Just to cover myself, all of the following is within the context of a lore tag. Any species not visually taggable as alien should remain out of the standard tag, and preferably be moved to a separate wiki.

I changed my mind on parts and re-wrote this while low on sleep and being distracted a lot so it's probably still wonky as heck. I just wanted to plug as many holes as I could.

watsit said:
What would classify as an alien in that case? As mentioned before, the term "alien" just refers to something "belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing". It's a question of scope beyond that. If it's "a creature/species not from Earth", quite a lot would classify, especially for settings that don't take place on Earth (Luke Skywalker is an alien).

So, what would alien_(lore) mean and apply to? If it's just "the creator said they're alien, then they're tagged alien", that doesn't seem very useful to the tagging system. The creature's wiki would probably be a better place for that information. Also, should it apply to whole species, or specific characters? Would a wookiee born on Earth still count as an alien?

Based on current the opening line of alien:
An extraterrestrial creature not in traditional myths and not native to the planet Earth.
For the purposes of a fantasy-based setting, terrestrial should be considered to mean (if available) the primary planet within the source media, unless Earth is also a significant location.

• Alien status should be considered at species level, not character.
• An alien transposed into an otherwise Earth-only setting is still an alien
• Settings and artwork featuring primarily species identical to an Earth (including mythology) or otherwise terrestrial species must contain reasonable evidence that they are intended as a separate species.
• If this is unclear, assume not alien
• Artwork+sources must contain reasonable indication a depicted character is not simply in cosplay or disguise.
• The Doctor = alien (but not TWYS)
• Judy Hopps in The Doctor cosplay = not alien
• A domestic_cat in The Doctor cosplay = not alien

• Wookiee: Established non-terrestrial origin + not in traditional myths = alien
• Yeti: Mythological = not alien
• Fox_McCloud & Co: Standard anthro cast but in space. = not alien
• Star_Wars humans: Humans in space = not alien
• Caitian: Established non-terrestrial origin = alien
• Lombax: Non-Earth creature in a space-based setting = alien
• ”The artist says so” blue cat = not alien

I want to pull more examples from your other post in the lombax thread.

[...] What makes turian an alien but not khajiit? Why's troll_(homestuck) an alien, but not mizutsune? They're all species that don't originate on Earth, are creatures designed with aspects of real animals but aren't themselves real animals, etc.

*turian: Established non-terrestrial origin = alien
*khajiit: Nirn is effectively a fantasy-terrestrial stand-in = not alien
*troll_(homestuck): Established non-terrestrial origin = alien
*mizutsune: I'm led to believe the Monster Hunter world is a standard fantasy-terrestrial stand-in = not alien

I still think the "this tag should only be added if the creature looks like an alien" shit of the wiki makes no sense, since aliens don't actually exist there's literally no frame of reference. you could argue that pretty much any feature of any character other than that of feral animals or humans is alien.

what makes vulcans more alien than hylians?
what makes majins more alien than goo_humanoids?
what makes puazi more alien than demons?
what makes martians more alien than endermen?

I don't think that the alien tag is something that we can really ever tag solely using TWYS, maybe with the exception of stuff that exists in real life mythology, like roswell_greys.

we shouldn't be holding the alien implication back from tags just be cause something isn't "alien enough".

I agree with darryus that alien makes no sense in a TWYS context. We don't know what an alien looks like in reality, and I doubt there's any consistency with extra-terrestrial life even if we could find it (just look at the diversity of life on earth, a single planet, and there's supposed to be a distinct look for life on all other life-bearing planets?), so there's nothing to base "what you see" on to tag it properly. At best it could refer to something like a roswell_grey or xenomorph, so should be disambiguated with those being suggested.

Lore-wise, it still feels arbitrary. The setting a creature is depicted in shouldn't really factor into it because different movies/games/books/etc can have different settings for the same characters and spacies. If Lombax, as an anthro creature designed as an amalgamation/chimera of different animal features, appeared only in a terrestrial non-space-based setting, they wouldn't be alien even if they then started appearing in space later on? But since they first appeared in a space-based setting, they are aliens?

