nuke bangs

BUR #14558 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

deprecate bangs
nuke bangs

Mandatory controversial topic of the month.

• this tag is equivalent with the frontpage. At the moment, 1/4 of all of the posts on danbooru have this tag. Even characters with really long front hair which don't exactly fall under bangs get the tag anyway due to parted bangs
• we have so many bangs styles for anyone who wants to search for proper bangs. blunt bangs, asymmetrical bangs, braided bangs, etc. The umbrella tag is pointless.
• it makes much more sense to have a no bangs tag than this mess

This tag serves no purpose other than to inflate tag count.

Nuke and deprecate?

Nacha said:

Nuke and deprecate?

Added deprecation.

Isn't the preferred order for huge BURs like this one deprecate -> nuke rather than the other way around to avoid the tag being added as it's being nuked?

KagayakuShiningGate said:

Isn't the preferred order for huge BURs like this one deprecate -> nuke rather than the other way around to avoid the tag being added as it's being nuked?

Yeah, already fixed.

Not all non-bald characters have bangs, but an enormous majority of them do. With the ubiquitousness of bangs, we should be aiming to tag the much rarer inverse cases (if that's even necessary). We can always make no_bangs for that if there's interest in such a tag.

AngryZapdos said:

Not all non-bald characters have bangs, but an enormous majority of them do. With the ubiquitousness of bangs, we should be aiming to tag the much rarer inverse cases (if that's even necessary). We can always make no_bangs for that if there's interest in such a tag.

No bangs already exists, see topic #22973 for the recent discussion about it.

My argument in favour of nuking bangs is that, for the same reason we do not simply use clothes tag when there are more recognizable, more specified clothing article-related terms like t-shirt, serafuku, military uniform etc. We do not even use hair while clearer hair length and colour-related tags are available. (+1)

While still being discussed on a controversial topic, is it recommended not to use bangs when the uploader cannot simply recognize what type of bangs does the character's hairstyle have? I did not even tag post #5992679 with bangs.

We do tag catch-alls for clothing, though - shirt, pants, skirt, jacket.

KagayakuShiningGate said:
We do tag catch-alls for clothing, though - shirt, pants, skirt, jacket.

Yes, but those catch-all tags are regarded more-specific. I consider them as counterparts of blunt bangs or parted bangs. While clothes are actually too obvious yet ambiguous.

im guessing since both admins are in favor of this its basically a done deal, but i want to say that i really do find this tag useful

World_Funeral said:

Yes, but those catch-all tags are regarded more-specific. I consider them as counterparts of blunt bangs or parted bangs. While clothes are actually too obvious yet ambiguous.

A generic clothes tag would be more akin to having a hair tag. Of course our clothes tag is different (not that it's good).

Talulah said:

A generic clothes tag would be more akin to having a hair tag. Of course our clothes tag is different (not that it's good).

Yeah, to the surprise of no one it's horribly misused.

In theory I agree with this request, but I have some lingering questions about this. How would the bangs in the following posts be tagged?
post #5911977 (Utsuho and Satori)
post #5992969
post #5992898
post #5992832
post #5993499
post #5993518

I'm not sure if citing the edge cases is the way to go but I hope this illustrates my point.

thelieutenant said:

im guessing since both admins are in favor of this its basically a done deal, but i want to say that i really do find this tag useful

I struggle to find a use for this tag that isn't covered by any of the specific hairstyle tags, and realistically speaking pretty much every character that isn't bald or has parted bangs (which already implies bangs anyway) hair slicked back or bangs pinned back could be argued that has bangs to some degree or another.

Mexiguy said:

I struggle to find a use for this tag that isn't covered by any of the specific hairstyle tags, and realistically speaking pretty much every character that isn't bald or has parted bangs (which already implies bangs anyway) hair slicked back or bangs pinned back could be argued that has bangs to some degree or another.

parted bangs implies bangs because it shouldn't be used on posts where there are no bangs being parted. Stuff like post #5994411 and post #5994044 is rightly not tagged as parted bangs.

wadahishi said:

I'm not sure if citing the edge cases is the way to go but I hope this illustrates my point.

Such "edge cases" are actually a majority of posts with bangs on the site.

skylightcrystal said:

parted bangs implies bangs because it shouldn't be used on posts where there are no bangs being parted. Stuff like post #5994411 and post #5994044 is rightly not tagged as parted bangs.

This would be a valid point against this nuke if people didn't routinely use parted bangs for long parted hair too: even for the character you're using as examples, there's several results under geeta_(pokemon) parted_bangs.

Indeed, but a tag being misused in turn polluting a tag that it implies is not really grounds to get rid of said implied tag.

Instead it suggests that either:
- parted bangs be fused into the existing parted hair tag, and the implication from it to bangs be removed.
or
- parted bangs be cleaned out of the things that don't belong there, taking care to remove the bangs tag from these posts as well.

+1 for aliasing parted bangs to parted hair and removing the implication to bangs. In practice it's unlikely a distinction will be made in tagging between parted bangs and parted not-bangs. I didn't even know the latter tag existed, and I consider myself a better-informed than average tagger.