SnowWolf said:
Scary has 349 posts, no aliases, implications, or wiki. Eerie only has 21 posts... and-- oh. It's a character name. Of course it is. So of course only half of the pictures are actually of said character c_c

I used a local image board for my personal picture collection for a while, and I enjoyed using tags like (mood)_desolate or (mood)_uneasy... of course, tha'ts a lot easier when there's only one person uploading *sigh*

The concepts of creepy and scary are somewhat subjective, which is why it's been so hard to do anything with those tags. I'm currently looking at scary, and much of it doesn't seem scary at all to me. Such as tentacle monsters.

And this, for instance, I'd label as cute instead of scary:
post #627481

But then there's things such as maw shots, which completely creep me out. whereas anyone who's into vore is likely to just find those arousing instead of creepy. Same goes for macro, which seems to also have been tagged as scary a few times. I'd agree: getting stomped on by a giant furry is a whole lot scarier than some generic monsters. Goo transformation? I'm not personally scared by that, but someone clearly is since they've tagged some of it as scary.

So yeah, it's hard to make any guidelines for what's 'creepy'.

Genjar said:
The concepts of creepy and scary are somewhat subjective, which is why it's been so hard to do anything with those tags. I'm currently looking at scary, and much of it doesn't seem scary at all to me. Such as tentacle monsters.

And this, for instance, I'd label as cute instead of scary:
post #627481

Awww whosagoodpupper? It's you!

Though that goodpupper would be such a bad boy--that tail would totally cause bruises. and that tongue? No plate is safe.

But then there's things such as maw shots, which completely creep me out. whereas anyone who's into vore is likely to just find those arousing instead of creepy. Same goes for macro, which seems to also have been tagged as scary a few times. I'd agree: getting stomped on by a giant furry is a whole lot scarier than some generic monsters. Goo transformation? I'm not personally scared by that, but someone clearly is since they've tagged some of it as scary.

So yeah, it's hard to make any guidelines for what's 'creepy'.

It is pretty hard to make subjective guidelines like that--the even trickier bit is that it's hard to get people to tag it correctly.

I mean, I think it's pretty easy to say that these are meant to be unsettling, even if they don't succeed with 100% of people:

post #1447846 post #1446728 post #1410725 post #1401871

I've got the idea stuck in my head that it would be a GRAND idea to support some 'mood' tags like (mood)_creepy or creepy_(mood) or creepy_theme and use them just for that kinda stuff... because maybe, MAYBE if we made the tag name obvious that it's supposed to be creepy/scary/happy/whatever picture, not just something that the individual finds a little weird. ... .but, realistically, naw. that won't happen. People are people. WE'd still have the same problem.

But man, I love atmospheric pictures and high detail images and all that sort of subjective stuff we don't tag.

If a character recurs within an artist's work (or otherwise), and doesn't seem to have a name, should you apply the nameless_character tag? Or perhaps give a generic placeholder name relating to the character's appearance?

For example:
The rabbit from post #1304903 has come back a few times within CyanCapsule's works. Should there be a nameless_character tag? Perhaps a new tag like "chubby_bunny_(cyancapsule)"?

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question. Still getting used to using forums.

SarahColley said:
If a character recurs within an artist's work (or otherwise), and doesn't seem to have a name, should you apply the nameless_character tag? Or perhaps give a generic placeholder name relating to the character's appearance?

For example:
The rabbit from post #1304903 has come back a few times within CyanCapsule's works. Should there be a nameless_character tag? Perhaps a new tag like "chubby_bunny_(cyancapsule)"?

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question. Still getting used to using forums.

There should be a tag unique to that character, but I suppose to identify when it's currently unnamed, something extra might help.

Genjar said:
The concepts of creepy and scary are somewhat subjective, which is why it's been so hard to do anything with those tags. I'm currently looking at scary, and much of it doesn't seem scary at all to me. Such as tentacle monsters.

And this, for instance, I'd label as cute instead of scary:
post #627481

But then there's things such as maw shots, which completely creep me out. whereas anyone who's into vore is likely to just find those arousing instead of creepy. Same goes for macro, which seems to also have been tagged as scary a few times. I'd agree: getting stomped on by a giant furry is a whole lot scarier than some generic monsters. Goo transformation? I'm not personally scared by that, but someone clearly is since they've tagged some of it as scary.

So yeah, it's hard to make any guidelines for what's 'creepy'.

Well to me nightmare_fuel seems like it should be the same thing, and it feels more objective than scary/creepy. Scary is WAY to subjective if you ask me.

SnowWolf said:
wanted to ask if we had a tag for.. .apparently painless wounds like this:

post #1447863

also I am torn on if the almost-vore-like imagery there should be tagged or how o_o

Nothing's coming up. A tag name can go several different ways, but I think pain_insensitivity unambiguously describes this nonreaction. Others are pain_tolerance and pain_threshold. Would be interesting to see how people use the tag "unhurt".

For the body interaction, I would point to the recent transformation thread. assimilation seems to be the tag for being taken over and remade into another form, but I'm not sure that's happening in that post. Might not even be transformation. It looks like some sort of "integration" or "interfacing" where the different bodies are in harmony with those bone spikes presumably joining their nervous systems/whatever. Also, the humanoid top's "faded" midsection reminds me of ghosts lacking a lower body, floating on "rags" instead.

That aside, my visceral reaction sees impalement.

Genjar said:
The concepts of creepy and scary are somewhat subjective, which is why it's been so hard to do anything with those tags. I'm currently looking at scary, and much of it doesn't seem scary at all to me. Such as tentacle monsters.

And this, for instance, I'd label as cute instead of scary:
post #627481

Okay, then I synthesize this issue to "tagging negative ideas will be inconsistent because people have different fears and fear responses." Similar tagging issue as the "cute response", except people also conflate cute with "hawt, want to sex".

