The bulk update request #354 is active.

remove alias trio (128078) -> group (458715)

Reason: I don't think it's a stretch to say that people would want to search for posts that have exactly three characters, much in the same way that people would want to search for exactly two characters with duo. This obviously won't be easy to fix, but better late than never? Besides, trio_focus is a tag.

EDIT: The bulk update request #354 (forum #298555) has been approved by @Millcore.

just thinking about people having to go through to recategorize 10% of the entire site... god.
the group_sex tag would have to be changed and a bunch of the stuff that implies it, this'd just be hell, dude.

strikerman said:
Besides, trio_focus is a tag.

Hardly a convincing argument when most of those are mistagged.

There's currently around 145 000 posts that lack the character counts. Get those tagged first, and fix all the thousands of mistags under solo solo_focus, solo duo, etc, and I might throw my support for this. But while so many projects remain undone (and only keep growing), it'd be foolish to make the group more complex.

so, is this just supposed to be splitting existing group posts into either "leaving them as group" or "adding trio and removing group"? or is trio supposed to imply group? either way it'd be a big change to the tagging standard and would need a lot of discussion and planning and many dedicated taggers on the job, and we probably shouldn't even consider such a change when we still have massive character count related tagging projects like -zero_pictured -solo -duo -group not cleaned up.

Plus changing the upload form.

darryus said:
so, is this just supposed to be splitting existing group posts into either "leaving them as group" or "adding trio and removing group"? or is trio supposed to imply group?

I assume trio would imply group if we were to ever implement this, for a lot of reasons:

• We wouldn't have to remove group from all the trio posts
• we wouldn't cause confusion over the definition of tags like group_sex
• we would avoid confusion over whether trio posts should be tagged with group
• Users could still search for 3+ character posts without using up their ~ search

Other than the impossibly large tagging project, not much would need changing. Well, except one thing... Users would inevitably start asking "why is m/m/f, etc. not valid?", which would be another ridiculously large tagging project. Of course, that could optionally be avoided by simply not implementing them and dealing with the monthly new forum threads asking why they're not valid. EDIT: ignore my off-topic slippery slope argument. I regret writing it. Such tags definitely could never exist for reasons I'm not going to go into here, and I'm not sure anyone would even ask about it.

The bulk update request #354 (forum #298555) has been approved by @Millcore.

Forgot this was relatively recently deimplicated, but currently this is pretty broken. threesome, duo_focus, and other tags currently imply group (directly or indirectly), when it may be a trio instead of a group. The upload form has selections for zero_pictured, solo, duo, and group, meaning people are led to tag trio posts as group instead.

I've seen mention of implicating trio->group, but that makes no sense. Group is typically used to mean 'an uncounted number of things', but if you can count trio, it's not uncounted and thus not group. The other more technical definition of group is "two or more figures forming a complete unit in a composition". So if you're going that way, duo should also implicate group (as well as solo_focus, male/female, and anything else implying more than one character) to be consistent. But in that case, group would largely just be "not solo" making it pretty redundant, while letting trio count for group and not duo doesn't make sense since there's no meaning that has the cutoff at three or more. At the same time, undoing the related ->group implications for things that could be either trio or group would reduce the number of posts with the appropriate character count tag.

I think this should be reverted unless there's going to be an effort to make sure trio posts don't get tagged as group, as they're currently encouraged (and sometimes required) to be.

I'm of the mindset that trio and group should firmly remain separated, both for aliases and implications.

strikerman said:
I'm of the mindset that trio and group should firmly remain separated, both for aliases and implications.

Then duo_focus needs to be deimplicated from group (and trio_focus can implicate group). Also, threesome, sandwich_position, train_position, triangle_position, spitroast, reverse_spitroast, and collaborative_footjob need to be deimplicated from group_sex, since that implies group, and group_sex's wiki updated to say "more than three" rather than two (or else group_sex needs to be deimplicated from group, but that doesn't make much sense since it's in the name).

I don't have such a strict "uncounted" definition for group in my mind (whether for e6 or in general). And I agree with Crocogator, separating trio from group creates far more headaches than is worth it.

I've been tagging both trio and group, as per group's wiki.

watsit said:
Then duo_focus needs to be deimplicated from group (and trio_focus can implicate group). Also, threesome, sandwich_position, train_position, triangle_position, spitroast, reverse_spitroast, and collaborative_footjob need to be deimplicated from group_sex, since that implies group, and group_sex's wiki updated to say "more than three" rather than two (or else group_sex needs to be deimplicated from group, but that doesn't make much sense since it's in the name).

you da boss

animperfectpatsy said:
I don't have such a strict "uncounted" definition for group in my mind (whether for e6 or in general).

The way I see it, group should either be "uncountable" (i.e. more than trio, since that's where specific character counts stop), or "two or more" (the actual dictionary meaning). Having it count for three or more, when three can be a specified count, but not two, is arbitrary and confusing.

animperfectpatsy said:
And I agree with Crocogator, separating trio from group creates far more headaches than is worth it.

Allowing trio to be tagged as group feels like a poor attempt to ignore the obvious problem with the original BUR: group being tagged where trio should be, as trio had been long-defunct and the site having group entrenched to mean greater than two (as two was the max for counting characters). group should either exclude trio to be consistent with the "greater than countable" it had been meaning, or include duo with trio to follow the actual "two or more" meaning.

animperfectpatsy said:
I've been tagging both trio and group, as per group's wiki.

It looks like BooruHitomi changed the wiki after this was approved to say to tag trio and group for three characters, but I think that was premature. There was no discussion on whether trio should count for group, and the trio->group implication hasn't been approved yet.