Aliasing uncut → foreskin
Link to alias

Reason:

While Im on the topic of cleaning up junk theres two tags that have been in a minor wierd spot right now. Alias for uncut and foreskin should be reversed. We dont use cut as a tag cause as its too broad and despite using uncut as a colloquial term for it. Foreskin is the actual visible body part and is far more accurate and easy a tag.

So I propose uncut should be aliased to foreskin instead of the other way around. Esp since we have tags like long_foreskin and partially_retracted_foreskin but not the base tag.

In the case of artwork involving mutilation fetish, such as Circumcision Fetish, the foreskin is in the process of being cut. So by all standards using the term uncut is wholly incorrect at the standard. This also ties in with forum #201307

Plus with what @Gaunt0 says below and the fact that there's an obvious logical reason to do it. It makes the most sense.

gaunt0 said:
If that was originally the tag, why wasn't uncut changed to uncircumcised to match? Seems more consistent if we're sticking with adjectives instead of nouns.

We already have a long_foreskin tag and use penis instead of the slang cock.

We also no longer use the term cut due to inaccurate tags so using uncut seems outdated by our current standard.

If a foreskin is no longer attached or midway through being detached it's no longer uncut.

Furthermore does away with the issues of whether to tag uncut on fringe cases. As circumcision doesn't always remove the frenulum, so seeing a frenulum is not a necessary indicator of being intact.

foreskin_pull, partially_retracted_foreskin, phimosis, long_foreskin, foreskin_play, retracted_foreskin are all attached to Uncut, so shouldn't it also be aliased this way?

Uncut is the odd one out here.

Edit Notes: Original Post also included an implication/alias for Lemon Testicles, thats unneeded.

GDelscribe said:
On the other point. Alias for uncut and foreskin should be reversed.

Foreskin as the main tag?
Then most circumcision posts would end up under that tag. Let's not.

I was under the impression that lemon_testicles they were an anatomical feature peculiar to cervines? Engorged or not, the epididymis certainly is not.

It's a low-use tag because it's a tag with a fairly limited about of corresponding art, but at least it can be _found_ by someone by listing the *testicles* tag, whereas your proposal would render it 10 times more obscure!

Plus engorged_epidxxxxx (How the crap can you reasonably expect people to remember how to spell that enough to tag it?!) sounds like some sort of inflation / bloating (from not enough orgasms) tag.

Genjar said:
Foreskin as the main tag?
Then most circumcision posts would end up under that tag. Let's not.

Some of the circ stuff is tagged with Uncut anyway. In fact after all of Vladimir's stuff was removed they all are tagged with uncut because they all show foreskin anyway. Which is incorrect sorta considering the ah. Implications of the fetish.

Circeus said:
I was under the impression that lemon_testicles they were an anatomical feature peculiar to cervines? Engorged or not, the epididymis certainly is not.

It's a low-use tag because it's a tag with a fairly limited about of corresponding art, but at least it can be _found_ by someone by listing the *testicles* tag, whereas your proposal would render it 10 times more obscure!

Plus engorged_epidxxxxx (How the crap can you reasonably expect people to remember how to spell that enough to tag it?!) sounds like some sort of inflation / bloating (from not enough orgasms) tag.

Its a thing for Cervines yeah! And capra, so it also applies to pretty much the entire artio family.

That said its also somethong that shows up in the case of stallions occasionally and is definitely not the testicle being that shape. In the case of cervine the nut itself is sorta teardropped so it does fit that descriptor but in the case of horses and most Artios, the cords and tubing on the tunic is what gives it that distinct pointy bit.

Thats a good point tho so thats probably moot. Its just a wierd little tag so I was xurious.

Any ideas on something we could do as an implication to make it more easy to find I guess?

GDelscribe said:
On the other point. Alias for uncut and foreskin should be reversed. We dont use cut as a tag cause ots too broad and despite using uncut as a colloquial term for it. Foreskin is the actual visible body part and is far more accurate and easy a tag.

So i propose uncut should be aliased to foreskin instead of the other way around. Esp since we have tags like "long foreskin" and "partially retracted foreskin" but not the base tag.

I agree, this makes more sense. The only reason I could see for keeping uncut is because it's also an adjective like its counterpart circumcised is, but I'm not sure how compelling that is. Having one tag be a noun and the other be an adjective could be fine I suppose, since there's no way to really make circumcised into a noun, because it describes the absence of something.

Genjar said:
Foreskin as the main tag?
Then most circumcision posts would end up under that tag. Let's not.

That would be fine. It's technically accurate; the images do depict foreskin. If people don't want to see circumcision, then they should blacklist it.

GDelscribe said:
Some of the circ stuff is tagged with Uncut anyway. In fact after all of Vladimir's stuff was removed they all are tagged with uncut because they all show foreskin anyway. Which is incorrect sorta considering the ah. Implications of the fetish.

Yeah, looks like there's not many posts left. But those two are supposed to be paired tags. Cut and uncut penis. Expanding the tag to cover any visible foreskin (attached or not) goes against the current wiki definition and aliases. And I'm wary of redefining something that's been established for so long.

Only reason cut was renamed was because it was getting mistagged for small wounds.

Genjar said:
Only reason cut was renamed was because it was getting mistagged for small wounds.

If that was originally the tag, why wasn't uncut changed to uncircumcised to match? Seems more consistent if we're sticking with adjectives instead of nouns.

Op Updated to better reflect current discussion.

As it turns out there actually seems to be an actual glans tag. If we tag glans separately even. @rainbow_dash

Any way we can get a ruling on this?

GDelscribe said:
As it turns out there actually seems to be an actual glans tag. If we tag glans separately even. @rainbow_dash

Any way we can get a ruling on this?

Glans is a useful tag, I've found, beause people often put what is clearly one on tapering (emenius does this often) or otherwise nonhuman penises (e.g. post #965618 doesn't look humanoid to me, but it clearly has a glans).

