General Tag Discussion

@Blissful690  
Don’t do that, bro.

implications  
filthy dirty married sex -> good clean married sex
 
aliases  
micro skirt -> microskirt  
horse shoes -> horseshoes  
color -> colored

@saby  
I’m pretty sure that the first suggestion contradicts each other.

@Meanlucario  
Nope. All “good clean married sex” means, is sex between canonically married couples. It’s “good clean” sex in the sense that it’s not out of wedlock. No other qualifiers.
 
For another seemingly contradictory pair of tags that often go on the same images, “anatomically correct” and “anatomically incorrect”.

I’m a bit confused. As expected, the majority of suggestive eating pictures are tagged, well, suggestive.  
However, the tag guidelines list “Sexual acts (but not sex) with things representing genitals (such as licking a sub sandwich/horn like a penis)” as questionable. And looking through the tag, I’d definitely increase the rating of a few pictures.  
So where exactly is the cutoff? We really could use some clear rules here.
 
Just some examples:  
is tagged suggestive, questionable right now. What is it?  
I can see being just suggestive, but add an ahegao or another person and… Still suggestive or more?  
And this…  
Last but not least, the thing that made me aware of this issue, someone changed the rating on the blushing, panting, drooling Pinkie I uploaded earlier from questionable to suggestive. >>1783892s (deleted) Is it?

@Yoshimon1  
Looks like a fun mess.  
To start with, seems people were occasionally tagging the ambiguous “sub”, almost never “sub sandwich”, but were tagging the broader “sandwich”; I’ve corrected the “sub” tagging to “sub sandwich” for now.  
As for the ratings, it’s obvious there are a lot of edge cases. We very much want hornjobs and subjobs questionable, but tongue-waggling a hot dog might be better off suggestive. This might warrant a minor update to the tagging guidelines once I’ve sorted through the images (and rerated the most obvious cases).
 
EDIT: The two mostly black and white ones I’ve set to questionable.  
Looks like the key problem here is the current ratings guidelines focus on licking and any sex act.  
I’ve put in new wording that’ll be up shortly that instead focuses on sex/ejaculation and that the sandwiches are stand-ins and doesn’t even mention licking.  
I also merged that awkward “genital representations” thing into sexual innuendo in suggestive.

 
Pony cannonball tag for this, yay or neigh?

@warc9  
Was she shot out of the cannon? I forget.

@Princess Luna  
Sounds good.

Does picture need an actual bubble to be tagged speech bubble?  
For example, should these be tagged? >>1783689 >>1784434

@cattyca  
I’d say yes and no, they shouldn’t.  
Without an actual bubble, it’s just dialogue.
 
In related news: There’s lots of dialogue pictures with speech bubbles missing the speech bubble tag. Looks like a nice job for someone with mass tagging tools.

Well, every party needs a pooper and that’s why I’m here, I guess.
 
Guys, sundown’s Rarity really doesn’t need her own dedicated tag. juliette d’rarie Especially a tag made by one user, no less. If anyone really needs to find her so bad, this will work just fine: artist:sundown,ry

If I understand correctly, pictures with multicolored manes should be tagged as, well, something like “multicolored mane”.  
But there is two tags: multicolored mane and multicolored hair, and the latter appears to be more popular, and is used for both people and ponies.  
So, is tag “multicolored mane” redundant, or most of the related pictures tagged incorrectly, or am I not understanding something?

I’ve been tagging pictures where just 1 character talks as speech. Not sure if that’s fine, given that dialogue involves two or more people. Is there a better term? Does it count as monologue if they’re talking, but there’s no response?

@Background Pony #A8E1  
The word “speech”, to me, only implies that someone is talking. I don’t see any issue with tagging “speech” on a picture with just person, as long as spoken speech is present.

@Background Pony #A8E1  
I always tag dialogue. Didn’t even know we have a speech tag. Though, looking at the tag history, that mostly seems to get tagged by one user.

@Background Pony #A8E1  
Keep in mind that “speech” has another definition (i.e. to give a speech), and that might be what it was originally meant for. It looks like it’s been rather aggressively retagged over the last few months… 35 pages worth of aggressive tagging, I might add, so I couldn’t say what it’s original use was at the moment.

This is chromatic aberration, right?
 
>>1785411
 
Yup, I’m tagging it

is there a reason why this is suggestive? nothing (even mildly) sexual that i’m aware of is going on here nor that I can see.  

@Rainboom Dash  
Yup
 
@Galestorm  
Not a clue. Safeified

Is there a clear distinction between hasbro is trying to murder us and dhx is trying to murder us?

@Galestorm  
Some people like to air on the extreme safe side and tag stuff suggestive ‘just because’  
There is some stuff remotely suggestive in that image.. but nothing actually suggestive.. if that makes sense
 
I’ve learned to just ignore it and let it be.. who cares if something safe is tagged suggestive
 
What I mean is a little of the boob is showing, and the rabbit is touching it.. but it’s an animal.. and it’s not doing anything suggestive.. so

@Rainboom Dash  
The people who have ‘suggestive’ in their filters, perhaps…

@Zaknel  
I have suggestive in my filters and rarely go to ‘everything’
 
I’ve just learned to ignore it… Something awesome may be safe and is actually tagged suggestive but who cares.. it drove me crazy trying to fix all that.. especially with how subjective it is

Like this for example, suggestive why?  
>>1388958
 
Wingboners aren’t suggestive.. and neither is petting.. neither is blushing or sweating
 

 
But Who. Fucking. Cares