Aliasing female_on_anthro → anthro
Link to alias

Reason:

Ambiguous/ redundant, content seems to be sexual encounters between apparent human females and anthros thru there is no telling if some of those arnt actually humanoids. and and the female portion being an anthro too cant be ruled out ether.

also alias,

male_on_anthro -> anthro

This seems to be a counterpart to the male_on_feral and female_on_feral tags which have been quite successful and quite useful.

I've discussed this before: I think female_on_anthro and male_on_anthro have value, but should only be used for images where a human or humanoid is interacting with an anthro, not on images where a feral and an anthro are interacting (for those images, [gender]_on_feral would be the appropriate tag).

As such, I think that the wiki should be modified to exclude anthro_on_feral interactions (including a link to the relevant [gender]_on_feral tags, and these two tags should continue to exist.

+1 for the aliases.
The usage suggested in the wiki less than obvious, expecting the users to only tag it for non-furry on anthro is too much ask. Both have already been mistagged for anthro_on_anthro and so forth.

Cleaning up wrongly tagged forms is time-consuming enough without adding more tags and implications to the mix. (For example, I've had to untag hundreds of posts that have been mistagged as anthro_on_feral, male_on_feral, bestiality etc even though there's no ferals. It usually takes several passes to clean up the whole web of implications for those.)

I use it for the same purpose as male_on_feral and female_on_feral.
Is it useless to operate these tags as one reference?

ThunderMan said:
I use it for the same purpose as male_on_feral and female_on_feral.
Is it useless to operate these tags as one reference?

gender x gender ~ male/male specific in the content that is to be shown
bodytype x bodytype ~ human_on_anthro specific in the content that is to be shown
gender x bodytype ~ male_on_anthro too ambiguous as to what actually aplies to the gender component as well as being redundant, high risk of being tagged for anthro_on_anthro posts even with wiki when that doesnt seem to be your intentions in regards to this tag(s).

Yes all tags that specify a "gender x bodytype" format should be removed. Just an opinion thru sence i dont deal specifically with any of these 3 types of groups/formats...

Ruku said:
gender x gender ~ male/male specific in the content that is to be shown
bodytype x bodytype ~ human_on_anthro specific in the content that is to be shown
gender x bodytype ~ male_on_anthro too ambiguous as to what actually aplies to the gender component as well as being redundant, high risk of being tagged for anthro_on_anthro posts even with wiki when that doesnt seem to be your intentions in regards to this tag(s).

Yes all tags that specify a "gender x bodytype" format should be removed. Just an opinion thru sence i dont deal specifically with any of these 3 types of groups/formats...

Certainly "gender x bodytype" tags may be ambiguous, but I think that it is improper to remove it.
For example, suppose there are people who like "straight human/feral", but they don't like "female human".
Therefore, human_on_feral and male_on_feral tags are used.

If we assume that ambiguity is a problem, there are also ways to do more.
For examples, "male human on female feral" or "dickgirl anthro on cuntboy humanoid" etc...(but these so troublesome)

Ruku said:
gender x gender ~ male/male specific in the content that is to be shown
bodytype x bodytype ~ human_on_anthro specific in the content that is to be shown
gender x bodytype ~ male_on_anthro too ambiguous as to what actually aplies to the gender component as well as being redundant, high risk of being tagged for anthro_on_anthro posts even with wiki when that doesnt seem to be your intentions in regards to this tag(s).

Yes all tags that specify a "gender x bodytype" format should be removed. Just an opinion thru sence i dont deal specifically with any of these 3 types of groups/formats...

I fought for creating these, and I maintain that they are extremely useful. There is otherwise no way to distinguish content involving female humans with male animals and content involving male humans and female animals - which is a major oversight, considering many people have very strong preferences in that regard. I consider it a matter of orientation - missing those tags would be akin to missing the male/male or male/female tags, leaving people unable to easily find content relevant to their orientation.

Now, I don't particularly care about human on anthro images, so whether or not they are subject to the same sorts of preference is out of my realm of expertise. I can't attest to whether or not they are worth the effort to clean out, but I can say that I think that dealing with the ambiguity and mistaggings of the [gender]_on_feral tags is worthwhile.

However, on a similar note, there is one thing that I think ought to be changed...

Genjar said:
+1 for the aliases.
The usage suggested in the wiki less than obvious, expecting the users to only tag it for non-furry on anthro is too much ask. Both have already been mistagged for anthro_on_anthro and so forth.

Cleaning up wrongly tagged forms is time-consuming enough without adding more tags and implications to the mix. (For example, I've had to untag hundreds of posts that have been mistagged as anthro_on_feral, male_on_feral, bestiality etc even though there's no ferals. It usually takes several passes to clean up the whole web of implications for those.)

I'd honestly be fine with replacing the bestiality tag altogether. We have anthro_on_feral, human_on_feral, and so on, which are more clear in their usage. If we want some umbrella term, it would be useful to have a term that describes all "across-form" sexual activity - humans with anthros, anthros with ferals, whatever else. I think that would resolve a lot of the issues we tend to have in this regard.