Topic: Tail Implications BUR

Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions

dfY6C

Member

The bulk update request #486 is pending approval.

create implication raised_tail (12092) -> tail (11921)
create implication short_tail (2510) -> tail (11921)
create implication brown_tail (94) -> tail (11921)
create implication yellow_tail (124) -> tail (11921)
create implication spiked_tail (181) -> tail (11921)
create implication flaming_tail (199) -> tail (11921)
create implication leaf_tail (51) -> tail (11921)
create implication prehensile_tail (8) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_gesture (7) -> tail (11921)
create implication heart_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_growth (12) -> tail (11921)
create implication spade_tail (130) -> tail (11921)
create implication curled_tail (171) -> tail (11921)
create implication curved_tail (31) -> tail (11921)
create implication erect_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication weapon_tail (2) -> tail (11921)
create implication wavy_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication braided_tail (15) -> tail (11921)
create implication messy_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_feathers (1169) -> tail (11921)
create implication grey_tail (66) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_expansion (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_orb (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_accessory (315) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_piercing (7) -> tail (11921)

Reason: These are currently active implications on e621 that were made by user spe with one from user Shadowstones.

dfY6C

Member

The bulk update request #487 is pending approval.

create implication tail_wraps (60) -> tail (11921)
create implication big_tail (376) -> tail (11921)
create implication furry_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication scaly_tail (107) -> tail (11921)
create implication feathered_tail (68) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_clothing (11) -> tail (11921)
create implication thick_tail (689) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_dimple (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication coiled_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_cuff (4) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_around_leg (1) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_around_waist (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication green_tail (35) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_around_penis (9) -> tail (11921)
create implication tailjob (23) -> tail_around_penis (9)
create implication autotailjob (0) -> tail_around_own_penis (0)
create implication tail_bondage (4) -> tail_tied (22)
create implication tail_tied (22) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_tied (22) -> bound (1676)
create implication huge_tail (83) -> big_tail (376)
create implication hyper_tail (0) -> huge_tail (83)
create implication monotone_tail (7) -> tail (11921)
create alias multi_tone_tail (3) -> multicolored_tail (523)
create implication lifted_by_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_in_mouth (4) -> tail (11921)

Reason: part 2

dfY6C

Member

The bulk update request #488 is pending approval.

create implication tail_fondling (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_grab (248) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_hug (17) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_pull (14) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_aside (742) -> tail (11921)
create implication orange_tail (90) -> tail (11921)
create implication pink_tail (189) -> tail (11921)
create implication unusual_tail (131) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_condom (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_censorship (10) -> tail (11921)
create implication cum_on_tail (221) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_fin (112) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_frill (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_ridge (10) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_scarf (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_coil (7) -> tail (11921)
create implication blue_tail (264) -> tail (11921)
create implication small_tail (49) -> tail (11921)
create implication skinny_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication crooked_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication hand_on_tail (26) -> tail (11921)
create implication holding_tail (54) -> tail (11921)
create implication purple_tail (68) -> tail (11921)
create implication red_tail (62) -> tail (11921)
create implication tan_tail (26) -> tail (11921)

Reason: part 3

dfY6C

Member

The bulk update request #489 is pending approval.

create implication tail_motion (296) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_between_legs (37) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_pillow (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication balancing_on_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication coiled_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication hanging_by_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication black_tail (249) -> tail (11921)
create implication countershade_tail (234) -> tail (11921)
create implication fluffy_tail (4979) -> tail (11921)
create implication multi_tail (604) -> tail (11921)
create implication long_tail (1601) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_tuft (1193) -> tail (11921)
create implication white_tail (302) -> tail (11921)
create implication multicolored_tail (523) -> tail (11921)
create implication balls_on_tail (5) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_markings (2371) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_lick (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_around_own_balls (0) -> tail_around_balls (3)
create implication tail_around_balls (3) -> tail (11921)
create implication precum_on_tail (1) -> tail (11921)
create implication precum_on_own_tail (1) -> precum_on_tail (1)
create implication tail_around_own_penis (0) -> tail_around_penis (9)

Reason: part 4. The last 6 lines are not established tag implications on e621, they were added by me here.

