Topic: Advanced Tag/Wiki Discussion: Specific tags/articles: Usage/Edits, questions, concerns, etc.

opinion on the sackless tag: should it function as a universal tag like clothing or transformation, or should it be restricted anthro and feral mammalian characters only?

Marcopolo22 said:
opinion on the sackless tag: should it function as a universal tag like clothing or transformation, or should it be restricted anthro and feral mammalian characters only?

I think it should be restricted to species that normally have external balls. Tagging it for other things, such as feral male dolphins and snakes is just pointless, like tagging nude for ferals.

So maybe just tag it if the character has a sheath or external penis, but not for cloacas and genital slits?

Genjar said:
I think it should be restricted to species that normally have external balls. Tagging it for other things, such as feral male dolphins and snakes is just pointless, like tagging nude for ferals.

So maybe just tag it if the character has a sheath or external penis, but not for cloacas and genital slits?

it do agree it pointless for some animal, but then there fantasy animals that would be included with their real counter part. for example dragon wether feral or anthro can have both a slit and balls and if it the latter it can look humanoid enough to to become a subjective debate. same goes for mermaids and pokemon which the artist used their imagination to create.

Marcopolo22 said:
it do agree it pointless for some animal, but then there fantasy animals that would be included with their real counter part. for example dragon wether feral or anthro can have both a slit and balls

Then they get the balls tag. I don't see the problem. Tagging genital slits and cloacas as 'sackless' by default is nothing but clutter, especially for the former since cloacas tend to be ambiguous_gender if there's no visible penis.

It's definitely the kind of tag that should've been discussed before you started tagging it. Tagging it only for creatures that could reasonably be expected to have balls (so no cloacas or genital_slits) could make it viable, but I'm not sure about that. Even with strict guidelines for tagging it, this might be too subjective and end up invalidated just like no_balls was.

Marcopolo22 said:
opinion on the sackless tag: should it function as a universal tag like clothing or transformation, or should it be restricted to non_reptilian characters only?

Honestly it'd probably be best as a universal tag. Not all reptilian (or cetacean, or elephant, or avian, or marine, or pinniped, or...) are drawn in a way where being anatomically correctly sackless makes sense visually. If they're drawn with humanoid junk without genital slits/cloaca/other indication that it's supposed to represent how the real animal is, it would be silly to not tag them as sackless just because.

regsmutt said:
Honestly it'd probably be best as a universal tag. Not all reptilian (or cetacean, or elephant, or avian, or marine, or pinniped, or...) are drawn in a way where being anatomically correctly sackless makes sense visually. If they're drawn with humanoid junk without genital slits/cloaca/other indication that it's supposed to represent how the real animal is, it would be silly to not tag them as sackless just because.

Yeah, the type of genitals should be what matters, not the species. For example: an anthro bird with external humanoid penis but no balls should get the tag, whereas an anthro bird with a cloaca should not.

I have little opinion, outside of the random fact that some feral critters are sackless due to being neutered. My cat so lovingly loves reminding me of this, especially right after I wake up.

Not sure how that should play into things, but it sure is a thing.

SnowWolf said:
I have little opinion, outside of the random fact that some feral critters are sackless due to being neutered. My cat so lovingly loves reminding me of this, especially right after I wake up.

Not sure how that should play into things, but it sure is a thing.

That's currently tagged as eunuch, and tends to get mistagged often. It's supposed to only apply if the testicles have been removed, but often gets tagged for characters who simply lack external ones (such as scalies).

So that's an another problem, those tags are likely to end up mixed up. :/

Genjar said:
That's currently tagged as eunuch, and tends to get mistagged often. It's supposed to only apply if the testicles have been removed, but often gets tagged for characters who simply lack external ones (such as scalies).

So that's an another problem, those tags are likely to end up mixed up. :/

Not really:you just need to look for the parent post or check if there stitching in the area in question. I was planning to review it later after this.Plus it like mentioning something specific like eye color for eyes. it seem to me we should exclude all feral that are anatomically correct (except mammals) and anthro that has slits/cloaca.

Genjar said:
That's currently tagged as eunuch, and tends to get mistagged often. It's supposed to only apply if the testicles have been removed, but often gets tagged for characters who simply lack external ones (such as scalies).

So that's an another problem, those tags are likely to end up mixed up. :/

Well. That was a series of tags I coulda gone without knowing about. Thank you :)

There does seem to be a fair bit of overlap, honestly.

I could see there being a ...difference, or clarification between, say, "this character has no balls" and "this character has had his balls removed".. a tag for indicating a scar or stitches in that area, but... I"m not gonna give it much more thought.

If things have healed with no visible scars sackless vs eunuch becomes tag what you know. Granted, visibility of scars is part of the fetish for most people, but some like more realism or else have it as a feature that happened long ago in the character's life. Castration scars also might not be where you'd expect them to be, like if someone is drawing a realistic neutered dog the incision scar will be in front of where the testicles would be.

Is there a way to browse images that used to, but no longer have a specific tag?

regarding the "sackless" tag would that also apply to images like theses that have the balls trimmed away from view post #1374139? Also should the entire crotch be visible to use the tag or will it also apply to images taken from a angle that hides the balls from view but were a sheath or external penis is still visible?

Darou said:
regarding the "sackless" tag would that also apply to images like theses that have the balls trimmed away from view post #1374139? Also should the entire crotch be visible to use the tag or will it also apply to images taken from a angle that hides the balls from view but were a sheath or external penis is still visible?

I'd say no generally. Using it for angles where a character's balls are pulling a schrodinger's cat might turn the tag into the equivalent of -balls. There might be some wiggle-room, especially when you factor in anatomical error.

