I was wondering if I could get some advice about tags, specifically the anatomically_correct tags. I've noticed they are a bit lacking on many posts. So I would like to help out where I can, but I quickly ran into confusion over what a sheathed animal counts towards.

As an example, If there is a dog with a fully erect canine penis. It of course gets:
anatomically_correct_penis
anatomically_correct_genitalia
and
anatomically_correct

Inversely, if the dog has a featureless crotch, it gets nothing.

But what if the dog was fully sheathed. Dose it still get the anatomically_correct_genitalia tag? Or is it only anatomically_correct?

Like wise, if the dog has his penis tip exposed, dose it get anatomically_correct_penis?

(All of the above assumes that, of what you can see, there genitals resemble the species they are on. And are not of an obviously wrong species.) Any feedback on this matter is apricated. Thanks.

hamsterboy said:
But what if the dog was fully sheathed. Dose it still get the anatomically_correct_genitalia tag? Or is it only anatomically_correct?

A sheath is considered genitals (it implicates animal_genitalia, which implicates genitals), so if the sheath is depicted anatomically correct for the species, anatomically_correct_genitalia should apply. What may hamper this is if the sheath is a common generic depiction, rather than one that's accurate to the real-life species... I don't know if that would still count for anatomical correctness.

hamsterboy said:
Like wise, if the dog has his penis tip exposed, dose it get anatomically_correct_penis?

penis_tip implicates penis, so if what you can see of the penis is anatomically correct, it'd make sense for anatomically_correct_penis to apply along with the <species>_penis tag.

watsit said:
To summarize:
Sheath tag implies genital tag, therefor a sheath anatomically_correct charter gets the anatomically_correct_genitalia tag.

Ya, that was the logic I was working off of. It makes sense considering how e621 is structured. My one hesitation is the fact that a sheath is not technically genitalia in of it self* hence my hesitation.

*Huh, in editing this comment, I was unable to find a source that states a sheath is not genitals. Either I'm wrong or I did not look hard enough.

watsit said:
What may hamper this is if the sheath is a common generic depiction, rather than one that's accurate to the real-life species... I don't know if that would still count for anatomical correctness.

Hence my clause at the bottom of my question.

hamsterboy said:
(All of the above assumes that, of what you can see, there genitals resemble the species they are on. And are not of an obviously wrong species.)

obviously, if you have a horse with a canine sheath, that would not count. With that said, I can somewhat see your point. It seems canines and felines are the most controversial(?) species. as a few examples, canines are sometimes depicted with long fuzzy, torpedo like sheaths.
post #1814899 post #2363638 post #2296443 post #2312554 post #2209329

Other times, they seem to have shorter, more torus like shape.
post #2401084 post #2399944 post #2284007 post #2236710 post #1578565

Of course, the top row should count, but I'm not sure about the bottom row. If it dose not, where dose one draw the line?

watsit said:
penis_tip implicates penis, so if what you can see of the penis is anatomically correct, it'd make sense for anatomically_correct_penis to apply along with the <species>_penis tag.

Same logic, although funny enough, the penis tip itself (with the exception of equines (and maybe some others that I can't think of right now)) in almost all species, it resembles a small pink cone. So for the sake of argument, I'd say if it gets the anatomically_correct tag and there is a penis tip, I'm just going to add the anatomically_correct_penis tag as well. Also, if there is a knot_in_sheath then it becomes a no-brainer.

Any way, Thanks for responding so quickly and just being an all-around cool dude(?) so Thanks.

I'm going to revive this thread because this question is still relevant to the topic:
post #2776885
As far as I know, we don't know what dinosaur penises, pussies, anuses, or cloaca would look like. Is there some other feature that can be considered anatomically correct? This particular image got tagged without even having a pubic boot but would that count?