E.T. only appeared in an Earth setting, but is undoubtedly of extra-terrestrial origin in that story, while Cthulu also has extra-terrestrial origins in Lovecraft's stories despite being on Earth. One is as much an alien as the other, it seems to me. Fox McCloud & Co aren't alien despite having extra-terrestrial origin because they're just anthros in space, but Catian are alien despite being just anthros in space because they have extra-terrestrial origin?

Then you have things like The Forgotten Realms, where real-life Earth is a distinct planet in the setting separate from the main world of (Abeir-)Toril, where most of the focus is placed, which itself is in one of multiple planes of existence, each with its own native life forms. Where's the line for alien there?

The Doctor is an alien, but not Luke Skywalker, despite both looking like humans, having powers and abilities real humans don't, and coming from non-Earth places. Luke's home planet is as much Earth-like as Chewbacca's (in as much as their home planets have one or more biomes that are reflected here on Earth), and neither of their home planets are the focus of the setting/story, but Chewbacca is an alien while Luke isn't?

Drawing distinctions like these doesn't seem very practical or useful for tagging to me.

I do still agree that it makes less sense as a TWYS species tag, particularly when most already have a unique species tag.

I think there are still minor issues with the counter-arguments, but I'm satisfied it's reached a point that if I can't clear it up with the post I already made, it's likely too finicky for reliable tagging.

(I almost went into Warhammer Fantasy, where official media contains gags suggesting it's contained within Warhammer 40k - then has the world end and suddenly everyone are spirit-beings. (Notably including the race who ARE aliens in base WHFB lore and escaped the end of the world by leaving in their spaceships)

Tagging dilemma: Should this post be tagged

• male/andromorph, and left at that?
• male/null, as the character appears to be fantasy-natural nullsexed?
• male/andromorph null_(lore), under the assumption that they're an andromorph with an obscured pussy, but they're lore-null.?
• Posting here because there are no tags for fantasy-natural lore-null characters. See vivi_(inline) for another example of a fantasy-null character.

I want to note there are tags for both nullo and null, with the former wiki seeming to place more focus on when a character originally had genitals, and the latter seeming to place importance on the character just not having any. This seems like it would cause confusion, but at the same time there likely should be a distinction between a gendered character who has undergone nullification and a character who is lore-nullgendered.

This is probably going to be further confusing since site terminology has little separation between sex and gender, (with even the lore tags effectively being sex-but-you-can't-see tags ^{excepting the trans tags},) combined with some natural-null characters still presenting with a binary gender.

'kay. So, I've been directed to this thread as the place I should request new lore tags, but I have not been informed how to actually request them. How does one go about that?

'cause this picture has shown me that there's need of a "maleherm_(lore") tag...

jacob said:
'kay. So, I've been directed to this thread as the place I should request new lore tags, but I have not been informed how to actually request them. How does one go about that?

'cause this picture has shown me that there's need of a "maleherm_(lore") tag...

It already exists: maleherm_(lore)

watsit said:
It already exists: maleherm_(lore)

Wonder why it doesn't show up on the list, when I search for *_(lore) on the wiki, then...odd.

jacob said:
Wonder why it doesn't show up on the list, when I search for *_(lore) on the wiki, then...odd.

Because the wiki page does not exist. The tag exists, but it won't show up in the wiki until the page is made.

jacob said:
Wonder why it doesn't show up on the list, when I search for *_(lore) on the wiki, then...odd.

By the way, if you want to know if a tag exists or not you can also go to the tags tab and search there.

brother_and_sister -> lore

On a seperate forum there's been a discussion regarding original species, along the lines of avali, sergals, yinglets, etc. Been looking for a way to distinguish altered versions from non-altered versions of the species. I'd like to propose a tag 'Lore_accurate_species' as suggested by "https://e621.net/users/158680", or something along the lines of 'Altered_species_(Lore)' or 'Customized_species_(Lore)' be created, and moved into lore category, for the purposes of searching for, or blacklisting out, posts that represent the original species accurately.

