The bulk update request #3453 is active.

Reason:

I have full documentation of these tags, except for the derived tag, which I have been waiting until a good time to give it a proper wiki.

Here is a summary of the functions:

Different: Two distinct sounds are present in an image. You can find images that either have a variety of sounds, or just the same sound.
Variants:
- Extended: Groups all sound effects that have forms longer than their base form. Only some sound effects tend to get the extended form treatment, so this also has a curated grouping of sound effects.
- Reduced: Groups all sound effects that have forms shorter than their base form. Only some sound effects tend to get the reduced form treatment, so this also has a curated grouping of sound effects.

The variant tags help track modified onomatopoeia. You will be able to find onomatopoeia that more closely resemble their base form.

The derived tag is for variants that are alter the base form in some way that doesn't conform with a reduction or extension.

"Slosh" -> "Slursh" for example.

If we want to find "Slursh", we will need either a tag for "Slursh", or use this tag which avoids the need for such a tag.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3453 (forum #348232) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

thevileone said:
vowelless_sound_effect
derived_sound_effect
sound_effect_variant
reduced_sound_effect
extended_sound_effect
different_sound_effects

Seriously? Do we need tags to say a word used for a sound effect had no vowels? Or that two different sound effect words are in an image? What even is derived_sound_effect? sound_effect_variant, extended_sound_effect, reduced_sound_effect are just tagging things to tag them.

watsit said:
Seriously? Do we need tags to say a word used for a sound effect had no vowels? Or that two different sound effect words are in an image? What even is derived_sound_effect? sound_effect_variant, extended_sound_effect, reduced_sound_effect are just tagging things to tag them.

different_sound_effects, and vowelless_sound_effect are the two most important tags on this list and the sound effects tag is useless without them.

90% of non-onomatopoeia will fall under a vowelless sound effect. It is a very needed tag. Onomatopoeia is a hog that consumes the sound effects group. Different sound effects targets the balance issue. The variant tags target abnormal spellings, which is useful for finding modified onomatopoeia. The derived tag is the most experimental of all of the tags, but it allows us to find unmodified (pure) sound effects within sound effect tags that have a lot of small spelling variations.

Sound effects are a very complicated theme, and we need advanced tags to deal with that complexity.

You will find with the variant tags is that only certain sound effects are commonly turned into variants, so you get only those flavors when you use that tag. Any tag that helps isolate certain qualities of sound effects is a useful tag.

For example "Rip" and "Stretch" are sound effects that are commonly extended. All sound effects that tend to get extended like this will be in one place. The same is true for those that get cut down into a smaller form.

I may be somewhat biased against these, as I generally don’t care for sound effects in artwork. I find them distracting more often than not, and with the exception of comics, I find that they rarely add anything of value. I really don’t need to see “plap plap plap” written all over what is already obviously sex. Please, artists, cut that out. /rant

But okay, let’s assume that we want to subdivide sound_effects. Onomatopoeia makes sense. It seems like what you’re trying to do with vowelless is to have a way to tag non-onomatopoetic sound effects, presumably so that one could find posts that have both an onomatopoeia and a non-onomatopoetic sound effect in the same image. That’s the only use case I can imagine for it, anyway. However, the reason I don’t like vowelless for that purpose is that it’s not necessarily the case that all onomatopoeias have vowels, nor that all other sound effects lack them. For that purpose, simply calling the tag non-onomatopoetic_sound_effect instead would be clearer, albeit a bit lengthy. And the distinction about whether or not something has a vowel in it or not is inherently pointless. If the purpose is to distinguish it from onomatopoeias, it would be better to simply use a tag name that clearly describes the purpose, rather than something that will leave nearly all users asking “why?” and requiring a lengthy explanation to describe exactly why.