SnowWolf said:
I've got the idea stuck in my head that it would be a GRAND idea to support some 'mood' tags like (mood)_creepy or creepy_(mood) or creepy_theme and use them just for that kinda stuff... because maybe, MAYBE if we made the tag name obvious that it's supposed to be creepy/scary/happy/whatever picture, not just something that the individual finds a little weird. ... .but, realistically, naw. that won't happen. People are people. WE'd still have the same problem.

But man, I love atmospheric pictures and high detail images and all that sort of subjective stuff we don't tag.

You can probably start some tag indicating that the environment conveys a mood, maybe tag the mood separately if it can be pinpointed. It would be a subjective tag with varying quality of posts. You're just saying, "hey, this makes me feel something" or maybe you don't feel something but recognize the effort or intent to create that feeling all the same. This tag necessarily comments on the setting and not (just) the character(s).

That concept probably has a proper name, but my glossary of art terms and theory is basically empty. atmospheric_setting gets the job done.

Going back to...

Dyrone said:
post #1446062

[snip]...his eyes have literally transformed into hearts.

I tried looking for the idea of "drawing the thing itself instead of indirectly expressing it as normal". I didn't get very fair, but I did find visual metaphor. visual_metaphor might work as long as people understand that the tag would be more for direct metaphorical imagery (e.g., replacing eyes with hearts) as opposed to indirect, complex, highly subjective metaphors seen in fine art.

Related is the tag visual_pun.

SarahColley said:
If a character recurs within an artist's work (or otherwise), and doesn't seem to have a name, should you apply the nameless_character tag? Or perhaps give a generic placeholder name relating to the character's appearance?

For example:
The rabbit from post #1304903 has come back a few times within CyanCapsule's works. Should there be a nameless_character tag? Perhaps a new tag like "chubby_bunny_(cyancapsule)"?

Apologies if this is the wrong place for this question. Still getting used to using forums.

Well, he actually seems to have fairly consistently called that character Chubby Bunny, so... a name is what you call something. I call one of my cats Trouble Beast, and it's as much his name as "Tiger" is.

That said, more generally, I'd probably be more inclined to fake names like "brown_rabbit_(Cyancapsule)" over "fat_rabbit_(cyancapsule)" -- as a character, a coloration isn't likely to change, whereas the rabbit's fatness might!

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Well to me nightmare_fuel seems like it should be the same thing, and it feels more objective than scary/creepy. Scary is WAY to subjective if you ask me.

Obviously, all involved are subjective and experience based, but...

Nightmare fuel and scary ought to be different.

Scary is a Gengar made out of smoke. Scary is a ghost in a hallway. Scary is a necromancer pulling zombies out of the graves.

Nightmare fuel is a hyperdetailed Gengar with saliva glistening across every fetid fang, chucks of rotting meat nestled against bloodcovered gums. Nightmare fuel is a spider made out of human body parts, upside down face gurgling in the silence of the room. Nightmare fuel is a bump in your skin that when you touch it, squirms in protest. Nightmare fuel is a beautiful deer walking through a dark forest. The deer turns. It's face is your face. It smile, and your face contorts into a gross parody of your own, lips smiling til the skin rips, blood dripping across the exposed teeth. There are too many teeth.

Scary is a zombie. Nightmare fuel is rolling over in the middle of the night and finding your half eaten lover in bed with you.

... a lot of people don't tag nightmare_fuel right either ;)

abadbird said:
Nothing's coming up. A tag name can go several different ways, but I think pain_insensitivity unambiguously describes this nonreaction. Others are pain_tolerance and pain_threshold. Would be interesting to see how people use the tag "unhurt".

mmm.. true--though at the same time, there's no blood. It's like she was wounded, but it healed.

For the body interaction, I would point to the recent transformation thread. assimilation seems to be the tag for being taken over and remade into another form, but I'm not sure that's happening in that post. Might not even be transformation. It looks like some sort of "integration" or "interfacing" where the different bodies are in harmony with those bone spikes presumably joining their nervous systems/whatever. Also, the humanoid top's "faded" midsection reminds me of ghosts lacking a lower body, floating on "rags" instead.

That aside, my visceral reaction sees impalement.

This whole picture confused the hell out of me. I almost stopped uploading it JUST because of how .... tricky it was to tag. I see it as a naga wearing the skull of her enemies or something, but it's so fucking weird. that said, impalement definitely applies.

I also want a tag for that raw... stringy flesh look. I see it a lot and it weirds me out.

Okay, then I synthesize this issue to "tagging negative ideas will be inconsistent because people have different fears and fear responses." Similar tagging issue as the "cute response", except people also conflate cute with "hawt, want to sex".

You can probably start some tag indicating that the environment conveys a mood, maybe tag the mood separately if it can be pinpointed. It would be a subjective tag with varying quality of posts. You're just saying, "hey, this makes me feel something" or maybe you don't feel something but recognize the effort or intent to create that feeling all the same. This tag necessarily comments on the setting and not (just) the character(s).

That concept probably has a proper name, but my glossary of art terms and theory is basically empty. atmospheric_setting gets the job done.

Mood or Theme is probably the best word for hte matter. and we already use 'theme' for things like blue_theme and dark_theme.

that said, I think putting the extra "mental space" between "scary" and "scary_theme" might help peopel to tag it more accuratly.

But people are people :P

Going back to...

I tried looking for the idea of "drawing the thing itself instead of indirectly expressing it as normal". I didn't get very fair, but I did find visual metaphor. visual_metaphor might work as long as people understand that the tag would be more for direct metaphorical imagery (e.g., replacing eyes with hearts) as opposed to indirect, complex, highly subjective metaphors seen in fine art.

Related is the tag visual_pun.

Honestly, I weouldn't worry about tagging it as a visual metafor. most people 'get that' already, even if they don't have words for it. :) Besides, there are absolutely indirect complex and subjective metaphors in some of the things uploaded here. just most of it is porn.

