Posted under Tags
Should father and son, father and daughter, mother and son, mother and daughter pics also be tagged with parent and child (in which case I can set up an implication)? Or is it specifically for cases where the gender of the parent and/or child is unknown? Either way, there should be a clarification in the wiki.
As it doesn't seem like anyone has strong feelings on this, I tried to put in a BUR as follows:
imply father_and_son -> parent_and_child
imply father_and_daughter -> parent_and_child
imply father_and_child -> parent_and_child
imply mother_and_son -> parent_and_child
imply mother_and_daughter -> parent_and_child
imply mother_and_child -> parent_and_child
...and got this error message:
Can't create implication father_and_son -> parent_and_child ('father_and_son' can't make up more than 90% of 'parent_and_child'); Can't create implication father_and_daughter -> parent_and_child ('father_and_daughter' can't make up more than 90% of 'parent_and_child'); Can't create implication mother_and_son -> parent_and_child ('mother_and_son' can't make up more than 90% of 'parent_and_child'); Can't create implication mother_and_daughter -> parent_and_child ('mother_and_daughter' can't make up more than 90% of 'parent_and_child')
What does this mean? Each of these tags would make up about 16%, 24%, .1%, 42%, 41%, and 1% of a combined parent and child tag. I'm not seeing over 90% anywhere.
parent_and_child currently has 148 posts, so the tags you're implying to it each are much larger. Each line of the BUR taken alone would violate the 90% rule, the calculation is not based on the total after the whole BUR goes through.
I think your best option would be to request a mass update first, then add the implications after:
e.g. mass update father_and_son -> father_and_son parent_and_child
BUR #8227 has been rejected.
mass update father_and_son -> father_and_son parent_and_child
mass update father_and_daughter -> father_and_daughter parent_and_child
mass update father_and_child -> father_and_child parent_and_child
mass update mother_and_son -> mother_and_son parent_and_child
mass update mother_and_daughter -> mother_and_daughter parent_and_child
mass update mother_and_child -> mother_and_child parent_and_child
CormacM said:
parent_and_child currently has 148 posts, so the tags you're implying to it each are much larger. Each line of the BUR taken alone would violate the 90% rule, the calculation is not based on the total after the whole BUR goes through.
I think your best option would be to request a mass update first, then add the implications after:
e.g. mass update father_and_son -> father_and_son parent_and_child
Okay! Let's try that.
I don't see a reason for this parent and child tag to exist if we already have the family tags, and it doesn't help that it doesn't have a wiki. Unless it becomes an umbrella tag for parents interacting with their children (the pixiv tag "親子" seems to be about it), however I still don't see a use on a tag like that, I mean does anyone want to search for every post where either a father or mother is interacting with their son or daughter in a single tag? Would we need a "grandparent and grandchild" tag too?
It seems to me this tag was created solely because of the existence of the pixiv tag.
father and child and mother and child on the other hand both have a purpose for when you can't determine the gender of the child (mostly for babies and kids which gender are ambiguous)
I mean does anyone want to search for every post where either a father or mother is interacting with their son or daughter in a single tag?
Well... why not? Is it so unreasonable an idea that someone might want a catchall tag for parents and children interacting?
That said, I concede that it's pretty easy to cover most of that ground by searching ~mother_and_* ~father_and_* (although I think that still leaves out situations where parents of both gender are interacting with a child, but I assume someone savvier with the search could fix that). In that case, I'm fine with parent and child as a tag specifically for gender-ambiguous parent and child - but it should at least have a wiki and a cleanup.
Updated
The_Bob said:
In that case, I'm fine with parent and child as a tag specifically for gender-ambiguous parent and child - but it should at least have a wiki and a cleanup.
But the problem is, I don't think there are posts with ambiguous gender parents, at least I haven't seen one. The current search parent_and_child ambiguous_gender doesn't bring results. Ambiguous gender babies are normal, and ambiguous gender kids are a little frequent, but parents are always easily identifiable as either a father or a mother.
So, I think the only use this tag could really have is as an umbrella tag, but I'm still unsure if it could be a good, helpful tag at all.
mongirlfan said:
But the problem is, I don't think there are posts with ambiguous gender parents, at least I haven't seen one. The current search parent_and_child ambiguous_gender doesn't bring results. Ambiguous gender babies are normal, and ambiguous gender kids are a little frequent, but parents are always easily identifiable as either a father or a mother.
So, I think the only use this tag could really have is as an umbrella tag, but I'm still unsure if it could be a good, helpful tag at all.
Nuke, then?
e: Ftr, as far as I can tell we have one post with a gender-ambiguous parent and child: post #4173811 (the black-haired one is genderless). Not really an argument for a pressing need for the tag, still.
Updated
The bulk update request #8227 (forum #202173) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
It should be moved manually. There's a bunch of posts that have none of the combination tags: parent_and_child -mother_and_son -father_and_son -mother_and_daughter -father_and_daughter.
The bulk update request #8702 (forum #204665) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.
