Is there a policy on number tagging? I just found that various tags exist for numbers (not digits) :

00 02 05 08 10 12 13 15 17 18 19 2) 21 22 25 26 27 29 33 34 37 42 47 5. 50 51 52 59 63 64 68 77 80 83 88 92 96 98 99

.. They seem a bit pointless, honestly. Especially the ones that are a number with . or ) following, or the ones that are zero-padded.

savageorange said:
.. They seem a bit pointless, honestly. Especially the ones that are a number with . or ) following, or the ones that are zero-padded.

Yep. Those are pointless, and commonly mistagged. I'd be for getting rid of them altogether.

For instance, that 2)? Those were leftovers from users trying to add various team_fortress_2 tags and forgetting to use the underscores.

And tags such as 00, 02, 92, 96, 98, 99? Those are often mistagged year tags, missing the first two digits.

Genjar said:
And tags such ...96, ...

Maybe not 96. That looks suspiciously like a sex position. Though not one I'm familiar with.

But on the rest of these, I'd suspected it was something like this but hadn't tracked down the answer yet. Thanks for such a thorough rundown on them.

furrypickle said:
Maybe not 96. That looks suspiciously like a sex position. Though not one I'm familiar with.

It is, but it only has two taggings. Hopefully there is some more obvious tag it can be aliased to.

I've been working on tagging nipples wherever needed, and I keep finding images such as these:
post #201482 post #201575 post #200371 post #203418

Does anyone know if we have a tag for generic nipple-coverings? There's the nipple_tape and tassels tags for specific cases, but I can't find any tags to use for other things.

Genjar said:
I've been working on tagging nipples wherever needed, and I keep finding images such as these:
post #201482 post #201575 post #200371 post #203418

Does anyone know if we have a tag for generic nipple-coverings? There's the nipple_tape and tassels tags for specific cases, but I can't find any tags to use for other things.

pasties

TheHuskyK9 said:
pasties

Thanks! So that's what they're called. I never would've guessed..

Genjar said:
I've been working on tagging nipples wherever needed, and I keep finding images such as these:
post #201482 post #201575 post #200371 post #203418

Does anyone know if we have a tag for generic nipple-coverings? There's the nipple_tape and tassels tags for specific cases, but I can't find any tags to use for other things.

pasties

Damn, Husky beat me to it. =P

ETA: although when they're tassled pasties, I usually tag them with both tassels and pasties. Since tassels can easily be on other things like pillows, drapes, clothing, etc. But if I tag it with pasties too, then it helps people differentiate in their searches whether they're looking for types of tassels or types of pasties. Just my method on it.

Genjar said:
Thanks! So that's what they're called. I never would've guessed..

Mmmhmm

Is here the right place for this?

I noticed that cleavage is being used for nude posts. Should the tag be only used for characters that are wearing clothes?

post #332568 post #518330 post #511823 post #496982

There is a clothed tag for each, but they are not wearing any clothes.

Mienshao said:
Is here the right place for this?

I noticed that cleavage is being used for nude posts. Should the tag be only used for characters that are wearing clothes?

post #332568 post #518330 post #511823 post #496982

There is a clothed tag for each, but they are not wearing any clothes.

Good catch! That is a mistag. When you find them, correct them. Cleavage is only for when they're wearing clothes and the dipped area where the breasts touch each other is bared, like in a low neckline. It's not for nude or topless though. All of those need the -cleavage -clothing and -clothed tags removed. Cleavage is implicated with clothed, because it really isn't supposed to be used when they're nude or topless. So that's how the other two tags got there.

furrypickle said:
Good catch! That is a mistag. When you find them, correct them. Cleavage is only for when they're wearing clothes and the dipped area where the breasts touch each other is bared, like in a low neckline. It's not for nude or topless though. All of those need the -cleavage -clothing and -clothed tags removed. Cleavage is implicated with clothed, because it really isn't supposed to be used when they're nude or topless. So that's how the other two tags got there.

Ok, thanks.

The cleavage tag was removed from those four posts, though after a search of cleavage ~topless ~nude, there are more posts that the tag should be removed from.

Mienshao said:
Ok, thanks.

The cleavage tag was removed from those four posts, though after a search of cleavage ~topless ~nude, there are more posts that the tag should be removed from.

Done. That took awhile. I see you did some too. Thanks for helping out. It should be fixed now. Or at least the ones in that search are. (There's a bunch of pics left in that search, but they all contain someone with cleavage, usually in a group.) It was certainly was a big mess. Thanks for pointing it out!

Asking for support in this project again.
I've been doing my best to keep it down but it's now over 20 pages long, so some help would be appreciated.

Peekaboo said:
Asking for support in this project again.
I've been doing my best to keep it down but it's now over 20 pages long, so some help would be appreciated.

I would like to, but the tag search limit for the average user is 5(?).