And bumping again, with post #966757

Even though its foreskin, its still a sheath. You can't circumcise a sheath, ergo, the Uncut tag is incorrect by virtue of the fact you can't uncut what you don't cut.

GDelscribe said:
And bumping again, with post #966757

Even though its foreskin, its still a sheath. You can't circumcise a sheath, ergo, the Uncut tag is incorrect by virtue of the fact you can't uncut what you don't cut.

You could cut that foreskin off and leave the sheath, in this case you'd insert something into the foreskin to hold it outward and in place. There even looks like there is a glans underneath, so it could be removed if they were half-erect. You just can't remove as much as you'd normally think when circumcised, it'd still have to protect the penis.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
You could cut that foreskin off and leave the sheath, in this case you'd insert something into the foreskin to hold it outward and in place. There even looks like there is a glans underneath, so it could be removed if they were half-erect. You just can't remove as much as you'd normally think when circumcised, it'd still have to protect the penis.

If you cut off his prepuce he'd be left with half a sheath and an exposed dogdick so, In theory? I guess?

Even still, just because the sheath ends in a posthion doesn't mean that its still organized the same way as a human dick

Anyway I guess my point is foreskin != uncut

GDelscribe said:
Anyway I guess my point is foreskin != uncut

Yes. Which is precisely why this alias is not valid.

Uncut is for intact foreskin. And it's not going to be renamed, because naming it to uncircumcised would make it seem like circumcised is the normal state. Which is not a stance that gets much support here.

GDelscribe said:
If you cut off his prepuce he'd be left with half a sheath and an exposed dogdick so, In theory? I guess?

Even still, just because the sheath ends in a posthion doesn't mean that its still organized the same way as a human dick

Anyway I guess my point is foreskin != uncut

Again, that's why you cut off less. There is a part where the foreskin only touches itself, while very small, and you can cut that off.

Foreskin has two states: on the penis, and off, and both are taggable because they can be visible. This would mean all post-circumcised penes would be found as well which is against what people are looking for when typing uncut, which is a penis with its foreskin attached. The images you pointed out with uncut being tagged should be invalid, because it being cut or damaged.

Genjar said:
Yes. Which is precisely why this alias is not valid.

Uncut is for intact foreskin. And it's not going to be renamed, because naming it to uncircumcised would make it seem like circumcised is the normal state. Which is not a stance that gets much support here.

By that standard changing at least to Intact would be fine.

I have no desire to change it to "uncircumcised" that just sounds awful for the same reason you suggest.

Its the only tag related to foreskin other than phimosis, that doesn't have foreskin in the name. Theres absolutely no reasonable reason why it shouldn't change to foreskin.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Again, that's why you cut off less. There is a part where the foreskin only touches itself, while very small, and you can cut that off.

Foreskin has two states: on the penis, and off, and both are taggable because they can be visible. This would mean all post-circumcised penes would be found as well which is against what people are looking for when typing uncut, which is a penis with its foreskin attached. The images you pointed out with uncut being tagged should be invalid, because it being cut or damaged.

Except youre wrong because you can't actually TAG foreskin.

They're being cut, so you shouldn't be able to tag uncut, but foreskin is clearly visible. Ergo the tags should either be reversed to each other or de-aliased and unimplicated.

Plus your logic is absolutely wrong and outright fallacious, why would I tag foreskin when its been removed? Its no different from tagging uncut as it's tagged right now.

This makes no sense,

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
This would mean all post-circumcised penes would be found as well which is against what people are looking for when typing uncut, which is a penis with its foreskin attached.

You dont tag a circumcised penis with uncut. You wouldn't tag a circumcised penis with foreskin. Simple as that. Its literally opposites of each other and they're mutually exclusive.

GDelscribe said:
By that standard changing at least to Intact would be fine.

I have no desire to change it to "uncircumcised" that just sounds awful for the same reason you suggest.

Its the only tag related to foreskin other than phimosis, that doesn't have foreskin in the name. Theres absolutely no reasonable reason why it shouldn't change to foreskin.

Except youre wrong because you can't actually TAG foreskin.

They're being cut, so you shouldn't be able to tag uncut, but foreskin is clearly visible. Ergo the tags should either be reversed to each other or de-aliased and unimplicated.

Plus your logic is absolutely wrong and outright fallacious, why would I tag foreskin when its been removed? Its no different from tagging uncut as it's tagged right now.

This makes no sense,
You dont tag a circumcised penis with uncut.

You wouldn't tag a circumcised penis with foreskin. Simple as that. Its literally opposites of each other and they're mutually exclusive.

I dont understand what you're actually trying to say if that's not what you meant but either you're presenting me with insane troll logic just to be frustrating or you severely misunderstand the topic at hand.

Thank you for saying I am presenting insane troll logic, but I digress: if I left foreskin on the ground, there'd be foreskin on the ground, would there not? There is literally a second state, a second form of tagging for foreskin, where it is not on the penis and still visible, immediately after a circumcision. You do not tag that, but your previous argument (two months ago) was that is tagged when it should be invalid.

If you can see a foreskin and there is any tag with foreskin in the name that does not suggest that it is still on the penis, it can get the tag when off the penis. With your previous image, I'm willing to argue that it is just a sheath, with artistic detail applied. But if you want, go look through all of Vlad's images and say "there is no foreskin in here. That is not foreskin", because you've only said to use foreskin or modify foreskin into a tag...

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Thank you for saying I am presenting insane troll logic, but I digress: if I left foreskin on the ground, there'd be foreskin on the ground, would there not? There is literally a second state, a second form of tagging for foreskin, where it is not on the penis and still visible, immediately after a circumcision. You do not tag that, but your previous argument (two months ago) was that is tagged when it should be invalid.

