SnowWolf said:
Well, we also have open_zipper :P

I could see a want for a tag to describe open_pants -penis but, I --oh. Wait. There you go. :)

appears to get what I want. Thanks :D

SnowWolf said:
Hmmm.. Maybe swirly_pattern? Would allow for a broader definition...

How about 'curly_pattern'?
Seems easy to remember, and it's a close match in image searches too.

Genjar said:
How about 'curly_pattern'?
Seems easy to remember, and it's a close match in image searches too.

Wow. My brain reacts to that one almost violently with a no. ... Huh. Hm. I think it's... because a curls seem 3D versus 2D. .... brain associations are weird. Also, curls are sort of a hair-thing. ...? I dunno, Brain is weird.

Google's results for swirl_pattern and curl_pattern seem nearly the same though... ... hm.

This comes down to personal linguistics, I think.

I’m thinking possibly something along the lines of general:hump_(zoology) would be a good idea...

Bismuth84 said:
I’m thinking possibly something along the lines of general:hump_(zoology) would be a good idea...

L...Like a camel's hump? What else has humps?

SnowWolf said:
L...Like a camel's hump? What else has humps?

Roads.

SnowWolf said:
L...Like a camel's hump? What else has humps?

Zebus, moose, white rhinos, american bison

There are alot more than I thought.

How about a ...cultural influence?

Like...

These are obviously Japanese/Asian -- not just in the characters but the landscape and backdrop.
post #1391410 post #242544 post #237843 post #1124191
(as a note, all of those are tagged 'asian' but that's basically a garbage tag with no real goal

These all have a earth cultural influence.. middle eastern, Aztec, etc
post #1424088 post #1391467 post #1391426 post #1398347

Do we ... have a tag or set of tags for this kinda stuff?

Also, anything for creatures made of smoke/mist/fog/etc?

how about this? post #1425140

What is that tag for this?

Or all of the tags, actually.

I mean.. goat robot hybrid? unusual_form?

I think this may be the most challenging thing I've ever uploaded c_c

Do any of you guys think this thread should be a sticky?

Corinthian said:
Do any of you guys think this thread should be a sticky?

Might be a good idea. Is there a lot of do-we-have-a-tag-for-that single question forums? Cause if there is then stickying this could probably reduce the thread cluster.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Might be a good idea. Is there a lot of do-we-have-a-tag-for-that single question forums? Cause if there is then stickying this could probably reduce the thread cluster.

I haven't seen any, but a thread like this seems like one that would be made sticky.

There would be several threads like this that 'should' be stickied, so maybe better to have a tagging resources thread or something. I dunno. I have some thoughts but they'll have to wait til I"m not half dead.

post #1421404

I just want to make sure I’m using the right tag. The piercings on her face (the little white circles) would be muzzle_piercing. Right?

SharkFetish said:
post #1421404

I just want to make sure I’m using the right tag. The piercings on her face (the little white circles) would be muzzle_piercing. Right?

yup

wanker said:
Is there a tag for dithered shading style? post #574991

Nothing more specific than dithering, afaik.

______
Artist question: do we have a tag for this - https://twitter.com/kurosuteneko/?
Can't find any works on harry.lu, though dunno if that's because its currently rebuilding databases.

'Shippo' is aliased to that Inuyasha character, so that can't be the artist tag. And kurosuteneko finds nothing.

Genjar said:
Nothing more specific than dithering, afaik.

______
Artist question: do we have a tag for this - https://twitter.com/kurosuteneko/?
Can't find any works on harry.lu, though dunno if that's because its currently rebuilding databases.

'Shippo' is aliased to that Inuyasha character, so that can't be the artist tag. And kurosuteneko finds nothing.

We do have a shippo_(artist) tag, but I can't tell if that's the same artist or not due to the absurd lack of sourcing.

Furrin_Gok said:
We do have a shippo_(artist) tag, but I can't tell if that's the same artist or not due to the absurd lack of sourcing.

Yeah... Different signature too. And the art style seems to differ (compare those with this ), though most of the art under that tag was posted over six years ago. So it might just be a case of the artist getting better.

Shippo ('tail') is a common nick for Japanese furry artists. Here's an another one who uses that nick.

Got a tag for this kinda pose?

post #1428449

Feral/taur, One front leg up, one rear leg up?

SnowWolf said:
Got a tag for this kinda pose?

post #1428449

Feral/taur, One front leg up, one rear leg up?

It's basically a super exaggerated trot based pose, though that tag seems very underused.

regsmutt said:
It's basically a super exaggerated trot based pose, though that tag seems very underused.

*scratches head* I mean, true. but that tag basically isn't used, haha. Hmm.. I thought, like "prance" or something but... hmm.

'trot' seems kinda... superfluous. I mean... while a valid horse-thing, most people are just gonna tag walking or running... I dunno. I feel like I've seen a lot of ferals in this or a similar pose.

That and we've got like, raised_leg, one_leg_up, and on_one_leg, so I figured we had to have at least one for something like this. Oh and on_hind_legs, rearing_up and bucking too. just not one-fore-one-hind. :P

Ah, our tags.

What's the correct tag for a prosthesis?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
What's the correct tag for a prosthesis?

prosthetic, plus a subtag (such as prosthetic_leg).

Genjar said:
prosthetic, plus a subtag (such as prosthetic_leg).

thanks ^.^
Also, is there tag for someone pouring liquid on their tongue?
post #1428407
doesn't seem to qualify as drinking according to the wiki.

SnowWolf said:
*scratches head* I mean, true. but that tag basically isn't used, haha. Hmm.. I thought, like "prance" or something but... hmm.

'trot' seems kinda... superfluous. I mean... while a valid horse-thing, most people are just gonna tag walking or running... I dunno. I feel like I've seen a lot of ferals in this or a similar pose.

That and we've got like, raised_leg, one_leg_up, and on_one_leg, so I figured we had to have at least one for something like this. Oh and on_hind_legs, rearing_up and bucking too. just not one-fore-one-hind. :P

Ah, our tags.

