GDelscribe said:
No, just the pain tag. We could use one.

I see no reason why we shouldn't start tagging tears_of_joy

Sorrowless said:
I see no reason why we shouldn't start tagging tears_of_joy

oh, this sounds promising!

There was a forum a while ago about nuances of the emotion tags, I'll try to find it again

Lewd

The statistics in the lewd article was rather interesting:

Ambiguous tag (it's like 98% of the site). Consider using alternatives

I did some digging, and as of Aug. 17 2016, here's what the numbers actually look more like:

rating:e - 57.7%

rating:q - 17.2%

rating:s - 25.1%

date := 20160817
 
t_pg := 8485 [int]
 
%dec_(e|q|s) = t_pg / (e|q|s)_pg [6sf]
 
%_(e|q|s) = %dec_(e|q|s) * 100 [3sf,1dp]
 
e_pg := 4895 [int]
	%dec_e:= 0.576900
        %_e = 57.7
	
 
q_pg := 1463 [int]
	%dec_q:= 0.172422
        %_q = 17.2
 
s_pg := 2128
	%dec_s:= 0.250796
        %_s = 25.1

It's off by ~40%+

So generally, there are less than 2/3 as many explicit posts on the site than what the average [citation needed] person thinks
-
NTS: repeat calculations using {{-status:deleted}} for all queries

New tag: vertical_pussy

• https://e621.net/forum/show/187706?page=2
• https://e621.net/forum/show/205107

Genjar said:
The way it has been used so far, it'd probably be best to rename humanoid_pussy to vertical_pussy. There's only 500 posts, and it has already required too much clean-up: many instances of the same character getting tagged with both humanoid_pussy and animal_genitalia.

Most notably, it tends to get mixed up with equine_pussy.

-

Just saw this again, and thought it may be worthwhile having

we somewhat recently have horizontal_cloaca, as well

--

Here's what it may look like at the current rate:

[orifice]

• horizontal orifice
• horizontal_cloaca
• horizontal_pussy
• vertical orifice
• vertical_cloaca
• vertical_pussy

Considerations

1. I'm not sure what a horizontal_pussy would be in terms of definiton,

but if we go with the definition of cloaca that was proposed [here]:
where

• orifice + anus -> orifice = pussy
• orifice + no anus -> orifice = cloaca,

then horizontal vulvae should definitely be possible, just not relatively prevalent:

• [horizontal] orifice + anus -> orifice = horizontal_pussy

--
2. What would anus be tagged with? If anything

On the other hand, since most people [citation needed] don't really tag humanoid_pussy in atm, compared to the humanoid_penis, an alias may not be necessary - it could be done manually (~600+ posts)

we keep humanoid_pussy, move most posts with it -> vertical_pussy,

and only tag humanoid_pussy for non-ambiguous cases (no idea how that's going to be made consistent)

• pussy
• vertical_pussy
• canine_pussy
• equine_pussy
• feline_pussy
• humanoid_pussy

[..] (pretty much every reproductive-related, mammalian genital orifice that's not a cloaca is going to fall under here)

If we're mindlessly strictly following twys, then technically all vertical genital slits are considered 'pussies' as well

• pussy
• [..]
• genital_slit
• vertical_slit
• cloaca
• vertical_cloaca

Update/changelog

• added https://e621.net/forum/show/210858 [New tag: vertical_pussy] to OP under new tags
• added forum #181201 - New tags discussion (Jan. 2016) [no idea why that took so long]

can't add the rest of stuff atm, but made a note of them

not sure how to interlink other macroforums like these without oversaturation of links/info, so i'll just be limiting main OP links [sans links to other forums] to this forum alone

Update - toony, realism, photorealism

As per the discussion in https://e621.net/forum/show/189471?page=3

• grouped the following tags under 'Related tags':
• toony, realistic, photorealism

Tags: realistic/realism, toony_realism

#1
I noticed:

• photorealistic is aliased to photorealism,but
• realism is aliased to realistic

any thoughts about that?

--
#2

Additionally, what do you all think about dealiasing toony_realism and using it as an in-between tag?

