So, should humans get anatomically correct on posts that feature a humanoid penis and/or humanoid pussy on them? I am currently neutral right now, on one side it makes sense to tag as such, but on the other it is not a bad thing that anatomically correct remains for only animal genitalia, because people might not want to include humans in their searches with anatomically correct.

Or, alternatively, humanoids (or, furthered to animal humanoids) only get that tag, as Genjar said humans should have a humanoid genitalia by default.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
...because people might not want to include humans in their searches with anatomically correct.

This is why I don't think humans should get anatomically_correct. Practically, if someone searches anatomically_correct on a furry site, it's a safe bet that they aren't looking for human genitalia.

You all keep complaining about "other stuff showing up"

Thats what the parameters functions are for. -human

Now it's fixed.

Maxpizzle said:
This is why I don't think humans should get anatomically_correct. Practically, if someone searches anatomically_correct on a furry site, it's a safe bet that they aren't looking for human genitalia.

As I said in the other thread: You can blacklist humans if you hate them so thoroughly, or follow what GDel said and just exclude them from the search.
I actually do want to see humans in my anatomically correct searches, but don't want to focus purely on humans. I like furry art, but I'm not some Pinky-Hater. Humans are just as good as furries for me.

As for animal humanoids: A human with a horsecock is not an animal humanoid as far as I'm concerned. Throwing on some cat ears can make them into a feline_humanoid, but I'd also argue the human tag is still relevant.

Furrin_Gok said:
As for animal humanoids: A human with a horsecock is not an animal humanoid as far as I'm concerned. Throwing on some cat ears can make them into a feline_humanoid, but I'd also argue the human tag is still relevant.

On the other hand, if pointy ears (post #981415) are enough to make character a humanoid instead of human, then surely the same should applicable to characters with non-human genitalia... since that's a considerably larger difference than pointy ears.

Don't be so disingenuous. "Humans" with pointy ears are clearly meant to be elves.

Genjar said:
On the other hand, if pointy ears (post #981415) are enough to make character a humanoid instead of human, then surely the same should applicable to characters with non-human genitalia... since that's a considerably larger difference than pointy ears.

Hybrids. Elves and Vulcans are common enough to be their own species, but animal_humanoids are essentially human/furry hybrids. That then begs the question, how far into Hybrid can we go before we lose anatomically correct?

Furrin_Gok said:
Hybrids.

Animal_humanoid are closer to chimera than hybrid.
Hybrid is for creatures that look like crossbreeds, whereas chimera is for ones that are mishmash of various parts.

Anatomically correct shouldn't apply at all. Because those are fictional species.

Genjar said:
Animal_humanoid are closer to chimera than hybrid.
Hybrid is for creatures that look like crossbreeds, whereas chimera is for ones that are mishmash of various parts.

Anatomically correct shouldn't apply at all. Because those are fictional species.

Does getting animal ears stitched onto your body automatically make you no longer human, though?

Flat out. Yes. Outright yes.

Because it's an anatomically correct being if a human has a human penis.

Like. Thats not a question of accuracy.

Humanoids are more of an issue. When do kitsune stop being anatomically correct? A Khumari kitsune has a sheath and dogdick and a canine spade if theyre femalw. But a regular old kitsune might have a humanoid pussy or penis.

Both of those are humanoids. When is it anatomically correct? It depends on the lore. Which isn't part of how we tag.

Trolls from home stuck are humanoids that are generally agreed to have tentacle genitals. But someone could draw them with big sloppy uncut human dicks. Which is more anatomically correct?

I agree that any human with a Human dick or pussy should have the tag but humanoids should not under twys. Unless we start counting lore.

Now, here I thought that humans with nonhuman features would be considered humanoids. I would have expected that to include animal genitalia.

By that standard, including anatomically_correct on humans would seem redundant. They are anatomically correct by virtue of the human tag being applicable.

Clawdragons said:
Now, here I thought that humans with nonhuman features would be considered humanoids. I would have expected that to include animal genitalia.

By that standard, including anatomically_correct on humans would seem redundant. They are anatomically correct by virtue of the human tag being applicable.

Nope. Humans with horse cocks are still humans. We had the animal_ears/kemonomimi tags for a short while because of the argument that animal ears alone don't make them not human, but those were apparently deemed unnecessary and trivial, but that alone does not say that "Animal ears make a human not human."

Not wanting to see humans in your search doesn't somehow make humans with human penises less anatomically correct.

Ratte said:
Not wanting to see humans in your search doesn't somehow make humans with human penises less anatomically correct.

