anatomically_incorrect is an alias for invalid_tag, so I guess anatomically_inaccurate should be the same.

Otherwise one of anatomically_incorrect and anatomically_inaccurate should be an alias for each other.

It would seem it's being used, majorly, for tagging any avali posts that have breasts, and all of which were added by Halycon Fluff

+1 for aliasing the tag to invalid_tag.

zenostone said:
It would seem it's being used, majorly, for tagging any avali posts that have breasts, and all of which were added by Halycon Fluff

Hmm... I feel bad for that user.

monsterbomb10010 said:
+1 for aliasing the tag to invalid_tag.

Hmm... I feel bad for that user.

Most of the art is my commissioned stuff. The one adding the tags to the posts is that guy.

Honestly I'd like to have a tag for when a character has a (non-human) genital-set that doesn't match their species-standard, but I've got mixed feelings if people are using it for when breasts are added.

zenostone said:
It would seem it's being used, majorly, for tagging any avali posts that have breasts, and all of which were added by Halycon Fluff

Breasts (or human genitalia if there's already a canon-standard otherwise) being added to a species is better suited for anthrofied though, so I'd call this tagging abuse either way.

The bulk update request #452 has been rejected.

remove alias anatomically_incorrect (0) -> invalid_tag (0)
change category anatomically_incorrect (0) -> invalid
change category anatomically_inaccurate (880) -> invalid

Reason: Time to move anatomically_incorrect into the Invalid category, as well as its synonymous tag anatomically_inaccurate...

I'm sure some might have a few thoughts about these tags and the BUR. Please let us know.

EDIT: The bulk update request #452 (forum #300727) has been rejected by @Millcore.

I think aliasing them both to invalid_tag is the proper thing to do. It could only be synonymous with the lack of anatomically_correct, and as KiraNoot said elsewhere :

kiranoot said:
It depends on if the tag shouldn't appear on posts or not. There are some tags that I feel shouldn't appear on posts, even as an invalid tag category tag, because it can reward specific behaviors. Such as cute, because even as an invalid tag, and people actively removing it, it would be still be searchable, and cannot ever be valid.

So it's a matter of weighing if anything can be gained from the tag appearing on the post, and if it is actually correctable or not.

At best it could be related to mismatched anatomy (e.g. a canine with a horse dick), but it would be a problem to manage and clean.

watsit said:
I think aliasing them both to invalid_tag is the proper thing to do. It could only be synonymous with the lack of anatomically_correct, and as KiraNoot said elsewhere :
At best it could be related to mismatched anatomy (e.g. a canine with a horse dick), but it would be a problem to manage and clean.

The problem with its absence is that a post might have a horse with a horse's cock and a cat with a dog's cock--One of those is proper, the other is not.
The problem with its presence is that a lot of artists find it insulting, which was why anatomically_incorrect got aliased to invalid.

The bulk update request #452 (forum #300727) has been rejected by @Millcore.

Well... Avali aren't real so how would one define "accurate" since in lore they can mod themselves and replace parts with cybernetics and such anyways. I, for one, want to remove them because penises are also not "accurate".

I added the tag to those posts, for functional purpose. it's not just avali with tits, if you review the edits i've made. i've attempted to add the tag to pics with avali that ignore most of the description of an avali's anatomy, body shape, etc. and, this is not ignoring blatantly cybernetic additions, as you may notice, the tags are not added on posts where cybernetics are clearly present.

The functional purpose for this, is searching. when searching for pics, those who want to look for 'accurate avali' (as, it is undeniable, there is a large part of the community that is not very happy seeing 'innaccurate avali') it is better for them to have a tag combo to blacklist for those needs.

halycon_fluff said:
I added the tag to those posts, for functional purpose. it's not just avali with tits, if you review the edits i've made. i've attempted to add the tag to pics with avali that ignore most of the description of an avali's anatomy, body shape, etc. and, this is not ignoring blatantly cybernetic additions, as you may notice, the tags are not added on posts where cybernetics are clearly present.

The functional purpose for this, is searching. when searching for pics, those who want to look for 'accurate avali' (as, it is undeniable, there is a large part of the community that is not very happy seeing 'innaccurate avali') it is better for them to have a tag combo to blacklist for those needs.

So, is it only for the Avali that have anatomical inaccuracies?

siral_exan said:
So, is it only for the Avali that have anatomical inaccuracies?

not sure i understand the question. however, to restate, i have added the tag to all avali posts that are entirely ignoring avali anatomy and official description. for example: posts: 2377801, 2353985, 2312059, 2139689 appear quite anthrofied, overstated, plantigrade legs, etc. however, simply adding anthrofied does not satisfy everything as posts like: 2363304 and 2236182 are not quite anthrofied at all, but are extremely far out of range for what an official description of avali is. thus, for them all to share a tag, means you can simply blacklist "Avali Anatomically_Inaccurate" and be done with it.

Edit: However, i don't wish to ignore the fact that the tag "Anatomically_Inaccurate" is fitting for those pictures on its own. I think it does.

halycon_fluff said:
avali with tits
body shape, etc.
plantigrade legs

anthrofied is hugely underutilised along with semi-anthro (for characters which aren't fully-anthro by default) but it's there.
anatomically_inaccurate would be more a matter of elements being swapped in without a notable change in anthropomorphism levels. (like your second set of examples)

It's not the same thing, which is why it shouldn't be all a single tag.

magnuseffect said:
anthrofied is hugely underutilised along with semi-anthro (for characters which aren't fully-anthro by default) but it's there.
anatomically_inaccurate would be more a matter of elements being swapped in without a notable change in anthropomorphism levels. (like your second set of examples)

It's not the same thing, which is why it shouldn't be all a single tag.

I don't see why those posts can't be both. if anything, having both of tags on the first half, would be better. the more tags, and finer description you can get on a post, the better users can fine-tune their searching and preferences, which is the whole point of the tagging system in the first place. considering they are both, anthrofied, and anatomically inaccurate.

halycon_fluff said:
not sure i understand the question. however, to restate, i have added the tag to all avali posts that are entirely ignoring avali anatomy and official description. for example: posts: 2377801, 2353985, 2312059, 2139689 appear quite anthrofied, overstated, plantigrade legs, etc. however, simply adding anthrofied does not satisfy everything as posts like: 2363304 and 2236182 are not quite anthrofied at all, but are extremely far out of range for what an official description of avali is. thus, for them all to share a tag, means you can simply blacklist "Avali Anatomically_Inaccurate" and be done with it.

Edit: However, i don't wish to ignore the fact that the tag "Anatomically_Inaccurate" is fitting for those pictures on its own. I think it does.

I'm asking for whether or not it would be used on creatures other than Avali that have anatomical inaccuracies. Or, if it only ever applies to Avali and only if they are anatomically inaccurate, being hyper specific.

siral_exan said:
I'm asking for whether or not it would be used on creatures other than Avali that have anatomical inaccuracies. Or, if it only ever applies to Avali and only if they are anatomically inaccurate, being hyper specific.

Of course it would apply to other posts unrelated to Avali. i only tagged the Avali pictures, because that's as far as i felt to do. i don't feel very capable of going over every single other post unrelated to Avali, to add the tags there. Avali are my interest, and i am know about Avali, so i felt justified enough in adding the tags to Avali pics, but i would not hold Avali posts to a different standard than any other post.

Edit: as for the "only if they are anatomically inaccurate" as well, yes, only for anatomical inaccuracies. i never intend to add this tag for things unrelated to anatomical inaccuracies.

halycon_fluff said:
Of course it would apply to other posts unrelated to Avali. i only tagged the Avali pictures, because that's as far as i felt to do. i don't feel very capable of going over every single other post unrelated to Avali, to add the tags there. Avali are my interest, and i am know about Avali, so i felt justified enough in adding the tags to Avali pics, but i would not hold Avali posts to a different standard than any other post.

So, then isn't it just anatomically_incorrect with a different name? The anatomy of an Avali is "inaccurate", or incorrect with a standard Avali's anatomy...

*edit* or any creature, for that matter. Misclicked submit instead of preview Dtext.

siral_exan said:
So, then isn't it just anatomically_incorrect with a different name? The anatomy of an Avali is "inaccurate", or incorrect with a standard Avali's anatomy...

*edit* or any creature, for that matter. Misclicked submit instead of preview Dtext.

perhaps? i don't know why anatomically_incorrect is considered invalid, and anatomically_inaccurate is not. however, that is the case, and i believe the tag has legitimate use. therefore, i used it.

Edit: To be as clear as i can be currently, i believe that the tag "Anatomically_Inaccurate" has use, and should not be considered invalid. The use i believe it has, should be evident in the conversation above. As for why Anatomically_Inaccurate and Anatomically_Incorrect are not aliased, i have no answer to offer, perhaps they are redundant, perhaps "inaccurate" is more indicative of fact than "incorrect", but nontheless, it is not a useless tag, and should not be invalidated.

halycon_fluff said:
considering they are both, anthrofied, and anatomically inaccurate.

The thing is human anatomy isn't considered inaccurate here if it's a part of anthrofication.
Or at least that's always been my interpretation of the way anthro women are expected to have breasts regardless of species (as per howto:tag_genders.)

magnuseffect said:
The thing is human anatomy isn't considered inaccurate here if it's a part of anthrofication.
Or at least that's always been my interpretation of the way anthro women are expected to have breasts regardless of species (as per howto:tag_genders.)

Two tags can describe/overlap the same thing, and still be on one post. As well, considering those avali are listed as avali, and not human, anatomically_inaccurate is still applicable.

Inaccurate/incorrect should refer to things like having different species' body parts, not the presence of things like breasts or plantigrade feet. Non-mammal breasts and anthro/humanoid cover those.

Say an Avali was given a hoof, that would count. But having their feet flattened to stand from ball to heel? That's just plantigradified, not inaccurate.

furrin_gok said:
Inaccurate/incorrect should refer to things like having different species' body parts, not the presence of things like breasts or plantigrade feet. Non-mammal breasts and anthro/humanoid cover those.

Say an Avali was given a hoof, that would count. But having their feet flattened to stand from ball to heel? That's just plantigradified, not inaccurate.

once again, i would argue that it is both. Legs are an anatomical feature, and Avali do not have plantigrade legs in official description. ergo, plantigrade legs, are an anatomically inaccuracy in regards to Avali. The fact that it is ALSO anthrofication, does not mean it is not anatomically inaccurate.

Edit: this also applies to the breasts example.

Edit2: I would also argue, that changing an Avali's feet and legs, to be like that of a human, and to add human breasts, is, as you say "having different species' body parts" as, Avali are not human. shouldn't that be obvious?

furrin_gok said:
Inaccurate/incorrect should refer to things like having different species' body parts, not the presence of things like breasts or plantigrade feet. Non-mammal breasts and anthro/humanoid cover those.

Say an Avali was given a hoof, that would count. But having their feet flattened to stand from ball to heel? That's just plantigradified, not inaccurate.

Now I'm slightly curious. You appear to be stating that anthrofied and related tags are a strict subset of anatomically_inaccurate, where swappedInSpecies == human. So would a feral with a humanoid cock count as anthrofied under this logic?

wat8548 said:
Now I'm slightly curious. You appear to be stating that anthrofied and related tags are a strict subset of anatomically_inaccurate, where swappedInSpecies == human. So would a feral with a humanoid cock count as anthrofied under this logic?

perhaps. though i don't see that as very necessary. more importantly, i think it should be stated that an already humanoid creature being 'anthrofied' also counts as anatomically_inaccurate. Avali are already upright in posture, with two legs, and two arms, with hands, and a central head at the top of their body, they are for all intents and purposes, already anthro. it is practical to consider it anatomically_inaccurate, given that context, and the change of anatomical features, such as leg musculature, genitals, mammaries, shape, size, etc.

Edit: Anthrofied of course being a tag to describe making creatures more 'humanoid', an argument could be made for a feral with a human cock being 'anthrofied'. point is, it would ALSO be anatomically inaccurate, even if they were to agree to that.

zenostone said:
Well... Avali aren't real so how would one define "accurate" since in lore they can mod themselves and replace parts with cybernetics and such anyways. I, for one, want to remove them because penises are also not "accurate".

Okay so there's a bit to unpack with your opinionated statements here.

