The Collection Pool-To-Tag Conversion Thread

BUR #48531 has been rejected.

mass update pool:1791 -> east_meets_west
nuke pool:1791

So I decided to go ahead and make that thread I mentioned over in topic #8282, as I figured it'd be wise to have a discussion place for these kinds of things as opposed to the kinds of pools and discussions that thread is supposed to be for. Generally speaking, the idea here is to convert easy examples of collection pools into tags as we start to phase them out. Any discussion over what to do with the less clear-cut pools should get their own thread however.

Starting off nice and simple with the old "East Meets West" pool, as I figured that's a pretty objective concept for a tag. Use it with parody or crossover depending on the situation, and there we go.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

So I decided to go ahead and make that thread I mentioned over in topic #8282, as I figured it'd be wise to have a discussion place for these kinds of things as opposed to the kinds of pools and discussions that thread is supposed to be for.

Smarter to cite the forum post itself, to make it easier for people coming late to these discussions: forum #390122.

On the BUR itself though, the pool description mentions how whole series pools shouldn't be included, listing them after instead. If this BUR gets approved, will there be a follow-up mass updating all the mentioned pools to have the tag? Having transitioned into being a tag would make that requirement redundant.

Damian0358 said:

Smarter to cite the forum post itself, to make it easier for people coming late to these discussions: forum #390122.

More evidence that no, I did not sleep well last night...Yeah, that's the better redirect.

On the BUR itself though, the pool description mentions how whole series pools shouldn't be included, listing them after instead. If this BUR gets approved, will there be a follow-up mass updating all the mentioned pools to have the tag? Having transitioned into being a tag would make that requirement redundant.

Yeah, that'd be very wise to do. I'm not used to these kinds of "pools inside pools" systems some of these collections have lol.

Could've sworn we talked about this pool relatively recently but I'm struggling to find evidence of such a thing in the forum. Anyways I still personally think this pool is kind of a mess of a ton of different concepts all in a trenchcoat.

topic #31812

BUR #48538 has been rejected.

A companion BUR to the pool conversion to catch the series pools listed in the collection pool's description, for the reason Damian pointed out above and to easily preserve the information that would be lost with the pool gone. If the first BUR is rejected, this one should also be rejected for obvious reasons lol.

Spatula22 said:

topic #31812

There it is!

Ylimegirl said:

Could've sworn we talked about this pool relatively recently but I'm struggling to find evidence of such a thing in the forum. Anyways I still personally think this pool is kind of a mess of a ton of different concepts all in a trenchcoat.

That's the problem with these pool-to-tag conversions, I feel, is that half the time the collection is a tag masquerading as a pool, and the other half it's just a public favgroup, effectively. Some are easy to catch, others not-so-much. I think the concept is solid enough to be a workable tag however, and without it waifus in crossovers/parodies of random western media will be lost to the trenches.

But what do I know? That's what we're here to figure out in regard to these pools.

BUR #48583 has been approved by @evazion.

Shifting these to tags instead of pools. Name scheme to align with proposed rename for the BNHA popularity polls in forum #390459

Wasn't sure the difference between this and topic #8282 but I assume this is meant to be for bigger BURs whilst the other is more for things like forum #390323?

Yes, that is correct. Wanted to give us a place for our bigger clean-up efforts so that the other pool can discuss nukings as it was supposed to be originally lol.

BUR #48590 has been approved by @evazion.

nuke pool:Learning_How_to_Draw

Everything is covered by how to, making-of, making-of available, art study, or unfinished.

pool:Learning_How_to_Draw -how_to -making-of -making-of_available -art_study -unfinished.

BUR #48596 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

mass update pool:2005 -> mundane_made_awesome
nuke pool:2005

Another pool that could easily be a tag. Idk if the name should stay or not, but considering its origins as a TV Trope and the fact I can't think of any other name, I think it should be fine to keep as is.

BUR #48599 has been rejected.

mass update pool:18912 -> for_your_eyes_only
nuke pool:18912

Thoughts about this one? This seems like an objective idea and therefore convertible to a tag, however there are a number of posts that don't fit the description of the pool; it will probably need some gardening. An implication to exhibitionism could also be done.

Official artist extra (pool #19122) is being discussed in forum #390514.

Placeholder1996 said:

BUR #48599 has been rejected.

mass update pool:18912 -> for_your_eyes_only
nuke pool:18912

Thoughts about this one? This seems like an objective idea and therefore convertible to a tag, however there are a number of posts that don't fit the description of the pool; it will probably need some gardening. An implication to exhibitionism could also be done.

For some reason, For Your Eyes Only is already a copytag? A James Bond movie, specifically. If we go through with the tag convert, that will have to be fixed first.

Anyway, I can't really tell what's different about these posts compared to regular old flashing, but also I don't have enough interest in exhibitionism to really have an opinion on this.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

For some reason, For Your Eyes Only is already a copytag? A James Bond movie, specifically. If we go through with the tag convert, that will have to be fixed first.

It has no wiki, and it's not linked in the James Bond wiki yet, so a quick manual rename would suffice, if the BUR gets approved.

Damian0358 said:

It has no wiki, and it's not linked in the James Bond wiki yet, so a quick manual rename would suffice, if the BUR gets approved.

Went ahead and did it myself as it was literally just two posts lol. Now back to the pool itself to discuss.

Knowledge_Seeker said:

For some reason, For Your Eyes Only is already a copytag? A James Bond movie, specifically. If we go through with the tag convert, that will have to be fixed first.

Anyway, I can't really tell what's different about these posts compared to regular old flashing, but also I don't have enough interest in exhibitionism to really have an opinion on this.

I'd say the main difference is with the pool, it's a requirement the characters be in a public area. The flashing tag doesn't have this requirement; at least, people have no hesitation tagging it on white background posts. Whether that distinction needs to be kept, I'm not sure. To be honest, I forgot flashing existed when I made the BUR.

Placeholder1996 said:

I'd say the main difference is with the pool, it's a requirement the characters be in a public area. The flashing tag doesn't have this requirement; at least, people have no hesitation tagging it on white background posts. Whether that distinction needs to be kept, I'm not sure. To be honest, I forgot flashing existed when I made the BUR.

It sounds kinda like its own concept to me too, but it also sounds like there's a lot of overlapping ideas here. I can't tell if this is a good tag concept or something interchangeable with several other tags or not. Not my area of expertise in regards to NSFW tags.

the difference is there in the pool's description. as far as i'm understanding it, flashing applies to any exposure, while the intent behind "for your eyes only" is situations where the character is among bystanders, but exposing themselves in such a way that only the viewer could reasonably see.

for example:

• post #9772038 doesn't apply because there's no bystanders
• post #5674004 doesn't apply because there are bystanders, but the exposure is in such a way that everyone could see
• post #8911490, post #7518793, post #7153445, post #5440735 are examples of pool:For_Your_Eyes_Only, there are visible bystanders within visual range of the exposure, but only the viewer gets a glimpse at it.

the issue is that the pool in its present state is absolutely filled with non-examples, to the point where it almost feels like i'm the one misunderstanding the pool, but i don't know how to otherwise interpret its description in such a way that it doesn't become a flashing public_indecency duplicate tag.