Read the rules before proceeding!

Topic: [Beta] Lore Tags Crowdsourcing

Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

I've been planning how to use the new lore tags.

I think it will be a mistake to treat crossgender like incest, and should remain separate from its lore counterparts. This is because lore tags can be gender compliant (using the genders visible in the image), or not gender compliant (the gender being portrayed is different than the gender that the character is supposed to be). crossgender and crossgender_(lore) could be used in the same image.

thevileone said:
crossgender and crossgender_(lore) could be used in the same image.

I'm not sure crossgender can be non-lore since it relies on outside information, which violates TWYS. An image of a male Krystal (with no indication of a transformation), for example, would be crossgender, but that relies on using the knowledge that Krystal is normally female. However, just like you could never tag Krystal as female if she doesn't appear distinctly female, you couldn't tag them non-lore crossgender without the paradox of them being visually depicted as default-female and now-male at the same time without being a transformation.

watsit said:
I'm not sure crossgender can be non-lore since it relies on outside information, which violates TWYS. An image of a male Krystal (with no indication of a transformation), for example, would be crossgender, but that relies on using the knowledge that Krystal is normally female. However, just like you could never tag Krystal as female if she doesn't appear distinctly female, you couldn't tag them non-lore crossgender without the paradox of them being visually depicted as default-female and now-male at the same time without being a transformation.

I understand this, but if they are merged, then the gender association that comes with TWYS goes away.

Example

post #377576

Every character in this is supposed to be a herm. But TWYS gives us a male on the left (ftm_crossgender). If we took lore into consideration, we would have to add ftm_crossgender AND fth_crossgender, and it would be less apparent as to which follows TWYS more accurately. This is why I believe that there needs to be this separation between TWYS tags and the more ambiguous lore tags. It would also be more intuitive and people would be less likely to remove valid tags.

Updated

thevileone said:
Every character in this is supposed to be a herm. But TWYS gives us a male on the left (ftm_crossgender).

This actually highlights another problem with non-lore crossgender. A character that's normally one sex, and is depicted in a way that unintentionally makes them look like another sex (for example, a herm or gynomorph where you can only see their breasts, or a flat-chested female that doesn't show a vagina and doesn't look feminine enough), that technically means it's non-lore crossgender even though they otherwise look consistent with their normal sex, just not explicit enough for TWYS purposes. A character that's normally one sex, intended to be another sex, and looks like a third sex... that just makes it all confusing and unnecessarily complicated when TWYS is only supposed to be concerned with point 3, not 1 or 2.

thevileone said:
If we took lore into consideration, we would have to add ftm_crossgender AND fth_crossgender, and it would be less apparent as to which follows TWYS more accurately. This is why I believe that there needs to be this separation between TWYS tags and the more ambiguous lore tags. It would also be more intuitive and people would be less likely to remove valid tags.

Lore tags are already separated by being in a separate category and having the _(lore) suffix. There would also be no need to add a ftm_crossgender tag if crossgender tags are lore-only, just fth_crossgender_(lore) as that indicates there's a character that's normally female and depicted as a herm (with the corresponding herm_(lore) tag), even though TWYS may instead say non-lore male.

watsit said:
This actually highlights another problem with non-lore crossgender. A character that's normally one sex, and is depicted in a way that unintentionally makes them look like another sex (for example, a herm or gynomorph where you can only see their breasts, or a flat-chested female that doesn't show a vagina and doesn't look feminine enough), that technically means it's non-lore crossgender even though they otherwise look consistent with their normal sex, just not explicit enough for TWYS purposes. A character that's normally one sex, intended to be another sex, and looks like a third sex... that just makes it all confusing and unnecessarily complicated when TWYS is only supposed to be concerned with point 3, not 1 or 2.

Lore tags are already separated by being in a separate category and having the _(lore) suffix. There would also be no need to add a ftm_crossgender tag if crossgender tags are lore-only, just fth_crossgender_(lore) as that indicates there's a character that's normally female and depicted as a herm (with the corresponding herm_(lore) tag), even though TWYS may instead say non-lore male.

You're complicating this, and you're not recognizing my point. R63, which is what crossgender is supposed to be should visually show the gender it states it is supposed to be. If it's showing another gender instead, then that's kind of a problem and was what TWYS was trying to avoid, and if there was just crossgender_(lore), it would be more difficult to avoid these scenarios.

I just mentioned the male. The female in the top right was also supposed to be a herm and would get the fth_crossgender tag as well if we took lore into consideration despite looking like her original gender in every way. Crossgender partially relies on lore and partially relies on TWYS.

It's also not intuitive.

It is unclear whether ftm, fth crossgender is more appropriate or as I would try to argue that both are appropriate. Users may think one of the tags is a mistake and try to remove it or only tag one or the other.

My Opinion

There are three options that are agreeable to me.

  • Ignore the problem and don't make crossgender a lore tag, which will force people to use TWYS.
  • Keep cross gender separate from crossgender (lore). It would be intuitive, because as soon as people see the lore suffix, they know that it refers to details that may not be visible in the image. If it is visible in the image, then it shouldn't use the lore suffix.
  • Create detailed instructions on how exactly to tag crossgender images to give images that actually count as R63. I don't like this option.

