BlueDingo said:
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.

Well fursuiters "cosplay" as a certain species all the time, and if a fursuiter dresses up as a wolf, the image still gets the wolf tag, no? So same thing here.

I just made a wiki page for covering_chest and I'm wondering whether it and covering_breasts should be combined since the only difference between them is whether or not breasts are present.

post #63171 post #801436

BlueDingo said:
I just made a wiki page for covering_chest and I'm wondering whether it and covering_breasts should be combined since the only difference between them is whether or not breasts are present.

post #63171 post #801436

Interesting. I would've assumed the *_breasts version was already aliased to *_chest...

BlueDingo said:
I just made a wiki page for covering_chest and I'm wondering whether it and covering_breasts should be combined since the only difference between them is whether or not breasts are present.

post #63171 post #801436

To have specific tags for acts of covering the face or body parts with sexual conotation seems ok, but covering chest... I don't know. If we keep this tag, the wiki will need clarification; Does a character with the arms crossed counts as "covering chest"?

O16 said:
To have specific tags for acts of covering the face or body parts with sexual conotation seems ok, but covering chest... I don't know. If we keep this tag, the wiki will need clarification; Does a character with the arms crossed counts as "covering chest"?

Depends. Does it count for covering_breasts?

post #944193 post #127560

Arms usually cross below the chest, not over it.

BlueDingo said:
Depends. Does it count for covering_breasts?

post #944193 post #127560

1st) unsure
2nd) yes

BlueDingo said:
Arms usually cross below the chest, not over it.

It seems to happens in 1/4 to 1/3 of the times.

Flygon said:
If I may ask a question on a bit of the stranger end. Not too sure where to actually ask this.

Are there tags for handling what specific computer or console type that artwork is designed to be displayed on?

Or are instances of pixel art being designed for a specific machine in mind being submitted to the gallery so rare, that it isn't worth making note of?

I would like to be able to tag specific consoles and such.

Flygon said:
If I may ask a question on a bit of the stranger end. Not too sure where to actually ask this.

Are there tags for handling what specific computer or console type that artwork is designed to be displayed on?

Or are instances of pixel art being designed for a specific machine in mind being submitted to the gallery so rare, that it isn't worth making note of?

Is it worth telling the difference between a Genesis sprite and an SNES sprite? Both look the same if you don't know what the difference is.

To do this properly, you'd have to know the exact capabilities of just about every sprite-based console and run the color picker over all the pixels just to tell which console it's for. Not worth it, in my opinion.

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

I think the "central focus" part of the muscular wiki may need to be removed. If the muscular tag is only meant to apply when a character's muscularness (is that even a word?) is the focus of the image then what tag do you use when it isn't?

post #385495 post #986583

Flygon said:
I actually had more in mind things such as 8-bit Micros and Consoles. Huge differences in art style variation between C64, CPC, Atari 8-bit, SMS, NES, anything TMS99-series based.

Things such as aspect ratio, overall available palette... it's a fascinating mess.

But as I did lampshade, such pixel artwork being posted frequently enough to e621 would certainly be rather rare. Even if it would be neat trivia for users to see what machine a particular image was drawn for.

We could try something like tagging the color depth, palette size or approximate it to console type (eg. 8-bit). Exact console would be too difficult if it's not a full screenshot (and even then, many consoles can display multiple resolutions and aspect ratios) and some consoles can display sprites the same way (eg. the SNES format (4bpp 15-bit BGR palette) is also used on the N64, GBA and DS, meaning all 4 can display the same sprites).

BlueDingo said:

I think the "central focus" part of the muscular wiki may need to be removed. If the muscular tag is only meant to apply when a character's muscularness (is that even a word?) is the focus of the image then what tag do you use when it isn't?

post #385495 post #986583

Seems reasonable (I wonder how I never noticed that excerpt before).

I wanted to ask, would it be possible to add to the wiki of boss_monster that being a boss and a Monster don't automatically make something a Boss Monster? I'm seeing it get tagged on images with just a regular Monster that just happens to be a major fight, but is not a Boss Monster. I know the wiki describes Boss Monsters, but it doesn't seem to be stopping people from tagging anything with an important fight. Could there just be something making sure to note that "boss" + "Monster" =/= "boss monster"?

That is the common usage of 'boss monster', so I'm not surprised that some users tag it that way. Might need to disambiguate it and move the Undertale ones under species boss_monster_(undertale).

I thought boss_monster was only used for Undertale images. Searching boss_monster -undertale returns nothing.

kamimatsu said:
I wanted to ask, would it be possible to add to the wiki of boss_monster that being a boss and a Monster don't automatically make something a Boss Monster? I'm seeing it get tagged on images with just a regular Monster that just happens to be a major fight, but is not a Boss Monster. I know the wiki describes Boss Monsters, but it doesn't seem to be stopping people from tagging anything with an important fight. Could there just be something making sure to note that "boss" + "Monster" =/= "boss monster"?

I suggest to highlight in red the following excerpt "There are currently three known Boss Monsters: Toriel, Asgore, and their son, Asriel" (extracted from "boss_monster" wiki).