Wolfgang415 said:
I would like to, but the tag search limit for the average user is 5(?).

You can use your blacklist for two of the tags.

Ex: If you add intersex and bisexual to your blacklist, you can search with the other six tags.

Project

Mienshao said:
You can use your blacklist for two of the tags.

Ex: If you add intersex and bisexual to your blacklist, you can search with the other six tags.

Project

Thx, in case if I'm wrong, all these posts are missing their straight tags, right?

We have hair_over_eye and hair_over_eyes

post #512377 post #324406 post #280650

What about a tag for the images where the eye "bleeds through"?

post #412085 post #414673 post #432880

post #377783 post #336090 post #267040 post #231807 post #164980 post #85446 post #85635 post #53512 post #530376 post #530357 post #530156

Sometimes just the eyebrows do it:

post #270489 post #160084 post #35205

post #530301 post #530342 post #530348 post #530409

It could be a blacklisting opportunity for some.

Lance_Armstrong said:

We have hair_over_eye and hair_over_eyes

post #512377 post #324406 post #280650

What about a tag for the images where the eye "bleeds through"?

post #412085 post #414673 post #432880

post #377783 post #336090 post #267040 post #231807 post #164980 post #85446 post #85635 post #53512 post #530376 post #530357 post #530156

Sometimes just the eyebrows do it:

post #270489 post #160084 post #35205

post #530301 post #530342 post #530348 post #530409

It could be a blacklisting opportunity for some.

There's eye_through_hair . I also usually tag it with translucent_hair as well because logically if you can see anything on the other side of the hair, then that section must be translucent even if the rest of the hair is opaque. (It's fictional hair, so being translucent in only one section makes about as much sense as being translucent in the first place did). Also, sometimes you can also see head outlines, mouth, eyebrows, ears, background, etc through the hair. And I tag those with translucent_hair as well.

I just went through and added both of these to a bunch more images. They tend to be undertagged, I think simply because people don't know the tag for it but would tag it if they knew it. I know it's a pet peeve of some people, so you raise a good point that it needs tagged more often.

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

Wolfgang415 said:
Thx, in case if I'm wrong, all these posts are missing their straight tags, right?

Mostly yeah. I'd say about 90% of that tagging project just needs the straight tag added. I have run into a few though where the gender had been mistagged and needed changing (usually a case of ambiguous_gender or herm/dickgirl being mistagged as male and/or female). And a few times it had the sex tag but no sex happening, so that just needed removing (either because it happens later on in the comic but not on that page, or a tag that implicated sex was added and shouldn't have been there either.). And a few could use the bisexual tag as well (someone having sex with both a male and a female at the same time, often in group sex situations) although that's like an extra bonus.

In the end though, all that should be left in that search would be lesbians having sex while a male watches but doesn't participate. And that's only because there wasn't enough room to put -lesbian from the search as well.

furrypickle said:

Mostly yeah. I'd say about 90% of that tagging project just needs the straight tag added. I have run into a few though where the gender had been mistagged and needed changing (usually a case of ambiguous_gender or herm/dickgirl being mistagged as male and/or female). And a few times it had the sex tag but no sex happening, so that just needed removing (either because it happens later on in the comic but not on that page, or a tag that implicated sex was added and shouldn't have been there either.). And a few could use the bisexual tag as well (someone having sex with both a male and a female at the same time, often in group sex situations) although that's like an extra bonus.

In the end though, all that should be left in that search would be lesbians having sex while a male watches but doesn't participate. And that's only because there wasn't enough room to put -lesbian from the search as well.

Yeah, I've noticed some. Gonna try to keep 'em down.

Wolfgang415 said:
Yeah, I've noticed some. Gonna try to keep 'em down.

Awesome. That tag project is huge. I've shaved off a couple of pages. And I know a few people work on it like Mienshao and now you as well. Slowly but surely, between all of us, we'll get the backlog taken care of. After that, it'll be far easier to just maintain it from then on. *fingers crossed*

Here's a relatively moderate project (15 pages @ 100/page):

siblings -brother_and_sister -sisters -brothers

Mostly seems to be images that are missing brother_and_sister tag. Or should not be tagged siblings under TWYS.

Id like to suggest another project, but it would require assistance from a mod or admin to take away the tag associations. The tag "lime" is automatically a character tag, and yet unless the fruit is a character, images with only the lime fruit are automatically added as characters. Not a huge deal, but shouldnt we have a "Lime(character)" tag and a regular lime tag without the character association for fruit I just noticed this one last night, and then today noticed you have a thread going for projects in tag fixings. Yes, I know, I need to get on these forums more often.

Another tag I noticed that has an error in tag associations is the "border_collie" tag, which all collies are automatically tagged border collie, despite the different kinds of collie. This is an issue with those of us that want to differentiate between the different breeds, namely Rough Collies and Border collies. Further differentiation can be made later, but for now, with these two being so popular, it would be nice to have two tags for these two different species. Border collies are white and black, and Rough collies also have brown fur.

also, I fixed all the "hybrids" tags to "hybrid", but there should be a tag association between those two for future simplification.