If adding a lore tag changes how an original tag is used, then it should remain separated from the original tag.

Updated

thevileone said:
R63, which is what crossgender is supposed to be should visually show the gender it states it is supposed to be.

Yes, though given TWYS rules, a character may get tagged with a sex other than what they're supposed to be. Your image being a good example of the problem. In all cases, it's supposed to be female-to-herm crossgender, full-stop. With lore tags, there's no issue here as we can use relevant outside information; we know the characters are normally female, and we know the artist intends them all to be herms in the image, thus fth_crossgender_(lore). Can't get much simpler.

However, with keeping a TWYS/non-lore crossgender it becomes more complicated. Even though they're supposed to all be herms, some may appear male or female because of the angling. So we use one piece of external information (the characters are normally female), ignore another piece of external information (they're all meant to be R63'd into herms), and go with a mix of known and seen information to arrive at non-lore ftm_crossgender and fth_crossgender. Which is just confusing (why can we use that one piece of external information, and not that other piece of external information?), and raises extraneous complications (a character that's meant to be their original sex, but just happens to appear different under TWYS rules) with no practical benefit.

thevileone said:
If adding a lore tag changes how an original tag is used, then it should remain separated from the original tag.

It doesn't change how its intended to be used, though some may need fixing up because of previous TWYS problems. I don't imagine most would exhibit a problem, though.

watsit said:
Yes, though given TWYS rules, a character may get tagged with a sex other than what they're supposed to be. Your image being a good example of the problem. In all cases, it's supposed to be female-to-herm crossgender, full-stop. With lore tags, there's no issue here as we can use relevant outside information; we know the characters are normally female, and we know the artist intends them all to be herms in the image, thus fth_crossgender_(lore). Can't get much simpler.

However, with keeping a TWYS/non-lore crossgender it becomes more complicated. Even though they're supposed to all be herms, some may appear male or female because of the angling. So we use one piece of external information (the characters are normally female), ignore another piece of external information (they're all meant to be R63'd into herms), and go with a mix of known and seen information to arrive at non-lore ftm_crossgender and fth_crossgender. Which is just confusing (why can we use that one piece of external information, and not that other piece of external information?), and raises extraneous complications (a character that's meant to be their original sex, but just happens to appear different under TWYS rules) with no practical benefit.

It doesn't change how its intended to be used, though some may need fixing up because of previous TWYS problems. I don't imagine most would exhibit a problem, though.

I want to tag what I see. I don't want to go into sources and make sure genders are accurate before tagging. This process has always worked for me. Lore tags are supposed to not interfere with how TWYS is currently used and be an entirely separate system, and that should apply to crossgender tags as well.

Also I doubt you could merge any gender related tags anyways due to implications.

  • ftm_crossgender should imply male.
  • ftm_crossgender_(lore) should imply male_(lore) instead.

Crossgender images should have to visually show the gender they are being tagged as. Artists can tell you that someone switches genders at will and there is no visible or credible change to their appearance. If I'm looking for male versions of Celestia, accidental ftm crossgender images will work just as good as intentional ones, but I expect the character to be the gender I'm searching for.

The lore/TWYS examples, and the lore/lore examples should be separated. If people want to make their character look slightly more feminine and then call it their female form, then I will be happy to tag their image as mtf_crossgender_(lore), but I will have problems having to ignore my feelings that the character is still visibly male, and did not change genders if I had to tag it as mtf_crossgender instead.

Updated

thevileone said:
I want to tag what I see. I don't want to go into sources and make sure genders are accurate before tagging.

The TWYS sexes/genders aren't changing. A character that looks male is still tagged as male, a character that looks female is still tagged as female, etc. The only thing to change would be the crossgender tags being moved to lore tags where they belong, as they rely on outside information that violates TWYS. And if you know a character is intended to be crossgender, finding out what their old and new genders are wouldn't be overly burdensome.

thevileone said:
This process has always worked for me. Lore tags are supposed to not interfere with how TWYS is currently used and be an entirely separate system, and that should apply to crossgender tags as well.

Except crossgender tags should never really have been valid TWYS tags to begin with, as they unavoidably rely on outside information. They were likely only allowed as a concession to people who really wanted to find R63 stuff, much like incest or anthrofication, but now with lore tags, they have a place where they can properly fit and not stand in defiance of TWYS.

thevileone said:
Also I doubt you could merge any gender related tags anyways due to implications.

  • ftm_crossgender should imply male.
  • ftm_crossgender_(lore) should imply male_(lore) instead.

They could make the ftm_crossgender -> ftm_crossgender_(lore) alias first, then hold off on the ftm_crossgender_(lore) -> male_(lore) implication until they're reasonably sure any mistagged posts got fixed. male_(lore) can still be added manually in the mean time, of course.

thevileone said:
If I'm looking for male versions of Celestia, accidental ftm crossgender images will work just as good as intentional ones, but I expect the character to be the gender I'm searching for.

