General Tag Discussion

@LightningBolt
Sure, but we are talking about solo images. Under what conditions solo image can have different gender tags than ones the only character on image should have? solo female for example is strict equivalent to proposed solo suggestive, female, where solo suggesstive is strict equivalent to proposed suggestive character, solo.
Most important side-effect of solo suggestive(or similarly named tag) is moving tag semantics to its name, which in turn will decrease mistagging, which in turn will improve search quality.

Solo suggestive male/female :)

@uis
Legacy filters. The tag, and solo male, have existed for over a decade. It’s not an easy thing to modify.

@Shade Partisan
What worse? It’s their meaning. Read tag description. I suggested changing semantics as one of options.
Deleting option exists too.
Replacing option means instead of multiple tags they will be combination of two tags. solo female->solo suggestive, female, solo male->solo suggestive, male, solo futa->solo suggestive, futa.

Current tags lead to confusion and mistagging. You can add your ideas too.

@LightningBolt
Then either legacy tags can be expanded to complex filter, either by automatic editing of filters or expanding at query time, or make them some sort of virtual tag.

From what I saw, solo male/female is much more universal on its usage. Also, isn’t it will be weird if you put solo suggestive on explicit/questionable image?

@Shade Partisan
How is it more universal if there are more than 4 solo * tags?
solo female description:

Speaking about name, it can be different if you want. solo sexual, solo provocative. Similar can be done to suggestive character.

Small note: solo suggestive is generalized version of solo female, and suggestive character is generalized version of solo suggestive. I can’t come up with generalized suggestive character which can describe solo female as equivalent query, so just deleting solo female tag instead of replacing will result in information loss.

@uis
Why not just use “solo female, [character], suggestive” instead?

is >>3524560 semi-anthro or unguligrade anthro?

I’d call that anthro with arm hooves. The anatomy is 100% humanoid but with hooves in the place of hands plus a pony head.

No breasts on chest = not anthro

Semi-anthro is the right one

“Sonicified” tag, should imply “mobian”, not the other way around.

So here’s a big sounding tag sorting and standardization undertaking.

Tarot cards. Or at least, the Major Arcana.
For those who don’t know, the Major Arcana are a group of 22 cards in a tarot deck, and their symbolism and names are used in a lot of different media. People have even made pony themed tarot cards.

I’m going to post a list of all of them later, but I wanted to see if I could sort stuff out.

The first thing I wanted to bring up is implications tags. All of those major arcana should in theory imply tarot, but the main issue is that a number of names will have more than one meaning, For instance, the tag the moon auto defaults to just moon, for the actual moon. So it would be important to differentiate them calling them say, the moon (tarot) instead. Or how there’s tags for both The Empress and just plain Empress, and only the former should be used for the tarot thing.

And once I post all the tags I think should be used, do you think these should these all imply tarot? Not all of the images with these tags are trying to be like tarot cards, but there’s a difference. And by that same note, should tarot card imply tarot?

@Toastypk
I think all tarot cards and references to specific tarot cards should have (tarot) appended for clarity and uniformity. (So empress would be for non-tarot stuff and the empress (tarot) for this tarot card and references to it.)

I also think that <whatever> (tarot) and tarot card should imply tarot - after all they are very much related to the concept of tarot. Just like character from a game implies the relevant game tag.

@Background Pony #7C7A
I’m kind of adding the (tarot) to mosr of them for sure, the more common words, but things like The Hierophant and The Hanged Man are so distinct already I don’t see there being any conflict.

@Toastypk
@Background Pony #7C7A
@Toastypk
Why not namespace them properly? tarot:, or perhaps even tarot card:?

Like tarot:the moon, tarot:the empress, tarot:the hierophant and so on. Now there’s zero chance of confusion.

(Yeah, I’m a fan of namespacing everything.)

@JP
imo namespaces should be reserved for ‘important’ things.

I like the idea of suffixes the most

@Algebroot Neogears
Well, animate object doesn’t have a description, so IDK for sure.

I think living object is meant for things like someone being used as a table in straightforward nonmagical ways, and the cases where it’s tagged on transformed characters are incorrect tag usage.

Prior discussion in this thread.

@Background Pony #52BA
I eventually decided on thinking of animate object as being used for absolutely any inanimate object functioning as a living being (but not through transformation). Not sure if that’s its intended usage (may be incredibly off, and may be in conflict with other tags), but it’s my current interpretation.

gum (and bubblegum) implies food? That doesn’t seem right…

I would still add suffixes for consistency.

Should i remove tag “blood” on this art? Pinkie says it is jam. What about a semi-grimdark tag?

@Wing Regent
Prior precedent from the not blood tag seems to suggest safe is probably fine? Unless the image is considered too disturbing at first glance.