darryus said:
Yeah, but we generally don't have character tags for things that are literally just antrhofied versions of characters that already exist.

So if she had heterochromia her tag could stay XD. Nah I get it, there aren't really any identifiable unique features except for her base species. She is a crossgender anthrofied bowser and that should be enough to find her.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
So if she had heterochromia her tag could stay XD. Nah I get it, there aren't really any identifiable unique features except for her base species. She is a crossgender anthrofied bowser and that should be enough to find her.

Heterochromia would just be alternate_colors.

Gonna make a few playing_[instrument] tags if nobody's opposed, will make simple wikis including 'see also' playing_music and the instrument in question.

Edit:I made one for playing_tuba and then got bored :p

Isn't this basically the same as the "do we have a tag for this" thread?

OneMoreAnonymous said:
Isn't this basically the same as the "do we have a tag for this" thread?

No.

New tags discussion is for "I know we do not have a tag that describes X. I was thinking X_tag would be appropriate"

do we have a tag for this is more for "Do we have a tag for X?" and it sends us looking to see if there's a tag already.

There's a lot of overlap, and sometiems posts that should go in one place go in the other, but they have subtly different purposes.

Someone pointed out on Discord that stuck is a mess.
Rewrote the wiki, and added stuck_feet tag while at it. The usage should be pretty obvious. Not sure about the name, maybe feet_stuck would be better? (Though stuck_* groups them on nicely the tag list.)

If we already had a tag for this, those can be manually moved.

Could probably add subtags such as stuck_in_doorway, though with only 1000 posts (and some being mistags), it's not common enough to require that yet.

Also, stuck rating:s could use a sweep. Some posts look too fetishy to be in safe.

Hi! I'm excited to pitch a new tag for when objects in a scene visibly shake from being bumped around by naughty acts.

post #687699
_{^ Shown here: The table visibly shakes from the bumping force of sex.}

This is a seemingly rare phenomenon with a lot of novelty and sexiness to it, one worth getting excited over. So let's move down the checklist:

• Is there a tag for it already?
• If not, does it fit the site?
• If it's a good tag, what naming convention is most ideal?

Some brainstorming for names:

• rocking object would be a nice fit if not for ambiguation with rocking chair
• sex_shaking_object, sex_shaking_* – one possible form
• object_shaking_from_sex, *_shaking_from_sex – another possible form

Whelp...guess we got some work to do boys.

The admins have made it abundantly clear that "combo tags" are now a thing. We didn't need a 2d_animation tag, but now we have one. This tag combo is basically meant to reduce a 2-tag search down to a 1-tag search. So instead of searching for "animated -3d_(artwork)" you just search "2d_animation"....brilliant!

Now I personally love wolves with red fur...can't get enough...given these new tagging guidelines I think we should all start making combo tags to suit our individual needs, thus I will be creating the wolf_with_red_fur tag...I encourage others to make similar tags as we greet this bold new tagging frontier with open arms.

Dyrone said:
I encourage others to make similar tags as we greet this bold new tagging frontier with open arms.

feature request : literally crucify users who attempt this

Dyrone said:
Whelp...guess we got some work to do boys.

The admins have made it abundantly clear that "combo tags" are now a thing. We didn't need a 2d_animation tag, but now we have one. This tag combo is basically meant to reduce a 2-tag search down to a 1-tag search. So instead of searching for "animated -3d_(artwork)" you just search "2d_animation"....brilliant!

Now I personally love wolves with red fur...can't get enough...given these new tagging guidelines I think we should all start making combo tags to suit our individual needs, thus I will be creating the wolf_with_red_fur tag...I encourage others to make similar tags as we greet this bold new tagging frontier with open arms.

*sighs*

In 10 years, we've gone from not having any 3d animation, not having lots. In 10 more years, who knows what we'll have? Maybe in 10 years, maybe VR headsets will be common to every home. Maybe we'll have 2 or 3 different forms of animation designed for VR headsets. Or maybe we'll have animations designed to give us tactical feedback through some gloves. all I know is that it's hard to predict change, especially on a technological scale. I know 10 years ago, I didn't think that smartphones would be a big deal. It's hard to predict.

While we may have a suitable alternative to search for 2d_animations, tagging 2d animations lets us future proof things. If we'll be tagging our VR_animations or our 4D_animations, it'd be weird if the only thing we didn't tag was 2D animations.

lmao

Dyrone said:
Whelp...guess we got some work to do boys.

The admins have made it abundantly clear that "combo tags" are now a thing. We didn't need a 2d_animation tag, but now we have one. This tag combo is basically meant to reduce a 2-tag search down to a 1-tag search. So instead of searching for "animated -3d_(artwork)" you just search "2d_animation"....brilliant!

Now I personally love wolves with red fur...can't get enough...given these new tagging guidelines I think we should all start making combo tags to suit our individual needs, thus I will be creating the wolf_with_red_fur tag...I encourage others to make similar tags as we greet this bold new tagging frontier with open arms.

imagine being this mad about tagging on your porn imageboard

How about the "vulpine" tag for foxes and others.

