DB WORKSHOP: Tag discussion

@Exhumed Legume  
He provided the EXACT same information I’d have provided if I commented BEFORE him (I only needed to echo him since he did first, but you’ll notice _{if you scroll up} that I DID add my own information to it).
 
@Exhumed Legume  

I DID tell you why and I did not say that YOU , specifically, were wrong unless you think it applies to you. Now stop arguing over nothings. >_<

@Vree  
Hmm. I could’ve sworn you’d pitched in more than twi earlier but apparently not…
 
Still, probably would’ve helped if you’d countered with something a tad more substantial than “users don’t know they can search that” and “these aren’t similar”. Nipped the whole thing in the bud, as it were. Oh well.
 

Yeah, that’s pretty much exactly what I thought after TSP’s post – and what (for me) demolished dt’s argument.  
_{Probably should’ve said something at the time, but it can’t be helped now…}

@Exhumed Legume  

And you only asked/suggested what the tag was for after that post, you…fingle fangler. (=charmingly cunning fellow)
 
@Exhumed Legume  

Because that’s what dt’s argument was. THIS one was yours.
 
Seriously read the thread, it’ll do you good.
 
(PS. THAT answer did not go away either. source_url:pixiv is bith something used far more rarely than Japanese tags would come up, AND not neccessarily always the source like you pointed out. Just because there is a stronger argument does not mean this counter also isn’t true for what dt said.)
 
Annnyway if we came to a mutual understanding now with only surface scars then I’m thrilled and honored and thank you for bearing with me.

@Vree  

Not entirely; I was just expanding on / interpreting dt’s argument.
 

I thought I did. For the most part, at least… :P
 

I think we’ll survive.  
Sorry for being an unbearable sperg.  
_{Inb4 “now kiss” :P}

@Exhumed Legume  

>2016 is a tag
 
Yeah, we’re totally not gonna become like e6 when it comes to tagging.

@dt  
Oh shut up.

@dt  
For the love of fuck, stop saying “we” every fucking time you want to bitch about one or two people doing something and the mods not instantly piledriving them into the ground.

Is the unnamed oc tag necessary? It seems just tagging oc without a specific name would suffice, and if for whatever reason you wanted to search for them, searching “oc, -oc:*” would work.  
I suppose there are the cases where an OC has a name but the uploader forgot to tag it, but I dunno how common that is.

@SuperSupermario24  
Very common IMO so that tag doesn’t hurt anyone if there are people out there who are willing to add it.
 
I’m saying “very common” from own experience but also oc,-oc:*** = over 50,000 results.

You guys tagging starry night, you really don’t know what Starry Night is? Really?

Is this the place for tag discussion generally?
 
Sorry if not

@Ragtagx  
Yes, this is where we discuss tags.

Alright, well I’d like to discuss the differentiation between two rather similar tags and what should/would constitute each/both. That is, artistic and casual nudity.

@Ragtagx  
After a quick look through the “artistic nudity” tag, I’d say alias it to “nudity.”
 
It looks like it’s an attempt to make a “nudity but not… like, you know… lewd nudity” tag. Which really just means it’s an alias for nudity.

@Soarinjack
 
Well there is also casual nudity. In my head I would think that based on the terms, post #1128439 (NSFW I guess I have to warn) is artistic, while #1088877 is casual.
 
I think it has a relativity… but generally since ponies are usually naked I would say its a stylistic choice to have the genitalia - ergo artistic if anything. Unless its a situation that is meant to depict a parallel to a human scene, like a nude beach or explicitly stated, that sort of thing.
 
For humans, I would think it would be casual generally, but depending. If its in a scenario where there’s no background (i.e. white) and/or its a non-erotic pose, then I would classify as artistic. But if its on a beach, at a party non-sexually, in nature, or something then I would say casual.
 
What I was thinking is a way to differentiate the two more, and often enough I have tagged both because I don’t know which, and tagging both allowed to later examine it closely.

