This is one topic and area of contention that we need to finally resolve and get a clear direction on.

Question: Do we allow the tagging of a character name who another character is DRESSED UP AS, meaning we tag both the character AND the character that their clothing/appearance resembles?

Examples:

The Power Ponies: https://e621.net/post/index/1/power_ponies_(mlp) These are character identities introduced in a particular episode of MLP FIM, and the "main" characters of the show assume these identities in the episode, with unique costumes for each character. The question is should we tag each one of their individual identities, or should we only add the power_ponies_(mlp) tag and the name of the character that's assuming a Power Pony identity.

Cosplay: https://e621.net/post/index/1/cosplay If we decide that character names should not be tagged unless the character themselves are actually within the image (not just someone dressed up like the character), then this causes quite a problem for the cosplay tag. Effectively this would limit this tag to only being used to say WHO is cosplaying, but not WHO or WHAT they're cosplaying as.

In my opinion, we should allow the tagging of character names for costumes just as we've done in the past so far.

Thoughts?

Char said:
In my opinion, we should allow the tagging of character names for costumes just as we've done in the past so far.

I agree with this.

As usual with tagging methods, we can either be pedantic or practical.

If we were going strictly by "rules," then they would definitely need their own tags. But if we're going to take utility into account, then it would be better to alias them all to power_ponies.

I say yes. If there's art of a furry dressed up as batman, it's common sense to throw the batman tag on it, even if it's not ACTUALLY the REAL batman. (If you don't want to see cosplaying when you search for batman, search for batman -cosplay)

I agree as well. Hopefully there'll be some closure this time.

If we tag the character, the character that the costume depicts and the cosplay / costume tag, then all is fine.

Images with a character dressed up in the manner of another character should get the tags of both characters as well as "cosplay". Any other route decreases the searchability of the image which is bad.

The issue I have with the Power Ponies in particular is if they're enough of a "thing" to warrant tagging.
I have to plead some ignorance here, and if I'm wrong on any points here then feel free to correct me, this is a 2nd hand at best understanding of the show, as I don't watch it.

As far as I know, these power ponies are a one off appearance in a single show which involves the main characters dressing up in super hero outfits.

This, to me, would be a very different thing to a situation where say, Rainbow Dash dressed up as Daring Do(sp?), since that's a recuring thing that is mentioned in various episodes.
If there was a semi regular situation where they dressed up to go fight crime etc. (like engrish man in Ebichu) then having those tags would be more appropriate, and useful in my opinion.

Again, a caveat, if the "alternate forms" discussion is decided in favor of tagging any visibly different form, then this also would be moot.

Personally, I think characters displaying as another character warrants both tags and display. My problem is in specific examples like the power ponies, where their names are mentioned only once and they literally didn't even get a single frame in the show, so noone even k ows what the originals are supposed to look like. I dont think they deserve to be recognized as individual characters but the group tag power_ponies is good.

Sollux said:
Personally, I think characters displaying as another character warrants both tags and display. My problem is in specific examples like the power ponies, where their names are mentioned only once and they literally didn't even get a single frame in the show, so noone even k ows what the originals are supposed to look like. I dont think they deserve to be recognized as individual characters but the group tag power_ponies is good.

This is why we don't tag the original characters who wear the costumes, merely the costumes themselves, the personas, if you will, those original ponies adopt, that the protagonists of MLP:FiM wear (Sorry, but I'll never call them "Mane Six" beyond explaining I won't. Just... No. I refuse to promote deliberate incorrect word usage :x).

We have the protagonists' original designs known (Applejack, Rarity, Twilight Sparkle, Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash, Fluttershy) so we can infer that the addition of the costume elements in the episode is the entirety of the character represented by the costumed persona.

@Halite, Daring Do is an actual separate pony, on top of having her own specific outfit (Sorta like a pony version of Indiana Jones). Did you mean Rainbow Dash wearing the outfit?

Images tagged batman aren't also tagged "bruce_wayne", so the aliases of characters should be tagged as their own characters.

123easy said:

@Halite, Daring Do is an actual separate pony, on top of having her own specific outfit (Sorta like a pony version of Indiana Jones). Did you mean Rainbow Dash wearing the outfit?

Yes, that's precisely what I meant.
It's a distinct, seperate, regular character that someone else could dress-up/cosplay as.

123easy said:
This is why we don't tag the original characters who wear the costumes, merely the costumes themselves, the personas, if you will, those original ponies adopt, that the protagonists of MLP:FiM wear (Sorry, but I'll never call them "Mane Six" beyond explaining I won't. Just... No. I refuse to promote deliberate incorrect word usage :x).

We have the protagonists' original designs known (Applejack, Rarity, Twilight Sparkle, Pinkie Pie, Rainbow Dash, Fluttershy) so we can infer that the addition of the costume elements in the episode is the entirety of the character represented by the costumed persona.

I mean if you never even see the original power ponies why do they get tags, there are no images with just them in it, its always one of the main six, and if its not, then its not a canonical version of whatever pony should be in the costume.

Sollux said:
I mean if you never even see the original power ponies why do they get tags, there are no images with just them in it, its always one of the main six, and if its not, then its not a canonical version of whatever pony should be in the costume.

But we aren't tagging the names of the characters who normally wear the costumes- the Bruce Wayne to their Batman- but rather just the name associated with the costume itself. Thus we aren't tagging the canonical version of the pony in the costume, just the name associated with the costume, and the pony wearing the costume.

The same would go for Krystal if she were to wear a Batman costume- it should be tagged Krystal and Batman, but not Bruce_Wayne (unless he's in the image somehow; though, if it's chesty enough for Krystal, it's probably a Batgirl outfit instead of Batman).

