Topic: [REJECTED] Tag implication: young -> under_18

The tag implication #71336 young -> under_18 has been rejected.

Reason: This tag seems to get applied incorrectly quite often to posts containing characters at the younger end of adulthood.

The wiki clearly indicates, however, that it is used to describe characters clearly under the age of 18. In other words: non-adults.

By adding 'young' to the blacklist, everyone would be filtering posts that are often incorrectly tagged as 'young'. This is the issue I'm running into.

Blacklisting "under 18" content should be an easy thing to do without also filtering out some non-under 18 posts. Renaming the tag to better communicate what it's for would make the blacklist more effective by improving tagging reliability.

For this reason, I want to propose changing the name of the 'young' tag to 'under_18' (or something similarly obvious) to make it very clear what the purpose is behind the tag so it is more obvious to a user whether they are applying the tag correctly, since we realistically (and evidently) can't count on users reading the wiki first.

EDIT: The tag implication young -> under_18 (forum #482013) has been rejected by @pewdiecrustlesspie.

No. To start, I think you intended an alias (turn the young tag into under_18) instead of an implication (everything tagged young will also be tagged under_18). Further, young is tagged based on visual criteria and not canon age. Using 'under 18' makes no sense for 1000 year old loli vampires OR 15 year old geriatric feral dogs.

regsmutt said:
No. To start, I think you intended an alias (turn the young tag into under_18) instead of an implication (everything tagged young will also be tagged under_18). Further, young is tagged based on visual criteria and not canon age. Using 'under 18' makes no sense for 1000 year old loli vampires OR 15 year old geriatric feral dogs.

My bad. This was supposed to be an alias.

Agree that the semantics can be something of a 'lore' issue. Worth exploring fitting alternatives if possible.

But on the other hand, a 1000 y/o loli vampire isn't technically young either, the argument here is rooted in 'Tag What You See'. If it looks underage, you should be able to reliably filter that out.

Edit: what about using "underage" instead? Seems like a solid fit without putting a number on it.

pewdiecrustlesspie said:
My bad. This was supposed to be an alias.

You should reject this if it was done by mistake.
Go to implication #71336 and click on the "Reject" command.

thegreatwolfgang said:
You should reject this if it was done by mistake.
Go to implication #71336 and click on the "Reject" command.

thanks

The tag implication young -> under_18 (forum #482013) has been rejected by @pewdiecrustlesspie.