BDS17 said:
How about the "vulpine" tag for foxes and others.

What are these other vulpines that are not foxes?

Especially since on'y 12 species of fox actually belongs to Vulpes. the other 25 "foxes" are in other genus. Genuses? Genii?

The South American Gray fox, for example, is in Lycalopex.

BDS17 said:
How about the "vulpine" tag for foxes and others.

We already have fox as a tag and vulpine does not refer specificly to a member of the genus Vulpes, so I don’t really see a use for it.

How about curtains_open and curtains_closed, both to imply curtains? Could apply to windows, stages, showers, etc.

As for whether it should be plural or not, curtain is already aliased to curtains, so I say the new tags should follow that convention until decided otherwise.

There were four uploads tagged with crossbones,
changed three of them to skull_and_crossbones.

Started wiki for crossbones, saying:
"When skull and crossbones together, tag with skull_and_crossbones instead."

Wording is ok?

Just wanted to let people know that I've recently added and am expanding on a couple of new tags:

pussy_slip

post #306588 post #809113 post #1086285

pussy_peek

post #857595 post #767958 post #1779238

At first I just wanted the peek varient (one of my favorite kinks), but ended up calling it pussy slip because I thought it would be easier to search for (more intuitive). After I bgan tagging however, I saw images that were obviously "slips" (like in nipple_slip) but not "peeks", and decided I was just ending up with a confused mess.

So now there's two tags for a very similar phenomena. Yes, most "peeks" are going to also be "slips", but most "slips" are not "peeks". Neither is inclusive of the other (though it is hard to find a peek that doesn't involve clothing).

Other Booru's often have one or the other and either combine them or exclude one, but I decided to include both for the sake of thoroughness.

So, do you guys think this will be okay? How's the clarification on the respective wiki pages? All suggestions and feedback welcome!

Oh and don't even get me started on patially_visible_vulva...

In addition to the obvious analog to nipple_slip, pussy_slip wants to be the pussy version of penis_base and poking_out. Those tags all describe exposure in spite of clothing. I can't think of any tags describing something being partially obscured for any reason (barely_visible_* is usually that, but not explicitly so).

It's questionable whether either of those tags need to exist when there's so many alternative searches that can yield relevant results, but that great variety of alternative, indirect searches may be reason enough to justify a single, focused tag.

One major problem with the concept of pussy_peek is that art is almost exclusively 2D, so over half of a character's surface area will always be hidden by posing. Very often a pussy isn't completely visible due to a character's posing and the viewpoint of the art. How I understand the tag's intent is that a character's own foot or hand obscuring their pussy should get the tag but not if their thigh obscures their pussy (because that greatly increases scope). However, the wiki's current lack of specificity includes both examples. More troubling is the wiki's current phrasing would seem to include pussies obscured by penetration or cum.

How about the afrotherian tag.

The afrotherians are a group of mammals that include elephants, manatees, tenrecs, golden moles, aardvarks, hyraxes, and elephant sherws

post #431497 post #1754627 post #1691010 post #1686423 post #373901 post #1263095

I know the the whole parent tag is a bit messy because sometimes it's hard to tell just from the picture alone is one of the other characters is it's child (unless it's really obvious). Should we also include inlaws such as mother_and_son-in-law , father_and_son-in-law or maybe to be less messy ~mother ~father_and_relative because there are a lot of in-law types to cover,

I only bring it up because I noticed a few in-law tags already as well as the father tag being incorrectly added to pictures like post #1779951
It might be a but unnecessary as I don't know how many people are looking for in-laws together as well as correctly tagging without following outside lore when it comes to stuff that's not stated in the picture itself. Kind of want peoples thoughts on it

pc-king said:
I know the the whole parent tag is a bit messy because sometimes it's hard to tell just from the picture alone is one of the other characters is it's child (unless it's really obvious)

Isn't incest a twys exeption?

How about creating the tag passive_masturbation for cases when a character is being pleasured, but not by anyone in partcular, aka bound characters with vibrators ... yeah that actually covers most of it.

post #1814951 character is being pleasured by someone else; sex, toying_partner -masturbation

post #1772613 character is pleasuring himself; masturbation -sex

post #1799475 character is being pleasured by a sex toy, but not actively humping or moving it; passive_masturbation (implies masturbation)

Weight Physics

A couple of months ago, I pitched a tag for when heavyweight objects shake from being bumped (particularly during sexy or suggestive movements.)

I'm expanding that proposal to a new tag called weight_physics. This tag would cover all posts that emphasize immersive weight physics throughout, such as from shifting sheets and shaking desks.

post #1437937 post #687699

The tag isn't restricted to sexy time posts and would apply to any post with immersive weight physics.

