General Tag Discussion

@Background Pony #A8E1  

 
My understanding is that we call it obscured if the penis/strapon/whatever is not seen in the whatever-is-penetrated … so internal views might not actually be fit for the tag…  
Not sure how others see that though?

 
These two OCs are twins and this kinda sort of looks like shipping (but it could be ambiguous). Should I tag this as incest, implied incest, or just leave the tags alone and don’t put either in here?

@mjangelvortex  
I’d lean towards no, with the replacement question: “Would this be tagged incest if it were Twilight Sparkle and Shining Armor?”

@Princess Luna  
Fair point. It could be seen as harmless platonic stuff. It’s not like they’re locking lips or actually doing the nasty together.

@mjangelvortex  
I must mention that I believe that we overtag shipping on fanart, I think it should require some kind of actual interaction, not just implication that the two are in a relationship, same as what we do with screencaps. For now, that works when the implications aren’t very obvious, at least.

@Princess Luna  
That’s a good point. I see what you mean.

Sisters and Brother and Sister implied Siblings, but Brothers didn’t until I added it just now.
 
Wonder how someone could miss that.
 
I anyone wants to add Siblings to the images with the tags I mentioned that are missing it, go for it.

@LightningBolt  
Good idea. Thanks for the suggestion.

Anybody care to go through vine and retag the pics that are based on vine videos as vine video so that vine and vines can be aliased?

@cheezedoodle  
I won’t mind.

@cheezedoodle  
And done. I even added some extra ones for some specific vine memes. And I had to take off the vine tag for pictures of wine too (since I’m assuming wine is called vine in other countries).

@mjangelvortex  
Thank you to you and Dragonpone for doing that.

@cheezedoodle  
You’re welcome. He was a big help so I’d like to thank him too.
 
Now onto the sibling tags.

The Baby Doll tag could really use a little clean up in regards to the character and the doll.

Changelings in the comments is a tag that exists. Do we really need it, or should it be nuked?

@GenericArchangel  
I assume it’s for images where there are a lot of users with changeling avatars in the comments? It does seem rather silly. I tend to change mine frequently, and it’s just for a little bit that I have such.

@Damaged  
It is for that reason but we’ve gotten joke tags like that before like “Zeb trolling in the tags.” It seems harmless to me.

@mjangelvortex  
Right, but there’s the simple case that the tag will become irrelevant if/when the users change their avatars.
 
Plus the rule:

 
Tags for things like story in the comments and such are useful for the site, because it is a statement of content. Something to just show a bunch of users commenting have changeling avatars at the exact moment the tagger sees the comments is IMO, a little far beyond the scope of tags.

@Damaged  
Fair point. I noticed the first one, the people in the comments were specifically talking about the Changeling avatars in the comments section. So maybe that’s where the trend started. A person put it in one of the tags and then kept going.

sugarcube is currently being used for two fairly different things – cubical lumps of sugar and instances of Applejack calling people sugarcube. Should it be split?

@Frustration in Excelsis  
>>1925104 simply shows what to do:  
sugar cube for cubical lumps of sugar and  
sugarcube for the name call.

@Wildcard71  
I don’t see why a space would separate the two, AJ is using the cubical lump name as a term of endearment…

Applejack audibly runs it together into a single pet name when she says it, but the more obvious reason to separate them is that people searching for images with cubical table sugar probably don’t care about affectionate applehorses and people hiding countryisms probably don’t hold any grudges against tea sweeteners.

@TexasUberAlles  
So maybe Sugarcube (pet name) and Sugarcube (food) could be tag ideas to seperate the two?

@TexasUberAlles  
sugar cube (object)?