BUR #58316 is pending approval.
create implication bad_stitch -> stitched
This is for poorly-assembled posts with pages clearly on wrong levels such as post #11213971.
This is mostly to incite other users to do a better job or look for alternatives
Posted under Tags
BUR #58316 is pending approval.
create implication bad_stitch -> stitched
This is for poorly-assembled posts with pages clearly on wrong levels such as post #11213971.
This is mostly to incite other users to do a better job or look for alternatives
I know it matches the naming convention of the bad_* tags, but I feel like it'd make more sense to match it more with the tag it's going to imply, so something like badly_stitched or poorly_stitched... wait, that's a tag already...
Beyond that though, good idea!
BUR #58317 is pending approval.
rename bad_stitch -> poorly_stitched
We can just change the name to this once the first BUR is approved.
BUR #58319 is pending approval.
category bad_stitch -> general
if i remember correctly we don't make this kind of stuff a meta tag because we can actually see that it's a bad stitch
evazion said in forum #432633:
Most of these you can visually tell they're meant to be covers by the format and general style, so it's not meta knowledge to say they're covers. Youtube video thumbnail is an example of something that's purely meta - it's impossible to tell something is a Youtube thumbnail just by looking at it.
trapster77 said in forum #435429:
BUR #58319 is pending approval.
category bad_stitch -> general
if i remember correctly we don't make this kind of stuff a meta tag because we can actually see that it's a bad stitch
If the category is changed, it can't imply stitched.
I generally think meta tags should be for things that you need external knowledge for. Stitched fits the bill as done well you may not know it comes from multiple source images. I can see the argument for making bad_stitch general because it becomes visually obvious and no longer requires external knowledge.
That said I can also see an argument for keeping it meta to match the type of stitched. It's similar to bleed through (which is visually apparant) needing to match scan (meta) for implication reasons.
It's possible that the author intentionally adds a visually apparent "bad stitch" (glitch art). The meta tag is supposed to be saying that the stitching in the image isn't from the original art, which is itself meta information.
PersonalFowl said in forum #435477:
It's possible that the author intentionally adds a visually apparent "bad stitch" (glitch art). The meta tag is supposed to be saying that the stitching in the image isn't from the original art, which is itself meta information.
If the author adds an intentional bad stitch, then that wouldn't be a bad stitch. That'd be its own tag.