The bulk update request #7551 is active.

create implication anorexia (8) -> eating_disorder (13)
create implication bulimia (3) -> eating_disorder (13)

Reason: Anorexia and bulimia are both eating disorders. These are important topics to be able to blacklist. (I'm pretty sure they're undertagged too)
(yes there's been some mistagging in the past, but I believe these tags should be for when the disorder is depicted, not just for any emaciated character regardless of context. That's what the emaciated tag is for)

Question: Should anorexia and bulimia be renamed to anorexia_nervosa and bulimia_nervosa? Those are the full names of the disorders. But the shortened names are very commonly used too so maybe there's no point.

EDIT: The bulk update request #7551 (forum #400500) has been approved by @spe.

... Explain how this is visible and distinct in it's visibility from a combination of other tags, exactly? This seems like it'd just be covered by such things as "emaciated" and "vomitting", and would logically qualify for a lore tag if at all.

votp said:
... Explain how this is visible and distinct in it's visibility from a combination of other tags, exactly? This seems like it'd just be covered by such things as "emaciated" and "vomitting", and would logically qualify for a lore tag if at all.

You could say that about MANY tags. Remember the user who complained about emotion tags and said we should use unwieldy combinations like angry_eyebrows and gritted_teeth to tag anger instead? lol
There's a difference between showing an emaciated character with no context and showing an emaciated character refusing food and visibly frightened while stepping on a scale. People should be able to blacklist depictions of eating disorders, if a viewer has an eating disorder themself it can be triggering.

Edit: Also eating disorders do not require the sufferer to be extremely underweight, the emaciated tag may not always be applicable. A healthy weight or even overweight character can still be depicted experiencing anorexia or bulimia symptoms.

wandering_spaniel said:
You could say that about MANY tags. Remember the user who complained about emotion tags and said we should use unwieldy combinations like angry_eyebrows and gritted_teeth to tag anger instead? lol
There's a difference between showing an emaciated character with no context and showing an emaciated character refusing food and visibly frightened while stepping on a scale. People should be able to blacklist depictions of eating disorders, if a viewer has an eating disorder themself it can be triggering.

Edit: Also eating disorders do not require the sufferer to be extremely underweight, the emaciated tag may not always be applicable. A healthy weight or even overweight character can still be depicted experiencing anorexia or bulimia symptoms.

That's cool and all, I'm asking you to visually define these tags you want to use that makes them distinct and usable as tags on here, as otherwise it seems the only application would be as a lore tag.

votp said:
That's cool and all, I'm asking you to visually define these tags you want to use that makes them distinct and usable as tags on here, as otherwise it seems the only application would be as a lore tag.

Again, the definition of these tags is characters showing symptoms of these eating disorders, such as a character refusing food and looking frightened while stepping on a scale, or eating and then going to the bathroom to make themself throw up. Please look through the tagged images if you want to see some examples :)

Do you have a better idea for how to blacklist all images that portray eating disorders, while leaving out images that show skinny characters without specifically depicting eating disorders?

wandering_spaniel said:
Again, the definition of these tags is characters showing symptoms of these eating disorders, such as a character refusing food and looking frightened while stepping on a scale, or eating and then going to the bathroom to make themself throw up. Please look through the tagged images if you want to see some examples :)

Do you have a better idea for how to blacklist all images that portray eating disorders, while leaving out images that show skinny characters without specifically depicting eating disorders?

"Skinny" is a bit different from emaciated. Your best bet would be to blacklist;
weighing_scale
vomiting
emaciated
scared food

This will cover a MUCH wider scope than... all seven-ish images tagged with those. Again, what you are wanting to use here is fairly vague and broad, and would likely be better off as a lore tag encompassing the entirety of it, if it is to be retained at all.

votp said:
"Skinny" is a bit different from emaciated. Your best bet would be to blacklist;
weighing_scale
vomiting
emaciated
scared food

These tags would encompass a MUCH greater scope than what is requested. Vomiting alone would blacklist a ton of cases that aren't related to eating disorders at all. (Alcohol, Sickness, Overstressing of the body, etc)
I think it's fine to have specific depictions tagged so large amounts of unrelated posts don't get hit with the blacklist. I would be able to see a comic that has somebody eating something, then throwing up in a bathroom and then say "that's an eating disorder", and tag it.

Implications are all correct, and I think these terms should remain in use, so +1

cowboyjones said:
These tags would encompass a MUCH greater scope than what is requested. Vomiting alone would blacklist a ton of cases that aren't related to eating disorders at all. (Alcohol, Sickness, Overstressing of the body, etc)
I think it's fine to have specific depictions tagged so large amounts of unrelated posts don't get hit with the blacklist. I would be able to see a comic that has somebody eating something, then throwing up in a bathroom and then say "that's an eating disorder", and tag it.

Implications are all correct, and I think these terms should remain in use, so +1

+1, this is a sensitive topic that should be able to be tagged for blacklisting purposes and I honestly don't understand the response here? It's not going against TWYS to see characters showing visible symptoms of an eating disorder in an image and tag it.

To say that eating_disorder isn't a valid tag on these seems incredibly silly:

post #3374056 post #389846

It is very obvious what is being depicted here, you do not need external information to understand these characters have an eating disorder. It's right there in the image.

I really don't understand the recent trend I've seen of interpreting TWYS so literally that all context in an image must be ignored even when it's... right there. There's a difference between "this visually female character has a male symbol next to them so I should tag male" and "this extremely skinny character anxiously looking at a scale is accompanied by text that says they're rejecting food, this is clearly depicting an eating disorder". One is contradicting the visual cues and thus should be ignored, the other is supporting the already present visual cues.

nimphia said:
+1, this is a sensitive topic that should be able to be tagged for blacklisting purposes and I honestly don't understand the response here? It's not going against TWYS to see characters showing visible symptoms of an eating disorder in an image and tag it.

To say that eating_disorder isn't a valid tag on these seems incredibly silly:

post #3374056 post #389846

It is very obvious what is being depicted here, you do not need external information to understand these characters have an eating disorder. It's right there in the image.

I really don't understand the recent trend I've seen of interpreting TWYS so literally that all context in an image must be ignored even when it's... right there. There's a difference between "this visually female character has a male symbol next to them so I should tag male" and "this extremely skinny character anxiously looking at a scale is accompanied by text that says they're rejecting food, this is clearly depicting an eating disorder". One is contradicting the visual cues and thus should be ignored, the other is supporting the already present visual cues.

I am saying that if the desire is for blacklisting purposes that a tag populated up to a grand total of seven entries is ineffective for that purpose, and am offering a stopgap solution for the time being. The scope of "theme" tags is broad enough that it likely does not specifically adhere to TWYS, but may be served best as a lore tag, I view this the same as a "child endangerment/abuse" or "horror" or "fantasy" or "sci-fi" tagging in that it refers to so many possible things that it might need to be handled differently to a regular tag, if it is going to be used and populated.
Do note, I'm not opposed to it, just trying to figure out what would provide a benefit to users seeking to avoid this content, due to the lack of current implementation, as well as considering how such a tag would be handled. I'm actually curious what Rainbow Dash's opinion on this is, and if this is outside the scope of that's desired for the tagging system or within it.

The bulk update request #7551 (forum #400500) has been approved by @spe.