Strikerman said:
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]
If it doesn't look like an animal, it doesn't get tagged as an animal.
Also, Gardevoir are often paired with furries, in which case not_furry doesn't apply. Try gardevoir -not_furry -anthro -feral -animal_humanoid instead.

(Note that there are quite a few untagged anthros in the results. Undertagging is always a problem with most things.)

Strikerman said:
But it's an animal in and of itself

So are humans, but we put them into a different category nonetheless.

What should the tag be for getting hit with your cock?

post #223254
is tagged with cockslap, but the wiki for cockslap says
"When a person's cock slaps their partner."

slapped_by_own_cock ?

Closest tag I noticed was penis_on_own_face (with one upload), but seems like a different thing to me.

ListerTheSquirrel said:
What should the tag be for getting hit with your cock?

post #223254
is tagged with cockslap, but the wiki for cockslap says
"When a person's cock slaps their partner."

slapped_by_own_cock ?

Closest tag I noticed was penis_on_own_face (with one upload), but seems like a different thing to me.

Perhaps just adapt the wiki to include such cases as well, because a whole new tag for that probably would be unnecessarily specific.

ListerTheSquirrel said:
What should the tag be for getting hit with your cock?

autocockslap, judging by the existing tags (autofellatio, etc).

A user is adding yoshi_(character) to images he believes is the same green yoshi from every game with a playable green yoshi in it.

1. How could you possibly know it's that yoshi when he looks identical to most of the other green yoshis?
2. How do you know it's even the same one in every game? For all we know, each series (Kart, Golf, Party, etc.) could have a different one.

BlueDingo said:
A user is adding yoshi_(character) to images he believes is the same green yoshi from every game with a playable green yoshi in it.

1. How could you possibly know it's that yoshi when he looks identical to most of the other green yoshis?
2. How do you know it's even the same one in every game? For all we know, each series (Kart, Golf, Party, etc.) could have a different one.

We can safely assume that the Main Character Yoshis are all one and the same (outside of Yoshi's Island, at least; that one has a new yoshi every level), so unless the artist/owner says it's just a generic green Yoshi it should be safe to tag.

Considering the _penetrating tags that we have, how come we don't have a set of parallel tags for being penetrated (as far as I've seen)?

Furrin_Gok said:
We can safely assume that the Main Character Yoshis are all one and the same (outside of Yoshi's Island, at least; that one has a new yoshi every level), so unless the artist/owner says it's just a generic green Yoshi it should be safe to tag.

By that logic, red shy guys should be tagged shy_guy_(character) because the playable ones are usually red and the yoshi_(character) tag applies to most green yoshi images. My point is if there's no way to differentiate a specific one (assuming it even is a specific one) from the rest, it shouldn't be given a unique tag, especially when green_yoshi already covers them and not much else.

BlueDingo said:
By that logic, red shy guys should be tagged shy_guy_(character) because the playable ones are usually red and the yoshi_(character) tag applies to most green yoshi images. My point is if there's no way to differentiate a specific one (assuming it even is a specific one) from the rest, it shouldn't be given a unique tag, especially when green_yoshi already covers them and not much else.

(i'm the yoshi character tagger btw; I also spent all last night tagging almost every single yoshi image with their colored species..... man was that tiring lmao)

You are right in that green yoshi mostly covers them, but what of images explicitly referencing the canon yoshi character? The Just Dessert pool for example is a pool comic explicitly focusing on the main yoshi character who is friends with the main mario brothers.

post #592914
This image as another example also is EXPLICITLY referencing the main yoshi (the text is a direct, infamously misspelled textbox from mario 64 where you meet yoshi)

I tried to be as cautious as I could in its use and only use the character tag for images which seemed to apply to them or are heavily publicly assumed to be them (explicit references to the character, playable character in spinoff/main titles which is assumed to be the main green yoshi, etc)

If it's been mistagged, I'll easily remove it and we can just keep the green yoshi tag instead, as it's a relatively small tag compared to the green yoshi tag in itself and isn't like.. a wildly out of control tag. But so far I feel its use has been valid, unless there's a valid reason as to why main playable green yoshi in main/spinoff games isn't seen as the main yoshi or perhaps i've mistagged something.

