SnowWolf said:
this is generally true, however some pictures have a lot of possibility for more tags to be added.. so if a picture has about 10 tags, but still has the tagme tag, give it another look and see if you can see anything obvious that needs tagging.. fur/hair/eye colors, clothing, etc will generally get you at least 10 tags in and of themselves. :) I take a lot of things with under 15 tags with tag me jsut because I think they deserve more tags. :) 10 is kind of a happyish minimum. <3

thank you for your help! :D

Any time, I just discovered the site, and it's pretty awesome, what with all the features like tag searching and blacklisting so I figure the least I can do is help out. I am adding tags as necessary when things are obvious, as you said, it's mostly hair/fur color, eye color, and surprisingly gender sometimes that need to be tagged in.

Quitting the tagme project for now to go through ratings for a while.

RMJ said:
Quitting the tagme project for now to go through ratings for a while.

I'm working on it at the moment. Looks like most of them come from this guy http://e621.net/post_tag_history?user_id=26606
We'll never get the numbers down at this rate >_>

ippiki_ookami said:
I'm working on it at the moment. Looks like most of them come from this guy http://e621.net/post_tag_history?user_id=26606
We'll never get the numbers down at this rate >_>

Yeah, well, I guess we just have to keep going and just hope that eventually he'll start to rate them correctly so we all have less work to do and so that people don't stumble upon something that should be explicit when it's marked questionable. Don't know if that last part's really understandable but I hope you at least get the gist of it.

Actually that user tags quite well and rates accuratly (as far as I know.... Ippiki was referring to the tagmes :D on which note, I've already sent him a polite note to that regard... he didn't reply, but he seems to have complied <3 can't ask for more :D

Time to start rolling out the changes from forum #21536.
Here's what needs to be changed:

• Edit the interspecies wiki page to define that it's used for animals from different family sub-classes having sex

Start using the herm_on_male and herm_on_female tag more
Use human_on_anthro for human x anthro sexual things
Alias anthro_bestiality -> anthro_on_feral
Implicate interspecies -> sex
Implicate anthro_on_feral -> feral
Implicate anthro_on_feral -> anthro
Implicate human_on_anthro -> human
Implicate herm_on_male -> herm
Implicate herm_on_male -> male
Implicate herm_on_female -> herm
Implicate herm_on_female -> female

I can't do any real manual tagging work still. Counting on you guys to help me out.

sollux said:
need more help with the 10+ pages of rating:q material that has pussy/penis. people need to tag better if theyre going to upload.

I feel like helping. You're right, it's really annoying sometimes...
I think I'll do "penis" first.

pussy rating:q is done. Who knew there'd be seven pages of it ;_;
And that so many of them had locked ratings ;_;

Just remember that it is possible to have both pussy and a questionable rating, such as post #16144 post #19667

tony311 said:
Just remember that it is possible to have both pussy and a questionable rating, such as post #16144 post #19667

I'd argue on those; I tend to tag things 'safe' if you could show it to your grandmother with no issue, 'questionable' if it's 'edgy' (think revealing bikinis and stuff like that) and 'explicit' if there's any genitals anywhere, including solo nudes and topless females and bulges, that sort of thing.

[EDIT]
So apparently I'm stupid and people actually DID put up a ratings guideline in the Wiki at some point. Sorry about that.

[EDIT 2]
... Although it's still kind of ambiguously written. Nudes are explicit, but they're also not safe? o_O Or am I missing something there, and nude are only questionable (and not explicit) if they have convenient censorship or something (In which case they're only really 'nude' in the sense of having no clothing, not in actually being exposed...)?

Last I remembered (Bloody ages ago, mind you), explicit included any overt sexual (or 'generally offensive') content, such as intercourse, visually depicted arousal, bodily fluids, or the like -- but not nudity itself, assuming it was 'tasteful'. Apparently someone changed this at some point? Could admin people please form some manner of consensus and re-write the ratings help page to be more complete and direct?