Updated

dfY6C

Member

The bulk update request #490 is pending approval.

create implication bruised_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication cleft_tail (10) -> tail (11921)
create implication curling_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication glowing_tail (6) -> tail (11921)
create implication graduated_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication mistletoe_on_tail (4) -> tail (11921)
create implication rat_tail (154) -> tail (11921)
create implication sparkling_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_over_skirt (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_through_skirt (15) -> tail (11921)
create implication tail_under_skirt (38) -> tail (11921)
create implication tailed_humanoid (3) -> tail (11921)
create implication teal_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication thin_tail (78) -> tail (11921)
create implication toothed_tail (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication unusual_tail_placement (0) -> tail (11921)
create implication vaginal_fluids_on_tail (0) -> tail (11921)

Reason: Last chunk of tag implications that I could find that are active on e621 for "tail."

KalethOrebiter

Privileged

On PART #2

create implication autotailjob (0) -> tail_around_penis (8)

should be replaced by

create implication autotailjob -> tail_around_own_penis
create implication tail_around_penis -> tail_around_own_penis

To miroir tags like cum_on_own_feet. I made a but lately about something similar here

dfY6C

Member

kalethorebiter said:
On PART #2

create implication autotailjob (0) -> tail_around_penis (8)

should be replaced by

create implication autotailjob -> tail_around_own_penis
create implication tail_around_penis -> tail_around_own_penis

To miroir tags like cum_on_own_feet. I made a but lately about something similar here

I edited part 2 to have your first line as that does make sense to me, but for your second line do you mean tail_around_own_penis -> tail_around_penis instead? It seems like it should be reversed from what you put.

Updated

KalethOrebiter

Privileged

dfy6c said:
I edited part 2 to have your first line as that does make sense to me, but for your second line do you mean tail_around_own_penis -> tail_around_penis instead? It seems like it should be reversed from what you put.

Good catch; I'm mistaken. I'm super glad, you read it instead of taking it wholesale. Grats!

dfY6C

Member

kalethorebiter said:
Good catch; I'm mistaken. I'm super glad, you read it instead of taking it wholesale. Grats!

Just wanted to make sure. I added the corrected line of that into part 4 as the other parts before were already at the 25 line limit.

RedPanda

Member

To me, many of the suggestions are like trying to legally commit vandalism. I agree that some points are unnecessary. Several of the examples define the tail and the image. That you even think to write examples when there are thousands of images.

create implication tail_censorship (10) -> tail (11482)

There's a separate tag for that ---> convenient_censorship

create implication multi_tone_tail (3) -> tail (11482)

There is a tag too ---> multicolored_tail (510) but i know, you know that

create implication multicolored_tail (510) -> tail (11482)

-----

create implication huge_tail (78) -> big_tail (376)
create implication hyper_tail (0) -> huge_tail (78)

As I said, vandalism.

...

Many tags would be much more common, but many images are still missing many tags. Instead of making really good suggestions for summarizing, you want to cut down the entire "tag" tree.

dfY6C

Member

redpanda said:
To me, many of the suggestions are like trying to legally commit vandalism.

No need to be hostile about it for literally no reason. This is part of the point of posting BURs: to discuss, make points, and make corrections/additions before they get looked at by moderators/admins. Either way, let me break down your specific callouts.

First and foremost, let me just stress again that the vast majority of these BURs are already active/approved on e621 and I'm simply porting these over from there. These aren't really suggestions like you say, they're just bringing over work already done from there. The specific ones you outlined aren't any of the ones I made myself either, so some of my defenses below shouldn't even be necessary considering these have already been approved elsewhere.

redpanda said:

create implication tail_censorship (10) -> tail (11482)

There's a separate tag for that ---> convenient_censorship

For tail censorship, it doesn't make complete sense to replace (if that's what you're implying) tail_censorship with the separate tag convenient_censorship because it describes a type of convenient censorship, with tail just being only one of those types. There also exists steam_censorship on e621, which also implies convenient_censorship on there as well. If we double check e621, they already imply both tail and convenient_censorship on the tail_censorship tag. Here on e6ai, we do at least have tail_censorship -> convenient_censorship already as an implication so the BUR here would just bring it to the current standard by just adding tail as another implication alongside that, matching e621's system.

