BlueDingo said:
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.

You're using lore. We don't do that.

Furrin_Gok said:
You're using lore. We don't do that.

You don't need lore to know that this thing has cannons for arms.

BlueDingo said:
You don't need lore to know that this thing has cannons for arms.

Looks like he's holding hand cannons to me.

Furrin_Gok said:
Looks like he's holding hand cannons to me.

It would be very difficult to tell with absolute certainty, based solely on visual features, whether or not characters such as that one have arm_cannons or if they have actual hands within the cannons themselves and are merely holding them.

It doesn't matter anyway. It can be part of their biology, grafted to their arm, mounted onto their arm or attached to their armor. If it looks like a gun and is attached to their arm, it's an arm cannon. What kind of gun and how it's attached is irrelevant.

BlueDingo said:
If it looks like a gun and is attached to their arm, it's an arm cannon. What kind of gun and how it's attached is irrelevant.

BlueDingo said:
What kind of gun and how it's attached is "irrelevant".

I'm very certain that a non-cannon gun that is grafted to an arm is not gonna get the arm_cannon tag, because TWYS would deem it not a cannon. I can list the amount of guns that aren't cannons, and it would exceed the amount of fingers I have. A mechanical mini gun on a mechanical arm is not an arm cannon, and that would be a common conception for arm-mounted guns.

Siral_Exan said:
I'm very certain that a non-cannon gun that is grafted to an arm is not gonna get the arm_cannon tag, because TWYS would deem it not a cannon. I can list the amount of guns that aren't cannons, and it would exceed the amount of fingers I have.

The wiki definition states "The arm cannon is a gun that is attached to the user's arm". If you want to be picky over whether arm_cannon should be restricted to cannons exclusively, perhaps we should have a gun_arm tag.

BlueDingo said:
The wiki definition states "The arm cannon is a gun that is attached to the user's arm". If you want to be picky over whether arm_cannon should be restricted to cannons exclusively, perhaps we should have a gun_arm tag.

A cannon is a form of gun, yes, but it is not the only gun... Don't mistake the wiki, it is being non-specific because it is not the only gun out there. It is not using the, it is using a, implying that there are more...

Siral_Exan said:
A cannon is a form of gun, yes, but it is not the only gun... Don't mistake the wiki, it is being non-specific because it is not the only gun out there. It is not using the, it is using a, implying that there are more...

So no objection to the gun_arm suggestion?

If arm_cannon was restricted to cannons and no other type of gun, the wiki entry would read "The arm cannon is a cannon that...".

BlueDingo said:
So no objection to the gun_arm suggestion?

Depends: alias or implication?

Siral_Exan said:
Depends: alias or implication?

Implication makes more sense.

BlueDingo said:
If arm_cannon was restricted to cannons and no other type of gun, the wiki entry would read "The arm cannon is a cannon that...".

There lies a problem of what looks like a cannon, and what doesn't, along with how cannons operate. You can take a safer assumption of people understanding the word cannon, and adding the word arm; then defining the word cannon to people, and adding the word arm. By all means, saying "gun" is less specific, but easier to use than explaining cannon.

BlueDingo said:
Implication makes more sense.

then yea, it'd make sense.

Is there a tag for when a character's body goes behind one side of something but don't show up on the other side of it?

post #43753 Notice that her legs go behind her tail then disappear.

This is also used as a gag in old western cartoons where a character walks behind an object thinner than they are (like a pole) and somehow don't show up on the other side (unless they poke their head out or something).

Example

EDIT 27-12-2016: Created set #5629 so I have somewhere to put more examples. Still waiting for a decent tag, though.

Is there a tag for when a character's eyes are noticeably more vertical than horizontal? If not, I'm thinking vertical_eyes would fit.

post #53478 post #994433

BlueDingo said:
Is there a tag for when a character's eyes are noticeably more vertical than horizontal? If not, I'm thinking vertical_eyes would fit.

post #53478 post #994433

We do have narrow_eyes but at present it seem someone is actually improperly using it for eyes that are more roughly a equal sided square rather then actual narrow eyes.