Trotting is a pretty common term in most quadruped species. While it's not currently tagged (and does end up under walking along with images similar to the one you linked) ,I'd think it'd be fairly easy to tag since it is a 'flashier' and more exaggerated gait than a walk. For comparison:
Trots:
post #1360863 A nice realistic trot, probably referenced from photos/videos.
post #1425587 A more subtle trot, but there's only one foot on the ground.
post #1268217 Exaggerated, but based in a trot.
Walks:
post #1248662 Just a regular ol walk.
post #1416265 Kind of border-line, but not exaggerated and details make it appear slow.
post #1412731 An exaggerated walk, but still appears slower and less 'bouncy' than a trot.

Poses in general though are under-tagged and there's really only on_hind_legs (rearing is aliased to it) and bucking for feral-specific poses. In animal-talk I see such poses referred to as 'hackney' (referring to the hackney horse) but that's way too obscure.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
What's the correct tag for a prosthesis?

Genjar said:
prosthetic, plus a subtag (such as prosthetic_leg).

Actually a fucking mess, but yeah. if it's a robo arm or something, it's probably also a cybernetic thing.

I really should get back to that... one of these days.

regsmutt said:
Trotting is a pretty common term in most quadruped species. While it's not currently tagged (and does end up under walking along with images similar to the one you linked) ,I'd think it'd be fairly easy to tag since it is a 'flashier' and more exaggerated gait than a walk. For comparison:
(trotty pictures)
Poses in general though are under-tagged and there's really only on_hind_legs (rearing is aliased to it) and bucking for feral-specific poses. In animal-talk I see such poses referred to as 'hackney' (referring to the hackney horse) but that's way too obscure.

Beautiful breakdown :) I'd tag it in the future, if I thought anyone else would as well.

but yeah, poses in general are rather sorely lacking.:(

It's hard to describe in one or two words a position in a way that's memorable and easily understood (I mean.. table lotus? stand and carry? gliding leg? s'why one of my upcoming goals ia a hopeful visual guide to tags... but I need to not be full of snot death first.

also, yeayh, hackney would be a little too obscure-- I figured there would be something like counter-paw-pose or forward_reverse_obverse_pose or something.

post #1271518
is there a tag for fangs/sharp teeth that are drawn looking like they seamlessly meld into the jaw other than just plain fangs/sharp teeth? This seems to be a distinctive style of portraying teeth in some creatures (like salazzle for example) so I'm not sure why I haven't found a solid tag for it yet.

facelessmess said:
is there a tag for fangs/sharp teeth that are drawn looking like they seamlessly meld into the jaw other than just plain fangs/sharp teeth?

In a similar vein, I've been unable to tag claws that are the entire finger/toe. It's recurring anatomy. I wasn't going to start the tag myself. Zangoose is a common example.

post #1426717

If only toe_claws could be used for this (to go with a finger_claws tag) instead of its current redundancy with claws. We do have feather_hands, which follows the same idea.

Is there a tag for when a character (especially moths) have thick fluff on certain parts of their body? I've been using tags such as wrist_tuft and ankle_tuft, but I'm not sure if it's appropriate for this.
post #1434924 post #1434925 post #1324800

So I have two dwhat4t's
First, for when a character is lying on front and swinging his/her calves
post #1343153 post #1326538
Second, for when a character is kneeling and resting his/her butt on his/her feet or even the ground (like Britney Spears on her debut album, known as アヒル座り in Japanese, or 鸭子坐 in Chinese)
post #1285834 post #1353598

g273435d said:
So I have two dwhat4t's

I don't think so.
Could probably make a *_pose tags for those. But I can't think of a good tag names to suggest, plus the first one seems to be already searchable with on_front legs_up.

Non-feral characters drawn as ferals is tagged as feralized.
Non-humans drawn as humans is tagged as humanized. And so on.

But what about characters drawn as taurs?
post #955183

I can't find a tag for those. And if it doesn't already exist, I'm not sure what to call it. Taurized sounds... wrong.

g273435d said:
So I have two dwhat4t's
First, for when a character is lying on front and swinging his/her calves
post #1343153 post #1326538

on_front + legs_up gets the job done.

We don't seem to have a swinging_legs tag (is swinging_leg better?). You could start it if you wish.

Second, for when a character is kneeling and resting his/her butt on his/her feet or even the ground (like Britney Spears on her debut album, known as アヒル座り in Japanese, or 鸭子坐 in Chinese)
post #1285834 post #1353598

seiza ( wikipedia )

I've thought about seiza and similar poses vs kneeling or sitting before. Seiza is specifically sitting on one's heels (+ some other things). My conclusion was that sitting should be saved for a character with their butt on the ground/surface, so seiza should be kneeling. But that's just me.

Genjar said:
But what about characters drawn as taurs?
post #955183

Damn taurorists!

Genjar said:
But what about characters drawn as taurs?
post #955183

I can't find a tag for those. And if it doesn't already exist, I'm not sure what to call it. Taurized sounds... wrong.

has 8 results on FA while "Taurified" has 92, "Taurification" has 80...

And to add on to this, what is to be done about naga, merfolk and other taur-like bodies that are non-canon?

abadbird said:
on_front + legs_up gets the job done.

We don't seem to have a swinging_legs tag (is swinging_leg better?). You could start it if you wish.

I don't think I like swinging_leg -- because that's not really... descriptive. It makes me think about characters sitting on swings, or hanging benches, or their feet not touching the ground, etc. "swinging leg" doesn't really.. describe anything, and I think it risks becoming a squishy, ill defined tag. Maybe something like leg_cocked_up, or leg_angled_up... but then, how is that different than some of the other 'legs up' tags?

Hmm. I actually do think we should have a tag for this, but a better name.. That said, I'm not sure what a better name would be, haha.