redpanda said:
create implication multi_tone_tail (3) -> tail (11482)

There is a tag too ---> multicolored_tail (510) but i know, you know that

create implication multicolored_tail (510) -> tail (11482)

Unlike the other examples you outlined, this one actually seems to have been a genuine error on my part. On e621, multi_tone is supposed to alias to multicolored now, and I believe this older implication slipped through from an older forum post from other tail implications on e621. I have edited the multi_tone line to be an alias to multicolored_tail (which matches e621, just so we're clear).

redpanda said:
create implication huge_tail (78) -> big_tail (376)
create implication hyper_tail (0) -> huge_tail (78)

As I said, vandalism.

This bit especially confuses me as you stress vandalism again as if there's some kind of obvious "gotcha" here, even though the BUR here makes sense with consistency to other references. hyper_X -> huge_X -> big_X -> X is the standard implication chain/tree used for hyper tags (such as with hyper_penis and hyper_balls for example). This hyper_tail chain is already active/approved on e621, it just wasn't updated on here yet. If that's somehow "vandalism" on here, then what is it on e621 or with other hyper tags on here that have that implication chain active already? Your rejection of that basically means you want to make it randomly and needlessly inconsistent with the rest of the e6* system as it is now. We also literally just discussed this exact same kind of thing in the anus BUR at topic #854.

redpanda said:
Many tags would be much more common, but many images are still missing many tags. Instead of making really good suggestions for summarizing, you want to cut down the entire "tag" tree.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the problem you mention requires a way bigger solution that I don't really think any of us can solve, and is probably somewhat off-topic or at least beyond the scope of this BUR. There will always be missing tags (common or not), whether it's from lack of knowledge of certain tags, laziness of putting tags in the first place, or just simply someone forgetting applicable tags due to the sheer amount of tags available that they have to think about. Another thing that gets "in the way" of that so to speak is that parts of the community are very particular about certain niche tags being valid rather than consolidating/aliasing/invalidating, and have more than likely made a case for it on the e621 forums that pushed for it to be allowed as such. This is usually rightfully so, as most tagwork prioritizes inclusion rather than exclusion (within reason, of course). The result of this is that some people will use the niche tag but not the more common one, but if anything BURs like these actually validate such usage as implicating the niche tags to the more common tags means we can account for people missing the common tags in their posts when they do this, and that those niche tags can be found more often when people see them in a generalized tag search. I don't get why you say "cutting down the tag tree" when these implications actually gives those tags more inclusion/potential exposure, or maybe I just don't understand this phrase you're using. With that said, a big part of the e6* sites is the collaboration of tagwork by the community. Those who are helping with adding or removing tags on posts are somewhat indirectly teaching the uploaders and viewers of those posts about tags that apply to that image that they probably didn't think about before and will probably use that as a reference for future uploads/searches, thus expanding potential tag knowledge in the process. As long as there are new users making accounts on this site, this will always be a never-ending, constant problem as those users get familiar with the way the site works. I say this because this has directly applied to me too with tags other people have put on my posts that I was unaware of, especially early on. This goes for common and uncommon tags. A lot of these implications/aliases certainly help with that automatically, but you can never fully solve for this as new tags and new interpretations of existing tags constantly go back and forth through the community.

redpanda said:
That you even think to write examples when there are thousands of images.

This sounds pretty shallow and gatekeepy, as if we're not allowed to touch tags with thousands of existing images regardless of the tagwork being valid. There's something to be said about being more careful when there are a lot of posts involved with certain changes, but I'm not basing these larger changes off of my own personal tastes and decisions or off of nothing.

redpanda said:
I agree that some points are unnecessary. Several of the examples define the tail and the image.

