Implicating interspecies -> sex.

Reason: Interspecies in the wiki means sexual activity between two characters of different species.
So this should be obvious.

(edited by snow for more accurate title <3)

I would agree with this.. though.. perhaps this moment should also be thought up to ask if we NEED the interspecies tag?

1) Interspecies is used wrongly on many images--post #154699 post #154443 post #133871
2) Looking at sex -interspecies .... well.. I scrolled down a decent bit to reach the first non-interspecies images...

I honestly think that interspecies might be TOO common of a tag--much as rule 34, animal, anthro and similar...

I would propose getting rid of it entirely, and POTENTIALLY instituting a new tag
like same_species for images where both/all participants are one type of animal -- both lions, both zebra, both foxes, both dobermans/dogs (a ruling'd be needed for that..)

Interspecies is required, in my mind, for anthro x human sex. As for anthro dog x anthro cat, I don't see it as necessary.

Hm... fair enough, but there are still 10 pages of interspecies -human ... which is about 1/3rd of the images... ... and the tag would continue to be used incorrectly.

Maybe we can come up with a better word for human-anthro relations, much like we have anthro_bestiality? Human-anthro_sex? Anthro_human_sex? furry_human_sex? human/anthro sex? I thin human/anthro_sex is my favorite..

SnowWolf said:
Hm... fair enough, but there are still 10 pages of interspecies -human ... which is about 1/3rd of the images... ... and the tag would continue to be used incorrectly.

Maybe we can come up with a better word for human-anthro relations, much like we have anthro_bestiality? Human-anthro_sex? Anthro_human_sex? furry_human_sex? human/anthro sex? I thin human/anthro_sex is my favorite..

I like the sound of anthro_bestiality best out of those. has a nice ring to it.

cookiekangaroo said:
I like the sound of anthro_bestiality best out of those. has a nice ring to it.

anthro_bestiality is already a tag with a different meaning (an anthro character having sex with an animal).

Woah, what if like a giraffe is making out with a skunk? I think that would be deserving of an interspecies tag, but not the sex tag.

ippiki_ookami said:
Woah, what if like a giraffe is making out with a skunk? I think that would be deserving of an interspecies tag, but not the sex tag.

Clearly, your idea is of what interspecies is, is wrong. I would tag it "giraffe skunk kissing".

As for the new tag, I would suggest "human_on_anthro". Fits in well with feral_on_feral and herm_on_male. Kind of.

ippiki_ookami said:
Woah, what if like a giraffe is making out with a skunk? I think that would be deserving of an interspecies tag, but not the sex tag.

Also, this in regards to it implying sex... which is why I support:

anthro_bestiality - for anthro/feral sex
bestiality - for human/feral sex
anthro/human_sex - for anthro/human sex

(actually a part of me is tempted to propose changing it all to anthro/feral_sex, human/feral_sex, and anthro/human_sex so that there's NO confusion)

Ninjaeditsyde said:
As for the new tag, I would suggest "human_on_anthro". Fits in well with feral_on_feral and herm_on_male. Kind of.

I still dig my /'s.. as for feral on feral.. feral/feral_sex XD

is herm_on_male use only for pictures where the herm is toping? is there a male_on_herm? Hmmm

anyway, most of these thigns could be fixed with some aliasing.... although then, there are blacklists to think about.... but...

SnowWolf said:
"I still dig...feral_sex XD"

Eww, Snow! That is just wrong!

is herm_on_male use only for pictures where the herm is toping? is there a male_on_herm? Hmmm

I believe the tag was created to find herms with certains genders, given that there's no way of telling what sexuality a sex act has when a herm is involved.

anyway, most of these thigns could be fixed with some aliasing.... although then, there are blacklists to think about.... but...

I don't see how this would mess up people's blacklists. We remove interspecies from all posts in interspecies -human, then alias interspecies to human_on_anthro. The ones who blacklisted interspecies before to get rid of humans fucking furries would be grateful for this more specific tag.

Riversyde said:
Eww, Snow! That is just wrong!

Baby, I was born this way. *equips meat_dress*

I believe the tag was created to find herms with certains genders, given that there's no way of telling what sexuality a sex act has when a herm is involved.

well, I suport the tag, just like I support straight/gay/lesbian.

