Anyone see anything wrong with this?
https://e621.net/wiki/show/anatomically_correct?version=39

Because para seemed to think so so much that they reverted to their own type that had mistakes in it that i corrected and added type that specifies insects as well as putting more space in the text so its easier readable.

Im confused. What happened?

You added a section. And corrected errors but it got reverted because...??

I can immediately say this: you weren't specific: "male" feral dog instead of "feral" dog. Male canines do not necessarily have canine penes, but feral canines normally do.

Here is the one used right now.

Send parasprite a Dmail and ask her yourself. This thread comes off as inflammatory.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
I can immediately say this: you weren't specific: "male" dog instead of "feral" dog. Male canines do not necessarily have canine penes, but feral canines normally do.

Here is the one used right now.

Actually he does specify feral.

Maxpizzle said:
Send parasprite a Dmail and ask her yourself. This thread comes off as inflammatory.

I do agree this does come off as a callout which is maybe not the best idea.

GDelscribe said:
Actually he does specify feral.

I do agree this does come off as a callout which is maybe not the best idea.

Editing mistake. Went to remove feral in that statement, meant male. Fixed...

Also um. This wiki entry is still clearly rife with errors.
Foxes with a dong 3 times their body is not anatomically correct by any standard. Its most assuredly hyper fetish but if se wanna say it's anatomically correct to species it should be 1/8 body length or so max.

I know the tag is specific to the junk but even as a hyperbole it comes off as clearly wrong.

Edit--

The version you linked has more information is way easier to read and is much more helpful in general. Its clearly the superior version of the page. Edited to include one tiny change between them but otherwise this version is far better without question.

Also changed lynx x lion to tiger x lion for well known hybrid example.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
I can immediately say this: you weren't specific: "male" feral dog instead of "feral" dog. Male canines do not necessarily have canine penes, but feral canines normally do.

Here is the one used right now.

You make no sense, if your going specify a character having a penis or pussy or other genitalia then you need to specify the characters sex, you cant leave it at just feral as female ferals do not have a penis. And @GDelscribe i thinking that to but i then i came to a conclusion that only the shape really matters not the size or color.

guys. What Max said.

always send a Dmail before going public with any issue like this.

if no effort's been made to resolve things directly, then what are we supposed to do? take sides?

Alright, allow me to rephrase that statement, since fixing it fucked it up:

male canine penis. Males canines (feral or Anthro) aren't the only genders with penes, intersexes have them as well. Removing that puts back the specification that it is a feral canine genitalia.

Knotty_Curls said:
guys. What Max said.

always send a Dmail before going public with any issue like this.

if no effort's been made to resolve things directly, then what are we supposed to do? take sides?

No but admittedly the wiki page was changed to a clearly less valid version.

That said it should have been dealt with in Dmail /first/ if his problem was with the other user in question. The thread comes off as a callout which is bad.

That said. This is actually an issue I've noticed quite a fair bit on the wiki. An issue that really needs to be a dressed. Even when a page is superior a user will often come along and revert it to their version regardless of how much more/better information is on the new version.

Took a casual glance at versions 39 (OP's) and 41 (revert). I'm not one to judge formatting, but I will say that version 39's gender specifics are unnecessary. Anatomically_correct is for matching species and genitals, there's no need to tweak its page further.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Alright, allow me to rephrase that statement, since fixing it fucked it up:

male canine penis. Males canines (feral or Anthro) aren't the only genders with penes, intersexes have them as well. Removing that puts back the specification that it is a feral canine genitalia.

proper would have been then to add both male and intersex as again female ferals do not have a penis, so just feral alone is incorrect. Might add only female hyenas have a pseudo_penis, males dont. so again if genitalia is specified then you need to specify a sex they belong to.

Might add that this was not intended as a call out, i just wanted opinions on what was wrong with my corrections that a admin reverts to mistakes that they made rather then correcting them while reverting. I did dmail them pointing out that while reverting they should have corrected their own mistakes instead of repeating them.

