Aliasing uncesored → decensored
Link to alias

Reason:

for clarity

edit: typo in alias. meant for uncensored-> decensored

EDIT: The tag alias uncesored -> uncensored (forum #280591) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

de-censored is already aliased to uncensored.

Decensored content is a subset of uncensored content(through editing) and not all uncensored content here is actually edited. Some is official versions that were uploaded at a later date or through different channels.

deadoon said:
de-censored is already aliased to uncensored.

Decensored content is a subset of uncensored content(through editing) and not all uncensored content here is actually edited. Some is official versions that were uploaded at a later date or through different channels.

https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=uncensored

The original usage for uncensored on e621 was decensored.

To point out de-censored, not decensored, being aliased away, that decision was made 4 years ago by a former admin who also states uncensored was intended for edits, and I agree with their entire post. forum #150535

I feel uncensored is entirely unnecessary as a tag, and I do not think we should be tagging the equivalent of something that does not exist within an image nor adds any meta value. There are many, many posts that have either never been censored or the censored version has never existed on our page, and posts of that nature date back over 10 years.

Blind_Guardian said:
The original usage for uncensored on e621 was decensored.

To point out de-censored, not decensored, being aliased away, that decision was made 4 years ago by a former admin who also states uncensored was intended for edits, and I agree with their entire post. forum #150535

I feel uncensored is entirely unnecessary as a tag, and I do not think we should be tagging the equivalent of something that does not exist within an image nor adds any meta value. There are many, many posts that have either never been censored or the censored version has never existed on our page, and posts of that nature date back over 10 years.

Aliasing it to decensored breaks the logic behind the tag on many posts though. Uncensored simply implies that a censored version exists. Decensored means the post has been edited to be uncensored. Uncensored does not imply edited, neither in common use nor as a tag implication here.

It would be better to just bring back decensored and make all decensored posts have that tag, which would imply edit and uncensored. I use a 100 posts per page right now so there are <700 posts with both uncensored and edit. But there are <2200 posts with uncensored and no edit tag.

deadoon said:
Aliasing it to decensored breaks the logic behind the tag on many posts though. Uncensored simply implies that a censored version exists. Decensored means the post has been edited to be uncensored. Uncensored does not imply edited, neither in common use nor as a tag implication here.

It would be better to just bring back decensored and make all decensored posts have that tag, which would imply edit and uncensored. I use a 100 posts per page right now so there are <700 posts with both uncensored and edit. But there are <2200 posts with uncensored and no edit tag.

You miss my point where a large sum of those tagged with only uncensored do not even qualify for the tag. Somewhere in my editing that was perhaps lost, so that is my fault. My logic in aliasing is partially since we have users trained to use uncensored for both uses, if it is aliased to decensored people will see the error in their tagging when decensored appears on their post.

Blind_Guardian said:
You miss my point where a large sum of those tagged with only uncensored do not even qualify for the tag. Somewhere in my editing that was perhaps lost, so that is my fault. My logic in aliasing is partially since we have users trained to use uncensored for both uses, if it is aliased to decensored people will see the error in their tagging when decensored appears on their post.

This isn't recent, the use of uncensored in this manner has been going on for a very long time.

My main issue is the collateral effects of the alias. The result would probably be an issue of figuring out and sorting what is edited and what isn't. Then you have the issue with official uncensored releases of formerly censored content.

https://e621.net/post/show/193389 is tagged uncensored and has been tagged as such since 2012, however a censored version exists. It is an official version from the artist however that was posted on FA, their pixiv has the original censored version. May not need an uncensored tag because the censored version is not on the site, but that might be a bad precedent too. The censored version might have been deleted in the past. You would never know this just from the sourcing however.

https://e621.net/post/show/1971405 is a recent example of an uncensored version of it's parent post which is censored and posted earlier. Both are on the site and official. What do you tag it?

Fixing the situation would likely have to have someone or more likely a group attempt to research each image as part of a project to see if it is an edit, official version, mistag, or otherwise. Even then you will likely have a lot of dead end posts.

Edit:Neither of these posts or many like them are decensored. These are uncensored versions of censored content. What I am saying is the tag has been broken for so long that it's intended purpose as a tag for edits has been lost, especially since the uncensored tag has as far as I can tell never implied the edit tag.

Also I disagree with the admin decision in the referenced post 100%. If the intent was for the tag to be for edited posts only, "decensored" would have been the proper tag to use. Using uncensored in that decision adds a degree of ambiguity to the tags intent, which existed beforehand and since with no further effort to remedy.

Edit2: decided to look back, first post had it's censored version removed https://e621.net/post/show/193279 This muddies the situation even further in my opinion.

deadoon said:
de-censored is already aliased to uncensored.