First off, regardless of whether the species is real is irrelevant, pokemon are not real yet they have very clear anatomical designs. Most artists draw feral pokemon with genitalia that matches their animal class. For instance dragon pokemon or lizard/reptiles are drawn with reptilian styled genitals.
Avali are a defined species, they are avian in class even if you don't look at the official design documents and information that their creator has left behind, you can tell they are avian due to the fact they have feathers instead of fur, skin, hide or scales. Drawing them with mammaries is anatomically incorrect as they do not have mammary glands as avians do not feed their young with milk from the breast like mammals do.

This goes for the shapes of their legs, feet, hands, claws, anything. If you change them and do not clearly indicate that these are cybernetic enhancements, then it is incorrect to the species design and some fantasy version you are using yourself (which is totally okay, everyone has tastes and not everyone likes the same things)

Furthermore to re-iterate on the "they are not real" statement, do we tag dinosaurs differently? They were real but all we have are bones, we have no idea what they really looked like. For all we know they could have had mammalian genitals or something completely beyond what we know in the modern era of animals. The same can be applied to everything that has been created but isn't real. Digimon, dragons, griffons, etc.

Really it's incredibly disrespectful to the creator of the species to claim these are not incorrect and to make up whatever you want and it is offensive to people who respect the creator and what they made.

As for the tagging, one of the tags either incorrect or inaccurate should be aliased to the other and the invalid tag removed. There are a number of people I know who would like to be able to search for images with those tags to blacklist or whitelist things depending on their mood.

ncoolbreeze said:
First off, regardless of whether the species is real is irrelevant, pokemon are not real yet they have very clear anatomical designs.

However, they aren't normally tagged with anatomically_correct_* (or anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate), and I would argue shouldn't be since there's no official genital design. Or similarly how an anthro also doesn't normally get anatomically_correct_* for having animal junk, because an anthro could just as well be made to have human junk. Only when it's a real-life feral animal with genitalia matching the genitals they have in real life is when they get anatomically_correct_* (with anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate being reserved for similarly real-life feral animals with genitalia not matching the genitals they have in real life, or anthros with genitalia from a different base species, e.g. a horse anthro with a dog cock).

I'd say if a fictional species doesn't have official designs for their genitalia, they shouldn't get tagged as anatomically_correct_* or anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate since there's nothing to say if it's correct or accurate. Otherwise, there's the on_model tag for when a fictional character or creature is depicted accurately to the source material.

watsit said:
However, they aren't normally tagged with anatomically_correct_* (or anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate), and I would argue shouldn't be since there's no official genital design. Or similarly how an anthro also doesn't normally get anatomically_correct_* for having animal junk, because an anthro could just as well be made to have human junk. Only when it's a real-life feral animal with genitalia matching their real-life junk is when they get it.

I'd say if a fictional species doesn't have official designs for their genitalia, they shouldn't get tagged as anatomically_correct_* or anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate since there's nothing to say if it's correct or accurate. Otherwise, there's the on_model tag for when a fictional character or creature is depicted accurately to the source material.

But you would tag them as incorrect if they were using the legs of a dog but meant to have stubby nubs instead, right? If not then your usage of the tag is incorrect itself.

watsit said:
However, they aren't normally tagged with anatomically_correct_* (or anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate), and I would argue shouldn't be since there's no official genital design. Or similarly how an anthro also doesn't normally get anatomically_correct_* for having animal junk, because an anthro could just as well be made to have human junk. Only when it's a real-life feral animal with genitalia matching their real-life junk is when they get it.

I'd say if a fictional species doesn't have official designs for their genitalia, they shouldn't get tagged as anatomically_correct_* or anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate since there's nothing to say if it's correct or accurate. Otherwise, there's the on_model tag for when a fictional character or creature is depicted accurately to the source material.

In regards to avali, there is an official description, of every necissary detail, especially enough of a description and depiction to know that they have no mammaries, do not have plantigrade legs, have feathers, etc. Pictures of avali that blatantly ignore those official descriptions and depictions, are by definition, anatomically inaccurate.

ncoolbreeze said:
But you would tag them as incorrect if they were using the legs of a dog but meant to have stubby nubs instead, right? If not then your usage of the tag is incorrect itself.

I wouldn't, no, because that's stylization. If it's notably different, it would first lose the on_model tag. Further differences would fall into a category of -ified, -ification, or hybrid, or just not be considered that thing anymore if it's that different.

halycon_fluff said:
In regards to avali, there is an official description, of every necissary detail, especially enough of a description and depiction to know that they have no mammaries, do not have plantigrade legs, have feathers, etc. Pictures of avali that blatantly ignore those official descriptions and depictions, are by definition, anatomically inaccurate.

Just because a picture depicts a fictional character/creature that doesn't fully match its official depiction, I would say isn't a good justification for the anatomically_inaccurate tag. There's the on_model tag for when a fictional character/creature is depicted accurately to its source material, and there's the various -ified, -ification, and hybrid tags for when it's made more like something else in form or species. Making these cases all imply anatomically_inaccurate, while technically true, would end up applying to most non-generic-furry posts making it near meaningless. Sometimes technical correctness is sacrificed for usability.

Like I said in my edit above, I think anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate should be reserved for real-life feral animals with genitalia not matching the genitals they have in real life, or anthros with genitalia from a different base species, e.g. a horse anthro with a dog cock. Having human anatomy like breasts isn't abnormal for an anthro species, as an anthro is by definition part human, and the anthrofied tag covers cases of feral and anthro species having more human-like features than they normally would. For an avali to have breasts, anthrofied would be enough as its putting more emphasis on their in-built human/anthro-ness.

watsit said:
Like I said in my edit above, I think anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate should be reserved for real-life feral animals with genitalia not matching the genitals they have in real life, or anthros with genitalia from a different base species, e.g. a horse anthro with a dog cock. Having human anatomy like breasts isn't abnormal for an anthro species, and the anthrofied tag covers cases of feral and anthro species having more human-like features than they normally would. For an avali to have breasts, anthrofied would be enough as its putting more emphasis on their in-built human/anthro-ness.

Once again, i'd state that the redundancy is fine, because "anthrofied" and "anatomically_inaccurate" are not synonymous. They can overlap, but, using the avali example, as it is the most relevant, avali pictures that are 'anthrofied' would not be the same as avali pictures that are "anatomically_inaccurate". Thus, the tag still has use, especially for the crowd that wish to see only accurate avali, and wish to blacklist inaccurate avali.

Edit: also

watsit said: I'd say if a fictional species doesn't have official designs for their genitalia, they shouldn't get tagged as anatomically_correct_* or anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate since there's nothing to say if it's correct or accurate.

Avali do have an accurate and official depiction and description. this is why i pointed it out.

Edit2: On_model is also a tag, referring to stylization, not anatomical features.

watsit said:
I wouldn't, no, because that's stylization. If it's notably different, it would first lose the on_model tag. Further differences would fall into a category of -ified, -ification, or hybrid, or just not be considered that thing anymore if it's that different.

Just because a picture depicts a fictional character/creature that doesn't fully match its official depiction, I would say isn't a good justification for the anatomically_inaccurate tag. There's the on_model tag for when a fictional character/creature is depicted accurately to its source material, and there's the various -ified, -ification, and hybrid tags for when it's made more like something else in form or species. Making these cases all imply anatomically_inaccurate, while technically true, would end up applying to most non-generic-furry posts making it near meaningless. Sometimes technical correctness is sacrificed for usability.

What does on_model even mean? At a glance it tells me nothing, especially because I have no idea what the tag means. The tag anatomically_inaccurate however tells me the whole story that the image does not depict an anatomically correct character/species.
It's important to consider what people will think of a tag at a glance rather than what it is described as somewhere else or by someone else. You seem to be missing this point and are looking at it from a perspective that it is not necessary because dozens of other tags that potentially fit in some cases exist.
Having a top level categorisation for something is not bad, please stop trying to excuse it away with this sort of stuff.

If I wanted to search for avali that are anatomically correct only, your side of things would mean I can't blacklist anatomically_inaccurate images from my search, I'd have to specify dozens of tags to try and filter out all the things that are not truly avali in their anatomy. That's incredibly tedious and inefficient.

halycon_fluff said:
Once again, i'd state that the redundancy is fine, because "anthrofied" and "anatomically_inaccurate" are not synonymous.

I would argue it's not fine, if anatomically_inaccurate is defined so broadly that it would apply to most non-generic-furry posts. I mean, pokemon have clear design inspirations from animals, but officially there's no descriptions of their genitalia, anuses, or any official depictions/descriptions with them having breasts. By this logic, any pokemon with genitalia, an anus, or any female pokemon with breasts (no matter how small or featureless) would need to be tagged "anatomically inaccurate" because there's nothing to say they should officially have them or what they'd look like if they do.

halycon_fluff said:
Thus, the tag still has use, especially for the crowd that wish to see only accurate avali, and wish to blacklist inaccurate avali.

That's what the on_model tag is for, to see accurate depictions of fictional characters/species. Once you start going off-model, it's entirely subjective as to what's accurate enough for someone's personal liking. The on_model tag means the depiction is nigh-indistinguishable from the source material. The mere lack of on_model means there's some stylization/artist interpretation, but it's close to accurate to the source material. The anthrofied tag then means it's putting more emphasis on human anatomical features that the species doesn't otherwise have. I don't see what anatomically_inaccurate is going to help with here besides setting a personal goalpost for avali.

ncoolbreeze said:
What does on_model even mean?

"Depictions of copyrighted characters[/species] which are, regardless of subject matter, stylistically nigh indistinguishable from the original source material." - on_model

ncoolbreeze said:
The tag anatomically_inaccurate however tells me the whole story that the image does not depict an anatomically correct character/species.

It tells me nothing because it doesn't say what's anatomically incorrect about them, or how incorrect/stylized they have to be before it applies. Is this an anatomically incorrect arcanine? Midday lycanroc? Midnight lycanroc or zoroark? Lucario? Ninetales? Nickit?

ncoolbreeze said:
It's important to consider what people will think of a tag at a glance rather than what it is described as somewhere else or by someone else.

Indeed, and everybody's standard will be different for what constitutes "incorrect" (vs stylized, or whether stylized should imply incorrect, or what liberties are allowed). Going by the strictest literal definition, it would apply to just about all posts, making it useless. You'd end up at a point where even if a post has an accurate avali, there would be a good chance something else in the image would get the anatomically_inaccurate tag, thus needing a way to filter back in accurate avali that are getting inadvertently filtered out. As it is, anatomically_correct applies solely to genitalia (penis, balls, pussy, slit, sheath, cloaca; breasts are distinctly absent) and anuses, so bringing that pattern to anatomically_incorrect would mean only depictions of those genitals would count toward the tag. A more reasonable definition would likely land you somewhere near on_model or anthrofied.

ncoolbreeze said:
If I wanted to search for avali that are anatomically correct only, your side of things would mean I can't blacklist anatomically_inaccurate images from my search, I'd have to specify dozens of tags to try and filter out all the things that are not truly avali in their anatomy. That's incredibly tedious and inefficient.

I find it's easier to just worry about things that are an actual problem, instead of what could theoretically be a problem. Yes, there's quite a few -ified and -ification tags that could make an avali look inaccurate, but how often are they going to be an issue? If a more limited search, e.g. avali -anthrofied when anthrofied is properly tagged, ends up getting you what you want, you don't need to worry about all the other possibilities. One or two posts that you don't care to see occasionally getting through won't be the end of the world.

watsit said:

1: That's what the on_model tag is for

2: I would argue it's not fine, if anatomically_inaccurate is defined so broadly that it would apply to most non-generic-furry posts. I mean, pokemon have clear design inspirations from animals, but officially there's no descriptions of their genitalia, anuses, or any official depictions/descriptions with them having breasts. By this logic, any pokemon with genitalia, an anus, or any female pokemon with breasts (no matter how small or featureless) would need to be tagged "anatomically inaccurate" because there's nothing to say they should officially have them or what they'd look like if they do.

3: I find it's easier to just worry about things that are an actual problem, instead of what could theoretically be a problem. Yes, there's quite a few -ified and -ification tags that could make an avali look inaccurate, but how often are they going to be an issue? If a more limited search, e.g. avali -anthrofied when anthrofied is properly tagged, ends up getting you what you want, you don't need to worry about all the other possibilities. One or two posts that you don't care to see occasionally getting through won't be the end of the world.

1: No, it isn't what the on_model tag is for. the on_model tag is for stylistic consistency, and has nothing to do with anatomy.

