For pictures that have been obsoleted by a revision. Almost all of them are children of the revisioned parents, so it would be an easy bulk edit to mark them so they can be blacklisted.
Posted under Tags
There are a bunch of posts under revision parent:any where child posts are tagged revision instead of their parents. In particular we have things like parent:1755089 revision, which is just a bunch of ordinary variations of an image, not a fixed version and an obsolete version. revision should probably be removed from these posts.
Also there are posts under revision child:none where we don't have an unrevised version at all. According to the wiki these things shouldn't be tagged revision if the original isn't on Danbooru. Which make sense, because I can't tell if these are tagged correctly or not.
So there is a lot of tag gardening to be done here first, if someone wants to do it. As for the name, I'd say just go with something. We can always nitpick it later.
Ironbottom said:
How about superseded?
Programmers and engineers use "deprecated", so that could work too.
Those sound less clear than obsolete to me.
old_revision or obsolete_revision may be better, since these names convey that it's related to the revision tag.
Ironbottom said:
Isn't this already covered by duplicate?
The first two points seem to cover what's suggested here.
An old revision is not an exact duplicate, so it's not covered by the first point. In most cases an old revision is not a lower resolution version either, so it's not covered by the second point.
Toks said:
An old revision is not an exact duplicate, so it's not covered by the first point. In most cases an old revision is not a lower resolution version either, so it's not covered by the second point.
Yeah, you're right. Though the third point slightly overlaps with what's being discussed here, so we probably need to narrow the definition of [duplicate] a bit on account of the new tag.
Toks said:
Those sound less clear than obsolete to me.
old_revision or obsolete_revision may be better, since these names convey that it's related to the revision tag.
Those two tags sound like referring to revisions that have been themselves obsoleted in turn, IMO. I don't see why its relationship to revision needs to be mentioned in the name of the tag. We have wiki for that.
Toks said:
old_revision or obsolete_revision may be better, since these names convey that it's related to the revision tag.
Dariush said:
Those two tags sound like referring to revisions that have been themselves obsoleted in turn, IMO.
Maybe something like old_version then?
We could also alias revision to revised_version or something if we want to get crazy consistent, but I don't think it's really necessary.
I just noticed that md5_mismatch parent:any covers many of these. Maybe blacklisting md5 mismatch would be good enough?
Yes, md5 mismatch doesn't cover every case, but trying to tag obsolete manually is a ton of work. You have to search revision child:any, open each post, open the child posts, then verify and tag those.
So unless someone writes a script for this, it's going to be hard to get everything tagged that needs to be tagged. Nitpicking the name is moot unless someone wants to step up and do the work to tag it.
evazion said:
I just noticed that md5_mismatch parent:any covers many of these. Maybe blacklisting md5 mismatch would be good enough?
Parented MD5 mismatches are a completely different thing. Also, the combination you offered refuses to get blacklisted. :<
What I think should be done is:
1) Remove revision from images in sets that show the process of creating an image. This part should be easy enough - remove the tag from every child with a sibling or a child.
2) Add the obsolete tag to every child of a revision parent.
Ta-da.