The bulk update request #489 has been rejected.

remove implication anatomically_correct_penis (10648) -> anatomically_correct_genitalia (24431)

Reason: Just because the penis is anatomically correct doesn't mean that the genitalia as a whole is anatomically correct.
post #1653703
example: An elephant is depicted with an anatomically correct penis and protruding testicles. Elephants don't actually have external nut sacks. However the testis are part of the genitalia. Therefore although the penis is anatomically accurate, the genitals are not.

EDIT: The bulk update request #489 (forum #301328) has been rejected by @Millcore.

The penis is genitalia, so an anatomically correct penis is anatomically correct genitalia. Some other parts being anatomically inaccurate doesn't stop the accurate parts from being accurate. See also animal_penis -> animal_genitalia, humanoid_pussy -> humanoid_genitalia, and others. The genitalia tags only refer to individual parts (penis, testicles, pussy, cloaca), not all genitals as a whole on a given character.

The bulk update request #489 (forum #301328) has been rejected by @Millcore.

watsit said:
The penis is genitalia, so an anatomically correct penis is anatomically correct genitalia. Some other parts being anatomically inaccurate doesn't stop the accurate parts from being accurate. See also animal_penis -> animal_genitalia, humanoid_pussy -> humanoid_genitalia, and others. The genitalia tags only refer to individual parts (penis, testicles, pussy, cloaca), not all genitals as a whole on a given character.

But not all genitals are penis. Just because one component doesn't have an error, does not mean there isn't an error in the system.

btbailey2 said:
But not all genitals are penis. Just because one component doesn't have an error, does not mean there isn't an error in the system.

And just because there's an error in one component doesn't mean the other component isn't accurate. The *_genitalia tags don't mean all genitalia on a character are the given way, just that at least one of them are. Look through canine_penis, which implies animal_genitalia, but 9 times out of 10 the balls still look more human-like than canine/animal-like. Requiring all genitalia on a character to be a certain way for the *_genitalia tags to apply would mean the genitalia tags could never be implicated from more precise tags, and would be woefully under-tagged as a result.

watsit said:
And just because there's an error in one component doesn't mean the other component isn't accurate.

Strawman: No-one is making the claim that it would.

watsit said:
The *_genitalia tags don't mean all genitalia on a character are the given way, just that at least one of them are.

Begging the Question: Says you, not the tags wiki. That condition dose however show up in the wiki for anatomically_inaccurate "This tag is used when a character or species depicted with anatomy and/or genitals that they would not have in real life."

watsit said:
Look through canine_penis, which implies animal_genitalia, but 9 times out of 10 the balls still look more human-like than canine/animal-like.

False Equivalency: My example was about adding an anomaly, not proportions. If you where to depict a canine_penis with a medial_ring that too would be anatomicaly_inaccurate.

watsit said:
Requiring all genitalia on a character to be a certain way for the *_genitalia tags to apply would mean the genitalia tags could never be implicated from more precise tags, and would be woefully under-tagged as a result.

Slippery Slope: Not true, the tag anatomically_correct_genitalia does allow exceptions on proportions and color.
"The genitalia does not have to be naturally proportionate, or naturally colored to be anatomically correct."

This is just how e621's tagging system works, the presence of the anatomically_correct_genitalia tag does not imply that all genitalia in the image is anatomically correct just that there is at least one genital that is anatomically correct, in the same way that a post being tagged with female does not mean every character in the post is female.

btbailey2 said:
Strawman: No-one is making the claim that it would.

This does just that:

remove implication anatomically_correct_penis -> anatomically_correct_genitalia

Claiming that just because a penis is anatomically correct, the balls may not be, thus there may be no anatomically correct genitalia despite the penis.

btbailey2 said:
Begging the Question: Says you, not the tags wiki.

Says me, and its general use. Various *_penis/*_pussy/etc tags implicate a matching *_genitalia tag (animal, humanoid, anatomically_correct, etc).

btbailey2 said:
False Equivalency: My example was about adding an anomaly, not proportions. If you where to depict a canine_penis with a medial_ring that too would be anatomicaly_inaccurate.

