I'd like to know plainly what exactly is the delay for freeing the twink tag from the femboy tag. If it's because of twink not being well defined then why was this never an issue before femboy became a tag? Why bring this up now when nobody in the past ever had an issue with what twink means? It's only because of the femboy tag that this is even being debated, if that tag was never made twink would still be a thing and nobody not a single soul would have issue with its use. Stop looking for a solution to something that doesn't have a problem, the solution is unaliasing the tag that should have never been aliased in the first place
Topic: unalias twink -> girly
Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
milochu94 said:
I'd like to know plainly what exactly is the delay for freeing the twink tag from the femboy tag.
That fact that there's only so many people handling BURs (1 or 2? when they have time), and this isn't a straight-forward request. People may be largely in favor of the unalias, but there's still big questions on what to do afterward. Not everyone is on board with leaving it as a separate tag, we don't all want twink to be another not-a-gender tag that people will want to treat it as (e.g. the inevitable twink_penetrating_femboy or twink_on_twink), wanting to alias it to something else right afterward. Along with concerns that people won't properly understand the intricacies of what makes someone a twink that's different from femboy, leaving it significantly undertagged and mistagged.
watsit said:
That fact that there's only so many people handling BURs (1 or 2? when they have time), and this isn't a straight-forward request.
I appreciate that there is a large backlog, but it's been more than two years and I dare you to find another unaddressed alias with more upvotes. Also, the alias in question is very straightforward - twink does not equal "girly" or "femboy". That's settled.
People may be largely in favor of the unalias, but there's still big questions on what to do afterward.
As I said earlier today - Those who want to alias the liberated "twink" tag to something else can create a separate thread after the alias is removed, and people can have a clean vote on those suggestions. That solves that problem, right? Let's have a clean thread with an open debate on whatever you want to alias "twink" to. Lay your cards on the table there.
Not everyone is on board with leaving it as a separate tag, we don't all want twink to be another not-a-gender tag that people will want to treat it as (e.g. the inevitable twink_penetrating_femboy or twink_on_twink)...
This argument is not persuasive. Just because someone might invent a "jock_penatrating_femboy" or a "tomboy_on_mature_female" or a "femboy_kicking_barazoku" tag, that does not make these invalid tags:
- "jock" [1,000+ uses on this site]
- "tomboy" [5,000+ uses]
- "mature_female" - aka "MILF" - [85,000+ uses]
- ...or the twink's natural predator, the "barazoku" [51,000+ uses]
Along with concerns that people won't properly understand the intricacies of what makes someone a twink that's different from femboy, leaving it significantly undertagged and mistagged.
Actually, it's not that intricate. A twink is not a Faberge Egg. It's certainly not any more intricate than "femboy" or "mature_female" or "barazoku". Please trust gays to figure this shit out.
By the way - I just learned we have a "twunk" tag. It has almost 1,000 uses.
donkdewd said:
As I said earlier today - Those who want to alias the liberated "twink" tag to something else can create a separate thread after the alias is removed, and people can have a clean vote on those suggestions. That solves that problem, right?
Not really. Once this unalias is done, the tag becomes available to use. A separate thread to alias it to something else won't stop the tag from being used and seen by others to use, unaware of any contention there is with the tag. If we decide to alias it after people have mass applied it to thousands of posts, that will not only put some strain on the server (applying aliases to tags with a lot of uses isn't free), but also get people upset that a tag they just saw and started using is no longer valid. That isn't a good situation to put ourselves in, which can be avoided by getting the plan together first before going ahead with it. Starting work while only having half a plan ready is a recipe for problems.
donkdewd said:
Let's have a clean thread with an open debate on whatever you want to alias "twink" to. Lay your cards on the table there.