BlueDingo said:
Searching boss_monster -undertale returns nothing.

That is because "boss_monster" implies "undertale".

What's the proper way to tag A x B hybrids? "A B hybrid"? What if there's a common name for the hybrid, like mule or liger? "liger lion tiger hybrid", "liger hybrid", "lion tiger hybrid"?

The usage seems to be all over the place. Like mule is alised to "donkey" and often not tagged hybrid at all.

hslugs said:
What's the proper way to tag A x B hybrids? "A B hybrid"?

I believe it is "A B hybrid".

hslugs said:
What if there's a common name for the hybrid, like mule or liger? "liger lion tiger hybrid", "liger hybrid", "lion tiger hybrid"?

As far as I know, the hybrid's name is suposed to imply both species that compose it plus "hybrid"; however many of these implications apparently are missing.

About mule and donkey, I simply don't know what would justify that alias, the "little" phenotypic difference between the two maybe.

The recently created switch wiki page says it refers to someone who is comfortable being either top or bottom during sex.

1. How could you know this without using outside information or dialog?
2. What about actual switches?

BlueDingo said:
1. How could you know this without using outside information or dialog?

I don't think it's possible. Even if there are multiple_images within the image showing them as both a dom and a sub, I still wouldn't consider that to be worthy evidence.

BlueDingo said:
1. How could you know this without using outside information or dialog?

I see some possibilities:

I) Time progression (comic, sequence or animation).

II) Some instances of role reversal.

III) Things like this.
post #369765
^{_{I am not completely sure if they are the same character.}}

BlueDingo said:
2. What about actual switches?

Maybe light_switch, switch_(object) or circuit_switch.

Since I didn't get an answer last time and all of the "muscular" wikis were recently updated to include the "central focus" bit, I want to bring this question up again and hopefully get a satisfactory answer.

If the muscular tag is only meant to apply when a character's muscularity is the focus of the image then what tag(s) do you use when a character's muscularity isn't the focus but is clearly visible?

post #385495 post #986583

I know next to nothing about western clothing. What's the exact difference between the thigh highs and stirrup socks tags? Can the latter be considered a subtag of the former?

thigh_highs - Goes from foot to thigh.
stirrup_socks - No heel or toe sections.

It's possible for a garment to be either or both.

post #1105291 <- stirrup_socks / thigh_highs -> post #1243053
post #897336 <- both

Thanks.
That's pretty much how the wiki describes it, but most of the latter seem to be tagged as either thigh_highs or toeless_socks instead of stirrup_socks. Could use some tagwork, I suppose.

I've noticed that thigh_highs images often have a stockings tag as well (about 4400/15500).

There's also a thigh_socks tag which might be a synonym for thigh_highs.

Question about the intersection of solo_focus and solo:

How should I handle pictures like post #829651, post #799355, or post #696618? In these situations, the character is clearly alone - which would imply solo - but there are other characters incidentally visible (in the form of pornography) which would imply solo_focus. As you can see, they're currently tagged as both, which appears to be a semi-common practice for images which only technically "contain" other characters.

The wiki says that solo and solo_focus should never ever be used together, so are these images solo_focus + duo or group, or are they solo (which makes perhaps more sense in terms of what content someone searching for 'solo' might be trying to look for), or is this an edge case where both actually are correct?

And what about post #1247542, where the other 'character' is not merely 'present' only as a disembodied_penis, but also exists only in the imagination of a character who is otherwise completely solo? This seems much more like a picture that someone searching for "solo" would probably want to see than someone looking for "solo_focus"

Related question about incidental background characters (characters who would be 'extras' in film):

What is the appropriate tag for situations like post #1033156, post #529557, or post #944356, where there definitely are other people present but they're so vague or out-of-focus that there are no identifiable details? I know about disembodied_x for where only parts of a presumed character are visible, faceless_x for when they're definitely a character but are only partially visible, and unseen_character for when a character can be inferred but is not at all visible. Is there something like "crowd" or "background_character" for these cases?

Question about gender tagging of crossgender characters where gender is still ambiguous

With what gender should I tag post #1045364? The only visible gender feature of Twilight there is a penis, so by the gender tagging flowchart this would be tagged as male and crossgender. However, Twilight is normally a female character. So this might instead be dickgirl & crossgender. (This seems likely given that porn of this character as male is dramatically less common than porn of this character as intersex, but that would clearly be tagging-what-you-know instead of tagging-what-you-see.) Or, since it's clearly confusing, ambiguous_gender and crossgender?

This would probably be easier if it weren't a pony.

Victoria_Oblong said:
post #1045364?

Male & crossgender, intersex for MLP characters requires muzzle shape (at least) and genitals. Since only genitals are shown, just male. I brought this up to our admin, Rainbow Dash, a while back, and they told me that the muzzle is the way to disconcern feral MLP characters.

Rule of thumb: intersex requires two prominent features, one body and one genital (or clothed variant), in order to be tagged. If one isn't present but the other is, it cannot get tagged as intersex.

