Siral_Exan said:
Seeing that wiki makes me want to remove it due to ambiguity, but Sci Fi is still kinda vague; where should we draw the line? We allow living machines and similar tags, those could be considered sci fi.

There may be candidates there to imply to science_fiction.

Future also seems like it should be aliased to science_fiction, itself, because it's the less popular word choice (by far), really only seems to have been added in small bursts over time, and because it doesn't seem to be differentiating itself from science_fiction.

Honestly, I even feel like its a "lore" tag in a lot of these images and should be cleaned up - there's nothing particularly futuristic in post #383030, nor the series of post #217809, post #209925, post #208959, post #208632. It definitely feels wrong on post #176420, and post #65758 is just a Delorean, which has about as much to do with the future as 8-tracks and Bon Jovi.

Even contemporary examples like post #1457624 are really sketchy usage of the future tag. In that case, it seems like the artist, unable to visually convey their idea of speculating furries in some kind of post-war communist utopia, just kinda threw in some paper with titles on it hinting towards a Russian takeover of Europe.

But finally, there's also the futuristic tag, and one very lonely image in futurism. These don't seem to have as many problem cases, at least with my blacklist filters, and are thematically similar to future. If we did keep some idea of "images depicting visions of the future", it seems like futuristic is the better model and innately more suggestive of "Earthly stuff that looks like it belongs in the future" (to differentiate from other depictions of science_fiction and its tropes, such as aliens and starships and laserguns).

SnowWolf said:
I think my biggest point of discussion would be.. What would we tag the opposite? what do we tag a bunch of wolves in Queen Elizabeth's court? or in kilts with claymores?

Well, past, obviously. :P

Jokes aside, maybe cases like those would be some form of historical.

Edit: There aren't a lot of examples under historical, and I didn't have much luck finding a focused example with a few other searches, so I don't have a good idea of how popular it is to depict furries in somewhat-realistic historical settings or clothing. Maybe historical is underused or there's a better tag already, or maybe it's just really niche.

Yeah, good points, the sci-fi tag isn't much better.
Tagging the futuristic elements would be better, and maybe we should add some tag like future_tech?

Got no tag ideas for futuristic cityscapes and such (well, besides tagging those as something like futuristic_cityscape :P).

As for the future, I wasn't suggesting that it'd be aliased to science fiction. It's definitely too much of a mess for that, and will need to be sorted by hand.

And as for historical settings, those are usually tagged by the period. Victorian, etc.

I'd be okay with aliasing future to invalid_tag as well, after the cleanup, and then maybe change the wiki to suggest other tags that are actually valid. :P Or alias it to some umbrella disambiguation tag like futuristic_(disambiguation).

A recent thread reminded me that the dire_machine tag exists.

I'm not sure if the usage is obvious from the name, but calling them 'dire' is marginally better than 'feral' since it avoids the problems with various implications. Such as human on aircraft ('human_on_feral') getting tagged as bestiality...

Any objections to moving the old feral_aircraft tag to dire_aircraft, and then implicating dire_aircraft to dire_machine?

Genjar said:
A recent thread reminded me that the dire_machine tag exists.

I'm not sure if the usage is obvious from the name, but calling them 'dire' is marginally better than 'feral' since it avoids the problems with various implications. Such as human on aircraft ('human_on_feral') getting tagged as bestiality...

Any objections to moving the old feral_aircraft tag to dire_aircraft, and then implicating dire_aircraft to dire_machine?

Would dire_machine apply to all living machines in their non-anthropomorphized/humanoid/whatever forms? like cars from cars_(disney), for example.

I dunno.. dire makes me think, like.. Dire wolf, or what have have you. A dire aircraft makes me think "a really big aircraft" or maybe one that is especially vicious.

Then again/ "feral " has it's own implications, and we're made it our own word, soo... dire might be okay.

darryus said:
Would dire_machine apply to all living machines in their non-anthropomorphized/humanoid/whatever forms? like cars from cars_(disney), for example.