Ruku said:
proper would have been then to add both male and intersex as again female ferals do not have a penis, so just feral alone is incorrect. Might add only female hyenas have a pseudo_penis, males dont. so again if genitalia is specified then you need to specify a sex they belong to.

Might add that this was not intended as a call out, i just wanted opinions on what was wrong with my corrections that a admin reverts to mistakes that they made rather then correcting them while reverting. I did dmail them pointing out that while reverting they should have corrected their own mistakes instead of repeating them.

Read knotty's post for what I was trying to say.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Read knotty's post for what I was trying to say.

I did still your missing the point, it not anatomically correct for a male hyena to have a pseudo_penis, its not anatomically correct for a male feral to have a pussy and balls, eta...

you cannot specify genitalia without specifying the sex because something that is anatomically correct on one sex may not be on another.

Ruku said:
I did still your missing the point, it not anatomically correct for a male hyena to have a pseudo_penis, its not anatomically correct for a male feral to have a pussy and balls, eta...

Anatomically correct only implies the species, not the gender. The first sentence of the wiki even confirms that... Your version as well.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Anatomically correct only implies the species, not the gender. The first sentence of the wiki even confirms that... Your version as well.

siral genitalia automatically implies a sex

Ruku said:
siral genitalia automatically implies a sex

I repeat myself. Anatomatically correct only refers to the species. Not the gender.

Ruku said:
I did still your missing the point, it not anatomically correct for a male hyena to have a pseudo_penis, its not anatomically correct for a male feral to have a pussy and balls, eta...

On that note, you're half right.

If the hyena's a male, his junk is probably just a penis.

If a feral has a pussy, then, without indicators like sexually dimorphic features (which would be ignored anyways - see examples of female peafowl with male plumage) the image would probably be tagged female.

However, with both examples, there exists the possibility of e621's favorite tag curveball: vagentlemen, and other non-standard genders.

Is it likely for a male hyena to have a pseudo-penis, and would it be easily distinguished using our handy-dandy wiki page (and outside, scientific sources) without causing a tag war? Probably not, but the possibility exists. As long as the pseudo-penis looks relatively accurate to the species, the tag would apply.

If a feral has both sets of genitalia, as long as the junk matches the species - although I'd personally be leery of it - I'd still tag it as anatomically correct according to the tag definition.

Keep the third factor out of a tag that's already confusing to users not completely familiar with proper anatomy, in a fanbase that's anything but close to reality.

Yeah, uh, that edit missed the point of the article by adding unnecessary fluff that'd only make the usage less clear. I can see why it got reverted.

For instance, herm feral dogs are tagged as anatomically correct. Specifying the gender as male makes it seem like it shouldn't be used for other sexes.

Genjar said:
Yeah, uh, that edit missed the point of the article by adding unnecessary fluff that'd only make the usage less clear. I can see why it got reverted.

For instance, herm feral dogs are tagged as anatomically correct. Specifying the gender as male makes it seem like it shouldn't be used for other sexes.

Rather than reverting it. Editing to remove the gendered text would help. That said it does make efforts to specify herm and etc in the article.

anatomically_correct is simply an umbrella tag for the anatomically_correct_<genitalia> subtags. Not for overall anatomical correctness.

...yes, I know, that's counter-intuitive. But it's how it is.

There's certainly some room for improvement in that tag group, but such changes should be discussed first.

I've suggested before that it'd be better to simply have a tag for genitalia that doesn't match the species. Such as bovines with equine penis, humans with canine penis, etc. Would mean less work in the long run too, since those are rarer than matching genitalia.

I still say the "Humans don't count" line should be removed. Humans who are anatomically correct are still anatomically correct.

Furrin_Gok said:
I still say the "Humans don't count" line should be removed. Humans who are anatomically correct are still anatomically correct.

Humans, or humanoids? I'm for humans specifically to be anatomically correct for humanoid_penis, while humanoids wouldn't get that because they could have the animal genitalia (let's ignore fantasy races, I don't think anyone knows what a dwarf dick looks like) that their other species has, apply as anatomically correct as well. It would be a bit odd for them to have two sets of arguably anatomically correct genitals.