@Ragtagx  
You can link images by putting >> in front of the image numbers. So for example >>1128439 / >>1088877.
 
I was under the impression casual nudity was for things like anthro/humanized ponies doing normal stuff except in the nude while artistic nudity was for things like anthro/humanized ponies doing the birth of Venus or nude painting or something.

@Soarinjack  
There is a good niche for an “artistic nudity” tag: that’d be images that are suggestive/questionable because they contain nude bodies, but they are not sexual/fetishistic in any way. For example, “fine art parody”+”explicit”.
 
However, a problem seems to be that it is not tagged like that currently at all. I see no difference between the pics it is tagged on and any other nude pic.
 
Don’t alias it no way no never. It is not the same as nudity why’d you do that do you even understand how tags work etc.  
I’d destroy it personally (after trying to check with people who used it in the past to get their input if possible). If someone wants to recreate it in the future and re-tag it in a meanigful way, they can do it.
 
“Casual nudity”: I think this one is self-explanatory, everyday tasks/situations without clothes without the chaarcter paying much attention to the fact. If there’s any sexual/suggestive subtext (eg. the character putting the moves on another character), that should exclude it from this tag.
 
Again, question if the tag is used like that at the moment. These are description-less tags, so people can just tag them whenever atm.

@Solitude  
Pretty much.  
I guess somebody could volunteer to get those definitions & desctiptions approved in the Tag Descroption thread and then retag everything accordingly.

@Ragtagx  
>>1128439 is a fair use of “artistic nudity”, as it shows a scene were actual artistic nudity is show.
 
The thing is, tags are descriptive, not meta. They describe the actual image, not the artistic proces behind or the artists reasoning for their choices. That would be a mess, and would lead to tag wars, because then we would basically be guessing what a stranger was thinking when they drew something. If a character is nude or partial nude in a drawing, it’s nudity. Plain and simple.
 
You can then expand a bit; a chracter posing for a drawing (or the fine arts parody mentioned by Vree above), yeah, you could tag it “artistic nudity”. A character with bedmane. standing in their kitchen cooking breakfast, yeah, that shows “casual nudity”.
 
But (following links are all explicit)…
 
>>1039585  
>>1034653  
>>1030312  
>>1020150  
>>1020477  
>>1020685  
>>1024252  
>>1025113  
>>999574  
>>985434  
>>976645 (merged) (this one would qualify as “casual nudity”)  
>>967874
 
Are not examples of chracters engaging in “artistic nudity”, it’s just “nudity”.
 
Then again, that’s just my opinion.

Just anthro/humanised though? I ask because it’s a lot easier to find the pony-fied images that seem to otherwise fit the tag(s) if they’re separated from the explicit pornography. And making a third tag like nonsexual nudity wouldn’t help either, I think.
 
As long as nothing sexual in there such as sex toys, presenting, or any sort of fluids or something similar are in there it could qualify.
 
 
@Solitude  
Thank you for informing me of the posting codes.
 
@Soarinjack  
fair enough I can agree to this.

@Vree  
Yeah, I have no problem with the “casual nudity”tag, I was talking about the “artistic nudity” tag.
 
And, yes, after looking closer I found a few examples that would fit an “artistic nudity” tag. Keep in mind, my initial post was after a quick look through, and I mostly found nude characters a the beach, posing in Ponyville, xrays, etc.
 
Agree on the “fine arts parody” example. That would be a nice use for the tag.

@Soarinjack  
whoops, typo (mixed up “artistic” in the first sentence), fixed.

Well, you gentlemen/gentlewomen are lovely, and I do thank you for contributing to the discussion. Always nice to hear what someone else thinks.

@Ragtagx  
 
If you look just above the comment box there’s a little […] button. Click that for a list of other things that might help in that regard.
 
As for anthro/humanized, normal ponies are nude regardless so I don’t quite see how casual/artistic nudity would apply there. You’d have most every image tagged with it otherwise.