reason: Not all pictures have two horns. Horns should imply horn though.

123easy said:
reason: Not all pictures have two horns. Horns should imply horn though.

If anything, horns should be aliased to horn. I think it's unnecessary to indicate that there's one, two, or more in the image. We don't have plural for "piercing," and that's fine. Similarly, we don't have both "female" and "females," etc. etc. That's just excessively specific. Yes, we want to tag clearly, but there is something to be said for being concise, as well.

We do have things like tail and multiple tails. I think both cases are reasonably common enough to have both horn (singular) and horns (plural) as separate tags.

Actually, it should be horns aliased to horn, honestly. the general rule is to tag in the singular... bone vs. bones, etc.

RedOctober said:
If anything, horns should be aliased to horn. I think it's unnecessary to indicate that there's one, two, or more in the image. We don't have plural for "piercing," and that's fine. Similarly, we don't have both "female" and "females," etc. etc. That's just excessively specific. Yes, we want to tag clearly, but there is something to be said for being concise, as well.

well said -- better then I phrased it :)

123easy said:
We do have things like tail and multiple tails. I think both cases are reasonably common enough to have both horn (singular) and horns (plural) as separate tags.

This is reasonable... I could, honestly, get behind 1_horn 2_horn, 3_horn etc IF IF IF, there were a lot of cases of more than 2 horns in a given image.

I could get behind Single_horn as a tag.

BUT...

The problem, honestly, is that there are over 8000 tags with "horns".

Who wants to go through and retag them all to indicate one horn, or two?

If we make horns and horn two separate tags, suddenly, we have a whole lot of MISTAGGED pictures.

I don't have the time to retag 8000 horns :(

How's going to go through a

*shrug* I was just using the simple sentences "This bull has horns. This unicorn has one horn." for my logic. I mean, you don't look at a bull and go "he's got horn!" or even "he's got two horn!". And again, using the tail/multiple tails point for anatomy as a precedent for having singular/multiple tags. Since all horns pictures would imply horn, then there wouldn't need to be a tag change. Single-horned things would get tagged horn (singular/item) and multi-horned things would get tagged horns (and imply horn).

SnowWolf said:
well said -- better then I phrased it :)

This is reasonable... I could, honestly, get behind 1_horn 2_horn, 3_horn etc IF IF IF, there were a lot of cases of more than 2 horns in a given image.

I could get behind Single_horn as a tag.

Either single_horn, or multi_horn. But yeah, I'm not gonna be the one to clear those up.

and there are many boens in this image: post #127861 yet it's tagged bone.

it may not be linguistically correct, but it's easier to tag c_c

But you don't normally see just two bones; you either usually see just a single bone, or many (varied number of) bones, as in a skeleton. Even then, the number of singular bone images is relatively few in comparison to skeleton/multiple bone images, and it is used more in the sense of bone(item/material) instead of bone(singular).

With horns, they tend to either be a horn (singular/item) or two horns, with a (very)few multi-horned. Thus why I say they are common enough each to be separate if related tags- there is enough multiple-horned images (most cases two) to warrant a subtag of horns (as it would still imply horn, referring to horn (material) or in rare cases to horn(singular), horn(material), and multiple horns, as in the case of a unicorn and a minotaur for example).

We COULD split it into horn_(material) and horn (with or without the plural) but that seems overly specific.

Everyone said:
tl;dr

Singular > Plural

123easy said:
But you don't normally see just two bones; you either usually see just a single bone, or many (varied number of) bones, as in a skeleton. Even then, the number of singular bone images is relatively few in comparison to skeleton/multiple bone images,

Actually no. there are a good deal of images with singular bones-- the classic 'cartoon' bone and the 'dog with bone' images are quite popular.

there is enough multiple-horned images (most cases two) to warrant a subtag of horns (as it would still imply horn, referring to horn (material) or in rare cases to horn(singular), horn(material), and multiple horns, as in the case of a unicorn and a minotaur for example).

That's horribly complicated c_c;;;;

As river said singular > plural --as is the standard in general. If you have 2 horns, you have a horn. if you have a horn, you may not have horns.

horns -> horn alias added.

Riversyde said:
horns -> horn alias added.

Kay. Since this is what we're trying to keep standard, can the alias of "nipple" to "nipples" be switched?

RedOctober said:
Kay. Since this is what we're trying to keep standard, can the alias of "nipple" to "nipples" be switched?

Why? Nipples always come in sets of two. So do breasts.

Riversyde said:
Why? Nipples always come in sets of two. So do breasts.

Aye, but not always are both visible. I came across a picture where this was the case earlier, but I'll never find it again. Anyway, it's not a big deal, I just thought I'd suggest it, to keep with the singular>plural idea. However, then we might have to alias "balls" to "ball," and that's probably silly. -shrugs- Change it or don't, it's not a major issue.

Riversyde said:
Why? Nipples always come in sets of two. So do breasts.

Scary Amazon bird who doesn't even own a bow or genes for lactation disagrees with you in the singular.

post #58516

And several hundres multi breast and multi nipple images disagree with you in the plural-greater-than-two.

Tag aliases are Bad Things for capturing numerical assumptions. Just like they're bad things almost everywhere else. People can always use wildcards when searching.

I said sets of two, not only two. And boobs do naturally come in sets of two, barring the possibility of physical deformation.

So we have to alias breasts to breast because of one troll exceptional post? I would rather not, honestly. All the breasts implications would have to be swapped around to identify a singular breast and that would just be a waste of time.

actually the amazons (or someone) did actualyl lop off a breast to not interfere with bows...

that said, I would say that it SHOULD be breasts, because in 99.9% of images they will some in sets of two, and the RARE mono-boob exception can be tagged differently so that they can be found without trouble.

Anomynous said:
Tag aliases are Bad Things for capturing numerical assumptions. Just like they're bad things almost everywhere else. People can always use wildcards when searching.

as far as tagging goes, I belive the general opinion is to paint with a broad brush, and use smaller brushes to make out the details. I don't know how you'd use wild card aliases to determine how many boobs, or horns something has without tagging one_horn two_horn, red_horn blue_horn three_horn four_horn more_horn on EVERYTHING.

and honestly, if you have that kind of time, I'd like to talk to you about 1girl 2girl 3girl etc... :3

implication of horns > horn; as horns can come in various numbers. but the base word is still aways *horn*

Alright, "easy" fix here: horns stays > to horn, but new tag: multiple_horns. I'll be working on this slowly at my own pace.

So... what does 'multiple_horns' cover? more then one? more then two? :)

Any number more than one. To keep it with the tail and multiple_tails format.