Tags should work for us, not the other way around. We can, and often do, bend tag definitions to better suit our purposes. Just because humans with human penises are "anatomically correct" doesn't mean they have to fall under the anatomically_correct tag. Practical usage is more important than semantic correctness.

Maxpizzle said:
Tags should work for us, not the other way around. We can, and often do, bend tag definitions to better suit our purposes. Just because humans with human penises are "anatomically correct" doesn't mean they have to fall under the anatomically_correct tag. Practical usage is more important than semantic correctness.

Define practical use then.

If the system is going to work at all we can't bend the rules on it otherwise it just leads to more confusion.

If we use tag what you see, we have to abide by that. If I see a human with anatomically_correct junk. It should be tagged that.

And again.

Ratte said:
Not wanting to see humans in your search doesn't somehow make humans with human penises less anatomically correct.

Maxpizzle said:
Tags should work for us, not the other way around. We can, and often do, bend tag definitions to better suit our purposes. Just because humans with human penises are "anatomically correct" doesn't mean they have to fall under the anatomically_correct tag. Practical usage is more important than semantic correctness.

As said at least twice now, that is as simple as excluding human from your searches or blacklisting humans entirely.

This is slightly off topic, but I feel as though anatomically_correct is actually a rather poor name for what the tag represents.

Is there any reason not to alias it to something more clear, such as species-appropriate_genitalia, or something along those lines?

This brings up a valid point. One problem with the tagging system is that it doesn't show which character the tag is belonging to.

We may need a new tag for this one. Because humans are usually anatomically correct on this site the new tag would be better suited for the exception. anatomically_incorrect_human ?

Sorrowless said:
This brings up a valid point. One problem with the tagging system is that it doesn't show which character the tag is belonging to.

We may need a new tag for this one. Because humans are usually anatomically correct on this site the new tag would be better suited for the exception. anatomically_incorrect_human ?

I think this is one that just needs to wait until they add character specific tags. Then, we can have human anatomically_correct intersex penis and not have to worry about the anatomically correct belonging to a dog in the image. Or vise-versa.

Why not go straight thinking new tags that can meet individual needs rather than arguing? It doesn't seem any good to fight for the usage of this one tag, especially its name is extremely stupidly confusing.

• matched_animal_genitalia
• matched_humanoid_genitalia
• mismatched_animal_genitalia
• mismatched_humanoid_genitalia

Separate animal and human / humanoid will make searching works well with bestiality pics. I will clarify. My concern is about searchability, not about my favor or anyone's. This was said to @Maxpizzle & @GDelscribe & @Furrin_Gok & @Ratte.

I will let you decide whatever elf / animal_humanoid / animal_head's matching penis is humanoid_penis or not. I do think so however.

ZaSigma4 said:
Why not go straight thinking new tags that can meet individual needs rather than arguing? It doesn't seem any good to fight for the usage of this one tag, especially its name is extremely stupidly confusing.

• matched_animal_genitalia
• matched_humanoid_genitalia
• mismatched_animal_genitalia
• mismatched_humanoid_genitalia

Separate animal and human / humanoid will make searching works well with bestiality pics. I will clarify. My concern is about searchability, not about my favor or anyone's. This was said to @Maxpizzle & @GDelscribe & @Furrin_Gok & @Ratte.

I will let you decide whatever elf / animal_humanoid / animal_head's matching penis is humanoid_penis or not. I do think so however.

This.

Your terms are much better than my own proposal.

Furrin_Gok said:
Nope. Humans with horse cocks are still humans.

How so?
By the current use, the human tag is only for normal humans who have absolutely no non-human bits. The only exception to that is transformation.

Whether it's an animal tail or animal penis, that's enough to push the character into humanoid category instead of human.

ZaSigma4 said:
Why not go straight thinking new tags that can meet individual needs rather than arguing? It doesn't seem any good to fight for the usage of this one tag, especially its name is extremely stupidly confusing.

• matched_animal_genitalia
• matched_humanoid_genitalia
• mismatched_animal_genitalia
• mismatched_humanoid_genitalia

Separate animal and human / humanoid will make searching works well with bestiality pics. I will clarify. My concern is about searchability, not about my favor or anyone's. This was said to @Maxpizzle & @GDelscribe & @Furrin_Gok & @Ratte.

Great concept, but the names seem rather long. And the problem with using 'mismatched' was that some artists considered that to be trollish. Which is the main reason we haven't added tags for 'mismatched' genitalia yet: we've been unable to think of a more neutral name for it.

Those tags are very long and I question how usable they are as a consequence.