If you're looking for anything that looks like a male Celestia, celestia male crossgender_(lore) would be pretty good. You'd be in a far better position than someone who wants to find male renamon or female incineroar, I can say that much. Finding posts where a particular character has particular attributes is a much more general problem that exists outside of the crossgender sphere, but you still get help where crossgender is applicable.

thevileone said:
If people want to make their character look slightly more feminine and then call it their female form, then I will be happy to tag their image as mtf_crossgender_(lore), but I will have problems having to ignore my feelings that the character is still visibly male, and did not change genders if I had to tag it as mtf_crossgender instead.

If the character is undeniably male (or herm or gynomorph, i.e. they still have a visible penis and/or balls), they would not get tagged as mtf_crossgender_(lore) or female_(lore). However, non-lore crossgender would create similar problems to what you describe here. Consider the case of Mikhaila Kirov; they're female, but due to being flat-chested, is often considered girly male or andromorph by TWYS here. Non-lore crossgender tags would result in her being regularly being tagged ftm_ or fta_crossgender despite no intended change in sex/gender.

I don't think it states anywhere that posts with tags following TWYS should get fixed. Lore tags are just suggested to add the correct tag information to the post in addition to the TWYS tag. You can have a gynomorph that is supposed to be a herm, and the gynomorph tag shouldn't be removed because the lore tag is more accurate. Every tag related to that gynomorph would need a tag to describe it.

I heavily disagree that users should be expected to conditionally apply TWYS practices. This just goes against the idea that lore tags are supposed to complement the TWYS tags.

Also I provided an example of how lore tags could be abused in this system. mtf crossgender should always feature a female body type, and if it doesn't because of lore, that is more wrong than the current system. We're in the age where gender is fluid, and declaring oneself as suddenly another gender is socially acceptable. R63 wasn't designed for those kinds of contexts, and that's not what the crossgender tags should be used for. There has to be a physical aspect that follows TWYS or the tags need to be separated as I keep stating.

I don't understand that because something has some external information it has to be a lore tag even when there are detrimental consequences of doing so. Copyrights, artists, character names also rely on outside information. Those would be invalid according to your reasoning.

Updated

notmenotyou said:
As we've mentioned here this thread will be to consolidate all known "lore" tags so we can properly change them once the page goes live, as well as to find new tags we may want to add. If you know any tags we've missed please point them out below and we'll add them to the pile

If you want to suggest transgender related tags, please do so in the dedicated thread for those here instead.

EDIT: The bulk update request #11 (forum #) has been approved by @NotMeNotYou.

EDIT: The bulk update request #12 (forum #) has been approved by @NotMeNotYou.

Does this now mean that Pikachu’s gender can be tagged based on the tail notch if no genitals are visible?

tetrisphere said:
Does this now mean that Pikachu’s gender can be tagged based on the tail notch if no genitals are visible?

Not by TWYS, but IDK when it comes to lore.

thevileone said:
I heavily disagree that users should be expected to conditionally apply TWYS practices. This just goes against the idea that lore tags are supposed to complement the TWYS tags.

Which is exactly why non-lore crossgender is a problem, as it conditionally applies TWYS. You use TWYS for the new/"target" sex, but not for the character's original sex which can't be seen. Lore tags fix this as it's TWYK, not conditionally TWYS.

thevileone said:
Also I provided an example of how lore tags could be abused in this system. mtf crossgender should always feature a female body type, and if it doesn't because of lore, that is more wrong than the current system. We're in the age where gender is fluid, and declaring oneself as suddenly another gender is socially acceptable.

The lore gender/sex tags (male_(lore), female_(lore), etc) aren't about what a character declares themselves to be, they're about being more accurate than TWYS allows. If a character has a functional penis, for example, it won't be tagged female_(lore), but it could be male_(lore), gynomorph_(lore), herm_(lore), or maleherm_(lore) depending on whether its possible for them to physically be so (even if the parts aren't explicitly visible).

thevileone said:
Copyrights, artists, character names also rely on outside information. Those would be invalid according to your reasoning.

Artist and copyright tags are about proper attribution of the image and its contents. They're more a legal thing. Character names are explicitly exempt from TWYS because the information is too useful for searching. In a sense, they can be considered lore tags nowadays, but keeping them in a separate Characters category is helpful for organizational purposes.

I'm sorry your point is being argued on the basis that because it is part lore, then it has to be a lore tag. This type of argument doesn't take into account the problems with it being a lore tag. We're probably not going to come to an agreement at this point.

There is a lot of ambiguity that comes with grouping the lore when a character was made and the lore of the image itself under the same lore tag. Telling users they can ignore TWYS for lore tags is also asking for trouble and confusion with tags such as crossgender, which should have a TWYS component to it. I am merely informing others that this seemingly lore-friendly tag just may not be as lore-friendly as it appears. If you don't want to believe me, then fine.

Crossgender is a hybrid tag that doesn't fit in with the TWYS or the lore tags perfectly well.

You're arguing with one of the avid users of the crossgender tag, and I want to fully support the new system. I have stated my concerns, and how I want to use it. I'll continue to use TWYS practices when tagging crossgender, accidental or not.