[EDIT 3]
Oh, and if the rules were indeed changed on what constitutes what rating, then I apologize for the masses of rating-locked Questionable images with nudity -- the vast majority of those were probably my doing, 'cause I'd keep finding new users had re-rated things Explicit despite what (I though) the rules were, and I'd gotten tired of changing them back afterward -- so I just started preemptively locking the ratings of anything I tagged (assuming I'd set/double-checked said rating and was sure of it). I do believe I was rather overconfident of my correctness in tagging/et cetera at that point, so I may have been in error.

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
I'd argue on those; I tend to tag things 'safe' if you could show it to your grandmother with no issue, 'questionable' if it's 'edgy' (think revealing bikinis and stuff like that) and 'explicit' if there's any genitals anywhere, including solo nudes and topless females and bulges, that sort of thing.

This is how I've always viewed it.

Am I to believe that full frontal nudity is supposed to be rated questionable?

I see it as a matter of tastefulness. If it's something like you'd see in an art museum, maybe some nudity, but not overtly explicit in nature, it'd be questionable. And this is all just my opinion, it shouldn't be followed to the letter as the rules of the site.

tony311 said:
I see it as a matter of tastefulness. If it's something like you'd see in an art museum, maybe some nudity, but not overtly explicit in nature, it'd be questionable. And this is all just my opinion, it shouldn't be followed to the letter as the rules of the site.

My feelings as well. If i's a clinical nudeness, as a model posing for an art class or the like, then whatever. If there's any sort of sexuality (panting, a come hither look, overt displaying/sexual conduct) then it gets the explicit tag, IMO. If it's a nude (no clothes) but covered by convenient censoring, still gets a questionable. Pretty much everything else fits into safe.

this is a good discussion, but should probably occur in another thread where other people can participate and know the contents <3

I said I would help with the puppy project but haven't had the time to devote to a good night of tagging lately. Work is pissing me off and people in my Systems analysis class are lazy bastards who don;t help with he group project until the end of each week.

I've also found that I have a bit of trouble identifying various breeds exactly. It's not as easy as it sounded at first :/

This might be a little off-topic, but close enough to mention it on this forum (since "tagme" seems to be a big part of this topic).

The question is will some uploaders use the tag "tagme" as a lazy way of getting other users, like the honest, hard workers trying to clean up e621, to tag their posts for them, instead of tagging their own posts with a decent amount of tags?

There are many ways to deal with this subject. One can discourage such indolence and incourage proper tagging. Moderators can also instruct users on how to tag and can also discipline or even punish repeated offenders. Providing a minimum set of tags will show users how many tags These efforts can cover some of the "tagme" effort but can't account for all of it. Whether we like it or not, some people will utilze the tag whenever and wherever they can to escape the work included in posting a picture. There is essentially no way to efficiently enforce it.

The very formation of this sticky might even inspire some evil users to exploit insuffecient tagging. One could think "Hey, these guys are out and about tagging random pictures. I bet I could get away with just putting the tag 'tagme' on the tag list and then someone could just tag it for me. My plan is perfect!"

I know the definition and utilization of "tagme" is to be used in such a sense and has been used since the beginning of e621 for such a reason, but with the recent influx of "tagme's" it might be getting out of hand. Isn't the whole purpose of this forum to eliminate "tagme's"? Is it worth it to put many people to work to encompass this issue? Should their be more action taking place to deal with tagging and the like?

As a side note, I will begin to offer help on the masturbation tag project when I have the oppurtunity.

On the contrary--I delete most of the posts on this topic on a regular basis.. so the full story isn't visible here. WE actually completely eliminated tagme (which, yes, some people use as a way of being lazy. And yes, we punish people who do not reach a minimum number of tags on a regular basis)... however, one particularly enthusiastic uploader started adding 'tagme' to all of his uploads.. which were already quite well tagged. and thus gave the appearance of tagmes flowing in frantically. he has since stopped :) Most of the new tag mes should be on posts with under 10 tags (but over the requires '3 or 5' that we ask people to upload with <3)

thank you for your help on the masturbation project! <3

swamprootwolf said:
I said I would help with the puppy project but haven't had the time to devote to a good night of tagging lately. Work is pissing me off and people in my Systems analysis class are lazy bastards who don;t help with he group project until the end of each week.

