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

I'm trying to think of a suitable term for this.

• Can't use taur, that specifies legs.
• Can't use humanoid, not human enough.
• Danbooru seems to use eel_girl... and mermaid... and monster_girl. Fuck.
• This Gelbooru post mentions Unagi Jorou, then Google spat this up. Google Translate says "Unagi Jorou" means "Eel Jelly" which is no help.

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

As i noted in the latter thread i did suggest unipedal as a general locomotion tag that would cover all forms of legless movement by tail but it obviously was ignored like most of your arguments as well uu
caudapedal (locomotion by tail)

Ruku said:
As i noted in the latter thread i did suggest unipedal as a general locomotion tag that would cover all forms of legless movement by tail

Wrong. Unipedal means movement on one hand or foot. Snakes do not all into that category.

caudapedal (locomotion by tail)

Citation needed. I tried googling caudapedal but got several pages of foreign links. No english links and no definition.

BlueDingo said:
Wrong. Unipedal means movement on one hand or foot. Snakes do not all into that category.

Citation needed. I tried googling caudapedal but got several pages of foreign links. No english links and no definition.

for all intents and perpicises the bottom half of the body that has contact with the ground and is used for locomotion would be regarded as the "foot" the same way the underside of a mollusks body for locomotion is also called a 'foot'. Obviously there is no veterinary reference to this use sense nagas dont exist irl but it is plausible the same system applied onto mollusk locomotion would also be applied to others naga and lamia like creatures that move with a part of the body surface thats made to facilitate locomotion.

And that i was just playing around with latin combinations...>>

Ruku said:
for all intents and perpicises the bottom half of the body that has contact with the ground and is used for locomotion would be regarded as the "foot" the same way the underside of a mollusks body for locomotion is also called a 'foot'. Obviously there is no veterinary reference to this use sense nagas dont exist irl but it is plausible the same system applied onto mollusk locomotion would also be applied to others naga and lamia like creatures that move with a part of the body surface thats made to facilitate locomotion.

And that i was just playing around with latin combinations...>>

You mean "purposes"? I try not to pick on spelling because people hate it when I do, but that one is pretty far off the mark.

While that is technically true for mollusks, the same doesn't apply to snakes and certainly not eels whose main mode of transportation is swimming.

If we had a term that simply meant "half human, half something else" and terms for more specific cases (like my example of a "half human, half eel"), we could tag them properly, write up the wikis and move on.

--------------------

EDIT: Wait, hold on. I just thought of something.

Eels are fish, right. The definition of a mermaid says they have the bottom half of a fish, but it doesn't say what type of fish.

post #10311

Technically speaking, that's a mermaid. Half woman, half fish. I'm not sure what you would call this specific type of mermaid, though, as the only general term I could find was eel_girl which following site protocol, would need to be changed to eel_humanoid.

So why don't we just go with eel_humanoid?

BlueDingo said:
So why don't we just go with eel_humanoid?

Yep, that's fine. Animal_humanoids don't need to be bipedal, though almost all of them are.

Genjar said:
Yep, that's fine. Animal_humanoids don't need to be bipedal, though almost all of them are.

Cool. Now the question is, eel_humanoid I-> merfolk?

BlueDingo said:
Cool. Now the question is, eel_humanoid I-> merfolk?

You're forgetting the presence of gastropodal naga. Any serpentine form with an anthro, but not outright humanoid, form should be a naga. Humanoid form up there makes it into lamia. There are no other tags for that, and the implication needs to go away.

Is there a tag for the red stuff at the top of post #1089949?

Closest tag I can think of is tentacles, hence tentacle_monster, but it's not quite the same type of anatomy as, say, post #606406

titanmelon said:
Is there a tag for the red stuff at the top of post #1089949?

Closest tag I can think of is tentacles, hence tentacle_monster, but it's not quite the same type of anatomy as, say, post #606406

I thought we created tentacle_cilia for that a good while ago?

BlueDingo said:
You mean "purposes"? I try not to pick on spelling because people hate it when I do, but that one is pretty far off the mark.

While that is technically true for mollusks, the same doesn't apply to snakes and certainly not eels whose main mode of transportation is swimming.

