I knew about their existence as tags, but never really turned my head towards it. Until now: card game symbols.

Why are they used? What is the point? Even if it wasn't for the fact that they are unicode characters, it would be for the general unhelpfulness in searches.

We have:

• ♥ - Hearts (37720 (aliased to <3, further ruining the point of having these tags)
• ♦ - Diamonds (124)
• ♣ - Clubs (84)
• ♠ - Spades (127)

We also have:

• card
• cards
• card game
• playing card
• tarot

Doesn't that second list seem enough for the card tagging business?
I admit that these symbol tags do have a fair amount of posts attached to them, but practically, it would just seem a pointless activity to tag all these.
Outside of card games, there are a lot of instances where you could use the diamonds symbol, but rarely anyone ever tags it, and I wouldn't either.

Also, is there a reason for not aliasing cards to just card?

That reminds me: there's dozens of tags such as five_of_diamonds.
Gotta tag everything that can be tagged, right? Sigh.

Heart was aliased away because not everybody can type in unicode. The laptops I've tried using weren't able to enter the "Alt codes" for example.

The other suits should still be aliased, either away from the unicode, or to it, so that a person can still enter the non-unicode search and find it.

, spade_(suit), club_(cards) whatever suffix gets used.

Genjar said:
Gotta tag everything that can be tagged, right? Sigh.

That's the reason I started this forum: is it really worthwhile to tag all that stuff? It's such a small, pointless detail to tag.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
We have:

• ♥ - Hearts (37720 (aliased to <3, further ruining the point of having these tags)
• ♦ - Diamonds (124)
• ♣ - Clubs (84)
• ♠ - Spades (127)

I don't see why we really need these, but they would amuse me more if they were all aliased in the same way heart is.

Diamond: <>
Spade: -(>
Club: -%

Realistically club and spade wouldn't work because the - already indicates a negation, but that doesn't really matter because these tags are stupid and we shouldn't have them. Outside of <3, which I have found to be useful trying to find images I remember but don't have saved.

Clawdragons said:
I don't see why we really need these, but they would amuse me more if they were all aliased in the same way heart is.

Diamond: <>
Spade: -(>
Club: -%

Realistically club and spade wouldn't work because the - already indicates a negation, but that doesn't really matter because these tags are stupid and we shouldn't have them. Outside of <3, which I have found to be useful trying to find images I remember but don't have saved.

The spade and club are abstract shapes and should be done by wording instead of symbols.

spade_(symbol)
club_(symbol)
diamond_(symbol)

Clawdragons said:
I don't see why we really need these, but they would amuse me more if they were all aliased in the same way heart is.

Diamond: <>
Spade: -(>
Club: -%

Realistically club and spade wouldn't work because the - already indicates a negation, but that doesn't really matter because these tags are stupid and we shouldn't have them. Outside of <3, which I have found to be useful trying to find images I remember but don't have saved.

- at the beginning of tags is automatically stripped.
% is stripped anywhere in the tag.

Spade: <3<
Club: c3<

Re-opening this thread because it is still not resolved.

How about we just invalidate ♦, ♣ and ♠ for the reasons mentioned in this thread?

Votes? Objections? Alternate ideas?

Hudson said:
Re-opening this thread because it is still not resolved.

How about we just invalidate ♦, ♣ and ♠ for the reasons mentioned in this thread?

Votes? Objections? Alternate ideas?

+1, I am willing to legitimately say nobody will search them via symbol...

But what we could do is alias them to "playing_card_symbol", or something equivalent, instead of just get rid of them entirely. It'd not be aliased/Implied with <3, obviously (it'd have to manually be applied INSTEAD of <3), but if someone is willing to tag the other three symbols, because of an outfit or etc., it'd still be searchable; just as playing_card_symbol.

*Edit* the ♥ symbol would be aliased, if someone uses the alt code, but not the <3. Despite all my time tagging, I always thought <3 would make the heart symbol, and that was aliased to the tag for consistencies' sake... I don't ever use symbols on mobile, and it normally doesn't get such for hold-key input. so here's one of a cat, to see if it'll transfer between mobile to PC: 🐈

I've made the following changes:

• Implication: ♦ -> playing_card_symbol (pending)
• Implication: ♣ -> playing_card_symbol (pending)
• Implication: ♠ -> playing_card_symbol (pending)

I could just unalias ♥, but it does make sense to have it aliased to <3.

Anyone have objections against this? A suggestion for an alternate word for playing_card_symbol
with 1 less underscore is also welcome.

