Do we have a tag for chickens (and other birds too, I guess) that have been killed, beheaded and defeathered?

post #1300289

BlueDingo said:
Do we have a tag for chickens (and other birds too, I guess) that have been killed, beheaded and defeathered?

post #1300289

Only tag I can think of for it would be carcass maybe? carcass tagged together with food could possibly indicate the specific for human consumption carcasses such as plucked birds or sucklings pig rather than the stereotypical animal carcasses, which could be tagged both carcass and corpse to indicate it such. That's the best I can think of atm

BlueDingo said:
Do we have a tag for chickens (and other birds too, I guess) that have been killed, beheaded and defeathered?

post #1300289

On a similar note is there a tag in general to separate 'chicken' or 'fish' as used to refer to meat from the species? There doesn't seem to be many chicken roasts/legs/nuggets in the chicken tag, but it seems like those would be common enough specific imagery to tag, though for the most part it's not that relevant to the species tag in the way that 'sushi' isn't considered relevant to 'fish' as a species.

regsmutt said:
On a similar note is there a tag in general to separate 'chicken' or 'fish' as used to refer to meat from the species? There doesn't seem to be many chicken roasts/legs/nuggets in the chicken tag, but it seems like those would be common enough specific imagery to tag, though for the most part it's not that relevant to the species tag in the way that 'sushi' isn't considered relevant to 'fish' as a species.

What would probably work would be if we utilized tags like chicken (food) or something

facelessmess said:
What would probably work would be if we utilized tags like chicken (food) or something

I suppose *_(food) would work. We already have a turkey_(food) tag.

BlueDingo said:
Do we have a tag for chickens (and other birds too, I guess) that have been killed, beheaded and defeathered?

post #1300289

University of Kentucky

Dressed - cleaned in preparation for eating (feathers and guts removed)

And some more:

USDA

What is the definition of “dressed poultry?” Does it include ALL raw poultry (whole birds, cut-up parts, giblets, deboned product, marinated product, necks, paws, etc.)?

“Dressed poultry,” for the application of this section of the regulations, is slaughtered, defeathered, eviscerated whole birds with the head and feet removed, i.e., a ready-to-cook whole bird. Prepared or processed poultry, e.g., cut-up, marinated, breaded, etc., products are not considered to be dressed poultry and would be governed under under subsection (a) not (b) of 381.126.

Hmm. "Ready-to-cook" too. "Butchered," of course.

"Whole chicken" in local grocery stores.

Comparing those terms to appropriate wildcard search results, I doubt anyone has tried seriously tagging that before.

These are the three most common ways I have seen artists give hands to anthro birds with wings:

1. Feather fingers. We see this in more cartoony art where an anthro bird's feathers at the tip of their wings move like fingers.

2. Talon fingers. In more realistic art, anthro birds are given opposable digits where the wrists would be and resemble the skin and talons of the bird's feet.

3. The angel look. This is where an anthro bird is given separate arms and wings, with the later being moved to behind the shoulders like a stereotypical depiction of an angel.

Do we have tags for them? If not, how can I make one?

da1 said:
3. The angel look. This is where an anthro bird is given separate arms and wings, with the later being moved to behind the shoulders like a stereotypical depiction of an angel.

This is the standard type for anthros/humanoids, and not currently tagged as anything besides wings.

The other types are mixed under realistic_wings and winged_arms, I'm not sure what's the difference. The wiki makes them sound similar, could benefit from reorganization/rewrite.

Is there a way to tag cat licking their own foot without adding foot_fetish tag as well?

I posted
post #1373109
and added foot_licking, but it's implicated to foot_fetish.

Granberia said:
Is there a way to tag cat licking their own foot without adding foot_fetish tag as well?

I posted
post #1373109
and added foot_licking, but it's implicated to foot_fetish.

I would've guessed paw_licking or licking_paw but they're both aliased away.

Granberia said:
Is there a way to tag cat licking their own foot without adding foot_fetish tag as well?

Not as far as I can tell. Auto_foot_lick was chained to foot_fetish in forum #211323.

Do we have a tag for mentioning_penis_size or something like it? That would be cool.

Granberia said:
Is there a way to tag cat licking their own foot without adding foot_fetish tag as well?

I posted
post #1373109
and added foot_licking, but it's implicated to foot_fetish.

Maybe a tag for grooming would work?

Genjar said:
This is the standard type for anthros/humanoids, and not currently tagged as anything besides wings.

The other types are mixed under realistic_wings and winged_arms, I'm not sure what's the difference. The wiki makes them sound similar, could benefit from reorganization/rewrite.

I rewrote to wikis also adding a additional tag to the list for wings that have "fingers" that are composed of individual feathers of the wing. what left would be a clean up of the posts...

gaphiltfish said:
Do we have a tag for mentioning_penis_size or something like it? That would be cool.

comparing_penis usually at least, in combination with text or dialog...

da1 said:
1. Feather fingers. We see this in more cartoony art where an anthro bird's feathers at the tip of their wings move like fingers.

feather_hands

I don't think there's a tag for styling hands after bird feet, with scales and talons, but it seems like something to tag.

post #778963

____________________

In any event, I think the paws wiki lacks necessary specificity.

Maybe there is an answer for my question but I cant find it on forum so I ask.

If I want to upload a post but artist tag doesnt exist because it is the first work of this author on E621 what tags should I use?

~Saren_Arterius~ said:
Maybe there is an answer for my question but I cant find it on forum so I ask.

If I want to upload a post but artist tag doesnt exist because it is the first work of this author on E621 what tags should I use?

You have to create an artist tag name for them. Figure out what the artist's best known user handle is and use that. Add artist: to the name so it shows up under the artist tag group. You only have to do this once for the artist, after that, just type in the username as usual.

Here's the help page for tags: https://e621.net/help/show/tags

The unbirthing tag is a bit of a mess, but it'd be difficult to sort it out admittedly. It gets used a lot for octopus/snake/worm/tentacle/arthropod-as-dildo style bestiality and blocking that stuff out takes up quite a few tags. I don't think living_insertion, using a character/animal as a dildo, or something crawling into a vagina with no other context is quite the same as unbirth. To use a particularly extreme example of something that is not at all relevant to unbirth:
post #99738

Personally I think the umbrella tag should be changed to something else not implicated to vore (living_insertion maybe?) with 'unbirthing' referring to pussy vore with explicit birth/embryo/fetus/pregnancy related imagery.

Side note: I've noticed that docked_tail is rather appallingly underused.

regsmutt said:
The unbirthing tag is a bit of a mess, but it'd be difficult to sort it out admittedly. It gets used a lot for octopus/snake/worm/tentacle/arthropod-as-dildo style bestiality and blocking that stuff out takes up quite a few tags. I don't think living_insertion, using a character/animal as a dildo, or something crawling into a vagina with no other context is quite the same as unbirth.

*huffs* I don't even like vore, yet now I'm *invested* in the tags for it. Ugh. Way to go me.

Unbirthing and living_insertion definitely have a LOT of overlap... AS I browse, I'm noticing some trends...

• Consenting :
• Small critter crawling inside a bigger one: post #1375735
• Large critter crawling inside a roughly equally sized critter: post #1342762
• A focus on the 'joy of motherhood' and 'contentness of the womb': post #1326174 post #1252411
• Yay, squirmy sex toy! post #1148951
• Unconsenting:
• Unconsenting Prey:
• Small Critter into a larger one post #1301123
• Large being into a similarly sized one post #1353981
• Using a rather unwilling prey along side an insertion post #1347833 post #1290042
• Unconsenting 'Predator'
• Typically, "living insertion" sort of stuff with odd octopuses and such. post #1291403 post #1216083
• Transformative: turning an adult to a baby, from one species to another, etc. post #1188909

and a whole bunch of "what the fuck is this even" and some straight up pregnancy and some "why is this even tagged that?" (Of course.)