I would say no. Though there tons of post that are Missing the balls tag when it was shown in the image, the sackless tag should only be used if it visually evident.reasons is it simply false advertisement when users are expecting this when we don't even know if it true. if the angle or clothing leaves it ambiguous then leave it blank. that way we're being precise in tagging.

Split_form

Its wiki mentions really obvious examples, but what about characters with a human/humanoid upper half (with human-like skin) and a furred lower half, for example? Satyrs at least have hooves that make them look "more different" than a basic human top and anthro bottom.

I tagged these with split_form so far:

Now these three from the same artist...

Also, how should the species and body type of split_form characters be tagged? "Centaur should not be tagged with feral or human", so does that logic also mean no split_form character can be human? As for humanoid, biped split_forms, I would think having lots of human skin prevents a character from being an anthro, so humanoid and only humanoid should be correct for most or all split_form bipeds. Like what I said about unrecognizable creatures (aliens and monsters) being feral by default if they are neither anthro nor humanoid, I think this specific class of bipedal creature I've been describing should be humanoid by default because they fail stricter classifications.

I'm kind of frustrated and want a second opinion or reality check lol

After reading the forums some, I see split_form is still an open discussion. I do think it's the right idea, just needs to be standardized.

abadbird said:
Also, how should the species and body type of split_form characters be tagged? "Centaur should not be tagged with feral or human", so does that logic also mean no split_form character can be human?

Correct. Only fully human characters get the human tag, with a couple of exceptions such as humans in mid-transformation (human_to_anthro etc). This is mostly for blacklisting and site relevance purposes (makes it easy to say that 'humans are irrelevant to site').

Keeping them separate also makes it possible to search for combos such as: human centaur and human animal_humanoid. Those would not work if half-humans such as centaurs were tagged as human.

As for humanoid, biped split_forms, I would think having lots of human skin prevents a character from being an anthro, so humanoid and only humanoid should be correct for most or all split_form bipeds.

Also true. Animal_humanoid and such are tagged as humanoid, not anthro. This includes bipeds such as most of the satyrs (unless both halves are anthro: post #1301098, etc).

Like what I said about unrecognizable creatures (aliens and monsters) being feral by default if they are neither anthro nor humanoid, I think this specific class of bipedal creature I've been describing should be humanoid by default because they fail stricter classifications.

There's some monsters that don't fall into humanoid, anthro or feral, but as for split_form: yes, we could treat it as a humanoid subtag with a few exceptions.

I suppose we could make it strictly humanoid-only, but then that'd exclude taurs and some other characters (e.g. post #766672), and I think that'd end up being too confusing.

I'm short on time, so I only skimmed the thumbs. But what you've tagged as split_form seems fine to me. The upper/lower torso split is the main point of the tag, minor features such as horns on the humanoid half should not stop it from being tagged.

Quick question.

post #1410664

Should this post get the "take_your_pick" tag?

UnusualParadox said:
Quick question.

post #1410664

Should this post get the "take_your_pick" tag?

Yeah.

I see take_your_pick as a tag describing presenting + duo/group (or public_use + duo/group). The more demure tags on the presenting spectrum, seductive, inviting, and teasing, should also qualify. In that post, I consider poppy_(lol) and the (untagged?) character to her right at the very least presenting. I see some of the others as inviting. That should satisfy the wiki definition of take_your_pick.

Speaking generally, I do think a person searching for take_your_pick situations would want to see posts like that, regardless of implied consent from presenting spectrum tags.

I see we have take_your_pick, harem, and gangbang. Feels like one tag too many. harem is likely the odd tag out. Can probably shuffle its contents to take_your_pick, gangbang, and concubine (for the Arabic harem motif), then disambiguate to those tags.

Genjar said:
There's some monsters that don't fall into humanoid, anthro or feral, but as for split_form: yes, we could treat it as a humanoid subtag with a few exceptions.

I suppose we could make it strictly humanoid-only, but then that'd exclude taurs and some other characters (e.g. post #766672), and I think that'd end up being too confusing.

1. Which monsters aren't anthro, humanoid, or feral?

2. I mean, split_biped/split_form_biped could be made an implicated subset. biped could finally say something worth saying since many currently tagged split_form humanoids are not bipeds. I'd still keep a general split_form bucket to put all the split body creatures giving taggers grief. Keep them all in one place, then start breaking them down into like groups. Right now, I'm thinking of a leg counting scheme: split_biped, split_multi-legged, split_legless... something like that.

abadbird said:
1. Which monsters aren't anthro, humanoid, or feral?

Formless goo_creatures, many tentacle_monsters, eldritch_horrors, any monstrous animate_inanimates and penis_creatures, etc. Whole lot of the weird stuff.

abadbird said:
I see we have take_your_pick, harem, and gangbang. Feels like one tag too many. harem is likely the odd tag out. Can probably shuffle its contents to take_your_pick, gangbang, and concubine (for the Arabic harem motif), then disambiguate to those tags.

I disagree, each of these covers a different situation.

take_your_pick seems to be a line up of options available for the viewer to pick from-- which sexy Eevee-evolution do you want to touch first?
gangbang is a group of characters all having sex with one character--The Sylveon is having sex with all of the other eeveelutions.

Harem is a closely related concept, but is different. Harem takes it's name from the classical 'harem anime... it's (typically) a male surrounded by (typically, fawning, affectionate) pretty ladies. Or the other way around. Sex is not required. these are Harem posts:

post #1131410 post #1229866 post #1214328 post #877991 post #849265

Harem also has a problem in that it's tagged for a style of clothing, a setting AND a theme. (thankfully, we have harem_outfit. we could something like harem_theme or harem_setting..)

