Should they get the MLP tag if there is no sign of it being related to MLP? (regarding post #721185 )

Lyokira said:
Should they get the MLP tag if there is no sign of it being related to MLP? (regarding post #721185 )

My argument against: They should not because it requires pre-knowledge of the character and the assumption that the character currently shown is actually tangibly related to MLP (due to the lack of evidence otherwise). Just because something is called a duck doesn't mean it's a duck, and if it's drawn as a fantastic species that looks like any other bird, I'm not going to consider it a duck. (now replace duck with pony and bird with pegasus)

Frankly, I think you deserve a red mark for shit stirring. You know damn well that you're supposed to put that sort of thing in the reason field of the tagging form.

Beanjam said:
Frankly, I think you deserve a red mark for shit stirring. You know damn well that you're supposed to put that sort of thing in the reason field of the tagging form.

Maybe he's legitimately asking for other people's advice.

He's not going to get nearly the number of responses just looking at the "Reason for editing" field.

Huskeee said:
Maybe he's legitimately asking for other people's advice.

He's not going to get nearly the number of responses just looking at the "Reason for editing" field.

I also think he has a legitimate question here.

I'm asking because I don't want to get into a tagging war with someone else. We've already exchanged tags twice.

Currently the guidelines are set more/less like this:

• friendship_is_magic - Only canon things/characters that are directly associated with Friendship is Magic get the tag. Rarely needs to be added manually since there are so many character implications already in place.
• my_little_pony - Friendship is Magic, Equestria Girls, MLP-styled fan_characters, older generation ponies. Basically most everything pony/brony related ends up with this tag.

The split of friendship_is_magic/my_little_pony was partially intended to separate canon from non-canon, and partially to separate new pony from old pony.

As long as a post is reasonably MLP-related it's fine for it to get the tag. Since my_little_pony is one of the more commonly blacklisted tags, we generally prefer to keep it overtagged rather than leave it undertagged (and run the risk of the blacklist not working as expected).

There are also stylistic cues that, while they aren't exclusive to MLP, they do at least convey some association to MLP. For instance:

• Thick, stubby, soft, often featureless legs and hooves, usually lack feathering or fetlocks (though some characters still have it).
• Smooth body (e.g., lack of fur tufts)
• Cutie mark
• A more pronounced, squarish jaw in male characters
• A more bird-like head in female characters. (g4) (g1-g3 have more horse-like features here)
• Eye with a large, distinctive colored pattern around the iris (g4) or symbol in the sclera (g3)
• A simple curved line used to mark the inner ear

Beanjam said:
Frankly, I think you deserve a red mark for shit stirring. You know damn well that you're supposed to put that sort of thing in the reason field of the tagging form.

The reason field is barely looked at by most people unless there is a conflict going on. As long as the discussion stays civil there's no reason that the comments can't be used for that purpose as well.

Though, if it's related to changing/building guidelines for a particular tag, it's better to bring it up with the forums instead, as it's a lot easier to keep track of discussion on the forums than the comments section of some random post.

Beanjam said:
Frankly, I think you deserve a red mark for shit stirring. You know damn well that you're supposed to put that sort of thing in the reason field of the tagging form.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfM57Ec_rQM

Beanjam said:
Frankly, I think you deserve a red mark for shit stirring. You know damn well that you're supposed to put that sort of thing in the reason field of the tagging form.

I'm sorry, who are you?

Beanjam said:
Frankly, I think you deserve a red mark for shit stirring. You know damn well that you're supposed to put that sort of thing in the reason field of the tagging form.

Sorry boss

While we're on this topic, is there any reason why all the canon names end in _(mlp)?

Kaeetayel said:
While we're on this topic, is there any reason why all the canon names end in _(mlp)?

Mostly for standardization, as some of the names are potentially the same as other characters or just a common word in general. (Though I'd personally argue for the names to end in _(fim) instead, as there're several character names which are reused between generations but look nowhere similar.)

Note that if the name is unique enough, it's generally aliased to the _(mlp) name anyway, so people can search for either and still get the same result.

parasprite said:
Currently the guidelines are set more/less like this:

• friendship_is_magic - Only canon things/characters that are directly associated with Friendship is Magic get the tag. Rarely needs to be added manually since there are so many character implications already in place.
• my_little_pony - Friendship is Magic, Equestria Girls, MLP-styled fan_characters, older generation ponies. Basically most everything pony/brony related ends up with this tag.

The split of friendship_is_magic/my_little_pony was partially intended to separate canon from non-canon, and partially to separate new pony from old pony.

As long as a post is reasonably MLP-related it's fine for it to get the tag. Since my_little_pony is one of the more commonly blacklisted tags, we generally prefer to keep it overtagged rather than leave it undertagged (and run the risk of the blacklist not working as expected).

