Implicating Prince Blueblood (mlp) to Friendship Is Magic.
Also, unicorn to horn.

Reason: It is.

The first one is okay, but you can't always see the horn of a unicorn. Case in point:
post #171889

Riversyde said:
you can't always see the horn of a unicorn.

Then we don't tag it as unicorn. Maybe i'm just strict with the "tag what you see" thing, but don't you think it's wrong to tag Celestia with "alicorn" when her horn or wings aren't visible? Same with unicorn; If I know the character is a unicorn but I see no horn, it doesn't get the tag.

Ultima_Weapon said:
Then we don't tag it as unicorn. Maybe i'm just strict with the "tag what you see" thing, but don't you think it's wrong to tag Celestia with "alicorn" when her horn or wings aren't visible? Same with unicorn; If I know the character is a unicorn but I see no horn, it doesn't get the tag.

So it's not alright to tag species when you can't see the whole body of a character?

Riversyde said:
So it's not alright to tag species when you can't see the whole body of a character?

If I could only see the back half of a animal, and if I can't see anything that would distinguish it's species such as scales or spots(for spotted cats), then I wouldn't tag it. If i'm specifically looking for unicorns, I wouldn't want to see pictures without a horned horse.

Ultima_Weapon said:
If I could only see the back half of a animal, and if I can't see anything that would distinguish it's species such as scales or spots(for spotted cats), then I wouldn't tag it. If i'm specifically looking for unicorns, I wouldn't want to see pictures without a horned horse.

The picture I posted earlier has an identifying mark of a character who is a unicorn.

Riversyde said:
The picture I posted earlier has an identifying mark of a character who is a unicorn.

I know, but we can't see that she's a unicorn. It's like the discussion a while back about characters who we know are a certain gender/species: I know that Charizard is a dragon, but if an artist draws it as a human, the dragon tag wouldn't apply since you see no dragon.

Not to sound assholish but isn't this point easy to see?

Ultima_Weapon said:
I know, but we can't see that she's a unicorn. It's like the discussion a while back about characters who we know are a certain gender/species: I know that Charizard is a dragon, but if an artist draws it as a human, the dragon tag wouldn't apply since you see no dragon.

Not to sound assholish but isn't this point easy to see?

The difference between a human and a Charizard is much, much bigger than the one between a horse and a unicorn. You can't be sure if what you're looking at is a horse or a unicorn by looking at Rarity's back end, so you go looking for character design statements and voila! You get unicorn.

Riversyde said:
The difference between a human and a Charizard is much, much bigger than the one between a horse and a unicorn. You can't be sure if what you're looking at is a horse or a unicorn by looking at Rarity's back end, so you go looking for character design statements and voila! You get unicorn.

It also reminds me of the cutie mark discussion: We know that certain ponies have certain cutie marks, but tagging them with cutie mark even if it's absent in the picture negates the purpose of the tag. Plus, pegasus already implies wings. Sorry, but i'm not budging on this one. And why is no one else chiming in?

Ultima_Weapon said:
It also reminds me of the cutie mark discussion: We know that certain ponies have certain cutie marks, but tagging them with cutie mark even if it's absent in the picture negates the purpose of the tag. Plus, pegasus already implies wings. Sorry, but i'm not budging on this one. And why is no one else chiming in?

Pegasus shouldn't imply wings. Certain cutie marks shouldn't be implied to certain ponies either.

Riversyde said:
so you go looking for character design statements

Aren't we not to tag based on outside resources, and only what is visible from the picture?

Valence said:
Aren't we not to tag based on outside resources, and only what is visible from the picture?

I thought that's what char said.
I'm with ultima. No horn, no unicorn.

Valence said:
Aren't we not to tag based on outside resources, and only what is visible from the picture?

That's for tagging gender, not tagging species. Sometimes the best indicator of the species of a character is the information supplied by the character creator themselves. (No, I do not support "This is not a dog, it is an octopus that looks like a dog" bullshit.)

RedOctober said:
I'm with ultima. No horn, no unicorn.

How about telling that to the users who actually tag unicorn on said offending pictures? It's only (from what I can see) ponyfans who tag like this.

Riversyde said:
How about telling that to the users who actually tag unicorn on said offending pictures? It's only (from what I can see) ponyfans who tag like this.

Wouldn't wanna step on your toes and backseat mod. ;-)

I'm not really that up tight about it. I was just putting in my opinion.

I don't care who the character is, you shouldn't tag unicorn if there's no horn showing. That should go without saying. Same with Pegasus etc.

I agree with ultima. going one way for everything but ponies, and going another way just for them isn't cool. Keep the "I know she's a unicorn/alicorn because it's part of her character" stuff to 20PC. It's been debated and argued back and forth long enough, just stick to the decision that was made.

TLDR: If there's no horn, no unicorn. Plain and simple. Same with various other things of the sort.