I've also found that I have a bit of trouble identifying various breeds exactly. It's not as easy as it sounded at first :/

as you get to it <3 and, not everything needs a breed. some dogs are just dogs, after all :)

I've been fixing some questionable ratings. When you edit the tags on a pic it says "Explicit tags include sex, pussy, penis, masturbation, blowjob, etc.". But what if this is only hinted at, especially in a humorous way, and not shown, as in post #141163 or post #146238 ?

If it should be rated explicit in any case, wouldn't it be best just to make tag implications?

Morgh said:
I've been fixing some questionable ratings. When you edit the tags on a pic it says "Explicit tags include sex, pussy, penis, masturbation, blowjob, etc.". But what if this is only hinted at, especially in a humorous way, and not shown, as in post #141163 or post #146238 ?

If it should be rated explicit in any case, wouldn't it be best just to make tag implications?

Implied sex/masturbation is questionable. Artistic nudity is questionable. Implications to ratings are not necessary.

Just thought I would let everyone know, I removed the vaginal fingering -> fingering alias. So some taggin' will have to be done in the fingering section to break in the tag. Happy fingeritagging!

Riversyde said:
Just thought I would let everyone know, I removed the vaginal fingering -> fingering alias. So some taggin' will have to be done in the fingering section to break in the tag. Happy fingeritagging!

Did you make the former imply the latter?

RedOctober said:
Did you make the former imply the latter?

Nope, forgot.
I'm sowwy unky lawwy :(

Morgh said:
I've been fixing some questionable ratings. When you edit the tags on a pic it says "Explicit tags include sex, pussy, penis, masturbation, blowjob, etc.". But what if this is only hinted at, especially in a humorous way, and not shown, as in post #141163 or post #146238 ?

If it should be rated explicit in any case, wouldn't it be best just to make tag implications?

If something is only hinted at in a post no tags should appear about that according to the rule "tag what you see!". So, your first example should be safe, and the second... well, I'll go with questionable :)

Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo,
rating:q penis/pussy is FINALLY done!
I just finished the last 3 pages today :)
Congrats to all who have worked on that!

There are still some posts with locked rating, I don't know how to deal with them. Any help?

- Artman

Artman said:
Soooooooooooooooooooooooooo,
rating:q penis/pussy is FINALLY done!
I just finished the last 3 pages today :)
Congrats to all who have worked on that!

There are still some posts with locked rating, I don't know how to deal with them. Any help?

- Artman

only contributers or higher can unlock them

I'm wanting to help tackle the beast of a task for images lacking gender tags. Although I'm wondering: Should I tag things that don't have an obvious gender ambiguous_gender, or simply leave them alone? [And is there any specific tag that would apply to things without a gender, like scenery and inanimate objects?]

DarkSniper said:
I'm wanting to help tackle the beast of a task for images lacking gender tags. Although I'm wondering: Should I tag things that don't have an obvious gender ambiguous_gender, or simply leave them alone? [And is there any specific tag that would apply to things without a gender, like scenery and inanimate objects?]

if it's unclear--like, say, a cute kitten: post #154032, or a unclear head -- tag ambiguous_gender .. if it's a thing that doesn't HAVE a gender, leave it be. :)

though maybe we SHOULD have a tag for stuff like that

On another note, if there's sex goign on in the image and it's lacking gender tags, do tag the sexuality straight/gay/lesbian if you don't mind as well :D those will imply the genders...

I ended up looking at bestiality -male earlier to help someone with his blacklist. ... 3 pages of girls getting boned by male critters... no male tags in site. sigh.

on that note sex -gay -straight -intersex -lesbian is also pretty terrifying. Any volunteers?

