Implicating romantic_couple → romantic
Link to implication

Reason:

[adjectival-noun]_[noun] -> [adjectival-noun]

Not really 100% sure about this, are there exceptions?

--

Other links

• forum #189533 - Tag Alias: intimate -> invalid_tag (Apr. 2016)

Except that romantic seems to be used specifically to define setting/situation, while romantic_couple appears to mean a specific dynamic between the characters. You could have a romantic_couple with no background, which wouldn't be a romantic setting.

That's my read on it anyway. Might be misinterpreting.

NOTE 2020: Extremely outdated. See the last post in the thread instead.

That, and the couple tag has needed major cleaning for a few years. It used to be tagged for two characters before the duo tag gained prevalence.

It rarely gets tagged that way nowadays, but the old mistags aren't going anywhere until someone sorts them out. So far I've checked and cleaned about 10% of the oldest posts, and that took an year. I have too many projects to devote much time to any single one.

Genjar said:
So far I've checked and cleaned about 10% of the oldest posts, and that took an year. I have too many projects to devote much time to any single one.

Just for the heck of it, I went through about 60-80% of the oldest posts tagged with romantic couple and cleaned them

But most were fine though, maybe 10 posts or so were changed

(Note that my blacklist is kinda broken atm, so lots of posts were skipped. Hence the wide range average)

Wodahseht said:

Hm, yeah not too sure on what exactly romantic is being used to denote at present:

• the physical setting? - beaches, cozy indoors, warmly lit restaurants etc.
• the 'mood'/ambience? - no real definition for this
• a combination of the above

Can you have a romantic scene with just characters?
What about a romantic scene without characters?

Something else?

---

The 'easiest' solution is to split the setting and pairing, while using romantic as the umbrella tag and implicate the former to the latter

• romantic
• romantic_setting
• romantic_couple

implication romantic_couple -> romantic
implication romantic_setting -> romantic

So people can tag any of the 3 and it'll still be accurate

-
@Genjar:

Th above proposition proposition creates more tagging work though, even with the implication, so idk..

titanmelon said:
Hm, yeah not too sure on what exactly romantic is being used to denote at present:

• the physical setting? - beaches, cozy indoors, warmly lit restaurants etc.
• the 'mood'/ambience? - no real definition for this
• a combination of the above

Can you have a romantic scene with just characters?
What about a romantic scene without characters?

Something else?

I'm pretty sure that, whatever it is, it could either be phrased better or is subjective, and thus not worthy of being tagged.

ShylokVakarian said:

romantic -> affectionate ?

It could work for *_couple, but you can't really have an 'affectionate setting'

..can you?

titanmelon said:
Just for the heck of it, I went through about 60-80% of the oldest posts tagged with romantic couple and cleaned them

But most were fine though, maybe 10 posts or so were changed

Good to hear, since as I said, I've already checked the oldest posts. So there shouldn't have been many mistags among those there.

(I've always found it easiest to keep track of projects by starting from the oldest and tagging onwards from there).

Dunno how far I've cleaned it, though. There seem to be a lot left after post 150000 or so. Posts such as post #160267, post #160442 (generic sex, nothing indicates a couple), post #160587, post #160704, post #160755, etc. And that's just from a relatively small range. At least third of the posts are still mistagged.

Which means that it shouldn't be implicated anywhere. Not yet, anyway.

On a related note, just made:

tag group:affection tag group:romance
edit: how did that even happen

to keep track of all these types of tags. (Plus it's easier to update stuff from there, instead of going around changing all the pages)
--

Genjar said:
(I've always found it easiest to keep track of projects by starting from the oldest and tagging onwards from there).

Same :v

Romantic couples:
post #188246 post #116358 post #110068 post #661586

...heh.
Maybe it'd be a good idea to prioritize this. Posts such as those really need to be sorted out ASAP.

Edit: Cleaned up to post 770000. Almost done~~

Related: forum #189533 - Tag Alias: intimate -> invalid_tag (Apr. 2016)

Romantic_couple has been cleaned. Took a month of work.

About 20% of the posts ended up pruned, mostly plain duos from before the usage of that tag was standardized. There were hardly any mistags among the newer posts, but I still had to check those one by one since 'couple' isn't something that can be easily seen from the thumbnails.

Anyway, the main topic?
I'm against the implication. Despite the name, romantic_couple isn't always 'romantic' enough. Naming it something like couple_in_love might've been more accurate.

