Topic: Advanced Tag/Wiki Discussion: Specific tags/articles: Usage/Edits, questions, concerns, etc.

Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions

It's all cheeseburgers. Point is, it doesn't matter what's in there. You don't see a big round belly and label it as a baby. You label it as a big round belly.

Updated by anonymous

So, reading your comment on FA, am I understanding correctly that you don't know the difference between subcutaneous fat and abdominal fat? What was "involved with muscles" supposed to mean?

Also, why is your example of why it's always right to tag a round belly as pregnant an example of basically identical ones being only a one out of three hit rate?

Updated by anonymous

notnobody said:
So, reading your comment on FA, am I understanding correctly that you don't know the difference between subcutaneous fat and abdominal fat?

Gonna go with "yes" since you're speaking jargon.

Also, why is your example of why it's always right to tag a round belly as pregnant an example of basically identical ones being only a one out of three hit rate?

Vore is only applicable if there is additional information, meaning there are only two things, and knowing what to look for guarantees success on a TWYS site like ours.
If an artist can intentionally use the visual cues then we can tag by them, even in images by artist's unaware of them.

Updated by anonymous

Abdominal and subcutaneous fat are absolutely not jargon. They're common terms. Subcutaneous, in any regard, means beneath the skin. It's the soft flub you can pinch on most of your body. Abdominal, or visceral, fat is behind the abdominal wall. That, I'm assuming, is what you meant by "involved with muscles." Abdominal fat surrounds the abdominal organs - i.e., occupying the same space as the uterus and various other things. It pushes the rectus abdominus forward, just like a baby-filled uterus would, and it looks very much the same. An exceptionally full stomach could do the same. That's why people sometimes talk about having "a food baby." I don't see how you think vore qualifies as requiring additional information, but you don't think pregnancy does. Visual queues are irrelevant, especially when they make no sense at all and are based on one person's very strangely misguided understanding of anatomy - which, not for nothing, is already suspect in the realm of inconsistent artists drawing unrealistic cartoon porn.

Updated by anonymous

"Jargon" just means "A term I don't understand." I knew what Abdomen meant, but would have assumed that either of those referred to "Abdominal Fat," since it's still fat in the abdominal region.

Anyways, regarding "Additional details," if all we see is a "kick" in the belly, it'lll get tagged as pregnant. If there's evidence of a large, adult-sized hand pushing out instead of just a bump, it's likely vore instead.

TWYS involves using the easiest assumption: Since both post-vore and pregnancy use Abdominal fat, we look to see if there's any evidence of them having just eaten, or that there's a more fully formed individual in their belly, as by the point where you're pregnant enough for that size of a bulge to form, there won't actually be any evidence aside from the belly itself. post #1065205 does not show any cum, so we cannot assume it's a cum inflation.

Updated by anonymous

Jargon does not mean that. It means a term that people in general typically don't understand because it's specialized language used primarily by a closed group. I'm almost amazed you've been able to evade learning the difference between those two types of belly fat with all of the health talk permeating everything everywhere these days. Those terms are thrown around in every workplace health program and medical office and pamphlet and doctor show and everything else so much that they're almost impossible to miss. Pregnancy and vore have nothing to do with abdominal fat. The point is that, short of a handprint like you mentioned, or a hose in an ass, or something dripping, or a sonogram screen, or some other sort of evidence, you have nothing to go on to give a reason for a big belly being there. You just have a big belly. The fact that your personal perspective is colored by your own fetishes and the types of things you get drippy thinking about when you see those bellies has nothing at all to do with the reality of what you're seeing. We all dream up fantasies with dick in hand, but there's no benefit to transferring those fantasies out into tags that have nothing to do with objective reality.

Updated by anonymous

notnobody said:
The fact that your personal perspective is colored by your own fetishes

You seem to like accusing people of having fetishes they don't. Tell me something: Do you have a fetish for big bellies? A repulsion against (male) pregnancy?
It seems to me more like you're the one who's being influenced here, whether by either of those two things or just by stubbornness. I've told you time and time again, if the belly juts straight out, it's because of something inside, not just straight up fat, which is "Subcutaneous."

Updated by anonymous

I don't really care at all about mpreg stuff. It's not even on my radar. What I care about is wantonly inaccurate tagging. The reason I'm assuming you have that fetish is because you're so adamant about adding the tag to things, and you're clearly going and looking at it. If the belly juts out, yeah, it's absolutely because there's something inside. What I'm trying to get you to see is that a baby is one of many things that could be in there, and it's weird and wrong to automatically assume that's what it is. It could be fat, yeah, or a character that was swallowed one way or the other, or air, or liquid, or any number of other fantastical things in fur porn. Saying that the distended belly means it's definitely a pregnancy is completely senseless, and you're bound to be wrong most of the time.

