Posted under General
pool #25742
Another mea culpa here - I created this to handle a parent-child sequence, before realizing its contents fit better in pool #21577. (In my defense, the posts in question and their commentary haven't been translated as of this writing, or I might've noticed sooner.)
Alanis_the_Evoker said:
pool #25742
Another mea culpa here - I created this to handle a parent-child sequence, before realizing its contents fit better in pool #21577. (In my defense, the posts in question and their commentary haven't been translated as of this writing, or I might've noticed sooner.)
You can delete it manually (I see the contents have already been moved). On the page where you edit the title, description and contents, the bar at the top contains a "delete button".
ANON_TOKYO said:
You can delete it manually (I see the contents have already been moved). On the page where you edit the title, description and contents, the bar at the top contains a "delete button".
No, regular Members (like me at this writing) don't have that button. It's limited to Builders and up.
For the Pokemon people, couldn't this just be done through tagging? Not sure why it needs to be a pool.
WRS said:
For the Pokemon people, couldn't this just be done through tagging? Not sure why it needs to be a pool.
They did make a tag for it but I nuked it because I assumed we wouldn't want a fakemon but more specific when we don't even have an Eeveelution tag to begin with.
WRS said:
For the Pokemon people, couldn't this just be done through tagging? Not sure why it needs to be a pool.
Person who made that pool here. There was big controversy around even having an Eeveelution tag to befin with which someone then made into a pool, so I collected the fake eeveelutions in another. I'm not sure about fake eeveelutions but I would still definetly wish we had an eeveelution tag in general.
Confetto said:
They did make a tag for it but I nuked it because I assumed we wouldn't want a fakemon but more specific when we don't even have an Eeveelution tag to begin with.
Oh I thought I nuked that or we are not talking about the same, sorry about that.
pool #25168 - grand total of 4 posts (2 illustrations with variants), never edited since initial creation in march by user #940035 in march
Zalza said:
I would still definetly wish we had an eeveelution tag in general.
It should get its own forum post.
Ylimegirl said:
pool #25168 - grand total of 4 posts (2 illustrations with variants), never edited since initial creation in march by user #940035 in march
It's part of a series work which is fine. This is the kind of thing that should be pooled.
WRS said:
It's part of a series work which is fine. This is the kind of thing that should be pooled.
I added a link to the collection in the description. Without it, it just looks like it’s describing a random assortment of FGO bondage posts. This may also make it easier to complete the pool.
The bulk update request #41288 (forum #356404) has been approved by @nonamethanks.
BUR #42610 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
mass update pool:25390 -> Lapwing_Face_Tracking_Redraws
nuke pool:25390
This can be a tag.
pool #26068
Unlike pool #20151, the posts in this one don't seem to have anything in common with each other.
BaiserLaVerite said:
pool #26068
Unlike pool #20151, the posts in this one don't seem to have anything in common with each other.
collection pools are supposed to be used for subjective things, but this one feels too subjective. i can't tell what the criteria are meant to be and this pool will probably turn into a mix of totally random posts if others start contributing. +1 to nuking it.
BUR #42854 has been approved by @nonamethanks.
nuke pool:26068
Yeah, this one is just a random mishmash of posts. I think the intent is good, but this is so overly broad it doesn't help anyone, let alone its target audience. It says this is for artwork generally found appealing to women, but that's way too subjective in a way other collection pools aren't. The posts I find appealing may not be found appealing by another, and so on. Try again with a narrower focus, I guess.
BUR #43076 has been rejected.
mass update pool:20151 -> female_gaze hetero
nuke pool:20151
From what I can see, female gaze just means attractive male.
How many times must the purpose of this pool be explained...?
Here's forum #261444 for an example of why the pool should stay. The reason I have no issue with that pool when compared to the pool I'm trying to nuke is that there is a very clear, often very hard to search for, purpose to it, and many people (myself included) find it a very helpful pool overall, and you simply cannot boil it down to one or two tags.
"Female Gaze" on the other hand is a complete mishmash of posts, with an overly broad theme that helps no one, and is also notably managed by only one person (a member, of course).
Knowledge_Seeker said:
How many times must the purpose of this pool be explained...?
Here's forum #261444 for an example of why the pool should stay. The reason I have no issue with that pool when compared to the pool I'm trying to nuke is that there is a very clear, often very hard to search for, purpose to it, and many people (myself included) find it a very helpful pool overall, and you simply cannot boil it down to one or two tags.
"Female Gaze" on the other hand is a complete mishmash of posts, with an overly broad theme that helps no one, and is also notably managed by only one person (a member, of course).
Can you help me understand here? Isn't the focus component of Female Gaze Hetero just male_focus hetero? After that the only part of the pool description remaining is "oriented for a female audience", which is the basis under which Female Gaze is being removed.
If this is some kind of recurring debate with more to it, then nevermind. It isn't worth rehashing here. I am only a wretched member, after all.
female gaze hetero cannot be distilled into male focus because (emphasis mine):
The female may also be the focus, but shouldn't be the main focus. The two should take at least equal importance in the image.