2: to repeat myself from earlier "i think it should be stated that an already humanoid creature being 'anthrofied' also counts as anatomically_inaccurate. Avali are already upright in posture, with two legs, and two arms, with hands, and a central head at the top of their body, they are for all intents and purposes, already anthro. it is practical to consider it anatomically_inaccurate, given that context, and the change of anatomical features, such as leg musculature, genitals, mammaries, shape, size, etc."

Edit: What i mean by repeating this, is to add a practicality. sure, it's a broad tag, it would apply to alot of things, so instead, i'm attempting to narrow it down here. But it also should be stated that, perhaps, the tag SHOULD be used more actively. it has a place and purpose.

3: I don't know if you've been present or upkeeping with the avali community much, but there it is usually split into two camps. those who care very passionately about the source material, and lore, and those who believe it shouldn't be an issue. With that being the case, it is very relevant to have a tag that can cover ALL of the inconsistencies. I.E. hybridizations, taurs, mammaries, plantigrade, humanoid facial features, etc. and Anatomically_Inaccurate DOES cover all of those, in one tag. that is a major service in one tag. that broadness is a GOOD thing.

watsit said:
I would argue it's not fine, if anatomically_inaccurate is defined so broadly that it would apply to most non-generic-furry posts. I mean, pokemon have clear design inspirations from animals, but officially there's no descriptions of their genitalia, anuses, or any official depictions/descriptions with them having breasts. By this logic, any pokemon with genitalia, an anus, or any female pokemon with breasts (no matter how small or featureless) would need to be tagged "anatomically inaccurate" because there's nothing to say they should officially have them or what they'd look like if they do.

You're arguing as if this is a clear cut 1/0 case, this is not, common sense should dictate that in the case of creatures where there is no official specification for how they reproduce (other than pokemon because they magically make eggs somehow in-canon), you would not use the tag as it is not applicable in that situation. What I remember was that tagging is meant to be "tag what you see" and I see many avali pictures are anatomically incorrect and would tag them as such myself.
There are exceptions to this as avali are described officially as augmenting their body with bionics and cybernetics, they could have artificial (though based on official material, these would be discernable visible from fleshy organic stuff) sexual organs, extra arms/legs, hip jointed wings, etc, in those cases the tag would not be applicable as long as the organic part of the avali is still correct to the core of what avali are as a species.

watsit said:
That's what the on_model tag is for, to see accurate depictions of fictional characters/species. Once you start going off-model, it's entirely subjective as to what's accurate enough for someone's personal liking. The on_model tag means the depiction is nigh-indistinguishable from the source material. The mere lack of on_model means there's some stylization/artist interpretation, but it's close to accurate to the source material. The anthrofied tag then means it's putting more emphasis on human anatomical features that the species doesn't otherwise have. I don't see what anatomically_inaccurate is going to help with here besides setting a personal goalpost for avali.

"Depictions of copyrighted characters[/species] which are, regardless of subject matter, stylistically nigh indistinguishable from the original source material." - on_model

That tag is purely about the style. It would apply to artwork that closely mimics that of the source material, eg; drawing a pikachu as Sugimori would, or copying the in-game spritework, it does not have anything to do with a character's anatomy directly and as such is irrelevant to this discussion.

watsit said:
It tells me nothing because it doesn't say what's anatomically incorrect about them, or how incorrect/stylized they have to be before it applies. Is this an anatomically incorrect arcanine? Midday lycanroc? Midnight lycanroc or zoroark? Lucario? Ninetales? Nickit]
Then by your own admission here, tags like anthrofied are also pointless as they don't tell you what part of the creature is anthropomorphised. This is a different case for hybrid, hybrid already implies that it is some combination of two or more things.

As for the pokemon, generally common sense might help you make a decision as to what genitals they may have, the fact is that the source material has not ever described anything other than a miltank having an udder, so yes, there is leeway in the case of pokemon. Not so in avali who are very specifically described as avian in their physical make up and who also canonically are described as egg layers.

watsit said:
Indeed, and everybody's standard will be different for what constitutes "incorrect" (vs stylized, or whether stylized should imply incorrect, or what liberties are allowed). Going by the strictest literal definition, it would apply to just about all posts, making it useless. You'd end up at a point where even if a post has an accurate avali, there would be a good chance something else in the image would get the anatomically_inaccurate tag, thus needing a way to filter back in accurate avali that are getting inadvertently filtered out. As it is, anatomically_correct applies solely to genitalia (penis, balls, pussy, slit, sheath, cloaca; breasts are distinctly absent) and anuses, so bringing that pattern to anatomically_incorrect would mean only depictions of those genitals would count toward the tag. A more reasonable definition would likely land you somewhere near on_model or anthrofied.

In the case of furry characters, anthropomorphic animals that are just that, a cat that is humanized, I think the case can be easily ignored. These are characters and species that are incredibly loose in what they are and how they work, there is no clear defined "this is what they are" anywhere. This is entirely unlike the avali species which is a species that has a very clear set of defined parameters that constitutes what they are physically, socially and mentally.

watsit said:
I find it's easier to just worry about things that are an actual problem, instead of what could theoretically be a problem. Yes, there's quite a few -ified and -ification tags that could make an avali look inaccurate, but how often are they going to be an issue? If a more limited search, e.g. avali -anthrofied when anthrofied is properly tagged, ends up getting you what you want, you don't need to worry about all the other possibilities. One or two posts that you don't care to see occasionally getting through won't be the end of the world.

This is an actual problem or people wouldn't be putting these tags on them. Personally when I search for Latias, I have to sit down for 5-10 minutes and write up a list of things I do not want to appear in the search rather than '+anatomically_inaccurate' searching for just latias -anthro will still yield an enormous amount of content that is not what I am looking for and I'll have to sit down and sift through it all. I can still add more blacklisted tags like -breasts or -dick or -hyper and there will still be too much to sift through in a single sitting.
Not everyone has several hours a day to sift through a metric fuckton of porn they aren't interested in or that makes them uncomfortable.

halycon_fluff said:
1: No, it isn't what the on_model tag is for. the on_model tag is for stylistic consistency, and has nothing to do with anatomy.

Style and anatomy go hand-in-hand. Except in maybe 1% of cases, stylizing a character necessarily alters its anatomy, whether it's adding details not present in official materials, removing details, changing proportions, etc. Short of on_model depictions, what you're fine with calling an "accurate avali" may not be where someone else is fine.

halycon_fluff said:
2: to repeat myself from earlier "i think it should be stated that an already humanoid creature being 'anthrofied' also counts as anatomically_inaccurate.

And as I said, "Making these cases all imply anatomically_inaccurate, while technically true, would end up applying to most non-generic-furry posts making it near meaningless". Why wouldn't every non-on_model avali post, implying some degree of anatomical inaccuracy from official material, not classify for anatomically_inaccurate? What degree of variations in colors, size, feather patterns, posture, muscle tone/mass, arm length, head size, etc, are allowed outside of official material before it becomes "inaccurate"?

halycon_fluff said:
3: I don't know if you've been present or upkeeping with the avali community much, but there it is usually split into two camps. those who care very passionately about the source material, and lore, and those who believe it shouldn't be an issue. With that being the case, it is very relevant to have a tag that can cover ALL of the inconsistencies. I.E. hybridizations, taurs, mammaries, plantigrade, humanoid facial features, etc. and Anatomically_Inaccurate DOES cover all of those, in one tag. that is a major service in one tag. that broadness is a GOOD thing.

Until you actually go to use it, where +anatomically_inaccurate doesn't help focus the search at all, and -anatomically_inaccurate results in many posts inadvertently removed because of a technicality or minor easily-overlooked detail. Besides which, the anatomically_inaccurate tag wouldn't be exclusive to avali, so how the avali community feels about what an "anatomically_inaccurate" avali is should have no bearing on what e6 should term an "anatomically_inaccurate" arcanine or "anatomically_inaccurate" sergal. The same standard should apply to all relevant species.

ncoolbreeze said:
What I remember was that tagging is meant to be "tag what you see" and I see many avali pictures are anatomically incorrect and would tag them as such myself.

You don't "see" anatomical correctness in a fictional species because said species doesn't exist, and what lore may say about anatomy doesn't apply to tagging (female charr fans know this all too well). You can compare what you see to what you know about current lore, but that's Tag What You Know, not Tag What You See.

ncoolbreeze said:
There are exceptions to this as avali are described officially as augmenting their body with bionics and cybernetics, they could have artificial (though based on official material, these would be discernable visible from fleshy organic stuff) sexual organs, extra arms/legs, hip jointed wings, etc, in those cases the tag would not be applicable as long as the organic part of the avali is still correct to the core of what avali are as a species.

So an avali augmented with breasts and the like is possible within lore. Official on_model material shows these are discernible from flesh, but an artist could stylistically choose to cover the metallic bits with something that looks like feathers or flesh, no? Logically there's no reason an avali couldn't choose to cover the metal bits with something organic-looking if they're advanced enough to have bionic/cybernetic tech in the first place... their official artwork shows them wearing clothes and advanced armor, so it wouldn't be a stretch to say they can make form-fitting clothing that make the augmentations look natural. Not that lore is applicable to tagging, but an avali with what appears to be organic breasts can be anatomically accurate, then.

ncoolbreeze said:
Then by your own admission here, tags like anthrofied are also pointless as they don't tell you what part of the creature is anthropomorphised.

Not what parts specifically, but it does say how it was changed. A more human-like (but still anthro) interpretation of a normally animal-like anthro or feral character.

ncoolbreeze said:
As for the pokemon, generally common sense might help you make a decision as to what genitals they may have

Common sense ain't so common. Either way, common sense tells me that an anatomically_inaccurate tag isn't very useful, except maybe as the reverse of anatomically_correct (an animal from real-life having genitalia or an anus that doesn't match their real-life species; fictional species explicitly excluded the same way).

ncoolbreeze said:
This is an actual problem or people wouldn't be putting these tags on them. Personally when I search for Latias, I have to sit down for 5-10 minutes and write up a list of things I do not want to appear in the search rather than '+anatomically_inaccurate' searching for just latias -anthro will still yield an enormous amount of content that is not what I am looking for and I'll have to sit down and sift through it all. I can still add more blacklisted tags like -breasts or -dick or -hyper and there will still be too much to sift through in a single sitting.
Not everyone has several hours a day to sift through a metric fuckton of porn they aren't interested in or that makes them uncomfortable.

And you expect anatomically_inaccurate to be a magic bullet that happens to zero-in on specifically what they want, without knowing what constitutes an "inaccurate" latias? There's plenty of issues with tagging on this site (I personally feel the pain of wanting to see male renamon; good luck doing that search without missing a bunch of valid posts or getting a bunch of invalid posts), but that doesn't mean throwing on a new tag for what you personally do or don't want to see is the right thing to do, especially for something as nuanced as this.

watsit said:
1: Making these cases all imply anatomically_inaccurate, while technically true, would end up applying to most non-generic-furry posts making it near meaningless

2: Style and anatomy go hand-in-hand.

3: Until you actually go to use it, where +anatomically_inaccurate doesn't help focus the search at all, and -anatomically_inaccurate results in many posts inadvertently removed because of a technicality or minor easily-overlooked detail. Besides which, the anatomically_inaccurate tag wouldn't be exclusive to avali, so how the avali community feels about what an "anatomically_inaccurate" avali is should have no bearing on what e6 should term an "anatomically_inaccurate" arcanine or "anatomically_inaccurate" sergal. The same standard should apply to all relevant species.

4: And you expect anatomically_inaccurate to be a magic bullet that happens to zero-in on specifically what they want

5: So an avali augmented with breasts and the like is possible within lore. Official on_model material shows these are discernible from flesh, but an artist could stylistically choose to cover the metallic bits with something that looks like feathers or flesh, no? Logically there's no reason an avali couldn't choose to cover the metal bits with something organic-looking if they're advanced enough to have bionic/cybernetic tech in the first place... their official artwork shows them wearing clothes and advanced armor, so it wouldn't be a stretch to say they can make form-fitting clothing that make the augmentations look natural. Not that lore is applicable to tagging, but an avali with what appears to be organic breasts can be anatomically accurate, then.

At this point i feel like you're just getting mixed up, in things we never said.

1: i specificied, that there can be a practicality to it. you're the one implying it would apply to everything, i never claimed it needed to and have stated ways to narrow down where it belongs. please don't just ignore my attempts to build bridges inbetween.

2: no, they don't. Avali don't have a 'style', to argue that they would would be quite hard, especially considering, they aren't copyrighted (as the on_model tag specifies) but even if you were to perhaps argue that, ryujiin's original illustrations of avali are the avali 'style' the 'style' he drew them in were extremely varied, and not a part of any series. It doesn't take much to go look up "on_model" and see what that tag implies, lest reading the description of the tag isn't clear enough.

