DB WORKSHOP: Tag discussion
Background Pony #9411
@barbeque
>it [text/text only] already has a description
where?
i dun see no [more info] button on either text or text only.
>it [text/text only] already has a description
where?
i dun see no [more info] button on either text or text only.
Background Pony #9411
could we define mouthpiece?
i’m tired of it being used in place of old banner when it isn’t a mouthpiece
which itself is an odd tag to me, considering all the fanart that has ponies saying odd things
i mean, if this was tumblr, wouldn’t molestia images be “rape culture mouthpiece”s?
currently it may as well be old banner+feminism implies mouthpiece
i’m tired of it being used in place of old banner when it isn’t a mouthpiece
which itself is an odd tag to me, considering all the fanart that has ponies saying odd things
i mean, if this was tumblr, wouldn’t molestia images be “rape culture mouthpiece”s?
currently it may as well be old banner+feminism implies mouthpiece
Background Pony #D838
It seems to be used to designate images in which a pony says something that the person who made the image agrees with. So for instance,
gamer luna would probably imply mouthpiece in most cases.
Exhumed Legume 
Weirdo
could we define mouthpiece?
- a piece placed at or forming the mouth, as of a receptacle or tube.
- a piece or part, as of an instrument, to which the mouth is applied or which is held in the mouth: the mouthpiece of a trumpet.
- the part of a bit or bridle, as for a horse, that passes through the animal’s mouth.
4. a person, newspaper, etc., that conveys the opinions or sentiments of others; spokesperson.- Slang. a lawyer, especially a criminal lawyer.
So, basically, when someone’s using a canonical character (or several) to ““voice[](/626995) their own opinion(s).
You know. Using them as mouthpieces.
You know. Using them as mouthpieces.
So for instance,gamer lunawould probably implymouthpiecein most cases.
Ehh, sorta kinda maybe but not really? Gamer Luna and suchlike are alternate character interpretations rather than just vehicles for the artists’ personal views.
Sure, there’s probably an element of “mouthpiece-ism” in there, (to continue with the Gamer Luna example, her taste in games may – or may not – reflect that of the artist.) but I’d imagine that’s not the only reason for these alternate reality characters’ existence.
“Mouthpiece” implies using a character from the show or comics for the sole purpose of expressing an opinion.
Sure, there’s probably an element of “mouthpiece-ism” in there, (to continue with the Gamer Luna example, her taste in games may – or may not – reflect that of the artist.) but I’d imagine that’s not the only reason for these alternate reality characters’ existence.
“Mouthpiece” implies using a character from the show or comics for the sole purpose of expressing an opinion.
paluzna
looks like nobody payed it attention when i posted it, so here it is again.
even a “NO, shut up” would be nice :V
im bringing this up here because im not sure were else to talk about it :Vi noticed the sinfully sexy tag which apears to be just a random collection of bondage, flutterbat, random nudity and the ocasional pic that actualy apllies for the tag. it seems its being ‘forced’ only by RemareShadowsby forced i mean of course, that i dont see the bloody point of the tag, therefore i bitch about it.*can an admin actuly check this? i just checked the latest 30 or so.
and by the by, weres the list of keyboard shorcuts? do we even have one for the tag changes page?
looks like nobody payed it attention when i posted it, so here it is again.
even a “NO, shut up” would be nice :V
JustGoAway 
It's just pictures.
@Background Pony #A1EB
In order to see that, you have to first open an image that already has this tag, and then click on this tag to see a list of images with this tag, with the description at the top.
If you are specifically looking for this description alone, then you will most likely have to first search for the tag, then open an image with this tag, and then click on the tag to show a list of stuff with this tag before you see the description, which is ridiculously redundant. It would be helpful if it was showing up also when you search for a single tag…
In order to see that, you have to first open an image that already has this tag, and then click on this tag to see a list of images with this tag, with the description at the top.
If you are specifically looking for this description alone, then you will most likely have to first search for the tag, then open an image with this tag, and then click on the tag to show a list of stuff with this tag before you see the description, which is ridiculously redundant. It would be helpful if it was showing up also when you search for a single tag…
Exhumed Legume
Weirdo
@paluzna
You may be on to something.
The tag does seem rather lacking in point and inconsistent in use – and possibly maybe arguably against the tagging guidelines:
You may be on to something.
The tag does seem rather lacking in point and inconsistent in use – and possibly maybe arguably against the tagging guidelines:
Importantly, tags are NOT comments. They are supposed to be descriptive of the image. If you look at a picture and you go “Wait, what!?” then you should make a comment to that effect, NOT add “wait what” as a new tag for the image. Otherwise you just clutter up the tagging system with pointless dross.
As I see it, “sinfully sexy” would fall under commentary.
At any rate, it seems to be an extremely loosely defined tag – the only immediately obvious commonality is a rating of suggestive or over – and entirely subjective for both of its halves.
All in all, I too am getting a distinct impression of a single user* abusing the tagging system to… I dunno, keep a personal collection or something.
