darryus said:
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.

..... someone was incredibly wrong. that describes a micro_bikini

Okay let me see...

bikini was created on 1/22/2017 by "imagoober" ... so it's not an old and well established page or anything.

Okay, more RL bikini women are in the following links.

link | link | link | link | link

Those are all string bikinis. They, technically, cover little beyond breasts and crotch, but then you have stuff like these:

(Again, scantily clad RL women warning)

Link | Link | Link | Link

Those are micro string bikinis. They are both micro_bikini/microkinis and string bikinis at the same time.

Not all microkinis are string bikinis, though MANY of them are:

(Warning, we are going into the realm of nude here. These are real life women who are wearing an extremely small amount of clothing. Like, I could probably wad one of these things up and shove them in to the so-called pocket on my jeans.)

Link - This is ...closest to a sling bikini (SLING not STRING -- these are one pieces that are very revealing... showing off parts of the sides and belly)... it is a microkini and a sling bikini, but is not a string bikini... (well, I mean.. technically it is, but..)
Link - Also a sling micro bikini
Link - This is a bandeaukini-- it has a bandeau top-- which is a top with no shoulder straps.

So... To sum up:

A string bikini is a construction method/style.

(Think of it this way: A swimsuit is a skirt. A string bikini is a pleated skirt. A pleated skirt can be long, short or anywhere between the two. It can even be tight, or loose. It can be made out of a stiff material that holds please well, or a loose one. but no matter what, they're all pleated skirts.)

A microbikini indicates the amount of coverage.

(Like a miniskirt. Your miniskirt can be pleated or not pleated. Your miniskirt is goign to be short, but it can range anywhere from "pretty short" to "extremely short".. ... but it can't be long.)

Some microbikinis are string bikinis. Some String bikinis are micro bikinis. but not all. :)

So... yeah, the wiki's incredibly wrong.

Ahem.. now that I've ranted on the topic, I"ll go fix the wiki, haha.

I'm caught up!

post #961434

abadbird said:
I'm caught up!

post #961434

but BIKINIS!

(seriously, you're amazing. :D)

"shines through leaves and creates little spots of light"

u wot

You probably want sunlight, with shadow and shade? I believe a more exact literary term for what you've described, excluding any light rays, is "shimmer".

Tree canopies and shade are actual botanical concerns. You may find the perfect word or set yourself on the right trail by scouring these links:

Canopy (biology)) (wikipedia)
Crown (botany)) (wikipedia)
Shade tolerance (wikipedia)
Distinguishing Degrees of Light and Shade

We also have a bunch of alias-bait like daylight, light_ray, sun_rays, light_rays, god_rays, godrays, sunbeam, etc.

Well, maybe I've read too many books, but...

Dapple - mark with spots or rounded patches. As in, "the floor was dappled with pale moonlight"

Dappling can be used to refer to an interplay of light and shadow... or various coat colors in some animals. (the Merle pattern is occasionally called dapple... but it's most commonly used in reference to Horses x x ... Dapple/silver Gray is a specific "kind" of horse coat color, like palomino, or buckskin.

Anyway. when I search *dapple*:

19 - dapple - seems to be fur markings
14 - Dappled_light
8 - Dapples - seems to be mostly art of one character who is a deertaur with a spotty flank
7 - Dappled_sunlight
3 - Dappled - mix of sun and fur
3 - dapple_grey - fur only, refering to the horse coloration.

as well: shade_dappling, sun_dappled and sun_dappled_light

So... I think I support dappled_light for the atmospheric effect (because Dappled_light+night/day would do what ya need.) and dappled_coat or something for the fur markings.

Is there a tag for this kind of markings:
post #1483478
It's definitly not tatooes, just patterns on the skin.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Is there a tag for this kind of markings:
post #1483478
It's definitly not tatooes, just patterns on the skin.

There's a series called Markings
facial, black, arm, chest...

SnowWolf said:
So... I think I support dappled_light for the atmospheric effect (because Dappled_light+night/day would do what ya need.) and dappled_coat or something for the fur markings.

Of course it would be a real lighting thing, particularly for photography... Hmph.

Should move all to dappled_light and mention it in lighting under Related tags.

1. Do we have other tags for lighting effects or techniques?

shadow of course. I know about sparkles and particles (like embers). Sometimes floating dust particles glint in light sources (post #1148142). I've tagged bright for lighting that makes something difficult to look at or see clearly (post #1405736, post #476071, post #471676), similar to dark.

2. Speaking of clothes, I could not figure out exactly what kind of hat they're wearing

post #1142703

I looked at Wikipedia's list of hat styles, and the closest hat I found is the tricorne.

abadbird said:
"ineffective_clothing"

Thanks :)

Of course it would be a real lighting thing, particularly for photography... Hmph.

Should move all to dappled_light and mention it in lighting under Related tags.

I'll move 'em over under one tag, if someone else woudl do the wiki edit. My head feels like it's somewhere around high orbit today. I don't trust me to make a good word edit thing.

1. Do we have other tags for lighting effects or techniques?

shadow of course. I know about sparkles and particles (like embers). Sometimes floating dust particles glint in light sources (post #1148142). I've tagged bright for lighting that makes something difficult to look at or see clearly (post #1405736, post #476071, post #471676), similar to dark.

Hmmm... sunbeam is one I know about that is under utilized. Might be better as beam_of_light or something to include "moon shining through the trees' as well.

past that... those are good thigns to tag. Yes. I especially like dust particles in light. It's a very pretty effect. Yes.

