Topic: Tag Projects

Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

savageorange said:
Just noticed undertagging of talking_feral, which I split into 3 searches:

I think this is a great tag to further populate. Additionally, anthro_focus. There are many images in which the anthro is the focus, while the feral is a very small part of the image, examples are often found at:

-anthro_focus feral anthro sky bird
-anthro_focus feral anthro crab

I think for both anthro_focus and talking_feral, they have great use for those wishing to blacklist feral, but who might not wish to blacklist characters that are sentient, or those that are a small part of the image, even taking up just a couple brushstrokes in the case of birds in the sky.

EQP

Member

I’ve been looking through lots of sketches and model sheets lately to get a better understanding of how anthro designs are constructed. While on the hunt, I started to notice a woeful lack of the guide_lines tag. Such lines are incredibly helpful for a beginner artist who doesn’t understand construction… like me!

So, I’ll probably be waltzing through
-status:pending sketch -guide_lines off and on over the next few weeks to see if any of these do, in fact, need the guide_lines tag.

Hi there!
I'm cleaning up "riding rating:e" again, but I'm a bit doubtful on a bunch of posts.

According to the wiki, riding is to be applied only when a character is sitting on the back of a non-anthro, and in a non-sexual context. This would mean that any image with an anthro horse/taur/etc. technically should have its tag removed, even though it sometimes makes sense (to me) to tag it with riding regardless.

I'm talking about posts like:
#4366070
#3136103
for example

Also, how about sex while riding? e.g. #4434506
It's technically not non-sexual, but it'd make no sense to remove the tag (again, at least to me)

Do I always follow the wiki, or use my own judgement in cases like these?
Just wanted to ask before I accidentally vandalize hundreds of posts :P

-H

Watsit

Privileged

aiex22 said:
Do I always follow the wiki, or use my own judgement in cases like these?
Just wanted to ask before I accidentally vandalize hundreds of posts :P

I'd say follow the wiki. The intent seems to be for the tag to be separate from penile_penetrating and cowgirl_position, which a lot of people seem to confuse it for and makes it an otherwise pointless tag (there's also riding_cock, riding_dildo, and riding_sex_toy, which should be aliased to the appropriate penetration tags). post #4434506 has riding alongside penetration; the riding itself is non-sexual (they're riding on a horse, not having sex with it), the image as a whole doesn't need to be non-sexual.

watsit said:
I'd say follow the wiki. The intent seems to be for...
...to be non-sexual

Awesome, thanks!

The tag reverse_rape needs to have someone go thru it and tag them correctly to bring them into the common use tags of female_rape male_raped etc. Rape tag also needs to be gone thru and have the untagged sex tagged as sex, as a lot of the rape tag without the sex tag either isn't tagged right or it's used as imminent_rape or post_rape.

generic_ferret said:
The tag reverse_rape needs to have someone go thru it and tag them correctly to bring them into the common use tags of female_rape male_raped etc. Rape tag also needs to be gone thru and have the untagged sex tagged as sex, as a lot of the rape tag without the sex tag either isn't tagged right or it's used as imminent_rape or post_rape.

imo all the x_rape tags should probably be aliased to x_rapist or x_raping to make them more clear.

pleaseletmein said:
imo all the x_rape tags should probably be aliased to x_rapist or x_raping to make them more clear.

That would be a lot clearer. And a hell of a lot clearer than "reverse rape".

Also previous folk have mentioned the exposed_breasts tags and covered_breasts being untagged. Someone also needs to go thru the clothed_breasts tag and probably change it to whichever of the covered_breasts or clothed_breasts tag has more. I think the covered_breasts tag? It would also work for breasts that are covered by non-clothing, like uhhh idk a Statue of David leaf???

Just to post a note here that I have updated the OP here with more tagging projects here, with links to TagMe for ease of use: topic #42093

sipothac said:
I'm not sure what you could mean by this, do you have example? because, to me, humanoid_penis and sheath are both necessarily traits of different animal's genitalia.

A sheath isn't a penis, so a sheathed humanoid penis isn't necessarily a hybrid of multiple types of penises; it's a normal (non-hybrid) humanoid penis, coming out of a sheath (like a normal non-hybrid humanoid penis, coming out of a genital_slit). It could be hybrid_genitalia or mismatched_genitalia, but not a hybrid_penis.

Not sure if this has come up yet (I used the forum search feature and didn't see any hits), but I've noticed there are four (or maybe more) separate tags for what amounts to submissive or receiving POV. There's "taker_pov," "submissive_pov," "receiving_pov," and "penetrated_pov." While they could conceivably be argued to have unique implications, I think other tags can take care of that. As it is now, images with this concept are split under these tags, so searching for content of that nature takes several separate searches to see everything the site has to offer.