View (Camera) Physics

EDIT: I'm further expanding this proposal with a second new tag called view_physics. This tag targets posts where the user's point of view (think: the "camera") sways, shakes, or bumps along with movement physics present in the post.

post #1834331

Note that this tag won't be restricted to PoV posts, though those posts are certainly a ripe theme for this kind of material.

the tag hourglass_figure has been in use without a description, >200 posts, so I made one and linked to voluptuous, used for when a character has both big_breasts and wide_hips. the dual tag hourglass, also used for the literal timepiece, is also being used to describe this body type but notably has had a link to the previously nonexistent hourglass_figure description. I'm considering disambiguating the two

sneezer22 said:
the tag hourglass_figure has been in use without a description, >200 posts, so I made one and linked to voluptuous, used for when a character has both big_breasts and wide_hips. the dual tag hourglass, also used for the literal timepiece, is also being used to describe this body type but notably has had a link to the previously nonexistent hourglass_figure description. I'm considering disambiguating the two

There has been discussion about aliasing curvaceous -> hourglass_figure in forum #189069 instead. I feel the wiki description written for hourglass_figure draws heavy parallels to the curvaceous wiki description (at least, to a greater degree than it does with voluptuous).

However, it may be a good idea to alias hourglass -> hourglass_(disambiguation) and creating an hourglass_(object) tag for the hourglass item.

D.D.M. said:
There has been discussion about aliasing curvaceous -> hourglass_figure in forum #189069 instead. I feel the wiki description written for hourglass_figure draws heavy parallels to the curvaceous wiki description (at least, to a greater degree than it does with voluptuous).

However, it may be a good idea to alias hourglass -> hourglass_(disambiguation) and creating an hourglass_(object) tag for the hourglass item.

I think I like it as is,
hourglass_figure: present but reasonable curves
curvaceous: big curves, slim features
voluptuous: all big curves. plush features is a plus

based on that I'd go for implying curvaceous to voluptuous since, by the descriptions, a curvaceous character will always qualify as voluptuous.

thumbs up to the second point

if you wanted to alias curvaceous to a new tag to distance it a bit from voluptuous maybe something like exaggerated_hourglass would work? thanks for the new tag btw, didn't know curvaceous existed, I'll start using it :)

looks like there's plenty to do
[wide_hips breasts -small_breasts -voluptuous -hourglass_figure -curvaceous]

sneezer22 said:

I think I like it as is,
hourglass_figure: present but reasonable curves
curvaceous: big curves, slim features
voluptuous: all big curves. plush features is a plus

based on that I'd go for implying curvaceous to voluptuous since, by the descriptions, a curvaceous character will always qualify as voluptuous.

thumbs up to the second point

I never thought of them like that, but that differentiation between each of those tags does make sense and sounds like a good idea. I had previously changed my mind about aliasing curvaceous -> voluptuous, and my thoughts have changed in regards to hourglass_figure as well. That implication for curvaceous -> voluptuous also sounds like a good idea.

sneezer22 said:

if you wanted to alias curvaceous to a new tag to distance it a bit from voluptuous maybe something like exaggerated_hourglass would work? thanks for the new tag btw, didn't know curvaceous existed, I'll start using it :)

looks like there's plenty to do
[wide_hips breasts -small_breasts -voluptuous -hourglass_figure -curvaceous]

Something like that could work, but perhaps have a shorter and simpler name like thick_hourglass or wide_hourglass? There's also the possibility of a three-word tag that is some variant of *_hourglass_figure, but that seems like it would be clunkier to search and tag.

And no problem for the new tag! It's always nice to find new tags to use.

made this: curvy_figure

also requested some implications pointing to it. if for some reason the implications don't go through or the tag is deemed a no go by the mods, I'll probably turn it into a disambig page if need be

ringed_eyes
I changed the wiki for spiral_eyes to reflect this.

I'd like to propose a tag for when a character is cumming continuously/nonstop.
Probably something like "endless_orgasm"

excessive_cum just describes the presence of a lot of fluid, and could be because of just one big load from a character or because of a large group contributing to it.

multiple_orgasms can mean with periods of rest in between, or again, because of a large group.

Something like endless_orgasm would be for pics where a single character is having a single, seemingly endless orgasm. It could also be used for looping animations of orgasming characters.

post #1835541 post #1802387 post #1285883

Braeburned said:
I'd like to propose a tag for when a character is cumming continuously/nonstop.
Probably something like "endless_orgasm"

excessive_cum just describes the presence of a lot of fluid, and could be because of just one big load from a character or because of a large group contributing to it.

multiple_orgasms can mean with periods of rest in between, or again, because of a large group.

Something like endless_orgasm would be for pics where a single character is having a single, seemingly endless orgasm. It could also be used for looping animations of orgasming characters.

post #1835541 post #1802387 post #1285883

infinite_cum and hyper_cum describe that situation for a good number of images. there might be a few cases though that, put together, could make a decent tag. non-animated posts like the 1st thumb you posted where it's implied the character has untold reserves of cum. as for tag naming, something like "wont_stop_cumming" is more my preference since in a lot of cases you couldn't be sure it was absolutely "endless", that's mostly a nitpick though

post #1565118 post #1282595 post #1766714

sneezer22 said:
infinite_cum and hyper_cum describe that situation for a good number of images. there might be a few cases though that, put together, could make a decent tag. non-animated posts like the 1st thumb you posted where it's implied the character has untold reserves of cum. as for tag naming, something like "wont_stop_cumming" is more my preference since in a lot of cases you couldn't be sure it was absolutely "endless", that's mostly a nitpick though

post #1565118 post #1282595 post #1766714

Just found out about infinite_cum , oops. That basically covers what I was looking for, thanks!