.,.. I started thinking about 'concepts' like... willing and unwilling unbirthing, but if you do that there, you probably need to do it over all the vore tags, and that's a hell of a task that I don't think anyone wants to swallow (haha! get it? ... I'll show myself out.)

I'm can SEE the difference between living insertion, and unbirthing and "pussy vore" but putting it to words is hard.

Personally I think the umbrella tag should be changed to something else not implicated to vore (living_insertion maybe?) with 'unbirthing' referring to pussy vore with explicit birth/embryo/fetus/pregnancy related imagery.

Eeeugh. I remember that picture. *shudder*

I don't think I like all unbirth/pussy vore type images implicating living_insertion... I mean, it's true, but.. I dunno. I feel like that would catch some stuff that doens't really apply? Not sure. it's late and I"m sleepy.

Maybe the tag shoudl be split up into three ideas...

Unbirthing - stuff that seems to be consensual--or at least, benevolent and friendly ("Oops, I accidentally sat on you and shoved you in my pussy, lol!") ... The unbirthing equivalent of soft_vore, if you will.)
Pussy vore - art with a more predatory nature, with the general implication that they're not coming back out again.

Not sure what the third one is. But it's whatever the "mouse strapped to cock" and "open pussy, insert giant grubs" type of thing. Part of that is some form of micro_abuse (man... the micro/macro stuff seems to be woefully undertagged...)... some of it's next door to oviposition (as in.. oviposition leads to larva, and then the larva comes out.... .... that counts as living insertion, right?)

Ugh, I don't even know anymore. All I know is that people should be able to find what they're looking for without having to have TOO long of a search string. *generalized hand flapping and waving around*

Still no tag for large or clearly visible labia_minora which is aliased/invalidated for some reason iirc.

post #1381382 post #1381227 post #1378123

Im going to look for better examples but I think you all have a general idea what I mean

SnowWolf said:

and a whole bunch of "what the fuck is this even" and some straight up pregnancy and some "why is this even tagged that?" (Of course.)

.,.. I started thinking about 'concepts' like... willing and unwilling unbirthing, but if you do that there, you probably need to do it over all the vore tags, and that's a hell of a task that I don't think anyone wants to swallow (haha! get it? ... I'll show myself out.)

Yeah, all the vore tags are a bit of a mess. When I get the time I really want to go down and sort out digestion and remove the stuff that's just big_belly or, sometimes, pregnancy. But that's going off on a tangent.

Forced DOES work with vore, but it doesn't really specify predator or prey. It's fairly undertagged too, likely because a majority does imply it's not consensual on the prey's end, so it's seen as default. While forced/unconsenting preds in oral vore are fairly rare and force_feeding should cover it, it does happen quite a bit in the unbirthing tag (and probably anal_vore too). A forced_prey/forced_pred could work though, and there is precedent for the forced tags specifying position/role with reverse_forced_oral.

I'm can SEE the difference between living insertion, and unbirthing and "pussy vore" but putting it to words is hard.

Yeah, this is the problem I'm having. Sometimes it's obvious (post #1347833 for instance, the 'prey' is tied up in a way he can't be 'eaten'), but most of the time it's fuzzy. When I see 'tentacle rape except it's eels this time' it doesn't look or feel the same as pussy vore/unbirth, but it's hard to really explain why an eel halfway inserted into a vagina is functionally different than a fox halfway inserted into a vagina. It's made extra difficult when a lot of pussy vore/unbirth really isn't explicit about what it is, it assumes that the viewer already knows. This works fine in vore galleries where it's contextualized (and where non-vore living insertions don't get tagged 'vore') but it doesn't translate well to the tagging system here.

regsmutt said:
Yeah, all the vore tags are a bit of a mess. When I get the time I really want to go down and sort out digestion and remove the stuff that's just big_belly or, sometimes, pregnancy. But that's going off on a tangent.

It takes so much more time than you think, too. Been working on all_the_way_through in my spare time and it's been slow. Not complaining, just, eeugh.

Forced DOES work with vore, but it doesn't really specify predator or prey. It's fairly undertagged too, likely because a majority does imply it's not consensual on the prey's end, so it's seen as default. While forced/unconsenting preds in oral vore are fairly rare and force_feeding should cover it, it does happen quite a bit in the unbirthing tag (and probably anal_vore too). A forced_prey/forced_pred could work though, and there is precedent for the forced tags specifying position/role with reverse_forced_oral.

Vore isn't really my thing, but There's more of a ... reaction on the richter scale, if you will, to consentual-prey, for me. And I imagine that there are some folks out there who have a similar opinion about 'friendly vore only' or whatever. So, I feel like the forced_prey/pred thing is an important distinction. (heh.. Friendly_vore and unfriendly_vore? Willing_vore and unwilling_vore? XD)

Forced could work... except for the ambiguity of it. I'd rather see specialized tags for it, myself. :D

Yeah, this is the problem I'm having. Sometimes it's obvious (post #1347833 for instance, the 'prey' is tied up in a way he can't be 'eaten'), but most of the time it's fuzzy. When I see 'tentacle rape except it's eels this time' it doesn't look or feel the same as pussy vore/unbirth, but it's hard to really explain why an eel halfway inserted into a vagina is functionally different than a fox halfway inserted into a vagina. It's made extra difficult when a lot of pussy vore/unbirth really isn't explicit about what it is, it assumes that the viewer already knows. This works fine in vore galleries where it's contextualized (and where non-vore living insertions don't get tagged 'vore') but it doesn't translate well to the tagging system here.

I thihn maybe... unbirth is generally benevolent thing-- with insertions being willing, or at least "for your own good".. .whore pussy vore is more about... strengthening one's self via the life energy of another.

Living insertion seems to be more about "this small creature doesn't matter because they're barely or not at all sentient." with levels of discomfort for the inserted being. ( I mean, it's more obvious for the anthro mouse than a fish, but I'm pretty sure a fish or an eel doesn't like being shoved into someone's ass. It's kinda like...a disregard for the inserted being. I dunno.

Vore really is a tricksy one because of the prevalence of picture series.

SnowWolf said:

Vore isn't really my thing, but There's more of a ... reaction on the richter scale, if you will, to consentual-prey, for me. And I imagine that there are some folks out there who have a similar opinion about 'friendly vore only' or whatever. So, I feel like the forced_prey/pred thing is an important distinction. (heh.. Friendly_vore and unfriendly_vore? Willing_vore and unwilling_vore? XD)

Yeah, tags to clarify that would be pretty helpful, especially since willing vore tends to be rarer, so it'd probably stick out more as something to tag. I was going with 'forced' just because that seems to fit with other tags on this site.

I thihn maybe... unbirth is generally benevolent thing-- with insertions being willing, or at least "for your own good".. .whore pussy vore is more about... strengthening one's self via the life energy of another.

Living insertion seems to be more about "this small creature doesn't matter because they're barely or not at all sentient." with levels of discomfort for the inserted being. ( I mean, it's more obvious for the anthro mouse than a fish, but I'm pretty sure a fish or an eel doesn't like being shoved into someone's ass. It's kinda like...a disregard for the inserted being. I dunno.