Updated

Hey, quick question: If, for example, a character is visibly male (male body, only male genitals, etc), can be tagged male, and is canonically male, should the male_(lore) tag also be added anyways, or avoided?

bonghit840 said:
Hey, quick question: If, for example, a character is visibly male (male body, only male genitals, etc), can be tagged male, and is canonically male, should the male_(lore) tag also be added anyways, or avoided?

i believe gender lore tags are optional unless they help rectify something that TWYS would otherwise miscategorize
e.g. - male body, male genitals, male outward appearance, but if the character is canonically a closeted trans woman, female_(lore) would help a lot. if they're cis then TWYS gets the idea across well enough.

Lore tags should only be added if they correct information that TWYS is requiring to be tagged incorrectly, or if there is information that can't be added under TWYS. It's intended that lore tags are not present if the information they provide would be redundant.

As example, if a male character is tagged as male, please don't add male_(lore) to the submission.

leomole

Privileged

notmenotyou said:
The idea is to have all lore tags appended with _(lore) to distinguish them from the regular ones.

For any tags that won't have a non-lore counterpart, for example incest, we'll be aliasing both tags together for ease of use.

auto_moderator said:
The tag alias incest -> incest_(lore) has conflicting wiki pages.

This is still happening right? It's definitely the right move and it would help clarify things like forum #287891.

Updated

notmenotyou said:
h4.What makes Lore tags so special?

Lore tags will not follow TWYS;NWYK at all, but instead rely on "word of the author/character owner". As such they will not be replacing any TWYS tags, but are purely complementary in nature.
As they're purely complementary they will not affect current tagging practices at all, and can be ignored if they're irrelevant. But to anyone who is interested they'll be able to be used like any other tag.
As such, they can also be blacklisted just fine.

What about gender identity?

All existing sex tags (male, female, andromorph, gynomorph, herm, maleherm, neuter) will be getting a lore tag counterpart, which can then be used independently from the TWYS counterparts.

Can I add my own Lore tags?

Nope. Only admins can move tags into the lore tag category, and only lore tags in their proper category are sanctioned to "break" TWYS. However, if you propose a lore tag that we think is useful we will absolutely make it official.
This is also what this thread is about, any tag in the past we've denied because it wouldn't be able to follow TWYS is potentially useful now, so feel free to suggest tags we've been apprehensive towards in the past.

How do I propose new Lore tags?

You make a forum post in this thread, make your case, and we will judge it.

Here's a big one that people overlook the distinction between cougar and MILF is that 9 out of 10 times the child isn't present so there's no way to tell a MILF apart from a cougar so by definition all milfs should be cougars but not all cougars should be MILFs if there is any lore stating or showing that they have children in another image or in a Twitter post by the artist so on and so forth then their a MILF but unless the child is present and is evidenced in the form of dialogue that they're related the tag what you can see rule isn't really sufficient to tag something MILF

jack_hall said:
Here's a big one that people overlook the distinction between cougar and MILF is that 9 out of 10 times the child isn't present so there's no way to tell a MILF apart from a cougar so by definition all milfs should be cougars but not all cougars should be MILFs if there is any lore stating or showing that they have children in another image or in a Twitter post by the artist so on and so forth then their a MILF but unless the child is present and is evidenced in the form of dialogue that they're related the tag what you can see rule isn't really sufficient to tag something MILF

We tag neither MILF nor cougar (as in an older woman). The closest we get is mature_female. You can get results for your definition of MILF if you search mature_female ~younger_male ~mother_and_son, though.

Is it possible for there to be a tittyboy_(lore) or busty_boy_(lore) tag? There are some characters like Boosterpang's Jaimie and BNG's Benji that were canonically male and still identify as such, but have gotten breast implants so they appear to be Gynomorphs. Does this tag have room to exist, or does it have to be shunted?

There's a special and new case in post #2203885 which made me propose another lore tag: let me proudly introduce to you the 'infertile' lore tag. I would like to propose the tag because I would like to have a tag added that emphasises the fact that said image and the TwoKinds Reference Sheet about Kathrin Vaughan clearly say and show that she's infertile because of the messiness and instability of her DNA substance. She's half-canine and half-feline and even her parents aren't pure. Then the image further indicates this by crossing her ovum out. And to top all of this, she can't do anything about it because she was born like this.

Currently, there are already so many lore tags to use, but because of this, there's still not enough.

In conclusion, if this tag ever gets implemented, I hope that it will help people to find content they want to see and they don't need to brag and bicker about the smallest things in life. As my final words, I would like to see every single NSFW image of Kathrin with sexual intercourse happening in it to get them automatically implied with the infertile tag to constantly remind everyone that Kathrin isn't capable of giving birth to children.

I wish everyone a good day/night!

Louis

If familial relations are being included, relationship status should probably be shoved under lore too.

I figured it might be useful to have a lore tag for parent posts and child posts, automatically added to posts that are either a parent of a post or a child of a post
Although, I don't know if a tag or system like this already exists

zinc_zombie said:
I figured it might be useful to have a lore tag for parent posts and child posts, automatically added to posts that are either a parent of a post or a child of a post
Although, I don't know if a tag or system like this already exists

I don't think any automated lore tags are a good idea. Meta tags can be done for parent, child, and sibling posts; isparent:true and ischild:true individual cover two of the cases but there's no IsSibling:true, mixing meta searches together doesn't always work well, and you can't fuzzy search them.

