I was adding a character tag to post #1043100 and I noticed that it was also tagged as nude. While it's true the character is not wearing clothing it seems odd to point that out especially if there is nothing explicit in the post.

Additionally it seems very inconsistent whether a feral picture will be tagged as nude.

post #1039424

post #1042569

Both of these are tagged as nude but they are wearing scarves.( I don't know if that counts )

post #1038595

post #713735

post #598900

post #1033197

These are all examples of posts that lack the nude tag but the characters are clearly unclothed.

I'm certainly confused about this so I thought it might be worth asking about it.

I remember jokingly asking if ferals should be tagged nude. Admin decision was "no".
I'd say if a feral has clothing, just tag it clothing.

Chaser said:
I remember jokingly asking if ferals should be tagged nude. Admin decision was "no".
I'd say if a feral has clothing, just tag it clothing.

That must've been long ago.
There's no reason to go out of your way to tag them as nude, but the tag certainly applies and can even be useful. Since it's not that rare for ferals to be wearing clothing.

But at the the same time, it's a bit inconsistent.

No clothing? Tag nude.
No clothing and feral? ...nothing.

Last time I checked, whether a creature is nude or not didn't depend on the creature's form.

Chaser said:
I remember jokingly asking if ferals should be tagged nude. Admin decision was "no".
I'd say if a feral has clothing, just tag it clothing.

Pretty sure this was me.

Genjar said:
That must've been long ago.

If the above is true, then no, it was sometime just earlier this year.

We spend so much time trying to come up with more tags and put so many tags on posts, for whatever reason, that we don't seem to consider their usefulness.

Those images that are tagged nude shouldn't be.

Ferals are nude by default, in the same way characters here have tails or two arms by default. It only helps to tag when something other than the default is happening, such as when they're clothed and what clothes they are wearing.

I can't think of any time nude would be absolutely necessary on a feral-only image, when we already distinguish content (from safe to explicit) and use tags such as sheath, fully_sheathed, presenting_hindquarters, flaccid, erection, etc. etc.

Ask yourselves this: when a typical user searches nude, what are they looking for?

Adding nude to every applicable feral image would flood these searches.

tl;dr please don't tag ferals as nude, it's pedantic as fuck. Actively remove them from feral images where they don't belong.

It can cause problems when there're both a feral and an anthro in the picture.

The anthro is clothed but the feral is not, tagging it nude would unintentionally break the tagging(as to who's nude, when peeps search for anthro nude).

Thus, I don't think that ferals should be tagged with nude.

Ratte said:
If the above is true, then no, it was sometime just earlier this year.

If the character isn't wearing anything, they're nude. And if they're nude, they're going to get tagged as nude. Trying to limit the tag by form is not worth the work it'd take.

Less exceptions is better for tagging.

Genjar said:
If the character isn't wearing anything, they're nude. And if they're nude, they're going to get tagged as nude. Trying to limit the tag by form is not worth the work it'd take.

Less exceptions is better for tagging.

That makes the tag less useful.

Knotty_Curls said:
Ferals are nude by default, in the same way characters here have tails or two arms by default. It only helps to tag when something other than the default is happening, such as when they're clothed and what clothes they are wearing.

That's the kind of thing we've tried to moved away from, to make tagging more sane. This is no different from the breasts tag fiasco _{^{("only tag breasts if they're visible, not covered")}} or anthro _{^{("only tag anthro if they're paired with non-anthro")}}. Such restrictions don't work.

There's at least 5000 ferals tagged as nude. Because if a character isn't wearing clothes, they're going to get tagged as nude. That's especially true for the ponies and explicit posts.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
The anthro is clothed but the feral is not, tagging it nude would unintentionally break the tagging(as to who's nude, when peeps search for anthro nude).

They could just search for anthro -clothed instead.

I thought someone would've mentioned it at this point, but the relevant tag is clothed_feral

Circeus said:
I thought someone would've mentioned it at this point, but the relevant tag is clothed_feral

It's still early in the morning and I had completely forgotten about that.

So yes, don't tag nude on feral-only images.

Okay, I'll add it to my clean up list.
But there'll likely always be plenty of mistags if that's what we're going with. Explicit ferals are almost always tagged as nude, especially the ponies. Probably because they tend to be borderline anthro.

There's also plenty of anthros that are nude by default, such as Digimon, Pokemon, Sergals, etc. But those'll still be tagged as nude, right? So Pokemon that are naturally anthro get the nude tag, but feral ones don't.

Genjar said:
Okay, I'll add it to my clean up list.
But there'll likely always be plenty mistags if that's what we're going with. Explicit ferals are almost always tagged as nude, especially the ponies. Probably because they tend to be borderline anthro.

There's also plenty of anthros that are nude by default, such as Digimon, Pokemon, Sergals, etc. But those'll still be tagged as nude, right? So Pokemon that are naturally anthro get the nude tag, but feral ones don't.