Changed lime to a general tag. Needs some cleanup. I'll do something about it tomorrow (already three am here), if nobody else has.

At the first glance, I couldn't actually find any characters that go by that name. So dunno why it was a character tag in the first place. It also seems to be used erroneously as a color tag.

savageorange said:
Here's a relatively moderate project (15 pages @ 100/page):

siblings -brother_and_sister -sisters -brothers

Mostly seems to be images that are missing brother_and_sister tag. Or should not be tagged siblings under TWYS.

Ok, Im slowly tackling this one on the weekends, but because I rely on a data plan while away from home(I drive truck through the week), I cant do this unless Im home. Point is, Ill get to it, but Im going to have to make decisions on if something SHOULD be tagged siblings based on the evidence. Like, for instance, I found an old taurin fox image that was tagged siblings, and had two foxes doing a horse. This of course could mean the two foxes are brothers, but thought it more likely that they are just two unrelated foxes that happen to be screwing a horse. Fact is, with a ton of these images, its minor similarities between two characters of the same age, and people assume they are either twins, or just brothers/sisters/siblings and tag as such. This is both against the rules, and in support of it. The tag what you see rule applies here and if someone "SEES" two sisters having lesbian sex even though the two characters are in all actuality just two same-species friends that wanted to screw, it still gets tagged siblings.

Point is, Im going to decide personally if something should be tagged siblings or incest based on appearance. Unless its clearly twins(two perfectly genetically identical characters) in the image or the characters are literally SAYING something to indicate a relation, Im going to have to assume its not incest. This will probably piss someone off, so someone say so if youd prefer I didnt start gutting those tags based on image text and character appearances.

cjkrythos said:
Ok, Im slowly tackling this one on the weekends, but because I rely on a data plan while away from home(I drive truck through the week), I cant do this unless Im home. Point is, Ill get to it, but Im going to have to make decisions on if something SHOULD be tagged siblings based on the evidence. Like, for instance, I found an old taurin fox image that was tagged siblings, and had two foxes doing a horse. This of course could mean the two foxes are brothers, but thought it more likely that they are just two unrelated foxes that happen to be screwing a horse. Fact is, with a ton of these images, its minor similarities between two characters of the same age, and people assume they are either twins, or just brothers/sisters/siblings and tag as such. This is both against the rules, and in support of it. The tag what you see rule applies here and if someone "SEES" two sisters having lesbian sex even though the two characters are in all actuality just two same-species friends that wanted to screw, it still gets tagged siblings.

Point is, Im going to decide personally if something should be tagged siblings or incest based on appearance. Unless its clearly twins(two perfectly genetically identical characters) in the image or the characters are literally SAYING something to indicate a relation, Im going to have to assume its not incest. This will probably piss someone off, so someone say so if youd prefer I didnt start gutting those tags based on image text and character appearances.

You'll probably find this to be relevant reading, since it's a recent discussion about how incest should probably be tagged. It didn't nail everything down for sure, but it did make a few things official and it had some good points about which traits should indicate incest or not. You might want to give it a read through: https://e621.net/forum/show/135831?page=1

furrypickle said:
You'll probably find this to be relevant reading, since it's a recent discussion about how incest should probably be tagged. It didn't nail everything down for sure, but it did make a few things official and it had some good points about which traits should indicate incest or not. You might want to give it a read through: https://e621.net/forum/show/135831?page=1

thanks for the link, that makes it official then. I just wanted to make sure I wasnt stomping on toes before I started moving in with a weedwacker.

Also, Ive taken to keeping an eye on the "necktie" tag as people are tagging "tie" when canine knotting occurs and tag associations change it into "necktie", and then it goes unnoticed. The correct tag is "knotting"

(edit)Lastly, Im starting into tagging the images that arent tagged straight or lesbian or whatever, but then I find images with herms or other intersex characters having sex with either gender, and I dont know if that qualifies as straight, gay, bisexual, lesbian, etc.....? any clarification?

I'm cleaning up the peeking tag, but there's one problem.
You see, 95% of it was (and still is) mistagged penis_tip, poking_out and peeping. So I was planning to suggest invalidating it, once it's been fully cleaned up.

Except... There's a couple of images like this:
post #38269 post #45394

I can't think of any other tag for that, besides peeking. Are there any? If not, then I guess we'll have to keep it -- and clean it up regularly, since it gets mixed up with other tags so much.

Genjar said:
I'm cleaning up the peeking tag, but there's one problem.
You see, 95% of it was (and still is) mistagged penis_tip, poking_out and peeping. So I was planning to suggest invalidating it, once it's been fully cleaned up.

