Tag Alias: royalty -> invalid_tag

Reason: A vast majority of images tagged with "royalty" do not make it clear that said character is royalty (no crown, robe, throne, castle, etc.) and therefore violates TWYS. One of the greatest violators here is Bowser. Yes he is indeed KING Koopa, but again, it's "tag what you see" not "tag what you know". If someone were to see an image of Bowser whilst knowing nothing about him (is that even possible?) they would be at a loss as to why the "royalty" tag is there. The way I see it, there are 3 options here as to what to do with the royalty tag.

1) Give it a serious cleaning. (300+ posts to go through. Oh what fun!)

2) Nuke it from orbit

3) Blissfully ignore the problem and simply accept that it's just a "natural violation" of TWYS. BUT if we do this, we have to make a "List of Natural TWYS Violations". Or we could more appropriately call it "List of Tagging Issues That We Acknowledge The Existence of But Will Never Actually Be Fixed Due To The Tedium Involved In Correcting Them"

I vote for either 2 or 3

I vote for 1

Same here, option 1.

I vote for 1 + changing name of tag from royalty to royal_clothes or something. There was discussion about this in forum #63881

Okay, so after some searching I've found that I'm attacking this problem from the wrong angle. It seems as though the tags king, queen, prince, and princess all implicate royalty, so we have to clean these tags before we can clean royalty.

These posts with these 4 tags associated with them face the same problem that the royalty tag does: a majority of the posts have nothing within the picture to indicate that any character within is a king, queen, prince, or princess and are tagged solely on the basis of common knowledge. This of course violates TWYS.

Now here is a good question: Is a character's royal title being in the name of the character alone enough to merit the corresponding royal title tag? For example, should an image be tagged "princess" just because it is also tagged "princess_peach"? even in cases where there is nothing else in the picture to indicate that she is a princess? I'd think not. If somebody doesn't know who princess peach is, they would just look at the picture and think its just some blonde chick with a stripper name.

FatherOfGray said:
For example, should an image be tagged "princess" just because it is also tagged "princess_peach"? even in cases where there is nothing else in the picture to indicate that she is a princess? I'd think not.

Besides everything else there is another reason. There are no special tags for crossgender characters so princess_* can be male.

FatherOfGray said:
...the tags king, queen, prince, and princess all implicate royalty, so we have to clean these tags before we can clean royalty.

I agree that it shouldn't be tagged with a royal related tag unless it looks somehow like royalty, because character known stuff isn't TWYS. But I never understood what separated a prince from a posh looking male, or a princess from a queen, etc.

So my question is: do we really need all 5 tags? Or should all of it be aliased into "royalty"/"royal_clothes" etc? I actually avoid using those tags because does a scepter make it "royalty" or should I just tag it with "scepter" [what I usually do]? Should a regal fur_trim cloak or crown make it royal, or should they just be tagged separately and let the interpretation stay out of it?

The only ones I'm sure fit the tag are ones that have several traits on the same person. And even then, I wouldn't know if should use prince, king, or queen, princess, especially if they're herm or intersex. The fact the tags are gendered doesn't make it ideal for tagging. So I just use "royalty" if a royal tag is for sure needed.

Although I guess "Princess" as a concept has that stereotypical cone hat with the streamer associated with it, which is one way to define it. But even then, should that just be tagged with something like "princess_hat" or "princess_costume"?

Your forgetting of course that since royalty = princess, and princess = MLP that the rules for tagging don't actually apply.
Like in all things MLP.

Halite said:
Your forgetting of course that since royalty = princess, and princess = MLP that the rules for tagging don't actually apply.
Like in all things MLP.

I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking this, but how does princess = MLP? Aren't only one or two characters princesses? If it weren't for size of the MLP fandom, and therefore potential mistaggers, I'd say disney would be a bigger culprit for misunderstandings on what constitutes a princess.

In any case, since these royal titles are peripheral to a lot of different fandoms [bowser, princess peach, disney, zelda, etc] I think we need some kind of official definition for it at least. I think leaving it a TWYK mess is a slippery slope but that may just be me. At this point they aren't even defined as anything ( most of their wikis are empty). And that is going to contribute to the problem of them being used for anything and everything that can be thought of as "royal".

furrypickle said:
I have a feeling I'm going to regret asking this, but how does princess = MLP? Aren't only one or two characters princesses? If it weren't for size of the MLP fandom, and therefore potential mistaggers, I'd say disney would be a bigger culprit for misunderstandings on what constitutes a princess.