Genjar said:
Great concept, but the names seem rather long. And the problem with using 'mismatched' was that some artists considered that to be trollish. Which is the main reason we haven't added tags for 'mismatched' genitalia yet: we've been unable to think of a more neutral name for it.

Hm... What about transspecies_genitalia? It's not much longer than anatomically_correct, and would seem to me to be neutral in language.

@Genjar
Imagine that the artist intentionally draw mismatched genitalia, I don't feel "mismatched" will sound offending to them. If there is actually a prove about what you said, then maybe let's not use it.

And I don't understand why it isn't obvious enough that new tags will be shorter than current tags.
matched_animal_penis -> 20 characters
anatomically_correct_penis -> 26 characters

ZaSigma4 said:
@Genjar
Imagine that the artist intentionally draw mismatched genitalia, I don't feel "mismatched" will sound offending to them.

But they didn't draw them mismatched. Back when some mismatched tags were still used, there were occasional artist complains about tagging those as anatomically incorrect. Because it's their species and it's how they're supposed to look. :/

Which is an another reason why I maintain that anatomically_correct / anatomically_incorrect ('mismatched') should never be used for any fictional species. Including animal_humanoids.

Genjar said:
Including animal_humanoids.

You're trying to say, though:

Genjar said:
Whether it's an animal tail or animal penis, that's enough to push the character into humanoid category instead of human.

Throw a cat penis onto a dog, does it stop being a dog? No, it doesn't. The body is still dog, therefore we tag dog; therefore if a human has a non-human penis, they're still human.

@Genjar
Aren't you talking about anatomically_incorrect, not "mismatched"? That's the one offending them. No post ever been tagged with mismatched_penis.

I thought about that, many anthro have humanoid_penis and that is normal to them. Maybe a limitation will work. Any fictional species or anthro character should not be tagged with "mismatched".

Only on e6 does a bipedal fox/bird/unicorn get "anatomically_correct" if it's dick matches . . .

I'm kind of with ZaSigma4, make the tag actually reflect what it eludes to

Just dump new tag name draft for review:

I will think how to do with mismatched_* tag group later.

Maxpizzle said:
This is why I don't think humans should get anatomically_correct. Practically, if someone searches anatomically_correct on a furry site, it's a safe bet that they aren't looking for human genitalia.

This could be fixed by creating a tag that implies an anatomically correct human in the post, for example:

"anatomically_correct_human" or something like that.

It would be useful for those searching for posts with humans without canine-penises or horse-cocks

fiansagif said:
This could be fixed by creating a tag that implies an anatomically correct human in the post, for example:

"anatomically_correct_human" or something like that.

It would be useful for those searching for posts with humans without canine-penises or horse-cocks

Or, you could just do the thing that the Ratte has acknowledged:

Ratte said:
As said at least twice now, that is as simple as excluding human from your searches or blacklisting humans entirely.

fiansagif said:
This could be fixed by creating a tag that implies an anatomically correct human in the post

That is already covered by the human tag itself: it's only for anatomically correct humans. Whereas 'humans with non-human bits' are tagged as humanoid.

It doesn't take much to push a character into the humanoid category. For example, see jasper_(steven_universe). If a non-human nose is enough to make the creature a humanoid instead of human, then non-human genitalia should definitely disqualify them from being tagged as human.

That's how it works approvals too: human-like characters with non-human genitalia don't trigger the 'human-only' rule.

Genjar said:
That is already covered by the human tag itself: it's only for anatomically correct humans. Whereas 'humans with non-human bits' are tagged as humanoid.

It doesn't take much to push a character into the humanoid category. For example, see jasper_(steven_universe). If a non-human nose is enough to make the creature a humanoid instead of human, then non-human genitalia should definitely disqualify them from being tagged as human.

That's how it works approvals too: human-like characters with non-human genitalia don't trigger the 'human-only' rule.

Personally, I think we should actually start enforcing TWYS: If they look human, they're human. Human with a non-human penis still looks human. Human with rabbit ears still looks human. So on so forth. Tails are a slight bit more of a stretch than just ears, and then whiskers or fur patches are beyond the line.

Furrin_Gok said:
Personally, I think we should actually start enforcing TWYS: If they look human, they're human. Human with a non-human penis still looks human. Human with rabbit ears still looks human. So on so forth.

Problematic, because if we consider those to be human enough to be tagged as human, then they'd fall under the 'no human-only posts' rule. And we'd have to start deleting them as irrelevant, to keep the rule consistent and to avoid complaints.