123easy said:
But we aren't tagging the names of the characters who normally wear the costumes- the Bruce Wayne to their Batman- but rather just the name associated with the costume itself. Thus we aren't tagging the canonical version of the pony in the costume, just the name associated with the costume, and the pony wearing the costume.

The same would go for Krystal if she were to wear a Batman costume- it should be tagged Krystal and Batman, but not Bruce_Wayne (unless he's in the image somehow; though, if it's chesty enough for Krystal, it's probably a Batgirl outfit instead of Batman).

normally that makes perfect sense and I would agree. But batman is an established persona with a person who regularly dresses as his super hero self. In the power ponies, the only thing even suggesting that name would be when spike lists the names (and maybe the villain said a name once or something) so people still see it as just the mane six in costume, if however the power ponies were to become recurring characters and their own characters, with unique designs, then I would agree with giving them names. Its just that as is there's no real reason to give them those names besides trying to be consistent with other superheros.

Sollux said:
...so people still see it as just the mane six in costume...

And the costume has a name. It doesn't matter if it only shows up once; If someone made fanart for a one-off superhero/supervillain that only shows up in a single issue, should they not tag that character just because they only showed up once? If it was a Marvel Comics or DC Comics character, there would be no question it would get the name of the costume, so why the fight against just because it's ponies?

A) Marvel doesn't do one off named heros/villains
B) It's not just because it's ponies.
If pikachu put on a mask for an episode and was Maskachu, I wouldn't call that a good tag.
We don't tag Brian_the_Horse from the episode of Family Guy where he was a horse.
So please don't make assumptions about anyone's motivation, this isn't pony hate, it's a dislike for tags that I view as incorrect.

Halite said:
A) Marvel doesn't do one off named heros/villains
B) It's not just because it's ponies.
If pikachu put on a mask for an episode and was Maskachu, I wouldn't call that a good tag.
We don't tag Brian_the_Horse from the episode of Family Guy where he was a horse.
So please don't make assumptions about anyone's motivation, this isn't pony hate, it's a dislike for tags that I view as incorrect.

From how I was reading it, Sollux has been directing it specifically at ponies; I wasn't saying the entire argument was against it. I was responding specifically to his posts, as well. Please don't assume that a direct reply to someone's post is directed against all arguments in the thread.

Marvel has many, many, MANY one-off characters, actually. Most people don't know of them because they're one-offs, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. There's also the low-volume-appearance roster (sub five appearances) but I'm talking only one appearance ever. Kendra Matsumoto (Samurai Saxonai) and Pania Panapa (Calico) are two such examples of one-shot characters that have powers and separate identities for their costumed appearance.

If Pikachu simply put on a mask and it was called Maskchu, that wouldn't be a good tag, agreed. However, if there was another Pikachu (say it was owned by a guy named Roberto) that wore a mask and was called Maskchu while wearing the mask, and Pikachu subbed in for him as a body double wearing the mask- I would expect it to be tagged Maskchu and Ash's_Pikachu. If Roberto's Pikachu wearing the Maskchu mask were to be drawn, I would expect it to be tagged Maskchu and Roberto's_Pikachu (That is how we do the tagging for pokemon without specific names, right? By the owner?).

123easy said:
From how I was reading it, Sollux has been directing it specifically at ponies; I wasn't saying the entire argument was against it. I was responding specifically to his posts, as well. Please don't assume that a direct reply to someone's post is directed against all arguments in the thread.

Marvel has many, many, MANY one-off characters, actually. Most people don't know of them because they're one-offs, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. There's also the low-volume-appearance roster (sub five appearances) but I'm talking only one appearance ever. Kendra Matsumoto (Samurai Saxonai) and Pania Panapa (Calico) are two such examples of one-shot characters that have powers and separate identities for their costumed appearance.

If Pikachu simply put on a mask and it was called Maskchu, that wouldn't be a good tag, agreed. However, if there was another Pikachu (say it was owned by a guy named Roberto) that wore a mask and was called Maskchu while wearing the mask, and Pikachu subbed in for him as a body double wearing the mask- I would expect it to be tagged Maskchu and Ash's_Pikachu. If Roberto's Pikachu wearing the Maskchu mask were to be drawn, I would expect it to be tagged Maskchu and Roberto's_Pikachu (That is how we do the tagging for pokemon without specific names, right? By the owner?).

1. I don't hate ponies, I watch them on a regular basis and quite enjoy them.
2. My argument was directed at this specific example, if the same scenario happened somewhere else then I would still have it.
3. Imagine if you heard about a pikachu that wore a mask, but it was only mentioned in one or two sentences, that was called maskchu, then pikachu happened to have that mask on, and was called maskchu once. And was referred to as pikachu for the remainder of the episode with almost no further mention of maskchu.
I just can't get into a tag based on only a costume, when you can tell who's inside it the whole time, and the names were only mentioned once, and the original wearers of the costume never even got a single frame, or a picture of them.

123easy said:
(That is how we do the tagging for pokemon without specific names, right? By the owner?).

No, we tag their species, because they're not named charaters.

Halite said:
No, we tag their species, because they're not named charaters.

We always tag the species, ofc, but I remember that there was an "Ash's Pikachu" tag. *shrug* It appears to be gone, so that example is invalid directly, but the concept is still sound.

Sollux said:
1. I don't hate ponies, I watch them on a regular basis and quite enjoy them.
2. My argument was directed at this specific example, if the same scenario happened somewhere else then I would still have it.
3. Imagine if you heard about a pikachu that wore a mask, but it was only mentioned in one or two sentences, that was called maskchu, then pikachu happened to have that mask on, and was called maskchu once. And was referred to as pikachu for the remainder of the episode with almost no further mention of maskchu.
I just can't get into a tag based on only a costume, when you can tell who's inside it the whole time, and the names were only mentioned once, and the original wearers of the costume never even got a single frame, or a picture of them.