In any case, since these royal titles are peripheral to a lot of different fandoms [bowser, princess peach, disney, zelda, etc] I think we need some kind of official definition for it at least. I think leaving it a TWYK mess is a slippery slope but that may just be me. At this point they aren't even defined as anything ( most of their wikis are empty). And that is going to contribute to the problem of them being used for anything and everything that can be thought of as "royal".

Well,
A: there's 4 princess, that I know of and I have never seen a single episode so there may be even more.
B: When I said princess = MLP I meant more that altering the tag in any way would potentially affect MLP image tags and therefor would lead to the typical arguments that always happen as a result. Those arguments typically resulting in an issue going unresolved and ignored, or an exception being made.

(presses *) NO STUPID PHONE!! I PRESSED 1!!

Halite said:
Well,
A: there's 4 princess, that I know of and I have never seen a single episode so there may be even more.
B: When I said princess = MLP I meant more that altering the tag in any way would potentially affect MLP image tags and therefor would lead to the typical arguments that always happen as a result. Those arguments typically resulting in an issue going unresolved and ignored, or an exception being made.

Implication princess_celestia -> princess was already removed. There was no riot on the site. No admins were hanged. Seriously, you have some serious problem with MLP.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Implication princess_celestia -> princess was already removed. There was no riot on the site. No admins were hanged. Seriously, you have some serious problem with MLP.

Hey now, don't be a hypocrite Gilda, you act the same with Pokemon issues

Ontopic:
I'm skeptical about leaving anything but royal_clothing. I think that it would be better to alias everything (royal, princess, queen, etc) to one tag. If not, then what is the difference between queen/queen's_clothes and princess/princess'_clothes, and similarly for prince and king?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I'm skeptical about leaving anything but royal_clothing. I think that it would be better to alias everything (royal, princess, queen, etc) to one tag. If not, then what is the difference between queen/queen's_clothes and princess/princess'_clothes, and similarly for prince and king?

Exactly my point and I have to agree. It also has the advantage of avoiding the question of who is royal or not. If it's not royal clothing (aka appearance), then it doesn't get the tag. It's a lot more TWYS based, and might work better than what we have now. And it also simplifies things by putting it all in the same place. Which, makes it easier to look or search through. I don't think the other ones are needed, and they're naturally more problematic. And "royal_clothing" is clearer than "royalty".

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Implication princess_celestia -> princess was already removed. There was no riot on the site. No admins were hanged. Seriously, you have some serious problem with MLP.

And yet, princess_celestia images continue to get the princess tag regardless of whether or not they deserve it.
No one complained because it didn't effectively change anything.

I only take issue based on previous experience, more rules have been changes, ignored, or broadened because of MLP than any other reason that I've seen.

I personally have no issue with MLP in general, the characters, or the content on this site.
I simply take issue with all the complaining and rules problems it(or it's fans) creates.

Okay, I have a suggestion, but first I need to know this: If dialogue in an image mentions the royal authority of a character and that character is also present within the image, is that enough to justify the use of tags like king, queen, prince, princess and royalty?

If it is NOT, then here is my suggested course of action:

Step 1: Create the "royal_object" tag. This is NOT to be used to tag characters, only objects generally accepted to be of regality, such as a crown or a throne or a scepter.

Step 2: Alias king, queen, prince, and princess -> invalid_tag, for it is impossible to distinguish without the use of outside information who is really a royal authority figure and who is just playing dress-up.

Step 3: Alias royalty -> royal_object

Step 4: Go through all posts tagged "royal_object" and get rid of the tags where they are not appropriate

Any problems with this, anyone?

FatherOfGray said:
Okay, I have a suggestion, but first I need to know this: If dialogue in an image mentions the royal authority of a character and that character is also present within the image, is that enough to justify the use of tags like king, queen, prince, princess and royalty?

I'm against tagging based on what character says. I know that it's overused example, but what if cat says "I'm a dog!"?

Step 2: Alias king, queen, prince, and princess -> invalid_tag, for it is impossible to distinguish without the use of outside information who is really a royal authority figure and who is just playing dress-up.

Why not also alias them to royal_object?

Other than that I think that I'm okay with this.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I'm against tagging based on what character says. I know that it's overused example, but what if cat says "I'm a dog!"?

I agree completely

Why not also alias them to royal_object?

Because people aren't really considered objects. (they can be, but hey, semantics) I suppose since all of those royal positions already implicate "royalty", I can see how that would be the more efficient way to go about things.

Sure, make it happen. :)
I'm just glad something is finally being done about this. I feel as this issue has been on the back burner for far too long.

FatherOfGray said:
I'm just glad something is finally being done about this. I feel as this issue has been on the back burner for far too long.