Hudson said:
A suggestion for an alternate word for playing_card_symbol
with 1 less underscore is also welcome.

? suit_(cards)?

Hudson said:
Anyone have objections against this? A suggestion for an alternate word for playing_card_symbol
with 1 less underscore is also welcome.

Suit_symbols, if you want (Emphasis on plural, IMO. It can work as singular.).

So: ♦ = suit_symbols
♣ = suit_symbols
♠ = suit_symbols
And again, manually add suit_symbol instead of ♥, that alias is weird. All alt-codes are weird.

My philosophy would be to use pretty much ASCII for all formal tags other than maybe artist and character names, and even then use anything else sparingly.

+1 for @Siral's suit_symbols, for brevity and to emphasize that it's the symbol we're tagging and not necessarily actual playing cards. But I vote for the singular.

Also what about what @Genjar said, the [number]_of_[suit]? Should we just let those live their own life somewhere in the background, or should we do something about them? I.e. if we alias away the suits I don't see justification of not aliasing those as well, although that would be 52+ aliases for a full deck.

I've made the following changes:

• Implication: ♦ -> suit_symbol (approved)
• Implication: ♣ -> suit_symbol (approved)
• Implication: ♠ -> suit_symbol (approved)

What do we do with ♥ now? Trust me on it that it will be seen and used as <3 instead most of the time, regardless of what the Wiki says.

Chessax said:
Also what about what @Genjar said, the [number]_of_[suit]? Should we just let those live their own life somewhere in the background, or should we do something about them? I.e. if we alias away the suits I don't see justification of not aliasing those as well, although that would be 52+ aliases for a full deck.

That would be both overly specific as well as pointless. I don't think a single user would search on them, let alone search on suit symbols.

Hudson said:
What do we do with ♥ now? Trust me on it that it will be seen and used as <3 instead most of the time, regardless of what the Wiki says.

Maybe it'd be time to make a <3_(disambiguation) page? I can think of several examples where it can be confused: the emotion we use it for, and the eyes that imply it; the symbol of love, since that is a tag; romantic_couple, following suit with the misinterpretation Love can get; the actual fucking heart... And then the suit.

So: <3 = Heart_(disambiguation):

• <3_(emotion) <- <3_eyes for the show of hearts ( and hearts as/in eyes) on an image
• love for the stronger state of emotion in an image (it doesn't imply <3)
• romantic_couple for the status of a (non-sexual) relationship
• heart_(organ) ( heart is aliased to <3, and heart_(organ) does exist as a tag)
• suit_symbol for the heart symbol on playing cards

And each will have a small description so they can be tagged. They are not exclusive, though, just specified. If I missed any, feel free to improve the list.

Siral_Exan said:
Maybe it'd be time to make a <3_(disambiguation) page? I can think of several examples where it can be confused: the emotion we use it for, and the eyes that imply it; the symbol of love, since that is a tag; romantic_couple, following suit with the misinterpretation Love can get; the actual fucking heart... And then the suit.

So: <3 = Heart_(disambiguation):

• <3_(emotion) <- <3_eyes for the show of hearts ( and hearts as/in eyes) on an image
• love for the stronger state of emotion in an image (it doesn't imply <3)
• romantic_couple for the status of a (non-sexual) relationship
• heart_(organ) ( heart is aliased to <3, and heart_(organ) does exist as a tag)
• suit_symbol for the heart symbol on playing cards

And each will have a small description so they can be tagged. They are not exclusive, though, just specified. If I missed any, feel free to improve the list.

I don't know about this... Disambiguating <3 just so a bunch of pretty pointless suit symbol tags can be used doesn't exactly sound appealing to me.
I also don't think anyone is going to be very enthusiast about sifting through 42398 posts to put the right variant on it.

Then why not alias <3 to ♥'s SYMBOL, and and allow both to apply; then people just have to be diligent that the suit_symbol tag applies to when it's not the emotion?

A third action is to just have some person remain vigilant and observe (probably through a tag subscription) & fix the tag when it does not apply..

A fourth option is to include the four suits in the tag: suit_symbol_(♦♥♣♠) to serve as a visual identifier, alias suit_symbol into that, and then just have people be diligent/vigilant about the seperate tags.

And my first option is fueled by my undying annoyance that is when people put relationship statuses in sex images (where it doesn't apply), and it's reverse where people list the sexual orientation (gay, straight, etc.) on images where the status applied. The shorthand is people constantly make mistakes...

Hearts are more likely to be searched for via standard typing than the other ones. I say leave that one where it is.