webreakn said:
(I hope this is the right place to ask)

Could these two artists be the same one?
https://e621.net/post/index/1/kitticlub
https://e621.net/post/index/1/%E6%A3%AE%E8%B0%B7

They have this same exact image (with the same source). Only difference is quality.
https://e621.net/post/show/421503/2010-abstract_background-anal-anal_penetration-ant
https://e621.net/post/show/236427/2010-anal-anal_penetration-anthro-anus-biceps-big_[/quote]

It isn't the right place.

But no worries. I've verified the two artists are the same and aliased the tags for you. I also went ahead and deleted the lower quality image you listed in favor of the bigger one.

As many of you surely know, flash posts tend to be poorly tagged. Partly because of the content (games and long animations), and partly because flash cannot be tag scripted. But since flash posts lack thumbnails, it's essential to tag them well.

So I decided to check them one by one, starting from the oldest. Needless to say, this is going to take a while. I'll probably be done by year 2018.

I doubt that anyone actually has time for this, but if someone could add missing basics (such as gender for flash -male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured or species for flash speciestags:0 -zero_pictured), that'd make this go faster.

Genjar said:

I doubt that anyone actually has time for this, but if someone could add missing basics (such as gender for flash -male -female -intersex -ambiguous_gender -zero_pictured ... , that'd make this go faster.

If I have some time, I'll try to help with the first one + solo/duo/group.

Not sure if this is the right thread to ask this, but penis -rating:e and pussy -rating:e shouldn't have 8 pages / 1 page of posts respectively, right?... penis_outline and bulge and camel_toe and such don't get genital tags when they're obscured by underwear, do they? What if it's like post #831764 or some very visible erect penis below a tight piece of clothing? Either way you can't have a non-explicit rating with pussy/penis tags... I just thought I'd ask to make sure before I go out on a tagging adventure. :3
(Another search I had in mind for some cleaning was bulge solo penis because that's paradoxical too.)

Emserdalf said:
Not sure if this is the right thread to ask this, but penis -rating:e and pussy -rating:e shouldn't have 8 pages / 1 page of posts respectively, right?... penis_outline and bulge and camel_toe and such don't get genital tags when they're obscured by underwear, do they? What if it's like post #831764 or some very visible erect penis below a tight piece of clothing? Either way you can't have a non-explicit rating with pussy/penis tags... I just thought I'd ask to make sure before I go out on a tagging adventure. :3
(Another search I had in mind for some cleaning was bulge solo penis because that's paradoxical too.)

Try adding ~erection ~hyper. The first because it was implicated to penis for years, the latter because...Well it's technically supposed to be under hyper_bulge, but it's not tagged as often as it should.

Emserdalf said:
very visible erect penis below a tight piece of clothing?

Trick answer. Many of these can be tagged explicit, but the penis itself isn't tagged unless you can see it.

I've almost finished one project: nearly every post has minimum of eight tags now.

The remaining posts are on my blacklist. Maybe someone could add a few tags to those (tagcount:<8), so I can move on to tagcount:<9. (Which is going to take even longer than eight did...)

By the way, I found a lot of posts like post #42866 and post #133892 which had been rated questionable for years, despite visible genitals etc. Sheesh. There's a lot of poorly tagged images hiding out there, not showing up on various tagging projects because they're missing the basic tags.

Genjar said:
I've almost finished one project: nearly every post has minimum of eight tags now.

The remaining posts are on my blacklist. Maybe someone could add a few tags to those (tagcount:<8), so I can move on to tagcount:<9. (Which is going to take even longer than eight did...)

By the way, I found a lot of posts like post #42866 and post #133892 which had been rated questionable for years, despite visible genitals etc. Sheesh. There's a lot of poorly tagged images hiding out there, not showing up on various tagging projects because they're missing the basic tags.

Got the last of the (tagcount:<8) ones done, so that should help. Nicely done btw.

That does not surprise me in the least. But the site is slowly getting sorted out and better tagged with a lot of people's hard efforts. So that's something.