I wouldn't be that optimistic. Until at least one admin say something in this thread I dare to say that nothing has been done yet.

FatherOfGray said:
...Create the "royal_object" tag. This is NOT to be used to tag characters, only objects generally accepted to be of regality, such as a crown or a throne or a scepter...

Most of those suggestions sound fine. But wouldn't a royal_object tag be redundant? Because we already have all those royal objects in their own tags:

• scepter
• crown
• tiara (although I'll be honest, idk how that's different from crown)
• cloak
• gold
• throne
• castle
• palace

etc...

I just don't see how we actually need a tag for "royal_object" when every royal object or icon I can think of already has its own tag. And I wouldn't want them being combined, because most of them could show up under other contexts. And it's nice to have them on their own. But what I could see as being useful is to create a wiki hub for "royal" and have it list all the "royal objects" for easy reference. That way someone goes "oh he looks royal" they can refer to the list for tag ideas or browsing inspiration. Would that be possible?

furrypickle said:
Most of those suggestions sound fine. But wouldn't a royal_object tag be redundant? Because we already have all those royal objects in their own tags:

• scepter
• crown
• tiara (although I'll be honest, idk how that's different from crown)
• cloak
• gold
• throne
• castle
• palace

etc...

I just don't see how we actually need a tag for "royal_object" when every royal object or icon I can think of already has its own tag. And I wouldn't want them being combined, because most of them could show up under other contexts. And it's nice to have them on their own. But what I could see as being useful is to create a wiki hub for "royal" and have it list all the "royal objects" for easy reference. That way someone goes "oh he looks royal" they can refer to the list for tag ideas or browsing inspiration. Would that be possible?

I'm sure that a wiki for it can be made, of course. Makes sense to me. And the royal_object tag is not redundant. Simply make all of those objects implicate royal_object, just like we implicate all of the different kinds of sex toys to the sex_toy tag.

Some images have crowns and stuff :V I'm guessing some mlp is ruining this tag now?

FatherOfGray said:
3) Blissfully ignore the problem and simply accept that it's just a "natural violation" of TWYS. BUT if we do this, we have to make a "List of Natural TWYS Violations". Or we could more appropriately call it "List of Tagging Issues That We Acknowledge The Existence of But Will Never Actually Be Fixed Due To The Tedium Involved In Correcting Them"

There are quite a few tags that already get this treatment. I made a partial list of them a while ago. Partial only because I don't know for sure if I got them all or not.

forum #69548

Royalty is actually one of the ones I addressed.

Yup, option one, clean it up

Well... Cleaning it up didn't work.
qase just (re)tagged almost every Bowser image with king and royalty.

Any other ideas?

Genjar said:
Well... Cleaning it up didn't work.
qase just (re)tagged almost every Bowser image with king and royalty.

Any other ideas?

Clean up users that oppose. By ticket system. I'll try to undo his changes.

First page of his tag history undone, but I can't get his second page. I understand reasons for this, but there should be error page.

Currently I'm removing with tag script king and royalty from the most pictures tagged with bowser king -princess_peach -crown -throne

Erm, sorry, but in regards to Bowser, his name is quite literally King Koopa to the majority of the world, including in the USA; Bowser was his Anglicized name, by that got integrated into his original ( 大魔王 クッパ Daimaō Kuppa, or Great Demon King Koopa) to make him 'Great Demon King Bowser Koopa'. It's an intrinsic part of his character, like how Peach is Princess Peach, even though often she isn't in a princessy outfit.

123easy said:
Erm, sorry, but in regards to Bowser, his name is quite literally King Koopa to the majority of the world, including in the USA; Bowser was his Anglicized name, by that got integrated into his original ( 大魔王 クッパ Daimaō Kuppa, or Great Demon King Koopa) to make him 'Great Demon King Bowser Koopa'. It's an intrinsic part of his character, like how Peach is Princess Peach, even though often she isn't in a princessy outfit.

We're not tagging them as a princess/king/whatever just because it's their name. Princess Celestia implication to princess was already removed.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
We're not tagging them as a princess/king/whatever just because it's their name. Princess Celestia implication to princess was already removed.

That was removed because of gender reasons, NOT because of the "royalty" tag. We ran across problems where a male "princess_celestia" was being tagged with "princess", which obviously wasn't correct.

However, even still, we can't go by name alone because there's still the possibility that someone who is traditionally "royalty" might instead be portrayed as someone who ISN'T royalty (like a beggar, merchant, etc). You wouldn't want to find images like that when searching for royalty, unless it's made clear that the point of the picture is for the viewer to see the character AS royalty performing a "commoner's" role, or something like that. I'd imagine the artist would clue you in if that's the case (like maybe he's sweeping floors but still wearing his crown).

