General Tag Discussion

there’s the tag  
impending death - with 76 right now  
and then there’s  
imminent death - with 726
 
can they be merged / aliased please?

@Background Pony #09FE  

 
It helps if you link tags and format them like
 
impending death => imminent death
 
Also if you want to make an official request you’ll have to create a thread in the main forum.

So, no opinions on my last post regarding the infidelity and adultery tags?
 
I posted in this thread because the issue didn’t seem seem to fit the category of “direct requests, like aliases or implications”. But, on second thought, maybe it does?
 
Should I make a standalone post requesting the changes I described? I guess I’d just like an answer, even if it’s not positive.

@Softy  
I agree with you, tho I think since your post is so big, you should make a thread!

@Solitude  
ah thanks for the suggestion, but unregistered cannot create new threads there :(
 
could you pretty please do this?

@Background Pony #09FE  
Are you sure you’d rather not register? You can still post anonymously if you do, if that’s any concern.

Do you need put spoiler tag at king thorax images, even if it’s just him?

@Hguheyaughtnger
 
Technically, such new introductions get spoiler tags for a while; i just don’t know when it’s okay to stop using them.

@Mildgyth  
okay, let us know, when.

I’m starting to think katputze and queen-kittykat are the same person. Artstyles are similar and according to their DA their both 17-year old German girls born 25 December ’98 whose names both start with “Kat”.
 
Nothing definitive, though.

Query: should unguligrade anthro be tagged on satyrs? Since some folks seem to think so.

@Solitude  
Opinion: “unguligrade anthro” should not be tagged for “satyr”. Satyrs are not anthros, and on this site “satyr” is almost implicitly synonymous with “unguligrade lower half” anyway.

@saby  
Reply: That’s what I was thinking.

You ever feel like implicating a tag specifically to an artist? Koveliana’s work is great, and I love it. About 98% of it qualifies under Color Porn and about 99% of it under Chromatic Aberration. I half-jokingly thought last night as I was going through and tagging that it would save a lot of time it those were just implicated, heh heh.
 
Doing the other set of tags on her images now.

@Vinyl Fluff  
I’unno man, but personally I think you might be overdoing it a bit with that tag.

@Solitude  

 
I didn’t create the tag, just the description. It’s for very bright, saturated images. Think of it like the tag for images that would fit on a Lisa Frank item, heh.
 
It’s a tag very much like Scenery Porn. It’s for a specific style of image.
 
There are some images in there I personally wouldn’t have tagged with it, but they were preexisting and were colorful in their own way so I didn’t bother them, but there were some I recently yanked the tag off where the user responsible seemed to think any image with more than just three colors, even if they were dull and very, very muted, applied.

@Vinyl Fluff  
Huh. I thought it was just for images that had a whole lot of expressive colors.

@Solitude  

 
If you check out the other pages, you’ll see images with a ton of very bright colors. It’s just recently most of the images where that tag applies (extremely bright, extremely deep or saturated) have been of the purple, blue and turquoise variety.
 
It was one of the neglected tags, and since I love images with extreme amounts of color(s), I’ve been making sure those images are properly tagged with it.

@Solitude  
I though it was both a whole lot of expressive colours, that are generally bright and saturated, and put together in an appealing and artistic way, paying attention to the quality of the shading and colour composition as well.
 
 
Colourful? Yes. Expressive colour? Yes. Bright and saturated? Verily. Colour porn? Nah.
 
>>1130739s (merged)  
Colourful? Yes. Expressive colour? Yes. Bright and saturated? Not very. Shading and composition? On point. Colour porn? Nah.

@Vinyl Fluff  
A’ight. Curiosity sated.
 
@saby  
Yeah, that’s the kind of description I was initially aiming for.

@saby  

 
 
Would I tag the first Color Porn? Potentially. It’s very close.
 
Would I tag the second Color Porn? Nope. While it is undeniably colorful, those colors aren’t strongly saturated or vivid enough for it to count.
 
I personally don’t think we need to start applying artistic qualifications to every single tag in order for them to count. I.e. “This image doesn’t have shading, therefore it shouldn’t count.” or “This image doesn’t have a specific composition, therefore it doesn’t count.” You’ll start gutting a lot of tags that way.
 
My criteria for something that fits Color Porn is pretty much “Is this image very bright, vivid or contain a large amount of very bright colors? Does it contain a certain percentage of elements that are intensely colored?” So an image that is a kaleidoscope of neon colors counts, as does an image with an element of a single color that is extremely vibrant.
 
Like I said, I didn’t create the tag, just the description. And that was based off the examples under the tag before I even started tagging them myself.

Should I remove 1000 hours in ms paint from this >>1294119? I don’t expect so many upvotes.  
And this too >>1283002 What bad in this pic?

@Hguheyaughtnger  
I think the first one has so many upvotes just because of the comedy of the piece. It still deserves the tag, imo.
 
As for the second image, that tag seems like it’s referring to the “handwriting” on the left. The image could probably stand to be without it.

Now that the Photographer tag is “properly” recognized with a color like the Artist tag is, should we switch them on images which are purely photographs like >>1295837? My first instinct is yes, to be more accurate. But I don’t want to step on any toes. I know of a bunch like this I’d switch over, but I didn’t want to piss off those people in case they thought I was “downgrading” them.

@Napsack  
Okay, done