... potential alternate to seiza... sitting_on_feet?

as for taurs... It's interesting that 'centaurized' sounds better than 'taurized'...english, amirite? ... that said,

888 - ponification
824 - furrification
222 - personification
221 - bimbofication
121 - dragonification

there's also sissification, objectification, toyification, plushification, dollification, alicornification

on the other hand:
3269 - humanized
1799 - humanoidized
242 - feralized

Also: feminized, roboticized

... we don't really have any -ified tags...

so.. casual analysis: users find -ification to be more 'comfortable', while official-ish tags support -ized.

Taurification feels pretty natural.

As for naga-etc... I'd probably continue using -ification..

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
thanks ^.^
Also, is there tag for someone pouring liquid on their tongue?
post #1428407
doesn't seem to qualify as drinking according to the wiki.

I found pouring today :D

SnowWolf said:
I found pouring today :D

Nice, thx:)

Anything for indicating that the artist has, in some respect, made prints available via the source link?

and how about creatures with just... different body format than usual?

post #1438489 It's a bird! but it has... 4 legs, not 2 and no wings? I almost tagged Gryphon, but it's totally not even a little gryphon-like, outside of the fact that it has 4 legs.

post #1426967 A whale! But.. with.. too many fins? and arms?

I mean. I tagged the whale with unusual form but??

I mean. how do you even tag a quadrupedal bird with no wings?

SnowWolf said:
and how about creatures with just... different body format than usual?

post #1438489 It's a bird! but it has... 4 legs, not 2 and no wings? I almost tagged Gryphon, but it's totally not even a little gryphon-like, outside of the fact that it has 4 legs.

post #1426967 A whale! But.. with.. too many fins? and arms?

I mean. I tagged the whale with unusual form but??

I mean. how do you even tag a quadrupedal bird with no wings?

Art of the first character is tagged as gryphon on other images. It's really just a wingless gryphon, imo. Wings aren't really what makes a gryphon to me (but to be fair I tend to forget them when drawing gryphs lol) as much as the mammalian+avian hybrid thing and the image has that going on (that's a carnivoran torso and legs, putting birb feets on it doesn't change that).

regsmutt said:
Art of the first character is tagged as gryphon on other images.

... ??? As far as I know, that's the first picture of that character on the website??

It's really just a wingless gryphon, imo. Wings aren't really what makes a gryphon to me (but to be fair I tend to forget them when drawing gryphs lol) as much as the mammalian+avian hybrid thing

Honestly, the thing that makes a picture say YES, GRYPHON to me is beak+ears. bird feet/hands are a bonus but not required.

and the image has that going on (that's a carnivoran torso and legs, putting birb feets on it doesn't change that).

Well, I'd agree with you but outside of the 4 legged body and lack of wings, it's... a bird. I mean-- there's no tail, there's no ears. I don't have a problem tagging post #1438427 or post #1438193 as a gryphon... just, outside of it's 4 leggedness and potentially furry body (could be feathers!) it's... a bird. with 4 legs.

It's a really confusing looking picture to me o_o

Cute, though :)

SnowWolf said:
... ??? As far as I know, that's the first picture of that character on the website??

Honestly, the thing that makes a picture say YES, GRYPHON to me is beak+ears. bird feet/hands are a bonus but not required.

Well, I'd agree with you but outside of the 4 legged body and lack of wings, it's... a bird. I mean-- there's no tail, there's no ears. I don't have a problem tagging post #1438427 or post #1438193 as a gryphon... just, outside of it's 4 leggedness and potentially furry body (could be feathers!) it's... a bird. with 4 legs.

It's a really confusing looking picture to me o_o

Cute, though :)

I actually went looking on fa for more pictures and that's where I found it tagged as gryphon. I cheated, lol.

Anyway, gryphons without ears are definitely a thing. The gryphons in Warcraft are probably the most well known example, but they also pop up in old art and sculptures.

The body being 100% mammalian in shape is what decides it for me. It's not a speculative "what if a quadruped bird existed" design, it's a generic cat-dog body with scaly feet and a bird head. If it had wings (though the purple shoulder feathers may be deformed wings? Hard to tell) there'd be no question.

regsmutt said:
I actually went looking on fa for more pictures and that's where I found it tagged as gryphon. I cheated, lol.

I legit thought I was going crazy or something, hahaha. regardless, what THEY tag doesn't count. tag what you see, etc etc etc XD

...cheater <3

Anyway, gryphons without ears are definitely a thing. The gryphons in Warcraft are probably the most well known example, but they also pop up in old art and sculptures.

True!! but they tend to have clear deliniation between cat-and-bird-halves.

(aside: how do we only have 34 warcraft gryphon images? that's crazy...)

And sasid bird up above... doesn't have anything mammalish about it except the quadropeadal body style. and the fact that it... MIGHT... have fur.

regardless, I'll slap gryphon on it, but it also just.. looks like a weird bird with too many legs and not enough wings XD

The body being 100% mammalian in shape is what decides it for me. It's not a speculative "what if a quadruped bird existed" design, it's a generic cat-dog body with scaly feet and a bird head. If it had wings (though the purple shoulder feathers may be deformed wings? Hard to tell) there'd be no question.

Fair enough. It still begs the question though. If I uploaded an illustrated version of one of the following photoshopped/taxidermy pictures, how would it be tagged?

x x x x x x x

SnowWolf said:
I legit thought I was going crazy or something, hahaha. regardless, what THEY tag doesn't count. tag what you see, etc etc etc XD

...cheater <3

Yeah, I know, I was checking to make sure it wasn't tagged as some specific fantasy game/movie/DnD species I didn't know about.

regardless, I'll slap gryphon on it, but it also just.. looks like a weird bird with too many legs and not enough wings XD

Fair enough. It still begs the question though. If I uploaded an illustrated version of one of the following photoshopped/taxidermy pictures, how would it be tagged?

x x x x x x x

Well, I think a test is to slap a mammal head on it. The four-legged bird manipulations wouldn't be passable as a mammal with weird bits if you gave them mammal heads the way gryphons are: https://imgur.com/a/FbLAn

regsmutt said:
Yeah, I know, I was checking to make sure it wasn't tagged as some specific fantasy game/movie/DnD species I didn't know about.

haha, fair enough, that totally does look like it coulda hopped out of the D&D bestiary. :)

Well, I think a test is to slap a mammal head on it. The four-legged bird manipulations wouldn't be passable as a mammal with weird bits if you gave them mammal heads the way gryphons are: https://imgur.com/a/FbLAn

I choked on my milkshake. Thank you. You win at everything now XD

I really kinda wanna see the last two drawn "fur srs" now... clearly, my new fursona will be a doggakeet. and it'll be your fault. XD YOU MADE THIS.

hmm.. doggakeet? Paradog?

post #1440080

That... that mouth thing.