As to those two examples i would actually consider them 2 different things.
the former would be categorized as stroke_eyes or bar_eyes as to complement with other tags that represent eyes as simple shapes rather then as a actual organ such as dot_eyes or x_eyes while the latter would fall under narrow_eyes.
I kinda disagree with using vertical_eyes as they(the examples) arnt necessarily vertical, just a opinion but that tag seems better suited for eyes that visibly close vertically as in the eyelids being on the sides rather then the top and bottom or the normal pair of eyes being set on top of each other on the head rather then side by side.

Ruku said:
We do have narrow_eyes but at present it seem someone is actually improperly using it for eyes that are more roughly a equal sided square rather then actual narrow eyes.

As to those two examples i would actually consider them 2 different things.
the former would be categorized as stroke_eyes or bar_eyes as to complement with other tags that represent eyes as simple shapes rather then as a actual organ such as dot_eyes or x_eyes while the latter would fall under narrow_eyes.
I kinda disagree with using vertical_eyes as they(the examples) arnt necessarily vertical, just a opinion but that tag seems better suited for eyes that visibly close vertically as in the eyelids being on the sides rather then the top and bottom or the normal pair of eyes being set on top of each other on the head rather then side by side.

Fair enough, I can see how vertical_eyes can be taken multiple ways. Unfortunately, narrow_eyes has the same issue. It could refer to eyes being close together (ie. a narrow gap between them) or being very thin in width or height. stroke_eyes and bar_eyes could work, provided they're only applied to eyes that are vertically or near vertically oriented.

Danbooru uses |_| and ||_|| for this but personally, I prefer using words over emoticons in tags and they don't seem to have a written term for this.

BlueDingo said:
Unfortunately, narrow_eyes has the same issue. It could refer to eyes being close together (ie. a narrow gap between them) or being very thin in width or height.

true probably why there is no use of "wide" ether except for wide_eyed uu...

Ruku said:
true probably why there is no use of "wide" ether except for wide_eyed uu...

And even then, it refers to the eyes being widened as oppose to being wide.

The question remains: What do we call that / those eye type(s)?

Edit: What about vertical_bar_eyes? The character the eyes resemble (|) is called a vertical bar, among other things, and the "vertical" part makes it clear that it is meant for vertically-oriented eyes only.

Edit 27-12-2016: Fuck it, I'm going with vertical_bar_eyes. Wiki page made, tag partly populated.

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

Tag idea: plant_clothing for images where a character is wearing plants (or parts of them at least) as clothing, like specific articles of clothing made from plants (eg. leaf_bikini) or having enough plants attached to them to cover their body.

post #864251 post #58812

EDIT: Never mind, found leaf_clothing. Going with that instead.

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

Question: If a character is making a sand angel (a snow_angel in the sand), should we tag it as sand_angel of should we tag it as snow_angel regardless of which substance the angel shape is being made in?

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

What tag is used for when a character is building something? We can't use building because that refers to a building and construction seems to refer more to a setting than an activity.

post #933081

plant_fellatio

Came across a couple posts while tagging stuff,

Disclaimer: I take no responsibility for any emotional damage resulting from the quality or lack thereof of the following content:

set:plant_fellatio

Most notable examples:
post #500196 post #722639 post #678656 post #995732 post #702395

Thinking we could use it for cases where the character giving fellatio isn't very anthropomorphised, especially the 'face'

compare post #857909 , and post #995951

~plant ~flora_fauna fellatio is rather useless for the above [citation needed], but the post count is low at present

-
This raises questions about such tags like flora_fauna_on_* as well, but that's for another post

titanmelon said:
~plant ~flora_fauna fellatio is rather useless for the above [citation needed], but the post count is low at present

Drop plant from that and it'll get decent results.
No support for plant_fellatio tag, that combo is too specific and we don't have any other <species group>_fellatio tags. If we make one, we'll have to make more.

