@thps48  
Something like that. Or just AU:Princess Molestia for JJ’s, since it’s a fully realized character, and the other… nnm. Well, one can’t prevent OCs from sometimes sharing tags, why should AU’s be any different? It’s better than what came before, and they can be easily differentiated by artist in that case, or… well, there’s no perfect solution that doesn’t involve a billion painfully specific tags, is there?

@thatothersting  
“au:princess molestia” and “au:princess molestia (johnjoseco)”, correct?
 
I was going to say the first one be “au:princess molestia (guy on furaffinity who no one remembers)”, but whatever. XD

@thps48  
Exactly my point, yes. It’s good to differentiate between them, if only a bit.

@thatothersting  
Sometimes it’s Celestia making that face, yes, but other times she is Molestia, the original with the crazed expression and regular mane. :T

@Kirb  
I like me, too. We should start a club or something.
 
But yeah, I noticed the glut of oc:ink blot entries, and after having a “What the…?” moment I realized it was an issue of having a shared name. That’s about the same time the au: idea clicked into place. I do think it’d work nicely, though it might be slow going to retroactively change the tagging on so many images which, if you think about it, is probably why Glittershell and Molestia haven’t gotten that same treatment. There’s also the issue wherein we have to differentiate, at least in the context of ol’ Molly, between the Molestia running gag and the Molestia character, which are very much not the same thing despite sharing the same name. That said, it’s still better to have more than one tag for the same thing, so perhaps a general Molestia tag for all things relating to that (a broad category tag is never a bad idea, really) and then an au:Molestia tag for the character itself, since it’s an alternate version of Celestia proper.

@thatothersting  
You. I like you.
 
My whole thought is, since other people may want to have OCs with the same names as these AU characters, this may be somewhat detrimental to them. (e.g. I know someone else with a character named Ink Blot) So what you suggested actually sounds like it would work out really well.

The way they’re tagged is ideal, actually. We have the base character tag AND we have the OC variant tag, meaning someone searching for either of those will find what they’re looking for. If I’m looking for art of Pinkie Pie, I likely won’t care that I get a few AU versions of her in my search, but if I’m looking for a specific version of her, then it’s more helpful to have a specific OC tag to search for.
 
And yes, Glittershell and the like SHOULD have the OC prefix, so that it’s easier to find what one is looking for. Consistency is nice. However, those popped up before the use of the OC prefix became very common, so it’s not a huge shock that they aren’t.
 
A better option would be a new prefix, perhaps. AU:name would work nicely, and sidestep the “Is this an OC?” issue entirely.

@Kirb  

 

@Background Pony #EF90  
@LightningBolt  
Whether or not they’re tagged as OCs, I just feel there should be some consistency. But this is the Internet, where nothing is consistent. :P

@Background Pony #EF90  
I do too, personally. :P

@Kirb  
I’m sure I’m in the minority of this, but I wish those characters were tagged as OCs.

@LightningBolt  
Except they are. They’re AU forms of the characters, which at least in my books makes them the same characters. For example, we don’t tag pics of Gamer Luna and Molestia as oc:gamer luna and oc:molestia, nor is Glittershell, the AU form of Snails, tagged as oc:glittershell.  
I’m just saying, I prefer a little consistency, but it’s okay if you don’t.

@Kirb  
They’re still OC’s as they’re not the same characters.

I wish these characters weren’t tagged with the OC tag… they aren’t OCs, they’re alternate versions of the mane characters. Their tags shouldn’t have “OC” in them.

Oh heck yeah! More Siden-verse character art!