Looked at cheatsheet ( https://e621.net/help/cheatsheet ) and other pages
and am wondering:
How to we search for e621 posts that do not have an artist tag?

(edit: ie. for potentially figuring out who the artists of those pieces are)

EarthFurst2 said:
Looked at cheatsheet ( https://e621.net/help/cheatsheet ) and other pages
and am wondering:
How to we search for e621 posts that do not have an artist tag?

(edit: ie. for potentially figuring out who the artists of those pieces are)

This is what I tend to use: ~arttags:0 ~unknown_artist order:random. Finds all posts that are either set to unknown artist, or have no artist tags at all -- and displays those in random order.

Genjar said:
This is what I tend to use: ~arttags:0 ~unknown_artist order:random. ...

Thank you Genjar.

Man, people just refuse to understand that there is supposed to be a difference between athletic and muscular and that they usually shouldn't be tagged simultaneously.

I just cleared one page, but there's freaking 76 of them left and that's a bit daunting. :/ Maybe someone can help out here.

It's not the most easy project, as those borderline cases (of which there are quite a few) can be very subjective.

... What is the difference between athletic and muscular?

leomole said:
... What is the difference between athletic and muscular?

Dunno how to describe it accurately, but athletic is for characters that look fit but not muscular. No body fat, etc.

Genjar said:
Dunno how to describe it accurately, but athletic is for characters that look fit but not muscular. No body fat, etc.

Muscular then is for bodybuilders?

Furrin_Gok said:
Muscular then is for bodybuilders?

Yes, but super buff (but not hyper) guys also get big_muscles or even huge_muscles.

leomole said:
... What is the difference between athletic and muscular?

Uhh, doesn't it say that in the wikis you linked? Though I do suppose the athletic wiki could do with a few more examples, this is pretty barebones.

Genjar said:
Dunno how to describe it accurately, but athletic is for characters that look fit but not muscular. No body fat, etc.

Right, though they are allowed to have some slight musculature (which kinda comes with being in shape). I mean like abs and well-shaped legs, not thick biceps/triceps, bulging pecs or a bull neck. Also, IIRC their frame has to remain pretty lithe.

post #827697 post #832033 post #796095 post #630752 post #733219 post #745984

If you ask me, that's athletic. (Used to be called Toned, but that sounded even more confusing for a stand-alone body type describer)

Also, this is more-or-less where I would draw the line and move to muscular:

post #836973

Still not really bulky, but a clearly more heavyset type of upper body. With wide shoulders, powerful-looking arms (no real biceps in this example, but it looks like they would be there if he'd flex), prominent neck muscles, etcetera. Of course, from this point it can still go a bit further before you start to hit big_muscles.

Have to say though, the difference between muscular and big_muscles isn't nearly as apparent as between muscular and huge_muscles, which I guess makes sense with it being the next step beyond. Still, it can be a little hard to tell where to add or not to add big_muscles once characters get somewhat bulkier than the previous guy, whereas Huge always seems unambiguous.

post #784832 I'M AHHHNULD! YAWRHWHW!

Apparently witches is a chartag now

post #837940

titanmelon said:
Apparently witches is a chartag now

post #837940

Witches should alias to witch which should be locked as a general tag.

_{...Dropping this here, just in case the people involved would accidentally miss it because it happened to be the last post before the page switched. Guh. [/USI]}

titanmelon said:
Apparently witches is a chartag now

post #837940

lol

Changed to general and approved alias -> witch

Ok so, apparently sheath implies animal genitalia, but posts like post #21988 are tagged with sheath, is that supposed to be right?
(humanoid penis + sheath = animal_genitalia + humanoid_penis)
-

parasprite said:
Changed to general and approved alias -> witch

woo

Here is a dedicated forum for discussing/listing the ambiguous tags that either:

• Need disambiguating
• Was disambiguated

See forum #185266

titanmelon said:
Ok so, apparently sheath implies animal genitalia, but posts like post #21988 are tagged with sheath, is that supposed to be right?
(humanoid penis + sheath = animal_genitalia + humanoid_penis)

Hmm. Well it is technically an animal genitalia feature. I could go either way with it being implicated.