Or maybe for cases where something in a usually toony style is drawn realistically (cartoons etc)

• toony
• toony realism toon_realism
• realism
• photorealism

---
post #1033710 is currently tagged as realistic
for the most part though, realistic seems to be accurately tagged

titanmelon said:
I noticed:

• photorealistic is aliased to photorealism,but
• realism is aliased to realistic

any thoughts about that?

One of them should be switched around. Flipping either would work, though I think *realistic sounds better as a tag than *realism.

Additionally, what do you all think about dealiasing toony_realism and using it as an in-between tag?

It's not aliased to anything. That tag has never been used. And it sounds like something that we wouldn't want to use, because 'toony realism' is an oxymoron. How would it even be tagged...?

Genjar said:
One of them should be switched around. Flipping either would work, though I think *realistic sounds better as a tag than *realism.

So basically a choice between a noun (*realism) and an adjective (*realistic).

titanmelon said:
Additionally, what do you all think about dealiasing toony_realism and using it as an in-between tag?

I think you mean toon_realism, which is aliased to realistic.

titanmelon said:
I noticed:

• photorealistic is aliased to photorealism,but
• realism is aliased to realistic

any thoughts about that?

From what I can see, the reason why one's an adjective while the other's a noun is because they're not used the same way. Photorealism (the noun) describes things that are realistic enough to look like a photograph, while realistic (the adjective) describes things that are depicted more realistic than usual. It makes sense for realistic to use a comparative term since it's used in a comparative way while photorealism is not.

BlueDingo said:
So basically a choice between a noun (*realism) and an adjective (*realistic).

Exactly.
I don't think we have any real standard for it, but using the adjective makes more sense because the other tags in the group (such as toony) are also adjectives.

But yeah, I forgot that realistic is for characters that are drawn more realistic than usual. It started as a generic artstyle tag for realism. Some probably still tag it that way.

I think you mean toon_realism, which is aliased to realistic.

That hasn't been tagged much either, and not even once during the past seven years. Back when it still existed, it was tagged for these:

post #8183 post #36262 post #34351 post #36010

...I can see why they didn't bother keeping it. Some of those aren't particularly toony. 'Toon realism' is hard to define, and even harder to tag consistently. And considering how undertagged toony is, it'd be better to focus on getting that tagged. Instead of adding new tags to the mix.

Genjar said:
That hasn't been tagged much either, and not even once during the past seven years. Back when it still existed, it was tagged for these:

post #8183 post #36262 post #34351 post #36010

...yeah, I can see why they didn't bother keeping it. Some of those aren't particularly toony. 'Toon realism' is hard to define, and even harder to tag consistently.

The definition was probably "cartoon characters depicted in a more realistic way" or something like that, which works but sounds too similar to the more generic term realistic and people who want realistic images of cartoon characters specifically can search for the cartoon characters/games/whatever they want to see. Eg. pokemon realistic instead of pokemon toon_realism. Not sure why they went with toon_realism instead of realistic_toon but whatever.

Due to the way they're defined, a photorealistic image of a cartoon character would have both tags simultaneously. Here's an example.

EDIT: Wanna see something freaky? Go to google images and search untooned.

mineral fauna

Thoughts about mineral_fauna
thinking about adding it to tag group:body types
never mind

-----

Re: @Genjar, @BlueDingo:

Those are good points

RE: toon_realism,
The foreseen usage of toon_realism is basically what BlueDingo mentioned

The definition was probably "cartoon characters depicted in a more realistic way" or something like that

-
That said, I agree with Genjar about getting the more basic styles [toony, realism] populated and established first, then see about further differentiation

any other opinions would be considered

titanmelon said:

Re: @Genjar, @BlueDingo:

Those are good points

RE: toon_realism,
The foreseen usage of toon_realism is basically what BlueDingo mentioned
-
That said, I agree with Genjar about getting the more basic styles [toony, realism] populated and established first, then see about further differentiation

What about detailed?

I have a few tags to suggest which have to do with art style of peni and vaginas mainly.

