General Tag Discussion
Wiimeiser 
(Foil Hat)
@saby
The fact that some of them describe multiple OCs is irrelevant, as their descriptions only belong to one specific OC AFAIK. The description for Aero refers to a character we’ll likely never be seeing again and is owned by an artist who refuses to be associated with the site, I still believe at least that one should have the description reset and implications removed.
The fact that some of them describe multiple OCs is irrelevant, as their descriptions only belong to one specific OC AFAIK. The description for Aero refers to a character we’ll likely never be seeing again and is owned by an artist who refuses to be associated with the site, I still believe at least that one should have the description reset and implications removed.
Background Pony #7C7A
@Wiimeiser
Why delete them though? At least they help distinguish these OCs from other similarly named OCs. Unless, I’m not aware of something, there is literally no benefit to deleting descriptions.
Why delete them though? At least they help distinguish these OCs from other similarly named OCs. Unless, I’m not aware of something, there is literally no benefit to deleting descriptions.
saby 
Moderator
Anti Fun Officer
@Wiimeiser
No I mean the descriptions include more than one entries. It’d be helpful to know which entry you propose should be removed in such cases where multiple ocs with the same name are described.
No I mean the descriptions include more than one entries. It’d be helpful to know which entry you propose should be removed in such cases where multiple ocs with the same name are described.
Background Pony #7C7A
@Background Pony #52BA
Some of these images appear to be “historically significant”, but some of them seem to be random, at least to me. I think it’s at least partially opinion-based. It might be better to convert it to a gallery.
Some of these images appear to be “historically significant”, but some of them seem to be random, at least to me. I think it’s at least partially opinion-based. It might be better to convert it to a gallery.
Background Pony #7C7A
The hoof hold and dexterous hooves tags seem to both mean the same thing in practice: “hooves holding objects as if hands were holding them”.
The hoofsies tag is simultaneously used for the hoof-stamps from Coloratura, the word “hoofsies”, the hoof version of footsies or just hooves being present on the image. At least the latter doesn’t belong here.
Many of the marking tags are duplicated, mostly because of “marking” vs “markings” versions. For example facial markings / face markings / facial marking / face marking
EDIT: I’m surprised to find only two tags for items attached to hooves: hoof attachment and hoof strap . Are there more common tags for this that I didn’t think of?
The hoofsies tag is simultaneously used for the hoof-stamps from Coloratura, the word “hoofsies”, the hoof version of footsies or just hooves being present on the image. At least the latter doesn’t belong here.
Many of the marking tags are duplicated, mostly because of “marking” vs “markings” versions. For example facial markings / face markings / facial marking / face marking
EDIT: I’m surprised to find only two tags for items attached to hooves: hoof attachment and hoof strap . Are there more common tags for this that I didn’t think of?
radpanic 
never big enough
What’s the policy again on tagging pictures for character traits that are intended by the artist, but not necessarily visible in the pic itself?
Specifically I’m thinking of this artist who draws humanized Scootaloo with a prosthetic leg. For example, here: >>2557094 Hence the “prosthetic leg” and “amputee” tags. Makes sense.
Then there’s:
>>2557399t (deleted)
Same artist, same interpretation of Scootaloo, and the artist added the “prosthetic leg” and “amputee” tags themselves. But the prosthetic isn’t visible in the pic because Scoots is wearing long pants that cover it. So should the tags be on there or not?
Specifically I’m thinking of this artist who draws humanized Scootaloo with a prosthetic leg. For example, here: >>2557094 Hence the “prosthetic leg” and “amputee” tags. Makes sense.
Then there’s:
>>2557399t (deleted)
Same artist, same interpretation of Scootaloo, and the artist added the “prosthetic leg” and “amputee” tags themselves. But the prosthetic isn’t visible in the pic because Scoots is wearing long pants that cover it. So should the tags be on there or not?
saby
Moderator
Anti Fun Officer
@radpanic
IMO on the par of tagging “lesbian” on a random solo picture because you personally think the character swings that way, or “marriage” on a random solo picture of adult Mrs Cake just because she’s canonically in matrimony.
