General Tag Discussion
Background Pony #52BA
Is there a difference in purpose between the tags autism and autism spectrum disorder?
Ciaran 
Senior Moderator
君場森生きる
@Background Pony #52BA
Looks like
Looks like
autism is the main tag, used for when the image has the word “Autism” in it. And the other tag seems to have been almost entirely created and added to images by one person in 1 day, 3 years ago.So I’m guessing
autism spectrum disorder -> autism is the right thing to do. So I did. Background Pony #DD84
@Ciaran
It appears as though the tag has been used in a derogatory manner much too often. Someone will have to clean that up…
It appears as though the tag has been used in a derogatory manner much too often. Someone will have to clean that up…
Background Pony #52BA
@Background Pony #DD84
If you’re talking about “autism”, well, duh. It has been in the insults-zeitgeist for quite a while. The first page of results look pretty clean to me at the moment, though.
If you’re talking about “autism”, well, duh. It has been in the insults-zeitgeist for quite a while. The first page of results look pretty clean to me at the moment, though.
If you mean autism spectrum disorder, it didn’t look like it was being used derogatorily, though that user did apply it to images of OCs which had been described in other posts as autistic - eg. mentioned in the description of >>2565576, thus tagged on >>2545008 and others - so the validity of having that tag on images where it’s not brought up is questionable. (That user also tagged asperger’s syndrome in much the same way.)
TexasUberAlles 
asperger's syndrome
That one also needs to get →‘d to
autism; nobody still references the eugenics fanboy doctor it’s named after these days unless they’re being an ass about it.
LightningBolt 
Senior Moderator
Undead inside
@TexasUberAlles
Actually assuming that what people call themselves is problematic is wildly more offensive than just a term existing.
Actually assuming that what people call themselves is problematic is wildly more offensive than just a term existing.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
君場森生きる
Let’s just fix the tags, with as little drama as possible.
@LightningBolt
If you have an idea what needs to be done, if anything, let me know and I’ll do it. Even if it requires looking at each image to sort it out. Feel free to PM me if you’d like.
If you have an idea what needs to be done, if anything, let me know and I’ll do it. Even if it requires looking at each image to sort it out. Feel free to PM me if you’d like.
That way when some people insist on being jerks about it, they can be a jerk to me.
LightningBolt
Senior Moderator
Undead inside
@Ciaran
I think the tag is fine to leave as is, just punishing people who use it derogatorily as always.
I think the tag is fine to leave as is, just punishing people who use it derogatorily as always.
JP 
I miss the show so much
If an image is covered by adversarial noise, such as >>3538077, does “simple background” still apply if the background is single solid color under the noise? This isn’t the only time I’ve removed “simple background” from an image covered by adversarial noise, but I’ve started to wonder if I’m too strict. I’ve also added “patterned background” a few times, but I’m not sure if that is correct either.
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
君場森生きる
@JP
Wow. Adversarial noise has never bothered me, but I almost threw up as soon as that image opened for me.
Wow. Adversarial noise has never bothered me, but I almost threw up as soon as that image opened for me.
Yeah - very agree that is not
simple background. That is WAY not simple background. Effectively the artist laid a bump map across their background making it psychedelic paisley puke.Patterned background makes more sense, since it’s literally leaping off the screen reaching for me like some sort of Cthulhu-level nightmare monster.I’m going to see that in my dreams now >_<
Ciaran
Senior Moderator
君場森生きる
@LightningBolt
(and others)
(and others)
I have a request to bulk change a shipping tag, and wanted to verify that I’m doing this right before proceeding.
Request: ship:pinkieplay -> ship:pinkieace
Requesting user is the OC creator. Via a search for
pinkie pie,oc:*ace*,shipping,-ship:pinkieplay, the tag does not appear to conflict with any existing ships (although I think I found tags that should have the image that are without it - note to self to fix that as a part of this).I understand that creating the new alias does require manually moving the existing aliases, documentation, and implications from the existing tag.
Is there any reason not to make the new alias?
Hearing no objections, alias made.
Background Pony #52BA
Deletion reason: Rule # you just had to, didn’t you?
Well now I’m curious what they said :P
Shouldlight blue backgroundimplyblue background? I think it should.
I don’t. I think colors used in tagging should each stand separately in order to be useful, to not encourage creation of new tags for tiny variations, to reduce cases of indecision (eg. is it yellow-orange or is it amber?), and to not lead to a huge blob of semi-redundant tags in posts’ tag lists. I’m not even 100% sure whether “light blue” should be used at all - please join in my thread discussing usage of colors in tags.
If an image is covered by adversarial noise, such as >>3538077, does “simple background” still apply if the background is single solid color under the noise? This isn’t the only time I’ve removed “simple background” from an image covered by adversarial noise, but I’ve started to wonder if I’m too strict. I’ve also added “patterned background” a few times, but I’m not sure if that is correct either.
Huh. OK, I have some thoughts and questions, here.
I wouldn’t attribute any other characteristic to the background - ie. I wouldn’t call that a “patterned background” - because the effect covers the entire image as an overall overlay, not limited to the background. I would compare how to treat it via tags as similar to artistically-chosen noise/film grain, or scanlines/CRT imitation, and so forth.
Whether or not to still call it a “simple background” - I’m not certain what the current restrictions on that are. I recall that they were once quite strict about being numerically unvarying, but that has relaxed over time to allow things like JPEG or other image compression, or natural variation in tradition art due to paper texture or uneven lighting of photographed art, when it’s clear that the artistic intention of the design is to have a solid unvarying color.
By the way, is that actually “adversarial noise”, and not an unusual artistic choice, nor a general-purpose non-AI-targeted anti-reproduction “obtrusive watermark”?
JP
I miss the show so much
Well now I’m curious what they said :P
You don’t want to know. Trust me.
I wouldn’t attribute any other characteristic to the background - ie. I wouldn’t call that a “patterned background” - because the effect covers the entire image as an overall overlay, not limited to the background. I would compare how to treat it via tags as similar to artistically-chosen noise/film grain, or scanlines/CRT imitation, and so forth.
That’s a good point, actually. Perhaps adversarial noise should be tagged as “patterned foreground”, or “patterned overlay”?
I recall that they were once quite strict about being numerically unvarying, but that has relaxed over time to allow things like JPEG or other image compression, or natural variation in tradition art due to paper texture or uneven lighting of photographed art, when it’s clear that the artistic intention of the design is to have a solid unvarying color.
I usually leave these tagged “white background”, because it’s just like you said it, the paper is white, it’s just the lighting and conditions can make it look uneven and not-simple. But sometimes I just don’t know, when there’s a slightly visible paper or fabric-like pattern on the image. Sometimes I remove the simple background tag, sometimes not.
(Tangentially related, I wish people would stop slapping “simple background” to everything they upload, regardless of what the background is. It’s like they’re not actually reading what it says on the tag.)
Icicle Niceicle 1517 
Ocs,Boops,Tickles&Memes
Since they are now here, kotobukiya queen chrysalis and kotobukiya princess cadance should both imply kotobukiya, along with their respective character tags
TexasUberAlles
Should
then watch her balloons lift her up to the sky be specific to just Pinkie Pie? I know it’s from her intro line in the G3 OP and the tag implies pinkie pie, but there are also a lot of images of, say, Scootaloo flying with balloons.Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!