3: i think, this point, kinda goes against your earlier one, how, the tag would be so broad it would apply to everything and be useless? have you actually gone to look at the pics listed under anatomically_inaccurate? does this seem like the actual case to you, or are you just hypothesizing that it will be that way? because evidently, it is not. Especially for the posts that i took responsibility over and tagged, i was intentionally not so strict as to simply label everything. you act as though there is only black, or white with this. there isn't. i'm not incapable of reason.

On top of all that, i would like to specify, i never stated that 'what the avali community considers accurate matters'. what i said was, it's a useful tag, for people in that community, for searching purposes. People in that community would appreciate being able to blacklist an 'anatomically_inaccurate' tag, or perhaps even search for it, alongside avali due to tastes and fetishes. I was very clear. It feels as though you're intentionally missunderstanding.

4: No, i don't think anyone expects this to be a magic bullet. i think it's reasonable to at least entertain the idea. there aren't any other tags that do exactly what anatomically_inaccurate does. On_model is not a replacement, and isn't even used for the purpose you think it is. Anthrofied is only in reference to anthrofication, which many people would argue, isn't even possible on an avali. Breasts obviously only refers to breasts. Vulva and Clit are rarely listed on posts. Plantigrade or Plantigradified as well are separate tags, that refer to one aspect of anthrofication. And even disregarding all of those things, there are taurs, hybrids, and the like, that aren't under any of those categories, some wild enough that they barely fit in a category of their own. it's not unrealistic to have them all under an umbrella of anatomically_inaccurate. having that tag present, doesn't hurt anyone, CAN be practical despite or insistence otherwise, and DOES help searching.

5: i know this is not my conversation, and for the most part, i consider that conversation to be completely irrelevant to this one, your insistence on relying on 'style' is silly. that has nothing to do with style. and when it comes to pictures of Relaku (the character in question) Their character is not simply modified, or cybernetic, this is obvious even from visually looking at the pictures. And regardless of any excuses, there are no implications, visually or otherwise, that they are cybernetic, and due to the tag what you see rule, cybernetics and the related tags, do not apply here. anatomically_inaccurate does.

(on a side note, your insistence on this strange definition of 'style' dissagrees with you here. if you mean to hold definition as a stand in for 'style', avali have specifically been stated to not have extremely advanced technology and specifically never really got into biological tech, their cybernetics and bionics, are simple yet effective, and are put to good use, but are not so advanced as to be equal with biology. especially in the case of relaku, wherein pictures include magic, doll mimicry, extreme inflation, among other things, which simply couldn't be applied to cybernetics in any sense, even outside of the avali conversation.)

All of this conversation of course is just one layer deep of the initial conversation. "Anatomically_inaccurate should not/should be an invalid tag, because it does/does not have a use". It does have a use. And despite your warning of it being overly applicable, it is underused.

I would like to point out that if this tag were to exist and be consistently enforced, we would have maybe a hundred thousand posts with this tag. It would essentially be a union of many of the non-* tags such as non-mammal_breasts, non-mammal_balls, non-mammal_nipples, non-canine_knot, non-mammal_teats, non-mammal_navel, and more. https://e621.net/tags?commit=Search&search%5Bcategory%5D=0&search%5Bhide_empty%5D=yes&search%5Bname_matches%5D=non-%2A&search%5Border%5D=count

If you don't want to see Avali with breasts, we could add non-mammal_breasts to most of these posts https://e621.net/posts?tags=ralena%2Fralaku+-non-mammal_breasts and then you can blacklist non-mammal_breasts.

EDIT: Done, all "avali breasts" that feature breasts on avali are now tagged non-mammal_breasts. Also done for non-mammal_balls.

aaronfranke said:
I would like to point out that if this tag were to exist and be consistently enforced, we would have maybe a hundred thousand posts with this tag. It would essentially be a union of many of the non-* tags such as non-mammal_breasts, non-mammal_balls, non-mammal_nipples, non-canine_knot, non-mammal_teats, non-mammal_navel, and more. https://e621.net/tags?commit=Search&search%5Bcategory%5D=0&search%5Bhide_empty%5D=yes&search%5Bname_matches%5D=non-%2A&search%5Border%5D=count

If you don't want to see Avali with breasts, we could add non-mammal_breasts to most of these posts https://e621.net/posts?tags=ralena%2Fralaku+-non-mammal_breasts and then you can blacklist non-mammal_breasts.

EDIT: Done, all "avali breasts" that feature breasts on avali are now tagged non-mammal_breasts.

The tag has nothing to do with specific mammal, reptillian, avian, or any particular species parts. it has to do with anatomy that is not accurately portrayed. as well, this doesn't have to do with just avali tits. please read the whole conversation. there are pictures with avali with tits, that i like. doesn't matter what I want to see, at all. What matters is that the people who use this site, as a whole, have a tag that they can blacklist, that covers inaccurate anatomy, as the tag entails. don't get caught up in the avali drama, it's mostly irelevant.

Edit: One of the first things i said here, by the way, is that things other than tits are covered by the tag, and that i tagged posts that had nothing to do with avali tits. don't mistake my intentions, i hate that.

As a casual tagger, this thread is giving me intense headache.

I already agreed to aliasing this tag to invalid_tag, though with lack of explanation. But looks like Watsit already said most of it, so I'll try my best to give my little thoughts on this before cooling my head off.

For a tagger's perspective, I don't see any use to this tag, since I often see posts with inaccurate anatomy: feral quadrupeds with humanoid genitalia, female deer with antlers, pawpads on reptiles, etc. As for fictional species, it's extremely hard to point out which is anatomically accurate or not. Sure, it may be useful for the most dedicated tagger that really do their research well, but for a filthy casual like me, I don't think it will.

Oh, "people who use this site"... I'm pretty sure the majority don't care if some of their favorite characters and/or species are depicted with inaccurate anatomy. I still do care for what I think are thoroughly-detailed and deeply-specific minority, but they can search for (and blacklist some) posts with almost near-accurate result thanks to increased tag search limit (I forgot the count though, but I believe it's a lot).

For the last part, I may be overthinking, but it might potentially cause problems if its usage becomes widespread. It may become the same as what Furrin Gok said about anatomically_incorrect; it will be a new kind of slap-in-the-face for the artist.

I don't have any knowledge on the avali, nor even had any interest to know more about them, but I have no problem seeing them here, no matter how accurate their anatomy on every post is. Maybe I'm wrong and this tag do have a great use. I am just a casual tagger, after all.

(Small typo fix and dtext edit, btw)

monsterbomb10010 said:
As a casual tagger, this thread is giving me intense headache.

I already agreed to aliasing this tag to invalid_tag, though with lack of explanation. But looks like Watsit already said most of it, so I'll try my best to give my little thoughts on this before cooling my head off.

For a tagger's perspective, I don't see any use to this tag, since I often see posts with inaccurate anatomy: feral quadrupeds with humanoid genitalia, female deer with antlers, pawpads on reptiles, etc. As for fictional species, it's extremely hard to point out which is anatomically accurate or not. Sure, it may be useful for the most dedicated tagger that really do their research well, but for a filthy casual like me, I don't think it will.

Oh, "people who use this site"... I'm pretty sure the majority don't care if some of their favorite characters and/or species are depicted with inaccurate anatomy. I still do care for what I think are thoroughly-detailed and deeply-specific minority, but they can search for (and blacklist some) posts with almost near-accurate result thanks to increased tag search limit (I forgot the count though, but I believe it's a lot).

For the last part, I may be overthinking, but it might potentially cause problems if it's usage becomes widespread. It may become the same as what Furrin Gok said about anatomically_incorrect; it will be a new kind of slap-in-the-face for the artist.

I don't have any knowledge on the avali, nor even had any interest to know more about them, but I have no problem seeing them here, no matter how accurate their anatomy on every post is. Maybe I'm wrong and this tag do have a great use. I am just a casual tagger, after all.

Being outside to all of this, it may look simply like a lot of noise, over nothing. Thing is, in the avali community at least, Ryujiin, who created the avali, has been snuffed out. Their creation has been drowned out by anyone else loud enough to raise their voice, and the actual original 'avali' is barely able to be found, amongst the boom of other things. For the people, i included, who appreciated the original work, it IS useful, to be able to find things that reflect it. However, at every turn, that is made harder. I find no harm in making it easier to find. I am open to other tags that make this task easier, but anatomically_inaccurate is the best suited currently to serve that purpose. You may not see the purpose that it serves, but it is there nonetheless, especially for this specific group. And i don't imagine an 'inaccurate_avali' tag, or something similar, would go over well. anatomically_inaccurate does not need to be an insult. if it's just used to do what it says on the tin it's fine. As for the

"As for fictional species, it's extremely hard to point out which is anatomically accurate or not."

Ryujiin specifically laid out the anatomy of avali, there is a popular wiki for it you can look at, and on E621, as well as the wiki, you can find Ryujiin's original art, of how an avali looks.

halycon_fluff said:
1: i specificied, that there can be a practicality to it. you're the one implying it would apply to everything, i never claimed it needed to and have stated ways to narrow down where it belongs. please don't just ignore my attempts to build bridges inbetween.

On the contrary, I'm saying that if not invalidated, it would be best to mean a character of a specific species with genitalia of a different species, such as a cat with a horse cock. Avali, being anthro and thus part human, wouldn't be "anatomically_incorrect" for having breasts since humans have breasts, but at most anthrofied for having more human-like anatomy than such characters normally have. You're the one suggesting anthrofied and any other anatomical feature being different should then have anatomically_incorrect, greatly widening it's use to ensure it applies to avali with breasts.

halycon_fluff said:
3: i think, this point, kinda goes against your earlier one, how, the tag would be so broad it would apply to everything and be useless? have you actually gone to look at the pics listed under anatomically_inaccurate?

Considering we're still debating what the tag should mean, only a few people are tagging it based on their desired use rather than all the ways it should be implicated and what's actually covered from the eventually-agreed-to definition. How it's being tagged now doesn't indicate what it will be like if it follows the given suggestion.

halycon_fluff said:
On top of all that, i would like to specify, i never stated that 'what the avali community considers accurate matters'. what i said was, it's a useful tag, for people in that community, for searching purposes. People in that community would appreciate being able to blacklist an 'anatomically_inaccurate' tag, or perhaps even search for it, alongside avali due to tastes and fetishes.

That's a self contradiction. You say it's not "what the avali community considers accurate" and that it would be useful in the general sense, but then say "People in that community would appreciate being able to blacklist an 'anatomically_inaccurate' tag, or perhaps even search for it" implying it's tailored to what the avali community wants. I'm not 100% against an anatomically_inaccurate tag, but think any useful definition wouldn't apply to avali with breasts, which doesn't seem to be good enough because it wouldn't help the avali community specifically.

watsit said:
On the contrary, I'm saying that if not invalidated, it would be best to mean a character of a specific species with genitalia of a different species, such as a cat with a horse cock. Avali, being anthro and thus part human, wouldn't be "anatomically_incorrect" for having breasts since humans have breasts, but at most anthrofied for having more human-like anatomy than such characters normally have. You're the one suggesting anthrofied and any other anatomical feature being different should then have anatomically_incorrect, greatly widening it's use to ensure it applies to avali with breasts.

Considering we're still debating what the tag should mean, only a few people are tagging it based on their desired use rather than all the ways it should be implicated and what's actually covered from the eventually-agreed-to definition. How it's being tagged now doesn't indicate what it will be like if it follows the given suggestion.

That's a self contradiction. You say it's not "what the avali community considers accurate" and that it would be useful in the general sense, but then say "People in that community would appreciate being able to blacklist an 'anatomically_inaccurate' tag, or perhaps even search for it" implying it's tailored to what the avali community wants. I'm not 100% against an anatomically_inaccurate tag, but think any useful definition wouldn't apply to avali with breasts, which doesn't seem to be good enough because it wouldn't help the avali community specifically.

Look. To be very clear, my intention with using the tag, extended to avali, because avali are my interest. i felt a need to tag avali pictures, because i like avali. that doesn't mean i wouldn't use the tag in other situations, or that it only applies to avali, or that what the avali community thinks, matters. it means that the avali community, can USE it. it is USEful. Regardless of what the avali community thinks. It serves more than just that community, when used for different posts.

