Could someone write on top of tag_group:index page, some ideas for when and how are tag_groups intended to be used and when not.

We have, for example tag_group:penetration_tags, but there is also a wide collection of tags on penetration page.

Should there be tag_group:bdsm_tags or tag_group:bondage_tags, in a similar fashion as for penetration above, or does bondage suffice and why? (This was discussed shortly in forum #280095 - tag_group:bondage or tag_group:bdsm or what?)

It's not quite clear for me anywhere, what would be a good rule of thumb on when to use which, and I think the top of tag_group:index would be a good place for this policy.

First tag groups were created for groupings that were extremely confusing to keep track of otherwise (colors), or ones that needed visual guides (sex positions, body types).

I don't see much point to groups that list common things such as countries. Not sure why anyone would need to refer to those.

Bondage seems like a useful grouping, since it's full of terms that are likely unfamiliar to a lot of users.

Genjar said:

Bondage seems like a useful grouping, since it's full of terms that are likely unfamiliar to a lot of users.

But should we just keep the group on the bondage page, or should tag_group:bondage be created?

I can see that there's no sense in having a tag color in this sense (although it exists in another sense), so tag_group:colors is very convenient. Is this a criteria for having a tag_group instead of just a tag as a super group?

urielfrys said:
But should we just keep the group on the bondage page, or should tag_group:bondage be created?

Readability is an important consideration for the wiki pages. They should be kept short and concise, instead of cramming everything in them.

The See also-section of bondage is getting absurdly long. So yes, it'd be better to move it to a tag group instead.

Genjar said:
Readability is an important consideration for the wiki pages. They should be kept short and concise, instead of cramming everything in them.

+1

The See also-section of bondage is getting absurdly long. So yes, it'd be better to move it to a tag group instead.

on the one hand I feel like that's solved with a "bondage related tags" \

urielfrys said:
Could someone write on top of tag_group:index page, some ideas for when and how are tag_groups intended to be used and when not.

index
V
sub-section in index
v
tag_group
-- (possible) sub-tag_group
v
capstone tag
v
web of tags under capstone tag

to me that's kinda what the hierarchy looks like. if a "capstone" tag exists, a larger tag that is linked to a web made of a bunch of smaller tags, it should probably have a

section in it that allows it to be it's own tag_group. tag_group pages would then be used for groupings of tags that can't really be tagged or have been aliased to invalid because they're too general.

the tag groups I've created recently and placed in the index were meant to be larger grouping categories(still working on these) that couldn't really be tagged. "touching" is too general to tag, "theme" is too general to tag, "object" is to general to tag, etc. if a tag gets REALLY big like food or clothing to the point where listing every smaller tag related to it would be ridiculous I feel like a tag_group is probably warranted but if a concept can be tagged it's less likely to NEED a tag_group. not that one can't be created, go for it if you want, just not necessarily need one.

then there's the blurb at the bottom that was put into the index at conception by SnowWolf Future tag groups can cover any imaginable theme, and tags can be a 'part' of multiple tag groups. The goal is to get as many tags easily accessible as possible. that's mostly what I'm trying to do at least, maybe that should go towards the top...

sneezer22 said:

then there's the blurb at the bottom that was put into the index at conception by SnowWolf Future tag groups can cover any imaginable theme, and tags can be a 'part' of multiple tag groups. The goal is to get as many tags easily accessible as possible. that's mostly what I'm trying to do at least, maybe that should go towards the top...

Thank you all for clarifications, opinions and thoughts!

I did notice that "blurp", especially as it is pretty much the only thing close to a policy on that page, but it doesn't really explain much, what is considered to make "tags [as] easily accessible as possible".

Your writing here scetches good policies/principles, like: "not that one can't be created, go for it if you want, just not necessarily need one", and the schematic above.

I was originally, particularly wondering, if I should make a tag_group:bondage, or work on the bondage -tag page, or actually create a higher level tag_group:bdsm. Having constructive proposals, and the absence of "don't do that" are quite encouraging and help understand the more common thinking here.

On another note, I plan on taking example on practises used on tag_group:penetration_tags. I think it appears quite clear and usable. sneezer22's addition of table of contents is a good practice applied from Wikipedia (for example). (I think it's also nice to not have so strict policy manual as Wikipedia has – they of course need such, because the mass of users is so huge. e621 is a smaller, cosier community.)

I have adjusted the structure on tag_group:touching, but one easily faces problems on how to categorise a tag such as hand_on_penis. It suits in "touching with hand", "touching a penis" and "more than one touching". Should it thereby be in all of those, or which one(s), if not all?

urielfrys said:
I have adjusted the structure on tag_group:touching, but one easily faces problems on how to categorise a tag such as hand_on_penis. It suits in "touching with hand", "touching a penis" and "more than one touching". Should it thereby be in all of those, or which one(s), if not all?

..."with a top down approach" is mostly what I'm thinking about/working on atm. making places for sub-sub-index tag groups and capstone tags to go.

soooo, whatever gets things best organized i guess. that may include improving the structure of the wiki. imo probably all at some point, once the structure gets more finalized(might be a waste to itemize everything out into a structure that's going to change, maybe a misc. section would be good at the bottom till then?), with a table of contents at the top to jump to categories. I'm expecting tag_group:touching and tag_group:character_relations to get rather large at some point.

well, unless we go with a format of "when you can, list a sub-tag_group and a set of most relevant tags instead of putting all of a subgroups tags into it's parent group." that might be an ok way of doing things and would cut down on bloat.