Halite said:
Consensus means "general agreement".
It doesn't mean everyone has to agree.

An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. The group as a whole does not agree on an opinion or position; quite literally, yes, it means that everyone has to agree. Thus, #TWDMWYTIM. Further, for specific language for the legal definition (which is simply a more concise description, really), "A decision achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid resolution is arrived on an issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution". I shudder to think about how it would impact the justice system if concensus were still the term used and it didn't mean that the jury had to be in complete agreement. The phrase you are looking for is majority agreement, based off having a majority (having more opinions on one side of an argument than the other). There's still a significant minority that disagrees with this option.

123easy said:
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. The group as a whole does not agree on an opinion or position; quite literally, yes, it means that everyone has to agree. Thus, #TWDMWYTIM. Further, for specific language for the legal definition (which is simply a more concise description, really), "A decision achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid resolution is arrived on an issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution". I shudder to think about how it would impact the justice system if concensus were still the term used and it didn't mean that the jury had to be in complete agreement. The phrase you are looking for is majority agreement, based off having a majority (having more opinions on one side of an argument than the other). There's still a significant minority that disagrees with this option.

many people would be half killed

123easy said:
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole. The group as a whole does not agree on an opinion or position; quite literally, yes, it means that everyone has to agree. Thus, #TWDMWYTIM. Further, for specific language for the legal definition (which is simply a more concise description, really), "A decision achieved through negotiation whereby a hybrid resolution is arrived on an issue, dispute or disagreement, comprising typically of concessions made by all parties, and to which all parties then subscribe unanimously as an acceptable resolution". I shudder to think about how it would impact the justice system if concensus were still the term used and it didn't mean that the jury had to be in complete agreement. The phrase you are looking for is majority agreement, based off having a majority (having more opinions on one side of an argument than the other). There's still a significant minority that disagrees with this option.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

So, majority fits that definition.

Halite said:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
b : the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>

So, majority fits that definition.

Same link, "a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group". Primary definition. Secondary definition, first line, references unanimous. You're using a secondary definition that is synonymous with majority that has been mistakenly attributed to concensus by inappropriate usage, because *surprise* people don't know what the word means. :P

123easy said:
Same link, "a general agreement about something : an idea or opinion that is shared by all the people in a group". Primary definition. Secondary definition, first line, references unanimous. You're using a secondary definition that is synonymous with majority that has been mistakenly attributed to concensus by inappropriate usage, because *surprise* people don't know what the word means. :P

Oh, I see.
So you're right, and the dictionary is wrong.
My bad.

Edit: For more on how consensus =/= unanimity, feel free to read the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F

Halite said:
Oh, I see.
So you're right, and the dictionary is wrong.
My bad.

No, the dictionary is right, and you're just trying to twist its meaning incorrectly. Now stop trying to intentionally provoke me.

The dictionary doesn't include wrong definitions.
In a dictionary, all definitions are equally valid, regardless of which is labeled a. and b.
And in case you missed the link that I was editing into the above post, for more information, please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F

characters aliased to power_ponies_(mlp)

Halite said:
The dictionary doesn't include wrong definitions.
In a dictionary, all definitions are equally valid, regardless of which is labeled a. and b.
And in case you missed the link that I was editing into the above post, for more information, please read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F

Dictionaries also include definitions of words that are archaic, no longer used, or conflations of one word with another. Further, they ARE listed in order of relevance within a numeral. Being a 'b.' definition, it is not a primary definition, which means the word is not typically used to mean that definition. Thus, twisting it to be used incorrectly when concensus is defined both as its primary definition (the highlighted one at the top which I quoted) and 1a definition as being agreement of the entire group, specifically calling out unanimity in that definition. Same with the tertiary definition, defined at 2, which defines concensus as having a solidarity of opinion within the group. Note the synonyms, "accord, concurrence, concurrency, agreement, unanimity, unison" which all define themselves by consistancy and agreement as a whole. Even if we were to count a Wikipedia-specific definition, it denotes, "Consensus is not a majority vote. Every opinion counts. Consensus accounts for dissent and addresses it, although it does not always accommodate it. An option preferred by 51% of people is generally not enough for consensus. An option that is narrowly preferred is almost never consensus." which at the very least, were we to accept Wikipedia's modified and personalized definition for its disputes as a proper definition, does not conform to your attribution of a slim majority as a concensus. In this case, the individual costumes' identities have been aliased away by the opinion of a slim majority (54.5%) of the members discussing this issue, not a concensus by any definition but the one you are trying to incorrectly attribute to it in the face of the very obvious primary meaning the word defines.

