Aliasing anatomically_correct_genitalia → anatomically_correct
Link to alias

Reason:

+1

if someone really need to exclude those few anuses from their results, they can just use -anatomically_correct_anus

Honestly it might be worth renaming it to something like correct_species_genitalia or aliasing it to animal_genitalia. Outside of this site I typically see 'anatomically correct' used to mean either 'nude with genitalia' or 'without major anatomical flaws'.

I believe that the following implication tree would be the most accurate:

• anatomically_correct
• anatomically_correct_anus
• anatomically_correct_genitalia
• anatomically_correct_penis
• anatomically_correct_pussy

Also, I agree with regsmutt about those tags needing a renaming (clarification), possibly to 'correct_species_*' or 'species-matching_*.

O16 said:
I believe that the following implication tree would be the most accurate:

• anatomically_correct
• anatomically_correct_anus
• anatomically_correct_genitalia
• anatomically_correct_penis
• anatomically_correct_pussy

Also, I agree with regsmutt about those tags needing a renaming (clarification), possibly to 'correct_species_*' or 'species-matching_*. [/quote] Except anatomically correct is solely meant for genitalia. This is basically a redundant tag.

Siral_Exan said:
Except anatomically correct is solely meant for genitalia.

Actually, it also includes anuses.

O16 said:
Actually, it also includes anuses.

Which count as genitalia for intentions... just read the wiki, I'm not wrong.

Siral_Exan said:
Which count as genitalia for intentions... just read the wiki, I'm not wrong.

Which wiki? I read 'anus', 'anatomically_correct_anus', 'anatomically_correct', and found nothing.

As far as I know, we consider anuses to be as explicit as genitals, however we don't consider them to be genitals.

O16 said:
Which wiki? I read 'anus', 'anatomically_correct_anus', 'anatomically_correct', and found nothing.

As far as I know, we consider anuses to be as explicit as genitals, however we don't consider then to be genitals.

I referred to anatomically correct being exclusively for genitalia. anatomically correct genitalia is redundant to anatomically correct, and I'm not interested in entertaining tangents.

The change in tags confused me at first, but yeah anatomically_correct is the right term to use.

Just google it.

Siral_Exan said:
I referred to anatomically correct being exclusively for genitalia. anatomically correct genitalia is redundant to anatomically correct, and I'm not interested in entertaining tangents.

The referred wiki mentions only genitals in the first part (explanation), and start mentioning anuses in the second part (list); such disparity derives from the fact of the former be fundamentally older than the latter (confirmed by the wiki history); in another words: the wiki doesn't say that anuses are genitals, the discrepancy between the wiki parts may give this idea.

The first part probably needs to be updated in order to mention anuses as well.

p.s. what exactly do you mean by "entertaining tangents".

TheGreatWolfgang said:
The change in tags confused me at first, but yeah anatomically_correct is the right term to use.

Just google it.

It apparently is for dolls with genitals.

O16 said:
The referred wiki mentions only genitals in the first part (explanation), and start mentioning anuses in the second part (list); such disparity derives from the fact of the former be fundamentally older than the latter (confirmed due to wiki history); in another words: the wiki doesn't say that anuses are genitals, the discrepancy between the wiki parts may give this idea.

The first part probably needs to be updated in order to mention anuses as well.

p.s. what exactly do you mean by "entertaining tangents".

It apparently is for dolls with genitals.

Does the wiki say it is for genitalia or not? It's as simple as that. You keep making it more complicated, this is a simple alias with simple answers.

Does the wiki refer to genitalia, making anatomically correct genitalia redundant. The tag is for anatomically correct genitalia.

Siral_Exan said:
Does the wiki say it is for genitalia or not? It's as simple as that. You keep making it more complicated, this is a simple alias with simple answers.

Yes, but it probably should say genitalia and anus; all the clues point to the fist part of the wiki being outdated.

'anatomically_correct_genitalia' would be only for genitals, hence anuses are excluded.

Edit: Also, 'anatomically_correct' could be extended to other categiries (like mammas) in the future, hence making sense to keep genitals in a sub category.

O16 said:
Yes, but it probably should say genitalia and anus; all the clues point to the fist part of the wiki being outdated.

'anatomically_correct_genitalia' would be only for genitals, hence anuses are excluded.

Yes, because you have such hard "clues" and mighty evidence for a severely undertagged, redundant, and ineffective overall, tag. Should we incorporate anatomically_incorrect next?

The tag is for genitals, if it includes an anus then it includes an anus. Having more tags is exactly what we don't need for such a simple tag, with such simplicity that there are no theoretics about it and can be listed (such can't be said for even simpler tags). An alias is better over a second tag representing the exact same thing. Exceptions don't need to be made here.