Tag what’s in the image, not meta info about the artist’s headcanon/original canon.
IMO on the par of tagging “lesbian” on a random solo picture because you personally think the character swings that way, or “marriage” on a random solo picture of adult Mrs Cake just because she’s canonically in matrimony.
Tag what’s in the image, not meta info about the artist’s headcanon/original canon.
TexasUberAlles 
@radpanic
So should the tags be on there or not?
Nnnope. The primary purpose of tags is so that those looking for certain aspects of images can find them easily, and so that those who don’t want to see certain aspects can avoid them; if those aspects aren’t in the image itself, someone who wanted them would have no use for it and someone who didn’t want them would have no argument with it.
So should the tags be on there or not?
Nnnope. The primary purpose of tags is so that those looking for certain aspects of images can find them easily, and so that those who don’t want to see certain aspects can avoid them; if those aspects aren’t in the image itself, someone who wanted them would have no use for it and someone who didn’t want them would have no argument with it.
Litrojia 
@Wiimeiser
Unless an artist tells us to take down tag descriptions, I’d rather not set the precedent of doing so. Artists sometimes do rescind takedowns, and at least for those OCs, images from other artists are still present on the site (we don’t do takedowns of OCs). I removed the broken image links though.
@Background Pony #52BA
I see value in it, despite it being curated mostly by one person.
@Background Pony #7C7A
The impression I get on the hoof hold tags is that “hoof hold” refers to objects being held with hooves in any ways, while “dexterous hooves” refers to objects being held or manipulated (ie. playing a guitar or using a keyboard) in ways that hooves shouldn’t be able to do but hands could. If that seems reasonable, I may update their definitions to make that clearer.
On “hoofsies”, the first definitely warrants it, and second probably. Third unlikely, fourth definitely not.
Those marking tags should be aliased.
On your last comment, I don’t know of any synonymous or similar tags.
@radpanic
The others are correct, and that image should not have those tags. While we have Rule #2’s clause on artist’s intent, that only applies when something is visible but ambiguous in an image, not for cases where external context is required.
Unless an artist tells us to take down tag descriptions, I’d rather not set the precedent of doing so. Artists sometimes do rescind takedowns, and at least for those OCs, images from other artists are still present on the site (we don’t do takedowns of OCs). I removed the broken image links though.
@Background Pony #52BA
I see value in it, despite it being curated mostly by one person.
@Background Pony #7C7A
The impression I get on the hoof hold tags is that “hoof hold” refers to objects being held with hooves in any ways, while “dexterous hooves” refers to objects being held or manipulated (ie. playing a guitar or using a keyboard) in ways that hooves shouldn’t be able to do but hands could. If that seems reasonable, I may update their definitions to make that clearer.
On “hoofsies”, the first definitely warrants it, and second probably. Third unlikely, fourth definitely not.
Those marking tags should be aliased.
On your last comment, I don’t know of any synonymous or similar tags.
@radpanic
The others are correct, and that image should not have those tags. While we have Rule #2’s clause on artist’s intent, that only applies when something is visible but ambiguous in an image, not for cases where external context is required.
Background Pony #52BA
The hoof hold and dexterous hooves tags seem to both mean the same thing in practice: “hooves holding objects as if hands were holding them”.
Yeah, I’d have thought “hoof hold” would be for the general case of holding things between hooves, not hand-like.
“dexterous hooves” is for more than just holding things, though.
“dexterous hooves” is for more than just holding things, though.
Many of the marking tags are duplicated, mostly because of “marking” vs “markings” versions. For example facial markings / face markings / facial marking / face marking
Please feel free to make a thread listing any obvious duplicates so the appropriate mods can set up aliases.
Algebroot Neogears
Sci-fi & Dragons
Do screencap comics require tags for the sources of all the screencaps used?
Background Pony #0299
@Algebroot Neogears
It’s always been logical to me that they should whenever possible.