Char said:
That was removed because of gender reasons, NOT because of the "royalty" tag. We ran across problems where a male "princess_celestia" was being tagged with "princess", which obviously wasn't correct.

However, even still, we can't go by name alone because there's still the possibility that someone who is traditionally "royalty" might instead be portrayed as someone who ISN'T royalty (like a beggar, merchant, etc). You wouldn't want to find images like that when searching for royalty, unless it's made clear that the point of the picture is for the viewer to see the character AS royalty performing a "commoner's" role, or something like that. I'd imagine the artist would clue you in if that's the case (like maybe he's sweeping floors but still wearing his crown).

Some good points there, but I have to disagree with you that just because you're depicted as a pauper means that you aren't royalty. Quite a few royals were broke and lived in a large mansion that they couldn't pay the upkeep for, let alone servants or good meals, or simply never had anything to their name to begin with; many younger sons and more distant relatives to a monarch did not have anything given to them, and lived very poor lives if they didn't make anything of themselves, yet they were still royalty by blood (which often came into use via plotting to put a particular child onto the throne after being a part of his or her rearing; in the case of females, often with the inclusion of marrying them to become monarch directly as well).

Additionally, I was more addressing people saying that Bowser isn't a king because there isn't a throne or crown; he has no badge of office other than his body. It could be argued that his horned head and massive shell are his badges of office, but that almost seems stretching it. And yes, I know, the Nintendo Comics System and the related Super Mario Bros. Super Show with the King K. Rool lookalike that DOES wear a crown. It's the exception to the rule.

123easy said:
Some good points there, but I have to disagree with you that just because you're depicted as a pauper means that you aren't royalty.

In which case it shouldn't be tagged as royalty.

tony311 said:
In which case it shouldn't be tagged as royalty.

I'm not arguing that royalty should continue to exist as a tag; it's a tag where it's more about who the character is than it is about the specific things you can see about them (generally, wealth in physical form) that define them as a monarch or the child of a monarch, and as such belongs more in the catagory of sets and/or pools than it does in tags. After all, you can have a thief sitting on a pile of treasure wearing a crown canted to the side, but that doesn't make him a king. Similarily, you could have Richard the Lionhearted wearing peasant's garb and he'd still be recognized as a king.

123easy said:
I'm not arguing that royalty should continue to exist as a tag; it's a tag where it's more about who the character is than it is about the specific things you can see about them (generally, wealth in physical form) that define them as a monarch or the child of a monarch, and as such belongs more in the catagory of sets and/or pools than it does in tags. After all, you can have a thief sitting on a pile of treasure wearing a crown canted to the side, but that doesn't make him a king. Similarily, you could have Richard the Lionhearted wearing peasant's garb and he'd still be recognized as a king.

See, I don't think it's so much about the character as it is about a "theme". What does the picture itself indicate? What is it trying to tell you? Who the hell is this guy? I have no idea, but he DOES look like royalty to me.

Char said:
See, I don't think it's so much about the character as it is about a "theme". What does the picture itself indicate? What is it trying to tell you? Who the hell is this guy? I have no idea, but he DOES look like royalty to me.

He looks like the stereotype of "king" that we've come to expect from playing cards, yes. :P To counter, https://e621.net/post/show/265310 is a king, and definitely looks like royalty to me. It's more about the presence of the character, the bearing, the mien with which they hold themselves. https://e621.net/post/show/383906 for example, looks more like a usurper, a Prince John type of character, not an actual king- even though there is a throne and a crown. https://e621.net/post/show/346510 (which makes me laugh)has the haughty condescending attitude one associates with the nobility, and also has the benefit of the high culture and luxury that one associates with the rich. It also has Peach using Bowser as a footstool. :P

Char said:
See, I don't think it's so much about the character as it is about a "theme". What does the picture itself indicate? What is it trying to tell you? Who the hell is this guy? I have no idea, but he DOES look like royalty to me.

maybe we just need to more clearly define the rules of the tag instead of trying to fix something people are still unsure about.

To counter, https://e621.net/post/show/265310 is a king, and definitely looks like royalty to me.

It looks like a normal lion to me. It's definitely not royalty under TWYS, no matter how sad his death was.

usurper

It doesn't matter whether it's true king, or not.

https://e621.net/post/show/346510 (which makes me laugh)has the haughty condescending attitude one associates with the nobility, and also has the benefit of the high culture and luxury that one associates with the rich. It also has Peach using Bowser as a footstool. :P

Peach has a crown, and is sitting on throne. That's what matters. Bitchy attitude is not attribute of nobility only.