Regardless of all of that, or the rest of this conversation for that matter, i was called out for putting this tag, onto avali posts. i've explained why i've done so. If there is a better tag to suit the purpose, i will use it. but this tag suits the purpose best as far as i know. The attempt to get it invalidated was rejected, and its current use, is supported by the definition it has. Thus, it should still be used for its given purpose until a better tag is given, or until it begins causing a tangible problem. That is simply that at this stage.

monsterbomb10010 said:
As a casual tagger, this thread is giving me intense headache.

I already agreed to aliasing this tag to invalid_tag, though with lack of explanation. But looks like Watsit already said most of it, so I'll try my best to give my little thoughts on this before cooling my head off.

I'll continue it here since its pertaining to my character.

Quoting from the lore tab of the wiki;

Avali are not mammals, but instead more similar to prehistoric Earth dromaeosauridae.

and in the reproduction section

Physiologically, both sexes of Avali are extremely similar; both possess a cloacal vent, and males lack the genitalia seen in terrestrial mammals. Instead, genetic material is passed the same way as seen in terrestrial birds.

I've read the lore you reference so biblically. I've had it quoted to many many times in DMs in discord. I'm tired of being segregated out of the "avali" groups because "ew tits". It's porn, this is a porn site. This tag is most definetly been a slap in the face because of history, and I'm more than willing to agree, that some instances, it's 100% usable. Tits and penises are not one. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the people that like Avali, would not like canon reproductive images of cloacal rubbing, as that doesn't get them going. I end my feeling rant there.

Other users here have made excellent points of other tags that are less insulting to be tagged under, and that I'd be more than fine be used alternatively, given that they can still be used to blacklist. On-model, non-mammalian_*, etc. Anatomically_inaccurate just invites more "this avali doesnt belong, do not like them, blacklist and shun". I'd even agree to using non-canon as a tag if it exists.

I'm sorry if this is more emotionally fueled than it should be but I'm tired of this argument.

zenostone said:
I'll continue it here since its pertaining to my character.

Quoting from the lore tab of the wiki;

and in the reproduction section

I've read the lore you reference so biblically. I've had it quoted to many many times in DMs in discord. I'm tired of being segregated out of the "avali" groups because "ew tits". It's porn, this is a porn site. This tag is most definetly been a slap in the face because of history, and I'm more than willing to agree, that some instances, it's 100% usable. Tits and penises are not one. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the people that like Avali, would not like canon reproductive images of cloacal rubbing, as that doesn't get them going. I end my feeling rant there.

Other users here have made excellent points of other tags that are less insulting to be tagged under, and that I'd be more than fine be used alternatively, given that they can still be used to blacklist. On-model, non-mammalian_*, etc. Anatomically_inaccurate just invites more "this avali doesnt belong, do not like them, blacklist and shun". I'd even agree to using non-canon as a tag if it exists.

I'm sorry if this is more emotionally fueled than it should be but I'm tired of this argument.

This argument has nothing to do with you or your pictures. It just so happen that many of your pictures were included in my tagging. That same old argument, was only pushed out of me, as an explanation, as to how we would know what an anatomically accurate avali is. the tag being present on your character's pictures, is not meant as an insult to you. it is meant to be a tool, so that people can STOP insulting you or anyone else who has characters with inaccuracies/inconsistencies present. You should want this. If everyone can just blacklist the tag, they have nothing to complain about. you wouldn't need to excuse yourself, or even care. just tell them "blacklist the tag" and be done with it.

Edit: Starting to get really irritated with this. Both sides can be served by this tag, simply being present. this is to stop anyone from complaining, or caring, any longer. you shouldn't feel personally attacked by a tag applying to your posts, and feeling upset about it, certainly shouldn't make it invalid. Nor should you take it as a 'you don't belong here'. You should take it to mean, the anatomy is inaccurate. any more meaning you pull out of it, is your doing, and isn't a tagger's responsibility. Everyone gets what they want, when this tag is used. a little bit more effort to start using it, is all it takes, and all the complaints, all the whining, all of it stops. The avali fans that want to see accurate avali, get to blacklist one tag, and see what they want. everyone else, get's the silence and capability to have their posts in peace. Any comments about innacurate avali, about what the wiki says, any of it, can swiftly be replied to with a "blacklist the tag if you don't want to see it" and all is fine.

zenostone said:
I'll continue it here since its pertaining to my character.

Quoting from the lore tab of the wiki;

and in the reproduction section

I've read the lore you reference so biblically. I've had it quoted to many many times in DMs in discord. I'm tired of being segregated out of the "avali" groups because "ew tits". It's porn, this is a porn site. This tag is most definetly been a slap in the face because of history, and I'm more than willing to agree, that some instances, it's 100% usable. Tits and penises are not one. I'm willing to bet that 90% of the people that like Avali, would not like canon reproductive images of cloacal rubbing, as that doesn't get them going. I end my feeling rant there.

Other users here have made excellent points of other tags that are less insulting to be tagged under, and that I'd be more than fine be used alternatively, given that they can still be used to blacklist. On-model, non-mammalian_*, etc. Anatomically_inaccurate just invites more "this avali doesnt belong, do not like them, blacklist and shun". I'd even agree to using non-canon as a tag if it exists.

I'm sorry if this is more emotionally fueled than it should be but I'm tired of this argument.

The fact that you feel this centers entirely around yourself is telling of a deeper problem with your self esteem and a possible ego issue. This isn't to do with you personally, it's about tagging something in a way that makes things better for all parties.

Why you feel like a tag such as anatomically_inaccurate is offensive to you personally is beyond me, you aren't even the artist drawing the stuff, you commissioned it. I can understand where an artist might be coming from, especially if they put a lot of effort and didn't know much about what they were drawing to begin with, but you? No I can't understand why you find it so offensive.

Personally? I don't like what you commission, I find it incredibly distasteful and downright garish, thankfully I can just blacklist your character's name and not deal with it.

Avali are not mammals, but instead more similar to prehistoric Earth dromaeosauridae.

Exactly, they do not have mammal-like reproduction, we know dinosaurs reproduced via eggs like modern reptiles do, hence breasts on an avali is anatomically inaccurate.

I recently looked up some stuff I was interested in, but it was bogged down by a lot of anthropomorphic characters. Blacklisting the anthro tag wasn't enough because the characters weren't human enough to be tagged as such. I had to instead include a list of five or six other tags and re-search each time I found a new tag, this took time and I can't imagine doing this on a mobile device like I'm sure many people use to browse this site when they're not at a PC if they have a PC at all.

This tag debate isn't to offend, it is to argue that the tag is a valid tag and useful for many people who might only be interested in one thing.
I don't care if we have a anatomically_inaccurate as well as a anatomically_accurate or just one, as long as one exists and serves its purpose in enabling people to find what they are looking for, then the problem is dealt with. Unfortunately the anatomically_accurate tag is rarely if ever used anyway and might be even worse when it comes to tagging things that fit the criteria.

"This has nothing to do with me"
Yeah tell that to Halycon that pointed me out by name then.

My point of that was that I speak from experience that the instant people get validation that any avali without breasts is inaccurate, no matter how plausible it is in lore, is the instant words start flying and people get hurt. I'm not the only one on the recieving end of this so this has absolutly nothing to do with ego.
(Speaking of which is pretty low to try and keep a civil debate and immediatly jab at my character)

Secondly as for tagging and blacklisting purposes go, we are going to sound like a broken record but just blacklist "avali non-mammalian_breasts". It covers all you need without needing tags that will have secondary implications to other users that don't often tag things on here.

zenostone said:
"This has nothing to do with me"
Yeah tell that to Halycon that pointed me out by name then.

My point of that was that I speak from experience that the instant people get validation that any avali without breasts is inaccurate, no matter how plausible it is in lore, is the instant words start flying and people get hurt. I'm not the only one on the recieving end of this so this has absolutly nothing to do with ego.
(Speaking of which is pretty low to try and keep a civil debate and immediatly jab at my character)

Secondly as for tagging and blacklisting purposes go, we are going to sound like a broken record but just blacklist "avali non-mammalian_breasts". It covers all you need without needing tags that will have secondary implications to other users that don't often tag things on here.

It only covers breasts. once again, this has nothing to do with you, or breasts. you're the one focused on that. inaccurate anatomy, is more than just tits. Also, i didn't point you out by name, you're the one that called me out, with a message insinuating that i was targeting your commissioned pictures with my tagging, and caused me to come explain myself in the first place. Your whole part in this is extremely self-centered, and proactively offended, not to mention, completely dismissive of the actual conversation going on here. I've repeatedly stated, acrossed multiple posts on this forum now, that my tagging did not just extend to you, did not just extend to tits, and that, one tag, to cover one single part of individual posts, is not enough to solve the problem. Once you can level with the conversation, and hear me out, then we can talk.

I don't see why this conversation needs to continue. I think it's become clear that:

• An anatomically_inaccurate tag would not be very useful, as you can combine "non-thing_thing" tags for the same effect. Yes it's not just breasts and there are other cases of "anatomy that is not accurately portrayed". If there are other instances of inaccurate anatomy, we can add other "non-thing_thing" tags to cover specific cases of inaccurate anatomy, and users can blacklist any of them they wish.

• An anatomically_inaccurate tag would be difficult to enforce consistently across posts, due to the amount of relevant posts that would need tagging, and the confusion that can be caused with human parts on anthros not being tagged etc.

• An anatomically_inaccurate tag would likely offend many users.

Conclusion: alias anatomically_inaccurate -> invalid_tag

How does one ping the mods on e621?

aaronfranke said:
I don't see why this conversation needs to continue. I think it's become clear that:

• An anatomically_inaccurate tag would not be very useful, as you can combine "non-thing_thing" tags for the same effect. Yes it's not just breasts and there are other cases of "anatomy that is not accurately portrayed". If there are other instances of inaccurate anatomy, we can add other "non-thing_thing" tags to cover specific cases of inaccurate anatomy, and users can blacklist any of them they wish.

• An anatomically_inaccurate tag would be difficult to enforce consistently across posts, due to the amount of relevant posts that would need tagging, and the confusion that can be caused with human parts on anthros not being tagged etc.

• An anatomically_inaccurate tag would likely offend many users.

Conclusion: alias anatomically_inaccurate -> invalid_tag

How does one ping the mods on e621?

You should read above. The request to get it aliased to invalid_tag was already denied. https://e621.net/forum_topics/28036

what's "clear" isn't clear at all. you can't just declare victory for your side of an argument, especially when the mods have denied the request to invalidate the tag, long before most of this conversation even started.

aaronfranke said:
I don't see why this conversation needs to continue. I think it's become clear that:

No, it hasn't been made clear. At most the discussion has tried to enforce that on_model is the correct tag for the case of the anatomy of a character being inaccurate, when on_model is purely about style and not about anatomy. To quickly cap that discussion off, you can draw Sonic with bat wings and as long as he is drawn in the same style that the sonic artists use to draw all characters in the Sonic franchise, it is on_model but he isn't anatomically accurate.

aaronfranke said:

• An anatomically_inaccurate tag would not be very useful, as you can combine "non-thing_thing" tags for the same effect. Yes it's not just breasts and there are other cases of "anatomy that is not accurately portrayed". If there are other instances of inaccurate anatomy, we can add other "non-thing_thing" tags to cover specific cases of inaccurate anatomy, and users can blacklist any of them they wish.

If I don't want to see creatures with thick scaly hide, I can easily do -reptile and it will filter out most if not all reptilian-esque characters. If I want to see a creature that does not contain anatomy features from different species, I'd have to manually blacklist every possible body part there is. anatomically_inaccurate does have a use in this case, a very good one even if it might not be used by everyone who visits this image archive. This goes both ways, maybe you don't want to see most different anatomy pieces, but you do want say... breasts on a species that shouldn't have them, you can filter out just the things you don't want and ignore the things you don't mind, this is why individual tags should exist and how they should be used.

aaronfranke said:

• An anatomically_inaccurate tag would be difficult to enforce consistently across posts, due to the amount of relevant posts that would need tagging, and the confusion that can be caused with human parts on anthros not being tagged etc.

I won't disagree here, it would be nigh impossible to 'enforce' in any case. So instead of enforcing it, simply have the tag be used in scenarios where it is valid. You don't need every single picture to be tagged perfectly, that's impossible and things will always fall through the cracks, this is why the community can tag images for the uploaders/artists.

aaronfranke said:

• An anatomically_inaccurate tag would likely offend many users.