Genjar said:
Yeah, uh, that edit missed the point of the article by adding unnecessary fluff that'd only make the usage less clear. I can see why it got reverted.

For instance, herm feral dogs are tagged as anatomically correct. Specifying the gender as male makes it seem like it shouldn't be used for other sexes.

This is basically why I reverted it. In addition to making the usage more clear, the more concise a wiki page is the easier it is to maintain.

Mentioning gender is rarely necessary on wiki pages and only confuses the wording when it comes to tagging standards. Likewise mentioning hybrids is rarely necessary because it is implied that they inherit characteristics of their respective species anyways.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Humans, or humanoids? I'm for humans specifically to be anatomically correct for humanoid_penis, while humanoids wouldn't get that because they could have the animal genitalia (let's ignore fantasy races, I don't think anyone knows what a dwarf dick looks like) that their other species has, apply as anatomically correct as well. It would be a bit odd for them to have two sets of arguably anatomically correct genitals.

Although arbitrary exclusions like that are normally avoided with other tags, that one managed to stick around. I wouldn't be against changing it, but it doesn't seem to get tagged for that meaning anyways.

Sorry if I am rude.

@Ruku

• Overuse of line break doesn't make it looks tidy.
• You are not considering intersex when you add male or female text into wiki. As others already pointed out why you shouldn't add gender there.
• There is a reason why parasprite don't use underscore in paragraph.
• When someone add too many unnecessary or wrong info, it is normal that parasprite will revert wiki.
• Too many paragraphs of yours are horrible to read, so I don't expect that you are good at making things easier to read too.
• Some of your info are correct and it is fine to add them back.

@GDelscribe
You should not change anything when the topic is still in debating. This is not only talking about wiki editing but also tagging, as I noticed. This behavior is the cause of tag war & wiki war.

@Furrin_Gok
The purpose of this tag group is for people to search for animal's correct anatomy, not human's. That's why that tagging rule is there, see the first line of wiki. If you don't say you would like to be able to search for human's, than your opinion is not valid and pointless, at all.

Wow, an edit war on e621's wiki. I always thought that only wikipedia was relevant enough to have those things.

I would just like to point out that it's a bad idea to willingly undo or drastically change something an admin has done. We usually have good reasons for our actions so it pays to double check with the admin in question prior to any changes to be sure you aren't breaking any rules by doing so.

Zenti said:
Wow, an edit war on e621's wiki. I always thought that only wikipedia was relevant enough to have those things.

Porn is always relevant.

parasprite said:
Although arbitrary exclusions like that are normally avoided with other tags, that one managed to stick around. I wouldn't be against changing it, but it doesn't seem to get tagged for that meaning anyways.

Even a small amount of non-human bits are generally enough to push a character from human into humanoid. I suppose it could even be argued that a human with e.g. canine penis might fit better under animal_humanoid than human.

Which is one reason to not bother including them: anything tagged as human should, by default, be anatomically correct.

Genjar said:
Even a small amount of non-human bits are generally enough to push a character from human into humanoid. I suppose it could even be argued that a human with e.g. canine penis might fit better under animal_humanoid than human.

Which is one reason to not bother including them: anything tagged as human should, by default, be anatomically correct.

I'm gonna make a forum thread about this so we don't derail this thread.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Humans, or humanoids? I'm for humans specifically to be anatomically correct for humanoid_penis, while humanoids wouldn't get that because they could have the animal genitalia (let's ignore fantasy races, I don't think anyone knows what a dwarf dick looks like) that their other species has, apply as anatomically correct as well. It would be a bit odd for them to have two sets of arguably anatomically correct genitals.

Humans, for the very same reason you give here.
Take Shannara for example, Dwarves are humans who after World War 3 hid underground and slowly evolved from there, Trolls are those who hid in the mountains, but Elves are a completely different race who were never humans to start with. Elves, being a completely different race, would have no reason to have the same gonads, and the others, while offshoots of humans, were so heavily mutated that differing genitals wouldn't be unexpected.