But we do lack a fetish tag for plants. Something similar to mechanophilia: non-plant on plant. ...would floraphilia work for that?

Genjar said:
Drop plant from that and it'll get decent results.
No support for plant_fellatio tag, that combo is too specific and we don't have any other <species group>_fellatio tags. If we make one, we'll have to make more.

But we do lack a fetish tag for plants. Something similar to mechanophilia: non-plant on plant. ...would floraphilia work for that?

I think Plant_fellatio is warrented, myself. It's unique enough that nothing else really actually covers it

Any objections to creating a bedsheet_ghost species subtag for the oldschool ghosts? It'd include posts such as these: set:5713.

Genjar said:
Any objections to creating a bedsheet_ghost species subtag for the oldschool ghosts? It'd include posts such as these: set:5713.

Seems distinct enough. +1

We don't seem to have a general tag for characters who have a zipper on their body. Should I make body_zipper?

post #58964 post #25583 post #1051263

BlueDingo said:
We don't seem to have a general tag for characters who have a zipper on their body. Should I make body_zipper?

post #58964 post #25583 post #1051263

_{^{Body zip is in the house toni- NO!}}

Yes, please.

Maxpizzle said:
Yes, please.

Done. Wiki pages for body_zipper, chest_zipper, mouth_zipper, pouch_zipper and pussy_zipper created. I might get around to populating these and making implication requests later.

Just a heads up that there's a year of the rooster tag for all those chinese astrology themed new year's pics :p

Circeus said:
Just a heads up that there's a year of the rooster tag for all those chinese astrology themed new year's pics :p

Does this mean 2017 is the year of the cock?

BlueDingo said:
Does this mean 2017 is the year of the cock?

Wouldn't that be the year of the fox (if there was one)?

What is slav_squat? All I see is 4 images of characters squatting.

JAKXXX3 said:
Wouldn't that be the year of the fox (if there was one)?

It's a joke about how all foxes love cock, in case you couldn't tell.

A fox tried to eat my cock a few times but our defenses were too great.

BlueDingo said:
What is slav_squat? All I see is 4 images of characters squatting.

Must be for the type of squatting that's common in the Slavic region. I went ahead and added a couple of posts to demonstrate the usage; note the arm positions. Not sure if it's worth keeping, though.

Genjar said:
Must be for the type of squatting that's common in the Slavic region. I went ahead and added a couple of posts to demonstrate the usage; note the arm positions. Not sure if it's worth keeping, though.

I suppose it wouldn't hurt if we did keep it. Wouldn't bother me either way.

Genjar said:
Must be for the type of squatting that's common in the Slavic region. I went ahead and added a couple of posts to demonstrate the usage; note the arm positions. Not sure if it's worth keeping, though.

Well, at this point it's a meme already:
https://www.reddit.com/r/slavs_squatting/
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/why-do-slavs-squat-slav-squat

The real distinction is not the arm position, but the purpose: waiting, loitering, and generally spending one's time. Preferably with a cig, cheap beer, vodka, and overall gopnik attitude.

Back when I was still visiting KC, it was actually foot, not arm, position that was considered essential to call it proper form. But it's not a clear distinction, in part because it's not in real life, in part because of digitigrade characters and in part because artists sometimes draw memetic material without being fully aware of minute anatomical details. Ahem.

The tagged images, I'd remove slav_squat from these two:
post #476032 post #400939
because that's just crouching, character name notwithstanding. The rest are ok.

Is there a tag for characters drawn in the anime art style?

post #85897

Nothing against the art style, I just like to see some catgirls in a different art style sometimes and there's no easy way to filter out the anime style ones.

set #5726 has more examples.

New tag: covering_another

We have covering_self when a character is covering themselves but no tag for a character covering someone else.

Here's a list of available 'covering' tags.

BlueDingo said:
New tag: covering_another

We have covering_self when a character is covering themselves but no tag for a character covering someone else.

I think the "correct" form would be covering_partner (presenting_partner, fingering_partner, toying_partner...)

