The tag alias #78604 kinderwhore -> invalid_tag is pending approval.

Reason: Too ambiguous to be that useful. Best handled by other existing tags.

It seems to be a legitimate established fashion/aesthetic.

I'd oppose invalidating unused tag that could see legitimate valid use preemptively for no reason.

That thing has a full Wikipedia article

It is a clear concept with a well defined, unambiguous visual definition: which mean it's easy to write a wiki page and include a checklist of things that need to be there visually for an image to be tagged or not.
That is: Typically female fashion/style. Based on childlike fashion silhouette and accessories combined with punk fashion's "rips and tears". Characterized by cute, feminine, babydoll-and-Peter-Pan collared dresses, smudged red lipstick, dark eye makeup. Other features can be, but are not limited to: torn, ripped tight or low-cut dresses, knee-socks, heavy makeup, slip dresses, ripped tights, bleached hair, lingerie, cardigans, barrettes, and leather boots or Mary Jane shoes.

If deemed too specific, such a concept should be aliased to something broader like fashion, alternative fashion, fashion (grunge), or similar.

TLDR The concept is clear; which nullify your reason to invalidate it in the first place.

Kinderwhore is a fashion style most notably worn by some female grunge and alternative rock musicians in the US during the early to mid-1990s. The style is characterized through the combination of cute, feminine fashion items like babydoll and Peter Pan collared dresses, with more adult aspects like smudged red lipstick and dark eye makeup. It has its origins in the mid-1980s band Pagan Babies, which featured future Babes in Toyland vocalist/guitarist Kat Bjelland and future Hole vocalist/guitarist Courtney Love, who lived together and shared clothes. Following the band's disbandment, the two's subsequent bands achieved significant mainstream success and led to the fashion being popularised amongst the general public and being referenced by high fashion designers including Marc Jacobs.

bleakdragoon said:
I'd oppose invalidating unused tag that could see legitimate valid use preemptively for no reason.

That thing has a full Wikipedia article

It is a clear concept with a well defined, unambiguous visual definition: which mean it's easy to write a wiki page and include a checklist of things that need to be there visually for an image to be tagged or not.
That is: Typically female fashion/style. Based on childlike fashion silhouette and accessories combined with punk fashion's "rips and tears". Characterized by cute, feminine, babydoll-and-Peter-Pan collared dresses, smudged red lipstick, dark eye makeup. Other features can be, but are not limited to: torn, ripped tight or low-cut dresses, knee-socks, heavy makeup, slip dresses, ripped tights, bleached hair, lingerie, cardigans, barrettes, and leather boots or Mary Jane shoes.

If deemed too specific, such a concept should be aliased to something broader like fashion, alternative fashion, fashion (grunge), or similar.

TLDR The concept is clear; which nullify your reason to invalidate it in the first place.

Kinderwhore is a fashion style most notably worn by some female grunge and alternative rock musicians in the US during the early to mid-1990s. The style is characterized through the combination of cute, feminine fashion items like babydoll and Peter Pan collared dresses, with more adult aspects like smudged red lipstick and dark eye makeup. It has its origins in the mid-1980s band Pagan Babies, which featured future Babes in Toyland vocalist/guitarist Kat Bjelland and future Hole vocalist/guitarist Courtney Love, who lived together and shared clothes. Following the band's disbandment, the two's subsequent bands achieved significant mainstream success and led to the fashion being popularised amongst the general public and being referenced by high fashion designers including Marc Jacobs.

It's not an unused tag. It was manually entirely removed.

bleakdragoon said:
I'd oppose invalidating unused tag that could see legitimate valid use preemptively for no reason.

regsmutt said:
It's not an unused tag. It was manually entirely removed.

Prior to about 4 hours ago it had 34 posts, all of which were manually removed by Versperus

Most posts had other tags added as well, so this was an entirely manual process, not a tag script

bleakdragoon said:
TLDR The concept is clear; which nullify your reason to invalidate it in the first place.

