Posts like this:

post #198591

Now, I don't have a problem with it at all. Do whatever you want with it. My question is, though, why is it okay for images like that (there are tons like this) to be tagged as MLP and with the characters, when the character in the drawing is only vaguely like the MLP character? Like, I would have NO clue that was supposed to be Rainbow Dash if the tags didn't tell me.

If it looks like a pony in any resemblance then is probably is.

Rainbow Dash's hair and eyes...
EDIT: watch the show, memorize the ponies like I do, or travel to the wiki

He has a point, we are normally are sticklers for tagging what you see and then this is barely it. It is simply rainbow hair.

This is iffy at best

Mario583 said:
If it looks like a pony in any resemblance then is probably is.

Rainbow Dash's hair and eyes...

That is a human. Humans look nothing like ponies. Besides, look at all these posts with rainbow hair that AREN'T MLP. Why should we excuse this particular image?

http://e621.net/post?tags=rainbow_hair+-mlp&commit=Search

The policy is and always has been "tag what you see, not what you know."

Did you even bother to try and locate the image on the artist's page? I did, and they said that it's a humanized Rainbow Dash.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
Did you even bother to try and locate the image on the artist's page? I did, and they said that it's a humanized Rainbow Dash.

That is nice, but its tag what you see, source be damned :P

Looks like rainbow dash to me. Humanized rainbow dash is STILL Rainbow dash.

I'm fairly certain that any not-pony pony art (humanized etc.) is tagged as such by the artists themselves or people who know that the picture actually IS pony related, even if it might not suggest so at first glance.

I don't see any problem here at all.

Vagabond said:
I'm fairly certain that any not-pony pony art (humanized etc.) is tagged as such by the artists themselves or people who know that the picture actually IS pony related, even if it might not suggest so at first glance.

I don't see any problem here at all.

Right, but tag what you see, not what you know. I see a cute human with rainbow hair and purple eyes, in some assassin-style clothing. What do I know? It's a cute human with rainbow hair and purple eyes, in some assassin-style clothing.

Princess_Celestia said:
Looks like rainbow dash to me. Humanized rainbow dash is STILL Rainbow dash.

But if she's humanized, the only people who are going to know for sure that it's humanized are the artist, and actually that's about it. If there are no actual pony characteristics, then what in that image indicates a relation to MLP, aside from the artist saying "It's Rainbow Dash?" Nothing, really.

I feel this is a relevant problem, and exists in more than just the MLP world.

This post #165920 is apparently Sonic.
This post #104672 is apparently Pikachu.

There are others. It's just that when it comes to things like pokemon and Sonic, we've probably let it slide because of the assumption that they are widespread enough that everyone would recognize them in that form. It's only been brought to light now because MLP, though popular, isn't as widely recognized as characters from those other franchises.

RedOctober said:
If there are no actual pony characteristics, then what in that image indicates a relation to MLP, aside from the artist saying "It's Rainbow Dash?"

Her eyes and hair are those of Rainbow Dash. Seriously, it looks like a humanized Rainbow Dash. I'm not sure what the problem here is.

If in doubt, I think it makes sense to tag it so that the people who want to see it will find it in a search.

I'm guessing that only people familiar with the show would be able to peg that character as a human version of Rainbow Dash. Doesn't look like Rainbow Dash to me. This is what Rainbow Dash looks like:

post #197581

For the sake of comparison, the image at the top (note the distinct lack of pony-like features):

post #198591

And for the sake of arguement, an image with rainbow hair and purple eyes that is not tagged as rainbow_dash (anthropomorphized wolfish version of Rainbow Dash? You decide!):

post #85137

Shatari said:
Her eyes and hair are those of Rainbow Dash. Seriously, it looks like a humanized Rainbow Dash. I'm not sure what the problem here is.

If in doubt, I think it makes sense to tag it so that the people who want to see it will find it in a search.

The problem is: it looks like a human with rainbow hair and purple eyes. I don't see that picture and go "oh duh, Rainbow Dash." I see that picture and go "Oh neat. A human with rainbow hair and purple eyes." I honestly don't know how to clarify my point without just repeating myself and sounding rude, and I don't intend to sound rude. The only reason it looks like Rainbow Dash to you is because you know it is. You KNOW it is. I don't know it is, and so it doesn't look like her to me. I mean, in a side-by-side, I see enough similarities that I could hear an argument that it's a humanized Rainbow Dash. But I also see enough differences (you know, being a human, wearing goggles) that I could hear arguments that it's just a cute human with rainbow hair and purple eyes.

The idea of tagging characters and artists (unless signed) is the one heavy flaw of Tag What You See, as it almost always requires outside knowledge. It's hard to know where to draw the line when it comes to characters that look like other characters, other forms of the same character, etc.

