The only reason I ask is because more often than not, little things like scat, female and infantilism (which is apparently a thing... the more you know) are always slipping past my blacklist. It's rather annoying to combat it since some tags aren't as widely-known by uploaders as they should be.

That, and because most new users prefer not to read the wikis on uploading and tagging. Been there, done that. _{^{And still kind of doing it...}}

So the question is,

What are some undertagged things you come across as a tag editor?

I could be a cheap dick and say "everything" but I'll play fair.

Small things like shared_scarf and honey_dipper, probably because people don't know they are actually tags. I think I'm the only one tagging those two.

Casual_nudity is grossly undertagged, probably because of all the fringe cases and people not giving a shit. Using search terms to find them doesn't work out so well because something like nude -sex -cum -penetration -masturbation -presenting (~145200 results right now) still finds a shitload of images that don't apply to casual_nudity (because nude pinups and sexually suggestive images aren't "casual") and can't be specified further because of the tag limit.

You'd be surprised how often people don't tag sex or something that implies sex.

non-mammal_breasts because no one seems to give a fuck about them. See breasts -mammal -non-mammal_breasts (~74800 results) for examples.

clothing -clothed (~159600 results) is another issue. People not including clothed or a tag that implies clothed.

The biggest one I see is character names. It doesn't take that long to dig around in the provided source.

Other issues I see:

• specific masturbation tags (`penile`/`vaginal`/`anal`)

• `solo_focus` & `duo_focus` along with the required duo/group and/or `faceless_male`/`disembodied_penis` tags

• `cutaway`

• year tags

• `flaccid`

fan_character & alternate_color are my primaries; solo, duo, group, and their *_focus counterparts are secondaries; and I wish I was fucking joking, but I've had trends of users tagging body traits, down to the T, but not the gender(s).

And, semi on-topic, the one that makes me frothing mad is when people upload direct images as sources and not the pages those are within. I wish it was a rule to initially upload directable sources...

Siral_Exan said:
I've had trends of users tagging body traits, down to the T, but not the gender(s).

I'm guilty of this when going after very undertagged images. Because the gender and body count tags are usually there, I sometimes forget to put them in when they're not.

BlueDingo said:
I'm guilty of this when going after very undertagged images. Because the gender and body count tags are usually there, I sometimes forget to put them in when they're not.

At least it's an easy fix.

I see a lot of hardcore fetish posts untagged, most likely because people don't want to have to see it

Oh, I'm gonna add one more: anthro & feral. Mostly because of bulk uploaders using C&P tags...

I mostly go after mistagged things (such as humanized -> humanoidized). But yeah, anthro/feral/feral_on_feral/anthro_on_anthro and the character counts (solo/duo/group) are often missing. As are the basic genitalia tags such as penis.

One example:
post #1090693

Sixty tags. But nobody tagged the penises.

Believe it or not, most explicit posts would be missing the sex tag before someone else adds it.

Genjar said:
I mostly go after mistagged things (such as humanized -> humanoidized).

The number of times I've seen anthro and humanoid describing the same character... Worse when they use the anthrofied tag on something that is either not anthrofied (because they're humanoid) or not a canon character with a known default form (meaning anthrofied doesn't apply anyway).

~anthrofied ~humanized ~humanoidized ~feralized chartags:0 should return 0 results.

BlueDingo said:

~anthrofied ~humanized ~humanoidized ~feralized chartags:0 should return 0 results.

Pokémon, Digimon and maybe others.

O16 said:
Pokémon, Digimon and maybe others.

Specific pokemon characters (spiky-eared_pichu, sparky_(pokémon), etc.) count. Random nameless pokemon with no known history of any kind don't. How can you know for certain whether their form has been altered if you can't even identify them?

BlueDingo said:
Specific pokemon characters (spiky-eared_pichu, sparky_(pokémon), etc.) count. Random nameless pokemon with no known history of any kind don't. How can you know for certain whether their form has been altered if you can't even identify them?

As far as I know, 'feralized', 'anthrofied' etc. are also applicable to some fictional species.

added: underlined excerpt

not_furry is criminally undertagged. Its less offensive cousin human_focus should also be used more.

From the anthrofied wiki:
Note that all of this only goes for actual copyrighted (franchise) characters, not your regular anthropomorphic furry. They should just be tagged anthro.

