The bulk update request #727 has been rejected.

remove implication a_cat_is_fine_too (67) -> meme (52302)
change category a_cat_is_fine_too (67) -> invalid

Reason: This tag has been abused to hell and back. It is supposed to be a reference to a specific meme that originated in a manga, as mentioned in its wiki, but despite constant cleanups, it keeps getting flooded on posts merely featuring feral feline bestiality with no meme content, and even just non-SFW feral felines, and sometimes not even ferals. And even when it's removed, later users who see the image will tag it back on not realizing it was removed. As a result, both it and meme get tagged on untold numbers of posts it shouldn't be. Its wiki has long warned

The more this gets tagged for random felines, the more likely it is to get invalidated. Stick to meme-related content if you wish to keep the tag.

but it doesn't seem to help curb the misuse. It's no longer serving its purpose as a meme tag, and it's not even a joke tag at this point. It's time to put it down.

Given its rampant misuse, I'd actually even consider aliasing it to invalid_tag so it can swiftly be cleaned away without someone having to check it (see topic #24305 that already requests this). However I think leaving it unaliased may be a better idea, at least for now. It'll allow for a tagging project to more easily remove errant meme tags from a_cat_is_fine_too meme posts, and once that's largely done, then it can be aliased away.

EDIT: The bulk update request #727 (forum #306131) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Is this why we can't have nice things?
I would suggest at least salvaging the meme-related posts into a set before invalidating it away.

Instead of making a set specifically for the meme, maybe add the relevant posts to a_cat_is_fine_too_(meme). That tag might be less prone to mistagging than a_cat_is_fine_too.

No fun tags allowed

Anyone with "meme" blacklisted loses out on many cat feral rating:e images because of how users apply this tag indiscriminately.
No issue if the image references that specific meme from 2006; I agree with D.D.M.'s proposition.

The bulk update request #727 (forum #306131) has been rejected by @Millcore.

camkitty said:
No fun tags allowed

If only it was fun. It gets randomly tagged on posts that merely features a NSFW feline, slightly more often if there's a human penis, which have no reference to any joke or meme. It'd be like if vaporeon_copypasta was randomly tagged on NSFW vaporeon pics, even when they didn't have the copypasta and no other relevant joke.

Well, since this got rejected, how about we at least try to clean up the tag somewhat?

IMHO, the only posts with that tag should involve the original meme format, or its derivatives:

post #9307 post #899014 post #1554731

The appropriate posts could get moved to a_cat_is_fine_too_(meme), then I'll nuke the original tag with a script, and move the valid posts back.
What do you guys think?

this tag is literally just used for people fucking cats now. I still don't know why it's kept around.

bitwolfy said:
The appropriate posts could get moved to a_cat_is_fine_too_(meme), then I'll nuke the original tag with a script, and move the valid posts back.
What do you guys think?

You can try. People have attempted to clean it up before, but it just comes back like a bad stain because people keep misusing it. Especially with tag auto-completion, people will probably just start misusing whatever comes up when typing a_cat...

Maybe if it was a little more explicit about its source, like aliasing it to thats_why_i_assault_ren_(meme) or something, people might back off of putting it on random cats.

watsit said:
thats_why_i_assault_ren_(meme)

Probably will stop mistags, but I'm not sure how many people would be comfortable seeing a tag like that on otherwise jokey / meme-y posts.

I made a_cat_is_fine_too_(meme) with the posts mentioned above, though I don't know if any other posts in a_cat_is_fine_too can be added to a_cat_is_fine_too_(meme). I've also edited the wikis for both tags to hopefully prevent more mistagging.

I don't know if a_cat_is_fine_too itself should be re-categorized as an Invalid category tag, aliased to a_cat_is_fine_too_(meme), or aliased to a *_(disambiguation) page.

d.d.m. said:
I made a_cat_is_fine_too_(meme) with the posts mentioned above, though I don't know if any other posts in a_cat_is_fine_too can be added to a_cat_is_fine_too_(meme). I've also edited the wikis for both tags to hopefully prevent more mistagging.

I don't know if a_cat_is_fine_too itself should be re-categorized as an Invalid category tag, aliased to a_cat_is_fine_too_(meme), or aliased to a *_(disambiguation) page.

I looked through all the a_cat_is_fine_too posts, and those were literally the only posts that I could find that were directly referencing the meme.
Could someone take a second look for me? Because if that is correct, then 780 posts are currently mistagged there.

bitwolfy said:
I looked through all the a_cat_is_fine_too posts, and those were literally the only posts that I could find that were directly referencing the meme.
Could someone take a second look for me? Because if that is correct, then 780 posts are currently mistagged there.

post #266173

Went through all the posts as well, only found that one.

Sad to see the purge here. As loosely as it was used, I feel it had evolved from its meme origins into a fun tag that implicates explict feral feline content. Why strip the fun out of it if a good portion of users were on-board with the looser definition of it?

constellation said:
Sad to see the purge here. As loosely as it was used, I feel it had evolved from its meme origins into a fun tag that implicates explict feral feline content. Why strip the fun out of it if a good portion of users were on-board with the looser definition of it?