Siral_Exan said:
Male & crossgender, intersex for MLP characters requires muzzle shape (at least) and genitals. Since only genitals are shown, just male.

Rule of thumb: intersex requires two prominent features, one body and one genital (or clothed variant), in order to be tagged. If one isn't present but the other is, it cannot get tagged as intersex.

Alright, thank you! I wasn't sure whether the usual gender of the character counted as a "prominent feature" or not in the absence of other evidence, since I knew that crossgender was already an exception to tag-what-you-see in some ways. Sounds like no.

Siral_Exan said:
muzzle shape

I thought we weren't allowed to use fictional sexual characteristics to determine gender.

Victoria_Oblong said:
Question about the intersection of solo_focus and solo:

First off no post should be tagged both solo and solo_focus

How should I handle pictures like post #829651, post #799355, or post #696618? In these situations, the character is clearly alone - which would imply solo - but there are other characters incidentally visible (in the form of pornography) which would imply solo_focus. As you can see, they're currently tagged as both, which appears to be a semi-common practice for images which only technically "contain" other characters.

If the main characters are alone in their environment is irrelivant, if there are characters anywhere in the post then they are tagged as if all characters were in the same room together. As such post #829651 for example should be tagged group + solo_focus

The wiki says that solo and solo_focus should never ever be used together, so are these images solo_focus + duo or group, or are they solo (which makes perhaps more sense in terms of what content someone searching for 'solo' might be trying to look for), or is this an edge case where both actually are correct?

none of the your linked images above are solo but they are solo_focus.

And what about post #1247542, where the other 'character' is not merely 'present' only as a disembodied_penis, but also exists only in the imagination of a character who is otherwise completely solo? This seems much more like a picture that someone searching for "solo" would probably want to see than someone looking for "solo_focus"

disembodied bodyparts like penises and hands may count as additional characters in the image unless its clearly visible within the image that the bodypart is not attached to a body.That is not clear in the post you linked with the penis not ending at the edge of the bubble

Related question about incidental background characters (characters who would be 'extras' in film):

What is the appropriate tag for situations like post #1033156, post #529557, or post #944356, where there definitely are other people present but they're so vague or out-of-focus that there are no identifiable details? I know about disembodied_x for where only parts of a presumed character are visible, faceless_x for when they're definitely a character but are only partially visible, and unseen_character for when a character can be inferred but is not at all visible. Is there something like "crowd" or "background_character" for these cases?

character silhouettes and blurred characters are still characters and should be tagged as such with one of the primary tags + *_focus tags
And i did make background_characters couple months agoto also complement this role of undestinct background characters and as you note "extras" random additional characters that dont really belong to anyone...

Ruku said:
First off no post should be tagged both solo and solo_focus

Actually...

BlueDingo said:
Actually...

Im not denying the existence, just saying they are improper, you cannot have focus when there is only a single character in the image to begin with.

Almost all of those are just multiple_scenes or multiple_views of a single character.

Like saying expression sheets are all groups of characters because of the multiple headshots/busts which is just stupid.

BlueDingo said:
I thought we weren't allowed to use fictional sexual characteristics to determine gender.

It is the same for real life horses. It's subtle (hence why I was corrected), yet there.

Ruku said:
First off no post should be tagged both solo and solo_focus

Incorrect, as was already stated.

If the main characters are alone in their environment is irrelivant, if there are characters anywhere in the post then they are tagged as if all characters were in the same room together. As such post #829651 for example should be tagged group + solo_focus

none of the your linked images above are solo but they are solo_focus.

We don't actually have a set guideline for this. And I'm not sure it's a good idea to count characters that appear on, let's say, TV screen. If someone's home alone watching sports with some indistinct characters onscreen, tagging it as solo seems like the better fit to me.

I can't find the quote, but I'm almost sure that the admins have said at some point to not count characters appearing in background paintings and such. For example, post #504539 is definitely solo.

On the other hand, this is complicated further by how difficult it is to determine if a character is looking at a still image on their screen, or watching a live stream or webcam feed. Maybe distinct onscreen pornography should be treated the same as multiple_images: tagged like a separate image, solo for the character watching it and duo for the action onscreen?

As for daydreaming and such, based on previous admin decisions those should be tagged the same as multiple_images. So post #1247542 should be solo and solo_focus + duo.

disembodied bodyparts like penises and hands may count as additional characters in the image unless its clearly visible within the image that the bodypart is not attached to a body.

If they're tagged as disembodied_*, they count as a character. If they're indistinguishable from, let's say, a dildo and end up tagged as such then they don't.

And i did make background_characters couple months agoto also complement this role of undestinct background characters and as you note "extras" random additional characters that dont really belong to anyone...

We already have the crowd and audience tags for indistinct crowds, and I don't see why background_characters has been applied to post #894343. That one's standard duo_focus.

It's almost certainly too ambiguous to keep. Take a look at how the older background_character tag has been used: it's tagged for characters who appear on the background, actual 'background characters' (think movie extras) from TV shows, characters who are literally the background (post #878648), etc.

Genjar said:
[...]as was already stated.

