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.
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?
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.
@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
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.
@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.
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.
@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.
@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.