Except... There's a couple of images like this:
post #38269 post #45394

I can't think of any other tag for that, besides peeking. Are there any? If not, then I guess we'll have to keep it -- and clean it up regularly, since it gets mixed up with other tags so much.

ok, Id like to suggest that we keep the Peeking tag separate as its a suggestive slang term as opposed to something obvious like "penis_tip" which is what Ive used for years in tagging. It would be easier to change peeking to penis_tip. Peeping and peeking should have a tag association as they are the same thing, and suggest peeking on someone else, namely watching someone else have sex, like ceiling cat images for instance. poking_out suggests something else, but I dont think it should be negated completely. I wish we could have admins post some stickied note or something somewhere where people who are tagging things could be notified of the change.

It just makes sense to fix 75 images rather than fixing over 1300 into a less descriptive tag that could apply to other things.

Genjar said:
I'm cleaning up the peeking tag, but there's one problem.
You see, 95% of it was (and still is) mistagged penis_tip, poking_out and peeping. So I was planning to suggest invalidating it, once it's been fully cleaned up.

Except... There's a couple of images like this:
post #38269 post #45394

I can't think of any other tag for that, besides peeking. Are there any? If not, then I guess we'll have to keep it -- and clean it up regularly, since it gets mixed up with other tags so much.

Yeah, it does sound like it's got a use, that's a good point. I'd say keep it for those types of images you thumbed there. A good wiki could help clear up what it's actually for and minimize misuse. Not saying it will solve it, but between that and keeping it clean, it does tend to help re-train people over time on some tags. And I just really can't think of any other better tag for those images than "peeking".

ETA: I thought of something. You could tag those few images with something like peeking_under_clothing which would be infinitely more clear about what the tag is for and then you can still alias away the "peeking" tag for being too messy to keep. Would that work better?

furrypickle said:
ETA: I thought of something. You could tag those few images with something like peeking_under_clothing which would be infinitely more clear about what the tag is for and then you can still alias away the "peeking" tag for being too messy to keep. Would that work better?

Almost. That would work great, if it weren't for this one:
post #228840
Sheets, not clothing.

There's only seven images left, and I can't think of a collective tag for those. Maybe it should be left as peeking, since there's so few posts and it hasn't been mistagged in a while. Or how about peeking_under? That's slightly more descriptive than just peeking.

Might not be the best place for it; But are there any tags you peeps have noticed I am using incorrectly? Wouldn't mind ya saying so so that I could stop doing it.

As far as I've seen.. Nothing, or at least nothing that springs to mind.
It's usually the users who never visit the forums who mistag the most.

Genjar said:
Almost. That would work great, if it weren't for this one:
post #228840
Sheets, not clothing.

There's only seven images left, and I can't think of a collective tag for those. Maybe it should be left as peeking, since there's so few posts and it hasn't been mistagged in a while. Or how about peeking_under? That's slightly more descriptive than just peeking.

Dammit, lol. I guess there's always an exception.

If it were me, I'd leave it for about a month, see if it seems likely to still be a problem. (Sometimes the mistaggers stop when they no longer see the type of images they were adding under that tag anymore, almost as if it acts as subtle peer pressure and they don't want to be the one adding images which don't seem to fit the tag now that the tag is consistent. Or they see the discussion in the forums. Or they read the wiki. And in any case, sometimes people learn when they realise something is different than they thought. Other times the mistaggers have actually left the site/are inactive so it's no longer an active concern, since newer people are more likely to learn the way it is now instead of the mess it once was.)

But if it does seem like the tag's still being misused regularly, then yeah I'd switch it to peeking_under since it's more descriptive and then alias away peeking. But that's just what I would do.

not to throw another "meal" on your plates folks, as Im sure all of you are full up already, but I just started on the "anatomically_correct" stuff and discovered 14 pages of stuff that isnt tagged anatomically_correct_pussy or anatomically_correct_penis Im starting on it, but if anyone has some time, might be nice to have help. Ive already cleaned up the need for clarification with anatomically_correct_pussy and subsequent equine/canine/feline/cervine variations on the specific tags, but I was left with 2 pages of stuff that I just couldnt place. Somone with a bit more tag experience might snuff that one out in a minute or two. I dont know if I should create tags for ursine_pussy or not, when we only have the one atm.

Anyways, Ill keep at it, just thought id bring this one up if anyone was looking for another side project.

cjkrythos said:
not to throw another "meal" on your plates folks, as Im sure all of you are full up already, but I just started on the "anatomically_correct" stuff and discovered 14 pages of stuff that isnt tagged anatomically_correct_pussy or anatomically_correct_penis Im starting on it, but if anyone has some time, might be nice to have help. Ive already cleaned up the need for clarification with anatomically_correct_pussy and subsequent equine/canine/feline/cervine variations on the specific tags, but I was left with 2 pages of stuff that I just couldnt place. Somone with a bit more tag experience might snuff that one out in a minute or two. I dont know if I should create tags for ursine_pussy or not, when we only have the one atm.