Didn't say you hated ponies, just that it seems you're against it because ponies, as you seem fixated on the Power Ponies example specifically. I had my time doing the same thing when Ponies first flooded into the site, so I saw it as just that.

Your Pikachu in a mask called Maskchu example is perfectly fine. We know what a Pikachu looks like, we know there is a heroic Pikachu that wears a mask that goes by the nom de guerre 'Maskchu' while performing these functions (we don't need to directly see it, read on for why), and if Pikachu puts on the mask (and here's the big important factor) is recognized as Maskchu because of the mask, that is clearly the costume (in this case, just a simple mask) of Maskchu.

Similarily, the ponies were recognizable by Spike as wearing the outfits of the characters from his comic, which means that canonically they are the costumes the original hero characters wear (or are close enough that someone who knows them characters by sight cannot discern the difference).

Conversely, if the ponies simply dressed up and then declared themselves the individual Power Ponies' costumed names, and Spike were to say they got the outfits all wrong, and those incorrect outfits were to have artwork done of them, naming those costumes according to the original costume would be incorrect (we are assuming that it is not even close to similar, for example wearing a cardboard robot outfit and calling that a Saddle Rager costume would be incorrect; costumes similar enough they can be recognized as the canon costume should be tagged appropriately).

123easy said:
We always tag the species, ofc, but I remember that there was an "Ash's Pikachu" tag. *shrug* It appears to be gone, so that example is invalid directly, but the concept is still sound.

Didn't say you hated ponies, just that it seems you're against it because ponies, as you seem fixated on the Power Ponies example specifically. I had my time doing the same thing when Ponies first flooded into the site, so I saw it as just that.

Your Pikachu in a mask called Maskchu example is perfectly fine. We know what a Pikachu looks like, we know there is a heroic Pikachu that wears a mask that goes by the nom de guerre 'Maskchu' while performing these functions (we don't need to directly see it, read on for why), and if Pikachu puts on the mask (and here's the big important factor) is recognized as Maskchu because of the mask, that is clearly the costume (in this case, just a simple mask) of Maskchu.

Similarily, the ponies were recognizable by Spike as wearing the outfits of the characters from his comic, which means that canonically they are the costumes the original hero characters wear (or are close enough that someone who knows them characters by sight cannot discern the difference).

Conversely, if the ponies simply dressed up and then declared themselves the individual Power Ponies' costumed names, and Spike were to say they got the outfits all wrong, and those incorrect outfits were to have artwork done of them, naming those costumes according to the original costume would be incorrect (we are assuming that it is not even close to similar, for example wearing a cardboard robot outfit and calling that a Saddle Rager costume would be incorrect; costumes similar enough they can be recognized as the canon costume should be tagged appropriately).

I think I understand where you're coming from. My only thing I can add on is that by your logic, the only problem I see is that WE can't say we know about the costumes like spike did, they have no notoriety. If that doesn't violate the twys then I suppose the tags can be used but I really don't like this specific example.

Established characters are not the same thing as single episode mentions.
I don't think that random things that pop up once ever, deserve tagging.

Halite said:
Established characters are not the same thing as single episode mentions.
I don't think that random things that pop up once ever, deserve tagging.

I had this thought since a while but didn't had the words for it. So, I agree with this.

Halite said:
Established characters are not the same thing as single episode mentions.
I don't think that random things that pop up once ever, deserve tagging.

Neither character I mentioned were established beyond a single comic's appearance. If someone were to wear cosplay for either character, however, it would be expected to be tagged according to the costumed identity, because there is a defined visual to the character.

Sollux said:
I think I understand where you're coming from. My only thing I can add on is that by your logic, the only problem I see is that WE can't say we know about the costumes like spike did, they have no notoriety. If that doesn't violate the twys then I suppose the tags can be used but I really don't like this specific example.

In this case we don't need to personally have the knowledge of it, as it is a canon example. The creators of the show, through Spike recognizing the costumes each pony was wearing, are stating, "These are the costumed identities belonging to these characters that the main cast are standing in for".

Halite said:
Established characters are not the same thing as single episode mentions.
I don't think that random things that pop up once ever, deserve tagging.

That's a good point, but what if there is a significant amount of art posted based on that one episode? To make it easier to find, wouldn't it make sense to have a unique identifier for it?

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
That's a good point, but what if there is a significant amount of art posted based on that one episode? To make it easier to find, wouldn't it make sense to have a unique identifier for it?

I think that logic is partially flawed, as it then opens up anyone making any fan nickname they want for anything that appears once and then using that as a unique identifier, which I oppose.

A unique identifier can be as simple as straight_hair or desaturation or nightmare_fuel or whatnot in conjunction with the original tag. It is uniquely identifying a particular subsection of images of that character.

Conversely, there are entire canonical identities associated with the majority of costumes separate from their uncostumed persona that consists of a multitude of unique identifiers that are a very specific visual, such that anyone could wear it or most of it and it would be instantly recognizable to most people.

This is why I separate costumes and fanon names for a specific slight visual tweak going by TWYS. Effectively the costume is a character unto itself (and in some cases it is a living character, as per the symbiotes like Venom and Carnage) visually as well, in some cases, as in personality or other defining features (Bruce Wayne was the happy-go-lucky billionaire playboy philanthropist, Batman was the brooding crimefighting terror of the night), of which only the visuals matter- and even if the build matches, the visual repersentation of Batman (the armor) that we consider as the definitive costume is completely different from Bruce Wayne.