Kinda doesn't fit in here, but it's a tagging thing so oh well

• What do you all think about the alias proper_art -> formal_art ?

or maybe

• alias proper_art -> classical_art ?

-

parasprite said:
Hmm. Well it is technically an animal genitalia feature. I could go either way with it being implicated.

Yeah, haven't really given it much thought so far, seems to be one of those grey areas.
Will add a suggestion if/when i think of something

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

Tagged this with double_penetration for the butt: post #838734

but(t) should it be triple penetration as well?

Have situations like these been disambiguated for tagging?

Do we have a tag for this artstyle?:

post #761080 post #147077

...or are those simply tagged as flat_colors?

Should autofellatio count as fellatio?
e6 wiki says it's for oral on others, wikipedia says or oneself

-

Genjar said:
Do we have a tag for this artstyle?:
[..]
...or are those simply tagged as flat_colors?

There's line_art, so I don't see why no_lineart wouldn't be just as valid

So maybe no_lineart + flat_colors

There may even be a formal art term for it, but none currently come to mind

titanmelon said:
Should autofellatio count as fellatio?

As it says on the wiki, no.
Masturbation is not tagged as sex. Auto* tags were added to keep those separate.

There's line_art, so I don't see why no_lineart wouldn't be just as valid

So maybe no_lineart + flat_colors

There may even be a formal art term for it, but none currently come to mind

Yeah, I'd expect there to be some term for it. But maybe not...? I've been googling for a while and can't find it.

So uh, wiki says zombie sex isn't necrophilia, so..what is it?

We have xenophilia, pokephilia, digiphilia, etc.

I've seen a fair number of undead sex posts to say it's not *that* unheard of

post #641868

But what tag to use?

If we go the ancient greek loanword route, theres something like anecrophilia, from ἀ [wiktionary] meaning un-

So a + necro + philia = anecrophilia

There an esperanto word for undead, 'malmorta', but IDK if we want to go down the 'mixing languages as loanwords' route, which can be even more complicated
--

Genjar said:

Good point; I'll list autofellatio under masturbation instead like how it was in the fellatio article
-

We could try making a new art tag for that, and just alias it if an official one already exists

Made a tag group:fictional species wiki, which was expanded from the Fictional section of tag group:species

Still needs a LOT of work (kinda ended up using the *_humanoid section to experiment with different taxonomic formatting, still working that out for the main species tag group)

If you find any more/less animal_humanoids, feel free to document /unlink them there

I have two questions about a couple of tags on post #848451, specifically "here", "your" and "ych", (it appears "character" was caught by invalid_tag); should those tags be removed/deleted, and should they be added to "invalid_tag"?

Airos said:
I have two questions about a couple of tags on post #848451, specifically "here", "your" and "ych", (it appears "character" was caught by invalid_tag); should those tags be removed/deleted?

Yep. The tagger must've tried tagging your_character_here, but forgot the underscores.

YCH tends to be problematic even without such accidents: some users keep tagging that by outside information, but it's only meant for posts where you can actually see that it's ych. So basically, undetailed sketches with ych written on them, etc. If it's a finished work, it shouldn't have that tag.

Should we make a megathread for all common character name disambiguations?

do we really need the tags power and hole?

i removed the power tag from post #852002 but left the hole tag until i'm sure it should be removed.

treos said:
do we really need the tags power and hole]
Neither of those seem particularly useful. I didn't have time to take a closer look, but hole should probably be disambiguated. Pits, gloryholes, assholes...

Power is equally ambiguous. At least couple of those should be tagged as aura instead.

Knotty_Curls said:
Should we make a megathread for all common character name disambiguations?

Sounds good

I started something similar here: forum #185266

But it may end up being a bit wider in scope than just chartags

-

Something like this may end up being best listed as a wiki article for maximum versatility and ease of viewing in the future though (similar to the Avoid Posting/DNP wiki list) tag group:ambiguous tags

Not to mention it allows most site members to edit it freely, so that should make things easier to keep up-to-date

Just made: e621:ambiguous tags

Dunno if there's a more appropriate group for it other than e621:*, or a better title for that matter.

