Posted under Tags
Are relationship tags like husband and wife, father and son, mother and daughter, siblings, etc. mutually exclusive to the family tag? I've seen them tagged both ways. I was discussing this with zetsubousensei and while we both agreed having family posts diluting the relationship tags isn't necessarily ideal, the wikis don't have a clear guideline either. I figured we should ask the forum for opinions.
Updated by magcolo
magcolo said:
Are relationship tags like husband and wife, father and son, mother and daughter, sibling, etc. mutually exclusive to the family tag? I've seen them tagged both ways. I was discussing this with zetsubosensei and while we both agreed having family posts diluting the relationship tags isn't necessarily ideal, the wikis don't have a clear guideline either. I figured we should ask the forum for opinions.
Yes, I'd love a formal stance on this as well. I've asked before on the discord and was told that mother_and_daughter, father_and_son, ect shouldn't be used with family and the wording on the wiki makes me lean that way as well. However if that is policy can we have the wiki updated to make this crystal clear?
I think it makes sense for immediate family relationship tags to be mutually exclusive with family since they're the default, but we should continue to use extended family tags with family posts. For example, if a boy is raised by his aunt and uncle, they would get the family tag (because it still fits the dynamic) along with the aunt and nephew + uncle and nephew tags for clarity.
My impression from the wikis is that family is for images containing both parents plus one or more children, which is why there's no implication since no single one of the husband and wife or mother and son tags implies it by itself.
That said, if that is the intent the tag name is probably over-inclusive.
Ylimegirl said:
TBH I think the fact that they're not implicated indicates they're generally mutually exclusive.
The reason they're not implicated is because then any depictions of two related characters would be tagged family, when it specifically asks for two parents and at least one child.
Tbh the family wiki is weird, because it allows non-biologically related guardians, but still requires there to be two of them, but makes an exception for deceased biological parents, and doesn't count extended family unless the "main" family is complete, despite the fact that technically two grandparents and one parent would also count as two parents and at least one child.
Name should probably be more specific if it wants two parents and a child. Maybe nuclear family, since I'm pretty sure that's more or less the definition of the term.
blindVigil said:
The reason they're not implicated is because then any depictions of two related characters would be tagged family, when it specifically asks for two parents and at least one child.
Tbh the family wiki is weird, because it allows non-biologically related guardians, but still requires there to be two of them, but makes an exception for deceased biological parents, and doesn't count extended family unless the "main" family is complete, despite the fact that technically two grandparents and one parent would also count as two parents and at least one child.
I don't think that wiki is very good. The diffs in 2013 when most of that entry was written show it getting more and more convoluted and arbitrary.
I agree that a nuclear_family tag is probably better. Not sure if family should be renamed to that, or if it should be a new tag. I think defining what a "family" is outside of the nuclear family, but not just meaning any relation, is going to get messy, complicated, and too broad to be useful beyond all relations quickly.
Edit:
Previous discussion with some admin input and made by the person who wrote the bulk of the family tag, though it is a very old thread. topic #9466
Another one of those cases of a poorly defined tag causing trouble, I agree we should just rework this tag entirely. I'm not sure about the exact purpose of it's creation, but as others have pointed out, it's current requirement is both to strict and too strange to serve anyone who's interested in the searching the concept of a "family".
How about we use the number rule like other affiliation tags? Something like: At least 3 or more members of the same family, extended or not, and at least 2 different generations? (to exclude cases of siblings) Or at least 2 different types of relationships? (which allows siblings + cousins) Then we can have nuclear family for the more enclosed concept of family.
If we do this, there won't be any redundancy with the single relationship tags either. So we can tag both.
Updated by magcolo
I think you're overcomplicating it. The tag's for depicting a family unit of two parents and their children.
If there's inside or outside context that the depicted characters don't fit those roles then you don't tag it.
CrossbowArcanePlus said:
but how are you supposed to see that the other parent is deceased from the image?
It's a relationship tag, so canon tagging. If you don't have the context then it's just an image of one parent and children.
I do think making the only exception a deceased parent feels a little strange. I get it... but it's strange.
How are we supposed to discern from the image whether the guardians live in the same household?
The main point of the statement is clarifying that a family unit is not about biology, it's about the family roles. Usually families live together. But you don't need to know they do to tag it.
I also think the grandparents thing is unnecessary. Why mention that there could be grandparents but it only counts if the core family is there?
