jeveasy17 said:
Because that tag can be about any body part not just genitalia like a 7 tail lion will no longer be anatomically_correct.

It's actually referring only to the genitals.

Furrin_Gok said:
It's actually referring only to the genitals.

Maybe so here but it might be time to change those tags because they dont have anything at all to do with actually depicting correct anatomy, its just matching genitalia.

Also: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/anatomically_correct

almost every website on the internet follows that definition that it applies to any and/or all body parts, not just genitalia. just sayin.

Apparently there are still people trying to debate that a human who has something like a tapering penis is no longer human. Ears or tails, sure, I understand, but genitals has the anatomically_correct tag so why not use it?

Furrin_Gok said:
Apparently there are still people trying to debate that a human who has something like a tapering penis is no longer human. Ears or tails, sure, I understand, but genitals has the anatomically_correct tag so why not use it?

Animal_humanoid basically means "a human with minimal animal traits." That's perfect for a human with an animal's genitals. Human should be reserved for pure human, no modifications in my opinion.

Anatomically correct is to point out when a furry has accurate genitals...still rare enough that a tag pointing it out is worthwhile.

Wodahseht said:
Animal_humanoid basically means "a human with minimal animal traits." That's perfect for a human with an animal's genitals. Human should be reserved for pure human, no modifications in my opinion.

Anatomically correct is to point out when a furry has accurate genitals...still rare enough that a tag pointing it out is worthwhile.

Anatomically correct is literally for when a represented species has the genitals that belong to it, though. Why exclude humans?

Furrin_Gok said:
Apparently there are still people trying to debate that a human who has something like a tapering penis is no longer human.

That's right, we tag them as humanoid instead of human.
I don't know why you're even trying to argue it anymore, after NotMeNotYou posted the link to the rules that outright stated that: if it has non-human bits, it doesn't count as human.

Furrin_Gok said:
Anatomically correct is literally for when a represented species has the genitals that belong to it, though. Why exclude humans?

It's just a whole lot of pointless tagging, when there's no such thing as anatomically incorrect human on this site. And we don't usually tag things that are too common. Such as the recent decision to not tag nude ferals as nude, for instance.

In a way, it does seem a little odd that a human with any non-human bits whatsoever is declared not human yet any other species that does the same thing is still considered a member of that species. If a horse with a human dick is still a horse, why is a human with a horse dick not still a human?

It's like what I was getting at here where zombified dragons are generally called dragon zombies or zombie dragons yet zombified humans are just called zombies. It's one rule for humans and another rule for everything else.

To me, there is a difference between a human with a fox's dick and a human with fox's ears and tail. One is somewhat trying to resemble something else and is tagged as such because of that while the other is making no attempt to resemble something else and just has one part swapped, a part that is exclusively shown in explicit images and isn't all that visible or distinguishable outside of explicit images.

Genjar said:
It's just a whole lot of pointless tagging, when there's no such thing as anatomically incorrect human on this site.

That's just it, if you consider the penis to change it to humanoid, there isn't. So why do that? Just let it be an anatomically incorrect penis on a human. That way the tag actually has a purpose.

Furrin_Gok said:
That's just it, if you consider the penis to change it to humanoid, there isn't. So why do that? Just let it be an anatomically incorrect penis on a human. That way the tag actually has a purpose.

Currently humans are irrelevant to site, while humanoids aren't.
Since human-like characters with animal penises are relevant, they can't be put in the former category. Not without rewriting the rules to say that some human-only posts are actually relevant.

And if we did that, it'd make the rules harder to grasp; I suspect that we'd be flooded with complaints about arbitrarily deleting human-only posts.

Not to mention that human is one of the top blacklist tags. If we were to change the usage so that it's broader, it'd be far harder to blacklist only '100% irrelevant humans'. And as you've surely seen, many users have trouble blacklisting anything that's more complicated than a single tag.

Just throwing it out there that there's still no way to accurately find posts of 'anatomically correct humans' of any gender/sex

e.g. adding humanoid_penis -human to block all posts with penises that aren't 'furry',

doesn't work if:

• humanoid_penis isn't tagged on everything applicable
• there's another non-human/oid character with a humanoid penis

-----

alternatively,

(there are other types, but they're rare to non-existent by comparison)

doesn't work if the post isn't tagged with animal_penis
----

penis -animal_penis -canine_penis -equine_penis -humanoid_penis -tapering_penis -unusual_penis

returns 205 000+ posts,
when it should return <1000 or so
assuming the above types are discrete for the most part on posts (i.e a character with a humanoid penis doesn't get tagged with canine_penis)
-------

I'm not sure how much this is related to the topic OP, but it's something to consider

titanmelon said:
Just throwing it out there that there's still no way to accurately find posts of 'anatomically correct humans' of any gender/sex

Again, there's no such thing as 'anatomically incorrect' human on this site, because those are tagged as humanoid. So if you want anatomically correct ones, simply search for human.

And if specifically you want to search for humans with visible genitalia? Well, just like all other species, there's no way to accurately search for that if there's more than one character. That's one of the tagging limitations that we just have to live with. At least until the per-character tagging gets implemented (which is unlikely to actually happen).

titanmelon said:
penis -animal_penis -canine_penis -equine_penis -humanoid_penis -tapering_penis -unusual_penis

returns 205 000+ posts,
when it should return <1000 or so
assuming the above types are discrete for the most part on posts (i.e a character with a humanoid penis doesn't get tagged with canine_penis)

If you were present to committee meetings, you'd know what our policy about these things are: if you want them tagged, tag them yourself. Everyone's busy with their own projects.

