Siral_Exan said:
People should know what stand-in words mean. I mean, if you don't a large amount of American English would be damaged apon translating (or even shorthanding/longhanding), and people have to use English words on this site for a reason.

I mean, do you know why a female can be called a cougar, or what in-bed roleplaying is? You need to assume that people know the basics of English on this site, and some sexual terminology; I might halfheartedly believe everyone is an idiot, but even such "idiots" know how to use a dictionary if they're on this site.

But wittiness aside, being a prey towards a predator can be interpreted literally to understand what the prey_bulge tag means. We wouldn't tag them, themselves, as predator or prey because contexts that remove that, but you can refer to them in English as a predator and a prey... right?

So in this case, the prey would be the character inside another, while the character who has the prey inside them would be the predator? Wouldn't that be somewhat confusing if the prey in this scenario was the dominant partner? There's also the traditional roles of predator and prey among real-life species, though of course that wouldn't always apply to fictional characters.

i suppose prey_outline could work, however, I would expect that it would confuse some users. Though, that is what the wiki is for anyway.

Kemono-Kay said:
EDIT: I've looked through a "*penis*" search and nothing has come up about being lifted by a penetrating penis. penis_riding comes closest I guess? But I think a new tag might be appropriate.

Penis_riding specifies "straddling or lying on an erect penis", not being penetrated by it. I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to tag the images I have in mind with penis_riding, since they involve penetration.

JAKXXX3 said:
So in this case, the prey would be the character inside another, while the character who has the prey inside them would be the predator? Wouldn't that be somewhat confusing if the prey in this scenario was the dominant partner? There's also the traditional roles of predator and prey among real-life species, though of course that wouldn't always apply to fictional characters.

i suppose prey_outline could work, however, I would expect that it would confuse some users. Though, that is what the wiki is for anyway.

Well, with us as an example, there are people who know what it is and have no difficulty tagging it. There is also people who'd rather it blacklisted, which opens up opportunities to explain it (and others).

If we are to assume that everyone starts uploading vore, then we'd have to make the tag well known fast, before tagging it gets out of hand. But it's not the most common of details, so we should have ample time to make it noticeable before it gets out of control.

Siral_Exan said:
Well, with us as an example, there are people who know what it is and have no difficulty tagging it. There is also people who'd rather it blacklisted, which opens up opportunities to explain it (and others).

If we are to assume that everyone starts uploading vore, then we'd have to make the tag well known fast, before tagging it gets out of hand. But it's not the most common of details, so we should have ample time to make it noticeable before it gets out of control.

I did specify that round or amorphous bulges don't count in the body_outline wiki, that can be copied over to prey_outline. On that note, a body_outline → prey_outline alias suggestion should be submitted.

Prey outline suggests intentional vore to me, like actually wanting to consume. Leaves out lighter things like unbirthing or extreme fisting.

Is there a tag for pictures that have a bunch of different art together, like post #83589, post #1191073, or post #1114833? My explanation is terrible, but I think my examples get my point across. There are several characters on the same screen, or even the same characters multiple times, but they're not interacting with each other.

Strikerman said:
Is there a tag for pictures that have a bunch of different art together, like post #83589, post #1191073, or post #1114833? My explanation is terrible, but I think my examples get my point across. There are several characters on the same screen, or even the same characters multiple times, but they're not interacting with each other.

Multiple scenes if it's the same character, Multiple Images if not.

Thank you, that's exactly what I was looking for!

We have fully_clothed when a character is fully clothed but what about when a character is fully armored?

post #1189103

BlueDingo said:
We have fully_clothed when a character is fully clothed but what about when a character is fully armored?

post #1189103

Technically, that character isn't fully armoured, they have both their head and tail exposed. You could tag each individual piece of armour if you wanted (eg breastplate, gauntlets, greaves).

We have sheet_music for when written music is printed on a sheet paper but what tag do we use when it isn't?

post #180061

BlueDingo said:
We have sheet_music for when written music is printed on a sheet paper but what tag do we use when it isn't?

post #180061

We have singing and musical_note.

JAKXXX3 said:
We have singing and musical_note.

musical_note is for just the notes which often appear without a staff behind them. singing doesn't require written music to be present, in fact it usually doesn't have it at all. What I'm after is essentially sheet_music without the sheet (and no, I don't think music is the right tag).