BDS17 said:
How about the afrotherian tag.

The afrotherians are a group of mammals that include elephants, manatees, tenrecs, golden moles, aardvarks, hyraxes, and elephant sherws

post #431497 post #1754627 post #1691010 post #1686423 post #373901 post #1263095

Afrotherians are just way too broad, imho, to warrant a tag for them all. They can vary so much that really I don't see a practical use in the tag's existence

How about a tag for this kind of transformation post #1376912 post #1399410

Something like body_distortion perhaps

No-one-you-know said:
How about a tag for this kind of transformation post #1376912 post #1399410

Something like body_distortion perhaps

ah, Vasification: when a character's body takes on the dimensions and form of a container usually meant for liquids, commonly a vase. A tom and jerry fav lol

I've seen a lot of people in comments saying there should be a tag for this position, where one of the penetrating characters' feet are on the ground, with the other on the penetrated characters' hip:

post #1160938 post #1350268

There seems to be a good amount of posts with this position, but it seems that no one has actually created a tag yet. I think step_position would be pretty straightforward, as the step_pose tag is similar, but is not specifically for the sex position.

AkesiWaso said:
I think step_position would be pretty straightforward, as the step_pose tag is similar, but is not specifically for the sex position.

I'm relatively sure that this position doesn't have an existing name, since it doesn't quite work with human anatomy. Step Position is simple, descriptive, and easy to remember. Sounds good to me.

Tag suggestions:
older_penetrating, older_penetrated, younger_penetrating and younger_penetrated

, larger_penetrated, smaller_penetrating and smaller_penetrated

We currently have no tags for this (afaik) and I believe they could be useful. the older/younger_male/female tags can be combined with m/f_penetrating/penetrated but this doesn't work for homosexual pairings, and if you'd want, for example, male cub penetrating ANY parent; while it's doable, the search becomes a mess and quickly builds up to your max six tags.

There's currently *_and_white tags, for images that are only one hue plus white, but there aren't any *_and_black tags.

I'm unsure on how new tags work, do they need to be approved or can people just start tagging them, for cases like that?

(It's yet another thing I was going to have my tagbot sort through)

Edit:
Just wanted to ask here rather than create a new thread:
Huge_filesize is for files over 30MB, but how is that calculated?

1024 x 1024 x 30
Or
1000 x 1000 x 30

As both are technically correct. I can always tag if over the higher one and untag if under the lower one, but it'd be nice to use the correct/accurate value.

Pupslut said:
There's currently *_and_white tags, for images that are only one hue plus white, but there aren't any *_and_black tags.

I'm unsure on how new tags work, do they need to be approved or can people just start tagging them, for cases like that?

(It's yet another thing I was going to have my tagbot sort through)

Edit:
Just wanted to ask here rather than create a new thread:
Huge_filesize is for files over 30MB, but how is that calculated?

1024 x 1024 x 30
Or
1000 x 1000 x 30

As both are technically correct. I can always tag if over the higher one and untag if under the lower one, but it'd be nice to use the correct/accurate value.

Filesize is written on the post next to the posts' width and height, so you shouldn't have to calculate it yourself.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Filesize is written on the post next to the posts' width and height, so you shouldn't have to calculate it yourself.

For tagging huge_filesize, the api returns the size in bytes, so I kind-of have to, unless I start parsing the actual HTML/webpage, and I'd rather not start doing that.

Pupslut said:
For tagging huge_filesize, the api returns the size in bytes, so I kind-of have to, unless I start parsing the actual HTML/webpage, and I'd rather not start doing that.

Ah sorry, idk then

Edit: you could always do both calculations on the api and see what matches what's written on the post. Just do it once and you should have your answer.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Ah sorry, idk then

Edit: you could always do both calculations on the api and see what matches what's written on the post. Just do it once and you should have your answer.

Yeah, that's a good point actually. I'll do that now.

Also, with tagging, can anyone create new tags?
Like with *_and_white being tagged but not *_and_black. I wondered if I should/could just start tagging them.

Edit:
That worked well, it's the 1024 version.
Thanks again :)

Pupslut said:

Also, with tagging, can anyone create new tags?
Like with *_and_white being tagged but not *_and_black. I wondered if I should/could just start tagging them.

tecnically yes, but I believe it's preferred that you ask first.

Personally, I think it sounds good :)

Edit:
That worked well, it's the 1024 version.
Thanks again :)

Happy to help ^.^

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
tecnically yes, but I believe it's preferred that you ask first.