Almost, but I don't think unbirth is necessarily friendly. I think there is something to be said though about the inserted creature/person being treated as a character (including "I'm treating you as an object as a show of dominance") vs being treated as an object or a stand-in for a tentacle monster. Sentience of a character though is really hard to prove under twys and I've argued against classifications based on sentience before. Most of them do have some focus on the insertion being forced on the receiver, which makes sense as it's basically a subgenre of tentacle rape. Even if these images can't be untied from vore and unbirth, a tag for forced preds would help sort them out somewhat.

Should we maybe move this to another thread? IDK how this thread works. :)

regsmutt said:
Yeah, tags to clarify that would be pretty helpful, especially since willing vore tends to be rarer, so it'd probably stick out more as something to tag. I was going with 'forced' just because that seems to fit with other tags on this site.

I'm not sure what the local 'tag meta' is these days, but I'm fond of matched sets of tags: Forced_prey and forced_predator or willing_prey and forced_prey etc -- it makes it easier to find untagged pictures (oral_vore -willing_prey -forced_prey) so that everything can be assured that they're tagged properly.

And since the thematic of vore-in-general seems to be "predator/prey," those tags can be used through the entirity of the whole vore metatag.

Hm, I supose it would need a 'middle ground tag' -- it's hard to tell if a pair of feet sticking out is consenting, after all. willing_prey, forced_prey and dubiously_concenting_prey? :P ambiguous_prey?

Almost, but I don't think unbirth is necessarily friendly.

It's fair enough: as I said, not my kink. :)

I think there is something to be said though about the inserted creature/person being treated as a character (including "I'm treating you as an object as a show of dominance") vs being treated as an object or a stand-in for a tentacle monster. Sentience of a character though is really hard to prove under twys and I've argued against classifications based on sentience before. Most of them do have some focus on the insertion being forced on the receiver, which makes sense as it's basically a subgenre of tentacle rape. Even if these images can't be untied from vore and unbirth, a tag for forced preds would help sort them out somewhat.

What you're saying makes a lot of sence. Though I didn't mean that we, the viewer, make a judgement about the sentence of the prey in question, just that we, the gviewer, make a judgement about how the prey is being treated. Take post #1203326 for example. The prey is basically being used as a toy, with literally no concern about their wellbeing. The disregard of their emotion and sentience is obvious. compare to post #970704 where the mouse seems like he could be participating willingly...

... and y'know, it occures to me that the focus on these is, like you said, focus on the character as an object or stand in... as opposed to most types of vore where the focus seems to be on consuming another. The path to, from and around digestion of some sort (even if it's never depicted).. as oppsed to the above living sex toys.

....

Maybe the split should be somewhere with 'unbirth' and 'pussy vore' on one side (with a focus on 'consuming prey') with 'living_sex_toy' on the other.

Living_sex_toy is already a tag and seems to conside offff... living stuffed animals/dolls, living sex dolls, creatures designed for pleasure, creatures, uh... redesigned for pleasure, the complete dominance and use of a person (as in, post #1177249 ) ... I"m actually really surprised that there are only 4 living_sex_toy vore pictures c_c

But the more I al looking at this, the less some of these thigns feel like vore at all, so yeah.

I'd rather not start a new thread for this, and this seems to be the closest thing to a "tag discussion" thread.

Because of the recent changes to species tagging in regards to fictional species, would it be acceptable to create a "vulpine" species tag to further specify fictional foxes (ie Vulpix/Ninetales, Fennekin evolution line) from the broader "canine" tag?

Doppio said:
I'd rather not start a new thread for this, and this seems to be the closest thing to a "tag discussion" thread.

Because of the recent changes to species tagging in regards to fictional species, would it be acceptable to create a "vulpine" species tag to further specify fictional foxes (ie Vulpix/Ninetales, Fennekin evolution line) from the broader "canine" tag?

I think this has been addressed before, but I'm under the impression that we generally avoid more scientific classifications for families, classes, phylums, etc. since many of them are very close or at least close enough to make a distinction difficult or pointless to define, foxes being very similar to canines for example. Personally, I'm not opposed to more obvious ones like foxes (since all foxes are vulpines). However, it could lead to another massive overhaul of current tags. Perhaps someone with more time and information can shed more light on it.

Doppio said:
I'd rather not start a new thread for this, and this seems to be the closest thing to a "tag discussion" thread.

Because of the recent changes to species tagging in regards to fictional species, would it be acceptable to create a "vulpine" species tag to further specify fictional foxes (ie Vulpix/Ninetales, Fennekin evolution line) from the broader "canine" tag?

I don't think there's a reason to completely dissociate foxes from canines since they're still canidae taxonomy-wise and they're physically extremely similar. I do think an argument could be made though for allowing 'fox' to be used for fictional species since it's already an extremely generic, non-scientific term that covers multiple genus that aren't even that closely related. I would be against renaming it 'vulpine' because of that.

On a similar note I think there should also be a generic big_cat tag under the feline umbrella. Big cats and creatures based off big cats look different enough from other felines to be able to make a distinction. It'd also make searching for felines with a preference for big cats or blocking big cats from results possible. Big cat is generic enough that it can include fictional species and gives wiggle room for large cats not in pantherinae like saber tooths, cheetahs, and cougars.

regsmutt said:

I do think an argument could be made though for allowing 'fox' to be used for fictional species since it's already an extremely generic, non-scientific term that covers multiple genus that aren't even that closely related. I would be against renaming it 'vulpine' because of that.

Nope. forum #216888

UnusualParadox said:
Nope. forum #216888

A fox is NOT a specific real-world animal though, it's a broad, non-scientific classification of a large group of animals that, again, are not necessarily closely related. The only qualification real-world animals have for being foxes is that they're canines that vaguely give off a foxy vibe so someone decided to call it a fox.

NECK FLUFF!!

Tagore86 said:
NECK FLUFF!!

NECK_TUFT!!

regsmutt said:
A fox is NOT a specific real-world animal though, it's a broad, non-scientific classification of a large group of animals that, again, are not necessarily closely related. The only qualification real-world animals have for being foxes is that they're canines that vaguely give off a foxy vibe so someone decided to call it a fox.

This really isn't the place to rehash the same argument. If you want to contest the logic, take it to the forum I directed you to. That being said, for tagging purposes fox is specific enough to cause problems for the average user. 109,617 posts are tagged fox right now, and red_fox, perhaps the most common and well-known variety of fox, only accounts for 1,342 of those.

UnusualParadox said:
This really isn't the place to rehash the same argument. If you want to contest the logic, take it to the forum I directed you to. That being said, for tagging purposes fox is specific enough to cause problems for the average user. 109,617 posts are tagged fox right now, and red_fox, perhaps the most common and well-known variety of fox, only accounts for 1,342 of those.

(all links before head to wikipedia)

This is because many fox species look a lot a like, and while we can easily ID a Fennec fox, most users are not going to have a clue if something is a gray fox, a cape fox, a South American Gray Fox, or a Coyote, or a golden jackal, or a crab eating fox, or a wolf or a side striped Jackal or a different type of wolf.