As was already stated? would you mind linking that as the wikis pertaining to the subjected tags do not state anything and no one has far as i can tell has stated anything in this thread so far.

We don't actually have a set guideline for this. And I'm not sure it's a good idea to count characters that appear on, let's say, TV screen. If someone's home alone watching sports with some indistinct characters onscreen, tagging it as solo seems like the better fit to me.

I can't find the quote, but I'm almost sure that the admins have said at some point to not count characters appearing in background paintings and such. This doesn't seem much different.

fine with counting disembodied bodyparts and figures that are completely off screen as characters but some how characters actually cleary visible in posters on digital screens and the like should not be counted? seems rather hypocritical. Nothing also about it stated in the subjected tags. Are you sure this is not just your own personal opinion and not actually the rule?

If they're tagged as disembodied_*, they count as a character. If they're indistinguishable from, let's say, a dildo and end up tagged as such then they don't.

So you think this should be counted as a character? clearly no body attached and also doesnt look like a dildo. post #1258809

We already have the crowd and audience tags for indistinct crowds, and I don't see why you've applied to post #894343. That one's standard duo_focus.

Well i apoligize on that one, was not aware that there was a "crowd" tag, as to the linked post, i did not tag that...

Ruku said:
As was already stated? would you mind linking that as the wikis pertaining to the subjected tags do not state anything and no one has far as i can tell has stated anything in this thread so far.

You said that 'no post' should be tagged as both solo and solo_focus. Bluedingo already corrected that: there's plenty of posts that should have both tags.

fine with counting disembodied bodyparts and figures that are completely off screen as characters but some how characters actually cleary visible in posters on digital screens and the like should not be counted? seems rather hypocritical. Nothing also about it stated in the subjected tags.

See previous post. I have a bad habit of posting unfinished drafts, and already edited that.

So you think this should be counted as a character? clearly no body attached and also doesnt look like a dildo. post #1258809

Yes, that's absolutely a group + solo_focus. As I said, disembodied bodyparts count as characters, as evident by the disembodied_penis -> male implication.

Genjar said:
You said that 'no post' should be tagged as both solo and solo_focus. Bluedingo already corrected that: there's plenty of posts that should have both tags.

And i corrected them in noting that those are all mistags based off of what "focus" actually is. The many do not make a mistake right.

Quote from solo_focus wiki:"If there's only one character in the image, tag it as solo instead."

that applies to more then 4/5ths of all posts under the search set bluedingo linked.

See previous post. I have a bad habit of posting unfinished drafts, and already edited that.

Doesnt really change anything, I stand by the fact that figures in pictures or screens within the post still count as characters, and i cannot find any admin ruling on this nor is anything stated on the wikis of the subjected tags, as well being hypocritical with shadows or speech bubbles going off screen being considered characters. this post #504539 i do consider the upper painting with a clear head, ears, neck and collarbones in line with other silhouettes and character shadows that are just as undestinct but still are considered characters. I do not disagree on post #1247542

Yes, that's absolutely a group + solo_focus. Like I said, disembodied bodyparts count as characters. (Not sure about severed ones.)

might suggest making the distinction between parts extending from off screen and parts floating detached on screen, because considering those floating penises individual characters is just plain stupid.

Ruku said:
And i corrected them in noting that those are all mistags based off of what "focus" actually is. The many do not make a mistake right.

Quote from solo_focus wiki:"If there's only one character in the image, tag it as solo instead."

that applies to more then 4/5ths of all posts under the search set bluedingo linked.

The multiple_* posts contain multiple images together and each image within are tagged separately. For example:

post #830346 <- multiple_images: 2 unrelated images together.

Left half: duo solo_focus
Right half: solo

Ruku said:
might suggest making the distinction between parts extending from off screen and parts floating detached on screen, because considering those floating penises individual characters is just plain stupid.

A disembodied body part counts as part of a character. A severed one doesn't.

post #1258938 <- disembodied_penis duo solo_focus / severed_penis solo -> post #1249647

BlueDingo said:
The multiple_* posts contain multiple images together and each image within are tagged separately. For example:

post #830346 <- multiple_images: 2 unrelated images together.

Left half: duo solo_focus
Right half: solo

you say it your self, each image within a post is tagged separately. And im stating in more then 4/5s of all posts with multiple scenes or views under the search you linked are the same character in all the scenes or views of a post and as such are solo. and even if the are different characters, as you say each scene is considered its own post so it is always solo and solo_focus cant be applied to a solo image as noted on its wiki. Reference sheets of characters do not get tagged as a group for a reason regardless how may poses there are in the post.

A disembodied body part counts as part of a character. A severed one doesn't.

post #1258938 <- disembodied_penis duo solo_focus / severed_penis solo -> post #1249647

And im saying they shouldnt, sence that is not what is seen and there is not room for assumption of being attached to a character when they are floating in the air without any attachment offscreen. By the way both posts you linked would be severed penises as i can see the cut open flesh of the internals on the left post rather then just a stump or fade out.

PS: Noticed that severed_penis was also just created and not a established tag... so i think this whole comparison was rather pointless...

