General "Whoa this tag is missing stuff!" Thread

@Thoryn
Do you think they don’t get humanized or species swapped too much for it to be worth the trouble?

https://tantabus.ai/tags/high+winds
Another character tag I’ve created here.

@Background Pony #BBCC
That’s actually a good point! My previous post can be dismissed.

Edit: Noticed the tag twicest is a thing, but it’s not implied by ship:twinight, ship:shiningsparkle, ship:velvet sparkle, ship:flurrylight

@Bendy and Boney
Done.
@Thoryn
I said it first. >:(

But, done.

@LightningBolt
In that case, I’ll give you the actual credit and give @Background Pony #BBCC a shiny star sticker.

By the way, there’s a tag discrepancy with Flutterbelle, as it’s missing the ship: prefix.
Edit: Flutterbelle shipping tag should also probably imply things like lesbian, Fluttershy, Sweetie Belle, female, shipping (as is the case with e.g. ship:Scootadash)

Huh… Three of those images were generated by me, but uploaded by someone else. Weird. LMAO.

https://tantabus.ai/tags/sweet+biscuit
I made another character LoRA today.

@Bendy and Boney
Done.

apple bloom should maybe imply hair bow?
Sure, she can be without it, but 99% (number pulled out of my ass) of the images, it’s there.

For Twilight Sparkle
twilight sparkle (alicorn) makes sense, name followed by race/kind is logical. (no link, couldn’t escape the () properly..)
unicorn twilight however uses it the complete opposite, and doesn’t even use the full name..

@Thoryn
No, characters don’t imply accessories.

That’s just what the names were called on Derpi.

https://tantabus.ai/tags/kettle+corn
https://tantabus.ai/tags/nurse+sweetheart
Two more character tags I created.

hair bow, hair ribbonand flower in hair should imply hair ornament (ornament = decorative)
hairband should imply hair accessory (practical, though may also be decorative)
Really though, the whole thing can become a bit of a clusterfuck with gray areas for defining things, because nothing can ever be simple.

Edit: sisters and brothers should imply siblings
PS: Even in case of adoption, it still counts as being siblings legally speaking, it’s not just the biological factor.
PPS: Would not be surprised if it does vary depending on jurisdiction, because again, why would anything be simple.

@Bendy and Boney
Done.
@Thoryn
Done the siblings ones.

https://tantabus.ai/tags/high+heels
should imply “shoes.”

@Zerowinger
Done.

https://tantabus.ai/tags/submachinegun
https://tantabus.ai/tags/rifle
https://tantabus.ai/tags/assault+rifle
https://tantabus.ai/tags/machine+gun
https://tantabus.ai/tags/pistol
https://tantabus.ai/tags/revolver
https://tantabus.ai/tags/sniper+rifle

All of the above should imply “gun” and by extension “weapon.”

https://tantabus.ai/tags/petunia+paleo
https://tantabus.ai/tags/coconut+cream
https://tantabus.ai/tags/toola+roola

More character tags.

@Bendy and Boney
Done.

“bing” should be aliased to “generator:bing image creator”, which also should imply “generator:dall-e 3”.

https://tantabus.ai/tags/bing
https://tantabus.ai/tags/generator-colon-bing+image+creator
https://tantabus.ai/tags/generator-colon-dall-dash-e+3

@tyto4tme4l
I did bing -> generator:bing image creator

If someone is using Bing, then I agree tagging generator:bing image creator is useful. But which generator MicroSoft is leveraging behind the scenes will be something that will change with time. So that implication will need to be maintained, and will not always be right for all Bing-generated images that are uploaded - especially during transitional periods.

In particular, I’m concerned about the timeliness and maintenance of having generator:bing image creator imply an individual version of Dall-E, assuming everyone accessing Bing is getting the same core technology.

And there are several ‘generators’ which, like Bing, are really just UIs that are leveraging something else behind the scenes.

Would that information be better expressed in the description of the top tag? For example, adding a description to generator:bing image creator that says that as of December 2024, Bing is using DALL-E 3 model PR16, rather than an implication pointing to DALL-E 3? Then when it changes in the future the new information could be added with the corresponding dates?