If you can see a foreskin and there is any tag with foreskin in the name that does not suggest that it is still on the penis, it can get the tag when off the penis. With your previous image, I'm willing to argue that it is just a sheath, with artistic detail applied. But if you want, go look through all of Vlad's images and say "there is no foreskin in here. That is not foreskin", because you've only said to use foreskin or modify foreskin into a tag...

Apologies for my rudeness. I'd updated my post to remove that.

And yes, that is part of my argument. You cannot tag foreskin at all. It is alias'd to uncut. As such you cannot tag it, if you tag something as foreskin it will change it to "uncut" which is incorrect.
If I go through all of the circumcision images and tag the ones that still have foreskin in the image, it will change the tag to uncut.

That is incorrect.

And again I think you clearly are fundamentally misunderstanding what Is being said here.

GDelscribe said:
Apologies for my rudeness. I'd updated my post to remove that.

And yes, that is part of my argument. You cannot tag foreskin at all. It is alias'd to uncut. As such you cannot tag it, if you tag something as foreskin it will change it to "uncut" which is incorrect.
If I go through all of the circumcision images and tag the ones that still have foreskin in the image, it will change the tag to uncut.

That is incorrect.

And again I think you clearly are fundamentally misunderstanding what Is being said here.

Then what is it you're trying to say?

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Then what is it you're trying to say?

Because foreskin is aliased to uncut, any time you type in foreskin to tag it as such, which is a visible thing; it is immediately replaced with uncut as per how the system works.

It is the only tag of the group that sticks out like a sore thumb.

It should be changed from uncut to foreskin because the tag is a relic from when we used cut and uncut as tags. We no longer use cut as a tag. We should use foreskin as the main tag because it is the VISIBLE part of the body.
Because its incorrect to tag a recently circumcised or mid-circumcision penis with uncut. Because of the previously mentioned reason, overall tag consistency; and the fact that some characters present foreskinlike parts on otherwise non"circumcisable" genitals.

I state wholesale uncut as a tag should be replaced with foreskin OR both tags be unimplicated from each other.

It will severely cut down on mistagged posts tagged with uncut or tagged with circumcised because people are unfamiliar with the anatomy of cut/uncut dicks. You can't make a mistake when looking specifically for foreskin and tagging it as such and not tagging it when its not there.

In retrospect what you said there Genjar stuck with me.

Uncut implies circumcision is the default the same way uncircumcised does. Thats actually really uncomfortable now That I think on it.

And that brings the reasons why it should change over 5.

I'm a little confused by all of this, but while we're at this, could we alias the following:

circumsized -> circumcised
uncircumsized-> uncircumcised

if there are any other misspellings, bring them up

Knotty_Curls said:
I'm a little confused by all of this, but while we're at this, could we alias the following:

circumsized -> circumcised
uncircumsized-> uncircumcised

if there are any other misspellings, bring them up

Probably a good thing to do.

And this, still needs to be looked at by an admin please

GDelscribe said:
And this, still needs to be looked at by an admin please

I'm still against. Uncut and the alias to it works just fine, no matter how new a person is it is either an accidental tag or a deliberate invalid tag, both of which are solvable. You do not tag unblemished skin that lack scars or the specific type of injury, so uncut does not reference skin in general; the usage of it for foreskin means an observant tagger will realize the alias if they used foreskin; the exact wording of uncut, letters and all, point out errors between it and the literal, at face value of foreskin; which then makes tagging errors where foreskin applies solvable.

Foreskin poses a massive boner killer for the people who are looking for an unblemished penis, and even if they -gore or -circumcision, there can be the post-act that doesn't get circumcision but does keep foreskin as it is an object in the image. The flip on this, circumcised, has the same points listed in reverse: the tag is not used for wounds or injury of the skin in general; any alias is straight to the point, in this case the alias is cut_penis so you can't fuck that up...; the wording only applies to the specific state of the penes, you can't argue that circumcised is anything else; and the tagging errors are obvious: an image of a penes that can't have foreskin can't have the circumcised tag.

The name uncut literally will never apply if the penis is being cut, so unless there is a person with unblemished foreskin specifically, it does not get tagged. This is how the fetishes stay seperate, otherwise you have accidental blacklists and accidental search hits.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
I'm still against. Uncut and the alias to it works just fine, no matter how new a person is it is either an accidental tag or a deliberate invalid tag, both of which are solvable. You do not tag unblemished skin that lack scars or the specific type of injury, so uncut does not reference skin in general; the usage of it for foreskin means an observant tagger will realize the alias if they used foreskin; the exact wording of uncut, letters and all, point out errors between it and the literal, at face value of foreskin; which then makes tagging errors where foreskin applies solvable.

Foreskin poses a massive boner killer for the people who are looking for an unblemished penis, and even if they -gore or -circumcision, there can be the post-act that doesn't get circumcision but does keep foreskin as it is an object in the image. The flip on this, circumcised, has the same points listed in reverse: the tag is not used for wounds or injury of the skin in general; any alias is straight to the point, in this case the alias is cut_penis so you can't fuck that up...; the wording only applies to the specific state of the penes, you can't argue that circumcised is anything else; and the tagging errors are obvious: an image of a penes that can't have foreskin can't have the circumcised tag.

The name uncut literally will never apply if the penis is being cut, so unless there is a person with unblemished foreskin specifically, it does not get tagged. This is how the fetishes stay seperate, otherwise you have accidental blacklists and accidental search hits.

I think you're still not fundamentally understanding what I'm saying here.
You literally cannot use the foreskin tag as it currently is.

It's alias'd to uncut. That means you cannot use it.

And I'm so so confused as to half of the rest of what you're saying.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Foreskin poses a massive boner killer for the people who are looking for an unblemished penis,

Do you know what the word uncut or intact means? Do you know what a foreskin actually is even? Uncut literally requires for there to be foreskin there. An uncut unblemished penis is gonna have a foreskin. Its as simple as that thats the literal definition of the term.