It's the same thing. A post getting the genitalia tag relating to the penis even though the balls don't fit that type of genitalia.

btbailey2 said:
Slippery Slope: Not true, the tag anatomically_correct_genitalia does allow exceptions on proportions and color.
"The genitalia does not have to be naturally proportionate, or naturally colored to be anatomically correct."

Irrelevant to the point. You're saying anatomically_correct_penis shouldn't implicate anatomically_correct_genitalia because non-penis genitalia on the same character may not be anatomically correct despite the penis being so. If that's how the *_genitalia tags should be used, that it must all match, then they could never be implied from a more precise tag (e.g. animal_penis couldn't imply animal_genitalia because the balls may be humanoid, humanoid_pussy couldn't imply humanoid_genitalia because they may be a herm with an animal_penis), and few people would bother tagging *_genitalia tags in addition to the penis/pussy/etc tags (to say nothing of people correctly identifying if all the genitals match, or what exactly should count as genitals), leaving them woefully undertagged and underutilized.

faucet said:
This is just how e621's tagging system works, the presence of the anatomically_correct_genitalia tag does not imply that all genitalia in the image is anatomically correct just that there is at least one genital that is anatomically correct, in the same way that a post being tagged with female does not mean every character in the post is female.

And my example is on an individual character.

watsit said:
This does just that:
Claiming that just because a penis is anatomically correct, the balls may not be, thus there may be no anatomically correct genitalia despite the penis.

Claiming that "the genitalia are inaccurate because the balls are inaccurate" is not the same as claiming "the penis is inaccurate because the balls are inaccurate".

watsit said:
Irrelevant to the point. You're saying anatomically_correct_penis shouldn't implicate anatomically_correct_genitalia because non-penis genitalia on the same character may not be anatomically correct despite the penis being so. If that's how the *_genitalia tags should be used, that it must all match, then they could never be implied from a more precise tag (e.g. animal_penis couldn't imply animal_genitalia because the balls may be humanoid, humanoid_pussy couldn't imply humanoid_genitalia because they may be a herm with an animal_penis), and few people would bother tagging *_genitalia tags in addition to the penis/pussy/etc tags (to say nothing of people correctly identifying if all the genitals match, or what exactly should count as genitals), leaving them woefully undertagged and underutilized.

The word genitalia is define by merriam webster to be plural. Therefor it's treated as a grouping. If the tag was anatomically_correct_genital this would not be a problem.

watsit said:
It's the same thing. A post getting the genitalia tag relating to the penis even though the balls don't fit that type of genitalia.

It's not the same thig. the tag has an exception for proportions, not for random addons.

watsit said:
Says me, and its general use. Various *_penis/*_pussy/etc tags implicate a matching *_genitalia tag (animal, humanoid, anatomically_correct, etc).

Again, the pussy, penis, and balls are the components. the genitalia is the system. If the is an error with the components, then there is an error in the system.

Dude, stop. You're arguing with yourself at this point. The proposal's rejected; let it go.

ccoyote said:
Dude, stop. You're arguing with yourself at this point. The proposal's rejected; let it go.

I'm not arguing with myself. I'm arguing with Watsit. Also that last part is an Appel to Authority Fallacy.

btbailey2 said:
I'm not arguing with myself. I'm arguing with Watsit. Also that last part is an Appel to Authority Fallacy.

Mmkay.

btbailey2 said:
The word genitalia is define by merriam webster to be plural. Therefor it's treated as a grouping. If the tag was anatomically_correct_genital this would not be a problem.

I can't say I've heard anyone say 'genital' as a singular form noun (adjective, yes, but not noun; "a genital organ" sounds fine, "touching a genital" doesn't). English does sometimes use plural forms for singular items (e.g. pants is just one article of clothing, not multiple). Sometimes a word has the same form for singular and plural but we refer to it in the plural despite meaning singular (e.g. a pair of underwear is just one article (for males), not two). Sometimes a plural form can mean one or more (e.g. masturbation is stimulation of your own genitals, but it's still masturbation even if you stimulate just your penis, or your penis and balls).

btbailey2 said:
Again, the pussy, penis, and balls are the components. the genitalia is the system. If the is an error with the components, then there is an error in the system.

