One year ago (As seen here https://e621.net/forum/show/63880) princess_molestia_(mlp) was aliased to princess_celestia_(mlp).

However, 3 months ago (here https://e621.net/forum/show/98605) it was somewhat decided (At least by the admins that posted there) that alternate version of an existing character should be implicated, or at least tagged separately.

Somehow princess_molestia_(mlp) missed the ramifications of this discussion, and I can think of a few possible reasons why. It is a little known fact that Molestia is, in fact, a real character separate to Celestia and that she does, in fact, have a separate appearance. Molestia has a light pink mane while Celestia has.. freaking.. triple-decker ice-cream hair.

Here, let me just show you
post #445504 post #446817

This physical difference means these characters can easily be recognizable as far as the TWYS rule is concerned. The monochrome comic series would also be covered by TWYS since "Molestia" was the titular character. Compare "Trolestia" who's presence is very context sensitive because she has no physical identifiers that differentiate her from either Celestia or Molestia, and it is debatable as to whether she is even a separate persona. Notice how in the above image of Molestia it is strait away clear who that is, even outside of her intended context.

It would then be prudent (Using the TWYS rule) to tag any picture of Celestia with pink hair should be tagged Molestia, BUT, and this is a very big but(t), not all pictures of Pink Haired Celestia are Molestia, since Celestia herself had pink hair in her younger years (According to fandom anyway).

post #435572
(I actually had to choose this picture carefully since Young Luna needed to be in the shot to confirm Celestia's age)

This makes this issue hard to judge, especially since it is not an issue shared by either of her equivalents (Pinkie Pie with strait hair is ALWAYS Pinkamena, Fluttershy with batwings is ALWAYS Flutterbat), and even more especially since it was never really decided when Celestia went from pink hair to.. Ice-cream.

So I propose three option, each with pros and cons, and two of them would make this Molly Fan happy.

Option 1: Tag all content of Celestia with pink hair princess_molestia_(mlp), UNLESS they fall into the following criteria; A. The picture is of young filly Celestia, B. The context of the picture brings the timeline to during or before the time of Nightmare Moon's first ascension, C. The context of the picture would be inappropriate for Molestia (Serious, non erotic artwork or a solem context), D. The artist has specifically called her "Celestia in her younger years" or something while making absolutely no mention of Molestia (Unless it is obviously her). Of course, if it is adult pink haired Celestia in on the obviously modern timeframe (e.g. With other characters), or the artist outright calls her Molestia, all bets are off.
Pros: Would be faithful to e621's ease of searching policy. Would allow users to find pictures of Molestia directly, rather than having to sift through pictures of Celestia.
Cons: Could potentially be hard to judge. Some artists might get offended by having their art tagged "Molestia". May lead to the molestia tag filtering out pictures of Molestia if the the molestia tag was debatable and decidedly not added.

Option 2: Tag all pictures of Celestia with pink hair with the pink hair tag. Thus allowing users to search "princess_celestia_(mlp) pink_hair"
Pros: This should be done anyway!!! Would remove the issue of ambiguity. Would also make pictures of filly Celestia easy to find (Two birds, one stone). Artists wouldn't get offended.
Cons: Would filter out Molestia's main comic since it is in monochrome! Users would be searching for two things to find one thing. Young Celestia would by mixed in with Molestia (Which might get especially awkward if the rating:e tag was thrown in).

Option 3: Do nothing. Keep princess_molestia_(mlp) aliased to princess_celestia_(mlp). And no, this is NOT a joke option, I will begrudgingly accept if you choose to do this.
Pros: Would eliminate any potential issues. Would mean less tags overall (Which frees up a bit of space I guess, not quite sure exactly how this site works internally). Best option for lazy people.
Cons: Would be in direct violation of s621's objective to make searching less convoluted. Pictures of Molestia would remain lost in a sea of normal Celestia pictures.

Should either of the first two options be chosen, I will go about making the necessary changes myself.

---

Obviously there is the debate of whether Princess Molestia is a notable enough character to deserve her own tag. But to prevent such a discussion from detracting from the main point of this thread, I will offer the following information and allow an Admin to make a final decision based on this information.

