the wiki suggests that neuter tag should be used for character who dont have sex organs at all but people seem to widely use this tag for castrated males. also nullo tag is a bit messy because people often use it in situations when artist just chose to not draw dick or vagina for character to keep the image sfw.

these both tags need cleaning. also what is exactly the difference between neuter and nullo?

The meaning of the word nullo seems to vary depending on who you ask.
Neuter is a individual who have been castrated.

I believe I made some thread about the issue regarding castration, castrated, nullo, neuter mistaging a while ago, but not much progress was made in the end.
It has probably gone for the worse, in a few parts. One example is that castrated has been aliased to castration for some reason, so that every pic of a neutered/castrated character has the castration tag on it instead.

Peekaboo said:
snip

so....... what tag i should use for a character who naturally doesnt have sex organs? nullo tag?

Mutisija said:
so....... what tag i should use for a character who naturally doesnt have sex organs? nullo tag?

Iunno man, some peeps use that tag. But again, nullo is also used to describe character which have had both testicles and scrotum removed.

Mutisija said:
so....... what tag i should use for a character who naturally doesnt have sex organs? nullo tag?

Well, I'm not sure if we have genderless tag or similar, but I suggest that if it's something like this post #479712 just tag the intended gender, unless it's ambiguos.

NoctemWerewolf said:
Well, I'm not sure if we have genderless tag or similar, but I suggest that if it's something like this post #479712 just tag the intended gender, unless it's ambiguos.

the character im talking about is literally a character who doesnt have (and never had) genitals at all. the character has only holes for pissing and pooping.

Yeah, this is good to bring up. The neuter tag used to be used like the wiki suggests. Then someone cleaned it out so that it fits the definition of "neutered" as in castrated (even though we have a castrated tag for that already) but didn't change the wiki. Kind of a mess right now.

And that means right now there really isn't a good tag for physically blank crotches. When you can clearly see where genitals go, but it's just empty. It's distinctive enough to tag but currently we don't have an official tag for it anymore. I did see that someone started a no_genitals tag for it, so I suppose in the meantime that could be used. And it might turn out to be the better tag for it, I don't know.

But the whole situation needs a little official decisioning and cleanup because if neuter is gonna stay being used as "neutered" means in real life, then it should probably be aliased to castrated because it's now become a duplicate tag. And the wiki needs changed to reflect those changes anyway unless we're going to roll it back to its original wiki definition.

There is a genderless actually, but it has only 1 post, so I don't know if that counts at all, or is what you seek.

@furrypickle Nearly everything you suggest in the forums tends to be good, I'll support anything ya suggest. But yeah, would probably be for the best to alias all the tags to castrated that can be - neutered, eunuch, gelding etc. And then have some specific tag for the type of nullos Mutisija talks about.

NoctemWerewolf said:
There is a genderless actually, but it has only 1 post, so I don't know if that counts at all, or is what you seek.

Guess it gets cleaned out regularly, I was under the assumption that it was aliased to invalid_tag since it was misused to tag genderqueer/SJW genders/other trash.

furrypickle said:
Yeah, this is good to bring up. The neuter tag used to be used like the wiki suggests. Then someone cleaned it out so that it fits the definition of "neutered" as in castrated (even though we have a castrated tag for that already) but didn't change the wiki. Kind of a mess right now.

And that means right now there really isn't a good tag for physically blank crotches. When you can clearly see where genitals go, but it's just empty. It's distinctive enough to tag but currently we don't have an official tag for it anymore. I did see that someone started a no_genitals tag for it, so I suppose in the meantime that could be used. And it might turn out to be the better tag for it, I don't know.

But the whole situation needs a little official decisioning and cleanup because if neuter is gonna stay being used as "neutered" means in real life, then it should probably be aliased to castrated because it's now become a duplicate tag. And the wiki needs changed to reflect those changes anyway unless we're going to roll it back to its original wiki definition.

but the no_genitals tag has exact same problem as nullo tag, people use it for characters that does not have genitals drawn just because the artist wanted keep it sfw. i need a tag that is exclusively used for characters that actually doesnt have genitals and are not just 'cartoon censored'

furrypickle said:
And that means right now there really isn't a good tag for physically blank crotches. When you can clearly see where genitals go, but it's just empty.

I've been using featureless_crotch for those.

