Expanded from forum #159148 so it doesn't get cluttered.

forum link: forum #191799 - Advanced Tag/Wiki Discussion: Specific tags/articles: Usage/Edits, questions, concerns, etc. (Apr. 2016)

This forum is for discussing specific tag and/or wiki articles;

If you want to discuss general standards and guidelines about wiki articles, see

forum #159148- Wiki Standards: Editing and Content (May 2015)

If you want to discuss new tags that are either:

• newly-created
• low count (< ~25), see:

forum #181201 - New tags discussion (Jan. 2016)

When discussing a topic in this forum, please remember that the e621 Community Code of Conduct and Site Rules still apply

Note: If something you posted/mentioned is missing from any of the following, please dmail me asap with the relevant info

Topics in this forum so far: Questions [WIP]

+[~5]

New tag suggestions

New wiki articles (usually tag groups)

Major wiki updates

Low count tags/articles

Useful Links to other discussions:

• forum #197959 - Advanced tag/wiki discussion: Sex Positions (Jun. 2016)

Other forums

forum #215390 - Name suggestion for rubbing a penis on a pussy. (dec 2016)

First one:

forum #191795 - gangbang - consensual and non-consenual variants

forum #191520 - Realism Realistic

EDIT: Outdated, like a lot of these old discussions.

Deleted in case that new readers get confused. (I'd advice skipping straight to the end of the thread for up-to-date content).

Genjar said:

Ok,

I'm kind of running out of time/energy for now to reply to these issues in detail over and over again without having to address relatively minor things like whether or not the theme is related, or the semantics of a scenario, or single section tags, or whatever else

If you really feel that strongly about it, then that's fine. It doesn't seem as if anyone else is finding an issue with that anyway

I'll wait for others to weigh in before saying anything else about the actual content policies

-

Isn't there?

Whoops, you're right, there is (was probably thinking of mind_break)

That still doesn't change what was addressed in the sentence after that, but like I said above, it doesn't really matter if nobody else thinks it's an issue for the time being. So I won't bring it up again until then

Should humanoid flora_fauna count as humanoids, if the latter is a supplementary type?

post #269964

?

titanmelon said:
Should humanoid flora_fauna count as humanoids, if the latter is a supplementary type?

post #269964

flora_humanoid

?

I thought it was plant_humanoid.

looks like that's empty

But plant_humanoid sounds better

Not sure if there's a difference between regular plants, and the humanoid flora_fauna variety

Or if regular plants become flora_fauna when they're humanoid..ized

plant + humanoid = [flora_fauna] + plant_humanoid?

titanmelon said:
Should humanoid flora_fauna count as humanoids, if the latter is a supplementary type?

post #269964

flora_humanoid

?

Here's the same answer as the last couple of times you asked that.
It's a supplementary tag, combinable with other form tags such as humanoid. Flora_fauna tells nothing of what shape the creature has, it just means that the creature has some plant-like characteristics. Occasionally it is tagged by itself, if the creature is just an animated plant (such as Flowey).

What does this have to do with the thread topic, anyway?

What's the difference between unknown_species and ambiguous_species?

I tried to make the distinction more obvious in each article, but not really sure if there's an agreed definition for either

@Genjar:

It's a supplementary tag, combinable with other form tags such as humanoid. Flora_fauna tells nothing of what shape the creature has, it just means that the creature has some plant-like characteristics.

So what tag should we use for plant humanoids?

What does this have to do with the thread topic, anyway?

I asked in here because humanoid has no mention of plant humanoids/flora fauna humanoids

titanmelon said:
What's the difference between unknown_species and ambiguous_species?

I tried to make the distinction more obvious in each article, but not really sure if there's an agreed definition for either

Yep, those are fine. Unknown_species for ones that might be recognizable by someone, ambiguous_species for ones that are clearly ambiguous.

Both are low-priority tags, since they don't serve any purpose beyond being tagging aids (as far as I can tell).

titanmelon said:
So what tag should we use for plant humanoids?

...humanoid, plus whatever is the actual species (dryad and alraune are common examples). Plus the flora_fauna as a supplementary tag.

Genjar said:

Why shouldn't there be a dedicated tag for plant humanoids?