How tag? I mena, I have the tongue and teeth and drool and stuff.... but the whole.. kinda.. flower petal mouth part alien jaw... thing.

Might want to consider the *maw tags. That structure is tagged tentacle_maw on tentacles. I wrote penis_maw... obvious guesswork lol. If no proper tag exists, maybe be direct about this anatomy create a petal_maw tag.

abadbird said:
Might want to consider the *maw tags. That structure is tagged tentacle_maw on tentacles. I wrote penis_maw... obvious guesswork lol. If no proper tag exists, maybe be direct about this anatomy create a petal_maw tag.

hmm.. thanks!

Though, at least with a **REALLY** quick look, not seeing many tentacle maws that wouldn't be a 'petal maw' ... of course, that doesn't mean anything as that might be a benefit to have for things like penis_maw where some of theme are little faces :D

So, I'm try face_maw for now AND petal_maw.

_{gosh this stuff looks so weird. Gives me the heebies. Not the jeebies, though.}

SnowWolf said:
I legit thought I was going crazy or something, hahaha. regardless, what THEY tag doesn't count. tag what you see, etc etc etc XD

...cheater <3

True!! but they tend to have clear deliniation between cat-and-bird-halves.

(aside: how do we only have 34 warcraft gryphon images? that's crazy...)

And sasid bird up above... doesn't have anything mammalish about it except the quadropeadal body style. and the fact that it... MIGHT... have fur.

regardless, I'll slap gryphon on it, but it also just.. looks like a weird bird with too many legs and not enough wings XD

Fair enough. It still begs the question though. If I uploaded an illustrated version of one of the following photoshopped/taxidermy pictures, how would it be tagged?

x x x x x x x

And the initial post that started the discussion

Arnt gryphons supposed to have avian front legs(or arms)[upper body(head is a mix of both classes)] and feline back legs(or feet)[lower body], that combination is what makes a gryphon a gryphon. non of the linked examples given here are gryphons, they are just avian frankenstein's(generic hybrids) >_>

SnowWolf said:
post #1440080

That... that mouth thing.

How tag? I mena, I have the tongue and teeth and drool and stuff.... but the whole.. kinda.. flower petal mouth part alien jaw... thing.

mandible generally covers those, if you -insect then you find a good dozen already there. It also how the are called on wikipedia and wikias pertaining to resident evil and blade 2 that both feature creatures with mouth-parts like that among other films and games that have similar creatures...

http://residentevil.wikia.com/wiki/Majini_Undead
http://new-monster.wikia.com/wiki/Reaper_(Blade)

Darou said:
And the initial post that started the discussion

Arnt gryphons supposed to have avian front legs(or arms)[upper body(head is a mix of both classes)] and feline back legs(or feet)[lower body], that combination is what makes a gryphon a gryphon. non of the linked examples given here are gryphons, they are just avian frankenstein's(generic hybrids) >_>

Gryphon can have many different physical configuration. I mean, you're describing the classic gryphon. but... the classic gryphon is supposed to strictly be " the body, tail, and back legs of a lion; the head and wings of an eagle; and an eagle's talons as its front feet" but.. well,... I'll quote wikipedia:

Wikipedia:
Most statuary representations of griffins depict them with bird-like talons, although in some older illustrations griffins have a lion's forelimbs; they generally have a lion's hindquarters. Its eagle's head is conventionally given prominent ears; these are sometimes described as the lion's ears, but are often elongated (more like a horse's), and are sometimes feathered.

Infrequently, a griffin is portrayed without wings, or a wingless eagle-headed lion is identified as a griffin. In 15th-century and later heraldry, such a beast may be called an alce or a keythong.

In heraldry, a griffin always has forelegs like an eagle's hind-legs. A type of griffin with the four legs of a lion was distinguished by perhaps only one English herald of later heraldry as the Opinicus, which also had a camel-like neck and a short tail that almost resembles a camel's tail.

So then, with this information.. what are these?

post #1427666 post #1427631 post #1236483 post #1407803 post #1407798 post #1407810 post #1407805 post #1437390

or set:unusualgryphons in general?

Gryphon are, generally, defined as a blendings of avian and mammal traits in a specific front-half/back-half pattern where it typically has a bird head.

.... besides, as I was ultimatly saying, how do you define a creature who's only "odd' trait is an unusual number of legs, for example. like those avian frankensteins. How do you define that? how do you tag that? that was my question.

mandible generally covers those, if you -insect then you find a good dozen already there. It also how the are called on wikipedia and wikias pertaining to resident evil and blade 2 that both feature creatures with mouth-parts like that among other films and games that have similar creatures...

http://residentevil.wikia.com/wiki/Majini_Undead
http://new-monster.wikia.com/wiki/Reaper_(Blade)

Uh.... sorry, but no.

A mandible is the jaw or jawbone--particularly the lower jaw--in mammals and fish. When you step outside manmmals and fish, insects also have mandables--which are basically hard, firm jaw parts. They are designed to be hard and firm for biting and cutting. They come in many diverse shapes, but generally? hard and sharp, not odd fleshy tentacles.