We are not talking about snakes or eels thru but rather any naga/lamia like creatures that are essentially legless taurs who like real molusks use their lower body half to move while the upper half contain organs and what not and does not naturally have contact with the ground.

If we had a term that simply meant "half human, half something else" and terms for more specific cases (like my example of a "half human, half eel"), we could tag them properly, write up the wikis and move on.

that would require 100s of new unnecessary tags for every single species when using 1 body form tag and existing species tags would get the same results.

Eels are fish, right. The definition of a mermaid says they have the bottom half of a fish, but it doesn't say what type of fish.

post #10311

Technically speaking, that's a mermaid. Half woman, half fish. I'm not sure what you would call this specific type of mermaid, though, as the only general term I could find was eel_girl which following site protocol, would need to be changed to eel_humanoid.

So why don't we just go with eel_humanoid?

Dont see a problem with taging them as merfolk but nether merfolk nor eel_humanoid quite solves the issue of describing the body form which was your question on page 5, eel_humanoids can be both legged or legless, merfolk as well.

Ruku said:
We are not talking about snakes or eels thru but rather any naga/lamia like creatures that are essentially legless taurs who like real molusks use their lower body half to move while the upper half contain organs and what not and does not naturally have contact with the ground.
that would require 100s of new unnecessary tags for every single species when using 1 body form tag and existing species tags would get the same results.
Dont see a problem with taging them as merfolk but nether merfolk nor eel_humanoid quite solves the issue of describing the body form which was your question on page 5, eel_humanoids can be both legged or legless, merfolk as well.

Exactly. I want to search for the bodytype, not for a specific subspecies.

Furrin_Gok said:
Exactly. I want to search for the bodytype, not for a specific subspecies.

The closest thing I can think of is a tag I quietly made some time ago: serpentine.

What about if taur was extended to cover marine life?

BlueDingo said:
What about if taur was extended to cover marine life?

Taurs are multi-legged. Merfolk have no legs at all. That seems like a poor mix.

We should probably add a new tag to the biped/quadruped group. The Latin term for legless creatures would be apod (apodal), but is that too obscure?

Genjar said:
We should probably add a new tag to the biped/quadruped group. The Latin term for legless creatures would be apod (apodal), but that's probably too obscure?

I see no harm in making apod but like biped and quadruped before it, it likely won't get used all that much. It would likely cover everything with no legs, not just the half-humans so it won't help much with our current issue of finding a "half-man, half-apod" group term.

I've noticed there isn't a "half-man, half-biped" group term for things like satyr yet either.

BlueDingo said:
I've noticed there isn't a "half-man, half-biped" group term for things like satyr yet either.

The tag name is the biggest hurdle for that. I haven't seen any halfway decent suggestions for it over the years.

Genjar said:
The tag name is the biggest hurdle for that. I haven't seen any halfway decent suggestions for it over the years.

I suggested at the bottom of this page to use "Hemitaur" for it.

Why does the hume tag exist? If it's being used in terms of the Ivalice race in Final Fantasy, it should be merged with human. "Hume" is just what they call "humans" because they don't want to sound too mundane. (It's a stupid name if you ask me...) Also, the tag doesn't strictly have to do with XII or Tactics images. If there's an image tagged with "hume" that has humans, then "human" should be tagged.

BinaryHedgehog said:
Why does the hume tag exist?

Mostly because nobody's got around to submitting an alias for it, and the admins tend to be way too busy to handle that manually.

taurs, including centaurs with their top half human/bottom half horse, are never anthro or humanoid right? there seems to be confusion on this in tagging practice

paulapig said:
taurs, including centaurs with their top half human/bottom half horse, are never anthro or humanoid right?

Right, as per wiki.
Looks like someone has made some mistags lately, will need to be cleaned out.

And the wiki is missing some details, so thanks for pointing that out.

What is fgsfds supposed to be? All I'm seeing is a random assortment of images containing characters either raising their index finger, pointing in various ways and in one case, beckoning.

---------------

Should ear_hands, hair_hand, tail_hand and a list of bodypart_penis tags be added to tag_group:anatomy?

BlueDingo said:
What is fgsfds supposed to be? All I'm seeing is a random assortment of images containing characters either raising their index finger, pointing in various ways and in one case, beckoning.