Seriously, canids look a LOT a like. And then you start drawing them, and they're all human-ish in size and you don't have the context of the 30 pound coyote compared to the 100 lb wolf, and your'e trying to go off of markings... it gets really messy when you're not talking about a randomly distinct species like the red fox (oh wait... the Red fox has 45 different subspecies ranging from european foxes to white footed foxes (side note: LOOK AT THAT TAIL! eee :D ) (wolves, by the way have 38 different sub species.. including "domestic dog" and "dingos")

I generally support tagging subspecies when it's obvious (like dalmation. Or the Cross fox )

SnowWolf said:
(all links before head to wikipedia)

This is because many fox species look a lot a like, and while we can easily ID a Fennec fox, most users are not going to have a clue if something is a gray fox, a cape fox, a South American Gray Fox, or a Coyote, or a golden jackal, or a crab eating fox, or a wolf or a side striped Jackal or a different type of wolf.

Seriously, canids look a LOT a like. And then you start drawing them, and they're all human-ish in size and you don't have the context of the 30 pound coyote compared to the 100 lb wolf, and your'e trying to go off of markings... it gets really messy when you're not talking about a randomly distinct species like the red fox (oh wait... the Red fox has 45 different subspecies ranging from european foxes to white footed foxes (side note: LOOK AT THAT TAIL! eee :D ) (wolves, by the way have 38 different sub species.. including "domestic dog" and "dingos")

I generally support tagging subspecies when it's obvious (like dalmation. Or the Cross fox )

Also I think people are kinda lazy and don't bother to tag specific species. Implications for well-known characters (Nick Wilde for instance, is pretty recognizable as a red fox, but his tag doesn't even imply fox) would help a lot.

regsmutt said:
Also I think people are kinda lazy and don't bother to tag specific species. Implications for well-known characters (Nick Wilde for instance, is pretty recognizable as a red fox, but his tag doesn't even imply fox) would help a lot.

The problem with that is any alternate_species pictures. :(

post #1026438 post #1379896

(side note? Gray fox judy is love <3)

SnowWolf said:
The problem with that is any alternate_species pictures. :(

post #1026438 post #1379896

Cosplaying, too.

post #836329post #898815

SnowWolf said:
(all links before head to wikipedia)

This is because many fox species look a lot a like, and while we can easily ID a Fennec fox, most users are not going to have a clue if something is a gray fox, a cape fox, a South American Gray Fox, or a Coyote, or a golden jackal, or a crab eating fox, or a wolf or a side striped Jackal or a different type of wolf.

Seriously, canids look a LOT a like. And then you start drawing them, and they're all human-ish in size and you don't have the context of the 30 pound coyote compared to the 100 lb wolf, and your'e trying to go off of markings... it gets really messy when you're not talking about a randomly distinct species like the red fox (oh wait... the Red fox has 45 different subspecies ranging from european foxes to white footed foxes (side note: LOOK AT THAT TAIL! eee :D ) (wolves, by the way have 38 different sub species.. including "domestic dog" and "dingos")

I generally support tagging subspecies when it's obvious (like dalmation. Or the Cross fox )

Kind of my point, fox is generally about as specific as we can get with the occasional exception. So regsmutt statement regarding foxes being a generic, nonspecific term is sort of invalid here (not wrong, mind you, just misguided). In the case of Pokémon and Digimon, it was decided that their canonical species (e.g. Delphox for example) essentially replaces their "real life" equivalent. Personally, I prefer it this way. Of course, not everyone is going to agree with me or the other users and staff who support the distinction.

What I'm trying to say is, fox may not be the most specific term we use, but it's often as far as most people can get. And there are several reasons why certain fictional species, such as Pokémon, don't get genus or subspecies level tags. One major one being that it's often a stretch, like Pikachu for example. Ever see a mouse? Pikachu certainly doesn't closely resemble one with long, pointy ears, a flat, lightning bolt tail, and flat face, but it does[/b] vaguely resemble a rodent with a round body and short, stubby limbs. But that's just one example.

UnusualParadox said:
Sometimes I think I sound like a broken record...

Aw, I'm sorry. It can be really hard to communicate through text sometime and a misplaced word--on paper or in someone's mind--can really add extra levels of challenge to a discussion. I wasn't actually trying to argue for or agaisnt any idea, just making words about why red fox is so sparsely tagged, as the most populated fox-species. Not trying to say that you're wrong or anything <3 (also, I am a little brain fuzzy lately, so it seriously could be my fault.)

I actaully agree that most pokemon shouldn't be tagged with RL species names. Vulpix isn't a fox :) it's a Vulpix. (I would argue that there are a couple that are close-enough to be tagged with a RL species.. like ponyta or ninetails--but it's a slippery slope and it's easier to say 'none')

Perhaps there'd be some benefit to, in the fox wiki adding a section for 'famous foxes' and including renamon, Robin Hood, vulpix, nick_wilde and others there. :)

Is there a tag for this particular type of penis? Most commonly tagged alongside raptor & pubic_boot.

post #634037post #690493post #1345961post #906379
post #745530post #1018154post #860414post #1220773

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Is there a tag for this particular type of penis? Most commonly tagged alongside raptor & pubic_boot.

post #634037post #690493post #1345961post #906379
post #745530post #1018154post #860414post #1220773

For the most part those appear to fit tapering_penis. Exceptions might be post #1018154 (looks like a humanoid-based hybrid_penis with a pointy glans (is there a tag for that? It's pretty common) but doesn't really taper) and post #634037 (it's again pointy, but stays about the same thickness). I don't think there's a specific species tag for it though since there's no way to know what a dinosaur penis looked like (we don't even know if they had them) and they largely aren't based on any one species.

So. Branch horn antler things?

I mean.. Antlers, typically on a cervine, that look like they are growing. Not like "I don't know how antlers look" but like, actual tree branches. Sometimes, but not always actually growing--leaves and flowers.

post #1382664 is kinda an example. Sawsbuck is a good, if pokemonish example:

post #1251615 post #570860 post #566645 post #522837

Typically seen in, like... nature spirits, forest gods... Green Man/Horned God sorts of things.

It's such a neat idea, it seems like there must be some kind of tag for it.

SnowWolf said:
So. Branch horn antler things?

I mean.. Antlers, typically on a cervine, that look like they are growing. Not like "I don't know how antlers look" but like, actual tree branches. Sometimes, but not always actually growing--leaves and flowers.

post #1382664 is kinda an example. Sawsbuck is a good, if pokemonish example:

post #1251615 post #570860 post #566645 post #522837

Typically seen in, like... nature spirits, forest gods... Green Man/Horned God sorts of things.

It's such a neat idea, it seems like there must be some kind of tag for it.

plant_antlers would probly be more apt sence we do have plant_wings or could use flora_antlers.

Branch cannot be used because even in your examples not all are made of tree branches...

Darou said:
Branch cannot be used because even in your examples not all are made of tree branches...

Uh, which one? They all seem like branches to me. plant_antlers is something I've never seen...that would imply like...a vine or flower growing out of a creature's head...branch_antlers is better.

Dyrone said:
Uh, which one? They all seem like branches to me. plant_antlers is something I've never seen...that would imply like...a vine or flower growing out of a creature's head...branch_antlers is better.

post #566645

https://www.furaffinity.net/view/20484828/ (cactus/moss antlers)

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/5b/83/285b83d6b2e63190f8868ddce6693df5.jpg (flower horns, somewhat debatible if those are flower stalks or branches)

bottom line is that not all floral antlers are branches, just because its not here right now does not mean it doesnt exist and going plant would avoid the issue of making a dozen new tags of small number later. branches is just easy for artist to default to as both look the same alot of times...

Darou said:
post #566645

Hmmm...the bottom of those antlers look branch-like to me...could be either...your other examples are better though. I would say plant_antlers then (maybe plantlers, eh?)...flora to me kind of suggests flowers which we can't guarantee in every case.