I wonder if something like eerie_ambiance could work..
Romantic_ambiance has worked surprisingly well, and 'eerie' seems less ambiguous than 'scary'. Less likely to be tagged for squicky fetishes, at least.

Genjar said:
I wonder if something like eerie_ambiance could work..
Romantic_ambiance has worked surprisingly well, and 'eerie' seems less ambiguous than 'scary'. Less likely to be tagged for squicky fetishes, at least.

Ohh! perfect! Ambiance is a GREAT word for what we're talking about :)

Eerie is a good word... Hmm.. other similar words... ominous? that that's a little more... anticipatory and doesnt' feel like it'd apply to something currently HAPPENING.

Do we have a word for humanoid hands being held up and curled into pawshapes? y'know, the very anime nya~ gesture:

post #1450863

wanker said:
anything for "penis pussies"? i've seen quite a few on this site but never found a tag to catalog them

post #1292991

*slowblink* Uh.. maybe something like Pussy_on_penis? No, that sounds like a 'rubbing together' position. ... .... man... do.. do they count as herms?

SnowWolf said:
Do we have a word for humanoid hands being held up and curled into pawshapes? y'know, the very anime nya~ gesture:

post #1450863

begging_pose (implies begging)/cat_pose/paw_pose

I think... dump cat_pose into paw_pose. I don't want to contemplate any potential differences. Limp wrist + curled fingers is more common than the tag counts suggest, and I've seen it cause semi-anthro confusion.

Is there a tag for a focus on teeth? Like, a post emphasizing on a characters teeth

Dutchnoob said:
Is there a tag for a focus on teeth? Like, a post emphasizing on a characters teeth

showing_teeth, sort of. Some posts with that tag don't belong. I'd use it for characters deliberately and meaningfully revealing their teeth, usually for someone else (e.g., viewer or another character). IMO, use that tag when bared_teeth doesn't seem appropriate, which is generally an aggressive posturing.

clenched_teeth is forcefully holding the jaws closed while showing teeth, usually a sign of pain, pleasure, effort, or another intense experience. Common component of a grimace.

grin is generally for open-lipped, closed jaw smiles (i.e., short for "toothy grin"; toothy_grin seems a redundant tag) and generally shouldn't overlap with bared_teeth for the same character (post #1026326 is a good exception). A cursory glance of grin open_mouth solo looks like a bunch of mistags, but still only ~1/11 of grin solo, which backs up my understanding. evil_grin is a grin suggesting nefarious intent.

Smirk is a meaningful, often subtle smile suggesting a character knows or thinks something that they're not saying, trying not to say, or saying anyways (as if they don't have to or shouldn't), so they smirk to show their self-satisfaction. Smirking can be a cunning, clever, knowing, smug, taunting, teasing, or similar smiling expression that may reveal some or no teeth. Often expressed with a curl of the lips or baring of the teeth on one side. Like smirk, sneer is a contained expression of either anger (bitterness) or mocking (looking down upon), which bares teeth or grimaces to convey the sneering character's contempt and control thereof. Getting off-topic. Yes, these are complex concepts and frequently mistagged.

All of that was about the character's intent or expression.

For the viewpoint and perspective of art, we have *_focus, *_shot, and close-up tags. [body part]_focus posts draw much attention to one region of a character's body while still showing the rest of the character('s face/head). [body part]_shot posts are zoomed in to one region of the character's body, usually cropping out at least the face (unless headshot_portrait). I'm not sure about close-up. I think those posts can be emptied into the appropriate *_focus and *_shot tags (not gonna happen). Don't know if that tag serves a purpose that they don't. mouth_shot is for open_mouth vore/vore-like external shots. We don't have teeth_focus or teeth_shot tags, but they can be started as long as their posts are appropriate.

If you're asking about a specific post, you're better off linking it here.

I could change those teeth, smile, and expression wikis to better say this stuff... and I could do that for just about every wiki I see. I have mixed feelings about smothering the wikis with my perspicuity.

Is there a tag for images in which a higher res/quality version is available (à la better_version_at_source), but requires payment in order to receive it? I'm asking because I came across a post (post #1443618) that has a better version available, but only if you pay the artist 100 DeviantArt points. I feel like there should be a warning tag for those who want to get the best version, but they'll have to spend some cash to get it. (It's also good for warning users that should they try to upload the better version from behind the paywall, they'll risk getting in trouble for breaking the "Commercial content is DNP" rule.)

Cloud people (and possibly more?)

SarahColley said:
1) Should cloud creatures have a species tag?

2) Should there be a broader category encompassing similar things? (I would say "e.g.: creatures made of fire, lava, or electricity", but...)

3) If the above are a "yes", what would be proper names for them?

4) If the above are a "no", should cloud creatures be classified as "air/wind" elementals?[/section]

Well... disclaimer, I'm fond of the elemental tags and they're on my lsit of stuff to tidy up...

in the "right neighborhood"... we've got air_elemental, and storm_elemental already.. though I think I'd probably ditch 'storm elemental' since it's stuff like this:

post #84915 post #117081

which is not TWYS.

Anyway.

I would tag your cloud creatures as cloud_elementals, and list them as a subtype of air_elemental. or jsut lsit them as an air_elemental, because in a DRAWING, it's pretty hard to make a creature made of air without looking a bit cloudy. I dunno.

Is there a tag for when a character is resting their feet on an object?
post #1358219 post #1358205

Do we have a tag for when something literally cums through someone?
post #1459236

In this case, the penis is definitely in the pussy, but the cum is not going into the pussy, it is going out of their body.

If not, while ghostfuck would be a funny tag I think cum_through_person or cum_through_character would be the most intuitive and simplest way to explain this phenomenon as a tag. It is uniform with other cum_through-s and doesn't refer to the property the being possesses, instead referring to only the being. Alternatively, cum_through_body could work as a parallel to cum_on_body, but that doesn't sound pleasing to me.