I found that those tags do actually exist, there's *_and_white, but for black it isn't *_and_black, it's black_and_*, so that was a bit confusing.

At least I don't have to worry about creating loads of tags that didn't exist before.
:)

Gonna need a new tag for Spiritfarer (That game that was just announced), as there's already two entries for the deer from it. Yes one of the submissions was me, but still.

I noticed a recently made casual_boner tag, which made me wonder if having a casual_erection tag would be useful. Or would using casual_nudity/casual_exposure + erection be better? Anybody have thoughts on this?

Dismiss if I just didn't see it, but there doesn't seem to be a tag for Tail_bags. Hardly surprised as they're a pretty rare thing, I know of just a handful, and one of them is just because I saw it come up in the recently uploaded.
post #1928548
Also this one and one other one from Guoh
post #1502765
that's not here.
I'll dump the other three so the tag could get at least a little use.
As it turns out there's a tag for "Tail pouch", frankly "Tail bag" would be more general, but whatever. No wiki entry for it either, hence why I missed it initially.

GayZoraian0823 said:
Can someone help me?
https://e621.net/forum/show/275683

Why tf you are advertising that thread on tag discussion thread?

I made a tag out of characters of the same species having sex a while back but they were removed from the posts I left them on. What do you guys think of it? I made it in the first place as same species sex can get kind of rare on this site and I thought the tag made sense.

I want to suggest the tag:
Young_penetrating and young_penetrated.

I found several posts which fit the description of reference_image, so I started a tag. Figured I better post here for feedback before I tag the rest.

A tag suggestion for tagging a domination relationship in which the dominant is the one getting penetrated.

vincent456 said:
A tag suggestion for tagging a domination relationship in which the dominant is the one getting penetrated.

power_bottom

I'm just saying. Plapping should definitely be an actual tag

I'd been thinking about it lately, and the bestiality tag seems to have a touch of a problem. It's based around the anthro/feral schism, but sapience is something I'd think quite a few people find important in their pornography. Seems to me we should allow people to discern between, say, an English speaking dragon and a completely non-sapient horse.

I looked to see if we had any kind of sapient tags, and found somebody had used "sapient_feral" however long ago for a few pictures. I went ahead and took the liberty of adding 30 or so posts to the tag, and I'd wrote a wiki article attempting to delineate how one might use said tag (though, that wiki article appears to have vanished mysteriously?)

So, er, I guess I'm proposing we use this tag for folks that might want to still see dragons and Pokemon and whatnot while avoiding literal dogs and horses and other non-sapient animals. Forgive me if this is presumptuous, as I'm not terribly familiar with how new tags get made around here.

minna679 said:
I'd been thinking about it lately, and the bestiality tag seems to have a touch of a problem. It's based around the anthro/feral schism, but sapience is something I'd think quite a few people find important in their pornography. Seems to me we should allow people to discern between, say, an English speaking dragon and a completely non-sapient horse.

The difficulty is there being no plainly visible way to determine sapience. Without outside information, what can you look to in a picture to determine if a feral animal is sapient or not? Is this sapient? Or this? What about this? This? Why or why not?

Watsit said:
The difficulty is there being no plainly visible way to determine sapience. Without outside information, what can you look to in a picture to determine if a feral animal is sapient or not? Is this sapient? Or this? What about this? This? Why or why not?

Funny you should mention, that last picture is actually one I initially tagged and then rolled back.

I think sapience is very much something that we depict artistically, through facial expressions, contextual actions, and other sorts of things. It's certainly a nuanced thing, which is why I think sapient ferals should still be tagged with bestiality for the sake of blacklists. And, furthermore, I think we would greatly benefit from an ambiguous_sapience tag for situations in which it is uncertain.

As for my personal evaluation, here:

The first picture is too unclear because the hyper-realism results in a facial expression and physical posture that a non-sapient creature could easily replicate unintentionally. You could get away with calling it ambiguous, but many people would be uncomfortable. I would call this non-sapient, and at absolute best extremely subtle sapience.

The second picture is of Pokemon, which are canonically sapient. But, canon doesn't fall under TWYS, and it's possible for people to artistically depict non-sapient Pokemon, so I am aware that counts as outside information. Yet, unrelated to that, the fact that the characters here are displaying very human emotions and expressions, and willingly engaging in coitus in a manner indicative of seeking out pleasure rather than reproduction, I would classify that as sapient.

The third picture does initially throw me for a loop, I'll admit that. Realistic anatomy does not a non-sapient make, however, and the face there is human-like and displays intelligence. I can see people being bothered by the artistic liberty taken here, but I think extraneous tags and tag combos would allow blacklisting of such things while still reasonably including it as sapient.

The fourth picture is one I have already evaluated, as I mentioned. I initially tagged it as sapient_feral, because to me, Pokemon are always sapient. But, as I said before, artistic interpretation is something Pokemon are not excluded from, so I removed the tag as the face cannot be seen and from context alone the situation is unclear.