Also, I have to bring up elves again. Pointy ears versus animal ears. Former would still be humanoid, but the latter would be human. That does not seem consistent, especially considering that of the two, pointy ears are closer to 'normal' humans.

Genjar said:
Problematic, because if we consider those to be human enough to be tagged as human, then they'd fall under the 'no human-only posts' rule. And we'd have to start deleting them as irrelevant, to keep the rule consistent and to avoid complaints.

Also, I have to bring up elves again. Pointy ears versus animal ears. Former would still be humanoid, but the latter would be human. That does not seem consistent, especially considering that of the two, pointy ears are closer to 'normal' humans.

Okay wow. Those are some pretty amazing points.

I don't really have much else to add. I'm just genuinely impressed right now.

Genjar said:
Problematic, because if we consider those to be human enough to be tagged as human, then they'd fall under the 'no human-only posts' rule. And we'd have to start deleting them as irrelevant, to keep the rule consistent and to avoid complaints.

Also, I have to bring up elves again. Pointy ears versus animal ears. Former would still be humanoid, but the latter would be human. That does not seem consistent, especially considering that of the two, pointy ears are closer to 'normal' humans.

To be fair, these "Jewels" pretty much are humans, so yes, they should fall under the no-humans rule. Personally, I don't mind humans, they're still great, but when I first started seeing those images I was wondering "Why the hell are these being permitted?" Pointed ears are "Elves," which are a popular fictional species, but changing the color of the skin, giving somebody only one eye or three, that doesn't really stop them from being human.

The subject of this thread, though, is genitals: A dog with a cloaca is still a dog, so a human with a snake's hemipenes is still a human.

I gave it a little thought the other day. A human with a non-human arm is still human. But two non-human arms? Now we're into hybrid territory. It's one of these things where you have to be the judge, a bit similar with the breast size tag.

Genjar's point makes sense to me. But doesn't that imply we have double standard when tagging hybrid? Will a dog body with cat penis be a hybrid? Or human will be only exception and that will be a rule?

ok let me continue hijacking this thread.
I finally thought a new name that could nicely replace mismatched_* without worry about artists raging.

: (Prefix) Indicating an exchange or switch.
(Existing tags example: crossover, crossgender, crossdressing)

• So even fictional species like dragon with canine penis can also use the cross-species_* tags, with no problems that anatomically_incorrect_* or mismatched_* could have.

• And then every species with genital slit that aren't marine mammals can qualify c.s._genital_slit.... omg

• Hybrid and transformation don't seem to qualify this tag group.

And let me quote forum #65683 here before anyone questioning me with their nonsense. (I feel tired researching old threads.)

Pecacheu said:
It's rather self-centered to say that humans aren't animals. And why have a tag that includes everything except for one thing?

Foobaria said:
Don't be pedantic; Obviously in common usage, "animal" means "non-human".

ZaSigma4 said:
So even fictional species like dragon with canine penis can also use the cross-species_* tags, with no problems that anatomically_incorrect_* or mismatched_* could have.

Nope. As a fictional species, for all we know if it really did exist, horse penises could be what they actually do have, so we can't use the tag for it.

Apparently I forgot to write the definition of cross-species_genitalia, it will be:

• A character who has a genitalia that resembles a different species's identical genitalia.

See how the definition differ to mismatched_genitalia?

So I mean if it's able to identify that the penis is exactly the same as real horse penis, not random imaginary penis, then whoever (excluding horse) having that horse penis can be tagged with cross-species_penis.

Furrin_Gok said:
Nope. As a fictional species, for all we know if it really did exist, horse penises could be what they actually do have, so we can't use the tag for it.

I think your theory has contradiction. You are basically saying fictional species can have whatever species's penis, therefore that can be their matched_penis if artist says so.

Bring up something like "if it really did exist" is nonsense if you are trying to state a fact. Fictional species don't exist so they are impossible to have matched_penis. Horse penis will never be a dragon's anatomically_correct_penis.

However fictional species can have real species's identical penis. That's my definition.

All anthro animals are fictional, whoever having humanoid penis will qualify cross-species_humanoid_penis by my definition. And whoever having their corresponding species's penis will qualify matched_animal_penis. Lastly, whoever having imaginary penis won't qualify either one.

On other hand, they supposedly shouldn't qualify the current definition of anatomically_correct_penis, because they are like fictional hybrid of animal and human, so they can't have anatomically_correct_penis.

Actually, no. My point is that fictional races (not fictional form, like anthros have) can't get either tag.