Anyways, Ill keep at it, just thought id bring this one up if anyone was looking for another side project.

Please use the

{{tag search}}

code so that it's clear exactly what search you are talking about.
I think it's anatomically_correct -anatomically_correct_pussy -anatomically_correct_penis -anatomically_correct_anus ??

Might as well take this opportunity to remind of a project that's a few pages ago now: {-anthro -feral -human} . I recently shaved 935 posts (0.4%) off of this; current total posts 213k.

Subsections:

• -anthro -feral -human friendship_is_magic : 12800 posts, mostly missing tag is 'feral'.
• -anthro -feral -human clothed : 19000 posts, mostly missing tag is 'anthro'
• -anthro -feral -human multi_* : 2700 posts, mostly missing tag is 'anthro'

Here's a smaller project:
Would be great if someone less squicky than me would check and fix couple ~gore ~vore. I've been cleaning up the couple tag, and I have a feeling that many of those are mistagged duos.

v Much appreciated, thank you.

Genjar said:
Here's a smaller project:
Would be great if someone less squicky than me would check and fix couple ~gore ~vore. I've been cleaning up the couple tag, and I have a feeling that many of those are mistagged duos.

Done.

savageorange said:
Please use the

{{tag search}}

code so that it's clear exactly what search you are talking about.
I think it's anatomically_correct -anatomically_correct_pussy -anatomically_correct_penis -anatomically_correct_anus ??

Might as well take this opportunity to remind of a project that's a few pages ago now: {-anthro -feral -human} . I recently shaved 935 posts (0.4%) off of this; current total posts 213k.

Subsections:

• -anthro -feral -human friendship_is_magic : 12800 posts, mostly missing tag is 'feral'.
• -anthro -feral -human clothed : 19000 posts, mostly missing tag is 'anthro'
• -anthro -feral -human multi_* : 2700 posts, mostly missing tag is 'anthro'

I dont know how to use the tag search feature. can you give me a quick explanation, Ive been here a while, but never really gotten involved enough to learn some of these features. and yes, thats the search im working with atm.

Also, I noticed we have animal_genitalia AND anatomically_correct, which in my opinion, are the same thing, or are they?

cjkrythos said:
I dont know how to use the tag search feature. can you give me a quick explanation, Ive been here a while, but never really gotten involved enough to learn some of these features. and yes, thats the search im working with atm.

type two braces (or "Curly brackets") on either side of the tag to create a link to it
like this:
{{}} with the tag in the middle

cjkrythos said:
Also, I noticed we have animal_genitalia AND anatomically_correct, which in my opinion, are the same thing, or are they?

Anatomically_correct is only tagged if it's actually correct, such as an equines with realistic-sized horsecock. Whereas, for instance, canines with hyper horsecock are only tagged as animal_genitalia.

Just animal_genitalia:
post #464197

anatomically_correct_penis + animal_genitalia:
post #376022

savageorange said:
Please use the

{{tag search}}

code so that it's clear exactly what search you are talking about.
I think it's anatomically_correct -anatomically_correct_pussy -anatomically_correct_penis -anatomically_correct_anus ??

Might as well take this opportunity to remind of a project that's a few pages ago now: {-anthro -feral -human} . I recently shaved 935 posts (0.4%) off of this; current total posts 213k.

Subsections:

• -anthro -feral -human friendship_is_magic : 12800 posts, mostly missing tag is 'feral'.
• -anthro -feral -human clothed : 19000 posts, mostly missing tag is 'anthro'
• -anthro -feral -human multi_* : 2700 posts, mostly missing tag is 'anthro'

Shaved about 150 posts off the third one, will continue tomorrow.

I'm quite stuck on the included taurs though. What are we actually supposed to tag those, considering they have both anthropomorphic and feral attributes? Usually an anthro upper body with a quadrupedal lower body.

Jugofthat said:
Shaved about 150 posts off the third one, will continue tomorrow.

I'm quite stuck on the included taurs though. What are we actually supposed to tag those, considering they have both anthropomorphic and feral attributes? Usually an anthro upper body with a quadrupedal lower body.

I've been taking the attitude that they are anthro -- treating the humanlike upper body as the 'overriding attribute'. Comparing *taur anthro with *taur feral seems to bear this out (~700 items for the former, ~200 for the latter)

Another way to think of it is 'feral is for anything that physically looks entirely like an animal (except the facial expression sometimes), anthro is for anything of the remainder that doesn't look entirely like a human, human is for the remainder of that'

Not everything fits under anthro.
It's one of the reason we made that humanoid tag as an another category: it's for humanoid creatures that clearly aren't anthrofied. Various humanoid alien species, fantasy races (orcs, goblins), etc.