SnowWolf said:
if it's unclear--like, say, a cute kitten: post #154032, or a unclear head -- tag ambiguous_gender .. if it's a thing that doesn't HAVE a gender, leave it be. :)

though maybe we SHOULD have a tag for stuff like that

On another note, if there's sex goign on in the image and it's lacking gender tags, do tag the sexuality straight/gay/lesbian if you don't mind as well :D those will imply the genders...

I ended up looking at bestiality -male earlier to help someone with his blacklist. ... 3 pages of girls getting boned by male critters... no male tags in site. sigh.

on that note sex -gay -straight -intersex -lesbian is also pretty terrifying. Any volunteers?

Ohh, I see, that makes sense ^^ Although, of what I've seen so far, these posts have me stumped. They don't really seem ambiguous, but I'm not entirely sure what the gender tags would be for these: post #1514, post #618, post #862, post #853, post #3079 and post #279

I've actually been adding any other tags that I can think of as I go through the no-gender ones, since some of those older posts have barely anything in terms of tags.

DarkSniper said:
Ohh, I see, that makes sense ^^ Although, of what I've seen so far, these posts have me stumped. They don't really seem ambiguous, but I'm not entirely sure what the gender tags would be for these: post #1514, post #618, post #862, post #853, post #3079 and post #279

If you're not sure of their gender, put ambiguous_gender.

I've actually been adding any other tags that I can think of as I go through the no-gender ones, since some of those older posts have barely anything in terms of tags.

Unfortunately, there's a lot like that. I cleaned up a few a couple months ago.

Riversyde said:
Nope, forgot.
I'm sowwy unky lawwy :(

It's all right, just don't let it happen again. Now go get me a bee-

Right, sorry, forgot. RP to a minimum. As long as it's implied now, I'm cool. I may spend some time going through gender tagless images tomorrow. Sorry I haven't been around cleaning things up lately, I haven't had a lot of free time what with my work, and what free time I've had has been generally spent not at the computer.

Are we allowed to talk about "sex toys"? I'm asking first, because I don't wanna offend anybody. ^_^;

TheAngelicSin said:
Are we allowed to talk about "sex toys"? I'm asking first, because I don't wanna offend anybody. ^_^;

I AM OFFEND

Erm, why wouldn't we? Make a new thread for it though :β

Valence said:
Erm, why wouldn't we? Make a new thread for it though :β

this :)

Something to add to this might be "female -breasts nude" and "herm -breasts nude" to check for the breasts tag not being used. A good while back I tried to find feral dragoness pictures without breasts, and was amazed at how often they go untagged considering how common/important of a tag you'd think that would be. The wiki says only breasts that are "bare or prominently featured," but I patrol those categories every so often, and every time I do I find things like post #164120.

"huge_breasts" is another one that gets missed a lot. The wiki says "Equal to or exceeds the bearer's head in size," and yet I'm constantly running into pics where the breasts are 3x or greater the size of the character's head, despite having it blacklisted.

Interesting note: "breasts" can be typed with only the left hand. If you copy huge_breasts to the clipboard, you can ctrl+v that in and get the breasts and big_breasts tags by implication automatically, and manually type "breasts" when they're under the size of the character's head. Thus enabling you to tab, search, and browse for miss-tagged images without taking your hand off your mouse.

... I need a life.

Or just hit up female -breasts/herm -breasts/dickgirl -breasts every once in a while.
As for breast sizes, look up breasts -big_breasts -huge_breasts -hyper_breasts if you're wanting to tag sizes.
But I really dunno what to do about getting users to check the wikis. We could get users to educate uploaders/taggers, but they would get tired of that pretty quickly.

Riversyde said:
But I really dunno what to do about getting users to check the wikis. We could get users to educate uploaders/taggers, but they would get tired of that pretty quickly.

