furrypickle said:
We do have the anatomically_correct set of tags for when the genitalia does match the species. And you can then exclude if you want more mixed genitalia results. Using or excluding that tag would probably get you closer results than -knot would.

Well the -knot was just a generic example. It's still pretty difficult to filter the whole concept out. f there's a horse with a horsecock and a bull with a horsecock, or a tiger and a dog both with knots, that would still have the anatomically_correct tag.

Actually, pictures that normally wouldn't be accepted on e621 (such as human_only or none_pictured) can be uploaded if they're part of a pool or a sequence of linked posts if they add context to the furry-centric posts. Examples include a series of comic pages in which a few of the pages include text dumps or even a blank page for information or storytelling effect. Another is a transformation sequence of several pictures which starts with a human who, in subsequent pictures turns into a furry character. Obviously, there are limits – after all, we don't want the equivalent of a 24-page comic book in which the only non-human character is a totally normal feral dog seen in one panel on one page.

kora_viridian said:
1. This pool is just the illustration pages from a children's book from 1881. The other pages at the source are mostly text, and probably wouldn't qualify as posts on their own.

The posts that are here seem to all have a link to the top-level page at Wikimedia Commons, and that gives you a link to all the pages of the book, so maybe that serves the same function that the wanted tag would.

2. (caution: blood, gore, death) This pool has the last three images from a six-image sequence the artist posted to FA. The first three images are kind of establishing shots, with talk balloons on a completely black page, and small pictures of one of the characters - I think the idea is that one of the characters is slowly waking up from being knocked out. I think the first three images wouldn't qualify as posts on their own.

I can think of two possible ways to get the rest of the text onto e621. Of course, one is the obvious way of uploading the pages and properly linking them in place in the pool and tagged as none_pictured. This would work with example 2 as the first picture is text only, but it provide context that helps to progress the plot of the other five pictures. (There's enough of the zebra seen in page 2 and 3 to be uploaded here were they not part of the sequence, so no worries about them.)

The second way is probably more economical and possibly better to use with example 1, but you'll need someone to translate German to English. The thought is to translate the text-only pages of the story into English and paste those translations in the descriptions of the uploaded page just before each set of text-only pages, being sure to add in story_in_description in the tags. You likely wouldn't need all the pages, just the ones relevant to the story, but you could make a note of that in the description of the first post as well as link to the Wikimedia Commons page in case anyone was curious about those missing pictures.

Howdy thread, this is literally the very first time I've ever posted to this site's forums.

I have a problem, it's silly but you might understand it if you, like me, have an issue with human, human faced, and human-hybrid things showing up in porn, and how they are DISTINCT from non-human shaped things. Historically, the Humanoid tag is one of the most unreliable things I see because (in my eyes) Humanoid tends to involve the shape of a person's face/body predominately visible through the non-human elements. If you look at something like the Ranger in Pathfinder 1E, they have like 80 Humanoid categories for Favored Enemy because Orcs, Humans, Elves, Gnomes, and so-on are "Humanoid". Due to reasons that are nonsense, Tieflings despite being just red-human-with-horns-and-a-tail count as... "Outsiders", but the point stands: I know it when I see it.

Humanoid_Taur as a tag recently got added to my blacklist when I ran into an example of it bleeding through as it was completely untagged (IDK what the syntax for hyperlinking is but the post code is 3727999). It got me thinking about the ambiguous classification and poor inter-rater reliability of "Humanoid", because in some eyes, the Sangheili (Halo Elites) are humanoid. They're bipedal, tailless, tetrapods with two eyes and a mouth on the head and nostrils -- BEHOLD A MAN! Even borrowing a wig-shark's wig, it's a bit of a stretch to say Sangheili are Humanoid in that their faces and bodies don't quite have those proportions or features of a human. There's generally an understanding that even when someone's drawn a rabbit with obvious anime human-style face, that's attempting to evoke the animal portion at least a bit more than Tiefling and their obvious Red Human shape.