-

What does this have to do with the thread topic, anyway?

Hm actually, you have a good point there

I think I may change this forum to cover both specific tags and their wiki articles instead, as a macroforum of sorts until/if it gets too cluttered

titanmelon said:
Why shouldn't there be a dedicated tag for plant humanoids?

Same reason why we don't have tags such as undead_humanoid, demon_humanoid, food_humanoid, elemental_humanoid, mineral_humanoid, alien_humanoid, tolkienesque_humanoid, etc.

They're rare, rarely relevant to the site, and (unlike animal_humanoids) most fall under existing species tags such as dryad, alraune, floran, etc.

Genjar said:
Same reason why we don't have tags such as undead_humanoid, demon_humanoid, food_humanoid, elemental_humanoid, mineral_humanoid, alien_humanoid, tolkienesque_humanoid, etc.

They're rare, rarely relevant to the site, and (unlike animal_humanoids) most fall under existing species tags such as dryad, alraune, floran, etc.

Having an umbrella tag for a group of tags that are similar doesn't hurt, Genjar. In fact, it helps. People who want to see Florans may notice "Oh hey, Plant humanoids are a tag" and go check that out so they can see the not-quite-Starbound ones.

Furrin_Gok said:
Having an umbrella tag for a group of tags that are similar doesn't hurt, Genjar.

It kind of does when we a single character ends up with dozen species tags.

But the main reason not to do it is because splitting flora_fauna would take a lot of work, and would make tagging those more confusing. It takes years for the users to adapt whenever the usage of long-established tags is changed, and usually a few of them need to be reported for tagging by the old definition.

And all for an almost unnoticeable benefit: humanoid flora_fauna works fine.

Genjar said:
It kind of does when we a single character ends up with dozen species tags.

But the main reason not to do it is because splitting flora_fauna would take a lot of work, and would make tagging those more confusing. It takes years for the users to adapt whenever the usage of long-established tags is changed, and usually a few of them need to be reported for tagging by the old definition.

And all for an almost unnoticeable benefit: humanoid flora_fauna works fine.

What "Old way" exists that would be so vastly different we would be reporting people? plant_humanoid would imply both of those tags anyways, and so the old way is still here, we just get a connecting tag to make tagging go quicker.

Furrin_Gok said:
What "Old way" exists that would be so vastly different we would be reporting people? plant_humanoid would imply both of those tags anyways, and so the old way is still here, we just get a connecting tag to make tagging go quicker.

So it'd be implicated, instead of splitting flora_fauna like Titanmelon suggested? Hm. That might work better, but then what about the other forms? Should subtags be added for those too?

Genjar said:
So it'd be implicated, instead of splitting flora_fauna like Titanmelon suggested? Hm. That might work better, but then what about the other forms? Should subtags be added for those too?

Other forms? We don't tag things like feral_feline as a joint tag.

Furrin_Gok said:
Other forms? We don't tag things like feral_feline as a joint tag.

See, that's what I don't understand. Why should there be a joint tag for humanoid_flora_fauna ('plant humanoid'), but not for feral_flora_fauna etc?

Genjar said:
See, that's what I don't understand. Why should there be a joint tag for humanoid_flora_fauna ('plant humanoid'), but not for feral_flora_fauna etc?

Why should there be a joint tag for humanoid and feline? If you want to support the inclusion of the tag, it's better to offer a reason, than a counterargument to the opposite tag.

Updates/changelog

• Updated OP to include both tag and wiki discussion (thanks to @Genjar for the idea)
• Added link to forum #197959 - Advanced tag/wiki discussion: Sex Positions (Jun. 2016)
• I'll add more stuff to the OP soon..ish

Genjar said:
See, that's what I don't understand. Why should there be a joint tag for humanoid_flora_fauna ('plant humanoid'), but not for feral_flora_fauna etc?

Looking back on this, maybe feral would be good to tag for animal-like flora fauna

Putting this in here, rather than tagging project sticky:

Definition of interspecies

Wiki for interspecies says:

They should always be from different family sub-classes (e.g., feline/canine, equine/cetacean, but not lion/tiger). A good rule of thumb is if they can realistically breed offspring this should not be used.

i.e.

post #936128 - interspecies

post #936233 - Not interspecies

If this is true (the bottom example is currently tagged as interspecies anyway),

Then should there be a specific tag for inter-..species scenes?