It's just clarifying that extra extended family members being present doesn't enter the calculation, but extended family present with a family unit still counts.
nuclear family might be less confusing so people know the tag depicts a family rather than people who are family. I feel like the term carries extra connotations though. Edit: Now I've said it twenty times, family unit might be fine. It's not totally accurate but it removes the main ambiguity.
Updated by Spatula22
Spatula22 said:
It's a relationship tag, so canon tagging. If you don't have the context then it's just an image of one parent and children.
That is an important thing to be reminded of. What I was aiming for with my post was minimizing the amount of "tag what you know", but it's true it can't be completely eliminated.
Spatula22 said:
I do think making the only exception a deceased parent feels a little strange. I get it... but it's strange.
I guess the idea is that a family is still a family if one of the parents dies. You are still seeing the totality of the "family" (i.e. the parents who are alive + children) if you see only the living parent and the child.
That brings up another question though: why do all the parents have to be present but not all the children? Some of the family is missing in that case too. I guess it's a little ambiguous in the wiki if all children have to be there though, so maybe they already do.
Spatula22 said:
The main point of the statement is clarifying that a family unit is not about biology, it's about the family roles. Usually families live together. But you don't need to know they do to tag it.
So it's a hint rather than a rule? But why write that only for guardians and not for parents? And as I asked, who would be annoyed to see an image that met all other requirements but the "same household" one?
I don't understand what purpose it could possibly serve when helping people find images.
Spatula22 said:
It's just clarifying that extra extended family members being present doesn't enter the calculation, but extended family present with a family unit still counts.
In the edit history you can see that first it said that grandparents could be present, and was then changed to say that they didn't constitute a "family" tag on their own.
I don't think the intent was to say that they didn't factor in based on that, and it's clearer to just omit that line entirely, especially since they could be the guardians in question. You might end up telling someone that their post both does and doesn't qualify for family in that case because that same line says complete means parents.
CrossbowArcanePlus said:
I guess the idea is that a family is still a family if one of the parents dies. You are still seeing the totality of the "family" (i.e. the parents who are alive + children) if you see only the living parent and the child.
That brings up another question though: why do all the parents have to be present but not all the children? Some of the family is missing in that case too. I guess it's a little ambiguous in the wiki if all children have to be there though, so maybe they already do.
Because the tag is for a group of people that look like a "traditional" family unit. That means two parents and at least one child. It's still a "nuclear family" regardless of if there's one child or four children, but a single parent home is not a nuclear family. It's not about members of the family being missing or not, but about the ones present qualifying for what is defined as a nuclear family.
It's a canon tag in that it is often going to be based on information outside of the image, as with any other relationship tag. It is however still primarily tagging something visual. We all know what families look like, and as far as an individual image is concerned, two parents and one child still looks like a family regardless of if that child actually has a sibling or two not present in the image.
BUR #45409 has been rejected.
create alias family -> nuclear_family
If it’s meant specifically for nuclear families and tagged some are getting it confused with no traditional family structures, then why not make the tag name more explicit?
Spatula22 said:
I think you're overcomplicating it. The tag's for depicting a family unit of two parents and their children.
If there's inside or outside context that the depicted characters don't fit those roles then you don't tag it.
It's a relationship tag, so canon tagging. If you don't have the context then it's just an image of one parent and children.
I don’t think that's "overcomplicating it". I was purposing another tag aside from nuclear family. If we go by the strict nuclear family rule, there are many other cases of "family" that will be excluded. Especially because family in fiction is often unconventional. I think it's useful to have a tag for them.
While I agree that the English version in particular sounds really silly, it is widespread enough that the term has been adopted into other languages:
Dutch: kerngezin, German: Kernfamilie, French: familie nucléaire and there are more.
Note: "Kern" is the translation of "Core" in many Germanic languages.
A term I've seen that has a lot of overlap with "Nuclear family" is "conjugal family" but the problem with that term is that it has a heavily element of marriage which isn't always the case or even known.
"immediate family" would be somewhat correct, but it would allow connections between parents and grandparents which fall outside the scope of a family unit.
An alternative would be to coin a Danbooru specific term.
"core family" was mentioned above which is the literal translation of "nuclear family" in several languages but less silly sounding.
The bulk update request #45409 (forum #375667) has been rejected by @DanbooruBot.