A friend of mine in the past has said "Flat faced" in these instances, and the Humanoid_Face tag is underutilized *and* doesn't even consistently have Humanoids tagged with it! What gives? (Examples: 3718498, 3652860). A metric that I think is the most on-point is that of the Star Trek Alien from the franchise's establishing media (with the OG Shatner et. al.), as those were the limitations of make-up and as we've seen in a lot of contemporary post-Tolkien fantasy settings... apparently the cutting edge of the majority of human artists and writers. These are clearly more Humanoid owing to the emphasis of the Human Face. Something is much less Humanoid when you glance at the Humanoid_hands tag, which features a lot of furries (many of which not even with Humanoid hands, since they often feature claws and three, four, or five digits) and those are definitely not what people would tag as Humanoid. Under the metric of distinct and clear tagging criteria for Humanoid_Feet, Humanoid_Hands, and Humanoid_Face, there is an open question to what "Humanoid" is defined as.

Off the top of my head, I can think that Elves, Orcs, and Cat Girls (which auto-correct to feline, because animal_humanoid is there) share that Humanoid tag, but 3728154 which is a CAT GUY WITH PAW FEETS(!?) does not qualify. I don't know what people prefer to do in these instances, ya'll always seem to work in mysterious ways and my husband cares a lot more about the tagging here than I do. But, my apathy is briefly lifting for this moment: The heck do we call something that looks like it could be a 60's Star Trek Alien? Humanoid is insufficient, this site's lack of clear guidance and abject lack of inter-rater reliability on that tag makes me think it maybe works a quarter to a half the time at best. Over on Co-host, I've been using the term Demi-Feral to describe nonhuman critters which have the kind of hunched posture and monster-like appearance of something like a Deathclaw (as they appear in Fallout 3/NV and 4: hunching, lumbering quasi-bidpedal) which may have human-like intelligence but is largely non-verbal, or communicates very simply / doesn't share civilized features of traditional bipedal non-human humanoid morphs like your typical Anthro furry. This makes me think that because Demi means effectively "Half", we could use Demi-Humanoid to describe these Shatner-esque bedmates so people like me can avoid the pedantry of tagging everything that slips through the backlist with Humanoid, Humanoid_Face, Animal_Humanoid, etc, etc. I think a good example of where Demi-Human and Humanoid both intersect is characters like the Asari from Mass Effect: The *everything* about them is human shape except for the color of their skin and their weird hair-tentacles (ignoring the lore that to Turians they look like Turians, etc). We can delineate a Krogan (which would be a Frogfolk basically) and Turian from the Asari, despite the obvious connections to bipedal tetrapod body plans their designs feature.

If I'm looking at a recolor of a human foot with jacked-up toe nails that somehow are sharpened to pointed tips, those are distinct from claws which emerge from the digit in a much different manner, so there is meaningful deviation. Five digits does not a human foot make, IRL animals of plenty of varieties feature five digits, it is the precise shape of the extremity which makes it Humanoid. Ya'll foot-loving folks seem to be on it with this particular tag, Humanoid_feet is in great shape compared to the Humanoid, Humanoid_hands, Humanoid_face, and Animal_Humanoid tags based on my sample review. You can see how this issue continues to become more and more and more complicated and deviously simplistic in tandem. As a closing thought, I know the not_furry tag exists but that also... isn't so useful. Aliens aren't furries, right? Demons aren't furries? Furries and Scalies and Bird/fish/insect variants count as Furries, what kind of Alien counts as Furry? Does that standard *also* need establishment? Is there a need to delineate traditional human-centric mythos like the Grey Aliens and such from the less human media examples such as Kig-Yar (Halo Jackals)? I'm asking a lot of questions here and it's unproductive, so instead let's just close with more productive questions on the above topic of Humanoids.

What are your thoughts on the matter, if anyone cares enough about this niche issue?
Should we maybe have a conference over this kind of tagging and settle on better guidelines for human-adjacent things like Elves/Orcs/Dyrads/etc?
How many features reliably makes something "obviously a human with X stapled to it", if the face isn't enough to qualify (EG: plenty of weird stuff with human faces where a tongue should be in horror, or your average Dark Souls boss)?
Should we take the proposal of Demi-Human (meaning half human) to be a cut-dry percentage kind of equation, or should it be more of a yardstick?
How about a pokemon which is just human shaped with some basic features (like the ones where its 'vaporeon' but obviously just a person with a grossly unnerving prosthetic face and tail stapled to their human body painted blue), vs. their in-media portrayals which generally are only human-like in appearance (Looking at you Gardivoir, Jinx, Mr. Mime, etc) but deviate meaningfully in other aspects of their designs?
Lastly, what would be the use-cases that we should use as gold standards for Animal_humanoid, Humanoid_face, Humanoid_feet, Humanoid_hands, and lastly Humanoid?