So then you do advocate that "the genitalia tags could never be implicated from more precise tags", which you tried to say was a fallacy before. If genitalia is "the system" rather than one or more components, then a character with an animal penis and human balls can't be tagged with either animal_genitalia or humanoid_genitalia because "the system" as a whole is neither animal-based or human-based.

watsit said:
The penis is genitalia, so an anatomically correct penis is anatomically correct genitalia. Some other parts being anatomically inaccurate doesn't stop the accurate parts from being accurate. See also animal_penis -> animal_genitalia, humanoid_pussy -> humanoid_genitalia, and others. The genitalia tags only refer to individual parts (penis, testicles, pussy, cloaca), not all genitals as a whole on a given character.

I'd personally argue that "genitalia" qualifies "the whole package", so to speak, though I understand why that would be difficult to encode in a tag hierarchy because there are no clean implications to derive from that. To be frank, I think the worst offender is the anatomically_correct super-tag being implied by anatomically_correct_pussy: Just because you remembered to put a canine pussy on a dog-like character makes it look (tag-wise) like you got everything else right as well, even if you also end up with upside_down_pussy. You only have to get one right to qualify.

Should an image like this be considered anatomically_correct in any aspect?
post #1770194

Anatomical correctness is contravariant: Anatomical correctness itself implies all of its aspects, no single aspect of it (anatomically_correct_penis, for instance) should imply the whole thing.

fifteen said:
To be frank, I think the worst offender is the anatomically_correct super-tag being implied by anatomically_correct_pussy: Just because you remembered to put a canine pussy on a dog-like character makes it look (tag-wise) like you got everything else right as well, even if you also end up with upside_down_pussy. You only have to get one right to qualify.

I can agree with that. Unlike anatomically correct genitalia implying one or more genitalia being anatomically correct, anatomically correct itself has no qualifiers so implies the full package. The wiki page makes it sound like a duplicate of anatomically correct genitalia except it can instead refer to an anatomically correct anus (a feral horse with a human penis and balls, but an equine anus, technically counts for anatomically correct and humanoid genitalia). That doesn't seem right to me.

watsit said:
I can agree with that. Unlike anatomically correct genitalia implying one or more genitalia being anatomically correct, anatomically correct itself has no qualifiers so implies the full package. The wiki page makes it sound like a duplicate of anatomically correct genitalia except it can instead refer to an anatomically correct anus (a feral horse with a human penis and balls, but an equine anus, technically counts for anatomically correct and humanoid genitalia). That doesn't seem right to me.

Now that I'm looking at it, the wiki page also mentions a plan (dating back from 2016) to deprecate these tags (in their current form) in favor of the animal_genitalia familly.

watsit said:
So then you do advocate that "the genitalia tags could never be implicated from more precise tags", which you tried to say was a fallacy before. If genitalia is "the system" rather than one or more components, then a character with an animal penis and human balls can't be tagged with either animal_genitalia or humanoid_genitalia because "the system" as a whole is neither animal-based or human-based.

No, because there are cases that all the components are accurate.
for example: post #2520423

btbailey2 said:
No, because there are cases that all the components are accurate.

...and the animal_penis tag itself doesn't require that. The animal_penis tag just means a character has a penis modeled after a (non-human) animal, and says nothing about any other genitalia that may be on the character. So animal_penis implying animal_genitalia, that is animal_genitalia being automatically added when animal_penis is tagged, would be invalid by your suggestion.

watsit said:
I can't say I've heard anyone say 'genital' as a singular form noun (adjective, yes, but not noun; "a genital organ" sounds fine, "touching a genital" doesn't). English does sometimes use plural forms for singular items (e.g. pants is just one article of clothing, not multiple). Sometimes a word has the same form for singular and plural but we refer to it in the plural despite meaning singular (e.g. a pair of underwear is just one article (for males), not two). Sometimes a plural form can mean one or more (e.g. masturbation is stimulation of your own genitals, but it's still masturbation even if you stimulate just your penis, or your penis and balls).

Okay, I have done some more research. Their is a way to make an adjective into a noun. However using this method would imply a group. So, until I can find a singular form for genitals, I renounce my argument.