I suggested long time ago to change tag to royal_clothes/royal_object because that's what we're tagging. Whole royality concept is not TWYS, and we're not tagging it.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
It looks like a normal lion to me. It's definitely not royalty under TWYS, no matter how sad his death was.

It doesn't matter whether it's true king, or not.

Peach has a crown, and is sitting on throne. That's what matters. Bitchy attitude is not attribute of nobility only.

I suggested long time ago to change tag to royal_clothes/royal_object because that's what we're tagging. Whole royality concept is not TWYS, and we're not tagging it.

...Did you even bother to read the conversation, or even just the post you cut apart? I said that the concept of royalty isn't visible, and isn't an appropriate tag at all, in my previous post, and those were examples of why it can't be appropriately tagged. :/

Sollux said:
maybe we just need to more clearly define the rules of the tag instead of trying to fix something people are still unsure about.

https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=royalty Geez, what a useless wiki page. My opinion is that "royalty" should be tagged only if the appearance of royalty is being depicted (whether or not the character "is" royalty, which definitely violates TWYS). Depictions of royalty include, but are not limited to, wearing crowns, garments, or items that are indicative of someone of royal lineage. This may also include scenarios such as sitting on a throne.

I think we should also consider discussing aliasing this to "regal" or "regality" instead, since that focuses more on appearance rather than actual status.

Char said:
https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=royalty Geez, what a useless wiki page. My opinion is that "royalty" should be tagged only if the appearance of royalty is being depicted (whether or not the character "is" royalty, which definitely violates TWYS). Depictions of royalty include, but are not limited to, wearing crowns, garments, or items that are indicative of someone of royal lineage. This may also include scenarios such as sitting on a throne.

I think we should also consider discussing aliasing this to "regal" or "regality" instead, since that focuses more on appearance rather than actual status.

I like regal. I vote yes to alias and cleanup, after discussing exactly what qualifies. afterwards though I feel people will still try to use royalty improper so perhaps a secondary alias to invalid tag?

I think it's safe to say that we all approve of this alias

Char said:
https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=royalty Geez, what a useless wiki page. My opinion is that "royalty" should be tagged only if the appearance of royalty is being depicted (whether or not the character "is" royalty, which definitely violates TWYS). Depictions of royalty include, but are not limited to, wearing crowns, garments, or items that are indicative of someone of royal lineage. This may also include scenarios such as sitting on a throne.

I think we should also consider discussing aliasing this to "regal" or "regality" instead, since that focuses more on appearance rather than actual status.

Regal by far and away sounds more like what the royalty tag was intending to be. Royalty means what is noted in that wiki and, as you can see, is not properly taggable on its own because the definition of what royalty is is more based on an invisible construct (blood relation to a monarch) rather than to any actually visible function, as I noted with crowns and other material objects that are commonly related to monarchs or their first kin not necessarily being worn by someone to whom royalty actually applies. Heck, there is even the Fisher King, who is a worn out, wounded old man who fishes; Those who come upon him expecting a king clad in great riches see naught but a man clad in the garb of a simple fisherman.

Regality would also be more appropriate because not every image with royalty has them acting regal; For example, with Princess Peach, the majority of images she is in here she's being a slutty cumbucket; Princess Celestia varies between her regal normal self, her Trollestia fansona, and Molestia fansona. Since it can be defined by visual characteristics (as noted above, how they hold themselves, depicted attitude, et al) as well as belongings of various haute couture sorts. So I heartily support that repurpose/alias.

Seeing a tagging discussion resolve with a good turnout always makes me happy. I wonder if one day we'll reach the point where nearly everything is tagged in the most efficient and agreeable way.

Sollux said:
Seeing a tagging discussion resolve with a good turnout always makes me happy. I wonder if one day we'll reach the point where nearly everything is tagged in the most efficient and agreeable way.

Nah, tagging is endless. We can stride to perfection but we'll never reach it

Sollux said:
Seeing a tagging discussion resolve with a good turnout always makes me happy. I wonder if one day we'll reach the point where nearly everything is tagged in the most efficient and agreeable way.

Soon...soon....

So this old forgotten issue I brought up long ago finally got its happy ending it seems. I like the "regal" tag and am glad it all worked out.

FatherOfGray said:
So this old forgotten issue I brought up long ago finally got its happy ending it seems. I like the "regal" tag and am glad it all worked out.

It did all work out, right? I'm not being oblivious to anything?

Yes, it seems it did.

I've got the alias pending but I'll wait until at least 24 hours have passed before approving, in case someone has a counter-argument or reason why this shouldn't be done.