Hold any rage replies until you have read exactly what I am proposing here, please.

I'm not taking in to account 'joke' tags. I'm also skipping over meta-information tags like absurd_res or original_character because they are useful and in fact I think there ought to be an actual tag category for that sort of non-visible but useful information. However, I digress so back on topic.

I think that these violations need to be either done away with so as to adhere closer to TWYS or be added as exceptions to the tag_what_you_see wiki page.

#1 Royalty
Many of the images under this tag do not have any visible means of determining that the character(s) present are infact Royalty. They do not possess typical symbols implying Royalty such as crowns, robes, thrones, long red carpets, numerous guards in decorative uniforms, displays of wealth, etc.

Examples: post #323861, post #322220, post #327170, post #326393

All "Princess" or "King" characters should not be aliased to "Princess" because that is not always visible from the image.

#2 Deity
With out referring to knowledge of the character's backgrounds outside of the images, how can these be determined to be god-like figures? What visually indicates a god or deific figure?

Examples: post #327362, post #300801, post #282109, post #316708

#3 Incest
Unless there is dialogue present in the picture there's no actual way to know if a picture is depicting incest or not. That being said, I do think this should be an acknowledged exception to TWYS due to it being a not uncommon kink.

Examples: post #318718, post #317629, post #306172, post #319131

#4 Parent, MILF, Sisters, Sibling, etc
As per Incest above, there's no real way of determining this from looking at the picture unless there are textual clues or otherwise similar things.

Examples: post #327218, post #320860, post #315193

#5 Humanized
How does one know this with out bringing in outside information about what the character is 'normally' like? I do think this tag serves a purpose and should be kept, but it's a pretty blatant violation of TWYS.

There are probably other exceptions which ought to be written down and listed in the tag_what_you_see wiki page or be done away with. This is not an argument against the existance of TWYS. I feel that the shortcomings of TWYS ought to be acknowledged and written out for the purpose of transparency. Once a list of candidate tags is produced, update the TWYS wiki page with the tags that can use additional external information such as incest or humanized.

I also disagree with labeling characters as royalty unless they're wearing a crown or tiara.

Azazial said:
#3 Incest
Unless there is dialogue present in the picture there's no actual way to know if a picture is depicting incest or not. That being said, I do think this should be an acknowledged exception to TWYS due to it being a not uncommon kink.

Examples: post #318718, post #317629, post #306172, post #319131

#4 Parent, MILF, Sisters, Sibling, etc
As per Incest above, there's no real way of determining this from looking at the picture unless there are textual clues or otherwise similar things.

Examples: post #327218, post #320860, post #315193

These are already accepted, there have been a couple threads on this subject as well.
I'm surprised this isn't written down in the wiki already.
With that said, I'll go and dig out the posts/threads in a bit, I have to go work for a bit.

Dogenzaka said:
I also disagree with labeling characters as royalty unless they're wearing a crown or tiara.

diamond_tiara_(mlp)

Mario583 said:
diamond_tiara_(mlp)

She's not known royalty though. Princess Celestia shouldn't have the royalty tag slapped on when she's dressed like any other pony.

#1 Royalty i'm ok

#2 Deity
Warning post #326393 This picture shows the three deities who created the world from the game Legend of Zelda.
And amaterasu is the reincarnation of the goddess of the sun in the game Okami and Chinto religion.
These are characters from the 7th art and video game known worldwide. If you insist on applying the rule TWYS at this kind of characters, you expect a phenomenal chaos...

#3 Incest #4 Parent, MILF, Sisters
By trying to push to the extreme the TWYS rule, you completely misrepresent what the picture is and it is a disrespect to the artist. It will not protested about the day or all the best artists ask to be on the DNP list...

#5 Humanized
I do not have an opinion for humanized because I'm not interested by this type. Contrariwise, the anthrofied tag is important, as long as it follows a very known character (human or feral from games, 7th Art...)

NotMeNotYou said:
These are already accepted, there have been a couple threads on this subject as well.
I'm surprised this isn't written down in the wiki already.

Yes, I am aware that they are accepted. I merely want to see them documented in the wiki. Currently tag_what_you_see lists two sole exceptions to use of outside information:
#1 Year in which the picture was created
#2 The names of the characters

I believe it should be updated with the other exceptions in common use. I am proposing that we compile a list of those exceptions so that the wiki accurately reflects actual current practice in tagging.