Furrin_Gok said:
Actually, no. My point is that fictional races (not fictional form, like anthros have) can't get either tag.

ok, you are talking the usage of "mismatched", not to my proposed tag "cross-species". There are slight differences in meaning between them, and I already explained it.

To put it simple, if a horse penis is not belong to horse species but another species, that post can be tagged with cross-species_genitalia. So logically cross-species_genitalia can also apply to fictional species.

While you started to talk about fictional species (not fictional form of real species) can't have mismatched_genitalia, because there is no matched_genitalia.

Did you realise we are not talking the same thing?
I don't understand why you are talking "mismatched" to me while I am proposing "cross-species".

ZaSigma4 said:
ok, you are talking the usage of "mismatched", not to my proposed tag "cross-species". There are slight differences in meaning between them, and I already explained it.

To put it simple, if a horse penis is not belong to horse species but another species, that post can be tagged with cross-species_genitalia. So logically cross-species_genitalia can also apply to fictional species.

While you started to talk about fictional species (not fictional form of real species) can't have mismatched_genitalia, because there is no matched_genitalia.

Did you realise we are not talking the same thing?
I don't understand why you are talking "mismatched" to me while I am proposing "cross-species".

just saying cross_species would not work ether because we dont know if its really a cross of 2 species, it may be a natural trait of a fictional species to have a flared_penis with a medial_ring and blunt tip (eg. equine_penis) rather then a anomaly. we already do that for fictional species like pegasi when applying them with the existing anatomically correct tags if they have a equine penis or pussy...

Come to think of it. Breasts are such a common thing among humanoids, even if they have evolved from a different branch than humans. They all look about the same too so there's no need to tag humanoid_breasts.

Humanoids pussy is usually similar to that of a human as well. We know that it's just what people and the artist find attractive, but from a lore standpoint it is their natural pussy.

Sorrowless said:
Humanoids pussy is usually similar to that of a human as well. We know that it's just what people and the artist find attractive, but from a lore standpoint it is their natural pussy.

I think I've noticed a slight increase in feral bits recently though, which is a trend I definitely approve of.

Of course, it could be my imagination.

@Ruku
Quote from anatomically_correct wiki:

As far as species go, a good rule of thumb is to only use this tag for species who are implicated to a larger family. In other words, since unicorn is implicated to equine, it's okay for them to be tagged with anatomically_correct.

If a fictional species has a genitalia that are considered matched_genitalia, of course that won't be cross-species_genitalia.

If there is no matched_genitalia for a fictional species, I think it will be ok to consider that they have cross-species_genitalia, as long as their genitalia are detailed enough to be able to be tagged as species-specific genitalia.

(flared_penis, tapering_penis, and knot are not species-specific.)

Clawdragons said:
I think I've noticed a slight increase in feral bits recently though, which is a trend I definitely approve of.

Of course, it could be my imagination.

You are not imagining things. I have been waiting for this trend to kick off.

ZaSigma4 said:
ok, you are talking the usage of "mismatched", not to my proposed tag "cross-species". There are slight differences in meaning between them, and I already explained it.

To put it simple, if a horse penis is not belong to horse species but another species, that post can be tagged with cross-species_genitalia. So logically cross-species_genitalia can also apply to fictional species.

While you started to talk about fictional species (not fictional form of real species) can't have mismatched_genitalia, because there is no matched_genitalia.

Did you realise we are not talking the same thing?
I don't understand why you are talking "mismatched" to me while I am proposing "cross-species".

Let me rephrase: None of these tags are valid for fictional species, in my opinion. There is no anatomically correct, there is no mismatched, there is no cross-species, they're all invalid when it concerns species that don't actually exist, because there is no way to know what is true-to-form and what is not when there is no real world example to base it on. If you just go and tag it as being mismatched or cross-species every time, you're being rude to the artists.

And cross-species and mismatched sound like the same exact thing. Both mean "From another species." The point of tags is to try and be straight forward with the tag's name, which your proposed usage doesn't seem like it to me.

@Furrin_Gok
First of all, why when a penis that looks like equine penis attached to a human can be tagged as equine_penis? Technically, that is not equine's penis, that is human's penis. Maybe that human was born with their penis like that, and we would see that happens in real life future. So isn't it correct to tag that penis as human_penis instead?

Replace "human" with "dragon", and it will still make sense. Using species-specific tags on unexpected species is outright wrong. So when an equine penis is not attached to equine, we will need to call that mock_equine_penis instead.

• Definition of mock: (Adjective) Imitation, not genuine; fake.
• Definition of mock_equine_penis: A penis which doesn't clearly belong to equine, but it resembles equine penis.

