I've recently used unseen_character for a case that was not a faceless_* character, nor a disembodied_* body aprt. Basically is there a tag for pictures where there is clearly a character that is not drawn, but evidence (cuM/object flying into the fram, dialogue...) makes it clear they are present?

post #556569

As far as I know, that would be tagged solo + solo_focus. I'm not aware of any other tags that overlap in purpose with that.

Personally I would never use solo_focus on a pic where no one else is actually drawn (the use cases for that, such as tentacles, are already giving me trouble!), so I'll stick to unseen_character ^_^;;

Tentacles don't count as anything unless they are attached to a character. That wouldn't actually get solo_focus.

Yeah, it might be useful to have a tag for those. (Myself, I'd find it useful for narrowing down some of my projects.)

I had been thinking of tagging those as implied_character (based on Nyteshade's old suggestion), but unseen_character seems like a good name.

I wouldn't tag anything as both solo and solo_focus, those are mutually exclusive by the definitions. It's either one or the other (unless multiple_images etc).

It's just as well that I rarely use it. I find unseen_character far more intuitive for this usage though.

So if unseen_character is used in an image it will be considered a character when tagging? In that case would the example image post #556569
get tagged with duo and solo_focus?

DragonFox69 said:
In that case would the example image post #556569
get tagged with duo and solo_focus?

I'd think it'd still be solo. There's only one *in* the image, and we're suppose to tag what we see.

We see one character: solo
We see evidence of an off-image character: unseen_character

Nyteshade said:
I'd think it'd still be solo. There's only one *in* the image, and we're suppose to tag what we see.

We see one character: solo
We see evidence of an off-image character: unseen_character

I think that might be easier for images that may or may not have more than one person talking. I would personally have a hard time tagging a single character as group just because they are having a conversation with other people outside of the image.

That being said, it's a brand new tag. It's nice that we can get this settled at the offset.

It's not just conversation either, there are images with other types of interaction between the characters like this one post #79320
where cum is coming into the pic from unseen_characters.

DragonFox69 said:
It's not just conversation either, there are images with other types of interaction between the characters like this one post #79320
where cum is coming into the pic from unseen_characters.

Yes, that qualifies. I've noted it in the wiki. It's just that the speech case crops up a lot more.