I don’t know about different_sound_effects. I mean, there’s no precedent for tagging things when multiple forms appear in the same image. We don’t tag different_genders if there’s a male and a female, or a female and a gynomorph, or a gynomorph and an andromorph in the same image together, even though hypothetically one might desire to search for images in which multiple genders appear together without specifying exactly what they are. Implementing a tag like that sort of implies we ought to give the same treatment to other tags of that kind, and I’m not sure if that’s a precedent we really need…

As for the others, I don’t inherently have an issue with them. I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to search specifically for sound effects that have been elongated, but I also don’t like sound effects in general, so that may just be my bias speaking. If others want such a thing; sure, whatever. Have it. At least dividing sound effects by their various alterations from a common base form seems logically coherent (even if potentially useless), so I don’t have an objection to that.

thevileone said:
different_sound_effects, and vowelless_sound_effect are the two most important tags on this list and the sound effects tag is useless without them.

Which should say something if "the two most important tags on this list" are so exceptionally gratuitous. I really don't see the point of tagging an image having multiple different sound effects (what's next, tagging that an image has multiple sentences? has more than one person talking?), or that a sound effect has no vowels (where's consonantless_sound_effect? sound_effect_with_consonants_and_vowels? vowelless_text? consonantless_dialog?).

thevileone said:
90% of non-onomatopoeia will fall under a vowelless sound effect. It is a very needed tag.

No, it's a tag you want, I don't see it as needed at all. I seriously doubt the most memorable thing someone will recall about an image, the thing that will make the search a success instead of a failure, is that one of the sound effects was "vowelless", or that it contained two different sound effects, or that one one sound effect was shorter or longer than normal, so I seriously doubt they'll help find what people are looking for in a search, compared to everything else they can search about an image. That makes it very not-needed.

Not to mention how this is supposed to work considering "vowel" is as much a sound as it is a set of letters, so just because a word is written without vowel letters doesn't mean it's not still read with vowel sounds. Unless it's only referring to the letters, in which case that brings up how it's supposed to work with languages and character sets that don't have the concept of vowels.

thevileone said:
Onomatopoeia is a hog that consumes the sound effects group. Different sound effects targets the balance issue. The variant tags target abnormal spellings, which is useful for finding modified onomatopoeia. The derived tag is the most experimental of all of the tags, but it allows us to find unmodified (pure) sound effects within sound effect tags that have a lot of small spelling variations.

I know what they're intended for, but I fail to see how they're useful. Hell, we've aliased away one_girl and one_guy for not being useful enough, but somehow vowelless_sound_effect, sound_effect_variant, reduced_sound_effect, extended_sound_effect, different_sound_effects, etc, are more important? I don't see it.

scaliespe said:
I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to search specifically for sound effects that have been elongated, but I also don’t like sound effects in general, so that may just be my bias speaking.

I don't mind sound effects, but I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to search specifically for these things either. So don't feel alone with that thought.

The bulk update request #3454 has been rejected.

create alias vowelless (14336) -> text (1048584)
create alias vowelless_sound_effect (9572) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias derived_sound_effect (2484) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias sound_effect_variant (7226) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias reduced_sound_effect (0) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias extended_sound_effect (5057) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias different_sound_effects (11724) -> sound_effects (87836)

Reason: These are unnecessarily specific, acting largely to boost a post's tag count with no real utility to help image searches or blacklists beyond other tags that already exist. They've all been largely added by a single user over the past several months, not catching on with the wider user base in that time, and with no clear demonstration of being useful. BUR #3453 should be rejected in favor of this.

EDIT: The bulk update request #3454 (forum #348247) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

The bulk update request #3454 (forum #348247) has been rejected by @Rainbow_Dash.

watsit said:
The bulk update request #3454 has been rejected.

create alias vowelless (14336) -> text (1048584)
create alias vowelless_sound_effect (9572) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias derived_sound_effect (2484) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias sound_effect_variant (7226) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias reduced_sound_effect (0) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias extended_sound_effect (5057) -> sound_effects (87836)
create alias different_sound_effects (11724) -> sound_effects (87836)

Reason: These are unnecessarily specific, acting largely to boost a post's tag count with no real utility to help image searches or blacklists beyond other tags that already exist. They've all been largely added by a single user over the past several months, not catching on with the wider user base in that time, and with no clear demonstration of being useful. BUR #3453 should be rejected in favor of this.

