Firstly, the easy one

_________________________________________________________________

New tags:

• animal_genitalia
• animal_penis
• equine_penis
• etc.
• animal_pussy
• equine_pussy
• etc.

Basically instead of all the genitalia implying animal_genitalia, they imply it through animal_penis/animal_pussy. Pretty straightforward.

Notes:

• Some stuff doesn't fit in either (genital_slit, cloaca, and possibly pseudopenis).
• Most wikis should be updated already

_________________________________________________________________

Tagging project:

Secondly, a mostly straightforward tagging project. Over the years people started using anatomically_correct in place of actual animal genitalia tags.

• anatomically_correct -animal_genitalia - Add proper genitalia to the things (see animal_genitalia for more info)
• anatomically_correct_pussy -animal_genitalia
• anatomically_correct_penis -animal_genitalia

Notes:

• Teats don't count right now
• Animal head/etc. doesn't count right now
• Not all animals have a respective animal_genitalia tag. Feel free to add new ones but try to stick to broad families when possible (e.g., equine and not horse, canine and not wolf, etc.).
• Currently humanoid_penis should not be tagged as anatomically correct, on a human or not.

_________________________________________________________________

Anatomically_correct_* nuking

And the main point of this thread discussion. This is an odd one, but here are my current thoughts:

• It tends to be a dumping ground for not tagging animal_genitalia (more than animal_genitalia itself)
• The subtags are widely undertagged, and long enough to be a pain in the ass
• Most animal genitalia is found on the original species anyways. The only notable exception is equine penises, which is still ~90% equine.
• I don't see why anatomically_correct as is couldn't be the catchall tag to allow searching for stuff like "non-equines with equine genitalia" (-anatomically_correct -equine equine_penis) or similar.
• Nuking these tags would help prevent clutter in the sidebar

Notes:

• Early on it sometimes get tagged for ferals with less of a focus on genitalia (e.g., teats, horse head instead of anthro, etc.) but nowadays it's almost entirely used for genitalia.
• anatomically_correct_anus doesn't have an animal_anus equivalent to fall back on (puffy_anus is really the closest I've seen, and not only is it undertagged but it isn't exclusive to equine anuses). On the other hand, most animal anuses are kind of hard for most people to identify.

_________________________________________________________________

Thoughts?

I'm definitely on board for this. I'll just squeeze this tagging project in alongside correcting what you reprimanded me for.

parasprite said:
*Not all animals have a respective animal_genitalia tag. Feel free to add new ones but try to stick to broad families when possible (e.g., equine and not horse, canine and not wolf, etc.).

What about the relatively new raccoon_penis tag? It doesn't follow the standard, but there's not many other species in that family and it's far easier to type than procynonine_penis... (It's also missing the implication to animal_penis, btw.)

• I don't see why anatomically_correct as is couldn't be the catchall tag to allow searching for stuff like "non-equines with equine genitalia" (-anatomically_correct -equine equine_penis) or similar.

From what I remember, it actually exists for the opposite purpose: so we can filter out (or blacklist) characters that have mismatched genitalia. Canines with non-canine penis, etc.

But as you said, the various anatomically_correct tags are heavily undertagged and therefore not too useful.

Instead of tagging the 90% that are anatomically correct, maybe we should just create a tag for the 10% and start using that instead. Something like mismatched_genitalia, but with a better name. :P

Genjar said:
What about the relatively new raccoon_penis tag? It doesn't follow the standard, but there's not many other species in that family and it's far easier to type than procynonine_penis... (It's also missing the implication to animal_penis, btw.)

That's one of those "not possible" moments. If we don't have a family tag for it already I wouldn't bother with a family prefix (ursine_penis is the only exception right now).

Genjar said:
From what I remember, it actually exists for the opposite purpose: so we can filter out (or blacklist) characters that have mismatched genitalia. Canines with non-canine penis, etc.

But as you said, the various anatomically_correct tags are heavily undertagged and therefore not too useful.

Instead of tagging the 90% that are anatomically correct, maybe we should just create a tag for the 10% and start using that instead. Something like mismatched_genitalia, but with a better name. :P

That's not a bad idea. The name is really the hardest part here as it would need to both serve the purpose we need it to serve and not sound like a troll tag (e.g., anatomically_incorrect).

parasprite said:
That's one of those "not possible" moments. If we don't have a family tag for it already I wouldn't bother with a family prefix (ursine_penis is the only exception right now).