Such as [lion x tiger], [dog x fox], [horse x zebra] etc.

Genjar said:
So it'd be implicated, instead of splitting flora_fauna like Titanmelon suggested? Hm. That might work better, but then what about the other forms? Should subtags be added for those too?

Oh, probably didn't explain that clearly enough. Here's what I was proposing:

• flora_fauna
• animal_humanoid
• humanoid
• plant_humanoid - nothing specific for this other than flora_fauna, TMK
• humanoid

-
This still doesn't have a tag for feral animal-plant hybrids either,

Furrin_Gok said:
Looking back on this, maybe feral would be good to tag for animal-like flora fauna

maybe something like feral_flora?

The usage of 'interspecies' seems so obvious to most that hardly anyone checks the wiki. It's probably futile to try to keep it tagged contrary to the actual meaning of the word: two different species. Which applies to both of the above examples.

Genjar said:
The usage of 'interspecies' seems so obvious to most that hardly anyone checks the wiki. It's probably futile to try to keep it tagged contrary to the actual meaning of the word: two different species. Which applies to both of the above examples.

So, does this mean that the wiki for interspecies should remove the requirement that the relationship be actually interfamilial? ("They should always be from different sub-classes" = interfamilial)
Then it would be in a sense, 'okay' to tag such images like coyote+dog or lion+jaguar as interspecies, as obvious it may be.

titanmelon said:
If this is true (the bottom example is currently tagged as interspecies anyway),

Then should there be a specific tag for inter-..species scenes?

Such as [lion x tiger], [dox x fox], [horse x zebra] etc.

I feel searching [interspecies dog fox] would be sufficient enough instead of [dog_on_fox/fox_on_dog (?)]

However, there is always the probability that using such tags would end up with the dog and fox present, but not actually engaging in sexual activity... (Other animals engaging instead)
Thus, having a specific tag can remove the need for searching all three and just go straight to the actual specific interspecies scene, without any chance of lacking the interspecies activity that one wishes to find.

This will need more input from others, other than something like me alone. I tend to make things harder/overly meticulous in my perfectionism. However, it does sound to be of convenient use in my opinion.

BlueMoonstruckWolf said:
So, does this mean that the wiki for interspecies should remove the requirement that the relationship be actually interfamilial? ("They should always be from different sub-classes" = interfamilial)

The post count is too high for regular clean ups, and it will keep getting tagged contrary to the wiki. So the only solution I can see is to change the definition to how it's already tagged: any interspecies.

And then we could add subtags for more distant relations. Can't think of good names on the spot. ...maybe something that resembles existing tags. mammal/avian or mammal_on_avian or whatever.

Definitely not on the fox_on_dog level. That'd result in far too many combos.

[replies pending]
-

Does anyone know why aroused and arousal are aliased to horny, instead of the other way around?

(this isn't a complaint or anything, just found it a bit odd)
-

Should in_heat imply any of the above tags?

Breasts wiki update

Since this a rather main article, mentioning it in here:

• Updated the breasts article to mention exposed breasts + the policy of tagging breasts in a scene regardless of exposure

titanmelon said:

Breasts wiki update

Since this a rather main article, mentioning it in here:

• Updated the breasts article to mention exposed breasts + the policy of tagging breasts in a scene regardless of exposure

exposed_breasts could probably use a wiki article, I would write one but not exactly sure about its use regarding e.g. cleavage, underboob, nude/topless etc.

titanmelon said:
Does anyone know why aroused and arousal are aliased to horny, instead of the other way around?

(this isn't a complaint or anything, just found it a bit odd)

arousal/aroused/horny/etc aren't really very good tags in the first place, I'll let others do my talking either way: forum #136698, forum #150871

titanmelon said:
Should in_heat imply any of the above tags?

I'm not even sure how you would separate (mild forms of?) being in heat from simple arousal, unless somehow inferred through other means. It feels too ambiguous to really imply anything from/to it.