~*I didn’t look through all of them, but all of a random sampling had the tag added by RemareShadows
At any rate, it seems to be an extremely loosely defined tag – the only immediately obvious commonality is a rating of suggestive or over – and entirely subjective for both of its halves.
All in all, I too am getting a distinct impression of a single user* abusing the tagging system to… I dunno, keep a personal collection or something.
~*I didn’t look through all of them, but all of a random sampling had the tag added by RemareShadows
barbeque 
@ZuTheSkunk
^THIS
it’s something I’ve been meaning to do for a long while (and I think a simple version is fairly possible at this point) – however, it will also have the side-effect of unspoilering what you search for (remember, a tag page will never spoiler with it’s own tag).
Personally I think this would be a big plus – the tagbox, but also the unspoilering (even if you search for multiple things you usually have spoilered!) – but I’ve heard concerns about changing this search behaviour which is the main reason this hasn’t been implemented yet.
My own viewpoint on this matter is that “if you don’t want to see it, then why the hell are you searching for it in the first place? Or why aren’t you hiding it?” Seriously, if people are going to search for
AND YES OTHER TAGS WILL STILL BE SPOILERED so if you normally spoiler grotesque, grimdark and questionable and search for
^THIS
it’s something I’ve been meaning to do for a long while (and I think a simple version is fairly possible at this point) – however, it will also have the side-effect of unspoilering what you search for (remember, a tag page will never spoiler with it’s own tag).
Personally I think this would be a big plus – the tagbox, but also the unspoilering (even if you search for multiple things you usually have spoilered!) – but I’ve heard concerns about changing this search behaviour which is the main reason this hasn’t been implemented yet.
My own viewpoint on this matter is that “if you don’t want to see it, then why the hell are you searching for it in the first place? Or why aren’t you hiding it?” Seriously, if people are going to search for
grotesque then they’ve already passed the point where it would need to be spoilered anyway. AND YES OTHER TAGS WILL STILL BE SPOILERED so if you normally spoiler grotesque, grimdark and questionable and search for
questionable,grotesque then it will still spoiler on grimdark where applicable*- = I should probably make mockup screenshots of this some day.
@paluzna
I remember this post, but probably just plainly forgot to give any sort of response. I can indeed confirm that it is just one guy adding them, as well as that it is (imo) a useless tag. We are working on a thing that will allow mods to just delete such nonsense tags from the system altogether (we currently have it sort-of but it has bugs), which I will definitely “test out” on tags like this once it’s live.
I have reached the point where I’m hiding tags through clientside scripts to see what a picture is actually about these days; this isn’t supposed to be happening.
JustGoAway
It's just pictures.
One thing that keeps bothering me for as long as I can remember is that showing genitals in any shape or form = instant Explicit.
While in most cases it’s perfectly understandable, sometimes I feel that it’s a bit much for images where genitals just are there, not even being shown in a sexual manner. Can we perhaps consider a semi-explicit tag or something for images that just have genitals in them without anything sexual going on?
While in most cases it’s perfectly understandable, sometimes I feel that it’s a bit much for images where genitals just are there, not even being shown in a sexual manner. Can we perhaps consider a semi-explicit tag or something for images that just have genitals in them without anything sexual going on?
Exhumed Legume
Weirdo
[…] images where genitals just are there, not even being shown in a sexual manner.
[…] without anything sexual going on?
Problem is, that’s such a fuzzy line it can hardly be called a line at all. Sure, it can pretty straightforward for male characters, (partially or fully erect = explicit – flaccid/sheathed = non-explicit) I suppose, but where would you draw that line for female characters? Do bedroom eyes turn that vulva explicit, or does she have to be showing it off? And there’s bound to be at least some ambiguous cases where it’s even harder to make that distinction.
For better or for worse, it’s simpler and clearer to just tag genitalia as explicit.
Besides, we already get users mistagging explicit stuff as questionable or even suggestive just because they don’t see any naughty bits; do we really want to confuse them even further? ;P
For better or for worse, it’s simpler and clearer to just tag genitalia as explicit.
Besides, we already get users mistagging explicit stuff as questionable or even suggestive just because they don’t see any naughty bits; do we really want to confuse them even further? ;P
JustGoAway
It's just pictures.
@Exhumed Legume
I just think that it’s a bit of a shame that one can’t look for artistic nudity and stuff (one that isn’t limited to just exposed breasts) without being exposed to hardcore porn as well.
I just think that it’s a bit of a shame that one can’t look for artistic nudity and stuff (one that isn’t limited to just exposed breasts) without being exposed to hardcore porn as well.
Thanotos Omega 
Can we get a Misandry tag so people can block the stupid posts without blocking out actual constructive feminism?