Mutisija said:
but the no_genitals tag has exact same problem as nullo tag, people use it for characters that does not have genitals drawn just because the artist wanted keep it sfw. i need a tag that is exclusively used for characters that actually doesnt have genitals and are not just 'cartoon censored'

As far as I know, tags are based on what you see, not what an artist intended when they first decided to draw it that way. Descriptions on the other hand can explain backstory, author meaning, character background, etc. But not the tags.

nullo is only different because it usually has scars or other indications that genitals were removed and/or heavy body modifications made. Otherwise it would be tagged the same as blank crotches.

Why the artist chose to draw it that way isn't what gets the tag. So it doesn't matter whether the crotch was drawn without any genitals for censorship purposes, for design purposes, for gender identity purposes, for natural-for-that-species purposes, for character-has-always-been-without-genitals purposes, or even for unknown reasons, etc. Tags are based on what is visually distinct and recognizable. That way whoever wants to find a blank crotch can easily find it, regardless of the reason behind it.

So unless it looks distinctly different, it would still get tagged the same as any other empty crotch. But you can always use the description to explain the actual meaning behind why that character has an empty crotch, if you wanted to.

------

ETA:

Genjar said:
I've been using featureless_crotch for those.

Ooo, I like! Very clear and unambiguous. Unlikely to be mistaken for gender fluidity, castration or just things obstructing view/genitals-being-out-of-sight. I'll start using that one, I think. I think it's the best form of the tag I've seen for this.

Peekaboo said:
Guess it gets cleaned out regularly, I was under the assumption that it was aliased to invalid_tag since it was misused to tag genderqueer/SJW genders/other trash.

Oh, I have a vague memory of some bullshit tag war about it, must be that.

Genjar said:
I've been using featureless_crotch for those.

That one has enough post to be relevant to this.

furrypickle said:
As far as I know, tags are based on what you see, not what an artist intended when they first decided to draw it that way. Descriptions on the other hand can explain backstory, author meaning, character background, etc. But not the tags.

nullo is only different because it usually has scars or other indications that genitals were removed and/or heavy body modifications made. Otherwise it would be tagged the same as blank crotches.

Why the artist chose to draw it that way isn't what gets the tag. So it doesn't matter whether the crotch was drawn without any genitals for censorship purposes, for design purposes, for gender identity purposes, for natural-for-that-species purposes, for character-has-always-been-without-genitals purposes, or even for unknown reasons, etc. Tags are based on what is visually distinct and recognizable. That way whoever wants to find a blank crotch can easily find it, regardless of the reason behind it.

So unless it looks distinctly different, it would still get tagged the same as any other empty crotch. But you can always use the description to explain the actual meaning behind why that character has an empty crotch, if you wanted to.

i am talking about images where its clear that the junk is not missing for censoring reasons, like these:

post #9748 post #89156

it would be a nice to have a separate tag for these and other tag for the images where genitals are not drawn there most likely for censoring reasons

Mutisija said:
it would be a nice to have a separate tag for these and other tag for the images where genitals are not drawn there most likely for censoring reasons

featureless_crotch seems to be a very good option for that, as suggested.

furrypickle said:
Yeah, this is good to bring up. The neuter tag used to be used like the wiki suggests. Then someone cleaned it out so that it fits the definition of "neutered" as in castrated (even though we have a castrated tag for that already) but didn't change the wiki. Kind of a mess right now.

And that means right now there really isn't a good tag for physically blank crotches. When you can clearly see where genitals go, but it's just empty. It's distinctive enough to tag but currently we don't have an official tag for it anymore. I did see that someone started a no_genitals tag for it, so I suppose in the meantime that could be used. And it might turn out to be the better tag for it, I don't know.

But the whole situation needs a little official decisioning and cleanup because if neuter is gonna stay being used as "neutered" means in real life, then it should probably be aliased to castrated because it's now become a duplicate tag. And the wiki needs changed to reflect those changes anyway unless we're going to roll it back to its original wiki definition.

...Neuter does not mean strictly castrated. :/ Why do people keep doing stupid stuff like that?

123easy said:
...Neuter does not mean strictly castrated. :/ Why do people keep doing stupid stuff like that?

When people talk about an animal being neutered in real life, it means castrated. Surgically removed, chemically destroyed, elasticated, or using an implement to crush the chords - it is still castration no matter the method. In veterinary fields the two are commonly used interchangeably. So what are you talking about?

furrypickle said:
When people talk about an animal being neutered in real life, it means castrated. Surgically removed, chemically destroyed, elasticated, or using an implement to crush the chords - it is still castration no matter the method. In veterinary fields the two are commonly used interchangeably. So what are you talking about?

I think 123easy is referring to spaying. As it's primarily the removal of female gonads, it's also a form of neutering.