Decensored content is a subset of uncensored content(through editing) and not all uncensored content here is actually edited. Some is official versions that were uploaded at a later date or through different channels.

decensored doesn't exist as a tag (no wiki page, and no posts), so it's not a subset of uncensored. The uncensored tag is supposed to be for edits only:

This tag focuses on censored images edited to remove [...] censorship included in the original artwork [...].

See Also:

[...]

• edit
• cropped
• uncensored

Any posts that are tagged as uncensored and aren't unofficial edits would be tagged incorrectly.

Official versions of an image from the artist that aren't censored should just not have the censored tag. I don't see a need to give images a tag to merely denote an official censored version existed at some time somewhere (rather than denoting that an image has been edited by someone other than the artist to remove censorship).

Watsit said:
decensored doesn't exist as a tag (no wiki page, and no posts), so it's not a subset of uncensored. The uncensored tag is supposed to be for edits only:
Any posts that are tagged as uncensored and aren't unofficial edits would be tagged incorrectly.

Official versions of an image from the artist that aren't censored should just not have the censored tag. I don't see a need to give images a tag to merely denote an official censored version existed at some time somewhere (rather than denoting that an image has been edited by someone other than the artist to remove censorship).

Ok I'll be clear by using quotes around times I refer to the tag.

That line was about English itself. Decensoring is the process of removing censorship, thus it is a subset of uncensored content.

As for the rest, we already discussed that. And the tag has been used as such since it's inception, with admins in probably many cases removing the censored one and the "uncensored" tag not being removed from the uncensored version.

More posts have "uncensored" tagged on them without "edit", than posts have "uncensored" alongside "edit". Thus the major use of "uncensored" is for tagging posts where a censored version exists, not for decensored posts.

Understand now?

Edit: also "de-censored" is aliased to "uncensored" as mentioned above and on the wiki page.

deadoon said:
That line was about English itself. Decensoring is the process of removing censorship, thus it is a subset of uncensored content.

Tags don't always follow strict dictionary definitions, and can have their own rules and guidelines. For example, all_fours or nude. By the dictionary definition, every post that doesn't have "censored" should have "uncensored", meaning that uncensored simply means -censored. What's the use in that?

deadoon said:
As for the rest, we already discussed that. And the tag has been used as such since it's inception, with admins in probably many cases removing the censored one and the "uncensored" tag not being removed from the uncensored version.

Censored versions don't get removed just because an uncensored version is posted (at least not anymore, maybe they did in the past). They're considered separate images in that way.

But what you bring up there is actually a good point against applying uncensored to official non-edits. How do we know when it applies? Does the censored version need to be here on this site? Or can it be anywhere in the artist's official galleries? Or can it simply be anywhere online (e.g. if the artist removed the censored version from their galleries, but can still be found in some other archives)? Does the censored version still have to exist, or does it only need to have existed at one point in the past?

Also, how would it work with something like convenient_censorship, where an image is censored because of something in the scene, and the "uncensored" version is a result of a slight change in the scene? That is to say, where would the line be between versions that the "uncensored" version counts as a distinct image separate from its "censored" counterpart?

deadoon said:
More posts have "uncensored" tagged on them without "edit", than posts have "uncensored" alongside "edit". Thus the major use of "uncensored" is for tagging posts where a censored version exists, not for decensored posts.

That only tells you how many more don't have the edit tag, not how many shouldn't have the edit tag. But even still, just because some people used it wrong in the past doesn't mean it should continue to be used wrong today.

I would liken it to the male/male tag. This site used to have a gay tag, which was supposed to be used to indicate gay male sexual activity. At some point, there was an alias for gay -> male/male. There was a problem, though: many people used the gay tag to indicate homosexuality in general, either because they knew the character was gay or because there was a display of pride or something. Some I bet even used it for lesbians (gay females). The alias would make all those posts tagged gay as male/male despite no male-on-male activity. But it was put through anyway because it was wrong to use the gay tag in those ways -- those posts were already tagged incorrectly -- and the new name more clearly reflected its purpose.

Watsit said:
Tags don't always follow strict dictionary definitions, and can have their own rules and guidelines. For example, all_fours or nude. By the dictionary definition, every post that doesn't have "censored" should have "uncensored", meaning that uncensored simply means -censored. What's the use in that?

Hence why I have been saying it has been used on the site to say that a censored version exists. Are you arguing in circles just to prove a point that I already stated? Read the thread.

Censored versions don't get removed just because an uncensored version is posted (at least not anymore, maybe they did in the past). They're considered separate images in that way.

I just had an example that I brought up that proved they were removed, atleast in the past. there is no maybe. Again read the thread.