Updated by anonymous

notnobody said:
I don't really care at all about mpreg stuff. It's not even on my radar. What I care about is wantonly inaccurate tagging. The reason I'm assuming you have that fetish is because you're so adamant about adding the tag to things, and you're clearly going and looking at it. If the belly juts out, yeah, it's absolutely because there's something inside. What I'm trying to get you to see is that a baby is one of many things that could be in there, and it's weird and wrong to automatically assume that's what it is. It could be fat, yeah, or a character that was swallowed one way or the other, or air, or liquid, or any number of other fantastical things in fur porn. Saying that the distended belly means it's definitely a pregnancy is completely senseless, and you're bound to be wrong most of the time.

Wrong only according to the artist's intentions. People who do have a fetish for or repulsion against a certain thing will be wondering why it wasn't properly tagged as what it looks like, which is why the TWYS system works this way. I don't care if I'm not using the term "Anatomy" the way you like, it's still an accurate word to use by it's very definition.
The Anatomy of how the belly works most frequently follows things in this way, with exceptions being rare, so it's more reasonable to tag things by this scientific likelihood than some random artist's desire to have things tagged according to their ignorance. Except for artists who intentionally draw things ignoring anatomy, the realization that what they drew looks like something else will help to improve their art.

Updated by anonymous

In regards to armor, I can't find an official term for shoulder armor. Terms like pauldron, spaulder and ailette all seem to refer to specific pieces of shoulder armor (according to Wikipedia, at least) and there are many images of characters wearing should armor that don't fit under those terms. Should we use a broad term like shoulder_armor or shoulder_guards for shoulder armor in general? Currently, I am using shoulder_guards for any shoulder armor that I can't identify.

shoulder_pads is loaded with armor images. We're gonna need to clear that up at some point.

Updated by anonymous

That's too much of a double edged sword. Someone might like vore and want to see characters with distended bellies full of other characters, but hate mpreg and blacklist it. If we did what you're suggesting, those people would wrongly miss what they were looking for because you mislabeled it as something else that in your opinion looks similar. If you so love mpreg that you want anything that might resemble it, you could just search distended_stomach along with it, and if you so hated it that you never wanted it, but didn't want to exclude unrelated things that one of our uses considers similar, you wouldn't want that wide net being cast for bad reasons. That's why it's called tag what you see, not tag what you think you see.

Updated by anonymous

I've just noticed an implications issue. Gauntlets implies gloves which implies clothing, meaning images featuring gauntlets will be tagged clothing even if no clothing is present.

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
In regards to armor, I can't find an official term for shoulder armor. Terms like pauldron, spaulder and ailette all seem to refer to specific pieces of shoulder armor (according to Wikipedia, at least) and there are many images of characters wearing should armor that don't fit under those terms. Should we use a broad term like shoulder_armor or shoulder_guards for shoulder armor in general? Currently, I am using shoulder_guards for any shoulder armor that I can't identify.

shoulder_pads is loaded with armor images. We're gonna need to clear that up at some point.

Some group implications sounds good, yeah.

BlueDingo said:
I've just noticed an implications issue. Gauntlets implies gloves which implies clothing, meaning images featuring gauntlets will be tagged clothing even if no clothing is present.

We should probably remove that... I'm not sure if you can even consider leather gloves as being armor instead of clothing, so maybe gauntlets should be on their own as hand armor.

-

notnobody said:
That's too much of a double edged sword. Someone might like vore and want to see characters with distended bellies full of other characters, but hate mpreg and blacklist it. If we did what you're suggesting, those people would wrongly miss what they were looking for because you mislabeled it as something else that in your opinion looks similar. If you so love mpreg that you want anything that might resemble it, you could just search distended_stomach along with it, and if you so hated it that you never wanted it, but didn't want to exclude unrelated things that one of our uses considers similar, you wouldn't want that wide net being cast for bad reasons. That's why it's called tag what you see, not tag what you think you see.

Well, you're certainly in the right area to get fixes for these problems. "Big belly" can be a bit vague, and, sure, some people can be a bit more tolerant of images that don't feature the incredibly specific details, but some people aren't. Adding more tags for more obvious pregnancies might be a solution, such as something for a baby kicking against the lining. Do we already have tags like that in place, just underused/unnoticed?

Updated by anonymous

Furrin_Gok said:
We should probably remove that... I'm not sure if you can even consider leather gloves as being armor instead of clothing, so maybe gauntlets should be on their own as hand armor.

It depends on the glove type. Gardening gloves and work gloves are often made of leather and wouldn't be considered armor (protective gear, maybe?) but leather gauntlets are much thicker and usually cover the forearm, plus armor can and often was made of leather.

gloves -> clothing is an interesting case since it is technically accurate but characters wearing them are generally not considered clothed unless they're also wearing a shirt or something (Mario vs Sonic).

The question is, which implication do we break to prevent mistagging, gauntlets -> gloves or gloves -> clothing?