Another possible exception I wandered across since I wrote the initial post is Prostitute which I suppose could really extend to all jobs with out a recognizable uniform.
Examples: post #177025, post #224082, post #47355

Azazial said:
Another possible exception I wandered across since I wrote the initial post is Prostitute which I suppose could really extend to all jobs with out a recognizable uniform.
Examples: post #177025, post #224082, post #47355

Completely agree, it is not even worth discussing, cleaning can begin immediately.

Prostitute should really only be tagged when it's clear that money is being exchanged for sex.

Deity should only be tagged when the character(s) shown are performing some kind of godly miracle, or have something like a halo of light, etc.

Pyke said:
Deity should only be tagged when the character(s) shown are performing some kind of godly miracle, or have something like a halo of light, etc.

you are aware not all deity's were known for shitty out godly miracles, or having halos of light right? The Greek and Roman deity's were quite often then not normal humans with fantastic abilities making them almost indistinguishable from humans, and Egyptian deity's just had animal heads for the most part.

I think the new TWYS rule change applies to #5

Princess_Celestia said:
you are aware not all deity's were known for shitty out godly miracles, or having halos of light right? The Greek and Roman deity's were quite often then not normal humans with fantastic abilities making them almost indistinguishable from humans, and Egyptian deity's just had animal heads for the most part.

Then how would we go about tagging Deity?

Pyke said:
Then how would we go about tagging Deity?

With a minimum of culture, for example... And as I suggested above.

(Prostitute cleaned)

I do not believe that the Deity tag can be applied fairly to images with out giving it an exception to the TWYS rule. I am only vaguely familiar with Gods outside of the Judeo-Christian beliefs and some of the old Roman, Greek, and Norse gods. Even if I did happen to know the names and likenesses of every God in the world, that would still be involving outside information and thus in violation of TWYS.

Simply make Deity a written TWYS exception.

TheHuskyK9 said:
I think the new TWYS rule change applies to #5

Can you clarify what you mean? What ever change you are referring to does not seem to be reflected in the wiki.

Azazial said:
I do not believe that the Deity tag can be applied fairly to images with out giving it an exception to the TWYS rule. I am only vaguely familiar with Gods outside of the Judeo-Christian beliefs and some of the old Roman, Greek, and Norse gods. Even if I did happen to know the names and likenesses of every God in the world, that would still be involving outside information and thus in violation of TWYS.

Simply make Deity a written TWYS exception.

I woukd keep the deity tag and simply add it based on context, is it Freya or some other god depicted? Add deity to it.
This could be used to distinguish between some random freya and the god freya.
But yeah, this needs either visible context in the picture or the artist saying that this is the god freya looking at a plant or something.

Azazial said:
Can you clarify what you mean? What ever change you are referring to does not seem to be reflected in the wiki.

Artist says it is a human rainbow_dash, humanized can than be assigned to either help finding human depictions of normally feral characters or to simply blacklist them.

I believe this is also a very useful tag.

I like this thread.

Further tags which are in need of consideration: Robot vs Android vs Cyborg. As far as I am aware, Android refers to beings which are fully robotic except for the biological brain. Robots are fully synthetic beings. Cyborgs are robotically enhanced biological creatures. It would be nearly impossible to distinguish between Robots and Cyborgs at a cursory visual inspection.

We need to remember to keep redisdead out of this.

Azazial said:
Further tags which are in need of consideration: Robot vs Android vs Cyborg. As far as I am aware, Android refers to beings which are fully robotic except for the biological brain. Robots are fully synthetic beings. Cyborgs are robotically enhanced biological creatures. It would be nearly impossible to distinguish between Robots and Cyborgs at a cursory visual inspection.

Cyborgs are usually when you see a creature with a robotic parts (ex. leg, arm, etc.) Robots are usually fully robotic.

I mistakenly wrote Cyborgs when I actually meant Androids and Robots. post #323499 for example.

androids are humanoid robots

Hammie said:
androids are humanoid robots

No their not and until I see one in real there just robots. That's what I was expecting you to say.