That's not a bad idea. The name is really the hardest part here as it would need to both serve the purpose we need it to serve and not sound like a troll tag (e.g., anatomically_incorrect).

?

Please, please, please do not remove the anatomically_correct_* tags. The majority of pictures on this site are not anatomically correct. The tags are not widely under tagged, if anything they are overused.

The anatomically_correct_* tags let those of us who don't live on farms or in zoos see how those parts actually are so we can make more realistic drawings. As a common example, the canine urethra opens on the tip of its penis. However most canine artwork has the urethra opening in the center of the head. That is not anatomically correct and your proposed changes would mark it as such.

It is extremely difficult to find any info on anatomically correct sexual organs of random animals online. Please do not destroy one of the few places where such a database exists.

Adding anatomically_correct_body and making anatomically_correct be a non-manually-taggable metatag (I'm not sure what e621's term is for this) of all the anatomically_correct_* tags could make the tags easier to understand. This way it's clear which parts are anatomically correct and still lets someone search or all anatomically correct images.

Edit: I see you've edited the wiki to remove the realistic requirement of the anatomically_correct tags. I think you are misunderstanding these tags and destroying the quality of the database. Please stop.

mrox said:
Please, please, please do not remove the anatomically_correct_* tags. The majority of pictures on this site are not anatomically correct. The tags are not widely under tagged, if anything they are overused.

The anatomically_correct_* tags let those of us who don't live on farms or in zoos see how those parts actually are so we can make more realistic drawings. As a common example, the canine urethra opens on the tip of its penis. However most canine artwork has the urethra opening in the center of the head. That is not anatomically correct and your proposed changes would mark it as such.

It is extremely difficult to find any info on anatomically correct sexual organs of random animals online. Please do not destroy one of the few places where such a database exists.

Adding anatomically_correct_body and making anatomically_correct be a non-manually-taggable metatag (I'm not sure what e621's term is for this) of all the anatomically_correct_* tags could make the tags easier to understand. This way it's clear which parts are anatomically correct and still lets someone search or all anatomically correct images.

Edit: I see you've edited the wiki to remove the realistic requirement of the anatomically_correct tags. I think you are misunderstanding these tags and destroying the quality of the database. Please stop.

Here's the last edit before I touched the wiki (April 2014)

I know it did serve partially as the animal_genitalia tag before those tags were standardized, but its meaning there was never really intended for animal genitalia that is completely realistic or accurate (though I could see how it might tend to get tagged that way). Over time it became more about the species and less about how realistic the anatomy was, so I updated the wiki to clarify that meaning and make it more practical for tagging.

That being said, I see your point about the value of having a tag more about anatomical accuracy. I'm thinking we might be able to come up with an alternate solution for this that doesn't carry as much tagging baggage (for instance realistic_animal_genitalia, detailed_animal_genitalia, or something similar).

Somewhat off-topic: I thought you might be amused at post #520621 and find pool #3711 interesting

Ok, I won't whine if there are realistic_* or similar tags. That is far easier to type. Though I'd still prefer if there were realistic*penis/pussy tags unless (realistic_genitalia animal_pussy) and related combinations will work well. That might not work well on multiparty images where only some creatures have realistic_*, but tagging would be easier for most images. Not that e621 can do this, but if you could tag tags that would be ideal.

Anatomically correct would then be free for properly formed animals and that's a lot of pictures, as mentioned above. I think a term like mixed_species would work better than alternate_genitalia.

I don't think detailed_animal_genitalia would work well as it sounds like it refers to high res or well drawn genitalia.

You managed to change my mind in a single post. Good job.

Ok. I'm on it.

and what about rabbit penises? How should i tag them?

Newstone we have a problem.
if only just the penis anatomically correct the system still adss the anatomically correct tag when it's not correct just the penis. So please remove this tag implication.

Xesnogard said:
and what about rabbit penises? How should i tag them?

I'm not too familiar with rabbit genitals but as far as I'm aware there isn't a tag for that right now. I'd say to go with lagomorph_penis for simplicity.

Xesnogard said:
Newstone we have a problem.
if only just the penis anatomically correct the system still adss the anatomically correct tag when it's not correct just the penis. So please remove this tag implication.

anatomically_correct is primarily used for genitalia right now, it doesn't actually refer to body type. We don't really have a tag for "body type is realistic to the actual animal", but I think feral might be closer to what you are looking for here.

parasprite said:
I'm not too familiar with rabbit genitals but as far as I'm aware there isn't a tag for that right now. I'd say to go with lagomorph_penis for simplicity.

anatomically_correct is primarily used for genitalia right now, it doesn't actually refer to body type. We don't really have a tag for "body type is realistic to the actual animal", but I think feral might be closer to what you are looking for here.

