Could we add tone tags to this site?

Such as "humorous" "relaxed" "lustful" "horror" "dramatic"

Humorous being something funny

Relaxed being a tone for scenarios that are peaceful and calm, like cuddles in the morning sun

lustful for tones that have no pretext of sensuality, just lustfulness.

Horror for scary stuff

dramatic for images that are over the top or have a strong presence, like https://static1.e621.net/data/sample/77/64/776493488eb5de026141d2d4f5ee92df.jpg

Too often to we scroll through and come across something funny and it takes us out of the moment. Same with something scary.

We do have humor already.

Horror could be reasonable, I guess, it would definitely be something that people would want to blacklist. The horror tag was invalidated but it seems like somebody has tried to get around that with the horror_(theme) tag.

The others just seem a little too vague to be used practically.

While I would like if this could work, sadly we've tried it numerous times before. It's just too inherently subjective.

See: the countless failed attempts at "cute" or "wholesome" tagging.

substitute tags that i know like daww and creepy (and even horror_(theme)) are replacements of cute and horror respectively.

i'll be fair that casual users wouldn't know these tags exist--at least for the better--and add those on posts with not much standards of being those themes instead of generic/common tags.

faucet said:
We do have humor already.

Horror could be reasonable, I guess, it would definitely be something that people would want to blacklist. The horror tag was invalidated but it seems like somebody has tried to get around that with the horror_(theme) tag.

The others just seem a little too vague to be used practically.

Why was the horror tag invalidated? Like you said, it's something that people would want to blacklist. Why get rid of something that has practical use?

fluffermutt said:
Why was the horror tag invalidated? Like you said, it's something that people would want to blacklist. Why get rid of something that has practical use?

Because it's subjective. One person's horror is another person's fetish or black comedy.

lendrimujina said:
Because it's subjective. One person's horror is another person's fetish or black comedy.

Humor is also subjective, why isn't it invalid?
Is it because of the clear intent to be humorous? The wiki doesn't make mention of it, but if that is the case: wouldn't the same apply to art that has the clear intent to be horrifying?

snake-girl said:
substitute tags that i know like daww and creepy (and even horror_(theme)) are replacements of cute and horror respectively.

i'll be fair that casual users wouldn't know these tags exist--at least for the better--and add those on posts with not much standards of being those themes instead of generic/common tags.

This post inspired me to clean the mess of people who can't read a wiki page out of daww -rating:s. It was honestly easier than expected, tbh, but there was a decent amount of people slapping it on "wholesome sex" or "I think this sexy anthro is kind of cute", despite what the wiki says.

if cute is aliased to invalid_tag, so should daww :P

cloudpie said:
if cute is aliased to invalid_tag, so should daww :P

Daww has an actual definition, it's for specific themes.

Related: topic #33084, topic #29383

The only issue IMO is people using it wrong. But it avoids a lot of that due to the name being something that doesn't include "cute" or its synonyms.

The horror_(theme) tag really ought to be redefined, in practice it's actually tagging posts that fall under the "horror genre", the way its defined right now makes it indistinguishable from nightmare fuel, creepy or what (don't get me started on those tags).

maplebytes said:
The horror_(theme) tag really ought to be redefined, in practice it's actually tagging posts that fall under the "horror genre", the way its defined right now makes it indistinguishable from nightmare fuel, creepy or what (don't get me started on those tags).

Strong agreed, (and I have no idea what the difference between the three you mentioned is even supposed to be, tbh)

dsco said:
Strong agreed, (and I have no idea what the difference between the three you mentioned is even supposed to be, tbh)

Guess I will get started — in addition to creepy, what and nightmare fuel, we also have what has science done what has magic done, where is your god now and why — so many tags that are poorly defined, interchangeable and often misused, especially "what" and "why".

"Creepy" at least has some sort of definition, and seems pretty consistently applied. The rest of them? Not so much. WHSD, WHMD and WIYGN are especially bad.

