Requested feature overview description.

Add a "Gender" category for tag organization.

Why would it be useful?

I am referring to those tag categories seen on the left hand side of a post page, that say Artist, Character, Species, et al.

One of the most frequent tags that I find myself looking for on a post, aside from the artist/characters, is the genders of the characters. And considering that there are a lot of gender and directly gender-related tags (and even a guide for it)...

• male
• -> girly
• female
• -> tomboy
• intersex
• -> dickgirl
• ->-> herm
• -> cuntboy
• ->-> maleherm
• ambiguous_gender
• crossgender
• male/male
• intersex/female
• ambiguous/male
• larger_female
• intersex_penetrating

(there's a whole list)

...I think that the addition of this new category on post pages alongside Artist, Character et al. could prove to be very useful.

I think the fact that there's actually a page listing all of these tags in itself justifies the need for this category.

As for the color, I see that the current colors are orange (species), purple (copyright), green (character), yellow (artist) and non-bold bluish grey (general). So blue would be a good color for it. I tested #55f and it's lookin' pretty good .

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

Gallery: /post/show pages.

Previously suggested tag types: color/gender/actions, lore, medium or media, character basics and background detail

+1 but the admins have said this is difficult to implement.

leomole said:
Previously suggested tag types: color/gender/actions, lore, medium or media, character basics and background detail

+1 but the admins have said this is difficult to implement.

...they really should open-source the code , then. No joke, there is so much potential that could be unlocked by doing that. I don't know ruby, but I'm sure I could get familiar enough with it to refactor huge chunks of the code such that adding a new tag type would be as easy as adding a couple values to a couple arrays, e.g. ["general", "author", "copyright", "character", "species", "gender"]

Has anybody feature-suggested that the admins make a github/lab repository and host the code there? Write access could still be controlled, but contributors could fork it and make pull requests which the admins would only have to look at, merge into a test branch, test it, and then merge into the main branch. Plus, I mean, I imagine that refactoring, bug fixing and the addition of difficult features could be an easy way for schmucks like me to use our special skills to gain some brownie points with the admins...and, you know, help improve the site ;)

Seriously though, @NotMeNotYou et al, if you're reading this, I don't know if you guys have the authority to make that call, since the source code is currently proprietary, but I, for one, would be honored to contribute.

We're not going to make our code public anytime soon, or possibly ever. We inherited this code base from a third party after it already had massive changes made from the original Danbooru code, then it was changed further by multiple different hands over the years, and currently it's in need of a full rewrite anyway. With the amount of people greatly disliking us (just look at 8ch and you'll see what I'm talking about) it'd be madness to potentially make exploits in the code public we don't even know exist.

If we have finished a full rewrite and brought the code up to current security standards then maybe. But beforehand it's a hard no.

NotMeNotYou said:
We're not going to make our code public anytime soon, or possibly ever. We inherited this code base from a third party after it already had massive changes made from the original Danbooru code, then it was changed further by multiple different hands over the years, and currently it's in need of a full rewrite anyway. With the amount of people greatly disliking us (just look at 8ch and you'll see what I'm talking about) it'd be madness to potentially make exploits in the code public we don't even know exist.

If we have finished a full rewrite and brought the code up to current security standards then maybe. But beforehand it's a hard no.

Ah yes, the ol' security through obscurity.
That's a good idea.

(Just pulling your leg, I see where you're coming from)

hungryman said:
A thing a while ago

Back on topic, I think that there isn’t a current need for a gender section, primarily because the reason the other ones are there: (speculation)

-Artist: Honors the artist who made it by putting them first
-Character: Helps with images that contain many characters (by keeping those tags out of the General ones)
Copyright: probably legal stuff
Species: same as character

I don’t see how having a gender catagory would give better functionality to the tag list than any other arbitrarily large group of related tags (such as all of the ‘color’ tags).

I also see potential tag misuse in calling it ‘Gender’, because of the obvious subjecttivity that sites like Tumblr have given it.
I by no means am trying to say that gender isn’t along the gender-unicorn chart, just that if that’s what we call the catagory, that may be how users here may see it. As it stands, e6 tags by the objectivity of photos, so we tag a character ‘male’ if they look like a male, even if they’re ‘supposed to be a girl’ (although I think we do have some tags for that)

My point in all this is that if we create a gender catagory it wouldn’t serve any special purpose, and may undermine our ‘tag what you see’ policy’.

Lemurdreamer77 said:
I also see potential tag misuse in calling it ‘Gender’, because of the obvious subjecttivity that sites like Tumblr have given it.
I by no means am trying to say that gender isn’t along the gender-unicorn chart,

Well at least we can agree it isn't something that should be extrapolated from tumblr users' fevered dreams, or self-reporting in general.

just that if that’s what we call the catagory, that may be how users here may see it.

Thing is, they are already called gender tags, even though they are sex tags. In some cases this is incorporated in the name -- ambiguous_gender, crossgender. In other cases it's contradicted by the name -- intersex. This has a similar effect on TWYS to the effect you are concerned about, IMO.

Wouldn't people be able to put gender: before tags and just make anything a gender tag?

darryus said:
Wouldn't people be able to put gender: before tags and just make anything a gender tag?

You can do this with any tag type

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
You can do this with any tag type

Yeah, but for those other tag types it's actually useful, since there's a constant stream of new artists, new characters and new properties. I don't really see there being more tags being added to the genders after the six we already have plus the pairings.

I feel like it'd be more useful to maybe split general into, like, character descriptors (which would contain body colors, acts, gender, clothedness, form, etc.) and scene descriptors (which would be like props, background, text language, etc.)

darryus said:
Yeah, but for those other tag types it's actually useful, since there's a constant stream of new artists, new characters and new properties. I don't really see there being more tags being added to the genders after the six we already have plus the pairings.

I feel like it'd be more useful to maybe split general into, like, character descriptors (which would contain body colors, acts, gender, clothedness, form, etc.) and scene descriptors (which would be like props, background, text language, etc.)

It is possible to "lock" the type of a tag, so genders might be one that're always locked to gender and can't be created by the average user? That could be a solution: making it so admins/higher ups have the tag access to the gender categoried stuff.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
It is possible to "lock" the type of a tag, so genders might be one that're always locked to gender and can't be created by the average user? That could be a solution: making it so admins/higher ups have the tag access to the gender categoried stuff.

Ehh... I still don't think that moving a few small, albeit significant, tag groups into their own miniature category would really be that useful.

It's just, only including the genderized tags and not their base tags (i.e. having overweight_female but not overweight) doesn't really make much sense to me, it's like the gender tags are somehow more important than all the other general tags. Where as I feel like moving all of the general tags that are currently used to describe a subject of a post, including gender, would be more helpful.