Regarding Lore tags from parents and children, there are times were somebody adds the wrong ID to the parent field by accident, and because lore displays itself in a field that a lot of users might just ignore, it might not be corrected right away.

We should have a lore tag for cloaca

When you can't see if there is an anus or not it is automatically classified as genital_slit, even if it's known to be a cloaca

Here is an example (it is a cloaca according to the artist):

post #2201622

pathunknown said:
We should have a lore tag for cloaca

When you can't see if there is an anus or not it is automatically classified as genital_slit, even if it's known to be a cloaca

Here is an example (it is a cloaca according to the artist):

post #2201622

I mean, with my admittedly amateur knowledge of anatomy I'd TWYS that as genital_slit. I mean, it's on the front of his abdomen.
I think there's definitely a point at which artist statement should be discarded entirely.

Pretty sure we're not about to start tagging canine_(lore) on hyaenid posts when the artist or character owner says they're canids.

Updated

I'll join some others here in calling for pairing tags like male/male_(lore) or male/female_(lore). I'd also like to request something like girly_(lore) and/or crossdressing_(lore) for ease of finding images like post #1626166 while filtering out images like post #2171158, both of which come up in a search for female male_(lore).

del_coocnat said:
images like post #2171158, [..] which come up in a search for female male_(lore).

By my current understanding that shouldn't be tagged with male_(lore) in the first place because the depiction is clearly intended as female.
Though that is at odds with the wiki description.

notmenotyou said:

What about characters with established canon lore being changed by artists?

In the cases where an established character is changed by an artist, the artist's changes override canon, and all lore tags would then have to follow the artist's new lore.
As an example Sonic the Hedgehog is drawn by an artist as a female character instead of a male as per Sega's canon. If we can't see that the character is female under TWYS, but we know the artist intended for Sonic in this case to be female, the lore tag added should be female_(lore) instead.
This is on an per-image basis, too, meaning it will change on whether the artist intended to draw the character one way or another for every single image.

I'm calling bad wiki on this. The wikis should clarify it's the sex/gender they're intended to be within the specific post, not in general.
Should probably get looked at, this character owner regularly posts genderswapped art and is adding the lore tags themselves.

Updated

roseroar said:

  • nods * Cool. I know there is an anime, wish I could remember the name of, where it was just that, a trans boy raised as a girl (so forced trans? Dunno, they never explored that AFAIK or remember) , and her sister dominate their adopted Mother and break her, making her their sex slave, and the Dad was cool with it, he was away most of the time on business trips. One of the few times where even the Japanese release was blurred out due to the scene with two dogs having fun with their adopted Mother.

Oh! Looking back I also don't see brother_sister in the list, plenty of that. :D

That H-anime was called Family of Debauchery I believe...not sure how I know that tbh.

The "fox_spirit" tag is currently restricted by an administrator to images with an expicit supernatural appearance, but this excludes characters which are kitsune or part kitsune but don't have the specific supernatural appearance; could a "fox_spirit_(lore)" tag be added for characters that are some form of fox spirit but do not have the supernatural appearance of one?

Some assorted questions:

Would "implied" tags (i.e. implied_threesome ) fall into the lore category? They're in a kinda vague spot, since it might be related to text in the actual image, which is visual, but are about a thing not visually in the image.

Should The TWYS wiki page be updated to mention the new lore tags? If nothing else but to define that some tags are NOT TWYS and to refer to another page describing the lore category, perhaps. Upon writing this part I realized that categories don't have their own pages. There is a Categories page that doesn't have a section for lore, which is kind of understandable given how in flux it is currently, but it'd be nice if it at least referenced the forum threads.

Some of the phrasing the the TWYS post could be updated to reflect the existence of lore tags as well. Notably: Again, e621 currently is interested only in a character's APPARENT gender, not their DEFINED gender.

And a suggestion rather than a question. The lore tag category on a whole is a huge shift in how things are tagged on the site. One I think is entirely for the better, and one that involves a lot more work for everyone that does tags. Given the significance of it, I think it would warrant changing the nomenclature of tag categories a bit. "General" tags now, to my understanding, are now basically just for things visually present in the image. "Lore" tags are for thing implied by the image, and have been deemed to be significant enough to justify their existence/enforcement, such as relationships and gender identity. Perhaps the categories could be renamed to something like "Visual"/"Implicit", to more obviously reflect this? It would also probably mean more debate over which "Implicit" tags are relevant to the site, but going through the thread that's already present so I don't think it'd be a huge shift.

Personally, the nomenclature of "lore" in relation to gender identity tags specifically doesn't come off very well. While technically correct, if the work is being put in to start putting non visually represented/defined tags on posts, then it could stand to be done in a way that makes that work more effective towards correcting issues people have with the existing gender tagging system. That's been a huge sore point for a lot of people, and I think renaming the category would strike a good balance of making implicit/lore tags appear valid to everyone who uses the site, while retaining the search functionality of visual/general tags.

loadsofdicks2 said:
Would "implied" tags (i.e. implied_threesome ) fall into the lore category? They're in a kinda vague spot, since it might be related to text in the actual image, which is visual, but are about a thing not visually in the image.