Feel free to use that in conjunction with forum #185266

The forum version can be used to list tag collisions/ambiguous types as users find them,
while the wiki could be a more 'archival' reference

Dunno for sure yet
(Feedback is welcome)

titanmelon said:
Just made: e621:ambiguous tags

Dunno if there's a more appropriate group for it other than e621:*, or a better title for that matter.

Feel free to use that in conjunction with forum #185266

The forum version can be used to list tag collisions/ambiguous types as users find them,
while the wiki could be a more 'archival' reference

That seems good.
Although the wiki could be edited directly, it tends to move so fast nowadays that it's easy to miss changes. So it's best to also post those on the forum.

I recently found an image with a phenomenon that i found quite interesting
https://e621.net/post/show/848886/animal_genitalia-animal_penis-anthro-blush-cum-cum
I would like to create the tag "cum_propulsion" to make it easier to find art containing this content, however i would like help on a few things. First and foremost, determining if this content is prolific enough on this site to warrant it's own tag. I have already found some other art with this same type of thing.
https://e621.net/post/show/527880/animal_genitalia-balls-big_balls-breasts-claws-clo
https://e621.net/post/show/108333/-d-animal_genitalia-animal_penis-balls-bestiality-
The other aspect i would like some help with is exactly defining cum propulsion. Is it only if someone else is launched? Does someone flying backwards, propelled by the force of their own cumshot count? Any input is helpful.

LEGOEPIC said:
I recently found an image with a phenomenon that i found quite interesting
https://e621.net/post/show/848886/animal_genitalia-animal_penis-anthro-blush-cum-cum

Yeah, I've seen those in several places. Such as in cum_cannon.

Would be good to move them all under one tag, and cum_propulsion sounds like a good name for it.

(By the way, you can shorten the links by typing post #<ID>. post #848886.)

LEGOEPIC said:
The other aspect i would like some help with is exactly defining cum propulsion. Is it only if someone else is launched? Does someone flying backwards, propelled by the force of their own cumshot count?

Definitely the former. Not sure if it should also include the latter. Depends on how common it is; I don't actually remember seeing any posts of someone being propelled by their own cum.

LEGOEPIC said:
I recently found an image with a phenomenon that i found quite interesting
https://e621.net/post/show/848886/animal_genitalia-animal_penis-anthro-blush-cum-cum[/quote]

o_O the fuck? i think i just learned a new meaning for the term "cumshot" thanks to that.

In the event of a site supporting both HTTP and HTTPS by default, fully functional, is it kosher to make the links from an image's source field/artist's page point directly to the HTTPS version of the website? I see a lot of links to FA in particular just lead to the unencrypted site, and I haven't noticed any issues with the encrypted version using up-to-date desktop Firefox.

Unless I'm missing something, I think it'd be of benefit to crawl through popular artist pages/uploads and convert links accordingly. It's not a very user-visible change, but it would encourage more secure browsing for those who don't use HTTPS Everywhere or a similar extension. Any thoughts?

Hey, a while ago, I replaced all "seed" tags that referred to "cum" with... well "cum". I'm going back through that tag and I'm probably over thinking this, but does plant cum count as "seed"? Image I'm second guessing on: post #731675

That's hilarious. I think it's safe to call that cum.

Changed it, I'll keep an eye on it in case some incompetent tagger uses the wrong term again.

BinaryHedgehog said:
Hey, a while ago, I replaced all "seed" tags that referred to "cum" with... well "cum". I'm going back through that tag and I'm probably over thinking this, but does plant cum count as "seed"? Image I'm second guessing on: post #731675

leomole said:
That's hilarious. I think it's safe to call that cum.

Agreed, but do plant tentacles count as Flora Fauna?

I'm not sure, I would say no unless they are attached to something that could be defined as "flora_fauna"

Furrin_Gok said:
Agreed, but do plant tentacles count as Flora Fauna?

Not sure about this, but probably not...?
Tentacles don't usually count as a character, so they probably shouldn't be tagged as any species either.