Ok thanks!

This thread doesn't mention humanoid_pussy. I have mentioned in other threads that I think that tag should be used where it doesn't belong. On ferals for example. As things are now, anthros usually have humanoid pussies so there is no need to tag them with it, just like with humans. Semi-anthro is an exception as they lie in between.

Sorrowless said:
As things are now, anthros usually have humanoid pussies so there is no need to tag them with it, just like with humans.

How do you easily find/blacklist posts of human/anthro characters with humanoid vaginas?

I'm not sure why there's a tendency to ignore TWYS in cases like these

'X is the default, so let's not tag it for X'

Tag What You See, not Tag What's Outside N Sigmas

--

Is it because the tags become 'useless' if the common and uncommon are grouped together?

Just make a new tag for one or both! They're free. (kinda )

Overzealous minimalization will end up being the death of utility here one day [citation needed]

If someone searches for humanoid_pussy, they expect to find humanoid_pussy, not 'humanoid_pussy, but only for not X'

If they want a specific tag, then try a specific search

This rampant minimalization ends up actually making thing even more convoluted in the long run because you suddenly have to take different demographics into account (ie 'group x should get preferential treatment because they're more prominent')

And when you're brining politics into tag policies, it's never going to end well

titanmelon said:
How do you easily find/blacklist posts of human/anthro characters with humanoid vaginas?

rating:explicit anthro -animal_genitals
or
rating:explicit human -animal_genitals
That should do it in the tag blacklist.

I just wanted to give my .02. Having something like humanoid_pussy available would make it a lot easier to tag other types of pussy more completely, if only because there would be less untagged to go through.

Sorrowless said:

rating:explicit anthro -animal_genitals
or
rating:explicit human -animal_genitals
That should do it in the tag blacklist.

Try pussy -animal_pussy instead, it's more targeted.

parasprite said:
I just wanted to give my .02. Having something like humanoid_pussy available would make it a lot easier to tag other types of pussy more completely, if only because there would be less untagged to go through.

Try pussy -animal_pussy instead, it's more targeted.

Right now the pussy tag acts as a tag for humanoid pussy unless a animal genital tag is present. You are right. This raises an issue if different kinds of pussy is included. Animal styled pussy also receives the pussy tag. So the tags doesn't reveal that humanoid kind is present as well. As redundant it would be to tag humanoid_pussy in the majority of cases, it would open the possibility for people to find posts where the human styled pussy is included with an animal styled kind. With this logic, should humanoid_penis also be tagged every time?

Your tag suggestion isn't being specified to anthro only.

Sorrowless said:
With this logic, should humanoid_penis also be tagged every time?

It already is.

The main problem with humanoid_pussy is that many users clearly don't know what a human pussy looks like. And some are overtagging it for any kind of vertical slit, even though those are common among various animal species.

So we end up with silliness such as anatomically correct ferals being tagged with humanoid_pussy.

Genjar said:
It already is.

The main problem with humanoid_pussy is that many users clearly don't know what a human pussy looks like. And some are overtagging it for any kind of vertical slit, even though those are common among various animal species.

This has been mentioned before, but I rarely find such cases. I do however rarely find cases where humanoid_pussy is tagged on anthro/humanoids.
People have become good with tagging humanoid_penis, but not so much on humans. I guess they find it needless.

why make it so specific.
Just leave it penis and pussy. Use Occam razor. Some specialities, like knots(bulbous_gland?) or penal_spines (the spikes\hooks of some species) can come as additional tags. (equine penis or cervine penis would relate to specific, telescopic and foldable anatomy). Creating a tree of tags would just complicate\confuse search. and would you tag anatomically corect male skunk with canine_penis tag? Non-speacialist woudn't see diference between of penises of all caniforms, they all have bulbous gland, just different shape. There are slight differences, and dogs are the only freaks there that get "stuck".

The main issue that even not all artists know how things look. Frankly I thought,that anatomically correct thingy was relating to that and not being replacement of rating signature.

Swiftkill said:
why make it so specific.
Just leave it penis and pussy. Use Occam razor. Some specialities, like knots(bulbous_gland?) or penal_spines (the spikes\hooks of some species) can come as additional tags. (equine penis or cervine penis would relate to specific, telescopic and foldable anatomy). Creating a tree of tags would just complicate\confuse search. and would you tag anatomically corect male skunk with canine_penis tag? Non-speacialist woudn't see diference between of penises of all caniforms, they all have bulbous gland, just different shape. There are slight differences, and dogs are the only freaks there that get "stuck".