I don't necessarily think that human image SHOULDN'T be tagged MLP, I'm just trying to look at this issue from both sides, and I see some pretty strong reasons not to. It's an issue that spreads beyond MLP and one that I think warrants some very serious discussion.

I see your point but I don't see your problem...

A scenario I could think of: Somebody hates ponies for being ponies(meaning humanized would be OK), and when searching for rainbow hair and excluding MLP, he might miss out on some pictures which he'd actually like.

If that's really such a big deal, somebody can simply add the source or make a comment and people intersted will be helped....

Well,how about omitting the MLP tag,but retaining the FIM one?

Technicalities aside,this would enable those who can identify the character(s) as part of the FIM copyright to still search & find the images,while also enabling those who have the current FIM series blacklisted & don't mind humanized versions of the characters
(

Princess_Celestia said:
Looks like rainbow dash to me. Humanized rainbow dash is STILL Rainbow dash.

Vagabond said:
..is tagged as such by the artists themselves or people who know that the picture actually IS pony related,..

Shatari said:
If in doubt, I think it makes sense to tag it so that the people who want to see it will find it in a search.

)

As for other non-MLP cases,
Maybe a new tag,if one does not already exist? alternate_style or something similar, that shows it's based of a recognizable character,but not drawn in the usual style of the series

FIM Implies Hasbro and MLP

I feel sorry for anyone who created a character with rainbow hair prior to MLP then, since a lot of people would automatically associate that with Rainbow Dash.

Princess_Celestia said:
FIM Implies Hasbro and MLP

it does not imply hasbro

Vagabond said:
I see your point but I don't see your problem...

The problem is that we go by a Tag What You See rule, and so there is obviously conflict with what is seen in that image. You see a pony. I do not. You tag MLP, I do not. Problem.

Looks a lot like someone making a mountain out of a molehill

Thiefenz said:
Looks a lot like someone making a mountain out of a molehill

Thiefenz said:
Looks a lot like someone blowing shit out of proportion

Thiefenz said:
Looks a lot like someone making a mountain out of a molehill

I just wanted a simple "Yes, tag it as MLP" or "No, don't" answer. I didn't expect the thread to go this way! щ(ﾟДﾟщ)

I still think it's an issue.

Mechaniatrix said:

Not one page before someone tries to agitate the one thread stuff like this was being discussed rather calmly

Thiefenz said:
Looks a lot like someone making a mountain out of a molehill

No. It's a legitimate problem. As I said, it's not just with MLP. It's a gaping hole in the Tag What You See rule. Any time there is a character who is depicted in some other form, it requires outside knowledge in every instance. Hell, any time there is a character at all, it requires outside knowledge.

If I didn't know what pokemon was, when I see an image of pikachu, the only thing I could know for sure is that it's a fuzzy yellow creature with a tail and ears. Maybe a rodent. Other than that, I'd have to know what pikachu is in order to tag it pikachu. I'd have to already be familiar with that character.

Simply sitting here and saying "It's not a problem" over and over isn't going to make the problem go away. If you think it's not a problem, try saying "here's why it's not a problem." Simply saying "It's not a problem" is in no way constructive. Try having a worthwhile discussion, instead.

RedOctober said:
Try having a worthwhile discussion, instead.

CamKitty said:
Not one page before someone tries to agitate the one thread stuff like this was being discussed rather calmly

Wow you people are mad as hell over a relatively inconsequential thing. Take a step back and breathe.

Okay, here's why it's not a big problem; it's a simple error in perceptions. Every time this has happened before people haven't flipped their shit. Is it just because it's ponies? Probably.

If you see it happening retag it properly. If the person comes back and 'fixes' it, PM a moderator. Done. If it continues happening, a moderator can step forth and put down a blanket ruling.

Nothing worth flipping any amount of shit if you think things through.

RedOctober said:
Stuff

The only "solution" I see would be to not tag any visual references whatsoever. But since I don't see that ever happening, what kind, if any middle ground can be found here? People can click the character and copyright tags and find this information easily enough. And if the image's source page says what it is, then it is what it is.

The problem as I see it is that the fans will want to be able to see the fanart (thus the entire point of the fanart), but the people blacklisting the MLP stuff (or other similar items) might want to be able to see it as well. Is it possible for the blacklist to be set up so that you can make exceptions? For example, blocking MLP unless it contains humans?

Shatari said:
The problem as I see it is that the fans will want to be able to see the fanart (thus the entire point of the fanart), but the people blacklisting the MLP stuff (or other similar items) might want to be able to see it as well. Is it possible for the blacklist to be set up so that you can make exceptions? For example, blocking MLP unless it contains humans?

Blacklisting my_little_pony -human will block everything on that search page - i.e. it'll block my_little_pony images, unless they have humans in them.