Whereas the romantic tag is more for the central theme/setting of the image. Maybe it's too ambiguous to keep? I wouldn't mind sorting it into something like romantic_setting or romantic_theme (though the latter name overlaps with the color themes).

Nice!

Genjar said:
[..]
Anyway, the main topic?
I'm against the implication. Despite the name, romantic_couple isn't always 'romantic' enough. Naming it something like couple_in_love might've been more accurate.
[..]

Hm, you might have a point there, noticed that too

So, should we split that further, into maybe

• duo + romantic_setting/romantic_theme (the setting may be romantic, but the characters aren't really being overly intimate)
• romantic_couple ?

At present, most of the latter is vastly undertagged, probably due to pair being aliased to duo
(if anyone tags pair on posts, please say in here)

So it shouldn't be too much of an issue regarding overlap at present

Genjar said:
Despite the name, romantic_couple isn't always 'romantic' enough.

Any examples, or links to these for comparison?

titanmelon said:
Any examples, or links to these for comparison?

...forum #187966.
As for posts that weren't cleaned out: take a look at this, for example. 'Romantic_couple' is still aliased with 'couple' and it tends to get tagged for any couples, not just ones that are being romantic.

'course, what counts as romantic has always been subjective.

Here's some recent posts that have been tagged as romantic_couple:
post #1043744 post #1036309 post #1041640 post #1028022

Those don't look particularly romantic to me, but again, someone might disagree.

titanmelon said:
duo + romantic_setting/romantic_theme (the setting may be romantic, but the characters aren't really being overly intimate)

The romantic_ambiance tag you created seems to works fine for that concept. I don't think it's necessary to split it further, otherwise we get into 'too hard to define' territory again.

Genjar said:
...forum #187966.
As for posts that weren't cleaned out: take a look at this, for example. 'Romantic_couple' is still aliased with 'couple' and it tends to get tagged for any couples, not just ones that are being romantic.
[..]

Hmm..

I think a possible cause for these may be the aliases

duo a-> pair
couple a-> romantic_couple

Do you think it would help if we switched the aliases around to:

duo a-> romantic_couple / loving_couple
couple a-> pair

?
--
This is also partially why I suggested disambiguating duo instead of aliasing it, maybe..

dealias pair -/> duo
dealias couple -/> romantic_couple

alias pair <-> couple

alias/manually disambiguate [pair <-> couple] -> *_(disambiguation)

then manually sort that into duo or romantic_couple / loving_couple

To remedy the case of duo/pair/couple being mistaken for the romantic/loving equivalent [citation needed], we could (re-)alias the former to something rather bland/descriptive, like

duo/pair -> 2characters

or something similar, so people know it's not directly related to the romantic/loving equivalents
-
[other replies pending..eventually]

Here's a recent-as-of-posting example of 'duo'/'pair' being tagged before 'romantic_couple'/'couple'

post #1049024

-
others
post #1020154 post #260514 post #251822

The bulk update request #150 is active.

remove alias romance (0) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
remove alias romance_mood (0) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
remove alias romance_theme (0) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
remove alias romantic (35923) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
remove alias romantic_mood (0) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
remove alias romantic_theme (0) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
remove alias sensual (194) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
remove alias sensual_mood (0) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
remove alias sensual_theme (0) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)

Reason: The implication in the OP is still pending after several years, and there should be no problems with it now that the couple -> romantic_couple has been fixed by aliasing couple into couple_(disambiguation) tag instead.

But a new problem popped up when ImpidiDinkaDoo aliased several unrelated tags into romantic_ambiance last winter, without any discussion.

I'm still in process of undoing the damage, these unaliases are part of that project. Most are too ambiguous to be aliased to the ambiance tag, and should be moved into umbrella tag instead. (That's the next step once these are fixed, can't do it in single BUR.)

The final implication tree is intended to look like this:

• romantic (generic umbrella)
• romantic_ambiance (scenery)
• romantic_couple (characters)

The plan is to eventually add other subtags, but the base needs to be sorted out first.

EDIT: The bulk update request #150 (forum #293895) has been approved by @Millcore.

The bulk update request #150 (forum #293895) has been approved by @Millcore.

The bulk update request #185 is active.

create implication romantic_ambiance (7829) -> romantic (35923)
create implication romantic_couple (30770) -> romantic (35923)
create implication romantic_polycule (26) -> romantic (35923)
create implication romantic_dinner (48) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
create alias romantic_duo (0) -> romantic_couple (30770)
create alias romance (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias romance_mood (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias romance_theme (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias romantic_mood (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias romantic_theme (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias sensual_mood (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias sensual_theme (0) -> romantic (35923)

Reason: Nice. That should stop the constant mistags.

