DB WORKSHOP: Tag discussion

@Exhumed Legume  
Something something tea in the harbor.

@VladimirMacHolzraum  
_{I’m not even British… I do like tea, though. But not when it’s salty.}

@VladimirMacHolzraum  
Yeah, I always thought it was specifically >:( so to speak.
 
But, if they’re technically tagged correctly then I’ll leave them be.

Why is the tag for EqGirls Twilight no. 2 “human twilight”? “sci-twi” (or maybe “science twilight”) was more descriptive. We have so many humanized / eqgirlified pony Sparkles, this name seems misleading.
 
oh well

@Vree  
+1
 
@mods:  
So what is the status of the buttershy tag ? Needs more discussion, won’t be done or will be done later?

I don’t really like the wallpaper tag because there are two kinds of wallpapers…
 
Vectors with added effects in a wallpaper ratio, usually where one artist makes a vector and another artist(s) makes it a wallpaper:  
 

 
Landscape-oriented art:  
 

 
The easiest fix would probably be to add the vector tag to all of the former, since most of them already have that tag. Should that be done, or would there be exceptions where the style is similar but it’s technically not a vector? Would there be any use for an entirely new tag? Is this a pointless nitpick like my past suggestions?

@Litrojia  
If we’re ok with the “new tag” route, vector wallpaper could work.

The wallpaper tag is for everything that has a size and aspect ratio suitable for a wallpaper. It doesn’t matter if it’s a vector or an edit or an oil painting- there are other tags for that stuff.

@Litrojia  
Oh, you are right. These are the 2 main types of wallpapers here.
 
I believe the landscape pics should be tagged “scenery” (sometimes even “scenery porn”).

The upcoming MLP movie is being tagged My Little Pony: The Movie.
 
However, the spoiler tag that seems to be the most popular is spoiler:my little pony movie
 
Should the spoiler tag be changed to “spoiler:my little pony: the movie” to match the movie’s tag? Or is that too many colons?
 
Here’s an example of an image that shows the two different spellings for the movie’s name

There are a series of tags that are blatant rule 0 violations.
 
OP is a duck
 
OP is trying to start shit
 
OP is a faggot (really? this exists?)
 
OP is on drugs.
 
The fact that they mention the poster, and not the image, is clearly not “being excellent to each other”
 
These tags should be renamed, or removed outright.

@Background Pony #90AA  
op is a faggot has the following description:  

@SuperSupermario24  
That doesn’t really make it better, you know.

@Background Pony #90AA  
As long as it’s not actually insulting a specific person (which, as per the description, is not the intended use of the tag) it’s not really a violation of rule 0 AFAICT.  
The others I can at least see your point (even if I personally disagree) but this one isn’t intended to be insulting.

@Background Pony #90AA  
Re: OP is a Faggot, speaking as a massive faggot myself, I love this image and would hate to have it lose its tag.
 

 
Without that handy tag, how would I find it when I need it?

@Background Pony #90AA  
I have doubts that removing “op is a duck” would end well & I can’t think of many replacements that would not make some reference to the uploader. _{(Or are you asking that images with those tags be taken down?)}
 
Also, after a cursory glance, “op is a faggot” seems to be for images that literally say “op is a faggot” or some-such rather than an insult to the uploader of images with that tag on it.

@Background Pony #90AA  
The definition of OP is a duck is “The uploaded picture was meant to incite strong negative reactions or make unpopular statements for their own sake.”
 
Tagging images with this makes it possible for people to filter and to avoid these images if they wish.
 
If the tags are removed, how do you propose people filter images that are meant to incite strong negative reactions or make unpopular statements for their own sake?

@Ciaran  
Well, the tag hardly matches the description. So I suppose the answer would have to be change the name of the tag, or make mention of intentional mistagging as being against site rules.

@Background Pony #90AA  
Intentionally mis-tagging images is already against the rules.
 
Are you aware of any images that have one of those tags that has been “intentionally mistagged”? If so, reporting the intentional mis-tagging is probably the best course of action.

@Ciaran  
Ah, so someone intentionally adding a tag that doesn’t apply in order to antagonize actually breaks two rules. Good to know.

@Background Pony #90AA  
No, it breaks one rule. If someone intentionally posts an image to incite strong negative reactions or make unpopular statements for their own sake, they are a duck, and the tag exists to help people filter those images out of their results.

@Ciaran  
And if the tag is being misused by someone to antagonize a poster that had no such intent, that breaks rule 0 and rule 2.

@Background Pony #90AA  
I’m not going to play rules lawyer with you. Nor am I going to agree that we should eliminate an entire suite of tags that are incredibly useful, just because someone used one of them incorrectly, or because someone else doesn’t understand what they are for.

@Ciaran  
Well, the tags could easily be renamed to not break rule 0.

@Background Pony #90AA
 
Your complaint has been noted. No changes will be considered at this time.