It's true. I messaged a couple of people about the change in "bondage" usage after I trudged through that tag, and then got tired of it and just fix the tags. The only time I'll do it is if I pull one off of a rape image and someone puts it back. Short of being Big Brother, I don't know how either.

I'd help you, Morhe, on breast size if I actually gave two shits anymore; Not since the stupid implicationing where the larger sizes implicate the smaller, when they're individual size catagories between certain ranges. And yes, i'm still sore about that. :E

RedOctober said:
Short of being Big Brother, I don't know how either.

Attention, furfags.
Your usage of the bondage tag of late has been... unacceptable.
All furfags report to the Diary Room immediately.
Remember... Big Brother is always watching.

Riversyde said:
Or just hit up female -breasts/herm -breasts/dickgirl -breasts every once in a while.
As for breast sizes, look up breasts -big_breasts -huge_breasts -hyper_breasts if you're wanting to tag sizes.
But I really dunno what to do about getting users to check the wikis. We could get users to educate uploaders/taggers, but they would get tired of that pretty quickly.

Oh, I do both occasionally. I just thought it might be worth adding to the active tasks list, considering what an important tag it is and how often it's overlooked.

123easy said:
I'd help you, Morhe, on breast size if I actually gave two shits anymore; Not since the stupid implicationing where the larger sizes implicate the smaller, when they're individual size catagories between certain ranges. And yes, i'm still sore about that. :E

See, that makes a little bit of sense to me since "huge_breasts" can be applied to a character who's breasts are just barely larger in size than their head; someone searching "big_breasts" would most certainly want to see those types of pictures as well.

I do agree with you on one thing, though... someone looking for "big_breasts" probably doesn't want to see any of the many pictures where the breasts are grossly disproportionate to the character.

A nice solution would be to change "huge_breasts" to range between the size of the character's head, and twice the size of their head, and make an "enormous_breasts" tag for everything above that that doesn't implicate the lower-order breasts sizes. That way people looking for blimp breasts don't have to sift through the (much higher quantity of) slightly-unrealistic breasts, and people looking for slightly-unrealistic breasts don't have to see blimp breasts.

I'd like to help in any way i can.

tony311 said:
More good tags people ALWAYS seem to forget: solo, nude, straight (but they never seem to forget gay).

We need to start up some solo tagging parties. I'm amazed at the vast numbers of solo images not tagged solo. It seems especially bad on images of a single Pony. Right now I'm just going through "female -male -solo" and tagging, but it's slow going with the tag scripts busted, and I can't really spend a lot of time on it, what with the rest of my obligations (life and all). It'd be grand to have help.

RedOctober said:
We need to start up some solo tagging parties. I'm amazed at the vast numbers of solo images not tagged solo. It seems especially bad on images of a single Pony. Right now I'm just going through "female -male -solo" and tagging, but it's slow going with the tag scripts busted, and I can't really spend a lot of time on it, what with the rest of my obligations (life and all). It'd be grand to have help.

For what it's worth tag scripts are in the next update, which is whenever Aurali applies it.

tony311 said:
For what it's worth tag scripts are in the next update, which is whenever Aurali applies it.

Tony broke it :3 (and it's totally not my fault for thuroughly testing it)

That's all good. But it's still a huge project and help is appreciated.

Just finished cleaning up the mutual masturbation tag, everything there should now actually have mutual masturbation in it... as of 10/25/2011 anyway...

How a about we start a tagging project, to get rid of the simple color tags like red blue green etc...

slyroon said:
How a about we start a tagging project, to get rid of the simple color tags like red blue green etc...

Yeah, I'd be willing to help with that if time permits. I'll just make a list of the primary colours for easier navigating. Feel free to add.

Just to clarify, this does not mean removing the tag and moving on, it means changing the colour tag to what is that colour in the image. red_markings, red_background, blue_hat, green_fur etc.

blue | red | green | yellow | purple | brown | black | white | orange

You forgot pink and grey

After sticking a thousand or so solo tags on, I got tired, and then I got busy, and now I have no motivation to go back to it. It's someone else's turn.