I'm so legitimately confused by your argument because it literally makes no sense.

uncut from the wiki applies to "Characters who have very clearly not undergone penile circumcision, meaning that it is obvious at a glance that the penises still possess a foreskin."

There's some fundamental misunderstanding on your part here.
1: You cannot use the tag foreskin because it is alias'd away to uncut.
2: If the uncut tag is literally dependant on foreskin being in the image there is no reason to not change it.

I guess I need to break it down: a foreskin, the skin, as the word, and not as the preference, is mistaggable. Mistags have happened before, because people did not know you do not tag the skin seperate. The word uncut tells you otherwise.

Mistags have happened. But uncut, U_N_C_U_T, does not apply to images that have foreskin, but which is being cut, unless another entity has their foreskin intact. No ifs, ands, or buts about that, and no TWYK because the character has their foreskin or is uncut.

The mistake of unblemished skin also occurs, the skin is uncut and in literature that can be used. But a person can fix that mistake, because it only applies to the penis.

Any tagging errors that occur are as clear as crystal, and that is a big priority here, reduce as many tagging errors as possible. There are similar examples like uncut, like gore and guro, but those are irrelevant here.

The word foreskin only needs to mean the skin on a penis that acts like a sheath for said penis. As such, there are two fetishes involving it: the removal (circumcision), and the imagery of it on (which is tagged uncut but can go into farther details). As such, there is an argument: what happens if there is a foreskin in the image? People who like the circumcision fetish will be tagging it right initially, and would have to be told that they are wrong. Uncut downsizes that immediate argument that ensures, because it is not named foreskin.

Now, uncut is simple. Easy to explain, easy to tag. But, go off and explain the difference of phimosis and long foreskin, and you'll see the problem for trying to change the tag to anything else: it needs to be very precise in order to not get mistagged.

You have an alias set up for uncut to foreskin. That is not a good idea, because there needs to be no erroneous tag application at all. What can happen will happen, and what needs to be fixed will need to be fixed again. This is the truth of tag fixing, people misinterpret all the time; having a tag that only applies to one thing makes mistagging a minimum, makes it easy to fix, and solves problems in the long run.

Uncut means foreskin, the same as circumcised means the lack of foreskin.

...You would tag foreskin the exact way uncut is tagged right now.

There's literally no difference at all except one is inconsistent (every other tag has the word foreskin except for phimosis), has negative connotations (implying cut is the default) and all of the tags can be applied to foreskin, but doesn't require it, theyre not mutually exclusive to each other and its often just outright wrong. The very argument you're using to defend uncut is the biggest reason that it needs to be changed.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:

Uncut means foreskin, the same as circumcised means the lack of foreskin.

...Exactly what I'm saying and how you seem to be saying the same thing I am yet somehow coming to a completely intensely off field answer from that is just baffling I'm sorry.

Are you choosing to only read some of what I said? Here:

Foreskin = two taggings, circumcision and with it on.
Uncut = one tagging, with it on.

But I guess I'll have to break out the "irrelevant" argument: gore & guro: gore simply means blood that is shed. The current tag use is more apt as guro, the fetish for intense blood, disembowelment, avulsions, and most other forms of grievous injury. But, guro is derogatory, because it only specifies sexual and thus insults the image. It also is the shorthand name, ero guro is the official name. Gore is much more pleasant sounding...

This is the inverse of that: using a less correct name, within reason that it is to prevent mistagging by making fixing easier, and to reduce arguing. Gore, in comparison, would cause arguments because the name excludes context. Nose bleeding would be gore.

Youre not getting it. And that's an unrelated argument. You're bringing it up for no reason it's not relevant.

I'm honestly done responding to you at this point because I have the distinct feeling you're just trolling me. Nobody is this obfuscative or ignorant unintentionally.

Uncut is still tagged on images with circumcision. That is incorrect. You cannot tag it as foreskin because the tag is aliased away.

I have explained it. Multiple times. You've chosen to ignore everything I've said outright. Multiple times.

Yes. It can be. No it is not any more interspecific than the current tag. Please stop with the nonsense.

I'm done talking to you. I'm sorry I just can't.

Please understand. And actually read what I have said so far and what I'm about to say.

If you still somehow do not understand then there is no power in the world that can explain it to you.

And that's not my fault that you don't understand nor is it my job to teach you.

Uncut literally means visibly there is foreskin. There is no if ands or buts.

Foreskin as a tag means there is visible foreskin.

Its not rocket science. There is no mental leaps and bounds needed and and it is in no way harder a tag than uncut.

The issues with uncut:
1: it carries the same negative connotations that the 'uncircumcised' tag would, it implies that circumcision is the default which many many people would take issue with.
2: in the case of mutilation fetish art, foreskin being cut into is not uncut anymore. The tag is just outright wrong.
3: foreskin does not need to be fully attached. Its still foreskin it doesn't stop being foreskin when it's being cut into or being removed.
4: other than phimosis which is a specific condition regarding an overtly tight acroposthion, wherein the foreskin no longer retracts (which could be aliased to non_retractable_foreskin or tight_foreskin) uncut is the only foreskin related tag that does not have the word foreskin in it.

Downsides to foreskin as a tag:

1: ????
Theres none. Compared to its partner. It can't be confused. Its as plain and simple as physically possible.

If you see foreskin. You tag foreskin.

Thats it.

Youre intentionally acting obfuscative to be frustrating. Please stop.

Let's apply this here: tell me every method you can apply foreskin. However, you are avoiding questions, so...

Or, alternatively, ask me a question. Any.

Or, we could do intact_foreskin. Any question I asked feels solved by that...

GDelscribe said:
The issues with uncut:
1: it carries the same negative connotations that the 'uncircumcised' tag would, it implies that circumcision is the default which many many people would take issue with.
2: in the case of mutilation fetish art, foreskin being cut into is not uncut anymore. The tag is just outright wrong.
3: foreskin does not need to be fully attached. Its still foreskin it doesn't stop being foreskin when it's being cut into or being removed.
4: other than phimosis which is a specific condition regarding an overtly tight acroposthion, wherein the foreskin no longer retracts (which could be aliased to non_retractable_foreskin or tight_foreskin) uncut is the only foreskin related tag that does not have the word foreskin in it.