All I can say is that it's called a musical_staff. Often come with a bass_clef or treble_clef, though that example does not.

As far as I can tell, we don't currently have anything for it.

We have violence for characters damaging other characters and vandalism for characters damaging inanimate objects but what about characters damaging robots? Would it be one of those two or something else?

Anything for when a character slides their glasses down a bit so they can see over the top of them?

post #192765post #192561

Furrin_Gok said:
As far as I can tell, we don't currently have anything for it.

What if we go with written_music?

BlueDingo said:
We have violence for characters damaging other characters and vandalism for characters damaging inanimate objects but what about characters damaging robots? Would it be one of those two or something else?

I'd say that depends on if the robot got feelings or not.

Sorrowless said:
I'd say that depends on if the robot got feelings or not.

Feelings have nothing to do with violence. Do you mean sentience, or feelings as in the ability to feel pain?

----------

I found another potential candidate for the list mentioned in forum #232254: A necktie headband.

post #191039

We could probably call this group of tags something like "clothing_worn_incorrectly", "unusual_clothing_placement", "wearing_it_wrong" or something along those lines.

BlueDingo said:
We have violence for characters damaging other characters and vandalism for characters damaging inanimate objects but what about characters damaging robots? Would it be one of those two or something else?

I believe it would vary according the case. If the robot seems to act like a live being, then it ought be considered as such (regarding the context of this site) and the act would fit in violence; if it simply act as a complex machine, then the act would count as vandalism.

I guess that is more or less what Sorrowless meant.

BlueDingo said:
Anything for when a character slides their glasses down a bit so they can see over the top of them?

No idea.

BlueDingo said:
I found another potential candidate for the list mentioned in forum #232254: A necktie headband.

post #191039

We could probably call this group of tags something like "clothing_worn_incorrectly", "unusual_clothing_placement", "wearing_it_wrong" or something along those lines.

It is a possibility. 'doing_it_wrong' would encompass those cases, however the tag is too generic and unconventionally worn clothes, perhaps, is enough common to warrant a more specific tag.

Edit: 'wearing_it_wrong' sounds good, I highly doubt someone would get it wrong.

O16 said:
It is a possibility. 'doing_it_wrong' would encompass those cases, however the tag is too generic and unconventionally worn clothes, perhaps, are enough common to warrant a more specific tag.

I don't know. doing_it_wrong images usually involve some form of failure or the character doing something stupid as well as incorrectly.

post #252129post #327778post #153009post #139483

The tags for this group are more a case of simply wearing something in a different way, often for practical reasons.

O16 said:
I believe it would vary according the case. If the robot seems to act like a live being, then it ought be considered as such (regarding the context of this site) and the act would fit in violence; if it simply act as a complex machine, then the act would count as vandalism.

I guess that is more or less what Sorrowless meant.

Yeah. I would also say that if a machine who otherwise is stationary and looks like an object is upset by you hurting it it goes towards violence.

BlueDingo said:
The tags for this group are more a case of simply wearing something in a different way, often for practical reasons.

Hmmmm, practical reasons do you say? I sincerely have some problems at visualising a situation in which wearing briefs on head, or something similar, would be considered "practical" (unless the individual in question is either attempting to be funny, or trying to humiliate itself, or it is just... kinky).

O16 said:
Hmmmm, practical reasons do you say? I sincerely have some problems at visualising a situation in which wearing briefs on head, or something similar, would be considered "practical" (unless the individual in question is either attempting to be funny, or trying to humiliate itself, or it is just... kinky).

Furries often can't wear hats properly due to their ears being closer to the top of their head. The leg holes in a pair of underwear are in roughly the right position for them. And yes, I did just pull that explanation out of my arse.

People tying clothing around their waist is a fairly common practice in my area because it allows them to carry a jumper without using their arms. People tying clothing around their neck is less common but serves the same purpose.

Remember I said "often" for practical reasons, meaning it isn't always. It could simply be a stylistic choice.

Do we have a tag for bdsm masks that cover the enter head besides the mouth and eyes? I've seen references to a latex_hood, though not many posts have this tag.
post #1226104 post #1222950 post #478789

JAKXXX3 said:
Do we have a tag for bdsm masks that cover the enter head besides the mouth and eyes? I've seen references to a latex_hood, though not many posts have this tag.