The text may be clear, but that doesn't mean what it applies to is clear. "The style is characterized through the combination of cute, feminine fashion items [...] with more adult aspects [...]". Cute is invalid because it's subjective (I can find things cute that you don't, and vice versa), and stuff like "feminine fashion" and "adult aspects" seems rather vague.

watsit said:
The text may be clear, but that doesn't mean what it applies to is clear. "The style is characterized through the combination of cute, feminine fashion items [...] with more adult aspects [...]". Cute is invalid because it's subjective (I can find things cute that you don't, and vice versa), and stuff like "feminine fashion" and "adult aspects" seems rather vague.

It's 'childlike' cuts of clothing (babydoll dresses, peter-pan collars, etc) juxtaposed with grunge elements (dark smudgey makeup, ripped black tights).
I don't think it's any more subjective than like onee_gyaru or grunge_(fashion).

regsmutt said:
It's 'childlike' cuts of clothing (babydoll dresses, peter-pan collars, etc) juxtaposed with grunge elements (dark smudgey makeup, ripped black tights).

Those are examples, not the breadth of the style. The part bleakdragon and I quoted is from wikipedia's description of the style, which also gives this example that I honestly don't see how it fits, it's simply a pink patterned dress with unkempt brown or dirty blonde hair.

watsit said:
Those are examples, not the breadth of the style. The part bleakdragon and I quoted is from wikipedia's description of the style, which also gives this example that I honestly don't see how it fits, it's simply a pink patterned dress with unkempt brown or dirty blonde hair.

I'll admit that's not a great picture, but a google image search gives a better idea. Grunge and its relatives are, in general, kind of hard to capture/describe, and one of wikipedia's examples is similarly just a blue sweater. But regardless, this would hardly be the vaguest, hardest to define alt fashion- aside from onee gyaru and grunge there's hipster, jirai_kei, and fairy_kei.

watsit said:
The text may be clear, but that doesn't mean what it applies to is clear. "The style is characterized through the combination of cute, feminine fashion items [...] with more adult aspects [...]". Cute is invalid because it's subjective (I can find things cute that you don't, and vice versa), and stuff like "feminine fashion" and "adult aspects" seems rather vague.

You're being adversarial for no reason

1. You cherry picked the words to make your point: the style is not it's individual parts, and fashion doesn't have a hard defined just like music genres, sexual genres, orientation and preferences, hybrid animal species in the fandom, size of genitals, type of horns, etc.

2. Also you choose to ignore all the concrete example that follows the definition. With the complete description you can make a decision if something is kinderwhore (or not) as easily as you would do with other fashion tags such as grunge,punk, goth, techware, cottagecore, casual wear, vintage, emo, streetwear, sportswear, formal wear, tomboy, victorian, victorian goth, cyberpunk clothes

3. If the tag is too vague It still should not be invalidated. As I said, such a tag should point to the next, closest, more general tag.

donovan_dmc said:
Prior to about 4 hours ago it had 34 posts, all of which were manually removed by Versperus

Most posts had other tags added as well, so this was an entirely manual process, not a tag script

I stand corrected, but then it's even worse: you're invalidating a tag that already had legitimate use. The posts has seen their tag move to japanese-theme fashion, but the definition of kinderwhore has western roots. I looked at the posts and I can seen why they have been tagged with a western-like version of loli. I'm not sure the tag changes was warranted.

I moved the contents to ero lolita which looked to cover the same themes, as the tag did not have an existing description.
In staff discussions, I initially suggested removing the tag and considered invalidating it, but I ultimately went with moving the contents to ero lolita instead. However, there was some miscommunication.

bleakdragoon said:
You're being adversarial for no reason

1. You cherry picked the words to make your point: the style is not it's individual parts, and fashion doesn't have a hard defined just like music genres, sexual genres, orientation and preferences, hybrid animal species in the fandom, size of genitals, type of horns, etc.