That's what the current dire machine wiki seems to imply: all living machines in their machine-form. So it'd include Disney's Cars, Thomas the tank engine, Transformers in their vehicle form, etc.

SnowWolf said:
I dunno.. dire makes me think, like.. Dire wolf, or what have have you. A dire aircraft makes me think "a really big aircraft" or maybe one that is especially vicious.

Then again/ "feral " has it's own implications, and we're made it our own word, soo... dire might be okay.

Exactly. 'Dire' doesn't seem like a good fit, but It's less problematic than 'feral' and they need to be tagged as something.

There's probably a better word to use than dire, but personally, I can't think of any English word for 'vehicle-shaped'. If anyone has alternate suggestions, I'd be be happy to hear them.

And maybe I'm thinking about from the wrong angle. What about something like machine-shaped_creature? (Sounds awkward, but machine_creature would be too ambiguous and easy to confuse with the broader living machine... and robots).

I'm certainly in support of dire_aircraft implying dire_machine and getting an alias from feral_machine to dire. Would we then have, for ratbat's human works, dire_on_human?

Huh. Dire on human sounds a bit odd. That one may be more likely to be wrongly tagged.

Just noticed there are three sky*light* artist tags:

8 sky_light artist (one remaining upload, rest deleted)
1 sky_light_(artist) artist
13 skylight_(artist) artist

Don't know if is all the same artist, or two artist or three artists.
But based on quick looks i had of art with those three tags, could be the same artist.

I don't have time figure it out properly myself because already multitasking with hundreds of tabs over various Firefox profiles.

( sky_light doesn't seem like a good tag ... potential future confusion with general tag skylight )

Apologies if this is the wrong thread for this.

Should things like this
post #1598392
be tagged casual_nudity?
I mean, it's obviously not a non-sexual situation but the sexual situation doesn't seem to be the reason that they are nude. Hope that made sense.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Should things like this
post #1598392
be tagged casual_nudity?

It starts as non-sexual, so I think it should be. Public restaurant, eating in the nude, definitely seems like casual nudity to me. Even if it turns sexual almost immediately.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Should things like this
post #1598392
be tagged casual_nudity?
I mean, it's obviously not a non-sexual situation but the sexual situation doesn't seem to be the reason that they are nude. Hope that made sense.

I mean, they're ferals, so, probably not. Although I'd tag similar situations with non-ferals with casual_nudity.

Genjar said:
It starts as non-sexual, so I think it should be. Public restaurant, eating in the nude, definitely seems like casual nudity to me. Even if it turns sexual almost immediately.

darryus said:
I mean, they're ferals, so, probably not. Although I'd tag similar situations with non-ferals with casual_nudity.

I'd have to agree with Genjar here. They're not out in the wildnerness, they're in a civilized setting, acting as humans would, but naked.

Furrin_Gok said:
They're not out in the wildnerness, they're in a civilized setting, acting as humans would, but naked.

I've never seen the show, but that kinda sounds like you just described MLP in general, other than like the 3 characters who wear a hat or something. So should we just tag pretty much everything involving mlp casusal_nudity?

darryus said:
I've never seen the show, but that kinda sounds like you just described MLP in general, other than like the 3 characters who wear a hat or something. So should we just tag pretty much everything involving mlp casusal_nudity?

From what I've seen, they're normally moving about civilization in a feral manner. There's that scene with Lyra sitting on the bench in a more human-like manner, as these characters are, which on its own would get a tag as casual nudity yes, but those moving about in the normal fashion, no.

I wonder if it's time to bump up the hi_res resolution limit a bit? 1600x1200 is not at all uncommon these days, and there's about 70000 posts that are currently missing the hi_res tag.

And since tag scripting is throttled (two edits per second?), tagging those would take quite a lot of effort, no matter what.

Maybe it should be raised to something like 1920 x 1280? Although that seems very large, hi_res is tagged if either dimension is higher.