But what you bring up there is actually a good point against applying uncensored to official non-edits. How do we know when it applies? Does the censored version need to be here on this site? Or can it be anywhere in the artist's official galleries? Or can it simply be anywhere online (e.g. if the artist removed the censored version from their galleries, but can still be found in some other archives)? Does the censored version still have to exist, or does it only need to have existed at one point in the past?

In many cases images or entire galleries that stuff on this site has has been deleted. Should it not be tagged with the characters involved since they are no longer sourced? Same concept exists here: source existed at one time with the proper information.

Also, how would it work with something like convenient_censorship, where an image is censored because of something in the scene, and the "uncensored" version is a result of a slight change in the scene? That is to say, where would the line be between versions that the "uncensored" version counts as a distinct image separate from its "censored" counterpart?

Honestly, I would prefer "convenient_censorship" to imply censorship. After all it is in the same situation as a subset of censorship( the tag is even shown as part of the formatting as such). Heck, the use example of decensor on wiktionary for dencensor even references fig leaf censorship.

That only tells you how many more don't have the edit tag, not how many shouldn't have the edit tag. But even still, just because some people used it wrong in the past doesn't mean it should continue to be used wrong today.

I would liken it to the male/male tag. This site used to have a gay tag, which was supposed to be used to indicate gay male sexual activity. At some point, there was an alias for gay -> male/male. There was a problem, though: many people used the gay tag to indicate homosexuality in general, either because they knew the character was gay or because there was a display of pride or something. Some I bet even used it for lesbians (gay females). The alias would make all those posts tagged gay as male/male despite no male-on-male activity. But it was put through anyway because it was wrong to use the gay tag in those ways -- those posts were already tagged incorrectly -- and the new name more clearly reflected its purpose.
[/quote]
Those are more likely edge cases. "Gay" was primarily used as an indicator of male homosexual relations. Using it as a descriptor for gay pride or lesbians was a smaller portion of the posts as a whole. It's also why there was a whole discussion on tag cleanup in that thread.

The collateral in that case is less than the collateral in this one. In this case the collateral is likely greater than the intended effect, hence my suggestion to add the "decensored" tag.

Tagging something with "uncensored" because it is an uncensored version of something else makes logical sense, hence why it has been used as such since the tag has existed. The fact it is wrong is almost irrelevant at this point, unless someone or a group is willing to go through archives of the internet and try to find a source for everything marked uncensored, there will be a lot of mistagged content. When some are very likely to actually be edits with the original never being uploaded on the site for older content, notably involving Japanese artists which have purged their galleries in the past.

It's a meta tag, something part of the situation surrounding the image's existence. It being overtagged doesn't exactly have negative consequences. It being aliased to something it is not, let alone implied for edit does.

Decensored is and technically always has been the correct name for what the tag means, but has never been solely what it actually has been used for. The fact that the admin back then dropped the ball and gave it the ambiguous name, aliasing the correct one to the ambiguous one makes matters worse.

deadoon said:
Hence why I have been saying it has been used on the site to say that a censored version exists. Are you arguing in circles just to prove a point that I already stated?

I'm just noting that someone's impression of what a tag "should mean" or what exactly the dictionary says doesn't always translate to how it's meant to be used here or how it's most effectively used for tagging. I can't see how it's useful to tag an image to say 'There was a censored version of this image... somewhere, at one time, maybe, according to whoever tagged this'.

deadoon said:
In many cases images or entire galleries that stuff on this site has has been deleted. Should it not be tagged with the characters involved since they are no longer sourced? Same concept exists here: source existed at one time with the proper information.

Character names are a special case where Tag What You Know is allowed, but there still needs to be some visual element in the picture that can be tied to what's known about the character (and even then it's only the character name, nothing else you may know about the character is tagged if you can't see it, including their gender or species). This site also has wiki pages for characters, where relevant information about them can be kept for future reference in case sources get nuked.

In contrast, an uncensored tag as you describe can only rely on what a tagger knows, an even broader exception as the image itself need not offer any hints of a censored version and no proof needs to be provided.

deadoon said:
Honestly, I would prefer "convenient_censorship" to imply censorship. After all it is in the same situation as a subset of censorship( the tag is even shown as part of the formatting as such).

I would too, actually. But the issue still remains. Would post #2040405 be considered an uncensored version of post #2040400? It's ostensibly the same image, but the two don't exactly match (the cloth would be tenting if that was the only change). Or what about post #2029459 being an uncensored version of post #2029454? They're clearly based on the same image, with one having the view of her genitals blocked that can be seen in the other, but there are differences here and there. What about post #2028583 in comparison to post #2028542? Where is the line for it no longer being an uncensored version of a censored image, and is just two images with one showing genitals and the other not?

deadoon said:
Tagging something with "uncensored" because it is an uncensored version of something else makes logical sense, hence why it has been used as such since the tag has existed.