Thanotos Omega
@paluzna
True, but it just kind of bugs me that a generally positive movement is being lumped in with a bunch of jerks, because any thing that is anti male is getting the feminist tag put on it,
True, but it just kind of bugs me that a generally positive movement is being lumped in with a bunch of jerks, because any thing that is anti male is getting the feminist tag put on it,
paluzna
@Thanotos Omega
is there diference big enough betwen the two?
if there is, we could create an “anti-male” tag or something of the sort. preferably something less ridiculously named lol
is there diference big enough betwen the two?
if there is, we could create an “anti-male” tag or something of the sort. preferably something less ridiculously named lol
Vree 
I’m fine with a misandry tag if it makes people more comfortable.
When some images are so blatantly that it seems pretentious to try to protect them and act like it’s only DBers calling them that.
Besides, if its purpose is to differentiate between “true” feminists and radical/mysoginist feminist so that people do not dismiss feminism in general because of these others; it’s difficult not to call that a very positive thing.
When some images are so blatantly that it seems pretentious to try to protect them and act like it’s only DBers calling them that.
Besides, if its purpose is to differentiate between “true” feminists and radical/mysoginist feminist so that people do not dismiss feminism in general because of these others; it’s difficult not to call that a very positive thing.
paluzna
i’ll be damed but,
![full]()
i laughed.
does this count as misandry?
as much of a parody it is, letting it go untaged as so would “harm” the feminist thing.(i think?)
man, i wouldnt like to filter these.
guess i’ll just have to wait for the complex tag filtering thing then :/
i laughed.
does this count as misandry?
as much of a parody it is, letting it go untaged as so would “harm” the feminist thing.(i think?)
man, i wouldnt like to filter these.
guess i’ll just have to wait for the complex tag filtering thing then :/
Thanotos Omega
@paluzna
Yes that is Misandry, All Misandry is is the inverted form of Misogyny, It can be loud,
“Kill all men!”
or subtle
“I don’t like guys talking to me it’s such a violation you know?”
Yes that is Misandry, All Misandry is is the inverted form of Misogyny, It can be loud,
“Kill all men!”
or subtle
“I don’t like guys talking to me it’s such a violation you know?”
barbeque
(lots of NSFW stuff under the spoilers)
So, recently I found that someone tagged harlem struggle || on >>632812 (deleted).
it seems to be a thing where someone locks their hindlegs around the giver, might have some side-effects on breathing, etc, not even sure if consensual or non-consensual. I’m also not sure if there is some in-between version where the giver can’t remove him/herself entirely but is still able to breathe normally, and if that has a different name.
ANYWAY I’ve also seen pics where this happens with forehooves, for example Thunderlane in >>162634. Again, not sure how borderline consensual/nonconsensual it is, for there are also pics where the giver is crying (though that might be unrelated, dunno) but they are certainly not rape.
Should we even start tagging this (maybe it’s just overtagging) and if we do, what tag would we use for it. ‘holding’ comes to mind, since ‘forced’ sounds a bit rapey. Can set implications so that it’s clear that whatever we choose is intented for blowjobs. It should probably just refer to the position, since the presence or abscence of
^well that was oddly specific||^
So, recently I found that someone tagged harlem struggle || on >>632812 (deleted).
it seems to be a thing where someone locks their hindlegs around the giver, might have some side-effects on breathing, etc, not even sure if consensual or non-consensual. I’m also not sure if there is some in-between version where the giver can’t remove him/herself entirely but is still able to breathe normally, and if that has a different name.
ANYWAY I’ve also seen pics where this happens with forehooves, for example Thunderlane in >>162634. Again, not sure how borderline consensual/nonconsensual it is, for there are also pics where the giver is crying (though that might be unrelated, dunno) but they are certainly not rape.
Should we even start tagging this (maybe it’s just overtagging) and if we do, what tag would we use for it. ‘holding’ comes to mind, since ‘forced’ sounds a bit rapey. Can set implications so that it’s clear that whatever we choose is intented for blowjobs. It should probably just refer to the position, since the presence or abscence of
rape makes clear whether it’s con/noncon anyway ^well that was oddly specific||^
barbeque
I just found the
why.jpg tag. Pasting (edited) IRC log because relevance: [12:56:09] <barbeque> oh look
[12:56:12] <barbeque> !tag why.jpg
[12:56:24] <barbeque> I wonder who’s been shitting on tags again
[12:59:00] <soundtea> okay i’d keep that tag on the WHY images, given that those are an actual thing
[12:59:23] <soundtea> were a thing way before expand dong was even a thought
[13:00:24] <barbeque> soundtea: I assume you mean stuff like >>128097 where it has the literal text?
[13:00:54] <soundtea> yeah or something like >>188977
[13:02:13] <%barbeque> okay but not anything that’s just a picture?
[13:04:22] <soundtea> pretty much
[13:06:08] <soundtea> It’s an old 4chan thing
Bottomline, let me not touch this one, since for starters I really don’t know whether to remove it from the WHY expand dongs or not. If someone wants to have a legit go at it, feel free to do so. Since it’s linked now anyway if you have an idea for a description to tell people to use the friggin why for other stuff feel free to suggest as well.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
This topic has been locked to new posts from non-moderators.
Locked
Lock reason: New thread