Edit: these tags are getting out of hand, I just found there's what_has_art_done and what_has_nature_done (which I cleared out and retagged, since it was inconsistent and less than a page worth of posts).

dsco said:
Daww has an actual definition, it's for specific themes.

It having a definition doesn't make it any more TWYS if the definition is subjective.

A tag for images with a certain flavor of tenderness or intimacy that just makes you want to go "dawww...."

What that encompasses will vary a lot between people. It should also be noted that the later changes/additions to the tag's wiki were made by someone who had a history of tagging issues and (according to their bio) quit the site over issues and disagreements with staff, and had made very questionable and sometimes flat-out incorrect wiki changes elsewhere (such as changing nude to say the exact opposite regarding use on ferals than discussions had settled on, while also removing references to said discussions; also changing certain monotone_* tags to allow for use on things that are multicolored), with either little to no discussion or when there was still no consensus on proper use of the tag.

In this case, 'dawww....' is a reaction people have to cute things. daww should absolutely be as invalid as cute is.

maplebytes said:
Guess I will get started — in addition to creepy, what and nightmare fuel, we also have what has science done what has magic done, where is your god now and why — so many tags that are poorly defined, interchangeable and often misused, especially "what" and "why".

"Creepy" at least has some sort of definition, and seems pretty consistently applied. The rest of them? Not so much. WHSD, WHMD and WIYGN are especially bad.

honestly, maybe it would have been better if high_octane_nightmare_fuel was kept and the normal nightmare_fuel tag was done away with instead. I think having the more ridiculous tag name would make ir a bit more clear that it's only for, like, genuinely horrifying imagry.

watsit said:
It having a definition doesn't make it any more TWYS if the definition is subjective.
What that encompasses will vary a lot between people. It should also be noted that the later changes/additions to the tag's wiki were made by someone who had a history of tagging issues and (according to their bio) quit the site over issues and disagreements with staff, and had made very questionable and sometimes flat-out incorrect wiki changes elsewhere (such as changing nude to say the exact opposite regarding use on ferals than discussions had settled on, while also removing references to said discussions; also changing certain monotone_* tags to allow for use on things that are multicolored), with either little to no discussion or when there was still no consensus on proper use of the tag.

In this case, 'dawww....' is a reaction people have to cute things. daww should absolutely be as invalid as cute is.

I suppose you have a point, though I'd still argue that that user's other misbehavior isn't relevant to the topic of discussion (this specific tag). I personally feel like daww as defined isn't like, any more subjective than a lot of the other subjective tags, so long as it's "tag what you see" in regards to seeing if the image matches the wiki description based on its content and themes and not "I think it looks cute". But it's also not a hill I'm gonna die on :P

The past discussions seem that even staff disagree on this particular tag and how to handle it, so I wonder if it will ever get resolved...

Edit: I see that maplebytes just made some changes to the wiki to make it more clearly about the themes and content of the image and not the reaction.

dsco said:
I suppose you have a point, though I'd still argue that that user's other misbehavior isn't relevant to the topic of discussion (this specific tag). I personally feel like daww as defined isn't like, any more subjective than a lot of the other subjective tags, so long as it's "tag what you see" in regards to seeing if the image matches the wiki description based on its content and themes and not "I think it looks cute". But it's also not a hill I'm gonna die on :P

The past discussions seem that even staff disagree on this particular tag and how to handle it, so I wonder if it will ever get resolved...

Edit: I see that maplebytes just made some changes to the wiki to make it more clearly about the themes and content of the image and not the reaction.

The wiki page was heavily tilted towards subjectivity ("images that make you want to say daww", what does that mean?) rather than describing how the tag is used, I tried to make it more objective and descriptive. It's applied very consistently and definitely describes a distinct "genre" of post, so I think it should remain valid.

sipothac said:
honestly, maybe it would have been better if high_octane_nightmare_fuel was kept and the normal nightmare_fuel tag was done away with instead. I think having the more ridiculous tag name would make ir a bit more clear that it's only for, like, genuinely horrifying imagry.

Maybe we should have a separate thread to discuss these tags, there's definitely a conversation worth having.