TeaLeaf 
@Ciaran
Thank you for the clarification, I’ll leave those tags alone, then! This was a very thorough and helpful explanation.
General Tag Discussion
Icicle Niceicle 1517 
Ocs,Boops,Tickles&Memes
Rae Mix and Triste Savoir are both ocs yet they don’t have the “oc:” prefix and colouring, can they be added for them?
(This was before the side had the “oc:” prefx for ocs and i guess they got missed when the prefix was added)
TexasUberAlles 
It makes me warm, deep inside, that we are putting such careful thought into, and using maths to understand, butts.This is a good day.
Brainless-Mind
@TexasUberAlles
Huh? What does this mean, pony-wise?
Huh? What does this mean, pony-wise?
Also,………………….“THAT”S YOUR BUTT!!!”
Background Pony #52BA
I don’t see a DNP rule a tag description for artist:dashiesparkle requesting edits be tagged separately, so why does artist:dashiesparkle edit exist?
Ciaran 
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
@Background Pony #52BA
The tag exists because some times it’s nice to keep the artists work separate from edits of their work. Especially when you’re talking about more than a thousand original works, and nearly 500 edits.
The tag exists because some times it’s nice to keep the artists work separate from edits of their work. Especially when you’re talking about more than a thousand original works, and nearly 500 edits.
And the reason that there’s no DNP associated with it is that the artist is not DNP. There’s lots of artists with a
* edits tag, and I can’t think of any of them that did it through a DNP. Most just ask if we can set it up and we do.Some want it to be a private link, some don’t want a link at all. On some I’ve made I added a public note in the description and on others I didn’t bother because it seemed obvious enough. And I only set up a fraction of all the edit tags that exist and each case usually has some sort of special circumstances surrounding it. Often they result from hours of chats between staff and the artist. Sometimes it’s just the artist asking to get a handful of edits off of their main tag in a way where the image doesn’t get taken down, but they retain their rights without the edits showing up on their profiles.
The easiest answer why there’s nothing telling people what to do with the tags is probably that when the tag was created, 5 years or so ago, we didn’t have any kind of policy how they should be handled so it was probably experimental, and we still don’t because every artist seems to want something else.
Sometimes the artist will take down anything that isn’t on the right tag, sometimes the artist just has one or two editors whose work they don’t want showing up in their own profile’s list of “recent works”.
Those kinds of tags aren’t standardized.
Is the tag causing some sort of problem as it is?
Background Pony #52BA
@Ciaran
Sorry, I confused DNP rules with simply having it instructed in the tag description.
Sorry, I confused DNP rules with simply having it instructed in the tag description.
The problem is only conceptual, that it’s two tags to manage instead of one tag plus “edit” or “-edit”, and that users probably won’t even know about the tag (or that they’re supposed to use it) without instruction*. The existence of such instructions for other artist tags makes it even more confusing - is the absence of a tag description an indication that it’s unofficial? did some user or set of users just start doing it for no reason? is the tag split obsolete? - which are the kinds of questions that popped into my head when I ran into the pair I mentioned, while looking up artist credit for an untagged post.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
友情は魔法だ
@Background Pony #52BA
The oldest edits are 7 years ago. The new tag seems to have been created 5 years ago. There’s no evidence that the artist themselves asked for it or ever used it themselves.
The oldest edits are 7 years ago. The new tag seems to have been created 5 years ago. There’s no evidence that the artist themselves asked for it or ever used it themselves.
Maybe the
*,edit images should be moved the the * edit tag. Maybe a description could be added to each tag making the separation canonical.But the artist hasn’t uploaded anything here for 4 years, so whatever is done, it’s just for legacy purposes. And I’m sorry, but there’s no other information here on the site to go by.
What do you think should be done?
Please note there is nothing unusual about this. And there are other examples of modern or timely
* edit tags where the artist specifically asked that we NOT reference the tags together in any public way, so there is o way to make all the tags like these uniform across all artists, or to provide the information you’re asking for in all cases.I’m not even sure if aliasing them is practical - I haven’t looked to see how each of these tags are being used in filters or watch lists, trying to merge them, or permanently separate them, might have unintended consequences.