BlueDingo said:
New tag: covering_another

We have covering_self when a character is covering themselves but no tag for a character covering someone else.

+1. I like the idea.

Circeus said:
I think the "correct" form would be covering_partner (presenting_partner, fingering_partner, toying_partner...)

Fingering and toying (in this context) are sexual actions, if an individual does any of these to another, so this second one is a sexual partner.
Some actions (like covering) are likely to occur beetwen individual that aren't sexual/romantic partners, e.g. A mother goes to her son's bedroom, while he sleeps, and covers him with bed sheets. And already exist cases like that, e.g. looking_at_partner and looking_at_another (implication pending).

Circeus said:
I think the "correct" form would be covering_partner (presenting_partner, fingering_partner, toying_partner...)

Like O16 said, what if the other character isn't a partner? covering_another can apply to any other character, partner or not.

BlueDingo said:
Like O16 said, what if the other character isn't a partner? covering_another can apply to any other character, partner or not.

in regards to e621 tagging, partner just means 2 characters interacting with each other. It does not imply partner in terms of a relationship as that would require outside information.

Ruku said:
in regards to e621 tagging, partner just means 2 characters interacting with each other.

What if one character is covering another character without interacting with them? You can cover someone without touching them.

It does not imply partner in terms of a relationship as that would require outside information.

And yet tags like canon_couple and incest exist.

Ruku said:
in regards to e621 tagging, partner just means 2 characters interacting with each other. It does not imply partner in terms of a relationship as that would require outside information.

First: So, two characters interacting are partners. Like these?

post #1095655 post #1095986 post #981787

Second: Outside information? Do yuo really need "outside information" to say that these ones are partners?

post #1093934 post #1090711 post #1083342

O16 said:
First: So, two characters interacting are partners. Like these?

post #1095655 post #1095986 post #981787

Or perhaps these?

post #927612 post #938134

BlueDingo said:
What if one character is covering another character without interacting with them? You can cover someone without touching them.

could you please post examples of that as the tag doesnt seem to show posts without interaction, might add contact is not nessary to interact uu

And yet tags like canon_couple and incest exist.

canon_couple would only count at 66 posts mostly tagged by the same 2 users for the same 2 franchises without having checked thru the forum before applying the tags so i dont think it really is relevant here. Regarding Incest its at this point under dispute and indecision among staff with most staff presently treating it as a hands off "too big to fail" kind of case, completely irrelevant to TWYS but it is a popular kink.
forum #209445
forum #135831
forum #197234
forum #43989
...

O16 said:
First: So, two characters interacting are partners. Like these?

post #1095655 post #1095986 post #981787

Second: Outside information? Do yuo really need "outside information" to say that these ones are partners?

post #1093934 post #1090711 post #1083342

except for the jumping orca post which would probly just be prey and predator the posted examples would all be regarded as partners.
And yes but they are called partners here for the fact of it being 2 characters interacting with each other, not because they have some kind of relationship witch is the point.

Ruku said:
except for the jumping orca post which would probly just be prey and predator the posted examples would all be regarded as partners.
And yes but they are called partners here for the fact of it being 2 characters interacting with each other, not because they have some kind of relationship witch is the point.

A partner is a person who takes part in an undertaking with others. That person is part of a partnership, which is a type of relationship. The less formal meaning of partner that refers to members of an intimate relationship is based on that. By definition, a partnership is in a relationship. So is a friendship, acquaintanceship, apprenticeship and several others. Relationship and intimate relationship do not mean the same thing.

For tagging purposes, only a perceived partnership can be acknowledged since outside knowledge is generally frowned upon. post #38751 and post #10169 are closer to a partnership than post #1006326 is.

Ruku said:
could you please post examples of that as the tag doesnt seem to show posts without interaction, might add contact is not nessary to interact uu

True, talking to someone is interacting with them without contact but obstructing the view of their body parts alone is not interaction.

post #102838

Covering another without interaction. No physical contact, no communication, no eye contact. What he is doing is not affecting her in any way.