RedOctober said:
No. It's a legitimate problem. As I said, it's not just with MLP. It's a gaping hole in the Tag What You See rule. Any time there is a character who is depicted in some other form, it requires outside knowledge in every instance. Hell, any time there is a character at all, it requires outside knowledge.

If I didn't know what pokemon was, when I see an image of pikachu, the only thing I could know for sure is that it's a fuzzy yellow creature with a tail and ears. Maybe a rodent. Other than that, I'd have to know what pikachu is in order to tag it pikachu. I'd have to already be familiar with that character.

Simply sitting here and saying "It's not a problem" over and over isn't going to make the problem go away. If you think it's not a problem, try saying "here's why it's not a problem." Simply saying "It's not a problem" is in no way constructive. Try having a worthwhile discussion, instead.

but without the "Rainbow_Dash" tag I would never have found this image and thus not saved it to my image folder. it's not like I'm going to look up rainbow hair just to find something that could possibly be a beloved fictional character, humanization is popular in MLP fanart.

it wouldn't be fair for the people who are specifically looking for humanized fanart of FiM.

When was the last time we left "it's not fair!" interfere with the "tag what you see" rule?

Thiefenz said:
but without the "Rainbow_Dash" tag I would never have found this image and thus not saved it to my image folder. it's not like I'm going to look up rainbow hair just to find something that could possibly be a beloved fictional character, humanization is popular in MLP fanart.

it wouldn't be fair for the people who are specifically looking for humanized fanart of FiM.

Okay, how about the people who have my_little_pony blacklisted? They wouldn't see this image, even if it may not have anything to do with it except a vague resemblance.

null0010 said:
When was the last time we left "it's not fair!" interfere with the "tag what you see" rule?

all I'm saying is, I'd rather not have to search a different tag and sift through countless other images just to find a particular character that I know is a particular character. it makes no sense to remove the tags because it conflicts with a rule.

Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike the "Tag what you see"
I can see the issue arising that people would tag anything with Rainbow Hair as Rainbow Dash, which would be dumb.
but simply clicking on the source solidifies the evidence that the character in question is indeed Rainbow Dash, and enforcing the rule would simply be done for the sake of enforcing the rule and provide no real benefit.

null0010 said:
When was the last time we left "it's not fair!" interfere with the "tag what you see" rule?

^^ this so much

tony311 said:
Okay, how about the people who have my_little_pony blacklisted? They wouldn't see this image, even if it may not have anything to do with it except a vague resemblance.

that is true. but even the source URL makes it clear what the image is. I really can't think of a good solution. it's a fight between those looking for a Humanized ponies, or the people who like a particular theme/hairstyle/whatever but do not want to sift through pony images.

as much as I hate to admit it, the only solution would be in favor of the blacklisters: since they wouldn't have the ability to find images marked with MLP, people like me will just have to create tag lists and sift through a bunch of images.

Mechaniatrix said:
Okay, here's why it's not a big problem; it's a simple error in perceptions. Every time this has happened before people haven't flipped their shit. Is it just because it's ponies? Probably.

If you read what I said, I clearly mentioned that this is a problem in way more realms than just MLP. Every time there is a humanized character, we have to rely on existing outside knowledge of a particular franchise (Sonic and Pokemon are the two most obvious ones) if we're going to tag it with that character. Yes, people didn't "flip their shit" when it happened before. That's why I'm saying it needs to be discussed, because it is entrenched in Pokemon and Sonic and no one's said anything, but people should have. I'm not trying to make it so I can blacklist MLP, I don't get worked up when I see ponies. I'm trying to engender discussion on this widespread issue with proper tagging. So, I appreciate that you stated why you don't think it's a problem. I simply disagree. I have flipped no shit.

I'll be the first to admit, I have no idea what the solution should be. I think about it every time I see this thread, and I just don't know.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
The only "solution" I see would be to not tag any visual references whatsoever. But since I don't see that ever happening, what kind, if any middle ground can be found here? People can click the character and copyright tags and find this information easily enough. And if the image's source page says what it is, then it is what it is.

Can we really use the source, though? I'm just afraid that if we say that if the source says it's a humanized (whatever character), then tag it so, that'll open up the position of "don't tag it herm if you don't see a penis" for attack, and I think that's a totally legit rule. I really honestly have no idea what the middle ground is.

RedOctober said:
I really honestly have no idea what the middle ground is.

I was being kinda sarcastic. I don't think that there is any middle ground for this. We're gonna have to choose one direction or the other.

The rule for tagging characters as herms is that you should only use herm if both sexual organs are visible, even if you know from information outside the image that the character is a hermaphrodite. You shouldn't use outside knowledge like that in the tagging process, even information posted on the artist's gallery.

I think similar reasoning should be applied to this issue. It's only consistent.