Well, excuse me for caring about accuracy and fairness in rules, I'm sure.

Falord said:
No their not and until I see one in real there just robots. That's what I was expecting you to say.

http://wordsinjapanese.com/japanese-actroid-robot-latest-human-robots.php

what a wonderful time we live in.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Cyborgs are usually when you see a creature with a robotic parts (ex. leg, arm, etc.) Robots are usually fully robotic.

That reminds me...
Should 'cyborg' imply 'cybernetics'?

There's also a couple of pics under cyber, cybernetic, cybernetic_enhancements, cybernetic_limb, cyberpunk, cybernetic_limbs, metal_limbs, mechanical and mechanical_arm. Could probably use some aliases.

And what about bionic, biomechanical, bionic_arm and bionic_eye? I have hard time telling the difference between bionic and cybernetic just from the pics.

Anyway, back to the main topic: what about 'twins'? Except for the identical twins, most of them could easily pass off as siblings.
Fe. #286519 #283222 #42303

'Mutant'? How do you tell a mutant apart from a generic monster/eldritch abomination or OCs?
#154485 #117981 #96669
'course, more than half of mutant pics are either turtles or X-Men.

Genjar said:
That reminds me...
Should 'cyborg' imply 'cybernetics'?

There's also a couple of pics under cyber, cybernetic, cybernetic_enhancements, cybernetic_limb, cyberpunk, cybernetic_limbs, metal_limbs, mechanical and mechanical_arm. Could probably use some aliases.

And what about bionic, biomechanical, bionic_arm and bionic_eye? I have hard time telling the difference between bionic and cybernetic just from the pics.

Anyway, back to the main topic: what about 'twins'? Except for the identical twins, most of them could easily pass off as siblings.
Fe. #286519 #283222 #42303

'Mutant'? How do you tell a mutant apart from a generic monster/eldritch abomination or OCs?
#154485 #117981 #96669
'course, more than half of mutant pics are either turtles or X-Men.

Oh! Some of these are great ideas!

I think that the cybernetics / robot / android / cyborg discussion should probably be spun off into a new thread until some sort of consensus is reached. There's a whole hodge-podge of issues there that need to be addressed. You make good points though. Some of those tags could probably stand to be cleaned up and merged a bit while others need clarification in the wiki.

The Twins tag is a perfect example of this sort of thing. I strongly agree that it typically requires outside information to establish but is a tag of interest to certain groups.

Mutant is a tough one. I feel that in modern vocabulary it means one of two things: A normal person who has gained super powers through having some sort of weird gene / industrial accident / radiation / etc OR a big hulking green/purple/whatever abomination of flesh that typically has a humanoid form.

As you rightly point out, there is a difficult distinction to make between Mutants, Monsters, Eldritch Horrors, and so on, especially if they don't change in physical appearance. You can put Spiderman, Superman, and Professor-X next to one another and if you didn't know who they were already you would have no way of telling that they have mutant super powers.

|-----Please add genders to your posts-----|
\=================================/
A lot of people get away with this one.

Cybernetics and bio-cybernetics are not quite the same thing, and "Cyberpunk" is a world setting, not a character appearance thing. Cybernetics are mechanical, bio-cybernetics are well, biological-mechanical components.

Princess_Celestia said:
Cybernetics and bio-cybernetics are not quite the same thing, and "Cyberpunk" is a world setting, not a character appearance thing. Cybernetics are mechanical, bio-cybernetics are well, biological-mechanical components.

Yes. But it is generally difficult to tell the difference just by looking. Cyberpunk seems especially ambiguous: how do you know that it's from that specific setting, just by TWYS? But as Azazial pointed out, this discussion probably belongs in its own topic.

As for the main topic, what about the couple tag? The wiki describes it as "two people who are in love with each other, who are romantically entwined", but in most cases that is ambiguous. Couple or an one-night stand? I can't generally tell the difference without outside info.
For example, I'm not sure why these are couples:
#121430 #43985 #219558 #217618 #188527 #143196 #118255 #117981 #224132
#75530

Genjar said:
Yes. But it is generally difficult to tell the difference just by looking. Cyberpunk seems especially ambiguous: how do you know that it's from that specific setting, just by TWYS? But as Azazial pointed out, this discussion probably belongs in its own topic.