Dunno if this is a bug or feature:
Before I post a pic, I always do a search to see if l'artiste already exists.
That's because some artists have multiple names, or names that can be spelled in different ways.
And I don't want to create a new artist tag for someone who already exists on e621.

Problem:
If an artist is inactive, I won't find him under "artist", only under "tags". Even if the tag type is "artist".

Munkelzahn said:
Dunno if this is a bug or feature:
Before I post a pic, I always do a search to see if l'artiste already exists.
That's because some artists have multiple names, or names that can be spelled in different ways.
And I don't want to create a new artist tag for someone who already exists on e621.

Problem:
If an artist is inactive, I won't find him under "artist", only under "tags". Even if the tag type is "artist".

Artists are only found in the artist listing if someone makes an artist page for them. You're better off doing a tag search.

Munkelzahn said:
Dunno if this is a bug or feature:
Before I post a pic, I always do a search to see if l'artiste already exists.
That's because some artists have multiple names, or names that can be spelled in different ways.
And I don't want to create a new artist tag for someone who already exists on e621.

Problem:
If an artist is inactive, I won't find him under "artist", only under "tags". Even if the tag type is "artist".

The "active/inactive" feature is an inheritance of the gelbooru engine and has no defined use as of now, so it shouldn't be used at all.

Kald said:
The "active/inactive" feature is an inheritance of the gelbooru engine and has no defined use as of now, so it shouldn't be used at all.

So what should we set all artists to?
Active or inactive?

Munkelzahn said:
So what should we set all artists to?
Active or inactive?

The default is active (the desired setting), but I think it should be removed completely.

I'd like to see a project started on cleaning up the 'overweight' tag group. I did a search yesterday for 'Chubby' and got a lot of posts that were morbidly obese, because someone had tagged them with ALL the overweight tags rather than just 'morbidly_obese'.

Bottom line, search for stuff like "chubby morbidly_obese" and fix the tags so only the one that matches the subject's weight is there.

From the wiki:

There's a scale of overweight-related tags:

1. chubby (plump)
2. fat (obviously overweight, but not drastically so)
3. obese (pot bellies, thighs like hams, etc.)
4. morbidly_obese (truly huge - barely or not at all capable of walking)

CameronB said:
I'd like to see a project started on cleaning up the 'overweight' tag group. I did a search yesterday for 'Chubby' and got a lot of posts that were morbidly obese, because someone had tagged them with ALL the overweight tags rather than just 'morbidly_obese'.

Bottom line, search for stuff like "chubby morbidly_obese" and fix the tags so only the one that matches the subject's weight is there.

From the wiki:

There's a scale of overweight-related tags:

1. chubby (plump)
2. fat (obviously overweight, but not drastically so)
3. obese (pot bellies, thighs like hams, etc.)
4. morbidly_obese (truly huge - barely or not at all capable of walking)

I thought the way this worked was that all obese pictures are also fat, but not all fat pictures are also obese. Thus, everything morbidly_obese is also chubby, and searches should specify the weight range they want. For instance 'Chubby -fat' would get only chubby pictures, while 'chubby -morbidly_obese' would get the range of chubby, fat, and obese, but cut off the most extreme examples.

I have a few Ideas.

Age tags could use some cleaning up.
Old tag can be left as is, young for anything underage, child for everything underage minus teens and tweens (child would imply young tag), and infantilism for everything near the lowest ages of the underage scale (infantilism would imply child and young tags). Adult and teenager tags could be gotten rid of since they are hardly used. If you just wanted to find teens/tweens you could blacklist child, and if you just wanted adults you could blacklist young. baby tag could be aliased to infantilism. shota, loli, and cub tags could be changed to child, since shota and loli tags just specify gender and we already have gender tags so they aren't really needed. Tag is child and not cub because you wouldn't call a young human a cub :|

All tags containing cock/dick/etc could be changed to penis for consistency and simplification.

facial/facial_cumshot could alias to cum_on_face, since they are essentially the same thing.