ippiki_ookami said:
characters aliased to power_ponies_(mlp)

Eh. Not very approving of this, but at least it's better than just removing the tags completely. Just worried now that superheroes and their outfits will get aliased away because of this. :/

If it was an archaic, or slang usage it would be labeled as such.
They aren't ordered by relevance, or accuracy, but by prevalence, or commonness of usage.
Being a b. definition doesn't make it wrong, or inaccurate to use in that way.
It may not be the most common use of the word, but it is still a valid use.

For example:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language
The b. definitions are all perfectly good and acceptable uses for the word.
As are all other entries in the dictionary.

Halite said:
If it was an archaic, or slang usage it would be labeled as such.
They aren't ordered by relevance, or accuracy, but by prevalence, or commonness of usage.
Being a b. definition doesn't make it wrong, or inaccurate to use in that way.
It may not be the most common use of the word, but it is still a valid use.

For example:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/language
The b. definitions are all perfectly good and acceptable uses for the word.
As are all other entries in the dictionary.

I was not saying you were using it archaically or slangly, but that they also include those definitions. They also indicate conflations of words with the meanings of others, such as how literally has come to be synonymous with figuratively, which is an incorrect usage of the word (though using it hyperbolically as a synonym for literally is correct, because that's more enabled by the definition of hyperbolicism than of literally itself).

As for being ordered by relevancy- they are. Prevalence is relevancy. To use a little-known definition of a word when it would cause confusion is inappropriate usage of a word. Further, every dictionary, unfortunately, does tend to its own definition listing. For example, Oxford doesn't even list anything other than, "an opinion that all members of a group agree with", along with a handful of example sentences. I'd check the concise, but that requires a paid subscription, so, nope; but it stands to reason that if they don't bother listing a secondary definition for learning English, it's because it doesn't have any real relevance to the word. By comparison, language does have multiple definitions in accordance with how it is used. Webster's (both Merriam and Random House's, as well as any site that gets their definition from either dictionary) is the only dictionary that I can find that conflation with majority agreement, thus showing a lack of concensus on the definition of concensus /wry. http://www.onelook.com/?w=consensus&ls=a feel free to peruse them yourself; even the Wiktionary denotes that the term "general" in the secondary definition is adjectively indicating the whole of the group, not just the majority (can just followthrough the link).

ippiki_ookami said:
characters aliased to power_ponies_(mlp)

There was nowhere close to a consensus on this from the users NOR the admins. These aliases will be undone until an actual decision has been reached by more than one admin.

I dont think power ponies should individually get names until they both a) show up in the show so they have a canonical appearance. And b) get an actual image on this site afterwards.
I agree with ippiki right now.

Char said:
There was nowhere close to a consensus on this from the users NOR the admins. These aliases will be undone until an actual decision has been reached by more than one admin.

okie doke. makes no difference to me, I'd just like to see this matter settled, whatever the decision is.

Also, this really isnt the place to discuss word etymologies guys :V

Heres my point.....a image with 6 characters should not have 12 character name tags. Its ridiculous

ippiki_ookami said:
okie doke. makes no difference to me, I'd just like to see this matter settled, whatever the decision is.

Also, this really isnt the place to discuss word etymologies guys :V

Well, until Char spake, the issue was effectively settled; discussing consensus in the thread in which we were not in consensus (and thus was my complaint about the decision) seemed natural. Sorry that I ended up taking it as far as I did, though; I'd only intended to educate that it isn't a consensus unless everyone has come to an agreement when it was being misused, not get into a full blown discussion on its etymology.