Molestia had her own comic series that was very popular until it was canceled on January this year.
Said comic generated a lot of fan-art over the years.
Most people who would argue that Molestia is just a joke or a meme are either simply misinformed or are going by VERY outdated information (Talking years out of date here). Molestia has been a "Real" character since the debut of the Molestia comic, and while she might have started off as a joke, she wouldn't be the first "Real" character to make her first appearance on an image-board (Cultist-Chan anyone?).
She has a unique personality that is different from her inspiration that goes beyond her sexuality schtick.
Her physical appearance is easily differentiable from that of Celestia, just like Pinkamena and Flutterbat.
Faithful fans of this unique character who go out of their way to write crap like this exist.

Option 2 sounds best, for avoiding unnecessary tag wars and clean up. As you said, the hair colors should be tagged anyway. But if that's the only twys difference between Molestia and Celestia, then those couldn't possibly be tagged reliably for monochrome images.

And I'm against option 1. In my experience, implicating characters and species to their other forms always makes it a lot harder to find what I'm searching for. For instance, I was trying to find images of absol x mega_absol recently, only to find out that the mega_absol -> absol implication makes that completely impossible.

Molestia is SOMETIMES a palette swap of Celestia; it isn't set in stone she's always drawn with those colours. I've seen plenty of images featuring that personality with Celestia's colours. Coloured hair should be tagged, but it shouldn't be tagged as some fan characterization of the base character. Same argument I have with Pinkie Pie and Pinkamena where it's SOMETIMES a straight hair instead of poofy hair difference, not always.

The only distinguishable trait of molestia is her facial expression and *occasional* palette swap. There is absolutely no need for it to be its own tag.

ippiki_ookami said:
The only distinguishable trait of molestia is her facial expression and *occasional* palette swap. There is absolutely no need for it to be its own tag.

This scenario is already covered by TWYS. For character names, tag_what_you_see says:

You may use an OFFICIAL external source of information (the artist, commissioner, or character owner's gallery/website) when tagging a character name ONLY under the following conditions:

1) The external source of information is the artist, commissioner, or character owner's own words on their own gallery or website.
2) The post must have at least SOME evidence of the claimed character and can not have any evidence that CONFLICTS with what the external source is saying (e.g. a post can't be tagged "Character A" just because the external source says so, when the post does not actually contain any evidence of "Character A", or in fact looks more like "Character B" instead.) Again, there must be at least SOME evidence that the character is who it's claimed to be, but it does not have to be definitive proof.

If it looks like Celestia, tag it Celestia. If it looks like Molestia, tag it Molestia.

I really don't understand why people are still so against this. We are completely capable of managing the distinction between these two characters within e621's TWYS requirements. For the pictures where you can actually tell it's Molestia, it can be tagged that, and for when you can't tell, it gets tagged as just Celestia.

Char said:
This scenario is already covered by TWYS. For character names, tag_what_you_see says:
If it looks like Celestia, tag it Celestia. If it looks like Molestia, tag it Molestia.

I really don't understand why people are still so against this. We are completely capable of managing the distinction between these two characters within e621's TWYS requirements. For the pictures where you can actually tell it's Molestia, it can be tagged that, and for when you can't tell, it gets tagged as just Celestia.

Because it's a fan character personality and not an actual different character. We don't tag Star Fox something different because he's portrayed different from the games (Generally, portrayed as gay). We just tag it Fox_McCloud and the appropriate situation tags. Tagging a character as an alternative nickname because of a personality change is wrong and has always been wrong. It's just like trying to tag an individual character's mental sexual orientation on an image.

123easy said:
Because it's a fan character personality and not an actual different character. We don't tag Star Fox something different because he's portrayed different from the games (Generally, portrayed as gay). We just tag it Fox_McCloud and the appropriate situation tags. Tagging a character as an alternative nickname because of a personality change is wrong and has always been wrong. It's just like trying to tag an individual character's mental sexual orientation on an image.

I'm not talking about a personality change, I'm talking about a legitimate visual distinction between the original character and the fan-made character.

Try searching Molestia on derpibooru.org: https://derpibooru.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sbq=molestia&commit=Go (if you don't have an account, change your "Filter" in the top-right to "Everything")

The MAJORITY of the results that come back are what you would expect, the desaturated pink-haired version of Princess_Celestia. This isn't just a one-off character; it has been drawn over and over by a ton of different artists. For the ones where it isn't Celestia with pink hair, she tends to have that silly grin on her face (which I'm NOT arguing is enough to make the Princess_Molestia tag valid, as that falls under what you said about not tagging personalities).

