I tried to create a tag, but it seems to have been deleted, so I was wondering what makes an acceptable tag. I couldn't find a list of rules for making tags anywhere. What are the rules?

These are the rules

Those aren't very strict, and I don't understand how my tag broke any of those rules. I tried to start a fembeast tag, which is any picture that involves sex with a feral female, and I assumed that it would be okay because there are lots of sex acts that are acceptable tags (ie fellatio).

Gender-specific tags, other than gender-identifying tags, aren't the done thing here. So that's part of it. The other part is that fembeast isn't very intuitive as a tag.

There are a lot of gender-specific tags, like female_on_dickgirl, female_on_top, 2_males_1_female, etc. As for it being intuitive, it makes perfect sense to me, but I can't be subjective, so if there is a better term, let me know.

A better tag would be male_on_feral in that case. Then you could just search male_on_feral female to get the results you want.
When I ready Fembeast all I can think of are female monsters rather then straight bestiality.

First of all, the proper tag for ongoing sex between a feral beast and any type of human or humanlike being (including but not limited to: elves, dwarves, anthropomorphic furries,...) is anthro_on_feral, regardless of who mounts whom.

The second thing is, neither of the other x_on_y tags look like a proper tag, most only have 4 or 5 images with the exception of dickgirl_on_male/herm_on_male who both have ~150 hits.

And last but not least, I too thought fembeast means something like a female Minotaur, not ongoing bestiality.

Anything aliased to invalid_tag is... well, invalid.

Generally "unacceptable" tags, ones that are either too specific, too vague or not distinct enough from another tag, are aliased to either another, more appropriate, more used tag(boobies being aliased to breasts) or to invalid_tag. If the alias exists, the "unacceptable" tag will be replaced with whatever it's aliased to.

A human is, by definition, not anthro. I just don't see how sex with a feral female is more specific that female_domination, herm_on_female, or female_on_top. Also, I checked that list and it's not on there.

Nuffy said:
A human is, by definition, not anthro.

Prefix

anthropo-

Forming words related to men or people.]

I laughed.

"Anthropomorphic" literally means "like a human" or "as a human" or "in the form of a human". Anthropos is literally the ancient Greek word for human.

What in the actual fuck. Not even the US education system can be blamed for that one.

Anthro, in the furry community, is short for anthropomorphic, the definition of which is a non-human entity with artificially added human characteristics.

Edit: I apologize. After further searching I have found several conflicting definitions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphic
This implies both are acceptable.
Thank you for calling me an idiot before doing any research.

Nuffy said:
...Thank you for calling me an idiot before doing any research.

You should check yourself before you wreck yourself, Ralph...

Flaming is okay, but polite (if sarcastic) disapproval of flaming is not?

They weren't flaming, just pointing out that that word... it does not mean what you think it means.

Google it. Half the definitions specifically exclude humans and half don't. What does that mean? Also, he insulted my intelligence and the US education system on a shaky factual foundation. How is that not flaming?

It's a fairly common joke that the US public education system is terrible.
And I don't see a damn thing in what anyone said that insulted your intelligence.

Okay? Now stop being butthurt.

Stop with the passive-aggressive fighting. Good lord.

Tags like dickgirl_on_female and male_on_herm are okay in my opinion because they are essentially orientation tags (filling a role similar to straight or lesbian or whatever).

A single tag describing a feral female fucking an anthro male seems problematic to me - we already have anthro_on_feral and also bestiality to describe these things. We try to stay away from gender-specific tagging such as lioness or whatever and we don't want our tags to get ridiculously specific either (like feral_female_penetrated or something like that - fembeast, while meaning the same thing, is also not intuitive enough).

Thank you for getting us back on track.
female_domination is the closest parallel. It's domination except the dom is female. What I was looking for is anthro_on_feral or bestiality except the feral is female. feral_female_penetrated is not what I was looking for, but just feral_female would be close enough.

Nuffy said:
but just feral_female would be close enough.

But we don't do gender specific tags in that way. That would be like tagging lioness, which is something we don't do.