---------------

Should ear_hands, hair_hand, tail_hand and a list of bodypart_penis tags be added to tag_group:anatomy?

Would seem to be a specific type of pose from a meme uu;

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/fgsfds
-----------------------------------
regarding x_hand and other mix matched tags like dicknipples and nipple mouths dont see a plreblem adding them in anatomy but i would think its better collecting them under their own tag group of unusual anatomy

Ruku said:
regarding x_hand and other mix matched tags like dicknipples and nipple mouths dont see a plreblem adding them in anatomy but i would think its better collecting them under their own tag group of unusual anatomy

Or maybe an "unusual anatomy" section within tag_group:anatomy and move some of the entries that are already in there to that section. Either way, I'll try getting a list together.

EDIT: Here's a list.

protect, protecting, protective, protection, protector, defending, defensive, guarding, guardian

Which one(s) should we keep and which one(s) should be applied to images like this?

post #83282

None of those have wiki pages, by the way. There is also shielding but that seems to refer to images of a character actively protecting themselves/others from something.

post #1029516

BlueDingo said:
protect, protecting, protective, protection, protector, defending, defensive, guarding, guardian

Which one(s) should we keep and which one(s) should be applied to images like this?

I'd start by pruning the ones that are obviously bad. Protection, defensive, and protector are too ambiguous to keep. Guardian is also ambiguous because it often refers to a title instead of activity, and then there's also potential forgotten underscores from the_last_guardian, etc.

Genjar said:
I'd start by pruning the ones that are obviously bad. Protection, defensive, and protector are too ambiguous to keep. Guardian is also ambiguous because it often refers to a title instead of activity, and then there's also potential forgotten underscores from the_last_guardian, etc.

Any objection to shielding, or is there a better tag for that? Some images like the one above may be tagged covering which conflicts with covering's definition.

BlueDingo said:
Any objection to shielding, or is there a better tag for that? Some images like the one above may be tagged covering which conflicts with covering's definition.

That is problematic.
Whole lot of those can be used for either protecting an another character, protecting self, or protecting a location.

Might be best to create a completely new tag. Something like protecting_another?

Genjar said:
That is problematic.
Whole lot of those can be used for either protecting an another character, protecting self, or protecting a location.

Might be best to create a completely new tag for those. Something like protecting_another?

That could work. Have protecting as an umbrella tag for protecting things in general, implicate protecting_another to it, create+implicate a protecting_self tag as well (and maybe protecting_viewer if that ever comes up). Clean up all related tags.

Maybe alias defending and protecting together since they basically mean the same thing.

------------

Partly related: Should we make a protective_gear tag for things that don't fit into the armor tag (knee_pads, mouthguard, etc.)?

Genjar said:
I'd start by pruning the ones that are obviously bad. Protection, defensive, and protector are too ambiguous to keep. Guardian is also ambiguous because it often refers to a title instead of activity, and then there's also potential forgotten underscores from the_last_guardian, etc.

Suggestions:

• I) Make desambiguation tags for the following:
• protection
• defensive
• protector
• guardian
• II) keep the following:
• protecting(1)
• protective(2)
• guarding(3)
• defending(4)
• III) Do the following aliases:
• shielding → protecting
• protect → protecting

IV) Creat "sexual_protection"(5)

1) X blocks, or is ready to block, K in order to protect Y.
e.g. post #197761

2) X shows protective behaviour toward Y.
e.g. post #930929

3) X mounts guard in order to protect Y.
e.g. post #913843

4) X attacks, or is ready to attack, K in order to protect Y.
e.g. post #413421

5) self explanatory.
e.g. post #141410

X = defender.
K = "threat".
Y = defended.
X and Y may be the same in the case
(1).

Note: implication condom → sexual_protection.

BlueDingo said:
That could work. Have protecting as an umbrella tag for protecting things in general, implicate protecting_another to it, create+implicate a protecting_self tag as well (and maybe protecting_viewer if that ever comes up).

I agree.

BlueDingo said:
That could work. Have protecting as an umbrella tag for protecting things in general, implicate protecting_another to it, create+implicate a protecting_self tag as well (and maybe protecting_viewer if that ever comes up). Clean up all related tags.

Sounds good to me. Would certainly be less ambiguous.