2. Speaking of clothes, I could not figure out exactly what kind of hat they're wearing

post #1142703

I looked at Wikipedia's list of hat styles, and the closest hat I found is the tricorne.

I'd agree with Tricorn... though it could be a bicorne. Or maybe soem weird cowboy hat thing.

But the 'feel' of hte image is american revolutionary time period, so, I'd say tricorn I think

So, right now I'm going through things that are tagged bow_tie trying to find things that should be tagged as hair_bow or tail_bow (because I have noting better do do on a sunday night) and I've been coming across quite a few that I'm not sure how to tag.

post #1314487
Here's an example

So, this image contains a bow on top of a gift box; bow_tie isn't right since that's for when a character is wearing it on their neck.

post #511855

There are also images where characters are wearing bows on parts of their clothing or on other parts of their bodies, I'm not sure what tags to use for these either.

Any help?

Start clothes_bow and gift_bow?

For the record, we use clothes_[object]/[object]_(clothing) and [adjective]_clothing. present is aliased to gift, but we do have christmas_present.

This will always be a problem with that project until the buck stops somewhere and some new tags are started.

darryus said:
So, right now I'm going through things that are tagged bow_tie trying to find things that should be tagged as hair_bow or tail_bow (because I have noting better do do on a sunday night) and I've been coming across quite a few that I'm not sure how to tag.

Ribbon is a non-specific tag that can be used though I suppose you'd have to create a new tag to be more specific.

Also, I realised that we have ear_bow and flower_in_hair, but we don't have a tag for characters without head-hair who attach flowers at the ear. I'm not sure if something like flower_behind_ear would be appropriate.
post #1493899 post #1400382 post #1174405 post #1330104 post #1450713

JAKXXX3 said:
Also, I realised that we have ear_bow and flower_in_hair, but we don't have a tag for characters without head-hair who attach flowers at the ear. I'm not sure if something like flower_behind_ear would be appropriate.
post #1493899 post #1400382 post #1174405 post #1330104 post #1450713

I've used flower_in_hair a bit liberally

post #1439582 This is technically fur-in-the-head-region
post #1434790 Well, this is flower_in_fur technically, but fur is hair and hair is fur, right?
post #1428576 - none of these are really BEHIND the ear.
post #1428500 - for that matter, a lot of these are flower NEAR the ear or flower IN FRONT of the ear.

is this correct? I dunno, but I figure most people who want to see ear-flowers don't care if it's in front, beside, behind etc.

I wonder why some tags like the “artist_signature” tag are used a negative amount of times, I know this is a little off topic, but it’s weird.

Should we implement a "right_to_left" tag? It'd apply for images that're read from the right to the left, unlike the regular left to right. It's currently tagged on 19 posts, but it'd seem particularly useful for users who don't know (or don't want to see) this particular orientation.

Siral_Exan said:
Should we implement a "right_to_left" tag? It'd apply for images that're read from the right to the left, unlike the regular left to right. It's currently tagged on 19 posts, but it'd seem particularly useful for users who don't know (or don't want to see) this particular orientation.

I believe the manga tag is generally used to indicate when text should be read right to left. I suppose it could be helpful to have a tag specifically about reading direction though.

Siral_Exan said:
Should we implement a "right_to_left" tag? It'd apply for images that're read from the right to the left, unlike the regular left to right. It's currently tagged on 19 posts, but it'd seem particularly useful for users who don't know (or don't want to see) this particular orientation.

Maybe something like right_to_left_comic to prevent potential mistags for right-to-left motion/looking/arrows. Yeah it's probably not super likely, but eh, it might. It'd also be more obvious what it means to people stumbling across the tag for the first time.

JAKXXX3 said:
I believe the manga tag is generally used to indicate when text should be read right to left. I suppose it could be helpful to have a tag specifically about reading direction though.

honestly, 'manga' is an incredibly wibbley sort of idea. what defines a manga? does it have to be japanese in origin? is it a style thing? what about western artists who draw in the manga-style?

better, I think, to have right_to_left/right_to_left_comic tags then something so vague as "manga"

SnowWolf said:
honestly, 'manga' is an incredibly wibbley sort of idea.

Yep, that it is.
I'm not sure about the merits of the right_to_left tag, though. Can it really be so hard to figure out which way to read a comic, and if someone's having trouble with that, would they think of checking the tags..

And it seems pretty unlikely that it'd bother someone so much that they'd want to blacklist it. I suppose there's no harm in tagging it, just seems pretty pointless to me.

Genjar said:
I'm not sure about the merits of the right_to_left tag, though. Can it really be so hard to figure out which way to read a comic, and if someone's having trouble with that, would they think of checking the tags..

To be honest, I have had trouble telling what the reading direction is before. It's difficult when there isn't a clear chronological order that is immediately apparent. I think one of them was the Black Jack comic (pool #8940).

Genjar said:
I'm not sure about the merits of the right_to_left tag, though. Can it really be so hard to figure out which way to read a comic, and if someone's having trouble with that, would they think of checking the tags..

And it seems pretty unlikely that it'd bother someone so much that they'd want to blacklist it. I suppose there's no harm in tagging it, just seems pretty pointless to me.

I was actually reading something about panel lay out in american comics versus japanese manga a few months ago.. I cna't find it again off hand, but the jist of it was basically that manga artists established Rules about how to lay out panels so that no one reading will be very confused about what panel to move to next. Japanese comic readers tend to quickly understand this flow-of-panel... but american comic makers tend to have more confusing lay outs because they've never had to adhere to these quiet rules.