BlueDingo said:
The multiple_* posts contain multiple images together and each image within are tagged separately.

Same also applies to multiple_scenes, and comics are also tagged by scene. For instance, if a single comic page shows three characters in one location and then cuts to another scene with a single character, it's tagged as both solo and group.

Genjar said:
Same also applies to multiple_scenes, and comics are also tagged by scene. For instance, if a single comic page shows three characters in one location and then cuts to another scene with a single character, it's tagged as both solo and group.

thru as stated above more then 4/5s of the searched posts bluedingo linked to pertain to the multiple scenes and views of the same single character and not multiple different characters from scene to scene in a post so no almost all of them should not have group, duo or any kind of *_focus tag on them.

Your not wrong in this comment, but this comment of yours doesnt really apply to the kind of content that came up in bluedingos linked search.

Ruku said:
you say it your self, each image within a post is tagged separately. And im stating in more then 4/5s of all posts with multiple scenes or views under the search you linked are the same character in all the scenes or views of a post and as such are solo. and even if the are different characters, as you say each scene is considered its own post so it is always solo and solo_focus cant be applied to a solo image as noted on its wiki. Reference sheets of characters do not get tagged as a group for a reason regardless how may poses there are in the post.

Multiple instances of the same character still count as one unless they're interacting with each other. Multiple images each only containing one character still only counts as solo even if it's a different character in each.

post #1248946 <- multiple_scenes + solo, same character.
post #1164349 <- multiple_images + solo, different characters.

Many are tagged as group when they shouldn't be.

BlueDingo said:
Multiple instances of the same character still count as one unless they're interacting with each other. Multiple images each only containing one character still only counts as solo even if it's a different character in each.

post #1248946 <- multiple_scenes + solo, same character.
post #1164349 <- multiple_images + solo, different characters.

Many are tagged as group when they shouldn't be.

hmmm... thats what ive been saying the whole time... but i understood you as implying all those should be groups when you responded with that search link.

BlueDingo said:
Many are tagged as group when they shouldn't be.

Yep, though to be fair some of them can be difficult to tag. With all the overlapping and such, it's often hard to tell if the characters are in the same 'image' or not.

...by the way, I just noticed that someone's been overly zealous when cleaning up zero_pictured ~solo ~duo ~group from multi-images. Lot of posts that should be there are missing. :/

Ruku said:
hmmm... thats what ive been saying the whole time... but i understood you as implying all those should be groups when you responded with that search link.

The search link was to point out that solo and solo_focus can be in the same post after you said they can't be. I was simply disproving your statement. When multiple images are joined together, the solo and solo_focus tags don't refer to the exact same image.

See the example I posted earlier. Two images in one post, left one is solo_focus, right one is solo.

BlueDingo said:
The search link was to point out that solo and solo_focus can be in the same post after you said they can't be. I was simply disproving your statement. When multiple images are joined together, the solo and solo_focus tags don't refer to the exact same image.

Non the less you state above: "The multiple_* posts contain multiple images together and each image within are tagged separately."
which contradicts what your saying now.

solo_focus and duo_focus always imply that there are multiple different characters within a single image or scene. multiple different characters are not present in most of the posts you had in that search link

I saw your 2 examples and what i said in response above still stands. both are a solo character with severed penises and as such the comparison is faulty, nether one should have solo_focus based off of what focus stands for and what is stated on the wiki

Ruku said:
Non the less you state above: "The multiple_* posts contain multiple images together and each image within are tagged separately."
which contradicts what your saying now.

solo_focus and duo_focus always imply that there are multiple different characters within a single image or scene.

The multiple_* tags (multiple_images, multiple_scenes, etc.) are for posts where multiple images are joined together to form a single image. Each part of it, those smaller images that were joined together, are tagged separately. The tags from all of them will be in the same list because you can only have one tag list per posts, but the multiple images that make up these posts are tagged as if they are separate.

post #603804

That multiple_images post is treated as 9 solo images. You tag the top-left one separately, then the top-centre one separately, etc. until all of them are tagged. You don't add duo, group or any *_focus tags because all 9 of them are considered separate from each other.

post #830346

That multiple_images post is treated as a solo_focus image and a solo image. You tag the left half separately (duo solo_focus), then the right half separately (solo).

This can also occur on sketch_pages and comics.

Ruku said:
I saw your 2 examples and what i said in response above still stands. both are a solo character with severed penises and as such the comparison is faulty, nether one should have solo_focus based off of what focus stands for and what is stated on the wiki

No, before that. The first half of the post.

BlueDingo said:
The multiple_* tags (multiple_images, multiple_scenes, etc.) are for posts where multiple images are joined together to form a single image. Each part of it, those smaller images that were joined together, are tagged separately. The tags from all of them will be in the same list because you can only have one tag list per posts, but the multiple images that make up these posts are tagged as if they are separate.

post #603804

That multiple_images post is treated as 9 solo images. You tag the top-left one separately, then the top-centre one separately, etc. until all of them are tagged. You don't add duo, group or any *_focus tags because all 9 of them are considered separate from each other.

post #830346

That multiple_images post is treated as a solo_focus image and a solo image. You tag the left half separately (duo solo_focus), then the right half separately (solo).