Siral_Exan said:
Do we have a tag for when something literally cums through someone?
post #1459236

In this case, the penis is definitely in the pussy, but the cum is not going into the pussy, it is going out of their body.

If not, while ghostfuck would be a funny tag I think cum_through_person or cum_through_character would be the most intuitive and simplest way to explain this phenomenon as a tag. It is uniform with other cum_through-s and doesn't refer to the property the being possesses, instead referring to only the being. Alternatively, cum_through_body could work as a parallel to cum_on_body, but that doesn't sound pleasing to me.

My problem with cum_through_body is the cum_through tag-- which is for a character penetrating and cumming in their partner and the cum leaking out of another opening on the opposite side. (in ass, out mouth, for example) ... related is cum_vomit, and all_the_way_through which is intended to be for long penetrations but has occasionally been misused for someone cumming through someone.

So, I think there must be a better option.

maybe something like.. cumming_in_insubstantial_body? gosh, what an awkward mouthful. Maybe even something just like "ghost_cum_physics" or "ghost_sex_logic" or something. but something to make it abundantly clear that it's for ghosts, spirits and other weird things.

JAKXXX3 said:
Is there a tag for when a character is resting their feet on an object?
post #1358219 post #1358205

Not exactly. legs_up broadly describes that positioning and many others. Looks like legs_raised and feet_up are dupe tags, although feet_up has some more (easy to find) examples of that pose. FWIW, the descriptive phrase for that pose is literally "putting one's legs up", and to a lesser extent "resting one's feet", as you had worded in your question.

arm_support is an established tag for a character putting some of their weight on their arms (to keep from lying/falling). Perhaps this would be a good time to start a foot_support tag, except here it would mean the opposite, a character taking more weight off their legs than their pose normally allows.

Generally, a character in that position is also reclining, lounging (probably a dupe for reclining), and relaxing.

Siral_Exan said:
Do we have a tag for when something literally cums through someone?
post #1459236

I don't think so. We have so many cum tags that it's daunting to consider scouring them for such a tag that may not exist.

This was sort of already on my radar, except I had noticed a tag void for penetrating ambiguous bodies like those of goo_creatures and ghosts. How would we tag a penetration that isn't through a proper orifice? Now, I think a near-answer to both our questions would be to tag the unique body feature as permeable_body. (Edit: or permeated_body)

That post is also translucent_body, a tag that should have a few more examples of this.

Do we have a tag for when breast expansion is induced through drugs?

post #1387359

There's clearly a syringe there implying that the breast growth was caused by whatever was injected into her. Just wondering if there would be a way to tag that, as opposed to a lot of other breast expansion that has no explanation.

abadbird said:
arm_support is an established tag for a character putting some of their weight on their arms (to keep from lying/falling). Perhaps this would be a good time to start a foot_support tag, except here it would mean the opposite, a character taking more weight off their legs than their pose normally allows.

That sounds kinda backwards, honestly. Arm support is for when someone is supporting themselves with their arms, therefor foot support should be when someone is supporting themselves with their feet. Plus, if I were looking for the right tags, I'd never pick that oen out of the list.

What about something like.. sitting_with_feet_up? or feet_up_pose? or Feet_up_on_something?

This was sort of already on my radar, except I had noticed a tag void for penetrating ambiguous bodies like those of goo_creatures and ghosts. How would we tag a penetration that isn't through a proper orifice? Now, I think a near-answer to both our questions would be to tag the unique body feature as permeable_body. (Edit: or permeated_body)

Of the two, I like permeable. Permeated just makes me think of, like, bad smells filling an area. I know permate is basically the same word, but it's used slightly more often for a variety of reasons, y'know?

edit:

abadbird said:
begging_pose (implies begging)/cat_pose/paw_pose

I think... dump cat_pose into paw_pose. I don't want to contemplate any potential differences. Limp wrist + curled fingers is more common than the tag counts suggest, and I've seen it cause semi-anthro confusion.

I missed this before! Thank you!!

post #1461955

Basically this whole picture-- we have insect abdomen for buggies, but this is a shrimpywater thing. how tag butt? or is that jsut tail?

What about the claw it has for hands?

Or the tiny chest-arms?

Or how about the fact that it's a shrimp--a notoriously non-fluffy animal--and fluffy? (I've also uploaded a scaled wolf..) something like 'unexpected body covering'?

What is the difference between sheer_clothing and transparent_clothing?

donteven said:
What is the difference between sheer_clothing and transparent_clothing?

I'd like to know as well. To me, the wikis are very similar and the tags seem to be synonymous in their usage.

donteven said:
What is the difference between sheer_clothing and transparent_clothing?

They're both defined similarly on the wiki, so as-is I'd say... no difference. Imo a tag for stuff like this: https://sc01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1k6H6JFXXXXXvXVXXq6xXFXXXI/2827120/HTB1k6H6JFXXXXXvXVXXq6xXFXXXI.jpg http://www.artificeclothing.com/em/shop/ProdImages/luminsfront.jpg is worth having around and that's what first comes to my mind when I hear 'transparent clothing' but the terms might be too similar to be tagged well.

Dyrone said:
Do we have a tag for when breast expansion is induced through drugs?

post #1387359

Chemically-assisted expansions and transformations are common themes. Usually, the post features a potion, but that doesn't seem appropriate for a syringe. In a pinch, just to keep the ideas together, I would still tag that as potion. We do have growth_potion, growth_serum, and growth_pills, all with under 10 tags, which can be further populated.

SnowWolf said:
post #1461955

Basically this whole picture-- we have insect abdomen for buggies, but this is a shrimpywater thing. how tag butt? or is that jsut tail?

