Aliasing cute_smile → smile
Link to alias

Reason:

cute is invalidated so there is no reason to keep other equally subjective tags around

other aliases:
cute_eyes -> invalid_tag
cute_face -> invalid_tag
cute_clothing -> clothing

The bulk update request #802 is active.

create alias cute_eyes (5) -> eyes (0)
create alias cute_expression (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias cute_porn (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias cute_clothing (0) -> clothing (2098146)
create alias cute_butt (0) -> butt (1032941)
create alias cute_claws (0) -> claws (546020)
create alias cute_canine_tooth (0) -> cute_fangs (41465)

Reason: As stated above, cute is already invalidated, because it's too subjective. But these are still getting used (cute_clothing less so, but may as well handle it anyway).

Edit: Odd that other alias thread didn't come up when searching cute_face. Oh well. Added the suggestions mentioned in that other thread.

EDIT: The bulk update request #802 (forum #307764) has been approved by @slyroon.

I went through the trouble of objectifying these tags just for someone to try to get rid of them. Cute was invalidated because it was too broad of a tag, and as such people were exposed to concepts that overall weren't cute. Even back then there was discussion about disambiguating it, and this is the result of that disambiguation.

Yes, the tags have yet to receive a much needed check through for consistency, but without them there is a hole in the tag infrastructure that cannot be filled.

thevileone said:
I went through the trouble of objectifying these tags just for someone to try to get rid of them.

How do you objectively define cute_* tags in a way that doesn't rely on subjective interpretation? From what I can see, the wikis don't really help:

cute_eyes - "A character with eyes that draw [attention] to the face and complement the expression. This typically involves big, chibi like eyes with a well defined iris or pupils. Eyes of this nature may glisten and will typically be associated with happy, and friendly expressions, but other basic emotions are also applicable."

The individual expressions can be tagged, as can chibi, big_eyes, glistening_eyes, and/or symbol-shaped_pupils. I don't see what cute_eyes accomplishes other than being a vague tag for people to go "I think these eyes are cute, I'll tag them as cute_eyes".

cute_face - "Whenever a character's face is remarkably cute or adorable."

Depends on being "cute or adorable", entirely subjective.

cute_expression - "Any depiction of an expression that contains either a good balance of aesthetic qualities, or has been exaggerated to enhance its cute factor."

No idea what "a good balance of aesthetic qualities" would be. To "enhance its cute factor" is entirely subjective.

cute_porn - No wiki.

cute_clothing - "Clothes that are drawn specifically to be cute. Clothes of this nature may feature bright colors and contain decorative or stylish features and accessories such as frills or bow_ties".

"To be cute" is again subjective. "May" contain "bright colors and contain decorative or stylish features and accessories such as frills or bow_ties" could apply to maid_uniforms, dresses, and any number of things. The individual elements, the specific colors, frills, bow_ties, etc, can be tagged themselves, and don't indicate whether it ultimately looks "cute" or not.

cute_butt - No wiki.

cute_claws - No wiki.

cute_canine_tooth - No wiki.

The tags are designed to be as broadly applicable and flexible as possible in order to encompass most interpretations of the term. Even things that might not fall under a typical interpretation of the term are unassumingly provided as being acceptable in order to strip the subjectivity out of the terms. The image only needs to match the criterion to qualify for the tag, not the definition of the term cute in particular. It is recommended though that images that fall under this tag strongly match the guidelines, but this is not a requirement.

The criterion are based around cute as a stereotype, and that goes beyond personal preference. If you don't know what a cute stereotype is, then you probably shouldn't use the tag, because you will be unable to factor out personal bias when tagging.

The cute clothing tag needs a wiki update. I have not been involved with the other cute tags you are referring to. They seem rather hard to judge. I cleaned out a few of them.

thevileone said:
The criterion are based around cute as a stereotype, and that goes beyond personal preference. If you don't know what a cute stereotype is, then you probably shouldn't use the tag, because you will be unable to factor out personal bias when tagging.

The "cute stereotype" still depends on subjectivity. Different cultures find different things stereotypically cute; what one group of people consider "stereotypically cute", another group could consider "stereotypically creepy". A puppy is stereotypically cute to most westerners, but can still be depicted in a way that's disgusting to most people. For a more concrete example, let's take this picture:
post #2540486
Chibi with big, reflective/glistening eyes. Aesthetically pleasing surprised expression, fluffy. cute_eyes and cute_expression, yeah? Now, take that same picture, and cut them off from the neck and add a bunch of blood and gore dripping from the neck. Leave the eyes and expression alone. Nothing about the eyes or expression changes, so would a gory decapitated chibi fox head count for having cute_eyes and cute_expression since it's objectively the same exact face? A somehow doubt most people would find those to be appropriate tags.

I find the logic fundamentally flawed. Either you depend on what is subjectively cute, which is the reason the cute tag got aliased away, or you make it so broad as to inevitably catch things that aren't cute, making improper use of the adjective and causing the tags to be prone to misuse and confusion.

Same eyes / expression, same tagging. I don't consider decapitation or any extreme fetish as a disqualifier. If it is a turn off for some, then they can choose to blacklist it. People who are into gore, may be into gore involving cute fox characters.

