DB WORKSHOP: Tag discussion

@dt  
@Background Pony #EACF
 
Maud’s full name is Maud Pie, so… ”Maud Peen”? :P
 
”Schlongset Shimmer”  
”Sunschlong Shimmer”  
”Sunset Schlong”  
I dunno, I just find the word ”schlong” amusing. :P
 
EDIT 2: EDIT: Did I break the thread or something? Trying to get to page 13 sends me here instead.

Who’s adding the “person of technicolor” tag? Oh, it’s WatermelonRat. (All added in the last hour or so too.)
 
Idk, isn’t that pretty much a “calling stuff sh*t” tag? Plus, it seems unfair when all of the canon “Equestria Girls” art qualifies.

noticed colored skin tag  
not sure how different it is from pony coloring
 
oh hey, what a coincidence this is what the last poster said.  
can’t blame someone for not knowing these tags, there isn’t exactly an organized tag tree of related tags and definitions.

i don’t understand what subversion tag means halp

@Background Pony #8B28  
Some combination of the content and the context of the pic leads you to have an expectation for how it will turn out. That expectation is deliberately manufactured. It is, however, incorrect.

Shouldn’t we have a tag for romantic images of officially married couples? It’s not shipping if it’s canon.

@Grieffon  

Yes it is.
 
It has many names - canon ship, sailed ship. whatever - but being a fan of a relationship is the same thing.
 
Like for example >>72541, it’s obviously shipping, right?
 
Oh and it saves work.

@Vree  
It’s a made-up term so there’s no exact definition, but it is mostly defined as fan-made relationship, so canon ones wouldn’t really count. But sure, for simplicity’s sake.

so, what about a “implied character” tag?  
you know, for those humanizations that vagely look like the source char for the sake of avoiding copyright or something else, saw some anons complaining about it so i brougt it here.
 
ALSO, we have Tag Aliases, Tag Implications and Shorthand tag aliases thread. could we have them all in just one thread?  
why? for the glory of satan of course!

@paluzna  
I think we have enough comments by far in each of these threads (even just on a daily basis) to justify keeping them separate. It probably helps the mods when they follow up on those requests.
 
What’d be an example of an implied character?

@Vree
 
NSFW  
>>593100  
>>673172 (deleted)  
“This isn’t “fluttershy’, it’s just a human with pink hair that the artist claims is a humanization of fluttershy.” -BP on that last one.
 
better explanation; it would be for humanizations, or any species swap i guess? whoose design is too vague or deviates from the original character personality/overall design.
 
and should not be aplied to anthro/pony just because of a name change (like twibright) it would beat the purpose of separating those OOC looking pics from the rest. the tag itself might need a name change for clarity’s sake.
 
now that i think about it though… maybe an “OOC”/“OOC design” tag would be better in the long term, what whit the complex filtering tag system coming SOON (VALVE TIMEtm)
 
 
also, the thread merging its a joke, or, it became one when i realized it was a stupid idea.

@Vree  
Seperate, please. For starters it leaves no room for error whether something is meant as an alias or an implication, as well as me not keeping up with Implications like I do with Aliases.
 
Also what Vree says: I usually save up a few days worth of aliases, then when I have an bit of free time, I do them all at once. It’s just much faster that way (or at least, for me it is)

@paluzna  
Oh, okay.  
I think we try to keep tags that are only meant for talking sh$t to a minimum as a rule. If someone wants to critique, that’s what the source/comment section is for. I can’t reconstruct your idea in my head in a way that wouldn’t be ripe for misuse.
 
Like, right away you bring up the “twibright” comics. I happen to think that those comics are rather in character, so right away we have something that we tag simply out of personal dislike. And most Explicit pics are OOC as a rule, so where’s the fairness, then?
 
Even if we limited it to just pics that are basically Standard Anime Girl Template repainted with a pony’s hair/eye color, it’d leave a bad taste in my mouth. The tags are not the place to showcase your personal opinion.  
>>593100 is Fluttershy/Rarity enough that I don’t care. Again we are looking at objective opinion and misuse.