Shrimpkind... I tagged this one.

post #1369262

Wikipedia would seem to suggest that a shrimp's abdomen is the same as other invertebrates', or close enough for our purposes. In other words, it's also an abdomen, even if the name is ever changed to insect_abdomen.

What about the claw it has for hands?

pincers. The more specific anatomical term seems to be "chela", but that's never been tagged here.

Or the tiny chest-arms?

Those have been tagged tiny_arms and small_hands a few times. I like vestigial_arms more, but calling something "vestigial" is more TWYK (and I don't "know" that either) than "tiny".

Or how about the fact that it's a shrimp--a notoriously non-fluffy animal--and fluffy? (I've also uploaded a scaled wolf..) something like 'unexpected body covering'?

Probably just hybrid + component species tags. In theory, searching shrimp fluffy would return these unexpected shrimp, not that anyone would ever search that. fluffy, fluffy_tail, fluffy_ears, and fluffy_hair are fluffy tags with use.

donteven said:
What is the difference between sheer_clothing and transparent_clothing?

I spotted this one a while ago, and I was confused and annoyed with us having two tags with a lot of overlap. In my Notes file, I concluded that:

• transparent_clothing vs sheer_clothing => difference?
• transparent_clothing => translucent for any reason (wet)
• sheer_clothing => translucent by design (not wet)

That way, the exsiting implication of sheer_clothing > transparent_clothing makes sense.

Also, I don't know if see-through plastic clothing should qualify as "sheer", but I don't want to puzzle out the "right" way to organize the types of transparent clothing right now either.

abadbird said:
Chemically-assisted expansions and transformations are common themes. Usually, the post features a potion, but that doesn't seem appropriate for a syringe. In a pinch, just to keep the ideas together, I would still tag that as potion. We do have growth_potion, growth_serum, and growth_pills, all with under 10 tags, which can be further populated.

What's the dif between a potion and a serum? I guess if it comes in a bottle or a needle or something, and that's better than growth_liquid :p

Shrimpkind... (insert very helpful shrimping here)

*adds abdomen!* as for pincers... so today I learned that it's pincers, not pinchers. which makes so much more sense.

added many tags-- thank you :D

as for transparent vs. sheer ... there's a difference, but I think they shoudl be shoved together. too many mistags possible and it's hard to tell artist intent.

SnowWolf said:
What's the dif between a potion and a serum? I guess if it comes in a bottle or a needle or something, and that's better than growth_liquid :p

To me a serum sounds more scientific so it would be contained in a syringe, test tube vial, chemistry beaker, etc. Whereas a potion would be more magical and would come in, well, we've all played video games and can easily imagine the types of containers a potion would come in. So I guess it's all in the context of the liquid is presented.

So... we tag beaks.

Ducks have bills.

Bill has 22 tags. Mostly ducks, but a few other things like shoebills...

So... should some things have bills, not beaks? or should bill alias to beak?

wikipedia generally seems to say that Bill = Beak = Bill

SnowWolf said:
So... we tag beaks.

Ducks have bills.

Bill has 22 tags. Mostly ducks, but a few other things like shoebills...

So... should some things have bills, not beaks? or should bill alias to beak?

wikipedia generally seems to say that Bill = Beak = Bill

There is no difference; the words are synonymous with each other. I'd suggest an alias of Bill to Beak, since beak is the more common term.

Gonna bring up the proposed eerie_ambiance/ominous_ambiance tag again: does anyone have any concerns or objections about it?

Romantic_ambiance proved to be less subjective than I expected, so I think that a tag for 'unsettling' settings could work. And it seems more useful than using vague tags such as creepy.

Here's some examples of what'd be tagged as such:
post #1446728 post #1401871 post #1366798 post #1036416 post #1143727

Would that be too subjective?

As for the tag name, I'd prefer eerie_ambiance simply because ominous_ambiance is more prone to typos.

is there a tag where both partners are the same species?

DallSmick said:
is there a tag where both partners are the same species?

I'm not sure there is. -interspecies would work in theory, but it's going to be somewhat undertagged.

Genjar said:
Gonna bring up the proposed eerie_ambiance/ominous_ambiance tag again: does anyone have any concerns or objections about it?

Romantic_ambiance proved to be less subjective than I expected, so I think that a tag for 'unsettling' settings could work. And it seems more useful than using vague tags such as creepy.

Here's some examples of what'd be tagged as such:
post #1446728 post #1401871 post #1366798 post #1036416 post #1143727

Would that be too subjective?

As for the tag name, I'd prefer eerie_ambiance simply because ominous_ambiance is more prone to typos.

Man, I love it.

I don't think it's too subjective, but you're preaching to the choir here. :)

maybe we can get some other ambiances in here too?

like maybe one for it being cheerful?

post #1422320

or depressing/sad

post #1399244 post #1445096 post #1445077 post #1425220

though not all of those might count.

Genjar said:
Gonna bring up the proposed eerie_ambiance/ominous_ambiance tag again: does anyone have any concerns or objections about it?

Nah, it's good to tag that kind of thing. Just the usual subjectivity disclaimers. Posts won't be equally eerie for all users.

The good part about tagging _ambiance instead of _environment, which is what I had suggested, is that "ambiance" includes characters whereas "environment" doesn't really. Characters do contribute to mood, and I wasn't happy with excluding them. I'm still hesitant about using such a tag on posts with barely any background ambiance, though, which is to say *_ambiance tags don't seem justified on posts without a detailed_background, more or less.

post #1446728 Is the best from those examples.
post #1401871 post #1366798 post #1143727 I can give those a pass.

But I don't think this one should qualify:
post #1036416
It ticks the right thematic boxes but doesn't register as eerie for me. The (not tagged) mouth stitches are moderately unsettling, but I find the rest of the image rather disarming. If we're actually tagging themes, then fine.

Would that be too subjective?