I'm sorry there are people who are special snowflakes in this world, but I won't bend over backwards for them or else the world would end up even shittier than it already is. Besides, anatomically_inaccurate reads as far less offensive than anatomically_incorrect would, though to me neither are offensive, they are just facts. It's not like the tag is inferring that the character or picture is ugly, it is just factually stating that the character does not have the true anatomy of the creature it is meant to be.
For those who find it offensive, they need to grow a spine and stop being upset at the smallest of things, the world is a harsh and cruel place and an image archive is not the place to find solitude and safety from the cruelty outside your home.

aaronfranke said:
Conclusion: alias anatomically_inaccurate -> invalid_tag

How does one ping the mods on e621?

Thanks for being pretentious and deciding for the entirety of e621 users that something is invalid when the argument hasn't been made in a conducsive way. No one here has provided a decent counter-argument to the points that Halycon or I have made in defense of the tag. You've all either been offended by it somehow or flat out refused to engage with us directly and deflected us instead.

ncoolbreeze said:
I won't disagree here, it would be nigh impossible to 'enforce' in any case. So instead of enforcing it, simply have the tag be used in scenarios where it is valid.

Using the tag in scenarios where it's valid is enforcing it. The whole point of the discussion is figuring out what, if anything, it should be valid on without making it so broad as to be useless. With the way certain people are currently using it now, it's being applied broadly because of subjective desires (what genitals they think a fictional species should have, whether it's too stylized or anthropomorphized) and blacklist desires (breasts on certain fictional anthro species), making it useless. The anatomically_correct tags exclude fictional species for a reason, and the anatomically_inaccurate wiki description also explicitly excludes fictional species, but tries to add an exception for when people think it should apply to certain fictional species.

ncoolbreeze said:
Thanks for being pretentious and deciding for the entirety of e621 users that something is invalid when the argument hasn't been made in a conducsive way. No one here has provided a decent counter-argument to the points that Halycon or I have made in defense of the tag.

Who's being pretentious? He laid out some of the points against the tag that have made in this thread, provided his conclusion, and wanted to get the attention of a moderator. And at this point, it would be nice to get a moderator into this discussion since the tag, as it currently is, is broken; applied overbroad (ferals with human expressions and cartoon dogs apparently count), inconsistently (plenty of similar images not getting tagged), and without a clear wiki definition (it's contradictory and gives too much personal interpretation, contrary to the site's TWYS policy). While you're trying to claim the valid counter-arguments that have been made aren't good because you don't agree with them.

watsit said:
Using the tag in scenarios where it's valid is enforcing it. The whole point of the discussion is figuring out what, if anything, it should be valid on without making it so broad as to be useless. With the way certain people are currently using it now, it's being applied broadly because of subjective desires (what genitals they think a fictional species should have, whether it's too stylized or anthropomorphized) and blacklist desires (breasts on certain fictional anthro species), making it useless. The anatomically_correct tags exclude fictional species for a reason, and the anatomically_inaccurate wiki description also explicitly excludes fictional species, but tries to add an exception for when people think it should apply to certain fictional species.

Who's being pretentious? He laid out some of the points against the tag that have made in this thread, provided his conclusion, and wanted to get the attention of a moderator. And at this point, it would be nice to get a moderator into this discussion since the tag, as it currently is, is broken; applied overbroad (ferals with human expressions and cartoon dogs apparently count), inconsistently (plenty of similar images not getting tagged), and without a clear wiki definition (it's contradictory and gives too much personal interpretation, contrary to the site's TWYS policy). While you're trying to claim the valid counter-arguments that have been made aren't good because you don't agree with them.

OP is the one being pretentious. This is an argument, one which they started, and did not wish to participate in. they simply declared themself victorious, despite mods having already indicated otherwise, by rejecting the proposal. Also, can't help but feel those comments about 'blacklisting desires' and the claim that the tag is being "applied broadly because of subjective desires (what genitals they think a fictional species should have, whether it's too stylized or anthropomorphized)" is dismissive of the avali argument. The avali, even as a fictional species, have an official description and anatomy. it's not just 'what genitals we think they should have' 'whether it's too stylized or anthro' or anything like that. it's whether or not, it is accurately an avali.

halycon_fluff said:
OP is the one being pretentious. This is an argument, one which they started, and did not wish to participate in.

Their initial post merely said anatomically_inaccurate should be aliased to invalid_tag because anatomically_incorrect is, or alternatively make them both valid but one be an alias for the other, i.e. they should be treated the same whether they're considered valid or invalid. Other people then started debating whether it should be a valid tag or not. A few days later, he gave his own two cents for why it doesn't look like a good idea to keep, then gave a small summary of his thoughts and his conclusion, asking for a moderator as it seemed the discussion had run its course.

halycon_fluff said:
Also, can't help but feel those comments about 'blacklisting desires' and the claim that the tag is being "applied broadly because of subjective desires (what genitals they think a fictional species should have, whether it's too stylized or anthropomorphized)" is dismissive of the avali argument.

Funny enough, what you quoted of me was about non-avali uses; the sylveon example in the wiki, judging pokemon genitals depending if they're designed too closely to a non-fictional animal, and the feral horse with human facial expression, that I brought up in the other thread (also, these two that I have no idea how they fit the tag description). The avali argument was referenced by 'blacklisting desires' because you have been clear that you want to be able to blacklist avali with breasts using that tag, and want that tag to cover that while not having to be over-broad (which I don't think is possible with any reasonable definition; as I mentioned in the other thread, the current definition is broken/contradictory, and allows too much subjectivity for what it can apply to).

watsit said:
Their initial post merely said anatomically_inaccurate should be aliased to invalid_tag because anatomically_incorrect is, or alternatively make them both valid but one be an alias for the other, i.e. they should be treated the same whether they're considered valid or invalid. Other people then started debating whether it should be a valid tag or not. A few days later, he gave his own two cents for why it doesn't look like a good idea to keep, then gave a small summary of his thoughts and his conclusion, asking for a moderator as it seemed the discussion had run its course.

Funny enough, what you quoted of me was about non-avali uses; the sylveon example in the wiki, judging pokemon genitals depending if they're designed too closely to a non-fictional animal, and the feral horse with human facial expression, that I brought up in the other thread (also, these two that I have no idea how they fit the tag description). The avali argument was referenced by 'blacklisting desires' because you have been clear that you want to be able to blacklist avali with breasts using that tag, and want that tag to cover that while not having to be over-broad (which I don't think is possible with any reasonable definition; as I mentioned in the other thread, the current definition is broken/contradictory, and allows too much subjectivity for what it can apply to).

I really am done with the argument over anatomically_inaccurate. What i see in its capabilities, i am either, unable to communicate, or is incompatible with how you see it. the amount of effort and upset by this tag existing is more than i care to fight against. I will still reply to attempts to find alternatives, but i won't be replying to arguments regarding anatomically_inaccurate unless i feel an overwhelming compulsion to. If a proper alternative is found, or created, i will put in the effort to apply it to the correct posts, and if appropriate, remove the anatomically_inaccurate tag from the previously tagged posts.

watsit said:
Using the tag in scenarios where it's valid is enforcing it. The whole point of the discussion is figuring out what, if anything, it should be valid on without making it so broad as to be useless. With the way certain people are currently using it now, it's being applied broadly because of subjective desires (what genitals they think a fictional species should have, whether it's too stylized or anthropomorphized) and blacklist desires (breasts on certain fictional anthro species), making it useless. The anatomically_correct tags exclude fictional species for a reason, and the anatomically_inaccurate wiki description also explicitly excludes fictional species, but tries to add an exception for when people think it should apply to certain fictional species.

Who's being pretentious? He laid out some of the points against the tag that have made in this thread, provided his conclusion, and wanted to get the attention of a moderator. And at this point, it would be nice to get a moderator into this discussion since the tag, as it currently is, is broken; applied overbroad (ferals with human expressions and cartoon dogs apparently count), inconsistently (plenty of similar images not getting tagged), and without a clear wiki definition (it's contradictory and gives too much personal interpretation, contrary to the site's TWYS policy). While you're trying to claim the valid counter-arguments that have been made aren't good because you don't agree with them.

Would you prefer anatomically_correct images be tagged as such instead of using anatomically_inaccurate? By the earlier comments of other people, supposedly any use of the anatomically correct/incorrect tags is offensive to people, maybe we shouldn't use either?

That's the problem with these arguments. Not once have you stated that we should instead tag anatomically_correct things as such and instead you yourself have provided the argument that on_model should be used when it is, in fact, not relevant to the current discussion in any way.

His pretentiousness is coming from his matter-of-fact decision to say "case closed, time to get a mod to resolve this." as if he has won an argument without doing a single thing. The request was already denied by staff, realistically the case is already closed and the tags remain as they are.

I don't agree with the counter arguments because they are not valid, they disregard facts. Examples have been given of fictional characters with defined reproductive traits where the tags anatomically_accurate and anatomically_inaccurate would apply. You've simply argued that there are too many cases where the art in question is questionably too human or too-other, and disregarded the fact that there are cases where it is useful to use these tags.
I brought up pokemon and now that I've read the tag descriptions I can agree that the tags do not apply to pokemon because we can't determine what genitalia they have, but the tags regarding anatomy do not apply only to ones dick, pussy or tits. A flygon with four arms is anatomically_inaccurate even if it has a present set of genitals that you may or may not agree with being valid. Not all images on this archive are NSFW and as such you forget that the SFW content needs proper tagging too. Just tagging an image as feral does not specify if the character is anatomically_accurate either.

ncoolbreeze said:
Would you prefer anatomically_correct images be tagged as such instead of using anatomically_inaccurate?

anatomically_correct is being tagged on images of non-fictional feral species with anatomically correct genitalia, as the tag's wiki currently describes. I've been somewhat warm/not-cold to the idea of anatomically_inaccurate (or anatomically_incorrect) being tagged on images of non-fictional feral species with anatomically inaccurate/incorrect genitalia just the same (which is not what its wiki currently describes). The problem that I see is that people either want it to be broadly applied (taur, anthro, feral, fictional species, non-fictional species, whatever, as long as there's something inaccurate about the character's anatomy to some species it seems to be modeled on), which would be both too broad to be useful as well as offensive since it would be pointing a finger at art with less than perfect anatomy despite the artist trying, or specially tailored so some people can apply it to what they want to blacklist without enough consideration for the broader consequences, which creates a problem with consistently applying it with any level of objectivity. I still would like an explanation for why these posts are tagged with it or how that helps make it useful:
post #2523746 post #2519633 post #2513473 post #2501361 post #2494617

ncoolbreeze said:
That's the problem with these arguments. Not once have you stated that we should instead tag anatomically_correct things as such and instead you yourself have provided the argument that on_model should be used when it is, in fact, not relevant to the current discussion in any way.

It is relevant. Perhaps not a 1:1 replacement or a perfect solution, but the point was that there are other tags to help find/blacklist posts displaying varying levels of inaccuracy and purposeful changes from source material or real-life. on_model, realistic, non-mammal_*, hybrid, anthrofied, etc, are all currently there and available to use, depending on your desired level of specificity. Is it perfect? No, but neither would anatomically_inaccurate be, especially if it was tagged on as many posts as its description and current uses dictate. As it is, I'm getting the impression that taurs, non-mammal_*, anthrofied, and several other tags should imply anatomically_inaccurate, and it should additionally be tagged on posts that feature heavily stylized characters or off-putting anatomy problems (even subtle ones ). What wouldn't be tagged with it?

ncoolbreeze said:
His pretentiousness is coming from his matter-of-fact decision to say "case closed, time to get a mod to resolve this." as if he has won an argument without doing a single thing. The request was already denied by staff, realistically the case is already closed and the tags remain as they are.

Except they can't remain as they are. It will be a problem if it's left to be more widely tagged according to its current wiki description. The request was denied, but without explanation or guidance despite the clear rift between multiple potential ways to define it, or what to do about its current definition. And at the same time, the handling of anatomically_inaccurate and anatomically_incorrect are still inconsistent... one is invalid, one isn't, despite meaning the same thing. This will need to be dealt with at some point if the problem is left to fester.

ncoolbreeze said:
I don't agree with the counter arguments because they are not valid, they disregard facts. Examples have been given of fictional characters with defined reproductive traits where the tags anatomically_accurate and anatomically_inaccurate would apply. You've simply argued that there are too many cases where the art in question is questionably too human or too-other, and disregarded the fact that there are cases where it is useful to use these tags.