I mean, yeah, technically it is a mandible in that it's part of a jaw, but these shouldn't be tagged the same thing:

yaaas: post #1346000 post #1309243 post #1240505
No: post #273620

D... do we have a tag for ferals (or non ferals I guess) doing the typical "scratching my neck with a foot" thing?

post #1394167 post #1386155 post #1223949 post #923056 post #1189049 post #643751

(sorry for so many, but they're CUTE)

I mean, they're not hard to find with feral scratching but you also get a lot of other things like "human scratching dog ears" and "characters hurting another character with their claws" and "digging fingernails/claws in a bit"

... actually considering that scratches has 566 posts, scratch has 369 and scratching has 353]] (+ random 2 dozen other *scratch* tags) ... there might be some clean up to be had here...

scratches is suposed to be 'tiny skin lacerations' ... scratch is basically 'scratches, or the act of giving them'... while scratching has no wiki page...

thoughts?

SnowWolf said:
D... do we have a tag for ferals (or non ferals I guess) doing the typical "scratching my neck with a foot" thing?

post #1394167 post #1386155 post #1223949 post #923056 post #1189049 post #643751

(sorry for so many, but they're CUTE)

I mean, they're not hard to find with feral scratching but you also get a lot of other things like "human scratching dog ears" and "characters hurting another character with their claws" and "digging fingernails/claws in a bit"

... actually considering that scratches has 566 posts, scratch has 369 and scratching has 353]] (+ random 2 dozen other *scratch* tags) ... there might be some clean up to be had here...

scratches is suposed to be 'tiny skin lacerations' ... scratch is basically 'scratches, or the act of giving them'... while scratching has no wiki page...

thoughts?

I think a foot_scratching tag would be good for that kind of thing, especially since it isn't feral exclusive (it's a fairly common 'furry reminder' gag).

regsmutt said:
I think a foot_scratching tag would be good for that kind of thing, especially since it isn't feral exclusive (it's a fairly common 'furry reminder' gag).

Agreed! hmm.. foot_scratching is pretty good... back_leg_scratch was what I thought about... I think I like foot_scratching better. though.. it sounds a lot like 'scratching a foot" but... that's such a niche thing, that surely it won't get mistagged?

OTOH, If I'm gonna stomp through the scratch related tags, I may as well tag some of the other common scratchy types -- like scratching heads, butts, bellies, etc. mostly for 'being scratched by another' stuff...

Hmmm...

Tags for these things would be pretty good.

facelessmess said:
post #1271518
is there a tag for fangs/sharp teeth that are drawn looking like they seamlessly meld into the jaw other than just plain fangs/sharp teeth? This seems to be a distinctive style of portraying teeth in some creatures (like salazzle for example) so I'm not sure why I haven't found a solid tag for it yet.

Hmmm... carapace_fangs? jaw_teeth? mandible_tusks? Carapace_tusks? ....toothless_teeth? :p

abadbird said:
In a similar vein, I've been unable to tag claws that are the entire finger/toe. It's recurring anatomy. I wasn't going to start the tag myself. Zangoose is a common example.

post #1426717

If only toe_claws could be used for this (to go with a finger_claws tag) instead of its current redundancy with claws. We do have feather_hands, which follows the same idea.

This really would be a good one to have-- especially since this is commonly seen also on insect types:

post #1349180 post #1290139 post #1254937

maybe claw_digits?

SnowWolf said:
post #1349180 post #1290139 post #1254937

maybe claw_digits?

I don't know about the first two, but the third seems more like cloven hoof than claws. Could prob be tagged as that, even though there's currently only one post under cloven_hoof.

Genjar said:
I don't know about the first two, but the third seems more like cloven hoof than claws. Could prob be tagged as that, even though there's currently only one post under cloven_hoof.

cloven_hooves has 1451 posts ;)

That said, it does bear a resemblance--still, the character's a bug and I think it's safer to assume that a bug has bug-parts rather than deer parts, haha.

regardless, arthropod 2_toes has more examples --some are toes-with-claws, some are "claw digits," others are just toes... but toe/finger counts are rather under tagged.

That said, this *is* a feature of buggie feet. As such: spider Fly in general

That said, I think it is something worth tagging -- not jsut for bugs but for some of hte other critters with "claw fingers" and "claw toes" too. spike_digits? digit_spikes? hmm.

SnowWolf said:
That said, it does bear a resemblance--still, the character's a bug and I think it's safer to assume that a bug has bug-parts rather than deer parts, haha.

Wait, what? ...oh, it's tagged as spider.
I can't say that I see that, thought that it's some kind of deer/demon hybrid. Hooves and deer-like tail, no multi-legs, etc.

Genjar said:
Wait, what? ...oh, it's tagged as spider.
I can't say that I see that, thought that it's some kind of deer/demon hybrid. Hooves and deer-like tail, no multi-legs, etc.

Yeah, I know.

I first found it while looking for spiders, but when I had a second look at it just a bit ago, I was pretty convinced that it was some sort of spider-deer hybrid.. but, uh.. nope.

It's a really cute picture, but, uh, not very spiderlike.

abadbird said:
Actually, just call it feral_scratching or, to avoid any ambiguity, feral_scratching_self. We already have a defined feral_masturbation tag with a similar premise. This tags the action but not the pose, which may be for the better considering body shape differences. Should not apply to ferals using proper fingers to scratch themselves, if that ever happens.

Well, what if an anthro uses the same pose and posture? I mean, post #1443323 is a bared foot and scratch away from needing a tag.

... ... and on that note, is there a tag like... furries_acting_like_animals? or something like that. The "furry reminder" as Regs said.

For breaking out scratching into zones, do [anatomy]_scratch to mirror the [anatomy]_bite and [anatomy]_lick tags.

Yeah.. both of those tags are a little... messy. but I like the idea of mirroring them.

Hmmm... carapace_fangs? jaw_teeth? mandible_tusks? Carapace_tusks? ....toothless_teeth? :p

Seems that kind of anatomical region gets called: beak, bill, rostrum, mandibles, and jaw. Most diagrams and descriptions referred to the Snapping Turtle's jaws as its "beak". The hard part is settling on a name that won't be confused for something else.

I think the "teeth" can be called "jagged". Also "sawtooth", but "jagged" is better.

