Shipping tags general
Brokedownandmadeone 
BigThirsty ponybooru.org
ship:bowdash -> parent and child
ship:windydash -> parent and child
ship:pearmac -> parent and child
ship:jackbutter -> parent and child
ship:pearbloom -> parent and child
ship:poseyflutter -> parent and child
ship:flurrydance -> parent and child
ship:spoiledtiara -> parent and child
ship:buttoncest -> parent and child
ship:raricrumbles -> parent and child
ship:cookiebelle -> parent and child
ship:windydash -> parent and child
ship:pearmac -> parent and child
ship:jackbutter -> parent and child
ship:pearbloom -> parent and child
ship:poseyflutter -> parent and child
ship:flurrydance -> parent and child
ship:spoiledtiara -> parent and child
ship:buttoncest -> parent and child
ship:raricrumbles -> parent and child
ship:cookiebelle -> parent and child
the ones under piecest, and other ones I know missed because I got lazy here. Someone else fill in for me.
-> [parent and child](/tags/parent+and+child)
Icicle Niceicle 1517 
Ocs,Boops,Tickles&Memes
thought this is fitting or here, i think that canon x oc should imply “shipping”
oc x oc already implies shipping, so i don’t see why the same can’t apply to the tag involving canon characters and ocs
Background Pony #8C58
A lot of pages 91 & 92 haven’t been taken care of
Background Pony #8C58
I’ll respond with more later I’m exhausted lmao
Brokedownandmadeone
BigThirsty ponybooru.org
I’ll respond with more later I’m exhausted lmao
Not to offend but there’s no need to put in this effort for something so unnecessary. It’d be one thing if there’s at least some level of notoriety for most of the recent ships posted in this thread (like a handful of images) but nearly every single one has been under 5 images and are essentially “crack shipping”. This kind of effort and energy would be better placed in just regularly tagging images as you see them instead. This kind of thing also adds to the staff’s work pile for little, if any, benefit.
Also far sanity’s sake can everyone use the
t preview instead of p? I like not needing to scroll for a mile and it’s not as tiny as s if you think it absolutely needs to be seen. Background Pony #B1D3
@Brokedownandmadeone
Perhaps I hallucinated this, but I could have sworn at one point in the site’s history we were encouraged not to suggest tag implications for anything with a tag count lower than five.
Perhaps I hallucinated this, but I could have sworn at one point in the site’s history we were encouraged not to suggest tag implications for anything with a tag count lower than five.
If it was never a policy before, perhaps it should be. I’ve seen implications added to obscure ships tags that are empty now because only one artist ever made content for it and then went on the DNP list later.
Background Pony #8C58
Not to offend but there’s no need to put in this effort for something so unnecessary. It’d be one thing if there’s at least some level of notoriety for most of the recent ships posted in this thread (like a handful of images) but nearly every single one has been under 5 images and are essentially “crack shipping”. This kind of effort and energy would be better placed in just regularly tagging images as you see them instead. This kind of thing also adds to the staff’s work pile for little, if any, benefit.
I’m aware it’ll add to the pile and I’m sorry for that however this thread is for shipping tags and yes they don’t have a lot images yet again a lot of those that have been recently posted don’t either and I personally don’t mind putting this much effort into this
Brokedownandmadeone
BigThirsty ponybooru.org
@Background Pony #B1D3
I hadn’t seen that loose rule/guideline but I wouldn’t be surprised.
I hadn’t seen that loose rule/guideline but I wouldn’t be surprised.
@Background Pony #8C58
I’m a little lost. “yes they don’t have a lot images”, “a lot of those that have been recently posted don’t either”. Isn’t this the same line?
Regardless, it’s like I said: This kind of effort and energy would be better placed in just regularly tagging images [with any missing tags] as you see them instead. Edited to make a bit more sense.
I’m a little lost. “yes they don’t have a lot images”, “a lot of those that have been recently posted don’t either”. Isn’t this the same line?
Regardless, it’s like I said: This kind of effort and energy would be better placed in just regularly tagging images [with any missing tags] as you see them instead. Edited to make a bit more sense.
Background Pony #8C58
@Brokedownandmadeone
It isn’t the same line I’m talking about those which have been recently posted by others not me
It isn’t the same line I’m talking about those which have been recently posted by others not me
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!