It’s always been logical to me that they should whenever possible.
Algebroot Neogears
Sci-fi & Dragons
@Background Pony #0299
That’s what I was thinking. But I’ve seen at least one comic that had none tagged (not even the generation each screencap was from for previous generations). I already added the tags to that comic after seeing they are missing, but I decided to ask just to be sure whether it’s important to do so.
That’s what I was thinking. But I’ve seen at least one comic that had none tagged (not even the generation each screencap was from for previous generations). I already added the tags to that comic after seeing they are missing, but I decided to ask just to be sure whether it’s important to do so.
Background Pony #ED18
I’d appreciate any help identifying other characters and franchises in this; based on the artist’s other pictures there are characters from Hetalia, maybe Touhou, not sure what else.
I’d appreciate any help identifying other characters and franchises in this; based on the artist’s other pictures there are characters from Hetalia, maybe Touhou, not sure what else.
saby
Moderator
Anti Fun Officer
@Background Pony #ED18
I got quite a few Hetalia characters. Unnamed remain:
I got quite a few Hetalia characters. Unnamed remain:
- angel facing human RD
- the trio beneath them
- the flustered short haired ch nearby
- “I am a pretzel”
- poofy lolita dress with fish on head behing large Russia and Japan
- sparkly blond bastard next to her
- crowned ch “Gilbert is best pony” (might be artist avatar)
- cloak “…”
- FIRST SQUAD
- and the entire bottom slice
radpanic
never big enough
@Background Pony #ED18
On the bottom right, the girl with the zig-zag pattern on her skirt is Cirno from Touhou. I’d assume this means the other two are also Touhou characters, but I don’t recognize them.
On the bottom right, the girl with the zig-zag pattern on her skirt is Cirno from Touhou. I’d assume this means the other two are also Touhou characters, but I don’t recognize them.
Background Pony #7C7A
@Litrojia
Yes, descriptions would be helpful. There are pictures tagged with “dexterous hooves” that don’t match your description. But if this description is not formal, it can’t really be enforced.
“Hoofsies” could also use a description, so it can be cleaned up.
Yes, descriptions would be helpful. There are pictures tagged with “dexterous hooves” that don’t match your description. But if this description is not formal, it can’t really be enforced.
“Hoofsies” could also use a description, so it can be cleaned up.
Litrojia
@Background Pony #7C7A
I added descriptions to “dexterous hooves” and “hoofies”. On further consideration, I decided to limit “hoofsies” to just Coloratura’s stamps, because the other uses don’t really need tags.
I added descriptions to “dexterous hooves” and “hoofies”. On further consideration, I decided to limit “hoofsies” to just Coloratura’s stamps, because the other uses don’t really need tags.
Background Pony #7C7A
Reference contains a lot of images that should be tagged reference sheet instead.
NightStalker
I feel like barely eqg related should, y’know, imply Equestria Girls because, y’know, it’s right there in the tag’s name.
Background Pony #ED18
I would again like to request help tagging some characters:
Everyone is tagged I think except for:
Everyone is tagged I think except for:
- any Danganronpa character (the source tagged danganronpa but no names)
- if there’s a tag more specific than “pokemon trainer” for the hat-wearing character in the top-left: Pokemon wikis identify them as “Green” or “Blue” depending on region and I didn’t see such a tag
-~~ the pink-haired character at the far left, above Fenneko~~ Natsuki (DDLC) - the brown-haired and green-haired characters at the very top, immediately right of the artist’s name
- the dark-haired, drooly-mouthed character below aforementioned green-haired character, to the right of Hatsune Miku
-~~ the purple-haired, drooly-mouthed character at the far right, below Fionna and above Retsuko~~ Yuri (DDLC)
-~~ which lion that is :P~~ has been tagged Nala
The two humans in the middle are the artist and their partner.
Thanks in advance~
Pulse Wave
Busy procrastinating
Could pomf (yes, this exists, it’s more fun when combined with wingboner) and sproing please imply onomatopoeia?
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!