Came up with two car related tags. on_hood and in_car

1) love this thread, both for data entry and entertainment value
2) another tag that isn't quite new but needs attention is >30_sec_webm. the way i have been going through videos to tag this is to do a search of "type:webm order:filesize" which turns up long and high res videos first.

Can tags such as hi_res be automated by the resolution of the file?

Sorrowless said:
Came up with two car related tags. on_hood and in_car

That second one should be sex_in_car. C'mon. That one is not hard to find.

Circeus said:
That second one should be sex_in_car. C'mon. That one is not hard to find.

Wouldn't it be better to use in_car and have the sex tag? I mean, what if we have characters not having sex in the car? It's not like we have sex_in_house

Sorrowless said:
Wouldn't it be better to use in_car and have the sex tag? I mean, what if we have characters not having sex in the car? It's not like we have sex_in_house

Agreed. Plus, that way we avoid more debates on what counts as "sex."

FWIW, I'd rather the tag have been "car_sex" anyway, but I didn't come up with it. Take it with someone that can rename it!

Circeus said:
FWIW, I'd rather the tag have been "car_sex" anyway, but I didn't come up with it. Take it with someone that can rename it!

heh, car_sex can be used for characters having sex with the car itself.

Circeus said:
FWIW, I'd rather the tag have been "car_sex" anyway, but I didn't come up with it. Take it with someone that can rename it!

Does not specify if it's sex inside or outside and also does not specify if it just sex with a car or just in relation as a place that sex is partaken at. So car_sex alone is useless for searches

Sorrowless said:
heh, car_sex can be used for characters having sex with the car itself.

Ruku said:
Does not specify if it's sex inside or outside and also does not specify if it just sex with a car or just in relation as a place that sex is partaken at. So car_sex alone is useless for searches

There's is such a thing as being nitpicky.

Furrin_Gok said:
There's is such a thing as being nitpicky.

On the internet? No, really?!

:P

post #1008803
Rapey ought to be a tag.

Sorrowless said:
post #1008803
Rapey ought to be a tag.

It is (or at least that's how I understand it). It's questionable_consent.

Circeus said:
It is (or at least that's how I understand it). It's questionable_consent.

Thanks. I'll keep that tag in mind.
This is such a nice thread.

Twig, munching a Twig/Straw.
I pulled a word farmers_gum to describe this plant straw that farmers and cowboys often hold in their mouth. Question is, this tag is accurate to those pics? Or, is there something similar in the wild here already?

Wiki: farmers gum

post #1010785 post #1010492 post #954306

oral_fixation? See also object_in_mouth, which will have quite a few

Circeus said:
oral_fixation? See also object_in_mouth, which will have quite a few

That's actually better! Thanks!

I like your tag, though. Just pointing out some things you may want to look at too.

Is there an alternate tag already in use for transparent_lingerie? It seems like a very useful thing to have tagged, but apparently post #1024838 is the only one under it, by my own tagging.
Looking into tag history, other images had been tagged with it but had it removed in favor of the much too vague transparent_clothing. I would much prefer to have a subtag for this implying that.

Furrin_Gok said:
Is there an alternate tag already in use for transparent_lingerie?

I don't think so.
And considering that transparent is often misspelled, and lingerie isn't easy to spell either, I'm not in favor of that tag. It'd likely result in too many typos.

Wouldn't searching for transparent_clothing lingerie suffice?

Genjar said:
Wouldn't searching for transparent_clothing lingerie suffice?

I don't believe so. It'd be easy to have opaque lingerie seen through transparent overwear.

Just created a wiki page for oversex

Furrin_Gok said:
Is there an alternate tag already in use for transparent_lingerie? It seems like a very useful thing to have tagged, but apparently post #1024838 is the only one under it, by my own tagging.
Looking into tag history, other images had been tagged with it but had it removed in favor of the much too vague transparent_clothing. I would much prefer to have a subtag for this implying that.

transparent_underwear?

