Commonly misused tags

@iridescent_slime: > kittey said: > > How should we tag partially...

2019-10-08T06:46:41-04:00

kittey said:

How should we tag partially braided ponytails? (alice_schuberg, one_(cevio), post #3394534, post #3605370) I’m leaning towards tagging only braided ponytail since it’s not fully loose.

If braided_ponytail isn't enough, I'd support something like a half-braided_ponytail tag to make finding these posts easier without affecting ponytail searches.

@skylightcrystal: > kittey said: > > If neither named nor...

2019-10-07T13:09:12-04:00

kittey said:

If neither named nor original characters should have it, who’s even left? I’m not sure how that is even relevant since both types of characters can have their eyes normally closed. Isn’t the point of the tag to find posts like post #542832?

You've misread what iridescent_slime said.

@kittey: > iridescent_slime said: > > * Open eyes is...

2019-10-07T09:22:49-04:00

iridescent_slime said:

Open eyes is for characters who normally have their eyes closed. Most named characters shouldn't ever have this tag at all, and I can't think of a single unnamed original character who qualifies for it.

If neither named nor original characters should have it, who’s even left? I’m not sure how that is even relevant since both types of characters can have their eyes normally closed. Isn’t the point of the tag to find posts like post #542832?

Edit: I couldn’t make sense of it the first time, hence my confused question. After pondering about it for another ten minutes, I came up with another reading that makes more sense, so nvm. *plays the not-a-native-speaker card*

Ponytails are by definition loose. This tag should never be used for braided hair. Some of the confusion seems to stem from the braided ponytail tag, which despite the name, is mutually exclusive with ponytail.

How should we tag partially braided ponytails? (alice_schuberg, one_(cevio), post #3394534, post #3605370) I’m leaning towards tagging only braided ponytail since it’s not fully loose.

@iridescent_slime: * Cocktail glass is for a stemmed glass with a...

2019-10-06T22:22:51-04:00

Cocktail glass is for a stemmed glass with a cone-shaped bowl. I've had to correct far too many posts where this tag was used for wine glasses or hurricane glasses.

Open eyes is for characters who normally have their eyes closed. Most named characters shouldn't ever have this tag at all, and I can't think of a single unnamed original character who qualifies for it.

Ponytails are by definition loose. This tag should never be used for braided hair. Some of the confusion seems to stem from the braided ponytail tag, which despite the name, is mutually exclusive with ponytail.

Spooning isn't a synonym for cuddling. This tag is for the sex position in which couples lie on their sides, front-to-back.

@inkuJerr: Sorry for necrobumping this topic, but there...

2019-09-05T07:48:39-04:00

Sorry for necrobumping this topic, but there are a few misused tags that I would like to bring up to discuss about.

areolae - currently, this tag has been misused to the point where any posts with (exposed) nipples is tagged with areolae. This is in spite of the fact that the wiki page has a clear definition (since 2010) on what is considered proper usage of the tag:

Use this tag for when the areola stands out (such as with the large areolae tag)
Use when the areola is visible but the nipple is not (such as with some cases of hair censor or areola slip)

As stated by the wiki, it is clear that this tag is meant for a specific usage, not just for any nipple(s) that is visible; if we are to tag areolae on every picture it is visible including nipples, it will be rendered as another useless tag pad.

garter belt + garter straps - there are quite a lot of posts where both tags are used for a single character, even though the wiki for both tags says to not to use both tags together, even giving a clear definition on when to use the tag.

@iridescent_slime: Now that coffee cup implicates disposable cup,...

2018-04-08T03:08:18-04:00

Now that coffee cup implicates disposable cup, we have to be more careful about not using the former tag for porcelain cups. Coffee mug or teacup must be used instead.

@NeverGonnaGive: full-package_futanari is perpetually...

2018-03-25T14:55:01-04:00

full-package_futanari is perpetually misapplied, despite the wiki, to my ken, particularly discounting body builds and metadata.

@iridescent_slime: * Full-face blush shouldn't be used for blushes...

2018-03-18T13:55:02-04:00

Full-face blush shouldn't be used for blushes that only cover the character's cheeks and nose. That's what nose blush is for.

Flower field is often used for mostly grassy areas where meadow would be more appropriate.

@user_441999: > evazion said: > > As described in the wiki,...

2018-03-17T04:54:31-04:00

evazion said:

As described in the wiki, 4koma is specifically for vertical comic strips. It shouldn't be used for comics that aren't vertical. Things that aren't 4koma: post #3050259, post #3033428, rifyu comic.

I think the thing with that one is that 4koma is the only one that specifies that, and it makes no sense for 4koma to be the only one that requires it. People tag 5koma, 3koma and 2koma on non-vertical images, and then assume that 4koma can be as well.

We also have the instant loss 2koma tag, which incorporates "2koma" in the name but are horizontal more often than not.

@evazion: As described in the wiki, 4koma is specifically...