Furrin_Gok said:
Well, you're certainly in the right area to get fixes for these problems. "Big belly" can be a bit vague, and, sure, some people can be a bit more tolerant of images that don't feature the incredibly specific details, but some people aren't. Adding more tags for more obvious pregnancies might be a solution, such as something for a baby kicking against the lining. Do we already have tags like that in place, just underused/unnoticed?

big_belly is meant to be simple and descriptive. Sure, the reason why the belly is big can vary (fat, pregnancy, inflation, vore) but it should still be used regardless of the reason since it is still accurate. The other tags require more information, that one doesn't.

As for a tag for a baby kicking... post #677840 is tagged kick and motion_lines. pregnant kick returns a few results.

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
gloves -> clothing is an interesting case since it is technically accurate but characters wearing them are generally not considered clothed unless they're also wearing a shirt or something (Mario vs Sonic).

We have "mostly_nude", a specific tag for characters wearing only clothing that don't cover significantly their bodies.

BlueDingo said:
The question is, which implication do we break to prevent mistagging, gauntlets -> gloves or gloves -> clothing?

But why "clothing" and "armor" need to be mutually exclusive?
If I am not wrong, some light armors are composed by multiple layers of fabric; also exist light, but almost indestructible fabrics in fiction that may be used on armors (and there are special cases like the two-ton tunic from xiaolin showdown).

Updated by anonymous

O16 said:
We have "mostly_nude", a specific tag for characters wearing only clothing that don't cover significantly their bodies.

But why "clothing" and "armor" need to be mutually exclusive?
If I am not wrong, some light armors are composed by multiple layers of fabric; also exist light, but almost indestructible fabrics in fiction that may be used on armors (and there are special cases like the two-ton tunic from xiaolin showdown).

post #41961 post #162648 post #314299 post #486287

Please point to the clothing in these images.

Updated by anonymous

Im going just point out that anything used to cover/dress a living body or parts of the body -and that includes forms of armor that are to be worn on the body- are a form of clothing.

Updated by anonymous

Ruku said:
Im going just point out that anything used to cover/dress a living body or parts of the body -and that includes forms of armor that are to be worn on the body- are a form of clothing.

So you would classify a breastplate as clothing?

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

BlueDingo said:
So you would classify a breastplate as clothing?

Hm. If someone's wearing a breastplate, they're not nude. And if they're only wearing a breastplate, then technically the bottomless tag should apply... which implies clothed.

And at the moment the nudity tag group consists of these tiers: nude, mostly_nude, partially_clothed, and fully_clothed. Each character is expected to fit into one category.

So, yes, from the tagging viewpoint it would make some sense to consider armored characters to be 'clothed'.

Updated by anonymous

It's a weird, interesting question...

So if someone was fully armored, you wouldn't be able to see whether they had any non-armor things on underneath, but you certainly wouldn't call them nude. For some reason my mind shot back to old jrpgs where usually your first "armor" was "clothes," and that never seemed too weird to say, at least. It's not really the stuff we'd normally think of as clothing, but maybe as garments? That word comes from old French for "equip," and in that sense it would fit. And now we consider those synonyms. Maybe it's just semantics, but I'd usually consider someone with just like pasties and maebari to be nude, and I figure the same would be true for just socks and gloves or something, but it doesn't make it less weird to have a solo pic simultaneously tagged with nude and clothed.

I thought for a minute I remembered us having a functionally_nude tag, but then I realized I was remembering that from gelbooru. Could be a useful concept to include for resolving issues like this.

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

O16 said:
Why "armored" is aliased to "armor" instead of implicated?

See forum #172770. Not sure if I agree with that particular decision, might've been better to make it mirror the clothed/clothing pair.

If a ghost posses a sock is it clothed?

That's probably something that should be tagged case-by-case. Might fall under animate_inanimate sock, etc.

Is the "bottomless" tag appliable to taur, merfolk, naga, lamia, cecaelia and whatever this thing is?

Yes, it applies regardless of the form. Not to that thing though, that should be tagged as nude.

notnobody said:
I thought for a minute I remembered us having a functionally_nude tag, but then I realized I was remembering that from gelbooru. Could be a useful concept to include for resolving issues like this.

Gelbooru doesn't have a description for that tag. How does it differ from mostly_nude? Seems identical as far as I can tell, based on how they tag it.

Updated by anonymous

O16 said:

Since the subjects in question are clothing and armor I have some aditional questions:

  • If a ghost posses a sock is it clothed?

1. forum #172770

2. I'd say a ghost possessing a sock is as much clothed as a ghost possessing anything else.

3. It should. If it has no clothing on the bottom half, it is bottomless. What the bottom half looks like shouldn't matter.

Updated by anonymous

Genjar said:
How does it differ from mostly_nude?