I've always treated taur the same way: as a separate category that doesn't fit into anthro/feral. But we don't seem to have an agreed standard for that, so I'm not saying that tagging them as anthro is 'wrong'. Note that centaur has been implicated to the human category, though; and a single character should never be tagged as (fe.) both human and anthro. That messes up the tags such as human_on_anthro.

Genjar said:
Not everything fits under anthro.
It's one of the reason we made that humanoid tag as an another category: it's for humanoid creatures that clearly aren't anthrofied. Various humanoid alien species, fantasy races (orcs, goblins), etc.

I've always treated taur the same way: as a separate category that doesn't fit into anthro/feral. But we don't seem to have an agreed standard for that, so I'm not saying that tagging them as anthro is 'wrong'. Note that centaur has been implicated to the human category, though; and a single character should never be tagged as (fe.) both human and anthro. That messes up the tags such as human_on_anthro.

I think it's reasonable to consider taur a separate category.
However that does imply that we need taur_on_anthro, taur_on_human, taur_on_feral, taur_on_humanoid tags.

Definitionally, you could also divide taurs into 'classic taurs' (feral structure plus anthro / human structure) and 'mutant taurs' (for,well, things like post #505232 o_O)

Thanks for mentioning the humanoid tag, I was trying to think of that when tagging before.

savageorange said:
I think it's reasonable to consider taur a separate category.
However that does imply that we need taur_on_anthro, taur_on_human, taur_on_feral, taur_on_humanoid tags.

Yeah, it could get cluttery with too many categories.
I've spent some time thinking about that problem, but haven't come up with any solution to it.

Maybe we should just unimplicate centaur from human, and start tagging taurs as anthros. I don't like that implication anyway: it's impossible to search for human x centaur pairings, when all centaurs are tagged as humans.

There's also the animal_ears that don't really seem to fit anywhere either. Not quite human, and not quite anthro either. And too 'furry' to tag as humanoid. I've been intentionally overlooking those, which is easy when there's always so many other things to tag..

Giving taurs their own category seems agreeable to me.

We could perhaps do the same thing with nagas, as they confuse the hell out of me for the same reasons. Especially when they have a human upper body. When that's an anthro version of a snake (or something) I can at least see that being the overriding factor that makes them taggable as anthro, but snake tail + human torso and head? The hell am I supposed to do with that? D:

savageorange said:
Another way to think of it is 'feral is for anything that physically looks entirely like an animal (except the facial expression sometimes), anthro is for anything of the remainder that doesn't look entirely like a human, human is for the remainder of that'

Nah, I'm not entirely with you there, just look (for example) at the amount of bipedal, vaguely humanlike pokémon consistently being tagged with feral. The line doesn't always tend to be as hard as 'anything not entirely animal = anthro'.

Also, I was totally unaware of the humanoid tag and its validity, I even think I may have removed it a few times because I thought it was just someone mistagging anthro. =/

*Facedesk*

I made an concentrated effort of tagging anthro/feral, but it doesn't seem to have made much of a dent.

Even if we were to tag three hundred of those per day, it'd take two years. And that's without new posts. I guess the best we can do is keep it from growing..

^ Yeah, it may not be worth it. Tagging 150 in 15min is doable with the right tools IME though.. maybe I should release them.

Genjar said:
I made an concentrated effort of tagging anthro/feral, but it doesn't seem to have made much of a dent.

Even if we were to tag three hundred of those per day, it'd take two years. And that's without new posts. I guess the best we can do is keep it from growing..

I was tagging many fim -anthro -feral some time ago so many of those in the last pages are things that I didn't know how to classify.
Like:
post #139227
post #139472
post #139028

Also, when doing it with tag script and ommiting pictures not obvious from thumbnail you can very easily get much better than 300/day alone.

I found that it's better to divide this searches even more - like scootaloo -anthro -feral. Then instead thinking "Oh no, several thousands fim pics to go." you get "Hooray, I've cleaned up whole scootaloo"

Yeah, diving it into smaller searches is a great way to tag them faster. By characters, species, or even by artists: some draw nothing but anthros, so those are easy to tag script. Still feels like just a drop in the ocean, since -human -anthro -feral -taur -humanoid doesn't seem to be getting any smaller. Though I suppose it must be slowly shrinking (unless someone's untagging those).

And yes, ponies in particular are tricky. So many borderline cases, like your third example. I... think I'd go with anthro for that one, but it's very ambiguous.

Edit: I've been making a lot more progress with tagging anthros/ferals after switching to tagging them by artist and species, instead of trying to tag all remaining ones at once. It's far easier when the images have a common theme; and some artists only draw anthros, so narrowing those down makes it a lot faster. Same for the species: for instance, turns out that 99% of skunk images are anthros.

Though it's going to get harder and harder. The ones under unknown_artist, and species such as dinosaur (mix of anthros and ferals) will be tricky.