Tags:
Detailed_Genitalia - So many times I've seen super detailed horsecocks or even canine cocks, vaginas too, but I've never seen a tag for them. I was wondering if this tag would help change that. And to be more specific, this tag would be used for genitalia that looks as close to real as possible, I.E. Canine cocks covered in the blue veins, horsecocks that look textured, etc.
Examples include:
post #1053252 post #992906 post #987923 post #686857 post #344494 post #385698 post #1035017

Simple_detail_to_genitalia - A long tag, yes, but there's quite a few of them out there. Anyway, this is simple detail, and not like what's shown above. Instead, it's toned down from the detailed_genitalia. These include pics that don't have (All) the cock veins on canine cocks and texture of horsecocks, but they still have a realish detail/textrure to them.
Examples,
post #1056276 post #1022376 post #990335 post #905554

Low_detailed_genitalia - For the genitalia that is so lowly detailed you can barely call it animal genitalia.
Example -
post #905349 post #896584 post #1039189 post #1036396

my_little_pony_artstyle - I know I can just do "-my_little_pony" to filter out the my little pony stuff, but I've seen many art in the style of My Little Pony, that aren't apart of that franchise, I.E. Small, simple color, or simple shaded, horses(Or any creature for that matter).
Example:
post #1051095 post #1036249 post #1016947 post #1003430

That's all I have for now.

GoldForest said:
my_little_pony_artstyle - I know I can just do "-my_little_pony" to filter out the my little pony stuff, but I've seen many art in the style of My Little Pony, that aren't apart of that franchise, I.E. Small, simple color, or simple shaded, horses(Or any creature for that matter).
Example:
post #1051095 post #1036249 post #1016947 post #1003430

That's all I have for now.

okay but.. first off, none of those examples looks like mlp. some might resemble art styles popular among mlp fanartists but thats not really what i would call "mlp artstyle". secondly, that is sure way to piss off a whole bunch of artists.

I agree that none of those are in the MLP art style. To be in the MLP art style, every key element of it must be present. None of those examples have the correct coloring, for one.

post #839698 post #907781

This is the MLP art style. Note that human(oid)s can fit into this style as well, due to the existence of Equestria Girls. Other characters/species that don't appear in MLP can fit into the art style if the key features are present.

Mutisija said:
okay but.. first off, none of those examples looks like mlp. some might resemble art styles popular among mlp fanartists but thats not really what i would call "mlp artstyle". secondly, that is sure way to piss off a whole bunch of artists.

BlueDingo said:
I agree that none of those are in the MLP art style. To be in the MLP art style, every key element of it must be present. None of those examples have the correct coloring, for one.

post #839698 post #907781

This is the MLP art style. Note that human(oid)s can fit into this style as well, due to the existence of Equestria Girls. Other characters/species that don't appear in MLP can fit into the art style if the key features are present.

Sorry, couldn't find any great examples, but they were just examples for people to get an idea of what I mean. I meant nothing by them really.

GoldForest said:
Sorry, couldn't find any great examples, but they were just examples for people to get an idea of what I mean. I meant nothing by them really.

No worries, mate. You can filter out specific features of the art style with mixed success. Try them out and see if it helps.

• flat_colors/cel_shading contains simpler color styles.
• chibi contains characters with larger heads.
• toony contains deformed characters as well.

If there were a tag for the MLP art style (something I requested the implementation of previously), it would only apply to images that contain the art style fully.

BlueDingo said:
No worries, mate. You can filter out specific features of the art style with mixed success. Try them out and see if it helps.

• flat_colors/cel_shading contains simpler color styles.
• chibi contains characters with larger heads.
• toony contains deformed characters as well.

Thanks.

Should posts - where there's no explicit sexual activity taking place, but sexual intent is clear -

be tagged with the *_on_* tags?

eg post #35546 for feral_on_feral

-
I'll add more examples later if that was confusing

titanmelon said:
Should posts - where there's no explicit sexual activity taking place, but sexual intent is clear -

be tagged with the *_on_* tags?

eg post #35546 for feral_on_feral

-
I'll add more examples later if that was confusing

They're not exactly on each other.

pussy/cloaca/??? ?
post #875308

----------

BlueDingo said:
They're not exactly on each other.

