Forum:Image tagging

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Image tagging

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5775 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Image tagging is starting to get annoying. It serves no purpose, nobody uses it, and IPs abuse it like mad. And sometimes, when you add or remove a tag, it won't even tell you what image got tagged or untagged. It automatically makes every tag a link, besides. Is this an extension that can be removed, or another Wikia-wide thing we just have to deal with? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:27 Oct 27, 2007

I feel a bit silly asking this, but what is tagging actually supposed to be for? What was it supposed to do before all the anons started abusing it? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:13, Oct 27

Click on a pic (like Image:Olivine basalt.jpg). See the Tag this Image^New! thing? That's it. I dunno what it does. I assume tagging an image helps to track their herds. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd happily vote to see it gone. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Yeah, the "imagemap" way is better. It works, but is just complicated enough to use to discourage asshattery. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 17:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just complicated enough to discourage use as well. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

20/11/2007 @ 04:00

So, is it possible to remove it? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:14 Nov 01, 2007

Like many things in life, if it's fun, it's also illegal. Graffiti, also known as "tagging", is illegal. It defaces private property and has a minimum penalty of a $200 fine. This has been EMC, your local Crime Chinchilla, reminding you to be smart: it's not art. --EMC ^[TALK] 13:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Frustrated bump. So. Is it possible to remove it? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 02:48 Nov 20, 2007

You can remove tags, and I'd love to see the day when the extension is gone. But lets see if we hear anything from our Wikian emisary about it first. Like most other things, you can expect it kept because new people might find it useful. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

20/11/2007 @ 04:00

Hmm. Well, to be perfectly honest, I haven't the foggiest how this could be useful. Additionally I can't find a list of tagged images anywhere, and the log for tagging keeps mixing up names and doesn't tell what image is being tagged or de-tagged half the time. 'Till then I guess I'll just keep trying to do tag purges. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:14 Nov 21, 2007

For the record, I think the image tagging thing is pretty useless, and would prefer it gone. Off the record, I get less dizzy. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:19, 21 Nov 2007

• I think I started a VD about this like 2 months ago, but am to lazy to find (you can if you want...). In anycase, I hate it hate it. -- The Zombiebaron 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What kind of VD was it? Herpes? --_CUN RA ^{Talk to me} _ 23:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In answer to the question: yes, it's possible. Is there consensus here? -- sannse (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Also yes. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I don't really know what it does, good or bad, but I'm gonna say kill it because I hate what I don't understand. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 18:27, Nov 23

I don't remember anyone saying anything in its defense whenever it's been mentioned, so I guess so. Looking through the logs, not very many people use it, but somebody might want to check with User:PF4Eva, who seems to have made some serious use of the system...? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 18:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Found it! Also, I think there's a pretty good consensus. Here's a poll anyway, cos I like numbers. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:48 Nov 23, 2007

Image tagging: Stay or go?

Please vote below. Results will be shown when you have voted.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll before you have voted.

Stay

Go

There were 0 votes since the poll was created on 16:40, 12 January 2013.

poll-id 0929B6B4CA5B26F00E091008D65E8A6D

Non-frustrated bump. In fact, quite a happy bump, for the sole purpose of getting more numbers. It's a shame that whenever someone clicks a poll, it's not counted as an edit. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:07 Nov 28, 2007

But then the votes wouldn't be anonymous anymore, and you would plainly be able to see that I voted "Stay". Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick, get him! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:00, 29 Nov 2007

It's only a problem, Boomer, if you have something to hide. Do you? Do you? This will go much easier if you come clean. My partner, Spang, is a loose cannon. I can't hold him back for long. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging is so Web 2.0, tags often get abused. I've seen all sorts of abuse, extremely long tag names that widen web pages, silly random numbers in tags, swear words as tags, vanity tags, stupid tag names that make no sense, spam tags. What we really need are tags for the anonymous IPs, so we can keep track of things that they do, and only admins can add and remove tags to anonymous IPs, so the rest of us know if the IP is a well known spammer, vandal, page blanker, vanity writer, etc. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't we just ban them? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So barbaric! No, we do not just ban them. We tag them, usually with a radio collar, and track their social patterns, migratory journey locations, and mating habits. We're very close to gaining some valuable insight on what exactly they do, and I think that this data will provide us the clues we need. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:52, Dec 1

Bans don't work on users like Anonymous Slashy as he kept coming back with a new Proxy IP and for every IP you banned he would just find a new library or cybercafe to abuse Uncyclopedia on. We tag them now with a radio collar and monitor their behaviors and habits for scientific reasons now. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the neutering. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That's less for science, and more because we think it's funny. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:54, Dec 2

I thought you knew, Modusoperandi. Neutering doesn't work because IPs reproduce asexually. There are, however, a number of handy spray-on products that prevent that. --_CUN RA ^{Talk to me} _ 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there are! With products ranging from IP-Away to Super-duper-proxie-strength Raid, Shady Inc. has all the IP-control products you could possibly ask for! Shady Salesman 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, Mister. Why, even a simple bottle of Snake Oil, like the one that you have there, can ably disable even the most able of IPble. I'm certain that whatever price you are selling it for is a bargain. A bargain of value. Mister Schill 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Or we can just feed the trolls rat poison. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bump again... is this considered consensus by now? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 07:13 Dec 26, 2007

Vote for it to stay to prolong debate -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 07:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Masochist. --_CUN RA ^{Talk to me} _ 11:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Well if it stays there will be trouble... but if it goes there will be double. Oh no wait, that's something else. Get rid of it already! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:38, 26 Dec 2007

Bump

Kill the gosh darn thing already. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:10 Jan 14, 2008

• Against - Bump is a boring game. Much like anything with hoops and balls. Wait, what am I saying. -- The Zombiebaron 03:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Zombiebaron. No, really, guys, I'm not shitting you. It's Zombiebaron! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:22 Jan 14, 2008
    • I don't believe you. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:02, Jan 14
      • Me neither. -- The Zombiebaron 20:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit, this forum was created in October, and still nothing?

Strong argh – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 04:16 Jan 24, 2008

Loltag Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 04:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are our Wikia masters even aware of this forum topic? We're like ants to them. Ants! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 07:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorta kinda helps if you talk to us an all... Bless your little cotton socks. I'll see if I can get it turned off as quickly as possible -- sannse (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk to you? I thought with all the hidden cameras and microphones and Wikia-copters around, you'd get the idea. But no. Some oppressive overlords you are. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:24 Jan 27, 2008

Heck, this has been sitting here since October and nobody cares, so maybe that is par for the course? --Carlb 02:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm really not sure what that one is... It confuses and angers me. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:45, Jan 28

OMGCarlb -- The Zombiebaron 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Carl, I'm going to answer over there, so as not to cross threads further -- sannse (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hai! Image tagging has been turned off. -- sannse (talk) 19:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah! /me goes to start a forum topic complaining about how image tagging has suddenly stopped working... Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)