We also lack a tag for guarding locations. The guard tag is usually just tagged for characters who are wearing an uniform (which would fit better under guard_uniform tag), not for actual guard duty.

...yeah, that group definitely needs some organization.

Partly related: Should we make a protective_gear tag for things that don't fit into the armor tag (knee_pads, mouthguard, etc.)?

Protective_gear got no support back when I suggested it, and one vote against. So I didn't bother to bring it up in the commitee. Though I still think it could be useful as an umbrella tag, for gear that don't fit well enough under the armor tag. Such as sports helmets, padding, etc.

Genjar said:
Sounds good to me. Would certainly be less ambiguous.

We also lack a tag for guarding locations. The guard tag is usually just tagged for characters who are wearing an uniform (which would fit better under guard_uniform tag), not for actual guard duty.

...yeah, that group definitely needs some organization.

guard for an actual guard.

guard_uniform should probably be handled the same way as police_uniform.

guarding for a character performing guard duty (so basically standing around doing fuck all). guard and guarding would have overlap but there are situations where a guard is off-duty and there's some other random person performing guard duty for whatever reason.

protecting_place/protecting_location for a character protecting a place/location in the same manner as the other protecting tags. May or may not involve a guard.

O16 said:

stuff

Suggestions:

• I) Make desambiguation tags for the following:
• protection
• defensive
• protector
• guardian
• II) keep the following:
• protecting(1)
• protective(2)
• guarding(3)
• defending(4)
• III) Do the following aliases:
• shielding → protecting
• protect → protecting

IV) Creat "sexual_protection"(5)

1) X blocks, or is ready to block, K in order to protect Y.
e.g. post #197761

2) X shows protective behaviour toward Y.
e.g. post #930929

3) X mounts guard in order to protect Y.
e.g. post #913843

4) X attacks, or is ready to attack, K in order to protect Y.
e.g. post #413421

5) self explanatory.
e.g. post #141410

X = defender.
K = "threat".
Y = defended.
X and Y may be the same in the case (1).

Note: implication condom → sexual_protection.

I) Sounds alright.

(1) protecting + block/blocking?
(2) Sounds alright.
(3) I suppose performing guard duty for a person or a place could use the same tag.
(4) I still think protecting and defending are basically the same thing. Before an attack or during, it's still protecting/defending.
(5) protecting_self might apply in context (ie. wolf making shark wear a mouthguard to protect himself from sharp teeth).

III)
shielding → protecting - Maybe.
protect → protecting - Definitely.

IV) Including the condom implication would combine two different types of protection in one tag (protect from damage vs. protect from pregnancy).

BlueDingo said:
(1) protecting + block/blocking?

I guess both "block" and "blocking" aren't a good idea, they sound ambiguous (specially "block").

BlueDingo said:
(3) I suppose performing guard duty for a person or a place could use the same tag.

I don't said it can't. Y may be an individual, object or place.

BlueDingo said:
(4) I still think protecting and defending are basically the same thing. Before an attack or during, it's still protecting/defending.

I still see a difference.
e.g. If one person insult another and a thrid person come to defend the insulted.
In this case "protecting" don't seems to be the most appropriate term, to me.

BlueDingo said:
(5) protecting_self might apply in context (ie. wolf making shark wear a mouthguard to protect himself from sharp teeth).

Also (maybe), but "sexual_protection" would refer to the object not to the action.

BlueDingo said:
IV) Including the condom implication would combine two different types of protection in one tag (protect from damage vs. protect from pregnancy).

And sexually transmisive diseases, don't forget them.

O16 said:
I guess both "block" and "blocking" aren't a good idea, they sound ambiguous (specially "block").

Then what tag can we use for a character blocking an attack?

I still see a difference.
e.g. If one person insult another and a thrid person come to defend the insulted.
In this case "protecting" don't seems to be the most appropriate term, to me.

I suppose protecting would be the more active one. It could work your way.

Also (maybe), but "sexual_protection" would refer to the object not to the action.

And sexually transmisive diseases, don't forget them.

I guess if we defined sexual_protection as an item that is being used to protect their partner in some way during sexual activity, it might work. I wouldn't implicate condom to it, though, because there's no guarantee that the condom is being used to do that (eg. condom balloons), especially if it or a box of them aren't opened yet.