To put it simply, because there was no "looser definition" of it.
The tag was just filled with random feline bestiality. Occasionally, it wasn't feline. Occasionally, it wasn't bestiality either.

If you are looking for similar content, just go to felid human_on_feral male_on_feral, or something similar. You'll find more of that stuff there than on a random meme tag.

bitwolfy said:
To put it simply, because there was no "looser definition" of it.
The tag was just filled with random feline bestiality. Occasionally, it wasn't feline. Occasionally, it wasn't bestiality either.

If you are looking for similar content, just go to felid human_on_feral male_on_feral, or something similar. You'll find more of that stuff there than on a random meme tag.

Yeah, because that is a more obvious search

camkitty said:
Yeah, because that is a more obvious search

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.
But yes, if you are looking for male on cat bestiality, searching for felid + human_on_feral + male_on_feral is more obvious than using a meme tag.

constellation said:
Sad to see the purge here. As loosely as it was used, I feel it had evolved from its meme origins into a fun tag that implicates explict feral feline content. Why strip the fun out of it if a good portion of users were on-board with the looser definition of it?

I somewhat agree, if used only on feline bestialities posts I think the tag would have been fine for it.

It's far from the original joke but the context is still there.

does this meme apply merely when the text is referred to or when the scene is referred to? Like, my mind wants to say it has to emulate the meme not just have "a cat is fine to" or related text on it but be otherwise completely unrelated.

I think more people know the text than know the original context. It's not like rickroll or loss where just saying the name without the associated imagery is pointless.

wat8548 said:
I think more people know the text than know the original context. It's not like rickroll or loss where just saying the name without the associated imagery is pointless.

possible, but at the same time "text isn't applicable for tagging" is a rule. so if only text is applicable for the meme tag to be valid it goes against that principle

versperus said:
possible, but at the same time "text isn't applicable for tagging" is a rule. so if only text is applicable for the meme tag to be valid it goes against that principle

There are sometimes exceptions for these things.

versperus said:
possible, but at the same time "text isn't applicable for tagging" is a rule. so if only text is applicable for the meme tag to be valid it goes against that principle

That rule is a bit more flexible than that.

You can't derive information about characters from the text. For example, just because someone has "I AM FEMALE" written on their shirt does not mean that they get tagged female if they don't look like one.
On the other hand, if the text itself is a part of what's being tagged, then it's fine. There's nothing wrong with adding a mega_milk tag to a post of a character wearing a shirt that says "MEGA MILK" on it.

versperus said:
possible, but at the same time "text isn't applicable for tagging" is a rule. so if only text is applicable for the meme tag to be valid it goes against that principle

text would never get tagged if that was a strict rule

okay, so back to the question as to what context constitutes this tag being applicable. Given there is a context for this tag, which has been emulated across various posts.
Being x character looming over other character and proceeding with "x is fine to" which has visible context. But then you have other posts like this one, which I removed the tag from because I thought it just some tag abuse nonsense like what was going on with the tag for so long but noticed after reading threw the text it's mentioned once.
post #3033358
does this post constitute the tag simply because the fraise is in it? Does simply saying the name of a meme that has context constitute the meme tag in question?
post #1334914

versperus said:
...But then you have other posts like this one, which I removed the tag from because I thought it just some tag abuse nonsense like what was going on with the tag for so long but noticed after reading threw the text it's mentioned once....
...does this post constitute the tag simply because the fraise is in it? Does simply saying the name of a meme that has context constitute the meme tag in question?...

I vote yes on both of those. I think memes should get a fairly expansive definition.

Admittedly, we don't handle any other copyrights this way. E.g. if someone spray paints the name "crash bandicoot" on a wall, that would not get the crash_bandicoot_(series) tag. But I think saying the name of the meme is sufficient because the nature of memes is that even referencing the meme counts as an instance.

I vote for all (specific) meme tags to be purged from e6.
No meme post can be tagged with the corresponding meme without outside knowledge which is inherently not TWYS.

Example: If I were to upload an image that is (part of) a meme but I'm completely unaware of that fact I couldn't tag it (what's a meme anyway?).

Maybe just one "meme" for all memes but not one tag per meme? If not that than all meme tags should start with meme.

Maybe in a century when memes from today turned into general knowledge one can add those specific tags (which wouldn't be memes anymore).

In regards to text in images: If (meme) relevant it should be transcribed into the posts description to make it text searchable.
eg. description:cat description:fine description:too to find "a cat is fine too" meme posts.

Hmm ^^ that search gives far too many results. I think it doesn't work as intended.

kalider said:
I vote for all (specific) meme tags to be purged from e6.
No meme post can be tagged with the corresponding meme without outside knowledge which is inherently not TWYS.