I don't see how this would mess up people's blacklists. We remove interspecies from all posts in interspecies -human, then alias interspecies to human_on_anthro. The ones who blacklisted interspecies before to get rid of humans fucking furries would be grateful for this more specific tag.

well, I meant changing anthro_bestiality and feral_on_feral and such to anthro/feral_sex and so forth.

anyway, with interspecies, this *is* an easy change :)

But I still like anthro/human_sex over human_on_anthro.

X_on_Y makes me think that X is dominating Y. Maybe this is a lay over from my yaoi days (where the name before the x was dominant, and the name after took it up the ass..) of course, the / should have the same effect, technically, but .. eh.. yeah. anthro/human_sex >>> human_on_anthro/anthro_on_human, to me.

still, regardless of the tag, I'm pleased to see that support seems to be for trading interspecies out for something more specific :)

SnowWolf said:
But I still like anthro/human_sex over human_on_anthro.

X_on_Y makes me think that X is dominating Y. Maybe this is a lay over from my yaoi days (where the name before the x was dominant, and the name after took it up the ass..) of course, the / should have the same effect, technically, but .. eh.. yeah. anthro/human_sex >>> human_on_anthro/anthro_on_human, to me.

We should be letting the community decide which tag to use, imo.

Yes. you're right of course.. so.. here's the current proposal:

Proposal:

• interspecies goes away
• Images of humans and anthros having sex are tagged with either anthro/human_sex or anthro_on_human (please state preference)
• Images where participants are of the same species are tagged same_species

Hypotheticals:

All of the below is theoretical, idea making, for concicstancy across tags:

Potentially, if anthro/human_sex is chosen, the following changes could be made for consistancy:

• Feral_on_feral sex is renamed to feral/feral_sex
• anthro_bestiality is renamed to anthro/feral_sex
• Maybe: bestiality is renamed to feral/human_sex? -- the problem with renaming this one is that is a pretty bad 'hot button' for black lists.

Could also lead into:

• herm_on_male is renamed to herm/male_sex
• male_on_herm has 4 images.. aliased to herm/male_sex
• herm_on_female is renamed to herm/female_sex
• herm_on_herm is renamed to herm/herm_sex

Alternatively, if anthro_on_human is preferred... we could:

• anthro_bestiality is renamed to anthro_on_feral
• Maybe: bestiality is renamed to feral_on_human? -- the problem with renaming this one is that is a pretty bad 'hot button' for black lists.

what do y'all think?

Remove interspecies, but what about the alias to human on anthro?

I support the use of *_on_* tags here, except for human on feral. That's best known as bestiality.
Alias anthro_bestiality -> anthro_on_feral.

Just stating publicly that I'm entirely opposed to this. This is going to cause so many problems. Tagging should be kept simple and to the point. All these new tags are just introducing too many variables that no one will use correctly. Regrettably, I don't have any alternatives to offer; I just think things are fine the way they are. It's good to think progressively regarding new tag options, but it's sort of undermined when the potential problems outweigh the benefits. I'll still help in any way I can, though.

In support of *_on_* tagging for consistancy. People are going to mess up or not use tags anyways...

Idea: news blurb about recent tag changes so the ones who don't visit the forums are aware? Stickied forum thread for changelog of tag changes that they can check up on that the news post could direct them to perhaps?

I think that e621 has too many tags, removing the less useful ones will help improve things.

interspecies, just get rid of it.

I'd like to offer my support for this. Generally, more tags (especially ones where the usage is obvious) is a good thing, as it lets people search more specifically.

ippiki_ookami said:
Just stating publicly that I'm entirely opposed to this. This is going to cause so many problems. Tagging should be kept simple and to the point. All these new tags are just introducing too many variables that no one will use correctly. Regrettably, I don't have any alternatives to offer; I just think things are fine the way they are. It's good to think progressively regarding new tag options, but it's sort of undermined when the potential problems outweigh the benefits. I'll still help in any way I can, though.

I'm going to second this.

I'm not so sure about getting rid of it. It's definitely useful for finding human on anthro (though yes, here, the human_on_anthro tag would suffice), but is also good for finding things with wildly different species in it, like post #105031 or even yes, an anthro dog with an anthro cat. In my mind, it's not necessary for a cheetah on a leopard, even though they really are the same species, or different dog breeds together. I'm really not sure that throwing all of these new *_on_* tags into the mix will improve things.

just going to 'remind' people that part of of problem with interspecies is that it's on not clearly as many images as it SHOULD be...

based on red's post.. how about something like opposites_attract for those "wildly different" pairings?

please don't get rid of the bestiality tag...I like that tag. :(

*feels like a terrible person*

I have no real opinion on the interspecies tag, but I strongly favor a human/anthro_sex or human_on_anthro tag. IMO, humans and anthro furs goin' at it are a large enough and specific enough subset of the interspecies images to warrant their own tag.