The main issue that even not all artists know how things look. Frankly I thought,that anatomically correct thingy was relating to that and not being replacement of rating signature.

I'm against making things overly specific as well. However, I just realized that tagging humanoid penis/pussy on a post where it is present among the animal kind can be useful.

Sorrowless said:
This has been mentioned before, but I rarely find such cases.

At least fourth of it is currently mistagged. Simple generic unidentifiable slits don't belong under the tag, those are just basic pussy. And since humanoid_pussy has been cleaned several times in the past, it must get mistagged more often than it's tagged right.

Genjar said:
At least fourth of it is currently mistagged. Simple generic unidentifiable slits don't belong under the tag, those are just basic pussy. And since humanoid_pussy has been cleaned several times in the past, it must get mistagged more often than it's tagged right.

That's a shame.

Genjar said:
At least fourth of it is currently mistagged. Simple generic unidentifiable slits don't belong under the tag, those are just basic pussy. And since humanoid_pussy has been cleaned several times in the past, it must get mistagged more often than it's tagged right.

Can you do my a favor and describe to me what a human pussy looks like? Serious question in regard to penis tags exiting based of characteristics rather then species. Also considering the wiki presently doesnt tell you what makes it human and what doesnt

Ruku said:
Can you do my a favor and describe to me what a human pussy looks like?

I'm not sure if I can, at least not without resorting to jargon such as 'to quality as humanoid pussy, it should at minimum have visible clitoral prepuce and labia minora that are similar to those of humans.'

Searching for 'pussy diagram' on Google image search might be more effective.

Genjar said:
I'm not sure if I can, at least not without resorting to jargon such as 'to quality as humanoid pussy, it should at minimum have visible clitoral prepuce and labia minora that are similar to those of humans.'

Searching for 'pussy diagram' on Google image search might be more effective.

well your going have to describe it in some way and add examples(existing posts) to the wiki, because just saying its human-like is not enough(we already get that much from the tag's name) to cut down on mistags...

Ruku said:
well your going have to describe it in some way and add examples(existing posts) to the wiki, because just saying its human-like is not enough(we already get that much from the tag's name) to cut down on mistags...

I do find it odd that this is necessary. But alas, it is only right for a wiki page to have details and explanations.

Genjar said:
I'm not sure if I can, at least not without resorting to jargon such as 'to quality as humanoid pussy, it should at minimum have visible clitoral prepuce and labia minora that are similar to those of humans.'

Searching for 'pussy diagram' on Google image search might be more effective.

Ruku said:
well your going have to describe it in some way and add examples(existing posts) to the wiki, because just saying its human-like is not enough(we already get that much from the tag's name) to cut down on mistags...

that already incomplete because _humans_ not always have all that visible (not unless you "look" with hand). Too various shapes. I actually downloaded for art site a guide about that (if I'll find it, I'll post images to e621, maybe, and link here? can we post guides?). it's long and complex. Both male and female genitalia are varous in shape that you can't really define them until you go deep into anatomy. In that, humans have wast variation count compared to other species.

Swiftkill said:
that already incomplete because _humans_ not always have all that visible (not unless you "look" with hand). Too various shapes. I actually downloaded for art site a guide about that (if I'll find it, I'll post images to e621, maybe, and link here? can we post guides?). it's long and complex. Both male and female genitalia are varous in shape that you can't really define them until you go deep into anatomy. In that, humans have wast variation count compared to other species.

If the guides are drawn and show animal parts or anthro parts relevant to this site then ya.
And humans arnt any more variable then other animals. but to counteract mistags from variations in what is perceived human i suggested to tag by characteristics rather then species. As noted above such tags do exist for penises(barbed_penis, flared_penis, eta..)

Ruku said:
If the guides are drawn and show animal parts or anthro parts relevant to this site then ya.
And humans arnt any more variable then other animals. but to counteract mistags from variations in what is perceived human i suggested to tag by characteristics rather then species. As noted above such tags do exist for penises(barbed_penis, flared_penis, eta..)

Yeah, and if we went into specifics, "flared" penises would turn into folding (cervine, dolphin and some others, they have _muscle_ to move it) and telescopic -equine. I don't think we should crete a scientific tree of classifications, just let it be WISIWIM(S) (what I see is what I mean (search))