If even derpibooru.org can handle this with fairly accurate results, I don't see how it'd be much of a challenge for e621 at all with our much more strict and maintained tagging.

I have an academic issue with the OP, as each option they offered was heavily influenced by their own opinion. I think the title was the best argument for it.

The main factor was the post by Char, who made that at my request to work with the overly dramatic Pinkamena debate. I'm not sure why the OP said Celestia missed the argument, as she was specifically brought up as an example. Maybe I'm mis-reading it, but I think we're all on the same page.

However, I do see that it would be impossible to do as Char's post suggested (tag an image as both Celesita and Molestia, if need be) with the alias in place. In keeping with existing policy, I think the alias should be an implication instead.

Char said:
I'm not talking about a personality change, I'm talking about a legitimate visual distinction between the original character and the fan-made character.

Try searching Molestia on derpibooru.org: https://derpibooru.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&sbq=molestia&commit=Go (if you don't have an account, change your "Filter" in the top-right to "Everything")

The MAJORITY of the results that come back are what you would expect, the desaturated pink-haired version of Princess_Celestia. This isn't just a one-off character; it has been drawn over and over by a ton of different artists. For the ones where it isn't Celestia with pink hair, she tends to have that silly grin on her face (which I'm NOT arguing is enough to make the Princess_Molestia tag valid, as that falls under what you said about not tagging personalities).

If even derpibooru.org can handle this with fairly accurate results, I don't see how it'd be much of a challenge for e621 at all with our much more strict and maintained tagging.

...Except it can't. At least two images are tagged Molestia and are meme pictures of Luna talking about her sister sitting on her gameboy or something; even excluding those two, of the first 24 images (first two pages) 15 of them do not feature that colour palette. Some have characters in monocolor (each character drawn with only one colour, separate from each other; the colour chosen is not consistant between multiple images, nor generally reflects the desaturated pink-like colour that you are purporting Molestia is defined with) or full monochrome (and thus a colour palette difference cannot be used as an excuse for exact same character model with different coloured hair) but the majority are just regular Celestia with a personality change/that grin.

Go in more and you get tons of that stupid meme, which I can't qualify on the basis it's one image that is used on a memegenerating site where users slap on a skin to another image and make random drivel (and the majority of those meme images seem to be just that); Removing those (via addition of the 'NOT meme' searchtag) still returns plenty with her having pink hair, but just as many with her regular colouration. Heck this: https://derpibooru.org/576262?scope=scpeb50e3830a8cb7300ed49b50b418e6457d67cd6a1 looks more like futanari fluttershy than it does Celestia, aside from the horn. That's not even touching on the medley of images that don't even feature the character even in reference like https://derpibooru.org/559257?scope=scpeb50e3830a8cb7300ed49b50b418e6457d67cd6a1

So no, not even Derpibooru can tag her with any real accuracy. There's at least two, usually more individual images that are monochrome or monocolour per page or don't even feature the character that are tagged- that's with and without the meme images, both.

123easy said:
even excluding those two, of the first 24 images (first two pages) 15 of them do not feature that colour palette. Some have characters in monocolor (each character drawn with only one colour, separate from each other; the colour chosen is not consistant between multiple images, nor generally reflects the desaturated pink-like colour that you are purporting Molestia is defined with) or full monochrome (and thus a colour palette difference cannot be used as an excuse for exact same character model with different coloured hair) but the majority are just regular Celestia with a personality change/that grin.

Yes, which means that we wouldn't allow such images to be tagged as Princess_Molestia on e621, because they do not satisfy TWYS. Derpibooru has no TWYS rule to my knowledge. Again, what you're pointing out here would not be an issue on e621, because we wouldn't allow such posts to have the Princess_Molestia tag anyways.

123easy said:
Removing those (via addition of the 'NOT meme' searchtag) still returns plenty with her having pink hair, but just as many with her regular colouration. Heck this: https://derpibooru.org/576262?scope=scpeb50e3830a8cb7300ed49b50b418e6457d67cd6a1 looks more like futanari fluttershy than it does Celestia, aside from the horn. That's not even touching on the medley of images that don't even feature the character even in reference like https://derpibooru.org/559257?scope=scpeb50e3830a8cb7300ed49b50b418e6457d67cd6a1[/quote]

See above.

123easy said:
So no, not even Derpibooru can tag her with any real accuracy. There's at least two, usually more individual images that are monochrome or monocolour per page or don't even feature the character that are tagged- that's with and without the meme images, both.