I'm going to bring this up but put no effort into the argument, but names are TWYK. They are the only acceptable TWYK tags (ignoring up for debate ones, I'm being simple). So, it should rely on the source information, not TWYS.

If there is a main playable Yoshi, then even without a name it counts as a character. Whether or not it is is another question, one I can't answer.

Siral_Exan said:
I'm going to bring this up but put no effort into the argument, but names are TTWK. They are the only acceptable TWYK tags. So, it should rely on the source information, not TWYS.

If there is a main playable Yoshi, then even without a name it counts as a character. Whether or not it is is another question, one I can't answer.

Gotcha gotcha; luckily the yoshi character tag is relatively small so it'll be an easy fix no problem; they'll still all keep the green yoshi tag of course.

Siral_Exan said:
I'm going to bring this up but put no effort into the argument, but names are TTWK. They are the only acceptable TWYK tags. So, it should rely on the source information, not TWYS.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but how about tags like year of creation (e.g. 2016) and medium (e.g. digital_media_(artwork) and the like)? In particular the latter, some digital pieces look indistinguishable from traditional art, in which case an outside source can say whether or not it's digital or traditional.

Strongbird said:
I don't mean to be pedantic, but how about tags like year of creation (e.g. 2016) and medium (e.g. digital_media_(artwork) and the like)? In particular the latter, some digital pieces look indistinguishable from traditional art, in which case an outside source can say whether or not it's digital or traditional.

You took me too literally... do I have to actually list every single TWYK tag and every single TWYS tag?

Strongbird said:
how about tags like year of creation (e.g. 2016)

In that case, you're not tagging the content. TWYS relates to content.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Gotcha gotcha; luckily the yoshi character tag is relatively small so it'll be an easy fix no problem; they'll still all keep the green yoshi tag of course.

You can always put the ones you think are the main one in a set, then you can still find them if the tag is removed.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
(i'm the yoshi character tagger btw;)

(I know, I checked the tag history before I started. I didn't want this to look like a name and shame attempt.)

BlueDingo said:
You can always put the ones you think are the main one in a set, then you can still find them if the tag is removed.

Thanks for the suggestion but I'll be fine even if the tag is removed; I was doing what I thought was the right in tagging but I may have tagged some posts incorrectly. Luckily it isn't a hard fix; I'm currently removing the tag from images it wouldn't apply to, and other users can do the same if they wish.

BlueDingo said:
(I know, I checked the tag history before I started. I didn't want this to look like a name and shame attempt.)

Ahhhhh gotcha. I didn't think it was malicious or anything don't worry, I just wanted to point it out.

Should we be allowed to use the crossdressing tag for a character whose gender is listed as ambiguous?

crossdressing -male -female

post #1304269post #1039202

Then you get situations like this where a female character wearing female clothing is labelled crossdressing because the female character doesn't look female enough to be considered female.

BlueDingo said:
Should we be allowed to use the crossdressing tag for a character whose gender is listed as ambiguous?

crossdressing -male -female

post #1304269post #1039202

Then you get situations like this where a female character wearing female clothing is labelled crossdressing because the female character doesn't look female enough to be considered female.

no, crossdressing implies that the character has a gender that is in opposition to the clothing they wear. ambiguous_gender is basically when no gender is identifiable. Also that link is a cuntboy, not female>_>

Darou said:
Also that link is a cuntboy, not female>_>

Hence the "doesn't look female enough to be considered female" bit. It wasn't a mistake.

Also, wouldn't treating intersex characters as neither male or female be a good reason to remove the crossdressing tag from all of them?

How should we handle all the torn_clothing tags. On one hand, we have several article-specific tags and some of these are implicated. On the other hand, the wiki page says to go no more specific than torn_topwear and torn_bottomwear, neither of which imply torn_clothing.

List of torn_* tags

Personally, I think going down to basic articles (short, pants, underwear, etc.) should be okay but no further (singlet, jeans, panties, etc.), otherwise we'd end up with a lot of tags related to this.