'course, tens of thousands of posts are still missing the basic penis tag, so there's actually far more than 205000 posts that need those.

By the way, you can trim the project search to penis -animal_penis -humanoid_penis -tapering_penis -unusual_penis. Animal penis already includes equine, canine, etc.

Genjar said:
'course, tens of thousands of posts are still missing the basic penis tag, so there's actually far more than 205000 posts that need those.

You got that right.

BlueDingo said:
You got that right.

Unfortunately. And that's just scratching the surface. There's also intersex, plus all the posts that are missing the male tag. And the posts where anus or balls are tagged, but visible penis isn't.

I'm still sometimes stumbling on 5+ years old posts that are rated questionable, even though there's visible genitalia. Mostly among gentags:<7, many of which are so poorly tagged that they don't show up in regular searches.

Been working on tagging those missing ones, starting with rating:e balls -backsack -penis -fully_sheathed -set:penischeck. Not that I have much time to work on tagging projects these days, there's always too much pending janitorial work.

Edit: Just stumbled on a few more explicit post that had been misrated for over six years: post #58213, post #58600 and post #86481

Same here. I've run into a few while searching filesize:<100kb -rating:e gentags:<12 and tagging what I find starting from the back end (ie. all the old shit no one cares about).

"Anatomically correct" itself was always an insulting conceit and the sooner e621 smartens up and abolishes the entire tag family, the better

Genjar said:
Again, there's no such thing as 'anatomically incorrect' human on this site, because those are tagged as humanoid. So if you want anatomically correct ones, simply search for human.

No, Genjar. You can't say with 100% certainty that it works that way because no decision has been reached.
You can argue that it's a useless idea "Because it would be the only exception to the humanoid rule," but so what? If a lot of people are asking for that one exception to exist, why not have that one exception?

Furrin_Gok said:
No, Genjar. You can't say with 100% certainty that it works that way because no decision has been reached.
You can argue that it's a useless idea "Because it would be the only exception to the humanoid rule," but so what? If a lot of people are asking for that one exception to exist, why not have that one exception?

Like I said before: If a horse with a human dick is still a horse, why is a human with a horse dick not still a human? It's not like we're going to start calling the former horseoids anytime soon.

Furrin_Gok said:
No, Genjar. You can't say with 100% certainty that it works that way because no decision has been reached.

Again, check the uploading rules. If the character has non-human bits, it doesn't count as a human.

*The things that make humans not-human under our rules are visible, anatomical deviations from the standard human
**Examples are the presence of animal body parts (dog ears, cat tail, pig snout, horse penis, etc), alien body parts, plant body parts, etc

The decision has been made. You're just too stubborn to accept it. Even though I've summarized several times why it has to be this way.

Genjar said:
Again, check the uploading rules. If the character has non-human bits, it doesn't count as a human.

The decision has been made. You're just too stubborn to accept it.

The decision has not, you're just too stubborn to accept that.
It's curious that I can't check the history of that help page: Who changed it to say that, and when?

Even though I've summarized several times why it has to be this way.

An argument in favor of something doesn't mean it has to absolutely 100% be that way, after all, there are arguments in favor of keeping them as human in that case.

Furrin_Gok said:
It's curious that I can't check the history of that help page: Who changed it to say that, and when?

Nimmy, of course.
Rules are either made directly by him, or by the committee. Nobody else can even edit those pages.

Genjar said:
Nimmy, of course.
Rules are either made directly by him, or by the committee. Nobody else can even edit those pages.

Then the point of this thread is to see how much support there is to change it. Changes can and have happened.

Furrin_Gok said:
Then the point of this thread is to see how much support there is to change it. Changes can and have happened.

I'd just like to emphasize again that if those should be tagged as humans, then we'd have to start deleting them as irrelevant.

Because "humans are irrelevant" is one of the cornerstones of the rules, and that's not going to be changed into some vague "humans are usually irrelevant".

Genjar said:
I'd just like to emphasize again that if those should be tagged as humans, then we'd have to start deleting them as irrelevant.

Do we even have any to delete?

BlueDingo said:
Do we even have any to delete?

I see those occasionally in the queue, but they're not common. The only one I could find after a brief search is post #887381, and that one's pretty old. Most such characters have pointy ears or other features that'd exclude them from human anyway.

Genjar said:
I'd just like to emphasize again that if those should be tagged as humans, then we'd have to start deleting them as irrelevant.

Because "humans are irrelevant" is one of the cornerstones of the rules, and that's not going to be changed into some vague "humans are usually irrelevant".

status:any shygirl
Isn't this interesting? It seems that that is already the case. The only deletions seem to be due to being photographs.

Furrin_Gok said:
status:any shygirl
Isn't this interesting? It seems that that is already the case. The only deletions seem to be due to being photographs.

Do you mean to imply that those should've been deleted as humans?

Firstly, many are paired with anthros or other non-humans (or tentacles). Which makes the posts relevant even if some characters aren't.

Secondly, it would be outside information to automatically assume that those are masks. If it looks more like an actual hollow face than mask, it's relevant.

Thirdly, there's some re-uploads of grandfathered posts, which are allowed.

There's a couple of recent ones that seem dubious to me, but you'd have to ask the approver about those.