Thanks if anyone replies to this, oh and reads the whole thing.

runawaydanish said:
Off the top of my head, I can think that Elves, Orcs, and Cat Girls (which auto-correct to feline, because animal_humanoid is there) share that Humanoid tag, but 3728154 which is a CAT GUY WITH PAW FEETS(!?) does not qualify. I don't know what people prefer to do in these instances, ya'll always seem to work in mysterious ways and my husband cares a lot more about the tagging here than I do. But, my apathy is briefly lifting for this moment: The heck do we call something that looks like it could be a 60's Star Trek Alien? Humanoid is insufficient, this site's lack of clear guidance and abject lack of inter-rater reliability on that tag makes me think it maybe works a quarter to a half the time at best.
...
What are your thoughts on the matter, if anyone cares enough about this niche issue?
Should we maybe have a conference over this kind of tagging and settle on better guidelines for human-adjacent things like Elves/Orcs/Dyrads/etc?
How many features reliably makes something "obviously a human with X stapled to it", if the face isn't enough to qualify (EG: plenty of weird stuff with human faces where a tongue should be in horror, or your average Dark Souls boss)?
Should we take the proposal of Demi-Human (meaning half human) to be a cut-dry percentage kind of equation, or should it be more of a yardstick?
How about a pokemon which is just human shaped with some basic features (like the ones where its 'vaporeon' but obviously just a person with a grossly unnerving prosthetic face and tail stapled to their human body painted blue), vs. their in-media portrayals which generally are only human-like in appearance (Looking at you Gardivoir, Jinx, Mr. Mime, etc) but deviate meaningfully in other aspects of their designs?
Lastly, what would be the use-cases that we should use as gold standards for Animal_humanoid, Humanoid_face, Humanoid_feet, Humanoid_hands, and lastly Humanoid?

Welcome to one of e621's tagging headaches. There are many anthros mistagged as some sort of animal humanoid when they shouldn't be. In essence, humanoid and its variants should only apply to characters that could pass as human if it wasn't for a few significant non-human traits like pointy humanoid ears, or being like Star Trek's "bumpy-headed aliens" or kemonomimi. Furry-related, the stereotypical catgirl (feline_humanoid) is basically what e621 means by animal humanoid, but some taggers are unclear about the dividing line and end up mistagging anthros as animal humanoids because they think having a "bipedal, two-arms, two-legs, one-head" body plan is humanoid rather than a stage between full humanoid and feral. Currently, the best solution is to simply retag the picture properly.

Edit: fixed "between full human and anthro" to "between full humanoid and feral" as the former wasn't worded right for what I intended to say.

clawstripe said:
Welcome to one of e621's tagging headaches. There are many anthros mistagged as some sort of animal humanoid when they shouldn't be. In essence, humanoid and its variants should only apply to characters that could pass as human if it wasn't for a few significant non-human traits like pointy humanoid ears, or being like Star Trek's "bumpy-headed aliens" or kemonomimi. Furry-related, the stereotypical catgirl (feline_humanoid) is basically what e621 means by animal humanoid, but some taggers are unclear about the dividing line and end up mistagging anthros as animal humanoids because they think having a "bipedal, two-arms, two-legs, one-head" body plan is humanoid rather than a stage between full human and anthro. Currently, the best solution is to simply retag the picture properly.

Funny this question came up, since I just came across https://e621.net/posts/31533 and https://e621.net/posts/31534 , which is slightly more bestial then kemonomimi, with the clawed feet and tail, but still has a flat face. Personally I would still tag it humanoid, but I can definitely see some room for argument there, especially the first one.

On another note, I'm assuming melanistic has to be mostly uniformly black fur. Some "panther" characters have a lighter or white front side, so even if they're supposed to be a "black leopard" I wouldn't tag it because it wouldn't qualify, even if other images of the same character do.

kevsnowcat said:
Funny this question came up, since I just came across https://e621.net/posts/31533 and https://e621.net/posts/31534 , which is slightly more bestial then kemonomimi, with the clawed feet and tail, but still has a flat face. Personally I would still tag it humanoid, but I can definitely see some room for argument there, especially the first one.

Those would still fall in the animal humanoid category. The character is too human-like to count as anthro, as he appears to be basically a funky_colored human with animal bits added on.