Ruku said:
canon_couple would only count at 66 posts mostly tagged by the same 2 users for the same 2 franchises without having checked thru the forum before applying the tags so i dont think it really is relevant here. Regarding Incest its at this point under dispute and indecision among staff with most staff presently treating it as a hands off "too big to fail" kind of case, completely irrelevant to TWYS but it is a popular kink.
forum #209445
forum #135831
forum #197234
forum #43989

To be honest, most instance of tags that describe familial relations would have to go if TWYS was enforced to the letter. How would you know if a character is a mother without outside information if the image doesn't tell you?

Ruku said:
[…] they are called partners here for the fact of it being 2 characters interacting with each other, not because they have some kind of relationship witch is the point.

Sorry, but it still don't sounding right to me. I can't see how an apparent romantic/sexual relationship could simply be ignored while defining "partner".
Please tell/show me where you saw this definition (I'm not saying that you are lying, only want to be sure that this information is solid).

p.s. You wanted to say "which", didn't you?

BlueDingo said:
A partner is a person who takes part in an undertaking with others. That person is part of a partnership, which is a type of relationship. The less formal meaning of partner that refers to members of an intimate relationship is based on that. By definition, a partnership is in a relationship. So is a friendship, acquaintanceship, apprenticeship and several others. Relationship and intimate relationship do not mean the same thing.

For tagging purposes, only a perceived partnership can be acknowledged since outside knowledge is generally frowned upon. post #38751 and post #10169 are closer to a partnership than post #1006326 is.

True, talking to someone is interacting with them without contact but obstructing the view of their body parts alone is not interaction.

Personaly, I see the term "partner" more like as a reference to sexual partners or couples (at least in the context of the site).

O16 said:
Personaly, I see the term "partner" more like as a reference to sexual partners or couples (at least in the context of the site).

Of course. Like many terms, the less formal definition is the more common one which probably explains why only sexual/romantic partners are acknowledged as partners around here.

BlueDingo said:
A partner is a person who takes part in an undertaking with others. That person is part of a partnership, which is a type of relationship. The less formal meaning of partner that refers to members of an intimate relationship is based on that. By definition, a partnership is in a relationship. So is a friendship, acquaintanceship, apprenticeship and several others. Relationship and intimate relationship do not mean the same thing.

Your over complicating Bluedingo

That is true outside of e621 but as ive said before within e621 partner just means 2 characters interacting with each other nothing more, the tags that mention partner make no requirement that the character needs to be in a relationship with the other character. could all be strangers that spontaneously interact and still be called partners.

True, talking to someone is interacting with them without contact but obstructing the view of their body parts alone is not interaction.

post #102838

Red looking over at orange aware of his embarrassment while holding up a sign of porn that orange is looking at and reacting to by covering both his and reds intimate parts -with signs that are complement to the one red is holding- that are the center of attention of porn. That would seem to be a direct interaction between the 2. effect on her is her emotion that is a reaction to him as well as holding up a sign that says "making porn" the is a response to his signs and vice versa as

To be honest, most instance of tags that describe familial relations would have to go if TWYS was enforced to the letter. How would you know if a character is a mother without outside information if the image doesn't tell you?

that would probly be the best as there is no agreement among staff even what counts and what doesnt. Dialog/text denoting familial background would seem questionable as well as obviously model_sheets cant have the sex tagged based off of text/dialog on the sheet. Its not something that can be seen objectivly, as was noted in the forum posts that i linked to, many people would simply mistag 2 similarly looking characters or characters of the same species as incest...

O16 said:
...

Im basing what i said on the present wikis, the posts within those wikied tags and the definition of partner within the scope of what is objectively visible to a random user who just happens to come across this site and who has no knowledge of the character and its background or post other then whats visible.

Ruku said:
That is true outside of e621 but as ive said before within e621 partner just means 2 characters interacting with each other nothing more, the tags that mention partner make no requirement that the character needs to be in a relationship with the other character. could all be strangers that spontaneously interact and still be called partners.