Then why is female_domination okay?
Perhaps a link to the rule about tags like lioness would help clarify the difference for me.

Nuffy said:
Edit: I apologize. After further searching I have found several conflicting definitions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anthropomorphic
This implies both are acceptable.
Thank you for calling me an idiot before doing any research.

This looked interesting enough that I did a quick search, what sites did you find that specifically excluded humans from anthorpomorphism?
I only could find urban dictionary but that site is by definition unreliable at best, the other sites are sometimes worded strange but not a single one excludes humans, the just say that it gives human traits to not human things, because they don't feel the need to Xzibit all the way with humanlike humans and humanlike traits.

This is also not thought to insult you, I would just like to know from what dictionaries I should stay away.

Nuffy said:
Then why is female_domination okay?
Perhaps a link to the rule about tags like lioness would help clarify the difference for me.

Lioness is [female + lion] in one tag, while lioness would be a bit more accurate than only [lion + female] on a picture the tag bloat itself would make this horrible, in addition that you would need a lioness like tag for all genders (including herm, dickgirl, male, maleherm, neuter) and that for all species.
Sure, we could halfass these tags but that is only an invitation for more (although different) drama.
To avoid that, we simply live with a slightly unspecific tagging.

Female_domination, a woman dominating over others, mostly male, is a well recognised fetish, and thus worth tagging, it is something specific good enough to be used for either searches or blacklisting.

Now, you could insert female_domination in the upper explanation and also make a sound argument, but to unspecify fetishes would bring in drama due to not working blacklists faster than fanatic islamists reacting to drawings of muhammed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6luLxOt2z4
That is all.

NotMeNotYouMobile said:
This looked interesting enough that I did a quick search, what sites did you find that specifically excluded humans from anthorpomorphism?

I did a google search for athropomorphic definition. In addition to the one listed above, here are three more:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropomorphic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropomorphic
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Anthropomorphic

Nuffy said:
I did a google search for athropomorphic definition. In addition to the one listed above, here are three more:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anthropomorphic
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthropomorphic
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Anthropomorphic

Yeah, you misread those, just because they don't list it doesn't mean it is excluded, they just sort of implied that.

Also "[an-thruh-puh-mawr-fik]".

Did you read them?
"... to nonhuman things..."
"... to a being or thing not human..."
"... to non-human beings or objects..."

If a dictionary suggests that humans are not anthropomorphic then that dictionary is wrong, end of discussion.

Nuffy said:
Did you read them?
"... to nonhuman things..."
"... to a being or thing not human..."
"... to non-human beings or objects..."

Now you try to explain to me why one should add human traits to something human.

By definition, all humans have human traits, that is what makes them human.

Nuffy said:
A human is, by definition, not anthro.

Others:
NO!

Guys, doesn't Nuffy (at least when it comes to tagging on this site) have a point.
I mean, look at bestiality

If the picture depicts an anthro(furry) character sexually involved with a feral character,use the anthro_on_feral tag.

And we have separate tags for bestiality and anthro_on_feral, where the latter implies former. If humans are indeed antro, then why are those two tags not aliased? If humans are anthro then they should be tagged anthro_on feral. If that's true, then what should be tagged bestiality but not anthro_on_feral?

I would say that here humans are not anthro.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Guys, doesn't Nuffy (at least when it comes to tagging on this site) have a point.

No.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I mean, look at bestiality
And we have separate tags for bestiality and anthro_on_feral, where the latter implies former. If humans are indeed antro, then why are those two tags not aliased? If humans are anthro then they should be tagged anthro_on feral. If that's true, then what should be tagged bestiality but not anthro_on_feral?

I would say that here humans are not anthro.

bestiality; Any sexual act between humans/anthros and ferals (like blowjob or cunnilingus)
anthro_on_feral: sexual intercourse between humans/anthros and ferals (pure penetration)

NotMeNotYou said:
No.

bestiality; Any sexual act between humans/anthros and ferals (like blowjob or cunnilingus)
anthro_on_feral: sexual intercourse between humans/anthros and ferals (pure penetration)

post #127600
forum #43347