Is there a tag for open-toed footwear yet? If not, would toeless_footwear be suitable? Example:
post #5218

Are there tags (besides style_parody) for images drawn in a particular show's art style?
Eg. post #608772 is a Blue's Clues image drawn in Adventure Time's art style.
post #608772

The :3 tag refers to a particular facial expression involving a hare lip. Is there a tag for the hare lip specifically? Because I don't know if the :3 tag applies when the character's mouth is open or their eyes are closed. (See above images.)

BlueDingo said:

Is there a tag for open-toed footwear yet? If not, would toeless_footwear be suitable? Example:
post #5218

I don't think you can go wrong creating that, but I'd go one better and just make it toeless (since one-word tag are significantly more convenient). I've cleaned up a couple things in that tag that belong in featureless_limbs.

Are there tags (besides style_parody) for images drawn in a particular show's art style?
Eg. post #608772 is a Blue's Clues image drawn in Adventure Time's art style.
post #608772

What's wrong with Style_parody? As far as I know, the only other possibly relevant tag is multiple_styles.

I wouldn't object to something like alternate_art_style, but the problem this will create with distinguishing from style_parody should be obvious.

Circeus said:
What's wrong with Style_parody? As far as I know, the only other possibly relevant tag is multiple_styles.

I wouldn't object to something like alternate_art_style, but the problem this will create with distinguishing from style_parody should be obvious.

I never said there was anything wrong with style_parody. What I mean is, individual tags for specific art styles (simpsons style, mlp style^#, dora the explorer style, etc.) if they are common and/or distinct enough. Style_parody tells you an alternate art style is being used but it doesn't tell you which alternate art style is being used. Art style tags would make it possible to find images of a particular style.

_{^#Yes, I'm well aware that this will overlap heavily with ponification but not all instances of that would fully qualify as a style parody due to things like colouring method, proportions, etc.}

BlueDingo said:
I never said there was anything wrong with style_parody. What I mean is, individual tags for specific art styles (simpsons style, mlp style^#, dora the explorer style, etc.) if they are common and/or distinct enough. Style_parody tells you an alternate art style is being used but it doesn't tell you which alternate art style is being used. Art style tags would make it possible to find images of a particular style.

_{^#Yes, I'm well aware that this will overlap heavily with ponification but not all instances of that would fully qualify as a style parody due to things like colouring method, proportions, etc.}

I don't think we'd tag for specific show art styles, but I wouldn't be sure, honestly.

Circeus said:
I don't think we'd tag for specific show art styles, but I wouldn't be sure, honestly.

Maybe if the style were common enough, but I suspect that most of them wouldn't even hit double digit tagcounts. Except for MLP, of course.

Some generic style_parody-related tags might work, though. For instance...Toonified, for characters that are drawn more toony than normal?

titanmelon said:
Just created a wiki page for oversex

genital_creature would have been better, your wiki on oversex aready makes clear there may be alot of mistaging with such a name.

Circeus said:
I don't think you can go wrong creating that, but I'd go one better and just make it toeless (since one-word tag are significantly more convenient). I've cleaned up a couple things in that tag that belong in featureless_limbs.

Regarding toeless, you kinda already state the problem of such a tag, and why it will be prone to mistaging. The first thing people are going think of that tag is just that feet without toes, not some kind of clothing. worth noting the present hand equivalent to toeless on this site is a type of marking, not fingerless gloves("handwear"), fingerless_gloves which is its own tag. Can only shorten something so much till it becomes unintuitive.

Open-toed might work. Unlike toeless, it can't really refer to anything but footwear.
But if that's not good enough, then I'd go with open-toed_footwear.

Genjar said:
Open-toed might work. Unlike toeless, it can't really refer to anything but footwear.
But if that's not good enough, then I'd go with open-toed_footwear.

I like that. If it goes that way, the various toeless_* tags will want to be renamed so the implications make sense, though.

Ruku said:
genital_creature would have been better, your wiki on oversex aready makes clear there may be alot of mistaging with such a name.
[..]