2018-03-16T19:37:00-04:00

As described in the wiki, 4koma is specifically for vertical comic strips. It shouldn't be used for comics that aren't vertical. Things that aren't 4koma: post #3050259, post #3033428, rifyu comic.

@Unbreakable: > kittey said: > > You mean mentioning not...

2018-03-14T11:54:49-04:00

kittey said:

You mean mentioning not using simple_background in the transparent_background wiki? The other way round is already there.

I have to admit that I hadn’t read the simple_background wiki prior to fixing the hundreds of transparent images mistagged with white_background and thus didn’t touch the simple_background tag if it was already there. :-/

Err, I actually meant the list of commonly misused tags wiki (hence me posting it in this thread) but mentioning it in the transparent background wiki couldn't hurt.

@kittey: > Unbreakable said: > > Should something be...

2018-03-14T10:33:39-04:00

Unbreakable said:

Should something be added to the wiki about simple background + transparent background […]

You mean mentioning not using simple_background in the transparent_background wiki? The other way round is already there.

I have to admit that I hadn’t read the simple_background wiki prior to fixing the hundreds of transparent images mistagged with white_background and thus didn’t touch the simple_background tag if it was already there. :-/

@Unbreakable: Should something be added to the wiki about...

2018-03-13T23:50:17-04:00

Should something be added to the wiki about simple background + transparent background and maybe monochrome/greyscale and colour tags?

@Unbreakable: > evazion said: > > That came out of topic...

2017-12-12T18:17:26-05:00

evazion said:

That came out of topic #7945, where the tag was originally created. The intent was for full body to be the next step after cowboy shot, meaning it shows the entire body but not much more.

I would suggest making a long shot tag for things further away than full body. There's a huge difference between things like post #2757069 and post #1696903.

EDIT: ninja'd.

This sounds like a good suggestion to me since adding all those to full body would be wrong imo, a new tag is good.

@kittey: > Chiera said: > > I think one wants to find...

2017-12-12T18:17:23-05:00

Chiera said:

I think one wants to find every image where the body is to 100 in frame.

Something like post #2469175 or post #2635986 is what you want to find when searching for full_body?

Edit: Also ninja’d, thanks to Danbooru/Cloudflare taking their sweet time again.

@user_525419: > evazion said: > > That came out of topic...

2017-12-12T18:14:51-05:00

evazion said:

That came out of topic #7945, where the tag was originally created. The intent was for full body to be the next step after cowboy shot, meaning it shows the entire body but not much more.

I would suggest making a long shot tag for things further away than full body. There's a huge difference between things like post #2757069 and post #1696903.

EDIT: ninja'd.

Well, either a new tag to cover these situations are let full body be adjusted. Like I said, there is a gap in searches then.

@evazion: That came out of topic #7945, where the tag was...

2017-12-12T18:12:51-05:00

That came out of topic #7945, where the tag was originally created. The intent was for full body to be the next step after cowboy shot, meaning it shows the entire body but not much more.

I would suggest making a long shot tag for things further away than full body. There's a huge difference between things like post #2757069 and post #1696903.

EDIT: ninja'd.

@user_525419: > iridescent_slime said: > > The tag's...

2017-12-12T18:12:50-05:00

iridescent_slime said:

The tag's definition never changed. Even the earliest version of the wiki (link) emphasized that this tag was intended for images in which "most of the image is occupied by a character". This was the result of the discussion at topic #7945.

Well, then you need another to tell how the body composition is for a character in an image. There is no other way to do that and if leaving this out we'll lose information.
There was a fear that it would water down the tag but I disagree with that. Full body is a really big tag with nearly 140k posts.
In a -full_body scenery search you'll get around 700 pages which are around 13500 posts. Not all posts will fit the other requirement anyway meaning that it will be a very little addition to the overall count (Yes, there might be other images, but there shouldn't be much more posts then.
Also, this isn't really a discussion if there is not even one page :P.

@iridescent_slime: > Chiera said: > > Seems to be added by...

2017-12-12T18:06:42-05:00

Chiera said:

Seems to be added by @evazion , but I have to disagree with that. It doesn't seem to make sense to exclude these posts. I think one wants to find every image where the body is to 100 in frame.

The tag's definition never changed. Even the earliest version of the wiki (link) emphasized that this tag was intended for images in which "most of the image is occupied by a character". This was the result of the discussion at topic #7945.

@user_525419: > CodeKyuubi said: > > Well I just found out...

2017-12-12T17:30:09-05:00

CodeKyuubi said:

Well I just found out I've been using full_body wrong according to its wiki.

I've been using it as:
The person's whole body is in the frame,

but the wiki says it requires another qualification:
The person's body has to occupy a majority of the frame.

Most images that meet the first requirement will meet the second because composition, but a lot of the wider shot images like post #2952664 or post #2951957 would not apply because of the second requirement.

Seems to be added by @evazion , but I have to disagree with that. It doesn't seem to make sense to exclude these posts. I think one wants to find every image where the body is to 100 in frame.