Tentatively, we should use jagged_snout, jagged_mandible, or jagged_jaw. I would go for jagged_snout, but this feature may be present on snoutless characters, like a flat-faced robot (post #1047442). "Mandible" refers to a variety of jawbone structures and/or external mouthparts, which can easily be jagged but not the oral entrance (post #1240505). So jagged_jaw? Singular because only one of the upper and lower jaws may have this feature.

Jagged snout makes me think, like, a snout with plates and spikes and ridges. the jagged part.. .maybe! except it makes me think if, like.. snaggletoothed, orrrr.. like, serrated edges on existing teeth.

I dunno what the 'right' answer is--I tried to focus on 'tooth' words like fangs and tusks to make it very clear what the tag should be used for

As for post #1240505 ... I'm not sure that would count. Hm. it doesn't in *my* head... those are just insect mandibles/mouthparts and ought to be tagged as such... hmm... I"m not sure about the robot either-- but I think it applies. Hmm.

There's a name for this thing, it's just not coming to me.

claw_digits sounds good. It can describe "toes" or "fingers" without rubbing up against existing claw tags too harshly.

This will need a "not to be confused with hooves or cloven_hooves" warning. I suppose, if the correct tag isn't obvious, then tag toes according to the foot's apparent weight distribution. If the keratinized appendage appears to bear all or most of the creature's weight, then tag as hooves. digit_claws may help with balance, but I don't think they normally bear much if any weight. A best effort rule, not a perfect rule, because of animals like rhinos and elephants. Hence "if the correct tag isn't obvious". "Thin and long" = obviously claws... I hope.

Well phrased! :D

Also, taking another look, I think my original description of "the entire finger/toe" should be broadened to "claws extending from a joint, replacing some expected digit bone(s)" to accommodate mixed variants like Agumon (post #1302559, claw base varies with depiction). The point of the tag is noting unusual claws that don't start at the finger or toe tips.[/section]

Hmm.. For Agumon, I think it's more of a "sometimes yes, sometimes no."

no: post #1360279 post #1351847 post #1110773
yes: post #1420161 post #1314229 post #1126417

and there are some pretty clear "maybes" also... my biggest concern of the 'replacing expected digit bone' idea is that some characters are drawn with the little tagged handpaw -- which is to say, a stubby hand:

post #1443212 post #1442603 post #1442184

and for paws of that design, significant claws COULD make it looks like claw_digits.

Maybe something about how the claw's function.? as in "is clearly expected to function, in some degree, similar to a finger, used to manipulate or grasp objects"? I dunno.

how about for the 'star design' of the straps on this girl's dress?

post #1444191

Couple of questions on this one:

post #1446062

What should we tags his eyes...I know about <3_eyes, but in this case his eyes have literally transformed into hearts.

Secondly...is there a tag for a sudden erection? Kinda seems like the motion lines imply a “sproing!” type thing.

Dyrone said:
Couple of questions on this one:

post #1446062

What should we tags his eyes...I know about <3_eyes, but in this case his eyes have literally transformed into hearts.

Don't think we have anything for cartoon-like transformations. Could always start something.

<3_eyes (just lump them together) + toony + eyes_popping_out

eyes_popping_out is an unused tag. I tagged it once for another instance of bugged out <3_eyes.

post #1404255

Secondly...is there a tag for a sudden erection? Kinda seems like the motion lines imply a “sproing!” type thing.

It seems instant_erection has been tagged for that a few times. Dubious tag.

Similar idea is unwanted_erection, but not correct for that post.

I find the overall pose interesting. Full body rigidity, stiff as a board, springboard (something). We don't seem to have a tag for that.

abadbird said:
Don't think we have anything for cartoon-like transformations. Could always start something.

of course, cartoon like transformations are typically intended to represent/telegraph an emotion--in this case sudden shocked lust.... but it's still worth tagging--that said, I love your combination of <3_eyes and eyes_popping_out :D

I find the overall pose interesting. Full body rigidity, stiff as a board, springboard (something). We don't seem to have a tag for that.

It reminds me a bit of a wing_boner (1580 posts) ...we also have tail_boner but that tag only has 68 posts.

... so maybe full_body_boner?

We could probably tag it some combo of tail boiner and eyes pooping out and on toes or whatever, but I think it'd be better to have a single tag for the concept of the full body WHOA DO WANT

Just noticed we don't have a tag for projectile vomiting. Basically vomit but with more force. Seen some where the person vomiting was the projectile, so there's something.

kamimatsu said:
Just noticed we don't have a tag for projectile vomiting. Basically vomit but with more force. Seen some where the person vomiting was the projectile, so there's something.

I.... wow. The internet never fails to disappoint.

Well, I'd said projectile_vomiting (or projectile_vomit--but we're tagging an action not an object) seems pretty pretty straight forward.

ther'es only 387 vomit pictures, so it'd be a quick tag job for someone!

I'd do it, but I've spent most of today trying not to projectile vomit, so I suspect it'd be a bad idea.

Do we have a tag for, like... a group of something scary or threatening? like the 'legions of rats peering at you from the shadows' or the 'horde of zombies surging around' or "oh no, EVERYONE in this classroom wants to rape someone!" or the horror of realizing the attacking army is far larger than you'd thought.

Basically, a group that is meant to evoke the feeling of "oh no" rather than just "wow, that's a pretty impressive army" or "our army is big" or "the glory of battle"

Okay I guess the right tag is probably crowd or army but it just kinda feels wrong..

post #1447765 post #1438987 post #1391437 post #1398462 post #716991

Add tags for every individual cup size, and make anything above Hyper_Breasts. There’s some people that are very picky about tits

Freya_crescent said:
Add tags for every individual cup size, and make anything above Hyper_Breasts. There’s some people that are very picky about tits

Honey.

Sorry, bra sizes really piss me off. This stuff should be common knowledge, but even among ladies, like 85% of us are wearing the wrong bra size and *hurting ourselves* as a result. This shouldn't be happening, and yet....