I tend to interpret that, and see it tagged there with the amount of noise I'd expect without any guidelines, that it means kind of "not nude, ...except where it counts." So like, someone wearing non-zero clothing, but nude in such a way that they could sex it up, or would be arrested in most public places, etc. Sort of opposite of a speedo where all you're wearing is what makes you functionally clothed, invert that and you have functionally nude. So, where you'd be mostly_nude wearing a c-string, you'd be functionally nude wearing thigh-high boots, shoulder-high gloves, a shrug, a cummerbund, a scarf, a and a hat... Lots of clothing, but still exposed in a way that's notably different from, say, slanging your dick out of your fly.

O16, BlueDingo, Ruku said:
ghost stuff

We're talking about possessing as in taking over, right? Not, like, just having? Like is this just now a living sock with some googly eyes? I was interpreting that question as kind of "there is a living thing which itself is a piece of clothing, but is not draped in any clothing. Can clothing be nude if it's alive?..." And if I'm interpreting it right, I'd say no just because that would be confusing. I think it'd be productive to figure out just what we intend to mean by any usage of "nude." My gut is, it just means at minimum having full exposure of the areas where sex organs are or would be expected. Tacking on expected there to not disqualify pictures like post #3205

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

notnobody said:
I tend to interpret that, and see it tagged there with the amount of noise I'd expect without any guidelines, that it means kind of "not nude, ...except where it counts." So like, someone wearing non-zero clothing, but nude in such a way that they could sex it up, or would be arrested in most public places, etc. Sort of opposite of a speedo where all you're wearing is what makes you functionally clothed, invert that and you have functionally nude.

What you just described is identical to the mostly_nude tag: 'clothing' that doesn't cover any of the areas that are traditionally clothed. Character wearing only boots and a hat is tagged as a mostly_nude, whereas a c-string would instead fall under skimpy. ...extremely skimpy.

Updated by anonymous

notnobody said:
Can clothing be nude if it's alive?..." And if I'm interpreting it right, I'd say no just because that would be confusing.

Can a jacket wear itself?

notnobody said:
I think it'd be productive to figure out just what we intend to mean by any usage of "nude." My gut is, it just means at minimum having full exposure of the areas where sex organs are or would be expected. Tacking on expected there to not disqualify pictures like post #3205

The wiki says "Images or animations depicting at least one character who isn't wearing any clothing. Generally, decorations such as piercings and jewelry such as bracelets, rings, and necklaces do not count as "clothing". In addition, bondage does not count as clothing, to a point." which probably should be rewritten to mention armor and mention whether other covering (capes, towels, etc.) count.

Genjar said:
What you just described is identical to the mostly_nude tag: 'clothing' that doesn't cover any of the areas that are traditionally clothed. Character wearing only boots and a hat is tagged as a mostly_nude, whereas a c-string would instead fall under skimpy. ...extremely skimpy.

"Functionally_nude" at Gelbooru seems to be a mix of mostly_nude and things where a character is wearing clothing but all their bits are showing.

post #901791

Updated by anonymous

I take the difference between functionally and mostly for those descriptions to be sort of magnitude. So if nude were 0% clothed and clothed were 100%, it could be something like 0%<mostly<10% and 90%<functionally<100%. Exposed is occupying a corner of what that could refer to right now, but I think it's different in some way that matters whether you're seeing something like a Marilyn Monroe style upskirt vs a character who's just dressed in such a way as to leave their junk hanging out. It's almost like a style of dress, or a state of undress coupled with an indication that it's not just a freeze frame in the process.

So take ones like these:

post #715866 post #979931

Certainly clothed, and far from mostly being nude, but both exposed in totally non-accidental ways that generally wouldn't be publicly acceptable and would be workable for sex. Seems different to me from something like post #1121579 where anything that might be considered clothing is pretty negligible.

Updated by anonymous

Any weapons experts out there that can help sort out the glaive, naginata and guan_dao tags? To me, they all look like the same thing: A sword blade on a spear handle.

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
Any weapons experts out there that can help sort out the glaive, naginata and guan_dao tags? To me, they all look like the same thing: A sword blade on a spear handle.

Glaive is just a European polearm, pretty much a sword blade on a stick; naginata have a round guard near or at the blade, like a katana; guan dao have a spike opposite of the edge and sometimes a notch directly below the spike to catch opposing blades.

Updated by anonymous

Siral_Exan said:
Glaive is just a European polearm, pretty much a sword on a stick; naginata jave a round guard near or at the blade, like a katana; guan dao have a spike opposite of the edge and sometimes a notch directly below the spike to catch opposing blades.

Then what does this one count as? It's tagged guan_dao and naginata.

post #89796

No spike like a guan_dao, not smooth enough for a naginata.

We need to go thorough the tags to sort out which is which because naginata and glaive returns a range of weapons and some are tagged as more than one thing.

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
Then what does this one count as? It's tagged guan_dao and naginata.

post #89796

No spike like a guan_dao, not smooth enough for a naginata.

We need to go thorough the tags to sort out which is which because naginata and glaive returns a range of weapons and some are tagged as more than one thing.