On another note, I'm assuming melanistic has to be mostly uniformly black fur. Some "panther" characters have a lighter or white front side, so even if they're supposed to be a "black leopard" I wouldn't tag it because it wouldn't qualify, even if other images of the same character do.

Mostly uniform black, as you say. A proper panther has no white on them (though they might have lighter areas where the melanin's blackening is mitigated by the species' normal coloration). Generally speaking, a melanistic character would be tagged black fur/scales/hair/whatever, maybe any other blackened color they have, and their species rather than black_[insert species here]. How that character appears in other pictures doesn't count.

Do we have a tag for characters that have been reshaped like clay or putty while still looking like themself?
post #3204732 post #2989093 post #2988686 post #2216676 post #2187242

I've found many tags that come close to this, but none that match exactly.
cartoon_physics contains a lot of this, but is too broad.
pancake_flattened, spherification, and boxification all fit within what I'm looking for, but lack a parent tag.
clothing_transformation is almost entirely transformations and body types like what I'm looking for, but includes transformations into normal clothes and is restricted to only transformation into clothes.

Tv tropes has a page for this titled ForciblyFormedPhysique which matches what I'm looking for if anyone is confused. If we do need to make a new tag for it though, that name is kind of rubbish.

How about malleable_character? Which few will spell correctly, probably. Moldable_character? Molded_character?

clawstripe said:
How about malleable_character? Which few will spell correctly, probably. Moldable_character? Molded_character?

malleable_body is actually already a tag, which I think works perfectly for this. Moldable is easier to spell, but malleable is evocative and gets the idea across perfectly. Only three posts, but I think I can fix that. Thank you. With a parent tag, it'll be much easier to create and manage subtags.
There is a bit of a conflict with elastic_body though. Similar but adjacent concept, I think elastic implies that the character has more control over themself as their shape changes. It lacks a definition, so maybe I could define it for specifically characters that can control their shape and have it imply malleable_body? Just floating the idea.

Do we have an image for characters being stretched with cartoon physics? The stretching tag refers to characters that are normal normal stretches for muscle tension. Once I get a tag for that, I can clean up flattened and create a bur for malleable body.
Examples: post #1610249 post #1609649 (Flareon)
Also, do we have a tag or tags for living paintings and images? This isn't as important, but It'd helpful. It may be worth it to separate those from flattened too.
Examples: post #2267884 post #2252732 post #1619272

So, before I make a large implication request with title like "stay glassy - glass BUR Part II", how does stuff like glass_* work? I see glass_furniture, glass_table, glass_tabletop, glass_surface, glass, glass, and more glass. I'm not sure where to post this question so figured to ask in if/why/does this exists thread.

https://e621.net/wiki_pages/43137 I think most of the results are already handled?

What would you call this position where the smaller top is latched onto the larger bottom's rear?

post #3724912

sins_and_virtues said:
What would you call this position where the smaller top is latched onto the larger bottom's rear?

post #3724912

Hmmm... maybe perching_position? It's not as common to do while standing, but it seems like it could still work.

sins_and_virtues said:
What would you call this position where the smaller top is latched onto the larger bottom's rear?

post #3724912

furrypickle said:
Hmmm... maybe perching_position? It's not as common to do while standing, but it seems like it could still work.

There is also from_behind_position || climbing_on and mouting, but i'm not 100% sure about them.

m3g4p0n1 said:
There is also from_behind_position || climbing_on and mouting, but i'm not 100% sure about them.

It's a fair question.

It's definitely part of from_behind_position, just as a general umbrella tag. So that one fits. And I think it has that tag, which is good.

mounting is more for horizontal torsos, because it's about the top character resting their body onto the back of the bottom, or at least parallel. So both torsos are horizontal. Which doesn't fit this image, because they're pretty much standing vertical in this one. This is more like a midair hug from behind + sex, type of combo.

climbing_on is is a lot less clear, with a mixture of things under it. I think it might have been intended to tag what is under step_position. Or at least, the description reads that way. So I think that one may be more of a tag project to straighten out, with no clear use at the moment. So I wouldn't try to use it for this. Especially since he's not really climbing. He's more just...clinging. Like he jumped and then grabbed on between panels. So I don't think 'climbing_on' would really fit this picture for those reasons.

And it wouldn't work for step_position because none of his legs are raised higher like he's trying to take a step to climb on any higher, either.