Which leads back to those example images from a bit earlier.

post #927612 post #938134

Example 1 is a character interacting with another by punching him.
Example 2 is a character interacting with another by handling (and possibly eating) her internal organs.

According to you, even characters bashing each other up or devouring with each other's innards are partners. Using the word partner to describe every instance of a character interacting with another leads to all sorts of situations where characters that are clearly not partners in any what being considered partners.

The tags that do specify partner are referring to a perceived intimate partner. It doesn't mean every interaction between every character ever is part of a partnership.

Ruku said:
Your over complicating Bluedingo

Pointing out what words mean is not over-complicating.

Ruku said:
Im basing what i said on the present wikis,[…]

If you see attentively will notice that currently exist five *partner tags with ≥10 posts, four of them involve sexual by nature acts, and the only one which don't, specifis in the wiki that "partners" are found in a sexual/romantic contex. The explanation for that is simple: two or more characters interacting in a sexual context are already partners, thus, mention this in the wiki of a tag based in sexual by nature acts is redundant.

Ruku said:
[…] and the definition of partner within the scope of what is objectively visible to a random user who just happens to come across this site and who has no knowledge of the character and its background or post other then whats visible.

The relationship beetwen the charactes is irrelevant, what is showed in the post is relevant. If the post shows two characters holding hands and smiling while they are walking in the park, so tag "romantic_couple", do not matter if one of them secretely wants to see the other burning in hell (unless the post also shows it).

O16 said:
The explanation for that is simple: two or more characters interacting in a sexual context are already partners, thus, mention this in the wiki of a tag based in sexual by nature acts is redundant.

That's debatable. toying_partner says "Using a sex toy on another character.". With that exact wording, things like smacking a stranger in the head with a 15-inch dildo would count as toying_partner when it should count as improvised_weapon and violence so a less vague description is necessary.

BlueDingo said:
That's debatable. toying_partner says "Using a sex toy on another character.". With that exact wording, things like smacking a stranger in the head with a 15-inch dildo would count as toying_partner when it should count as improvised_weapon and violence so a less vague description is necessary.

Yes. We should change it to "Stimulating sexually another character using a sex toy (this not necessarily being a consensual act)" and add some examples, examples ever are good.

O16 said:
Yes. We should change it to "stimulating sexually another character using a sex toy (this not necessarily being a consensual act)" and add some examples, examples ever are good.

Done.

grass_skirt is used for a skirt made of grass. What if it's made of leaves or vines?

post #1087347 post #98110

BlueDingo said:
grass_skirt is used for a skirt made of grass. What if it's made of leaves or vines?

post #1087347 post #98110

It's inaccurate, but it's simple to tag them as grass_skirt as well. Unless you want to create a foliage_skirt or plant_skirt tag and implicate/alias grass_skirt to it.

JAKXXX3 said:
It's inaccurate, but it's simple to tag them as grass_skirt as well. Unless you want to create a foliage_skirt or plant_skirt tag and implicate/alias grass_skirt to it.

I agree with just using grass_skirt. Much easier.

Some oral gore tags

Just 'found' the reverse_blowjob tag, <20 posts
Along with throat_fuck (<5) and throat_fucking (~10)

Do better-populated tags already exist?

I'll be linking them to the rest of gore tags on the wiki eventually if not

titanmelon said:

Some oral gore tags

Just 'found' the reverse_blowjob tag, <20 posts
Along with throat_fuck (<5) and throat_fucking (~10)

Do better-populated tags already exist?

I'll be linking them to the rest of gore tags on the wiki eventually if not

Another word for throat fucking (and face fucking) is irrumatio. forced_blowjob seems to have the same use as well. Looks like forced_oral is the official tag.

I'm not sure about reverse_blowjob.