Naginata. Original tags take priority, and it had guan dao added on. It is not a European polearm, the blade is too curved. I only intended to make descriptions without full on nerding out, this is a specific case.

Updated by anonymous

Siral_Exan said:
Naginata. Original tags take priority, and it had guan dao added on. It is not a European polearm, the blade is too curved. I only intended to make descriptions without full on nerding out, this is a specific case.

Is there a generic term that would cover all three types, besides polearm?

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
Is there a generic term that would cover all three types, besides polearm?

As much as I would avoid stuff like generalizing, they're all basically pole-swords, a faux term to describe a sword blade on a pole. Then would be a poleaxe and halberds, axe heads on a pole; spears and pikes, basically tipped poles instead of edged; and hooked poles, but I think there is only one weapon by that design. Scythes aren't polearms, but are similar.

Of note, there are more nameable polearms that I am not listing, I am fairly busy.

Updated by anonymous

Siral_Exan said:
As much as I would avoid stuff like generalizing, they're all basically pole-swords, a faux term to describe a sword blade on a pole. Then would be a poleaxe and halberds, axe heads on a pole; spears and pikes, basically tipped poles instead of edged, and hooks poles. Scythes aren't polearms, but are similar.

I'm only asking for the general term because it's easy to identify a "sword on a stick" but most people wouldn't know the difference between the various types of "sword on a stick". A general term would allow them to at least call it something more descriptive than polearm without having to know exactly what it is.

pole-sword (or polesword) should work as a general term, with glaive, naginata and guan_dao as implications.

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
I'm only asking for the general term because it's easy to identify a "sword on a stick" but most people wouldn't know the difference between the various types of "sword on a stick". A general term would allow them to at least call it something more descriptive than polearm without having to know exactly what it is.

pole-sword (or polesword) should work as a general term, with glaive, naginata and guan_dao as implications.

Then feel free to glance through the list of pole weapons for thinking up implications. I'm ok with polesword, and if people can't tell the difference between a sword edge, an axe head, and a spear head, then at least polearm still suffices as the last of the tag series.

Updated by anonymous

IIRC quan dao roughly translates to "Quan's sword," because it was invented by some general Quan or something. Compared to the other two, it's a way bigger, heavier blade and shorter shaft. I remember some documentary at some point explaining that it was meant to be able to cut off horses' legs on the battlefield. Naginata are really long with a smaller, thin and light blade, because they were meant for getting up at the rider. They were really light overall, which is why women usually got training with them for self defense in case of an invasion. Glaives, I don't know much about. But at least for the other two, artists pulling designs out of their asses aside, probably easiest to say - long staff with little curved katana at the end, naginata, short staff with big heavy broad sword at the end, quan dao.

Edit: Oh yeah.. and what about The Glaive? From Krull? Way more specific and a bit esoteric, but probably a much bigger association for those of us who remember the eighties...

Updated by anonymous

notnobody said:
Edit: Oh yeah.. and what about The Glaive? From Krull? Way more specific and a bit esoteric, but probably a much bigger association for those of us who remember the eighties...

The Glaive revealed by a quick "Krull Glaive" is just a 5-point throwing_glaive. We should probably make a tag for that, or else alias it if there's a proper name.
Throwing Glaives are sort of an inverted Chakram, where instead of a blade only along the outside, the blades originate from the center outward. Similar to Chakram, they can be used without being thrown (Simply slice at the enemies with them, throw in a bit of spin for extra cut).

Also, their ability to return akin to a boomerang is purely fictional. In fact, wikipedia says that "Throwing Glaives" have never been used in any real-world war.

Updated by anonymous

Speaking of weapons and weirdness, what about staff? I saw post #1122272 and initially thought a spear was mistagged as a staff, but then noticed it was sort of magic...ish...looking... So I checked to see if the wiki mentioned regular staves as well as "grumblebork's staff of shooting shit" and what-not. It doesn't. How much do people care about specific sorts of weapons? Better to update the wiki or disambiguate?

The thing in the movie is a proper name, btw. Magical weapon of the chosen one and all that.

Updated by anonymous

notnobody said:
Speaking of weapons and weirdness, what about staff? I saw post #1122272 and initially thought a spear was mistagged as a staff, but then noticed it was sort of magic...ish...looking... So I checked to see if the wiki mentioned regular staves as well as "grumblebork's staff of shooting shit" and what-not. It doesn't. How much do people care about specific sorts of weapons? Better to update the wiki or disambiguate?

The thing in the movie is a proper name, btw. Magical weapon of the chosen one and all that.

The crystal on top is a magical conduit. Or, in layman's terms, just fancy junk; not used for striking enemies, just there to look cool and aid in magics.

The wiki should be updated to include that staffs are also used for channeling magic, but no implication/alias should be made. That's just a fancy ass magic long-stick. I went ahead and added a simple description, there are far too many designs and iterations to specify.