Here's the final step.

There's a few points that need second opinions:
- The last six aliases may not be necessary. The tags were aliased, but I'm not sure why since they haven't been tagged. Maybe those should be left out?
- romantic_dinner is currently only tagged once, but it seems like potentially useful tag? It's not searchable by any combo that I can come up with.
- romantic_polycule is for polyamorous groups, it might need a clearer name?

EDIT: The bulk update request #185 (forum #294616) has been rejected by @Millcore.

EDIT: The bulk update request #185 (forum #294616) has been approved by @Millcore.

genjar said:
The bulk update request #185 is active.

create implication romantic_ambiance (7829) -> romantic (35923)
create implication romantic_couple (30770) -> romantic (35923)
create implication romantic_polycule (26) -> romantic (35923)
create implication romantic_dinner (48) -> romantic_ambiance (7829)
create alias romantic_duo (0) -> romantic_couple (30770)
create alias romance (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias romance_mood (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias romance_theme (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias romantic_mood (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias romantic_theme (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias sensual_mood (0) -> romantic (35923)
create alias sensual_theme (0) -> romantic (35923)

Reason: Nice. That should stop the constant mistags.

Here's the final step.

There's a few points that need second opinions:
- The last six aliases may not be necessary. The tags were aliased, but I'm not sure why since they haven't been tagged. Maybe those should be left out?
- romantic_dinner is currently only tagged once, but it seems like potentially useful tag? It's not searchable by any combo that I can come up with.
- romantic_polycule is for polyamorous groups, it might need a clearer name?

Looks like this BUR has been pending for 10 months? Any chance this'll get approved or do we need to make a new one or something?

scaliespe said:
Looks like this BUR has been pending for 10 months? Any chance this'll get approved or do we need to make a new one or something?

The admins occasionally run through like twenty requests and approve or deny them, they'll get to this one eventually.

genjar said:
create implication romantic_couple -> romantic # duplicate of implication #8617

I'm not sure about this. One of the meanings of couple_(disambiguation) is romantic_couple, which is "used when two characters are visibly in love with each other." A comic like Foxes in Love portrays a couple of foxes who are in a relationship, which would at least sometimes classify for romantic_couple (though whoever uploads the pages keeps using the ambiguous couple tag), but doesn't necessarily have a romantic theme. The alternative, married_couple, doesn't apply (I don't remember if they're technically married, but there's no TWYS indication regardless), and there's no other tag to indicate them appearing to be in a relationship.

watsit said:
I'm not sure about this. One of the meanings of couple_(disambiguation) is romantic_couple, which is "used when two characters are visibly in love with each other." A comic like Foxes in Love portrays a couple of foxes who are in a relationship, which would at least sometimes classify for romantic_couple (though whoever uploads the pages keeps using the ambiguous couple tag), but doesn't necessarily have a romantic theme. The alternative, married_couple, doesn't apply (I don't remember if they're technically married, but there's no TWYS indication regardless), and there's no other tag to indicate them appearing to be in a relationship.

Some of the stuff in married_couple doesn't actually have anything to display marriage either, that should probably be cleaned out.

Romantic Couple said:
Do not tag by outside information. It does not matter how much of a canon couple it is, this tag only applies if the couple is currently showing it.

This includes content such as two lovers walking together through the park, holding hands and watching a sunset, watching a movie while cuddling, or, yes, engaging in graphically depicted sexual intercourse.

For clarification, this is not an appropriate tag for any and all pairs of sexually engaged characters. Do not tag if such sex scenes are indistinguishable from one-night stands.

post #2211535 certainly shows them being a romantic couple, but post #2759189 doesn't really show that to me. They're just sharing a bed, what's "obviously in love" about that?

I would also like to point out that third line. Some images, like post #2764749 are tagged as romantic_couple but there's nothing about it that suggests it's not just them fucking for the sake of fucking. Romantic Couple also needs cleaning out. Romantic should apply to anything under romantic couple.

furrin_gok said:
post #2211535 certainly shows them being a romantic couple, but post #2759189 doesn't really show that to me. They're just sharing a bed, what's "obviously in love" about that?

Sleeping in the same bed pressed up against each other indicates a level of affection to me.