Is there a tag that covers all type of pool floaties? If not, should we create one? I've found a lot of possible tags for this but none of them have many images. float floater floatie floaty floaties flotation_device pool_float

post #19888 post #713256 post #501179 post #642541 post #902682

In order:

• kickboard
• inflatable ring (not to be confused with tire/tyre/inner_tube)
• air mattress (sometimes called inflatable raft, pool raft, lilo, pool air mat, air mat, pool lounge, or float(ing) mat(tress))
• inflatable armband (sometimes called floaties or waterwings)
• pool_noodle

Edit: I've found the inflatable tag but that mainly covers inflatable characters, not inflatable objects. Also, some of the previously mentioned things are not inflatable.

BlueDingo said:
Is there a tag that covers all type of pool floaties? If not, should we create one? I've found a lot of possible tags for this but none of them have many images. float floater floatie floaty floaties flotation_device pool_float

Would other floatable objects ,besides pool floats, be included in this category?

• objects concived to float on air or another fluid besides water (e.g. meteorological balloon, zeppelin).

• improvised floaters (e.g. log, door).

• objects concived to float on water, but not used for entretainment (e.g. buoy, life buoy).

O16 said:
Would other floatable objects ,besides pool floats, be included in this category?

• objects concived to float on air or another fluid besides water (e.g. meteorological balloon, zeppelin).

• improvised floaters (e.g. log, door).

• objects concived to float on water, but not used for entretainment (e.g. buoy, life buoy).

I intent to keep it at pool/swimming stuff for now. Just the things I mentioned before plus whatever ones I missed.

poképhilia is for any non-pokemon on pokemon image, so shouldn't we also be tagging human_on_pokemon or pokemon_on_human?

Furrin_Gok said:
poképhilia is for any non-pokemon on pokemon image, so shouldn't we also be tagging human_on_pokemon or pokemon_on_human?

No. For the same reason why we don't tag female_pokemon, or cat_on_dog, etc.
There'd be far too many possible combinations (and aliases) if we started doing that.

The human tag is primarily a form tag; it's in the same tag group as humanoid, anthro, feral, and taur. Hence the combinations with those.

BlueDingo said:
I intent to keep it at pool/swimming stuff for now. Just the things I mentioned before plus whatever ones I missed.

In that case I suggest "pool_float"; any other term probably would give the wrong idea.

O16 said:
In that case I suggest "pool_float"; any other term probably would give the wrong idea.

Wikipedia seems to have these under "swimming float". That might be a better choice.

Cockjob, for posts such as these:

post #1034933 post #487922 post #771105

Same tag group as tentaclejob, handjob, etc.
Might need to rename it to penisjob though, because we've tried to standardize the usage of penis instead of cock. Though there's still plenty of cock_* tags left.

Inb4 Knotty Curls makes a bird joke.

Isn't that what the frottage tag is for?

BlueDingo said:
Isn't that what the frottage tag is for?

Frottage is for the generic act of rubbing penises together, whereas cockjob is like a handjob (with a prehensile penis).

Implicating it to frottage and prehensile_penis might work. Though the concept is so rare that those are easily tagged manually.

Created a wiki page for pectoral because if there's a tag for them already, I don't know about it, and I keep running into these things all the time. Some were in gorget, but a gorget is a piece of armor, not jewelry.

The Egyptian one has a very technical name ("Usekh collar") but it's far too impractical since almost no one would know it.

post #1056020 post #849587 post #994833

Circeus said:
Created a wiki page for pectoral because if there's a tag for them already, I don't know about it, and I keep running into these things all the time. Some were in gorget, but a gorget is a piece of armor, not jewelry.

The Egyptian one has a very technical name ("Usekh collar") but it's far too impractical since almost no one would know it.

post #1056020 post #849587 post #994833

pecs.

Is there a tag for shoes with a wheel built into the heel?

post #123319

BlueDingo said:
Is there a tag for shoes with a wheel built into the heel?

post #123319

Doesn't seem to be a tag, but the big name for shoes like that is heelys.

Furrin_Gok said:
pecs.

... You have got to be kidding me OR be far less capable of reading than I ever thought possible.