It is designed to be broad and it may include things that aren't completely cute by definition, but happen to be the building blocks of what all cute things are constructed of. I based the tags off of chibi design traits and that is an objectively cute stereotype.

I would like people to have some self control and only pick good examples, but it doesn't matter to me if there is a loose interpretation. I have very high standards in regards to what I use these tags for, but I have an appreciation for all of the building block tags. It is supposed to encompass these building block tags otherwise it will take a list of tags just to find all of the concepts that these images share in a single tag search, and several of them are very undertagged.

I consider those guidelines to be the essence of what cute is, and they do serve as a practical way of determining what a good example is. We could get caught up in the weeds in the grey area of the definition, but ideally people should be really careful about tagging things in the weeds, and choose examples that are far away from the weeds. I am capable of having tagging self-control and high standards, and I expect similar behavior from others.

It is not hard to identify good examples, and I would rather sift through some bad examples if it meant all of the good examples are in one place. All that really matters is that the examples consistently match a given criteria inspired by the building blocks that all cute things are made of, which inherently suggests that there are cute elements in every image.

As a casual tagger, I don't see any use of the cute_* tags, since every user here have their own lots of interpretation on what a cute thing can be. Same for its opposite.

I have seen a lot of posts that I found cute, and even ones that aren't wholly cute but have them for even a small part. But, I don't think it will be the same for other users and fellow taggers; a post with a cute_butt might be cute for some, but meh or not cute enough for others.

And even if these tags have their own wiki pages, it will be hard for some to follow and apply, or might not use these at all due to the definition that others find unsatisfying.

If the BUR gets rejected, fine. But, I will never expect these tags to be widely used. Maybe only the most dedicated and the most strict tagger will find these useful, but I don't even want these to be the reason of debate on a SFW post. Starting a tag war on how this post has cute stuff in it is, for me, ugly.

You are acting like it is hard to identify a cute stereotype. Everyone should have the same idea about what cute is, as at its core it is the same for everyone. It is only at the edge does it start to go off into personal preference territory. If people can separate personal preference (including cultural preference) from their tagging, then it is easy to avoid it. There will be plenty of images here absolutely no one can argue aren't cute, and those are the images that people should be tagging, not the it is cute to me images. Think of everyone, and not just yourself.

If we have to argue about it, then the image is probably not a great example to begin with. I am willing to apply strict standards if necessary to keep the content within the stereotype, but the tags are defined to be very lenient. As long as the images fall within the guidelines, it should be fine to be tagged there. People must understand that there will be good and not so good examples in this tag as there will be for any tag.

I would like to keep the face and expression tag, but the expression tag is easier to maintain. I have made myself the caretaker for those tags, and I hope that the resolution will be made for this tags to still exist as it does leave a void without them even if we argue that there is some subjectivity, which I argue is worth the benefits anyways. The old cute tag didn't have a specific definition, and these tags do, and that makes a world of difference in terms of how subjective a tag is. It is no longer a vague term that anyone can define the way they want to. We can objectify it to mean something it was always supposed to mean, and make it broad enough to also include concepts that share cute elements regardless of if we feel those elements end up with a cute product.

I keep using the term essence, and that is a fitting term for what these tags should be trying to capture. I implore everyone to not get bogged down in the vagueness of the term itself and consider the ideas behind the concept, and the value of easily finding those ideas.

thevileone said:
Everyone should have the same idea about what cute is, as at its core it is the same for everyone.

We don't, and it's not. There may be high degrees of overlap in places, but it's highly opinion-based at its core.

thevileone said:
If people can separate personal preference (including cultural preference) from their tagging, then it is easy to avoid it.

That's less likely to happen when you have such a subjective term as "cute". You can redefine a term all you want, but people are going to use it how it comes naturally to them.

thevileone said:
There will be plenty of images here absolutely no one can argue aren't cute

Given a large enough group, you will always find someone who disagrees on anything. At best, you'd end up with people using the tags based on whether they think a large portion of users would agree with them that it's cute, and at worst, it'll be applied randomly to images and a group of taggers will come by to dictate for everyone else what they think should be "cute". This would make the tag near useless for searching or blacklisting because no one user will fully agree on what it should and shouldn't contain.

thevileone said:
I have made myself the caretaker for those tags, and I hope that the resolution will be made for this tags to still exist as it does leave a void without them even if we argue that there is some subjectivity, which I argue is worth the benefits anyways.

And therein lies the issue. You get to dictate what's considered "cute" for tagging purposes. For myself, I see no point in using the cute tags because they won't include much of what I find cute, and include irrelevant things I don't find cute, so whatever void you're trying to fill, still exists.

thevileone said:
I keep using the term essence, and that is a fitting term for what these tags should be trying to capture. I implore everyone to not get bogged down in the vagueness of the term itself and consider the ideas behind the concept, and the value of easily finding those ideas.

If there is any objective use to the tags, there are better words to use for them than cute. You may even find more logical divisions to break it up into more useful tags. But as it is, I see nothing more than subjective opinion, confusion, and uselessness in store for it.