Also, about the fat thing
we have the weight scale thing, and the overweight tag could be used as a general overweight tag. We could have the chubby, fat, obese, and morbidly_obese tags implicate the overweight tag. So if you wanted chubby-fat you could search overweight with obese and morbidly_obese blacklisted. Or we could get rid of the overweight tag and use the range thing in a similar manner to what 31h53 said and what I suggested we do with the underage tags, and that way you would only have to blacklist one tag.

Liveca7 said:
infantilism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

On a different subject, I think we need to clean up the video_games tag. Is that for characters playing video games, or is it for characters from video games? At the moment it's being used for both.

I would personally prefer that it be used for characters playing video games, because that seems like a more useful thing to tag than "hey, this post contains a character from some video game or another".

Snowy said:
On a different subject, I think we need to clean up the video_games tag. Is that for characters playing video games, or is it for characters from video games? At the moment it's being used for both.

I would personally prefer that it be used for characters playing video games, because that seems like a more useful thing to tag than "hey, this post contains a character from some video game or another".

I know what it means, I just couldn't think of a tag that would fuse that and baby, because really, they look the same. I also agree with what you said about the video_games tag.

about the clearing up the colour tags, what would you do with this?

http://e621.net/post/show/199010/bell-blue-canine-collar-defiledfane-female

TNR said:
about the clearing up the colour tags, what would you do with this?

http://e621.net/post/show/199010/bell-blue-canine-collar-defiledfane-female

Tag it with monochrome for being monochromatic?

Can we have a 'comic frontpage' or 'comic first page' tag or something so that we can browse the various comics on esix easily (only seeing the first pages as opposed to every page on the 'comic' tag)? I guess there's pools but not all comics are in them and I find them kind of clumsy anyway - plus they don't have thumbnails. I mean this way we'd have a choice, so, win-win right?

On that note, would it be a 'tag what you see' policy violation if we used the tags on comic frontpages to notify what's in the comic (even if it's not on the front?), general themes like gay, bi, straight, bondage, or whatnot.

Can we have a 'comic frontpage' or 'comic first page' tag or something so that we can browse the various comics on esix easily (only seeing the first pages as opposed to every page on the 'comic' tag)? I guess there's pools but not all comics are in them and I find them kind of clumsy anyway - plus they don't have thumbnails. I mean this way we'd have a choice, so, win-win right?

I agree, I think this would be a good idea.

Furmillionaire said:
I guess there's pools but not all comics are in them...

If you see that they're not in a pool, then why not add them to one?

I'm not saying that this is a bad idea, but that's, really, what pools are for.

And what do you mean they're clumsy? If anything, they're more organized.

Snowy said:
On a different subject, I think we need to clean up the video_games tag. Is that for characters playing video games, or is it for characters from video games? At the moment it's being used for both.

I would personally prefer that it be used for characters playing video games, because that seems like a more useful thing to tag than "hey, this post contains a character from some video game or another".

Liveca7 said:
I also agree with what you said about the video_games tag.

We'd need to de-implicate all the video game copyrights that are predicated to video_games as well,if that's case

We already have the 'gamer' tag for characters playing video games.

Quick plan: let's bring tagme back down to zero. 9 pages x 150 per page (for me at least) = 1350 posts. Let's go!

What if we were to write a hack to make "tagme" automatically disappear from a post when it has at least six other tags?

I wouldn't worry about it, as long as we keep it at zero. I'm going to annihilate that tag tomorrow.

I hope you guys are actually adding tags when you are removing these tagmes.

ippiki_ookami said:
I hope you guys are actually adding tags when you are removing these tagmes.

Well of course, if it has less than 15 tags it's a sin

The wiki on mammals looks like it needs quite a bit of revising/ visual fixing

Can't make heads or tails of the layout in comparison to the original wikipedia page.

Anyone with an above-average knowledge of mammal classification & grouping is welcome to take a look at it and say what they think could be done