Hm, the tag's not primarily for stuff like penis_creature and whatnot though,
genital_creature sounds like the umbrella tag of :

penis_creature, and whatever equivalent of pussy_creature (hahah just look at that name incongruity) exists
edit: 12+ posts

..additionally, breasts aren't technically genitals
-
I'm all for changing the term to something less confusing if it comes down to that though,

Other suggestions welcome

--
PS, I like the idea of genital_creature as an umbrella body type tag for the above mentioned male/female genital creature types, but both are relatively low count ATM, especially the latter, so..IDK

Is there a tag for when the end of a character's ears are a different color? I see this a lot.
post #140525 post #1031681

Is there a tag for this particular foot marking?
post #1045075 post #72160

Should we de-alias very_long_hair -> long_hair so we can sort realistically long from unrealistically long?

BlueDingo said:
Is there a tag for when the end of a character's ears are a different color? I see this a lot.
post #140525 post #1031681

I would just use ear_marking.

BlueDingo said:
Is there a tag for this particular foot marking?
post #1045075 post #72160

I don't think so, unless it qualifies as socks_(marking).

Maxpizzle said:
I don't think so, unless it qualifies as socks_(marking).

socks_(marking) is for when it looks like a sock. This is more like a slipper.

BlueDingo said:
Is there a tag for when the end of a character's ears are a different color? I see this a lot.
post #140525 post #1031681

No such tag. If we wanted to tag it, dipstick_ears might work. Since dipstick_tail already exists. _{^{(...that's such a weird name for a tag, hard to believe that it caught on.)}}

Genjar said:
No such tag. If we wanted to tag it, dipstick_ears might work. Since dipstick_tail already exists. _{^{(...that's such a weird name for a tag, hard to believe that it caught on.)}}

I suppose that's as good as any right now, unless the ear_markings -> facial_markings implication gets removed. See forum #213264.

Genjar said:
dipstick_ears

Do note: I tried starting that and it didn't catch on. (There are only the three images I tagged under there)

post #1050236
What is the tag for when you see the tentacles through the skin? That seems like more than abdominal_bulge.

Furrin_Gok said:
post #1050236
What is the tag for when you see the tentacles through the skin? That seems like more than abdominal_bulge.

intestinal_bulge

----------

Since many Winnie the Pooh characters are technically plushies, is it okay to tag them as such when they're not being depicted as actual animals?

Also, is living_plushie an official tag? It only has 3 instances.

BlueDingo said:
Since many Winnie the Pooh characters are technically plushies, is it okay to tag them as such when they're not being depicted as actual animals?

If they actually look like one, with stitching and such, then yes.

Also, is living_plushie an official tag? It only has 3 instances.

Such tags are problematic because there's already so many that they can't all be excluded from a search. If it all possible, I'd try lumping them under the existing body type tags.

Animate_inanimate might be good enough fit for them?

Fair enough. I added plushie and animate inanimate to post #422806 to reflect this. The Winnie the Pooh characters usually have marks around their chest and abdominal area that look kinda like stitches as well as mitten_hands so sorting the plushies from the fleshies shouldn't be too hard.

Speaking of which, mitten_hands can be used to describe characters whose hands are shaped like mittens.

BlueDingo said:
intestinal_bulge

This one seems to be depicting more than that, even. Do we just stick that low?

Anyone know the proper term for the necklace in post #339720? I tagged it as plate_necklace but don't know what it's actually called.
post #339720

I'm looking for an appropiate tag for when a character is using their phone to capture another character / other characters.

I feel hesitant about using the recording tag, since it's hard to tell if said character is filming or just taking a photo.

post #728677 post #1026800 post #915667

BlueDingo said:
Anyone know the proper term for the necklace in post #339720? I tagged it as plate_necklace but don't know what it's actually called.

The first thing that comes to mind is "nameplate_necklace". I cannot recall ever seeing that sort of necklace on e6, save for that post.

sdrawkcaB said:
I'm looking for an appropiate tag for when a character is using their phone to capture another character / other characters.

I feel hesitant about using the recording tag, since it's hard to tell if said character is filming or just taking a photo.

post #728677 post #1026800 post #915667

We could use capture or capturing for that since that can apply to any instance of using a camera to capture something but then we'd have to do something about the other images already tagged those.

Using_camera is also an option.