Concubine is a very specific sort of character role. And is NOT exclusive to the arabian-thematic. it's anyone that a man has sex with who he's not married to. Technically. and yes, a harem is full of concubines, but not all concubines are in a harem.

The biggest problem is that concubine-ness is a social-thing. it's very hard to express with any sort of visual signals. Of the 9 concubine pictures on the site, ther'es only 2 that might MAYBE be a concubine. One of them is basically a pretty character who's wearing harem gear. the other has some victorian-french-ish imagery with some emphasis on master-servant slavery roles.

Concubine should probably be eliminated, as a tag.

Genjar said:
Formless goo_creatures, many tentacle_monsters, eldritch_horrors, any monstrous animate_inanimates and penis_creatures, etc. Whole lot of the weird stuff.

My tl;dr is I see all those unknown entities as feral by default if they don't look like something more recognizable. With an evolved understanding, even the machine or magical life of animate_inanimates can be seem as feral. When you don't recognize a creature's anatomy, it's a dangerous wild animal (i.e., a feral). When you finally understand it, it's still an animal (i.e., a feral) that might not be dangerous. I don't agree with the feral wiki's limited definition, and I don't see the harm in expanding feral to include the outliers as long as each creature also gets a more specific species tag.

The fear is people will complain if they see eldritch_horrors and gelatinous_cubes "mixed in" with classic wolves and "classic" pikachus when they search feral, even though it's a faulty expectation... That has to be it. But the standard response is "use your blacklist", so there's no problem for posts that are properly tagged.

Egh. I'm probably done with that topic. The time I just spent doesn't justify foreseeable benefit.

abadbird said:
In popular media, I've only ever seen harem and concubine refer to the same thing; or rather, members of the harem were either already concubines or their sexual autonomy outside the harem was deferred to one or a few people, affording them similar power as a concubine. However, a concubine usually holds different status, lower or higher, in the household than does a blood-related family member. Concubines can belong to a harem along with non-concubine slaves, servants, and family members. Fortunate concubines can and did marry their masters while others members of the harem may have been married off.

Respectfully... Some of your definitions are a bit off..

We can say "concubines" and "harems" had different roles in different cultures, so prescribing one meaning as correct will fail. Best to choose a meaning for each tag and stick with it.

I thought I stated my position rather clearly. I think we should *get rid* of Harem, and replace it with a series of more clearly defined tags:

Harem_outfit - for the clothing:
post #1395324 post #1365044

Harem Setting/location - for a place of cushions, luxury, and extravagance:
post #1185063 post #1195791 post #1267107

Harem Theme/Male_with_Harem/Harem of Women (or female_with_harem, intersex, whatever) - for an individual with many who are focused on his well-being and pleasure:
post #1174266 post #1023575 post #1005507

As for concubine, I don't believe that it is something that can be *easily* determined via looking. Two random characters could be married or not. We don't know. marriage could even not exist in their world. we don't know. Just like we don't assume that two characters fucking are boyfriend/girlfriend/whatever.

My position is simple. You can't look at what's been tagged harem -rating:s and tell me they're not also concubines.

They very probably are, especially the sexually submissive characters, and concubine does not need the presence of a master to justify the tag. The prospective concubine just needs to look the part.

So, what exactly does a concubine look like then?

Also, a group of one gender fawning over an individual of another gender in entertainment media is stereotypically seen as a harem today, with strong sexual connotations. They are all but concubines if they aren't yet.

Or they could be wives. Or maybe no one ever gets married in this world. Or maybe they're slaves.

Here's low-hanging fruit. It's actually probably derogatory (i.e., racist) to refer to anyone in vaguely Arabic "harem" attire, in the modern era, as a concubine, like calling a girl in revealing Western clothing a slut. Some may see it as praise.

Okay, aside of tags for a sec: 99.9% of women will not see slut as praise. If a woman calls herself that, then it might be okay if you do, but just because some people get off on bloodletting and knife play doesn't mean that they don't mind if 'just anyone' cuts them. Consensual dirty talk is okay. Calling a girl on the street a slut is not going to earn you any friends.

Alright, back to porn-land: the 'harem outfit' type of clothing is only vaguely based on 'real clothing'... but the pants, at least, were based on Middle Eastern styles-- after being passed through a Parisian Clothing designer (a particularly famous one, actually).

Likewise, there's no compelling reason to label showy Arabic attire as harem beyond ignorant assumptions. No one's going to fact-check clothing for period-correctness, so this point becomes moot anyway.

Well, I see the point you're getting at--I do!

Just, when you say/imply that everyone who thinks of concubines will think of harems, you're wrong. I actually think of Chinese concubines first and foremost. *shrugs* When I think of the arabian setting, I think of "his harem of many wives."

Egh. I'm probably done with that topic. The time I just spent doesn't justify foreseeable benefit.

I feel ya. No shame in that. It was nice talking with you on it. :)

Honestly, I think that Harem is just a mess and needs to be cleaned up. :)

(looking at the wiki, it's kinda funny. -- the first wiki version says "this is for the location, not the outfit'. 4 years later, someone says "this could be the outfit, OR the setting." 4 years later, someone else came along and edited it to say "one character with multiple partners OR the outfit!" no wonder it's a mess...)

(Should I start another thread about all this or shall we discuss it here, everyone else?)

Counting characters in thought_bubbles and photos.

Do the character counts of these ever combine with the character count of the "main scene" containing them? Is there a simple rule or condition I should consider when determining character count tag(s) for those posts?