Not too much. Some subjectivity is unavoidable. I think the tag name is too long to draw many bad mistag lol.

Is there a tag for really dark lighting to the point it's difficult to see?

post #1461860

Like here, it's a very dark image. So dark I can barely discern what's in the background. There are loads of SFM pictures and animations like this one, just wondering if there's a tag for when an entire image is in extremely low light.

Dyrone said:
Is there a tag for really dark lighting to the point it's difficult to see?

Yeah, it's just dark. Unfortunately, that tag has a lot of irrelevant stuff in it and could do with some specializing.

dark_theme may be a better fit. I don't know how to determine if a post has a "dark color palette" or does not quite qualify for the tag, though...

Definitely use dark_room. I noticed that tag recently and will try to use it more.

abadbird said:
Yeah, it's just dark. Unfortunately, that tag has a lot of irrelevant stuff in it and could do with some specializing.

dark_theme may be a better fit. I don't know how to determine if a post has a "dark color palette" or does not quite qualify for the tag, though...

Definitely use dark_room. I noticed that tag recently and will try to use it more.

A Dark Room is a room for developing film, though.

Furrin_Gok said:
A Dark Room is a room for developing film, though.

A Dark Room is also a fun cookie clicker style game. (I highly recommend it--it has an ending, and can be completed in an afternoon of casual play.)

That said, looking through dark_room most of that seems to be rooms with an absence of lighting... I don't even see any photography-related posts, though I could be mistaken

abadbird said:
Sooo what body type is mareanie?

In this post

post #1216810

"Mareanie may be based on a sea urchin mixed with a Crown-of-Thorns starfish." Crown-of-Thorns Starfish

It's effectively legless, armless, and has hair tentacles.

I cracked the code!

post #214478

Sort of.

Mareanie is based on a polyp as well as the crown-of-thorns starfish. It kind of is what it eats, except it eats Corsola (coral are polyps). The way its tentacles ensnare prey mimics both crown-of-thorns starfish and polyps.

Wikipedia said:

We can distinguish therefore in the body of a polyp the column, circular or oval in section, forming the trunk, resting on a base or foot and surmounted by the crown of tentacles, which enclose an area termed the peristome, in the centre of which again is the mouth.

Mareanie has a stalk body and walks on small nubs (or it jumps), kind of like Wobbuffet (post #85214).

Does feral allow for the weirder of real creatures? Polyps are in the same tagging bucket as starfish, sea_urchins, and sea_anemone. They're all animals, as in animalia, but are all lesser animals feral?

On images with multiple situations presented

Is there a tag for when an image shows a character in multiple situations, or multiple characters in their own, mutually exclusive situations? (The latter may not be the best example, but I think it still works.)

SarahColley said:
a character in multiple situations]

multiple_positions for two or more characters depicted in two or more positions. multiple_poses for a solo character depicted in multiple positions.

*exhale* Oh, man. multiple_images is all kinds of fucked up. It's being tagged for any of the multiple_* situations. Use multiple_images for unrelated drawings or full images clumped together in the same post.

multiple characters in their own, mutually exclusive situations? (The latter may not be the best example, but I think it still works.)

I think lineup is the best one for that. I don't think that lineup posts display "unrelated" characters, so they're not multiple_images. They're probably not model_sheets either unless they have measurements or some other character info. character_name shouldn't be enough.

Not sketch_page either because the characters are deliberately and precisely arranged, if the opposite of that is indeed what makes one of these a sketch_page.

I don't know if we can do better for "these are my characters" posts set against a non-detailed_background.

Lastly, since the characters in that post are related, I would tag that group. Or at least that's how I feel today, right now.

Extra

For images like those, should all tags applying to every situation be added?

Technically, yes. If something's different for one sub-image, it should be tagged. It is time-consuming, though, and tagging something that only appears in one little drawing in a post with 15 other drawings isn't particularly relevant to searches for that tag. Thus, that tag can probably be skipped without making E621 a darker place. I arbitrarily make exceptions to that exception for uncommon tags or focal details. If such a drawing among many others can be summed up in a handful of tags, then do that.

Like... should that image have the solo tag due to Maidbot being alone for one, seemingly separate portion? Or would it fall under the same rules as a comic, where solo is overwritten by duo/group/etc. if an implied interaction is later confirmed within the image?

I lean toward the latter for that specific post. That post absolutely does contain a solo sub-image, but that sub-image is seemingly related to others in the same post that aren't solo. I probably would have left that post with duo only, but I don't have enough conviction to say that's how it should be done.

If the latter, are there any other rules to follow when tagging that kind of image? Like, are there other tags that get overwritten?

I'm sure there are, but they're hard to think of unless I'm confronted with such a tricky situation. I mentioned search relevance already. Similarly, some tags just seem increasingly inappropriate when one qualifying sub-image or element is in the presence of others that don't qualify. front_view, rear_view, and side_view are good examples, but I may still tag a section of a post for one of those views, even when every character in the group isn't shown from that view, if it's still a "deliberate *_view situation". I tagged post #684770 both side_view and front_view because both are in good representation in the same scene.

Still, character count should be the thorniest issue.

This is in "Extra" because I'm not sure whether those questions belong in this thread or not. (If "thread" is even the right term. A little new to forums.)

Half of these questions could go in forum #191799, but just keep them together. Also, better to ask than grope blindly.

This is a thread. Threads are discussions with a title and a starting post (an original post or OP). A lot of people here incorrectly call threads "forum", which is the place where all the threads are located, a directory like a folder.

abadbird said:
Does feral allow for the weirder of real creatures? Polyps are in the same tagging bucket as starfish, sea_urchins, and sea_anemone. They're all animals, as in animalia, but are all lesser animals feral?