Anyway: I've read way more manga than american comics... and honestly, I can find it confusing too. Some people flip comics while translating them, some people write them 'western style' to make them more approachable, some glorious westerners decide to do them 'backwards' to better emulate manga styles.. it can get confusing.

take post #1405765

in the top half of the page, you have impatient aligator, then a face full of dicks. You also have the girl finishing up on the phone. So: If the alligator saying "Hey, stop it with the phone!" and she finishes up her phone call? or is she chatting on the phone and he interrupts with mouth-dick? The bottom frame comes after the other three, of course, but it doesn't really help-- as it's more of a 'in the middle' frame and could follow either of the above two.

This is complicated when you have anything less than a perfect translation-- the rhythm of Japanese and other Asian languages is quite different than english. so you end up with things like "I've been on a sexual relationship with them" or "my lust is big to a point I can't hold it" ... and it becomes easier to get confused on the flow of panels.

Also..

After a glance through, the manga tag IS a mess.

Manga are comics. If one is a japanese speaker, it has a little more of a loose definition, but in the english speaking world, manga is comics.

Yet, in the first 100 results:

• Still images with no sequential events, done in a japanese sort of style: post #1499783 post #1506580
• Comics done by westerners in a mimicry of Asian styles post #1477173 post #1338426
• Posts which contain manga--as in, books: post #1469002 post #1315582
• Almost entirely western-styled images with japanese text: post #1472007
• Basically just Western Comics, I don't know why these are tagged manga: post #1358940

There's no consistency on right_to_left or Left_to_right-ness.. it's just... vaguely tagged.

So...

I support disambuguating manga and using right_to_left_comic and left_to_right_comic

Is there any way to fix painting so it doesn't result in so many mis-tagged images?

Ijerk said:
Is there any way to fix painting so it doesn't result in so many mis-tagged images?

Sure. Someone just has to go through, determine what all the right tags would be, try to figure out a solution to prevent future mistags, then manually go through every image to tag things correctly.

With only 1011 images, it's not so bad.

What do you think should be there, and what is there that shouldn't be there?

SnowWolf said:
What do you think should be there, and what is there that shouldn't be there?

(edit:I'm not sure if any of that was /sarc or not)

It's designed to describe visible artwork *within* the image, but ends up being used to describe the media itself half the time(the incorrect use).

Posts can be cleaned up manually every so often, but I imagine the mess will persist as long as the tag/wording remains the same.

I'm not sure I'd be the best person to suggest alternative tag names, just throwing the issue out there and hoping someone with more experience can lend some advice

Isn't this what the _(artwork) suffix (e.g. colored_pencil_(artwork)) was supposed to fix? I guess it didn't work very well.

Ijerk said:
(edit:I'm not sure if any of that was /sarc or not)

Not sarcastic--just a bit flippant, perhaps. That *is* what needs to happen. Just, it's hard to find someone else willing to take on someone else's project. Most of us start tagging things because *we* want to see change. Someone coming in and saying "Someone else should fix this" doesn't gain much traction, y'know? :)

But the first step is always establishing what needs to be done: a messy tag means SOMETHING, somewhere's unclear or unintuitive. not everything can be intuitive, but we can always try to be better :)

It's designed to describe visible artwork *within* the image, but ends up being used to describe the media itself half the time(the incorrect use).

Posts can be cleaned up manually every so often, but I imagine the mess will persist as long as the tag/wording remains the same.

I'm not sure I'd be the best person to suggest alternative tag names, just throwing the issue out there and hoping someone with more experience can lend some advice

Maxpizzle said:
Isn't this what the _(artwork) suffix (e.g. colored_pencil_(artwork)) was supposed to fix? I guess it didn't work very well.

It's a tricky area, I think. the artwork tags were well intended, but I probably would have disambiguated the original tags as well.. a character should use, in my opinion, colored_pencil_(object) and be drawn with colored_pencil_(medium)

... a painting, in a picture should be a painting_(object), done with paint_(object) (probably), as part of the creating_art activity, but then, maybe painting_(activity) would be more straightforward and could imply creating_art or whatever it is.

but now I"m suggesting overhauls of systems currently in place.. and well established :P

that said, painting is a particularly tricky tag and SHOULD be disambiguated.

SnowWolf said:
Not sarcastic--just a bit flippant, perhaps. That *is* what needs to happen. Just, it's hard to find someone else willing to take on someone else's project. Most of us start tagging things because *we* want to see change. Someone coming in and saying "Someone else should fix this" doesn't gain much traction, y'know? :)

But the first step is always establishing what needs to be done: a messy tag means SOMETHING, somewhere's unclear or unintuitive. not everything can be intuitive, but we can always try to be better :)

I remember cleaning up a page or two of them around when I joined, but had other things to be doing that day and quickly lost motivation.

I know it's going to require more actual discussion, this is one of those tags I guessed had been brought up previously on the forums so I didn't want to start with a big essay.

So-

From what I've noticed is Painting has a high initial failure rate, but as you go back through the pages it gets better, probably due to people fixing the old ones up as they come across them. I'd guess it's over 50% correct at minimum.

So at this point it'd be better to fix the remainder so they can be mass-edit-implied cleanly before disambiguation, no? I'll see if I have time to fix some later.

We probably don't need any additional tags for now (talking about painting_(activity) vs creating_art etc); You could probably combine a search for creating_art with a utensil and get usable results.