BlueDingo said:
How should we handle all the torn_clothing tags. On one hand, we have several article-specific tags and some of these are implicated. On the other hand, the wiki page says to go no more specific than torn_topwear and torn_bottomwear, neither of which imply torn_clothing.

List of torn_* tags

Personally, I think going down to basic articles (short, pants, underwear, etc.) should be okay but no further (singlet, jeans, panties, etc.), otherwise we'd end up with a lot of tags related to this.

Better to choose more board terms, we already somewhat prefer those; additionally we currently are trying to officialize this as a standard regarding other variations (e.g. [color]_*, open_*, etc).
Also I doubt we would reach a real consensus about what exactly is a "basic (clothing) article".

Looking for fan art I noticed several of Tardor's characters are labeled as another artist, such as gates_(al-cat) (Normey the ferret and others as well). Is al-cat just Tardor's alternate name for his adult artwork? The art design doesn't look similar enough to me (Tardor's is more cartoony while al-cat is slightly more realistically proportioned, softer linework) but that could be intentional...

KevSnowcat said:
Looking for fan art I noticed several of Tardor's characters are labeled as another artist, such as gates_(al-cat) (Normey the ferret and others as well). Is al-cat just Tardor's alternate name for his adult artwork? The art design doesn't look similar enough to me (Tardor's is more cartoony while al-cat is slightly more realistically proportioned, softer linework) but that could be intentional...

Hmm, nobody knows? I came here to find some of al-cat's fan art of Tardor's characters and was surprised to see them all labeled character_(al-cat)!

KevSnowcat said:
Hmm, nobody knows? I came here to find some of al-cat's fan art of Tardor's characters and was surprised to see them all labeled character_(al-cat)!

I dunno. I poked around a bit and found this al-cat person present on http://alcat.tumblr.com/ and https://www.furaffinity.net/user/al-cat/
Do either of those look similar? Do you have any samples of Tardor's work you can share, or accounts you can link to?

Also, this thread seems to be for discussing tags and technical details. There may be a more relevant thread elsewhere.

Can I remove the ice_dildo tags? There's only two images, and ice improvised_sex_toy produces a reasonably sized image set.

MatrixMash said:
I dunno. I poked around a bit and found this al-cat person present on http://alcat.tumblr.com/ and https://www.furaffinity.net/user/al-cat/
Do either of those look similar? Do you have any samples of Tardor's work you can share, or accounts you can link to?

Also, this thread seems to be for discussing tags and technical details. There may be a more relevant thread elsewhere.

Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure if this was the right place, but I didn't think making a /new/ thread for one tag question was a good idea if "tag discussion" had a thread.

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/Tardor
http://twitter.com/TardorJet

Char sheet for Normey: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13058129/
Normey from 9 years ago: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1578371/
Char design for Gates: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10736714/

KevSnowcat said:
Yeah, I wasn't entirely sure if this was the right place, but I didn't think making a /new/ thread for one tag question was a good idea if "tag discussion" had a thread.

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/Tardor
http://twitter.com/TardorJet

Char sheet for Normey: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/13058129/
Normey from 9 years ago: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1578371/
Char design for Gates: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10736714/

Interesting.

I looked at the images tagged al-cat. Curiously, most of them were uploaded by a single user. All of the sources look legit--they're present on al-cat's tumblr, pixiv account, and other stuff. They were also posted largely by a single user, two months ago: compare user:Damien-The-Red-Panda al-cat with -user:Damien-The-Red-Panda al-cat. The second link searches for images, tagged al-cat, that were NOT uploaded by this user.

Looking at the other images... ignoring the zootopia fanart, there are two with character tags:
post #999505 and post #1313576
Both came after Damien's mass upload. The tag history for some of the posts with character tags shows that Damien was the one who added those tags to the images:
1 2 3 4 5
It is therefore likely that Damien was the one who created the character tags as they are now.

Damien-The-Red-Panda was probably acting in good faith. Without signatures or descriptions, there's no way to guess who made a character, so finding these drawings on someone's tumblr/FA/whatever is usually enough of a clue for determining the artist.

I don't know the precise rules on tag definitions: most tags are what they are kept because that's the way they evolved. That said, if Tardor is the legitimate creator of these characters, then the tags should probably be changed. I don't know where to take this from here.