Edit: fixed horrible formatting on my part

Genjar said:
The post count is too high for regular clean ups, and it will keep getting tagged contrary to the wiki. So the only solution I can see is to change the definition to how it's already tagged: any interspecies.

And then we could add subtags for more distant relations. Can't think of good names on the spot. ...maybe something that resembles existing tags. mammal/avian or mammal_on_avian or whatever.

Definitely not on the fox_on_dog level. That'd result in far too many combos.

I see, thanks for your input. The sub tags for distant relations sounds like a good idea! Now that we have a solution, may I edit the interspecies wiki?

Original portion (excluding See also):

Sexual or mating activity between different species. They should always be from different family sub-classes (e.g., feline/canine, equine/cetacean, but not lion/tiger). A good rule of thumb is if they can realistically breed offspring this should not be used.

• Not to be confused with bestiality or hybrid.

Proposed:

Sexual or mating activity between any different species (e.g., feline/canine, equine/cetacean, even lion/tiger and wolf/coyote) Excludes mating between subspecies within the same species, such as dog/wolf(grey wolf).

• Not to be confused with bestiality or hybrid.

BlueMoonstruckWolf said:
I see, thanks for your input. The sub tags for distant relations sounds like a good idea! Now that we have a solution, may I edit the interspecies wiki?

Original portion (excluding See also):

Sexual or mating activity between different species. They should always be from different family sub-classes (e.g., feline/canine, equine/cetacean, but not lion/tiger). A good rule of thumb is if they can realistically breed offspring this should not be used.

• Not to be confused with bestiality or hybrid.

Proposed:

Sexual or mating activity between any different species (e.g., feline/canine, equine/cetacean, even lion/tiger and wolf/coyote) Excludes mating between subspecies within the same species, such as dog/wolf(grey wolf).

• Not to be confused with bestiality or hybrid.

Isn't that what interspecies is?

Furrin_Gok said:
Isn't that what interspecies is?

I think they are just proposing a more specific tagging system rather than just the generic interspecies tag.

Furrin_Gok said:
Isn't that what interspecies is?

Well, yes, it is the definition of interspecies, however, the original and current wiki definition (as posted) apparently uses "interfamilial" relationships.. No sense tagging contrarily, ay?
It's in response to Genjar's solution:

Genjar said:
The post count is too high for regular clean ups, and it will keep getting tagged contrary to the wiki. So the only solution I can see is to change the definition to how it's already tagged: any interspecies.

Now, a seperate reply to Chessax:

Chessax said:
I think they are just proposing a more specific tagging system rather than just the generic interspecies tag.

That's currently in discussion for distant relations (Genjar notes something like fox/dog makes too many combos of a tag to create) I myself don't know if such a subtag already exists, but it does sound like a good idea.

Reason for changing interspecies wiki is; The current definition of interspecies is just contrary to its obvious meaning and use.

tapering_penis, curved_penis

• 1. Modified wiki article for tapering penis
• attempted to define the tag more descriptively

A penis that is thicker at the base, and gradually becomes thinner towards the tip.

--

• 2. What exactly counts as a curved penis?

post #835828 ?
post #307703 ?

(Remember that curved penises aren't always tapered; see first thumbnail)

--
Won't add curved_penis to the tag group:anatomy page until there's another opinion about it for the time being

Any thoughts on an entomophilia tag?

Or maybe insectphilia/insectophilia would be easier to remember

Seems like it would be useful for blacklisting too

What should count as unusual_genitals?

Any dragon penis?
Is there even a way to determine something like that?

My guess is anything that's not animal/humanoid, but there are some really obscure anmal genitalia out there (like echidnas and pretty much all non-vertebrates etc.)

-
Populated the unusual_genitals tag, mostly with the rarer examples from unusual_penis

• should unusual_genitals be moved -> unusual_genitalia?

• animal_genitalia
• humanoid_genitalia
• unusual_genitalia
• [..]

(Think I asked this somewhere already, will add info to this as found)

Changelog/update

• Updated OP to list main topics brought up so far
• links, numbering etc. TBA

Update/changelog

• Overhauled tag group:clothes
• Updated tag group:colors
• reorganized alphabetically
• added multicolored_* tags
• added links from other common spellings

• Updated OP
• major edits
• added aberration

• removed some formatting for tables

Does anybody know what a lust_penis is?