Except it's wrong to do that according to TWYS. Tags should be for what you can see in the image being tagged, not from information you got from other pictures that may relate to it.

deadoon said:
The fact it is wrong is almost irrelevant at this point, unless someone or a group is willing to go through archives of the internet and try to find a source for everything marked uncensored, there will be a lot of mistagged content. When some are very likely to actually be edits with the original never being uploaded on the site for older content, notably involving Japanese artists which have purged their galleries in the past.

Sounds like a good reason to stop using the tag in such a way that lets this problem fester, creating an ever increasing list of "uncensored" images that have no censored version available. Stop using it now for general uncensored images that had censored versions, and it can be made a tagging project to go through uncensored -edit and find which should add edit, and which should remove uncensored. This can be done before or after aliasing uncensored -> decensored.

deadoon said:
My main issue is the collateral effects of the alias. The result would probably be an issue of figuring out and sorting what is edited and what isn't. Then you have the issue with official uncensored releases of formerly censored content.

I will personally sort every single post if this alias is green-lighted. It is absolutely trivial to find censored-uncensored parent-child posts that can be tagged uncensored created by the original artist should uncensored ever be decided to be brought to use for that.

https://e621.net/post/show/1971405 is a recent example of an uncensored version of it's parent post which is censored and posted earlier. Both are on the site and official. What do you tag it?

With valid tags. post #1670896 has 4 child posts that are variants. What do you tag those as? Nothing, we don't signify posts are alternative versions with a tag. You can use metatags and combination searches to find these.

relating to post #193279

I would like to start by saying our stance currently on keeping censored versus uncensored is this: we keep the highest quality files available. If the censored version is higher quality we will keep both censored and uncensored. If the censored version is pixel for pixel the same as the uncensored then we will delete the censored as inferior/duplicate. post #193279 happens to be one of those cases where the only visual difference, down to the pixel, is the censor. Third-party edits are never kept in place of censored original files. I do not speak for past decisions but what I have said has been true for at least a year at this point.

Mostly unrelated but I also want edit to be aliased to third-party_edit for clarity. I have seen users tag edit for legitimate artist created variants which is incorrect usage and has caused confusion several times regarding DNP statuses.

Blind_Guardian said:
Mostly unrelated but I also want edit to be aliased to third-party_edit for clarity. I have seen users tag edit for legitimate artist created variants which is incorrect usage and has caused confusion several times regarding DNP statuses.

That could be a problem for shopped and photo_manipulation, which imply edit. Both of those are always edits of images/photos, but those bases may or may not be third-party in origin. And when it comes to ownership rights, it's a very blurry line where editing transforms something into a new (first-party) work, vs remaining a derivative of an existing (third-party) work.

Watsit said:
I'm just noting that someone's impression of what a tag "should mean" or what exactly the dictionary says doesn't always translate to how it's meant to be used here or how it's most effectively used for tagging. I can't see how it's useful to tag an image to say 'There was a censored version of this image... somewhere, at one time, maybe, according to whoever tagged this'.

How it is meant to be used is what this alias suggestion is all about. Again I've already said this. How it is actually used is to tag images that have censored versions.

Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

Character names are a special case where Tag What You Know is allowed, but there still needs to be some visual element in the picture that can be tied to what's known about the character (and even then it's only the character name, nothing else you may know about the character is tagged if you can't see it, including their gender or species). This site also has wiki pages for characters, where relevant information about them can be kept for future reference in case sources get nuked.

In contrast, an uncensored tag as you describe can only rely on what a tagger knows, an even broader exception as the image itself need not offer any hints of a censored version and no proof needs to be provided.

What I described is how the tag has been used since it's inception. The tag has never primarily been used for it's intended purpose.

I would too, actually. But the issue still remains. Would post #2040405 be considered an uncensored version of post #2040400? It's ostensibly the same image, but the two don't exactly match (the cloth would be tenting if that was the only change). Or what about post #2029459 being an uncensored version of post #2029454? They're clearly based on the same image, with one having the view of her genitals blocked that can be seen in the other, but there are differences here and there. What about post #2028583 in comparison to post #2028542? Where is the line for it no longer being an uncensored version of a censored image, and is just two images with one showing genitals and the other not?

#2040400 is mistagged(in my opinion), that is not what the intent of the tag is. It has no nipples drawn and the explicit content was never drawn, with zero implication there.

#2029454 is merely clothed, where is the misinterperetation?

#2028542 is also clothed, neither are even tagged with censorship tags.

What are you even arguing here? The latter are practically straw men. If what you were implying I were arguing were even partially true then every post with clothing would be marked as convinient censorship, which is completely absurd.