If you allow nameless members of a species to be included in the definition of anthrofied then EVERY anthro version of a non-anthro species would count no matter what.

If you say an anthro poochyena should have the anthrofied tag because poochyenas are not anthro, I can just as easily say an anthro hyena should have the anthrofied tag because hyenas are not anthro, and you can't accept the former and deny the latter without enforcing a real vs. fictional double standard. We're supposed to avoid double standards, remember?

anthrofied, feralized, humanized, humanoidized and alternate_species should only apply to named characters with a known default form. That's the only way to know for sure whether that specific character's form has been altered, otherwise there's hardly anything stopping you from applying the tags to just about anything.

leomole said:
not_furry is criminally undertagged. Its less offensive cousin human_focus should also be used more.

True, sadly.

BlueDingo said:
If you allow nameless members of a species to be included in the definition of anthrofied then EVERY anthro version of a non-anthro species would count no matter what.

If you say an anthro poochyena should have the anthrofied tag because poochyenas are not anthro, I can just as easily say an anthro hyena should have the anthrofied tag because hyenas are not anthro, and you can't accept the former and deny the latter without enforcing a real vs. fictional double standard. We're supposed to avoid double standards, remember?

anthrofied, feralized, humanized, humanoidized and alternate_species should only apply to named characters with a known default form. That's the only way to know for sure whether that specific character's form has been altered, otherwise there's hardly anything stopping you from applying the tags to just about anything.

All animals are naturally feral, however pokémon (for example) may also be naturally anthropomorphic or humanoid, consequently, if we don't use tags such the mentioned to sort them would be impossible to separate the "original" creatures from the "modified" ones.

Pokémorph used to imply anthrofied, and the only reason the implication was removed was because it was getting tagged for humanoidized pokemon.

Pokemon and digimon have always been treated as some sort of hybrid character/species tags.

male_penetrating is incredibly undertagged (probably because it would apply to the vast majority of all images on the site, so it probably seems redundant to users) and so are the other *_penetrating tags.

(penile/anal/vaginal/oral)_(penetration/masturbation/fingering) are very undertagged as well, as are (toying/fingering)_(self/partner). I think something in the range of 1/2 to 1/4th of the images that would fit in each category are untagged.

Viewing angles, and character visibility within the frame (half-length, 3/4 length etc).
Admittedly, both tag families tend to only lend themselves to solo pics, but even then they're usually omited.

Jugofthat said:
Viewing angles, and character visibility within the frame (half-length, 3/4 length etc).
Admittedly, both tag families tend to only lend themselves to solo pics, but even then they're usually omited.

Front_view especially.

The issue with half-length_portrait, three-quarter_portrait, etc., besides being a pain to type in, is they imply portrait which is a particular type of image. Many images only showing part of a character are not portraits and there are no non-portrait equivalents to those tags as far as I know. For example:

post #50725

About 3/4 of him is shown but it's not a portrait, so we can't tag it as three-quarter_portrait.

detailed, though this could be because the wiki entry sounds overly strict. Images like the ones above and below usually don't have the tag despite being fairly detailed.

post #229978

toony is undertagged as well. One thing I've noticed is we have no tag for images lacking detail or drawn in a simplified manner. Toony is close since it features many simple images but doesn't refer to that specifically ("toon" describes form more than it does detail) and photorealistic toons are a thing (Zootopia, for example).

BlueDingo said:
About 3/4 of him is shown but it's not a portrait, so we can't tag it as three-quarter_portrait.

So it's a three-quarter_view then? Still a mouthful to type.

portrait is kinda undertagged as well.

The most visually obvious and undertagged that I encounter is signature

Most of the really basic stuff like colour, medium, and background elements/props are very undertagged.

tapering_penis,
feral, feral_on_feral,
and especially upside_down.

Looots of pictures of characters upside down with no tag to accompany it.

• biped

quadruped
flora_fauna (specially to grass-type pokémon)
red_fox (people simply use 'fox' instead)
grizzly_bear (people simply use 'bear' instead)
western_dragon (people simply use 'dragon' instead)
water (beach, sea, river, lake, waterfall, swimming_pool, shower, bath, rain)

• fire (candle, campfire, torch, fireplace, oil_lamp)
• dialogue

female_on_anthro + human_on_anthro
male_on_anthro + human_on_anthro

Lance_Armstrong said:
female_on_anthro + human_on_anthro
male_on_anthro + human_on_anthro

Did we ever agree to use those? I didn't even know those were in use. It makes sense, and I seem to recall supporting them, but not getting any feedback on it?