BlueDingo said:
Then what tag can we use for a character blocking an attack?

in a manner of combat/attacks "deflect" or "obstruct" comes to mind.

I suppose protecting would be the more active one. It could work your way.

As to protecting and defending, they do seem to mean the same thing with the difference being in the context, one indicates a reactionary(response to an attack) state while the other is a constant state.

Ruku said:
in a manner of combat/attacks "deflect" or "obstruct" comes to mind.

Obstruct, maybe. Deflect would be another word for parry.

Deflect could also refer to projectile attacks or projectiles in general.

post #75641

Ruku said:
As to protecting and defending, they do seem to mean the same thing with the difference being in the context, one indicates a reactionary (response to an attack) state while the other is a constant state.

I hope people don't start conflating guarding and defending with each other, as the only noticeable difference between them is whether a threat is present.

Any objections to the guard* tag ideas?

Why is multi_teat listed as an explicit tag when both teats and multi_breast are not?

Armor mentions body armor and armored vehicles. Does anyone actually use the tag for armored vehicles? If not, can we remove that part and so armor only refers to body armor?

Also, we're gonna need a list of all the different armor types written somewhere, either on the armor page or in a tag group. I could never remember all the names and having an easy to access list would be very helpful. Any armor nuts out there?

BlueDingo said:
Why is multi_teat listed as an explicit tag when both teats and multi_breast are not?

Ask Ruku, for they have made it less than two months ago . I wouldn't be above saying that they made a mistake and didn't ask for an admin's input...

Siral_Exan said:
Ask Ruku, for they have made it less than two months ago . I wouldn't be above saying that they made a mistake and didn't ask for an admin's input...

the tag not but the explicit icon on the wiki is a mistake, forgot to delete the code for the icon when i copy pasted it then rewrote the wiki to properly represent the (proposed) tag content.

And yes did this without input, considered in this case as unnecessary, it is a fairly common feature on many mammal characters but none the less so far is not tagged because we make a distinction between teats and nipples.

nightstick is a disambiguation page of sorts that says to use either tonfa or police_baton. So why is tonfa aliased to nightstick when a nightstick is one type of tonfa?

----------

I'm going to make tag_group:sports soon.

3 hours later: Done. Now to start linking the various pages to it and create a few along the way.

BlueDingo said:
I'm going to make tag_group:sports soon.

3 hours later: Done. Now to start linking the various pages to it and create a few along the way.

Firstly, impressive.
However I guess you missed goalkeeper gloves boxing, boxing gloves, fighting ring and maybe some others; I could add those by myself, but I don't know if should start interfering with your work like that.
What about acts that may or not be sportive, like cycling or wrestling? And how the sport wiki fits here?

O16 said:
Firstly, impressive.
However I guess you missed goalkeeper gloves boxing, boxing gloves, fighting ring and maybe some others; I could add those by myself, but I don't know if should start interfering with your work like that.
What about acts that may or not be sportive, like cycling or wrestling? And how the sport wiki fits here.

Feel free to add anything I've missed. As long as you put things in the right places and try to link each page back, it's all good.

Should posts like these be tagged with crying?
post #1105577 [more examples here]

We have lineless and lineless_art

any notable differences?

Updated tag group:facial expressions

• added Actions Involving the Face

• created page for tears_of_joy, since it seems to be populated now
• https://e621.net/forum/show/205180
• https://e621.net/forum/show/205233

tears_of_joy raises the question about there being a tears_of_sadness tag, or similar

Along with any other emotions out there related to tears

• tears
• tears_of_joy
• tears_of_sadness
• tears_of_anger
• tears_of_frustration
• tears_of_pain
• tears_of_*

Should circumcised imply humanoid_penis?
same for uncut (and foreskin, depending on what happens there)

titanmelon said:
Should circumcised imply humanoid_penis?
same for uncut (and foreskin, depending on what happens there)

Depends. Is there a term for surgically removing part/all of a sheath?

The box wiki page says the tag should only be used for cardboard boxes, yet it's also used for other types of boxes (usually crates) and a cardboard_box tag exists. Should the box wiki be rewritten to refer to any box type?

titanmelon said:
Should circumcised imply humanoid_penis?
same for uncut (and foreskin, depending on what happens there)

post #1105279
Thanks to Posexe, no. Not at all.

shore: 119 posts.
seaside: 10364 posts.