Unless you can see more of the creature than just the tentacles, in which case it'd be flora_fauna tentacle_monster. For example:
post #757516 post #316960

Genjar said:
post #316960

thought i recognized that plant monster. haven't seen that movie in a long time.

and i just finished clearing out this "tést" copyright tag as it seemed to just be tagged on different unrelated pics at random (even a few MLP:FIM pic and i highly doubt they'd get a tag of than my_little_pony and friendship_is_magic.

well...almost all of it. i took it off post #493454 but i'm not sure which of the other copyright tags on that post stay or go.

are we tagging copyright for things mentioned in the text of a pic now? like super smash bros or warcraft?

o_O christmas (as seen on post #690970) is a copyright tag? how does one copyright a holiday?

i also noticed a few other tags along the way, test (test test so it appeared on the same pic twice as separate tags), test193...i wonder who was going around adding these tags.

treos said:
o_O christmas (as seen on post #690970) is a copyright tag? how does one copyright a holiday?

Apparently, they all are. It's less saying that the holiday is copyrighted, more saying "Content of this image is relevant to this holiday."

Furrin_Gok said:
Apparently, they all are. It's less saying that the holiday is copyrighted, more saying "Content of this image is relevant to this holiday."

well, i guess it makes sense. at least as far as keeping things organized goes.

Furrin_Gok said:
It's less saying that the holiday is copyrighted, more saying "Content of this image is relevant to this holiday."

That category name is misleading. Something like franchise: would probably work better for the majority of tags, and stuff like public_domain could use license: instead.

Buncha insect and arthropod questions:

1. Do we have a tag for human x arthropod sex?

post #854287

There's bestiality, and human_on_feral, but idk how well those would apply, especially the former

/ arthropod_on_human? (I prefer the latter because it's in ascending alphabetical order)

Edit: On second thought, species-specific tagging is probably asking for trouble at the moment, so maybe not.

-
2. Also, should Giant Centipede be a separate species from centipiede?

In Japan, there's a fictional creature called an oomukade, which is basically a giant centipede, but the not all giant centipedes are oomukade

So idk

Bulbapedia has a page about giant Pokemon , so maybe we could have a tag for giant versions of regular creatures?

Something like macro, maybe

? No clue atm

-

3. Should hexapod be aliased to insect, or vice-versa?

Part of me strongly disagrees with doing that, because not all hexapods are insects, but..

This came up because I'm updating the insect wiki to list common subphyla etc where relevant (crustacean, arachnid*, etc.)

*Should Chelicerates (arachnids, horshoe crabs, sea spiders and such) have their own tag? chelicerate

This would account for all the major arthropod subphyla (chelicerata, myriapoda, crustacea, hexapoda), which is a step closer toward some kind of standardized groupings on the site

But it may also overcomplicate things, and idk if it's worth the extra complexity, at least for now (until a better way to group stuff like this is implemented)

--

4. Oh also I made a myriapod tag, for subphyla Myriapoda (centipedes, millipedes etc.), since they're not technically insects, and crustaceans have their own tag

*Waits for Genjar* :v

5. There's a boobipede tag, but posts like post #294265 have no breasts in them

I created a nipplepede tag for those

-

6. Should boobipedes be tagged with millipede etc.? (the above is)

What about myriapod + hybrid?

Seems to be a grey area

-

7. Should canine_pussy and equine_pussy imply plump_labia?

Suugestions/thoughts welcome

post #97545

:/ um...where does one even begin with fixing such a tagging mess? (see all the low count general tags there)

edit: sweet! i cleared up an entire page of the tag listing. and that's enough from me for tonight. might do more tomorrow.

treos said:
post #97545

:/ um...where does one even begin with fixing such a tagging mess? (see all the low count general tags there)

Hahah, looks like most of those are franchises (i.e copyright tags)

8. Should the arm_around_neck tag be differentiated from arms_around_neck? You can have one arm around a neck, but not two.

Also, what about differentiating that from cases where it's around someone else's neck?