So you acknowledge that these separate tail tags define that there is a tail in the image, implying as such even? Considering the other implications you were against and were suggesting alternatives to, this just sounds like a contradiction now. Should we also remove currently active implications for something similar like curved_horn -> horn because it defines the horn? Tagging conventions for implications have always generally been [specific use/color/definition/etc. of a thing] -> [general tag/category of said thing] in the system so something like (for example in this BUR) raised_tail -> tail is perfectly valid regardless of how many existing images there are, along with that already being active on e621. You're supposed to be including both because they both still describe something in the image even if it's obvious by itself that raised_tail means there's a tail in the image. This is how general tags like tail are supposed to work most of the time, they include practically everything regarding tails and their specific variations, situations, and uses. It feels like your entire problem with these BURs seems to come from a misunderstanding of how tag implications are intended to work.

To conclude this comment, and like I already said multiple times, the vast majority of this tagwork is just porting what e621 currently has active, so take that as you will. You can look at their forum discussions if you want to see why they decided what they did. Considering that these are active on there though, you can already tell what answer those discussions eventually lead to anyway. I don't really think this warrants thoughts of "vandalism" considering the reference being used here.

EDIT: A large part of this comment, especially the last half, was rewritten as the argument being made became more clear to me and I wanted to re-clarify some things.

Updated

FlowerSylveon

Privileged

redpanda said:
create implication multi_tone_tail (3) -> tail (11482)

There is a tag too ---> multicolored_tail (510) but i know, you know that

multi_tone is for a tail that has different tones of A color, singular, bright red, dark red, light red
multicolored is for multiple instances of colors red, green, fuchsia, blue

RedPanda

Member

dfy6c said:
No need to be hostile about it for literally no reason. This is part of the point of posting BURs: to discuss, make points, and make corrections/additions before they get looked at by moderators/admins. Either way, let me break down your specific callouts.

First and foremost, let me just stress again that the vast majority of these BURs are already active/approved on e621 and I'm simply porting these over from there. ....

Since I don't have much time at the moment, I only read part of your answer.

This isn't meant to be hostile, it's just how I see it. The sheer number and type of examples don't make sense. The point of tags is to search for images, but that doesn't work if you end up with only "tail" left. The example with the sizes alone is absurd. You can't just change the size information however you like.

E621 isn't a very good argument, since one or two moderators already said in another discussion that e6ai shouldn't and can't become like E621 in some aspects regarding tags, see Pussy ---> Vagina, simply because of the tags used by the AI. Welcome to the AI ​​world, e621 and e6ai are two different things. Theoretically, you'd have to compare the suggestions with those used by the AI ​​so you don't accidentally eliminate the ones it uses. Actually, e6ai should generally block any tag used by AI from being removed or modified.

Do you know how you could really help?

- By updating the wikis, because they are one of the problems. What's the point of looking and finding nothing, not even the link to the e621 version?

- It would also be good if the basics were done first, like bow_tie and bowtie, camel_toe and cameltoe. We have several tags that mean the same thing but have different spellings.

- And then there's the correct tagging. We're at about 140,000 images, which is still more manageable than the millions on e621.

There we have another problem: TWYS is often completely ignored.

Last but not least. Whether it's a misunderstanding or not, my main point regarding the number of images with tags is simply that it's a cheap, standard argument when many images aren't even properly tagged. I'm trying my best to improve things there, but unfortunately, e6ai is practically unusable because the site often has extremely long loading times.

dfY6C

Member

redpanda said:
The point of tags is to search for images, but that doesn't work if you end up with only "tail" left.
...
can't become like E621 in some aspects regarding tags, see Pussy ---> Vagina, simply because of the tags used by the AI.
...
compare the suggestions with those used by the AI ​​so you don't accidentally eliminate the ones it uses.

Ok, this doesn't sound right. Are you confusing implications with aliases? Those are two separate things and the way you're describing these sounds more like an alias, not an implication. This is not set up to eliminate tags or make tail the only tag left like aliases would do. Implications add one or more tags to a post automatically. Like, putting raised_tail would automatically add the tail tag to a post through these implications, in case someone forgets to put tail manually. Both tags would co-exist on a post, it's not combining/replacing tags into one tag. Another example, with the size one you brought up again: if someone added hyper_tail to a post and nothing else, then the implication system would automatically add huge_tail, big_tail, and tail to that post. All four tags would then exist on that post, it's not boiling all of that down into one tag or redefining the size.