Probably, one of us should message Damien and ask them if there's something we don't know.

Then we can ask for an official alias. The request will be buried under the rubble of about fifty other alias requests that the mods can't deal with on top of everything else they have to do, and all will be quietly forgotten. Or we could just change all the tags ourselves. There's only, like, fifty, I guess, but I'd like to get someone else involved, preferably someone privileged, before doing something like that. What do you think?

BlueDingo said:
Also, wouldn't treating intersex characters as neither male or female be a good reason to remove the crossdressing tag from all of them?

That's got my support. crossdressing intersex solo only returns 10 images, and most of them don't make sense to me. e.g. dickgirls in skirts: The bottom half is cross-dressed, but the top half isn't? idk.

Then we can ask for an official alias. The request will be buried under the rubble of about fifty other alias requests that the mods can't deal with on top of everything else they have to do, and all will be quietly forgotten. Or we could just change all the tags ourselves. There's only, like, fifty, I guess, but I'd like to get someone else involved, preferably someone privileged, before doing something like that. What do you think

...maybe better to just hope a mod comments on this thread. >.>

Should images where the eyes contain hearts, but aren't hearts themselves, be tagged <3_eyes?
post #1354789
They're small, white, and hard to see.

MatrixMash said:
Should images where the eyes contain hearts, but aren't hearts themselves, be tagged <3_eyes?
post #1354789
They're small, white, and hard to see.

<3_eyes includes heart-shaped pupils. This is an odd case, though...

BlueDingo said:
<3_eyes includes heart-shaped pupils. This is an odd case, though...

Hmm. Looking for it, it's more frequent than I expected:
post #1354854 post #1353957 edit: post #1356442
and I know I've seen at least one more. Still, that's only three results in a full page, so it's not common at all.

Do pictures like this count as bikini_top, and if so, can we do something about the aliasing bikini_top -> bikini -> swimsuit?

post #1359472

Durandal said:
Do pictures like this count as bikini_top, and if so, can we do something about the aliasing bikini_top -> bikini -> swimsuit?

post #1359472

bikini_top already implies bikini.

BlueDingo said:
bikini_top already implies bikini.

I know, my point was that tagging that picture with bikini_top will automatically end up implying swimsuit in cases where she's not exactly wearing a swimsuit. Like Quiet's outfit. "Bra-like outerwear". More examples being:
post #1344615
post #653202

I don't know. Maybe it's a small enough issue we can ignore it. The "solutions" would be either make a new tag for non-swimsuit tops that look like bikinis, or break the bikini_top -> bikini implication.

This also loops back into my constantly recurring question of "What is Krystal wearing???", which I have yet to find a satisfactory answer for.
post #683374

If a character is wearing a bikini top then they are wearing part of a swimsuit, so the tagging and implications are technically accurate. Whether or not they're wearing something non-swimsuit related with it doesn't change that.

BlueDingo said:
If a character is wearing a bikini top then they are wearing part of a swimsuit, so the tagging and implications are technically accurate.

I wouldn't consider ones such as post #7876 to be swinwear.

Genjar said:
I wouldn't consider ones such as post #7876 to be swinwear.

I wouldn't consider that a bikini. A very skimpy breastplate, maybe?

Genjar said:
I wouldn't consider ones such as post #7876 to be swimwear.

Well...it is non-encumbering enough that she could swim in it...

That said, I don't think bikini-style armor should be aliased to bikini. They aren't actual bikinis after all, it's just a descriptor. So bikini_plate (as in that image) wouldn't need the bikini or swimwear tags, and chainmail_bikini should probably have alias removed and tagged images be cleaned to remove the bikini/swimwear tags there too.

O16 said:
Better to choose more board terms, we already somewhat prefer those; additionally we currently are trying to officialize this as a standard regarding other variations (e.g. [color]_*, open_*, etc).
Also I doubt we would reach a real consensus about what exactly is a "basic (clothing) article".

Perhaps we should alias each term to the most appropriate "wear" term instead. *_topwear, *_bottomwear, *_armwear, *_legwear, *_underwear and *_swimwear.