I think it depends since these creatures are so commonly used as decor. I would be pretty unhappy to find posts like post #1459256 in a search for 'canine feral'. It'd be technically true, sure, but useless. It really hinges on "is it being treated as an animal or a decoration?" It's sort of the same problem with background birds, fish, and insects, though seeing those as characters is more common.

I don't really like it for the pokemon in question though. In the official art (post #1056797) it looks like a humanoid- toony humanoid face on a defined head, tentacles drawn to emulate human hair, and a torso drawn to emulate a person wearing a frilly dress. It could be drawn to resemble a feral polyp, but if it's drawn on-model it doesn't.

abadbird said:

Entire Response

*exhale* Oh, man. multiple_images is all kinds of fucked up. It's being tagged for any of the multiple_* situations. Use multiple_images for unrelated drawings or full images clumped together in the same post.

I think lineup is the best one for that. I don't think that lineup posts display "unrelated" characters, so they're not multiple_images. They're probably not model_sheets either unless they have measurements or some other character info. character_name shouldn't be enough.

Not sketch_page either because the characters are deliberately and precisely arranged, if the opposite of that is indeed what makes one of these a sketch_page.

I don't know if we can do better for "these are my characters" posts set against a non-detailed_background.

Lastly, since the characters in that post are related, I would tag that group. Or at least that's how I feel today, right now.

Extra

Technically, yes. If something's different for one sub-image, it should be tagged. It is time-consuming, though, and tagging something that only appears in one little drawing in a post with 15 other drawings isn't particularly relevant to searches for that tag. Thus, that tag can probably be skipped without making E621 a darker place. I arbitrarily make exceptions to that exception for uncommon tags or focal details. If such a drawing among many others can be summed up in a handful of tags, then do that.

I lean toward the latter for that specific post. That post absolutely does contain a solo sub-image, but that sub-image is seemingly related to others in the same post that aren't solo. I probably would have left that post with duo only, but I don't have enough conviction to say that's how it should be done.

I'm sure there are, but they're hard to think of unless I'm confronted with such a tricky situation. I mentioned search relevance already. Similarly, some tags just seem increasingly inappropriate when one qualifying sub-image or element is in the presence of others that don't qualify. front_view, rear_view, and side_view are good examples, but I may still tag a section of a post for one of those views, even when every character in the group isn't shown from that view, if it's still a "deliberate *_view situation". I tagged post #684770 both side_view and front_view because both are in good representation in the same scene.

Still, character count should be the thorniest issue.

Half of these questions could go in forum #191799, but just keep them together. Also, better to ask than grope blindly.

This is a thread. Threads are discussions with a title and a starting post (an original post or OP). A lot of people here incorrectly call threads "forum", which is the place where all the threads are located, a directory like a folder.

Thank you, that cleared up most of what I was asking. There was one thing I wanted to double-check on... but that's because I didn't give a proper example of the "multiple characters in their own, mutually exclusive situations" thing. My bad...

I think lineup is the best one for that. I don't think that lineup posts display "unrelated" characters, so they're not multiple_images. They're probably not model_sheets either unless they have measurements or some other character info. character_name shouldn't be enough.

Not sketch_page either because the characters are deliberately and precisely arranged, if the opposite of that is indeed what makes one of these a sketch_page.

So... if I gave a more proper example of what I was talking about, would it then be sketch_page? Even if, say, it was on a much smaller scale? (e.g.: ~4 to 5 things on the page rather than 20+)

Apologies for the bad example earlier-- it was the closest thing I could find on short notice. Should've taken more time to find one that was proper.

Is there a tag for when characters have oddly/vibrantly colored naughty-bits? Or maybe just a vibrant/unusual trim color in general juxtaposed on a more normal/downplayed body?

I know there's bioluminescence, and specific color tags for some body parts, but I mean... a more generalized tag. Something like "trim_contrast", "vibrant_trim", "colorful_trim", etc.

Examples:
post #897540
post #1474643
post #1378123

SarahColley said:
Is there a tag for when characters have oddly/vibrantly colored naughty-bits? Or maybe just a vibrant/unusual trim color in general juxtaposed on a more normal/downplayed body?

I know there's bioluminescence, and specific color tags for some body parts, but I mean... a more generalized tag. Something like "trim_contrast", "vibrant_trim", "colorful_trim", etc.

Examples:
post #897540
post #1474643
post #1378123

There's unusual_coloring but that's not used much.

Are there tags for "grower" or "shower" respectivley?

Wdvefbthm said:
Are there tags for "grower" or "shower" respectivley?

No. I guess there could be, but their use might be pretty limited. Is small_penis flaccid / big_penis flaccid good enough?

Maxpizzle said:
No. I guess there could be, but their use might be pretty limited. Is small_penis flaccid / big_penis flaccid good enough?

The problem with that (and with many instances of using multiple tags to find a specific character attribute) is it isn't very useful for images that feature multiple characters. It's decent for searching solo images, but it's somewhat limiting. Though it is important to maintain a balance between useful ambiguity and pedantic specificity.

Maybe a tag for something like "whoa, that penis got unexpectedly large" unexpected_penis_growth or something.

Aside of the fact that most pictures are not sequences and thus, you can't see the before/after.... I wonder if this would get significant use. it seems like most penises focused on in that respect would be already big penises that become bigger... veruses the concept of a small penis that gets bigger...

I think a tag for the concept of "wow! It's so much bigger now!" is a pretty neat one. Kinda the opposite of the.. uh.. "small penis harassment/belittling" tag we have.

I don't think ther's much point in a tag for a penis that stays the sameish size. Cuz...

There are 3 choices here:

• Penis gets bigger
• Penis stays same size
• Penis gets smaller (wut? lol)

(and 'ambiguous' but yeah)

And those three(ish) should cover every single 'flacid penis before/after' picture sequence. ... and thus, a ridiculously large number of posts ... I think it's better to identify the exceptiosn rather than the 'rule' so to speak.

I dunno!