Seems a bit rude to alias away tags with this many posts that are actively being maintained, even if only by one user at the moment. I'll admit that i'm not sold on most of these, but at least extended_sound_effect is a noteworthy aspect of a image to me that I'd say would warrant a tag. I'm not sold on different_sound_effects, but then I'm also not big on interspecies, so that may be personnal bias. Not sure what derived_sound_effect is meant to be about, I'd imagine it's more of a placeholder?

vowelless_sound_effect is the one I find puzzling, as I'd assumed it was for vowelless variants of other sound effects, but if known sound effects with no vowels get implicated to it, that I don't know.

At any rate, yo, mass-alias BURs are not cool.

fifteen said:
Seems a bit rude to alias away tags with this many posts that are actively being maintained, even if only by one user at the moment.

It's been this way for months, being handled by the same person that made them for all this time. How long should we wait to see if it catches on?

fifteen said:
I'll admit that i'm not sold on most of these, but at least extended_sound_effect is a noteworthy aspect of a image to me that I'd say would warrant a tag.

I'm not so sure. We don't have any tags for extended_word or anything, and it's a common enough minor detail used for sound effects that I don't see it helping a search.

fifteen said:
At any rate, yo, mass-alias BURs are not cool.

If a tag is deemed to not be good, either because it's invalid or because it's not the kind of thing that should be tagged, it should be aliased to something. As I don't see these tags being useful, users don't seem to find them useful as no one else is using them, and I don't find his arguments about their necessity convincing, I feel they should be aliased away. As it is, he's requesting to create implications for them. If the implications are accepted, my alias request can be rejected. If the implications aren't accepted, there's no point leaving the tags alone, so my BUR can alias them away.

these tags really seem like they serve no utility.

Reasons to have these tags

- Attempt to cover the factors about sound effects that make them interesting. This was one of the goals of my tagging project. All of the different forms of sound effects are contained within these tags. I wanted to develop ways to track the interesting things artists were doing with sound effects, and these tags are vital for this process.

- Good for tag maintenance. We can tell what is being put into some of the sound effect tags we are using without having to manually sift through the entire tag. This will save a lot of time when the tags get large. It is always a good idea to keep tabs on what is being stored in a tag.

- These tags are the only reliable way to find non-onomatopoeia. There is not one tag to find them, but you can find a lot by searching for ~reduced_sound_effect ~vowelless_sound_effect. If anyone was interested in making a tag for non-onomatopoeia, my tags would be a great start for building such a tag.

- The vowelless tag stores the vocalization, and sound effects examples under one tag. These tags are very hard to differentiate at times, and due to how similar they are used, they should be stored together. This is a very needed tag.

It may have other purposes, but I'm not opposed to some restrictions to make the tag easy to clean. Sounds is probably the most common reason you see vowelless things in images. I don't see it getting abused much if at all.

thevileone said:
- Attempt to cover the factors about sound effects that make them interesting. This was one of the goals of my tagging project. All of the different forms of sound effects are contained within these tags. I wanted to develop ways to track the interesting things artists were doing with sound effects, and these tags are vital for this process.

Sound effects aren't interesting.

thevileone said:
- Good for tag maintenance. We can tell what is being put into some of the sound effect tags we are using without having to manually sift through the entire tag. This will save a lot of time when the tags get large. It is always a good idea to keep tabs on what is being stored in a tag.

Only when the tag is frequently over-applied, something you have not claimed to be the case for sound_effects.

thevileone said:
- These tags are the only reliable way to find non-onomatopoeia. There is not one tag to find them, but you can find a lot by searching for ~reduced_sound_effect ~vowelless_sound_effect. If anyone was interested in making a tag for non-onomatopoeia, my tags would be a great start for building such a tag.