Darou said:
plant_antlers would probly be more apt sence we do have plant_wings or could use flora_antlers.

Branch cannot be used because even in your examples not all are made of tree branches...

Well, I wasn't married to branch or any particular words. Actually I'm more surprised that we don't??? have a tag for it already.

Darou said:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/28/5b/83/285b83d6b2e63190f8868ddce6693df5.jpg (flower horns, somewhat debatible if those are flower stalks or branches)

That one actually leads me to another related tag: That rhino's totally covered in moss and stuff-- I'd be tempted to tag it, like, nature_spirit but that tag isn't much used... so...? *puff*

Mossy_fur? (obviously not for the rhino..)

I dunno. I'd say Nature_elemental or something, but... that's not a tag either o_o

ANYWAY!

Plant_antlers sounds good-- (Though Plantlers is fantastic XD)

Though, flora is 'plants in general, but...)

Dyrone said:
flora to me kind of suggests flowers which we can't guarantee in every case.

Flora means plant. I can see where you're coming from, though, since the adjective "floral" usually refers to flowers.

I'd say plant_antlers over flora_antlers because people are more likely to understand it.

So, how about tags for stuff you put on your mount?

No, not that mount. Perv.

I"m talking about horse barding, and horse armor and other DLC content. Fancy trappings for your mount other than the typical saddle, bridal, reins, etc.

post #1391347 post #1325688

Related: how about: stuff like the necklace/armor thingy here: post #1391343

SnowWolf said:
So, how about tags for stuff you put on your mount?

No, not that mount. Perv.

I"m talking about horse barding, and horse armor and other DLC content. Fancy trappings for your mount other than the typical saddle, bridal, reins, etc.

post #1391347 post #1325688

Related: how about: stuff like the necklace/armor thingy here: post #1391343

First one looks like a combination of a y-front harness, peytal (though imo it more closely resembles a breastplate from dog armor), and neck reins. Second appears to be a sort of chanfron. Last one is probably just a necklace.

regsmutt said:
First one looks like a combination of a y-front harness, peytal (though imo it more closely resembles a breastplate from dog armor), and neck reins. Second appears to be a sort of chanfron. Last one is probably just a necklace.

Those are fantastic words! Neat! But I think if I slap peytal on as a tag, no one will tag it except me. Hmmm.. Maybe just mount_barding?

...Though I bet there are probably some really neat pictures of anthro horses wearing barding. ... I can't imagine there WOULDN'T be, actually....

So 'mount_barding' might be overly specific for .. well, mounts. But 'horse_barding' would limit species... Maybe just Barding?

...Barding is aliased to armor. So's peytral.

... *Squints* ... ... why on earth :(

Well, so much for that I guess.

SnowWolf said:
Those are fantastic words! Neat! But I think if I slap peytal on as a tag, no one will tag it except me. Hmmm.. Maybe just mount_barding?

...Though I bet there are probably some really neat pictures of anthro horses wearing barding. ... I can't imagine there WOULDN'T be, actually....

So 'mount_barding' might be overly specific for .. well, mounts. But 'horse_barding' would limit species... Maybe just Barding?

...Barding is aliased to armor. So's peytral.

... *Squints* ... ... why on earth :(

Well, so much for that I guess.

That's odd. I can understand aliasing individual parts just due to obscurity, but 'barding' itself to refer to quadruped/feral armor would be a useful distinction.

regsmutt said:
That's odd. I can understand aliasing individual parts just due to obscurity, but 'barding' itself to refer to quadruped/feral armor would be a useful distinction.

Yeah. They talked about it here... https://e621.net/forum/show/172611

I mean, they didn't alias feral_armor away, but nothing's tagged with it.

Gosh that just seems so... pointless. Yeah, the individual bits were a bit pointless, but the actual concept of barding? geeze...

What about humans with animal genitalia? I couldn't find them on their own, and have to rely on human animal_genitalia solo not_furry just to find some of them.

Examples are: post #1357353 post #317073 post #872837 post #687274.

aa987654321aa said:
What about humans with animal genitalia?

Human is only tagged for normal humans, whereas 'humans' with animal_genitalia are meant to be tagged as humanoid.

So those can be found under humanoid animal_penis -humanoid_penis, you might want to add -feral -anthro to narrow it down further.

Genjar said:
Human is only tagged for normal humans, whereas 'humans' with animal_genitalia are meant to be tagged as humanoid.

So those can be found under humanoid animal_penis -humanoid_penis, you might want to add -feral -anthro to narrow it down further.

I meant something like a tag of those humanoid possessing the animal genitalia. Using those tags you provided only gave me a list a those humanoid being penetrated by ferals/antros/animals, and not a humanoid that has the animal dick is part of the humanoid's body. If it doesn't exist, do I have to create a new tag?

aa987654321aa said:
I meant something like a tag of those humanoid possessing the animal genitalia. Using those tags you provided only gave me a list a those humanoid being penetrated by ferals/antros/animals, and not a humanoid that has the animal dick is part of the humanoid's body. If it doesn't exist, do I have to create a new tag?

No, there's no tag for that specifically. The search humanoid animal_penis -feral -anthro -taur gives mostly what you're looking for, though it does mean there's not much more space in a search.

Honestly, with the crazy search sting involved, And the fact that this is a major design feature that's likely to be someone's kink, so to speak, I feel like this is something worth having a tag for.

I mean, we've got animal_limbs and animal_feet and like, bird_feet I think, but this is a bit different and none of those are highly tagged.

Somethign for... mismatched bodyparts, maybe. Obviously not for horses with humanoid penises. Maybe just Humans_with_animal_anatomy (I'd say "animal parts' but that immediately makes me think of bunny ears and kitty tails... not.. humans with canine pussies.

Whatever it is, should also cover stuff like post #221548 I think.

mismatched_human?

I dunno

I'm still not supporting mismatched_* anything as a tag name, on the account that last time we tried to do that, it made some of the artists angry. As in, "my characters are not mismatched, that's how the species is supposed to look like".

Tagging it as anatomically_incorrect_genitalia would probably also cause problems, though that would be a nice pair to anatomically_correct_genitalia.

Genjar said:
I'm still not supporting mismatched_* anything as a tag name, on the account that last time we tried to do that, it made some of the artists angry. As in, "my characters are not mismatched, that's how the species is supposed to look like".

Y'know, that's fair. There's enough gender/species feather-ruffling as it is, no need to coat those feathers in something flammable. :)

Tagging it as anatomically_incorrect_genitalia would probably also cause problems, though that would be a nice pair to anatomically_correct_genitalia.

Catch is, that that would ~technically~ apply to any furry with human-styled genitalia. Kind of a "if there's a penis, it's either one or the other" and that doesn't really help problem of finding a character with these traits without going through backflips.

(how many search term/word/thingies are users allowed to search for these days, anyway?)

Should this tag/tag scheme should also apply to, like... a wolf with a shark tail? obvious chimeras?

Maybe Chimera's a good word... *Search search*

tl;dr - Chimera's a mess. chimeric_* might be a decent idea though for the topic at hand.

Unexpected_genitalia sounds like it's asking for 'dick in a box' jokes. or 'surprise sex' jokes.
Non-standard_genitalia? May as well go with anatomically_incorrect_genitalia...
Alternate_genitalia?
Another_species's_genitalia? What an awful mouthful.
Chimeric_genitalia? This could be a neat idea.. used for all sorts of circumstances of "whoa, why does that wolf have a dolphin dick?" though.. it would still... technically... involve wolves-with-human-genitalia.