Right, so how does one find such posts/scenes?

titanmelon said:
pussy/cloaca/??? ?
post #875308

----------
Right, so how does one find such posts/scenes?

feral_with_feral would be the best suggestion

titanmelon said:
pussy/cloaca/??? ?
post #875308

would tend torwards a ovipositor sence it does seem to sit at the end of a insect abdomen, its certainly not a pussy.

titanmelon said:
pussy/cloaca/??? ?
post #875308

----------
Right, so how does one find such posts/scenes?

Ruku said:
would tend torwards a ovipositor sence it does seem to sit at the end of a insect abdomen, its certainly not a pussy.

There's a reason for the insect_abdomen_pussy tag.

Furrin_Gok said:
There's a reason for the insect_abdomen_pussy tag.

And there's a reason why such a tag isn't being used, incorrect terminology and unwieldy length.

Ruku said:
And there's a reason why such a tag isn't being used, incorrect terminology and unwieldy length.

It's not the longest tag we have, and is perfectly accurate. It's not an ovipositor here, it's a pussy.

Furrin_Gok said:
It's not the longest tag we have, and is perfectly accurate. It's not an ovipositor here, it's a pussy.

https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/862/flashcards/2083862/png/untitled41-1449EDA690B6D82D57E.png

Some regard the opening at the tip as a ovipositor, others regard it as a anus, not one reference calls the opening as being synonymous to a vaginal opening. no mainstream media treat the opening as a pussy ether but rather the ovipositor of a egg sack.

Ruku said:
https://classconnection.s3.amazonaws.com/862/flashcards/2083862/png/untitled41-1449EDA690B6D82D57E.png

Some regard the opening at the tip as a ovipositor, others regard it as a anus, not one reference calls the opening as being synonymous to a vaginal opening. no mainstream media treat the opening as a pussy ether but rather the ovipositor of a egg sack.

We're referring to fictional characters here, not really life photos.

Furrin_Gok said:
We're referring to fictional characters here, not really life photos.

correction we are referring to proper terminology to a certain anatomical feature on a character, not characters themselves or real life photos(pointing out the link is a anatomical diagram drawing, not a photo)

Is there a general tag for characters having sex with objects that are not sex toys? I know there's a dragons_having_sex_with_cars and building_sex tag but there doesn't seem to be one for objects in general.

post #42956 post #488614 post #788396 post #931673 post #525476

BlueDingo said:
Is there a general tag for characters having sex with objects that are not sex toys? I know there's a dragons_having_sex_with_cars and building_sex tag but there doesn't seem to be one for objects in general.

post #42956 post #488614 post #788396 post #931673 post #525476

improvised_sex_toy?

Do we have a tag for this kind of foot configuration where 1 or 2 toes are alained in a backwards direction? its a fairly common feature among most avian species and some avian and dragon characters do have them. post #999381 post #939757

I created reversed_toe some time ago but in hinsight it may not be that intuitive...

Ruku said:
Do we have a tag for this kind of foot configuration where 1 or 2 toes are alained in a backwards direction? its a fairly common feature among most avian species and some avian and dragon characters do have them. post #999381 post #939757

I created reversed_toe some time ago but in hinsight it may not be that intuitive...

I created the back_toe tag myself. reversed_toe doesn't seem to exist... Even in empty tags.

Furrin_Gok said:
I created the back_toe tag myself. reversed_toe doesn't seem to exist... Even in empty tags.

hmm... thought it did but i guess i was actually considering the use but never actually employed it yet. back_toe certainly seem better and wouldnt be prone to mispellings but not sure if there could be a problem with quadruped characters, eg. back feet/front feet...

Ruku said:
hmm... thought it did but i guess i was actually considering the use but never actually employed it yet. back_toe certainly seem better and wouldnt be prone to mispellings but not sure if there could be a problem with quadruped characters, eg. back feet/front feet...

It also doesn't define how many are back toes: For example, with Decidueye which are supposed to have 2 front-toes and 2 back-toes, you can only search for 4_toes back-toe and hope they didn't give him three front toes.

