General Tag Discussion

@Background Pony #A8E1  
Added that detail.  
I’m also possibly the one who added “Pony” to images where it wouldn’t apply. Mass-tagging search can only be so accurate. So feel free to fix those if ya come across em.

Is there a tag for images like >>405323 that involving tugging at one’s eyes?

@Zaknel  
eyelid pull, sorta.

@Dragonpone  
Thank you. With five days off, I’m gonna roleplay and do many metedata updates.

Is this see-through?  

@Depressed Knoll  
yes

@StrangeGirl  
Than that’s her vagina.

@Depressed Knoll  
It’s not that see-through.

@TexasUberAlles  
Well, it certainly looks like her vagina, and not just a cameltoe to me.

The vagina is an internal organ, is what I’m saying.

@Dragonpone  
Oh, akanbe is apparently also a thing  
~a thing that could maybe be made to imply eyelid pull and tongue out

subway seems to have several meanings: images with urban trains, images directly related to the sandwich shop Subway, and sandwich censorship with sandwiches that may or may not be from Subway. Could this tag get cleaned up a bit?

That’s gonna be difficult, since people who are tagging a random submarine/hoagie/hero/po’boy/whatever sandwich as subway are probably too dumb to pay attention to any changes that get made regardless of how sensible those might be.
 
Maybe make a subway (sandwich shop) tag for images directly related to the franchise restaurant and a sub (sandwich) tag for any with an appropriate sammich in ’em, and let subway be for the actual literal underground commuter train?

…Fukkit, I cleaned up the subway tag myself because the kind of windowlicking idiots who use the name of a franchise restaurant to refer to food from that franchise restaurant– “Let’s get Subway to eat, *tee hee!*”– really piss me off; I have a lot of filters to hide stupid shit so I’m sure I didn’t get all of them, but I at least cut five pages of returns for the subway tag down to three by eliminating anything that didn’t directly reference either underground public transportation or the restaurant chain itself.

RE images of satyrs that depict only the human parts: should they be tagged human?
 
Example (Suggestive):  

This image is blocked by your current filter - click here to display it anyway

your current filter.

@Damaged  
We’re not on e621, so I’d say no.

@Damaged  
That’s a bit of a bad example ’cause it shows her upper legs.

@Depressed Knoll  
Pretty sure that would be questionable as the definition for questionable is “vague outlines of genitals or genitals that are almost visible”
 
But.. idk… I changed it back to questionable for the meantime

@OneOverTwo  
I didn’t realize what they were, I thought she was wearing hose.
 
@Deserter  
I’ve seen images on there, not really browsed the place or anything. *shrugs*

@Damaged  
e621 tags by “What you see”, so for example, there’s a chick with no breasts but with visible female genitalia it’s tagged as “cuntboy” even if the artist says otherwise.  
We do the opposite here, we tag by what the artist says, unless it’s blatantly obvious that it’s not, like if the artist says they drew anthro when it’s clearly a human.

Does that look like a cameltoe to anyone else?  

@Depressed Knoll  
I think so.

Thoughts on creating something like a where were you hiding that? tag, for scenes where somepony pulls something out of, let’s say… “thin air” when they clearly hadn’t been carrying anything before?

@TexasUberAlles  
Isn’t that what the hammerspace tag is for?

should we really be putting the futa / cuntboy tag on images of transgender characters..? it seems a bit… well… insulting and inaccurate, personally.