to cub. At the very least baby/toddler/child/teenager should all imply cub to it if it were to become the general underage tag.

I was going to post the following as a tag alias suggestion for toddler->baby but it wouldn't let me due to this topic still being open:

---

I've seen toddler being used and been using toddler to specify especially young characters. Currently it has no wiki page, and no implication to the young tag.

From what I can guess the intention was to have the baby/child/teenager tags cover the approximate age ranges of 0-2/3-12/13-19.

Alternatively the tags could not be aliased if people feel a distinction is needed, and a system using baby/toddler/child/teenager with different age ranges specified.

Number of tagged images:
baby:567, toddler:55, baby+toddler:7

Both tags contain a small number of infantilism pictures which I assume are wrongly tagged, but that problem shouldn't become worse as a result of a tag alias.

Okay I thought about this topic a bit more and made a nice diagram proposal which kinda fits what everyone in the thread is saying I hope:

http://files.catbox.moe/4435e5.png (Edit: Just noticed newborn doesn't imply baby right now, it should!)

I pretty much wanted this as a guide to myself on tagging underage content, and is based off the wiki definitions of the teen/child/loli/shota tags, but eliminates the redundant preteen/toddler tags, and adds a general sexualized_minor tag.

I'm not fully sold on the baby->child implication. It seemed like a nice way to cut the underage categories down to two though: teen and child, but it's definitely not vital to the proposal other than making it easier to find/blacklist all preteen artwork.

Toddler->baby alias might look similarly weird, but when you look at artwork depicting them, it's nearly impossible to draw a line between them.

The biggest issue I can see is that not many people are using loli/shota tags as the wiki described them at the moment (male/female under-aged characters portrayed sexually, both human and cub), especially on cub art, so a big re-tagging effort to apply sexualized_minor is needed no matter what. If people continue not using loli/shota on cub artwork and adopt sexualized_minor, they could possibly be removed by aliasing them both to sexualized_minor.

The cub tag is kinda redundant, but it's in such widespread use that people would expect it to stay for young furs. None of the age tags should alias/imply cub as long as non-cub under-aged characters are allowed on the site.

... and then hopefully that people in the UK/etc can just blacklist sexualized_minor, or people who don't like preteens sexually with older partners can blacklist child+sexualized_minor+age_difference.

I've made the following changes:

• Alias: toddler -> cub (denied)
• Implication: toddler -> young (approved)

We may want to move these around later, but I agree that they should at least imply young while we figure it all out.

While I am necroposting, there seems to be some oddity with the Toddler tag being aliased already, despite not showing it in the tag description. I've been trying to make an alias thread, but it's not working. So:

Alias: Toddler -> Baby
No link to alias

Reason:
Toddler specifies an age group, while baby does not, but they both apply to the same age group. Baby is more general, in cases where the character is canonically not the age, but look like a baby, and has more tags to back it up...

It also takes less letters to type, but that is a drop of water in this pail