123easy said:
I think that logic is partially flawed, as it then opens up anyone making any fan nickname they want for anything that appears once and then using that as a unique identifier, which I oppose.

A unique identifier can be as simple as straight_hair or desaturation or nightmare_fuel or whatnot in conjunction with the original tag. It is uniquely identifying a particular subsection of images of that character.

Conversely, there are entire canonical identities associated with the majority of costumes separate from their uncostumed persona that consists of a multitude of unique identifiers that are a very specific visual, such that anyone could wear it or most of it and it would be instantly recognizable to most people.

This is why I separate costumes and fanon names for a specific slight visual tweak going by TWYS. Effectively the costume is a character unto itself (and in some cases it is a living character, as per the symbiotes like Venom and Carnage) visually as well, in some cases, as in personality or other defining features (Bruce Wayne was the happy-go-lucky billionaire playboy philanthropist, Batman was the brooding crimefighting terror of the night), of which only the visuals matter- and even if the build matches, the visual repersentation of Batman (the armor) that we consider as the definitive costume is completely different from Bruce Wayne.

Another good point. My context was simply that of names, even fan-based names, that get super-popular. Such as the oft-referenced Princess Molestia and Pinkamena. Without the restriction to names, I can see where that would get out of control.

If we kept the convention to names, however, do you think it would be better, or still flawed?

123easy said:
I think that logic is partially flawed, as it then opens up anyone making any fan nickname they want for anything that appears once and then using that as a unique identifier, which I oppose.

A unique identifier can be as simple as straight_hair or desaturation or nightmare_fuel or whatnot in conjunction with the original tag. It is uniquely identifying a particular subsection of images of that character.

The problem is that these unique identifiers are often tagged far less often than the character's "fan name" itself. Example: Pinkamena currently has 1,119 posts, whereas the "straight_hair" tag has only 128 posts. Therefore, aliasing Pinkamena to Pinkie_Pie and saying that you can find Pinkamena again by just searching for "Pinkie_Pie straight_hair" isn't really accurate, it'd cut the number of "Pinkamena" posts down by nearly 90%, which seems extremely inaccurate to me. Surely 90% of these posts aren't tagged incorrectly: https://e621.net/post/index/1/pinkamena

This is why the "usability" of this tag is important. If we get rid of fan-name tags like Pinkamena, it's like taking away a person's nail-gun, handing them a big rock instead, and telling them that it'll get the job done almost as well.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Another good point. My context was simply that of names, even fan-based names, that get super-popular. Such as the oft-referenced Princess Molestia and Pinkamena. Without the restriction to names, I can see where that would get out of control.

If we kept the convention to names, however, do you think it would be better, or still flawed?

I think it would still be flawed, given the first argument I made; that any fan could create a nickname and could then use it to describe a single feature differential. Imagine if Pinkie Pie had 100 different images, each the same post (like some japanese image sets) but witha very slight minor difference. The differences should be tagged, but if a fan gives each and every one of those different designs a fan nickname, by your argument they should be tagged as such- if a different fan (or even the same fan!) were to create a second nickname for that character with that differentiation, then it would be tagged with BOTH fan nicknames and the actual character's name, also by that argument.

Another common issue with this that would occur would be if someone creates a fan personality for each facial expression that a character makes, and someone draws an image of the character making all sorts of faces, showing the range of emotion. According to that fan, all those faces are representative of those different fan characters, and so if that image has 10 different facial features, that's 11 character name tags (original plus 10 more fan name tags) on top of the tags for the emotions that we tag in whatever variation plus physical features (clenched_teeth, smile, angry, and so on).

This is why restricting it to canonical names only and not joke names that are called out as an obvious joke (Flutterbat would be one example, but just as valid would be attempting to tag everything in an image to do with Batman with "bat-*", like "bat credit card" or "bat crotch" or "bat nipples" and the like) is the superior option for concise tagging and searching as well.

Sollux's idea of a character_variant tag does have merit, in that it is widely applicable and performs the same basic function, but still runs into the issue of calling it a character variant instead of merely the character acting out of (canon) character, which is rather pointless as most images of characters that are not OCs are by default acting out of character, and thus are technically character variants.

This is why I originally made the suggestion for the Fandom tag catagory to separate fanon or fan-created tags from the remainder, and have them by default setting collapsed, so that fan-based nicknames such as Pinkamena or Trollestia can still be tagged and searched, but do not interfere with the majority of the tag functionality otherwise, in accuracy and related factors, according to the image and TWYS. I would still prefer fanon to remain fanon and not recognized as valid from the canon conditions, but a compromise on allowing it in a secondary catagory that keeps it separate (and thus allows the more subjective tags to be placed into their own area that have use within a specific fandom but would normally be aliased away otherwise; like the concept of Cutie Mark Crusaders tagged on any image containing the characters that make up the club instead of on any image where they are acting in the interests of the club wearing their marked capes that identify them as Cutie Mark Crusaders, for one example)

Anyways, I've gone on quite long, so I'll end this here.

EDIT: Reply to Char's post, which was posted between when I started typing and when I posted.

Char said:
The problem is that these unique identifiers are often tagged far less often than the character's "fan name" itself. Example: Pinkamena currently has 1,119 posts, whereas the "straight_hair" tag has only 128 posts. Therefore, aliasing Pinkamena to Pinkie_Pie and saying that you can find Pinkamena again by just searching for "Pinkie_Pie straight_hair" isn't really accurate, it'd cut the number of "Pinkamena" posts down by nearly 90%, which seems extremely inaccurate to me. Surely 90% of these posts aren't tagged incorrectly: https://e621.net/post/index/1/pinkamena

This is why the "usability" of this tag is important. If we get rid of fan-name tags like Pinkamena, it's like taking away a person's nail-gun, handing them a big rock instead, and telling them that it'll get the job done almost as well.