SnowWolf said:
It's a tricky area, I think. the artwork tags were well intended, but I probably would have disambiguated the original tags as well.. a character should use, in my opinion, colored_pencil_(object) and be drawn with colored_pencil_(medium)

... a painting, in a picture should be a painting_(object), done with paint_(object) (probably), as part of the creating_art activity, but then, maybe painting_(activity) would be more straightforward and could imply creating_art or whatever it is.

but now I"m suggesting overhauls of systems currently in place.. and well established :P

that said, painting is a particularly tricky tag and SHOULD be disambiguated.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Generally tags with multiple meanings should get disambiguated and specified.

Is there a tag for 'penis-clitoris'?
post #1488807

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Is there a tag for 'penis-clitoris'?
post #1488807

Not checking any of these before I link 'em--gotta run, but..

Off hand, we've got big_clitoris, enlarged_clitoris, and hyper_clitoris but none of those are really.. a penis.

There's pseudo-penis but... I can't say a lot of these look like penis-shaped clits.. looks more like an excuse to draw herms c_c but I admit I havn't studied the, uh, natural counterpart, so maybe it's realistic.

SnowWolf said:
Not checking any of these before I link 'em--gotta run, but..

Off hand, we've got big_clitoris, enlarged_clitoris, and hyper_clitoris but none of those are really.. a penis.

There's pseudo-penis but... I can't say a lot of these look like penis-shaped clits.. looks more like an excuse to draw herms c_c but I admit I havn't studied the, uh, natural counterpart, so maybe it's realistic.

There's differences, but it's pretty subtle. The male hyena's penis has a pointier tip with a bulge and a fold around the very tip while the pseudo-penis is smoother and less pointy. I wouldn't expect laypeople to know the difference (hell, a lot of people think they have canine penises with or without a knot), especially since it isn't always obvious at certain angles.
A hyena with a pseudo-penis shouldn't additionally have a vagina- they mate and give birth through the pseudo-penis. I feel like most people who know enough about hyena to know they have a pseudo-penis (even if they don't bother/want to look at references) will also be aware of that factor.

out of order reply for reasons:

regsmutt said:
A hyena with a pseudo-penis shouldn't additionally have a vagina- they mate and give birth through the pseudo-penis. I feel like most people who know enough about hyena to know they have a pseudo-penis (even if they don't bother/want to look at references) will also be aware of that factor.

An offhanded correction. sleepy me meant dickgirls/herms rather than just herms. Sleepy me isn't so smart.

But this should be true--I knew that at least :) Evolution is truly amazing.

There's differences, but it's pretty subtle. The male hyena's penis has a pointier tip with a bulge and a fold around the very tip while the pseudo-penis is smoother and less pointy. I wouldn't expect laypeople to know the difference (hell, a lot of people think they have canine penises with or without a knot), especially since it isn't always obvious at certain angles.

Canine... ugh. I can't see how anyone can know one fact and not the other, but I know Far Too Many animal facts for my own good. But I have long realized that most people do not have the focus on detail that I do... for some reason c_c;

Anyway, the shape difference is interesting!

...

Whatcha think about Twenty's picture?

I guess pseudo penis doesn't apply-- after all, it seems to be a FUNCTIONAL penis..

.... Maybe it's just a herm?

I'm not into herms so I don't usually browse through them, but clitoris-as-a-penis-base seems like it ... should be a common thing maybe?

I dunno.

I have a migraine. and a cold. This year sucks.

SnowWolf said:
I'm not into herms so I don't usually browse through them, but clitoris-as-a-penis-base seems like it ... should be a common thing maybe?

Yes, people often used "futanari" for "hermaphrodite without balls" (I can't currently access Jisho, so I'm not sure if that's accurate). However, we just have hermaphrodite -balls so rather than aliasing futanari to its own tag that was clearer, the two forms were merged together.
Doesn't help that some images under that link above will have a standard clit and a penis, either: hermaphrodite -balls clit immediately shows pictures such as post #1459141.

Edit: Did a bit of searching for definitions elsewhere, and Futanari literally just means hermaphrodite, somebody with both genitals. It has nothing to do with having testicles or not, so the alias does fit. We should, however, have a tag for a penis_clitoris/clitoral_penis.

SnowWolf said:
Whatcha think about Twenty's picture?

I guess pseudo penis doesn't apply-- after all, it seems to be a FUNCTIONAL penis..

.... Maybe it's just a herm?

I'm not into herms so I don't usually browse through them, but clitoris-as-a-penis-base seems like it ... should be a common thing maybe?

It looks herm to me- it seems to have a vagina as well as a penis. It looks like the artist is aware that the clitoris and penis develop from the same tissue and took that into account with the design. The biggest issue with a tag for it might be making sure it's not undertagged and deciding what to do with weird cases (like a regular ol human dong positioned where the clitoris would be but is clearly just a regular ol human dong).

regsmutt said:
It looks herm to me- it seems to have a vagina as well as a penis. It looks like the artist is aware that the clitoris and penis develop from the same tissue and took that into account with the design. The biggest issue with a tag for it might be making sure it's not undertagged and deciding what to do with weird cases (like a regular ol human dong positioned where the clitoris would be but is clearly just a regular ol human dong).

What's so special about a human penis that it should be singled out? A penis is a penis, and if you replace the clitoris with a penis, you've replaced the clitoris with a penis.

Furrin_Gok said:
What's so special about a human penis that it should be singled out? A penis is a penis, and if you replace the clitoris with a penis, you've replaced the clitoris with a penis.

Eh, it's kind of a picky thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The type of skin on the length of the shaft is a bit different- closer to what's on the rest of the body than the skin that covers the clitoris and makes up the clitoral hood. That difference will affect whether or not it'll read as a modified clitoris or not to the average viewer.