Updated by anonymous

notnobody said:
Speaking of weapons and weirdness, what about staff? I saw post #1122272 and initially thought a spear was mistagged as a staff, but then noticed it was sort of magic...ish...looking... So I checked to see if the wiki mentioned regular staves as well as "grumblebork's staff of shooting shit" and what-not. It doesn't. How much do people care about specific sorts of weapons? Better to update the wiki or disambiguate?

The thing in the movie is a proper name, btw. Magical weapon of the chosen one and all that.

Siral_Exan said:
The crystal on top is a magical conduit. Or, in layman's terms, just fancy junk; not used for striking enemies, just there to look cool and aid in magics.

The wiki should be updated to include that staffs are also used for channeling magic, but no implication/alias should be made. That's just a fancy ass magic long-stick. I went ahead and added a simple description, there are far too many designs and iterations to specify.

If it looks like it's still a staff, sure. But that's just it, that particular weapon looks like a spear. Tag What You See, not Know. If the gem was not so cleanly cut, it would look less like a stabber and more like a catalystic gemstone, but anything like this should not be tagged as a staff.

Updated by anonymous

Furrin_Gok said:
If it looks like it's still a staff, sure. But that's just it, that particular weapon looks like a spear. Tag What You See, not Know. If the gem was not so cleanly cut, it would look less like a stabber and more like a catalystic gemstone, but anything like this should not be tagged as a staff.

Yes, 'cause a spear has a crystal that floats around... that is less of a spear and more of a staff.

Updated by anonymous

Siral_Exan said:
Yes, 'cause a spear has a crystal that floats around... that is less of a spear and more of a staff.

"Crystal."
Looks like it could easily be steel or iron instead. Regardless, it's the shape of the tip that matters, not the material or whether it's sitting on or floating off of the stick. You could even give it a magical aura and have it shooting fire, if it still looks like a spear then it's a spear.

Updated by anonymous

Furrin_Gok said:
"Crystal."
Looks like it could easily be steel or iron instead. Regardless, it's the shape of the tip that matters, not the material.

The "tip" is not attached, though. It is floating in the center of four prongs, two on each side. There is even an orb in the center... the "tip" is the conduit for magic. I didn't specify that for no reason, that is not even part of the physical staff, just the thing that floats above.

And spears wouldn't feature those together. The accumulation of magical elements in the image points to a magic staff, not a spear.

Updated by anonymous

I just created a wiki page for throwing. Should the throwing tag cover images of character who are about to throw something (or at least look they're about to) or just characters who are/have throwing/thrown something?

post #327074 post #492438

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
I just created a wiki page for throwing. Should the throwing tag cover images of character who are about to throw something (or at least look they're about to) or just characters who are/have throwing/thrown something?

post #327074 post #492438

I'd say the implication of thrown objects by them, or simply it is out of their grasp; this way you can have a better time including magically and mechanically thrown as well.

Updated by anonymous

There seems to be a lot of crossover between hand_wraps, wrist_wraps and arm_wraps. Hand wraps is simple enough, it covers the hand but may also cover the wrist and forearm. Wrist wraps must cover the wrist but may cover the hand and forearm as well. Arm wraps can cover any part of the arm, including the wrist.

To make a clearer distinction between the tags and reduce mistags, should we manually retag wrist_wraps to hand_wraps and/or arm_wraps, or use wrist_wraps for forearm coverage and restrict arm_wraps for upper arm and elbow coverage?

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

BlueDingo said:
There seems to be a lot of crossover between hand_wraps, wrist_wraps and arm_wraps. Hand wraps is simple enough, it covers the hand but may also cover the wrist and forearm. Wrist wraps must cover the wrist but may cover the hand and forearm as well. Arm wraps can cover any part of the arm, including the wrist.

After taking a second look at those, they do seem tricky.

I'd go with this:
hand_wrap for the type that either covers the hand, or hand and wrist.
wrist_wrap for the type that only covers the wrist.

Arm_wrap is too ambiguous. Maybe we need an upper_arm_wrap tag to keep those sorted.. Can't name it brachium_wrap, since hardly anyone knows what that means.

Updated by anonymous

Is there an official ruling on what does and doesn't count as a monster girl, or an official ruling on how the monster_girl_(genre) tag is supposed to be used? I've seen this tag on things that I'm pretty sure are not part of the genre (eg. Splash Woman) and randomly applied to just about anything that looks part woman.

Also worth noting that the monster_boy tag is hardly ever used.

Updated by anonymous

Genjar said:

Arm_wrap is too ambiguous. Maybe we need an upper_arm_wrap tag to keep those sorted.. Can't name it brachium_wrap, since hardly anyone knows what that means.

"Brachium" is most used to upper-arms, but it literaly means arm. However, if we start analising words by their etmology "anthropomorphic" and "humanoid" would turn to be synonyms, since both mean human-like (both "anthropos" and "human" mean human, and both "morpho" and "oid" mean shape or aspect).