I mean... we use ambiguous_penetration and various other ambiguous tags to admit when something is too difficult to be certain of without outside information. I see no reason we cannot do the same for sapience. And I think this is quite important to tag! I know several people who outright refuse to use this website due to sapient creatures being lumped in with non-sapient creatures with no ability to filter.

minna679 said:
I think sapience is very much something that we depict artistically, through facial expressions, contextual actions, and other sorts of things. It's certainly a nuanced thing, which is why I think sapient ferals should still be tagged with bestiality for the sake of blacklists. And, furthermore, I think we would greatly benefit from an ambiguous_sapience tag for situations in which it is uncertain.

The problem is needing clear visually-identifiable traits for sapience and non-sapience, in a way that's useful to single images. The dictionary definition for sapience is:
"The character of being sapient; wisdom; sageness; profound knowledge; also, practical wisdom; common prudence"
and sapient:
"having or showing great wisdom or sound judgment"

Given some single image of a feral, what's a common visual element that indicates its intelligence or lack thereof? As it is, one can make compelling arguments that real-life animals are sapient to some degree, so what even is non-sapient? Real-life animals aren't expressionless, and can have human-like behaviors. They can be quite clever, too.

minna679 said:
The second picture is of Pokemon, which are canonically sapient. But, canon doesn't fall under TWYS, and it's possible for people to artistically depict non-sapient Pokemon, so I am aware that counts as outside information. Yet, unrelated to that, the fact that the characters here are displaying very human emotions and expressions, and willingly engaging in coitus in a manner indicative of seeking out pleasure rather than reproduction, I would classify that as sapient.

The midnight lycanroc would fall under that given its human-like expression and general anthro-ness, but I don't see the midday lycanroc fitting. The midday's eyes are normally like that since its their official design, and it's otherwise just licking a penis without showing much emotion or thought. I don't see what's "sapient" about it beyond what a normal dog could look like.

minna679 said:
I mean... we use ambiguous_penetration and various other ambiguous tags to admit when something is too difficult to be certain of without outside information. I see no reason we cannot do the same for sapience.

The difference is, you can normally see when it's a mouth, butt, vagina, etc, that something's being inserted into. You can also logically deduce from observation and other present tags (for example a character tagged as a male being penetrated from behind, you can infer anal_penetration). ambiguous_penetration is for the outliers.

For feral sapience, ambiguity would be more the norm than the outlier (objectively without external information, what about this picture actually indicates sapience, and would this count also?). Many images would need inferences based on arbitrary elements, like the eyes give a sense of intelligence, or the expression seems human-like; it's more subjective impression than logical deduction. It seems counter-productive to me to add a tag that many if not most images would be tagged as ambiguous for.

minna679 said:
And I think this is quite important to tag! I know several people who outright refuse to use this website due to sapient creatures being lumped in with non-sapient creatures with no ability to filter.

I think it would be too difficult to define sapience and non-sapience in a way that would be useful to single images. At best I could see something like a realistic_feral tag for ferals portrayed realistically, but then you'd run into issues with stylized art, and how it would apply to fantasy creatures like dragons or pokemon. It would probably be mostly the same thing as "realistic" and "feral" together, anyway.

First section is the uncut response, second section is the tl;dr.

So, to sum it up:

Just some friendly advice, if you plan on making a long response you can use \

, sandwiching the text, to greatly shorten it. You can also categorize with this, if that's relevant.

Siral_Exan said:
Just some friendly advice, if you plan on making a long response you can use \

and \

, sandwiching the text, to greatly shorten it. You can also categorize with this, if that's relevant.

Duly noted! I'll get right on that.

TL;DR

I'm not against what you seem to be wanting. I just don't think it's as clear and easy to define sapience in single images as you do, and there's probably a better way or less ambiguous tags to get what you're after. Perhaps if we take a step back from focusing on "sapience" as a concept and look at what specifically makes relevant feral images appealing or unappealing, less subjective elements can be identified and tagged as appropriate. Who knows, maybe the necessary tags already exist and just need to be applied more often.

Right, this seems to be the place to suggest new tags...

So, I've noticed that there are imminent_sex, imminent_rape, and imminent_incest tags that people can add to their search to actively seek (or add a - before it to actively avoid) images where the act is ABOUT to happen, but has not yet started. There are also sex, rape, and incest tags for when you want to find images where the act is presently, obviously happening in the picture. But for after_[act] tags, only after_sex and after_rape exist? Seems a pretty big oversight to not have an after_incest tag so people who specifically want to find (or avoid) images where the incest has already happened, and no new incest has been initiated, such as in this image here. Thoughts?

Watsit said:

No worries, my responses tend to drag out too, even when I don't mean too. I'll try to keep it as succinct as I can, though.

Fair enough. Though I'm not sure it really changes any of my issues.

Hence why I said "one can make" and "to a degree". My point was that the line between sapience and non-sapience isn't well defined, and as you say, there is legitimate debate over things like dolphins. So especially for a lay person who doesn't study these things, how are we to tell where that line is in a drawn picture?

