Aliasing no_balls → invalid_tag
Link to alias

Reason:

If balls aren't present, don't tag them.

Disagree. no_balls isn't for pictures that don't show balls, it's for pictures that explicitly show that a character has no balls when you would otherwise expect them to.

Wyvrn said:
Disagree. no_balls isn't for pictures that don't show balls, it's for pictures that explicitly show that a character has no balls when you would otherwise expect them to.

Then it's massively underused to the point of redundancy. And there's no wiki for it that says what you say it's for.

I'll add a wiki page for it then, but it's not really necessary, have a look through the tag and that's how you'll see it being used. It's underused at the moment, but that's no reason to get rid of it.

Wyvrn said:
I'll add a wiki page for it then, but it's not really necessary, have a look through the tag and that's how you'll see it being used. It's underused at the moment, but that's no reason to get rid of it.

Another problem I have with it is that it's kind of subjective. It's a big problem with scalie characters especially because most reptiles have internal genitalia so people would expect them not to have balls. Then again there are those who are conditioned to believe that every male should have balls. And then there are those characters like pokémon whom have no canon genital anatomy. I just think it's gonna be a mess if we let the tag stay.

It is a bit subjective, I tried to address some of that in my wiki definition. I figure if species with internal testes are drawn feral, they don't deserve this tag, but if they're drawn anthro, they might.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a little subjectivity though, we still have cute after all.

Wyvrn said:
It is a bit subjective, I tried to address some of that in my wiki definition. I figure if species with internal testes are drawn feral, they don't deserve this tag, but if they're drawn anthro, they do.

I don't think there's anything wrong with a little subjectivity though, we still have cute after all.

I think you did a good job with the wiki over all. Fine then. I'm still not a fan of the tag though and I probably won't be using it, especially since the majority of content I upload consists of explicit male Pokémon pictures. (Which once again I stress have no canon genital anatomy and thus come with no expectations of what "arrangement" they would have.)

Fair enough, it really just comes down to whether you expect the creature to have balls.

I'm more in favor of the original alias.

Even if it's an anthro, I wouldn't expect it to have balls if it's a species that typically has internal genitalia. Such as anthro avians or scalies. Or pokemon.

If were actually going to keep this tag, I don't think it should apply to any characters (anthro or not) that are tagged with genital_slit or cloaca.

And considering that it's currently used for many images such as these...:
post #63150 post #315739 post #259111 post #116702
...I think it's too subjective to keep. First two are ferals. Third one is from an angle that could possibly obstruct the balls if there are any. And the last has no NSFW bits visible at all.

Additionally, doesn't searching for -balls do the same job as this tag?

Genjar said:
I'm more in favor of the original alias.

Even if it's an anthro, I wouldn't expect it to have balls if it's a species that typically has internal genitalia. Such as anthro avians or scalies. Or pokemon.

If were actually going to keep this tag, I don't think it should apply to any characters (anthro or not) that are tagged with genital_slit or cloaca.

And considering that it's currently used for many images such as these...:
post #63150 post #315739 post #259111 post #116702
...I think it's too subjective to keep. First two are ferals. Third one is from an angle that could possibly obstruct the balls if there are any. And the last has no NSFW bits visible at all.

First is a) a dragon, and b) doesn't have strictly defined genitalia. It should not have this tag. Second is the same as the first, except Pokemon. Third should have some sign of the scrotum attached, but it does not. It is a good example of the tag used right. The latter, I feel, is someone being cutesy since he will soon enough not have any balls, more than anything else.

Additionally, doesn't searching for -balls do the same job as this tag?

Nope. -balls just removes any image with balls, not shows images where you expect them to be but they aren't.

Note I'm not for or against. Just educating.

I like this alias

I just skimmed through this thread but isn't this tag used like a synonym for "castration"? Or is castration only reserved for the actual act of castrating someone.
Because if it is the first an alias to castration would serve us better.