BlueDingo said:
Is there an official ruling on what does and doesn't count as a monster girl, or an official ruling on how the monster_girl_(genre) tag is supposed to be used? I've seen this tag on things that I'm pretty sure are not part of the genre (eg. Splash Woman) and randomly applied to just about anything that looks part woman.

Also worth noting that the monster_boy tag is hardly ever used.

I know nothing about this subject, sorry.

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

One question: should "penetration" also be used to penetrable sex toys?

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

O16 said:
"Brachium" is most used to upper-arms, but it literaly means arm.

I suppose we'll have to use the upper_arm_wrap tag, then.
...or maybe biceps_wrap could work? Though that's not hundred percent accurate either.

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
Maybe if the penetrable sex toy in question is a character, otherwise no. Penetration is for characters.

Thank you. I know the wiki already says that, but sometimes I really don't know how much I should trust in wikis (before I have edited the "virus" wiki, it said virus are cells)

Updated by anonymous

We currently have a merry_christmas tag for images that say "Merry Christmas" but don't seem to have an equivalent tag for other holidays. Should we create equivalent tags for other holidays or change merry_christmas to something more general like holiday_message and apply it to all messages of this nature (Season's greetings, Happy Easter, etc.) so users can search it and the holiday name (eg. holiday_message valentine's_day) to get images containing a holiday-specific message?

post #1087846 post #1085929 post #834191 post #852057

Although searching a holiday name with text (eg. christmas text) can usually find these images, it will also find many other images that don't contain the holiday message.

post #1118178 post #903327 post #881495 post #896473

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
We currently have a merry_christmas tag for images that say "Merry Christmas" but don't seem to have an equivalent tag for other holidays. Should we create equivalent tags for other holidays or change merry_christmas to something more general like holiday_message and apply it to all messages of this nature (Season's greetings, Happy Easter, etc.) so users can search it and the holiday name (eg. holiday_message valentine's_day) to get images containing a holiday-specific message?

post #1087846 post #1085929 post #834191 post #852057

Although searching a holiday name with text (eg. christmas text) can usually find these images, it will also find many other images that don't contain the holiday message.

post #1118178 post #903327 post #881495 post #896473

At first, I didin't saw the necessity for such tag; but after some consideration, I noticed that it is perfectly possible that people want to see holiday messages, and since one specific tag for each holiday seem unnecessary, "holiday_message" may work. Also, the menssage in question may be non-verbal (e.g. pictographics), hence search for "text + holiday_name" might fail in bring the wanted results.

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

Question: like "penetration", " knotting" also shouldn't be used in case of penetrable sex toys, don't it?

Updated by anonymous

O16 said:
At first, I didin't saw the necessity for such tag; but after some consideration, I noticed that it is perfectly possible that people want to see holiday messages, and since one specific tag for each holiday seem unnecessary, "holiday_message" may work. Also, the menssage in question may be non-verbal (e.g. pictographics), hence search for "text + holiday_name" might fail in bring the wanted results.

The only question now is, should birthdays be included? Technically not a holiday but people tend to treat it like one and it does have a related message (Happy Birthday).

O16 said:
Question: like "penetration", " knotting" also shouldn't be used in case of penetrable sex toys, don't it?

Knotting implies sex. Sex, and all tags implying it, only apply if it's being done to a character.

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
The only question now is, should birthdays be included? Technically not a holiday but people tend to treat it like one and it does have a related message (Happy Birthday).

I think not, it is considerably away from the concept of "holiday":

I) It is an event directly related to a specific person, usually afecting only close individuals.

II) It may occur at any date (according with this person's birthdate, of course).

BlueDingo said:
Knotting implies sex. Sex, and all tags implying it, only apply if it's being done to a character.

I) I know it, these two questions were only to be as sure as possible before continuing the discusion on forum #220078.

II) Maybe this implication need to be reevaluated due the existence of knotted dildos.

Updated by anonymous

rail vs. railing vs. guard_rail, hand_rail and grab_bar

These tags sorta mean the same thing. Should we try to use the more specific terms (guard_rail, hand_rail and grab_bar) when possible or tag all of them as either rail or railing? Some are clearly one type while others are either difficult to tell, look the same as another type or are technically more than one type. Wikipedia has pages to all three listed under railing.

post #1010166 post #958886 <- Guard Rail
post #452525 post #186285 <- Hand Rail
post #15811 post #909664 <- Grab Bar

Images of train tracks also show up in the railing tag. Those need to be sorted as well.