The official design is what sets the standard for identifying the species (what would a midday lycanroc even be if you ignored the official design?), but I don't think implies anything beyond that. It doesn't even imply a sub-species (e.g. arcanine doesn't imply canine/canidae), so I don't think visual accuracy alone would imply sapience or non-sapience.

They could've, but what they did or didn't do is irrelevant to TWYS, what matters is what you can see in the image. What in the picture indicates "higher cognitive function; a creature which is self-aware, and behaves as a human does"? It's looking at and intently licking a penis, with no indication it understands what it's doing.

That's exactly why. As with all the examples I provided, I'm trying to point out how easy it is for initial impression of sapience in an image to be wrong, or to have nothing objective to go on. If the intent is to help people find or avoid what they do or don't want to see regarding realistic animal depictions, it would be best to make a tag that has as few of these gotchas as possible. No, you won't be able to make a perfect tag, but you can still strive to make it as useful as you can.

dubious_consent is used when there are indications of it being non-consensual, but not enough to be definitive. Consent is the assumed default, taking up the majority of relevant posts and isn't explicitly tagged. The dubious and non-con tags come into play when there are things you can point to in the image as being inconsistent with consent, such as crying.

The gender/sex tags have visual traits to look for (breasts, penis, pussy, etc, all of which are tags on their own); there's even flowcharts to help based on what is or isn't visible. The resulting selection is usually good enough for visual purposes (even ambiguous_gender, since it usually means you can interpret it as whatever suits your fancy).

This is artist intent though, and isn't as set in stone as you may think. Take for example the recent Lion King remake; those characters are all sapient (they talk, have complex thoughts and schemes, sing and "dance", etc)... but their facial and body structure limit their expressiveness, and in any one shot look like normal real-life animals. They purposely lack human-like eyes and expressiveness due to the hyper-realistic art direction, but are nonetheless just as sapient as their hand-drawn counterparts.

The opposite can be equally true. You mentioned earlier that Pluto is non-sapient. Disney's toony art style purposely gives Pluto a very expressive face and eyes that humans can identify with, but he's non-sapient since he doesn't otherwise think or behave like a human as Mickey, Donald, and Goofy do.

Sure, but we should keep in mind what the desired goal ultimately is. If the problem is that people can't filter out art of feral animals that look too much like their real-life counterparts, being too close for comfort to zoophilia or realistic bestiality, would it be sensible for the surrounding context to get around the filter even if the animal itself still looks like its real-life counterpart? Or when its face is obscured despite the body looking realistic?

I have, and I was considering bringing it up myself, but the point I was going to make with it was made elsewhere. More than what I've already said, however, it's not that you can't depict an animal with obvious sapience or non-sapience, you can always find extremes to make clear examples with. The issue is, given a TWYS system dealing with individual images, how often it will end up being unclear, give the "wrong" result, or just not have anything to make an objective call on despite feeling like it should(n't) classify.

Just because there's an inescapable amount of subjectivity doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimize it as much as possible. The point of the tags is to identify what is objectively in an image, so people can find what they enjoy looking at and avoid what they don't want to look at. Just as you wouldn't want to search "penis" and get a bunch of pictures of vaginas that someone thinks are like a penis (or vice-versa; hyenas cause lots of fun here), you wouldn't want to search for sapient_feral and get pictures of what looks to you like non- or ambiguously-sapient ferals because someone else thinks there's more going on in their head than you do (or vice versa).

TL;DR

I'm not against what you seem to be wanting. I just don't think it's as clear and easy to define sapience in single images as you do, and there's probably a better way or less ambiguous tags to get what you're after. Perhaps if we take a step back from focusing on "sapience" as a concept and look at what specifically makes relevant feral images appealing or unappealing, less subjective elements can be identified and tagged as appropriate. Who knows, maybe the necessary tags already exist and just need to be applied more often.

I'm starting to see what you mean. I thought about it some more, and I would like to alter my proposal. So, how about this?

Let's flip my proposal on its head. If most of these images end up ambiguous, and being certain of a character's sapience is hard... what about tagging photos that are clearly non-sapient?

Most people seem to be on the same page that realistic_feral does not truly address the issue at hand, and is merely a band-aid. But, if we had realistic_feral AND non_sapient, the respective tags would cover each-other's gaps, and we wouldn't have to debate over every single feral photo, avoiding massive tag wars.

If the image is ambiguous, or, as is rare to be sure of, definitively sapient, the non-sapient tag would not apply. We would assume sapience until proven otherwise. This way, the images that are clearly and painfully obvious as non-sapient can be blacklisted for those who wish to avoid it. Meanwhile, the realistic_feral tag addresses the separate yet adjacent issue of discomfort with ferals that are depicted as they would be in real life, irrelevant to their actual sapience.

A picture of a dog with emotive expressions is simply left up to the interpretation of the viewer. But, an SFM dog x human animation would receive realistic_feral, and a fantasy depiction of a dragon that is explicitly shown to be non-sapient is tagged as non_sapient.