9. I noticed there doesn't seem to be a relevant tag in the tag group:sex positions wiki, so made one (which already exists):

ekiben_position

post #854405

From Wikipedia :

The penetrating partner stands, and the receiving partner wraps their arms around [his] neck, and their legs around [his] waist, thereby exposing either the vagina or anus to the [man's] penis.
[..]
In Japan, this is colloquially called the Ekiben position
[..]

If anyone knows of a more global, intuitive term for it, that'd be great

----

10. Added an unusual_tongue tag, to match unusual_penis

Does a tag like that already exist?

----

11. Should the sexual 69 stuff be moved to 69_position?

--

12. Created the following tags: (please say if a tag already exists for them)

• guided_penetration - one character is assisting/directing the penetrating organ into an orifice manually

• pre-penetration - scene where a penetrating organ is just about to enter an orifice
• the entering tag is currently used for this, as well as another one i can't remember atm. But the latter is ambiguous. pre-penetration matches with the other *_penetration tags

titanmelon said:
9. I noticed there doesn't seem to be a relevant tag in the tag group:sex positions wiki, so made one (which already exists):

ekiben_position

...

From Wikipedia :

If anyone knows of a more global, intuitive term for it, that'd be great

This looks like a subset of the stand_and_carry position.

You could probably split stand_and_carry into two, the original for partners facing each other (ekiben), and something like reverse_stand_and_carry for the partner being held facing away. That'd make the most sense to me. It's not AS specific as ekiben, but it's a close approximation.

Strongbird said:

Sounds good, guess I'll use that + leg_wrap instead then

--------

13. There's no long_fingers tag

Actually, I don't see what's the problem with ekiben_position (other than a rather obscure, unintuitive name). I mean, we do separate pretty much all positions that reasonably can by facing/turned around...

A separate thread to discuss the name is probably called for.

post #78330

...should i just start handing out the copyright prefix like crazy on this one? lol so many 1's in the general tags of one of my all time favorite flash posts on this site.

Just made at new tag group for the unknown_* tags:

tag group:unknown tags

Which can be lost track of rather easily, by their very nature (heh)

-----------

Circeus said:
Actually, I don't see what's the problem with ekiben_position (other than a rather obscure, unintuitive name). I mean, we do separate pretty much all positions that reasonably can by facing/turned around...

A separate thread to discuss the name is probably called for.

*adds to to-do list*

-----------

treos said:
post #78330

...should i just start handing out the copyright prefix like crazy on this one? lol so many 1's in the general tags of one of my all time favorite flash posts on this site.

Don't see why not, unless a more 'official' tag is already in use, then those should probably aliased instead

14. lua_dos_dragões should be either aliased or reversed aliased to lua_dos_dragoes, and be a copyright tag

15. Is there an appropriate tag for cases like post #544726 post #535174

Where the characters are 'anthrofied' (in the humanized sense, not 'furry' sense) to an even greater extent than they already are?

(Their original body types were closer to semi-anthro, than just anthro, or just feral imo)

So it'd be something like:

anthro -> [above case] -> human

titanmelon said:
14. lua_dos_dragões should be either aliased or reversed aliased to lua_dos_dragoes, and be a copyright tag

15. Is there an appropriate tag for cases like post #544726 post #535174

Where the characters are 'anthrofied' (in the humanized sense, not 'furry' sense) to an even greater extent than they already are?

(Their original body types were closer to semi-anthro, than just anthro, or just feral imo)

So it'd be something like:

anthro -> [above case] -> human

Unfortunately, the extent of how anthro they are canonically is outside knowledge... Tag what you see, only Anthro or Feral, not Additionally_Anthro or anything.

Furrin_Gok said:
Unfortunately, the extent of how anthro they are canonically is outside knowledge... Tag what you see, only Anthro or Feral, not Additionally_Anthro or anything.

Yep. And their normal forms usually fall under toony, which is one way to search for those. Other tags such as muscular can also be used for such searches.

Furrin_Gok said:
Unfortunately, the extent of how anthro they are canonically is outside knowledge... Tag what you see, only Anthro or Feral, not Additionally_Anthro or anything.