Can't alias shore to seaside, because it includes lakes and such. But I can see that seaside is also getting tagged for other things than just actual seaside. Likely from the beach -> seaside implication.

What to do? Should shore replace seaside as the main tag for this group? ...would require a lot of posts and couple of implications and aliases to be moved around, though.

There are a lot of images under male_pregnancy -penis. Should we really just assume they're males and not flat chested tomboys?

Furrin_Gok said:
There are a lot of images under male_pregnancy -penis. Should we really just assume they're males and not flat chested tomboys?

Half of them probably aren't pregnant at all.

BlueDingo said:
Half of them probably aren't pregnant at all.

Assuming a character is pregnant when just their belly juts out like that is the safer option.

Furrin_Gok said:
Assuming a character is pregnant when just their belly juts out like that is the safer option.

That could result in inflation and characters who normally have a large belly being tagged as pregnant. You need something a little more accurate than "big belly = pregnant".

post #1065205 post #1111729

BlueDingo said:
That could result in inflation and characters who normally have a large belly being tagged as pregnant. You need something a little more accurate than "big belly = pregnant".

post #1065205 post #1111729

That first one is pregnant, that second one is slightly_chubby.

Male pregnancy in fur art is one of those things to me that mostly sits in the eye of the fetish-holder. Just like if you see someone on an image board start a footpaw thread, but had you not seen the title you'd just think it was a bunch of reclining crotch shots, that first pic just looks like a pot belly to me until someone says it's a pregnancy. I don't look at/for those images enough to know what we do now really, but I'd think having pot_belly or beer_belly or something would make more sense. Saying it's the result of a pregnancy seems a little bit what-you-know-ish unless there's a sonogram or text or something.

And for those dare to commit the sin of using outside information, the comic that image is part of clearly shows it is cum inflation with no hint of male pregnancy whatsoever.

BlueDingo said:
And for those dare to commit the sin of using outside information, the comic that image is part of clearly shows it is cum inflation with no hint of male pregnancy whatsoever.

Sure, but like you said, that's daring to use outside information.

So that just means you tag it as a distended belly, right? If other pictures in a series don't count, you don't use outside info, and there's nothing on screen saying it's from a specific cause, you either don't tag it or just tag it as what it appears to be - a pot belly. The male_pregnancy tag on there now is a clear mistag for multiple reasons.

notnobody said:
So that just means you tag it as a distended belly, right? If other pictures in a series don't count, you don't use outside info, and there's nothing on screen saying it's from a specific cause, you either don't tag it or just tag it as what it appears to be - a pot belly. The male_pregnancy tag on there now is a clear mistag for multiple reasons.

No, it isn't. I see a male character (Bulge in the underpants) and a pregnant-style belly. Pot-bellies have a more gradual curve up top, whereas this one just starts jutting out.

What does pregnant-style mean? That's nothing but your own take on it. Not only is there nothing there to explicitly say that's what you're seeing, but when you take a step outside, you see that it's not even intended to be that. All that is is a big round belly. Tagging it as pregnant is no more valid than tagging his blush as thinking_about_public_speaking.

notnobody said:
What does pregnant-style mean? That's nothing but your own take on it. Not only is there nothing there to explicitly say that's what you're seeing, but when you take a step outside, you see that it's not even intended to be that. All that is is a big round belly. Tagging it as pregnant is no more valid than tagging his blush as thinking_about_public_speaking.

Read again: Pot-bellies have a more gradual curve up top. In other words, this is obviously not a pot-belly.

Read again: the character is not pregnant. In other words, this is obviously not a pregnant belly.

notnobody said:
the character is not pregnant

Outside information, does not count.

to clarify furrin goks notation about "styles" pot belly take on the form of a drop much in the way common female breasts do. a gravid pregnant belly on the other hand is roughly dome shaped as if they have a beach ball in their belly.

A belly from fat tends to be much more effected by gravity then a belly holding a baby.