That's what this thread is. It's asking to revalidate twink, at least temporarily if not more permanently, so the question is if we want to do that, and how.
donkdewd said:
This argument is not persuasive. Just because someone might invent a "jock_penatrating_femboy" or a "tomboy_on_mature_female" or a "femboy_kicking_barazoku" tag, that does not make these invalid tags:
- "jock" [1,000+ uses on this site]
- "tomboy" [5,000+ uses]
- "mature_female" - aka "MILF" - [85,000+ uses]
- ...or the twink's natural predator, the "barazoku" [51,000+ uses]
mature_female isn't a "MILF". It's an older (but not that old) female, between young_female and elderly_female. People are also not happy with barazoku either as being too similar to existing tags with a definition that's not very clear, and want to alias it away (see topic #56143; and the tag is currently a free-for-all while people argue over whether it's a good idea to keep around, and/or how best to get rid of it, or how to best clarify it as a distinct thing; the same issue that would happen here if we remove the twink alias before having decided what to do with it afterward).
donkdewd said:
Actually, it's not that intricate. A twink is not a Faberge Egg. It's certainly not any more intricate than "femboy" or "mature_female" or "barazoku". Please trust gays to figure this shit out.By the way - I just learned we have a "twunk" tag. It has almost 1,000 uses.
That femboy exists is actually adding to the consternation over re-validating twink, since "femboy" covers a fair bit of what "twink" does. Yes there are differences, but some of us are saying those differences aren't significant enough and/or aren't clear enough to warrant having separate tags that would be prone to misunderstanding and misuse. twunk existing also doesn't mean much, since it doesn't have any aliases or implications associated with it... don't forget that anyone can create and use tags whenever they want, a tag existing on a bunch of posts doesn't mean it's a good tag that's acceptable to have, it just means no one's brought it up here to do something about.
watsit said:
Not really. Once this unalias is done, the tag becomes available to use.
Yes, and that’s good. The tag should be available for use. A significant majority of the users who voted want that.
A separate thread to alias it to something else won't stop the tag from being used and seen by others to use, unaware of any contention there is with the tag.
The contention is from a minority of users who have been outvoted. You can create a separate thread once the alias has been removed if you want to alias twink to something else. Good luck!
If we decide to alias it after people have mass applied it to thousands of posts, that will not only put some strain on the server (applying aliases to tags with a lot of uses isn't free), but also get people upset that a tag they just saw and started using is no longer valid. That isn't a good situation to put ourselves in, which can be avoided by getting the plan together first before going ahead with it. Starting work while only having half a plan ready is a recipe for problems.
People are already upset that a significant majority of users think it’s wrong to alias twink to femboy. If you are concerned about the feelings of e621's users, please tally the vote and listen to us. And your "stain on the server" argument is unconvincing. I hope the force of hundreds of users rushing to find and tag twinks doesn't cause the electricity grid to down, creating rolling blackouts all over the globe. Someone should think of the AI data centers. Do we have enough room in the Cloud for all these twinks?
That's what this thread is. It's asking to revalidate twink, at least temporarily if not more permanently, so the question is if we want to do that, and how.
That's not what this thread is. The title of the thread and the BUR we are voting on is "unalias twink -> girly" - I have already suggested that we can easily continue this conversation in a separate thread, where it will be 100% clear what we are voting on. In that thread, you can submit a BUR telling us what you want to alias twink to and put it to a vote.
mature_female isn't a "MILF". It's an older (but not that old) female, between young_female and elderly_female.
MILF is currently aliased to mature_female - I checked that before my last post.
People are also not happy with barazoku either as being too similar to existing tags with a definition that's not very clear, and want to alias it away (see topic #56143; and the tag is currently a free-for-all while people argue over whether it's a good idea to keep around, and/or how best to get rid of it, or how to best clarify it as a distinct thing; the same issue that would happen here if we remove the twink alias before having decided what to do with it afterward).
I looked at thread #56143 and that alias has not gone through... probably because most people voted against it? ...And they are voting against keeping twink aliased to femboy in even larger numbers?
That femboy exists is actually adding to the consternation over re-validating twink, since "femboy" covers a fair bit of what "twink" does. Yes there are differences, but some of us are saying those differences aren't significant enough and/or aren't clear enough to warrant having separate tags that would be prone to misunderstanding and misuse.
Most users disagree. You're in the minority.
twunk existing also doesn't mean much, since it doesn't have any aliases or implications associated with it... don't forget that anyone can create and use tags whenever they want, a tag existing on a bunch of posts doesn't mean it's a good tag that's acceptable to have, it just means no one's brought it up here to do something about.