Then there's perching_position, which is also a from_behind_position. The key trait is that the penetrating character has their feet off the ground, somehow using the other character's body to support themselves while they have sex from behind, basically. That often means a smaller character standing on a bigger character's thighs or butt or something just to make that work. Which, this character is not standing on anything, they're just hanging on and wrapped legs around, etc. Which is not the most common way to do it. However, this character does have their feet off the ground, using the other character's body to support themselves, while having sex from behind. So that much seems to fit, and seems to be the closest option for it, so far. Which is why I think it could work for this.

Do we have a tag to describe this situation where a dick is put against the anal but not yet inserted? like post #3705261

watchdog22 said:
Do we have a tag to describe this situation where a dick is put against the anal but not yet inserted? like post #3705261

Maybe not quite what you were looking for, but that looks like shallow_penetration?

watchdog22 said:
Do we have a tag to describe this situation where a dick is put against the anal but not yet inserted? like post #3705261

Perhaps anal_prodding (shallow_penetration should be for when the dick is ever-so-slightly inserted, not merely touching against).

Do we have a tag for subtle fang-like protrusions on the mouth? They aren’t teeth or spikes, but are part of the mouth itself.

post #3378106 post #2539923 post #2197872

Nevermind. I found the tag. flesh_fang

clawstripe said:
I don't think we currently have a tag for that, so, as ambisinistrous is rather obscure and both butterfinger and butterfingers are already taken, you'll probably have to start something like fumblefingered as people are more likely to understand what that means.

Perhaps a tag called paw_issues?

the_yes said:
Perhaps a tag called paw_issues?

However, not every character comes with paws. It also seems a little vague about what sort of issues those paws would be experiencing. Fumblefingers? Injury? Bad sizing? They just look bad?

What would be a good tag/tag set to use to find images where a character has been creampie'd, and the cum is oozing from them, dripping down their thigh, etc? Particularly in public. Thanks <3

kuray said:
What would be a good tag/tag set to use to find images where a character has been creampie'd, and the cum is oozing from them, dripping down their thigh, etc? Particularly in public. Thanks <3

Use cum_in_pussy or cum_in_ass to get the oozing part. I recommend against being fancy with this, since many images don't even get basic tags. People usually tag which orifice is on the business end, at least. Maybe try cum_from_ass.
Use -penetration and after_sex to reduce images during sex. I know leaking_cum is a tag, but it's not used consistently. At least the images missing a penetration tag are easy to fix.
Then use ~walking ~public ~casual_nudity to get public stuff.

For example:
cum_in_pussy -penetration after_sex walking
leaking_cum after_sex public

Hope this helps.

post #3806387

Is there a tag for piercings underneath the eye like this?

faucet said:
post #3806387

Is there a tag for piercings underneath the eye like this?

Probably cheek_piercing, although it is getting disturbingly close to the eye.

Is there a tag for characters restraining another with their tail? At first glance, tail_coil seems to be perfect, but since it's implicated by entwined_tails, it's completely flooded with irrelevant images.

a_yak said:
Is there a tag for characters restraining another with their tail? At first glance, tail_coil seems to be perfect, but since it's implicated by entwined_tails, it's completely flooded with irrelevant images.

Not that I'm aware of. But you can also do tail_coil -entwined_tails restrained which seems like what you want.

I just found the tag the_pose. Is there a better name for this? It seems extremely ambiguous.

oozeenthusiast said:
I just found the tag the_pose. Is there a better name for this? It seems extremely ambiguous.

I would just search lying on_front feet_up front_view, but apparently posts with the_pose tag are missing these.

m3g4p0n1 said:
I would just search lying on_front feet_up front_view, but apparently posts with the_pose tag are missing these.

It has quite a bit of usage. I think what it describes is valuable, stacking tags could get images with multiple characters, each one doing a different part of the pose. The only thing wrong here is the name.

oozeenthusiast said:
It has quite a bit of usage. I think what it describes is valuable, stacking tags could get images with multiple characters, each one doing a different part of the pose. The only thing wrong here is the name.

Hmm, agree... the only closest tag I can think of would be to use seductive_pose, but that's currently aliased to seductive.

m3g4p0n1 said:
Hmm, agree... the only closest tag I can think of would be to use seductive_pose, but that's currently aliased to seductive.

The defining part seems to be the raised feet. Maybe something like feet_raised_prone?

oozeenthusiast said:
The defining part seems to be the raised feet. Maybe something like feet_raised_prone?