I wouldn't say so. Implied tags still need some visual cue (e.g. tattered clothing on a bestial anthro, or a character looking at their body in shock with clothing that doesn't fit, to imply a transformation), it's not based on the say-so of the creator.

loadsofdicks2 said:
"Lore" tags are for thing implied by the image, and have been deemed to be significant enough to justify their existence/enforcement, such as relationships and gender identity.

Lore tags aren't implied by the image. They're creator-declared information that's not contradicted by the image. A post could be tagged herm_(lore) because it depicts a character the creator says has both sets of reproductive organs, even if they appear with no apparent male and/or female genitals.

Ixm all for the lore tags; itxll really help the artists to convey information that they otherwise couldnxt with just regular TWYS. On that note, Ixd like to propose two other lore tags:

romantic_partners_(lore)

and sexual_partners_(lore);

for when two or more characters are in a romantic (but not necessarily sexual) or sexual (but not necessarily romantic) relationship, respectivly.

Updated

Considering I've noticed a few different character owners who have characters which fall in line with different child tags, but are in actuality adults, not to mention different characters from media such as the 30 year old looking teenagers from jojo maybe an implementation of age lore related tags would be a useful implementation, for further age related classification on characters which don't look their age.

The bulk update request #117 is pending approval.

create implication male_(lore) -> lore_gender
create implication female_(lore) -> lore_gender
create implication neuter_(lore) -> lore_gender
create implication maleherm_(lore) -> lore_gender
create implication herm_(lore) -> lore_gender
create implication gynomorph_(lore) -> lore_gender
create implication andromorph_(lore) -> lore_gender

Reason:

I think it would be reasonable to have an umbrella for these tags to be under to both show users the other lore related tags that exist, as well as make it possible for people to simply search for this type of content as a bulk. Or, if someone wanted a fast and easy way to avoid the possible drama that could be associated around these types of tags they could just blacklist true_gender.

Reason I thought this would be the most appropriate tag, is that it's the type of tag which (in theory) could de-escalate a possible hostile situation should someone disagree with the TWYS ruling.

versperus said:
I think it would be reasonable to have an umbrella for these tags to be under to both show users the other lore related tags that exist, as well as make it possible for people to simply search for this type of content as a bulk. Or, if someone wanted a fast and easy way to avoid the possible drama that could be associated around these types of tags they could just blacklist true_gender.

I'm not sure a blanket "this post clarifies a character's sex" tag is really that useful, as it doesn't say why a character's sex isn't apparent by TWYS and needs lore clarification (flat-chested female that current ruling says is andromorph? a character with an androgynous body, or loose clothing, and no genitals visible? a herm that you can't see a pussy on? only the back of a character's head or their feet are visible?). Either way, true_gender comes across as more trans-related, rather than clarifying a character's physical sex.

watsit said:
I'm not sure a blanket "this post clarifies a character's sex" tag is really that useful, as it doesn't say why a character's sex isn't apparent by TWYS and needs lore clarification (flat-chested female that current ruling says is andromorph? a character with an androgynous body, or loose clothing, and no genitals visible? a herm that you can't see a pussy on? only the back of a character's head or their feet are visible?). Either way, true_gender comes across as more trans-related, rather than clarifying a character's physical sex.

hm, I guess it culd be interpretted as that. Maybe something like, lore_gender would be a better fit as a an umbrella. As I do truly believe it could be a useful tag for people who are specifically looking for the type of content without wanting content that is one gender or a nother.

Shouldn't just about any tag be able to be set to lore? For example, if the species is unclear but the artist says its a cat, wouldn't that be lore?

Requesting deathclaw_matriarch as the specifically female version of deathclaw to be changed to lore. Unless it's unnecessary. I'm personally on the fence about it but TWYS can still be a PITA, especially if you know or are made aware that a character is a specific gender despite it not being completely obvious (such as androgyny or ambiguous_gender). In a similar vein, when it comes to gender, TWYS should come after TWYK in tag priority. There are some pics where enjoyment of the subject material depends on gender preference and it's not explicitly stated.

How about a "brainwashing_(lore)" tag? For any situation where characters are brainwashed but it is not clear that they are brainwashed by TWYS. For example, in a comic where characters are brainwashed on one page, this tag would apply to that page and future pages as long as the brainwashing is still in effect.

I don't know if it was topic already but shouldn't all ambiguous* tags get their lore counterparts similar to gender?
For example ambiguous_penetration would have anal_penetration_(lore), vaginal_penetration_(lore) and so on.

greengale2000 said:
Is it possible for there to be a tittyboy_(lore) or busty_boy_(lore) tag? There are some characters like Boosterpang's Jaimie and BNG's Benji that were canonically male and still identify as such, but have gotten breast implants so they appear to be Gynomorphs. Does this tag have room to exist, or does it have to be shunted?

Such a post should be tagged as gynomorph male_(lore)

thevileone said:
Everyone is going on about gender and family lore tags. There are other tags that will be useful for lore tags.{...}

magic_(lore) tag could be good as just a blanket term for magic overall. I've seen some posts here and there where in lore, there's magical properties to some of the things within the image that is not explained visually, like a tattoo for instance.