Edit: Actually, even that would only cut the workload by a sixth. Urgh.

Genjar said:
I wonder if it's time to bump up the hi_res resolution limit a bit? 1600x1200 is not at all uncommon these days, and there's about 70000 posts that are currently missing the hi_res tag.

And since tag scripting is throttled (two edits per second?), tagging those would take quite a lot of effort, no matter what.

Maybe it should be raised to something like 1920 x 1280? Although that seems very large, hi_res is tagged if either dimension is higher.

Edit: Actually, even that would only cut the workload by a sixth. Urgh.

wouldn't we need to untag a lot of pictures if we did that?

Can dialogue affect the rating of a post? I mean, wouldn't exactly call this SFW.

SnowWolf said:
wouldn't we need to untag a lot of pictures if we did that?

Yep, which would mean more clean-up in short-term. I was thinking of the long-term gains, but it doesn't seem worthwhile since there's not that much difference. The number of posts with height:>1199 is massive, and raising it to height:>1279 doesn't make much of a difference.

Tagging those is really the kind of thing that should be automated somehow.

Genjar said:
Yep, which would mean more clean-up in short-term. I was thinking of the long-term gains, but it doesn't seem worthwhile since there's not that much difference. The number of posts with height:>1199 is massive, and raising it to height:>1279 doesn't make much of a difference.

Tagging those is really the kind of thing that should be automated somehow.

Isn't tagbot supposed to handle things like this, I mean that's automated, right?

Upon realizing that the wiki for shirt_pull was a bit flip-floppy and reworded it to be a bit more direct, and then started working to separate it from shirt_lift posts, but realized there were some posts where instead of pulling the shirt down, or lifting it up, a character pulls it outwards.
post #1578222
Should we have a third tag, such as shirt_yank for these, or should we consider these to be a lift or pull?

Does fingering count as penetration? penetration wiki says otherwise but I remember someone mentioning it being outdated.

Also does double-dildo male to female count as pegging?
post #428713

Furrin_Gok said:
Upon realizing that the wiki for shirt_pull was a bit flip-floppy and reworded it to be a bit more direct, and then started working to separate it from shirt_lift posts, but realized there were some posts where instead of pulling the shirt down, or lifting it up, a character pulls it outwards.
post #1578222
Should we have a third tag, such as shirt_yank for these, or should we consider these to be a lift or pull?

My initial opinion is I don't think we should have tag of shirt_yank.
shirt_lift seem sufficient to me. (shirt_life wiki says "...character, ... lifts their shirt to reveal their body. ...")
Maybe a shirt being pulled outward (shirt is being lifted away from the body)
should be covered by shirt_lift?

Related: Do we need the tag shirt_up ?
shirt_up wiki just says "See:
shirt_lift
raised_shirt"
Maybe split into shirt_lift and raised_shirt ??

ListerTheSquirrel said:
My initial opinion is I don't think we should have tag of shirt_yank.
shirt_lift seem sufficient to me. (shirt_life wiki says "...character, ... lifts their shirt to reveal their body. ...")
Maybe a shirt being pulled outward (shirt is being lifted away from the body)
should be covered by shirt_lift?

Related: Do we need the tag shirt_up ?
shirt_up wiki just says "See:
shirt_lift
raised_shirt"
Maybe split into shirt_lift and raised_shirt ??

I feel that raised_shirt sound be aliased to shirt_up since I can't see a difference between the two tags and the x_down/aside tags seem to be the standard otherwise and x_up would keep it consistent throughout the tags.

would specifically refer to when the shirt is still being held, so it should be left as-is.

Yeah, *_up is closer to the standard, since it mirrors pants_down and other such tags. Should probably alias raised_shirt to shirt_up.