2. Also you choose to ignore all the concrete example that follows the definition. With the complete description you can make a decision if something is kinderwhore (or not) as easily as you would do with other fashion tags such as grunge,punk, goth, techware, cottagecore, casual wear, vintage, emo, streetwear, sportswear, formal wear, tomboy, victorian, victorian goth, cyberpunk clothes

3. If the tag is too vague It still should not be invalidated. As I said, such a tag should point to the next, closest, more general tag.

And you made that a lot more personal than what Watsit was saying, so tone it down a notch.

The real problem is not kinderwhore; the real problem is the the whole "fashion" concept is not well defined at the moment. Some tags have no description at all^[1], some have declinations that are overlapping^[2], some have vague definitions^[3], some are missing aliases or implications^[4].

[1] techware, cottagecore, casual wear, formal wear, etc.
      soft grunge is defined as a "sub-fashion" of grunge in the fashion wiki, but has no definitions or posts.

[2] cybergoth overlap with techware, cyberpop and goth
      emo kind of overlap with goth in some aspects.
      streetware overlaps with sportswear, punk fashion, and J-Fashion(???).
      lolita (fashion) that has 21 declinations including hybrids with goth, country (cottagecore), cyber (techware/cyberpunk_fashion), sailor and pirate.

[3] cybergoth is defined has the intersection of goth, rave, and cyberpunk
      But, rave and cyberpunk are not fashion in their own definitions. Rave is defined as a party and Cyberpunk as a fantasy genre.

[4] grunge to grunge (fashion)
      techware and cyberpop (?) alias? implication? Should they be replaced by something like cyberpunk_(fashion)?
      greaser that is a sort of vintage fashion.
      vintage to [[]] (?) alias? implication? Should we create by something like vintage_(fashion)?
      casual wear and casual clothing.
      formal wear and businesswear

versperus said:
I moved the contents to ero lolita which looked to cover the same themes, as the tag did not have an existing description.
In staff discussions, I initially suggested removing the tag and considered invalidating it, but I ultimately went with moving the contents to ero lolita instead. However, there was some miscommunication.

Putting it behind closed doors and suddenly removing a tag from everything it is associated with looks like vandalism from an external perspective. Having such discussions also kind of breeds mistrust because it makes it difficult to determine if actions are self driven or approved. I had a complaint about this kind of actions in the past and it was "handled" with no real changes.

deadoon said:
Putting it behind closed doors and suddenly removing a tag from everything it is associated with looks like vandalism from an external perspective. Having such discussions also kind of breeds mistrust because it makes it difficult to determine if actions are self driven or approved. I had a complaint about this kind of actions in the past and it was "handled" with no real changes.

Stop trying to antagonise users, let alone a site moderator.

Nothing is "behind closed doors" and all tag edits are publicly viewable (and reversible).
The fact that this thread exists also means that the aforementioned staff discussion to invalidate the tag is also brought forth to the public for their consideration.
You can only use the vandalism excuse if they did not transfer the posts to what they believed to be an alternative and more appropriate/established tag, like ero_lolita.

If you don't like how something is handled by staff, message the head admin about it.

deadoon said:
Putting it behind closed doors and suddenly removing a tag from everything it is associated with looks like vandalism from an external perspective. Having such discussions also kind of breeds mistrust because it makes it difficult to determine if actions are self driven or approved. I had a complaint about this kind of actions in the past and it was "handled" with no real changes.

This sounds like the same nonsense complaints that came up when the cub alias happened

forum #383155 still rings true

donovan_dmc said:
This sounds like the same nonsense complaints that came up when the cub alias happened

forum #383155 still rings true

I mean, to be fair, we were _kinda_ right about cub needing to be dealt with better. pretty much everyone around the forums agreed with what we ended up doing, and, from memory most of the dissent during voting was just that the actual process of splitting the tag property would be too hard.

deadoon said:
Putting it behind closed doors and suddenly removing a tag from everything it is associated with looks like vandalism from an external perspective. Having such discussions also kind of breeds mistrust because it makes it difficult to determine if actions are self driven or approved. I had a complaint about this kind of actions in the past and it was "handled" with no real changes.