Dunno, sounds like a unintuitive tag when reading without context.

Perhaps something like presenting_while_prone/seducing_while_prone?

m3g4p0n1 said:
Perhaps something like presenting_while_prone/seducing_while_prone?

I don't see "the pose" as necessarily "seducing", "presenting", or "prone". It's just on_front feet_up. It can be done while relaxing with no sexual overtone, and not be presenting anything to anyone.

oozeenthusiast said:
I just found the tag the_pose. Is there a better name for this? It seems extremely ambiguous.

If we're willing to treat it like a meme pose (jack-o'_pose etc), we could make it the_foot_pose. If the wiki is correct, then I would say foot fetishists are the authorities on what constitutes "the pose" for feet.

matrixmash said:
If we're willing to treat it like a meme pose (jack-o'_pose etc), we could make it the_foot_pose. If the wiki is correct, then I would say foot fetishists are the authorities on what constitutes "the pose" for feet.

Honestly, it sounds like the wiki is an attempt to co-opt the pose and make a tag that's the pose + fetish. The pose itself is quite generic and doesn't need a foot focus:
post #3192859 post #3600823
I don't think we need a tag for "some_pose + fetish" if tags for the pose and fetish can be kept separate. People can always search for them together, while people interested in the pose and not the fetish can search for the pose without the fetish.

Do we have a tag for the situation in which the person penetrating is themselves penetrated by a sextoy? There is the tag penetrating_while_penetrated, but the tag seems to be a mixture of Train_position, Sandwich_position, and the aforementioned cases. I've been using my own tag of "penetrator_penetrated_by_sex toy" but that seems longer than it needs be. Do we have another phrase we use for that tag?

edit ya "penetrator_penetrated_by_sex toy is so long it doesn't even list properly and get's cut off. Now using "Sex_Toy_Penatrating_Penatrator" until I know if a correct alternative (or better name idea) exists.

In this image, what would you call the type of clothing where the sleeve is extended so that it partially covers the hand by wrapping round one finger?

post #3690872

There's a tag for fingerless_gloves, but to me that doesn't quite fit, because IMO it doesn't cover enough of the hand to qualify as a glove. I'd describe it as more like a hand equivalent of stirrup_socks/stirrup_stockings.

Maybe stirrup_sleeves? Is it worth starting that as a new tag?

chemistrynoisy said:
In this image, what would you call the type of clothing where the sleeve is extended so that it partially covers the hand by wrapping round one finger?

post #3690872

There's a tag for fingerless_gloves, but to me that doesn't quite fit, because IMO it doesn't cover enough of the hand to qualify as a glove. I'd describe it as more like a hand equivalent of stirrup_socks/stirrup_stockings.

Maybe stirrup_sleeves? Is it worth starting that as a new tag?

If you do make a new tag, finger_loop_glove returns similar results on google: https://www.google.com/search?q=finger+loop+glove

how the shit do i tag this smile?:

post #3826560

is this an open_smile because her lips are open, a closed_smile because her teeth are closed, or should this be tagged with something different entirely?

edit: also this was initially tagged with clothed and clothing and i removed those tags since we can't see if she's wearing anything like panties or a skirt, however it doesn't feel right to tag it nude since we can't tell if she's wearing no bottomwear either!

dripen_arn said:
how the shit do i tag this smile?:

post #3826560

is this an open_smile because her lips are open, a closed_smile because her teeth are closed, or should this be tagged with something different entirely?

Perhaps a grin?

Hey, I have a question. Some artists, especially in older cartoon art, seem to add these dimples/marionette wrinkles to their characters at each end of the mouth.
dimples seems like the wrong tag for it since they are basicly like idents on the center of the cheeks.
marionette wrinkles seem to be wrong too since these only tend to be a thing with old people but its the closest thing?
I find it really cute when artists add these to characters and would like to tag it properly.

post #120340 post #2846051 post #2467977

Breasts wiki page mentions "how the breasts may be seen by the viewer" tags. What would be the opposite of that, tags that suggest that breasts cannot be seen? Stuff like rear_view.

pixelhunter said:
~Some artists, especially in older cartoon art, seem to add these dimples/marionette wrinkles to their characters at each end of the mouth.~

Don't think there's anything more specific than smile. I looked around online a bit, and smile_lines seems like a good name. Refers to various wrinkles that appear when you smile. You can start tagging that if you want.

pixelhunter said:
Some artists, especially in older cartoon art, seem to add these dimples/marionette wrinkles to their characters at each end of the mouth.
dimples seems like the wrong tag for it since they are basicly like idents on the center of the cheeks.