This would still be limited, but I think it would be greatly preferred to our current set-up, and the tags would synergize well.

minna679 said:
Let's flip my proposal on its head. If most of these images end up ambiguous, and being certain of a character's sapience is hard... what about tagging photos that are clearly non-sapient?

I think you're getting too hung up on the idea of "sapient", rather than what you're trying to visually identify. Sapience itself isn't a visual element, and as we can't do behavioral studies on an image's subjects, it's often a subjective inference based on visual elements.

I get basically what you're trying to do. You want to be able to identify something like this separately from something like this, right? However, to do that we need to be able to tag what we can actually see in one and not the other on a mostly objective basis.

If we're to separate one from the other based on some tags, we can't go on subjective impression since it gets too muddy too easily. It needs to be things we can visually point out in the image. We don't need to call it "non-sapient" (then argue whether it truly qualifies based only on what we see) to tag the things about it that makes people uncomfortable or aroused or both.

Watsit said:
I think you're getting too hung up on the idea of "sapient", rather than what you're trying to visually identify. Sapience itself isn't a visual element, and as we can't do behavioral studies on an image's subjects, it's often a subjective inference based on visual elements.

I get basically what you're trying to do. You want to be able to identify something like this separately from something like this, right? However, to do that we need to be able to tag what we can actually see in one and not the other on a mostly objective basis.

If we're to separate one from the other based on some tags, we can't go on subjective impression since it gets too muddy too easily. It needs to be things we can visually point out in the image. We don't need to call it "non-sapient" (then argue whether it truly qualifies based only on what we see) to tag the things about it that makes people uncomfortable or aroused or both.

Alright. I see what you mean. I think it's kind of silly it has to be this way, and I think ultimately our rule should be "Tag What Is Depicted" or perhaps "Tag What Is Indisputable" instead of "Tag What You See", since, er, what one sees itself is subjective, based on past experiences and biases and all those very human things.

But, I get that it's been this way for a very long time, and some random person who doesn't have any reputation with the community nor any serious investment in the site isn't about to change that. And, hell, even people that are one or both of those things have a very hard time changing any minds about it.

So, er... speaking_feral/non_verbal_feral to cover the whole "uses language" thing, realistic_feral/non-realistic_feral to cover the whole "this looks like an actual dog/horse/whatever" thing. I think the facial expressions being human and emotive probably is something plainly observable, too, so we can tack on emotive_face, but the inverse would probably be a lot harder to consistently tag. Dialogue referring to feral creatures as a pet or as a subservient animal could maybe get its own tag, too, but that's probably a stretch.

The reason I'm so hung up on sapience is that, well... how many tags do we split this into before it becomes a pedantic waste of everybody's time? It feels like not only ignoring the proverbial elephant in the room, but putting a little hat on him and dancing around him and sacrificing our children to him. Maybe that's just me, though.

I don't think I have much more to offer in this discussion, though. I acquiesce.

minna679 said:
I think ultimately our rule should be "Tag What Is Depicted" or perhaps "Tag What Is Indisputable" instead of "Tag What You See"

Tag What Is Depicted is Tag What You See. To see something, it has to be depicted. "Tag What Is Indisputable"... well, given a large enough group of people, someone will always dispute something. Hence the need for objectivity; sure, someone may dispute a specific tag belongs on a picture, but when there's visible evidence for it belonging, it becomes that person's burden to prove otherwise also using visible evidence.

minna679 said:
The reason I'm so hung up on sapience is that, well... how many tags do we split this into before it becomes a pedantic waste of everybody's time?

If a tag is useful to know on its own, it's not a waste of time. There can always be implications to tie them together as needed. Kind of like how young is its own tag, but so is baby, child, and teenager which all imply being young. Many people probably want to filter out young and be done with it all, while to others, the more specific age ranges are helpful to find or avoid more specific things.

Conversely, if a tag is too broad or vague, such that for those who would use it, it ends up catching things they don't need it to and not catching things they really want it to because of disagreements on whether particular visual elements imply it or not... then it's a waste of time.

...so, I guess that's a no, then?

I just stumbled upon the qīngjiǔ tag.

Wouldn't it be advisable to adopt the policy of forbidding the use of Latin characters with diacritics? They very rarely appear in the English language. As it stands, 'qīngjiǔ' uses the Latin alphabet but is still a Chinese term, and most of the world would have no easy way to type either that Latinized form nor the original Chinese one ('清酒'), so why bother with the diacritic-using Latin? Just par it all down to the 26 letters, and resolve collisions by adding the usual parenthetical specifier after the term.

Edit: I realize it could be a simple matter of aliasing both 'qīngjiǔ' to 'qingjiu' (or vice versa, like with 'pokemon' to 'pokémon'), but it seems there are 20 possible diacritic-using forms, and these numbers quickly escalate as you consider words with more Chinese syllables. It would be better to just use 'qingjiu', 'qingjiu_(whatever)' etc. and ban the diacritic-using terms.