Gimp mask?

Sorrowless said:
Gimp mask?

That could work, thanks.

Sitting on a chair backwards?

post #196967

A wiki search for "chair" found nothing related.

BlueDingo said:
Sitting on a chair backwards?

post #196967

A wiki search for "chair" found nothing related.

There's a couple of posts with sitting_backwards.

JAKXXX3 said:
There's a couple of posts with sitting_backwards.

Sounds good enough. Thanks.

Wiki created.

Do we have any tag for this? If not, should we have one?:
post #1226819

Going directly from casual conversation to sex. That's not the first sequence where I've seen that happen..

Genjar said:
Do we have any tag for this? If not, should we have one?:
post #1226819

Going directly from casual conversation to sex. That's not the first sequence where I've seen that happen..

Does that count as casual_sex?

JAKXXX3 said:
Does that count as casual_sex?

Nope. They're both interested in it. It is however public_sex.

Genjar said:
Do we have any tag for this? If not, should we have one?:
post #1226819

Going directly from casual conversation to sex. That's not the first sequence where I've seen that happen..

I guess not. I am in favor of this.

I thought about 'rapid_transition', it sounds a bit vague, but may work... Or 'casual_to_sex' maybe, though it sounds similar to 'casual_sex'

O16 said:
I guess not. I am in favor of this.

I thought about 'rapid_transition', it sounds a bit vague, but may work... Or 'casual_to_sex' maybe, though it sounds similar to 'casual_sex'

Spontaneous sex?

A (usually very small) character in another character's clothing? I doubt shared_clothing counts since it's currently defined as multiple characters wearing the same clothing and in the example, the cat isn't exactly wearing that coat.

Would fire coming out of a character's nose still count as fire_breathing, or something else?

post #147816post #310929

Furrin_Gok said:
Spontaneous sex?

Hmmm. 'spontaneous' is used to something that happens without any apparent stimulus, it doesn't seem to fit well in this case.

O16 said:
Hmmm. 'spontaneous' is used to something that happens without any apparent stimulus, it doesn't seem to fit well in this case.

Sure it does. They're just having a casual conversation, that's not the sort of thing to lead to sex so immediately, yet, bam, spontaneously it does.

How do we know for sure that it's spontaneous? There could be a lengthy time lapse between those panels.

BlueDingo said:
How do we know for sure that it's spontaneous? There could be a lengthy time lapse between those panels.

Tag what you see I suppose.

O16 said:
I thought about 'rapid_transition', it sounds a bit vague, but may work... Or 'casual_to_sex' maybe, though it sounds similar to 'casual_sex'

I think we should take a page from Ron Burgundy and use that_escalated_quickly for this sort of thing.

BlueDingo said:
How do we know for sure that it's spontaneous? There could be a lengthy time lapse between those panels.

It's abundantly clear that the transition was an expedient one...lets not overthink it.

forum #150233
We've got the sparkledog tag for when a canine has rainbow fur, but
post #1226060 post #1200751
It's not always a canine. Do we have a tag for not-canine sparkledogs?

It's approaching 48 hours later and still not a single shred of covfefe.
Furries, I am disappoint.

Ijerk said:
It's approaching 48 hours later and still not a single shred of covfefe.
Furries, I am disappoint.

I have no idea what that is, but I feel the need to ask: Did you get the wrong thread? Sounds like you're talking about a failure of rule 34.

Furrin_Gok said:
I have no idea what that is

its new weird meme which started from trump posting typo nonsense on twitter

Furrin_Gok said:
I have no idea what that is/

NO ONE KNOWS what it is; that's why it blew up yesterday. Though I'll be impressed if it gets rule34'd... I'm unsure how to even approach this one.

Ijerk said:
NO ONE KNOWS what it is; that's why it blew up yesterday. Though I'll be impressed if it gets rule34'd... I'm unsure how to even approach this one.

The only thing furry-related to it is that some people have taken "covfefe" to be a combo between Koffing and Eevee. So perhaps someone could make an image featuring that creature?

Example 1
Example 2

Do we have anything similar to the minimally tagged spellcasting? That is, magic currently being cast? And if not, do you suppose that we should tag that more?