Could sackless be the tag you guys are looking for?

Is there a tag for when an image characters (and maybe a foreground object or two) are colored, and while the background isn't simple, it still lacks color?

How about the reverse, where characters and foreground are black and white but the background is colored? And, would that image qualify for spot color because only the eyes of the characters are colored, or would the colored background make it invalid?

SarahColley said:
Is there a tag for when an image characters (and maybe a foreground object or two) are colored, and while the background isn't simple, it still lacks color?

Just partially_colored. There's no specific tag for uncolored background, as far as I know.

Is there a tag for when a character has their mouth held open by another like so? https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2731880

1. You have to be careful with tags describing panels and text bubbles arranged right-to-left because some languages are written right-to-left which is something else.

2. I would have suggested painting_(object) too, but also alias painting to painting_(disambiguation).

3.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Is there a tag for 'penis-clitoris'?
post #1488807

The top image probably passes for enlarged_clitoris on e621, which often is a small "penis clitoris" IRL, but I wouldn't tag that because the other two images make clear that's a herm's functional penis and not a clitoris. I don't think we have specialized herms' genital arrangements at all except perhaps herm vs maleherm, but you can tag that herm sackless, which has lots of similar results.

4.

Dyrone said:
Is there a tag for when a character has their mouth held open by another like so? https://rule34.xxx/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2731880

spread_mouth + hand_in_mouth. Technically, that qualifies for a mouth_grab tag under the holding_* and *_grab system.

A subtle return to "is this a griffon or not?"

post #1518012

More importantly, what kinda bird is this?

(should be have a 'what species is this" thread? I know I look at a lot of pictures and say "that's a specific type of dog, I know it..." but googling for "white floofy bird" or "brown dog with black ears' doesna't help much, haha.

SnowWolf said:
A subtle return to "is this a griffon or not?"

post #1518012

More importantly, what kinda bird is this?

(should be have a 'what species is this" thread? I know I look at a lot of pictures and say "that's a specific type of dog, I know it..." but googling for "white floofy bird" or "brown dog with black ears' doesna't help much, haha.

I do believe that those are Shima Enaga, the same kind of bird as the one in the album art for theme of really cool birb.

edit: also those probably aren't griffons, i don't know what you'd tag quadruped birds though... taur? would it be taur?

darryus said:
I do believe that those are Shima Enaga, the same kind of bird as the one in the album art for theme of really cool birb.

edit: also those probably aren't griffons, i don't know what you'd tag quadruped birds though... taur? would it be taur?

Don't we have a specific tag for when a tauric entity has the anthro half of the same species as their quadruped half? We can count the wings as the "arms" in this case.

SnowWolf said:
More importantly, what kinda bird is this?

Aegithalos caudatus, the long-tailed tit.
Supposedly a common species, though I've only seen them once myself.

Furrin_Gok said:
Don't we have a specific tag for when a tauric entity has the anthro half of the same species as their quadruped half? We can count the wings as the "arms" in this case.

I'd say no jsut because, well, the wings are on the back half of the body.

I dunno though. I think them birds are ADORABLE and I love them and I WANT MORE FOUR LEGGED BIRDS, and want to know how to tag them.

Maybe I should jsutstart a tag for 4 legged birbs. c_c

Genjar said:
Aegithalos caudatus, the long-tailed tit.
Supposedly a common species, though I've only seen them once myself.

Thanks! They're adorable :D and properly tagged now, thank yoU!

multi_leg

I only see birds with four legs supporting a horizontal spine, not mixed species. I don't see any positively feline features, let alone that of lions as specified in gryphon's wiki. Those birds also lack the horizontal + vertical spine combination of taurs.

Use multi_[body_part] tags when a character of a given species has more of a type of anatomical structure than expected. Fantasy body types like anthro and taur can modify those expectations. Unclear if fantasy creatures with no base animal or distinct body type to reference, like toppingtart_(artist)'s "flesh angels", should have multi_[body_part] tags rather than #_[body_part]s tags, but I suppose any unnatural-seeming amount of a given anatomical structure safely qualifies for a multi_[body_part] tag too. (That is to say, how can a creature have more [body parts] than expected when there can be no expectations because the creature is very alien?)

I would call those birds alternate_form, but that tag seems limited to franchise characters with appreciably different appearances than normal.

abadbird said:
multi_leg

A lot/most of the things tagged as that seem to probably not deserve that tag when looking at that wiki page's description, lots of insects, a few normal taurs, octopi.

darryus said:
A lot/most of the things tagged as that seem to probably not deserve that tag when looking at that wiki page's description, lots of insects, a few normal taurs, octopi.

Yeah. I find it a bit surprising that multi_arm is tagged consistently, but multi_leg which uses the exact same tagging logic is a complete mess..

SnowWolf said:
Thing is, while they are all based on specific ~individuals~ in mythology, they've been appropriated as a ~type~ of creature. While character is, technically, accurate, the character tag would only serve to cover images that are intended to, specifically, be the character from mythology. (such as Pegasus_(Disney)) ... and then you'd have a lot of posts tagged, say... winged_horse, 3_headed_dog, lion_with_goat_head_and_snake_tail.... and to compound the problem... well, Pegasus-the-disney-horse is distinctive, but how many *specific* depictions of pegasus are there? We know he was white in color, had wings and.. uh.. was probably a very ideal horse for the time. but that's about it. surely not every pegasus white_fur is a depiction of pegasus, but we just don't know :)

Cerberus is even worse. I mean, his 'offical' description is three headed, with a serpent for a tail and other snakes "protruding" from him. The earliest descptions had him with 50 heads. Others gave him 100. Yet another said 1 dog head, 100 snake heads... yeah.

