Uploaded by Itsthinking 
2338x1658 JPG 613 kB
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
Description
No description provided.
Help fund the $15 daily operational cost of Derpibooru - support us financially!
No description provided.
Yes, yes, you have mentioned several times now that artist intent doesn’t matter to you. Sadly, derpibooru adds tags like ‘shipping’ and ‘straight’ when you add pairing names, and sense the intent there is clear, as it is here, it’s something you have to deal with. There are people who are very against shipping out there, and I see no reason to hamper them in avoiding things they don’t like.
Also, yeah shipping can refer to platonic interaction, its called friendshipping. Just an fyi.
Except that picture was made with the intent of it being shipping.
This picture is still shipping, even if it’s implied in a comedic manner rather than explicitly romantic.
None of them change the fact there’s no shipping content in the picture (no blushing etc.), since “shipping” implies romance and is more than just characters interacting in a platonic way.
Didn’t bother to read any of the comments there huh?
There was no argument on that picture, or at least not with me. But yeah, that’s the exact same thing as here, and there’s not really anything about that picture that qualifies it as “shipping”.
Common sense has played more a role than shipping goggles actually. There have been a lot of images erroneously tagged Sparity, and every other shipping undoubtedly, on this site simply because the characters are prictured together, and most/all of them have had the tags removed with no real comment. This isn’t like that though. The shipping is clearly implied, even if it is in a comedic manner. That’s really what it comes down to.
Yeah, and I’m the one who tagged it with those. But the costumes they are wearing (and Rarity very reluctantly, obviously) shouldn’t make it a “shipping” picture if there’s no romantic content, or even a joke about romance like Spike making google eyes at Rare.
You mean besides the fact that they’re wearing a costume generally worn by couples in a picture tagged that way by the artist?
Again, your example is nothing like this picture, instead showing something inspired by a song that happens to have the same name as a shipping, so entirely irrelevant. So, yeah, I’m changing it back.
>there is nothing about this picture that suggests Spike/Rarity shipping
Umm, Spike is dressed as the Frankenstein monster, and Rarity is dressed as the Bride of Frankenstein. It’s actually pretty blatant (if comical) shipping.
Example #2. Try searching newer flutterdash, and right on the front page. http://fav.me/d6rc7qn. As for groups, plenty of pictures show up in shipping groups that don’t actually involve shipping, just the characters together. And sometimes you’ll see the same picture in multiple shipping groups for different pairs, it shouldn’t mean anything.
I’m not trying to be a dick here, seriously, but there is nothing about this picture that suggests Spike/Rarity shipping other than they’re in the image together. That’s not a good reason to tag an image that way, unless its a reason to tag every duo picture on the site that way.
And in that case you would be correct, though perhaps a gray area since that’s a reaction image to rarijack, and there are at least few examples on derpibooru where the ship in question is also tagged. This image on the other hand, isn’t a reaction image, and is also in a sparity fan club on DA. So yeah, kind of apples and oranges really.
When there is no real reason not to use them, DA tags seem like a solid foundation for this kind of stuff.
Okay, well here’s a better example. I just went and searched “rarijack” on da and this picture http://fav.me/d6r8ado comes up under newer submissions, does that mean it should be tagged as Rarijack here also, because the artist added the tag? Obviously not, because clearly nothing in the content indicates it. Just because something is tagged a certain way there, on a different website (with a lot more users and images to search through, also) doesn’t mean it should be tagged the same way here. Content alone should decide image tags.
Yeah, Rarity tends to freak out about her hair/appearance. Also, saying that the artist doesn’t know what they are doing isn’t really much of an argument.
Sometimes people use tags just to suggest that two given characters are in a picture together, but I don’t think that’s how they’re meant to be used here, and either way it wouldn’t justify the shipping or straight tags, since there’s neither present here.
@candrew
Babysitting or not she’s an obviously unwilling participant, which is why I said that. That doesn’t necessarily mean anti-shipping, but it sure ain’t shipping either.
She’s not reluctantly baby sitting him, she’s freaking out about her hair. And yes, how things are tagged on deviant art matters here, because that means the artist themself tagged it that way. Also, nothing in this picture is in opposition of sparity.
I add the tags according to what is on DA. I think there was at least some implications here.
I don’t think how something is tagged on deviant art should make a difference how it’s tagged here, especially if the content itself is in opposition to it. They’re dressed as Frankenstein and the bride but there’s no touching, blushing, love hearts, eye contact or anything to remotely suggest romance, and if anything it looks and sounds like Rarity is reluctantly babysitting Spike per Twilight. So yeah, sorry but I’m not seeing shipping, and anyone searching under the Sparity tag probably isn’t looking for something like this either.
Well, given that this picture shows up when you search sparity on deviant art I’d have to say that’s the reason it was tagged shipping. Plus, you know, the fact their costumes are of a famous movie monster and his bride helps too.