You were worried about the "undertagging" of twink in your last post, so doesn't the fact that there is organic demand for the much more obscure and tongue-in-cheek term "twunk" - a play on "twink" - refute that completely?
donkdewd said:
Yes, and that’s good. The tag should be available for use.
Which isn't a universally held opinion, thus it being a decision that's going to take some time to figure out what to do, slowing down this process.
donkdewd said:
The contention is from a minority of users who have been outvoted.
There hasn't been a vote on whether the tag is valid. The vote here is only whether the alias to girly/femboy is the best option, and says nothing about what people want to happen afterward (i.e. keeping it as its own tag, or aliasing it to something else). And in either case, votes are only relevant in letting the mods/admins get a feel for user opinion, but the decision is ultimately theirs; there are BURs that get accepted despite being largely downvoted, and BURs that get rejected despite being largely upvoted. Hence these discussions to bring up relevant issues to help the admins make their decision.
donkdewd said:
That's not what this thread is. The title of the thread and the BUR we are voting on is "unalias twink -> girly" - I have already suggested that we can easily continue this conversation in a separate thread, where it will be 100% clear what we are voting on. In that thread, you can submit a BUR telling us what you want to alias twink to and put it to a vote.
That's the title of this thread, but that action has consequences which warrant additional questions. Just because it benefits your stance to shoot first and ask later (apply now and discuss pertinent follow-ups after) doesn't mean that's how it should be done.
donkdewd said:
MILF is currently aliased to mature_female - I checked that before my last post.
Because that's the closest valid tag for most posts on what people try to use the tag on. It's the preferred way of getting rid of a bad or poor tag, preventing milf from being used, requiring little to no cleanup when people try to use the tag, and applies the most likely relevant valid tag it can. It doesn't mean the tags are equivalent.
donkdewd said:
I looked at thread #56143 and that alias has not gone through...
Nor has it been rejected. Again, these are questions it's going to take time for the staff to come to a decision on, and short of there being a serious problem, holding the status quo until a decision is made is how this tends to work.
donkdewd said:
You were worried about the "undertagging" of twink in your last post, so doesn't the fact that there is organic demand for the much more obscure and tongue-in-cheek term "twunk" - a play on "twink" - refute that completely?
"Undertagged and mistagged". As much as it would be a problem that the tag doesn't give results (or for blacklists, effectively block posts) it should apply to, it's also a problem if the results it does give (or the posts it does block) aren't consistent; some people thinking it does apply and others thinking it doesn't to a good number of posts, with both sides claiming to be right and instigating tag wars. There being an organic remand for a tag doesn't mean it's a good fit in a TWYS context, and/or given other tags we already have.
dba_afish said:
in all honesty, defining "twink" on its own is to me kinda seems like trying to define "femme" on its own. it's hard to quantify each of them because, without something to contrast, it's pretty nebulous.
"Femme" constrasts with "masc"/"butch", and "twink" contrasts with "bear" (or, since we have literal bears on this site, "barazoku" is close enough despite being a more of a genre rather than just a body type relevant in gay culture).
watsit said:
There hasn't been a vote on whether the tag is valid. The vote here is only whether the alias to girly/femboy is the best option, and says nothing about what people want to happen afterward (i.e. keeping it as its own tag, or aliasing it to something else).
I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure we don't care as much about whether twink is valid as long as we can search slim -hairy male -femboy and not miss out on posts that fit what we're looking for. It's also a nuisance for users looking for femboys and getting unfeminine twinks mixed in. Actually solving that issue will be a tagging project, but posts will continue to get tagged incorrectly until the alias is undone or twink is invalidated, so the longer this goes unresolved the worse it gets.
watsit said:
----
We do not need to have universal consensus to remove an incorrect alias. There has been active debate on this for years and the vote is not close. I think staff should remove the alias that people clearly don't like and then wait and see what happens next. We're not splitting the atom here - e621 should trust it's users to tell a twink from a femboy, and apply both tags in instances where both apply (since no one denies there is some overlap). Once that's done, you, Watsit, can lay your cards on the table in a new thread and tell us what you want to alias twink to. We'll see how much support the twink abolitionists really have then.