Found a pool titled 'Lust penis remake'

Not sure if it's some kind of comic

titanmelon said:
Does anybody know what a lust_penis is?

Found a pool titled 'Lust penis remake'

Not sure if it's some kind of comic

Looks like it, but the tag does not belong.

titanmelon said:
Does anybody know what a lust_penis is?

It is indeed used to tag a "group" of posts related to a comic (except for post #16556), origin I believe is post #16977. Some people like (liked?) to tag even single comics with something similar to a copyright tag, usually just the title of the pool in question, pretty much pointless IMO.

Unusual_genitals should be unusual_genitalia to be in line with the other tags @titanmelon

Curved penis should refer to dicks that look like they have peryonies disease.

Horny should be aliased into aroused. Not the other way around. As to the purpose, aroused refers to visible arousal. Erections, reddenned labia or wetness/dripping are all signs of visible arousal.

As per, in_heat should implicate aroused.

All that seems to make sense

I think we should eventually have some kind of standard procedure for how to handle pooled comics/image sets etc, in relation to having unique copytags among other considerations

pool #xxxx works just fine, but the pool numbers aren't tagged on posts so searching with it may be less intuitive
-

Update: new tag groups

Forgot to add mention of the following new wiki articles in here:
All WIP, feel free to update accordingly

• tag group:feral anatomy
• tag group:character relations

Changelog: tag group:sex positions

• modified the article to separate 'official' positions from related concepts
• see this post: https://e621.net/forum/show/202613 for details

spread_orifice

Any thoughts about a spread_orifice tag?

(asked this somewhere already, if you know where/replied please link it!)

• spread_orifice
• spread_anus
• spread_cloaca
• spread_pussy
• spread_urethra ??
• [..]

I suppose spread_mouth counts too

Closest umbrella tag is spreading, but that's not necessarily limited to genitalia etc.

Changelog

• updated op:
• added numbering, may be incomplete
• added relevant entries

• still needs relevant forum links

Suggestion: humanoid_hair

Hm, should I split this forum and make a separate one for suggesting new tags?

-

What do you think about a humanoid_hair tag?

for posts of a character with hair on their head

post #952970

--

Maybe a subtag for feral characters too, which would go with ones like non_mammal_breasts, busty_feral, clothed_feral etc.

• humanoid_hair
• feral_with_humanoid_hair?

Honestly can't think of a good name for the feral one ATM

titanmelon said:

Suggestion: humanoid_hair

Hm, should I split this forum and make a separate one for suggesting new tags?

-

What do you think about a humanoid_hair tag?

for posts of a character with hair on their head

post #952970

--

Maybe a subtag for feral characters too, which would go with ones like non_mammal_breasts, busty_feral, clothed_feral etc.

• humanoid_hair
• feral_with_humanoid_hair?

Honestly can't think of a good name for the feral one ATM

to be honest hair alone already fills that propose while mane_hair to some extent fills the area for non_humanoid hair like growth on the head of ferals and anthros thru it may be true that mane_hair does not nessecarly fit well with those that have hair like growth but not particularly long to call it a mane. Head_tuft...?
hair as is is usualy only tagged when human hair is present on anthro or ferals so adding humanoid to the tag is kinda redundant

Do nude ferals count for casual_nudity (ed.: bottom left)?
post #719688

R'D said:

Hm, that's a good point

hair as is is usualy only tagged when human hair is present on anthro or ferals so adding humanoid to the tag is kinda redundant

Did a search for hair order:random

and the first page returns results like:
post #91529 post #234881 post #722057

Not a single feral character with hair turned up

Not to mention that if there's both a feral and non-feral with hair in the scene, then blacklisting doesn't work selectively

titanmelon said:
Do nude ferals count for casual_nudity?
post #719688

'Non-sexual situations'.
That doesn't look non-sexual to me.

titanmelon said:
What do you think about a humanoid_hair tag?

