The tag alias #75707 sound_warning -> loud_sound_warning is pending approval.

Reason: It's been year since sound_warning is misuse by people who use it to say that sound is present instead of using it to warn about a loud sound to be present at one moment compared to the rest.
The use is precised in the wiki but people don't looks at it and some even don't know that a "sound" tag exist instead to say when there is sound.
sound_warning being put at first in the list of tags (to warn people) make it worse, as it make people know about the existence of the tag without them to always check what it mean.
So a more explicit tag needs to be used.
This has been discussed in topic #41399, but no-one opened the alias request and I don't know how to make it in the same topic. So I make the request here and link to the discussion.

There are others possible name like "loud_sound", "warning_loud_sound" but E621 has no voting system. I propose that people say in comments if they have preferences.
I don't know if people should wait for comments results (a few days maybe) before saying yes/meh/no to this request. If nothing clear emerge, just choose your vote on the loud_sound_warning request depending on if you think it's a clearer tag than sound_warning.

I have no preferences between : "loud_sound_warning", "loud_sound" and "warning_loud_sound".
But I prefer then over names with audio : "loud_audio_warning", "loud_audio" or "warning_loud_audio". I dislike them because "audio" can make use think that it is for the hole video and not just a part that have a loud sound.
And at the last place, I dislike the most "sound_warning" which doesn't even say that it is about the sound being loud. It just say there is something about sound, and some people interpret that has "warning, there is some sound".

Loudness is subjective. Warning that there's sound at all is useful to me.
If there needs to be a jumpscare warning or a sensory abuse warning, that's understandable, but warning about sound has its own purpose.

lendrimujina said:
Loudness is subjective. Warning that there's sound at all is useful to me.

sound_warning is not about the sound looking loud for the hole video. It's for it to become loud at one point of the video compared to the rest.
If you just want to know if there is sound, you should looks for the tag : sound.

I agree that knowing if there is sound is important but sound_warning has not been created for that at all. Maybe meta information like sound should be put more at the top. Or sound should have a special treatment to be put alone at the top like sound_warning currently is.
Here we are not talking about knowing about sound, we are talking about sound_warning.

As mentioned in the previous discussion, sound_warning isn't strictly for loud sounds, but unexpectedly audible sounds. It could be a video starting off quiet or silent, giving the impression of a quiet/silent video, that then starts playing sounds (moans, slaps, etc) at normal volume unexpectedly. Not necessarily loud, but more audible. It's to avoid lulling the viewer into a false sense of security that a video will be quiet/silent, only to be accidentally overheard later on and draw attention to themselves.

watsit said:
As mentioned in the previous discussion, sound_warning isn't strictly for loud sounds, but unexpectedly audible sounds. It could be a video starting off quiet or silent, giving the impression of a quiet/silent video, that then starts playing sounds (moans, slaps, etc) at normal volume unexpectedly. Not necessarily loud, but more audible. It's to avoid lulling the viewer into a false sense of security that a video will be quiet/silent, only to be accidentally overheard later on and draw attention to themselves.

So what about the name "sound_increase_warning" ?

mikael_the_d said:
sound_warning is not about the sound looking loud for the hole video. It's for it to become loud at one point of the video compared to the rest.
If you just want to know if there is sound, you should looks for the tag : sound.

The fact that ear_rape was aliased to this tag tells me otherwise, see topic #3623.
It is meant to be used "for when the sound is especially loud or sudden".

Videos with sound_warning can have either a sudden increase in volume from a relatively soft or silent period (e.g., post #3062230 @ 39s) or be completely deepfried earrape throughout (e.g., post #3807047 @ 12s, but imagine for the whole video).

I was under the impression that sound_warning was intended for especially loud, unpleasant, and sudden sounds. However, because the name is so vague, a frequent misuse is "there is sound in it." These mistags are SO frequent that detangling them would be a huge chore. At this point there should be an alias of sound_warning into audio or vice-versa and a new tag for what sound_warning was supposed to be.

lendrimujina said:
Loudness is subjective. Warning that there's sound at all is useful to me.
If there needs to be a jumpscare warning or a sensory abuse warning, that's understandable, but warning about sound has its own purpose.

That's what sound is for?

snpthecat said:
That's what sound is for?

Yes but it's not up high so people forget it exists.

Perhaps, like the Anim/Webm/Flash overlay, we need a little speaker icon on the thumbnails for any animation that has an audio track? That'd certainly help. Defining the audio peak required for the loudness warning to be into effect may also be advisable, though if this should be a raw db (at default - max volume) rating, or a difference-from-balance, is not something I can measure.

As for the name itself for this tag, wasn't it just called Earrape_Warning at one point?

votp said:
Perhaps, like the Anim/Webm/Flash overlay, we need a little speaker icon on the thumbnails for any animation that has an audio track? That'd certainly help.

IMO this would be ideal, but I don't know if the site's built for something like that.

votp said:
Perhaps, like the Anim/Webm/Flash overlay, we need a little speaker icon on the thumbnails for any animation that has an audio track?

Video files can have a silent audio track, and I think a fair number do. That would result in some posts displaying they have audio, when they're completely silent.

watsit said:
Video files can have a silent audio track, and I think a fair number do. That would result in some posts displaying they have audio, when they're completely silent.