The problem with chimera isn't that you've got big tittied herm chimera... the problem is that for every one of these:
post #1386971 you have about a dozen of these: post #1377186 post #1377738 post #1325853 post #1323954

Eh, fair. Shame, I liked the way chimeric_genitalia sounded XD

Er... the things is, there isn't one style of bird foot. Birds have weird-ass-feet.

• 3 toes in the front, one in the back.

4 toes, arranged in an X
3 in the front, with two attached together, with one in the back.
4 in the front, but the outer two can bend backwards.
3 in the front.
3 in the front and one off the side a bit.

The other thing.. well, the wiki was made back in august by 'The White Crow'... he's been around since 2014, has 1 wiki edit, 0 forum posts, and 14 tag edits.. and added bird feet to 4 posts, haha.

I feel like the wiki creator was seeking things like:

post #1220994 post #1391415 post #1220910

where attention is given to the feet looking like a bird's feet and legs: skinny, fine boned, standing on toes, rather than cartoony styles. post #1118736 post #1157786 post #1262680 ...like real birds, not humanoid_feet or plantigrade feet.

Which I can totally get, just, people are saying, "it's a bird, these are it's feet, hey!"

If aiming for the foot arrangment, maybe something like avian_toe_structure or avian_foot_structure ... or... for the leg style thin_bird_legs or natural_bird_legs

eh, it's not a race I have a horse in. <3

eh, maybe, or maybe just an honest mistake.

Ugh, tha'ts fair.. it's a shame, I really liked how it sounded as a tag :)

Just to note, i created 'bird_feet' for those who have an avian foot fetish. I dont require those rough + bony feets to get a birdly hardon, but i do find them adorable and figured anyone who finds it smexy could search it. There are multiple types of avian feets and it would be annoying to search all of them when one tag could show them, along with showing non-birds with bird like feets. ^~^

Also, i made this account ages ago for a contest that the site had but never signed on much since despite coming here for many years. When i saw the tag for bird feet, i figured i could give it a wiki and add every fitting pic i found to the tag. Im a bit more active now tho, but mostly to comment and talk to artists or make a smartass comment that gets lots of upvotes....heh

Is there a (working) tag that shows group (more than three) of multiple females and a single male in one group, but not necessarily engaged in sex?
(basically I'm looking for reverse_gangbang, but without necessiy for sex or explicit rating - as reverse_gangbang always contains sex - as per definition in wiki:

[...] where one character is having sex with a group of characters

and thus is alwyas explicit.)

is aliased to female (and as such does not really have any info about how much females are there), same as other tags that could tell the number of female characters (see female) - and same thing with male_solo - it is aliased to male along with other tags that could tell number of males in the picture.

tag does not really resolve the issue as it can also include pictures with:

a) duo and the group in the background
b) multiple groups
c) multiple males and females (in case of male female group)

does not fully resolve that either (having three meanings, and most images are heavily asociated with stereotypical "arabian nights" style harem), but it seems to be the most accurate by far from what I've tried. Is there something similar to that one thant I'm not aware of?

addicted1234 said:
Is there a (working) tag that shows group (more than three) of multiple females and a single male in one group, but not necessarily engaged in sex?
(basically I'm looking for reverse_gangbang, but without necessiy for sex or explicit rating - as reverse_gangbang always contains sex - as per definition in wiki:
and thus is alwyas explicit.)

multiple_females

is aliased to female (and as such does not really have any info about how much females are there), same as other tags that could tell the number of female characters (see female) - and same thing with male_solo - it is aliased to male along with other tags that could tell number of males in the picture.

group

tag does not really resolve the issue as it can also include pictures with:

a) duo and the group in the background
b) multiple groups
c) multiple males and females (in case of male female group)

harem

does not fully resolve that either (having three meanings, and most images are heavily asociated with stereotypical "arabian nights" style harem), but it seems to be the most accurate by far from what I've tried. Is there something similar to that one thant I'm not aware of?

That's the kind of thing we avoid tagging, you won't be able to find it without digging around.

Is there a tag specifically for when part of a goo creature's body isn't fully formed? (Some examples)
Or, if that's too common of an occurrence, for the opposite? When its body is wholly formed? (Some examples)

I mean, it doesn't have to be just for goo creatures, but I can't think of any other situations where it would be applicable. Maybe with shape shifters or something.

AbiCordo said:
Is there a tag specifically for when part of a goo creature's body isn't fully formed? (Some examples]
Not yet, but tagging those seems like a good idea.

There were plans to add some subtags for the goo_creature tag once the old goo tag got fully sorted out, but the project has dragged on for couple of years...

With nearly 4000 posts, goo_creature is well-established enough to start adding subtags. But as usual, coming up with tag names is pretty hard. I can't think of a compact tag name for 'half-formed goo creature'. And we also need some subtag for completely amorphous/shapeless ones. (I remember someone suggesting goo_blob for those).

Genjar said:

Your response

Not yet, but tagging those seems like a good idea.

There were plans to add some subtags for the goo_creature tag once the old goo tag got fully sorted out, but the project has dragged on for couple of years...

With nearly 4000 posts, goo_creature is well-established enough to start adding subtags. But as usual, coming up with tag names is pretty hard. I can't think of a compact tag name for 'half-formed goo creature'. And we also need some subtag for completely amorphous/shapeless ones. (I remember someone suggesting goo_blob for those).