Updated

RedPanda

Member

flowersylveon said:
multi_tone is for a tail that has different tones of A color, singular, bright red, dark red, light red
multicolored is for multiple instances of colors red, green, fuchsia, blue

If i try two_colored_fur the editor shows two_tone_fur. Even if it were as you describe, the website shows it differently.

dfy6c said:
Ok, this doesn't sound right. Are you confusing implications with aliases? Those are two separate things and the way you're describing these sounds more like an alias, not an implication. This is not set up to eliminate tags or make tail the only tag left like aliases would do. Implications add one or more tags to a post automatically. Like, putting raised_tail would automatically add the tail tag to a post through these implications, in case someone forgets to put tail manually. Both tags would co-exist on a post, it's not combining/replacing tags into one tag. Another example, with the size one you brought up again: if someone added hyper_tail to a post and nothing else, then the implication system would automatically add huge_tail, big_tail, and tail to that post. All four tags would then exist on that post, it's not boiling all of that down into one tag or redefining the size.

Okay, sorry, I misunderstood. However, you should still be careful with things like this. I've already encountered one or two cases where the implication was correct, but still incorrect in relation to the image.

Regarding, for example, "hyper_tail," I don't understand the point of adding "big_tail" as well. I read in the wiki that it's done because everyone has a different understanding of size, but I still find it absurd. Especially when I think about the discussions at e621, where they debated the large number of tags. If you have "hyper," then adding the next smaller size, "huge," is at least understandable.

dfY6C

Member

redpanda said:
hyper_tail

From what I understand, the size tags seem to function more like an "at least or above" marker. I mentioned something like this in the anus BUR but a hyper tail is generally considered to be a "huge" tail by proxy of size, and the same applying with huge tail to "big" tail. They're like stacking tags because a hyper part is both huge and big by nature and that's not seemingly inaccurate either. I think a similar example to help understand this is something like mass_orgy, with that implicating orgy which then implicates a general group tag. On the sex wiki page a mass_orgy is 10+ characters, orgy is 5+ characters, and then a group is an image with 3+ characters. In this way, even though mass_orgy, orgy, and group are all categorically different amounts, the "bigger" tag still implicates that it's at least an orgy and a group. This is how it applies to size as well, like how a higher size implicates the other categorically large but still lower sizes with it, because a hyper part is still at least a huge and a big part as well. Either way though, even if we take e621 out of the equation, we still already do this here on e6ai for other size tags:

- hyper_penis implicates huge_penis and that implicates big_penis which then ends up at penis

- hyper_balls implicates huge_balls and that implicates big_balls which then ends up at balls

- hyper_butt implicates huge_butt and that implicates big_butt which then ends up at butt

- hyper_muscles implicates huge_muscles and that implicates big_muscles which then ends up at muscular

There's more but I think you get the point, at the same time there are still a few tags that haven't been updated to this yet either.

A hyper part is descriptively both a "huge" and "big" part and chances are there may be people that are just going to be adding big and huge manually to their hyper_tail posts while this BUR sits in limbo because they referenced either some of the other size tags on e6ai or referenced e621. I don't mean to sound rude here but when you say you find it absurd then it's possible this could be coming from a certain opinion that is clouding judgment towards a somewhat more neutral viewpoint, a viewpoint the furry community has already decided on. Anyway, if the supposed accuracy is met then next should come the consistency.