Not so. That means that the people tagging "Pinkamena" are tagging it with the understanding that it means "Pinkie Pie with straight hair" which we can confirm by trawling the images tagged with Pinkamena. This means that the inclusion of the Pinkamena tag is encouraging bad tagging practices by allowing those in the fandom to search for that concept, but those who do not know of the fan nickname who want to find images of Pinkie Pie with straight hair, negatively aligned or not (in the sense ot the theme of the image) cannot find them because the meaning is being superceded by the Pinkamena fan tag. https://e621.net/post/index/1/pinkamena%20-straight_hair see for yourself- the majority of these images ARE incorrectly tagged and missing the straight_hair tag. Incorrect or sloppy tagging has been a longstanding issue with pony art, moreso than most other art, at least from what I have seen over the past three or so years.

123easy said:
Not so. That means that the people tagging "Pinkamena" are tagging it with the understanding that it means "Pinkie Pie with straight hair" which we can confirm by trawling the images tagged with Pinkamena. This means that the inclusion of the Pinkamena tag is encouraging bad tagging practices by allowing those in the fandom to search for that concept, but those who do not know of the fan nickname who want to find images of Pinkie Pie with straight hair, negatively aligned or not (in the sense ot the theme of the image) cannot find them because the meaning is being superceded by the Pinkamena fan tag. https://e621.net/post/index/1/pinkamena%20-straight_hair see for yourself- the majority of these images ARE incorrectly tagged and missing the straight_hair tag. Incorrect or sloppy tagging has been a longstanding issue with pony art, moreso than most other art, at least from what I have seen over the past three or so years.

I really must disagree. I don't think that "Pinkamena" existing as a tag on this site is encouraging users to barely use the straight_hair tag for ANY posts at all, pony or not. It's simply not a tag that people are using as often as needed, and that's not MLP's fault. :P

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
That's a good point, but what if there is a significant amount of art posted based on that one episode? To make it easier to find, wouldn't it make sense to have a unique identifier for it?

Absolutely, that's why we keep the "power ponies" tag, but not each individual.
There is no real benefit added by having individual character names added when each individual is dressed in a specific power pony costume.

Again though, if we decide that any alternate character tag is ok in that other discussion(futashy, molestia, pinkamena, etc.) then I see no reason not to also include these under that heading.

Char said:
I really must disagree. I don't think that "Pinkamena" existing as a tag on this site is encouraging users to barely use the straight_hair tag for ANY posts at all, pony or not. It's simply not a tag that people are using as often as needed, and that's not MLP's fault. :P

Take a look at how many images are tagged Pinkamena that have straight hair that lack the tag. Not using the tag in general isn't MLP's fault, no, and I'm not saying it is. What I am saying, however, at the same time as that straight hair isn't tagged anywhere near as often as it should be, is that MLP has always had a big issue with sloppy tagging from maintianers and posters. Related concepts, because we can see a very large chunk of images that should be getting tagged with it that aren't, and because of the vast number of issues with MLP images being incorrectly or improperly tagged that have had to be cleaned up. Those that post the content are not properly maintaining it is more the point, than it is any specific issue with MLP content itself. Yes, we have many other pieces of non-MLP artwork that are badly tagged by the posters, but the sheer volume and influx of the content over the past few years over the many more than the rest of the content has been trickling in over exacerbates the issue.

Halite said:
Absolutely, that's why we keep the "power ponies" tag, but not each individual.
There is no real benefit added by having individual character names added when each individual is dressed in a specific power pony costume.

Again though, if we decide that any alternate character tag is ok in that other discussion(futashy, molestia, pinkamena, etc.) then I see no reason not to also include these under that heading.

Power Ponies issue has not been decided yet, though. Furthermore, by your logic, there's no benefit to having the individuals of the Justice League or The Avengers (main team or extended) tagged if the group names are tagged. That makes little sense at all, and is rather counterintuitive. If the Power Rangers were to be shown, you would expect each of the rangers to be tagged. Don't use that tired old rebuttal about it being a one-off, please. I already addressed that sufficiently in that thread. >.<

123easy said:
Take a look at how many images are tagged Pinkamena that have straight hair that lack the tag. Not using the tag in general isn't MLP's fault, no, and I'm not saying it is. What I am saying, however, at the same time as that straight hair isn't tagged anywhere near as often as it should be, is that MLP has always had a big issue with sloppy tagging from maintianers and posters. Related concepts, because we can see a very large chunk of images that should be getting tagged with it that aren't, and because of the vast number of issues with MLP images being incorrectly or improperly tagged that have had to be cleaned up. Those that post the content are not properly maintaining it is more the point, than it is any specific issue with MLP content itself. Yes, we have many other pieces of non-MLP artwork that are badly tagged by the posters, but the sheer volume and influx of the content over the past few years over the many more than the rest of the content has been trickling in over exacerbates the issue.

Can I ask how you're determining that MLP images are routinely not properly tagged as opposed to posts on the site in general?

The best method I have for testing this is comparing the amount of images with less than 10 tags for non-mlp content, versus the MLP content. Our non-MLP content with less than 10 tags is over 24,000 posts, compared to just 180 or so for MLP. But it could be argued that MLP will have a lot of tags added automatically via tag implications, so let's increase the number of tags for MLP to less than 15. Now that returns 3,200 images, which is still a far cry from the 24,000+ that are non-MLP that have even been given a 5-tag handicap in this example here.