1. As far as I can see, uncut has no negative connotations. Not being cut is generally considered to be a good thing, in the same way as 'unmutilated'.

2. We don't tag foreskin, nor do we need to. Because all uses are already covered by existing tags: intact foreskin (uncut), ones being cut (penis_circumcision), and ones that have been cut (circumcised).

3. Circumcision covers that.

4. Renaming uncut to uncut_foreskin is an option, I suppose.

I have a preference for the use of intact_foreskin instead of uncut given the implication of default that uncut gives to cut/circumcised.

Genjar said:
1. As far as I can see, uncut has no negative connotations. Not being cut is generally considered to be good.

2. We don't tag foreskin, nor do we need to. Because all uses are already covered by existing tags: intact foreskin (uncut), ones being cut (penis_circumcision), and ones that have been cut (circumcised).

3. Circumcision covers that.

4. Renaming uncut to uncut_foreskin is an option, I suppose.

With all due respect I'm gonna quote what you said earlier for point number 1.

Genjar said:
Yes. Which is precisely why this alias is not valid.

Uncut is for intact foreskin. And it's not going to be renamed, because naming it to uncircumcised would make it seem like circumcised is the normal state. Which is not a stance that gets much support here.

Uncut is shorthand for uncircumcised so it carries all the same meanings.

Intact_foreskin is still a better tag than uncut_foreskin for a ton of reasons.

And reason 2 still doesn't account for the fact that the tag is literally wrong in those cases. What if the foreskin is still in the image but has been completely removed from the body? Its still foreskin but definitely not uncut.

Ratte said:
I have a preference for the use of intact_foreskin instead of uncut given the implication of default that uncut gives to cut/circumcised.

Even better.
The only downside that I can see is that it'll likely be tagged less, that's what usually happens when a tag is aliased to longer one: some users just don't bother to tag it anymore. Even though they could just use the shorter alias. ...not everyone knows how those work, I suppose.

GDelscribe said:
And reason 2 still doesn't account for the fact that the tag is literally wrong in those cases.

Then fix the mistags. I don't see the problem.

What if the foreskin is still in the image but has been completely removed from the body? Its still foreskin but definitely not uncut.

We've been over this. Tag it as penis_circumcision, not uncut.

Ratte said:
I have a preference for the use of intact_foreskin instead of uncut given the implication of default that uncut gives to cut/circumcised.

I'm super fine with that too as an option whatever works really.

Genjar said:
Even better.
The only downside that I can see is that it'll likely be tagged less, that's what usually happens when a tag is aliased to longer one: some users just don't bother to tag it anymore.

But if it's aliased, people can just tag or search with uncut and it will still work the same. Would there really be a change in frequency of use, and if so, do you think it would be noticeable? I don't really look at posts unless they're reported.

Ratte said:
But if it's aliased, people can just tag or search with uncut and it will still work the same. Would there really be a change in frequency of use, and if so, do you think it would be noticeable?

It tends to be noticeable.
Some tags have pretty much died off after being aliased to much longer ones. As I said in the edit above (sorry, didn't edit it in time, it seems): the users could just use the alias, but it seems that many of them don't actually know that. And so they instead either tag the long version manually, or don't bother to tag it at all.

Though it might also have something to do with the complexity of the new tag. If the users can't remember how to spell it, it's not going to get used. In that regard, intact_foreskin doesn't seem bad.

I guess my issue is.

Tag these as what.

These are almost all circ related.

post #663433
post #924771
post #762570
post #543064

And rhe last is a sheath ending in foreskin

post #966757

You see why I'm bringing it up specifically right?

Tagging these with foreskin is correct. Tagging them with uncut is not.

But theyre all gonna get tagged with uncut because if anyone uses the foreskin tag. Well.

GDelscribe said:
I guess my issue is.

Tag these as what.

These are almost all circ related.

post #663433
post #924771
post #762570
post #543064

Penis_circumcision.

And rhe last is a sheath ending in foreskin

post #966757

You see why I'm bringing it up specifically right?

That's clearly an intact foreskin, therefore uncut (or intact_foreskin) applies.

Tagging these with foreskin is correct. Tagging them with uncut is not.

But theyre all gonna get tagged with uncut because if anyone uses the foreskin tag. Well.

Easy enough to clean up, since circumcision is a very small tag. IF we instead disambiguated or invalidated foreskin, sorting those out would require a lot more work. And we don't need foreskin as a separate tag, since all uses are covered by the existing tags.

I guess my main issue. Is why there's an actual legitimate reason to not use foreskin.

Can someone explain to me in literal plain honest English that's easy to understand what the issue with the foreskin tag is.

And no, circumcision is not a reason to not use it. You can blacklist genital mutilation and circumcision

GDelscribe said:
I guess my main issue. Is why there's an actual legitimate reason to not use foreskin.

...I thought I've already explained it a couple of times. As did Siral.

We don't add tags if they're not needed. Foreskin, as a tag, would not offer anything that's not already covered by the existing tags, and it'd also be 99.9% identical with uncut. That makes it both unnecessary and redundant.

Genjar said:
...I thought I've already explained it a couple of times. As did Siral.

We don't add tags if they're not needed. Foreskin, as a tag, would not offer anything that's not already covered by the existing tags, and it'd also be 99.9% identical with uncut. That makes it both unnecessary and redundant.

But considering the multiple reasons I've given as to why uncut is inaccurate in some instances, the fact uncut is the only tag that does not fit with the rest of the foreskin tags, the negative connotations and implications of uncut and furthermore if they mean the exact same thing, then why not change foreskin to the main tag.