Genjar said:
And yes, ponies in particular are tricky. So many borderline cases, like your third example. I... think I'd go with anthro for that one, but it's very ambiguous.

I'd disagree for that one, to me ambiguous cases should default to whatever a "normal" ones would be tagged as (i.e. whatever a normal canon poony would be tagged as), if only because this is clearly something that could probably (as far as I know) be drawn canonically and not look out of place whatsoever.

I've occasionally ran into unexpected borderline cases with Digimon (the worst offender is guilmon). A typical veemon or agumon is not anthro despite having two arms and two legs, and sometimes actual hands... unless it has human/generic furry proportions and size (e.g. post #547192). Same goes for Pokemon. I'm not clear what pokemon species would fall as "never anthrofied", but there are anthro digimon that should ahrdly ever have that tag, like renamon, leomon and weregarurumon.

Circeus said:
I'd disagree for that one, to me ambiguous cases should default to whatever a "normal" ones would be tagged as (i.e. whatever a normal canon poony would be tagged as), if only because this is clearly something that could probably (as far as I know) be drawn canonically and not look out of place whatsoever.

I've occasionally ran into unexpected borderline cases with Digimon (the worst offender is guilmon). A typical veemon or agumon is not anthro despite having two arms and two legs, and sometimes actual hands... unless it has human/generic furry proportions and size (e.g. post #547192). Same goes for Pokemon. I'm not clear what pokemon species would fall as "never anthrofied", but there are anthro digimon that should ahrdly ever have that tag, like renamon, leomon and weregarurumon.

It sounds like you're talking about the anthrofied tag instead of the anthro tag (forum #137346):

anthrofied - If a character's cannon/normal form has had additional anthro traits added to it that are more anthro than their cannon/normal form (like drawn with hands when it normally has paws, etc), then it gets tagged with anthrofied.
anthro - If a character has anthropomorphic traits, even if it's cannon/normal for them, it's still an anthropomorphic body so it gets tagged with anthro. renamon, leomon, weregarurumon, etc are often anthro but very rarely are they anthrofied even further than their cannon/natural forms already are.

In other words:
anthrofied tag = 'more anthro than their regular form'.
anthro = has anthropomorphic traits (whether that's cannon/not-cannon for them is irrelevant).

MLP is somewhat tricky because even in the actual episodes, the ponies can be drawn semi-anthro some of the time, and feral the rest of the time, so it's never anthrofied unless they get extremely anthrofied (human boobs, bipedal anatomy, etc), but they are sometimes feral and sometimes anthro depending on the image.

furrypickle said:
It sounds like you're talking about the anthrofied tag instead of the anthro tag (forum #137346):

anthrofied - If a character's cannon/normal form has had additional anthro traits added to it that are more anthro than their cannon/normal form (like drawn with hands when it normally has paws, etc), then it gets tagged with anthrofied.

Wiki of anthrofied states something else

A feral character, or character that typically walks on all fours, rendered closer to human. Changes may include:

I don't think that using anthrofied to characters that are already anthro is good idea. To me this tag is similar to furrification and humanized.

Granberia said:
To me this tag is similar to furrification and humanized.

Agreed

There is some problem with humanized though.

Wiki states that humanized is:

An ordinarily anthropomorphic character turned into a human.

But it is widely used for humanized ponies that are feral to begin with and I don't know tag for: canon feral to human.

But if it's for both anthro and feral then why we keep 2 tags for change to anthro:
furrification = canon human to anthro (Wiki entry is wrong according to forum #44914)
anthrofied = canon feral to anthro

If change to human has one tag then maybe change to anthro should also have only one tag.

Ugh, yes, that looks like a mess.
What about feralization? Do we just not have enough feralization art to have such a tag? (feralization doesn't currently exist)

I agree with your general idea, we should accept some simplification
and only have 3 tags: anthrofied, humanized, feralized

Or alternatively have X_Y tags like humanized_(anthro|feral), anthrofied_(human|feral), feralized_(human|anthro). This would allow searching for 'anything anthrofied' with one search term 'anthrofied_*' while still allowing more specific searches like anthrofied_feral.

I think the current definition of anthrofied is problematic because it's relative. 'more anthro than default'? That is definitely not TWYS.

EDIT: Back on the main topic of this thread, here's a small tag-cleanup project: animal_bride. Looks like it should be a pool instead of a tag.
~120 posts, mostly or entirely in reverse reading order (first image in comic is last post in search)

Yep, I was just thinking earlier this week that we should have a feralization tag. Since I ran across quite a few of those while tagging anthros/ferals. (I tagged two as examples of what it'd cover, will of course remove those if someone objects.)

But I think we need both anthrofied and furrification.
Anthrofied is feral -> anthro and furrification is not_furry -> anthro/feral. Not quite the same.

Genjar said:
But I think we need both anthrofied and furrification.
Anthrofied is feral -> anthro and furrification is not_furry -> anthro/feral. Not quite the same.

