Requested feature overview description.
I would like a checkbox under the blacklist that says "Block locked tags", or possibly a special character to add to a tag in the blacklist.
Having this feature enabled would check a post for locked tags, and blacklist the tag even if it's locked.

Why would it be useful?
There's been a few cases where an underage character has had "cub" or some other highly argued tag locked out of the tags, but it still makes many users uncomfortable. Adding this option would be a "better safe than sorry" approach for users that absolutely don't want to see it, whether it be tagged directly or in the locked out tags section.

What part(s) of the site page(s) are affected?
User search, or any place where the blacklist is used to bring user relevant content.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you're trying to get across here. do you want to blacklist any post that has locked tags or something else?

Does adding a locked tag not instantly add it to the post's actual tags?

Could you give a practical example of what you're talking about? Like on an actual post.

From what I'm reading, if a post is locked as -cub, as in not cub, the OP wants to be able to blacklist it since there was enough controversy over it that the staff had to lock it.

I think the user means "tag X is locked off, so the post won't be blocked by my blacklist containing X. However, since I would like the post to be blacklisted, can we make an option to include tags that have -X in their locked tags section?". sniped by Furrin.

For starters, this sounds complicated to implement. IDK if it would actually be, but I'll toss out an alternative in case it can't be done: you can blacklist posts by their ID by including id:*post number* on one line in your blacklist. For example, id:404 would blacklist the post with the ID 404, preventing you from seeing it. You can find the ID of a post by either looking for the set of numbers in the information section at the lower-left portion of your screen, underneath the tags section, or by looking for the set of numbers after "posts" in your URL. This isn't the most ideal thing since you'll still have to encounter the post at least once, or have someone tell you to blacklist the ID, but it'll achieve what you're looking for.

Otherwise, it might be a decent idea since those posts usually tiptoe the lines, and we don't have tags for when posts borderline between two tags and had to get locked. Some people might still believe that a post with cub locked off looks like a cub, but can't blacklist it with cub since that post can't be tagged cub...

furrin_gok said:
From what I'm reading, if a post is locked as -cub, as in not cub, the OP wants to be able to blacklist it since there was enough controversy over it that the staff had to lock it.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Thank you for clarifying what I meant. I'm not the best at words sometimes.

Basically if there was enough controversy/ debate about whether it *technically* qualifies for a tag or not, I'd like the option to stay on the safe side.

strikerman said:
Could you give a practical example of what you're talking about? Like on an actual post.

The post that brought this idea up for me was
https://e621.net/posts/3221330

The character is 13, so seeing this in my feed confused me because I have "cub" blacklisted. I checked the post for more details. According to the comments, someone had previously added the tag, but then looking further at the listing, it was later locked out with "-cub", avoiding the blacklisted tag.

If the feature I am requesting was added, the blacklist filter would see the "cub" tag was added to the locked tags, and proceed to not show me the post.

I think it would be best to make this feature default to "off" so that you can opt-in to the more restrictive blacklist feature.

chickensss said:

furrin_gok said:
From what I'm reading, if a post is locked as -cub, as in not cub, the OP wants to be able to blacklist it since there was enough controversy over it that the staff had to lock it.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Thank you for clarifying what I meant. I'm not the best at words sometimes.

Problem there is there doesn't have to necessarily be a controversy for a tag to be locked. It could just be a single user that believes the tag applies and keeps adding it, while everyone else says it doesn't. It could be a result of tag vandalism, someone adding tags they know don't apply, and a mod locking the tag to avoid having to keep fixing it. Or it could be preventative, a mod thinking a post might result in a tag war (whether or not it actually does).

watsit said:
Problem there is there doesn't have to necessarily be a controversy for a tag to be locked. It could just be a single user that believes the tag applies and keeps adding it, while everyone else says it doesn't. It could be a result of tag vandalism, someone adding tags they know don't apply, and a mod locking the tag to avoid having to keep fixing it. Or it could be preventative, a mod thinking a post might result in a tag war (whether or not it actually does).

These are all good points, which is why I think a default opt-out would be ideal. But I do think it still might be of some use for those who are really averse to certain tags and don't mind false-positives.

chickensss said:
The post that brought this idea up for me was
https://e621.net/posts/3221330

The character is 13, so seeing this in my feed confused me because I have "cub" blacklisted. I checked the post for more details. According to the comments, someone had previously added the tag, but then looking further at the listing, it was later locked out with "-cub", avoiding the blacklisted tag.

If the feature I am requesting was added, the blacklist filter would see the "cub" tag was added to the locked tags, and proceed to not show me the post.

I think it would be best to make this feature default to "off" so that you can opt-in to the more restrictive blacklist feature.

Better question is why is that post is locked at "-cub," since canon furry characters who are minors should be tagged as cub without any obvious identifying features of adulthood, as stated in this thread

lonelylupine said:
Better question is why is that post is locked at "-cub," since canon furry characters who are minors should be tagged as cub without any obvious identifying features of adulthood, as stated in this thread

The other way around. "If a character looks underage, they should be tagged as such." If a character doesn't look underage, it's not tagged cub. "Without any obvious identifying features of adulthood" would cover a wide range of characters, especially in more toony or stylized art, so it's moreso "with obvious identifying features of childhood". Which that picture is lacking (if anything, the way that rear is drawn does make her appear older).

Interestingly, that post somehow got a young_(lore) tag applied to it, which has no wiki page. I have so many more questions, now.

watsit said:
The other way around. "If a character looks underage, they should be tagged as such." If a character doesn't look underage, it's not tagged cub. "Without any obvious identifying features of adulthood" would cover a wide range of characters, especially in more toony or stylized art, so it's moreso "with obvious identifying features of childhood". Which that picture is lacking (if anything, the way that rear is drawn does make her appear older).