The first thing that comes to mind is "nameplate_necklace". I cannot recall ever seeing that sort of necklace on e6, save for that post.

That was my first guess as well, but what if the text isn't the character's name?

BlueDingo said:
We could use capture or capturing for that since that can apply to any instance of using a camera to capture something but then we'd have to do something about the other images already tagged those.

Using_camera is also an option.

There is photographer that particularly applies to the first example while character_snapshot would could apply to the latter 2 where the photo screen is visible. Also open to using_camera. Regarding capturing thru, that could easily be misinterpreted as standing for catching something or seting a trap, could probly solve that with photocapture

That was my first guess as well, but what if the text isn't the character's name?

http://www.zazzle.com/text+necklaces ...text_necklace simple enough...

sdrawkcaB said:
I feel hesitant about using the recording tag, since it's hard to tell if said character is filming or just taking a photo.

camera_view will quite often (though not always) work.

Wow, there's a lot to quote here.

BlueDingo said:
Using_camera is also an option.

Sounds good, since you are actually using the camera in the phone to record videos as well as snapping photos.

Ruku said:
There is photographer that particularly applies to the first example while character_snapshot would could apply to the latter 2 where the photo screen is visible. Also open to using_camera. Regarding capturing thru, that could easily be misinterpreted as standing for catching something or seting a trap, could probly solve that with photocapture

Since photographer is used for both camera and phone users, I think this tag could be the one I'm looking for. Thanks!

Ruku said:
http://www.zazzle.com/text+necklaces ...text_necklace simple enough...

Reminds me of collar_tag.

Circeus said:
camera_view will quite often (though not always) work.

According to the wiki, that tag is only used when the post is viewed thought the lens of the camera itself.

Is there a tag for when people take a digital photograph of a drawing instead of scanning it? I doubt the real tag is meant to apply in this situation.

post #858447

Edit 30/12/2016 - Going with photographed_drawing for now.

Do we have a tag for when a scanned drawing faintly shows the drawing on the other side of the page. Danbooru calls this bleed_through but I don't know what it's called here.

post #539381

New tag: erect_tail. I'm open to suggestions for a better name.

post #737250 post #509369

BlueDingo said:
Do we have a tag for when a scanned drawing faintly shows the drawing on the other side of the page. Danbooru calls this bleed_through but I don't know what it's called here.

I can't find any such tag here, but I would call it bleed-through_(paper) to avoid it being confused with a character bleeding through their clothes or something.

Maxpizzle said:
New tag: erect_tail. I'm open to suggestions for a better name.

There's some overlap with tail_boner, although that one has somewhat different connotations. Maybe those could be moved to erect_tail, the name fits and *_boner tags are underused outside of the MLP fandom.

Maxpizzle said:
New tag: erect_tail. I'm open to suggestions for a better name.

Hmm, wouldn't there be some overlap/conflict with raised_tail?

The casual_nudity is being added to images that don't contain any nudity, despite the wiki definition specifically stating at least one character must be nude for this tag to apply. I can't be the only one who find it weird that an image of a fully-clothed character (if you look closely, you can see she's wearing a skirt) is tagged casual_nudity just because one specific part of them is showing. How can you call it casual nudity when it contains no nudity?

I propose a casual_exposure tag for images where a character's breasts, arse and/or genitals are exposed in a non-sexual situation while not nude, and implicate casual_nudity to it.

Side note: casual_nudity -nude returns untagged nude images. I'm fixing some of those now.

BlueDingo said:
The casual_nudity is being added to images that don't contain any nudity, despite the wiki definition specifically stating at least one character must be nude for this tag to apply. I can't be the only one who find it weird that an image of a fully-clothed character (if you look closely, you can see she's wearing a skirt) is tagged casual_nudity just because one specific part of them is showing. How can you call it casual nudity when it contains no nudity?

I propose a casual_exposure tag for images where a character's breasts, arse and/or genitals are exposed in a non-sexual situation while not nude, and implicate casual_nudity to it.

Side note: casual_nudity -nude returns untagged nude images. I'm fixing some of those now.

