The bulk update request #8705 is pending approval.

remove implication anatomically_correct_genitalia (24431) -> genitals (2268808)
create implication anatomically_correct_genitalia (24431) -> animal_genitalia (483863)
remove implication anatomically_correct_penis (10648) -> penis (1559625)
create implication anatomically_correct_penis (10648) -> animal_penis (335868)
remove implication anatomically_correct_pussy (12484) -> pussy (900536)
create implication anatomically_correct_pussy (12484) -> animal_pussy (50207)

Reason: Anatomically_correct* is only used for non human animals, so their respective tags should imply animal_* instead, and if it is a fictional creature, the anatomically_correct* family of tags would not apply. (Anatomically_correct_cloaca and anatomically_correct_genital_slit (which i'll suggest later) don't have a human variant, so there's no need for animal_cloaca)

On the topic of anatomically_correct, what should we do with anatomically_correct_anus and anatomically_correct_balls? if we want to keep them, why is animal anus aliased away and animal balls completely empty? If there isn't enough difference between human and animal variant, should their anatomically_correct* tags exist? Would marsupial_balls be enough to justify animal balls and/or anatomically_correct_balls?

Lastly, should there be an anatomically_correct_slit/genital_slit tag?

I think anatomically_correct_balls is pretty justified. The shape and carriage can vary a lot between species. You have lemon_testicles, cats' high and tight pompoms, fat rodent nuts, dogs' sideways scrotums, and so on.

The anatomically_correct_anus tag is mostly horses, which do have a pretty distinctive butt. Other than that I'm not seeing too many really unique butts. Ass is ass.

I almost feel like the anatomically_correct tags should be aliased away in favor of animal_x and related. As terms for genitals, they seem to have largely originated as a means to distinguish when anthros have genitals matching the species they're based on as opposed to normal boring human genitals. We already have animal_genitalia and related tags, which is for non-human genitals from real animals (not fantasy animals with made-up genitalia), which makes the anatomically_correct tags redundant compared to x species + x_genitalia, in my view.

It's not helped that the anatomically_correct tags have restrictions on using it in places people expect or want to, like a dragon having genitals similar to what some lizards or reptiles have. Some people simply use it as a synonym for animal genitalia (with animal genitalia sometimes getting used as a synonym for non-human genitalia), and the waters are further muddled by recent changes that allow it to be used on some fantasy species if they're close enough to their real-life inspirations (without any clarity for where that line is; a houndoom with canine genitalia is close enough to be tagged anatomically_correct apparently, but are ninetales, arcanine, decidueye, or incineroar close enough to their respective inspirations? does every depiction of such a species count even when they look less like their real kin, or only on some depictions? how can we tell what counts?).

On top of that, anatomical correctness is taken very loosely:
post #4274994 post #3003471 post #4371294
To say those are "anatomically correct" is to stretch the term way outside of its actual meaning, which adds to the misinterpretation and confusion. Is it for depictions of genitalia that look accurate to real-life anatomy (as opposed to a furry artist's stylized interpretation of another furry artist's stylized interpretation of another furry artist's stylized interpretation)? Is it just for something sorta resembling real-life animal genitalia on a species that would have it? Is it for something resembling real-life animal genitalia on a species that looks similar to some species that could have it?

This is also where I get concerns with anatomically_correct_anus, anatomically_correct_balls, anatomically_correct_cloaca, and anatomically_correct_genital_slit. The actual correctness of the thing in question can end up very loosely interpreted, and largely end up being used for what people think is like real anatomy but is rather far off, and not give much value beyond animal_x at best, bordering on vanity tags at worst. Most people don't have references of the real things to compare against, which would result in things being tagged "anatomically correct" because they feel it should be as opposed to because it actually is.

watsit said:
I almost feel like the anatomically_correct tags should be aliased away in favor of animal_x and related. As terms for genitals, they seem to have largely originated as a means to distinguish when anthros have genitals matching the species they're based on as opposed to normal boring human genitals. We already have animal_genitalia and related tags, which is for non-human genitals from real animals (not fantasy animals with made-up genitalia), which makes the anatomically_correct tags redundant compared to x species + x_genitalia, in my view.

It's not helped that the anatomically_correct tags have restrictions on using it in places people expect or want to, like a dragon having genitals similar to what some lizards or reptiles have. Some people simply use it as a synonym for animal genitalia (with animal genitalia sometimes getting used as a synonym for non-human genitalia), and the waters are further muddled by recent changes that allow it to be used on some fantasy species if they're close enough to their real-life inspirations (without any clarity for where that line is; a houndoom with canine genitalia is close enough to be tagged anatomically_correct apparently, but are ninetales, arcanine, decidueye, or incineroar close enough to their respective inspirations? does every depiction of such a species count even when they look less like their real kin, or only on some depictions? how can we tell what counts?).