I too don't quite see the point of humanoid_hair, hair almost always refer to human-like hair. Adding another tag on top of that seems like it would create a lot of work for very little gain. Personally I would rather go with something for ferals only, like "feral_hair"/"feral_with_hair" (or possibly your "feral_with_humanoid_hair", but I'm a sucker for short tags).

R'D said:
[...] it may be true that mane_hair does not nessecarly fit well with those that have hair like growth but not particularly long to call it a mane. Head_tuft...?

I doubt it'd be easy to keep people from tagging hair/mane_hair for head_tuft as well, especially if dyed/colored with "unnatural" color, but why not.

titanmelon said:
Did a search for hair order:random

[...]

Not a single feral character with hair turned up

Not to mention that if there's both a feral and non-feral with hair in the scene, then blacklisting doesn't work selectively

Not going to argue about usefulness of tag, but that search proves next to nothing, first of there are a lot less ferals on here than other body forms (probably a bit more than 10% if excluding the funky manes of mlp). Secondly you're using random, which is, well, random and in combination with first can give you some confusing results (but might be very minor). Thirdly if including "toony manes" (which often look more like human hair, and are as such not unheard of to be tagged as hair) you can change "not a single" to "a couple" which might not make it look good, but at least fairly okay.

1. Humanoid_pussy usage: anthro/humanoids

2. Grouping/splitting tags by purpose/density

humanoid pussy

Vagina similar to that of a human. Please refrain from using the tag with anthros and humanoids as they generally have humanoid pussies by default.

1. Is this true?
How do you blacklist anthros/humanoids with humanoid female genitalia?

humanoid_penis -feral human ~humanoid
>1000 posts

-
That said, I could see the apparent redundance though, the same thing was said of anthro some time ago

--

2. It seems as if we may soon need a set of tags specific to body types

• general tag
• anthropomorphic specific tag
• anthro specific tags
• humanoid specific tags
• non-anthropomorphic specific tag
• feral specific tags
• other (aberrations/eldritch horrors": etc)

--
See the post below for a very good example of this (splitting hair)
psuedo-pun semi-intended
---
obligatory link to forum #187706 - Advanced Policy Discussions: Implicative/Conjunctive/Redundant/Mutually-exclusive tag usage (Mar. 2016)

Chessax said:

Good points

I suppose the pattern here goes something like:

• 'we should have a specific tag for [case]
• 'but the way [general tag] is used assumes it's being used for specific [case]'
• 'maybe we should wait until [general tag] becomes too full/mixed with not-specific [case] posts, then split it'

----
that said, if the counts are accurate, hair has 320 000+ posts

Not going to argue about usefulness of tag, but that search proves next to nothing, first of there are a lot less ferals on here than other body forms
[..]

Looks like you found the usefulness in the same sentence :p
(that was the point):

hair feral -human -humanoid -anthro has 52 000+ posts
hair ~humanoid ~human ~anthro -feral has 225 000+ posts

hair feral doesn't really *do* anything in a blacklist or search, unless you want false positives
-

[..]
Thirdly if including "toony manes" (which often look more like human hair, and are as such not unheard of to be tagged as hair) you can change "not a single" to "a couple" which might not make it look good, but at least fairly okay.

That's true

I think we could definitely do more stuff with the toony/realistic tags, but they probably need more work in terms of consistency and use

--
obligatory link to forum #187706 - Advanced Policy Discussions: Implicative/Conjunctive/Redundant/Mutually-exclusive tag usage (Mar. 2016)

Genjar said:
'Non-sexual situations'.
That doesn't look non-sexual to me.

Bottom left cub pair, not the adult group

aka 'should nude ferals in non-explicit situations count as casual nudity?'

Hey I'm down for tagging humanoid_pussy/vulva as a thing.

With the growth in popularity of non human vulva configurations as of late, being able to look for just those in particular would be great.

I'd more than willingly start tagging that and frankly. I don't see why not. I think I may just do so as a personal project.

Clitoris/size tags

Can we do anything about
enlarged_clitoris

Large, but still generally within the normal range of sizes for that particular species (or human equivalent).

and

big_clitoris

A clitoris that is especially large and prominent. Includes the anatomically impossible.

?