Conker said:
Heres my point.....a image with 6 characters should not have 12 character name tags. Its ridiculous

Image contains Iron Man, Batman, The Question, Green Lantern, and The Flash. They're all holding their mask or helmet in their hands, so their face is visible and recognizable. How do you tag them? What if they were wearing their helmet or mask? You can identify both the character wearing the outfit, and also the super hero identity the costume represents, which does have its own name. Not calling The Flash, well, The Flash just seems weird, even if it is Barry Allen beneath the mask. Same for the rest of them. Even without his hat on and the pseudoderm off, Vic Sage is still geared up as The Question.

it doesn't make sense that we'd tag superheroes correctly by what defines them visually, then not just because ponies.

Conker said:
Heres my point.....a image with 6 characters should not have 12 character name tags. Its ridiculous

Please specify what is inherently bad about having more character names than characters on a post. Should the following post have only one character tag, and if so, which one? https://e621.net/post/show/402522/ You could probably have fun with this for almost the entirety of the cosplay tag actually.

Char said:
Please specify what is inherently bad about having more character names than characters on a post. Should the following post have only one character tag, and if so, which one? https://e621.net/post/show/402522/ You could probably have fun with this for almost the entirety of the cosplay tag actually.

1. It spams the tags with extra char tags
2. It ignores tag what you see
3. That link should be tagged derpy hooves, and add the cosplay tag...again tag what you see.

Conker said:
1. It spams the tags with extra char tags
2. It ignores tag what you see
3. That link should be tagged derpy hooves, and add the cosplay tag...again tag what you see.

1. Opinion, really. I find the extra tags completely necessary and therefore not spam.
2. It does no such thing, in fact NOT tagging the extra character would be violating TWYS.
3. Cosplaying as WHAT? That makes no sense to be able to find only characters that are cosplaying, but not be able to find what characters are cosplaying as. I don't want pictures of "character_x" cosplaying, I want pictures of characters cosplaying AS "character_x".

Char said:
1. Opinion, really. I find the extra tags completely necessary and therefore not spam.
2. It does no such thing, in fact NOT tagging the extra character would be violating TWYS.
3. Cosplaying as WHAT? That makes no sense to be able to find only characters that are cosplaying, but not be able to find what characters are cosplaying as. I don't want pictures of "character_x" cosplaying, I want pictures of characters cosplaying AS "character_x".

This is exactly my point. Costumes of recognizable characters reference that character. Superheroes further have identities intrinsically tied to their costumes. thus, costumes should tag the name of the costume's identity. At the same time, if the costume is just a butterfly mask and nothing else, it shouldn't be tagged as a character tag but just as 'mask' and 'butterfly' (since it is a butterfly design) because on its own it is not definitive enough to designate a specific character's identity (Well, that's probably a bad example actually, as it could be argued that that IS the entirety of Papillon's 'costume' from Buso Renkin... unless you include the deep-v black banana hammock with the butterfly sigil on it. o__o)

Char said:
2. It does no such thing, in fact NOT tagging the extra character would be violating TWYS.

2. There is no "extra charter" its the same charter just wearing differnt clothes. Now tagging "extra characters" that are not there breaks tag what you see.

Conker said:
2. There is no "extra charter" its the same charter just wearing differnt clothes. Now tagging "extra characters" that are not there breaks tag what you see.

So a character that's touched the Venom symbiote and is wearing it is just whomever they are, then, and no one else, right? I mean, they're just wearing different clothes, doesn't matter that it's Venom.

How do you not see how silly your argument is? o.O;

Char said:
Please specify what is inherently bad about having more character names than characters on a post. Should the following post have only one character tag, and if so, which one? https://e621.net/post/show/402522/ You could probably have fun with this for almost the entirety of the cosplay tag actually.

The costume itself isn't especially recognizable, if it wasn't for the text I don't think anyone would say, "Oh, that's Derpy as Inigo Montoya".
That being said character names are one of the TWYS exceptions, so if the source says "Inigo Montoya" then the outfit would be sufficient evidence to allow the tag.