My english is not great, so forgive me for any writing mistakes.
Could we have the active/inactive status from the pool gallery, but as lore tags?
I just think it would make it much easier to look for completed comics of specific themes since (as far as I know) its not possible to look for tags in the pool gallery.

valac said:
My english is not great, so forgive me for any writing mistakes.
Could we have the active/inactive status from the pool gallery, but as lore tags?
I just think it would make it much easier to look for completed comics of specific themes since (as far as I know) its not possible to look for tags in the pool gallery.

I think those would be better for the meta category but it's a good idea!

Perhaps it'd be better to just display the pool status in the pool navigation bar with its name? Would be a lot less error prone than having to update all comic pages as a comic goes in and out of hiatus, or ends after being completed. Tagging each individual page as 'active', 'inactive/incomplete', 'inactive/complete', would be a problem particularly for longer comics that have hundreds or thousands of pages.

Maybe alternate_species: "when different species are shown in contrast to a character's normal species" should be a lore tag.
I wouldn't have known that these two were the same character if the owner didn't say so... post #2569389 post #2569420

could you add more sex tags?
like male/male_(lore) male/female_(lore), gynomorph/male_(lore), etc...?

I would like to request the creation of body_swap_(lore).

I posted this question the other day in the #tag-discussions Discord channel:

How exactly should body_swap be used? I thought that it was supposed to function like a lore tag, but recently someone removed it from a few posts to which I added it and after looking through the currently tagged posts I noticed that most of them have explicit visual indications that the characters have swapped bodies. There is nothing in the wiki, so I would like to know the general consensus.
Additionally, which tag should be used for solo posts depicting a character in another character's body?

This was @laranja's reply:

usually for me, body swap needs visual evidence rather than... 'oh look, he has blue eyes, which belongs to the other character, and vice versa'... I remember uploading a few posts by yupa that featured a red dragon doing a lot of body swaps
but I only tagged bodyswap on pics that had some comment about the body being swapped, like a pictographic of it

I believe that having a tag for body swaps that are not explicitly stated could be useful. Since character tags themselves are a partial escape from TWYS, knowing when a character is in another character's body could be relevant to subjective experience.

The bulk update request #117 (forum #293174) has been rejected by @Millcore.

I wanted to suggest the creation of a couple new lore tags (maybe a catagory or tags?):

lore:snuff, lore: death and maybe lore: cruilty

There's quite a few images and image pools on this site that get really extreme in terms of content. As an example, this pool: https://e621.net/pools/23942

Now the first few images can't be tagged with anything like snuff or death because it's just not there, yet. Later on however there is. I've noticed a few users would really like to filter out images in this pool based upon something like snuff tag or cruilty tag but it's just not there. If we added one or more of the above tags it could really help people filter images without compromising the tag what you see policy.

The cruilty tag in particular seems like a useful tag to put into lore, because as a consept it's hard to catagorize like a normal tag since it's so contextual, but would seem to fit well in the lore idea.

Please let me know if you want further justifications or evidence for the need the need of these tags.

jockjamdoorslam said:
Same with canon_couple.

I came here for that one. It seems to be "general" but shouldn't it be lore? Likewise should there be a non-canon tag?

I ran into this when tagging some Circles comic characters. K-9 made some specifically non-canon images of them and when thinking of tagging it as such I saw several general category tags with various spellings from people trying to do similarly with other images. Off hand there are some Adastra-related images made by Haps that are not meant to be taken as canon as well. I suppose that becomes tricky in that case. For my Circles example, it's 100% confirmed non-canon as a cheating situation that was originally going to be written in, but they changed course when they decided that cheating wasn't in character. So the images of that infidelity are confirmed outright non-canon. For my Adastra example it brings up more ambiguity on how such a tag should be named though. Haps art of various characters isn't necessarily non-canon but his posting what amounts to his own fan art despite being the official artist is specifically stated to not confirm that anything is canon.