I guess as a brainstorming thing, maybe using the word "puddle" (or "pool" if you want something shorter) could be used for specifics. puddle/pool_legs/arms/limbs, puddle/pool_body, etc. And as a more general tag/super tag to those, maybe partially_held_shape, loose_shape/body/form, malleable, or something along those lines.

For the "goo_blob" thing, maybe there could be goo_blob for shapeless ones and goo_figure for ones that retain some kind of shape?

AbiCordo said:
I mean, it doesn't have to be just for goo creatures, but I can't think of any other situations where it would be applicable. Maybe with shape shifters or something.

The only other situation I can think of woujld be, uh... gross body horror 'my face is melting' mutilation stuff. So let's not include that XD

partially_held_* seems like it's begging for mistags.. hm...

Maybe something like.. "Fully_formed_goo_figure" and "partially_melted_goo_figure"?

make it obvious what it's refering to. maybe goo_body instead of goo_figure...?

I dunno. goo_puddle_arms sounds pretty good... but like... it does lead to a question:

If a goo creature is formed from the thighs up, does it have goo_pool_feet AND goo_pool_legs?

... I like goo_blob and goo_figure though :D

SnowWolf said:

Response to "partially_held_shape"

partially_held_* seems like it's begging for mistags.. hm...

Maybe something like.. "Fully_formed_goo_figure" and "partially_melted_goo_figure"?

make it obvious what it's refering to. maybe goo_body instead of goo_figure...?

Well, fair enough for the partially_held_* bit. Just trying to come up with something that isn't super long. Your suggestions were good, but would "full_goo_body" and "partial_goo_body" also suffice?

Response to "puddle/pool_limbs/arms/etc"

I dunno. goo_puddle_arms sounds pretty good... but like... it does lead to a question:

If a goo creature is formed from the thighs up, does it have goo_pool_feet AND goo_pool_legs?

Personally, I'd think "puddle/pool_arms" and "puddle/pool_legs" would already imply that the hands/feet are the same. And, even if the legs are only half-pooled (knee and below), I'd say it applies for the tag. But... I guess there could be situations where formed hands are rising out of the puddle to grab something. Probably not feet though.

... I like goo_blob and goo_figure though :D

Well, fair enough, then. ^^ That might be one thing down.

Fixed up about 350 "goo" tagged images yesterday, plan on doing more today.

SnowWolf said:

Entire Response

The only other situation I can think of woujld be, uh... gross body horror 'my face is melting' mutilation stuff. So let's not include that XD

partially_held_* seems like it's begging for mistags.. hm...

Maybe something like.. "Fully_formed_goo_figure" and "partially_melted_goo_figure"?

make it obvious what it's refering to. maybe goo_body instead of goo_figure...?

I dunno. goo_puddle_arms sounds pretty good... but like... it does lead to a question:

If a goo creature is formed from the thighs up, does it have goo_pool_feet AND goo_pool_legs?

... I like goo_blob and goo_figure though :D

Oh! And, I just thought about this now, but should there be a tag for when a goo creature's body is split into multiple pieces? Would "detached_*" already cover that?

Example being this goo dragon I found that separated its head from its body so it could go out back and service itself.

AbiCordo said:

Look at forum #253325 for some pointers. I finished combing and fixing absorption_vore posts, but need to unfuck what I did to takeover next...

incomplete_form/complete_form

Genjar said:

Creeping goo puddle:
post #1379169 post #1349076 post #1266622 post #1491262

Rolling goo blob:
blobby_(hotel_transylvania) chuchu
post #1207420 post #1504626 post #431981

AbiCordo said:

abadbird said:
Disembodied_* tags also describe detached body parts, in addition to floating, ownerless sex object body parts. Should those also be tagged detached_* if that's what they look like? Perhaps.

Oh. I was under the impression that those were purely for when the owner of said body parts isn't pictured in the image, along with not being attached to anything, while detached_* was for when they were pictured.

Adding on to everything else, a goo creature deliberately altering its form like that is performing one kind of goo_transformation.

It is? But the wiki says that's for when goo / a goo creature is turning someone into something else, or for when a non-goo creature gets turned into a goo creature.

Is there a tag for a character having their arms hanging at the sides of their body?
post #1505035

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Is there a tag for a character having their arms hanging at the sides of their body?

Hopefully not, because that would be a ridiculous tag.

Is there a tag for testes placed over the penis, like in kangaroos?

I just tried "inverted_testes" and "inverted_genitals" but they came up empty and I can't think of anything else to try.

wolftacos said:
Is there a tag for testes placed over the penis, like in kangaroos?

I just tried "inverted_testes" and "inverted_genitals" but they came up empty and I can't think of anything else to try.

There's balls_above_penis but it's barely tagged.

Furrin_Gok said:
There's balls_above_penis but it's barely tagged.

Thank you!

wolftacos said:
Is there a tag for testes placed over the penis, like in kangaroos?

I just tried "inverted_testes" and "inverted_genitals" but they came up empty and I can't think of anything else to try.

'Inverted' might be an unfortunate word- first image that brings to mind for me is 'turned inside-out'. It might be a bit wordy but 'testicles_in_front' might work for this.

It's marsupial_penis. IDK why it's called that, but the wiki and implications check out.

I'd try to rename it, but I'm drawing blanks. You don't need a penis to see the placement of testicles, yet to describe the placement it's best to use the penis as reference... maybe marsupial_testes?

Siral_Exan said:
It's marsupial_penis. IDK why it's called that, but the wiki and implications check out.