Edit: Oh, hey. It's already pending. Been for almost two years. :/

Wandered across tag reviling_mechanical_body_suit

(the "reviling" seems like a typo of "revealing")

4 posts tagged with reviling_mechanical_body_suit

post #676074 (tumblr post tagged as #robot-girl )

post #676073

post #676070

post #559889

Changed all four to revealing_mechanical_bodysuit
"bodysuit" because bodysuit tag and Wikipedia article titled Bodysuit )

(Posting here in case anyone has an objection such as they think revealing_mechanical_bodysuit is incorrect)

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Does fingering count as penetration? penetration wiki says otherwise but I remember someone mentioning it being outdated.

Is forum #250575 the forum thread you were thinking of? (if so, maybe further discussion about fingering should take place there)

(That thread has abadbird putting fingering in "Not Always Penetrating" section
with "fingering - finger(s) into orifice or stimulating orifice's exterior".
Which I assume means they are suggesting the fingering that involves finger(s) INTO an orifice
maybe should get tagged with penetration tag(s) in the future.)

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Also does double-dildo male to female count as pegging?
post #428713

Going by pegging wiki, the short answer would be no.
(EDIT: by "male to female" i assume you meant female penetrating a male)

"A female character wearing a strapon and using the sex toy to engage in anal sex with a receiving male character.
...
In addition, it only applies to the use of a strap-on; an image where a female is using a free dildo to penetrate a male's anus would require the "anal_penetration" and "sex_toy" tags, but not the "pegging" tag. The only exception is if the female is using a Feeldoe specifically, as the harness-less toy is meant to be used in the same manner as a strapon."

ListerTheSquirrel said:
Going by pegging wiki, the short answer would be no.

"A female character wearing a strapon and using the sex toy to engage in anal sex with a receiving male character.
...
In addition, it only applies to the use of a strap-on; an image where a female is using a free dildo to penetrate a male's anus would require the "anal_penetration" and "sex_toy" tags, but not the "pegging" tag. The only exception is if the female is using a Feeldoe specifically, as the harness-less toy is meant to be used in the same manner as a strapon."

yeah, the wiki says that, but the wiki is incorrect. the wiki is overly specific in mentioning a specific brand of dildo. I'd say that as long as the dildo is being used in a manner similar to how a male would use a penis--attached to, or near the groin, with hip movements as the presumed primary method of movement... yeah.

SnowWolf said:
yeah, the wiki says that, but the wiki is incorrect. the wiki is overly specific in mentioning a specific brand of dildo.

Yeah, maybe so. Pegging is a role-reversal kink, and that certainly fits the theme. Even if it's not quite traditional pegging.

Genjar said:
Yeah, maybe so. Pegging is a role-reversal kink, and that certainly fits the theme. Even if it's not quite traditional pegging.

I mean, the only difference is it's a different position than usual. I really do feel that the wiki's overly specific there-- probably because the author never thought of using a double ended dildo that way.

I think that m/f couple using a dildo ass-to-ass would NOT count, because part of the whole pegging thing is that the female is taking a position typical to the penetrative party while lacking the attached physical anatomy.

SnowWolf said:
I mean, the only difference is it's a different position than usual. I really do feel that the wiki's overly specific there-- probably because the author never thought of using a double ended dildo that way.

I think that m/f couple using a dildo ass-to-ass would NOT count, because part of the whole pegging thing is that the female is taking a position typical to the penetrative party while lacking the attached physical anatomy.

Was thinking of the examples given in above posts
and of the tags toying_self and toying_partner
and wondered if a mutual_toying tag would be a good idea.
(closest tag I could find was mutual_penetration ... but that includes non-toy penetration)

Considering how often the users are confused by the ambiguous_gender tag, its wiki entry could use some work. Specifically, I was thinking that adding thumbnails would help.

Most ferals are ambiguous by nature, so the thumbs should be mostly anthro/humanoid. But I'm having hard time actually finding anything that's so blatantly ambiguous that it's obvious even from the thumbnail.

Here's some that might work:
post #1153369 post #416291

Ambiguous enough? Any other suggestions?