ZaSigma4 said:
@Furrin_Gok
The purpose of this tag group is for people to search for animal's correct anatomy, not human's. That's why that tagging rule is there, see the first line of wiki.

See, that's wehre I disagree. Humans are animals, and when I want to see anatomically correct characters, that includes humans. If you're a human hater, just blacklist human and move on.

If you don't say you would like to be able to search for human's, than your opinion is not valid and pointless, at all.

And what exactly does this mean? Even if I'm not searching specifically for humans, seeing them show up when I look for anything else with anatomically correct isn't a bad thing.
A lot of stuff under human anatomically_correct is going to be non-correct humans with correct animals, for example. Most of it, thanks to the rule, while pokephilia images with anatomically correct humans don't get the tag at all, because Pokemon are fictional species.

Knotty_Curls said:
On that note, you're half right.

If the hyena's a male, his junk is probably just a penis.

If a feral has a pussy, then, without indicators like sexually dimorphic features (which would be ignored anyways - see examples of female peafowl with male plumage) the image would probably be tagged female.

the tags involve genitalia not secondary sexual dimorphism, genitalia that is only anatomically correct to certain sexes.

However, with both examples, there exists the possibility of e621's favorite tag curveball: vagentlemen, and other non-standard genders.

Is it likely for a male hyena to have a pseudo-penis, and would it be easily distinguished using our handy-dandy wiki page (and outside, scientific sources) without causing a tag war? Probably not, but the possibility exists. As long as the pseudo-penis looks relatively accurate to the species, the tag would apply.

Yes im aware of the so called curball, still for the intent of examples it doesnt really matter you still need specify a sex as a pseudo-penis on a male sex hyena is not anatomically correct or accurate. Let me be clear here i am not talking about gender, im talking about biological sex.

If a feral has both sets of genitalia, as long as the junk matches the species - although I'd personally be leery of it - I'd still tag it as anatomically correct according to the tag definition.

Keep the third factor out of a tag that's already confusing to users not completely familiar with proper anatomy, in a fanbase that's anything but close to reality.

Im not adding factors, im stating whats already there by simply specifying genitalia as again it isnt anatomically correct for all sexes.

Genjar said:
Yeah, uh, that edit missed the point of the article by adding unnecessary fluff that'd only make the usage less clear. I can see why it got reverted.

For instance, herm feral dogs are tagged as anatomically correct. Specifying the gender as male makes it seem like it shouldn't be used for other sexes.

Mind you its unclear because sex is not specified in paras examples which is necessary to call something anatomically correct. A pussy is not anatomically correct on a male but it is anatomically correct on a herm or female, get the point?

These are examples and i did include herms in one or two of them. so no i didnt exclude them.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Humans, or humanoids? I'm for humans specifically to be anatomically correct for humanoid_penis, while humanoids wouldn't get that because they could have the animal genitalia (let's ignore fantasy races, I don't think anyone knows what a dwarf dick looks like) that their other species has, apply as anatomically correct as well. It would be a bit odd for them to have two sets of arguably anatomically correct genitals.

It kinda ironic that humanoid species like elves and dwarves arnt anatomically correct for having a humanoid penis while we allow other fictional species like unicorns to be anatomically correct if they are tagged with equine_penis, just saying...

parasprite said:
This is basically why I reverted it. In addition to making the usage more clear, the more concise a wiki page is the easier it is to maintain.

Mentioning gender is rarely necessary on wiki pages and only confuses the wording when it comes to tagging standards. Likewise mentioning hybrids is rarely necessary because it is implied that they inherit characteristics of their respective species anyways.

Although arbitrary exclusions like that are normally avoided with other tags, that one managed to stick around. I wouldn't be against changing it, but it doesn't seem to get tagged for that meaning anyways.