Could be expended into a few other tags if desired...

Hokay, so.. I think there could be something to be had in chimeric_feet, at the very least.

Most characters that are 'differently footed' are either tagged as:

• Satyrs if they've got hooves (but not always.. some of these things are distinctly not satyrs, and the only commonality is hooves. Except for the ones with paws instead.)
• Harpies, but harpies are almost always humanoids with arm-wings and bird legs. rather than foxes with bird arms and bird feet. Hm.
• Lamia, if they slither
• Taur, if they've traded in 2 legs for 4 or more.

sooooo tl;dr!

I think I like Chimeric_genitalia for the issue in question, and think that Chimeric_feet or chimeric_legs could also be a useful tag to have.
Also, I have severe ADHD.

SnowWolf said:
Catch is, that that would ~technically~ apply to any furry with human-styled genitalia. Kind of a "if there's a penis, it's either one or the other" and that doesn't really help problem of finding a character with these traits without going through backflips.

I'm not sure it would, since most anthros are drawn to be very human-shaped. For the sake of the tag, you could consider all anthros to be animal-human hybrids and under that logic human genitalia isn't really incorrect.

I personally prefer non-standard_genitalia though. It gets the point across and doesn't require quite the same explanation/loophole to explain why it doesn't apply to anthros with human penises since that IS a standard penis on an anthro.

SnowWolf said:
Catch is, that that would ~technically~ apply to any furry with human-styled genitalia. Kind of a "if there's a penis, it's either one or the other" and that doesn't really help problem of finding a character with these traits without going through backflips.

Good point. Even if it only applied to non-fictional species (like anatomically_correct_genitalia), there's still a whole lot of furries with human genitalia. Especially among anthros, but ferals with humanoid_penis aren't rare either.

(how many search term/word/thingies are users allowed to search for these days, anyway?)

Six for regular users, eight for privileged and higher - https://e621.net/wiki/show/e621:accounts. The Former Staff rank isn't listed, that's basically just Contributor-equivalent for ex-staff members who have retired or vanished instead of being demoted.

Should this tag/tag scheme should also apply to, like... a wolf with a shark tail? obvious chimeras?

Maybe Chimera's a good word... *Search search*

Wait-- oh, too late.

tl;dr - Chimera's a mess.

Yep. I don't even remember exactly how that happened, I think it started as a tag for the classic Chimera (the mythological one, goat/lion/snake). But someone got pedantic and insisted that it should be tagged for all mixed creatures, including gryphons, centaurs, and such.

At one point, the difference between hybrid and chimera was that hybrid was strictly for crossbreeds (liger, etc; mix of features from both parents instead of half-and-half), and chimera for creatures that look like they've been cobbled together by some mad wizard from different creatures. Not that those were tagged with any consistency even back then, and it certainly didn't help that the chimera -> hybrid implication never got removed.

After numerous debates, we've added a split_form tag for creatures such as mermaids that have 'mismatched' halves. Seems to be working better than chimera did, for those.

SnowWolf said:

Insert some rambling about Chimera here, Tl;dr will be below the section!

A chimera, in mythology, was the lion, with a goat-head and snake tail, sibling to cerberus and the Hydra...
genetically, it's... way more complicated, but basically, two genotypes blended together. Most famously, post #280701

To that effect, the chimerism tag has 10 posts, almost all of the same character, based on miss kitty above.

Though chimera, surprisingly has 950 pictures, and implies hybrid and... hm. Chimera basically is a weird collection of hybrids and ... the actual mythological creature.. and weird characters that look more like.. unknown_species, than anything identifiable.. ...this tag looks like a mess,to be honest, especially as actual chimera don't seem to have a tag of their own. c_c (I mean, I shouldn't have to search chimera feline caprine to get pictures of a chimera...)

In addition to removing the implication to hybrid it would probably help changing the chimera tag to a character type rather then a species type because fact of the matter is that the tag should only be used for the mythological species which is in general also made up of a single individual in mythology, not multiples. Same should be done with Cerberus and Hydra as they have the same mess if not worse and same conditions of the species equating to a single indevidual in eachs given mythology.

Chimeric_genitalia? This could be a neat idea.. used for all sorts of circumstances of "whoa, why does that wolf have a dolphin dick?" though.. it would still... technically... involve wolves-with-human-genitalia.

rather then canine with dolphin penis, it seems more likly people would end up using this for dolphins that have a dolphin penis but with a knot or similar crosses, so a cross of penis from 2 or more species rather then penis as a whole not matching the body its attached to.

bird_feet which has 64 tags, and the wiki describes it as, generally, realistic-bird-legs. It's been used for everything from, well, realistic bird feet to cartoony torchics.. hmm. A couple of harpies, too.

the wiki could use a rewrite. It does not refer to art style. it refers to the anatomy, in particular the arrangement of the toes. A skeletal structure that tend to be unique to avians and found in some eastern dragons...

unguligrade_legs see equine_legs, but with 4 posts.

I believe this would be someone just trying to circumvent the alias(a improper one as far as im concerned) of unguligrade to hooves;mammal.

Hokay, so.. I think there could be something to be had in chimeric_feet, at the very least.

same problem i feel as chimeric_penis, people might easily misunderstand this as feet that are a cross of 2 different species rather then the feet as a whole being different then the species of their owner,in fact there are guides out there that show you how to draw a hybrid of a humans flat foot but with a canine like hock rather then human heel.

regsmutt said:
I'm not sure it would, since most anthros are drawn to be very human-shaped. For the sake of the tag, you could consider all anthros to be animal-human hybrids and under that logic human genitalia isn't really incorrect.

Trrrrue, Unfortunately, that won't stop people from misusing it. :/

regsmutt said:
I personally prefer non-standard_genitalia though. It gets the point across and doesn't require quite the same explanation/loophole to explain why it doesn't apply to anthros with human penises since that IS a standard penis on an anthro.

S'a fair point.

Could also be 'atypical_genitalia' or 'extraspecies_genitalia' orrrr.. mmm..

On the other hand.. people might try to slap this onto any kind of "not-earth-species" junk. ... but I think that seems a little less likely.

Genjar said:
Six for regular users, eight for privileged and higher - https://e621.net/wiki/show/e621:accounts. The Former Staff rank isn't listed, that's basically just Contributor-equivalent for ex-staff members who have retired or vanished instead of being demoted.

Thanks <3

Wait-- oh, too late.

The things I've seen, man, the things I've seen.... TT_TT

Yep. I don't even remember exactly how that happened, I think it started as a tag for the classic Chimera (the mythological one, goat/lion/snake). But someone got pedantic and insisted that it should be tagged for all mixed creatures, including gryphons, centaurs, and such.

At one point, the difference between hybrid and chimera was that hybrid was strictly for crossbreeds (liger, etc; mix of features from both parents instead of half-and-half), and chimera for creatures that look like they've been cobbled together by some mad wizard from different creatures. Not that those were tagged with any consistency even back then, and it certainly didn't help that the chimera -> hybrid implication never got removed.

I... really want to time travel and slap 'em a couple times. I mean.. ugh. *sigh* There are definitely some aliases and implications approved over the last few years that were... illadvised, to say the least.