The basic magic tag is overtly broad and kind of useless for searches, but on the other hand, spellcasting does overlap a lot with magic_user.. So maybe the latter is enough for those?

Genjar said:
Do we have anything similar to the minimally tagged spellcasting? That is, magic currently being cast? And if not, do you suppose that we should tag that more?

The basic magic tag is overtly broad and kind of useless for searches, but on the other hand, spellcasting does overlap a lot with magic_user.. So maybe the latter is enough for those?

Well, we have 'spell', which appears to be more specific than 'magic', also 'summoning' which is a type o spellcasting, and 'magic_circle' which usually is associated to spellcasting.
Perhaps would be interesting to analyze 'spellbook' and 'spell_book' as well.

O16 said:
Well, we have 'spell', which appears to be more specific than 'magic', also 'summoning' which is a type o spellcasting, and 'magic_circle' which usually is associated to spellcasting.
Perhaps would be interesting to analyze 'spellbook' and 'spell_book' as well.

Thanks. I was under the impression that spell had been aliased to magic, but yeah, looks like it's implicated instead. I suppose that works, though considering that it's been tagged for posts such as #583247, spellcasting might've been a better name for it.

I don't think there's a tag for a footjob using two feet.
post #519718 post #1232609 post #1232257

feetjob exists, though the only post using it was deleted.

Ijerk said:
feetjob exists, though the only post using it was deleted.

two-footed_footjob would probably work and be in line with two-handed_handjob but it sounds clunky imo

Are there any tags (besides holding_hat and penis_hat) for when a hat is not on a character's head?

post #163649post #228681post #134324post #105154

BlueDingo said:
Are there any tags (besides holding_hat and penis_hat) for when a hat is not on a character's head?

post #163649post #228681post #134324post #105154

It would be hat_removed, the dog with the hat on his ass would prob just be doing_it_wrong becuase he's still technically wearing it, just in a strange fashion.

Dyrone said:
It would be hat_removed, the dog with the hat on his ass would prob just be doing_it_wrong becuase he's still technically wearing it, just in a strange fashion.

I don't know, hat_removed has only been tagged twice and 'removed' tags in general are almost non-existant around here.

doing_it_wrong could work for the first example, but wouldn't most instances of penis_hat fall into this category as well?

BlueDingo said:
I don't know, hat_removed has only been tagged twice and 'removed' tags in general are almost non-existant around here.

Just because a tag is underutilized doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't use it. At the very least it can act as a placeholder until someone comes along and decides upon a better version, if one is needed at all.

BlueDingo said:
doing_it_wrong could work for the first example, but wouldn't most instances of penis_hat fall into this category as well?

Uh, idk...probably not. A hat over the dick is a pretty common trope, I wouldn't really consider it "wrong" in the same way as say...wearing pants on your head. Furthermore sometimes they are wearing a tiny hat that was obviously designed to be worn on their penis, and in that case they are using the clothing article correctly.

Dyrone said:
Furthermore sometimes they are wearing a tiny hat that was obviously designed to be worn on their penis

Serious question: are penis hats actually a thing?

(on a side note, penis_hat covers both hats on penis and hats shaped like penises, which seems like an odd overlap to me)

I suggest we have an annelid tag, aka worms and leeches and other similar creatures. While commonly thought of as insects or arthropods, they are neither of those, and in fact they lack quite a few of the major features such as complex exoskeletons that make arthropods, well... arthropods. In fact here is an article from Washington State University going into complex detail about how they are not the same, even if they share some qualities.

I'm not entirely sure if this possibly falls within the tag what you see policy, as most common beliefs about annelids when it comes to how they are perceived is that they are usually associated or wrongly considered insects and/or arthropods... but I'm not entirely sure if misinformation about the animals themselves as well as incorrect species assumption applies to this policy.

Thoughts on this?

EDIT:

Also adding to this, since this is also concerning insects (tho this time with actual insects): is it possible we could use abdomen pussy and abdomen penis for certain insect characters in which their genitals lay at the end of their abdomen? They're usually placed under "unusual pussy/unusual penis", but they seem to be common enough for art featuring insects, especially mantids, bees, wasps and ants.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
I suggest we have an annelid tag, aka worms and leeches and other similar creatures. While commonly thought of as insects or arthropods, they are neither of those, and in fact they lack quite a few of the major features such as complex exoskeletons that make arthropods, well... arthropods. In fact here is an article from Washington State University going into complex detail about how they are not the same, even if they share some qualities.