Is there a tag for sources that no longer work? If not, would defunct_source work for such a tag?

Pipeline said:
Is there a tag for sources that no longer work? If not, would defunct_source work for such a tag?

Looks like broken source was used a couple of times. I think there was something else, but I can't find it.

Heya guys, ╹‿╹)
Mind if I ask if we have a tag for finding flash games?

On a mini-crusade at the moment to find Gay (as in Dood/dood stuff T‿T)
flash games and the only way I know of finding any animation, game, gif and so on
on this site is to slap the word "Animation" in the search bar alongside whatever
else I'm in the mood for looking up.

So if a kind peep who knows there stuff about how to find the things
you want on this site with outstanding precision could tell me how
I could find game specifically, filtering out the rest-

I'd very much appreciate it ◠‿╹)~★

Notkastar said:
Heya guys, ╹‿╹)
Mind if I ask if we have a tag for finding flash games?

On a mini-crusade at the moment to find Gay (as in Dood/dood stuff T‿T)
flash games and the only way I know of finding any animation, game, gif and so on
on this site is to slap the word "Animation" in the search bar alongside whatever
else I'm in the mood for looking up.

So if a kind peep who knows there stuff about how to find the things
you want on this site with outstanding precision could tell me how
I could find game specifically, filtering out the rest-

I'd very much appreciate it ◠‿╹)~★

flash_game

Lord_Eggplant said:
flash_game

Huh, Didn't know it was that simple.
^{That give me a few ideas of tags I should look up later actually ╹ ‿╹)}

Thx m8!
◠‿◠)

A few questions on fame-related things (5 total)

1) Is there a tag for when a fan is interacting with their idol? E.g.: post #734531

2) Is there a tag for when a popular figure is servicing or doing something for a fan? (Self-insert/anon pics wouldn't count-- unless being "a fan" is at least heavily implied, if not mentioned outright.)

3) And the other way around? (An idol using their fame to get things they want, like using their fans for sexual relief.)

4) What about when someone is just freaking out about their idol in general? Be it while doing something sexual with them, viewing a very sexual image of them, or otherwise.

5) If "no" for any of the above, which ones should have tags, if any?

Do we have a tag for "somebody caught a couple having sex and ends up joining in"?

Do we have a tag for "one character using both ends of a double ended dildo"?
Do we have a tag for both ends in one hole?

Is there a tag for the glitchy effect of color channels being slightly offset from each other?

post #1482383

I could have sworn I saw a tag for color glitches (or glitchy effects in general), but now I can't find it.

Is there a tag for internal, but without a cutaway implied?

Examples of internal, see_through like view
post #308333
post #1466492

Compared to internal + cutaway
post #1336272

But at the same time, I'd like to not exclude the pics that have both
post #1415265

Maxpizzle said:
Is there a tag for the glitchy effect of color channels being slightly offset from each other?

post #1482383

I could have sworn I saw a tag for color glitches (or glitchy effects in general), but now I can't find it.

Are you talking about chromatic_aberration?

JAKXXX3 said:
Are you talking about chromatic_aberration?

I think so, yes. Too bad the wiki page doesn't include a representative example.

Do we have a tag for cumming dildos?
Like, a dildo with a cum tube?

Oh, we do. It's Cum_Tube

do we have a tag for bras/bikinis that just kind of have have strings that go around the nipples but don't actually cover anything

a la this
post #1482217

not string bikini; those actually cover the nipples at least somewhat

darryus said:
do we have a tag for bras/bikinis that just kind of have have strings that go around the nipples but don't actually cover anything

a la this
post #1482217

not string bikini; those actually cover the nipples at least somewhat

I can't find anything in the tag list. As for a proposal for what to tag it, how about nippleless_bikini to go along with crotchless_panties?

darryus said:
not string bikini; those actually cover the nipples at least somewhat

... um.

... I feel like there is a massive misconception of what a string bikini is....

A bikini is a swimsuit that is made up of two parts--as opposed to a one piece swimsuit.

This is a bikini: post #1483594

A string bikini top is two triangles of fabric, tied around the body with "strings". A string bikini bottom typically has side ties.

When you think of bikini, you are PROBABLY thinking of a string bikini.

String bikinis:

post #1481181 post #1478113 post #1470796 post #1469463 post #1462918 post #1484342

String bikini coverage varies according to the bikini. It can be anything from a full rump exposure (minus, typically a bit at the top), to full-rump-coverage. Similar is true for the top. ... as opposed to:

A microkini is extremely skimpy and barely covers genitals, and often require the use of adhesive to keep in place. I'd offer some examples of this, but to be honest, the point of a microkini is to be just BARELY legal. Most images with things that may count as microkinis actually cross into the realm of indecent exposure. So I am going to link a picture of a real human. There is a real, scantily clad human behind the following link: Link ... if you would like more examples, google image search for microkini. There are some very neat, but utterly impractical swim suits to be found there. Some of which I"m sure are held in place only by hopes, dreams, glue, fishing line and the model not breathing too much.

...which, tldr... a string bikini is not what you think it is. The closest name for that kind of bikini is a microbikini, and even that doesn't apply because a microbikini is intended to keep basic decency. These don't.

I like nippleless_bikini, personally.

On that note: do we have a tag for "this clothing is barely doing it's job"?

Like: post #1483426 post #1478151 post #1439691

I mean, yes, skimpy, but like...

it feels weird that all of these are in the same category:

post #1481165 post #1469415 post #1457256
post #1456256 post #1475098 post #1473995

SnowWolf said:
a string bikini is not what you think it is.

but the wiki page says "A bikini that covers little beyond minimum requirements to avoid nudity charges, with the covering bits connected by generally thin strings."
Although I was kind of wondering why we had two tags for essentially the same thing.

Do we have a tag for when sunlight shines through leaves and creates little spots of light?

post #1484878