I've asked as a side question somewhere else and been told that anthrofied is indeed a fine tag to apply to characters whose natural body proportions are not that of a full anthro, and I've been using it ever since:

post #584469 post #801710 post #854489 post #850995 post #819978

Just made tag group:romance to easier keep track of relevant tags

see forum #187937 for more info

--

Furrin_Gok said:
Unfortunately, the extent of how anthro they are canonically is outside knowledge... Tag what you see, only Anthro or Feral, not Additionally_Anthro or anything.

Well that's kind of..unfortunate
No idea how to blacklist posts like those (the non-canon artstyle/body type)

@Genjar:

Oh that's right! Forgot about the toony tag

It's still kinda ambiguous though, since there are multiple toony styles out there. But it's still something

Circeus said:
I've asked as a side question somewhere else and been told that anthrofied is indeed a fine tag to apply to characters whose natural body proportions are not that of a full anthro

Dunno when that was changed, but it makes sense. While it might be outside information, anthrofied and other tags from that group have never followed the 'no outside information'-rule.

Can't really tag anything as anthrofied/humanized/etc if you can't use outside knowledge to know what the character normally looks like.

titanmelon said:
It's still kinda ambiguous though, since there are multiple toony styles out there. But it's still something

Honestly? I'd rather have that be invalidated because one's definition of "toony" is not the same as another. (For example, Titanmelon's original examples are still clearly toony too me anyway)

I distinctly remember there being a thread at some point about tagging for art that closely follows or mimics the source material's style, but I can't remember if a tag was proposed, not can I find the thread again.

[replies pending]

16. Is this feral? (note humanoid hands) post #855661

Some kind of satyr?

Looks like some sort of digitigrade anthro to me. If it weren't a defined character I might hinge toward semi-anthro

17. Is there a tag for regular feral animals without head hair?

post #801247

breaks pretty much every bestiality or anthro_on_feral search

Not to mention hair is one of those 'why do we need this' type of tags

------
examples:

pretty much everything from emptyset and cheepard, along with maybe klaus doberman etc.

----

Circeus said:

Yeah, semi-anthro was my go-to tag for cases like that, but unless it's very obvious or doesn't fit in any of the other body styles, then I try to avoid it

Even though most people who use the tag seem to understand the scope of its usage, it really should probably be renamed to something less ambiguous soon
-------

18. Is there a tag for when a tail is curled/wrapped around something? (like another character)

post #608208

I thought tail_wrap was it, akin to leg_wrap, but apparently that's something else

The above is tagged with tail_curl, which might work, but it's a bit ambiguous

titanmelon said:
post #608208

I thought tail_wrap was it, akin to leg_wrap, but apparently that's something else

The above is tagged with tail_curl, which might work, but it's a bit ambiguous

That got talked very recently. I believe coiled_tail was also suggested.

Even though most people who use the tag seem to understand the scope of its usage, it really should probably be renamed to something less ambiguous soon

Originally I was the only user (or I thought so), but it seems to have taken off after someone added it to the tag group:body types wiki page, so it seems to clearly fill a gap in the classification.

Qmannn said:
I think it would be better if tail_wrap referred to what most people would probably expect it to while its current meaning is given to a more indicative tag like wrapped_tail_cloth.

Those tend to get tagged as tail_wrap because, well, that's what those are called by equestrians. Looks like it's been tagged by several dozen users.

Not sure what to do about the tail_wrap/leg_wrap inconsistency. Renaming the latter to something other than *_wrap would probably be easier than trying to change the usage of tail_wrap.

[replies pending]

Yeah, I really think we should do something with those tail/leg wrap tags

leg_wrap was originally leg_lock way back when, but that was changed to wrap because it sounded less like a wrestling hold

I'll make a forum for disambiguating those soonish (tm)

----

19. The wiki for animal humanoid et al says

Note that animal humanoids should never be tagged anthro or human.

Is this true? Want to make sure before going through 3000 posts or so and removing human where appropriate

---

20. What's a monstrous_humanoid?