Casual_exposure sounds good to me, though I wouldn't implicate it. "exposure" tags implies some sort of clothing.

Maxpizzle said:
New tag: erect_tail. I'm open to suggestions for a better name.

"Raised_fur"? "surprised_tail"? (I feel the tag should be able to accommodate stuff like post #24217)

Circeus said:
Casual_exposure sounds good to me, though I wouldn't implicate it. "exposure" tags implies some sort of clothing.

Fair enough. I've also noticed that the definitions for casual_nudity and tasteful_nudity are very similar. Do these need to be aliased/implicated or rewritten slightly to make them more distinct?

casual_nudity
"Where the characters are nude in non-sexual situations. Posts with this tag typically depict a character who is nude for no apparent reason."

tasteful_nudity
"Tasteful nudity refers to nude characters who are not partaking in any necessarily sexual activities. Thus, the characters are either posing for something, or just going about their normal life in the nude."

----------

What is the thing the alligator is holding in this image called? I tried google searching it and found the term rescue can and I don't know if that's right.

post #547962

EDIT 14-01-2017: Finally found a more suitable term: rescue_buoy. There's also a closely related rescue_tube.

Wikis made, tags (partly) populated.

----------

New tag: on_ball
When a character is sitting, standing or lying on top of a ball.

Is there a tag for when a character's mouth is coming off their face or should those be simply tagged toony?

Also considering whether a towel_wrap tag should be put into use for images where a towel is wrapped around a character's head/hair. Implemented now.

post #73785

Edit 30-12-2016 - Going with mouth_coming_off_face for now. Can't think of anything better.

------------

What is the best to use for characters holding or using something with their feet? I'm not sure if the prehensile_feet tag applies to humanoid feet or not.

post #239193

Is there a tag for weapons that resemble giant claws?

post #1071549

From what I can tell, that's not a bagh naka or nekote and don't quite look like Tekko-kagi. There also doesn't seem to be a claw_(weapon) tag.

------------------

Covering_breasts is used when a female character is trying to cover her chest area. What if a male character is covering his?

------------------

Idea for several potential tags: "*_at_another" tags for when a character is doing certain things to another character, especially tags with "*_at_self" and "*_at_viewer" versions. Examples:

• looking_at_another - When one character is looking at another character. Eye_contact would imply this.
• pointing_at_another - When one character is pointing at another character.
• aiming_at_another - When one character is aiming a weapon at another character.

post #1073757 post #1063811 post #1058699

----------------

If a character only has their thumb in their pocket, should we tag it as hand_in_pocket despite most of the hand being outside the pocket, create a thumb_in_pocket tag for this specific feature or leave it untagged? Never mind, just went with thumb_in_pocket.

BlueDingo said:
Is there a tag for weapons that resemble giant claws?

post #1071549

From what I can tell, that's not a bagh naka or nekote and don't quite look like Tekko-kagi. There also doesn't seem to be a claw_(weapon) tag.

Might point >> http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Knuckle_(weapon_type), what your looking for they seem to call tiger_fangs... but havnt noticed any tag here that fits.

Covering_breasts is used when a female character is trying to cover her chest area. What if a male character is covering his?

doesnt seem to be a tag for it but hand_on_chest or hand_on_pecs could be a posibility, one could also ask what would be done with flat chested females who dont have breasts that could be taggable as such.

Idea for several potential tags: "*_at_another" tags for when a character is doing certain things to another character, especially tags with "*_at_self" and "*_at_viewer" versions. Examples:

• looking_at_another - When one character is looking at another character. Eye_contact would imply this.
• pointing_at_another - When one character is pointing at another character.
• aiming_at_another - When one character is aiming a weapon at another character.

post #1073757 post #1063811 post #1058699

suggestions seem sound^^

Ruku said:
doesnt seem to be a tag for it but hand_on_chest or hand_on_pecs could be a posibility, one could also ask what would be done with flat chested females who

covering_chest, perhaps?

Ruku said:
Might point >> http://finalfantasy.wikia.com/wiki/Knuckle_(weapon_type), what your looking for they seem to call tiger_fangs... but havnt noticed any tag here that fits.