Okay... Chimera, at least wouldn't be... too hard to fix... tag all the liongoats with something ( chimera_(species) maybe..).. they'll all be tagged with chimera and chimera_(species) and that'll be fine. If we wanna go further, then it'll be easy to tweak things, buuuut, since it's apparently what people are--sigh--used to doing... *helpless shrug*

Well, I like Chimera-the-mythological-critters, so I'mma go through it in the next few days and pick out some lionsnekgoats. If anythign else happens with it, then... that's up to other people.

Genjar said:
After numerous debates, we've added a split_form tag for creatures such as mermaids that have 'mismatched' halves. Seems to be working better than chimera did, for those.

That's a nice idea :) I feel like centaur and mermaid should imply it c_c but I like it as an idea :D

I also still want something for animal legs. I'm planning on going through satyr really soon to find more plant_antlers, so would love to have something to tag for beings with legs of a different species. I dunno, maybe split_form counts?

I dunno. I'm tired.

Darou said:
In addition to removing the implication to hybrid it would probably help changing the chimera tag to a character type rather then a species type because fact of the matter is that the tag should only be used for the mythological species which is in general also made up of a single individual in mythology, not multiples. Same should be done with Cerberus and Hydra as they have the same mess if not worse and same conditions of the species equating to a single indevidual in eachs given mythology.

Thing is, while they are all based on specific ~individuals~ in mythology, they've been appropriated as a ~type~ of creature. While character is, technically, accurate, the character tag would only serve to cover images that are intended to, specifically, be the character from mythology. (such as Pegasus_(Disney)) ... and then you'd have a lot of posts tagged, say... winged_horse, 3_headed_dog, lion_with_goat_head_and_snake_tail.... and to compound the problem... well, Pegasus-the-disney-horse is distinctive, but how many *specific* depictions of pegasus are there? We know he was white in color, had wings and.. uh.. was probably a very ideal horse for the time. but that's about it. surely not every pegasus white_fur is a depiction of pegasus, but we just don't know :)

Cerberus is even worse. I mean, his 'offical' description is three headed, with a serpent for a tail and other snakes "protruding" from him. The earliest descptions had him with 50 heads. Others gave him 100. Yet another said 1 dog head, 100 snake heads... yeah.

The problem with chimera isn't that you've got big tittied herm chimera... the problem is that for every one of these:
post #1386971 you have about a dozen of these: post #1377186 post #1377738 post #1325853 post #1323954

Darou said:
rather then canine with dolphin penis, it seems more likly people would end up using this for dolphins that have a dolphin penis but with a knot or similar crosses, so a cross of penis from 2 or more species rather then penis as a whole not matching the body its attached to.

Eh, fair. Shame, I liked the way chimeric_genitalia sounded XD

Darou said:
the wiki could use a rewrite. It does not refer to art style. it refers to the anatomy, in particular the arrangement of the toes. A skeletal structure that tend to be unique to avians and found in some eastern dragons...

Er... the things is, there isn't one style of bird foot. Birds have weird-ass-feet.

• 3 toes in the front, one in the back.

4 toes, arranged in an X
3 in the front, with two attached together, with one in the back.
4 in the front, but the outer two can bend backwards.
3 in the front.
3 in the front and one off the side a bit.

The other thing.. well, the wiki was made back in august by 'The White Crow'... he's been around since 2014, has 1 wiki edit, 0 forum posts, and 14 tag edits.. and added bird feet to 4 posts, haha.

I feel like the wiki creator was seeking things like:

post #1220994 post #1391415 post #1220910

where attention is given to the feet looking like a bird's feet and legs: skinny, fine boned, standing on toes, rather than cartoony styles. post #1118736 post #1157786 post #1262680 ...like real birds, not humanoid_feet or plantigrade feet.

Which I can totally get, just, people are saying, "it's a bird, these are it's feet, hey!"

If aiming for the foot arrangment, maybe something like avian_toe_structure or avian_foot_structure ... or... for the leg style thin_bird_legs or natural_bird_legs

eh, it's not a race I have a horse in. <3

I believe this would be someone just trying to circumvent the alias(a improper one as far as im concerned) of unguligrade to hooves;mammal.

eh, maybe, or maybe just an honest mistake.

same problem i feel as chimeric_penis, people might easily misunderstand this as feet that are a cross of 2 different species rather then the feet as a whole being different then the species of their owner,in fact there are guides out there that show you how to draw a hybrid of a humans flat foot but with a canine like hock rather then human heel.

Ugh, tha'ts fair.. it's a shame, I really liked how it sounded as a tag :)

SnowWolf said:
Could also be 'atypical_genitalia' or 'extraspecies_genitalia' orrrr.. mmm..

Come to think about it, non-standard_genitalia might indeed get confused with unusual_penis, etc. I'd be fine with either atypical_genitalia or anatomically_incorrect_genitalia. Those seem clear enough.

I... really want to time travel and slap 'em a couple times.

Would have to slap me too.
I got so tired of arguing about it that eventually I simply went with the "tag chimera for all mixed beasts"-crowd. Despite suspecting that it wouldn't work out.

Okay... Chimera, at least wouldn't be... too hard to fix... tag all the liongoats with something ( chimera_(species) maybe..).. they'll all be tagged with chimera and chimera_(species) and that'll be fine. If we wanna go further, then it'll be easy to tweak things, buuuut, since it's apparently what people are--sigh--used to doing... *helpless shrug*

Yeah, tagging the liongoats as chimera_(species) would be good.
I have a feeling that most of the things that are currently tagged as chimera would work better if moved to some new monster subtag, such as... hm, maybe something like conjoined_monster.

That's a nice idea :) I feel like centaur and mermaid should imply it c_c

Perhaps. Though both mermaid and centaur tend to be overtagged, so I'm not sure if it'd reduce the workload much.

For example, these are currently tagged as mermaid merfolk, but wouldn't fit well in split_form:
post #1389480 post #1352658 post #1317711 post #1281726 post #1094495 post #1133543

I also still want something for animal legs.

We already have that animal_head tag, and it's been tagged consistently. So creating an animal_legs tag could be worth a try.

Though as I see it, split_form applies to most satyrs.

Genjar said:
Come to think about it, non-standard_genitalia might indeed get confused with unusual_penis, etc. I'd be fine with either atypical_genitalia or anatomically_incorrect_genitalia. Those seem clear enough.

I had the came concern with unusual penis too. Of the two, I prefer atypical, I think. It's still not "perfect" but... ugh, better than anything else.

Would have to slap me too.
I got so tired of arguing about it that eventually I simply went with the "tag chimera for all mixed beasts"-crowd. Despite suspecting that it wouldn't work out.

Here you go

Sometimes we gotta go along with what we don't like. But bleh.

Yeah, tagging the liongoats as chimera_(species) would be good.

I'll get on that soon... <3

I have a feeling that most of the things that are currently tagged as chimera would work better if moved to some new monster subtag, such as... hm, maybe something like conjoined_monster.

I dunno. I mean.. maybe yes? but a lot of these things are not really.. monstrous, IMO. At least not monstrous enough for a straight retag without going through it all. (not that chimera's TOO big but still.) I dunno. Conjoined kinda makes me thing of, like, twins. Which isn't THAT far off, but...

a lot of this stuff is so cute, it feels weird to call it a monster. Maybe something more like Chimeric_hybrid?

Perhaps. Though both mermaid and centaur tend to be overtagged, so I'm not sure if it'd reduce the workload much.

nope, you're totally right. bad idea.

We already have that animal_head tag, and it's been tagged consistently. So creating an animal_legs tag could be worth a try.

repurposing it, you mean. stupid dumb badly used dumb tag of dumbness.