When I asked myself if such "picture-in-picture" characters should be counted at all, I reasoned that if they are important to the overall post they are properly tagged and therefore should be counted.

Do non-living things designed after creatures count toward character count?

Are they inanimate_objects?

Should a post featuring only such non-living things be tagged zero_pictured?

So far, I've seen statues and sex_dolls:

post #474782 post #416716

Adding on to the characters-in-thought-bubbles, how do we count, like, pictures of a character at different stages of life, or different forms or outfits? it's all one character, so is it solo?

... as for statues and sexdolls, *I'd* say count them as a duo and solo respectively--they might not be a PERSON, but they're clearly the focus of the image and meant to be appreciated as such.

But tha'ts just my opinion. ... which does raise the wuestion of how one woudl tag someone making use of a sex doll.. hm.. I dunno.

SnowWolf said:
Adding on to the characters-in-thought-bubbles, how do we count, like, pictures of a character at different stages of life, or different forms or outfits? it's all one character, so is it solo?

Examples

post #1422004 post #1421782 post #1417101

The last one is easiest to figure out. Each form is depicted separately with no interaction, and they're not in the same 'scene'. Should be treated the same as multi-images, which'd make it solo.

The other two? Not really sure. Are those even the same character, instead of siblings? The middle one has sort of a team-pose going on, so I'd actually go with group for that.

Here's another tricky one- internal vore shots where one character is literally the background/environment.

post #1407200- I think this one and stuff like it could be comfortably tagged as 'solo'
post #1296327- This... is a bit less clear.

Genjar said:
The last one is easiest to figure out. Each form is depicted separately with no interaction, and they're not in the same 'scene'. Should be treated the same as multi-images, which'd make it solo.

The other two? Not really sure. Are those even the same character, instead of siblings? The middle one has sort of a team-pose going on, so I'd actually go with group for that.

Thanks!

I know in someplaces we advocate tagging multiple things (red hair? Orange hair? Tag both!) while in others we don't (gender, for example)... is solo/duo/group/*focus one of those tags? That middle one, for example, I might tag solo AND group if that were a thing.. hm.

regsmutt said:
Here's another tricky one- internal vore shots where one character is literally the background/environment.

post #1407200- I think this one and stuff like it could be comfortably tagged as 'solo'
post #1296327- This... is a bit less clear.

Clearly, we need a conditionally_solo tag like.... solo_but_with_conditions or Kinda_solo_maybe .... solo_with_benefits? ;)

More seriously... ... solo_focus...? maybe?

Just a small note, so I don't forget about it.

Noticed the new magic_wand wiki entry.
Magic wand, as opposed to a plain regular wand? Something like 99% of wand seem to be of the spellcasting variety, so that's likely something that'll need sorting. Or maybe just an alias.

Genjar said:
Just a small note, so I don't forget about it.

Noticed the new magic_wand wiki entry.
Magic wand, as opposed to a plain regular wand? Something like 99% of wand seem to be of the spellcasting variety, so that's likely something that'll need sorting. Or maybe just an alias.

Not to be confused with the thing that's been tagged repeatedly in the recent posts... aahh.

Hmm

I agree there should probably only be one tag for it... and I'm a little more inclined to 'wand' over magic wand, due to the hitachi thing. That and when it's just a wooden stick, how can we tell if it's actually magic? on the other hand, "magic wand" is a pretty normal way of referring to the thing. On the other other hand... I don't think 'wand' is used to mean really anything else, in modern english, aside of the very specific vibrator, so needing to specify doesn't seem particularly necessary.

Eh. One tag.

Only thing I can think of that might be okay to tag is the classic magician's wand (straight black stick with a white tip) since it's a specific design, but I don't think it'd get used much.

SnowWolf said:
*snip*
Examples

I came up with way too much to say, again:

... as for statues and sexdolls, *I'd* say count them as a duo and solo respectively--they might not be a PERSON, but they're clearly the focus of the image and meant to be appreciated as such.

But tha'ts just my opinion. ... which does raise the wuestion of how one woudl tag someone making use of a sex doll.. hm.. I dunno.

I don't disagree with that approach. That was my first choice, but I wasn't sure how to resolve its implications:

I decided I will count these non-living objects that are clearly the focus of their posts. If a living character occupies the focus too, then I will also tag solo/duo_focus for only living characters, as if the statue/doll/object were a faceless_[character]. If such objects are not the primary focus, then I won't count them at all. That separates background from foreground most of the time. It will work. I can already envision some potential exceptions, but I'll cross those bridges when they appear before me.

regsmutt said:

Here's another tricky one- internal vore shots where one character is literally the background/environment.

post #1407200- I think this one and stuff like it could be comfortably tagged as 'solo'
post #1296327- This... is a bit less clear.

Do what is done for tentacles, I guess. That's already been thought of. If you aren't given an outside view of the eater, then don't count them.

However, I did see a post tagged tentacles solo solo_focus, and the idea intrigued me. In a tentacles_everywhere solo situation, also saying solo_focus doesn't seem wrong, even though it's redundant. That's a way of acknowledging "split" focus for uncountable characters when they are nonetheless a significant part of the post, although the tag police won't like such rabble-rousing.

_________________________________________________________

I want ironclad rules for our most basic tags and tagging logic. I will expend much effort puzzling out gaps in the tagging system until tag logic is solved, but I need the discussions to happen. It's why I've been poking the bear.

abadbird said:
I came up with way too much to say, again:

You're in luck, hun. I am way too sick to have strong opinions and am pretty sure I agree with you basically 95% of this post, this time. ;)

Jesus, yeah I'm way too sick. I just spent a solid minute going "how do I... quote... section?" I figured it out, but I"m not gonna. I will tell you all, I had a very snappy vulcan mind meld joke to 'reply' to the 'my thoughts' section header. .... which means it was probably a terrible joke. So you're lucky.