Lance_Armstrong said:
female_on_anthro + human_on_anthro
male_on_anthro + human_on_anthro

I) But we haven't a 'male_on_anthro' tag.

II) 'female_on_anthro' is vague. To which kind of female it refers; human, humanoid, anthro, feral, taur, any? The empty wiki doesn't help.

O16 said:

• biped
• quadruped
• flora_fauna (specially to grass-type pokémon)
• red_fox (people simply use 'fox' instead)
• grizzly_bear (people simply use 'bear' instead)
• western_dragon (people simply use 'dragon' instead)
• water (beach, sea, river, lake, waterfall, swimming_pool, shower, bath, rain)
• fire (candle, campfire, torch, fireplace, oil_lamp)
• dialogue

At least some of these are easy to find and spam in. bellsprout -flora_fauna, candle -fire, comic text -dialogue, speech_bubble -dialogue, etc.

Others can't be simplified so easily. bear -grizzly_bear won't help, adding -panda, -polar_bear, etc. may exclude images containing grizzlies (We Bare Bears comes to mind, though their one is named at least). bear brown_fur -grizzly_bear might find some, except many people don't tag fur colors and the brown fur may not be on the bear.

Clawdragons said:
Did we ever agree to use those? I didn't even know those were in use. It makes sense, and I seem to recall supporting them, but not getting any feedback on it?

I'm trying to figure that out. But there are thousands of *_on_feral tags.

O16 said:
I) But we haven't a 'male_on_anthro' tag.

Call it extremely undertagged.

O16 said:
II) 'female_on_anthro' is vague. To which kind of female it refers; human, humanoid, anthro, feral, taur, any? The empty wiki doesn't help.

If it is to be used anything like female_on_feral, all of them. That's why human_on_anthro could be added at the same time.

Lance_Armstrong said:
I'm trying to figure that out. But there are thousands of *_on_feral tags.

Call it extremely undertagged.

If it is to be used anything like female_on_feral, all of them. That's why human_on_anthro could be added at the same time.

I think [gender]_on_[form] tags should always follow the format of [more human character's sex]_on_[less human character's form], to prevent an explosion of new tags, if it is going to exist.

Having it include any form besides the listed one would introduce a lot of additional tag-load for little extra specificity, since you could still search reasonably well for such pairings through a combination of form_on_form, sex_on_sex and sex_on_form tags.

Ex: A female feral and a male anthro can already be searched for by male_on_feral male/female anthro_on_feral - having female_on_anthro include feral/anthro pairings wouldn't help much - to find that pairing would still require three tags: female_on_anthro male/female anthro_on_feral.

The hierarchy, I think, would go like this: human > humanoid > anthro > taur > feral.

So there would be no [sex]_on_human tags, [sex]_on_humanoid would imply human (since that's the only form that is in that direction on the heirarchy), [sex]_on_anthro would be for humans and humanoids with an anthro, and so on. This "triangular approach" allows for full specificity in the minimum number of tags.

Where would waddling_heads fall into this?

BlueDingo said:
Where would waddling_heads fall into this?

That's a fair question. I think we can just somewhat ignore them - they're not really that common anyway.

Clawdragons said:
That's a fair question. I think we can just somewhat ignore them - they're not really that common anyway.

kirby rating:e -solo I think waddling_head is just undertagged.

Furrin_Gok said:
kirby rating:e -solo I think waddling_head is just undertagged.

Or simply kirby -waddling_head. Isolate the problem.

BlueDingo said:
Where would waddling_heads fall into this?

Nowhere, at the moment. Same goes for other forms that don't fall into the main five (human, humanoid, taur, anthro, feral), such as some monsters (especially eldritch_horror), penis_creature, living_machine, and animate_inanimate. Which are full of body types that are hard to pigeonhole.

Fortunately, they're all pretty rare. So the lack of x_on_y tags doesn't matter that much.

BlueDingo said:
At least some of these are easy to find and spam in. bellsprout -flora_fauna, candle -fire, comic text -dialogue, speech_bubble -dialogue, etc.