I'm not sure if that wall of text is formed well, but these are all examples of what the lore category is for, right?

In the short term I'd at least suggest that canon_couple be moved to the lore category, rather than general.

zeorp said:
I came here for that one. It seems to be "general" but shouldn't it be lore? Likewise should there be a non-canon tag?

I believe the idea of a non-canon tag has been floated around. It would help clean up the mess that is the fan_character tag (when non-canon characters are interacting with canon characters or involved in canon events), as well as help indicate when a picture is depicting some kind of "what if" scenario or a retconned idea of the creator's own setting. I wouldn't be opposed to it if it helps get rid of fan_character, though it could use some discussion.

As for canon_couple, I'm kind of leaning on that it should be invalidated. There are already tags like romantic_couple to indicate characters visibly acting in a way that implies them being in a relationship, but tagging that characters are a couple "in lore" can get tricky, since some stories may have characters entering or leaving relationships at different points in the story, leaving it unknown if a given random picture of them is when they were or weren't a couple. It can also result in spoilers, as it could alert viewers to characters (not) being in a relationship as a result of something they haven't seen yet.

watsit said:
I believe the idea of a non-canon tag has been floated around. It would help clean up the mess that is the fan_character tag (when non-canon characters are interacting with canon characters or involved in canon events), as well as help indicate when a picture is depicting some kind of "what if" scenario or a retconned idea of the creator's own setting. I wouldn't be opposed to it if it helps get rid of fan_character, though it could use some discussion.

As for canon_couple, I'm kind of leaning on that it should be invalidated. There are already tags like romantic_couple to indicate characters visibly acting in a way that implies them being in a relationship, but tagging that characters are a couple "in lore" can get tricky, since some stories may have characters entering or leaving relationships at different points in the story, leaving it unknown if a given random picture of them is when they were or weren't a couple. It can also result in spoilers, as it could alert viewers to characters (not) being in a relationship as a result of something they haven't seen yet.

I can see that perspective on the spoilers.

I don't think the "when" is particularly important though. If a couple was at any time canon, then the tag applies. Obviously I'm a fan of the tag so I have some bias there, though. It just seems like exactly the kind of thing that would be categorized as lore.

This convinced me non-canon couple would be a bad idea though, indeed. canon_couple, if defined by my "at any time" idea, never can become false if it was once true. non-canon_couple would be a nightmare tag that could easily be invalidated at any time for a set of characters. I did not think that one through.

s-35 said:
Virgin and defloration are 100% lore. There is no reasonable visual way to determine virginity or loss thereof.

penguinempire-dennis said:
Defloration is usually visibly indicated by a hymen breaking

Virgin should still be made a lore tag if it's supposed to be tagged by dialog.

furrin_gok said:
Virgin should still be made a lore tag if it's supposed to be tagged by dialog.

Dialog is information within the image. If I understand it, lore tags are about things not in the image at all.

As to the virgin thing, other than the hymen thing being an unreliable indicator originated in a misogynistic patriarchal view of women as property, virgins aren't only female and someone can still lose their virginity without vaginal penetration anyway.

I think it's likely true most virgin tags are from outside information though, or from assumptions based on character expressions and behavior.

I suppose it's an entirely different can of worms whether virgin applies to individual context for particular sex acts too, such as a bicurious male doing it with another male for the first time.

zeorp said:
Dialog is information within the image. If I understand it, lore tags are about things not in the image at all.

As to the virgin thing, other than the hymen thing being an unreliable indicator originated in a misogynistic patriarchal view of women as property, virgins aren't only female and someone can still lose their virginity without vaginal penetration anyway.

I think it's likely true most virgin tags are from outside information though, or from assumptions based on character expressions and behavior.