I want ironclad rules for our most basic tags and tagging logic. I will expend much effort puzzling out gaps in the tagging system until tag logic is solved, but I need the discussions to happen. It's why I've been poking the bear.

Me too. I've got a list of question that honestly I can't find answers to, but I'm a bit embarrassed to ask about.

There's a bit of a failure in the wiki--I"m sure that many tags have wikipages, but what they don't have is interconnectivity. If we pick a new tag like, I dunno. "Sliding_into_heaven_position" that should be put onto every wiki page related to sex positions that there is. If sliding_into_heaven_position is close to "plowing_the_spring_earth_position", then there should probably be links to the other on each page as well as explanations of how they're different.

We could have tables!

I mean, only with sex positions, and not agriculture.

There should be grand lists of reference for "how do I tag this thing?'

I was laying on the couch earlier in a fever dream trying to design an HTML interface for a choose-your-own-adventure-styled tag helper for e621, .... I don't do coding, so it was going terribly, then the computer started to melt and there were bees.... .... Am I hungry? When did I last eat?

I love everyone here. Forgive me if I sound high. I am. Nyquil is my friend.

I think concrete rules are good. I wish there were more people willing to help with wide scale tagging. There are so many things that are good ideas, jsut need blunt manpower to go hoping through the fields and tagging things. don't seem to have much of that, these days :/ poor lil bunnies.

Okay bye.

bedroom_eyes

My question is simple although the answer may not be:

Should bedroom_eyes include (penetrative) sex?

I feel as though its wiki describes an expression that occurs before sex. Also, it implicates seductive which I don't feel is an appropriate tag for a character having sex or looking_pleasured. I feel bedroom_eyes should strictly be an invitation for an inactive partner, although not necessarily blatant enough for inviting. Unfortunately, about 1/7 of bedroom_eyes posts are also tagged sex.

I also want to add that a majority, roughly 1/2, of bedroom_eyes posts are tagged looking_at_viewer, and very many posts under bedroom_eyes -looking_at_viewer simply lack the looking_at_viewer tag. That should be the primary identity of the tag, IMO: a solo/solo_focus character looking_at_viewer or looking_at_partner seductively. That very strong theme is probably why the tag exists.

I want to update bedroom_eyes's wiki to make its use more clear, whatever the answer to my question may be. I'm aware its definition has evolved over time.

Strippers and Prostitution

If the tag stripper is involved, should the tag prostitution also be added since it's something sexual brought on by money? Possibly only when money is visible in the image, or otherwise?

SarahColley said:

Strippers and Prostitution

If the tag stripper is involved, should the tag prostitution also be added since it's something sexual brought on by money? Possibly only when money is visible in the image, or otherwise?

No. "Sexual activity" in the wiki refers directly to sex, not everything that might give someone a boner.

regsmutt said:
No. "Sexual activity" in the wiki refers directly to sex, not everything that might give someone a boner.

Fair enough. Thanks.~
Just wanted to make sure.

Should eye_contact be tagged with looking_at_another as well?

Also, should wet_diaper be questionable or explicit?

So, I think I messed something up regarding the sackless tag and the herm_half_package tag. I was working from an older post and tagging herm pictures without balls as herm_half_package. Took me about 60 pages of entries to notice the sackless tag. ^^;; Anyway, in my scouring, I identified probably 70 entries that were missing sackless that had herm_half_package so I added sackless to those. There are over 2000 pics with sackless so I'm just going to tip my hat to that tag. Can someone with some higher access just delete the herm_half_package tag? It really has no value at this point.

KodaForShort said:
So, I think I messed something up regarding the sackless tag and the herm_half_package tag. I was working from an older post and tagging herm pictures without balls as herm_half_package. Took me about 60 pages of entries to notice the sackless tag. ^^;; Anyway, in my scouring, I identified probably 70 entries that were missing sackless that had herm_half_package so I added sackless to those. There are over 2000 pics with sackless so I'm just going to tip my hat to that tag. Can someone with some higher access just delete the herm_half_package tag? It really has no value at this point.

Already probably on it... I noticed you adding that tag and reported it. Not in a bad way mind you, just that I wasn't sure what to do with the tag (leave, remove, etc) I suggested an alias (accidentally used implication guh!) To herm, but I suppose sackless would work too

I gotta dilemma of my own...

So, as I mentioned in my blip a few minutes ago...

Solo seems to be the most misused/abused tag on e621 as far as when tagging with genders plus or minus the solo tag. I'm finding page upon page upon page of pictures with disembodied peneers and stuff tagged as solo.
male/male solo
female/male solo
intersex solo
Etc!!!
Also finding a lot of posts tagged as as both a real dick and a dildo... confusing, but that's a different story!
(Gtg to bed now thou... ~^~ this sheet takes too long on a kindle fire!)

Got dumb question here.

Does a character where only red fur is on the tail get tagged with red_fur ? (in addition to red_tail tag)

I assume so, but just want to make sure.

Currently red fur is:
"A character or animal, that has its body covered in fur that is the color red, or sections of the fur that is dyed red. (can be light or darker shades of red)"

(which makes it sound like to me like red fur is only dyed-red fur or 100% of fur is red).

potentially change that part of the wiki page to something like:
"A character or animal, that has (all or some) of its body hair (fur) is of the color red (or dyed red)."