This is second solution, which would have best searchability, but will need to create a lot of new tags and sort them out. Just like animal dildo tags.

Otherwise, I don't get how we are supposed to tag such thing. There is no way to make the tag sounds more neutral, because this always involving "That penis looks like from another species!" scenario.

Youre arguing pointless semantics. Its obvious the difference between a humanoid penis and an equine penis. Its not any harder to tell than a dog or cat penis from a human penis so your argument is not only invalid it's drawing at straws here man.

Its like states before. If a human or relative humanoid (kemonomimi) has a human penis. It should be tagged anatomically correct because it is a "human" with a "human dick"

Like. Its not rocket science and even factoring in the question of "what matter is a non human" an android with a Human dong is still anatomically correct.
An orc elf etc with a human penis is still anatomically correct.

I dunno why this is an argument.

If we follow twys, a human with human parts is anatomically_correct. End of discussion right then and there.

Ok, time to list my opinion on all this:

Humans do not need the anatomically correct tag, it can be silently assumed.

Animal humanoids that possess a humanoid penis and/or humanoid pussy should get anatomically correct, whereas the ones who have genitalia befitting an animal does not get it but still gets the animal humanoid tag. Reason being it doesn't need to be an animal genitalia that makes them an animal humanoid, just a animal feature that is on a human(oid).

Fantasy humanoids that are commonly known, like dwarves, elves, and orcs (basically, DnD 1.0), can receive the tag as well, or it can fall under the silent assumption that it has the correct genitalia should this mismatched genitalia idea come out.

For original species, only the base species' genitalia grants the anatomically correct tag. Don't forget, you can't only list the created species, it needs to have any/all base species that applies, and those can have specific genitalia. In times where there isn't a base species, it doesn't get anatomically correct at all.

In cases of hybrid species (catdog!), it gets either or, because you still have to tag the type of penis, which makes searching or blacklisting still effective.

If that were the case theN we shouldn't tag dogs as anatomically correct either. A dog with a dog penis should be "silently assumed" as you put it.

The tag, like others when misused the way you suggest. Are literally worthless and meaningless as you propose them to be used.

GDelscribe said:
If that were the case theN we shouldn't tag dogs as anatomically correct either. A dog with a dog penis should be "silently assumed" as you put it.

The tag, like others when misused the way you suggest. Are literally worthless and meaningless as you propose them to be used.

Please, reread the specific point about animal humanoid, and compare it to human. The silent assumption is when the species has no other choice, lest it be another species. In this case, human to humanoid.

If it becomes common enough for certain feral animals to have their correct genitals, then the animal penis tag could be used for cases where it isn't 'neutral' and instead use the anatomical_correct tag. However, that makes that tag more redundant, too. That tag came into existence because feral animals with correct genitals was the exception. Especially among females.

Animals with the correct penis should still have the penis type tagged. People may be searching for anything that has a canine penis, whether it's on a dog or not, so removing that in favor of canine anatomically_correct prevents them from searing for canine_penis and seeing that group of images in their search.

While I do agree that Kemonomimi should get anatomically correct, as I've said before, it's a debateable thing. Do they count as hybrids? If so, then they don't get the AC tag. Humanoids like Elves and Dwarves are a bit further: While they aren't hybrids and therefore don't have to worry about that issue, they're also fictional even in body. Can we really say that having a human shape includes the penis and pussy?

This sums up all.

• Human -> Qualify humanoid_genitalia & matched_humanoid_genitalia.
• Humanoid and its fictional subspecies -> Qualify matched_humanoid_genitalia.
• Real animal species and its fictional subspecies -> Qualify matched_animal_genitalia.
• Fictional species which are not implicated to a larger family -> Doesn't qualify matched_genitalia.
• Hybrid -> Doesn't qualify matched_genitalia.

• Human which doesn't qualify matched_humanoid_genitalia -> Become humanoid. (A special rule)
• Animal which doesn't qualify matched_animal_genitalia -> Doesn't become hybrid.

• For anatomical accuracy of bodily structure -> Use anatomically_accurate_* tags.
• anatomically_correct -> Change to defunct tag.

This should have no problems to janitor & admin. I will just waiting for an approval.

Furrin_Gok said:
Can we really say that having a human shape includes the penis and pussy?

I would say yes. If we are talking genitals in general.

ZaSigma4 said:

• Human which doesn't qualify matched_humanoid_genitalia -> Become humanoid. (A special rule)

Is humanoid added with human? I still think a human character with minor changes is human.

