Aliasing 1:1 → invalid_tag
Link to alias

Reason:

The tag is extremely undertagged and serves no purpose, since one can already search on ratio:1:1.

Bump.

Not sure what the regular interval of implications/aliases being approved/denied is like, though.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Bump.

If I remember right, the admins look through the older, unupdated posts when looking for missed implications or aliases.

HotUnderTheCollar said:
Not sure what the regular interval of implications/aliases being approved/denied is like, though.

Should probably give it at least a week or two before worrying about a bump. For tags that aren't immediately obvious, I've noticed that Parasprite tends to leave it alone for a bit to give people a chance to chime in.

Given that ratio tagging and searching have been topics of conversation in the forums in the past, I'm guessing this is one that might have a pause.

Alright, back at this one. I'd like to discuss if we keep this one or not. It's the exact same as the metatag ratio:1:1 and I could just add it to every ratio:1:1 post out there with the mass edit tool, but I just don't see the point of the tag.

Then, why not alias it or something like that? I don't deal with meta-tags, but I do see those 1:1, 1:2, etc., and thought them to be useless (of course, i know it's image border length/width).

I suspect this is a case of many users not knowing that such metatags exist. This also makes me wonder, can you alias a tag to nothing? Although that might be a bit confusing for taggers. But I guess not more than the current alias and implication system...

I could take them or leave them, but they are superfluous.

It's actually ratio:1, because in that meta tag you have to give aspect ratio in decimals. That last :1 is simply ignored.

Was about to say that what about blacklisting, but I'm pretty sure that nobody will blacklist aspect ratios. With 1:1 that metatag works actually really well, so with that it does become bit pointless. Especially when there's tens of pages of images not tagged.

However what about other aspect ratios then? With 16:9 content I'm getting really mixed results as some are under aspect:1.77 and others aspect:1.78. Also if 16:9 is kept, 1:1 being invalid makes things inconsistant.

Yeah, invalidate.
I remember tagging it a couple of times myself, but can't remember why. Maybe it was for no other reason than 'because those exist'.

16:9 is a common wallpaper ratio, so it's not quite as pointless as 1:1. And like Mario69 said, it's hard to search for with ratio:. Though specific height: and width: work fine. So I wouldn't complain if all of those were invalidated.

Approved

Well, there shouldn't be too much trouble to alter the metatag to accept ratios as well (unless metatags aren't allowed to contain : at all). It would be a simple matter of "split on (first) ':', if one component use decimal, if two components use ratio, (if three components tell the user to take a nap), proceed as before".

If that is done, then it won't really matter too much if we some day decide to invalidate 16:9 as well, and as a bonus metatags can't be mistagged either and always work... Well... Supposedly always work.

A quick update (re this alias):
1:1 no longer aliases to invalid_tag.

Updated the 1:1 wiki.

ListerTheSquirrel said:
A quick update (re this alias):
1:1 no longer aliases to invalid_tag.

Updated the 1:1 wiki.

Yeah, this was discussed by current staff, the main point still is that these are still the kind of tags that might not need to exsist, but invalidating single one but keeping the rest is simply inconsistant for no reason.

Either invalidate all or none.