You almost have a point here. There's even precedent for it with the TV Tropes entry Unsound Effect, describing a "sound effect" which obviously bears no relation to the actual noise, usually for humourous purposes. I could see legitimate searching interest in an unsound_effect tag for text like Landing noises, in much the same way as we tag meta-jokes like breaking_the_fourth_wall or memes like nice_cock_bro. Unfortunately you just pointed out how this bears no relation to anything you actually did.

thevileone said:
- The vowelless tag stores the vocalization, and sound effects examples under one tag. These tags are very hard to differentiate at times, and due to how similar they are used, they should be stored together. This is a very needed tag.

Why do we need to count the number of vowels in an image again?

Hey guys, check out my hot new tag: gadsby_lipogram. I'm gonna tag it on every image not containing the letter "E", and you can't invalidate it because english_text has too many posts.

wat8548 said:
Sound effects aren't interesting.

I find all narrative elements interesting. That is your opinion.

wat8548 said:
Unfortunately you just pointed out how this bears no relation to anything you actually did.

Excuse me, I designed these tags to be nets for non-onomatopoeia. I wanted to be able to find them easily, or at least know where to look for them. You can even tell if the sound effect is a pure vowelless example, or a modified onomatopoeia through these tags. There was a problem and I fixed it.

wat8548 said:
Why do we need to count the number of vowels in an image again?

It is a major form for sound effects that artists use. Many sound forms have an onomatopoeia form, and a vowelless form, but some sounds only have a vowelless form. Growl for example has "Growl" and "Grr". It is a common thing that artists do with sound effects, and it is worthy of tagging, especially since the overlap with the onomatopoeia tag is so bad. Currently 32 pages of examples of vowelless sound effects also have onomatopoeia tagged, and this is going to continue to get worse, the more images I tag.

The best non-onomatopoeia examples I tend to see are in comics, and comic artists cannot resist inserting an onomatopoeia into the page somewhere, which will hide any non-onomatopoeia in the image. I consider images that have this property as having tumors, and this tag cures the tumors. Tag it because it is a theme that artists do intentionally, and is a major form of sound effect like onomatopoeia itself is.

There are several difficulties I have with the tags underlying this BUR, which I would like to see resolved before I can consider this BUR on its own merits. I hope you shall consider this feedback as indicative of possible changes which could improve this tagging project.

I shall point out a few of my difficulties with these sound effect tags, below:

Confusing tag names

thevileone said:
reduced_sound_effect
extended_sound_effect
sound_effect_variant
derived_sound_effect
different_sound_effects

Quite honestly, I have no idea what any of these tags mean by their names alone.

Pending the creation of a wiki page for derived sound effect, I still have no idea what it means. The sound effect in the image is derived from what? Is it an umbrella tag for reduced sound effect and extended sound effect?

I suspect these tags shall always remain poorly utilised unless the naming scheme is altered to be more self-evident. If I, as a native English speaker with a good grasp of what "extended" means and a good grasp of what "sound effect" means, have no idea what extended_sound_effect means, then I suspect the tag shall befuddle the vast majority of users who have not consulted the wiki entry for this tag. (In practice, we know how often users visit the wiki.)

If this is something we can avoid, we should address this problem before even considering how to proceed with this BUR. It is, after all, far easier to rename tags before creating a series of implications and aliases involving these tags.

For instance, would elongated_sound be more self-evident in meaning than extended_sound_effect? This is the level of discussion that needs to occur before we can consider this BUR, in my opinion.

Distinguishing onomatopoeia – the importance of distinguishing onomatopoeia?

I would like to start off by highlighting a comment from this thread that I found particularly interesting.

thevileone said:
90% of non-onomatopoeia will fall under a vowelless sound effect.

I don't know that that's true. For instance, plenty of vore pictures feature non-onomatopoeic sound effects which include English vowels, such as "glorp", "slorsh", "gurrrgle", and "splursh". These are not recognised words in Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary, or Wiktionary. From where comes the idea that onomatopoeic sounds include vowels and non-onomatopoeic sounds exclude vowels?

EDIT: It's also not apparent to me that distinguishing "grrrgle" from "gurrrgle", as the vowelless_sound_effect tag does, is a useful distinction to make.