Except it's wrong to do that according to TWYS. Tags should be for what you can see in the image being tagged, not from information you got from other pictures that may relate to it.

What? Without external knowledge you would never know if was edited from a censored picture anyways. That argument doesn't even make sense.

Sounds like a good reason to stop using the tag in such a way that lets this problem fester, creating an ever increasing list of "uncensored" images that have no censored version available. Stop using it now for general uncensored images that had censored versions, and it can be made a tagging project to go through uncensored -edit and find which should add edit, and which should remove uncensored. This can be done before or after aliasing uncensored -> decensored.

You would also have to go through uncensored with edit and see which are edited to be uncensored and which are edits of uncensored versions. I am saying to do that and do the proper research beforehand.

Blind_Guardian said:
I will personally sort every single post if this alias is green-lighted. It is absolutely trivial to find censored-uncensored parent-child posts that can be tagged uncensored created by the original artist should uncensored ever be decided to be brought to use for that.

And what about the ones that are from dead galleries with no verifiable source anymore? Also "if the alias is greenlit" shouldn't be a qualifier if your intent if to fix the tag. The reason "de-censored" was aliased to uncensored was nobody argued this issue in that thread 4 years ago and an admin claimed that they didn't think anybody used the tag as such. The original alias of "de-censored" was under false pretense as a result.

With valid tags. post #1670896 has 4 child posts that are variants. What do you tag those as? Nothing, we don't signify posts are alternative versions with a tag. You can use metatags and combination searches to find these.

Stop with the straw man. That is not a situation of any relation at all. That is just variants.

I would like to start by saying our stance currently on keeping censored versus uncensored is this: we keep the highest quality files available. If the censored version is higher quality we will keep both censored and uncensored. If the censored version is pixel for pixel the same as the uncensored then we will delete the censored as inferior/duplicate. post #193279 happens to be one of those cases where the only visual difference, down to the pixel, is the censor. Third-party edits are never kept in place of censored original files. I do not speak for past decisions but what I have said has been true for at least a year at this point.

That may be the stance but that is not the implementation. The post I had referenced as recent is a counter example. Both are recent, both are same resolution, one is censored and one is not.

I agree that the tag "decensored" should exist. However, I disagree with the alias for a simple reason that uncensored does not mean decensored. Making a new tag of "decensored" that implies uncensored and edit, and leave uncensored in it's current state is from my opinion the best way to proceed. Lowest effort, higher flexibility, and low collateral impact.

deadoon said:
How it is actually used is to tag images that have censored versions.

And as I said, it's incorrect to use it that way. It doesn't follow the tag's own description, and it breaks TWYS.

deadoon said:
What I described is how the tag has been used since it's inception. The tag has never primarily been used for it's intended purpose.

And just because it's been used incorrectly in the past doesn't mean it should continue to be used incorrectly. I'm going to stop repeating myself now.

deadoon said:
#2040400 is mistagged(in my opinion), that is not what the intent of the tag is. It has no nipples drawn and the explicit content was never drawn, with zero implication there.

#2029454 is merely clothed, where is the misinterperetation?

#2028542 is also clothed, neither are even tagged with censorship tags.

What are you even arguing here?

What I'm getting at is, what counts as "uncensored" versions of an image? I didn't say those are or aren't tagged incorrectly, but they are examples of how some artists make censored and uncensored versions of their work. I'm asking, would those explicit images be considered "uncensored" versions of the safe counterparts? Given that artists who make censored and uncensored versions of their images can run the gamut from barely perceptible lines and mosaics over a part of the genitals (like most stuff from Japan), to minor or significant cropping of the image, to reworking small or big parts of the image... when is an official uncensored version considered "uncensored" for tagging purposes rather than a similar but separate image?

deadoon said:
What? Without external knowledge you would never know if was edited from a censored picture anyways. That argument doesn't even make sense.

This actually touches on covering one's butt from legal repercussions. It's a very good idea to indicate when a work is modified/edited without authorization and isn't the original that the artist created. That's misappropriation to do otherwise, claiming someone made something that they didn't, which can lead to some serious problems for people spreading the modified version without marking it as such if it causes the creator any legally-recognized harm.

Watsit said:
And as I said, it's incorrect to use it that way. It doesn't follow the tag's own description, and it breaks TWYS.

It's incorrect, but at the same time the primary use apparently.

And just because it's been used incorrectly in the past doesn't mean it should continue to be used incorrectly. I'm going to stop repeating myself now.

In the past is down playing it significantly, as I have mentioned and you gloss over.