Personally my default is not to tag as nude a critter that doesn't have clothing by default and in-universe has no genitals. This especially so for digimon and pokemon who run the whole gamut of feral to anthro, and in digimon's case, of nude to clothed. As far as I'm concerned, nude only makes sense if the default for it is to be clothed.

Myself I don't even tag semi-anthro pokemons (e.g. pikachu, riolu...) and ponies with clothes with clothed_feral. I reserve that tag for stuff like post #725606, post #1011134 or post #1034286.

Knotty_Curls said:
Ferals are nude by default, in the same way characters here have tails or two arms by default.

And naked women have breasts by default, so we shouldn't tag those either, right?

The "nude" tag in practice means that privies are showing. "Nude feral" art often has only cartoon nudity, which should be tagged as cartoon nudity (and not regular nudity) because that's what it is

But if a feral has genitals showing then it should be tagged as regular nudity like any other unclothed critter

FibS said:
And naked women have breasts by default, so we shouldn't tag those either, right?

The "nude" tag in practice means that privies are showing. "Nude feral" art often has only cartoon nudity, which should be tagged as cartoon nudity (and not regular nudity) because that's what it is

But if a feral has genitals showing then it should be tagged as regular nudity like any other unclothed critter

clothed_feral

clothed_feral

and

clothed_feral

I was annoyed that I had to explain this before, doubly so now that there's a resolution tag.

Knotty_Curls said:
clothed_feral

clothed_feral

and

clothed_feral

I was annoyed that I had to explain this before, doubly so now that there's a resolution tag.

Yeah see that's one of the most un-intuitive resolutions possible

what about ferals and casual_nudity ?

titanmelon said:
what about ferals and casual_nudity ?

It should count. The image in that thread is a bad example though because casual_nudity implies non-sexual and that example contains lions fucking.

Ratte said:
That makes the tag less useful.

I remember you distinctly saying exceptions were a bad thing. Why support this one?

Partly related: Can taurs (being half-feral) be considered bottomless if they have no clothes on their feral half? Some have the tag, some don't.

How I should it, it should just be as simple as if a feral has sexual organs showing, it should be nude. If it doesn't, it shouldn't be nude.

Does the definition of nude or nudity include whether genitals are visible? I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Also, why make that exception for ferals but not for anything else?

So should I start removing nude tags from the feral posts or is this still being decided?

Circeus said:
Personally my default is not to tag as nude a critter that doesn't have clothing by default and in-universe has no genitals.

We can't tag it by outside information, so that's out of question.

I don't see any alternatives either. Species such as Pokemon have always been hard to pinpoint into anthro/feral, so it'll be difficult to determine which of them are anthro enough to get the nude tag.

Also, I underestimated the number of ferals that have been tagged as nude. Looks like there's close to 20000 of them. My professional opinion is that it'd not be worth the trouble to try to clean those up.

Futhermore, it seems odd to assume that users don't want to search for nude ferals. Clothed_feral is a poor replacement, since it's hardly been tagged at all -- and often tagged for characters who are only wearing a scarf or somesuch. Which shouldn't count as clothed, since it doesn't for other body types either.

As a person who enjoys embarrassed nude, I have a problem with the genitalia requirement on anthros, because it runs afoul of the covering tags. If a character is nude and their genitals aren't visible because they are covered by something, is that still tagged nude under this rule?

Genjar said:
Futhermore, it seems odd to assume that users don't want to search for nude ferals.

And if they don't want to see them, nude -feral. Simple.

There's actually quite a few ferals depicted as clothed, Whether it's something as simple as work harnesses or something more akin to the sort of things ECMajor draws so, No, Not necessarily implied to be naked.

BlueDingo said:
I remember you distinctly saying exceptions were a bad thing. Why support this one?

You do realize that isn't me, right?

Ratte said:
You do realize that isn't me, right?

I recall someone claiming recently that the admins saw themselves as Gods. Maybe BlueDingo just thinks you're part of a trinity? Different facets of the same individual.

Clawdragons said:
I recall someone claiming recently that the admins saw themselves as Gods. Maybe BlueDingo just thinks you're part of a trinity? Different facets of the same individual.

I see nothing to gain from viewing myself as a god of a site of tasteless porn and pedantry.

I am the god of tits and wine

Ratte said:
You do realize that isn't me, right?

This is news to me.

Ratte said:
You do realize that isn't me, right?

...Ah fuck, I messed up.

Must of been the admin avatar pics looking similar to each other. My bad.

Ratte said:
We spend so much time trying to come up with more tags and put so many tags on posts, for whatever reason, that we don't seem to consider their usefulness.

+1

We need more taggings of the tags we already have. But this is unglamorous work, so..

Knotty_Curls said:
I am the god of tits) and wine

FTFY ;)