Is this a problem now because someone started uploading edits of this artists work again? Or is is this causing some other problem? Because with such old tags, with so many images on them, poking them might cause more problems than it fixes. So it would be good to have a better handle on what the problem we are trying to fix is.
PS: there’s slightly more than two dozen people hiding or watching the edit tag. I’m not sure if removing the ability to do that by aliasing the tags would be a problem. It might be better to move all the edits to the
* edit tag and add some instructions to the descriptions.That said, the uploader of the most recent edits are by someone who has been notoriously difficult to communicate with, so I’m not sure if any instructions we would add would have any effect. The images would probably have to be moved after they were uploaded in any case.
Do you have bulk tag editing and can you just move them? If so, let me know what you think the instructions should say on the tags.
radpanic 
never big enough
@Background Pony #0299
I believe the rule is both tags are determined by the total pixel count, not the height or width.
I believe the rule is both tags are determined by the total pixel count, not the height or width.
For a particularly absurd example, a 16 x 1,000,000 image would still be 16,000,000 pixels, so it would qualify as “absurd resolution”, despite its minuscule width.
Background Pony #52BA
@Ciaran
Well, this has led me down a few tangents, so bear with me as this reply might have some meandering topics…
Well, this has led me down a few tangents, so bear with me as this reply might have some meandering topics…
In your first reply, you mentioned that there are there are lots of
artist:* edit[s] tags, and only a few with descriptions set up…so I looked, and indeed there are. Either I never noticed, or I forgot, or somehow the notion of having noticed the few that do have descriptions blotted out the memory of those that don’t.This led to a few other “interesting” findings: of
artist:* edit[s] tags that have more than 1 post apiece, 704 posts aren’t also tagged with the edit tag - and for the opposite, 2358 posts are tagged with edit and the original, non-suffixed artist tag.I haven’t looked through them closely, so these are only assumptions: I’d guess that posts tagged with
artist:* edit[s] ought to be very likely to truly be edits. The reverse might not be true - I see people, such as artists themselves, misuse tags like color edit or nude edit, which imply edit, while the posts should instead be alternate versions. So, adding edit blindly to the first set might be safe-ish, but the latter (sadly bigger) set probably would need more attention if there’d be an effort to convert to artist:* edit[s] tags.Following a hunch, I searched and found that 542 posts tagged
color edit are not tagged edit - most of which are old, so I’d guess there was a point in time before which color edit didn’t imply edit - and a handful of newer ones like >>1652648 were mis-applications of the tag where edit got (correctly) removed later, but color edit did not. (The hunch was that this was a cause of artist:* edit[s]-tagged posts lacking edit but that didn’t turn out to be significant.)…* edittags where the artist specifically asked that we NOT reference the tags together in any public way …
How in the world do they come up with a notion such as “Everyone must comply. Nobody may be told what the rules are.”
But the artist hasn’t uploaded anything here for 4 years, so whatever is done, it’s just for legacy purposes. And I’m sorry, but there’s no other information here on the site to go by.
Fair enough. An unsatisfying mystery-remains-mystery, but that’s life.
I’m not even sure if aliasing them is practical - I haven’t looked to see how each of these tags are being used in filters or watch lists, trying to merge them, or permanently separate them, might have unintended consequences.
[…]
PS: there’s slightly more than two dozen people hiding or watching the edit tag. I’m not sure if removing the ability to do that by aliasing the tags would be a problem. It might be better to move all the edits to the* edittag and add some instructions to the descriptions.
The reverse could be true, too, right? That people watch or hide the non-suffixed artist tags (whether for the artist I brought up initially, or for any artist) and removing that from posts which are edits and replacing it with the suffixed tags would impact them? It’s potentially messy either way.
