Aliasing severed_head → decapitation
Link to alias

Reason:

They both tend to mean:

• Removing the head from a body (getting cut off)
• A head removed from the body (just sort of laying around somewhere)

Alternately:

1. Implication: severed head -> decapitation
2. Sorting them.

Edit: Implication would probably be better.

I would opt for the implication because it's certainly possible to draw a headless body without the head anywhere around, and there are indeed some pictures like that here.

I'll help sort them, too, but later, when there aren't so many other people around.

I thought severed meant that the head was cut off and represented, because theoretically an art with just a head and blood could be tagged severed head, do I'm +1 for the implication since the meaning of severed seems t o be
too dual.

Yyunko said:
I thought severed meant that the head was cut off and represented, because theoretically an art with just a head and blood could be tagged severed head, do I'm +1 for the implication since the meaning of severed seems t o be
too dual.

I actually thought about this after I already made the alias and ended up rewriting some of it. I'm now heavily leaning towards the implication.

Yyunko said:
I thought severed meant that the head was cut off and represented, because theoretically an art with just a head and blood could be tagged severed head

Oh yeah, there's art like that here as well.

The implication seems mostly ok, but what about posts such as these?:
post #335469 post #506740

Do detachable heads count as decapitation? If not, those should be tagged as detachable_head instead of severed_head.

Genjar said:
The implication seems mostly ok, but what about posts such as these?:
post #335469 post #506740

Do detachable heads count as decapitation? If not, those should be tagged as detachable_head instead of severed_head.

Decapitation: cut off the head of (a person or animal)
Sever: divide by cutting or slicing, especially suddenly and forcibly

No those definitely should not, even without this post. Changed.

Edit: I'm not sure about these though.

post #17318 post #246954 post #78443

Possibly detachable_head + severed_head?

Ok, I implicated severed_head to --> decapitation instead of an alias.

However, I do think severed_head and detachable_head should mention each other as related concept tags in their respective wikis, and clarify when to use which tag on an image. Because otherwise, I think too many people will only know about one of these tags and use it for both situations without realising that the other tag even exists.

furrypickle said:
Ok, I implicated severed_head to --> decapitation instead of an alias.

However, I do think severed_head and detachable_head should mention each other as related concept tags in their respective wikis, and clarify when to use which tag on an image. Because otherwise, I think too many people will only know about one of these tags and use it for both situations without realising that the other tag even exists.

I'm going to need to go into a bit more detail and see what compatibility the two tags have with each other, but for now I've at least got a basic wiki up explaining what the tag is for.

furrypickle said:
Ok, I implicated severed_head to --> decapitation instead of an alias.

Was just coming in here to disagree with the title of the thread, but yeah, agreed on that.

*Phoenix Down*

A severed head without the body it was severed from is not an instance of decapitation. This implication is adding the decapitation tag to images that don't contain the act of removing the head from the body or the injury created from removing the head from the body.

post #84050 post #1090213 post #933264

1. Decapitation act.
2. Decapitation injury.
3. Neither, and shouldn't have the tag.

This should be flipped if anything.

I think it should be flipped. Decapitation is the action and requires a severed head as a result, but the head can be already detached from the body at the time the picture is, with the rest of the body out of the picture. Heads on pikes would be an example. We know it was decapitation before, but the picture itself doesn't let us see it, so we can't tag it.

parasprite said:
This should be flipped if anything.

If you flip it, you will end up with severed_head appearing on decapitation images even if there's no head.

post #1011055 post #888173

BlueDingo said:
If you flip it, you will end up with severed_head appearing on decapitation images even if there's no head.

post #1011055 post #888173

I knew there was a reason for that not being flipped.

I'll vote for the original alias over anything then. Differentiating between the action and the result isn't worth having half the posts in one tag and half in the other (based on what tags people remember).

My next in line would be for implying as it was before. If there is a severed head it's related to decapitation and implying it would at least keep it under a single tag rather than split it into two separate ones that get mixed up with each other.

BlueDingo said:
If you flip it, you will end up with severed_head appearing on decapitation images even if there's no head.

post #1011055 post #888173

Why not use "headless" for that?

kamimatsu said:
Why not use "headless" for that?

I don't think headless is meant to refer to decapitation victims. It's likely meant for things like dullahan whose body doesn't normally contain a head.

parasprite said:
I'll vote for the original alias over anything then. Differentiating between the action and the result isn't worth having half the posts in one tag and half in the other (based on what tags people remember).

My next in line would be for implying as it was before. If there is a severed head it's related to decapitation and implying it would at least keep it under a single tag rather than split it into two separate ones that get mixed up with each other.

I would rather no alias/implication. You can depict a severed head without depicting a decapitation and vice-versa.

BlueDingo said:
I would rather no alias/implication. You can depict a severed head without depicting a decapitation and vice-versa.

You can but do we really care about the difference when it comes to tagging? I think the benefit of having a single tag outweighs the benefit of trying to make a distinction. Doubly so when it comes to blacklisting.

parasprite said:
You can but do we really care about the difference when it comes to tagging? I think the benefit of having a single tag outweighs the benefit of trying to make a distinction. Doubly so when it comes to blacklisting.

Like any other pair of different things, they should be given separate tags even if they are related so users can search for the one they want. I wouldn't want a decapitation to appear if I search severed_head, nor would I want a severed head to appear if I search decapitation, unless both are present.

post #888173 post #321989 post #622398

If I search severed_head, I expect to see severed heads.
If I search decapitation, I expect to see decapitations.
I would not want a situation where searching one returns images only containing the other.

BlueDingo said:
Like any other pair of different things, they should be given separate tags even if they are related so users can search for the one they want. I wouldn't want a decapitation to appear if I search severed_head, nor would I want a severed head to appear if I search decapitation, unless both are present.

post #888173 post #321989 post #622398

If I search severed_head, I expect to see severed heads.
If I search decapitation, I expect to see decapitations.
I would not want a situation where searching one returns images only containing the other.

Condensing niche tags to make the search/blacklisting/tagging simpler > being needlessly pedantic

parasprite said:
Condensing niche tags to make the search/blacklisting/tagging simpler

And less accurate.

parasprite said:
> being needlessly pedantic

BlueDingo said:
And less accurate.

Yes. e6 makes lots of compromises like this.

parasprite said:
Yes. e6 makes lots of compromises like this.

We should be making as few as possible.

parasprite said:
Yes. e6 makes lots of compromises like this.

I believe the term is Appeal to Tradition.

Ok...so let me get this straight...

headless body with severed head = decapitation
headless body by itself = decapitation
severed head by itself = no decapitation?

I hate to be the devil's advocate here, but if a headless body is a decapitation then why isn't a severed head also a decapitation?

Decapitation is when the head is completely severed from the body...so when there is an image of a headless body you're assuming at one time it had a head...there is now no head...it was a decapitation. Why isn't the same true then for a severed head? You have to assume at one point it had a body so in that case a decapitation occurred as well.

Dyrone said:
Ok...so let me get this straight...

headless body with severed head = decapitation
headless body by itself = decapitation
severed head by itself = no decapitation?

Head & Body: Decapitation
Body but no head: Decapitated
Head but no body: Severed Head.