For years, people have been noticing that they can't use the twink tag because it is aliased to femboy. Why should we wait until we can convince you and maybe 2-3 other holdouts that twink is a valid tag? I respect that you're an experienced user who knows your way around, but the standard is not "convince Watsit" - if that was the case, I'd probably still be here in 2030 going in circles with you.
You are making it seem like a lot of the green upvotes are from people who do not think that twink is a valid tag, but the only user who has voted to remove the alias who has also indicated it should be aliased to something else appears to be regsmutt. As I've said in two prior posts - we can have that conversation in another thread. At that point, both sides will have more data. If the twink tag blooms like a flower in Spring and it is applied hundreds or thousands of times by a broad base of users in a correct and consistent way, we can all move on. If it is mistagged, you can say "hey look at these examples" and you'll be able to convince us to alias it to something else, or even invalidate.
donkdewd said:
I think staff should remove the alias that people clearly don't like and then wait and see what happens next.
You're free to think that. Ultimately it's up to the staff to do what they want. Milochu94 asked why this unalias was being delayed, and I answered. You've made it clear you want them to push it through despite lingering questions, and regardless of what any of us want, the staff is going to act as they want to. Complaining to me about not seeing eye-to-eye about how to handle this isn't going to affect what the staff wants to do.
watsit said:
...Complaining to me about not seeing eye-to-eye about how to handle this isn't going to affect what the staff wants to do.
Hey now. I'm not complaining about you - I'm disagreeing with you. Big difference!
We're in "agree to disagree" territory, which is fine with me. One point of agreement between us that we both defer to the judgement of the staff. I would like it if they prioritized this and either approved the BUR or rejected it, since this topic keeps coming back again and again, but I know there are other priorities.
donkdewd said:
Hey now. I'm not complaining about you - I'm disagreeing with you. Big difference!
My apologies if I came off too harsh. Yes, we'll agree to disagree, and let the staff handle it as they want.
We probably almost all agree that twink was tagged in a completely useless way
Twink is a stereotype that has two most important point :
- the juvenile face : no facial hair and a round jaw like women's one.
I think Twink should not be tagged at all on furry face or face with snout because those are breaking the juvenile face distinction.
- And being a slim male
If we completely ignore the juvenile face (because of tagging it on anthro), slim male is what is left. (Not girly as already pointed out.)
Trying to apply Twin to anthro was a big mistake in my opinion.
I think that Twink can't be used correctly if it accepts anthro.
If the twink tag should not exist (because people wanting too much to tag anthro or the niche being too limited), it should be alias to slim instead of girly (or just be invalid).
Updated
Just want to point out something funny: Not only do we have a 'twunk' tag and not a 'twink' one, but twunk literally uses twink in its wiki definition...
Twunk existing just fine also shows that the "it's too subjective" argument is ridiculous. Tons of semi-subjective body type and appearance based tags like this already exist, and have existed just fine for a very long time. There's literally 180k slightly_chubby* tagged works, which is a far more subjective definition.
The same thing happened to 'androgynous' as well, de facto deleted via alias despite it being a straightforward and common appearance category. We make a lot of sacrifices in the name of TWYS, including not getting a 'nonbinary' gender tag. In exchange for this, in theory, we can filter easily based purely on what appears in the art. So why the hell do we still literally have no way to search for characters whose appearance fits into extremely common archetypes like twink or androgynous? Removing those goofy and outdated aliases is such an easy win.
Updated
listlesssky said:
The same thing happened to 'androgynous' as well, de facto deleted via alias despite it being a straightforward and common appearance category. We make a lot of sacrifices in the name of TWYS, including not getting a 'nonbinary' gender tag. In exchange for this, in theory, we can filter easily based purely on what appears in the art. So why the hell do we still literally have no way to search for characters whose appearance fits into extremely common archetypes like twink or androgynous? Removing those goofy and outdated aliases is such an easy win.