Theres literally no issue with that and that's what I'm specifically talking about.

You claim it's unnecessary and redundant but there are clear obvious reasons to change the outdated uncut tag to foreskin. Its what IMMEDIATELY comes to mind via tag what you see. I see foreskin. I tag foreskin. Its as simple as that. I don't see what the issue is and I'm just confused as all hell what the opposition even is.

You're just not listening. We don't tag foreskin, we tag the state of foreskin.

Genjar said:
You're just not listening. We don't tag foreskin, we tag the state of foreskin.

??????????

Then why do we tag sheath?

Why bother having criteria tags for the specific anatomy? If we don't tag the anatomy?

I'm listening I'm just not grasping the leap in logic here.

Theres a long_foreskin tag tight_foreskin tag etc etc etc, which are anatomy descriptors for tagging specifically the foreskin. Like.

Youre telling me in one breath we don't tag foreskin. But the whole purpose of uncut is for that anatomical structure.

Like. Youre saying one thing when it's obvious the opposite is true.

It's the same difference as big_ears and ears. The former is a valid tag. The latter isn't.

Changing uncut into foreskin would make it too broad by changing it from intact foreskin to simply foreskin. As Siral repeatedly explained.

Genjar said:
It's the same difference as big_ears and ears. The former is a valid tag. The latter isn't.

Changing uncut into foreskin would make it too broad by changing it from intact foreskin to simply foreskin. As Siral repeatedly explained.

I'm still not grasping how foreskin is somehow more broad but ok.

I'm all for changing the tag to intact_foreskin as Ratte and Siral suggested but seriously there's some sort of intense miscommunication or outright fabrication going on here for the extremely specific anatomical structure of foreskin to be "too broad to tag"

If you can argue a sheath can be cut as Siral did earlier in the thread so we should also tag sheaths with uncut. I know it's hyperbole but you're not making any sense logically speaking.

How precisely is foreskin "more broad" than uncut. They both refer to identical things in artwork. And again, saying it will show up in circumcision art is not an issue as that's what blacklists are for so that's legitimately not a reasonable argument. Otherwise we wouldn't and shouldn't tag balls on art with castration.

If the balls are out of the body and cut off, they don't stop being balls.

I was saying that there was excess skin on the sheath you linked, that could be cut. Think how a long foreskin can be shortened... If it extends with the glans, it can be safely cut without damaging the sheath. If it doesn't, then A, it's not foreskin (as in RL), and B you can't cut it without cutting the sheath or exposing the penis. You arguably could, but if it doesn't extend then it is part of the sheath.

GDelscribe said:
How precisely is foreskin "more broad" than uncut. They both refer to identical things in artwork.

No, they don't. Just look at the examples you posted. Cut foreskin is not identical to uncut foreskin. Both uses fall under foreskin, therefore it is broader.

As for post #966757, I don't see why it's tagged as sheath in the first place. Looks more like a short half-erect penis with long foreskin, rather than a sheath.

Genjar said:
No, they don't. Just look at the examples you posted. Cut foreskin is not identical to uncut foreskin.

Look if you're just going to move the goalposts and play Cherry picker then what's the point of discussion?

I've literally said it 20 times now. Thats one of the reasons uncut is incorrect. It does not mean that foreskin stops being in the image. If you cut balls off and theyre still in the image. Theyre still balls. They dont stop being balls. In the case of castration artwork we still tag balls that are removed with balls. How is this any different and np, that's not an argument of how its "braoder" its a technicality to hover on when you can't otherwise explain your stance. Its not a stance nor an answer in itself.

If you cut foreskin and its still in the image. Its still foreskin but it's not uncut.

Every time I bring up a valid point you guys literally pull something out of thin air some archaic unlisted rule from nowhere that supposedly trumps everything I've said. You jeep accusing me of not listening when you intentionally ignore everything I say until it supports your specific narrow argument and then act like you were right all along.

What am I expected to do here?

I'm exhausted arguing over this stuff.

We tag uncut when we see foreskin. Foreskin is the primary reason the tag exists. Its the only reason we tag uncut at all.

I mean you can act like we don't tag foreskin but at the end of the day that's why the tag exists. Its why foreskin was aliased to uncut in the first place.

Theres nothing more broad about the anatomy tag. Nothing. At all.

You still haven't stated how its more broad. Choosing instead to cherry pick on one tiny phrase?

I'm just about done because it's very clear that nothing I say matters here and that any argument I present is going to be subject to facts made up on the fly or arbitrary decisions that have no basis in logic or reality so.
You win I give up. Good job. I can't have a civil discussion or debate when the criteria is constantly changing on the whim of the opposition to suit their needs.

GDelscribe said:
I've literally said it 20 times now. Thats one of the reasons uncut is incorrect.

It's not incorrect, because we don't tag foreskin. It's aliased away, it does not exist.
You're the one who's trying to turn an established tag ('uncut foreskin') into something it isn't ('any foreskin').

Uncut and circumcision should stay separate, for search and blacklisting purposes.

I'm exhausted arguing over this stuff.

Then maybe you should stop arguing. You've already said that you'd be fine with intact_foreskin tag, so I have no idea why you keep pushing for foreskin instead.

Genjar said:
It's not incorrect, because we don't tag foreskin. It's aliased away, it does not exist.
You're the one who's trying to turn an established tag ('uncut foreskin') into something it isn't ('any foreskin').

Uncut and circumcision should stay separate, for search and blacklisting purposes.

Then maybe you should stop arguing. You've already said that you'd be fine with intact_foreskin tag, so I have no idea why you keep pushing for foreskin instead.

Because fundamentally foreskin is more correct than what we're using right now. Your only actual arguments are that circumcision should be kept separate from the foreskin tag.

Blacklisting circumcision is enough to avoid it. So it's not really a valid argument.

Uncut would refer to all foreskin with that one tiny minor caveat.

But either way.