I'm not entirely sure if this possibly falls within the tag what you see policy, as most common beliefs about annelids when it comes to how they are perceived is that they are usually associated or wrongly considered insects and/or arthropods... but I'm not entirely sure if misinformation about the animals themselves as well as incorrect species assumption applies to this policy.

Thoughts on this?

First thought is that this doesn't even belong in this thread, probably make a new thread if you're going to propose a change like this.

Second thought is just...nah...I see worms as insects and leeches as...well...not really important enough to bother classifying (only 28 images on the site feature them). Tagging should be based on common knowledge more often than not, considering it's only a tool to help people find images and they are going to draw on their common knowledge when searching.

Dyrone said:

Second thought is just...nah...I see worms as insects and leeches as...well...not really important enough to bother classifying (only 28 images on the site feature them). Tagging should be based on common knowledge more often than not, considering it's only a tool to help people find images and they are going to draw on their common knowledge when searching.

actually there are quite a number of posts featuring annelids, a minimum of 254 pictures feature and/or focus on annelid based content (172 worms, 26 leeches, 26 graboids from tremors, 15 earth worms, 5 hyperspace worms, 4 worm infestation, 2 urethra worm, 1 mind worm, 1 butt worm, 1 king worm from adventure time, 1 lex the bookworm)

there are also 154 parasite pictures but i didnt include them in counting, as a lot of them fall into either the above or aren't annelids, such as maggots which are fly larva.

hell, these are just the more common annelid tags that come to mind. there's probably tons more of annelid content if i go searching on here. personally i feel if they have this good chunk of content made about them we should be classifying them under their species tag rather than just insect, but that's just how i feel about it personally, hence why I asked for opinions on it.

apologies if i posted this in the wrong place, i figured this was the right place cause it suggested tags to add, but perhaps I was mistaken, hahaha.

DiceLovesBeingBlown
apologies if i posted this in the wrong place, i figured this was the right place cause it suggested tags to add, but perhaps I was mistaken, hahaha.

It is ok, everyone does some gaffes.
We have a forum thread especially for suggesting new tags (forum #221775), probably it is the one you are looking for.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
actually there are quite a number of posts featuring annelids, a minimum of 254 pictures feature and/or focus on annelid based content (172 worms, 26 leeches, 26 graboids from tremors, 15 earth worms, 5 hyperspace worms, 4 worm infestation, 2 urethra worm, 1 mind worm, 1 butt worm, 1 king worm from adventure time, 1 lex the bookworm)

there are also 154 parasite pictures but i didnt include them in counting, as a lot of them fall into either the above or aren't annelids, such as maggots which are fly larva.

hell, these are just the more common annelid tags that come to mind. there's probably tons more of annelid content if i go searching on here. personally i feel if they have this good chunk of content made about them we should be classifying them under their species tag rather than just insect, but that's just how i feel about it personally, hence why I asked for opinions on it.

I) 'worm' is a body-type common to many phyla (see list below), so if you meant the subclass oligochaeta (earth worms) I recommend using 'earth_worm' or something similar.

• Onychophora
• Annelida
• Nematoda
• Nematomorpha
• Acoelomorpha
• Chaetognata
• Nemertea
• Sipuncula
• Platyhelminthens
• Xenoturbellida
• Priapulida

II) there are some phyla that probably are representative enough to receive their own tags and implications too (e.g. cnidaria, echinodermata), however we even consolidated 'mollusk' well yet, and perhaps would be better to do those changes one step at a time.

O16 said:
snip

ah i see! that makes sense; i didnt even consider the whole worm-like body types for other phyla. my bad! and for your second point yeah i get you, one step at a time

and thanks for being so patient when it comes to my mistakes ahaha. thank you for redirecting me to that thread!

Should we make two tags, for searching involving humanoids being either children or cubs?

Specifically: an animal_humanoid, looking like a child, would probably not get tagged cub because they are not feral, semi-anthro, or anthro. They are not exactly "furry"... I propose humanoid_cub for animal humanoids that look like children, not exclusive to being tagged child or et cetera.