Again, this is why I ask how you're determining that MLP is tagged any worse than our other content is, because it looks like, if anything, they're tagged more thoroughly than our non-MLP content is. Even if you account for the fact that the site existed before MLP became very popular, it's still clear that, at least as far as number of tags per image, MLP isn't doing any worse than anything else on the site.

Char said:
Can I ask how you're determining that MLP images are routinely not properly tagged as opposed to posts on the site in general?

The best method I have for testing this is comparing the amount of images with less than 10 tags for non-mlp content, versus the MLP content. Our non-MLP content with less than 10 tags is over 24,000 posts, compared to just 180 or so for MLP. But it could be argued that MLP will have a lot of tags added automatically via tag implications, so let's increase the number of tags for MLP to less than 15. Now that returns 3,200 images, which is still a far cry from the 24,000+ that are non-MLP that have even been given a 5-tag handicap in this example here.

Again, this is why I ask how you're determining that MLP is tagged any worse than our other content is, because it looks like, if anything, they're tagged more thoroughly than our non-MLP content is. Even if you account for the fact that the site existed before MLP became very popular, it's still clear that, at least as far as number of tags per image, MLP isn't doing any worse than anything else on the site.

Number of tags =/= accuracy of tagging the image fully. Additionally, it's been from viewing initial tags (and yes, taking into account posters who post volumes then add their tags afterwards) rather than the finalized form after many fixes have been applied. Again, it's mostly the rapidity of content that is exacerbating how it appears, more than anything else, and I most certainly am not saying that non-MLP content has tagging issues.

123easy said:
Power Ponies issue has not been decided yet, though. Furthermore, by your logic, there's no benefit to having the individuals of the Justice League or The Avengers (main team or extended) tagged if the group names are tagged. That makes little sense at all, and is rather counterintuitive. If the Power Rangers were to be shown, you would expect each of the rangers to be tagged. Don't use that tired old rebuttal about it being a one-off, please. I already addressed that sufficiently in that thread. >.<

No, by my logic, there's not benefit to tag one image with iron man in it as "Avengers Tony_Stark Iron_Man" because having Tony Stark, and Iron Man in that situation id redundant.
What I am saying, and what I already said, is that if there's a single episode which has each already established character dressing in one specific outfit, of a character made up for that episode, and no one else is dressing up in thay costume, then there's not real addition of searchability by tagging that specific outfit, if you already tagged the character and the tag that would indicate she is dressec in said outfit.

And please don't tell me what arguements I can and can't use, it's exceedingly rude in a debate setting as it attempts to undermine the point without actually providing proof against it.

In short, the logic I am using says that you will not gain more results with "rainbow_dash power_ponies zap" than you would searching "rainbow_dash power_ponies".

Halite said:
No, by my logic, there's not benefit to tag one image with iron man in it as "Avengers Tony_Stark Iron_Man" because having Tony Stark, and Iron Man in that situation is redundant.

If it has an Avengers logo (say on a banner behind him), Tony Stark (say, working on the armor that's opened up for repairs), and the Iron man armor, then that is accurate tagging.

What I am saying, and what I already said, is that if there's a single episode which has each already established character dressing in one specific outfit, of a character made up for that episode, and no one else is dressing up in thay costume, then there's not real addition of searchability by tagging that specific outfit, if you already tagged the character and the tag that would indicate she is dressec in said outfit.

Creating a bad tagging policy just because there is not art of it *currently* is not good. Your entire argument here hinges on there never being art of the costumes being worn by any other character ever.

And please don't tell me what arguements I can and can't use, it's exceedingly rude in a debate setting as it attempts to undermine the point without actually providing proof against it.

Then actually provide a proper rebuttal of the rebuttal against that argument rather than attempt to reuse it, because attempting to reuse the same argument when it has been rebutted without addressing the rebuttal is indicative of failing to have sufficient argument against the points presented and that it is sufficiently correct to invalidate your arguments utilizing the points so rebutted. I've gotten more than my fill of it from previous threads, and it is bad practice besides.

In short, the logic I am using says that you will not gain more results with "rainbow_dash power_ponies zap" than you would searching "rainbow_dash power_ponies".

"rainbow_dash power_ponies solo" doesn't guarentee that she is wearing the outfit of Zap, the costumed persona she was identified as wearing in the show. In fact, she could be dressed as any of the medley of Power Ponies and you would have to search individual aspects of the costumes that the others lack, if they were even tagged, to be able to find said images. That's a LOT of work to be able to find Rainbow Dash dressed up as Zap, or as Saddle Rager, or whatnot.

Similarily, "Avengers Iron Man Tony Stark" should only be tagged where we can see the Avengers Initiative displayed in some way, if at all (such as by the Avengers logo being visible), Iron Man for any of the Iron Man suits (And if we were an Iron Man/Avengers/Marvel wikia, likely the specific suit that is displayed on the image), and Tony Stark only if he's visible in the image (normally, fully encased in the armor, he isn't, and as such shouldn't be tagged), as I stated above.

123easy said:
...I've gotten more than my fill of it from previous threads, and it is bad practice besides.
...

"I've had my fill of it" is no reason for rudeness.
We are attempting a polite and level headed discussion here.
If you're to upset or exasperated to act politely, it might help to take some time doing something else you enjoy to take your mind off of it.

I would also like to point out that I did not in fact use the "it's a one off" rebuttal, at all, so you're really getting upset over the possibility that I might try to use an argument.

Halite said:
What I am saying, and what I already said, is that if there's a single episode which has each already established character dressing in one specific outfit, of a character made up for that episode...