On top of that, anatomical correctness is taken very loosely:
post #4274994 post #3003471 post #4371294
To say those are "anatomically correct" is to stretch the term way outside of its actual meaning, which adds to the misinterpretation and confusion. Is it for depictions of genitalia that look accurate to real-life anatomy (as opposed to a furry artist's stylized interpretation of another furry artist's stylized interpretation of another furry artist's stylized interpretation)? Is it just for something sorta resembling real-life animal genitalia on a species that would have it? Is it for something resembling real-life animal genitalia on a species that looks similar to some species that could have it?

This is also where I get concerns with anatomically_correct_anus, anatomically_correct_balls, anatomically_correct_cloaca, and anatomically_correct_genital_slit. The actual correctness of the thing in question can end up very loosely interpreted, and largely end up being used for what people think is like real anatomy but is rather far off, and not give much value beyond animal_x at best, bordering on vanity tags at worst. Most people don't have references of the real things to compare against, which would result in things being tagged "anatomically correct" because they feel it should be as opposed to because it actually is.

I'm mixed on this. There's a lot of variation in genitalia and creating a penis/vulva/slit/cloaca tag for each species doesn't seem super productive. Plus there's a number of animals with very generic looking dicks that would be better served by something like tapering_penis than a specific species tag. For these, specifying anatomically_correct helps separate when this is done because it's what that species has instead of when it's done because "generic pink cone" is the default when someone doesn't know what a species' penis looks like.

But yeah, it could probably have a better name. "Anatomically correct" implies things that just aren't true to how the tag is used.

I think the idea of renaming this concept should be considered. "Anatomically_correct" imo isn't necessarily intuitive (a common misunderstanding is people not realizing that it's ONLY about genitals or anuses) or an accurate description of what the tag is.

Species_accurate_genitalia or species_matched_genitalia? These aren't as pretty, but might be more clear. It would exclude anuses, but the edges of where it applies to buttholes is blurry anyway.
Species_accurate/matched_features could also work as an umbrella tag. It'd have room to expand into non-sexual features like nose leather and paws.

regsmutt said:
I think the idea of renaming this concept should be considered. "Anatomically_correct" imo isn't necessarily intuitive (a common misunderstanding is people not realizing that it's ONLY about genitals or anuses) or an accurate description of what the tag is.

Species_accurate_genitalia or species_matched_genitalia? These aren't as pretty, but might be more clear. It would exclude anuses, but the edges of where it applies to buttholes is blurry anyway.
Species_accurate/matched_features could also work as an umbrella tag. It'd have room to expand into non-sexual features like nose leather and paws.

Love the species-accurate idea. Conversely we could have tags like species-atypical_wings (or species-inaccurate but atypical sounds a bit nicer to me) for say, cats with wings.

Make it aliases instead of implications so that all it says is that animal features are present without making any claims to accuracy.

regsmutt said:
Species_accurate_genitalia or species_matched_genitalia? These aren't as pretty, but might be more clear. It would exclude anuses, but the edges of where it applies to buttholes is blurry anyway.
Species_accurate/matched_features could also work as an umbrella tag. It'd have room to expand into non-sexual features like nose leather and paws.

wandering_spaniel said:
Love the species-accurate idea.

This is going to require having a dedicated loremaster of every species policing taggings. Layman taggers continually demonstrate lack of knowledge on which features belong on which real species, and often which taxonomic groups a given species belongs to, making these tags unhelpful to anyone not subscribing to the popular consensus of what is "correct" to the realm of furry art communities.

snpthecat said:
Lastly, should there be an anatomically_correct_slit/genital_slit tag?

No. Most instances of genital slits in furry art would be full cloacas on a real-world equivalent.

magnuseffect said:
Make it aliases instead of implications so that all it says is that animal features are present without making any claims to accuracy.

This is going to require having a dedicated loremaster of every species policing taggings. Layman taggers continually demonstrate lack of knowledge on which features belong on which real species, and often which taxonomic groups a given species belongs to, making these tags unhelpful to anyone not subscribing to the popular consensus of what is "correct" to the realm of furry art communities.

How would species_accurate/matched require more effort and work than anatomically_correct does? It's the same concept with a name that doesn't imply 'correctness'.

regsmutt said:
How would species_accurate/matched require more effort and work than anatomically_correct does? It's the same concept with a name that doesn't imply 'correctness'.