Take the following example: https://derpibooru.org/569078?scope=scpe3a71945e5af19630a1ed2eaaa0648fa2eeb1e316

We are currently saying that that would have to be tagged with Princess_Celestia, despite the image itself explicitly telling you that it's Princess_Molestia, and has evidence of such due to the color palette. That would look... really really silly of us.

Again, all that's being proposed here is that Princess_Molestia implies the Princess_Celestia tag. That way it's still tagged Princess_Celestia as it should be, but also has the Princess_Molestia tag because it's a different version of Princess Celestia. I can not think of any problems this would cause whatsoever, beyond people trying to tag Princess_Molestia on images where there is no clear indication that it is Molestia. Those cases are easily handled because they violate TWYS.

If you think this would cause some sort of issue that I haven't touched on, please let me know, because I just can't think of any.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
I have an academic issue with the OP, as each option they offered was heavily influenced by their own opinion. I think the title was the best argument for it.

Sorry it came out that way. It occurred to me that the third option is kinda redundant since pictures of Celestia with pink hair should be tagged pink_hair anyway (Which they are not).

123easy said:
Molestia is SOMETIMES a palette swap of Celestia; it isn't set in stone she's always drawn with those colours. I've seen plenty of images featuring that personality with Celestia's colours. Coloured hair should be tagged, but it shouldn't be tagged as some fan characterization of the base character. Same argument I have with Pinkie Pie and Pinkamena where it's SOMETIMES a straight hair instead of poofy hair difference, not always.

The reason for this in both cases is because the Molestia and "Evil Pinkie" concepts were created long before the personas were fully fleshed out. IIRC Cupcakes, the fan-fic that invented the Evil Pinkie Pie concept, was written BEFORE strait haired Pinkie's first on screen appearance. While the comic that defined Molestia as a character

123easy said:
...Except it can't. At least two images are tagged Molestia and are meme pictures of Luna talking about her sister sitting on her gameboy or something;

First of all, the Luna thing is most likely because Gamer-Luna is a part of the Molestia Comics XD.

Go in more and you get tons of that stupid meme, which I can't qualify on the basis it's one image that is used on a memegenerating site where users slap on a skin to another image and make random drivel

Yeah... There is a specific reason I am here and not on Derpibooru...

123easy said:
the colour chosen is not consistant between multiple images, nor generally reflects the desaturated pink-like colour that you are purporting Molestia is defined with) or full monochrome (and thus a colour palette difference cannot be used as an excuse for exact same character model with different coloured hair) but the majority are just regular Celestia with a personality change/that grin.

Derpibooru tags pretty much any picture in which Tia is being sexual as "Molestia" whether she is that persona or not.
The monochrome pictures are (Usually) part of the Molestia comic. And in the few color images in the comic, Molly's hair is pink!
As for the grin, that is technically Molestia, but those pictures were made long before Molestia was properly characterized (See above)

First we end up with molestia, then futashy, then flutterbat, ect ect untill the site implodes on its own furryness! [Grabs bucket of popcorn]

LadyChaomii said:
-snip-Derpibooru tags pretty much any picture in which Tia is being sexual as "Molestia" whether she is that persona or not. The monochrome pictures are (Usually) part of the Molestia comic. -snip-

That's my point, though. Char is arguing that Derpibooru can 'get that tagged fairly accurately' which it most definitely is not. If even the fan booru for the site cannot completely agree on that colour being it, with the simple facial expression on her normal colouration also meaning that fanon character, it should not be tagged. Tag it rape_face, tag it pink_hair, tag it desaturated, etc. but it's not an actual, separate character from the original; Just a fan-created personality. If it says Princess Molestia in the image, tag that- but not as a separate character. The same occurs for 'Pinkamena'. As for the images where it's monochrome or monocolour, you literally cannot tell the difference from a monochrome or monocolour image of Celestia unless it has that rape face- in which case it just looks like Celestia with a rape face. Both these fanon characters started off as nothing more than simply darker/twisted versions of the actual character's personality as is. I don't understand why people keep demanding they be recognized as separate characters when they aren't.