I'll tab a thread for intact_foreskin instead. If that's the only way to progress, I'll adapt.

this thread really doesn't seem much more productive than arguing with whatshisname as seen on post #663433. just like in the comments of that post this is amounting to little more than 3 people constantly arguing and getting nowhere fast.

One thing I couldn't understand...
Why don't make a new tag detached_foreskin????
I am not suggesting, I am asking.

I'm not sure why this thread died, other than just fatigue. I almost posted a new topic about it before I caught myself and made sure to search first.

Is there any relevant history to how uncut became the current tag in the first place? Because I can't think of a good reason why we would consider an altered version of something to be such the default state that even the natural state has its name changed and the relevant part doesn't even have a tag. The argument that you could see recently removed foreskin if that were the tag is ludicrous. There's also guro that shows breasts severed and bleeding on the floor. Should we change the tag to un-sliced-off-breasts to make sure you don't run into that? How about intact_testicles so that people don't accidentally see balls mid-removal? Add guro and genital_mutilation to your blacklist. Foreskin is the body part someone's searching for, not the notion that the character hasn't yet been mutilated. I'm almost shocked there was even any argument on this one. It seems completely cut and dry, no pun intended.

"Add to your blacklist" is not the reasoning for changing a tag name. Unless chopping one's breasts off is common where you are, the practice of removing foreskin for medical or religious purposes occurs enough to warrant seperating possible mistags, especially in consideration that people who like foreskin would like to see it intact and can find it via uncut; people who like guro can use circumcision to find the act of removing it (unless one or more entities still possess unmutilated foreskin, but that is a specific instance where both apply).

The problem with the way you're looking at it is that you're considering the mutilation to be the norm. Foreskin is a body part. Clitoridectomy is really common in lot of the world. Should we change clitoris to unremoved_clitoris? If you want to see a body part removed, search for the result of removing it. Natural should be default.

Well, my brother and cousin argued otherwise: circumcision is suggested as healthier medically (foreskin are lint traps and bacterial nesting points if not washed) and is a religious practice in a large religion. So, more snips when born then kept.

You are looking at this as if you think real life logic determines tags. Not all cases are based of real life terminology or logic, and foreskin is one such case where the use of real life logic interferes with searching/blacklisting. If you don't know, though, searching/blacklisting is what this site considers for tag usage. We don't use gay, we use pussy over vagina, the huge intersex tag thread is being breached by what people want to be called over what is useful for tagging, etc.; the harsh line is "is foreskin useful for searching, will it be effectively blacklistable, and will mistags occur that hinder searching". Uncut has been shown to not violate any of those, whereas foreskin has been speculated to.

"Uncut" is also the term they use in a lot of Africa to refer to women who haven't had their clitoris and labia removed, because according to them, labia and clitoral hoods are lint traps and bacterial nesting points, and it's a religious practice in a large religion inflicted on more girls than not. So if you're from a Muslim part of the world, by your experience, uncut does present a problem with every one of those precepts.

You're saying that the reason to keep the tag as is is because you'd have to follow real world logic to make the case to change it, and we don't use that here? I call bullshit. Especially when your own defense of the existing tag is by flawed but oft-repeated real world logic.

Yeah, we do use male/male over gay as a tag, but that's because it's accurate and clear, whereas "gay" is one of many slang terms for male on male sex. You know what "uncut" is? It's slang for "I consider it more normal for genitals to be modified, so this is what I call unmodified genitals."

Again, if you don't want to see foreskin the way it appears naturally, negate or blacklist it. If you don't want to see it being removed or having just been removed, negate or blacklist genital_mutilation. It could not possibly be more simple, and it carries the added benefit of allowing someone who actually does want to see it to not get zero results by searching for it and have to go find out that as it is now, you have to do the equivalent of "wait I just wanted to see a character's arms. I have to search for undismembered to find them? What psycho decided that arms still being there was the exception to the rule? And why do we have thirty other tags about arms that just mention them as such?"

I guess I need to repeat myself, but I'll be a bit more specific:

saying "add to your blacklist so my tag can be right!" is not helping your argument, it is actually hindering by being selfish and inconsiderate. Nobody should have to cater to your whims, and the tags are no exception. Furthermore, all purposed tags and/or modifications need to be 100% effective; if a tag is correct only 99% of the time, or an implication/alias only has one flaw when it should always be correct, that is not acceptable. There is no leniency for errors.

Since you didn't understand this either: real life terms are to be avoided if they are too general, or too specific. Vagina was too specific, so it was aliased into pussy. Gay was too general, so it was aliased into male/male, which is then fixed when people misused it. Foreskin is too general, so it was aliased into uncut, along with (not shockingly) uncircumcised, which was used instead of foreskin..., and uncut penis.

Which leads me to foreskin vs. uncircumcised. They mean the exact same thing when referring to the state of the penis (you have your foreskin; you are uncircumcised). Where you are raised, who you were raised by, and whom your peers were when you were raised, all influence your dialect down to what words you use over others, so again, it is not a shock that both terms are aliased into uncut.

The case against foreskin is as follows, for me: the threat of mistagged posts, when they are correct because of the name (there IS foreskin, I'm not wrong!) is too big to be acceptable. When the tag is wrong, from being the wiki page to implied terminology, to the name and accepted usage, something has to change. Either it is being used wrong, it is not the acceptable usage, the name is wrong, the implied terminology is wrong, the wiki is wrong, or things I didn't list; all possible usages need to be correct or not apply, searching with tags need to be correct, with no chance of failure without it being the tagger's fault. This has been stressed enough, it is the tag's fault for being used in cases not desired despite being correct.

Uncut is only for cases when the foreskin, completely intact (save minor details that doesn't involve circumcision, like scars, scabs, or mottled/holes), is on an image. Foreskin is interpreted as just that, a foreskin in the image. Manually fixing that whenever someone gets it wrong is not acceptable because the mistags that will occur aren't going to be monitored and constantly fixed. Rewording it solves that problem.