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
rail vs. railing vs. guard_rail, hand_rail and grab_bar

These tags sorta mean the same thing. Should we try to use the more specific terms (guard_rail, hand_rail and grab_bar) when possible or tag all of them as either rail or railing? Some are clearly one type while others are either difficult to tell, look the same as another type or are technically more than one type. Wikipedia has pages to all three listed under railing.

post #1010166 post #958886 <- Guard Rail
post #452525 post #186285 <- Hand Rail
post #15811 post #909664 <- Grab Bar

I do not think we need that distinction; however if you decide to keep them (tags) anyway, at least get rid of "hand_rail", it aparently is either a "garb_bar" or "guard_rail" placed on stairs.

BlueDingo said:
We have a flying_sex tag for characters having sex while flying, but what about when the characters are falling? Can't call it flying sex because flying sex implies flying and these characters are not flying.

post #652347 post #924056

Suggestion:

Creat the "midair_sex" tag, it would be used for all kinds of sex in midair, don't matter if while flying, floating, falling, being carried by a gust etc. I also suggest the following implications:

BlueDingo said:
keyboard, computer_keyboard, keyboard_(computer). All three tags refer to a computer keyboard.

keyboard, synthesizer, keyboard_(instrument). All three tags refer to a musical instrument.

post #892581post #997743

Suggested aliases:

¹ Probably would be better fix this one manually.

p.s. Sorry for the late answer.

Updated by anonymous

O16 said:
I do not think we need that distinction; however if you decide to keep them (tags) anyway, at least get rid of "hand_rail", it aparently is either a "garb_bar" or "guard_rail" placed on stairs.

This is what I meant by "technically more than one type". In example 2a, the hand rail doubles as a guard rail because it prevents people from walking off the side of the steps. I think the only difference between a hand rail and a grab bar is hand rails help you maintain balance while moving while grab bars help you maintain balance while stationary, which is why they're much shorter and placed on trains and toilet stalls. Since some railings can be difficult to determine, implicating guard_rail and grab_bar to railing might be a good idea.

Of course, ignoring the nuance and aliasing all three to railing is also an option. Less precise but simpler and still correct. We also need to figure out what to do with rail.

O16 said:

Suggestion:

Create the "midair_sex" tag, it would be used for all kinds of sex in midair, don't matter if while flying, floating, falling, being carried by a gust etc. I also suggest the following implications:

+1 to flying_sex I→ midair_sex. We will need a clear definition for midair before considering midair_sex I→ midair because anything from this to this can be considered midair.

O16 said:

Suggested aliases:

¹ Probably would be better fix this one manually.

The problem with keyboard_(instrument) is that technically speaking, the word keyboard doesn't refer to the instrument itself. It only describes the part with the keys. I think "Electronic keyboard" is the most official term for the instrument but people do called it simply "keyboard". What about:

+1 for keyboardkeyboard_(disambiguation).

Updated by anonymous

Genjar

Former Staff

O16 said:

Suggestion:

Creat the "midair_sex" tag, it would be used for all kinds of sex in midair, don't matter if while flying, floating, falling, being carried by a gust etc. I also suggest the following implications:

I'd consider sex while falling and sex while flying to be entirely separate kinks. Personally, I like the latter and don't want to see the former. So I'd rather not see them lumped under the same tag.

--
Anyway, unrelated, but I noticed a problem with the koopa -> scalie implication. Even the humanoidized Koopas get the scalie tag now:
post #741123 post #713277
Should probably be unimplicated?

Updated by anonymous

Genjar said:
I'd consider sex while falling and sex while flying to be entirely separate kinks. Personally, I like the latter and don't want to see the former. So I'd rather not see them lumped under the same tag.

midair_sex flying would find images of flying sex. midair_sex falling would find images of falling sex. Using midair_sex for all of them saves us from having to make a *_sex tag for every possibility and allows us to tag ambiguous cases.

Genjar said:
Anyway, unrelated, but I noticed a problem with the koopa -> scalie implication. Even the humanized Koopas get the scalie tag now:
post #741123 post #713277
Should probably be unimplicated?

Koopagirl shouldn't have the koopa tag because she is not actually a koopa. She is a human(oid?) designed to look vaguely like a koopa, and she is no more a koopa than a catgirl is a cat.

Updated by anonymous

BlueDingo said:
Koopagirl shouldn't have the koopa tag because she is not actually a koopa. She is a human(oid?) designed to look vaguely like a koopa, and she is no more a koopa than a catgirl is a cat.

I would say the Koopagirl is doing a Jessica-Nigri-esque Koopa cosplay...how do you guys handle cosplay tags around here? Because it seems to me when characters cosplay they still get tagged as the thing they are cosplaying as...so she would retain the "koopa" tag, right?

Updated by anonymous

Dyrone said:
I would say the Koopagirl is doing a Jessica-Nigri-esque Koopa cosplay...how do you guys handle cosplay tags around here? Because it seems to me when characters cosplay they still get tagged as the thing they are cosplaying as...so she would retain the "koopa" tag, right?

That's because characters usually cosplay as other characters, and get that character's tag. When they're cosplaying as a species... I don't know.

Updated by anonymous