What I'm getting at is, what counts as "uncensored" versions of an image? I didn't say those are or aren't tagged incorrectly, but they are examples of how some artists make censored and uncensored versions of their work. I'm asking, would those explicit images be considered "uncensored" versions of the safe counterparts? Given that artists who make censored and uncensored versions of their images can run the gamut from barely perceptible lines and mosaics over a part of the genitals (like most stuff from Japan), to minor or significant cropping of the image, to reworking small or big parts of the image... when is an official uncensored version considered "uncensored" for tagging purposes rather than a similar but separate image?

You do know you just said nothing right? You are asking a question which was already answered, I view convenient censorship as a form of censorship, shocking right? Those aren't censored versions those are "clean" versions. Versions of adult content made less or not so by changing the situation. Censored is keeping the same situation but covering up explicit(or legally contentious content) content in some way in order to conceal it. In your first example it hasn't been simply been covered, but rather removed entirely. There is no evidence that there is explicit version at all. The latter two are literally clothing, wearing clothes does not even imply censorship in the slightest and as I mentioned an unreasonable comparison.

This actually touches on covering one's butt from legal repercussions. It's a very good idea to indicate when a work is modified/edited without authorization and isn't the original that the artist created. That's misappropriation to do otherwise, claiming someone made something that they didn't, which can lead to some serious problems for people spreading the modified version without marking it as such if it causes the creator any legally-recognized harm.

I was calling out the hypocrisy of your original comment. The same argument goes both ways. You need external knowledge to know if something is edited, just like you need external knowledge to know if it is an uncensored version.

It is getting really hard for me to take you seriously at this point.

deadoon said:
Some is official versions that were uploaded at a later date or through different channels.

Those should not be tagged as uncensored. The tag is for the works that have been decensored by someone other than the artist, not for the original works.

So yes, plus one for flipping the alias. Additionally, an implication of decensored -> edit should be made. That would clarify the usage and reduce the number of mistags.

deadoon said:
And what about the ones that are from dead galleries with no verifiable source anymore? Also "if the alias is greenlit" shouldn't be a qualifier if your intent if to fix the tag. The reason "de-censored" was aliased to uncensored was nobody argued this issue in that thread 4 years ago and an admin claimed that they didn't think anybody used the tag as such. The original alias of "de-censored" was under false pretense as a result.

If the existence of a censored version can't be proved then it does not exist and should not be tagged. I am not willing to do a single drop of work for a project I do not support, hence my statement. I can only assume nobody argued the issue because nobody cared or wanted to put in the work for the project. This is apparent as far back as 8 years where it is suggested and nothing is done. forum #16637

That may be the stance but that is not the implementation. The post I had referenced as recent is a counter example. Both are recent, both are same resolution, one is censored and one is not.

Matching resolution does not mean they are the same quality. Those posts were made 17 months apart and the censored version was never flagged for deletion, as well as different staff members handling their approvals. Those files are very clearly not the same quality.

Genjar said:
Those should not be tagged as uncensored. The tag is for the works that have been decensored by someone other than the artist, not for the original works.

So yes, plus one for flipping the alias. Additionally, an implication of decensored -> edit should be made. That would clarify the usage and reduce the number of mistags.

They shouldn't by the tags listed purpose, that was never in question. The problem is that the tag has mostly been used for a completely different one. I didn't even know it's intended purpose until this thread, which the title brought me in due to it being illogical.

Blind_Guardian said:
If the existence of a censored version can't be proved then it does not exist and should not be tagged. I am not willing to do a single drop of work for a project I do not support, hence my statement. I can only assume nobody argued the issue because nobody cared or wanted to put in the work for the project. This is apparent as far back as 8 years where it is suggested and nothing is done. forum #16637

You are not making sense any more you first state you will work on it.

Blind_Guardian said:
I will personally sort every single post if this alias is green-lighted. It is absolutely trivial to find censored-uncensored parent-child posts that can be tagged uncensored created by the original artist should uncensored ever be decided to be brought to use for that.

I responded with the following because of the odd manner you said it(with a typo, should be if your intent is).

deadoon said:
Also "if the alias is greenlit" shouldn't be a qualifier if your intent if to fix the tag.

So are you going to do your claim or not? You said polar opposites here.

Also no, you are actually wrong, I even mentioned this before. In the thread you took a cherry picked post out of earlier there is posts about people using it for official uncensors and a former admin agreeing that people should use version with and without edit to cover both, with a different staff saying otherwise.
https://e621.net/forum/show/148094
Guess what? The person who was shot down making the same claim I am is currently a janitor. You didn't even read your own sources.

Matching resolution does not mean they are the same quality. Those posts were made 17 months apart and the censored version was never flagged for deletion, as well as different staff members handling their approvals. Those files are very clearly not the same quality.

Are we even looking at the same posts here?
Both of the posts I mentioned are jpgs, and both posts contain the same artifacts. They are of identical quality outside of the censored region.