Foreskin is literally the one and only thing in the world called foreskin. Uncut refers to a state of being that can apply to multiple things. Foreskin is foreskin no matter whether you have it or not, and no matter whether you're used to people around you having it or not. There is no other thing that foreskin becomes when you cut it or you don't, and there are other things that lots of people all over the world use the word uncut for. Like an uncut documentary about uncut girls who still have intact vulvae. Your argument is a complete non-sequitur. You're calling it my selfish whim to name a body part with the name that that body part has. Attached legs don't get tagged as no-need-for-wheelchair-legs-still-attached-to-body just so some squeamish person can avoid the one in fifty million chance that someday someone will tag a severed leg lying on the floor. Tag foreskin where you see it, tag circumcised where you see that it's been removed. You don't need to repeat yourself. You need to correct your argument.

I've provided you with the reasons, or at least mine, for uncut against foreskin. I've called you selfish because you are only thinking that one tag is better than the other because it is the appropriate name, or for yourself and not the site. Uncut only applies to foreskin because there are better games for "cut", like unscathed/unwounded/undamaged/unedited/unfiltered; but do, please try to find a case that I can't find a better name than uncut.

Uncut is site specific, hence the alias... really, hence the alias. The being we expect on this site have legs, but not all of them are uncut; we also have tags like biped or quadruped to determine how many, and more tags I don't know for legless.

Please, prove to me that I don't have to repeat myself. Repeat what I've been saying in your own words, sentence to sentence if needed, because you have thus far shown that you are so dense, you cannot understand that this site is for finding images efficiently and effectively, with no room for error, and you even have the ability to research this further by finding other cases where faux tags are used for utility over real terms... yet you still have not proven your point that foreskin is better than uncut, just that it is a better name, that it can't be mistaken, and it deserves to be the name instead...

But it is not better. It is worse. It is worse because people have shown themselves capable of misusing it, and examples have been given that will misuse it. I have to repeat myself because you don't understand that.

I'm assuming you wrote that last reply completely drunk, because I can barely piece together the English. I've done the same thing a million times, so no shade being thrown there, but pardon me if I'm missing something you intended to say in it....

Here's what I've heard you argue so far, as I understand it...

1.) Foreskin as a tag is less clear than uncut, because everyone knows what uncut means and not everyone knows what foreskin means.
a.) Incorrect. The word foreskin means nothing in the world other than that body part, and no other word in the same language exists for that body part. The mention of the word means one and only one thing, and that thing goes by one and only one name. There can be no room for confusion from either perspective. The word uncut can mean other things, and actually is currently used worldwide for a similar state of non-removal for other body parts, among other things.

2.) Uncut is a more appropriate word for the state of foreskin being on a penis than the word foreskin, because it is more normal for it not to be there than for it to be there.
a.) Incorrect. Only certain religions and regions consider foreskin removal normal or acceptable, and even if most of the world did it, it would not change the name of the body part. An eyelid would still be an eyelid, even if ninety percent of the people of the world cut their eyelids off. You would not tag an eye with an eyelid as unremovedeyelid, and you should not tag a penis as uncut. It assumes that removed is the norm, which is not true. Natural is the norm. Unnatural is modified. Culture is irrelevant to the question.

3.) The only reason why we would ever change a tag on this site is because the existing one is unusable. Any tag that functions acceptably now will never be changed.
a.) Incorrect. We're always looking to improve, and we have half a dozen active threads on any given day suggesting and often changing tags to improve them. You've actually cited a few examples of changes we've made for that purpose in this thread, male/male as a replacement for gay being a very apropos example where a slang term was replaced with a clear one. The analogy here is that because of cultural slang, we have the slang word uncut, but the meaning of the slang is "foreskin is *still* there." It's simpler and clearer to just tag foreskin.

4.) Tagging foreskin as foreskin is risky to users who don't like guro because uncut refers specifically to the intact penis while foreskin refers to a body part which is removable and could be shown having been removed.
a.) Of course it refers to a removable body part, in that *all* body parts are removable. Luckily, users who can't handle running into the sight of an image showing a removed body part can negate or blacklist mutilation or guro or gore or blood or genital_mutilation or cbt or a numer of other things that, if they feel that way, they've almost certainly already blacklisted. Calling a thing what it is does not open people to seeing its removal. To say that it does is incredibly dark and insane, and by that logic, absolutely any body part would be open to the same problems, and frankly, it says something disturbing about your psychology.

I think that about covers what you've said. None of it stands up to inspection. It's not clear, it's not superior, and it's not less risky from a usage standpoint. We have a dysfunctional tag that needs improvement, and the improvement is the simplest possible sort - just a simplification from a high energy state of being to a name of a body part. You can't "tag what you don't see yourself not seeing." You can't see that a character is uncut. You can see their foreskin. You tag what you see.

Thank you for putting it way better than I had in the padt because these are literally all the same points ive made.

Siral has been arguing this one for no reason since the thread started simply because they seem to really like the current tag.

In addition to this as Ive brought up in the past EVERY SINGLE OTHER TAG involving the foreskin includes the word foreskin in the tag.

There is literally no reason not to change it.

The thread died because those in opposition to the change were only concerned with Cherry pick arguments and moving the goalposts on the argument in attempts to remove the validity of my points and it became horridly exhausting.

I agree, reading back on this. Foreskin is a noun while uncut is an adjective, so I think foreskin would work better.

Just to elaborate on my reasoning- if someone in a post has an erection you don't tag it "erect_penis", you tag it "erection" because erection is a noun and not a describing word. Of course it doesn't apply in every situation of tagging (e.g. big_butt) but describing words shouldn't be used while tagging for the most part in my opinion

but foreskin tag would apply to circumcision images where character's foreskin is not attached to body anymore but still visible in image. this is exactly why it doesnt work as replacement for uncut tag.