NotMeNotYou said:
I just skimmed through this thread but isn't this tag used like a synonym for "castration"? Or is castration only reserved for the actual act of castrating someone.
Because if it is the first an alias to castration would serve us better.

That doesn't seem to be the case looking at the images. Besides, users can just search castration if they want to see that. I still say alias the tag away, but if it stays I guess I won't complain.

I think that castration if like for removing them via devices/torture and that if no_balls is something that would facilitate tagging, then by all means let's use it as long as we have a very good definition

The wiki should define what creatures would typically receive the tag and which ones are always like that, so as to be consistent with how people would expect their results, example: reptiles often have their scrotums inside, which is to be expected

Peekaboo said:
Rainbow, please check this and this. :3
We already have tags for neutered characters.

So castration is the entire genitalia to include the penis and neutered is for the scrotum being removed?

Then we could still have no_balls for images where someone should have them but for some reason just naturally doesn't

Peekaboo said:
Nonono, it's like this.
Castration - The removal or destruction of the testicles
Nullification - The removal of both the penis and the testicles.
Nullo - Tags used for a character with no penis and balls.
Neutered/Neuter/Gelding(Species specific) - Tags used for a character with no balls.

...nullo sounds WEIRD.

Also, neuter may be used as you describe, but it is also used for those who are genderless, and just flat-groined, to my knowledge.

Peekaboo said:
Nonono, it's like this.
Castration - The removal or destruction of the testicles
Nullification - The removal of both the penis and the testicles.
Nullo - Tags used for a character with no penis and balls.
Neutered/Neuter/Gelding(Species specific) - Tags used for a character with no balls.

Interesting set of tags. Clearly I have not dwelled in this subject matter enough. If this list is current and effective, is everyone okay with using it? And aliasing no_balls to...let's see....neuter?

Peekaboo said:
Yes, that'd be swell.
Edit; I also forgot Penectomy which is the removal of only the penis.

Of all the lewd things to forget!

Let's make a proper wiki shall we?

Done

Peekaboo said:
I have never heard neuter being used that way, and if it was, the person who used it didn't understand the meaning of the word. I don't even think we have a genderless tag on here.

https://e621.net/post/show/319717 https://e621.net/wiki/show?title=neuter

"A character who (through surgery, birth, or accident) has no sex organs at all, and is thus genderless. This can refer to someone who was initially male or female but somehow lost their sex organs, as well as someone who has always been sexless. As breasts are considered a distinguishing female trait, most humanoid neuters are masculine in appearance."

Additionally, from a definition standpoint, neuter doesn't only mean that they have been neutered, but also that the subject is neither male or female in gender. Worker bees while having their sexual organ growth suppressed by the queen bee's pheremones are neuter, for example.

Peekaboo said:
@123easy While it may not be the best source of information, wikipedias article on neuter is far more reliable than E6's.
In my opinion, we would need another tag for this group you're talking about, otherwise it would pass through the blacklist. As we do not tag mindsets, it wouldn't make sense to not tag them as neither male or female(did you mean intersex) as they do not become another gender by chopping their ball off. While those bees are neutered chemically, they do not become a third gender, they are simply neutered males.

That is neutering, the act of changing something into a neuter. Something can exist as a neuter without being neutered; If it was born without sexual organs, it is neuter. This is not an uncommon usage, either. It's not a mindset, it's them literally not having any sexual organs naturally. They aren't neutered chemically, as their organs will grow in if they are removed from that location; they are born without sexual organs and the chemical prevents the growth, not removes them. They are not neutered males, and in fact are female when their reproductive system is allowed to grow in.

Peekaboo said:
Welp, guess I'm spending my friday night writing wikis and correcting improper uses of the castration/penectomy tags.

By the way, would you mind aliasing castrated to invalid_tag?
It is a bad tag, especially since we have three tags that already fills the same purpose: neuter, gelding, eunuch

castrated is already aliased to castration

Peekaboo said:
@123easy Makes sense, yet I still don't think that belongs with the neuter tag, a tag like genderless would be far more suitable. Especially since the people who have neuter blacklisted are trying to avoid content containing castrated characters, not characters that never had any genitals in the first place.