Though as I see it, split_form applies to most satyrs.

yeah and no.. I mean.. ther'es kinda a sliding scale of satyrness..

post #1285690 post #1365442 post #1353823 post #1350438 post #1289876 post #1358711 post #1289197 post #1056854 +hooves with no fur

and while it totally applies to some of them...I"m not really sure it applies to others.

....
.. y'know.

If a centaur is a horse/human and a fox/horse, is called an equine_taur... and a fox/parrot is a taur..

then why are these satyr?

post #724257 post #701976 post #1117887 post #1086299 post #1058102 post #1210252

(man, the legs on that first one are driving me crazy)
I mean...

Obviously, a human/goat's a satyr. A fox/goat is kinda a satyr. but a fox/parrot is... ...?? and a human/parrot is probably whatever the fox is.

... Obviously, satyrs arne't nearly so popular as centaurs, so we don't have a wealth of satyr slang to use... satyrs, goat_satyrs and tyrs, oh my. :P

It's technically a split form, minus the two which are 'cute demons' ;P but should they be labled, like... deer_satyr and horse_satyr and fox_satyr? A lot of them don't have a lot of the 'right' tags right now... satyr -goat -deer -horse -hooves still has a WHOLE lot of goat, deer, horses and hooves.

I'm not actually sure what I think on the matter. (besides that they are split_form)... They SHOULD have tags so that you can find the right sort of satyr-- satyr goat barely has 100 posts when there are 1000 satyr posts, most of them being goatish. .. but deer_satyr might be overkill. Or not. I don't know. LOOK BUNNIES!

SnowWolf said:
a lot of this stuff is so cute, it feels weird to call it a monster. Maybe something more like Chimeric_hybrid?

Fair. Monster tag tends to get used if there's absolutely no other form tag that fits, but like you said, many of those aren't monstrous enough to belong there.

Chimeric_hybrid sounds good to me, but I can't help but note that it's pretty close to chimera. So I'm not sure if switching to that would change much. I guess we could disambiguate chimera, and sort the mythical ones to chimera_(creature), and the rest to chimeric_hybrid. (With an implication from former to latter).

repurposing it, you mean. stupid dumb badly used dumb tag of dumbness.

I didn't get a chance to see how it was tagged, it was already empty when I checked.

yeah and no.. I mean.. ther'es kinda a sliding scale of satyrness..

Okay, okay. Let's say that 'some' instead of 'most' would fit in split_form.

then why are these satyr?

post #724257 post #701976 post #1117887 post #1086299 post #1058102 post #1210252

(man, the legs on that first one are driving me crazy)

Same story. There was a major argument about how 'faun' and 'satyr' should be tagged. The conclusion was that the usage has got too mixed up in the modern media, so those were aliased.

But since the tag now included half-goats, half-horses, and half-deer, someone decided that it'd make sense to just tag it for all bipedal half-human/half-animals. To be fair, we don't currently have any other form tag for them.

It's kind of similar to how lamia is tagged for all half-serpentine creatures, instead of just half-human/half-serpent ones.

...we really should stop using mythological creatures as form tags.

Genjar said:
Fair. Monster tag tends to get used if there's absolutely no other form tag that fits, but like you said, many of those aren't monstrous enough to belong there.

Chimeric_hybrid sounds good to me, but I can't help but note that it's pretty close to chimera. So I'm not sure if switching to that would change much. I guess we could disambiguate chimera, and sort the mythical ones to chimera_(creature), and the rest to chimeric_hybrid. (With an implication from former to latter).

Well, people obviously like the 'chimera' concept and, genetically, it does kinda apply. But it's kinda like if someone invented a new way to have sex and it's called sheeping, and people start drawing sheeping pictures and tagging sheep, and soon sheep becomes a mess because of all the sheeping non-sheep getting sheeped. I mean, it's still a valid word for the thing, but Sheeping_(position) or sheeping_(act) or Sheeping_cock is more clear, and (as most tagging is probably done by experienced users) it'll help lead by example because people are sheep.

Sheep.

Um. disambiguating sounds like a good idea.

I didn't get a chance to see how it was tagged, it was already empty when I checked.

Nope I was dumb. I was thinking of animal_feet -- my bad!

Okay, okay. Let's say that 'some' instead of 'most' would fit in split_form.

I didn't mean to sound confrontational. General tone for me should probably be 'cheery, flustered, enthusiastic and sleepy'. I more meant it as an interesting question. where does splitform stop? :) (rhetorically, of course)

Same story. There was a major argument about how 'faun' and 'satyr' should be tagged. The conclusion was that the usage has got too mixed up in the modern media, so those were aliased. But since the tag now included half-goats, half-horses, and half-deer, someone decided that it'd make sense to just tag it for all bipedal half-human/half-animals.

Oh fer...

I am sensing that, while I was gone, there was a movement towards "minimize tags" and "lump things in together" rather than... uugh. well, I"ll probably try to tag species or something anyway. I'd bring it up for fresh discussion, but somehow, I really doubt it's gonna gain much traction.

....annoys me, too. I really love satyrs c_c

It's kind of similar to how lamia is tagged for all half-serpentine creatures, instead of just half-human/half-serpent ones.

...we really should stop using mythological creatures as form tags.

*squints* we're really inconsistant about this stuff.

CLEARLY! The ONLY (joking) answer is to rename everything.

Human/snake_taur. Snake/Snake_taur human/horse_taur. human/goat_tyr

No, wait, if taurs have 4 legs, and satyrs have 2, then naga/lamia have 0! so it's a snake/snake_naga or a snake/snake_mia! :D human/snake_mia!

I"VE SOLVED EVERYTHING! :D

(I am really going to bed now <3 forgive my insanity)

Have we got a tag for canon and fanon being mixed in an image?

If not, I wonder if that's something people would appreciate. I know I feel differently about images containing fan characters depending on whether or not they are interacting with canon characters. A MLP OC won't bother me if paired with another MLP OC, for instance, but paired with a canon character, it might.

Edit: I've brought this up before, but another set of images reminded me of this. Can we make a tag for humanoid lips on ferals? It's something I very much would like to blacklist but can't because there's no tag for it.

Do we seriously have no tag for bondage mitts, or are they tagged as something else?

These:
post #560000

Genjar said:
Do we seriously have no tag for bondage mitts, or are they tagged as something else?

These:
post #560000

bondage_gloves ?

Is there any base tag for size transformation, something that can be used to cover all types? Shrinking, growing, that weird kind where some parts shrink and others (usually genitalia) grow, etc?

If not, is anyone opposed to tagging those as size_transformation? Would make them easier to find (or filter out), rather than just having them strewn over multiple completely separate tags.

Genjar said:
If not, is anyone opposed to tagging those as size_transformation? Would make them easier to find (or filter out), rather than just having them strewn over multiple completely separate tags.

That sounds like the most intuitive tag :)

Genjar said:
Is there any base tag for size transformation, something that can be used to cover all types? Shrinking, growing, that weird kind where some parts shrink and others (usually genitalia) grow, etc?

If not, is anyone opposed to tagging those as size_transformation? Would make them easier to find (or filter out), rather than just having them strewn over multiple completely separate tags.

seems fine, would work well together with the gender_transformation, inanimate_transformation and goo_transformation tags we already have.
speaking of which i do think we could use plant_transformation, age_transformation and animal_transformation tags as well

Demon dildos!! I somehow managed to start that, though...