Siral_Exan said:
Yes, because you have such hard "clues" and mighty evidence for a severely undertagged, redundant, and ineffective overall, tag. Should we incorporate anatomically_incorrect next?

The tag is for genitals, if it includes an anus then it includes an anus. Having more tags is exactly what we don't need for such a simple tag, with such simplicity that there are no theoretics about it and can be listed (such can't be said for even simpler tags). An alias is better over a second tag representing the exact same thing. Exceptions don't need to be made here.

I will try to explain more clearly:

Apparently, the 'anatomically_correct' tag originally had included only genitalia, however at some point in the past, anus started being include as well; in such a way it currently includes both (however the wiki wasn't properly adapted).
I am trying to say that 'anatomically_correct_genitalia' could be used as a subset (separated from 'anatomically_correct_anus') to maintain the main tag well sorted. In the same way that anuses were posteriorly included, new categories could be include as well, hence, making even more sense to maintain the tag organized.

p.s. hostility is unnecessary. However if you weren't trying to be hostile and I am merely misinterpreting you, then I apologize.

O16 said:
I will try to explain more clearly:

Apparently, the 'anatomically_correct' tag originally had include genitalia, however at some point in the past, anus started being include as well; in such a way it currently includes both (however the wiki wasn't properly adapted).
I am trying to say that 'anatomically_correct_genitalia' could be used as a subset (separated from 'anatomically_correct_anus') to maintain the main tag well sorted. In the same way that anuses were posteriorly included, new categories could be include as well, hence, making even more sense to maintain the tag organized.

p.s. hostility is unnecessary. However if you weren't trying to be hostile and I am merely misinterpreting you, then I apologize.

That's not hostility, that's emphasis. It's dramatic, granted, but nowhere near true hostility. But, anatomically correct genitalia is going to overwhelm the tag count in comparison to anatomically correct + anatomically correct anus. You don't need organization for this, the tag is still meant to be for genitalia. This is basically the same thing as using a special tag for fox, that encompasses all the normal foxes you see on site; in observation, it looks positive, but when used it'll be too big to be effective.

Organization is better suited if we had more tags, in general and in implications, for anatomically correct. If we started including fantasy races or if genitalia was broadened, then organization is useful; until then, the sheer amount of anatomically correct genitalia makes it redundant to use, you are effectively just referring to anatomically correct.

Just for reference the somewhat misleading or improper nomenclature as well as its overall usefulness was discussed before in these threads.

forum #220486
forum #31167 ~ forum #31182
forum #44882
forum #180728
...

I was always of the opinion that anatomically correct is not and shouldn't be limited to genitalia, and it also wasnt when the tag was first created, being used for other features like placement of genitalia in the abdomen rather then crotch in insects, teats or digitigrade or plantigrade(fandom tends to draw lizards digitigrade but almost all species are plantigrade in real life for example) feet that match what their real life species has for example, but in practice today it is usually used just for type of genitalia matching species.

Im of preference to O16's tag tree but its usefulness would be in question.

Also overtones of hostile sarcasm or as you call it dramaticism were rather uncalled for siral.

Yes, because you have such hard "clues" and mighty evidence for a severely undertagged, redundant, and ineffective overall, tag. Should we incorporate anatomically_incorrect next?

i believe it was discussed before elsewhere that there is no such thing as incorrect in regards to the content a tag is describing on e621, and all tags that refer to genitalia or other body parts that have been drawn wrong have been invalidated...

Ruku said:
Also overtones of hostile sarcasm or as you call it dramaticism were rather uncalled for siral.
i believe it was discussed before elsewhere that there is no such thing as incorrect in regards to the content a tag is describing on e621, and all tags that refer to genitalia or other body parts that have been drawn wrong have been invalidated...

I don't think you get to say what's uncalled for if you can't recognize the argument format I'm using. You seriously missed the mark for an dramatic emphasis argument, those were intentionally wrong (dramatic) in order to emphasize a point. He could catch on and continue our argument as normal, but you'd like to say otherwise?

At this point, I fear saying anything to you whatsoever, you took a step too far out of context and I know that will happen again. I'd rather this be an A & B argument.

Siral_Exan said:
I don't think you get to say what's uncalled for if you can't recognize the argument format I'm using. You seriously missed the mark for an dramatic emphasis argument, those were intentionally wrong (dramatic) in order to emphasize a point. He could catch on and continue our argument as normal, but you'd like to say otherwise?

At this point, I fear saying anything to you whatsoever, you took a step too far out of context and I know that will happen again. I'd rather this be an A & B argument.