As another enlightening example, bzzt, bzzzt, grr, grrr, and grrrr are onomatopoeia, according to Wiktionary – despite the fact that the e621 wiki page on onomatopoeia uses "bzzzt" and "grrrr" as examples of non-otomatopoeic sounds:

..."made up" words - sound effects such as "bzzzt" "grrrr" or "zzz" are not onomatopoeia

Did the string of letters "bzzzt" change dramatically the instant it was recognised by Wiktionary as a word? Did "grrrr"?

One might protest against the use of Wiktionary as a source of what is considered onomatopoeia. That does not evade the problem, however. The deeper problem is posed by the question: would these words have changed dramatically if it had been Merriam-Webster recognising their word-ness? I'm inclined to imagine not.

More to the point, I would like to see a clear and compelling explanation of why it is important to distinguish onomatopoeia from non-onomatopoeic sound effects. You clearly feel strongly about this, having likened onomatopoeia to tumours and hogs:

thevileone said:
...comic artists cannot resist inserting an onomatopoeia into the page somewhere, which will hide any non-onomatopoeia in the image. I consider images that have this property as having tumors, and this tag cures the tumors.

thevileone said:
[vowelless_sound_effect] is a very needed tag. Onomatopoeia is a hog that consumes the sound effects group.

What made "bzzzt" become a tumour the moment it became onomatopoeia? That question demands an answer to justify the usefulness of these tags.

English language bias and vowels

The entire vowelless* tag group is referring to which letters are considered vowels in English, I presume, rather than how words are spoken or which letters are vowels in other languages.

You say that 90% of non-onomatopoeic sounds will fall under the vowelless_sound_effect tag, presumably using English writing conventions to determine which sounds are vowelless. Yet the sound effects to which you are referring have no language, much less English. Why should we privilege English writing conventions over non-English writing conventions in determining when a sound effect is vowelless?

Case in point, "glwrk" is a vowelless sound according to English writing conventions, but not so in Welsh.

My criticism here goes beyond wat8548 's. Where they ask why we are counting the number of vowels in an image, I ask why we are counting the number of vowels by English conventions. It seems quite arbitrary to me, and your reply to Wat8548 leaves me dissatisfied:

thevileone said:
...it is worthy of tagging, especially since the overlap with the onomatopoeia tag is so bad.

Why is the overlap bad?

Furthermore, I am compelled to note that vowelless* overlaps with onomatopoeia due to the existence of words like "bzzzt", and so even if the overlap was bad, these tagging conventions are not a satisfactory solution to that perceived problem.

I would like to hear your thoughts, because this BUR might have merit in my eyes – but it's apparent to me that there are some major difficulties to resolve before I can support the BUR.

monroethelizard said:
There are several difficulties I have with the tags underlying this BUR, which I would like to see resolved before I can consider this BUR on its own merits. I hope you shall consider this feedback as indicative of possible changes which could improve this tagging project.

I shall point out a few of my difficulties with these sound effect tags, below:

Confusing tag names

Quite honestly, I have no idea what any of these tags mean by their names alone.

Pending the creation of a wiki page for derived sound effect, I still have no idea what it means. The sound effect in the image is derived from what? Is it an umbrella tag for reduced sound effect and extended sound effect?

I suspect these tags shall always remain poorly utilised unless the naming scheme is altered to be more self-evident. If I, as a native English speaker with a good grasp of what "extended" means and a good grasp of what "sound effect" means, have no idea what extended_sound_effect means, then I suspect the tag shall befuddle the vast majority of users who have not consulted the wiki entry for this tag. (In practice, we know how often users visit the wiki.)

If this is something we can avoid, we should address this problem before even considering how to proceed with this BUR. It is, after all, far easier to rename tags before creating a series of implications and aliases involving these tags.

For instance, would elongated_sound be more self-evident in meaning than extended_sound_effect? This is the level of discussion that needs to occur before we can consider this BUR, in my opinion.

Distinguishing onomatopoeia – the importance of distinguishing onomatopoeia?

I would like to start off by highlighting a comment from this thread that I found particularly interesting.