The only one I posted which has both the uncensored and censored version on this site is:
post #1475291 and post #1971405

Edit: Honestly the fact a former admin thought the tag was meant to be used the way that everyone uses it is kind of indicative of the situation.

deadoon said:
Are we even looking at the same posts here?
Both of the posts I mentioned are jpgs, and both posts contain the same artifacts. They are of identical quality outside of the censored region.

The only one I posted which has both the uncensored and censored version on this site is:
post #1475291 and post #1971405

Edit: Honestly the fact a former admin thought the tag was meant to be used the way that everyone uses it is kind of indicative of the situation.

I don't have the time right now to fully reply, but if you can't tell what the difference in those posts are you should ask someone who can. Quite silly to assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

Blind_Guardian said:
I don't have the time right now to fully reply, but if you can't tell what the difference in those posts are you should ask someone who can. Quite silly to assume I don't know what I'm talking about.

Either you are being disingenuous in your comment here or simply misguided.
https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines#quality

You claimed they are not the "same quality", I interpreted that as image quality, one of the main reasons for deleting an old version of the same image. If you don't mean image quality your wording is vague.

Artistic quality? Same degree of detail in both, it is the same base image after all.

Same medium as well as noted, both digital sourced.

Both files have identical compression artifacts(and there are a lot of them), that is verifiable. Both files are the same resolution as well, if they were different at any time the artifacts would be completely different.

If you mean recognizable "qualities", or parts of the picture, that is a completely different matter that should have been plural.

deadoon said:
So are you going to do your claim or not? You said polar opposites here.

I will work on my tag alias suggestion if it is approved. I will not contribute work to any other outcome.

Also no, you are actually wrong, I even mentioned this before. In the thread you took a cherry picked post out of earlier there is posts about people using it for official uncensors and a former admin agreeing that people should use version with and without edit to cover both, with a different staff saying otherwise.
https://e621.net/forum/show/148094
Guess what? The person who was shot down making the same claim I am is currently a janitor. You didn't even read your own sources.

I used the final admin decision to support my stance. I can use Parasprite as an example to support my position if you want as well. forum #148160

Parasprite said:
Anyways uncensored + edit versus just uncensored would cover the meaning without needing an extra tag with overlapped meaning.

This can be used both ways. If uncensored + edit covers decensored, then -censored covers uncensored. It is a massive waste of effort to tag something that adds no value. Every post that isn't censored should be tagged uncensored with the logic used by you. Absurd? Yes, so is using uncensored.

Parasprite made the suggestion because they could not decide to alias and Titanmelon hasn't been active since June 2017. I read my own sources. Perhaps you should read what I am suggesting. I am not saying uncensored is only used for decensor edits. I am saying we should not have uncensored at all. We host ~22000 censored posts and ~2800 are tagged with uncensored. Compare to Danbooru, a similar site that hosts content primarily affected by censorship at ~163000 censored and ~43000 uncensored and ~950 decensored. Even they are plagued by posts tagged with uncensored when a censored version has never existed.

deadoon said:
Either you are being disingenuous in your comment here or simply misguided.
https://e621.net/wiki/show/uploading_guidelines#quality

You claimed they are not the "same quality", I interpreted that as image quality, one of the main reasons for deleting an old version of the same image. If you don't mean image quality your wording is vague.

Artistic quality? Same degree of detail in both, it is the same base image after all.

Same medium as well as noted, both digital sourced.

Both files have identical compression artifacts(and there are a lot of them), that is verifiable. Both files are the same resolution as well, if they were different at any time the artifacts would be completely different.

If you mean recognizable "qualities", or parts of the picture, that is a completely different matter that should have been plural.

I am talking about image quality. Both files do not have the same compression artifacts. The censored version very clearly has more artifacts from the artist saving their own file from Twitter and censoring it for Pixiv. Open the two images in any comparison software and you will see the censored version is littered with more artifacts. They are visible to the plain eye as well. The filesize is also bloated from resaving the 85 quality Twitter jpg as a 100 quality jpg. I would have deleted it as inferior/duplicate but I have left it up as an example for the time being.

If you could not figure this out on your own I don't think you have any weight to your argument in keeping uncensored as a tag.

Blind_Guardian said:
This can be used both ways. If uncensored + edit covers decensored, then -censored covers uncensored. It is a massive waste of effort to tag something that adds no value. Every post that isn't censored should be tagged uncensored with the logic used by you. Absurd? Yes, so is using uncensored.

Again with the strawman arguments. I am not saying and have never said that. I have even said the opposing statements to that. I have said that uncensored IS used when a censored version exists, not even when a censored version is on this site(or not on the site anymore). By the rules, it shouldn't be but that is not the point I have been arguing.