Probably nasolabial folds AKA smile lines, as Waydence suggests. Obviously, you'd want to use the latter term as it's easier to understand, and they're typically shown when a character is smiling anyway.

Idk if this is the right place to ask, I am brand new to the forum side of this site.

Is there a specific tag for older teenager characters?

I wanna post nsfw of a character who is a Riolu. He’s anthro, 18 or 19, and hasn’t evolved for worldbuilding reasons so he’s a little small in frame. (Though the art is a headshot so his frame doesn’t show that well)

I don’t want to even imply that he’s an underage teen and he’s definitely not a cub.

Is this something that even needs to be tagged? Kinda wanna do it preemptively so someone doesn’t request an inaccurate tag.

teratobytes said:
I don’t want to even imply that he’s an underage teen and he’s definitely not a cub.

On e621, we are supposed to use a nonstandard, very conservative definition of cub. Any furry character who is or appears to be under the age of 18 is a cub.

The cub wiki said:
While most cubs are quite young (4-10, in human years), the phrase cub can refer to all physically immature and legally underage characters, ranging from infants, to underage teenagers.

This tag also applies to all ratings, including safe artwork. It is imperative that all underaged characters are tagged appropriately, as many people do not wish to see explicit cub artwork. Please err on the side of caution and tag cub even if you suspect they might be 'of age,' but are not sure.

Most users do not follow these rules. It is likely that your image will never get tagged with cub, like the thousands of extant riolu -cub images already on the platform, especially if they (as you say) are not obviously a child. However, if it is unacceptable for you to have the cub tag applied to your image, please do not upload it in the first place.

What's the tag for a character with two different colors of sclera? In gelbooru is mismatched_sclera but that doesn't exist here

I'm not sure if this should be a tag to begin with, but

Is there a tag like anonymous artist but for characters who have an identity, but wishes to remain anonymous? there is the anonymous character or nameless character tag, but that's basically (anon + features - proper owner <in the case of anon character>)

cutefox123 said:
Is there a tag like anonymous artist but for characters who have an identity, but wishes to remain anonymous?

That doesn't make much sense. If we can see and identify the character by looking at them, they can't be anonymous. But if someone wants to keep their character uncredited for whatever reason, they can just not tag it (unlike where posts should always have an artist tagged, characters don't need to be; if people keep trying to tag it, it can be locked off by a moderator).

Is there a tag for running a train on a character? Eg having lots and lots of sequential partners?

I think Tank_(Vehicle) should be a tag. It literally doesn't exist.
Tank_(Vehicle) obviously references any armored vehicle with a weapon mounted to it that can hunker and harbor troops who man said weapons.
First I have a proposal that the tag Tank_(Vehicle) be created, and then have it added to all / previous posts featuring an military styled tank. Even if its an armored boxcar with a machine gun mount in front, yes, that also counts as a tank.

tirsiak_ingolf said:
I think Tank_(Vehicle) should be a tag. It literally doesn't exist.
Tank_(Vehicle) obviously references any armored vehicle with a weapon mounted to it that can hunker and harbor troops who man said weapons.
First I have a proposal that the tag Tank_(Vehicle) be created, and then have it added to all / previous posts featuring an military styled tank. Even if its an armored boxcar with a machine gun mount in front, yes, that also counts as a tank.

What's the difference between that and what already exists at tank?

post #3737010 spinning_dildo Hmm, is this even the right tag? Need some help on tagging this image.

furrydude70 said:
Is there a tag for running a train on a character? Eg having lots and lots of sequential partners?

If you are referring to multiple characters penetrating each other simultaneously:

post #2688115 post #2332715 post #3754763

Then train_position is the tag you’re looking for.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps totem_pole_position could be another tag you’re looking for if it shows characters literally on top of one another:

post #3424656 post #2733621 post #2432491

alphamule said:
post #3737010 spinning_dildo Hmm, is this even the right tag? Need some help on tagging this image.

Like a drilldo?

clawstripe said:
Like a drilldo?

Seems pretty close. I am not even sure how someone put a camel_toe tag on it since no clothing...