Also, a tag for just a humanoid that looks like a child, I propose humanoid_child, again not exclusive to aforementioned but is exclusive to humanoid_cub. This is secondary to my first proposed, I don't see as much use in it.

This is because there are a lot of tags that'd need to be -searched / blacklisted to find the aforementioned. Especially problematic is Pokemon that're tagged humanoids, which will ignore human, anthro, feral, semi-anthro, anthro, ergo specifically excluding them by excluding pokémon. But again, I am more asking for an animal_humanoid tag.

Siral_Exan said:
Should we make two tags, for searching involving humanoids being either children or cubs?

Specifically: an animal_humanoid, looking like a child, would probably not get tagged cub because they are not feral, semi-anthro, or anthro. They are not exactly "furry"... I propose humanoid_cub for animal humanoids that look like children, not exclusive to being tagged child or et cetera.

Also, a tag for just a humanoid that looks like a child, I propose humanoid_child, again not exclusive to aforementioned but is exclusive to humanoid_cub. This is secondary to my first proposed, I don't see as much use in it.

This is because there are a lot of tags that'd need to be -searched / blacklisted to find the aforementioned. Especially problematic is Pokemon they're tagged humanoids, which will ignore human, anthro, feral, semi-anthro, anthro, ergo specifically excluding them by excluding pokémon. But again, I am more asking for an animal_humanoid tag.

Combine with the idea from forum #234199 "Imply: Human -> Humanoid", and it should apply to humans as well. Definitely cut down on blacklist space.

Siral_Exan said:
Specifically: an animal_humanoid, looking like a child, would probably not get tagged cub because they are not feral, semi-anthro, or anthro. They are not exactly "furry"... I propose humanoid_cub for animal humanoids that look like children, not exclusive to being tagged child or et cetera.

Also, a tag for just a humanoid that looks like a child, I propose humanoid_child, again not exclusive to aforementioned but is exclusive to humanoid_cub. This is secondary to my first proposed, I don't see as much use in it.

Why not just use child for humans and humanoids?

BlueDingo said:
Why not just use child for humans and humanoids?

Child is technically a step up from cub.

BlueDingo said:
Why not just use child for humans and humanoids?

Child is a more specific age, cub is less specific. A cub can be baby to child (cub's wiki is generalized, the tag's practice is slightly more accurate), whereas a child is after toddler and stops before teenager. Check the young chart for a more detailed explanation (preteen is aliased to child).

Since we lack a less specific tag for (animal) humanoids, I would think it beneficial to make one. Cub is incredibly helpful for blacklisting, I imagine that the same is true for whatever tag we come up with.

Baby and toddler for 0-2, child for 3-12, teen for 13-19ish.
Cub if it's a 'furry' child. All of this is in the wiki, not sure what's unclear about it.

Edit: Oh, I see. The young wiki entry is messed up. Shame that nobody noticed. And preteen is implicated to young, but also aliased to child. Sheesh.

Genjar said:
Baby and toddler for 0-2, child for 3-12, teen for 13-19ish.
Cub if it's a 'furry' child. All of this is in the wiki, not sure what's unclear about it.

Edit: Oh, I see. The young wiki entry is messed up. Shame that nobody noticed. And preteen is implicated to young, but also aliased to child. Sheesh.

Now, are you using using in context of hard age, or are you using child in context of youth?

Is there a tag for fucking through clothing? I've always wondered.

reindeer said:
Is there a tag for fucking through clothing? I've always wondered.

Just the combination, clothed_sex cum_through_clothing

Furrin_Gok said:
Just the combination, clothed_sex cum_through_clothing

Doesn't help that much, but thank you.

reindeer said:
Is there a tag for fucking through clothing? I've always wondered.

We have a dry_humping tag, granted it's undertagged. Grinding, hot_dogging, and thigh_sex could also be useful. bulge ~grinding ~hot_dogging and thigh_sex m/f ~fully_clothed ~topless seem to work fairly well.

How should 'riding' a motorcycle be tagged? Those keep getting tagged as riding, but it doesn't seem like a good fit because its mainly for animals, not for vehicles.

There's cycling for bicycles, driving for cars, sailing for boats, etc. But is there anything for motorcycles?

Genjar said:
There's cycling for bicycles, driving for cars, sailing for boats, etc. But is there anything for motorcycles?

Driving can apply to any vehicle.