I suppose it's an entirely different can of worms whether virgin applies to individual context for particular sex acts too, such as a bicurious male doing it with another male for the first time.

Only "Dialog tags" can be tagged from dialog, which is a very specific list like profanity or english_text. "Virgin" is a state of being, not a form of text.

Referencing the thread on forced_orgasm and consent: https://e621.net/forum_topics/31686

Can we create a consensual_(lore) tag? I think that would make it easier for people that like explicitly consensual things to find works, and also might help with the "is a forced orgasm non-consensual or not" debate that is going on currently.

Also people could blacklist it if they really want to see grungy stuff for some reason idk

EDIT: As Sharque suggested we could also have non-consensual_(lore) and any other variations, but I think consensual and non-consensual should cover most.

sentharn said:
Can we create a consensual_(lore) tag?

Consent is presumed, as otherwise the vast vast majority of posts would need to have that tag. It would be better to have a tag for known non-consent, as it's the less-frequently needed tag, and leave consensual untagged.

watsit said:
Consent is presumed, as otherwise the vast vast majority of posts would need to have that tag. It would be better to have a tag for known non-consent, as it's the less-frequently needed tag, and leave consensual untagged.

I disagree. I'm specifically envisioning the pictures that we're discussing in the forced orgasm thread, where forced orgasm implies non-consent. consensual_(lore) is a useful tag to have.

sentharn said:
I disagree. I'm specifically envisioning the pictures that we're discussing in the forced orgasm thread, where forced orgasm implies non-consent. consensual_(lore) is a useful tag to have.

That would cause tag confusion, if forced indicates non-consent but consensual_(lore) indicates consent and they're both on the same post. People looking for non-consensual acts would search forced but end up finding consensual_(lore) stuff mixed in. The idea some people are floating around in that thread is to disassociate forced from meaning non-consent, so a post with forced would be presumed consensual force unless questionable_consent or some other tag for non-consent is present.

watsit said:
Consent is presumed, as otherwise the vast vast majority of posts would need to have that tag. It would be better to have a tag for known non-consent, as it's the less-frequently needed tag, and leave consensual untagged.

I imagine a tag like that would work the same as the gender lore tags… not needed unless the actual tags contradict the lore. So no, it would not be needed on the majority of posts, only posts tagged with forced, rape, or questionable consent in which the artist or commissioner states that the situation actually is consensual. It would be needed only on a fairly small number of posts.

scaliespe said:
I imagine a tag like that would work the same as the gender lore tags… not needed unless the actual tags contradict the lore. So no, it would not be needed on the majority of posts, only posts tagged with forced, rape, or questionable consent in which the artist or commissioner states that the situation actually is consensual. It would be needed only on a fairly small number of posts.

That would cause difficulty finding consensual and non-consensual posts, then. If you want to blacklist non-consensual posts, you couldn't just blacklist forced for instance, because some may also be consensual_(lore). If you want to search for non-stuff, you couldn't just search for forced either. It would also mean posts like post #1205088 wouldn't be tagged consensual_(lore) because it's not and shouldn't be tagged forced/non-con, even though that seems to be the kind of case it's trying to cover (even if forced is changed to not indicate non-con anymore, then we're back to presuming consent, and consensual_(lore) is still unneeded as there would be no tags indicating non-consent to contradict it).

IMO, all the consent-related tags should be together, whether it's as general questionable_consent/forced tags, or lore dubious_consent_(lore)/non-consensual_(lore) tags. And while I can see the argument for making them lore tags, since it's hard to really "see" (non-)consent, it is occasionally possible, like with post #3062567. And splitting them between general and lore tags would make them unwieldy for their purpose.

watsit said:
That would cause difficulty finding consensual and non-consensual posts, then. If you want to blacklist non-consensual posts, you couldn't just blacklist forced for instance, because some may also be consensual_(lore). If you want to search for non-stuff, you couldn't just search for forced either.