I don't know that that's true. For instance, plenty of vore pictures feature non-onomatopoeic sound effects which include English vowels, such as "glorp", "slorsh", "gurrrgle", and "splursh". These are not recognised words in Merriam-Webster, the Oxford English Dictionary, or Wiktionary. From where comes the idea that onomatopoeic sounds include vowels and non-onomatopoeic sounds exclude vowels?

EDIT: It's also not apparent to me that distinguishing "grrrgle" from "gurrrgle", as the vowelless_sound_effect tag does, is a useful distinction to make.

As another enlightening example, bzzt, bzzzt, grr, grrr, and grrrr are onomatopoeia, according to Wiktionary – despite the fact that the e621 wiki page on onomatopoeia uses "bzzzt" and "grrrr" as examples of non-otomatopoeic sounds:
Did the string of letters "bzzzt" change dramatically the instant it was recognised by Wiktionary as a word? Did "grrrr"?

One might protest against the use of Wiktionary as a source of what is considered onomatopoeia. That does not evade the problem, however. The deeper problem is posed by the question: would these words have changed dramatically if it had been Merriam-Webster recognising their word-ness? I'm inclined to imagine not.

More to the point, I would like to see a clear and compelling explanation of why it is important to distinguish onomatopoeia from non-onomatopoeic sound effects. You clearly feel strongly about this, having likened onomatopoeia to tumours and hogs:
What made "bzzzt" become a tumour the moment it became onomatopoeia? That question demands an answer to justify the usefulness of these tags.

English language bias and vowels

The entire vowelless* tag group is referring to which letters are considered vowels in English, I presume, rather than how words are spoken or which letters are vowels in other languages.

You say that 90% of non-onomatopoeic sounds will fall under the vowelless_sound_effect tag, presumably using English writing conventions to determine which sounds are vowelless. Yet the sound effects to which you are referring have no language, much less English. Why should we privilege English writing conventions over non-English writing conventions in determining when a sound effect is vowelless?

Case in point, "glwrk" is a vowelless sound according to English writing conventions, but not so in Welsh.

My criticism here goes beyond wat8548 's. Where they ask why we are counting the number of vowels in an image, I ask why we are counting the number of vowels by English conventions. It seems quite arbitrary to me, and your reply to Wat8548 leaves me dissatisfied:

Why is the overlap bad?

Furthermore, I am compelled to note that vowelless* overlaps with onomatopoeia due to the existence of words like "bzzzt", and so even if the overlap was bad, these tagging conventions are not a satisfactory solution to that perceived problem.

I would like to hear your thoughts, because this BUR might have merit in my eyes – but it's apparent to me that there are some major difficulties to resolve before I can support the BUR.

1a.

I will flat out say that if people have issues understanding English, tagging sound effects will be super difficult under any circumstance. A tag name wont change this. It was also very difficult to find the right terms to use. Also I find it curious that you question the meaning of my tag names, when onomatopoeia gives you no indication what it is, or how it should be used.

I have put a lot of documentation into various wikis to help people with definitions with examples. Some advice that will help people understand is that the terms are based on the idea of there being a base form (usually the tag name), and that base form is either made longer or shorter. I define this in more detail in the sound_effects wiki.

Sound effect variants apply to modified sound effect forms only at this time. I was avoiding the added complexity of defining a concept that applied to any base sound effect at least for now. Elongated sound effect definitely could work, but not something that the tag is able to be easily turned into right now. The long term plans were to track any long sound effect, and this tag is the first step to doing it. I don't think we can go ahead and just do it.

In short, there are problems in defining what elongated means right now, but it is easy to determine if some known base form has more or less letters than it should have.

1b.

I have the definition of derived, mentioned on numerous other wikis. sound_effect_variant is the umbrella term for extended, and reduced. The two concepts are kept separate, as the usages may be better off being distinct concepts.

Derived is helping me keep track of spelling changes that do not fully conform with the base form as suggested through the sound effect tag name. It doesn't have a wiki, because I am not ready to properly define what that means in terms of all sound effects. This is important to have around while I am still figuring out which forms belong to which bases. It could be excluded from the BUR, as I am not ready to create a formal definition, while I am still working on building the foundation.