123easy said:
That's my point, though. Char is arguing that Derpibooru can 'get that tagged fairly accurately' which it most definitely is not. If even the fan booru for the site cannot completely agree on that colour being it, with the simple facial expression on her normal colouration also meaning that fanon character, it should not be tagged. Tag it rape_face, tag it pink_hair, tag it desaturated, etc. but it's not an actual, separate character from the original; Just a fan-created personality. If it says Princess Molestia in the image, tag that- but not as a separate character. The same occurs for 'Pinkamena'. As for the images where it's monochrome or monocolour, you literally cannot tell the difference from a monochrome or monocolour image of Celestia unless it has that rape face- in which case it just looks like Celestia with a rape face. Both these fanon characters started off as nothing more than simply darker/twisted versions of the actual character's personality as is. I don't understand why people keep demanding they be recognized as separate characters when they aren't.

I've already addressed this argument in my previous posts. I think we should proceed with removing the alias and creating the implication at this point. If it ends up horribly backfiring, it'd be very quick and easy to fix. I really don't see a downside here.

Char said:
I've already addressed this argument in my previous posts. I think we should proceed with removing the alias and creating the implication at this point. If it ends up horribly backfiring, it'd be very quick and easy to fix. I really don't see a downside here.

Other than once again compromising on our ethics and tagging code to once again pander to the MLP crowd, as usual.

123easy said:
Other than once again compromising on our ethics and tagging code to once again pander to the MLP crowd, as usual.

How many Sonic The Hedgehog fan-characters are there that are little more than recolors of the original characters?

And what about all those Lion King recolors? And Stitch recolors?

Shit, 90% of the ponies in MLP itself are nothing BUT recolors based off of a few base models. Recoloring IS how they make new characters.

To make the claim that a recolor of ANY character can never be counted as a NEW character is way too strict. I should be able to recolor Bugs Bunny and call him Smugs Bunny if I want to, because there is a legitimate, obvious difference between the two characters. It's not terribly imaginative, but it still counts.

Where do you draw the line? "Oh, that's just Mufasa with a brown mane", "Oh, that's just Stitch with green fur", "Oh, that's just Toothless with blue skin". I don't understand what makes Molestia different from any of these other examples where we would DEFINITELY allow the tagging of a fan-character name (and without even implicating the original character's name).

In my opinion, by not allowing a recolored Princess Celestia to be tagged with a different character name, we set a precedent that says we wouldn't allow ANY recolored characters to have a different character name. That would be bad news for a lot of characters out there. It just seems to me that Princess Molestia gets all the flak for it because she's the most widespread of these types of characters.

So no, I don't feel that we're pandering to anyone here. I feel that we're simply having to defend allowing a recolored character to be tagged appropriately, just the same as we would any of the multitude of other recolored characters out there that would never even be questioned.

This has been discussed among the Committee for the better part of the week, taking in all your feedback and different aspects of our site, and the policies in place.

I think that some of us are missing the point: the entire reason behind tags is so people can search for a particular type of image and find it. If they want to search for Molestia, I say more power to them. It matters not if they are a brony, furry, or a curious human. As long as we are structured, cleaning up duplicate/unnecessary tags, and smart about this, this is really the best choice. We are merely here to make things easier for our site, not whether or not we agree that a certain character exists or not.

I understand that, when making decisions that effect an entirety at once, there are going to be people who like it, and people who don't. We are making these decisions for the betterment of the site-at-large, not a couple of users who disagree.

So, we have agreed with the OP in that Molestia's alias will be removed and implicated to Celestia instead. This is in keeping with existing policy, and ensure that Molestia images are attached to the original character.

I apologize for the people who disagree with this, rest assured that do not make these decisions lightly, or quickly.

Show me characters that don't have more than just a colour change and are defined as a completely separate character, please. Sonic fan characters I see use the same style (obviously) but colourize, accessorize and clothe themselves quite differently from the actual characters in the series. Even the ones that are similar to the canon characters were not simple facial changes that then changed to SOMETIMES recolours that can't even maintain consistancy on the primary 'booru they're displayed on, let alone anywhere else.

Stitch recolours? You mean the other experiments that actually exist canonically within the universe of the L&S TV show, like Angel and Sparky and Bonnie? The ones that have been drawn not just as separate colours but with different antennae and body shapes *consistantly* across fan and canon art? Or are you talking about the fan OCs that sometimes look like a recolour of Stitch himself? they have minor variants to their antennae and crests as well, and are consistant in their depiction across the small handful of images that exist (and are almost always depicted as being with Stitch to begin with, so is obvious that they are separate characters even when monocolour)? The diversity amongst the experiments is as with the Sailor Scouts and Sailor Moon- They have the same basic outfit, but the details vary widely and you can tell them apart easily on sight.

