Implicating princess_celestia_(mlp) -> princess.

Reason: Since princess_peach implies princess then why not Celestia? Same goes for princess_luna_(mlp), and princess_cadance_(mlp)

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Implicating princess_celestia_(mlp) -> princess.

Hm. I don't know about this one. The reason that it's not implicated is because Peach is the only one in the Mario-verse with 'princess' in her name. Can we get a mod to deal with this?

Renard_Queenston said:
Hm. I don't know about this one. The reason that it's not implicated is because Peach is the only one in the Mario-verse with 'princess' in her name. Can we get a mod to deal with this?

Well, at least pony princesses are actually ruling their subjects (at least Celestia), and are not kidnapped at every occasion. (Okay, besides Cadance, but she is fake. I'm okay with not implicating her.)

That, and I suspect they're not really princesses.

Why do we have a princess tag? How can we tell someone is a princess from the image? What if they're just wearing a costume?

null0010 said:
Why do we have a princess tag? How can we tell someone is a princess from the image? What if they're just wearing a costume?

This. And what happens if that character loses their royal status?

null0010 said:
Why do we have a princess tag? How can we tell someone is a princess from the image? What if they're just wearing a costume?

I guess this is one rare exception to the 'tag what you see' rule.

Renard_Queenston said:
I guess this is one rare exception to the 'tag what you see' rule.

No it isn't. I'm proposing we eliminate this tag.

null0010 said:
No it isn't. I'm proposing we eliminate this tag.

What about royalty tag, and all tags that implies it? If we're doing la revolution, we should them all to guillotine.
Liberté, égalité, fraternité!

Princess is a shit tag, but something like princess_costume should exist because I'm sure that's some sort of fetish.

Yes, princess_outfit, nurse_outfit, that kind of thing is good to have.

Renard_Queenston said:The reason that it's not implicated is because Peach is the only one in the Mario-verse with 'princess' in her name.

princess_daisy
princess_rosalina

720p said:
Princess is a shit tag, but something like princess_costume should exist because I'm sure that's some sort of fetish.

Princess_uniform would probably be the best choice both because it goes along with all the other *_uniform suffixes and because a costume implies that the wearer does not really have the role, which we generally have no way of knowing under TWYS.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Well, at least pony princesses are actually ruling their subjects (at least Celestia), and are not kidnapped at every occasion. (Okay, besides Cadance, but she is fake. I'm okay with not implicating her.)

Cadance rules an Empire, therefore she is an Empress and not a Princess. So she takes social precedence over a beings who throw stars around every day. But that's what you get when you've got a toy company calling the shots on your worldbuilding.

As far as the tagging goes, I'd favor princess_outfit. Uniform has connotations that don't really fit (as does costume, but MaShCr pointed that out already).

Snowy said:
Cadance rules an Empire, therefore she is an Empress and not a Princess. So she takes social precedence over a beings who throw stars around every day. But that's what you get when you've got a toy company calling the shots on your worldbuilding.

As far as the tagging goes, I'd favor princess_outfit. Uniform has connotations that don't really fit (as does costume, but MaShCr pointed that out already).

Silly, in last episode she was kidnapped by changelings and there was nothing more about her. Maybe in season 3 there would be more about her. I'm sure season 3 is going to be awesome, and I'm really getting impatient when it would start.

As for tagging. What about my question? There are 5 tags similar to this: princess, prince queen, king, royalty. What to do with them? What is the difference between two possible tags princess_something, and queen_something cause I'm not sure.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
What is the difference between two possible tags princess_uniform/outfit, and queen_uniform/outfit cause I'm not sure.

Semantics really. As Snowy said, the connotation of an *_outfit suffix would be closer to what we're trying to describe in this case, while the *_uniform suffix already sees widespread use and would make things more, well, uniform.

I may have misread that though. If you're asking what the difference is between someone dressed as a queen and someone dressed a princess, then I have no idea.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
As for tagging. What about my question? There are 5 tags similar to this: princess, prince queen, king, royalty. What to do with them?

I say we keep them and use the same procedure that I suggested we use for all title tags in forum #60884.

MaShCr said:
I may have misread that though. If you're asking what the difference is between someone dressed as a queen and someone dressed a princess, then I have no idea.

I was asking about that. I edited it to be more clear

royal_clothing as a catch-all, maybe?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
As for tagging. What about my question? There are 5 tags similar to this: princess, prince queen, king, royalty. What to do with them? What is the difference between two possible tags princess_something, and queen_something cause I'm not sure.

Well, prince queen is obviously for images of Prince in ladies' clothing... and thus, we illustrate the importance of commas for maintaining sanity.

I have no real idea. There's a reasonably strong stereotype of a princess outfit (long, flowing dress, usually pink, sometimes pale blue, very rarely other colors, with a crown of some sort), but there's not a strong stereotype for outfits for other royals, other than a crown being present somewhere. I'm not sure that they're taggable.

Sounds like a good argument for royal_clothing to me.

I see that this implication passed. Now I see why this was very bad idea. Crossgender tag. Can we remove all character -> princess implications?

BUMP
Can we remove this implication from reasons mentioned above? It was really a bad idea.

BUMP
Third time's a charm, I guess.

This implication is a bad idea.

I deleted it. Not sure why no one else got to this first.