Thru admittingly some artists have no grasp of the effects gravity would have on the shape of the body and in turn the belly. so shape is not really a good denominator. the tag would have to be reserved for situations that explicitly imply pregnancy like dialog, pregnancy tests, sonograms, birthing/unbirthing and so on

Ruku said:
to clarify furrin goks notation about "styles" pot belly take on the form of a drop much in the way common female breasts do. a gravid pregnant belly on the other hand is roughly dome shaped as if they have a beach ball in their belly.

A belly from fat tends to be much more effected by gravity then a belly holding a baby.

Thru admittingly some artists have no grasp of the effects gravity would have on the shape of the body and in turn the belly. so shape is not really a good denominator. the tag would have to be reserved for situations that explicitly imply pregnancy like dialog, pregnancy tests, sonograms, birthing/unbirthing and so on

I'd rather say the opposite: If an artist doesn't pay attention to how things would look in real life, we still tag it based on which real life form it looks like. That's what the TWYS policy is for.

My point is, unless the artist specifically clues you into the cause of a body part looking a certain way, you can't validly make the claim that it was caused by that. Everyone has their fetishes and predispositions, but we can't have a reliable system of tagging if everything is eye of the beholder. Tag something like this descriptively, like distended_stomach, not causally, like imagined_reason_for_how_the_stomach_became_distended. Otherwise, the same pictures could be tagged as bloating from starvation or as Randy Bobandy's cheeseburger locker.

notnobody said:
My point is, unless the artist specifically clues you into the cause of a body part looking a certain way, you can't validly make the claim that it was caused by that. Everyone has their fetishes and predispositions, but we can't have a reliable system of tagging if everything is eye of the beholder. Tag something like this descriptively, like distended_stomach, not causally, like imagined_reason_for_how_the_stomach_became_distended. Otherwise, the same pictures could be tagged as bloating from starvation or as Randy Bobandy's cheeseburger locker.

Actually, because of Tag What You See, we can tag it without artist's mention of it.
This has nothing to do with what I fetishize, it follows the anatomy of a pregnant belly, therefore it is.

There is no such thing as "the anatomy of a pregnant belly." What you're describing is what you see that makes you personally think about it. This is exactly the same thing as the thread you posted a while back about tagging incest, except you're making the exact opposite point. Then, you said we shouldn't do it just because the characters look enough alike that people assume it's incest. Here you're saying we should do it because the belly is round enough that you assume it's got a baby in it. I'm not as hardcore anti on the outside information as some people, but if you're going to tag based on outside information, at least do so using accurate information - e.g. in the example we were talking about, the information showing that the character absolutely is not pregnant.

All you can say for certain is the character has a big_belly. Anything beyond that is guesswork without sufficient evidence.

notnobody said:
There is no such thing as "the anatomy of a pregnant belly." What you're describing is what you see that makes you personally think about it. This is exactly the same thing as the thread you posted a while back about tagging incest, except you're making the exact opposite point. Then, you said we shouldn't do it just because the characters look enough alike that people assume it's incest. Here you're saying we should do it because the belly is round enough that you assume it's got a baby in it. I'm not as hardcore anti on the outside information as some people, but if you're going to tag based on outside information, at least do so using accurate information - e.g. in the example we were talking about, the information showing that the character absolutely is not pregnant.

Read Ruku's post:

Ruku said:
to clarify furrin goks notation about "styles" pot belly take on the form of a drop much in the way common female breasts do. a gravid pregnant belly on the other hand is roughly dome shaped as if they have a beach ball in their belly.

A belly from fat tends to be much more effected by gravity then a belly holding a baby.

Doesn't that belly sag from fat? No, so TWYS says it must be that which doesn't.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkVV9uICAAAMdq3.jpg:large
http://i.imgur.com/UD9EOxR.png
http://i.imgur.com/FWktTr0.jpg

Not a word you've said begins to support your claim. You're making up every last bit of what you think you're seeing.

notnobody said:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkVV9uICAAAMdq3.jpg:large
http://i.imgur.com/UD9EOxR.png
http://i.imgur.com/FWktTr0.jpg

Not a word you've said begins to support your claim. You're making up every last bit of what you think you're seeing.

https://www.reddit.com/r/trailerparkboys/comments/34q7jw/fuckin_randys_gut_is_full_of_dirty_old/

He is pushing his gut out. Or, that is not fat...