Please do not clutter threads with meaningless legalese siral exan to appear superior. I did recognize that you were doing that to emphasize a point that one can call a slippery rope fallacy at best, does not change that it was uncalled for in the way you wrote it.

I find it rather odd that you keep calling me out as not understanding you when others have not understood you ether in multiple instances including here. I do question if i should even be replying to you considering out of all regulars on the forum here you are usually the one to show the most hostility in these debates...

Ruku said:
Please do not clutter threads with meaningless legalese siral exan to appear superior. I did recognize that you were doing that to emphasize a point that one can call a slippery rope fallacy at best, does not change that it was uncalled for in the way you wrote it.

I find it rather odd that you keep calling me out as not understanding you when others have not understood you ether in multiple instances including here. I do question if i should even be replying to you considering out of all regulars on the forum here you are usually the one to show the most hostility in these debates...

I think I have a better way to word this: me and O16 are treating eachother well, if not being neutral, and the proof is in the pudding with my other recent interaction with them. I am clearly restraining myself, you could do a bit of sleuthing to see why, and it is instead just you whom thinks I'm actually being hostile.

Siral_Exan said:
I am appalled by this. I should not have to justify myself to anyone, but to do so: by all accounts your usage of hostility is wrong, as I have had opportunities to be hostile and did not take them, unlike what I'm seeing now. I'd link evidence, but I respect O16 and my interactions with him on other threads are to be treated private and irrelevant to this discussion. He's also had opportunities but didn't take them, and I'm not calling them hostile because I know he isn't.

People do not understand me, as they have also talked about me to admins and have made (sourly worded) tickets against me. But here I am, still showing the patience and courtesy in an argument, withholding any true actions I could take to vindicate my argument (which should obviously be rude, I have to tone myself up so I'm not).

I'd appreciate it if you didn't judge me. By all regards, realize the scope that I am operating on, I should be actually arguing and making hard points, creating problems along the way for others to solve. My actions aren't to be judged if you aren't actually seeing me act.

just to remind you that O16 also found what you were writing to be hostile earlyer in this thread.
You say misunderstandings between you and O16 on other threads are irrelevant to bring up here but none the less you use misunderstandings between you and me from the past to formulate your intention of ignoring me here while also broadcasting to everyone else that my commentary in particular should be ignored or taken with a grain of salt.

At this point, I fear saying anything to you whatsoever, you took a step too far out of context and I know that will happen again. I'd rather this be an A & B argument.

Its not the first time you post this degradation in responding to me and its always been only me you post this to no one else you think is taking your commentary the wrong way.
patience was not at question here but you were not showing any courtesy.

I dont want to judge you but the same is also to be expected of you siral exan, not to judge me.

Ruku, please stop.

Siral_Exan said:
Ruku, please stop.

Then actually stay on the subject of this thread and respond to the content i linked in my second comment or give a response to me noting in that same comment about the impossibility of anatomically_incorrect existing for example or stay silent, instead of ignoring everything for the sake of using my comment as an excuse to post a degrading comment about me and past misunderstandings between us.

Let's try to steer this back on track.

Doesn't the anatomically_correct_genitalia tag also cover genital slits and cloacas? Those can be anatomically_correct_genitalia but not anatomically_correct_penis or anatomically_correct_pussy unless those are also visible.

Ruku said:
Then actually stay on the subject of this thread and respond to the content i linked in my second comment or give a response to me noting in that same comment about the impossibility of anatomically_incorrect existing for example or stay silent, instead of ignoring everything for the sake of using my comment as an excuse to post a degrading comment about me and past misunderstandings between us.

No. Please stop it with me. A 100%, no baggage, stop.

Jesus Christ move on already. If I wanted a soap opera I'd go back to highschool.

I was out for some hours, then when I return encounter this ... that was unexpected.

Sincerely, Ruku, I guess you was mostly creating a storm in a teacup (not intending to relight the discussion, though).

-/-/-/-

BlueDingo said:
Let's try to steer this back on track.

Doesn't the anatomically_correct_genitalia tag also cover genital slits and cloacas? Those can be anatomically_correct_genitalia but not anatomically_correct_penis or anatomically_correct_pussy unless those are also visible.

Yes to genital slits, but cloacas are very similar to anuses in general appearance (also share functionality) so I guess it would be more closely related to 'anatomically_correct_anus'.

There's lots of variations of genitalia that don't all deserve their own anatomically_correct_* tag since they'd already fall under the broad 'all genitalia' tag.

I dunno but myself when I see "Anatomically correct" I just think of things being "Correct" for that species say: Roos having the eggs-over-sausage configuration as opposed to animal_genitalia which conjures up images of dog cooters and dongs.

Of course, There's other tags that should probably be aliased to that too like Cloaca or genital_slit but that might smack too much of work.