Furrin_Gok said:
It also doesn't define how many are back toes: For example, with Decidueye which are supposed to have 2 front-toes and 2 back-toes, you can only search for 4_toes back-toe and hope they didn't give him three front toes.

well thats one thing that cant be solved unless we want to start using strictly elite scientific terminology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dactyly#In_birds) but some tags like child where both multiple children and single children are represented singular woulds seem to be the way to go with this particular tag were both forms are represented as well. Does rear_toe seem better? since it is particular to feet but isnt confusing in being perceived as being allowed on only a certain leg pair...?

Update

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

I just created a wiki page for improvised_weapon in the same vein as improvised_sex_toy. Should certain weapon tags (eg. holding_weapon) apply to improvised weapons?

BlueDingo said:
I just created a wiki page for improvised_weapon in the same vein as improvised_sex_toy. Should certain weapon tags (eg. holding_weapon) apply to improvised weapons?

Personally I'd say no. The object may be being treated as a weapon, but it's not specifically designed as such. I'm not, however, going to throw a hissy fit if the consensus is otherwise.

imagoober said:
Personally I'd say no. The object may be being treated as a weapon, but it's not specifically designed as such. I'm not, however, going to throw a hissy fit if the consensus is otherwise.

Actually I'd agree with you.

Fair enough. I'll update the wiki page to reflect this.

HCould somebody go through the disambiguation tags and create wiki pages indicating the proper tags to use, as in dressing room and pool? It's pointless to redirect things to an "ambiguous" tag if there's no simple way to find out what tag we're supposed to use!

I just tagged something with the aliased-as-ambiguous "writing", but writing (disambiguation) fails to actually tell me what's the damn proper tag I should be using... And it's not the first time this happens to me.

Circeus said:
I just tagged something with the aliased-as-ambiguous "writing", but writing (disambiguation) fails to actually tell me what's the damn proper tag I should be using... And it's not the first time this happens to me.

See forum #187155. We never came up with a replacement for the actual activity of writing, which is why it lacks a wiki page.

Genjar said:
See forum #187155. We never came up with a replacement for the actual activity of writing, which is why it lacks a wiki page.

... Am I allowed to say it makes aliasing the tag away in such conditions kind of irresponsible?

Wiki pages created: christmas_ornament christmas_bauble tinsel

Tags need to be populated. Shouldn't be too hard since images containing these usually have a christmas tag.

How big does a character's eyes need to be to qualify as big_eyes? I usually add it to images like post #1066514 where the eyes are massive but have seen it on images with much smaller eyes. Does ~10% of facial area sound reasonable?

BlueDingo said:
I usually add it to images like post #1066514 where the eyes are massive but have seen it on images with much smaller eyes. Does ~10% of facial area sound reasonable?

That post definitely qualifies, but yes, it does seem overused. Personally, I'd only tag it for >20% or so. Otherwise there's too much overlap with wide_eyed, etc.

I tried to figure out roughly what percentage of area a human eye takes up on a human face and came up with ~3%, so 10% for each eye is fairly large. I also worked out that Kiki's eyes (using post #1066345 because it's the only one where you can see her from the front) are ~22%.

post #1064068 is ~9% so I think it would make a decent benchmark. I didn't include the ear or horn area in that calculation since they would be above the hairline if this character had one.

BlueDingo said:
I tried to figure out roughly what percentage of area a human eye takes up on a human face and came up with ~3%

That seems low. Do you have a source?

Lance_Armstrong said:
That seems low. Do you have a source?

No. I tried looking for one but nothing came up. I used a very shoddy method of figuring it out (taking a face diagram, copying an eye, pasting it as many times within the space as possible and divide 100 by the number that fit. 100/37=~3 ) but I know the percentage is a low number. I should try a proper calculation to see how close to 3% it is.