Something's going on with the switch tag. The wiki says it's for "who is comfortable being both top or bottom during sex", but it's turned into a character tag at some point. I assume the switch dog got mixed up with it, but I've also seen some light switches (post #1131983). Also, most of the posts here seem like they've been tagged under TWYK and not TWYS. The best option might just be to disambiguate the tag (light switches, Nintendo Switch, any misc. characters named "Switch"), but I think there's some value in showing images where a character switches between catching and pitching.

Strikerman said:
Something's going on with the switch tag.

forum #243814.

MatrixMash said:
Hmm. Looking for it, it's more frequent than I expected:
post #1354854 post #1353957 edit: post #1356442
and I know I've seen at least one more. Still, that's only three results in a full page, so it's not common at all.

It's a phenomenon that's become pretty common in Japanese art, I find. Gelbooru has a separate tag for it which has 22349 images currently, and on this site I'm seeing a lot more than 3 results on the first <3_eyes page alone where the tag refers to the pupil shape.

Noticed slingshot tag had been changed to a character tag, but the slingshot wiki page was still about the weapon.

Seems to have happened because post #1310866 was initially tagged with slingshot (but as name of character)
{later the same day was corrected to slingshot_(character)}.

Changed slingshot tag back to being a general tag.

(Compared 1310866 to 738032, and seems to be same image except 1310866 is smaller .. flagging for deletion)

I'd like to add a wiki page for food_play. I'll mention a forum post about food_play implications (it was ignored) and this forum.

There are 957 posts with food_play and 24 with food_fetish. Any other related tags/alias fodder I should mention?

Should food_play include posts like
post #1369186 post #1366473
I think it should.

I think all situations where food plays an "enhanced role" in the post, as compared to regular situations where the food is just there or being eaten as normal, should be noted with an additional food_* tag.

MatrixMash said:
Should food_play include posts like
post #1369186 post #1366473
I think it should.

The picture on the left: yes.

The picture on the right: I'm not as sure. The food imagery is significant, and the character does have some icing drizzled over top himself, but what exactly is the _play aspect? So, I guess, define "play" in the context of food_play. What makes that image food_play and not just a "normal" micro image? I came up with a potential answer below.

Also, I feel there's ambiguity between food_play and food_fetish, with food_play being the more general tag. food_fetish definitely includes stimulating or teasing erogenous zones.

That should cover the fetish aspect of food situations. I just want to mention the commonly sexualized popsicle tag, as well as the general, relevant suggestive_food tag. Oh yeah, and straight vore isn't a food_fetish just like regular eating isn't a food_fetish.

Having reached this point of my post, I don't like the food_play tag anymore. Its lack of specificity only encapsulates a little more than does food_fetish, but those other posts it drags in are weakly themed. I feel taggers must employ mental gymnastics to tag them with food_play, which is no longer Tag What You See, just like foot_fetish before it was split.

Posts like this deserve the food_play tag or something very similar, but this one is not sexual at all. However, it would prop up and bolster the identity of the food_focus tag.

post #1066743

How long does it usually take for aliases to be implemented?

I was wondering if *_shot (those that focus on anatomy) are cropped portions of a specific bodypart, wouldnt those be close ups?

Should animal_genitalia and specific species genitalia still be tagged when the genitals pictured have some traits but are overall inaccurate?
Like here:
post #1236756
It's not human, and it's barbed, but it really doesn't look like a feline penis.

regsmutt said:
Should animal_genitalia and specific species genitalia still be tagged when the genitals pictured have some traits but are overall inaccurate?
Like here:
post #1236756
It's not human, and it's barbed, but it really doesn't look like a feline penis.

well, yes, because it contains a sheath and that auto implies it.

anyways it looks like a hybrid penis to me, containing qualities of both humanoid and feline/barbed. I'd tag it with hybrid penis, humanoid penis, barbed penis, and feline penis, imho

After using this site for a while now - this userbase is REALLY bad at maintaining artist entries :|

impalement_(none_blood)

Is this a legit thing? Like, legitimately a thing? Because I don't think it is.

Edit: Also, it looks like it's basically impalement -blood

post #1373283
Would the top party be a cuntboy? The genitalia are shown separate from the flat_chest that fulfills the "masculine body type" requirement.