There are also stylistic cues that, while they aren't exclusive to MLP, they do at least convey some association to MLP. For instance:

• Thick, stubby, soft, often featureless legs and hooves, usually lack feathering or fetlocks (though some characters still have it).
• Smooth body (e.g., lack of fur tufts)
• Cutie mark
• A more pronounced, squarish jaw in male characters
• A more bird-like head in female characters. (g4) (g1-g3 have more horse-like features here)
• Eye with a large, distinctive colored pattern around the iris (g4) or symbol in the sclera (g3)
• A simple curved line used to mark the inner ear

The reason field is barely looked at by most people unless there is a conflict going on. As long as the discussion stays civil there's no reason that the comments can't be used for that purpose as well.

Though, if it's related to changing/building guidelines for a particular tag, it's better to bring it up with the forums instead, as it's a lot easier to keep track of discussion on the forums than the comments section of some random post.

I get that yes. My point is that the image has no such stylistic cue at all, and if not for them being named fan characters, could be easily be mistaken for a conventional feral pic instead.

(Also, the issue with using the comments is that the other tagger and me are effectively at an impasse.)

Lyokira said:

Mostly for standardization, as some of the names are potentially the same as other characters or just a common word in general. (Though I'd personally argue for the names to end in _(fim) instead, as there're several character names which are reused between generations but look nowhere similar.)

Note that if the name is unique enough, it's generally aliased to the _(mlp) name anyway, so people can search for either and still get the same result.

"Some" isn't the same as "all" though. It makes sense to separate, say, Spike, but what of other characters? Where else will we find a Fluttershy, or Rainbow Dash? Sorting by generation makes sense, but just giving a general suffix does not.

Lyokira said:
I get that yes. My point is that the image has no such stylistic cue at all, and if not for them being named fan characters, could be easily be mistaken for a conventional feral pic instead.

(Also, the issue with using the comments is that the other tagger and me are effectively at an impasse.)

The style of the ear is reminiscent of MLP, in that particular case, but yeah, I think I might like a general answer to this question anyway.

Kaeetayel said:
"Some" isn't the same as "all" though. It makes sense to separate, say, Spike, but what of other characters? Where else will we find a Fluttershy, or Rainbow Dash? Sorting by generation makes sense, but just giving a general suffix does not.

For sorting or searching purposes it doesn't matter as the unique name would be aliased to the tagged name anyway. Again, the purpose is standardization; It'd look even more odd if only half the character list is tagged as such.

Lyokira said:
For sorting or searching purposes it doesn't matter as the unique name would be aliased to the tagged name anyway. Again, the purpose is standardization; It'd look even more odd if only half the character list is tagged as such.

Not really. If uncommon names are left blank and common names have the subtag, then it would make sense as that's how pretty much every other group is tagged.

It's a MLP fan character, so the tag is fine to stay on there.

Kaeetayel said:
While we're on this topic, is there any reason why all the canon names end in _(mlp)?

I have no idea where it came from, but I've found it's lot easier to handle bulk implications when they have a suffix. Without the suffix I need to make sure each character name is unique and before approving it, which isn't always easy to figure out. This can be extremely time-consuming ends up requiring a lot of careful planning and judgement calls.

However, with the suffix included I can skip all of that since I only need to verify that it is related to the franchise to approve it, which takes seconds to Google in most cases.

Put another way, it's highly unlikely that an implication like character_(franchise) -> franchise would cause significant tagging issues.

Lyokira said:

(Though I'd personally argue for the names to end in _(fim) instead, as there're several character names which are reused between generations but look nowhere similar.)

Aside from the effort needed to move everything over, this might not be a bad idea. It would definitely reduce confusion as to how to tag MLP characters.

• applejack_(eg)
• applejack_(fim)
• applejack_(g1), applejack_(g3) OR something like applejack_(pre-fim)

Thoughts?

parasprite said:
It's a MLP fan character, so the tag is fine to stay on there.

I have no idea where it came from, but I've found it's lot easier to handle bulk implications when they have a suffix. Without the suffix I need to make sure each character name is unique and before approving it, which isn't always easy to figure out. This can be extremely time-consuming ends up requiring a lot of careful planning and judgement calls.

However, with the suffix included I can skip all of that since I only need to verify that it is related to the franchise to approve it, which takes seconds to Google in most cases.

Put another way, it's highly unlikely that an implication like character_(franchise) -> franchise would cause significant tagging issues.

Aside from the effort needed to move everything over, this might not be a bad idea. It would definitely reduce confusion as to how to tag MLP characters.

• applejack_(eg)
• applejack_(fim)
• applejack_(g1), applejack_(g3) OR something like applejack_(pre-fim)

Thoughts?

I would say to add mlp in front of those.

• applejack_(mlp_eg)
• applejack_(mlp_fim)
• applejack_(mlp_g1)
• applejack_(mlp_g3)

We're obviously going to need a disambiguation tag, to ensure that the post will be tagged with the proper iteration.

EDIT: It just hit me that this should be in the tagging forum.