Sorry but para your text is not at all concise,thats why i corrected it because it wasnt, and let me be honest here that is a problem with many of your written wikis i stumbled across, descriptions often that are generic and provide no farther information for telling what the tag is and were to properly use it , some are akin to former wikis in large balls or large penis for example that went along the lines of "realistic but larger then normal", that doesnt tell you how to tag.

Your wording was what was confusing para because as stated before not all ferals of the same species have a penis, not all ferals of the same species have a pussy and so on so forth.

Not all members of a species inherit the same characteristics thru as noted why multiple times above. what is anatomically correct for a male dog is not anatomically correct for a female dog. For the intent of writing examples that are correct the sex of the exemplified character/figure must be specified if genitalia of any kind is specified.

ZaSigma4 said:
Sorry if I am rude.

@Ruku

• Overuse of line break doesn't make it looks tidy.
• You are not considering intersex when you add male or female text into wiki. As others already pointed out why you shouldn't add gender there.
• There is a reason why parasprite don't use underscore in paragraph.
• When someone add too many unnecessary or wrong info, it is normal that parasprite will revert wiki.
• Too many paragraphs of yours are horrible to read, so I don't expect that you are good at making things easier to read too.
• Some of your info are correct and it is fine to add them back.

Mind you it does, people in general are more likly to read bits that have enough clean space between them then a single mass of text compressed together. this is a lil componinent of many in how advertisements themselves work.
And as noted above yes i was including intersex in some of the examples.
Now if my corrections are unnecessary or not is up to debate but none of the information i added is wrong.

NotMeNotYou said:
I would just like to point out that it's a bad idea to willingly undo or drastically change something an admin has done. We usually have good reasons for our actions so it pays to double check with the admin in question prior to any changes to be sure you aren't breaking any rules by doing so.

I guess il do that next time, doesnt change that i notice alot of improper text in wikis from this particular user thou...

Ruku said:
Mind you its unclear because sex is not specified in paras examples which is necessary to call something anatomically correct. A pussy is not anatomically correct on a male but it is anatomically correct on a herm or female, get the point?

What exactly is your point?
If it has a pussy, we don't tag the character as 'male' in the first place.

And again, that tag group has nothing to do with the sexes. :/

As a rule of thumb: if it's written by one of the current admins, you should automatically assume that it is correct.

Genjar said:
What exactly is your point?
Because if it has a pussy, we don't tag it as 'male' in the first place. :/

Of cource but paras uncorrected examples make it out to be that we would tag male to pussy by not specifying any sex in the examples.

Wernt you making the point that people would think hermaphrodites were not counted under this tag because you thought i excluded them in my corrections of paras examples, same goes the other way around. not stating anything could make people think that its fine adding male to pussy and so on.

Gender is irrelevant to this tag.

Frankly, this isn't up for debate, and my last post should be the only on-topic wall of text that is read in this thread.

Ruku said:
Might add that this was not intended as a call out, i just wanted opinions on what was wrong with my corrections that a admin reverts to mistakes that they made rather then correcting them while reverting.

You can't name a thread "Teritorial are we..." and not intend for this to be a call-out. Don't bullshit us.

We've addressed the issue at hand. I dare say we're done here.

Ruku said:
the tags involve genitalia not secondary sexual dimorphism, genitalia that is only anatomically correct to certain sexes.

The tag is used when the genitalia displayed are "correct" for the species in question. Equine genitalia on an equine species is anatomically correct under our tagging rules, regardless of sex of the character. End of discussion.

Ruku said:
I guess il do that next time, doesnt change that i notice alot of improper text in wikis from this particular user thou...

Parasprite knows our tags better than you do or else she wouldn't be an administrator.

@Ruku
You are talking your own usage, while the intended usage is clearly not so. Looks like you don't try to rethink if you have misunderstanding caused by the tag's name. If you want this tag to serve different usage, discuss it or suggest new tags, not forcibly change current one or unthinkingly push what you think is right.

I won't judge your opinion about spacing, but I will say it's painful for me to see your version. So I am voting for parasprite's work.