Tangential, but is androgynous not already covered by ambiguous_gender?
beholding said:
Tangential, but is androgynous not already covered by ambiguous_gender?
usually, but not if they have genitals which are visible/evident. so, we don't have a way to tag androgynous-presenting male, female, or herm characters.
beholding said:
Tangential, but is androgynous not already covered by ambiguous_gender?
No, though there is some overlap, which was probably used as the justification for the alias. Ambiguous is more about when a character is obscured in some way so sex is unknown, like when there's disembodied limbs coming form off-panel or they're covered up so any identifying features aren't visible. Androgyny is a body type that lacks or has a mixture of secondary sexual characteristics such that it's difficult to tell at first glance. A clothed androgynous character might qualify as ambiguous gender, but once the clothes come off they don't.
There's not even that much overlap. If you search ambiguous_gender you won't find many androgynous characters, 99% of the tag is very clearly masculine or feminine presenting characters who simply have no visible genitals. Terms like 'androgynous' and 'twink' are about overall presentation, akin to 'masculine' or 'butch'. It's pretty ridiculous that we have no tags for most of these when they're such a common desire and TWYS does so much to enable them.
The closest you can get to searching for characters with a twinkish or androgynous appearance is nonbinary_(lore), but this is pretty useless for several reasons:
a) many nonbinary characters aren't androgynous at all (i'd even say a majority aren't)
b) it's extremely undertagged
c) many artists who draw nonbinary characters are DNP in the first place because they don't want a "male" or "female" tag slapped on them based on their genitals
d) tons of androgynous characters aren't even nonbinary to begin with
listlesssky said:
Just want to point out something funny: Not only do we have a 'twunk' tag and not a 'twink' one, but twunk literally uses twink in its wiki definition...Twunk existing just fine also shows that the "it's too subjective" argument is ridiculous.
Does twunk "exist fine"? It has no aliases or implications, and from what I'm seeing of the tag, seems little more than random males.
post #6108769 post #6137256 post #6163504 post #6178610 post #6273250
what do these all have in common?
watsit said:
what do these all have in common?
2 and 3 are mistagged, the rest (and the vast majority of posts in that tag) share a body type
listlesssky said:
2 and 3 are mistagged, the rest (and the vast majority of posts in that tag) share a body type
Even 1, 4, and 5 I don't see consistency for. Along with
post #6126562 post #6222113 post #6224672 post #6125989
not being consistent. If you want to say some of these are mistags too, that's rather telling.
watsit said:
Even 1, 4, and 5 I don't see consistency for. Along with
post #6126562 post #6222113 post #6224672 post #6125989
not being consistent. If you want to say some of these are mistags too, that's rather telling.
These are at least more consistent than the first set.
I don't necessarily see it being less consistent than other named body shape tags like curvy_figure. This is less because 'twunk' is a valid tag and more because body shape tags are usually terribly defined and badly maintained.
regsmutt said:
These are at least more consistent than the first set.I don't necessarily see it being less consistent than other named body shape tags like curvy_figure. This is less because 'twunk' is a valid tag and more because body shape tags are usually terribly defined and badly maintained.
To me they look like they run the gamut from (barely) athletic_male with very minimal muscular definition, to undeniably muscular_male. Large butts, small butts, large muscles, small muscles. I don't see why most male posts wouldn't count if these do.
watsit said:
To me they look like they run the gamut from (barely) athletic_male with very minimal muscular definition, to undeniably muscular_male. Large butts, small butts, large muscles, small muscles. I don't see why most male posts wouldn't count if these do.
Some of those are obvious mistagged twinks or simply muscular, others fit properly. I suspect that at least a few mistags are due to twink being aliased and twunk being the next-closest body type. Unaliasing twink resolves that issue.
"Athletic" is even more subjective and nebulous than twink or twunk, both of which have somewhat stringent requirements: a skinny man with no body hair and no muscles, and a skinny-ish man with no body hair and light to medium muscles, respectively. The body hair requirements actually translate to furred anthros pretty well, since it's common for artists to render body hair differently from normal fur.