Interestingly, that post somehow got a young_(lore) tag applied to it, which has no wiki page. I have so many more questions, now.

Looks like admin bitWolfy added it himself a few hours ago, possibly to address not having something to blacklist? I'm just guessing here.

chickensss said:
Looks like admin bitWolfy added it himself a few hours ago, possibly to address not having something to blacklist? I'm just guessing here.

Yeah, but that's not the function of lore tags. The lore tags are essentially dictated by the artist, when they intend to depict something that isn't apparent in the image (e.g. a character that's intended to be male but looks and is tagged as ambiguous_gender, can get tagged male_(lore), or if two characters having sex are intended to be related, can get tagged incest_(lore)). If the artist doesn't say what they intend, lore tags shouldn't be added based on assumptions. A character that's normally/canonically young but depicted by the artist as not-young wouldn't get tagged young_(lore), unless the artist intended them to still be young. Just as a character that's normally/canonically female but depicted by the artist as male, wouldn't get female_(lore) unless the artist intended them to still be female.

The topic of age-related lore tags has come up before, but there's been no general agreement as to what and how the tags should be like, so it's weird to see one added randomly without any information. Not even a wiki page saying how we should use it.

watsit said:
Yeah, but that's not the function of lore tags. The lore tags are essentially dictated by the artist, when they intend to depict something that isn't apparent in the image (e.g. a character that's intended to be male but looks and is tagged as ambiguous_gender, can get tagged male_(lore), or if two characters having sex are intended to be related, can get tagged incest_(lore)). If the artist doesn't say what they intend, lore tags shouldn't be added based on assumptions. A character that's normally/canonically young but depicted by the artist as not-young wouldn't get tagged young_(lore), unless the artist intended them to still be young. Just as a character that's normally/canonically female but depicted by the artist as male, wouldn't get female_(lore) unless the artist intended them to still be female.

The topic of age-related lore tags has come up before, but there's been no general agreement as to what and how the tags should be like, so it's weird to see one added randomly without any information. Not even a wiki page saying how we should use it.

I feel the admins just gave us a very strong hint.

young_(lore) and adult_(lore) are now both lore tags.

edit:apparently they have been for about a month, now, just no one said anything

darryus said:
young_(lore) and adult_(lore) are now both lore tags.

All silently by the same person, lacking wiki entries, with no information on how to use them.

I'm honestly wondering if I should start adding young_(lore) to posts that have rei_(pokemon), akari_(pokemon), brendan_(pokémon), and other such characters, as they are canonically underage (10 to 15), and artists draw them without much consideration for their apparent age, and more often than not aren't specified to be aged up (much like that Meilin image). It fits the M.O. of the current use of the tag, even though that current use seems to contradict how lore tags are supposed to work.

watsit said:
All silently by the same person, lacking wiki entries, with no information on how to use them.

Yeah, that was me.

There was a discussion among staff, and pretty much everyone was in agreement that these tags were a good idea.
Sorry for not announcing it. I'm pretty bad at this sort of thing.

The usage is more or less the same as with other lore tags.
Add young_(lore) if the character is supposed to be young, but does not look like that in the image. Both lore and non-lore versions of the same tag should not be applied to the same character.
Artist's interpretation overrides the canonical information, of course.
Same thing with adult_(lore).

watsit said:
All silently by the same person, lacking wiki entries, with no information on how to use them.

I'm honestly wondering if I should start adding young_(lore) to posts that have rei_(pokemon), akari_(pokemon), brendan_(pokémon), and other such characters, as they are canonically underage (10 to 15), and artists draw them without much consideration for their apparent age, and more often than not aren't specified to be aged up (much like that Meilin image). It fits the M.O. of the current use of the tag, even though that current use seems to contradict how lore tags are supposed to work.

If an artist intentionally draws a character aged up, then I'd say no, but if they draw them on-style and don't give a comment, then yeah.

Went ahead and wrote a basic entry for those two wikis, with my guess as to the rule struck out until staff can confirm or deny.

As for the initial question, assuming the tags in question didn't get the axe, the various permutations of "lolcomments" and similar tags might help as well.

watsit said:
I'm honestly wondering if I should start adding young_(lore) to posts that have rei_(pokemon), akari_(pokemon), brendan_(pokémon), and other such characters, as they are canonically underage (10 to 15), and artists draw them without much consideration for their apparent age, and more often than not aren't specified to be aged up (much like that Meilin image). It fits the M.O. of the current use of the tag, even though that current use seems to contradict how lore tags are supposed to work.

furrin_gok said:
If an artist intentionally draws a character aged up, then I'd say no, but if they draw them on-style and don't give a comment, then yeah.

Considering how common it is for western hentai artists to draw on-model porn of a character who is underage in the source material and write a blanket statement of "all characters are over 18" in their bio, I would strongly advise against tagging lore for any attribute about which the artist has not made a specific statement. Official canon for fanart doesn't matter at all, and barely ever has on this site. If the characters look underage, they'll get tagged young under TWYS without any need to resort to lore. If anything, tagging young-looking characters as young_(lore) is completely missing the point of what lore tags are supposed to be for.

Begs the question of why not blacklisting those characters or the artists... Or am I missing something?

alphamule said:
Begs the question of why not blacklisting those characters or the artists... Or am I missing something?

I mean I could, but blacklisting every artist / every character I can think of that's underage seems like a pretty massive task when this feature request would probably take less effort than attempting to do so.