This can also occur on sketch_pages and comics.

And again i agree with you with both posts here, for the last post because it clearly is visible that the left figure is sitting on another characters abdomen with the legs extending out behind.

Problem is you say this but then you keep contradicting your self by applying tags standing for multiple characters to posts that contain scenes and views that only have the same single character in them alone. which is why this has gone on a whole page now.

Ruku said:
Problem is you say this but then you keep contradicting your self by applying tags standing for multiple characters to posts that contain scenes and views that only have the same single character in them alone. which is why this has gone on a whole page now.

The only time solo wouldn't be used for images containing one character would be something like post #268712 where every character is Pinkie Pie but are considered different characters because they're all interacting with each other, thus tagged group. Beyond that, either you're misinterpreting my statements or I wasn't clear enough.

post #268712

Referent to the discussion at forum #235229 I elaborated a list of all notable pokémon alternative forms that need to be properly tagged, and eventually subjected to some aliases and implications for standardization sake.

Now I am asking for permission to do the aforementioned tagging and subsequent alias/implication requests.

O16 said:
Referent to the discussion at forum #235229 I elaborated a list of all notable pokémon alternative forms that need to be properly tagged, and eventually subjected to some aliases and implications for standardization sake.

Now I am asking for permission to do the aforementioned tagging and subsequent alias/implication requests.

Notable gender differences

• unfezant
• unfezant_(♂)
• unfezant_(♀)

• frillish
• frillish_(♂)
• frillish_(♀)

• jellicent
• jellicent_(♂)
• jellicent_(♀)

• pyroar
• pyroar_(♂)
• pyroar_(♀)

• meowstic
• meowstic_(♂)
• meowstic_(♀)

alternative forms (unaltered names)

• deoxys
• normal_deoxys
• attack_deoxys
• speed_deoxys
• defence_deoxys

• castform
• normal_castform
• rainy_castform
• sunny_castform
• snowy_castform

• cherrim
• sunshine_cherrim
• overcast_cherrim

• shellos
• east_shellos
• west_shellos

• gastrodon
• east_gastrodon
• west_gastrodon

• rotom
• normal_rotom
• heat_rotom
• wash_rotom
• frost_rotom
• mow_rotom
• fan_rotom

• giratina
• giratina_(altered_form)
• giratina_(origin_form)

• shaymin
• shaymin_(land_form)
• shaymin_(sky_form)

• basculin
• red-striped_basculin
• blue-striped_basculin

• darmanitan
• standard_darmanitan
• zen_darmanitan

• deerling
• winter_deerling
• spring_deerling
• autumn_deerling
• summer_deerling

• sawsbuck
• winter_sawsbuck
• spring_sawsbuck
• autumn_sawsbuck
• summer_sawsbuck

• tornadus
• incarnate_tornadus
• therian_tornadus

• thundurus
• incarnate_thundurus
• therian_thundurus

• landorus
• incarnate_landorus
• therian_landorus

• keldeo
• ordinary_keldeo
• resolute_keldeo

• meloetta
• aria_meloetta
• pirouette_meloetta

• kyurem
• white_kyurem
• black_kyurem

• greninja
• ash_greninja

• zygarde
• zygarde_10_forme
• zygarde_50_forme
• zygarde_complete
• zygarde_cell
• zygarde_core

• hoopa
• hoopa_confined
• hoopa_unbound

• oricorio
• baile_oricorio
• pom-pom_oricorio
• sensu_oricorio
• pa'u_oricorio

• lycanroc
• midday_lycanroc
• midnight_lycanroc

• wishiwashi
• wishiwashi_(solo_form)
• wishiwashi_(school_form)

• minior
• minior_meteor
• minior_core

alternative forms (adaptated names)

• deoxys
• deoxys_(normal_form)
• deoxys_(attack_form)
• deoxys_(speed_form)
• deoxys_(defence_form)

• castform
• castform_(normal_form)
• castform_(rainy_form)
• castform_(sunny_form)
• castform_(snowy_form)

• cherrim
• cherrim_(sunshine_form)
• cherrim_(overcast_form)

• shellos
• shellos_(east_sea_form)
• shellos_(west_sea_form)

• gastrodon
• gastrodon_(east_sea_form)
• gastrodon_(west_sea_form)

• rotom
• rotom_(normal_form)
• rotom_(heat_form)
• rotom_(wash_form)
• rotom_(frost_form)
• rotom_(mow_form)
• rotom_(fan_form)

• giratina
• giratina_(altered_form)
• giratina_(origin_form)

• shaymin
• shaymin_(land_form)
• shaymin_(sky_form)

• basculin
• basculin_(red-striped_form)
• basculin_(blue-striped_form)

• darmanitan
• darmanitan_(standard_form)
• darmanitan_(zen_form)

• deerling
• deerling_(winter_form)
• deerling_(spring_form)
• deerling_(autumn_form)
• deerling_(summer_form)