I'd try to rename it, but I'm drawing blanks. You don't need a penis to see the placement of testicles, yet to describe the placement it's best to use the penis as reference... maybe marsupial_testes?

I started a tagging venture with balls_above_penis but if that one is wrong I will fix them. I agree that marsupial_penis doesn't sound exactly right since this has to do with the placement of the balls.

For now I'm going to stop tagging until I hear from someone! Whoops.

Edit: Another point against marsupial_penis and even marsupial_testes, rabbits have testicles above their penis.

wolftacos said:
I started a tagging venture with balls_above_penis but if that one is wrong I will fix them. I agree that marsupial_penis doesn't sound exactly right since this has to do with the placement of the balls.

For now I'm going to stop tagging until I hear from someone! Whoops.

Edit: Another point against marsupial_penis and even marsupial_testes, rabbits have testicles above their penis.

For one, as long as you stick with it, there's nothing wrong with tagging things-- its' easy to remove a few tags if we change our mind later, or rename some tags if we decide veg_above_meat is a better tag, y'know?

Anyway-- My problem with balls_above_penis is that this happens in regular images.. uh, all of these are technically penis-less, but that was because -penis gave me more of what I was looking for--so imagine that there are penises, please :)

post #1406429 post #938186 post #736421 post #675439

Feral cats--and other ferals, I imagine--when standing and given close-to-proper anatomy (and not this bullshit post #935311 ), will have their balls close to the anus, while the penis in in a sheath that generally points somewhat backwards while at rest.
So, a standing, anatomically correct male feral cat, would also have balls above penis.

SnowWolf said:
For one, as long as you stick with it, there's nothing wrong with tagging things-- its' easy to remove a few tags if we change our mind later, or rename some tags if we decide veg_above_meat is a better tag, y'know?

Anyway-- My problem with balls_above_penis is that this happens in regular images.. uh, all of these are technically penis-less, but that was because -penis gave me more of what I was looking for--so imagine that there are penises, please :)

post #1406429 post #938186 post #736421 post #675439

Feral cats--and other ferals, I imagine--when standing and given close-to-proper anatomy (and not this bullshit post #935311 ), will have their balls close to the anus, while the penis in in a sheath that generally points somewhat backwards while at rest.
So, a standing, anatomically correct male feral cat, would also have balls above penis.

"Above" in the sense that it's on the side of the penis that goes towards the head, not the anus.

Furrin_Gok said:
"Above" in the sense that it's on the side of the penis that goes towards the head, not the anus.

yessss... but my point was that the tag, as named, easily looks like it could be a pose or position tag describing a relatively common thing, thus that the tag name should be a bit clearer, if possible.

Beside the above mentioned connotation with inside out, would inverted_genitals be a reasonable choice? There could be more arguments against it though.

wolftacos said:
Beside the above mentioned connotation with inside out, would inverted_genitals be a reasonable choice? There could be more arguments against it though.

Other arguments against 'inverted' or 'reversed': Doesn't specify what specifically is reversed. Also if it's just 'genitals'- that's very vague and would appear to include unusual vulva/vagina configurations. Penis_behind_balls might work- could potentially be mistagged for poses but I don't think there are many poses where that would be applicable without a reach.

regsmutt said:
Also if it's just 'genitals'- that's very vague and would appear to include unusual vulva/vagina configurations.

And, if used to tag, say, pussies with clits on the bottom, and the vaginal opening on the top... well, bluntly, that's usually a fuck up on the artist's part rather than a design choice, much like the 'upside down' penis where the head's on the wrong way.

Penis_behind_balls might work- could potentially be mistagged for poses but I don't think there are many poses where that would be applicable without a reach.

I like that one more, but it probably has smiliar issues to the one I brought up

well, let me brain storm at this a moment..

• reversed_penis_and_balls

upside_down_balls_and_penis
balls_over_penis - similar to balls_above_penis, but maybe?? over changes it enough? I dunno, I'm brainstorming, not logicing
marsupial_style_penis_and_balls
marsupial_style_genitals - this could actually be an interesting tag: I mean.. we have canine_pussy and canine_penis, maybe they should imply canine_style_genitals? This is probably over complicating, though. I'm good at that.

Hmm... can't come up with any others and none of those seem like 'the winner', so... hmm..

SnowWolf said:
And, if used to tag, say, pussies with clits on the bottom, and the vaginal opening on the top... well, bluntly, that's usually a fuck up on the artist's part rather than a design choice, much like the 'upside down' penis where the head's on the wrong way.

I like that one more, but it probably has smiliar issues to the one I brought up

well, let me brain storm at this a moment..

• reversed_penis_and_balls

upside_down_balls_and_penis
balls_over_penis - similar to balls_above_penis, but maybe?? over changes it enough? I dunno, I'm brainstorming, not logicing
marsupial_style_penis_and_balls
marsupial_style_genitals - this could actually be an interesting tag: I mean.. we have canine_pussy and canine_penis, maybe they should imply canine_style_genitals? This is probably over complicating, though. I'm good at that.

Hmm... can't come up with any others and none of those seem like 'the winner', so... hmm..

My vote would be for reversed_penis_and_balls. It doesn't seem to have the same issue as balls_above_penis (character is upside down, character has feline genitals and it looks that way, etc), and also doesn't have the same implications as the word inverted which can mean inside out. It also avoids limiting the tag to marsupials, which leaves rabbits out.

The transformation_sequence tag is basically used for the same thing as transformation on this site. But what tag do I use for the sort of transformation sequence that Sailor Moon does?