Maybe the*,editimages should be moved the the* edittag. Maybe a description could be added to each tag making the separation canonical.What do you think should be done?
In general, I’d be against this. When it isn’t required by the artist, I’d advocate for either replacing the
artist:* edit[s] tags with the plain artist tag plus the edit tag, or - if people really want to be able to track whose work was edited (in complicated situations, for example, where a picture is a composite that includes one artist’s edited work and another artist’s original work) retain the artist:* edit[s] tag and add the plain artist tag and edit.Since you asked what I think “should” be done, pie-in-the-sky-dreaming, this would be yet another situation made easier via the idea PUBLIQclopAccountant and I have described (and LightningBolt dislikes) for a way to indicate tags as being associated together on a post - so you’d just tie
edit and artist:* together instead of requiring a * edits tag for every artist (or “this character’s butt” or “this character with muscles”, etc. ad infinitum)Is this a problem now because someone started uploading edits of this artists work again? Or is is this causing some other problem? Because with such old tags, with so many images on them, poking them might cause more problems than it fixes. So it would be good to have a better handle on what the problem we are trying to fix is.
There is no problem other than a vague organizational problem. I’m not aware of any acute discontent. Although, now that I looked, the tag changes of that one particular artist’s tag are kind of a mess.)
Do you have bulk tag editing and can you just move them? If so, let me know what you think the instructions should say on the tags.
I have the browser extension that facilitates semi-automatic batch tagging. I don’t have any special site account features.
Especially because it looked like you were leaning toward the opposite change that I’d favor, I wouldn’t want to go ahead and perform a sweeping retagging effort on this topic.
Background Pony #52BA
So, I recently spotted the tag square crossover and had no idea what it was for, not appearing to have anything to do with a software company famous for RPGs, nor images of equal width and height…
I then found out I’m not the first to be confused by it, and apparently* it means something like “characters meeting other series’ versions of themselves” - I’m imagining something like if you drew Adam West Batman interacting with Christian Bale Batman? Different enough to be a “crossover”, not a mere “self paradox”.
However, we have more specific tags like “human ponidox”, “generational ponidox” (and -humandox, and -dragondox). Would these be used instead of or in addition to “square crossover”?
Also, does it apply to cases like Equestria Girls meeting MLP:FiM counterparts because they canonically coexist? (Although not remaining as humans and ponies respectively, in situations where they’d be in physical proximity)
*e621’s tag wiki entry for “square crossover” was referenced, and going by that, maybe it had that game company as a trope tag-namer after all…
Brainless-Mind
Does anyone have any ideas for a shipping tag with Feather Bangs, Fond Feather, Swoon Song and Dear Darling?
Background Pony #52BA
@Brainless-Mind
Yes,
Disappointed that the tag is “fondbangs” and not “featherfeather”
Yes,
feather bangs gets all the mares, featherdarling, fondbangs, feathersongDisappointed that the tag is “fondbangs” and not “featherfeather”
Or, “feather bimbettes” because bimbettes is the tag to specify the three of them together.
Fwelin
Should the Raccorn tag be changed to Raccoonicorn? That seems to be the official name as per Lost in Translation.
Background Pony #52BA
Hey everyone!
I have added a short description to Applejack’s Hat And done the full cleaning of Tallulah tag while adding the Applejack’s Hat one instead, the greatest majority of images indeed never warrant that tag to begin with and aj’s hat was better suitable.
Now I do not consider this an alias worthy case and I think this process is completed but if anyone thinks there’s anything else to be done here please voice it up~
Hi, I am voicing up because the tag warring has continued in the 2 years since you performed the cleanup and opted not to alias it to
applejack's hat. So, is it time to alias it yet?
🐴 
IRL 🎠 stallion
May I propose that the funny as hell tag be retired?
The most recent uses of it seem to be some guy spam-applying it to some funny faces from Between Dark & Dawn that are not, in fact, funny as hell. It’s a subjective tag and now being used for some bizarrely specific definition of humor.
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!