About tags: flower_request and weapon_request

We have flower_request and weapon_request with a few posts, which apparently have not been discussed yet.

Since we have relatively many tags of different weapons and of flowers, and the right choices may not be obvious, (to me, they often aren't) I'd like to use these tags of requests once in a while.

I think flower_request should be alias to plant_request or flora_to_identify in case we have to identify a species of tree or other plant.

And regarding about the weapon request we have mecha_to_identify tag to use to identify weapons, not sure about traditional weapons like, type of swords, knives or bows even magical or fictional weapons.

Overall I think these tags are little to be concerned about.

I think we should set the tags like:
- mecha to identify -> mechas, machines, motor vehicles
(that 'mecha' name looks pretty awkward. Need changes.)
- weapon request -> any weapon

flora_to_identify sounds a lot better than flower_request or plant_request.

I also want to propose a tag called fauna_to_identify can be use to any animals or monster. I think it will be good for identifying pokemon, monster_hunter monsters or anything that somehow hard to identify.

It will be very useful especially on posts like post #483396.

I don't see why we need another tag just to get cluttered up with a bunch of requests.

That's why we have tagme, but too general in my opinion.
Still, too much request tags would be troublesome.

Rastamepas said:
I don't see why we need another tag just to get cluttered up with a bunch of requests.

Because it's better than the alternative of leaving the entry untagged even if someone wants to eventually know what is drawn there?

tagme, in theory, already covers everything, but it's too generic: the search tagme weapon has 29 pages, so it's of interest for any weapon tagger, but he has no way of exactly knowing beforehand whether the weapon should be tagged, or something else.

Lunatic6 said:
I also want to propose a tag called fauna_to_identify can be use to any animals or monster. I think it will be good for identifying pokemon, monster_hunter monsters or anything that somehow hard to identify.

It will be very useful especially on posts like post #483396.

By the way, fauna to identify in a Pokémon or Monster Hunter image is just character request.

EDIT: Ninja'd by dean.

It feels excessive regardless to have request/identify tags for general tags. I mean where do you stop? Food to identify clothing to identify, etc etc.

In my opinion, we should aim for keeping tagme as close to empty as possible.

I remove the tagme tag from every post I edit if it has copy, artist and character tags (+ the tags I added). Tagme for a general tag is useless unless the user asks in a comment about something, which they don't do, so I assume that they are just lazy taggers. Also, since tagme is added to all posts with 0 tags and is not removed after adding tags, it's often just clutter.

I think *_request or *_to_identify tags could be useful for any of the big general tags that have many sub-tags, like flower, weapon, food, instrument, or hat where identifying the type of item requires specialized knowledge.

I'm in favor of the *_request and *_to_identify tag concept.

Then again, I just like to tag somedays, so having these both as a place to go when I'm in the mood to tag and as a reserve to call in help when I'm stumped on something specific would be a great boon.

I'd prefer *_to_identify, to keep those kind of tags clearly separate from the existing *_request tags, which are more meta in nature.
EDIT: Well, except character_request, which by that system would be character_to_identify

If they're going to multiply I'd prefer names like "tagme_(thing)", so they're grouped together alphabetically.

parasol said:
If they're going to multiply I'd prefer names like "tagme_(thing)", so they're grouped together alphabetically.

+1

Sounds great.

1. It conveniently uses the fame of "tagme" as the main tag request.
2. It intuitively points out that we have "tagme" for generic requests. (which often are just copyrights/characters anyway, as mentioned above)
2. It potentially makes tagme less generic, since we are encouraged to use the more specific tags when needed.
3. Oh, and the alphabetical order thing is true, too.

(assuming we'll ever need those, let me list them...)
tagme_(flower)
tagme_(food)
tagme_(hat)
tagme_(instrument)
tagme_(weapon)

I like that better than *_to_identify as well for the same reasons as above, plus.

4. Active v. passive voice. Tagme gives it a slightly greater sense of "something to do" rather than "something to be done."

We've been using tagme_x on 3db for years to much success. It really does make things far far easier. I even suggested moving it here once before to no fanfare.

There's no reason to add the parathases, though. tagme_character is more visually appealing and easier to type.

tagme_* sounds good. Would we keep source_request since it's not a tag or would that be way too anal? (yes)

If someone's sorted source request into the two distinct tags I'd say leave it as request, even if you can't do a tagme_* search and find it, it's not something you would purge with the addition of another tag.

I prefer the parenthesized system over the system without parenthesis. The former is a little longer to type, but sounds more natural. The latter is a little shorter to type but doesn't make syntactic sense.

• tagme_(flower)
• tagme_(food)
• tagme_(hat)
• tagme_(instrument)
• tagme_(weapon)
• tagme_flower
• tagme_food
• tagme_hat
• tagme_instrument
• tagme_weapon