Sorrowless said:
Is humanoid added with human? I still think a human character with minor changes is human.

Only humanoid tag, not both. Let's not bugging that anymore.

ZaSigma4 said:
Only humanoid tag, not both. Let's not bugging that anymore.

I disagree. A small change is just a small change. There's a man who willingly had his tongue forked like a lizard's, but he's still human. Similarly, a change to your ears, hands, or penis doesn't stop you from being human.

Furrin_Gok said:
I disagree. A small change is just a small change. There's a man who willingly had his tongue forked like a lizard's, but he's still human. Similarly, a change to your ears, hands, or penis doesn't stop you from being human.

Just tag them almost_human or whatever. Your serious searching problem is solved.

Sigma you are overcomplicating something that is a fairly simple yes or no response.

If you can argue that a dog with a sheath and a dog penis is anatomically_correct then a human with a Human penis is also anatomically_correct.

Its literally that simple.

In terms of humanoids unless that humanoid is under the satyr bracket it should still be classed as humanoid_genitals == anatomically_correct.

This isnt some bit scientific rocket experiment where we have to discuss the finer points of experimental biological taxonomy. Its literally "does this thing fit the definition? Yes? Give it the tag. If not no."

And to anyone who has a problem with seeing humans in their searches? Blacklist or negparam humans. Thats done by adding a - to the front of the tag you don't wanna see come up.

So for example. Anatomically_correct -human

Thats a valid search that will bring up everything that has anatomically correct junk but disinclude human art.

what

This is off-topic, don't need to read this if you are not GDelscribe or admins.

@GDelscribe

@Ratte
Understood.

@ZaSigma4
Might point out this is a public forum were anyone can state their opinion and argue for or against your opinion as long as a admin does not step in. if your looking to exclude a legitimate person from the debate then this place is the wrong place. And you dont really help your dabate be putting your PM arguments in the public view, if you have a problem with them then just report them.
Also please refrain from making threats of punishment.

ZaSigma4 said:
This is off-topic, don't need to read this if you are not GDelscribe or admins.

Do not ever do this again.

ZaSigma4 said:

This is off-topic, don't need to read this if you are not GDelscribe or admins.

@GDelscribe

The current usage of anatomically_correct is equal to matched_animal_genitalia (only animal). While you are trying to change it to be equal to matched_genitalia (both animal and human) and just ignore everything else that could be a issue. You also ignored that I want to keep the original usage available while you can STILL get what you want. Instead you came back and say I am just making things unnecessarily overcomplicate, simply because you don't want to understand any issue associated within this tag other than you care about. Your point "human is blah blah" is valid to me and I already admitted it without arguing any word about that, but you don't even try to get how my points are also valid to this issue. You are the one‐way person that will only mindlessly push your own opinions but never acknowledge other's opinions. I avoid to communicate with you because of this reason.

It is not my problem that you don't deserve my respect. I am surprisingly serious here because this topic relates to my tagging project. While I completely don't understand why you are having problems to begin with. What's your motivation? Dominating e621's tagging system and let taggers do what would suit your needs? Or you just can't live without expressing your precious opinions everywhere on this internet world? I speculate you just want to be acknowledged by everyone & this social, but you need to earn it.

I can't say this to you without being rude. I said this because you don't get what's the problem with yourself and still continue bothering me through private messages. Otherwise I completely don't mind you being annoying & arguing the same thing over and over again & writing huge amount of paragraphs that are awful and difficult to understand and also don't pinpoint the issue or suggest anything that's possible to solve every potential issues nicely & trying to stop any beneficial progress I made in this thread.

Don't make me give you third advice for your behavior or another wall of text. I hate to write anything wordy like this to someone like you. That's why I just said "what" and move on.

TL;DR. You are the one trolling in this thread in my opinion. You better understand your own issue before doing literally anything else that will involve me. I don't want to be with your behavioral problems any further and making our Memorial Day. I won't like to see you reply to me anymore in the future unless you wrote an essay that is longer than mine.

To admins:
I am pretty ok to stop it right now if you wish. But also watch out GDelscribe, because I feel that they are nearly qualify this:

Spamming or Trolling

• Excessively communicating the same phrase, similar phrases, or pure gibberish

@Ratte
Understood.