Probably not where I write but why hakiahki is so tough

No, "running train" refers to one person having lots of partners, one right after the other. Ironically, hard to find examples of because afaik there's no tag for it, but think like sloppy seconds...and thirds, and fourths, and so on.

zenith-pendragon said:
If you are referring to multiple characters penetrating each other simultaneously:

Then train_position is the tag you’re looking for.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps totem_pole_position could be another tag you’re looking for if it shows characters literally on top of one another:

A tag for when someone is so pleasured/flustered that they don't know what to do with their hands, so they just kind of keep it in the air?

Two examples: 3079269 and 1813376
3079269: what quill is doing with his hand
1813376: what rottytops is doing with her right hand at 18 seconds in.

I also want to know if there's a tag where it's first person view and we can see the pov character's breasts. Again, example of this is 18 seconds into 1813376.

This is my first time using these forums, so sorry if I did anything wrong

Do we have a tag like alternate_age that describe the character is not presented in his usual form? for example, a character shows in the game only as an adult, but in the post it features him as a teenager.

upp said:
Do we have a tag like alternate_age that describe the character is not presented in his usual form? for example, a character shows in the game only as an adult, but in the post it features him as a teenager.

I think aged_down or aged_up would work for that purpose

m3g4p0n1 said:
I think aged_down or aged_up would work for that purpose

thx, helps a lot

Is there a name for articles of clothing cut to fully expose the breasts? I really like them but there doesn't seem to be a tag they share other than exposed_breasts clothing, but then it's mixed deep in with shirt lifting, unbuttoned clothes, the male being the only one with clothes, or they're wearing nothing but socks and elbow gloves
post #668355 post #3669404 post #1897880 post #3673565
post #2738824 post #3828365 post #1737319 post #1955184
If a tag for it exists, it's so underutilized I've never seen it. boob_window and cleavage_cutout are only used where there's a hole only showing off cleavage, and open_topware/open_clothing only refers to unbuttoned clothes

sufficient_username said:
Is there a name for articles of clothing cut to fully expose the breasts? I really like them but there doesn't seem to be a tag they share other than exposed_breasts clothing, but then it's mixed deep in with shirt lifting, unbuttoned clothes, the male being the only one with clothes, or they're wearing nothing but socks and elbow gloves
...
If a tag for it exists, it's so underutilized I've never seen it. boob_window and cleavage_cutout are only used where there's a hole only showing off cleavage, and open_topware/open_clothing only refers to unbuttoned clothes

breastless_clothing

thegreatwolfgang said:
breastless_clothing

Thank you. This is going to take a lot of tagging

Is there a tag for a character finding another character adorable? Like, a condescending "awwww" sort of thing?

Do we have a tag for images that resemble cards from a gacha game?

post #3873302 post #2123507

Typically feature some kind of rarity indicator such as a number of stars or something like "UR", "SSR" etc

Edit: Couldn't find one, I made gacha_card.

Do we have a tag for the alternate form of sandy cheeks from spongebob as found in post #3366790

Is there a tag for VHS overlays?

Example: post #3875075

• upper left = Play
• lower left = SP
• lower right = date?

I've used the tag camera_view but that's not correct.

Different forms of petrification need specification tags as not all petrification is stone.

Existing Tags:
Petrification - Being turned to stone or being rendered an immobile statue.

Specification tags, these tags are on their own:

Cummification - Statue in the victims figure made out of preds cum

Pissification - See cummification ; different form

Shittification - No comment

Fartification - See elementalfication

The next 3 are said to be extremely painful:

Crystalization - Being petrified into crystals

Gemstoneification - Being petrified into gemstones of varying degrees combined to make up the body

Diamondification - Being petrified into a diamond statue

after that theres:

elementalfication - being turned into an statue made entirely of an element, such as being a statue made of fire, or ice, water, plasma, even lasers, or toxic gasses condensed into a statue form , forming an outline of what the victim was

paperfication - being turned into a paper statue

Midas Touch - Being turned into gold

Midas Discount - Being Turned into silver

Midas'es Poverty - Being turned into copper, or bronze, or tin, etc, the poorest metals basically.

mental petrification - being brainwashed or mind controlled to believe you're a statue of the masters making

So you know how common it is to see characters drawn more sexier or voluptuous and the like. Bigger breasts for instance. I saw a curious pic of a character where the original and remake was compared and the remake was more petite. Normal? I’m intrigued. Is there a tag for this?