I ask because I'm not sure what the precise guidelines are for deciding if something is multiple_images (and each image gets tagged separately) or a cutaway/comic/multiple perspectives thing (and this is all one image).

MatrixMash said:
post #1373283
Would the top party be a cuntboy? The genitalia are shown separate from the flat_chest that fulfills the "masculine body type" requirement.

I ask because I'm not sure what the precise guidelines are for deciding if something is multiple_images (and each image gets tagged separately) or a cutaway/comic/multiple perspectives thing (and this is all one image).

as far as i understand yes because it is essentially a cutaway of the main image happening in the same place and chronology, it isnt a separate image as would be the case with sketch_page or multiple_scenes/ multiple_images

Should this be safe or questionable?
post #251888
There is a crude drawing of a penis in the toolbar on the central image.
I vote questionable since we put exposed breasts under questionable.

MatrixMash said:
Should this be safe or questionable?
post #251888
There is a crude drawing of a penis in the toolbar on the central image.
I vote questionable since we put exposed breasts under questionable.

Clearly not safe. Questionable at minimum, and I would've locked it to that, except from what I remember, penis doodles are automatically explicit regardless of detail. And that's currently the only non-explicit penis post. ...so it probably should be E.

MatrixMash said:
impalement_(none_blood)

Is this a legit thing? Like, legitimately a thing? Because I don't think it is.

Edit: Also, it looks like it's basically impalement -blood

Well, for one: that's awful grammar. We'd rename the tag on that principal alone.

For two: We have another tag called all_the_way_through that is supposed to cover the idea of "dick/tentacle in on one end and out the other". (it's a bit messy at the moment, no pun intended, due to people not using the cum_through tag.)(or will be until I clean it up)

Question: should a standing feral/quadruped be tagged as all_fours?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Question: should a standing feral/quadruped be tagged as all_fours?

wiki defines that ferals shouldnt be. Adding ferals would bloat that tag into uselessness.

only should be used for bipeds that have proper hands who just happen to be moving on all fours but clearly do not have the skeletal structure to be naturally moving that way.

I'm finding a couple of tags that are obviously just titles of comics or sets that images should be in. Should I just manually delete the tags or suggest an alias to invalid_tag?

Ho ho ho, no better time of year to clean up the Santa tags.

The santa_claus tag is a bit messy atm. There's quite a bit of odd grey-area stuff in it. Santa's costume has become so iconic to the holiday that sometimes it's more of a theme or visual shorthand for 'Christmas' than cosplay. So where exactly should the line between 'cosplay' and 'theme' be here?

There are the actual factual obvious cosplays:
post #1295735post #270552post #1075119
And then there's less obvious stuff:
post #791390post #1076596post #1280851post #572109post #1191445post #1189801

Should any image with a santa_hat, santa_suit, or Santa-themed lingerie be tagged santa_claus, or should the tag be exclusively for instances of the character and obvious cosplays?

regsmutt said:
Should any image with a santa_hat, santa_suit, or Santa-themed lingerie be tagged santa_claus, or should the tag be exclusively for instances of the character and obvious cosplays?

+1 for option 2. Tagging any character wearing a santa hat as santa_claus would be like tagging any character wearing this hat as mario.

regsmutt said:
I'm finding a couple of tags that are obviously just titles of comics or sets that images should be in. Should I just manually delete the tags or suggest an alias to invalid_tag?

I"m not sure about this. My first instinct was "no, that should be deleted" but then I recalled post #90816 <-- this series of comics, which are in a pool, in a pool for the chapter, and also have the epic journeys & random encounters tag... which seems to....mostly.. be tagged on the pictures in the pools but not completly?? *scratches head* I mean.. it's like 70 some odd images...

when does a comic count as a copyright?

regsmutt said:
Ho ho ho, no better time of year to clean up the Santa tags.

The santa_claus tag is a bit messy atm. There's quite a bit of odd grey-area stuff in it. Santa's costume has become so iconic to the holiday that sometimes it's more of a theme or visual shorthand for 'Christmas' than cosplay. So where exactly should the line between 'cosplay' and 'theme' be here?

