I've seen the thief and thug tags on several posts where they don't obviously apply, which I believe means they warrant reexamination.

The wiki description for thief states,

This tag is for characters who are stealing something, or are well-known thieves such as Sly Cooper and Robin Hood.

My emphasis. The bolded part is tag-what-you-know, which is a violation of tag policy. I think it should probably be changed.

Thug has similar problems. The wiki description states,

Thug refers to one or more characters who possess an intimidating appearance and unseemly mannerisms, on top of treating others violently and roughly.

This is vague and subjective, and like thief it's often tagged based on characters being thugs in their source material, even if they aren't demonstrating thuggish behavior or appearance in the image itself.

Gangster might have similar issues, though it has no wiki description at present.

Should we redefine these tags to only apply in images where characters exhibit behavior associated with these roles, or retire them completely?

This came up somewhat when discussing punishment_sex when an image showed a character that just kind of looked like a thief and that was the justification for the tag. I think maybe thief should be retired? Because in TWYS logic, those posts where a character is stealing something could just be tagged theft instead since that's the action happening. But there could be a desire for the distinction between theft and an actual thief being portrayed as well...

or are well-known thieves such as Sly Cooper and Robin Hood.

I just went ahead and removed that part, because we're clearly not supposed to be tagging based on outside information. Now the wiki just states "characters who are stealing something"- and all of those posts should fit under theft just fine, with no need for a thief tag at all.

However, that does not cover posts where characters are obviously dressed as thieves with no obvious theft being committed:

post #5058122 post #4831799 post #4411571 post #3826366 post #3483221

Unless we have another tag like thief_clothing?

faucet said:
I just went ahead and removed that part, because we're clearly not supposed to be tagging based on outside information. Now the wiki just states "characters who are stealing something"- and all of those posts should fit under theft just fine, with no need for a thief tag at all.

However, that does not cover posts where characters are obviously dressed as thieves with no obvious theft being committed:

post #5058122 post #4831799 post #4411571 post #3826366 post #3483221

Unless we have another tag like thief_clothing?

Honestly, and I don't know if this is a dialect thing or not, I feel like burglar fits better as a tag for people dressed like those examples

I've also discovered gangsta, frat boy, delinquent, jock, dudebro, and rebel. The former is at least theoretically a style, so it could be salvageable, but it needs a wiki description. Even then, I'm not sure it's meaningfully different from punk. The others could be tagged based on dialogue, but the only ones I've seen have been tagged on textless images.

nin10dope said:
Honestly, and I don't know if this is a dialect thing or not, I feel like burglar fits better as a tag for people dressed like those examples

Hm. I rarely hear the word in everyday conversation, and find it somewhat antiquated. "Sneak-thief" is the word I would use to describe most of the outfits in those posts (though the middle one I would definitely call a burglar).

beholding said:
Hm. I rarely hear the word in everyday conversation, and find it somewhat antiquated. "Sneak-thief" is the word I would use to describe most of the outfits in those posts (though the middle one I would definitely call a burglar).

I'm definitely not referencing the Pokemon Trainer Type

I've made a BUR to invalidate dudebro. The others I think could have valid use, but they need wiki descriptions. Any volunteers?