Combining this new definition of red_fur with tag_group:anatomy (with tail listed under "Body Tags") means a tail with red fur should get red_fur tag.

( fur wasn't of direct help. )

O16 said:
Referent to the discussion at forum #235229 I elaborated a list of all notable pokémon alternative forms that need to be properly tagged, and eventually subjected to some aliases and implications for standardization sake.

Now I am asking for permission to do the aforementioned tagging and subsequent alias/implication requests.

Notable gender differences

• unfezant
• unfezant_(♂)
• unfezant_(♀)

• frillish
• frillish_(♂)
• frillish_(♀)

• jellicent
• jellicent_(♂)
• jellicent_(♀)

• pyroar
• pyroar_(♂)
• pyroar_(♀)

• meowstic
• meowstic_(♂)
• meowstic_(♀)

alternative forms (unaltered names)

• deoxys
• normal_deoxys
• attack_deoxys
• speed_deoxys
• defence_deoxys

• castform
• normal_castform
• rainy_castform
• sunny_castform
• snowy_castform

• cherrim
• sunshine_cherrim
• overcast_cherrim

• shellos
• east_shellos
• west_shellos

• gastrodon
• east_gastrodon
• west_gastrodon

• rotom
• normal_rotom
• heat_rotom
• wash_rotom
• frost_rotom
• mow_rotom
• fan_rotom

• giratina
• giratina_(altered_form)
• giratina_(origin_form)

• shaymin
• shaymin_(land_form)
• shaymin_(sky_form)

• basculin
• red-striped_basculin
• blue-striped_basculin

• darmanitan
• standard_darmanitan
• zen_darmanitan

• deerling
• winter_deerling
• spring_deerling
• autumn_deerling
• summer_deerling

• sawsbuck
• winter_sawsbuck
• spring_sawsbuck
• autumn_sawsbuck
• summer_sawsbuck

• tornadus
• incarnate_tornadus
• therian_tornadus

• thundurus
• incarnate_thundurus
• therian_thundurus

• landorus
• incarnate_landorus
• therian_landorus

• keldeo
• ordinary_keldeo
• resolute_keldeo

• meloetta
• aria_meloetta
• pirouette_meloetta

• kyurem
• white_kyurem
• black_kyurem

• greninja
• ash_greninja

• zygarde
• zygarde_10_forme
• zygarde_50_forme
• zygarde_complete
• zygarde_cell
• zygarde_core

• hoopa
• hoopa_confined
• hoopa_unbound

• oricorio
• baile_oricorio
• pom-pom_oricorio
• sensu_oricorio
• pa'u_oricorio

• lycanroc
• midday_lycanroc
• midnight_lycanroc

• wishiwashi
• wishiwashi_(solo_form)
• wishiwashi_(school_form)

• minior
• minior_meteor
• minior_core

alternative forms (adaptated names)

• deoxys
• deoxys_(normal_form)
• deoxys_(attack_form)
• deoxys_(speed_form)
• deoxys_(defense_form)

• castform
• castform_(normal_form)
• castform_(rainy_form)
• castform_(sunny_form)
• castform_(snowy_form)

• cherrim
• cherrim_(sunshine_form)
• cherrim_(overcast_form)

• shellos
• shellos_(east_sea_form)
• shellos_(west_sea_form)

• gastrodon
• gastrodon_(east_sea_form)
• gastrodon_(west_sea_form)

• rotom
• rotom_(normal_form)
• rotom_(heat_form)
• rotom_(wash_form)
• rotom_(frost_form)
• rotom_(mow_form)
• rotom_(fan_form)

• giratina
• giratina_(altered_form)
• giratina_(origin_form)

• shaymin
• shaymin_(land_form)
• shaymin_(sky_form)

• basculin
• basculin_(red-striped_form)
• basculin_(blue-striped_form)

• darmanitan
• darmanitan_(standard_form)
• darmanitan_(zen_form)

• deerling
• deerling_(winter_form)
• deerling_(spring_form)
• deerling_(autumn_form)
• deerling_(summer_form)

• sawsbuck
• sawsbuck_(winter_form)
• sawsbuck_(spring_form)
• sawsbuck_(autumn_form)
• sawsbuck_(summer_form)

• tornadus
• tornadus_(incarnate_form)
• tornadus_(therian_form)

• thundurus
• thundurus_(incarnate_form)
• thundurus_(therian_form)

• landorus
• landorus_(incarnate_form)
• landorus_(therian_form)

• keldeo
• keldeo_(ordinary_form)
• keldeo_(resolute_form)

• meloetta
• meloetta_(aria_form)
• meloetta_(pirouette_form)

• kyurem
• white_kyurem
• black_kyurem

• greninja
• ash-greninja

• zygarde
• zygarde_(10%_form)
• zygarde_(50%_form)
• zygarde_(complete_form)
• zygarde_cell
• zygarde_core

• hoopa
• hoopa_(confined_form)
• hoopa_(unbound_form)

• oricorio
• oricorio_(baile_form)
• oricorio_(pom-pom_form)
• oricorio_(sensu_form)
• oricorio_(pa'u_form)

• lycanroc
• lycanroc_(midday_form)
• lycanroc_(midnight_form)

• wishiwashi
• wishiwashi_(solo_form)
• wishiwashi_(school_form)

• minior
• minior_(meteor_form)
• minior_(core_form)

Something that could definitely be worked upon now, I was looking into Jellicent and Frillish images, and realized there's no way to search their forms apart. In the case of Frillish, the only major difference is whether the "hair" is round or pointed*, with blue or pink being pointless due to alternate_colors, but Jellicent has a bigger difference.

