It is a valid term and tag. Unlike Eyes, it is not a thing to almost every picture involves, as there are a number of species that possess no tails, or tails so short they are normally obscured.

Fur, hair, scales, and other such general tags are valid, so why not tail?

Azula_Arktandr said:
It is a valid term and tag. Unlike Eyes, it is not a thing to almost every picture involves, as there are a number of species that possess no tails, or tails so short they are normally obscured.

Fur, hair, scales, and other such general tags are valid, so why not tail?

I gotta agree with this.

looks like it's time to invalidate fur, hair, and scales.

Azula_Arktandr said:
It is a valid term and tag. Unlike Eyes, it is not a thing to almost every picture involves, as there are a number of species that possess no tails, or tails so short they are normally obscured.

It would make life a little easier for those who do/don't want a tail visible for whatever reason, or want to find a tailless version of something. raised_tail, striped_tail, etc. can only help so much.

Ive always wondered what criteria is used to decide what is too generic and what isnt, tail and armpits get invalidated but not hips or fingers for example the reasons people give so far make no real since, seem all to much about just cherry picking personal preferences and not for good of users as a whole.

Tailless species(imputing as -tail) is certainly a valid reason for not having invalidated tail, seem just as important as the reason that has been given for keeping butts and hips which is that they are a common point of attraction, kinda ignoring that there are tags for wide hips and small hips among other things...

Darou said:
Ive always wondered what criteria is used to decide what is too generic and what isnt, tail and armpits get invalidated but not hips or fingers for example

There's no hips tag, and fingers are tagged because there are numerous other 'hand' types. Such as paws, and hoof-hands that the anthro ponies tend to have.

Wildcard search *_tail works if you need to search for any visible tail. Other than that, there's the tailless tag for characters that lack a tail. (That should only be tagged for species that normally have a tail).

(Actually, the wildcard searches seem to be bugged at the moment. I only see the first page for the above search. Can anyone else confirm?)

Genjar said:
Wildcard search *_tail works if you need to search for any visible tail. Other than that, there's the tailless tag for characters that lack a tail. (That should only be tagged for species that normally have a tail).

What about images where the tail is simply out of view? You can't exclude wildcards, and a lot of images with tails don't have an *_tail tag in it anyway.

There's no way to search for a tail that's out of view. And I think that's how it should be. If there's a character facing away from the viewer and you're not sure if they have eyes or not should that really be tagged? I say no.

leomole said:
There's no way to search for a tail that's out of view. And I think that's how it should be. If there's a character facing away from the viewer and you're not sure if they have eyes or not should that really be tagged? I say no.

That's not what I meant. I meant the tailless tag wouldn't apply in cases like that so it's not a good substitute for -tail.

BlueDingo said:
What about images where the tail is simply out of view?

What about them? We don't tag things that aren't visible.
There's plenty of posts where the characters legs are out of view. Does that mean that we need a leg tag too?

Genjar said:
What about them? We don't tag things that aren't visible.
There's plenty of posts where the characters legs are out of view. Does that mean that we need a leg tag too?

About as much as we need the toes tag.

BlueDingo said:
About as much as we need the toes tag.

I already explained fingers earlier. Toes exists for the same reason.

Genjar said:
I already explained fingers earlier. Toes exists for the same reason.

Why don't any of the *_fingers tags imply fingers yet?

Going back a bit, how does one find an image that doesn't feature a tail if -tail isn't allowed? Tailless only works if the character definitely doesn't have a tail when they're supposed to, and therefore doesn't cover:

• Characters that are normally tailless.
• Tails that are off-screen.
• Tails that are behind something.

post #478175post #1073130post #1316214

None of these are tailless and there's no way to find all of them at once. I even tried searching -tail_tuft -flaming_tail -raised_tail -multicolored_tail -fluffy_tail -multi_tail -long_tail -thick_tail to remove as many tail images as possible and most of the results still had a tail in it.

And on the searching side of things, we don't have a *_tail for every situation yet so searching *_tail can't find all of them.

Genjar said:
(Actually, the wildcard searches seem to be bugged at the moment. I only see the first page for the above search. Can anyone else confirm?)

It's not working for me either.

BlueDingo said:
Why don't any of the *_fingers tags imply fingers yet?

Let's not get side-tracked. That's been answered in other threads. Summarized: admins need to decide what (if anything) should be done with the fingers, 5_fingers, humanoid_hands overlap before implications get made.

Going back a bit, how does one find an image that doesn't feature a tail if -tail isn't allowed?

How does one find an image that doesn't feature legs or armpits? They don't.

Try searching for humanoid -hair order:random or -fur order:random to see how pointless -tail would be in practice.

And on the searching side of things, we don't have a *_tail for every situation yet so searching *_tail can't find all of them.

We absolutely do, if you include the tail color tags. Though hardly anyone bothers to tag those.

Genjar said:
How does one find an image that doesn't feature legs or armpits? They don't.

Try searching for humanoid -hair order:random or -fur order:random to see how pointless -tail would be in practice.

So in other words, fuck anyone who wishes to find images where a tail isn't visible, including the images above which are not covered by the only solution you've given so far.

Genjar said:
We absolutely do, if you include the tail color tags. Though hardly anyone bothers to tag those.

And wouldn't work for exclusions even if they did tag them.
"-white_tail -black_tail -brown_tail -yellow_tail -grey_tail -blue_tail [i]-orange_tail -tan_tail [s]-purple_tail -pink_tail -red_tail -green_tail[/i][/s]" Oops, out of tag slots!

(The results for *_tail do all show up, but the paginator breaks for some reason. Here's page 749 of results.)