Genjar said:
Considering how often the users are confused by the ambiguous_gender tag, its wiki entry could use some work. Specifically, I was thinking that adding thumbnails would help.

Most ferals are ambiguous by nature, so the thumbs should be mostly anthro/humanoid. But I'm having hard time actually finding anything that's so blatantly ambiguous that it's obvious even from the thumbnail.

Here's some that might work:
post #1153369 post #416291

Ambiguous enough? Any other suggestions?

Eh, Here, I'll toss some playing cards out there:

post #1639155 post #1631666 post #1462000 (though the last might be coonfusing because of the obviously gendered hair. ... ah, sentences we never think we'd type...
post #1449815 post #1445444 post #1443323
post #1441442 post #1441185 post #1440891
post #1440460

some are probably mildly inclined one way or another, but something in that "very animal-like anthro" category would probably be a good addition.

I was wondering if there's a need for identical_twins and fraternal_twins. They both have potential use, but are the differences really enough to warrant keeping them? I feel the twins tag works well enough already, and I can see potential mistagging if they are kept, but I wanted opinions from other people before I do anything with the tags. Are they worth keeping and tagging, or should I simply remove these tags from the posts that have them?

Which of these sound better?:
balls_outline or ball_outline?
balls_growth or ball_growth?

We don't seem to have a standard for these, and users seem equally unsure about it since both get tagged.

I'm not sure I understand where the line between imminent_tentacle_rape and tentacle_rape goes, can anyone specify?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
I'm not sure I understand where the line between imminent_tentacle_rape and tentacle_rape goes, can anyone specify?

I think a lot of the posts currently tagged with imminent_tentacle_rape should be tagged with tentacle_rape. Imminent_tentacle_rape is for situations where no assault has actually happened, there are tentacles ready to rape and there's a character in a situation where they will inevitably be raped (asleep, bound, unaware, cowering, whatever) but there hasn't been direct interaction between the two.

darryus said:
I think a lot of the posts currently tagged with imminent_tentacle_rape should be tagged with tentacle_rape. Imminent_tentacle_rape is for situations where no assault has actually happened, there are tentacles ready to rape and there's a character in a situation where they will inevitably be raped (asleep, bound, unaware, cowering, whatever) but there hasn't been direct interaction between the two.

Ah, got it! thx ^.^
Guessing the same goes for imminent rape?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Ah, got it! thx ^.^
Guessing the same goes for imminent rape?

I don't know, it dosn't seem consistent, the way the wiki for tentacle_rape defines it it's rape as soon as the tentacles start forcing themselves on the character, where as some of the examples for imminent_rape are like way past that point, most (notably the second example post) but it's still considered "imminent".

I'm not sure what's up with the inconsistency; maybe like, we consider tentacles to be genitals or something, so it's rape as soon as tentacle meets body.

Or maybe it's because we need some wiki rewrites...

We were talking about using dire_machine a few months back and the idea of "dire" as a form. Should that be extended to animate_inanimates as well? Should we tag these posts...
post #1608668 post #1608313
... as something like dire_inanimate?

darryus said:
Should that be extended to animate_inanimates as well? Should we tag these posts...
post #1608668 post #1608313
... as something like dire_inanimate?

We should tag them in some way, I'm just not sure about the tag name.. Dire still sounds off, but I haven't seen any better naming ideas for it.

darryus said:
We were talking about using dire_machine a few months back and the idea of "dire" as a form. Should that be extended to animate_inanimates as well? Should we tag these posts...
post #1608668 post #1608313
... as something like dire_inanimate?

These ones aren't even vehicles, which is what Dire was originally being used for, or that's how it felt to me. But,

Genjar said:
We should tag them in some way, I'm just not sure about the tag name.. Dire still sounds off, but I haven't seen any better naming ideas for it.

I'm not sure how to better tag it either.