A ambigous_gender_(lore) tag for characters that are not canonically defined by gender such as tem_(undertale), bob_(undertale), or ditto_(pokémon) would be nice

Updated

wudotcw said:
A ambigous_gender_(lore) tag for characters that are not canonically defined by gender such as tem_(undertale), bob_(undertale), or ditto_(pokémon) would be nice

I think this is a wonderful idea!

wudotcw said:
A ambigous_gender_(lore) tag for characters that are not canonically defined by gender such as tem_(undertale), bob_(undertale), or ditto_(pokémon) would be nice

Something not having a canonically-defined gender is just not defined. Should there be an ambiguous_breed_(lore) for characters that aren't given a specific breed? Seems like ambiguous_gender (and unknown_species) itself would handle that, no need for lore variants.

Something that specifically has no sex/gender, like ditto, would probably be better described as agender, though I'm not sure there's a need for a specific tag since ambiguous_gender would apply to those characters (if an artist draws them with a different/defined sex, that sex is applied; e.g. a depiction of Krystal that's clearly male doesn't get tagged female_(lore), so a depiction of ditto that's male or female shouldn't be tagged ambiguous_gender_(lore) or agender_(lore) or something). ambiguous_gender_(lore) makes me think of characters that are canonically kept ambiguous, where a character has an in-universe sex/gender but it's purposely kept hidden from the reader (and/or other characters), but even that I don't think needs anything beyond ambiguous_gender.

watsit said:
ambiguous_gender_(lore) makes me think of characters that are canonically kept ambiguous, where a character has an in-universe sex/gender but it's purposely kept hidden from the reader (and/or other characters), but even that I don't think needs anything beyond ambiguous_gender.

ambiguous_gender_(lore)

makes me think of when an on-model SFW design clearly leans toward one end of human dimorphism despite being used for both its sexes.
I agree that when the form of a design itself is ambiguous it should just get the regular tag.

Updated

magnuseffect said:
ambiguous_gender_(lore) makes me think of when an on-model SFW design clearly leans toward one end of human dimorphism despite being used for both its sexes.

I see. Though if you go that route, you may as well tag most SFW on-model pokemon as ambiguous_gender_(lore) since the anthro and humanoid types are generally given a male or female-like design that's used for both sexes (lopunny, gardevoir, braixen/delphox, etc, look feminine, while machoke/champ, lucario, etc, look masculine; even some of the feral designs like primarina or sylveon come off as feminine despite both sexes looking the same way), but obviously won't have any genitals on display to say for sure it's male or female. And why keep it to just pokemon, what about humans or anthros who have a body that suggests male or female, but we can't say for sure that's definitely what it is? Where would the line be that ambiguous_gender_(lore) would no longer apply for a given apparent sex/gender?

Though even granting this, I think unknown_gender_(lore) would be better. ambiguous_gender_(lore) implies the gender is not clear, rather than we don't know despite the visually unambiguous gender.

Hopefully I am doing this right: So after uploading this comic it occurred to me that perhaps infidelity_(lore) should probably be a lore tag since it hinges upon the audience knowing that one of the characters is supposed to be in a committed relationship, which may not be immediately or previously established in an image set.

For example in post #2327473, without knowing that Princess Cadence is Shining Armor's wife, a person could potentially assume she is some cock-blocking wet blanket, or an overprotective parent.

I had some "nice" talk about lore tags here.
I also reread this thread while also scanning the details of the posts with a little bit more care than just skimming it.
I can understand where this failed while it's sad to not be able to see what actually happened but the current status it is in is just ridiculous.

So what actions should be taken from now on is relevant to what this should become:

#1 Should it not be like described here anymore? Than lock this and start a new crowdsourcing thread while stating the rules for it and maybe a link to this thread.

#2 Should lore tags be only special tags the admins add on there conception of need? Lock this thread and start a new requests thread or a thread explaining requests rules for lore tags.

#3 Should the lore tags still complete what TWYS can't? You can start anew or work still here. I would recommend starting anew but not with add every tag you can think of for the lore tags. Maybe this time with a concept for example like everybody can add lore tags but the ones who don't have an explicit number of posts including them until a set time after creation will be deleted because of "niche tag". The thread would say something like "Check out the current tags ordered by count ascending or creation date to see which tags need to get over the threshold of number before getting deleted."
If you fear a exploitation by creator of the tag tagging posts just to get over the threshold you can set up some punishments and warnings like bans and such.

I really want to see the lore tags bloom but currently I'm just a bit drained. So if this attempt bears no fruit I think I'll give up.

roseroar said:
Eh. I agree with all but Infidelity. That's getting into the realm of morals and, like the 'bad_parenting' tag, doesn't belong.

Well the tag already exists in spades (1.5k entries), so the conversation has already moved past "should this be a tag?" and more into "should it be a general tag or a lore tag?" I definitely think a lore tag. There are times when infidelity is strictly spelled out in an image, oftentimes through text, but most of the time we're just kinda left to guess and there's nothing concrete in the image...thus it should be a lore tag imo.

HOWEVER simply by being a lore tag doesn't mean that every image were a canonically married character fucks another character is automatically "infidelity". I think there has to be some reference to it in the picture still. Maybe their partner watching them or a wedding ring on their finger or like a picture of them and their partner displayed somewhere in the image signaling they are together. Otherwise the infidelity tag would just end up on every single picture wherein a character in a relationship is fucking a character that isn't their canonical partner, which would be a lot.

