The tag alias #73084 toad_(frog) -> toad is pending approval.

Reason: 'Toad' was disambiguated a long time ago in order to tell the difference between the amphibian and the Mario character/species. We're a furry booru, the animal should take precedence over something that's not even site-relevant most of the time. The toad -> toad_(disambiguation) alias was undone some time ago, so it seems someone had the same idea. When I cleaned out the 50 something posts in toad_(disambiguation) every single one of them was the animal, so I don't think the disambiguation is really necessary and it in fact only hinders tagging.

ehh... with both tags having within like 33% of each other's population, I'm not sure if removing the disambiguation really made sense, if I'm being honest.

All of the current results for toad also refer to the animal. I'm inclined to think that this is fine. Most people know that a toad is a real animal, and will likely take that into consideration when tagging the Mario species. The Mario toads are named after the animal, after all, in a sorta roundabout way.

looking at removals of the old disambiguation tag

19 of 177 were for a Mario toad
120 of 177 were for the species of frog
(most of the rest were vaguely toad-like other stuff, like bulbasaur. one was both)

that's just a hair under a 1:6 ratio or ~14% of corrections being for Mario toad, that still seems like a pretty significant amount to me.

also, most of these were from after the NG update so, mostly the same site setup we're using now, if that would matter.

dba_afish said:
looking at removals of the old disambiguation tag

19 of 177 were for a Mario toad
120 of 177 were for the species of frog
(most of the rest were vaguely toad-like other stuff, like bulbasaur. one was both)

that's just a hair under a 1:6 ratio or ~14% of corrections being for Mario toad, that still seems like a pretty significant amount to me.

also, most of these were from after the NG update so, mostly the same site setup we're using now, if that would matter.

19/177 would actually be about 10.7 percent, which still leaves us with nearly 90% that meant to refer to the animal (regardless of the validity of applying the species in some of those cases, they still meant to tag the animal). We don't exactly have a hard cutoff point for when something should be disambiguated or not, but since disambiguations require active maintenance and aliases generally don't, I prefer to use them sparingly. 90% seems perfectly reasonable for an alias, I think, particularly for a low-traffic tag like this. I'd prefer to reserve disambiguations for things closer to 50/50 unless they're really busy tags.

I-kind-of-want-to-flip-it-just-to-retain-clarity. Less ambiguous name for it while still skipping full disambiguation. Sort of a compromise. Would that be terrible?

furrypickle said:
I-kind-of-want-to-flip-it-just-to-retain-clarity. Less ambiguous name for it while still skipping full disambiguation. Sort of a compromise. Would that be terrible?

Nah, it should be fine