Posts

@LightningBolt  
@Dogman15  
Agreed. MLP characters should get the “default” tags; other works’ characters should get the parentheticals.

@Background Pony #B2D9  
@Damaged  
In any case, friendship lessons has more uses.

@JP  
Ah, that’d do it.
 
In any case, I’ll have a look at the tags sometimes tomorrow unless someone beats to it.

@JP
 
Hmm. Looks like asterisks don’t parse when trying to link to a tag search. Odd.
 
Anyway. I looked up “character:*” tags instead of the search for “character:” that the link’s syntax ended up leading to – I can’t link directly because, again, the site doesn’t seem to be aware that the asterisk is supposed to be part of the link – and I think I see what you mean. There don’t seem to be many of these tags, but they should probably be replaced with the usual “oc:*” ones because they seem to mean the same thing.

@Damaged  
The issue with “eldritch abomination”, I think, is that it’s a fairly subjective term that can mean some pretty different things to different people, so nailing down a strict definition for it could be… tricky.
 
I mean, as far as I can tell “eldritch abomination” essentially means “big nasty horrible thing”, “horrible thing beyond human compression” and things like that, but how horrible is horrible enough? How big is big enough? It seems like something of a I-know-it-when-I-see-it situation, which isn’t the best guideline to have when you need to arbitrate things.
 
That being said, on a quick and not especially in-depth look through that tag, I feel like a lot of what’s there might be better off tagged monster or something more specific instead. A few images probably shouldn’t even be tagged that.

@Background Pony #B2D9  
That’s how I’d do it, personally.

Should this be safe or semi-grimdark? Or safe with the “grimdark in the description” tag?  

@LightningBolt  
I think I got most of the images; I’ll see later if there were others of those characters that hadn’t been tagged. If you could recolor the tags, though, that would be appreciated.

Reanimating this thread, because it seems the most logical place to air something I just became aware of.
 
So. Two of the ponies here, specifically the dark blue unicorn in the foreground and the white earth pony with a light blue mane in the back  
 
Are being tagged as Blue Belle and Majesty, after the G1 ponies with those same names. Both appear to be wiki names.
 
Besides the usual issues, my biggest gripe here is that the G4 background ponies don’t actually look very much like their G1 naming inspirations. G1 Majesty was a unicorn and G1 Blue Belle and earth pony, to begin with, and the original Blue Belle had a much lighter coat than this one and a lilac mane – which ironically might make that a decent name for the light blue unicorn in the foreground, but she’s already Diamond Mint.
 
The fixing job should be fairly minor, as only a few G4 images are tagged as this, but given that people seem to re-add the tags after removal the creation of alternative tags seems like a good idea.

@Frustration in Excelsis  

 
Additionally, artist:phyrethefyredemon is now artist:phobicalbino
 
Also, I feel that artist:princessmoms and artist:overlordneon should be merged, being as the latter is the only one making art for the former. There should definitely be a blog tag for the former, though, to distinguish material from that specific askblog.

@Background Pony #D97D  
Definitely.

Today in Living With a Cat: popping into the bathroom to attend to business, and just when you’ve sat down your cat pushes the door open and wanders in because he wants to hang out.

@mjangelvortex  
Can’t say. I think it’s probably part of her carrying over her base model’s cutie mark? Seems like a convenient coincidence overall.
 
In any case, I’m tossing in Rosy Dawn as a potential name.

@Pulse Wave  

 
I think it’s a rainbow like Rainbowshine has.

There’s a couple background ponies from “Winter Wrap Up” that are still green tags, Wind Chill and Bluebird Happiness. They were both named by one-user tagging sprees and without any discussion I could find, but given that they’re one-shot bit characters with less than four or five images each who haven’t seen use in either fanart or the show itself in years, I think it’s probably fine to keep them as they are.

@ArmadilloEater  
I don’t necessarily think that the connotations are that much of an issue here, but I do agree that a description on one Youtube video isn’t really enough to require renaming a tag.
 
That being said, this seems like a relevant juncture to bring up a topic I raised on the subject of this particular tag a while back.

bittern (->bird==])  
glowing one (->fallout, possibly ghoul==])  
lumber bear (->bear==])  
map spider (->spider==])  
meadowlark (bird) (->bird==])  
pike (fish) (->fish==])  
quagga (->zebra==])  
skvader  
thunderbird (->bird==])

@cheezedoodle  
Personally, I tend to assume that part of a set refers to things that are thematically related but not directly linked (such as a group of designs following a specific theme but without being causally linked, for instance, or scenes set in a shared setting but without an implied or explicit narrative) whereas part of a series refers to something with a clearer temporal connection running through it (like what’d get a “comic:” prefix if it had a title).
 
Mind, that’s entirely based on my own understanding of what “set” and “series” mean rather than hard evidence of how those tags are used in practice.

@Dragonpone  
If the two tags are kept separate, which might be an option, then I think there should be a clearer separation between them – say, having princess twilight 2.0 refer specifically to images of Celestia-like Twilight linked to “The Last Problem” and ultimate twilight to all others, and ideally make that clear in their descriptions. Alternatively, perhaps princess twilight 2.0 could serve as a subset of and imply ultimate twilight under the same definition.
 
The main issue to me is that there isn’t necessarily a great visual distinction between the two, so without context it might be difficult to tell whether a given powered-up Twilight is or isn’t a reference to that specific episode, unlike how Daybreaker has a fairly distinctive design.  

 
Hmm. Hadn’t thought of that, but if they stay separate then princess twilight 2.0 definitely should, and ultimate twilight probably should also.

This seemed like the kind of thing that people here would find interesting; there’s a description to go with it, although the bulk of it has to do with the artist’s broader fan universe specifically.  

I brought this up some time ago but it did not get much attention, so given shifts in the relevant context since then here we go again:
 
There are currently two tags, princess twilight 2.0 and ultimate twilight, which mean exactly the same thing. princess twilight 2.0 seems to have been created to refer to what Twilight looks like in “The Last Problem”, but is applied fairly indiscriminately to any image where Twilight has a Luna- or Celestia-like bodytype, resulting in the two tags being entirely synonymous in what they’re used for. I don’t see much of a benefit in keeping them separate.
 
princess twilight 2.0 implies spoiler:s09e26, which, if it keeps getting added to pre-Season 9 pictures that have nothing to do with that episode, is kind of an issue.
 
princess twilight 2.0 currently has far more hits, but ultimate twilight has seniority and harmonizes better with ultimate chrysalis, ultimate luna and ultimate cadance. If we’re using a family of tags with closely related meanings, it would make sense to use a shared template for them.
 
So. What do?

lividcreativity changed their username to bootsdotexe.

@Tarkan809  
He hasn’t died in any generation so far, so that’s probably not gonna happen.

G4 didn’t necessarily need a comprehensive tag previously, on account of being the “default” gen – it had enough content compared to everything else that it was easier to simply tag every other gen and assume that untagged images were G4 – but I think there’s a very good possibility that that won’t be the case for much longer, especially once G5 drops. It’s of course impossible to know what the future will be like, but I think it’s fairly likely that we’ll be getting the same influx of screencaps and fanart that we do now for G4.
 
I don’t think we need a G4.5 tag as such, since there’s only one show for it and it’s already got a tag, but I do think we may end up needing a G4 tag further down the line. Once we have enough G5 material here (and presumably G6, G7, and so on further on, depending), simply going by context to tell what image pertains to which gen probably won’t be a very good system anymore.
 
More succinctly – I don’t think we need a dedicated G4 tag now, but I definitely think we’ll end up needing one sooner rather than later.

I suppose this goes to show that you really can’t trust leaks.