Requesting a mass edit of :nougat_(character) to nougat_(character). Looking at the artist's page ( https://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?id=2801613&type=illust&tag=%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC%E3%83%8A%E3%82%A4%E3%83%88 ), there's no sign of that colon mark being part of the character's name, so so it was most likely a typo.

OneMoreAnonymous said:
Requesting a mass edit of :nougat_(character) to nougat_(character). Looking at the artist's page ( https://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?id=2801613&type=illust&tag=%E3%82%B5%E3%83%BC%E3%83%8A%E3%82%A4%E3%83%88 ), there's no sign of that colon mark being part of the character's name, so so it was most likely a typo.

Done and thank you :)

wiki glass says

A hard transparent substance used to make sth like windows.
...

"sth like" ???
Would it be reasonable to edit that wiki so "sth" gets changed to "stuff" ??

The erection-wiki was getting gender-specific, which is against the wiki editing guidelines. So I went ahead and deleted the whole paragraph about arousal. I very much doubt that users of this site need to have the concept of 'arousal' explained to them anyway.

If anyone thinks that there was something worth salvaging in the part that I cut, feel free to edit some of it back in. Just make sure to avoid pronouns.

Just butting in here to let you all know I've slightly changed the crossgender wiki to specify that the tag does not apply if a fan character has a gender differing from the "canon" gender of the species.

In particular if a character is a gender that the all-female or all-male species doesn't supply it shouldn't be tagged as crossgender. Because you could technically still have that character be a crossgender while drawing it as the "original" species' gender and it'd be a double-crossgender? Not-crossgender? The logic doesn't really supply fringe cases like this so best to just not do that.

NotMeNotYou said:
Just butting in here to let you all know I've slightly changed the crossgender wiki to specify that the tag does not apply if a fan character has a gender differing from the "canon" gender of the species.

In particular if a character is a gender that the all-female or all-male species doesn't supply it shouldn't be tagged as crossgender. Because you could technically still have that character be a crossgender while drawing it as the "original" species' gender and it'd be a double-crossgender? Not-crossgender? The logic doesn't really supply fringe cases like this so best to just not do that.

So a character like latiara who happens to be a female member of the all-male Latios species will be considered properly gendered as female, but crossgender as male? Sounds good to me.

Furrin_Gok said:
So a character like latiara who happens to be a female member of the all-male Latios species will be considered properly gendered as female, but crossgender as male? Sounds good to me.

Exactly.

should multicolored_hair be tagged with individual colors?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
should multicolored_hair be tagged with individual colors?

I generally try to tag any predominate colors, while not going crazy, but tha'ts me.

Ah.. My kingdom for the ability to go back in time and establish hair and fur color tags a bit differently. hmmm ... blue_hair pink_hair_accent blue_main_hair? maybe Dominant_blue_Hair_color? Who knows.

That ship sailed so long ago though.

Is there a reason that bfg (big fucking gun) is a character?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Is there a reason that bfg (big fucking gun) is a character?

Probably got tagged for the Big Friendly Giant.

sould this be tagged female_penetrating?
post #1468195

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
sould this be tagged female_penetrating?
post #1468195

Related to this, third paragraph. Extend the concept a bit, and your answer is yes. Until we tag sex_toy_penetrating, which is what insertion once meant, then that's what we should do.

post #1282359 post #1823776 post #511557

How should zoras' species be tagged? Most of the posts on the site are tagged humanoid which, reading the wiki, seems wrong.

They have very prominent animal traits (particularly the new design), so I think anthro + marine + zora is a good base for most posts.

Index said:
How should zoras' species be tagged?

Usually animal_humanoid.

Zora should be tagged on a case by case basis, like all fictional species, but generally they tend to be portrayed as fish_humanoids or marine_humanoids for those not necessarily fish based

What would be the best way to tag an image to indicate that a character is actually wearing/using a butt plug?