Could be something that can be manually removed by users if it's wrong. If that gets abused too much then users could just flag them.

regsmutt said:
I was under the impression that sound_warning was intended for especially loud, unpleasant, and sudden sounds. However, because the name is so vague, a frequent misuse is "there is sound in it." These mistags are SO frequent that detangling them would be a huge chore. At this point there should be an alias of sound_warning into audio or vice-versa and a new tag for what sound_warning was supposed to be.

I'd imagine that would just start this cycle over again. sound fits better in the meta category, but considering how many users (like myself) would prefer to be warned about any sound, wouldn't it be easier to make the same exception for sound as we did for sound_warning and just put it as an artist tag (after doing something to take care of sound_warning)?

• Since sound_warning already implies sound, users would see the both of them there and naturally realize they must mean something different & default to the less severe tag
• Users who want to be warned about all sounds & users who want to be warned about exceptional sounds would both get their wish
• It'd preempt starting a losing battle against people who either don't know better or want to be warned about all sounds even if they know this isn't the right tag for it

aacafah said:
I'd imagine that would just start this cycle over again. sound fits better in the meta category, but considering how many users (like myself) would prefer to be warned about any sound, wouldn't it be easier to make the same exception for sound as we did for sound_warning and just put it as an artist tag (after doing something to take care of sound_warning)?

• Since sound_warning already implies sound, users would see the both of them there and naturally realize they must mean something different & default to the less severe tag
• Users who want to be warned about all sounds & users who want to be warned about exceptional sounds would both get their wish
• It'd preempt starting a losing battle against people who either don't know better or want to be warned about all sounds even if they know this isn't the right tag for it

I definitely agree that sound should be up high so it can be a warning. I just also think 'sound_warning' itself is ambiguous and a bad name. 'Loud_noise' or 'screamer_warning' or something else that's descriptive enough for people to figure out that it's not for run-of-the-mill mayo squishing noises.

This was my idea, but I don't know how to fix the transitive relationships.

category loud_(warning) -> artist # missing
category sound_(warning) -> artist # missing

update sound -> sound_(warning)
alias sound -> sound_(warning) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR

update sound_warning -> sound_(warning)
alias sound_warning -> sound_(warning)

implicate loud_(warning) -> sound_(warning)

unalias ear_rape -> sound_warning
alias ear_rape -> loud_(warning)

Reason:
The sound_warning tag is often misused for if there is any audio, when it is intended for posts with loud or unexpected sounds.

However, people still find sound_warning useful for posts with normal audio levels.

Several people have suggested we move sound to the artist category, while making another tag in addition to it for exceptionally loud sounds. This BUR does that.

I've chosen the tag loud_(warning) and sound_(warning) to be the tags. loud_(warning) is concise and also would appear above sound_(warning) in the tag list. This BUR is mainly intended to gauge the overall support for the idea.

I like sound being its own tag and completely left alone because it's a catch all for animated stuff
sound_warning doesn't have to be as subjective as one might think
Just take it as a jumpscare without requiring jarring visuals or sudden spikes in audio

kyiiel said:
This was my idea, but I don't know how to fix the transitive relationships.

category loud_(warning) -> artist # missing
category sound_(warning) -> artist # missing

update sound -> sound_(warning)
alias sound -> sound_(warning) # has blocking transitive relationships, cannot be applied through BUR

update sound_warning -> sound_(warning)
alias sound_warning -> sound_(warning)

implicate loud_(warning) -> sound_(warning)

unalias ear_rape -> sound_warning
alias ear_rape -> loud_(warning)

The BTR is because of the active/pending aliases/implications. My recommendation would be to use an alias request rather than a BUR for it.

Also here's a useful tip for BURs: If you're both updating and aliasing the same tag in the same BUR, you're guaranteed to be doing something wrong. Though in this case it has no effect on the success or failure of the BUR.

With the technical issues out of the way, I'll be voting meh

mikael_the_d said:
The tag alias #75707 sound_warning -> loud_sound_warning is pending approval.

Reason: It's been year since sound_warning is misuse by people who use it to say that sound is present instead of using it to warn about a loud sound to be present at one moment compared to the rest.
The use is precised in the wiki but people don't looks at it and some even don't know that a "sound" tag exist instead to say when there is sound.
sound_warning being put at first in the list of tags (to warn people) make it worse, as it make people know about the existence of the tag without them to always check what it mean.
So a more explicit tag needs to be used.
This has been discussed in topic #41399, but no-one opened the alias request and I don't know how to make it in the same topic. So I make the request here and link to the discussion.

There are others possible name like "loud_sound", "warning_loud_sound" but E621 has no voting system. I propose that people say in comments if they have preferences.
I don't know if people should wait for comments results (a few days maybe) before saying yes/meh/no to this request. If nothing clear emerge, just choose your vote on the loud_sound_warning request depending on if you think it's a clearer tag than sound_warning.

While I understand this, not all sound ppl want to be warned about is cuz it's loud
Misophonia exists, people with autism (like myself) have noise sensitivities to sounds, etcetera, hence, a "loud_sound_warning" tag could exist, but should not be Aliased to "sound_warning" as "sound_warning" could be many different sounds that may need to be warned about.