Derived: To receive or take from a source or origin.

In less words, it tells you that there is a sound effect that takes inspiration from another sound effect. It tells you if Slosh contains a "Slish", or "Slush". It is a rather technical tag that is important for maintenance. No users need to pay attention to it, unless they want to include a weird spelling into a sound effect tag.

2a.

There is no coherent, and consistent list of onomatopoeia. For tagging purposes, I have found it best to treat anything that looks like it could pass as a word as an onomatopoeia. Having some site tell you what a word is leads to a confusing nightmare that doesn't keep similar forms together. I encourage you to use onomatopoeia very loosely in terms of tagging. Most anything with vowels that isn't a modified form of some other term should be best referred to as an onomatopoeia.

This is probably the best course of action. It will make it easy to tell onomatopoeia from the image itself instead of relying on people to check external sources, and rely on UrbanDictionary which is the primary source for some of the slang terms we consider as onomatopoeia right now.

2b.

For tagging purposes, we shouldn't consider any vowelless spellings as onomatopoeia and this can be enforced. Sites will conflict on what is and isn't onomatopoeia. The difference is almost arbitrary if we don't put an effort into adding sane limitations to the concept.

is more closely related to non-onomatopoeia. It should be put in the group that contains forms similar to it.

Using the looks like a word approach has greatly simplified tagging, and avoided headaches caused by modified spellings.

2c.

The explanation is that onomatopoeia should be for looks like a word stuff, and vowelless is for clear examples of doesn't look like a word stuff. However the actual term for what vowelless is exactly (imitative) is not a great name for a tag, and focusing on just the vowelless examples provide a more consistent tag that anyone can understand and use.

I am not planning on creating very many tags for vowelless base forms. That will be the only avenue for which you can find those forms, and for me to find those forms later in case it makes sense to create tags for specific ones, or to know which vowelless forms belong to which activities.

2d.

The sound effect system in general is heavily focused on English sound effects. It is important for me to make the system support many languages, the best it can, but sometimes there isn't much to be done to make it better. TWYS suggests that if something looks like a consonant, it is a consonant. We can agree to not treat it as a consonant in certain situations.

This seems like an issue that can be resolved through clarifying how the tag applies to different languages. The utility of this tag should far outweigh something as inconsequential as if it makes sense in Welsh.

3.

The overlap is bad, because over 50% of the sound effects tag is onomatopoeia, and well over 2000 images will hide vowelless examples. Not to mention there are vowelless forms that aren't sound effects, but can be confused as sound effects. The base provides an area to put things if someone really can't decide where it belongs, more relevant for vocalizations IMO.

We need tags here or it will always be confusing, and unclear, and thousands of images, many of which containing unique forms that someone might want to find (me!) will not be accessible. Searchability is already greatly impaired by not having this tag, and the tag has done wonders with cutting through even the vore tag.

Correction

90% of non-onomatopoeia will fall under my variant tag, and vowelless tag collectively. I misspoke on this. Some will be found just by removing onomatopoeia from a sound effects search. It is a miracle that we can find them now. Please do not detract from what these tags are doing. These tags are cutting through even images with extreme noise. Searchability is already at a level so much better than what it was. It is achieving things I might have doubted was possible at one point.

The bulk update request #3453 (forum #348232) has been approved by @Rainbow_Dash.

...I'd like to necro this thread to say I don't understand why this BUR was approved despite the overwhelming amount of people pointing out that these tags are utterly meaningless.

Like, seriously, what is a "non-onomatopoeia sound effect", anyways? Onomatopoeia means any word that emulates a sound. Where the hell did OP get all these bizarre nonsense restrictions like "it's not onomatopoeia if it doesn't have vowels" and "it's not onomatopoeia if it's missing letters"? I've been backreading old threads out of pure curiosity and I couldn't NOT bring this one up. My head hurts looking at this thread and these tag wikis.