How about claw_(weapon) for claw weapons in general and tiger_fangs/tiger_claws for that one specifically?

BlueDingo said:

• looking_at_another - When one character is looking at another character. Eye_contact would imply this.

looking_at_partner used to exist, but was aliased away as unnecessary.
And then it got unaliased (looking_at_partner -> eye_contact = bad alias). I suppose you could use that, although it used to be far better tagged. And now there's only 65 posts.

Myself, I wouldn't use it. I hate redoing the same work, especially if it might get deleted again at a later date.

BlueDingo said:
covering_chest, perhaps?

opps meant to say covering chest or covering pecs, dont know how hand_on... sliped in there>>;

Ruku said:
opps meant to say covering chest or covering pecs, dont know how hand_on... sliped in there>>;

We all make mistakes.

Genjar said:
looking_at_partner used to exist, but was aliased away as unnecessary.
And then it got unaliased (looking_at_partner -> eye_contact = bad alias). I suppose you could use that, although it used to be far better tagged. And now there's only 65 posts.

Myself, I wouldn't use it. I hate redoing the same work, especially if it might get deleted again at a later date.

At 65 posts, we could just change looking_at_partner to looking_at_another since the character being looked at might not be a partner and implicate eye_contact to that since it involves one character looking at another.

Do arrows count as weapons or ammunition? I need to know whether weapon-based tags such as holding_weapon should apply to them, especially in situations where a bow is missing.

post #1059621

----------------

New tag: clothing_around_waist for when an article of clothing is tied around a character's waist.

post #1077428

----------------

If a ring is on a tail spike instead of the tail itself, should it still be tagged as tail_ring?

post #30375

The presenting tag set refers specifically to body parts. What tag(s) are used for presenting things like food and gifts?

post #36219 post #308964

BlueDingo said:
The presenting tag set refers specifically to body parts. What tag(s) are used for presenting things like food and gifts?

post #36219 post #308964

The first thing that came to mind was "offering", and there are a few pictures of characters presenting food in that tag.

wolftacos said:
The first thing that came to mind was "offering", and there are a few pictures of characters presenting food in that tag.

Sounds about right, but it's been disambiguated. Might need to put in a request to remove the disambiguation.

I'm considering whether there will be enough of them to warrant creating offering_to_viewer for images like the second one. Implemented.

Is there a tag for when a character has blades for arms? If not, I suggest arm_blade.

post #998567

Also might be a good idea to stop tagging a scyther's scythe-like arms as scythe because it implies polearm and those ones are clearly not polearms.

BlueDingo said:
Is there a tag for when a character has blades for arms? If not, I suggest arm_blade.

post #998567

Also might be a good idea to stop tagging a scyther's scythe-like arms as scythe because it implies polearm and those ones are clearly not polearms.

arm blade is a type of weapon, that usually grips from the arm instead of (just) the hand.

Siral_Exan said:
arm blade is a type of weapon, that usually grips from the arm instead of (just) the hand.

Then what should we call blade-like arms?

BlueDingo said:
Then what should we call blade-like arms?

Bladed arms, methinks. It would cover both blades replacing arms and arms with blades organically (naturally or otherwise) attached. I would provide an image of the Hork-Bajir, but the ones shown are more bladelike spines than the described axes.

BlueDingo said:
Then what should we call blade-like arms?

blade_arm instead. It's an arm that's a blade, not a blade on your arm.

Furrin_Gok said:
blade_arm instead. It's an arm that's a blade, not a blade on your arm.

Makes sense, but that would bring arm_cannon into question.

BlueDingo said:
Makes sense, but that would bring arm_cannon into question.

Well, the arm cannon is rarely clear as to whether the arm is straight up part of the body or something that covers the arm.

Circeus said:
Well, the arm cannon is rarely clear as to whether the arm is straight up part of the body or something that covers the arm.

Not really. Creatures like magmortar and rhyperior have it as part of their biology. Characters like Samus Aran have it built into their suit. Mega Man's left hand turns into one when needed. There are usually ways to tell whether it's built-in or wielded.