In this instance accurate is a simile of correct.
I'm also notably advocating for the wholesale removal of statements implying either of the above as for anything beyond the least-obscure critters there's a pretty big knowledge barrier toward being able to determine what is or isn't "accurate"/"correct". Case in point being the multiple pages of fox anatomically_correct_pussy featuring full dog-spade.

magnuseffect said:
In this instance accurate is a simile of correct.
I'm also notably advocating for the wholesale removal of statements implying either of the above as for anything beyond the least-obscure critters there's a pretty big knowledge barrier toward being able to determine what is or isn't "accurate"/"correct". Case in point being the multiple pages of fox anatomically_correct_pussy featuring full dog-spade.

Problem is that this would make looking for anything with species-based genitalia impossible but a small handful of species. Having *species*_penis/pussy/genitalia tags for everything isn't practical for reasons already discussed. Putting in tags for individual features would give a lot of bad results. Since this is something people specifically want to find/avoid, imo it's worth tagging.

The big fat spade is something of an exaggeration and stylization when drawn on dogs. Foxes do have similar shapes, but even smaller. That said, the amount of exaggeration and little details that are gotten wrong is why I don't really like "correct" in the first place.

If species_accurate or species_matched has the same issue then maybe species_based_* would be best? This would also make room for cases where things are partially speculative and based on poor references or related species.

regsmutt said:
Problem is that this would make looking for anything with species-based genitalia impossible but a small handful of species. Having *species*_penis/pussy/genitalia tags for everything isn't practical for reasons already discussed.

animal_genitalia + the species of interest would work pretty well.

regsmutt said:
If species_accurate or species_matched has the same issue then maybe species_based_* would be best? This would also make room for cases where things are partially speculative and based on poor references or related species.

That would increase the problems the tags already have. "Species based" isn't clear what it means; the term doesn't indicate matching to the character's species, and a canine penis is based on an animal's penis, so a feline with a canine penis would have a "species based penis", just not the same species they are. These tags were originally also not intended for fictional species, which has been loosened recently but with no real clarity for such use, so where the line is would be made even blurrier with a more vague term. Would a dragon with hemipenes and/or cloacal_penis be a "species based penis"? And being that anthro is a mix of human and animal, there's nothing to say which genitalia would be more appropriate (what makes a canine penis on a human-wolf hybrid more "species-based" than a humanoid penis on a human-wolf hybrid?).

These tags are largely meant to mean non-human genitals, primarily on anthros. This is echoed in the fact that these tags explicitly exclude humans, even though a human with a humanoid penis or pussy would be as accurate/matched/"based" as anything else, along with their continued misuse on fictional species and fictional genital designs.

watsit said:
animal_genitalia + the species of interest would work pretty well.

Not really? Most carnivorans are frequently given dog dicks and most ungulates often get drawn with horse cocks.

That would increase the problems the tags already have. "Species based" isn't clear what it means; the term doesn't indicate matching to the character's species, and a canine penis is based on an animal's penis, so a feline with a canine penis would have a "species based penis", just not the same species they are. These tags were originally also not intended for fictional species, which has been loosened recently but with no real clarity for such use, so where the line is would be made even blurrier with a more vague term. Would a dragon with hemipenes and/or cloacal_penis be a "species based penis"? And being that anthro is a mix of human and animal, there's nothing to say which genitalia would be more appropriate (what makes a canine penis on a human-wolf hybrid more "species-based" than a humanoid penis on a human-wolf hybrid?).

You could say the same thing about anatomically_correct. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The problem with anatomically_correct is that it covers things that are, when the tag is taken literally, not anatomically correct.

regsmutt said:
Not really? Most carnivorans are frequently given dog dicks and most ungulates often get drawn with horse cocks.

Which also gets tagged as anatomically correct. Same as foxes often getting drawn with dog pussies. The collective understanding of what genitals are accurate to a species isn't always... accurate, in the furry fandom. But when not relying on tags conveying questionably accurate information, the tags we have let you narrow it down more specifically, with tags like cervine_penis, as needed. No need for "anatomically correct" or "species matching"/"species based" tags to muddy or confuse things when they aren't used for what they actually mean, and are moreso furry euphemisms for non-human junk.

regsmutt said:
You could say the same thing about anatomically_correct. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The problem with anatomically_correct is that it covers things that are, when the tag is taken literally, not anatomically correct.

Hence why I think the tags should be aliased away. As it is, anatomically_correct is used for things that are neither anatomically correct or species-matching (post #4128953, post #3161472, and post #1760801 as examples), while also being allowed where there's no way to know whether the anatomy is correct or matching (anthros, having no way to determine whether human genitalia would be more accurate on them or not), while also being restricted from being used in some cases where the anatomy is demonstrably correct and matching (humans with human genitalia not being taggable as anatomically_correct). Given people's propensity to use it to refer to non-human genitals on non-human creatures in general, its use with very stylized designs, and the likelihood of people using the tags based on popular furry tropes of animal junk rather than proper understanding of animal anatomy, IMO it's best to do away with it.