There are the actual factual obvious cosplays:

(...)

Should any image with a santa_hat, santa_suit, or Santa-themed lingerie be tagged santa_claus, or should the tag be exclusively for instances of the character and obvious cosplays?

I'd argue that a red/white hate and clothes do not cosplay make. They're... part of the visual shorthand for "christmas clothing" --like green stuff on St. Patricks' day, or white/pastels at easter. It's cultural costume. Like a witch hat.

I'd argue that santa_claus should be saved for character that look like they are, or could be santa. Simply wearing a santa hat does not a santa clause make.

(defining 'santa' is a tricky one. beard and hat are big ones. but then you have stuff like this or this ... where the jacket etc are not required.)

I'd probably have... Santa_claus, santa_costume and santa_hat and santa_suit etc

Feel like there should be a tag for, like, the red/green and white fluff 'christmas cloth'

BlueDingo said:
+1 for option 2. Tagging any character wearing a santa hat as santa_claus would be like tagging any character wearing this hat as mario.

This analogy was SO much better than my leprechan/easter shit.

SnowWolf said:
I"m not sure about this. My first instinct was "no, that should be deleted" but then I recalled post #90816 <-- this series of comics, which are in a pool, in a pool for the chapter, and also have the epic journeys & random encounters tag... which seems to....mostly.. be tagged on the pictures in the pools but not completly?? *scratches head* I mean.. it's like 70 some odd images...

when does a comic count as a copyright?

Yeah, that's the thing. I know that a copyright counts when it's an established big-name IP. One off furry comics or... whatever the hell eeveelution_pee_patience_tournament counts as? I'm not sure. All I know is that I'm not interested in putting in the work to make any sets or pools that don't already exist to replace these junk tags.

regsmutt said:
Yeah, that's the thing. I know that a copyright counts when it's an established big-name IP. One off furry comics or... whatever the hell eeveelution_pee_patience_tournament counts as? I'm not sure. All I know is that I'm not interested in putting in the work to make any sets or pools that don't already exist to replace these junk tags.

Eew.

Well, THAT one looks like it should be a set, not a pool.

Anyway-- If you want to dmail me the tags you trip over, I don't mind pooling them, or deleting/fixing them--I've got access to quick tagging, so it'll be fast. :)

(consider that a standing offer, BTW. :)

Darou said:
wiki defines that ferals shouldnt be. Adding ferals would bloat that tag into uselessness.

only should be used for bipeds that have proper hands who just happen to be moving on all fours but clearly do not have the skeletal structure to be naturally moving that way.

Good to know, thanx:)

Body type identification.

Yesterday, I tagged this

post #983032

humanoid for the small creature because I saw this was also tagged humanoid

post #901520

and because tag_group:body_types gives me the impression that characters should be stuffed into one of the major body type groupings. I'm not entirely happy grouping either of those as "humanoid", but I suppose humanoid is closest. They're kind of blobby, indistinct humanoid forms. As if humanoid wasn't already enough of an abstraction from human, this grouping is an abstraction of that abstraction.

Today I'm looking at a Turian post

post #857704

and I don't know if the Turian should be made to fit into anthro or humanoid or what. I would pick humanoid, easily. Could apply to any Turian post. Tag Implication: asari -> humanoid touched on this. Searching global tag edit history for Turian posts, I nearly crashed my browser saw disagreement over their body type classification between some of E621's paragons whom I would defer to.

This was another recent head-scratcher:

post #55660

feral, anthro, ?

What do? (Translated: What should be done for everything above?)
___________________________________

What I'm really driving at is...

Is there some list of "top of hierarchy" body types that will cover every possible character? My issue, if you'd call it that, with tag_group:body_types is that most of the examples under Uncommon and Supplementary also easily fit under one of the Main Types and they've been tagged that way, yet it looks like Turians must be stuck as alien only, which is only mentioned as a footnote and not as a body type. That's not good enough, IMO. With such a list of "first-level" body type groupings, everything should fall into place. If something generally fits into any of the other groups, then it's not a first-level body type and a first-level body type should also be tagged, thus establishing the roots of a hierarchy.