@Vree  
sadly, thats a good point :/  
also, i just brought it up because some users were talking about it and its something i hear from time to time, i personaly dont care much about it, but it sounded like something useful, in concept at lest.
 
you got me wrong there, the twibright comics are an example of something that should NOT be the taged as implied-char, as the designs are in-character and not far off from enstablished fanon and canon.
 
oh, and the idea behind that one would be that a shirt like that doesnt look very “shy” just saying.
 
 
so yeah you are right, theres not enough of a solid line to determine what gets taged as such.

hey there are a lot of tags that need more consideration and/or interpretation
 
like can we separate Fat and Morbidly obese(morbidly obese i nominate for the huge ones)? there are a lot of good art that doesn’t really deserve the “fat” tag and many more other tags are misused(like the old ones
 
The interpretation of the tags such as solo/male solo/female solo go mostly unused (thank faust for the suggestion thingies though)

what’s the difference between youtube and youtube link ?

@Background Pony #8B28  
I believe “youtube” is used for references to YouTube in the image itself while “youtube link” is for when the source links to YouTube.

@paluzna  
I took all the fun out of it, didn’t I?
 
I’m fine with it as long as it is limited to recolors and such and it has a non-misunderstable name that encompasses the tag’s purpose.

@Vree  
nah, dont worry, you didnt, you made some very good points.
 
by the by, has the chubby vs plump discussion passed trough here? like, arent they the same thing?
 
also, this post on the tag implications thread:  
@TheDeinonychus NSFW warning because embeds spoilering arent working it seems.

@Background Pony #7AEC  
What you’re “hoping to see” is irrelevant when it comes to tagging. When I search the [crotchboobs](/tags/crotchboobs) tag, I’d rather not see so many [impossibly large crotchboobs](/tags/impossibly+large+crotchboobs) and when I search the [crotchboobikini](/tags/crotchboobikini) tag, I’d rather not see so much of @Milky Way. That doesn’t mean those tags don’t apply to those images; it just means I need to negate those tags.
 
Whether EqG!Dash grew up a human is irrelevant; there’re plenty of [humanized](/tags/humanized) (and even some @species swap) images where the subject of the image was never a pony, but is rather an alternate-reality version of one of the ponies.
 
The tiny equine additions aren’t irrelevant, but they don’t push them far enough to be [anthro](/tags/anthro) or even [semi-anthro](/semi-dash-anthro@); that's why we have the pony coloration, [eared humanization](/tags/eared+humanization@), and tailed humanizationtags, and the latter two imply thehumanized@ tag. The obsession with horses is completely irrelevant.

@Background Pony #3CA6  
wrong thread?

There’s been a bit of back and forth over what applies under the tag transgender. Do magical human-to-pony transformations that include a gender change or switch apply? As it’s a rather specific fetish, I thought the, albeit obscure, term ‘autogynephilia’ was an accurate tag for it. I started to tag the posts thusly when I noticed another user began to change my ‘autogynephilia’ tag to the genderbent tag. I followed suit, not wanting to start a tag battle, as ‘genderbent’ is not wholly inaccurate either.
 
However, this didn’t please everyone. You can see the gist of the discussion in this post; >>677394
 
Thoughts?

@Lemonjack
 
Words have more than one meaning; as I said in the comments, this guy is starting trouble for no reason. Transgender is an accurate tag and it’s what most people use outside this site use as well to describe characters swapping genders. Gender swap isn’t entirely accurate because that pretty much implies rule 63 without the transformation, which is why people use transgender.
 
Why change the tag on this site? It will only cause to confuse new comers to the site who are looking for transgender images…And like I said, it’s used pretty much everywhere else I’ve been online. This stupid tag war is a pointless crusade.

@Background Pony #B437
 
Rule 63 would not apply, it’s for existing characters who change gender, i.e. Shining Armor drawn as a mare. ‘Gender swap’ is perfectly acceptable, and if looking for your fetish images, simply search ‘gender swap, transformation’ (note the comma). For a single catch-all tag, I think the ‘genderbent’ tag works well enough, and it does not lump transgender-specific posts with these transformation ones.
 
An appeal to decency; are you really going to equate this >>416828 (deleted) and this >>599829? How about >>93216 and >>662949 (deleted)? Is there really no difference between these images?
 
To treat these two things equally is to suggest that being transgender is a mere fetish. And suggesting the huge emotional toll that transgender people undergo is just a part of their kink… it is insulting and hurtful on a level no one but someone who has to go through it can understand.

A few people in IRC agreed that there should probably be a distinction between broken horns (as in snapped during a battle), vs deliberate and cleanly cut-off horns.  
I can imagine a lot of people wanting to spoiler the latter without missing the former.