The fact that the tags can be used on what you want is not an argument. I can find posts to tag dragoncat with, or tag with blue, but that doesn't mean those are good tags to have. The argument is one of causality, that because of the art you want to tag it on and think it should be applied to, it creates a situation where it's too broad and/or too subjective, which causes a usability problem that makes it not useful. There hasn't been a counter-argument to this other than a hand-wavy 'it doesn't have to be so broad' without any explanation for how it can avoid the problems.

In contrast, I and a couple others have offered alternative definitions that would be less of a problem and more narrow, but that doesn't seem to be good enough because it doesn't cover a specific case you two want it to.

ncoolbreeze said:
I brought up pokemon and now that I've read the tag descriptions I can agree that the tags do not apply to pokemon because we can't determine what genitalia they have, but the tags regarding anatomy do not apply only to ones dick, pussy or tits. A flygon with four arms is anatomically_inaccurate even if it has a present set of genitals that you may or may not agree with being valid.

How would you deal with a machamp/flygon hybrid? Or an eevee/giratina hybrid? Where does something stop being anatomically_inaccurate, and start being a hybrid or anthrofied or what-have-you? Or if hybrid and anthrofied and other such tags imply a level of being anatomically_inaccurate, that goes back to the over-broad usability problems.

watsit said:
it creates a situation where it's too broad and/or too subjective, which causes a usability problem that makes it not useful. There hasn't been a counter-argument to this other than a hand-wavy 'it doesn't have to be so broad' without any explanation for how it can avoid the problems.

In contrast, I and a couple others have offered alternative definitions that would be less of a problem and more narrow, but that doesn't seem to be good enough because it doesn't cover a specific case you two want it to.

You've given us "On_model" which addresses style, that would not be satisfactory for the purpose. As for alternative deffinitions for the tag, i've seen none, even though i've offered that a different description on the wiki may be better. the "hand wavy" response you're talking about, is literally me trying to say "we can level here, and make it a better tag, it doesn't have to be broad." The way you've responded to that has only been to say "it is broad, here's some hypothetical situations and examples of the tag being used under it's current deffinition."

You're blind. Saying you're wanting something, when i've repeatedly tried to build that exact same bridge. Alternatives and a revised or newly created tag are on the table. No one has denied that capability, and it's precisely what we would want. the less drama and stressful ring-around we have to do, the better. But you all keep getting caught up and taking steps back when we try to offer a possibility. Once again it kinda just feels like you all are trying to make me sound dense and unreasonable. This is why i don't want to argue anymore. My attempts to level with you and come to an agreement are seen as 'hand wavy' and then the following day you go claiming

"In contrast, I and a couple others have offered alternative definitions that would be less of a problem and more narrow, but that doesn't seem to be good enough because it doesn't cover a specific case you two want it to."

Vacuous. The closest thing has been the suggestion for "On_model" and that does not apply, it barely even can apply to avali, the wiki description has nothing that would imply it could. Me saying that, does not shut down every alternative. it means that "On_model" is not an acceptable alternative. and it certainly doesn't erase all of my other, intentionally specific attempts at breaking even, in search of a more narrow tag that fits the bill.

halycon_fluff said:
You've given us "On_model" which addresses style, that would not be satisfactory for the purpose.

And anthrofied and non-mammal_* and hybrid...

halycon_fluff said:
As for alternative deffinitions for the tag, i've seen none, even though i've offered that a different description on the wiki may be better. the "hand wavy" response you're talking about, is literally me trying to say "we can level here, and make it a better tag, it doesn't have to be broad." The way you've responded to that has only been to say "it is broad, here's some hypothetical situations and examples of the tag being used under it's current deffinition."

"At best it could be related to mismatched anatomy (e.g. a canine with a horse dick)"

"with anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate being reserved for similarly real-life feral animals with genitalia not matching the genitals they have in real life"

"As it is, anatomically_correct applies solely to genitalia (penis, balls, pussy, slit, sheath, cloaca; breasts are distinctly absent) and anuses, so bringing that pattern to anatomically_incorrect would mean only depictions of those genitals would count toward the tag."

"Either way, common sense tells me that an anatomically_inaccurate tag isn't very useful, except maybe as the reverse of anatomically_correct (an animal from real-life having genitalia or an anus that doesn't match their real-life species; fictional species explicitly excluded the same way)."

"I'm saying that if not invalidated, it would be best to mean a character of a specific species with genitalia of a different species"

"I've been somewhat warm/not-cold to the idea of anatomically_inaccurate (or anatomically_incorrect) being tagged on images of non-fictional feral species with anatomically inaccurate/incorrect genitalia"

Other people have offered similar takes on the idea.

halycon_fluff said:
Saying you're wanting something, when i've repeatedly tried to build that exact same bridge. Alternatives and a revised or newly created tag are on the table. No one has denied that capability, and it's precisely what we would want.

You're free to suggest alternative definitions that deal with the aforementioned problems. If you did and I overlooked them or didn't recognize them for what they were, I apologize. Can you clarify your ideas?

watsit said:
And anthrofied and non-mammal_* and hybrid...

"At best it could be related to mismatched anatomy (e.g. a canine with a horse dick)"

"with anatomically_incorrect/inaccurate being reserved for similarly real-life feral animals with genitalia not matching the genitals they have in real life"

"As it is, anatomically_correct applies solely to genitalia (penis, balls, pussy, slit, sheath, cloaca; breasts are distinctly absent) and anuses, so bringing that pattern to anatomically_incorrect would mean only depictions of those genitals would count toward the tag."

"Either way, common sense tells me that an anatomically_inaccurate tag isn't very useful, except maybe as the reverse of anatomically_correct (an animal from real-life having genitalia or an anus that doesn't match their real-life species; fictional species explicitly excluded the same way)."

"I'm saying that if not invalidated, it would be best to mean a character of a specific species with genitalia of a different species"

"I've been somewhat warm/not-cold to the idea of anatomically_inaccurate (or anatomically_incorrect) being tagged on images of non-fictional feral species with anatomically inaccurate/incorrect genitalia"

Other people have offered similar takes on the idea.

You're free to suggest alternative definitions that deal with the aforementioned problems. If you did and I overlooked them or didn't recognize them for what they were, I apologize. Can you clarify your ideas?

I never got around to suggesting any, because i never got past saying "it doesn't have to be so broad."

even all those quotes of yourself you gave, only refer to the current deffinition of the tag and how it is faulty, not how to fix it.

What i would want out of a tag, ideally, for this purpose (talking of avali, as that is my concern) is a tag that can seperate posts that depict avali as they were created and described by Ryuujin, and ones that do not. My original thinking in using the anatomically_inaccurate tag is that anatomically accurate avali, would be avali as described and created by Ryuu. But that's obviously not satisfactory either, and neither is anatomically_accurate. I'm not so certain making a tag tailored to specifically avali like that would be accepted on E6 either way, correct me if i'm wrong. So the only option is to create a tag, or find a tag that already exists, that can separate the two, so that either one can be searched for individually. i'm not aware of a tag that does this yet, or i'd be using it. But i am open to suggestions.

Edit: by separate, i do not mean, legitamately separate. I mean, to denote that one is as Ryuu described, or visa versa. Perhaps a tag like "Customized_species" or "Altered_species" could work. These tags don't actually exist, but if created, could function.

halycon_fluff said:
even all those quotes of yourself you gave, only refer to the current deffinition of the tag and how it is faulty, not how to fix it.

I meant to imply those are how it could be defined. Essentially rewriting the wiki to be like this:

This tag is used when a character or species depicted with anatomy and/or genitals that they would not have in real life.

Mythological and generally fantastical creatures are generally exempt from this due to only existing in fiction, therefore they can be more flexible in anatomy and design. And there are exceptions even then, with one example being a Pokémon based off of a non-fictional animal sports inaccurate anatomy.

Anthropomorphic creatures can also be exempt from this due to their human-animal hybrid bodies, along with beast men. Though of course, they have their own exceptions like a charr character sporting a canine penis.

Avoid the subjective "Pokémon based off of a non-fictional animal" (the vast majority of pokemon are based off of one or more non-fictional animal, it's just a question of degree that's open to personal interpretation and style), focus on non-fictional species, excluding anthros and hybrids (including taurs) since there isn't typically a defined set of genitals they should have and artistic liberty provides leeway since it's not a real thing to begin with. Essentially if it could be tagged as anatomically_correct[_genitalia] with matching anatomy (the only difference is the non-genitalia tag can include the anus), it could also be tagged anatomically_inaccurate with mismatching anatomy.

halycon_fluff said:
What i would want out of a tag, ideally, for this purpose (talking of avali, as that is my concern) is a tag that can seperate posts that depict avali as they were created and described by Ryuujin, and ones that do not. My original thinking in using the anatomically_inaccurate tag is that anatomically accurate avali, would be avali as described and created by Ryuu. But that's obviously not satisfactory either, and neither is anatomically_accurate.

Conceptually, that's not a bad idea. If there is an authoritative source for what a species' genitalia is like, and the image clearly has genitals of a different type (not just stylized or drawn with low skill, but clearly of a different animal type), I don't see that getting terribly out of hand. That said, that kind of thing is considered external information for e6 and isn't allowed for tagging*. For instance you can't tag a pikachu with a heart-shaped tail as female because of lore, you need to see a pussy or breasts or some other feminine features. So I don't think the site rules would allow tagging an avali with breasts as anatomically_inaccurate because of lore; you could tag non-mammal_breasts since you can see an avian with breasts, but the implication of that from lore isn't considered since it's more flexible. That's the reason anatomically_correct only applies to ferals of real-world species. A real-life canine species with a canine penis or pussy is recognized as being anatomically_correct, whereas a busty_feral isn't recognized as anatomically_inaccurate because it could just as well be partially anthropomorphized, a hybrid, or someone's personal species or offshoot-species that's defined that way.

• Some tags do allow external information, but that's typically limited to character names and lore tags, not general tags like the other anatomy tags.

watsit said:
I meant to imply those are how it could be defined. Essentially rewriting the wiki to be like this:
Avoid the subjective "Pokémon based off of a non-fictional animal" (the vast majority of pokemon are based off of one or more non-fictional animal, it's just a question of degree that's open to personal interpretation and style), focus on non-fictional species, excluding anthros and hybrids (including taurs) since there isn't typically a defined set of genitals they should have and artistic liberty provides leeway since it's not a real thing to begin with. Essentially if it could be tagged as anatomically_correct[_genitalia] with matching anatomy (the only difference is the non-genitalia tag can include the anus), it could also be tagged anatomically_inaccurate with mismatching anatomy.

Conceptually, that's not a bad idea. If there is an authoritative source for what a species' genitalia is like, and the image clearly has genitals of a different type (not just stylized or drawn with low skill, but clearly of a different animal type), I don't see that getting terribly out of hand. That said, that kind of thing is considered external information for e6 and isn't allowed for tagging*. For instance you can't tag a pikachu with a heart-shaped tail as female because of lore, you need to see a pussy or breasts or some other feminine features. So I don't think the site rules would allow tagging an avali with breasts as anatomically_inaccurate because of lore; you could tag non-mammal_breasts since you can see an avian with breasts, but the implication of that from lore isn't considered since it's more flexible. That's the reason anatomically_correct only applies to ferals of real-world species. A real-life canine species with a canine penis or pussy is recognized as being anatomically_correct, whereas a busty_feral isn't recognized as anatomically_inaccurate because it could just as well be partially anthropomorphized, a hybrid, or someone's personal species or offshoot-species that's defined that way.

• Some tags do allow external information, but that's typically limited to character names and lore tags, not general tags like the other anatomy tags.

And what of tags like Altered_species or Customized_species? Tags that specify that the individual present in a post, is an alternative, or originalized version of fictional species, like avali, sergal, yinglet, etc.? That would cover more than genitalia and be somewhere within the bounds of what i'd want, as well, it would not be so broad as to apply to everything and become useless. Or, alternatively, we could find a wording for the inverse as to not somehow offend others with the tag. Though i don't know what i'd call a tag like that.

ncoolbreeze said:
His pretentiousness is coming from his matter-of-fact decision to say "case closed, time to get a mod to resolve this." as if he has won an argument without doing a single thing. The request was already denied by staff, realistically the case is already closed and the tags remain as they are.

In the last 20 posts, the discussion has gone basically nowhere and it has resulted in y'all bickering about exactly what specific words the other person said and repeating your points over and over (and yes, unfortunately, this post is an extension of that).