Truly useless/redundant tags that haven't been applied to many posts do get manually removed sometimes, with little discussion. There doesn't need to be a public thread for every one-guy-tag that can be quietly cleaned up.

This scenario is a niche fashion tag that looked redundant because many of its uses could fit under a different tag. This isn't really a scandal.

Are ero lolita and kinderwhore equivalent? I don't think so. They look like they use different colors, textures, and silhouettes, so an alias is probably not valid. That said, I am not going to check every image it was applied to, so maybe the images that used the tag here were mistagged.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Stop trying to antagonise users, let alone a site moderator.

Nothing is "behind closed doors" and all tag edits are publicly viewable (and reversible).
The fact that this thread exists also means that the aforementioned staff discussion to invalidate the tag is also brought forth to the public for their consideration.
You can only use the vandalism excuse if they did not transfer the posts to what they believed to be an alternative and more appropriate/established tag, like ero_lolita.

If you don't like how something is handled by staff, message the head admin about it.

I wasn't specifically antagonizing them also, I was saying how their actions can be perceived from an external perspective.
I was specifically mentioning discussion on it that they mentioned. They said staff discussions, which since those aren't public afaik, which is what it means to be behind closed doors. Even if the actions are public if the discussions leading to them are not that same way it is hard to determine intentions. Considering that they did it in such a way is why this conversation is even occurring.

I have never had a good result of escalating a report about staff/mods not acting on something that wasn't involving a purchase problem, even innocuous stuff like reporting porn on an all ages gaming forum has resulted in me being the one banned.

regsmutt said:
Truly useless/redundant tags that haven't been applied to many posts do get manually removed sometimes, with little discussion. There doesn't need to be a public thread for every one-guy-tag that can be quietly cleaned up.

This scenario is a niche fashion tag that looked redundant because many of its uses could fit under a different tag. This isn't really a scandal.

I agree it shouldn't be much of a scandal, but it still doesn't exactly look good from my perspective. The last time I reported a mass removal of a tag nothing happened and the tag went back into common use soon after.

Maybe I was a bit too rough with my wording, I was using the same term used on sites like wikis and others where removing or mass changing information without discussion is often considered vandalism without proper justification given at time of changes. Perhaps I should have used more passive language to prevent being dogpiled on.

Edit: I would have put a simple edit reason on some of the tag changes to make it obvious on why something was done. Edit reasons are woefully underutilized.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Stop trying to antagonise users, let alone a site moderator.

That was not antagonizing. At worst it was expressing displeasure.

jhudson said:
That was not antagonizing. At worst it was expressing displeasure.

Leaving a backhanded comment about how their actions could look like tag vandalism, followed by saying their private consult with other staff members as a site mod could probably breed mistrust, then saying their intentions could look like selfish self-driven reasons sound like antagonising, at least to me.

However, that is far from the point. A level of trust should be afforded for users entrusted with moderating the site, with the expectation that any actions they make is for the betterment rather than the detriment of the site.
It is not that uncommon for unestablished tags to be purged and moved to established alternatives when they are facing invalidation.
It is also not uncommon for site staff to discuss among themselves the best course of action for matters such as this, though the outcome is not desirable in this case.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Leaving a backhanded comment about how their actions could look like tag vandalism, followed by saying their private consult with other staff members as a site mod could probably breed mistrust, then saying their intentions could look like selfish self-driven reasons sound like antagonising, at least to me.

However, that is far from the point. A level of trust should be afforded for users entrusted with moderating the site, with the expectation that any actions they make is for the betterment rather than the detriment of the site.
It is not that uncommon for unestablished tags to be purged and moved to established alternatives when they are facing invalidation.
It is also not uncommon for site staff to discuss among themselves the best course of action for matters such as this, though the outcome is not desirable in this case.

I think the problem is doing these things inconspicuously instead, no forum prediscussion :/