What do people think about which tag should rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?

shoo-wop said:
Not sure if this has come up yet (I used the forum search feature and didn't see any hits), but I've noticed there are four (or maybe more) separate tags for what amounts to submissive or receiving POV. There's "taker_pov," "submissive_pov," "receiving_pov," and "penetrated_pov." While they could conceivably be argued to have unique implications, I think other tags can take care of that. As it is now, images with this concept are split under these tags, so searching for content of that nature takes several separate searches to see everything the site has to offer.

What do people think about which tag should rule them all, and in the darkness bind them?

submissive =/= penetrated, but the other two could probably be aliased to penetrated_pov.

I just discovered that the age tag is, at the time of posting this, not considered invalid or anything, and about half of its posts consist of young content. Personality I would use age for an age number(s) being displayed and/or said out loud.

sins_and_virtues said:
I just discovered that the age tag is, at the time of posting this, not considered invalid or anything, and about half of its posts consist of young content. Personality I would use age for an age number(s) being displayed and/or said out loud.

that's what stated_age is normally used for.

Just discovered what a mess the barefoot tag is. It's not supposed to be tagged on fully nude characters or ferals, since barefoot-ness is the norm for them, but there are MANY MANY pages of this. Theoretically barefoot should imply clothed, but it can't right now because it would screw up thousands of mistagged images.

barefoot nude -clothed should be empty. So should barefoot -clothed, but some of those are just missing the clothed tag.
barefoot feral -anthro -human -humanoid should also be empty.
barefoot nude may contain some mistagged images as well.
I've made a tagme.dev project for barefoot nude -clothed here: https://tagme.dev/projects/barefootcleanup

cloudpie said:
Just discovered what a mess the barefoot tag is. It's not supposed to be tagged on fully nude characters or ferals, since barefoot-ness is the norm for them, but there are MANY MANY pages of this. Theoretically barefoot should imply clothed, but it can't right now because it would screw up thousands of mistagged images.

barefoot nude -clothed should be empty. So should barefoot -clothed, but some of those are just missing the clothed tag.
barefoot feral -anthro -human -humanoid should also be empty.
barefoot nude may contain some mistagged images as well.
I've made a tagme.dev project for barefoot nude -clothed here: https://tagme.dev/projects/barefootcleanup

This definition was only changed in 2023, and for 12 years before that the wiki only read "Images or animations where a character is not wearing any footwear." Of course there's going to be plenty of "misuse" of the tag when something suddenly gets changed like that.

I honestly think the requirement of being clothed is a little stupid. "Barefoot" just means wearing nothing on your feet, and tags should match their actual definition - not some arbitrary set of requirements we made up for it.

faucet said:
This definition was only changed in 2023, and for 12 years before that the wiki only read "Images or animations where a character is not wearing any footwear." Of course there's going to be plenty of "misuse" of the tag when something suddenly gets changed like that.

I honestly think the requirement of being clothed is a little stupid. "Barefoot" just means wearing nothing on your feet, and tags should match their actual definition - not some arbitrary set of requirements we made up for it.

honestly, applying barefoot to nude characters is like applying bottomless or topless to nude characters. if a character is nude than their feet are already bare, necessarily.

faucet said:
This definition was only changed in 2023

Because it was getting applied to ferals and fully nude characters, and basically ending up as a duplicate of feet (which can apply to fully nude characters and ferals).

faucet said:
I honestly think the requirement of being clothed is a little stupid. "Barefoot" just means wearing nothing on your feet, and tags should match their actual definition - not some arbitrary set of requirements we made up for it.

You can say the same for topless, bottomless, exposed_breasts, nude, etc. "Topless" just means not wearing anything on your top, and "bottomless" just means not wearing anything on your bottom, exposed_breasts just means breasts not being covered, and nude just means a character not wearing any clothes. But we arbitrarily require that topless/bottomless means wearing something elsewhere, exposed_breasts is only for breasts that should be covered but have been uncovered by something (e.g. a shirt that's been lifted or torn open), and nude is only for characters that are expected to wear clothes (e.g. not ferals, and we use tags like clothed_feral for characters that aren't expected to wear clothes but are).

A quadruped standing on all fours shouldn't be tagged all_fours despite technically doing so, and a biped standing on their two legs shouldn't be tagged on_hind_legs either, because that's the expected state for such characters.