The posts here are far too long to effectively convey thoughts to the other person. It is not feasible for me to sum up the discussion from the past day because there is vastly too much of it, let alone the whole thread. It's impossible to figure out which arguments are still valid and which are not because everyone disagrees of which things are valid arguments and which things are valid counter-arguments.

As for me being "pretentious" because of "case closed", how about when Halycon said "The request to get it aliased to invalid_tag was already denied" implying that the case is closed by the mods? For "realistically the case is already closed and the tags remain as they are", no, this is absolutely not not good as-is. As I stated in OP, "Otherwise one of anatomically_incorrect and anatomically_inaccurate should be an alias for each other". This currently isn't the case. If one tag exists, the other should be an alias, because "incorrect" and "inaccurate" are very similar in meaning in this context.

halycon_fluff said:
even all those quotes of yourself you gave, only refer to the current deffinition of the tag and how it is faulty, not how to fix it.

ncoolbreeze said:
That's the problem with these arguments. Not once have you stated that we should instead

Y'all seem to acknowledge that this tag has some problems, but you expect US to come up with a solution. Watsit and I have explained many problems with this tag in concise arguments. The burden of a solution is ultimately on y'all because y'all are the ones that want to create a new tag that goes against the existing policies on the site and which has self-contradictory and vastly over-broad definitions. Edit the wiki and propose something that would work, or propose alternative tags. This is not something we have to do, this is something that you have to do.

aaronfranke said:
anatomically_incorrect is an alias for invalid_tag, so I guess anatomically_inaccurate should be the same.

Otherwise one of anatomically_incorrect and anatomically_inaccurate should be an alias for each other.

As someone who lurked on this topic for a few days, I agree completely with @aaronfranke's very first comment. It really should not be more complicated than that. If the alias was rejected, it was probably a mistake. Just request it again and let's all vote on it. In the end, the issue is solved democratically and nobody has to get stressed over such a simple thing.

aaronfranke said:
In the last 20 posts, the discussion has gone basically nowhere and it has resulted in y'all bickering about exactly what specific words the other person said and repeating your points over and over (and yes, unfortunately, this post is an extension of that).

The posts here are far too long to effectively convey thoughts to the other person. It is not feasible for me to sum up the discussion from the past day because there is vastly too much of it, let alone the whole thread. It's impossible to figure out which arguments are still valid and which are not because everyone disagrees of which things are valid arguments and which things are valid counter-arguments.

As for me being "pretentious" because of "case closed", how about when Halycon said "The request to get it aliased to invalid_tag was already denied" implying that the case is closed by the mods? For "realistically the case is already closed and the tags remain as they are", no, this is absolutely not not good as-is. As I stated in OP, "Otherwise one of anatomically_incorrect and anatomically_inaccurate should be an alias for each other". This currently isn't the case. If one tag exists, the other should be an alias, because "incorrect" and "inaccurate" are very similar in meaning in this context.

Y'all seem to acknowledge that this tag has some problems, but you expect US to come up with a solution. Watsit and I have explained many problems with this tag in concise arguments. The burden of a solution is ultimately on y'all because y'all are the ones that want to create a new tag that goes against the existing policies on the site and which has self-contradictory and vastly over-broad definitions. Edit the wiki and propose something that would work, or propose alternative tags. This is not something we have to do, this is something that you have to do.

Anatomically_inaccurate and Anatomically_incorrect are not aliased for a reason. Incorrect does not imply only fact, whereas accurate does.

Atop that, yes, of course we acknowledge that the tag is not perfect, but my introduction to this post was literally defending my reasoning for using it, and furthermore, i'd repeatedly offered that we narrow the definition, or use alternative tags.

The burden of a solution is ultimately on y'all because y'all are the ones that want to create a new tag that goes against the existing policies on the site and which has self-contradictory and vastly over-broad definitions.

What exactly keeps giving you this idea? We didn't create the tag Anatomically_inaccurate. We want to create a new tag, that ISN'T overly broad, NOR self-contradictory. And we never asked you all to do anything, i'm simply tired of defending my reasons against people who are just repeating themselves about what they think is wrong with the tag.

Edit: The post right above your reply is the start to a conversation. If you'd give your opinion on that, rather than further attempting to demonize me, we might actually get somewhere where we can all be happy with it.

halycon_fluff said:
Anatomically_inaccurate and Anatomically_incorrect are not aliased for a reason. Incorrect does not imply only fact, whereas accurate does.

So incorrect implies more than fact? ...what does it imply then?

halycon_fluff said:
What exactly keeps giving you this idea? We didn't create the tag Anatomically_inaccurate.

You are the first person to broadly use this tag, and the Wiki page didn't exist when this thread was started 16 days ago. https://e621.net/wiki_page_versions?search%5Bwiki_page_id%5D=33116

You may not have been the first person to add this tag to a post, but that's not what I mean.

halycon_fluff said:
Edit: The post right above your reply is the start to a conversation.

And what of tags like Altered_species or Customized_species? Tags that specify that the individual present in a post, is an alternative, or originalized version of fictional species, like avali, sergal, yinglet, etc.? That would cover more than genitalia and be somewhere within the bounds of what i'd want, as well, it would not be so broad as to apply to everything and become useless. Or, alternatively, we could find a wording for the inverse as to not somehow offend others with the tag. Though i don't know what i'd call a tag like that.

These are all better options. I think it would indeed be better to do the inverse. How about "lore_accurate_species" and categorize this tag as "lore"?

aaronfranke said:
So incorrect implies more than fact? ...what does it imply then?

You are the first person to broadly use this tag, and the Wiki page didn't exist when this thread was started 16 days ago. https://e621.net/wiki_page_versions?search%5Bwiki_page_id%5D=33116

You may not have been the first person to add this tag to a post, but that's not what I mean.

These are all better options. I think it would indeed be better to do the inverse. How about "lore_accurate_species" and categorize this tag as "lore"?

https://e621.net/forum_topics/23515?page=3#forum_post_302124 a proposal has been made. we'll see how the mods respond to it.

I updated the wiki to exclude fictional species whose genitalia are not known, and not apply for stylized/lesser-quality pieces. I'm passing no judgement on fictional species with officially defined genitalia and features. Feel free to toss in your 2 cents, or help clarify it. I can start cleaning up posts of pokemon and generic anthros that have erroneously been given tag (I won't touch avali), if there's no complaints with the changes.

First of all, now I have cooled my head off, I wanted to say to Halycon that I respect your dedication on keeping the Original Work avali alive, as well as having a group dedicated to it.

halycon_fluff said:
Being outside to all of this, it may look simply like a lot of noise, over nothing. Thing is, in the avali community at least, Ryujiin, who created the avali, has been snuffed out. Their creation has been drowned out by anyone else loud enough to raise their voice, and the actual original 'avali' is barely able to be found, amongst the boom of other things. For the people, i included, who appreciated the original work, it IS useful, to be able to find things that reflect it. However, at every turn, that is made harder. I find no harm in making it easier to find. I am open to other tags that make this task easier, but anatomically_inaccurate is the best suited currently to serve that purpose. You may not see the purpose that it serves, but it is there nonetheless, especially for this specific group. And i don't imagine an 'inaccurate_avali' tag, or something similar, would go over well. anatomically_inaccurate does not need to be an insult. if it's just used to do what it says on the tin it's fine. As for the

... As for fictional species, it's extremely hard to point out which is anatomically accurate or not....

Ryujiin specifically laid out the anatomy of avali, there is a popular wiki for it you can look at, and on E621, as well as the wiki, you can find Ryujiin's original art, of how an avali looks.

Again, I have no interest in any avali stuff. Forgive me, for I must set aside the wiki you provided to me. The issues regarding anatomically_inaccurate is my concern here, and most of all, I will never ever think of anything here as just simple "noises".

The fact that you say this to me makes me feel even more bad to you.

monsterbomb10010 said:
First of all, now I have cooled my head off, I wanted to say to Halycon that I respect your dedication on keeping the Original Work avali alive, as well as having a group dedicated to it.

Again, I have no interest in any avali stuff. Forgive me, for I must set aside the wiki you provided to me. The issues regarding anatomically_inaccurate is my concern here, and most of all, I will never ever think of anything here as just simple "noises".

The fact that you say this to me makes me feel even more bad to you.

I'm not quite sure how to take this? Don't know if this meant as an insult, that you feel bad for me? but regardless, the conversation has moved on from anatomically_inaccurate. It is most likely going to be phased out, and put to good use, outside of the avali question. The conversation has now moved onto creating a separate tag to do the job instead, and a proposal was made on the lore tags crowdsource forum
https://e621.net/forum_topics/23515?page=3#forum_post_302124

I do understand that this forum was about the tag, and its usefulness, and not about avali. My introduction into this conversation started with me attempting to explain why i tagged how i did, and so, the avali and aforementioned considerables, were relevant. I do not wish to imply anything further than that, i would simply like to find a tag, that can serve that purpose. Anatomically_inaccurate will be removed from the avali posts, and replaced with a better tag, as soon as i am aware of one. Hopefully, the better tag, will be one of those proposed in the lore tags forum. As well, the description of the tag, on the wiki, was edited by Watsit to better serve it's original purpose, and hopefully, remove some of the problems with the tag.

Edit: And thank you for the understanding.

Invalidating anatomically_inaccurate should have been covered by the anatomically_incorrect precedent.

I'm going to leave the tag up temporarily, to encourage the tagging projects that it probably needs.

Anatomically_inaccurate is just too broad and will create a workload and tagging attitude that we can neither enforce nor endorse. Something more specific, like avali_(original) in the lore tags, seems like a nicer alternative for everyone. This way we can have niche taggers dedicated to these projects.

It also won't throw around any unfortunate implications about artists' skills or attention to detail, thus minimizing the need for admin interference.

I'd prefer you also include specific descriptors, like breasts and wings or lack thereof, whatever makes the species canon/non-canon. I'm willing to settle for a [species]_(original) precedent.

Just don't become gatekeepers and draw negative attention, please.

knotty_curls said:
Invalidating anatomically_inaccurate should have been covered by the anatomically_incorrect precedent.

I'm going to leave the tag up temporarily, to encourage the tagging projects that it probably needs.

Anatomically_inaccurate is just too broad and will create a workload and tagging attitude that we can neither enforce nor endorse. Something more specific, like avali_(original) in the lore tags, seems like a nicer alternative for everyone. This way we can have niche taggers dedicated to these projects.

It also won't throw around any unfortunate implications about artists' skills or attention to detail, thus minimizing the need for admin interference.

I'd prefer you also include specific descriptors, like breasts and wings or lack thereof, whatever makes the species canon/non-canon. I'm willing to settle for a [species]_(original) precedent.

Just don't become gatekeepers and draw negative attention, please.

Thank you very much. I wasn't sure if that was an option, and didn't want to assume. Now that i know it is, i'll get to doing what i can. As for the gatekeeping, i've taken steps to avoid it in the past, and will continue to do so. I'm not here to step on anyone's toes, i'm just passionate about Ryuu's work, and want to see it thrive. Again, thank you very much.

knotty_curls said:
Invalidating anatomically_inaccurate should have been covered by the anatomically_incorrect precedent.

I'm going to leave the tag up temporarily, to encourage the tagging projects that it probably needs.

Anatomically_inaccurate is just too broad and will create a workload and tagging attitude that we can neither enforce nor endorse. Something more specific, like avali_(original) in the lore tags, seems like a nicer alternative for everyone. This way we can have niche taggers dedicated to these projects.

It also won't throw around any unfortunate implications about artists' skills or attention to detail, thus minimizing the need for admin interference.

I'd prefer you also include specific descriptors, like breasts and wings or lack thereof, whatever makes the species canon/non-canon. I'm willing to settle for a [species]_(original) precedent.

Just don't become gatekeepers and draw negative attention, please.

This will be my first time making a tag wiki. Don't know the standard, but looked at some examples. Is this satisfactory? anything i missed, or should change? https://e621.net/wiki_pages/33346

knotty_curls said:
Anatomically_inaccurate is just too broad and will create a workload and tagging attitude that we can neither enforce nor endorse. Something more specific, like avali_(original) in the lore tags, seems like a nicer alternative for everyone. This way we can have niche taggers dedicated to these projects.

It also won't throw around any unfortunate implications about artists' skills or attention to detail, thus minimizing the need for admin interference.

Wouldn't that be covered by hybrid, non-mammal_breasts, and the other tags already? Seems like it would be begging to be applied to other species like charr_(original), salazzle_(original), etc... where would it end?