I think the first obstacle is addressing all the monstrous creatures that don't resemble any body type. I would make them feral. If a creature's body type doesn't resemble something you know, then the default assumption is usually that it's "wild" or feral. And if that makes people uncomfortable because "ferals need to resemble real animals", then split off the group into unknown_feral, feral_monster, or similar. Ferals are the less evolved form of anthros, humanoids, or humans or that's how we treat them, so if a creature is not recognized as one of those "more evolved species", then all it could possibly be is feral.

abadbird said:
This was another recent head-scratcher:

post #55660

feral, anthro, ?

I don't have useful input about the rest, but this looks pretty anthro to me. Humanoid chest, shoulders, arms, hands (with hoof-tipped fingers), and 'hips' are what give it away for me. For a feral the chest would be narrower and the arms wouldn't attach jutting out at the sides. The proportions of the arms would also be different.

I think the first obstacle is addressing all the monstrous creatures that don't resemble any body type. I would make them feral. If a creature's body type doesn't resemble something you know, then the default assumption is usually that it's "wild" or feral. And if that makes people uncomfortable because "ferals need to resemble real animals", then split off the group into unknown_feral, feral_monster, or similar. Ferals are the less evolved form of anthros, humanoids, or humans or that's how we treat them, so if a creature is not recognized as one of those "more evolved species", then all it could possibly be is feral.

With the exception of shapeless void-creatures (best example I can think of is the void-and-eyes renditions of Hermaeus Mora), disembodied tentacles, and shapeless slimes, I'm having difficulty thinking of things that wouldn't, on some level, have recognizable anatomy. Even if it's based on hybrids of, like, jellyfish and arthropods and worms, it can still be identifiable as 'anthro' or 'feral'. If it's not anthro/humanoid or truly shapeless, I think it's safe to say it's feral.

Admitedly, I'm coming in here with some rather dusty knowledge on the later so this is 100% my opinion, and may not count, but..

post #983032 post #901520

I'd call these semi-anthro, or perhaps waddling_head (kidding) ...Honestly, I'd wonder if there shouldn't be another body type, like... cartoon_critter or something.

and I don't know if the Turian should be made to fit into anthro or humanoid or what. I would pick humanoid, easily. Could apply to any Turian post.

humanoid reads "Bipedal, usually mammalian-like beings that are neither fully human nor furries. This includes, amongst other, animal humanoid, aliens, human-like constructs such as androids and golems, and fictional species such as orcs and elves."

So.. turians are aliens, and, thus, humanoid.

post #55660

feral, anthro, ?

Now... my 2 cents here is that that's a lamia. If 'taur' is a body type that is different than anthro, then surely the 'lamia/naga' is a body type as well. (2 legs, 4 legs, no legs...)

as for the rest ponyshrug.jpg

SnowWolf said:
Now... my 2 cents here is that that's a lamia. If 'taur' is a body type that is different than anthro, then surely the 'lamia/naga' is a body type as well. (2 legs, 4 legs, no legs...)

Taur is separate from anthro, but taurs can still be anthro. While anthro vs humanoid describes whether or not the face favours human vs animal features, taur/lamia describe how the body looks past the hips.

regsmutt said:
Taur is separate from anthro, but taurs can still be anthro. While anthro vs humanoid describes whether or not the face favours human vs animal features, taur/lamia describe how the body looks past the hips.

Then what's humanoid_face for? o_o

SnowWolf said:
Then what's humanoid_face for? o_o

Things like manticores and stuff that's in an odd middle ground like the face is furred and has an animal nose but more-or-less human facial structure. Some of the stuff in there probably should be animal_humanoid, but some stuff is so borderline I wouldn't be comfortable making a call either way.

thinking about it, it feels like humanoid face was probably intended to fit a middle ground..

post #88044

5 is feral.
4 is semi-anthro.
3 is anthro.
2 is.... ?
1 is fox_humanoid.

humanoid face seems like it'd fit for 2 in there -- as an anthro with a humanoid face.

of course, far too undertagged for that, but, alas.

humanoid_face is for anything with a humanoid face except humans because fuck humans. The body type doesn't really matter.

post #97455post #164519