• sawsbuck
• sawsbuck_(winter_form)
• sawsbuck_(spring_form)
• sawsbuck_(autumn_form)
• sawsbuck_(summer_form)

• tornadus
• tornadus_(incarnate_form)
• tornadus_(therian_form)

• thundurus
• thundurus_(incarnate_form)
• thundurus_(therian_form)

• landorus
• landorus_(incarnate_form)
• landorus_(therian_form)

• keldeo
• keldeo_(ordinary_form)
• keldeo_(resolute_form)

• meloetta
• meloetta_(aria_form)
• meloetta_(pirouette_form)

• kyurem
• white_kyurem
• black_kyurem

• greninja
• ash-greninja

• zygarde
• zygarde_(10%_form)
• zygarde_(50%_form)
• zygarde_(complete_form)
• zygarde_cell
• zygarde_core

• hoopa
• hoopa_(confined_form)
• hoopa_(unbound_form)

• oricorio
• oricorio_(baile_form)
• oricorio_(pom-pom_form)
• oricorio_(sensu_form)
• oricorio_(pa'u_form)

• lycanroc
• lycanroc_(midday_form)
• lycanroc_(midnight_form)

• wishiwashi
• wishiwashi_(solo_form)
• wishiwashi_(school_form)

• minior
• minior_(meteor_form)
• minior_(core_form)

My only worry is that people will attempt to associate the gender with the variant species. Meowstic, for instance, have been said to not be tagged by lore.

Siral_Exan said:
My only worry is that people will attempt to associate the gender with the variant species. Meowstic, for instance, have been said to not be tagged by lore.

Seconded. I'd suggest at least focusing on the second project (forms) first, for now.

Any opposition to creation of a eye_creature tag, for posts such as post #359321? Looks like we need something like that, because the eyeball tag is quite a mess.

Also, I'm trying to remember if we have a tag for... uh, what do you call it when an eyeball has been pulled out? No hits for detached_eyeball.

Genjar said:
Also, I'm trying to remember if we have a tag for... uh, what do you call it when an eyeball has been pulled out? No hits for detached_eyeball.

Severed_eyeball would've been my first guess.

Genjar said:
Any opposition to creation of a eye_creature tag, for posts such as post #359321? Looks like we need something like that, because the eyeball tag is quite a mess.

Also, I'm trying to remember if we have a tag for... uh, what do you call it when an eyeball has been pulled out? No hits for detached_eyeball.

I'd suggest two tags, one for legitimately separated eyeballs from their eye sockets, detached_eyeball or disembodied_eyeball; and one for when the eyeballs are dangling from their eye sockets, dangling_eyeball. None of these exists, but they are pretty literal so it's hard to fuck up.

And, I wonder if eyeballs dangling from their sockets count as gore...

Siral_Exan said:
I'd suggest two tags, one for legitimately separated eyeballs from their eye sockets, detached_eyeball or disembodied_eyeball

I'd go with detached, since disembodied_* is standardized for partially visible but attached bodyparts (disembodied_penis, etc).

Siral_Exan said:
and one for when the eyeballs are dangling from their eye sockets, dangling_eyeball.

That's a good idea. I recently stumbled on a few of those and didn't know how to tag them.

Not sure if 'dangling' quite fits this one, but it seems close enough. Certainly better than no tag:
post #575055

Genjar said:
I'd go with detached, since disembodied_* is standardized for partially visible but attached bodyparts (disembodied_penis, etc).

That's a good idea. I recently stumbled on a few of those and didn't know how to tag them.

Not sure if 'dangling' quite fits this one, but it seems close enough. Certainly better than no tag:
post #575055

Dangling, in this regard, can be used in regard that they are loose and hanging from their socket. It's when you put it in context, like your thumb that I have blacklisted, that hampers the meaning, but the tag itself just needs to say "where the eyeball is loose and can be hanging from the eye socket"; this would make the context insensitive, no matter what the requisites can be met in examples should they be out of their socket.

I initially feared eyes that're on stalks or tentacle-eyes that are drooping, but I don't think that those would be dangling on grounds that the socket is just what houses the eyeball. This'd mean it works for things like tentacles, stalks, and even things that aren't meant to house eyes...

*edit* interesting, when I posted this, your quote field didn't hide the blacklisted thumbnail, and I got to see all of it's "glory". Reloading the page fixed it, like how it fixes links and spacing.

Siral_Exan said:
*edit* interesting, when I posted this, your quote field didn't hide the blacklisted thumbnail, and I got to see all of it's "glory". Reloading the page fixed it, like how it fixes links and spacing.

Blacklists don't affect previews or fresh posts.

Genjar said:
Seconded. I'd suggest at least focusing on the second project (forms) first, for now.

So... That means I have permission (at least regarding the alternative forms)?

Genjar said:
Any opposition to creation of a eye_creature tag, for posts such as post #359321? Looks like we need something like that, because the eyeball tag is quite a mess.

+1. No opposition here.

