The tag alias #78576 unacommodating_design -> unaccommodating_design has been rejected.

Reason: Correcting misspelling.

EDIT: The tag alias unacommodating_design -> unaccommodating_design (forum #459862) has been rejected by @Beholding.

The bulk update request #11748 has been rejected.

create implication non-furgonomic (33) -> unaccommodating_design (0)

Reason: While we're here, here's a less obvious one. Designs that do not accommodate furries are unaccommodating in general.

EDIT: The bulk update request #11748 (forum #459864) has been rejected by @Beholding.

What on earth is unaccommodating_design?
You can't just hand a t-rex an iphone and watch them smash it, just to later label it as having an "unaccommodating design".

Just call it non-furgonomic if a furry character tries to use something that is not designed with furries in mind.
For problems unrelated to clothing or accessories, just use furry_problems.

beholding said:
The bulk update request #11748 has been rejected.

create implication non-furgonomic (33) -> unaccommodating_design (0)

Reason: While we're here, here's a less obvious one. Designs that do not accommodate furries are unaccommodating in general.

This sounds like it should be an alias.

spe said:
This sounds like it should be an alias.

I have a feeling non-furgonomic came out as an alternative for furry_problems (i.e., random problems that furries face due to their build/biology), but focused on clothing-related "problems" that are encountered by furries (in contrast to furgonomics).
On the other hand, unacommodating_design looks like a mix of both non-furgonomic and furry_problems.

Looking back at it, I feel that both non-furgonomic and unacommodating_design have dubious validity. Both are pet projects of single users.
We don't need the opposite of furgonomics and we don't need a duplicate of furry_problems.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I have a feeling non-furgonomic came out as an alternative for furry_problems (i.e., random problems that furries face due to their build/biology), but focused on clothing-related "problems" that are encountered by furries (in contrast to furgonomics).
On the other hand, unacommodating_design looks like a mix of both non-furgonomic and furry_problems.

Looking back at it, I feel that both non-furgonomic and unacommodating_design have dubious validity. Both are pet projects of single users.
We don't need the opposite of furgonomics and we don't need a duplicate of furry_problems.

I wouldn't mind having the opposite of furgonomics, but in that case it should just imply furry_problems.

thegreatwolfgang said:
What on earth is unaccommodating_design?
You can't just hand a t-rex an iphone and watch them smash it, just to later label it as having an "unaccommodating design".

Just call it non-furgonomic if a furry character tries to use something that is not designed with furries in mind.
For problems unrelated to clothing or accessories, just use furry_problems.

Unaccommodating design can also apply to designs that fail to accommodate disabilities, though in practice I don't think there are many examples of that on e621.

The bulk update request #11763 is pending approval.

create implication non-furgonomic (33) -> furry_problems (106)

Reason: As suggested.

beholding said:
Unaccommodating design can also apply to designs that fail to accommodate disabilities, though in practice I don't think there are many examples of that on e621.

Can you give a hypothetical example to show the usefulness of this tag?

I don't think it would be fair to call stairs that do not have any wheelchair ramps as having an "unaccommodating design".

thegreatwolfgang said:
Can you give a hypothetical example to show the usefulness of this tag?

I don't think it would be fair to call stairs that do not have any wheelchair ramps as having an "unaccommodating design".

A building that only has stairs and no wheelchair-accessible areas would be unaccommodating design. Another example might be signage with no braille or audio narration for blind people, or devices that require two hands to operate. I would only tag such a thing for images where unaccommodating design is directly causing a problem for the characters, though, and as I said I haven't seen that in posts here.

beholding said:
A building that only has stairs and no wheelchair-accessible areas would be unaccommodating design. Another example might be signage with no braille or audio narration for blind people, or devices that require two hands to operate. I would only tag such a thing for images where unaccommodating design is directly causing a problem for the characters, though, and as I said I haven't seen that in posts here.

That sounds too subjective and circumstantial to me.
Based on that logic, if a blind character just casually walks down the sidewalk or merely glances at a store sign, it should be tagged with unaccommodating_design because the sidewalk lacks any tactile paving or that the store sign does not have any braille.

I'd rather see posts with actual "accommodating design" in mind being tagged, similar to how furgonomics is used for furry-accommodating clothing.
If you would still want a tag that describes the difficulties faced by people with disabilities (similar to furry_problems, which is the problems faced by furries), the tag should really be named something like disability_hardships, disability_challenges, etc. with ableism being added if it was deliberate and not coincidental.

thegreatwolfgang said:
I'd rather see posts with actual "accommodating design" in mind being tagged, similar to how furgonomics is used for furry-accommodating clothing.
If you would still want a tag that describes the difficulties faced by people with disabilities (similar to furry_problems, which is the problems faced by furries), the tag should really be named something like disability_hardships, disability_challenges, etc. with ableism being added if it was deliberate and not coincidental.

Hm, fair enough. What should be done with the existing tag, then? Manual depopulation?

beholding said:
Hm, fair enough. What should be done with the existing tag, then? Manual depopulation?

I went ahead and manually depopulated the tag myself, with all posts being moved to more appropriate tags like furry_problems, horn_problems, or non-furgonomic.
Since it currently has a low tag count, it doesn't need to be aliased away or disambiguated.

The tag alias unacommodating_design -> unaccommodating_design (forum #459862) has been rejected by @Beholding.

The bulk update request #11748 (forum #459864) has been rejected by @Beholding.

Alright, then. I've manually rejected the requests since they're no longer necessary. implicate non-furgonomic -> furry_problems should still be voted on, though.

beholding said:
Alright, then. I've manually rejected the requests since they're no longer necessary. implicate non-furgonomic -> furry_problems should still be voted on, though.

I feel that it is worth keeping them separated since not all instances of characters wearing non-furgonomic clothing shows them having a "problem" with it.

post #4485527 post #4443208 post #5168109

What do you think about it? Should these cases also be considered as "furry_problems"?