On the note of consistency and at the risk of getting slightly off-topic (I'll bring it back to relevancy), I wanted to bring back your mention of "AI tags" and the thread about "pussy" vs. "vulva" since I didn't have the awareness or an arm in that race because my account didn't exist at the time of that thread. When you mention AI tags you really just seem to mean the booru tags, e621 tags, or both that AI models are trained on. When you say e6ai and e621 are 2 different things, I don't think that's entirely the full story considering e6ai and AI models rely on e621's tag knowledge. This was especially true for e6ai in the beginning as our entire tag database was just migrated over from e621 as a base to start from. That doesn't mean we always have to be at 100% parity with them, especially if something is actually objectively wrong from there for sure, but I think it's fair to be at least somewhat consistent with e621 on tags, because being consistent with e621 means being consistent with AI because e621 IS the training data being used. On a personal level, I don't care whether it's pussy or vulva. I don't plan on touching that tag anyway, but realistically when newer models come out trained on the now-newer versions of e621 tags, it's very highly likely that we're going to be in for a rude awakening as we'll be desynced with not just e621, but suddenly the AI models we use themselves. The argument about keeping tags used in AI models suddenly falls apart if or when this happens as the desynced tagwork on e6ai becomes practically irrelevant by just this one move. Hell, one of the more popular extensions regularly referenced in furry Stable Diffusion guides for Forge-style webUIs is a tag autocomplete that contains booru and e621 tags, not e6ai specific tags. Obviously this tag knowledge caps out at the timeframe the AI model was trained on, but like I said this becomes a problem when newer models come out, and they will come out. This is why I'm trying to be somewhat consistent with e621 with my tagwork but these are less risky tags than pussy and vulva and they're not aliases anyway (other than the one correction you brought up to me with multi_tone). Regardless, at least most of these specific tags in this BUR are currently used on AI models anyway. I do try to prioritize standalone e6ai accuracy over consistency with e621 (outside of genuine mistakes that pop up every once in a while), as I have even made corrections to e621 tags and created completely original additions for e6ai that e621 doesn't even have in this and past BURs, but if the supposed accuracy is met then next should come the consistency.

I apologize for the walls of text in this thread I've been putting (like, the paragraph above was likely completely unnecessary) and I know I've been presenting a lot of push back on my own but I really mean no offense. Ignoring the alias vs. implications misunderstanding we just went through, I'm just trying to defend tag implications that I believe certain people either appreciate having to make tagging somewhat easier or are already comfortable with and even expect such things from how e621 was doing them if they were bringing their experience from there. I'm not usually a fan of hyper stuff but I've strangely had to defend hyper tags twice this week lol

Updated

KalethOrebiter

Privileged

redpanda said:
Do you know how you could really help?

- By updating the wikis, because they are one of the problems. What's the point of looking and finding nothing, not even the link to the e621 version?

- It would also be good if the basics were done first, like bow_tie and bowtie, camel_toe and cameltoe. We have several tags that mean the same thing but have different spellings.

- And then there's the correct tagging. We're at about 140,000 images, which is still more manageable than the millions on e621.

That are excellent advices! And what's more? You can do it too!

That aside, I agree with dfY6C that you're coming off bit rude, and what really bugs me is the way you gave those instructions.

It reads like you're gatekeeping BUR Request for reasons (and with criteria) I can't fathom. Doing BURs is a valid way to help ; everyone is welcome to do so — otherwise that function would be locked for regular members

RedPanda

Member

kalethorebiter said:
That are excellent advices! And what's more? You can do it too!

Read what I wrote. That's exactly what I'm doing, or at least trying to do. My counter is over 2700.

bow_(disambiguation) - done
scale_(disambiguation) - done
raised (disambiguation) - done
khajiit - the elder scrolls - done
argonian - the elder scrolls - done

For The Elder Scrolls alone, I added the game name to maybe 200 images without BURs. But, as I already mentioned, the connections to the website are extremely slow, especially in the afternoon Central European Time.

kalethorebiter said:
It reads like you're gatekeeping BUR Request for reasons (and with criteria) I can't fathom. Doing BURs is a valid way to help ; everyone is welcome to do so — otherwise that function would be locked for regular members

I don't actually have a problem with BURs. However, I do have a problem. Why are they needed for standards? It seems absurd to me that users even have to make these requests for the standards. It should be the responsibility of the e6ai platform to gradually transfer these things from e621 to e6AI, especially since they are things that have already been approved on e621. I think e6AI is about 3 years old, and apparently not much has happened so far. Personnel on e6AI are very limited, yet time is being wasted discussing something like this again.

Next up is "invalid_tags". According to the wiki, you shouldn't just delete the tag but replace it with the correct one, even though it doesn't specify which word was deemed "invalid". As a user, I can only shake my head and wonder if this is a joke. This is frustrating.