Normally, for other toys, I'd just use toying self or toying partner to clarify that an image does, in fact, contain someone using a sex toy, rather than just having one in the background somewhere. But for butt plugs, they generally aren't being used as actively as toying self implies: they're just kinda there, plugging up a butt, while the toying self tag requires the person to be actively masturbating, so it doesn't seem like "toying self" is really the right tag in a situation like that?

But it also seems like it would be really good to at least have *some* way to indicate that it's actually being used beyond the simple presence of a butt plug tag.
The problem with tagging butt plug (or other toys) alone is that it is very, very, very common for images to just have butt plugs generally around, as decoration. (Sometimes you can tag this as discarded sex toy, but often they're neatly put away on a shelf and not discarded at all, and even more often pics with discarded sex toys also tend to have people *actually* using sex toys too, making the presence or absence of discarded sex toy not especially useful for identifying the presence of undiscarded sex toys.)

Am I correct about the "toying_self would not be appropriate for someone just wearing a butt plug" thing, and if so, is there something I *could* do to distinguish it from an image that just has a butt plug on a shelf in the background?

(Here's some relevant examples that I just picked from the current first 25 results for butt_plug to show how common it is: post #1827002, post #1826552, post #1825091, post #1817525, post #1825049, post #1817525, and post #1816696. More than a quarter of the images with butt plugs in them, don't involve them actually being inside butts! They also act as a nice selection of all the different ways that butt plugs can appear in an image and not be used while still having tags that you might naively expect to help find usage)

Can anybody clear up the difference between a rubber suit, a bodysuit, and a skinsuit? It's very confusing.

Also, I think there should be a tag for cases where someone is covered by latex but the implication of clothing would be inappropriate - for instance, post #1157218, post #467363, or post #1154810. In these cases, the character is for all intents and purposes naked - in fact, they actually might be naked, for all we know that could be their actual skin. (And certainly, trying to distinguish "is this really a head-to-toe latex suit that just resembles a naked body, or are they just made of latex and they're actually naked?" seems like such a subtle, can-of-worms question it could not possibly be decided based on Tagging What You See - I can't see how you'd tell without actually having to ask the artist.)

I'd have just gone ahead and made the tag already, but I can't think of a good name for it. Latex_skin seems like would be presuming too much in the same way that rubber_suit does. Living latex seems more usefully reserved to that genre of posts that involve goo transformation via liquid latex - and again, would be presuming too much, since they might just be wearing a really good non-living costume. Skinsuit, which would seem to be the perfect compromise name, is already in use for any kind of skin-tight clothing, like Samus' Zero Suit or Rouge the Bat's costume, not to mention it's implicated to clothing already. Any ideas?

(I'm honestly tempted to go with suitskin, but frankly that sounds silly).

One of the locked tags here is borked, it starts with a plus sign. post #885988

OneMoreAnonymous said:
One of the locked tags here is borked, it starts with a plus sign. post #885988

fixed

hi! brand new to the site, mostly just gonna tag things as the name suggests. i wanted to avoid making a new thread and this one seemed to be the most useful to me, but i apologize if i'm using this thread wrong.

there's a handful of posts i've seen with mastectomy scars but not the mastectomy scars tag (namely in visibly transgender). in addition, the mastectomy tag doesn't have a single post in it, which is kinda odd.

one thing i noticed was that the penectomy tag is used both for the process of removing the penis, as well as for characters that have already had their penis removed. which leads me to a couple questions:

• should mastectomy apply to the same principles as penectomy? in other words, should characters that have already undergone a mastectomy be tagged as mastectomy?
• if the answer to that question is "yes", shouldn't mastectomy scars be implicated to mastectomy?

thank you!

(edit: sorry, im not suggesting mastectomy scars be implicated to mastectomy, i'm asking if there's a particular reason it isn't.)

Requesting sskomu_(artist) be changed to just sskomu.

Edit: ditto for shaza_(artist) and shaza.

Why is buffalo disambiguated instead of aliased to obscure taxonomy like other similiar tags?