You have absolutely no place to use the forum as a device to argue your differences between you and GDelscribe. Your wall of text was completely uncalled for, and like Ruku had mentioned, if you have a problem with GDelscribe, feel free to report the messages he sends you. You can even go a step further and add this to your blacklist:

Nikolaithefur said:
You have absolutely no place to use the forum as a device to argue your differences between you and GDelscribe. Your wall of text was completely uncalled for, and like Ruku had mentioned, if you have a problem with GDelscribe, feel free to report the messages he sends you. You can even go a step further and add this to your blacklist:

user:gdelscribe

To be truthful I've never even heard of this guy before and have sure as hell never sent him a private message.

I dunno where that came from out of nowhere.

Anyway. To gently respond in a way that can not be misunderstood by anyone, Sigma, adding in a million new tags for extremely interspecific purposes can be helpful but in most cases unless they have a reason to exist they often will just lead to clutter when otherwise a simpler route could be taken.

A humanoid is still a human. It doesnt change that at all so using the right tag for that should be a simple yes or no answer. Thats all I'm saying.

Theres no need for overcomplicating the problem or clouding the tags with irrelevant tags.

GDelscribe said:
A humanoid is still a human.

Just wanted to add that a humanoid isn't necessarily a human. The word described the shape of the being.

Sorrowless said:
Just wanted to add that a humanoid isn't necessarily a human. The word described the shape of the being.

Thats fair. Esp in the case of Satyrlikes. But for all intents and purposes, a dwarf elf orc or otherwise would all be considered humanoids. What's to say aN elf should have a super esoteric form of genitals? By our standards they are basically no different from human other than the "fantasy" aspect.

A vulcan or klingon would probably also have a human dick even though any trekkie will tell you theyre def not human.

My point was that nonsatyrlike humanoids would generally speaking all fit under the same bracket as "human" because pointy ears does not really make it less human does it?

GDelscribe said:
Thats fair. Esp in the case of Satyrlikes. But for all intents and purposes, a dwarf elf orc or otherwise would all be considered humanoids. What's to say aN elf should have a super esoteric form of genitals? By our standards they are basically no different from human other than the "fantasy" aspect.

A vulcan or klingon would probably also have a human dick even though any trekkie will tell you theyre def not human.

My point was that nonsatyrlike humanoids would generally speaking all fit under the same bracket as "human" because pointy ears does not really make it less human does it?

Not really, but where do we draw the line? Elves do have other changes, though not so visible. We can also use the definition of specie. If elves and humans can breed, they are within the same specie.
Elves shouldn't get the human tag though. Because, well, they are elves. Any reason why they shouldn't have both the elf and the humanoid tag?

Vulcans coming from a different planet have more depth to why they aren't humans. But how come they are almost identical to humans, then? And can interbreed. Any lore explanation to this? Now we are delving into the mess that is the artists lack of delving outside the realm of the human mind and body. To be fair, the common people lack this as well and it's not strange for an artist to appeal to people.

Sorrowless said:
Not really, but where do we draw the line? Elves do have other changes, though not so visible. We can also use the definition of specie. If elves and humans can breed, they are within the same specie.
Elves shouldn't get the human tag though. Because, well, they are elves. Any reason why they shouldn't have both the elf and the humanoid tag?

Vulcans coming from a different planet have more depth to why they aren't humans. But how come they are almost identical to humans, then? And can interbreed. Any lore explanation to this? Now we are delving into the mess that is the artists lack of delving outside the realm of the human mind and body. To be fair, the common people lack this as well and it's not strange for an artist to appeal to people.

Actually the star trek lore basically says there was a species that seeded the universe and its really lazy writing that amounts to... everyone looks human because the original species injected their code into everyone so its not that everyone looks human it's that all species look like them including humans.

And elves do get the humanoid tag. And there's nothing wrong with that! I agree they should get that tag. What I more so am bringing up is that for classification purposes under the discussion of the anatomically_correct tag, humanoids like this are functionally human enough to also be classed as "human" so tagging them with anatomically_correct when they have human junk would also be correct.

In response to the OP, I think humans should get anatomically_correct if they have a humanoid penis. It's arguable that since human's penises are being referenced to in the tag humanoid_penis, so to not include humans in the scope of humanoid penises is not logical.

Nikolaithefur said:
In response to the OP, I think humans should get anatomically_correct if they have a humanoid penis. It's arguable that since human's penises are being referenced to in the tag humanoid_penis, so to not include humans in the scope of humanoid penises is not logical.

^^^^^^

Clawdragons said:
This is slightly off topic, but I feel as though anatomically_correct is actually a rather poor name for what the tag represents.

Is there any reason not to alias it to something more clear, such as species-appropriate_genitalia, or something along those lines?

Because that tag can be about any body part not just genitalia like a 7 tail lion will no longer be anatomically_correct.