Tag Implications

@Dragonpone  

 
Indeed.
 
@Ren  
I try. Though I’m never quite sure if the names given by the cards should take preference over the ones we have here or how official they are compared to other sources.

@Solitude  
A name printed on Hasbro merch or media of any form is no less “official” than names like derpy hooves, which has been completely retconned but remains the only accepted name for the character as far as Derpi is concerned. I think we’ll be okay giving dual-name status to a background stallion with 39 images to his name, most of which are screencaps.

@Ren  
Duly noted.

picnic basket, easter basket -> basket

@Ren  
Derpy I think is an exception since it WAS canonized. They just back-peddled on it because some people found it offensive (doing my best to say no more on the matter, read this with extremely gritted teeth) and have since refused to rename her aside from referring to her generically as ‘muffins’ in the credits.

@Keith Mowz  

 
Exactly. It was, and now it isn’t. That’s implied by “retcon”. I’m not saying I don’t want her name to be Derpy Hooves; in fact, I do. But we should at least gratify the canon print of “Muffins” with a dual-tag situation, like Sweetie Drops or DJ PON3 got. Alas, this is not the case, and such is the way of things I suppose.
 
Just wanted to make my stance clear; as you said, let’s not derail the thread any further with this.

witch hat -> hat  
flying broomstick -> broom, flying  
red moon -> moon

I request that the tail censor -> strategically covered implication be removed.
 
The majority of images that I can see with tail censor tagged are more of the “character purposefully teasing you by covering themselves” variety, which should fall under covering instead. I wouldn’t ask for that to be the implication applied though, as there’s more than enough of the opposite of that for it to be a poor implication as well.
 
I say this because I’m looking through the strategically covered tag right now, and there’s a lot of stuff that doesn’t belong.

@Dragonpone  
Done.
 
@Dragonpone  
Oats must have done these and not responded; in any case, done.
 
@Napsack  
I’d argue that the problem is less in the existing implication and more in the assumed use of tail censor. The word “censor” seems to imply an active effort by the artist to cover certain parts, which is exactly what the strategically covered tag refers to. Covering is used to refer to clear, conscious efforts by the depicted character to cover themselves up. By that logic, “tail censor” and “covering” should not be used together at all. I think we need a different tag to denote a character covering themselves up specifically with their tail. I’ll talk it over with some other staff members and hopefully find a consensus.

@Ren  
I suppose you’re right. We could call it tail teasing, or something like that.

@Napsack  
Going to stick with tail covering, as there may be instances of non-teasing conscious covering. Being embarrassed or shy, for example. I’m working on fixing the now wrongly-tagged “tail censor” images as we speak.

@Ren  
Or simply because it’s utterly pwecious.

@Exhumed Legume  
Utterly pwecious and criminally undertagged. Thank you for pointing me to that one. :)

huge ass, impossibly large ass, large ass -> ass
 
@Ren  
Thanks!  
_…Oats?

@Dragonpone  
Oats is me.
 
Anyway, the reason those don’t imply ass is because off the ass/plot dichotomy thing. .3.

@Rdobet  
Kind of weird that plot and ass are separated by body structure, yet there seems to be no great demand for “big plot” tags – as far as I’ve seen, at any rate.

Satyr plass is best backside anyways.

@Everybody  
We now have a forum dedicated to requesting tag aliases, implications, descriptions, etc. This will allow such requests to be better organized, tracked, and allow for better discussion. You can view the forum here, and please remember to read the how-to guide here
 
As such, this topic is now closed. Thank you for all your suggestions.