That's just an adjustment needed to the blacklist or search depending on whether you care about artist intent. Forced becomes forced -consensual_(lore).

watsit said:

And while I can see the argument for making them lore tags, since it's hard to really "see" (non-)consent, it is occasionally possible, like with post #3062567. And splitting them between general and lore tags would make them unwieldy for their purpose.

And this post is clearly one that needs the forced tag, but not the consent_(lore), since it's pretty cut-and-dry. The non-lore tags are applied when the post appears to fit under TWYS for people just searching for fap-fodder, and the (lore) tags are added when clarification is called for, just like we do for gender tags.

How do I propose new Lore tags?

You make a forum post in this thread, make your case, and we will judge it.

[/quote]
Does "illusion" count for a lore tag?
For example: if i have an image of wich a character is in a situation generated by their mind or an external force, or it is implied the viewer is seeing distorted/altered variants of the real contents of the image

What if there were lore tags for what program a digital piece was made in? For example, currently blender_(software) and source_filmmaker are almost entirely images that were made using those programs, violating TWYS. Could be fun to have lore tags for people interested in digital art along with their interest in furry porn, lol. According to the wiki the current blender_(software) tag is supposed to be used when the blender logo or assets are used in the image, so there could be two tags per program, one copyright tag for logos/assets/UI and one lore tag for all images made using that program.

Edit: Alternatively they could be meta tags instead, if meta tags don't necessarily have to follow TWYS

I'd like to +1 for adding married_couple to the lore list. I'd like to tag more of my images with my husband as such and it looks like most of the images in that category have more lore reasons for the tag than not.

Would it make sense to make an additional young_(lore) tag for characters which are known in canon to be young? octavia_(helluva_boss) seems like a really good candidate for teenager_(lore).

Obviously, blanket implications have their own sets of problems (AUs and other divergence, multiple instances of a character), but this can sort out the type of people who complain about supposedly underage characters "but aged up" being used in NSFW media.

The main contention against this I can think of is involving 1st evolution or "baby" pokemon. Hopefully not the case as pokemon don't have ages, as you can keep a highly leveled 1st evo for pretty much forever.

Has there been a single new lore tag in two years or is this always been a containment thread?
I wanted to link-in lore tag discussion for nullsexed characters ^{(i.e. null characters who weren't a sex in the first place)} but if nothing happens here I might as well not bother.

Granted it is in the realm of sex-and-gender tagging which ^{besides incest} is the only thing the lore category is doing.

I was messing around with spectags for narrowing down searches and noticed on coyote, there were a few tagged werecoyote, and thus automatically got were werecanid werecanine tags. What even qualifies for 'were'? I feel like it should be both a real tag and a lore tag. Mid-TF, like https://e621.net/posts/210110 is obviously a were transformation, but https://e621.net/posts/188511 has no TWYS reason to be a 'were'. It's only got 24 hits so it's not much of a tagging fix, if needed, but werewolf has 15k and I'm wondering how the were[species] tag is even used. These days furries tend to think it means "big and shaggy" like https://e621.net/posts/2250372 but that hardly means anything, if anything I'd say a Lon Chaney human or quad wolf wearing a shaggy belt would qualify more TWYS than "big, hunchbacked, and scary". If the artist/character owner is uploading it as 'were' with no indication such as a full moon (and even then I don't think that should count or any 'wolf outside with the moon visible' image would count) then shouldn't that be a lore tag?

Edit: I searched the thread once before but I missed that someone did mention this on page 1. No response though.

ok, does the tag unknown_age count as lore?

genderfluid_(lore) tag maybe? tried to add it to a post recently and was mildly surprised it wasn't available to even be one site due to its nature of not existing and the suffix being mod only.

it's been a couple years now and lore tags have settled in a bit, can we talk about moving the crossgender tags over? (and, by extension, the other "character is diffrent than their canon appearance" tags like aged_up/down and alternate_species.)

darryus said:
it's been a couple years now and lore tags have settled in a bit, can we talk about moving the crossgender tags over? (and, by extension, the other "character is diffrent than their canon appearance" tags like aged_up/down and alternate_species.)