One-off argument. The same argument you've been using, in at least three separate posts, without addressing my rebuttal of this in any form.

Halite said:
"I've had my fill of it" is no reason for rudeness.
We are attempting a polite and level headed discussion here.
If you're to upset or exasperated to act politely, it might help to take some time doing something else you enjoy to take your mind off of it.

I would also like to point out that I did not in fact use the "it's a one off" rebuttal, at all, so you're really getting upset over the possibility that I might try to use an argument.

Rudeness, politely formed or otherwise, is given when rudeness is shown. Attempting to argue the same points repeatedly without addressing the rebuttal made against it is incredibly rude, as it is completely dismissive in attitude. Reconsider continuing to post if you feel you cannot address my rebuttal's points that refute yours.

Okay everybody, chill the fuck out, I know you're all keeping the typing civil but I can hear the anger behind the words. Its noones fault, people still have differing opinions, and that's no reason to want to be anal. Well maybe a little but not enough to actually do it.
I propose we stop trying to argue the exact same points to each other and simply state our current arguments in one post and let the admins decide what should be done in this case.

on that note: I started this argument against individual costume names because they only ever were mentioned once, and we've never seen the original wearers of the costume, which will probably result in a lower number of people searching them by name. However, the costumes do still come with names, and they are irrefutably canonical, and the costumes can be drawn on anyone, who could be displaying as that specific power pony. It would break twys if you didn't tag individual names for the costumes because aliasing them all to power ponies would mean that if you wanted to see someone dressed as saddle rager you would have to sift through every single power ponies post ever

We really do not need hostility here. Rudeness will not be given when rudeness is received because then you will just get in trouble as well. If someone is being rude, ignore them and move on to the point you were trying to make. If you must address them, remain civil and it will look far better than stooping to their level, earned or not

What if we had Darth Vader dressed as Ironman? Ironman's suit, Darth Vader's helm? would that image be tagged ironman or Darth Vader, or both?

edidaf said:
What if we had Darth Vader dressed as Ironman? Ironman's suit, Darth Vader's helm? would that image be tagged ironman or Darth Vader, or both?

Should be tagged as both.

Vodka is wonderful, so forgive me if I am less than coherent. If my previous example gets tagged with both names, why should any other combo be tagged different? If I see generic character #3 wearing superhero costume #6, I would tag both, because I see both.

edidaf said:
Vodka is wonderful, so forgive me if I am less than coherent. If my previous example gets tagged with both names, why should any other combo be tagged different? If I see generic character #3 wearing superhero costume #6, I would tag both, because I see both.

I'll be the first to say I'm no admin; my word is not law or anything of the sort. The above post is my opinion.

As of yet, there are two arguments that I have seen; one is boiled down to, "because it's a one-off character" in conjunction with, "just tag it as the group". I have rebutted the former argument repeatedly and the latter as well, and await either a counter-rebuttal or a new argument for those against this.

The other is boiled down to, "If we did not see the costumes, we can't say that the name of the costume applies", which I think has been addressed appropriately enough to sate Sollux's concern, as indicated earlier in the thread, as in the post above.

Okay, one-off characters: I say we don't tag them at all. What if they are never mentioned again? Most people will forget about them and probably remember like "I've seen this guy but I can't remember his name".
Yeah, the Power Ponies didn't appear at all (physycally), they were mentioned by Spike and the appearance of the costumes had a fair share of time during the episode (not to mention it was exactly about them). So, if they appear again, we should tag them.

But! Thinking about it more, the same happened with Mare Do Well) which at her time, she was tagged and nobody said anything.

edidaf said:
Vodka is wonderful, so forgive me if I am less than coherent. If my previous example gets tagged with both names, why should any other combo be tagged different? If I see generic character #3 wearing superhero costume #6, I would tag both, because I see both.

What if the costume has a mask? (Like Mare Do Well) Not like the Incredible's masks (they don't cover your identity at all) but full masks, like Spiderman's, Batman's, Psycho Mantis or pretty much any costume where you can't see the wearer's face? Should we tag just the costume or both the costume and the wearer (if there's any visible hint)

Since character names are one of the few exceptions to twys, so long as there is sufficient evidence to indicate said character, tag the character. If no hint is visible, Bruce Banner wearing the Ironman armor, for example, only tag Ironman. If Equestria Girls style Rainbowdash is in the suit of armor with appropriate cutie mark on the hip, or anywheres, tag both.

Xch3l said:
Okay, one-off characters: I say we don't tag them at all. What if they are never mentioned again? Most people will forget about them and probably remember like "I've seen this guy but I can't remember his name".
Yeah, the Power Ponies didn't appear at all (physycally), they were mentioned by Spike and the appearance of the costumes had a fair share of time during the episode (not to mention it was exactly about them). So, if they appear again, we should tag them.

But! Thinking about it more, the same happened with Mare Do Well) which at her time, she was tagged and nobody said anything.

sorry if this looks like a half baked idea, I distract very easily and kinda forget what was I going to say...

That doesn't make much sense at all. Why does something have to appear twice to be tagged? Gilda was in one episode, Griffon The Brush Off. By that reasoning, no image with her should be tagged. Same with Mare Do Well, as you mentioned.

If anything, if they're a one-off character, they should definitely get tagged, since they only had one appearance, and someone might want to find that character's only canon appearance.