The other percentages above, I used an ellipse area calculator. It works well enough when a character's head and eyes are circles. Isn't geometry fun?

a comparison chart would probably do better then random percentages

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/c4/ea/3c/c4ea3cac324297c64041a22c3cb011da.jpg

7-9 are definitely there thru would cut out likly over 3-4th of all posts under the tag. 5 is kinda debatable if thats worthwhile or if there will be too much overlap with the aforementioned wide eyed tag

Ruku said:
a comparison chart would probably do better then random percentages

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/1b/d2/e6/1bd2e6984b8b9f5356c66b8318ca0672.jpg

7-9 are definitly there thru would cut out likly over 3-4th of all posts under the tag. 5 is kinda debatable if thats worthwhile or if there will be too much overlap with the aforementioned wide eyed tag

6 is ~10%. 7+ are definitely over.

Of course, I'm not expecting taggers to actually calculate the eye size when tagging. What I want to do is work out roughly how big "big" is, find some images matching that size and use them as examples on the big_eyes page, maybe with a message below it saying "No smaller than this." or something like that. They can then use the examples as a guide.

Shouldn't the hanging_(disambiguation) page have dangling listed on it? As far as I know, that's the tag for when characters are suspending themselves in the air by hanging onto a ledge, branch, etc.

Also, should hanging_by_tail images be changed to dangling_by_tail or suspended_by_tail, depending on the situation?

BlueDingo said:
Shouldn't the hanging_(disambiguation) page have dangling listed on it?

That's nearly as ambiguous as hanging. Something like hanging_by_hands would work better.

...and dangling can be aliased to hanging_(disambiguation), it's close enough.

Also, should hanging_by_tail images be changed to dangling_by_tail or suspended_by_tail, depending on the situation?

Hanging_by_tail sounds better, and is more commonly used. Some should be moved under lifted_by_tail, though.

Genjar said:
That's nearly as ambiguous as hanging. Something like hanging_by_hands would work better.

...and dangling can be aliased to hanging_(disambiguation), it's close enough.

Hanging_by_tail sounds better, and is more commonly used. Some should be moved under lifted_by_tail, though.

Then what umbrella term would you use for hanging_by_hands, hanging_by_tail, hanging_by_legs and other possible tags? Can't use hanging and you want to disambiguate dangling.

BlueDingo said:
Then what umbrella term would you use for hanging_by_hands, hanging_by_tail, hanging_by_legs and other possible tags?

hanging_by_*. Not everything needs an umbrella tag.

I don't know what classic is supposed to refer to and there's no wiki page for it. From what I can tell, it refers to:

• Images created with very old software.
• Images containing old cartoon characters.
• Images containing stereotypically british things.

Should this tag be defined and applied properly, or retagged and nuked?

EDIT: vintage has a similar issue.

BlueDingo said:
Wiki pages created: christmas_ornament christmas_bauble tinsel

Tags need to be populated. Shouldn't be too hard since images containing these usually have a christmas tag.

Jumping back a bit, there's currently also christmas_decoration, which seems like it would contain *_ornament, *_bauble, and tinsel (though kinda iffy with the last, as tinsel isn't only used for Christmas decorating).

imagoober said:
Jumping back a bit, there's currently also christmas_decoration, which seems like it would contain *_ornament, *_bauble, and tinsel

There wasn't back when christmas_ornament's page was created (07/12/2016 vs. 18/12/2016). christmas_decoration would encompass those and more so we probably should use that one instead.

imagoober said:
(though kinda iffy with the last, as tinsel isn't only used for Christmas decorating).

If you really think about it, any decoration can be used for any occasion if you choose to use it that way. Some things that are commonly used as christmas decorations (eg. bells) can't be implicated for that reason. Tinsel is questionable.

Correction, it's christmas_decorations (plural) that I was thinking of.

BlueDingo said:
I don't know what classic is supposed to refer to and there's no wiki page for it. From what I can tell, it refers to:

• Images created with very old software.
• Images containing old cartoon characters.
• Images containing stereotypically british things.

Should this tag be defined and applied properly, or retagged and nuked?

EDIT: vintage has a similar issue.

from the looks of the last 2 pages(oldest posts that have the tag), the original propose does seem to be for famous old cartoons like the loony toons, bugs Bunny and other western "ACME" Toon Characters. Thru classic as a tag is too subjective and ambiguous so i am all for cleaning it out and invalidating it.