Also I was thinking wifeswap should definitely be a lore tag

wudotcw said:
A ambigous_gender_(lore) tag for characters that are not canonically defined by gender such as tem_(undertale), bob_(undertale), or ditto_(pokémon) would be nice

rainbow_dash said:
I think this is a wonderful idea!

watsit said:
Though even granting this, I think unknown_gender_(lore) would be better. ambiguous_gender_(lore) implies the gender is not clear, rather than we don't know despite the visually unambiguous gender.

In the interests of moving this forward, would undefined_gender_(lore) be appropriate, with the caveat that it ceases applying when the character is given off-model TWYS sexual characteristics? (most of bob_(undertale) is definitively male)

However I think that both tem and ditto_(pokemon) could be argued as unsuitable examples of this as some interpretations will exclusively refer to temmie as female, and ditto is inherently genderless/sexgenderfluidpardon the wordplay unlike almost every other pokemon.

Essentially I think the tag is a great idea but the examples that were initially given are terrible.

magnuseffect said:
Due to several recent threads* and possible want of wiki cleanup (I'm looking at you, m'ress) I want to draw attention to alien again.
Now that we have lore tags we can have a unifying searchable tag for standard-anthro appearing aliens.

I'll just echo my last question in the lombax thread:

watsit said:
What would classify as an alien in that case? As mentioned before, the term "alien" just refers to something "belonging or relating to another person, place, or thing". It's a question of scope beyond that. If it's "a creature/species not from Earth", quite a lot would classify, especially for settings that don't take place on Earth (Luke Skywalker is an alien). If it's "a creature/species that doesn't look like something from Earth", there's no reason certain depictions of spirits or cryptids wouldn't classify for that (if a wookiee is an alien, why isn't a yeti?).

So, what would alien_(lore) mean and apply to? If it's just "the creator said they're alien, then they're tagged alien", that doesn't seem very useful to the tagging system. The creature's wiki would probably be a better place for that information. Also, should it apply to whole species, or specific characters? Would a wookiee born on Earth still count as an alien?

magnuseffect said:
In the interests of moving this forward, would undefined_gender_(lore) be appropriate, with the caveat that it ceases applying when the character is given off-model TWYS sexual characteristics? (most of bob_(undertale) is definitively male)

I don't think that really helps much. An off-model SFW inciniroar, for example, would come across as male, but since the muscular body and square frame are on-model characteristics, the off-model characteristics that could count as male is a penis or balls. Same for an off-model primarina, which normally has a lithe, curved frame and eyelashes when on-model; indicating a female would need a vagina (which itself could be mistaken for a male's genital slit or cloaca) or breasts. As it is, the only reason an on-model SFW pokemon would be tagged non-lore male or female in the first place is if they have on-model masculine or feminine features, at which point it's up to the genitals to say definitively it's that sex.

magnuseffect said:
Essentially I think the tag is a great idea but the examples that were initially given are terrible.

I can see why you would want it, but I don't know if the issue with SFW fantasy species getting trapped in "undefined gender" territory can be reasonably dealt with.

watsit said:
alien responses pls

Working on it
(I'm slow as heck and just lost what I had typed up, won't have anything until tomorrow later.)

watsit said:
I don't think that really helps much. An off-model SFW inciniroar, for example, would come across as male, but since the muscular body and square frame are on-model characteristics, the off-model characteristics that could count as male is a penis or balls. Same for an off-model primarina, which normally has a lithe, curved frame and eyelashes when on-model; indicating a female would need a vagina (which itself could be mistaken for a male's genital slit or cloaca) or breasts. As it is, the only reason an on-model SFW pokemon would be tagged non-lore male or female in the first place is if they have on-model masculine or feminine features, at which point it's up to the genitals to say definitively it's that sex.

I think something's getting twisted or left out here.
In response to the underlined passage, I can only support use of an undefined_gender_(lore) tag on posts where the default rating:safe features result in a definitive TWYS gender tag and the art is not of a specific character with a verifiable gender.1 It and the TWYS ambiguous_gender tag should be mutually exclusive. But your post is acting like a SFW official_art incineroar doesn't (or at least shouldn't?) get tagged male by default. (Primarina tagging is more variable but I have to assume you know there's been argument in the past.)
I should probably also specify that I consider increased human muscle definition to be an off-model modification in this case.

Genitals are a whole other story. Most of the time that will either define gender or make a different lore tag more appropriate instead.2

1. This should exclude a lot of OC/fan content, unless there is reasonable evidence that the character is merely an abstracted representation of the species.
2. Adding pussy to a standard incineroar would result in either andromorph or andromorph female_(lore) depending on available statement.

tl;dr
I'd imagine being very sparing with where it even applies. If it turns out the userbase can't hold to it, just nuke it again or something.
If your argument instead is that the on-model versions should actually be TWYS-ambiguous I'm all for it.

Updated

I was thinking of this because of the recent discussion on the netorare tag.

should infidelity and possibly related tags be moved to lore tags? since it's impossible to know of a character's marital/relationship status using TWYS.