Aliasing no_nipples → invalid_tag
Link to alias

Reason:

Search for -nipples instead. And to answer post in forum #81749. No_nipples is not the same category as eyeless, legless, headless, faceless, etc. We don't have eye, leg, head, face and similar tag. We're tagging either presence of something or lack of something. Not both of them. If there was no nipples tag then this tag would be okay, but not when nipples is valid tag.

We're distinguishing between more than just "nipples are visible in image" and "nipples are not visible in image" though.

Images that clearly show that a character lacks nipples are a relatively common thing, are a fetish, and deserve a tag to separate them. "nippleless" might be a better tag for it than "no_nipples" though.

I do think nippleless fits in the same category as eyeless, legless, headless, faceless, etc. Tags for eye, leg, head, and face do exist, they're just not applied as consistently as nipples since this is such a sexually-focused site.

In all these cases the positive tag (nipples, face) indicates the feature is explicitly shown to be present on one of the characters, and the negative tag (no_nipples, faceless) indicates the feature is explicitly shown to be missing from one of the characters. An image with neither the positive or negative tag does not explicitly show whether the feature is present for any of the characters, and if one character is explicitly shown to have the feature and another character is explicitly shown not to, you would use both the positive and negative tags.

You need both a positive and negative tag to distinguish between all these situations.

Genitals are a bit different though since they affect gender. The no_pussy → invalid_tag alias shouldn't have been created. It should have gone to neuter as per the gender tagging flowchart.

Wyvrn said:

I do think nippleless fits in the same category as eyeless, legless, headless, faceless, etc. Tags for eye, leg, head, and face do exist, they're just not applied as consistently as nipples since this is such a sexually-focused site.

head is aliased to invalid tag. Eye and leg should probably also be aliased, unless it's something like post #359321, but I'm sure that there is better name for this. Actually leg is in pending aliases for a month now.

indicates the feature is explicitly shown to be missing from one of the characters.

I really fail to see how this distinction can be useful to anyone here. It's only going to create mess with tags for no good reason.

No_pussy was already aliased, so I don't think that admins see need for that distinction either.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Search for -nipples instead.

That would just get you a bunch of clothed characters.

Wyvrn said:
Tags for eye, leg, head, and face do exist, they're just not applied as consistently as nipples since this is such a sexually-focused site.

Those should be aliased to invalid_tag. We only tag nipples because they're usually covered by clothing. And because they're porny.

Really? You don't see characters with missing body parts to be a significant feature worth incorporating into the tagging system? We already do that with genitals via the neuter tag, so I think that admins do indeed see it as a distinction worth making.

I concede that the positive tags for some of the body parts are of limited usefulness, but the negative tags - eyeless, headless, faceless - are still here because they are important, they indicate an abnormality. Just because we're keeping the positive tag around in the case of nipples doesn't mean nippleless is any less useful.

You can't just replace it with -nipples, they're not at all the same thing.

Wyvrn said:
Really? You don't see characters with missing body parts to be a significant feature worth incorporating into the tagging system? We already do that with genitals via the neuter tag, so I think that admins do indeed see it as a distinction worth making.

I concede that the positive tags for some of the body parts are of limited usefulness, but the negative tags - eyeless, headless, faceless - are still here because they are important, they indicate an abnormality. Just because we're keeping the positive tag around in the case of nipples doesn't mean nippleless is any less useful.

You can't just replace it with -nipples, they're not at all the same thing.

Lack of head is significant feature. Lack of nipples may be result of artist style, or the fact that artist simply forgot to add them - they commonly forgot that, for example, Rainbow Dash has wings after all.

Also this tag raises some questions, like: should anthro male scalies without nipples get no_nipples tag? After all feral reptiles do not have nipples, and I don't think that you want to tag them with this tag. But they are part human so maybe it should be expected from them to have nipples?

I'd rather get rid of neuter tag either. It has very few pics, and most of them should be tagged ambiguous_gender instead.

Sure, a certain character might be nippleless because of artistic style, forgetfulness, or (far more likely) because the artist intended to draw them that way. That doesn't change whether nippleless is a valid tag.

And just because the neuter tag is rarely used doesn't mean we should get rid of it. That doesn't have any bearing on whether it's a valid tag. What else do you propose to tag images like these with?
post #262837 post #89156 post #151688

Heavily against removal of Neuter as a tag, as it is NOT ambiguous in the least if someone does not have any sexual parts where normally sexual parts are on display. Ambiguous gender is for when we can't tell because parts aren't showing and they aren't masculine or feminine enough through secondary sexual characteristics to definitively declare a character as male or female. Mikhaila when clothed for example, would be ambiguous, but if she were unclothed and there were no pussy or dick, would be neuter.

Wyvrn said:
Really? You don't see characters with missing body parts to be a significant feature worth incorporating into the tagging system? We already do that with genitals via the neuter tag, so I think that admins do indeed see it as a distinction worth making.

I concede that the positive tags for some of the body parts are of limited usefulness, but the negative tags - eyeless, headless, faceless - are still here because they are important, they indicate an abnormality. Just because we're keeping the positive tag around in the case of nipples doesn't mean nippleless is any less useful.