In regards to vintage, in its barest terms it means objects or clothing from a previous era(history) in a modern setting, it isnt subjective as opposed to classic. thru the vintage tag here does seem to be a utter mess thru and thru...

Vintage is mostly tagged for old furry art, stuff from early 90s.
Both that and classic are far too subjective and ambiguous, and I don't see how they could be disambiguated either. We don't have tags for things like 'classic toons'. Nor should we, since that'd be outside knowledge.
Good candidates for invalidation; those should be sets instead of tags.

Ruku said:
In regards to vintage, in its barest terms it means objects or clothing from a previous era(history) in a modern setting, it isnt subjective as opposed to classic. thru the vintage tag here does seem to be a utter mess thru and thru...

Well... Isn't as subjective. One of the definitions for vintage is "denoting something from the past of high quality, especially something representing the best of its kind." so there's some subjectivity on what counts as "high quality". The only way I could see this working as a tag is if it were depicting things that are considered vintage IRL but that falls into "outside information" territory (ie. you can't tell if something is vintage without something telling you it is) so invalidation might be a better option.

Should molotov_cocktails be classified as weapons or improvised_weapons?

BlueDingo said:
Should molotov_cocktails be classified as weapons or improvised_weapons?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

latter seems sound

It is basicly a composite of a wine bottle, gasoline and a wash cloth repurposed as a incenerery weapon. they wernt manufactured for the propose as a weapon.

Ruku said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov_cocktail

latter seems sound

It is basicly a composite of a wine bottle, gasoline and a wash cloth repurposed as a incenerery weapon. they wernt manufactured for the propose as a weapon.

Fair enough. I was just making sure before I start tagging them.

Next question: Should improvised_weapons get the weapon tag as well, or should that be reserved for ones that were specifically created to be weapons (sword, gun, etc.)?

BlueDingo said:
Fair enough. I was just making sure before I start tagging them.

Next question: Should improvised_weapons get the weapon tag as well, or should that be reserved for ones that were specifically created to be weapons (sword, gun, etc.)?

Personally i see no issue with that if the usage as a weapon is actually shown but the wiki for improvised_weapons does state that improvised weapons should not get any tags related to weapons and activities like holding a weapon...so most likely not.

Ruku said:
Personally i see no issue with that if the usage as a weapon is actually shown but the wiki for improvised_weapons does state that improvised weapons should not get any tags related to weapons and activities like holding a weapon...so most likely not.

I was the one who created that wiki page. I added the "no weapon-specific tags" line because a few users didn't think it would be a good idea to associate weapon-specific tags with things that weren't designed to be weapons and I agreed with them.

BlueDingo said:
I was the one who created that wiki page. I added the "no weapon-specific tags" line because a few users didn't think it would be a good idea to associate weapon-specific tags with things that weren't designed to be weapons and I agreed with them.

ah mistake on mine then. its your choice then unless a admin steps in...^^;

True, but I'm open to a second opinion. The reason why I asked whether improvised_weapons should be tagged as weapons is that weapon can be interpreted two different ways. On one hand, anything that is capable of hurting or killing someone (even a pillow) can be classified as a weapon at the point in time. On the other hand, people usually reserve the word weapon for things that were specifically created to be weapons and little else. improvised_weapon generally fall into the former category, and some of the improvised_weapon and molotov_cocktail images have the weapon tag while others don't.

A lamia is a half-human/half snake creature and implies snake because of this. What are non-snake versions called?

post #10311

     ↑
Tagged lamia and snake. Has similar features to a lamia yet isn't part snake. This one's part eel.

Naga has a similar issue, with non-snake versions existing.

BlueDingo said:
A lamia is a half-human/half snake creature and implies snake because of this. What are non-snake versions called?

post #10311

     ↑
Tagged lamia and snake. Has similar features to a lamia yet isn't part snake. This one's part eel.

Naga has a similar issue, with non-snake versions existing.

Exactly what I argued in forum #164312 and forum #164311. They decided to deny my claims and approve the implication anyways.