Posts

@Cyan Lightning  
Plus whatever further material may or may not be released in the future. FiM may be done, but the broader franchise is still active.

@NotADeliciousPotato  
If I recall rating guidelines correctly, unedited official material should always be tagged safe in any case.

Arguments aside, I had a look and a very significant majority of the polyamory ships do not, in fact, imply their component ships – it’s easier to list the ones that do (shidancie, bonlyrabon, sweetiebloomloo, sunset twiangle, and promberlista, specifically; I may have missed a couple, but those were the ones I found).
 
The R63 ships trixgleamstone and shimshamjack imply their gender-swapped counterparts (startrixburst and flimflamjack) but neither they nor their counterparts imply any of their components.
 
Thus, out of the 123 tags that imply “polyamory”, only seven imply another ship and only five of those imply a component ship.
 
I’m not going to venture an opinion on what official policy is or isn’t, because frankly I’m not familiar with that part of tagging policy, but based on what implications on existing tags are I can understand how people would believe that poly ship tags are not meant to imply their components. If indeed they are, someone should probably have a look at adding those implications at some point.

@lonewolf  
Easy on the conspiracy theories, there.

@Zincy  
I’m not entirely clear on what benefit a sports company turning a profit would provide in front of a major virus outbreak.

@Litrojia  
Hmm. There’s been so much added to the tag that I can’t really tell what it was originally used for. Right now it seems to cover griffons, hippogriffs and pegasi acting like birds, cute griffons, hippogriffs and pegasi and instances of the word “birb” being used. The last… I don’t think it really needs a tag; the first is already covered by the “[x] doing bird things” family; and if you want to find cute pictures by species you only really need to search “[species], cute”.
 
I dunno, this seems too diffuse to pull a specific meaning out of it, and I’m not sure if it really provides any particular utility.

@Typhoon2000  
What, and risk hurting the stocks?

@SúperFrío23  
Best way to make a link is to look up the tag you want (then preferably clicking on it to go to the tag itself rather than the search, it’s no different in practice but the link syntax is cleaner) and copy the url in the bar at the top of your browser. The icons above the comment box (the ones including the options for bolding, italics, spoilers, etc.) include one that looks like two links in a chain. Highlight the word you want to make into a link, click on the icon, paste the url in the box and click “ok”.
 
Alternatively, you can write them like I have here – if you click “quote” beneath a comment, the comment’s text will be copied into the comment box, including the syntax.
 
Cottonbelle  
Pepperdance  
Chocolate Tail

@TheGlitchedWolf  
Another thing that occurred to me now is that I’m not certain if “bug” is the best implication for Bug-types. The “bug” tag is aliased into “insect”, currently, and while that may be what they’re called in their home franchise it doesn’t reflect how “insect” is used on this site – things like spiders and anomalocarids aren’t… actually insects, although Ledyba and Venonat certainly are.
 
Can’t think of any other real issues beyond that, though.

@TheGlitchedWolf  

 
I would say that it’s because it’s used for the entire franchise, not for Pokémon as a group of creatures – images relating to other aspects of the franchise, such as pokéballs and Pokémon trainers (1, 2 ), ponified human characters (1, 2 ), humanized characters and OCs (1, 2 ), canon characters wearing outfits from the series (1, 2 ) and straight crossovers (1, 2 ) all get the tag even with none of the actual creatures involved.

@saby  
Like @Princess Trixie vi Equestria said, it’s generally customary to tag every applicable character in an image regardless of relative role, but I understand where you’re coming from – if I’m searching, let’s say, “applejack, shipping”, I’m probably not going to be too interested in that image. I can see why one might find “incidental” character tags useful.
 
That being said, the main issue I can see arising is that people might not have the same ideas about what counts as incidental. As things stand now, tagging is a simple binary – is Character/Thing in this image? If yes, tag. If no, don’t tag. Deciding whether a character does or doesn’t have a major role is more subjective, and I can see how it might end up fomenting tagging drama – there would be a lot of images where a character is obviously incidental and a lot where they obviously aren’t, and then there would be a fuzzy area in between where the arguments would arise.
 
TL;DR – I agree that such a tag category be useful, but I also worry that it might invite tagging drama.
 
Thoughts?

@ZONESS  

 
Exactly. There’s now way to determine whether any given hat is or isn’t the one in question, because they all look identical anyway, and if it’s applied to all hats then applejack’s hat does the same job and is much more intuitive and well-known.

@Princess Trixie vi Equestria  
I tend to agree. It doesn’t seem to be used in any meaningfully different sense from the main coloratura tag anyway.

@Melisareb  
Amnesia: The Dark Descent is a real-life video game. Amnesia The Dark Descent: Justine seems to be a slight misnaming of Amnesia: Justine, an expansion pack for the aforementioned game.
 
My Little Amnesia doesn’t seem to have any common artist, and most of the images with that tag were tagged as such or uploaded by two people, so I don’t know if it refers to any specific fan work or is just a catch-all tag for ponified art of the video game.

Does anybody know if we have a tag for that thing like a long strip of cloth that hangs between someone’s legs? Like what Rarity’s wearing here.  
>>2267015t (deleted)  
Failing that, does anybody know if it has a name?

@Markiz93  
Hmm. A lot of the images under duck pony seem to be what behaving like a duck seems to cover… which might be fine, but if so they don’t strictly need to be distinct tags, and duck pony shouldn’t be brown. That said, “duck pony” sounds a lot more like species tag than a “behavior” tag, so I feel that a lot of what’s under it right now might be best retagged under behaving like a duck.
 
Overall, I think duck pony may be trying to cover three things at once – pony/duck hybrids, ponies colored like ducks and regular ponies whose legs aren’t visible. I’m not personally familiar with the tag, so I can’t tell how this works out for people who use it more habitually, but might this be a bit confusing? I suppose that situations where a pony is deliberately drawn to be evocative a bird swimming in the water (which there seems to be a lot of) probably fit the spirit of tag, but I don’t think it should be tagged on every image where a pony character’s legs just happen to be hidden.

@icey wicey 1517  
Yeah, it should probably go.

@Amity (徐詩珮)  
Should that imply Bubble Sparkle’s parent tags?

@Dragonpone  
In regards to Surprise, I’d honestly be tempted to keep the basic tag for the G1 character and put the G4 one under “surprise (g4)”. I’m given to understand that she’s a fairly focused-on character in the G1 cartoon, but I can’t think of any occasion where the G4 version has so much as had a spoken line. I don’t think she’s even named in the show.

Seems to me that flurry heart’s story probably warrants a color change.

Regarding Rarity’s eye – Safe or Semi-Grimdark?  
>>2250085t (deleted)

@Dragonpone  
Eh, I’d say just color the tag.

@Princess Luna  
Given the nature of the images tagged with it, I think that monster pony might be a better alias. Not many of the images in the tag seem like what gets tagged with monster under normal circumstances.

@Badumsquish  
This may just be me being nitpicky, but wouldn’t it make more sense to call it a “tatzelwurm pony” or somesuch? For the sake of clearness, mostly. A one-letter difference in species names sounds like the kind of thing that would work fine if you’re in the know, but would probably lead to some unfortunate mistagging or aliasing down the line.
 
EDIT: Ah, never mind, that would probably just lead with confusion with tatzlponies.
 
Also, there don’t appear to be any images under the linked tag.

@Litrojia  
Hmm. The “writer:*” tag seems to have originally been added to comics where the artist and the writer are different people, which can be useful, but I don’t think it should apply to images where there’s no, well, no writing.