No, furrification does not include not_furry -> feral. Currently furrification is about changing not_furry character to anthro.

Granberia said:
No, furrification does not include not_furry -> . Currently furrification is about changing not_furry character to .

I'm not sure what's up with the furrification wiki entry; I don't think we ever agreed to narrow it down to only anthros. I think the usage got mixed up when furrified got aliased to it, and should be reverted back to the old usage: non-furry characters drawn as furries. And not limited to anthros.

For example:
post #145702 post #273443 post #175422 post #343116

You say Digimon is irrelevant to the definition of anthro and anthrofied. Maybe, but it is NOT irrelevant to tags like human_on_anthro. I must ask: should post #547868 be tagged human_on_anthro or human_on_feral??

Dunno if I should be posting there (or posting at all),
but I had some time today, so after some 200 tag edits I cleaned the tagme tag of its 150 images.
Just wondering if it was being filled very fast or just a little forgotten lately, anyway I'm gonna get a good night rest.

Circeus said:
You say Digimon is irrelevant to the definition of anthro and anthrofied. Maybe, but it is NOT irrelevant to tags like human_on_anthro. I must ask: should post #547868 be tagged human_on_anthro or human_on_feral??

Urgh, Veemon are often tough to tag... and that particular one is even harder to pigeonhole than an average digimon. In borderline cases, I tend to tag them as anthro myself. Because users who search for feral are generally looking for pure ferals.

And here's an another way of looking at it: does the character seem feral enough for that to count as bestiality? If not, anthro is probably a better fit, since human_on_feral implies bestiality.

Yyunko said:
Dunno if I should be posting there (or posting at all),
but I had some time today, so after some 200 tag edits I cleaned the tagme tag of its 150 images.
Just wondering if it was being filled very fast or just a little forgotten lately, anyway I'm gonna get a good night rest.

Keep up the good work.
There's a couple of users who have been adding tagme a lot recently, mostly on posts that don't really need it (over dozen tags and most important ones already tagged). So it's been growing faster than usual.

Genjar said:

There's a couple of users who have been adding tagme a lot recently, mostly on posts that don't really need it (over dozen tags and most important ones already tagged). So it's been growing faster than usual.

Ran into this recently, was very confused.

This probably isn't the place for a discussion about it, but should we maybe consider adding a maximum number of tags a post can have while still tagged with tagme? Like in the tagme wiki have a line that says "Posts with more than 15 tags should not be tagged with tagme. If you're looking for specific missing tags consider unknown_artist or whatever instead."

Tokaido said:
This probably isn't the place for a discussion about it, but should we maybe consider adding a maximum number of tags a post can have while still tagged with tagme?

Probably should be in the wiki, since I've seen admins give users neutrals for that from time to time: for adding tagmes when there's already enough tags.

Genjar said:
Urgh, Veemon are often tough to tag... and that particular one is even harder to pigeonhole than an average digimon. In borderline cases, I tend to tag them as anthro myself. Because users who search for feral are generally looking for pure ferals.

And here's an another way of looking at it: does the character seem feral enough for that to count as bestiality? If not, anthro is probably a better fit, since human_on_feral implies bestiality.

Luckily there's a tag for digimon/human stuff at digiphilia, but I'm uncomfortable tagging as human_on_anthro something I wouldn't tag with anthro...

Not related to the subject above.
I see a lot of post of solo scalies tagged with both cloaca and genital_slit, but the wiki definition warns you not to confuse a cloaca for a slit. Following the wiki guidelines, some posts should have the cloaca or slit tag removed.

examples : post #292551
on this post, we clearly see there is no anus, so we would have to assume it is inside and it is therefore a cloaca.

Anyway I'm asking older users if I should retag these post.

I think so.
Many of those predate the use of the cloaca tag, and we also had one tagger who added slit on pretty much everything. That tag group could use some sorting. For instance, most posts in 'slit -genital_slit -cloaca' need either the cloaca or genital_slit tag; and some should be tagged as sheath instead.

I'll try and help with those, I'm rather fond of using those tags anyway. I even extended the genital_slit wiki a few days ago, as I found it to be a bit incomplete in explaining which of the two to tag when, but can anyone confirm whether I didn't put some totally nonsensical BS in there (be it with the best intentions)?

Jugofthat said:
I'll try and help with those, I'm rather fond of using those tags anyway. I even extended the genital_slit wiki a few days ago, as I found it to be a bit incomplete in explaining which of the two to tag when, but can anyone confirm whether I didn't put some totally nonsensical BS in there (be it with the best intentions)?

I tagged every post correctly by searching "cloaca slit", a few remain where both are visible, I tagged every post where it was ambiguous with slit as the wiki states.

You mean it's already done? Aw crap, I couldn't find the necessary time for it until now, was just about to start. Oh well, kudos to you.