General Tag Discussion

@Background Pony #73BC
Inherited tags and inherited tagging. Here they’re more a matter of personal taste instead of a metric of how rules are applied or whether the creator has any rights. This site is, in a lot of ways, what you would get if you removed Rule #1 from Derpibooru. POOF it’s an entirely different universe and things that used to matter simply evaporate into pixel dust before being driven away by a powerful wind of “don’t care”.

What’s the difference between “faceless male” and “offscreen male”? I thought “faceless male” should be used when the male’s head is visible but doesn’t have a defined face (like in the picture below), but this tag implies “offscreen male” for some reason.

https://tantabus.ai/tags/faceless+male
https://tantabus.ai/tags/offscreen+male

@tyto4tme4l
I think that implication is backwards. Offscreen male could imply faceless male, but it definitely shouldn’t go the other way around.

@Scarlet Ribbon
This implication is also present on Derpi.

@Background Pony #1302
Being incoherent in two places doesn’t make it right.

@Scarlet Ribbon
But it means that if it gets changed, it should get changed in both places.

@Background Pony #1302
Not necessarily. This site is not that site, and some of the implications and tags on that site are from more than a decade ago. And for those very oldest of all implications that came from when implications first came into existence in BooruOnRails, those implications have had time to evolve and expose a great number of “whoops, that isn’t actually useful” or even “Holy shit that was a mistake how do we fix it?” along the way.

For example, the short definition of faceless male is “a male character is partially present (physically)”, and to me that sounds more like how offscreen male is used - even though that really has become a term that means NONE of the male is onscreen, but that’s what we have implied [foo] tags for.

So … We aren’t Derpi. We inherited their tags because it would have been dumb to abandon the enormous amount of tagging that had already happened on the images we imported, and along with those imports came the whole spider web of ‘how all these tags fit together’. But, over time, we keep finding dumb tags, or dumb implementations, or flawed alaises. Many things that made sense when they were created but over time have ended up being dumb.

Maybe, just maybe, The Old Ones who created the infinite potential and chaos that was the soup from whence Derpi was birthed made mistakes that Derpi could never rectify because The Old Ones still haunted their database to such an extend that their mistakes and “Try this let’s see if it works” ended up becoming crystalized like ancient diamonds.

2LDR: Maybe we can tag intentionally and over time our tags will end up better. Sometimes tagging changes on Derpi make sense and can benefit us. But sometimes they look wrong or cause problems that we don’t want to deal with, or have dealt with in different ways. This specific set of tags? Looks wrong to me.

I would not be comfortable making those implications without a good long chatting with the tagging wonks and an even longer “let’s sleep on it”.

After all, on this site something with 8K tags is 10% of the database, and that’s a great bit old chunk of images to retroactively apply or remove tags from when an implication changes.

@Nocturn
To me, offscreen male sounds like he’s depicted (not just implied), but mostly off-screen. This mostly means only legs or hands are depicted.

Faceless male sounds like male without a face. If we go in the direction the tag description tries to define, I guess the description should say something like “he’s mostly there, but his head is out of the frame”.

>>89919 has some generation errors that look like the model couldn’t decide if it’s making a safe or an explicit image. I can’t really think of a good way to rate this image.

@Background Pony #1302
We could always pretend she’s got some stains on her butt.

Another rating question: >>90666 is tagged safe, but for some reason it’s also tagged “implied foalcon” and gets horny comments. IMO if it really is safe, then it shouldn’t have those, and if I’m missing something and there is a reason for those then perhaps it shouldn’t be rated safe.

@Background Pony #1302
I am not one of the tagging wonks, but just from glancing at it, “implied” means it isn’t actually, and that some may infer it. Someone inferring that it is foalcon doesn’t make it foalcon any more than an image of a chair that someone wants to fuck means the image or the chair is explicit. It does also look like the excessively horny or otherwise inappropriate comments were deleted. If you think the image should be rated something else, please explain how, using this site’s rules and tagging guidelines, it should be rated instead?

@Nocturn
I generally agree with you here, but I think in the case of the source image there is an argument that the image is suggestive in the first place, though its definitely borderline.

Using implied sex as a standard, there’s only TWO images on the entire site that have both implied sex and safe tags, and I’d argue that implied sex isn’t accurate to one and that the other is incorrectly tagged as safe when suggestive is more accurate. implied foalcon is definitely less safe than implied sex.

@Nocturn
I agree that implied X isn’t X, but either there’s a reason for that tag, or the tag should be removed.

I mean, imagine if this image was tagged “implied fluttermac”. Either there is something on the image related to Fluttershy x Big Mac, or the tag is wrong.

“Sky Beak” and “Ocean Flow” need to be made into character tags.

@Healthy Clop
Looks like those are done now.

aliased piledriver -> piledriver position

We need a tag for human buttocks.

@Background Pony #DCE0
https://tantabus.ai/tags/ass

@tyto4tme4l
These things also wind up on horses.

A reminder: from behind is a sex pose tag. Just a pic of a character viewed from behind, even an explicit one, does not warrant that tag, there has to be sex going on. Use rear view instead!

@Felagund
If you find someone consistently mistagging that, please report them for Rule #2. I can talk with them and find out what the problem is, and how to fixie it - maybe a better description or something? Or maybe it’s something just talking to a couple people will fix.

@Nocturn
Honestly, I think this is more of a case that people just assume that tags mean what they are. Like “solo female” means “a single female with no one else present”, and yet the tag is not used that way. I would consider this a flaw of the tagging system as a whole: tags need to better reflect what they mean. It’s kinda asinine to expect users to go and read the detailed description of literally every tag to make sure that tags mean what they say.

Even in this case, “from behind” officially is described as ‘doing it from behind’, as the tag specifies intercourse, and yet it is FREQUENTLY used in images that are more correctly “presenting”. Edit: Which I just realized is the actual complaint, I thought we were discussing the camera angle for some reason. In any case, ‘from behind’ sounds like a camera angle: from above and from below are both camera angles.

@Scarlet Ribbon
Agreed. Maybe changing it to “from behind position” would be better.
There are several other vague tags that could be changed, like “anatomically correct” to “equine vulva”, or “horse pussy” to “horse pussy (meme)”.

@Scarlet Ribbon
You’re right, it’s a confusingly named tag. doing it from behind or from behind position would make it much more clear.

@tyto4tme4l
Yeah, anatomically correct is also too vague, and it sounds like it means a lot more than what it actually does.

In case there’s a vote someday, I’m definitely in favor of changing both into something clearer.