As for the main topic, what about the couple tag? The wiki describes it as "two people who are in love with each other, who are romantically entwined", but in most cases that is ambiguous. Couple or an one-night stand? I can't generally tell the difference without outside info.
For example, I'm not sure why these are couples:
#121430 #43985 #219558 #217618 #188527 #143196 #118255 #117981 #224132
#75530

Telling cyberpunk is actually quite easy, is it a dystopian theme with very punkish looking clothing in a highly futuristic setting? Then its cyberpunk.

Had a bit of a vacation over the weekend and now I am back to pick up where I left off~

Mind_Control has some frequently used indicators like swirly eyes which are often associated with hypnosis, but in posts such as post #310300 there's really no way to reliably determine if it's mind control or not. It could just be glowing eyes. Mind Control is a semi-popular kink and it stands to reason that people will be searching for it.

Selfcest is... I have no idea where to even start with this one. How do we know the individuals presented aren't just twins?

Adultry & Cheating are really hard to actually tag with just information present in the picture unless it's, say, a comic or other text-bubble-having thing where they specifically reference this fact.

Genderswap / Crossgender fall right smack in the middle of what this whole thread is about. It's a useful tag that people probably want to search on but isn't TWYS. Sure, we could say that the characters are well known enough to know it's a genderswap but if you don't special case it there's no difference genderswap between assumptions and tagging herm because you know it's a herm even if you can't see it.

Azazial said:

Had a bit of a vacation over the weekend and now I am back to pick up where I left off~

Mind_Control has some frequently used indicators like swirly eyes which are often associated with hypnosis, but in posts such as post #310300 there's really no way to reliably determine if it's mind control or not. It could just be glowing eyes. Mind Control is a semi-popular kink and it stands to reason that people will be searching for it.

Selfcest is... I have no idea where to even start with this one. How do we know the individuals presented aren't just twins?

Adultry & Cheating are really hard to actually tag with just information present in the picture unless it's, say, a comic or other text-bubble-having thing where they specifically reference this fact.

Genderswap / Crossgender fall right smack in the middle of what this whole thread is about. It's a useful tag that people probably want to search on but isn't TWYS. Sure, we could say that the characters are well known enough to know it's a genderswap but if you don't special case it there's no difference genderswap between assumptions and tagging herm because you know it's a herm even if you can't see it.

Well to me the glowing eyes in post #310300 could fall under mind control simple because of it's two panel style. Panel one shows her eyes green and with a somewhat shocked expression. Then her eyes are glowing and she seems to love it.

selfcest? Well that's if you don't know the character you could assume there twins like Phil and Lil from Rugrats, unless it is based in some comic/story that states otherwise. But if you know the characters enough to know that that's not true. Then if you see him or her having sex with the exact same character or in some cases the square_crossover of themselves, you could call it selfcest.

adultery Would mostly fall for characters that are known to be married or as you said comic's that hint that the characters in question are married. Cheating is just that. post #314412 donatello is clearly cheating in this picture.

Genderswap? Well this only works for well known characters that have an established gender to begin with. The in-between genders don't count. Only the full change from one gender to the other. With out a proper back story to the character or comic, you can't really call the character genderswap unless the character is well known.

All these thing you mentioned seem to require some knowledge of the subject being tagged.
That's my opinion.

Selfcest is... I have no idea where to even start with this one. How do we know the individuals presented aren't just twins?

And in many cases they don't even look alike. I have no inkling how anyone would equate these with selfcest just by looking at them: #272199 #44619

Genjar said:
And in many cases they don't even look alike. I have no inkling how anyone would equate these with selfcest just by looking at them: #272199 #44619

How did those get selfcest!? I wouldn't see Pokemon getting this tag since there can be more than one pokemon aka there isn't just one pikachu. post #44619? Not sure unless they have a story that shows the are the same character, which from first look they don't.

Falord said:
How did those get selfcest!?

They're different versions of the same character. So it's just the usual case of people ignoring TWYS and instead using the source to tag. Unless they actually recognized the characters from elsewhere and tagged it based on that.

Bumping since this issue was brought back up in forum #81017 and still needs to be addressed with a wiki page or something.