*Looked into it again and it looks like they've also got different collars.

Another anthro/feral question. I need an answer because I intend to add missing tags to darkmirage's posts next, which straddle the line.

The simple question is: how should we tag, for example, mienshao, chespin, and floatzel? Are they naturally anthro or feral?

post #294078
This has a mienshao and floatzel, and they appear roughly on-model with official art.

post #613678
This chespin is roughly on-model with official art.

The hard question is: when are fantasy bipeds feral?

Skimming through such pokemon posts, users definitely prefer to tag as feral pokemon that match official art, except for on-model pokemon that already look a lot like anthros, like lucario or braixen. On the other hand, on-model pikachu is usually tagged feral with only anthrofied pikachu tagged anthro, and I rather doubt someone searching anthro wants to see a natural pikachu. So should on-model renditions of pokemon like mienshao, chespin, and floatzel be tagged anthro?

abadbird said:
Another anthro/feral question. I need an answer because I intend to add missing tags to darkmirage's posts next, which straddle the line.

For what it's worth, I've started to look at this here: forum #252302

no where near Chespin or anything, but... I have opened the can of worms.

abadbird said:
Another anthro/feral question. I need an answer because I intend to add missing tags to darkmirage's posts next, which straddle the line.

The simple question is: how should we tag, for example, mienshao, chespin, and floatzel? Are they naturally anthro or feral?

post #294078
This has a mienshao and floatzel, and they appear roughly on-model with official art.

post #613678
This chespin is roughly on-model with official art.

The hard question is: when are fantasy bipeds feral?

Skimming through such pokemon posts, users definitely prefer to tag as feral pokemon that match official art, except for on-model pokemon that already look a lot like anthros, like lucario or braixen. On the other hand, on-model pikachu is usually tagged feral with only anthrofied pikachu tagged anthro, and I rather doubt someone searching anthro wants to see a natural pikachu. So should on-model renditions of pokemon like mienshao, chespin, and floatzel be tagged anthro?

Semi-anthro+feral is the best fit imo. They have basically feral builds and wouldn't look wrong or out of place on all fours.

On a side note the example images for semi-anthro are. Hm. They're mostly chibi/toony anthros (three have little/no feral anatomy at all) with one grey-area/borderline case and only one solid semi-anthro.

regsmutt said:
On a side note the example images for semi-anthro are. Hm. They're mostly chibi/toony anthros (three have little/no feral anatomy at all) with one grey-area/borderline case and only one solid semi-anthro.

Yeah, that should probably be fixed.
I would've changed those thumbs ages ago, but I don't want to meddle with it too much since it wasn't my project. Though the janitor who was handling the tag hasn't been active for a long while.

The previous thumb was post #479009, which was a bit better, except for the rating (wiki thumbs should be safe-rated for e926 viewability, unless the tag itself requires higher rating). Safe-rated posts are also blacklisted less, so that's an another reason why using those is a good idea.

I discovered an odd tag today. Apparently, someone started a male_human tag and applied it to 360 posts as of this writing. I'm unclear about whether that counts a valid tag or not. I doubt it is, though, considering how specific it is and what sort of problems it could cause if applied to other species (with respective genders to match). Has anyone else noticed this tag? And what are your thoughts?

Edit: Another thing to consider, a male_human tag pretty much does the same thing as the tags human_on_* + male_on_*.

UnusualParadox said:
I discovered an odd tag today.

reminds me--I found the quadruped tag the other day and had a ?????? moment.

UnusualParadox said:
I discovered an odd tag today. Apparently, someone started a male_human tag and applied it to 360 posts as of this writing. I'm unclear about whether that counts a valid tag or not.

If it's allowed for one species, it'd have to be allowed for all. Which would be way too many combos and implications (with intersex included) to be manageable.

So yeah, as far as I know, the policy for those is still strict 'no way'.

I only see it tagged once, though. And no new ones in the tag history.

Genjar said:
I only see it tagged once, though. And no new ones in the tag history.

Odd. Someone (probably a janitor or the like) must have already cleaned it out, because I know it was tagged on more pictures than that. But I guess that makes my op moot doesn't it?

SnowWolf said:
reminds me--I found the quadruped tag the other day and had a ?????? moment.

Interesting tag. At one point 'quad' was a common term for what are now called 'ferals'. That aside, not all ferals are quadrupeds (birds, snakes, bugs) and not all quadrupeds are ferals (taurs, aliens, monsters). I think that it's mostly useful for aliens, monsters, and robots that don't always neatly fit into the humanoid/anthro/feral categories.

Regarding fursuits, should we assume the person inside is human if not seen? I'd assume no, but others have been tagging it on several of fuzzt0ne posts. Especially regarding their posts, the fursuits have no sign of actually being a fursuit (no zippers or seams visible)

And then there's masculinity on genital slits, such as in post #1476710
I'm accustomed to the tagging of characters like this as cuntboy, but I was wondering if it should perhaps be tagged as ambiguous_gender instead based purely on the lack of a clitoris.

Thrusting is now up to 1000+ posts, and it's getting very messy. I can understand tagging it for animations, but many are stills with no motion lines or anything that implies thrusting.

post #1460721 post #1377696 post #1371567
...and so on.

Could use a clean-up, if we want to keep it at all.

Can a dickgirl, by definition, be pegged ?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Can a dickgirl, by definition, be pegged ?

The Pegging wiki states:

The term "pegging" is one of the few tags that are very gender-specific; it only refers to the use of a strap-on by a female on a male.