Twinks and twunks are important pieces of gay body type classification terminology that have existed for longer than most people here have been alive. It's understandable that not everyone knows the distinction, but that's what the wiki pages are for. In addition there are dozens of well written articles across the internet with plenty of visual examples that make it very clear, so if you're unwilling to learn then that's nobody's fault but your own.
Objecting to the whole concept of body type tags in general:
- A) Kills one of the few legitimate benefits of TWYS: the ability to search for things based on appearance. Body type preferences are second only to gender preferences in terms of commonality.
- B) Means you'll have to go fight all the people who like specific levels of chubbiness. God fucking help you.
listlesssky said:
Some of those are obvious mistagged twinks or simply muscular, others fit properly. I suspect that at least a few mistags are due to twink being aliased and twunk being the next-closest body type. Unaliasing twink resolves that issue."Athletic" is even more subjective and nebulous than twink or twunk, both of which have somewhat stringent requirements: a skinny man with no body hair and no muscles, and a skinny-ish man with no body hair and light to medium muscles, respectively. The body hair requirements actually translate to furred anthros pretty well, since it's common for artists to render body hair differently from normal fur.
Twinks and twunks are important pieces of gay body type classification terminology that have existed for longer than most people here have been alive. It's understandable that not everyone knows the distinction, but that's what the wiki pages are for. In addition there are dozens of well written articles across the internet with plenty of visual examples that make it very clear, so if you're unwilling to learn then that's nobody's fault but your own.
Objecting to the whole concept of body type tags in general:
- A) Kills one of the few legitimate benefits of TWYS: the ability to search for things based on appearance. Body type preferences are second only to gender preferences in terms of commonality.
- B) Means you'll have to go fight all the people who like specific levels of chubbiness. God fucking help you.
My problem with body type tags is that a bunch of them have inconsistent use due to people attempting to use them to either include some difficult to define quality they like or exclude a similarly foggy concept. So you'll end up with a tag that, if it IS maintained is a collection of, say, 'muscular men SomeGuy900 thinks has twinky vibes' (you can see an example of this in the barazokou vs manly threads I am too lazy to dredge up) but, more likely it won't be maintained and will end up a mish-mash with totally inconsistent use.
The vast majority of the time, what people who want specific body type tags want is a set- either of the je-ne-sais-quois they like or the vibe they hate.
listlesssky said:
Some of those are obvious mistagged twinks or simply muscular, others fit properly. I suspect that at least a few mistags are due to twink being aliased and twunk being the next-closest body type. Unaliasing twink resolves that issue.
"I can't tag twink. Hmm, but I can tag twunk. Eh, close enough." Doesn't leave a good impression that it's particularly distinct, especially with all these apparently obvious mistags. Maybe a set would be better?
listlesssky said:
"Athletic" is even more subjective and nebulous than twink or twunk
"Little body fat, minimal or light muscle definition" isn't that nebulous. I mean, my interpretation of "twink" is essentially athletic_male. But I guess this is another barazoku vs muscular_male debate.
listlesssky said:
Twinks and twunks are important pieces of gay body type classification terminology that have existed for longer than most people here have been alive. It's understandable that not everyone knows the distinction, but that's what the wiki pages are for. In addition there are dozens of well written articles across the internet with plenty of visual examples that make it very clear, so if you're unwilling to learn then that's nobody's fault but your own.
The question is whether the body type is distinct enough from what tags we already have, and well understood enough to be used correctly so that people can search or blacklist it without missing or including a large number of posts it shouldn't.
You don't actually have a problem with body type tags. Everyone agrees people need a way to filter or search for things like "obese" or "hyper_*". Yes, they are subjective, but an imperfect tag (which all tags are) is far better than having none at all. With no body type tags this site would be practically unusable.
athletic_male is an extremely broad category. A quick glance shows that nearly every entry on the first page has visible muscles, just not big_muscles like the athletic wiki page specifies. And that's fine, sometimes a broad category is exactly what people are looking for. But twink is far more specific, defined by having essentially no visible muscles at all. There's currently no way to search for that.
Sets are useless for this case because works can only be added to them manually one at a time, and there's no way for users to find them without already knowing the name/author to search for.