The various x_focus also only means there's a focus on x, but we arbitrarily require some non-x element in the picture. solo_focus requires two or more characters visible, male_focus requires a non-male character, anthro_focus requires a non-anthro character, etc.

Forced_partners + rape -> rape_by_proxy
Tag implication(?)

I was noticing a lot of these posts could be valid to include the implicated tag.

watsit said:
... is it really crossdressing for a female to wear shorts or pants? That still seems to be quite mistagged.

Most of them are wearing men's underwear or swimwear, or are wearing traditionally masculine-associated clothing like suits. I was just going through to clean up the lore males rather than looking at everything in the tag with a fine-tooth comb. I wouldn't consider most women wearing shorts or pants to be crossdressing, but these I would:

post #3060284 post #4229155 post #4114285

Doesn't feel right to scrutinize what counts as female crossdressing more than we would male crossdressing, personally, but that's just me. But there are some I'm not sure on, like:

post #3227809 post #1116683

Personally I feel like these two seem masculine enough to me to qualify. I didn't add the tag to them, but I also didn't see any reason to remove it.

Female crossdressing is uncommon, but it does exist, drag kings exist and ouji_(fashion) very frequently involves it.

Updated

watsit said:
... is it really crossdressing for a female to wear shorts or pants? That still seems to be quite mistagged.

going casually topless with shorts is definitely part of traditionally male fashion, so that's 100% crossdressing.

the second one is a bit more on the edge, but I think it passes.

dba_afish said:
going casually topless with shorts is definitely part of traditionally male fashion, so that's 100% crossdressing.

the second one is a bit more on the edge, but I think it passes.

I didn't even see those were links to specific posts omg I thought they were wiki links. But yeah, I'd agree with you. First is wearing men's swimwear, second is borderline but personally I think it definitely looks like the character is going for a masculine appearance. Honestly I would have tagged that character male were it not for the slight breast curve.

Watsit

Privileged

dba_afish said:
going casually topless with shorts is definitely part of traditionally male fashion, so that's 100% crossdressing.

I think it's not that great of an idea to base crossdressing on what a character isn't wearing, instead of purely what they are wearing. Like, imagine a female is wearing a short-sleeve shirt and shorts, she takes off the shirt at the end of one page in a sequence, so the next page she's topless with shorts, which then also get removed at some point. Having a character go from dressed normally to crossdressing just for taking off their shirt doesn't seem right.

dba_afish said:
the second one is a bit more on the edge, but I think it passes.

I feel that plays too much into the trope that "women don't wear pants". Or that when they do, they're special form-fitting pants that don't bother with flourishes like "pockets" because they get in the way of showing off her ass and thighs. That it's "men's clothing" if it's not accentuating their breasts, ass, hips, or thighs.

nimphia said:
second is borderline but personally I think it definitely looks like the character is going for a masculine appearance. Honestly I would have tagged that character male were it not for the slight breast curve.

I get more of a 90s punkish vibe, personally. A more androgynous look that's neither too masculine or feminine.

watsit said:
I get more of a 90s punkish vibe, personally. A more androgynous look that's neither too masculine or feminine.

I get that too, I think. I don't mind removing the tag on that one (I wasn't the one to add it anyways).

Also, yeah, the reason the first one is crossdressing isn't because she's topless, it's because she's wearing traditionally men's swimwear. Dunno why the toplessness was the thing to be pointed out.

It'd probably be best to just leave crossdressing to apply specifically for things like that - men's underwear, men's swimwear, tuxedos and other traditionally men's suits, etc, as well as the aforementioned drag kings and ouji/boystyle wearers, and then leave the other stuff for just tomboy. After all, we don't tag feminine male characters in form-fitting short shorts as crossdressing. In the post I made above, I'd still tag the first three as crossdressing, but the last two are fine with just tomboy, I think.

nimphia said:
Also, yeah, the reason the first one is crossdressing isn't because she's topless, it's because she's wearing traditionally men's swimwear. Dunno why the toplessness was the thing to be pointed out.

those aren't swimming_trunks, though, they're cargo_shorts. swim trunks wouldn't have a button and belt loops.

we should be taking the entire outfit into account and a lack of a shirt is a part of the outfit that character is wearing when tagging fashion-type stuff, crossdressing included.

dba_afish said:
those aren't swimming_trunks, though, they're cargo_shorts. swim trunks wouldn't have a button and belt loops.

we should be taking the entire outfit into account and a lack of a shirt is a part of the outfit that character is wearing when tagging fashion-type stuff, crossdressing included.

My eyes are just not working today, damn. Shrug. I dunno. Maybe we need a separate thread for this, since it's getting off-topic.