novelty_censor is fine.
スラッシュ said: Do we need to make subcategories like laughing_man_censor etc.
I don't think so, it'd be easy enough to combine the two tags and get what you're looking for. Better than creating new overly-specific tags.
Posted under General
Lalaca said:
Speaking of the keep_out tag, it should be a subset of (implicate) caution_tape.
that is common in the Galaxy Angels II.
Relatedly, what about instances of normal censorship applied for comedic effect, like some of the Mickey Mouse images barring his eyes out?
Censoring specifically the eyes is common enough that I say it should have its own tag. How about censored_eyes?
As for censoring things for comedic purposes, there are some examples under sexually_suggestive censored and rating:s censored. Blurring out a phallic object to imply it's a penis is a fairly common joke. I suggest comedic_censor, for lack of a better idea.
On regards to censoring the eyes, perhaps identity_censor or something similar? The purpose of that type of censoring is to conceal a person's identity, and as such things like censoring of an entire face would serve the same purpose as censoring just the eyes.
Have we decided on which tag to use for humorous censorship? The subject was brought up again in post #521439, and so far there's only one post tagged with novelty_censor.
Btw, while we're on the topic of censoring, there's a tag called convenient_censoring and it is implicated with censored
However, I noticed this tag means more like, there's a random piece of something like post #521257, post #519437, post #517338, however they're not actual CENSORS
So that also brings it back to this, some of them could be considered novelty_censor, like say post #418818 has a novelty censor...but would you call that CENSORED? (Well meh, ok sometimes nipples are censored lol)
Updated by Goard
Godel said: Btw, while we're on the topic of censoring, there's a tag called convenient_censoring and it is implicated with censored
However, I noticed this tag means more like, there's a random piece of something like post #521257, post #519437, post #517338, however they're not actual CENSORS
It does somewhat overlap with novelty_censor in some uses, but most of the time they're distinct ideas. The three examples in the OP post of this thread would not be convenient_censorship.
So that also brings it back to this, some of them could be considered novelty_censor, like say post #418818 has a novelty censor...but would you call that CENSORED?
Did you mean to link a different post?
Oops my bad, I meant post #408818
jxh2154 said:
It does somewhat overlap with novelty_censor in some uses, but most of the time they're distinct ideas. The three examples in the OP post of this thread would not be convenient_censorship.
For stuff like post #14698 vs post #5838, I'm thinking, if the obscuring bit is a part of the overall image it's convenient_censorship, but if it's just slapped on in front, it's more a novelty censor.
And seconding evazion, it might be worthwhile to have a tag for things like post #66413 and post #520321, where something non-explicit is censored for comedic effect.
zatchii said: For stuff like post #14698 vs post #5838, I'm thinking, if the obscuring bit is a part of the overall image it's convenient_censorship, but if it's just slapped on in front, it's more a novelty censor.
I agree with this.
And seconding evazion, it might be worthwhile to have a tag for things like post #66413 and post #520321, where something non-explicit is censored for comedic effect.
fake_censorship or something? Dunno.