But that makes me wonder: should we also create a tag for any body-part turned into an autonomous creature or behaving as such? It provably happens often enough to warrant a specific tag.

e.g. post #284853 post #303638

Why does the swallowing wiki specifically mention prey and genital fluids but have no mention of, say, food?

post #562861

BlueDingo said:
Why does the swallowing wiki specifically mention prey and genital fluids but have no mention of, say, food?

Been wondering the same.
And that also goes for stuffed bellies. Which tend to get tagged as vore even when there's no vore bulges or other such signs, ...some people do have a fetish for overeating, and it's actually a pretty common fetish (outside the furdom at least). Kind of annoying that some taggers automatically assume that if someone's belly is full, they must've eaten somebody. :/

If a character is wearing a full outfit but said outfit is very heavily damaged, does fully_clothed still apply or does another "clothed" tag come into play?

post #607451

BlueDingo said:
If a character is wearing a full outfit but said outfit is very heavily damaged, does fully_clothed still apply or does another "clothed" tag come into play?

post #607451

Not sure. I can see how that could be considered fully clothed, on the basis that ragged clothing is still clothing and it still fully covers the crotch.

And shoes aren't required for the tag, at least not for characters who don't have humanoid feet.

So I'm ambivalent about that. Seems like a poor fit for fully_clothed, but technically correct...?

Genjar said:
Not sure. I can see how that could be considered fully clothed, on the basis that ragged clothing is still clothing and it still fully covers the crotch.

And shoes aren't required for the tag, at least not for characters who don't have humanoid feet.

So I'm ambivalent about that. Seems like a poor fit for fully_clothed, but technically correct...?

fully_clothed torn_clothes is a viable thing. We could really use a tag for highly damaged clothing, though.

Furrin_Gok said:
fully_clothed torn_clothes is a viable thing.

True, but to what extent can the clothes be damaged before fully_clothed stops applying? Something like post #1228843 makes sense because it's just a few rips but if the damage is severe enough, it may fall into partially_clothed territory instead.

Another clothing-related one: Headshot portraits, bust portraits and half-length portraits where no clothing is visible. Do we assume the character is topless or nude? The tags are unclear on this with some tagged nude and some tagged topless.

post #1162236post #1176828post #189186

BlueDingo said:
Another clothing-related one: Headshot portraits, bust portraits and half-length portraits where no clothing is visible. Do we assume the character is topless or nude? The tags are unclear on this with some tagged nude and some tagged topless.

I'd say nude. Topless implies clothed, which in turn implies clothing, neither of which are visible in the image and thus shouldn't be part of the tags.

BlueDingo said:
Another clothing-related one: Headshot portraits, bust portraits and half-length portraits where no clothing is visible. Do we assume the character is topless or nude? The tags are unclear on this with some tagged nude and some tagged topless.

post #1162236post #1176828post #189186

better to not assume and just tag what is visible.

In regards to headshots that only include a sliver of neck like your first example, probably best to just not tag anything at all, sense they also arnt given any bodyform(anthro, feral, eta.) in that case with no reference points to rely on. only exception was if some form of collarband of a turtleneck shirt or the like is seen then it could be marked clothed... for reference partially clothed is still clothed thru the former could never be used because that is going on a assumption of the specific type of clothed without reference point.

In regards to the other 2 examples they would be tagged nude because that is what is visible, whats outside of the image is irelivant if all you can make is a 50/50 assumption.

just my opinion as to how id be tagging it

Strongbird said:
I'd say nude. Topless implies clothed, which in turn implies clothing, neither of which are visible in the image and thus shouldn't be part of the tags.

That's what I was thinking as well. But then again, because you can't see the bottom half, you can't apply nude or topless without making an assumption which we're generally not supposed to do but can't avoid doing in this case unless we tag neither, which doesn't help at all. For situations like this, I'd rather assume the clothing isn't there and tag nude (or mostly_nude if they're wearing a hat or something).

At least the opposite case is a little easier, ie. when clothing is present and you can't see the bottom half. Clothed definitely applies but bottomless and fully_clothed can't be determined so I leave those off.

post #1213250

i understand this is the question thread (??) i wanted to ask why all the pics are being replaced whit new pics but bigger? i understand that there is a site online when u can get lots of pictures on its raw format (bigger) but its kinda odd to see alot of pictures from years ago popping up on the main page all the time lately.
i also got lots of favorite pics and now some are being deleted and replaced :-(

There's a user who has created the not furry focus tag and has started using it on the site. Beyond some images that are clearly mistagged (including Pokémon and dual focus images), is this a necessary tag? It seems like not furry covers this kind of stuff well enough.

Seems useful enough, since not_furry is only applicable if all characters in the post are not furry. Though attempting to keep not_furry_focus separate from human_focus seems unintuitive, and might lead to problems.

As for the mistags, I don't see it. Pokemon are not innately furry, so the tag (if kept) should apply to posts such as post #1266120. Gardevoir is a humanoid not based on any recognizable animal, therefore not furry.

Genjar said:
Gardevoir is a humanoid not based on any recognizable animal, therefore not furry.

But it's an animal in and of itself, and Gardevoir without the not_furry tag is more common than Gardevoir with the not_furry tag