Others can't be simplified so easily. bear -grizzly_bear won't help, adding -panda, -polar_bear, etc. may exclude images containing grizzlies (We Bare Bears comes to mind, though their one is named at least). bear brown_fur -grizzly_bear might find some, except many people don't tag fur colors and the brown fur may not be on the bear.

I) pokémon's_name - x_fauna works well, the main problem is do it to all pokémon that would fit under the specified category. I already did the easiest, fungi fauna, but mineral fauna and flora_fauna would be a true nightmare. Actually, I analyzed the pokédex and created an list of all species that would be under 'mineral_fauna', currently I am accumulating courage to do the needed changes (courage ≤ 23% right now).

II) '~taur ~feral -avian -snake -fish -quadruped' and '~anthro ~human ~humanid ~satyr ~avian -biped' aren't perfect, but may work relatively well at first; however are so… intimidatingly huge.

III) 'fire', 'water' and 'dialogue' apparently are the simplest to fix.

O16 said:
I) pokémon's_name - x_fauna works well, the problem is do it to all pokémon that would fit in the specified category. I already did the easiest, fungi fauna, but mineral fauna and flora_fauna would be a true nightmare. Actually I analyzed the pokédex and created an list for all species that would be under 'mineral_fauna', currently I am accumulating courage to do it (courage ≤ 23% right now).

If you plan on making periodic checks, maybe make links searching several of the more obscure ones at once and check it every 3 months or something. Something like \~p1 ~p2 ~p3 ~p4 ~p5 -x_fauna (with actual tags, obviously) should work.

O16 said:
II) '~taur ~feral -avian -snake -fish -quadruped' & '~anthro ~human ~humanoid ~satyr ~avian -biped' aren't perfect but may work relatively well at first, however are so… intimidatingly huge.

~796700 out of ~1043850 is indeed huge.

O16 said:
III) 'fire', 'water' and 'dialogue' apparently are the simplest to fix.

Mainly because they're very easy to find, just like non-mammal_breasts and clothed.

The fire tag would jump up a bit if flaming_tail I-> fire and flaming_hair I-> fire were approved.

telekinesis. So many MLP images contain it yet it's hardly ever tagged.

cel_shading. So many toony images contain it yet it's rarely tagged.

Are most images with board_shorts under a different tag or just badly undertagged?

I used to tag non-mammal_breasts on avian anthros but then I stopped. Felt unnecessary as they are anthros. For a female anthro to not have any breasts at all is more of an exception.

BlueDingo said:
telekinesis. So many MLP images contain it yet it's hardly ever tagged.

Probably because in MLP that kind of levitation is done via magic, and the word "telekinesis" means moving things with the mind. Therefore people don't think to tag it "telekinesis" because it's not with the mind, it's with magic.

Afterglow said:
Probably because in MLP that kind of levitation is done via magic, and the word "telekinesis" means moving things with the mind. Therefore people don't think to tag it "telekinesis" because it's not with the mind, it's with magic.

Aka, "The mind." So, yes, it is telekinesis.

Furrin_Gok said:
Aka, "The mind." So, yes, it is telekinesis.

The site doesn't differentiate, just check the wiki, but magic is not the same as mental will. If necessary, I could delve deep into that argument between (mutant/super) powers vs magic vs science, but that's all TWYK in regards to tagging telekinesis.

I personally want to change it to remove the usually, but that wouldn't remove the immediate implication that we think of telekinesis to super powers.

BlueDingo said:

Are most images with board_shorts under a different tag or just badly undertagged?

Aren't board shorts the same as swimming trunks? If yes, is the first option.

O16 said:
Aren't board shorts the same as swimming trunks? If yes, is the first option.

The swimming trunks tag seems to cover multiple garments (board shorts being one of them) and wikipedia is a little unclear on the matter.

BlueDingo said:
The swimming trunks tag seems to cover multiple garments (board shorts being one of them) and wikipedia is a little unclear on the matter.

*some search*

Apparently board shorts are a type of swimming trunks, they are looser and usually larger in comparison with the other type (which seems to have no specific name).

furgonomics - It's mostly added automatically when someone tags certain types of piercings and rarely added for anything else.

translated - Some of our translators seem to be forgetting to add it. Search notes:* -translated for examples.

BTW, do/should we have a tag for when notes are used for corrections as opposed to translations?

ambiguous_gender

orgasm