Ponies are recolours and recombinations of various hair styles, facial styles, and the marks on their flank. This is why the primary identifier of ponies was determined to be the cutie mark, as that is unique to each pony. What is Celestia's cutie mark? A sun with stylized rays around it. What is "Molestia's"? The exact same. She is not shown as a separate character from Celestia ever, instead subsuming her role as Luna's older sister and Twilight's teacher- Nothing more than a perverted version of Celestia. Molestia was never a fully separate character but is a different personality version of Celestia. We don't tag gay perverted Star Fox with a separate character name because he's gay, we tag him Star Fox + gay. We don't tag personalities. The same argument applies to "Pinkamena", just as it did before.

Also, if you drew Bugs and recoloured him and called him Smugs, you'd be impinging on the IP horribly because all it is is a recolour of the original character, first off. Secondly, if it can't be distinguished reliably from the original on sight and action within context (within the furry fandom most art is going to be pornographic, for example) then it is too similar to be defined as a truly separate character to begin with legally, let alone generally.

Char said:
How many Sonic The Hedgehog fan-characters are there that are little more than recolors of the original characters?

Plenty. But they're still treated as separate characters, not implicated to sonic_the_hedgehog. So why is this one different?

One tag per character. If Molestia and Celestia are considered to be separate characters, then why the implication? We don't tag Dolan as Donald Duck either.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
This has been discussed among the Committee for the better part of the week, taking in all your feedback and different aspects of our site, and the policies in place.

I think that some of us are missing the point: the entire reason behind tags is so people can search for a particular type of image and find it. If they want to search for Molestia, I say more power to them. It matters not if they are a brony, furry, or a curious human. As long as we are structured, cleaning up duplicate/unnecessary tags, and smart about this, this is really the best choice. We are merely here to make things easier for our site, not whether or not we agree that a certain character exists or not.

I understand that, when making decisions that effect an entirety at once, there are going to be people who like it, and people who don't. We are making these decisions for the betterment of the site-at-large, not a couple of users who disagree.

So, we have agreed with the OP in that Molestia's alias will be removed and implicated to Celestia instead. This is in keeping with existing policy, and ensure that Molestia images are attached to the original character.

I apologize for the people who disagree with this, rest assured that do not make these decisions lightly, or quickly.

Obviously you do, since it's easily proven that it isn't consistantly taggable, and in fact I did so with the above remark about Derpibooru and images so depicting the supposed character. But whatever. I'm done. Continue pandering to the Bronies even more. I'm tired of this crap.

Genjar said:
Plenty. But they're still treated as separate characters, not implicated to sonic_the_hedgehog. So why is this one different?

One tag per character. If Molestia and Celestia are considered to be separate characters, then why the implication? We don't tag Dolan as Donald Duck either.

The implication to Princess_Celestia is the middle-ground we're trying to reach so those who don't want the Princess_Molestia tag to exist don't have to worry about Princess_Celestia not also being tagged on the same images. In addition, I think Princess Molestia is viewed more as an "alternate version" of Princess Celestia, rather than a completely distinct character. It's kind of like "imagine if Princess Celestia was a sex-crazed maniac", rather than "this character looks like Celestia but has absolutely nothing at all to do with Celestia".

123easy said:
Obviously you do, since it's easily proven that it isn't consistantly taggable, and in fact I did so with the above remark about Derpibooru and images so depicting the supposed character. But whatever. I'm done. Continue pandering to the Bronies even more. I'm tired of this crap.

I've already said over and over that the tagging of Princess Molestia still has to follow TWYS. If there's not a visible difference between Molestia and Celestia in the image, or Molestia isn't mentioned specifically by name in the image, then only the Princess_Celestia tag can apply. That is consistency, and the TWYS rules completely allow this. Yes, this will mean that some posts that have "Princess Molestia" in them can't be tagged as Princess Molestia, but that's still better than not allowing ANY posts to be tagged Princess_Molestia.

The decision has been made at this point, so I'll lock this thread to prevent further arguments. If significant problems arise from this decision, then it's REALLY not a big deal to change things back to the way they were before.

Please stop getting so worked up and frustrated over this, and give us a chance to demonstrate that this isn't going to lead to any major issues.