I was about to say that too

Tried to add demiboy_(lore) to post #3512664 and it apparently isn't a thing.

(source)

I propose having a adult_(lore) tag for characters that look young but is actually adults.

bill_furray said:
I propose having a adult_(lore) tag for characters that look young but is actually adults.

Already exists.

Is there a Couple lore tag yet? or an equivalent? Just to show 2 characters are together romantically

kemonophonic said:
romantic_couple

Note, that only applies when they're being visibly romantic (cuddling, holding hands, etc). That shouldn't be applied to characters that are canonically a couple but which aren't making a romantic showing.

I think a lore tag of "estrogen_(lore)" and "testosterone_(lore)" would help tag posts where a character has gone through hormonal changes.

This is different from regular trans lore tags because there is currently a gap in tagging that fit femboys with breasts, or puffy chests resembling breasts, resulting from hormones such as estrogen.

scakk said:
Is there a Couple lore tag yet? or an equivalent? Just to show 2 characters are together romantically

+1 I love this idea :) romantic_couple_(lore) and married_couple_(lore) perhaps. I think married_couple was mentioned earlier in this thread as well.

Edit: I forgot about polyamory, not always just two characters - maybe romantic_relationship_(lore) and married_(lore)?

How about we also add father_(lore) and mother_(lore)? For cases like Bandit from bluey getting the father tag, even while solo.

I came across a post with the "siblings" tag but the characters don't looks like siblings at all. Would a lore tag be more appropriate for this? Based on the wiki for lore tags it would make sense to include this somehow. There's no incest depicted but perhaps in the future it would make sense to have their relation documented somewhere.

Also, under the Lore catagory on the Tags page, I barely see any of the tags included in the OP. Perhaps someone could edit the OP to note that it's no longer going to be updated if this is the case and to use the tag page instead.

m3g4p0n1 said:
How about we also add father_(lore) and mother_(lore)? For cases like Bandit from bluey getting the father tag, even while solo.

bapho_met said:
I came across a post with the "siblings" tag but the characters don't looks like siblings at all. Would a lore tag be more appropriate for this? Based on the wiki for lore tags it would make sense to include this somehow. There's no incest depicted but perhaps in the future it would make sense to have their relation documented somewhere.

Everyone agrees that the family tags should be lore, but nobody wants to put in the hours of work required to unpick this shit.

The most recent and comprehensive discussion is at topic #36496, including a list of affected tags.

leomole said:
agender should probably be a lore tag.

dripen_arn said:
agender_(lore)

yes this is because i upload chikn nuggit

Agender lore would be very fitting for characters who simply identify as "they" or "it", as opposed to other nonbinary pronouns.

I wonder if we should have something for the "third gender" pronouns as well? Things like Xe/xim.

Similar to the alien discussion above, these species tags always seem to me like they should be lore since they don't really work with TWYS:

• were - Unless the transformation is seen, how do we know this is a were character? How are post #3873077, post #3870150 were if there's nothing in the image indicating they're one?
• deity - What visual indicators are there to suggest a character is a deity?
• hybrid - Not an issue with hybrid itself, but it should have a lore counterpart. So many "hybrid" characters don't actually look like hybrids at all. Same with mixed_breed.
• succubus - How is a succubus visually distinct from just any other demon?
• minkmen_(one_piece) - How are these visually distinct from just normal anthros? I'm sure other franchise species have this same issue.

I'm sure you can start to get the idea.

Inspired by topic #21583 - what if we had fursona_(lore)? Does anyone else think it's neat to see people's fursonas? How they see themselves? I think it's cool, I would enjoy and use this tag

wat8548 said:
Everyone agrees that the family tags should be lore, but nobody wants to put in the hours of work required to unpick this shit.

The most recent and comprehensive discussion is at topic #36496, including a list of affected tags.

