Reason:
Implication to aliased tag cause problems. Correct tag is fæces.

Feces is already aliased to fæces. Since Scat is implicated to feces, would that feces -> fæces alias take effect automatically, or is that precisely what's causing the problem?

Just curious

Tokaido said:
Feces is already aliased to fæces. Since Scat is implicated to feces, would that feces -> fæces alias take effect automatically, or is that precisely what's causing the problem?

Just curious

https://e621.net/help/tag_implications

This implication process occurs AFTER the alias process.

Imagine this case.

User uploads post with only scat tag which implies feces, and feces aliased to fæces. (In reality there is also implication scat -> fæces now, but let's forget for a while about it to make things more simple.)

Step 0 - User's tags are added.
Tags on picture:
scat

Step 1 - Aliases are done. There is nothing to alias.
Tags on picture:
scat

Step 2 - Implications are done. feces is added to the picture.
Tags on picture:
scat
feces

And here process ends. Picture ends up with defunct tag. Search for feces and you notice that this tag is present along fæces, even though it should be aliased.

We could have simply never used the latin version no one actually searches with. Just sayin' :o

CamKitty said:
We could have simply never used the latin version no one actually searches with. Just sayin' :o

I think we should just alias it to "poo."

Fair enough Gilda, that makes total sense.

But I kinda have to agree with CamKitty on this one :P It's probably too late now to change that though.

Why not alias faeces to feces so that it all goes under the simpler tag?

I'd rather alias it to "Poo" or "Poop" or "Stool_(Bodily_Function)" (or especially just "Scat") or the like over "Feces, which is primarily a US English term, or "Faeces", which while scientifically and linguistically correct is, as has been pointed out, what will most likely not be searched for. I personally think "Scat" as the term is most applicable, since it's a very well known word, has no deviations based on geographical location, aside from jazz lyrics or the informal imperative "scat, cat!" and the like which shouldn't come up as a tag, has no other meanings as far as I am aware.

123easy said:
I'd rather alias it to "Poo" or "Poop" or "Stool_(Bodily_Function)" (or especially just "Scat") or the like over "Feces, which is primarily a US English term, or "Faeces", which while scientifically and linguistically correct is, as has been pointed out, what will most likely not be searched for. I personally think "Scat" as the term is most applicable, since it's a very well known word, has no deviations based on geographical location, aside from jazz lyrics or the informal imperative "scat, cat!" and the like which shouldn't come up as a tag, has no other meanings as far as I am aware.

Scat is the kink, feces is the stuff used in the kink. We've been through this before, and if I have to wade through 350+ scat images again to reapply the tag because we aliased it to faeces, I'm going to literally lose my shit.

Can we alias it to "turd".
Turd sounds funnier.

Halite said:
Can we alias it to "turd".
Turd sounds funnier.

Except diarrhea doesn't look like a turd, but is still feces/poop etc. So that wouldn't work.

I agree with the proposed plan to UNimplicate scat to feces and instead implicate scat to fæces because of the technical specs involved (trying not to implicate tags which have been aliased to something else because it breaks the system's ability to carry it out). It's practical and functional. It doesn't really change anything, just fixes a broken technical aspect.

IF we were actually discussing anything else, I have to admit I'm baffled why we tag common poop with a latin tag that no one can type without ascii characters. It's just fancy "poop" and I don't get why we tag it fæces. But hey - it works, it's already established and no point in changing it now over spelling. If we want to make poop sound fancy, well party on then. I can live with that oddity. I suppose I'm just curious if there was ever a reason behind it? That decision was way before my time.

Y'know, I don't get the tag at all really. I'm fairly certain that at least 90% of the people looking up said tag will type scat. It should also be noted that other sites with that content also use scat or scatology. Then, for you who pointed out that scatology is the fetish and feces is the matter,then when would scat be tagged without feces? And if we are arguing that the latin spelling of feces is correct then should we not keep the kana/Kanji spelling of Japanese names over romanised ones?

Why can't it just be simple?

We should just remove fæces altogether and implicate scat->feces. Anyone opposed?

None here.

ippiki_ookami said:
We should just remove fæces altogether and implicate scat->feces. Anyone opposed?

Agreed

ippiki_ookami said:
We should just remove fæces altogether and implicate scat->feces. Anyone opposed?

Sure.

ippiki_ookami said:
We should just remove fæces altogether and implicate scat->feces. Anyone opposed?

And here I thought this was a latin site :o

I still think turd sounds funnier.

Halite said:
I still think turd sounds funnier.

What about "doody?"
Hurhur. Doody. :P

Edit: Oh my god my avatar is perfect.

JoeX said:
What about "doody?"
Hurhur. Doody. :P

Edit: Oh my god my avatar is perfect.

It is! xD

ippiki_ookami said:
We should just remove fæces altogether and implicate scat->feces. Anyone opposed?

Can you also alias fæces, faeces, shit, poo and poop → feces

Seven_Twenty said:
Can you also alias fæces, faeces, shit, poo and poop → feces

Done