You can't just replace it with -nipples, they're not at all the same thing.

The negative tags aren't what is being discussed there, though; Just the positive tags, which I'll be honest seem of little use comparatively.

End result: alias no_nipples to nippleless, so it stays in format with the other parts missing tags, which is what the tag was meant for and was used for. Additionally, with almost 600 posts under that tag, it's obviously got quite a few people that enjoy that fetish; As tags are primarily for ease of search in conjunction with accuracy, it most definitely should NOT be invalidated.

123easy said:
The negative tags aren't what is being discussed there, though; Just the positive tags, which I'll be honest seem of little use comparatively.

End result: alias no_nipples to nippleless, so it stays in format with the other parts missing tags, which is what the tag was meant for and was used for. Additionally, with almost 600 posts under that tag, it's obviously got quite a few people that enjoy that fetish; As tags are primarily for ease of search in conjunction with accuracy, it most definitely should NOT be invalidated.

The negative tags are what we've primarily been discussing though, aren't they? By negative tags I mean the ones that indicate a feature is not present.

Wyvrn said:
The negative tags are what we've primarily been discussing though, aren't they? By negative tags I mean the ones that indicate a feature is not present.

In the post you were responding to specifically, is what I was referring to.

I started no_nipples because I like boobs with no nipples. I thought I described it well enough with something to the effect of characters lacking nipples which would be expected to have them.

I thought about nippleless, but thought it would be too cumbersome and somehow less clear, but if it's consistent with headless, I'm fine with a rename.

-nipples is, as has been pointed out, inadequate for this kink because clothed characters are assumed to have nipples.

I was a little surprised to see guy pictures being marked as no_nipples, but if they're explicitly not there, they're definitively missing.

Well, tag's already gone, so no big deal now.

...Seriously?

nicethings.png

siedler said:
naturally_censored should do the job

Nnnot really: natural censorship is when a limb or fur covers something that's there. No_nipples was a boob that clearly and unambiguously was a smooth nippleless boob that really would have been expected to have a nipple.

This picture is not naturally censored, and is inadequately distinguished from others with -nipples:
https://e621.net/post/show/77601/big_tail-blue_eyes-blue_hair-breasts-dancing-despi

Lute said:
Nnnot really: natural censorship is when a limb or fur covers something that's there. No_nipples was a boob that clearly and unambiguously was a smooth nippleless boob that really would have been expected to have a nipple.

Nah, what you're describing is convenient censorship. Not naturally censored.

Naturally censored is tagged for missing nipples or pussies, at least if the wiki is to be believed. It always seemed like an odd tag to me, but I guess it has some uses... *shrug*

Genjar said:
Nah, what you're describing is convenient censorship. Not naturally censored.

Naturally censored is tagged for missing nipples or pussies, at least if the wiki is to be believed. It always seemed like an odd tag to me, but I guess it has some uses... *shrug*

That's right. Convenient censorship is when things get in the way to censor things conveniently and natural censorship is just when the body itself conceals things such as thick fur

no_nipples sounds like a reasonable enough tag to me. Same with related tags like no_penis/no_pussy (or both aliased to no_genitalia or something). I assume the original reason for making them invalid tags was something along the lines of "we tag what we see, not what we don't see" but then that relies on everyone tagging nipples on every post with nipples, and then you have to use breasts -nipples, all for one rare phenomenon (nippleless breasts). It's just way easier to use a single tag to describe it.

tony311 said:
no_nipples sounds like a reasonable enough tag to me. Same with related tags like no_penis/no_pussy (or both aliased to no_genitalia or something). I assume the original reason for making them invalid tags was something along the lines of "we tag what we see, not what we don't see" but then that relies on everyone tagging nipples on every post with nipples, and then you have to use breasts -nipples, all for one rare phenomenon (nippleless breasts). It's just way easier to use a single tag to describe it.

Along the same lines as muscular dickgirls or w/e, if it's rare enough, tag it, basically, right?

tony311 said:
no_nipples sounds like a reasonable enough tag to me.

Well.. It was actually hard to get anyone to agree on how to properly tag those: for instance, should the ponies be tagged with no_nipples? What about your avatar, or feral pokemon, or non-mammal anthros?

I'd say that it's easier to just tag nipples wherever they're visible.

Genjar said:
Well.. It was actually hard to get anyone to agree on how to properly tag those: for instance, should the ponies be tagged with no_nipples? What about your avatar, or feral pokemon, or non-mammal anthros?

I'd say that it's easier to just tag nipples wherever they're visible.

Cases where you expect nipples, but there are none, a la earlier Tailsrulz, would probably be the easiest way to address it. Not the nipple tuft, but the just plain lack of nipple. Same with genitalia. It's meant to denote the absence of what is supposed to be there that isn't just tucked away behind some sort of covering.

Yeah. It's usually pretty clear when there should be nipples, but there aren't. So not when there are no breasts, or whatever, just when there are plain, uncovered breasts with an odd blank space where nipples usually are.

tony311 said:
Yeah. It's usually pretty clear when there should be nipples, but there aren't. So not when there are no breasts, or whatever, just when there are plain, uncovered breasts with an odd blank space where nipples usually are.

Like this, I presume?

post #96240