More for anybody not in the know, but in one of my tickets where I was being stupid, NMNY implied that moving the family tags over from general to lore is a work in progress.

It's just a matter of when, really.

Edit: Annnnnd it's done.

I came across a post that the source description stated had a symbiotic entity, but without that context it's really hard to tell. I'm wondering if something like symbiotic_(lore) could be valuable? Or maybe there's a better term for that, it's not really my thing.

The bulk update request #5691 has been rejected.

change category virgin_male (0) -> lore

Reason: Requested on the basis that male virginity per se falls squarely outside of TWYS.

EDIT: The bulk update request #5691 (forum #379376) has been rejected by @xofaton.

Lore tags need to have the _(lore) suffix, you can't just change the category of a general tag to lore like that.

xofaton said:
The bulk update request #5691 has been rejected.

change category virgin_male (0) -> lore

Reason: Requested on the basis that male virginity per se falls squarely outside of TWYS.

also, both of the tagged posts only contan characters who are having sex, and, I'm pretty sure that, by definition, they wouldn't be virgins in that case.

sipothac said:
also, both of the tagged posts only contan characters who are having sex, and, I'm pretty sure that, by definition, they wouldn't be virgins in that case.

Technically speaking, in lore the characters could be virgins and the image itself is non-canon. Though tagging "virgin" doesn't really make sense anyways unless the picture contains definitive proof that a character is a virgin, which is very hard to do without having the character straight up admit it in the image. And virgin_(lore) wouldn't really help anyone tagging wise anyways, I feel.

The bulk update request #5691 (forum #379376) has been rejected by @xofaton.

sipothac said:
also, both of the tagged posts only contan characters who are having sex, and, I'm pretty sure that, by definition, they wouldn't be virgins in that case.

Point well taken. Presuming there were a use to be had for a virgin_male_(lore)--as well as a broader virgin_(lore)--tag, it wouldn't be how the corresponding general tag is currently applied.

In view of the posts currently tagged virgin_male, I propose male_loss_of_virginity_(lore) and loss_of_virginity_(lore).

Edit: Better yet, I think a defloration_(lore) tag would be more ideal given the heavy use of the corresponding general tag, provided there's agreement that the term isn't female specific.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
Technically speaking, in lore the characters could be virgins and the image itself is non-canon.

Image lore overrides canon if it's different. If a character is a virgin in their series canon, but is depicted as a non-virgin in the image, a virgin_(lore) tag wouldn't apply. Just like if a character is male in their series canon, but is depicted female in an image, male_(lore) wouldn't apply (and female_(lore) may if they couldn't be tagged female for some reason).

watsit said:
Image lore overrides canon if it's different. If a character is a virgin in their series canon, but is depicted as a non-virgin in the image, a virgin_(lore) tag wouldn't apply. Just like if a character is male in their series canon, but is depicted female in an image, male_(lore) wouldn't apply (and female_(lore) may if they couldn't be tagged female for some reason).

Really? The lore pages don't define that well at all, they explicitly say the opposite, actually.

Tag for characters that are deemed to be or identify as male by the artist, regardless of the physical or biological sex they are depicted as in the post.

Emphasis, mine. It explicitly states the lore tag is used regardless of what the post depicts them as.

definitelynotafurry4 said:
Really? The lore pages don't define that well at all, they explicitly say the opposite, actually.
Emphasis, mine. It explicitly states the lore tag is used regardless of what the post depicts them as.

The important bit is "deemed [...] by the artist". If a character is tagged male because all you see is their penis, but the artist says they're a herm, they're tagged herm_(lore) despite the post tagging them as male. That's true even if series canon says the character is female, since the artist deemed otherwise.

watsit said:
The important bit is "deemed [...] by the artist". If a character is tagged male because all you see is their penis, but the artist says they're a herm, they're tagged herm_(lore) despite the post tagging them as male. That's true even if series canon says the character is female, since the artist deemed otherwise.

I see now. The artist would specifically have depicted them as not a virgin if they are having sex.