123easy said:
So a character that's touched the Venom symbiote and is wearing it is just whomever they are, then, and no one else, right? I mean, they're just wearing different clothes, doesn't matter that it's Venom.

How do you not see how silly your argument is? o.O;

Venom is itself a living creature, so it's not just clothes.
But to be fair that's more a flaw in this specific example than anything else.

123easy said:
Actually, consensus is undecided; if everyone doesn't agree, there is no concensus. Now, if you meant majority? At this point, DarknessRising, myself, Gilda, Munkelzahn (he said if there's porn of them, and there is), Moon Moon are for keeping them

Count me as undecided. If they are going to be as unpopular here, as characters from Hearth's Warming Eve episode, then maybe Ippiki's solution is okay. I'm okay with both resolutions.

However I found it hilarious that Rainbow Dash defends with all might Pinkamena, which is state of Pinkie's mind or Pinkie with straight hair (depending on who is defending this tag), but is totally for aliasing costume of superhero which is much more distinguishable.

Char said:
There was nowhere close to a consensus on this from the users NOR the admins. These aliases will be undone until an actual decision has been reached by more than one admin.

Char, do you make mistake while counting to two, or Ippiki and Rainbow Dash are the same person. *Drama sound*

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Char, do you make mistake while counting to two, or Ippiki and Rainbow Dash are the same person. *Drama sound*

In Skype last night:
[12/23/2013 9:47:33 PM] Rainbow Dash: nooo
[12/23/2013 9:47:54 PM] Rainbow Dash: I think those are valid character tags that should implicate power ponies, not be aliased to it

If RD said the total opposite here in this thread, I'm not sure why she would have.

Char said:
In Skype last night:
[12/23/2013 9:47:33 PM] Rainbow Dash: nooo
[12/23/2013 9:47:54 PM] Rainbow Dash: I think those are valid character tags that should implicate power ponies, not be aliased to it

If RD said the total opposite here in this thread, I'm not sure why she would have.

:(
Shame, Ippiki being the same person as RD would be the greatest twist in the history of e621.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
However I found it hilarious that Rainbow Dash defends with all might Pinkamena, which is state of Pinkie's mind or Pinkie with straight hair (depending on who is defending this tag), but is totally for aliasing costume of superhero which is much more distinguishable.

I'm not the only one to notice that bias? good to know.

Halite said:
The costume itself isn't especially recognizable, if it wasn't for the text I don't think anyone would say, "Oh, that's Derpy as Inigo Montoya".
That being said character names are one of the TWYS exceptions, so if the source says "Inigo Montoya" then the outfit would be sufficient evidence to allow the tag.

Well, the outfit alone screams Inigo Montoya to me, but I have seen Princess Bride plenty, so I'll admit that familiarity could skew my perception there; I do know that the meme exploded on the internet a few years back, so it did become generally known, though. There's also the text which itself is referential to Inigo Montoya, that being his famous line that was massively memetized, "My name is Inigo Montoya, and you killed my father. Prepare to die!" as seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JGp7Meg42U

Venom is itself a living creature, so it's not just clothes.
But to be fair that's more a flaw in this specific example than anything else.

But you can't tell that Venom is a creature in its own right hen just being worn. Look at Spiderman in the trilogy; aside from having that really derpy Emo!Peter, whenever he wore the suit it just looked like a black material version of his regular one; the only time we saw different was when it was damaged or when it moved of its own volition. If all you saw was Eddie Brock standing there in the Venom symbiote, with the Venom sign across the chest, but with his regular head visible instead of the Venom head, unless there were tentacles or some other sign that he is wearing the symbiote specifically, again, it's visually indistinct from a form-fitting body suit, unless you know it's a character, or a superhero costume that is visibly recognized. (And no, not trying to open up the can of worms that is the Venom symbiote subsuming Eddie Brock and turning them into one mostly-gestalt being)

Char said:
In Skype last night:
[12/23/2013 9:47:33 PM] Rainbow Dash: nooo
[12/23/2013 9:47:54 PM] Rainbow Dash: I think those are valid character tags that should implicate power ponies, not be aliased to it

If RD said the total opposite here in this thread, I'm not sure why she would have.