It is unfortunate that you don't like what mainstream cultures define as cute. Cuteness is supposed to refer to a youthful appearance and really I don't believe everyone can have their own ideas about what is youthful. You can't look at a young character and go: That character isn't youthful. It doesn't match my idea of what youthful is.

Now if you are referring to cute in terms of attractive qualities, I find that an incredibly subjective and invalid interpretation of the term cute.

Maybe there are better tags, but these are the tags that are going to be used for now. The tags currently provide an easy way to access that kind of content, and safeguards are in place to keep the content from entering territories that got the first tag into trouble. But sure if you want to be pessimistic about it, that is your choice. These tags are more resilient than the original tag, addressed its problems, and were built to be adaptive. It will be only for the pointless subjective witch hunting that all of these points would be ignored and these tags will go by the wayside.

thevileone said:
It is unfortunate that you don't like what mainstream cultures define as cute.

There's a difference between liking something and thinking it's cute. I can like something without thinking it's cute. But again, it's not about whether or not I happen to agree that something is cute or not, it's that's it's arbitrary and subjective. What "mainstream cultures define as cute" is dictated by general consensus, not unanimous consensus, so by definition no one person will fully agree, and different people will agree on different things.

thevileone said:
Cuteness is supposed to represent a youthful appearance and really I don't believe everyone can have their own ideas about what is youthful. You can't look at a young character and go: That character isn't youthful. It doesn't match my idea of what youthful is.

We already have a tag for characters that look young. Whether or not a given young-looking character also looks cute is a separate matter, which will depend on context and personal opinion.

thevileone said:
Now if you are referring to cute in terms of attractive qualities, I find that an incredibly subjective and invalid interpretation of the term cute.

That's... exactly what it means, though.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cute
...
2. attractive or pretty especially in a childish, youthful, or delicate way
// a cute puppy
// a cute smile

Moreover, it's very easy for people to incorporate sexual attractiveness into whether they find someone/thing cute or not. For a site that's host to all manner of outlandish kinks, you can see why that might be an issue with using the term meaningfully. For someone who is or isn't into young characters, who is or isn't into feral animals, who is or isn't into gore, as well as those who hold no strong opinion either way on those kinks, you should be able to see why the standard for something being cute or not will vary wildly. Is this a cute expression? Or this?

thevileone said:
The tags currently provide an easy way to access that kind of content, and safeguards are in place to keep the content from entering territories that got the first tag into trouble.

Does it, though? Just because you and some others may like the way you've curated the tags, that doesn't necessarily mean they're any more useful to most users across the site.

watsit said:
The bulk update request #802 is active.

create alias cute_eyes (5) -> eyes (0)
create alias cute_expression (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias cute_porn (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias cute_clothing (0) -> clothing (2098146)
create alias cute_butt (0) -> butt (1032941)
create alias cute_claws (0) -> claws (546020)
create alias cute_canine_tooth (0) -> cute_fangs (41465)

Reason: As stated above, cute is already invalidated, because it's too subjective. But these are still getting used (cute_clothing less so, but may as well handle it anyway).

Edit: Odd that other alias thread didn't come up when searching cute_face. Oh well. Added the suggestions mentioned in that other thread.

Though it seems cute_fangs gets an exemption from the purge, though seeing previous sentiment... yeah

watsit said:
The bulk update request #802 is active.

create alias cute_eyes (5) -> eyes (0)
create alias cute_expression (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias cute_porn (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
create alias cute_clothing (0) -> clothing (2098146)
create alias cute_butt (0) -> butt (1032941)
create alias cute_claws (0) -> claws (546020)
create alias cute_canine_tooth (0) -> cute_fangs (41465)

Reason: As stated above, cute is already invalidated, because it's too subjective. But these are still getting used (cute_clothing less so, but may as well handle it anyway).

Edit: Odd that other alias thread didn't come up when searching cute_face. Oh well. Added the suggestions mentioned in that other thread.

This is a real nitpick but, why is cute_eyes getting a disambig instead of aliasing to eyes? Aren't disambig pages specifically for words that have multiple meanings, like common first names or the word "straw" (drinking_straw vs hay)

Sure, alias away. These are too subjective to keep. Outside of extreme cases, it's hard to get anyone to agree about what exactly counts as 'cute'.
I happen to think that moths and jumping spiders are cute, but some folks would probably disagree.

snpthecat said:
Though it seems cute_fangs gets an exemption from the purge, though seeing previous sentiment... yeah

Those are an easily definable type of fangs, rather than cute-by-appearance fangs. Could've just as easily been called 'small fangs (trope)'. No major subjectivity there.

wandering_spaniel said:
This is a real nitpick but, why is cute_eyes getting a disambig instead of aliasing to eyes? Aren't disambig pages specifically for words that have multiple meanings, like common first names or the word "straw" (drinking_straw vs hay)

I think eyes was aliased to invalid_tag at the time. I do think eyes would work fine as its own disambiguation (where it could be referring to glistening_eyes, big_eyes, etc), so I'll change that.

The bulk update request #802 (forum #307764) has been approved by @slyroon.