Additionally, I forgot to address your links. As you said But then again, post #319717 is still tagged a male because he have male traits, same with a lot of other posts.

Oh I know people will mistag them because neuter has that ambiguity of meaning for our purpose, I'm just addressing the definition of neuter and educating you on it. :3

Note I'm not against using a tag like genderless for that, either; It'd be a very clearcut meaning so wouldn't be mistagged as much.

Peekaboo said:
I'm just being dumb. What I'm trying to say is that it shouldn't be aliased to castration, as an image of a castrated person does not feature any active castration taking place.
The tag itself could be removed imo, as we already have three different tags that mean the same thing.

Would cleaning up the tags and determining an umbrella term if needed suffice for everyone?

Peekaboo said:
Yup, I'd be satisfied. And the umbrella term should be Neuter.

I will do that then!

Peekaboo said:
The castration, nullo and neuter tags are a mess right now. But I'll go through all dick-punishment related posts later tonight and correct them.

Rather than nullo, can we have genderless? Nullo sounds off, and I've honestly never heard it before you used it.

Peekaboo said:
Nullo is a common expression within the castration/nullification/what the fuck my dick is gone community. I have only heard genderless used when describing a character that was born with no genitals at all, unfortunately the nullo tag bundles these in with the ones who lost/got rid of theirs later on. Also, didn't we have a genderless tag ages ago before we decided to alias it to invalid_tag?

Is it really aliased away? That tag would be great to throw into the mix here as either a replacement for nullo or an umbrella tag somewhere

Should I de-alias it then?

Peekaboo said:
Nullo is a common expression within the castration/nullification/what the fuck my dick is gone community. I have only heard genderless used when describing a character that was born with no genitals at all, unfortunately the nullo tag bundles these in with the ones who lost/got rid of theirs later on. Also, didn't we have a genderless tag ages ago before we decided to alias it to invalid_tag?

Then I definitely don't want Nullo. Neuter has been in use widely outside the castration/nullification/what the fuck my dick is gone community. I see no reason to change its usage from its very definition that means exactly the same as this made up word just to fit a niche fetish grouping; Dictionary definition > fetish community definition. Eunuch for those who have been castrated should be perfectly fine. Geldling is a species-specific tag like how vixen is a species specific tag, and should go away, anyways (It's equine-specific). Neuter should continue to be used for those who are genderless. Even if you were castrated, you still had male sex organs originally, so are male. Trying to say otherwise is like trying to say a pegasus isn't a pegasus just because its wings got ripped off. :/ Certainly it can't fly anymore, and can be more easily mistaken for a horse, but it still isn't a horse.

I think I'll make a list and we can snap in terms and see what's best for what

Peekaboo said:
I think you're misunderstanding the tag, the neuter tag does not replace the male tag, it is used on images of males and intersex characters who have been castrated. It does not in any way replace the gender tags themselves.

Those should not be tagged as neuter, they should be tagged as castrated and male or intersex as appropriate for the determining features in the image. If you cannot tell that they are castrated, don't tag it as such. I am not misunderstanding the tag, I am stating firmly that I am against taking its actual definition away and replacing it with a niche castration fetish definition.

And again, a tag like nullo is still the best tag for characters with no genitalia. But since you do not want people who have no genitalia due to surgery, chemicals, magic etc. bunched up with people who have no genitalia due to birth, a tag like no_genitalia would create a very useful cut between the two tags. Nullo being used for the fetish, and no_genitalia being used for the version of the tag you're talking about.

Neuter LITERALLY means without gender (Well, more specifically, "Neither masculine nor feminine in gender; asexual"). Eunuch literally means, "A man or boy who has been castrated". As I said before, I see no reason not to have Neuter be used appropriate to its actual definition and Eunuch be used for its definition.

I'll make my list of tags needed, terms used and possible terms and see what would be a good proposal