For the record/posterity,

Rainbow_Dash said:
I agree with this. We probably don't need to have the individual tags for each one when they are still very similar. However if a single tag gets rid of two tags, then it is doing it's job.

Still think that it's not enough of a distinction to warrant entirely new character tags when it's more a state of the character (such as a zombified pony, opposite gender pony, etc)

For the record, guys...

post #343119

Should this be tagged as the characters? I mean, it IS referential, and we can see the cutie mark and colour scheme of the hide, but that's it (okay, unicorns have an additional stick that looks nothing like a horn, "applejack" has a hat), but there's nothing that really screams the pnies as a costume or as a character to me, here. They share similar colour schemes, and the aforementioned cutie marks, but is that enough to tag them as actually being that character or a costume of that character?

123easy said:
For the record, guys...

post #343119

Should this be tagged as the characters? I mean, it IS referential, and we can see the cutie mark and colour scheme of the hide, but that's it (okay, unicorns have an additional stick that looks nothing like a horn, "applejack" has a hat), but there's nothing that really screams the pnies as a costume or as a character to me, here. They share similar colour schemes, and the aforementioned cutie marks, but is that enough to tag them as actually being that character or a costume of that character?

I think the reference it's pretty obvious for those tags to stay, there are more pictures like that, like
post #326194

123easy said:
For the record, guys...

post #343119

Should this be tagged as the characters? I mean, it IS referential, and we can see the cutie mark and colour scheme of the hide, but that's it (okay, unicorns have an additional stick that looks nothing like a horn, "applejack" has a hat), but there's nothing that really screams the pnies as a costume or as a character to me, here. They share similar colour schemes, and the aforementioned cutie marks, but is that enough to tag them as actually being that character or a costume of that character?

Once I asked about whether disembodied penis that is supposed to belong to one of the ponies should get their character tag, and I got answer that as long as there is cutie mark on it then it gets the tag. These are not penises, but I think that similar rules can apply. Unless you want to go 20pc way and make rainbow_cutie_mark like tags :P

Butterscotch said:
I think the reference it's pretty obvious for those tags to stay, there are more pictures like that, like
post #326194

Ew.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Once I asked about whether disembodied penis that is supposed to belong to one of the ponies should get their character tag, and I got answer that as long as there is cutie mark on it then it gets the tag. These are not penises, but I think that similar rules can apply. Unless you want to go 20pc way and make rainbow_cutie_mark like tags :P

Really? We don't tag any other character like that. I mean, give a dick a whip and a fedora, do we call it Indy? /scoff (Ohgodpleasedontlettherebeany...)

123easy said:
Ew.

Really? We don't tag any other character like that. I mean, give a dick a whip and a fedora, do we call it Indy? /scoff (Ohgodpleasedontlettherebeany...)

Because ponies.

Just so I don't have to search through posts. Are they valid or invalid. If they aren't I'm going to start removing them as invalid tags

Esme_Belles said:
Just so I don't have to search through posts. Are they valid or invalid. If they aren't I'm going to start removing them as invalid tags

Still no final decision.
More votes for invalid than valid, but as of present, I'd say don't add, or remove them from any posts until a final determination has been made.

Esme_Belles said:
Just so I don't have to search through posts. Are they valid or invalid. If they aren't I'm going to start removing them as invalid tags

https://e621.net/forum/show/94972

Char may smack you if you did that.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
https://e621.net/forum/show/94972

Char may smack you if you did that.

I haven't actually touched them. Was asking first.

Esme_Belles said:
I haven't actually touched them. Was asking first.

Which is why Gilda said "if". :)

Just tag "Power_ponies" for now, if someone tags the character don't remove. if there is a concensus to have the character identities/names associated with the costumes be tagged separately from the character wearing the costume (which is what we've done so far with every other hero excluding, for whatever reason, the images with the actual canon characters in them) then the power_ponies tag can be searched with character tags for the individual ponies and the appropriate costume tag added.