What if the costume has a mask? (Like Mare Do Well) Not like the Incredible's masks (they don't cover your identity at all) but full masks, like Spiderman's, Batman's, Psycho Mantis or pretty much any costume where you can't see the wearer's face? Should we tag just the costume or both the costume and the wearer (if there's any visible hint)

If you cannot tell who the character is wearing the outfit, the character should not be tagged, only the outfit. Of course any time we see Spiderman or Iron Man flying or swinging about we obviously know there is a person inside (well, usually, in the case of Iron Man... Stupid remote control system :P) actively wearing the costume, but as they are not definitively visible they should not be tagged, as whom it may be is not necessarily the original wearer of the outfit (When Tony had Pepper get suited up, for example). Compare such a situation to when Tony was wearing only a partial suit because the majority was not yet attached (the piecemeal suit that he was working on in 3) but is wearing enough that you can tell it's the Iron Man suit, but still can tell it's Tony Stark inside- or even if he just has the face plate opened.

I just want to inject a quick reminder that the whole point behind tagging, the reason we have it at all, is that there is a system where someone can, in their first try without any prior knowledge of e621, can find images related to their search.

Whatever we end up deciding should reflect that as the ultimate goal.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
I just want to inject a quick reminder that the whole point behind tagging, the reason we have it at all, is that there is a system where someone can, in their first try without any prior knowledge of e621, can find images related to their search.

Whatever we end up deciding should reflect that as the ultimate goal.

We already have a majority on this issue. Unless Halite concedes his argument, I think he will remain against regardless of how long it goes back and forth, and Xch3l seems on the fence. I'd recommend making an administrative decision based on the evidence provided in and by this thread.

123easy said:
We already have a majority on this issue. Unless Halite concedes his argument, I think he will remain against regardless of how long it goes back and forth, and Xch3l seems on the fence. I'd recommend making an administrative decision based on the evidence provided in and by this thread.

this.

123easy said:
We already have a majority on this issue. Unless Halite concedes his argument, I think he will remain against regardless of how long it goes back and forth, and Xch3l seems on the fence. I'd recommend making an administrative decision based on the evidence provided in and by this thread.

Me on the fence? Remember when I said "half-baked idea"? :I

In the end, untagling the mess of ideas in that post, I agreed we should tag both the outfit and the character wearing it (if it had visible and identifiable hints).

Xch3l said:
Me on the fence? Remember when I said "half-baked idea"? :I

In the end, untagling the mess of ideas in that post, I agreed we should tag both the outfit and the character wearing it (if it had visible and identifiable hints).

thus the 'seems'. I couldn't untangle it beyond you saying you weren't sure either way. ._.

So it appears to be 8 for tagging both costume and character, and 4 against. If majority rules by tomorrow, we'll make this the rule.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
So it appears to be 8 for tagging both costume and character, and 4 against. If majority rules by tomorrow, we'll make this the rule.

I count 11 for, 1 on either side (DrHorse), 1 against, myself.

123easy said:
I count 11 for, 1 on either side (DrHorse), 1 against, myself.

I don't really care either way, as long as we get to keep the power_ponies_(mlp) tag.

DrHorse said:
I don't really care either way, as long as we get to keep the power_ponies_(mlp) tag.

If we do, I think we should keep it only for images where all of the costumed personas are together as the entire group.

123easy said:
If we do, I think we should keep it only for images where all of the costumed personas are together as the entire group.

That would cost you 6 tags to remove them from searches.

123easy said:
If we do, I think we should keep it only for images where all of the costumed personas are together as the entire group.

that should only be true if the costumes belong to the group secondarily to their solo exploits like the avengers. This is more similar to the power rangers where one ranger constitutes the power_rangers tag

We have come to a decision that both characters (that is to say, the character and the costume) will be tagged on a post where the character and the costume are present. This would also apply to each when they are separated (not that they'd be tagged with both but that if the costume is present but not the character, still tag the costume, and vice versa)

Thank you all for participating and keeping our forum friendly!

Rainbow_Dash said:
We have come to a decision that both characters (that is to say, the character and the costume) will be tagged on a post where the character and the costume are present. This would also apply to each when they are separated (not that they'd be tagged with both but that if the costume is present but not the character, still tag the costume, and vice versa)

Thank you all for participating and keeping our forum friendly!

So, what constitutes a costume for this ruling then?
I get that a whole superhero-esque costume would certainly apply, but would say a picture of a pony other than applejack wearing applejacks hat qualify for an appke jack tag since that's a piece of clothing that is sort of her "signature" clothing?

Halite said:
So, what constitutes a costume for this ruling then?
I get that a whole superhero-esque costume would certainly apply, but would say a picture of a pony other than applejack wearing applejacks hat qualify for an appke jack tag since that's a piece of clothing that is sort of her "signature" clothing?

A hat alone isn't really enough to qualify as a costume unless there's something obvious and unique about it. Plus, the whole idea behind drawing a character dressed up as another character is for you to actually be able to tell who the character is dressed up as. I think most artists take this into account when drawing characters cosplaying, so I think it's unlikely that we'll have to really deal with potential issues like that too much.

Char said:
A hat alone isn't really enough to qualify as a costume unless there's something obvious and unique about it. Plus, the whole idea behind drawing a character dressed up as another character is for you to actually be able to tell who the character is dressed up as.

So a single piece of clothing isn't sufficient, unless it's clearly uniquely identifiable, like Captain America's shield, or the Juggernauts helmet.
Are we applying the character name exception guideline on this as well?
So if the image itself is not 100% clear on whomthe costume is, but it's identified at the source(s), the n we can tag it?

I think most artists take this into account when drawing characters cosplaying, so I think it's unlikely that we'll have to really deal with potential issues like that too much.

I think you may be unpleasently surprised, but perhaps I'm just a pessimist.

Halite said:
Are we applying the character name exception guideline on this as well? So if the image itself is not 100% clear on whomthe costume is, but it's identified at the source(s), then we can tag it?

That sounds reasonable to me.