So no.

I kinda feel like the definition should be expanded to all characters who are sans penis (ambiguous/cboy/female) penetrating a male character through use of a strap-on.

darryus said:
I kinda feel like the definition should be expanded to all characters who are sans penis (ambiguous/cboy/female) penetrating a male character through use of a strap-on.

Id agree--especially since that text was added in in 2011 by a relatively random user, rather than an admin or anything.

Plus pegging -dickgirl is way easier than female dickdirl strapon anal_penetration

Some threads relating to pegging:
Imply female penetration
Regarding ″Pegging″ with Female/Female

Suffice it to say, pegging really should be updated.

darryus said:
I kinda feel like the definition should be expanded to all characters who are sans penis (ambiguous/cboy/female) penetrating a male character through use of a strap-on.

Why does it have to be sans penis? What if a male character is using a strapon to penetrate?
And does it have to be a male character? As asked above, what about dickgirls? Why do those with another hole get excluded? If we're going to redefine we should cover our bases, making sure we have our reasons, or else broaden it beyond them.

If it's not female-on-male, it's not pegging.
I wouldn't mind broadening the usage, but if that's done, it definitely needs a different tag name. I'm not a fan of misusing established terms, since that tends to get confusing (especially for new users).

Interestingly pegging -female and pegging dickgirl both have some results, so there's some clean up to do either way. (there aren't many--pegging itself is only about 1300 posts, so...)

Genjar said:
If it's not female-on-male, it's not pegging.
I wouldn't mind broadening the usage, but if that's done, it definitely needs a different tag name. I'm not a fan of misusing established terms, since that tends to get confusing (especially for new users).

Well, then let's start from step one:

• What is the act of using a strapon to penetrate another?
• What's the important part of the tag name? The penetrator or the penetratee? or both?

so like... male_pegging? Female_pegging? Male_being_pegged? female_using_strapon? strapon_penetration? female_on_male_pegging?

SnowWolf said:
so like... male_pegging? Female_pegging? Male_being_pegged? female_using_strapon? strapon_penetration? female_on_male_pegging?

Considering that tags such as female_penetrating already exist, I think that adding a generic strapon_penetration would be most useful for searchability. It'd be consistent with the existing tags too, since we've already created strapon_fellatio.

Ran into a dilemma while sorting out the goo tag.

If the character looks mostly normal but has hair made of goo (goo_hair), do you suppose that it counts as goo_creature? ...or would it simply fall under unusual_hair instead? Maybe both?

Genjar said:
Ran into a dilemma while sorting out the goo tag.

If the character looks mostly normal but has hair made of goo (goo_hair), do you suppose that it counts as goo_creature? ...or would it simply fall under unusual_hair instead? Maybe both?

goo_hair is a tag we have.

Furrin_Gok said:
goo_hair is a tag we have.

Not what I was asking. :/

Is gooey hair by itself enough to make the character count as goo_creature or not? Not sure. It's pretty much the same difference as flaming_hair and fire_elemental, as far as I see it.

Genjar said:
Not what I was asking. :/

Is gooey hair by itself enough to make the character count as goo_creature or not? Not sure. It's pretty much the same difference as flaming_hair and fire_elemental, as far as I see it.

Exactly. Hair doesn't make a person another species, same case as fire hair.

Was looking for a tag for human-style hairy legs, such as:
post #1450618 post #709242 post #1182334

Found leg_hair ^{_{(249 posts)[/sup]} and hairy_legs _{(10 posts)[/sup]} tags. Are there others that I overlooked?Leg_hair is mostly tagged for human-like leg hair, but also for characters who are entirely covered in fur (such as post #1510052). Both tags lack a wiki entry. Hairy_legs might be better for this concept despite the lower tag count, since it seems less ambiguous?Body_hair and other related tags have the same problem. Could just try adding 'not to be confused with fur' to the wiki, I suppose.}

Should hybrids like bat _pony inply their part-species?
...as a matter of fact, are bat ponies even hybrids?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Should hybrids like bat _pony inply their part-species?
...as a matter of fact, are bat ponies even hybrids?

bat ponies are not pony/bat hybrids. they are p same deal as vampire. vampires are not considered base species/vampire bat hybrids either

Eggplant said:
bat ponies are not pony/bat hybrids. they are p same deal as vampire. vampires are not considered base species/vampire bat hybrids either

Got it, thx ^.^

Someone added a wiki entry for future. Is that worth keeping? Seems like most of it could (and probably should) be tagged as science fiction.

Genjar said:
Someone added a wiki entry for future. Is that worth keeping? Seems like most of it could (and probably should) be tagged as science fiction.

Seeing that wiki makes me want to remove it due to ambiguity, but Sci Fi is still kinda vague; where should we draw the line? We allow living machines and similar tags, those could be considered sci fi.

Genjar said:
Someone added a wiki entry for future. Is that worth keeping? Seems like most of it could (and probably should) be tagged as science fiction.

Honestly, I don't like either tag.

Futuristic is a better word than "future" -- after all, there's not really a way to tell if something IS the future unless it says something like "earth, 2030AD" ... it could always be a long time ago in a galaxy far away. but we CAN tell if something is supposed to look "futuristic".

Science fiction....

I dunno. A part of me is especially nerdy and says that being futuristic doesn't make something sci fi. Scifi's typically about a certain type of story, with certain types of themes, blah blah blah.

But I think the bit that gets me most is... this isn't fiction. It's art.

I think my biggest point of discussion would be.. What would we tag the opposite? what do we tag a bunch of wolves in Queen Elizabeth's court? or in kilts with claymores?