What about an alias of enlarged_clitoris -> hyper_clitoris?

big_*
penis, big_clitoris

huge_*
penis, huge_clitoris

hyper_*
penis, hyper_clitoris

etc

feral_with_head_hair / feral_head_hair

Chessax said:
Personally I would rather go with something for ferals only, like "feral_hair"/"feral_with_hair" (or possibly your "feral_with_humanoid_hair", but I'm a sucker for short tags).

Hm, thinking this might be a better move too

was my first idea, but 'hair' doesn't always refer to head hair

and I can see somebody complaining about that being vague or whatever x months-years from now
---
What about feral_with_head_hair? or feral_head_hair?

shorter than humanoid_ and to the point

Unless someone has a better idea, I'm going to start tagging those in a couple days-weeks

exposed
"Images or Animations in which a character's genitalia is, for one reason or another, showing. Typically, a character would be considered exposed while they are restrained or have had their clothes shifted or removed."

-
What happens with exposed_breasts?

Switch alias around to breasts_out, so it won't get mixed up?

"Images or Animations in which a character's genitalia is, for one reason or another, showing. "

That still fits, theres no reason to do anything to the tag.

Genjar said:
Switch alias around to breasts_out, so it won't get mixed up?

Hm, sounds good

Either way (exposed_breasts / breasts_out) is fine with me as a tag

breasts_out is shorter too, so that's great as well

Presenting is for active, exposed is for passive.

Like this:
post #587815

'Exposed_breasts' can be either, therefore it's badly named.

I'll do a quick sweep of exposed. It's been on to-do list for couple of years, about time I got around to fixing that mess.

There's also a whole lot of posts in wardrobe_malfunction that should have the tag. If I find time afterwards, I'll handle those too. Or it might be possible to implicate it to exposed, but I'll need to take a look first.

Speaking of presenting, there's presenting_cum

..could that be reworded to something better?

related to presenting_mouth?

--

I want to add tags like presenting_partner and presenting_slit to the wikis, but not sure if they're established enough

thoughts?

titanmelon said:
Speaking of presenting, there's presenting_cum

..could that be reworded to something better?

Hmm.
It probably could. Doesn't seem to fit the rest of the group. The presenting tags are for presenting something for, erm, use. That doesn't apply well to cum that's in someone's mouth.

The offering_cum hasn't caught on so far, but it'd be better fit than presenting for ones such as this:

post #899068

Presenting_mouth, however, sounds like a tag that should be used more.

What about bubble_butt / round_butt,

is there a noticeable difference or reason why they shouldn't be aliased to each other?

I've also noticed that most of the *_butt
tags are rather arbitrary/unused for butt types

Should we be tagging the different types of butt shapes/etc more?

Genjar said:

Makes sense, agreed

I like the offerring_* possibility, but sometimes that's not really what they're doing

..displaying_*?

Do we have a tag for when a character's legs are raised vertically in the air?

post #297381

raised_leg doesn't always apply

legs_in_air has exactly 1 post

titanmelon said:
Do we have a tag for when a character's legs are raised vertically in the air?

post #297381

raised_leg doesn't always apply

legs_in_air has exactly 1 post

legs_up. Singular leg_up was aliased to raised leg, but the plural form is what we use for images like that one.

Our other plural tags that are currently aliased to raised_leg should be unaliased and instead alias to legs_up.

Is there a tag for tears/crying to differentiate between :

happy tears/crying/other:

post #971164

-
tears of/crying in pain/unenjoyment/other during sex etc. (common in certain artist/art style/fetish circles):

post #971995

?

Probably gonna end up spamming this thread at this rate

Will keep thing limited to a single post for now

[wip]

1. tag for these kinds of posts? post #601946
- not parody(??)

2. should posts, where sex is mentioned, but not actually happening, be tagged as sex? post #972003

• this extends to general uses as well; where the concept of something is mentioned, but not physically in the image
• eg incest: post #972010
• I'm thinking maybe stated_[concept]

titanmelon said:
Is there a tag for tears/crying to differentiate between :

happy tears/crying/other:

post #971164

-
tears of/crying in pain/unenjoyment/other during sex etc. (common in certain artist/art style/fetish circles):

post #971995

?

No, just the pain tag. We could use one.