That literally makes no sense. Might as well invalidate the meme tag entirely since you need to have a basic outside knowledge of it in the first place.

kalider said:
I vote for all (specific) meme tags to be purged from e6.
No meme post can be tagged with the corresponding meme without outside knowledge which is inherently not TWYS.

By that logic, literally all copyright tags would be purged, since they require outside knowledge to recognize the characters or series.

That literally makes no sense. Might as well invalidate the meme tag entirely since you need to have a basic outside knowledge of it in the first place.

@TheGreatWolfgang: That literally makes no sense(!) because it's exactly what I want (wouldn't mind seeing all meme tags invalidated/vanish).

By that logic, literally all copyright tags would be purged, since they require outside knowledge to recognize the characters or series.

@Strikerman: Think that idea a few steps further and you'll notice we need outside information even for tagging colors.

Which is exactly my point: Most humans know the same basic set off colors and plenty types of mammals -> we can call that general knowledge.
TWYS doesn't work without a common set of known outside information but it quickly gets dicey with - as you mentioned - eg. copyright tags.
So for TWYS tagging purposes e6 must draw a line (possibly squiggly) somewhere between allowed sources of information - general knowledge being the lowest common denominator - and not allowed outside information.

I'd draw that line after eg. copyright stuff but before memes.

And meme tags in the copyright category is another illogical can of frogs.

PS: My respond button is currently inoperative so I had to quote manually. :-/

kalider said:
@TheGreatWolfgang: That literally makes no sense(!) because it's exactly what I want (wouldn't mind seeing all meme tags invalidated/vanish).

@Strikerman: Think that idea a few steps further and you'll notice we need outside information even for tagging colors.

Which is exactly my point: Most humans know the same basic set off colors and plenty types of mammals -> we can call that general knowledge.
TWYS doesn't work without a common set of known outside information but it quickly gets dicey with - as you mentioned - eg. copyright tags.
So for TWYS tagging purposes e6 must draw a line (possibly squiggly) somewhere between allowed sources of information - general knowledge being the lowest common denominator - and not allowed outside information.

I'd draw that line after eg. copyright stuff but before memes.

And meme tags in the copyright category is another illogical can of frogs.

PS: My respond button is currently inoperative so I had to quote manually. :-/

No, you are taking TWYS too literally. There are obvious exceptions to this rule, mainly artists, copyrights, characters, lore, and some of the species (e.g., fan-made species) and meta tags.

You need certain outside knowledge when crediting/adding these sort of tags. Memes fall into the category of meta, while its subtags fall under copyright.

If you don't believe meme or its subtags should be considered meta or copyright, you are very much welcomed to suggest a BUR to invalidate it (e.g., category meme -> invalid).
State your reasons and people will vote on how valid it is, followed by acknowledging the counterarguments that follow.

kalider said:
@TheGreatWolfgang: That literally makes no sense(!) because it's exactly what I want (wouldn't mind seeing all meme tags invalidated/vanish).

@Strikerman: Think that idea a few steps further and you'll notice we need outside information even for tagging colors.

Which is exactly my point: Most humans know the same basic set off colors and plenty types of mammals -> we can call that general knowledge.
TWYS doesn't work without a common set of known outside information but it quickly gets dicey with - as you mentioned - eg. copyright tags.
So for TWYS tagging purposes e6 must draw a line (possibly squiggly) somewhere between allowed sources of information - general knowledge being the lowest common denominator - and not allowed outside information.

I'd draw that line after eg. copyright stuff but before memes.

And meme tags in the copyright category is another illogical can of frogs.

PS: My respond button is currently inoperative so I had to quote manually. :-/

I think you’re misunderstanding the concept of TWYS. “Outside information” does not mean “obscure knowledge.” For example, you are expected to tag a species no matter how obscure it is, so long as it actually appears in the image. Have you ever heard of an amphisbaenian? Probably not, but it’s a real animal, and so we have a tag for it here. Likewise, if a meme appears in an image, regardless of how obscure the meme is, it can be tagged. The fact that it’s actually visible in the image means that it is not outside information. “Outside information” simply refers to information that cannot be found in the image itself.

Here’s an example: assume that you are an omniscient being - you know every character, every species, every meme, every fact of existence. The only thing you don’t know is what the artist had in mind when creating their artwork. You can only tag things that you can visually recognize in the image. So if the character is someone’s random OC Donut Steel, who is an amphisbaenian, and you can recognize the distinguishing characteristics of both the species and the character, you can tag both of them. If, however, the artist claims that the character is actually a caecilian in that image, but there is no information distinguishing the character as a caecilian, you can’t tag it as that species since you don’t know what the artist intended. Even if they tell you what they intended - THAT is outside information, not visible within the image itself, so it doesn’t count. Maybe it’s drawn very inaccurately so that it just looks like an earthworm or something - you tag it as what it looks like, and if the best you can do is to tag it as worm, then so be it. Of course, benefit of the doubt can be given in these cases - if it at least could be the species in question, you can tag it. You just can’t go against what is actually present in the image when tagging.