SnowWolf said:
Do we have a tag for, like... a group of something scary or threatening? like the 'legions of rats peering at you from the shadows' or the 'horde of zombies surging around' or "oh no, EVERYONE in this classroom wants to rape someone!" or the horror of realizing the attacking army is far larger than you'd thought.

Basically, a group that is meant to evoke the feeling of "oh no" rather than just "wow, that's a pretty impressive army" or "our army is big" or "the glory of battle"

Not really. Our "bad things" tags seem underdeveloped and never organized outside fetish or gore content.

We're probably fine tagging the character count as large_group, crowd, army or (others?; should be tagged anyways) and also the feeling the group invokes, which is either of sinister (not a tag) or menacing. 'Menacing' implies danger or a dangerous appearance whereas 'sinister' implies evil with diluted menace.

Putting the ideas together, legion_of_doom has a ring to it, but the tag name would seem to exclude some situations you've wanted it to describe.

On a related note, threat/threatening/threaten are mostly tagged the same, and horde is a misused dump (and we have treasure_hoard redundant with hoard). Just regular issues--be they bad wikis, bad tags, or rampantly mistagged tags--that I can't but help stumbling into, I'm not prepared to address, and I normally keep to myself.

abadbird, I"ll reply you later, I promise. <3 need to head to bed, but wanted to ask if we had a tag for.. .apparently painless wounds like this:

post #1447863

also I am torn on if the almost-vore-like imagery there should be tagged or how o_o

SnowWolf said:
Honey.

You don't understand how bras work.

A bra is, basically, 2 measurements: The circumference of the ribcage, and the circumference afross the breasts themselves. As seen here.

You then take these two numbers, and determine how much of a difference there is between the two. This number determines the volume of the cup size.

Or, to put it differently, a 30A cup and a 44A cup are tremendously different in size.

Further, You say "anything over" becomes hyper breasts... It doens't work that way. Bras don't stop at DD cups. I am, right now, looking at at 34-P bra that I could buy RIGHT NOW. (warning, bra store.)

Generally, there's this thing called 'sister sizes' too. This basically means that if you're a 34C, you could probably wear a 32D, OR a 36B, because the cup sizes are basically the same.

For example, the following bras all have cups of a similar volume: 44A 42B 40C 38D 36E 34F 32G 30H 28I Here's a visual aid for that. Y'know, here's another

More than that--It's not universal.

Country	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
US.	AA	A	B	C	D	DD or E	DDD or F	DDDD or G	H
UK/Aus	AA	A	B	C	D	DD	E	F	G

(It's not even the same in the UK and Europe translation either...)

THEN you add in that, like many parts of women's clothing, manufacturers don't necessarily adhere to any strict sizing standards. Which is to say: where you go and by a buy of 32x28 jeans without trying them on, a woman can grab 3 pairs of jeans--even from the same company, and be a size 8 in one pair, and be a size 14 in another and a size 12 in the third.

Okay, and setting aside ALL of that..

There are 465,092 posts tagged 'breasts' right now. If you could tag one picture a second, it would take you 129.19 hours to retag all of those. That's more than 5 days. without eating, sleeping, blinking or doing anything to hinder your 1 per second production speed.

Let's say that 10 seconds per image is more reasonable (it really isn't. If you're going off of cup sizes, you've got some very careful evaluation to do of each image. Plus they're not always obvious. post #1445521 post #1428500 post #1427691 and it can be affected by posture or position, as well as clothing and lighting. plus some pictures have multiple women to evaluate.) (additionally, you've got to enter in the new tags, delete the old ones, etc etc. .. but I'm being kind, so we'll say 10 seconds)... You're looking at nearly 54 days of continual tagging.

and since I wrote how many breast posts there were, there've been 8 more posts added.

This is kind of a massive undertaking.

And impossible, because, again, cup size is not a reasonable measurement of breast sizes.

Plus, you'd then have people who are uploading who don't get it "right" when they post, who one SHOULD try and correct....

... or...

You can be purposefully vague and use descriptive words like "small" and "big" ...which are still terribly mistagged... because everyone has a different opinion of what 'big' is.

Sorry, bra sizes really piss me off. This stuff should be common knowledge, but even among ladies, like 85% of us are wearing the wrong bra size and *hurting ourselves* as a result. This shouldn't be happening, and yet....

SnowWolf said:
Honey.

You don't understand how bras work.

A bra is, basically, 2 measurements: The circumference of the ribcage, and the circumference afross the breasts themselves. As seen here.

You then take these two numbers, and determine how much of a difference there is between the two. This number determines the volume of the cup size.

Or, to put it differently, a 30A cup and a 44A cup are tremendously different in size.

Further, You say "anything over" becomes hyper breasts... It doens't work that way. Bras don't stop at DD cups. I am, right now, looking at at 34-P bra that I could buy RIGHT NOW. (warning, bra store.)

Generally, there's this thing called 'sister sizes' too. This basically means that if you're a 34C, you could probably wear a 32D, OR a 36B, because the cup sizes are basically the same.

For example, the following bras all have cups of a similar volume: 44A 42B 40C 38D 36E 34F 32G 30H 28I Here's a visual aid for that. Y'know, here's another

More than that--It's not universal.

Country	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
US.	AA	A	B	C	D	DD or E	DDD or F	DDDD or G	H
UK/Aus	AA	A	B	C	D	DD	E	F	G

(It's not even the same in the UK and Europe translation either...)

THEN you add in that, like many parts of women's clothing, manufacturers don't necessarily adhere to any strict sizing standards. Which is to say: where you go and by a buy of 32x28 jeans without trying them on, a woman can grab 3 pairs of jeans--even from the same company, and be a size 8 in one pair, and be a size 14 in another and a size 12 in the third.

Okay, and setting aside ALL of that..

There are 465,092 posts tagged 'breasts' right now. If you could tag one picture a second, it would take you 129.19 hours to retag all of those. That's more than 5 days. without eating, sleeping, blinking or doing anything to hinder your 1 per second production speed.