At this point you are being hypocritical. I said if your intent to correct the tag is genuine to be within the rules, then a qualifier shouldn't be necessary.

If you are going to continue to misrepresent what others say and take them out of context, there is no point in arguing with you. You will simply twist it to fit your own view. Then you will make it out as though the other person is wrong.

Edit: For clarity's sake, my entire opposition behind this is historical usage on this site and basic English.

People use it to mark images that are uncensored versions of censored images. This is historical context.

Basic English states that uncensored simply means not censored.

Decensored means censorship has been removed.

Something that is decensored IS uncensored, but something that is uncensored is not necessarily decensored.

Since the tag has been in use for so long and been used in this manner for the majority if not all of it's history, then I believe the e621 definition is at this point irrelevant. It has never been relevant to people tagging as evidenced, and has thus led to this situation.

The situation was tenable in the past, but due to significant shifts in rules and moderation methods, as well as information gaps I do not believe such a change will have a net positive effect.

Implementation of a new tag, being "decensored" would have the intended effect with minimal collateral, as well as lowest difficulty. There are less images with "edit" on them than those without.

deadoon said:
Again with the strawman arguments. I am not saying and have never said that. I have even said the opposing statements to that. I have said that uncensored IS used when a censored version exists, not even when a censored version is on this site(or not on the site anymore). By the rules, it shouldn't be but that is not the point I have been arguing.

At this point you are being hypocritical. I said if your intent to correct the tag is genuine to be within the rules, then a qualifier shouldn't be necessary.

If you are going to continue to misrepresent what others say and take them out of context, there is no point in arguing with you. You will simply twist it to fit your own view. Then you will make it out as though the other person is wrong.

Edit: For clarity's sake, my entire opposition behind this is historical usage on this site and basic English.

People use it to mark images that are uncensored versions of censored images. This is historical context.

Basic English states that uncensored simply means not censored.

Decensored means censorship has been removed.

Something that is decensored IS uncensored, but something that is uncensored is not necessarily decensored.

Since the tag has been in use for so long and been used in this manner for the majority if not all of it's history, then I believe the e621 definition is at this point irrelevant. It has never been relevant to people tagging as evidenced, and has thus led to this situation.

The situation was tenable in the past, but due to significant shifts in rules and moderation methods, as well as information gaps I do not believe such a change will have a net positive effect.

Implementation of a new tag, being "decensored" would have the intended effect with minimal collateral, as well as lowest difficulty. There are less images with "edit" on them than those without.

Here is a question for you. If the alias proposal was for uncensored -> invalid_tag and I had suggested we create a new tag for decensor edits, would you argue that uncensored should be kept? I do not see the point in keeping uncensored in any usage. I suggest it should be aliased to decensored to restore it's purpose on our page. Uncensored is not a high volume tag and can easily be monitored. I am having difficulty in seeing any value in using uncensored.

Edit: I want to address this as well

Implementation of a new tag, being "decensored" would have the intended effect with minimal collateral, as well as lowest difficulty. There are less images with "edit" on them than those without.

I am also having difficulty in seeing why the collateral or difficulty should matter. 2800 posts is a small amount to work through. Should all legitimate uncensored posts be untagged they can quite easily be retagged in the future, or preserved in a set. The quantity is of no concern.

Blind_Guardian said:
Here is a question for you. If the alias proposal was for uncensored -> invalid_tag and I had suggested we create a new tag for decensor edits, would you argue that uncensored should be kept? I do not see the point in keeping uncensored in any usage. I suggest it should be aliased to decensored to restore it's purpose on our page. Uncensored is not a high volume tag and can easily be monitored. I am having difficulty in seeing any value in using uncensored.

Edit: I want to address this as well
I am also having difficulty in seeing why the collateral or difficulty should matter. 2800 posts is a small amount to work through. Should all legitimate uncensored posts be untagged they can quite easily be retagged in the future, or preserved in a set. The quantity is of no concern.

Honestly, uncensored is as valuable a tag as copyright tags. Both act as supplementary information about the post. When used for searching for a unduly degree of broadness. You search for Nintendo and you get stuff with only tangential relation to one another.

So depending on how the alias proposal is done: maybe. I still believe that if an image has a censored and an uncensored version from the same artist, the uncensored version should be identified in a similar manner to how the censored version is. Decensored alone does not allow for that.

Splitting the tag into artist_uncensored or official_uncensored and decensored which both imply uncensored, which would no longer be allowed as a standalone tag would be very useful for artists like dagasi which has both types on this site.

Edit: As for collateral, the thing I have the greatest opposition to is the proposition to remove the common use of the tag. It is goes against a practice that has been going on for as long as the tag has existed practically. It sounds petty, but I consider that precedent important.

The tag alias uncesored -> uncensored (forum #280591) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.