Would this classify as cum_in_mouth?
post #785529

Should a general disembodied_penis recieve a character tag?

post #1976016

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Should a general disembodied_penis recieve a character tag?

post #1976016

Nah. Names have exception that you can use external knowledge for tagging them, but the displayed character needs to have at least some visual evidence that could be linked to the character. There is no way to connect a generic disembodied canine penis to Isabelle.

hiekkapillu said:
Nah. Names have exception that you can use external knowledge for tagging them, but the displayed character needs to have at least some visual evidence that could be linked to the character. There is no way to connect a generic disembodied canine penis to Isabelle.

Got it.

notmenotyou said:
Just butting in here to let you all know I've slightly changed the crossgender wiki to specify that the tag does not apply if a fan character has a gender differing from the "canon" gender of the species.

In particular if a character is a gender that the all-female or all-male species doesn't supply it shouldn't be tagged as crossgender. Because you could technically still have that character be a crossgender while drawing it as the "original" species' gender and it'd be a double-crossgender? Not-crossgender? The logic doesn't really supply fringe cases like this so best to just not do that.

Somehow, I never actually checked the wiki page until now.

Crossgender said:
This tag does not apply to the rare genderswaps of species that are normally all-female or all-male, it only applies based on the character's "original" gender.

This is misleading people into removing the tag from images such as generic nidoqueens that aren't female. While you can run a search for nidoqueen penis solo, that doesn't help if it's not a solo image. It should be updated to be

This tag [u]does not[/u] apply to characters who are the rare genderswaps of species that are normally all-female or all-male if the character is stated to normally be that opposite gender. The tag only applies based on the character's "original" gender, or to generic instances of the species.

furrin_gok said:
Somehow, I never actually checked the wiki page until now.

Crossgender said:
This tag does not apply to the rare genderswaps of species that are normally all-female or all-male, it only applies based on the character's "original" gender.

This is misleading people into removing the tag from images such as generic nidoqueens that aren't female. While you can run a search for nidoqueen penis solo, that doesn't help if it's not a solo image. It should be updated to be

This tag [u]does not[/u] apply to characters who are the rare genderswaps of species that are normally all-female or all-male if the character is stated to normally be that opposite gender. The tag only applies based on the character's "original" gender, or to generic instances of the species.

Have I been the one misunderstanding Crossgender? The wiki still hasn't been changed, and there are Tag Wars going on over non-character crossgenders qualifying or not for the tag.

furrin_gok said:
This is misleading people into removing the tag from images such as generic nidoqueens that aren't female. While you can run a search for nidoqueen penis solo, that doesn't help if it's not a solo image. It should be updated to be

furrin_gok said:
Have I been the one misunderstanding Crossgender? The wiki still hasn't been changed, and there are Tag Wars going on over non-character crossgenders qualifying or not for the tag.

This is how it's always been since I found the tag years ago. Crossgender applies to specific characters who are drawn as a separate gender from their canonical gender. E.g. Ryme_(totodice1) was created as a male salazzle, so they're not crossgender when depicted as male but are crossgender when depicted as female. Flipping this so their normal male depiction is crossgender, but they're not crossgender when depicted as a gender-swapped female, would just be confusing to anyone looking at/for the character. Same for Saul Ashle, who is actually a male salazzle/salandit hybrid; where hybrids add another layer of confusion if applied to species since a salandit can be male. And you can have gynomorph hybrids like this generic salazzle/lugia hybrid, who isn't (doesn't appear to be) a specific character to have any canonical gender to dictate if they're gender-swapped (maybe they are, maybe they aren't). Even then, if applied to what species are officially in-universe, since all in-universe information has pokemon being male, female, or sexless, that would make all intersex pokemon crossgender.

Plus, given that we're dealing with fictional species, there is absolutely nothing stopping future games or other official media from introducing male salazzle/nidoqueen/nidorina/etc, even as a one-off character, making them possible in-universe.