Let's say that 10 seconds per image is more reasonable (it really isn't. If you're going off of cup sizes, you've got some very careful evaluation to do of each image. Plus they're not always obvious. post #1445521 post #1428500 post #1427691 and it can be affected by posture or position, as well as clothing and lighting. plus some pictures have multiple women to evaluate.) (additionally, you've got to enter in the new tags, delete the old ones, etc etc. .. but I'm being kind, so we'll say 10 seconds)... You're looking at nearly 54 days of continual tagging.

and since I wrote how many breast posts there were, there've been 8 more posts added.

This is kind of a massive undertaking.

And impossible, because, again, cup size is not a reasonable measurement of breast sizes.

Plus, you'd then have people who are uploading who don't get it "right" when they post, who one SHOULD try and correct....

... or...

You can be purposefully vague and use descriptive words like "small" and "big" ...which are still terribly mistagged... because everyone has a different opinion of what 'big' is.

Sorry, bra sizes really piss me off. This stuff should be common knowledge, but even among ladies, like 85% of us are wearing the wrong bra size and *hurting ourselves* as a result. This shouldn't be happening, and yet....

SnowWolf said:
Honey.

You don't understand how bras work.

A bra is, basically, 2 measurements: The circumference of the ribcage, and the circumference afross the breasts themselves. As seen here.

You then take these two numbers, and determine how much of a difference there is between the two. This number determines the volume of the cup size.

Or, to put it differently, a 30A cup and a 44A cup are tremendously different in size.

Further, You say "anything over" becomes hyper breasts... It doens't work that way. Bras don't stop at DD cups. I am, right now, looking at at 34-P bra that I could buy RIGHT NOW. (warning, bra store.)

Generally, there's this thing called 'sister sizes' too. This basically means that if you're a 34C, you could probably wear a 32D, OR a 36B, because the cup sizes are basically the same.

For example, the following bras all have cups of a similar volume: 44A 42B 40C 38D 36E 34F 32G 30H 28I Here's a visual aid for that. Y'know, here's another

More than that--It's not universal.

Country	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
US.	AA	A	B	C	D	DD or E	DDD or F	DDDD or G	H
UK/Aus	AA	A	B	C	D	DD	E	F	G

(It's not even the same in the UK and Europe translation either...)

THEN you add in that, like many parts of women's clothing, manufacturers don't necessarily adhere to any strict sizing standards. Which is to say: where you go and by a buy of 32x28 jeans without trying them on, a woman can grab 3 pairs of jeans--even from the same company, and be a size 8 in one pair, and be a size 14 in another and a size 12 in the third.

Okay, and setting aside ALL of that..

There are 465,092 posts tagged 'breasts' right now. If you could tag one picture a second, it would take you 129.19 hours to retag all of those. That's more than 5 days. without eating, sleeping, blinking or doing anything to hinder your 1 per second production speed.

Let's say that 10 seconds per image is more reasonable (it really isn't. If you're going off of cup sizes, you've got some very careful evaluation to do of each image. Plus they're not always obvious. post #1445521 post #1428500 post #1427691 and it can be affected by posture or position, as well as clothing and lighting. plus some pictures have multiple women to evaluate.) (additionally, you've got to enter in the new tags, delete the old ones, etc etc. .. but I'm being kind, so we'll say 10 seconds)... You're looking at nearly 54 days of continual tagging.

and since I wrote how many breast posts there were, there've been 8 more posts added.

This is kind of a massive undertaking.

And impossible, because, again, cup size is not a reasonable measurement of breast sizes.

Plus, you'd then have people who are uploading who don't get it "right" when they post, who one SHOULD try and correct....

... or...

You can be purposefully vague and use descriptive words like "small" and "big" ...which are still terribly mistagged... because everyone has a different opinion of what 'big' is.

Sorry, bra sizes really piss me off. This stuff should be common knowledge, but even among ladies, like 85% of us are wearing the wrong bra size and *hurting ourselves* as a result. This shouldn't be happening, and yet....

Lol I wasn’t being serious. No human could tag that many pics and determine breast sizes accurately

abadbird said:
Not really. Our "bad things" tags seem underdeveloped and never organized outside fetish or gore content.

Bleh. It's a shame, because bad thigns are pretty neat. I love creepy images that go beyond "oooh lookit my bad ass OC he's SO edgy!"

We're probably fine tagging the character count as large_group, crowd, army or (others?; should be tagged anyways) and also the feeling the group invokes, which is either of sinister (not a tag) or menacing. 'Menacing' implies danger or a dangerous appearance whereas 'sinister' implies evil with diluted menace.

I kinda feel like there should be a step beyond large_group... some sort of masses_of_people, but I guess that's audience/crowd/army :P

Menacing is a good tag! I normally end up tagging things "creepy" but that is sort of a .... uneasy eerie-ness. The sort of thing that gets your hackles up--or should be. A pretty good match for 'sinister' honestly.

What's interesting is it has nearly 2000 posts and no aliases or implications...

Scary has 349 posts, no aliases, implications, or wiki. Eerie only has 21 posts... and-- oh. It's a character name. Of course it is. So of course only half of the pictures are actually of said character c_c

I used a local image board for my personal picture collection for a while, and I enjoyed using tags like (mood)_desolate or (mood)_uneasy... of course, tha'ts a lot easier when there's only one person uploading *sigh*

Putting the ideas together, legion_of_doom has a ring to it, but the tag name would seem to exclude some situations you've wanted it to describe.

legion of doom does sound pretty neat, though XD

On a related note, threat/threatening/threaten are mostly tagged the same, and horde is a misused dump (and we have treasure_hoard redundant with hoard). Just regular issues--be they bad wikis, bad tags, or rampantly mistagged tags--that I can't but help stumbling into, I'm not prepared to address, and I normally keep to myself.

Man... I wish I had the spoons to clean all this stuff up. But I don't have the hours in the day. :/

Freya_crescent said:
Lol I wasn’t being serious. No human could tag that many pics and determine breast sizes accurately

Unfortunately, many others have also made that same suggestion completely seriously.