I confess to a slight preference for "/" instead of "_on_", simply because the word "on" can imply position or dominance.

SnowWolf said:
just going to 'remind' people that part of of problem with interspecies is that it's on not clearly as many images as it SHOULD be...

And it's being used COMPLETELY incorrectly. Look through interspecies -sex and you'll see what I mean.

based on red's post.. how about something like opposites_attract for those "wildly different" pairings?

Would get misused. So much.

RedOctober said:
I'm not so sure about getting rid of it. It's definitely useful for finding human on anthro (though yes, here, the human_on_anthro tag would suffice), but is also good for finding things with wildly different species in it, like post #105031 or even yes, an anthro dog with an anthro cat. In my mind, I'm really not sure that throwing all of these new *_on_* tags into the mix will improve things.

Who cares about different species having sex. Furries just wanna see anthros having sex.
The *_on_* tags will improve searching, even if you don't see why yet. Even if everything does break, reverting the tagging system would be easy enough.

Dire_Vargr said:
I confess to a slight preference for "/" instead of "_on_", simply because the word "on" can imply position or dominance.

That's not of our concern. If people want domination, they can add it to their search. Plus, I guess *_on_* looks better to me than */*_sex, and it doesn't just apply to sex. It can be used to include fingering, handjobs and the like.

Riversyde said:
And it's being used COMPLETELY incorrectly. Look through interspecies -sex and you'll see what I mean.
Would get misused. So much.
Who cares about different species having sex. Furries just wanna see anthros having sex.
The *_on_* tags will improve searching, even if you don't see why yet. Even if everything does break, reverting the tagging system would be easy enough.
That's not of our concern. If people want domination, they can add it to their search. Plus, I guess *_on_* looks better to me than */*_sex, and it doesn't just apply to sex. It can be used to include fingering, handjobs and the like.

He didn't say "domination," he said "dominance." There is a bit of a difference. I agree with what Vargr said, that something like "human_on_anthro" implies that the human is the top. And when I say "top," I mean the one that is doing, as opposed to the "bottom," the one that is getting done to. So if you have an image of a dragon sticking her finger up a man's butt, and the tag is "human_on_anthro," the tag is misleading. I do agree that it looks better than human/anthro or whatever.

Some people care about different species having sex. When I use it, I'm looking for humans paired with anthros, or cats with dogs, or sheep with wolves. I agree that "opposites_attract" isn't a good idea. I would certainly agree that it would be good to come up with a better term for those images that have more widely different characters in them. But I definitely think there should be a tag for that. Right now, interspecies is that tag.

If you want the interspecies tag to stay, that's fine, but the way it is defined in the wiki HAS to be the way it is used. Which means heaps of cleanup, and adding my original implication.

As for the human_on_anthro dominance issue... that's just the way it will have to be. "human/anthro_sex" excludes handjobs/fingering, and "human/anthro" could be confused for human/anthro hybrids.

Riversyde said:
If you want the interspecies tag to stay, that's fine, but the way it is defined in the wiki HAS to be the way it is used. Which means heaps of cleanup, and adding my original implication.

Oh yeah. I forgot about that, amongst all the rest. Yeah, I like that idea.

River: Plus, I guess *_on_* looks better to me than */*_sex, and it doesn't just apply to sex. It can be used to include fingering, handjobs and the like.

damn, tht's a good point. Okay. well, we could change it to anthro/human but then that's getting vague again.

Hmm.. what about anthro_and_human? rather then on? wh.. i guess that looks pretyt dumb AND pretty vague.

I would still rather, in any regard, find a diffenret tag other then interspecies to use for the cats with dogs and sheep with wolves.. because peopel will keep tagging interspecies on, say, coyotes with wolves, and cheetah with jaguar, etc.

SnowWolf said:
I would still rather, in any regard, find a different tag other then interspecies to use for the cats with dogs and sheep with wolves.. because people will keep tagging interspecies on, say, coyotes with wolves, and cheetah with jaguar, etc.

Technically, jaguar/cheetah does equal interspecies. The correct term for what you want would be, like, "interfamily" or something.

Riversyde said:
As for the human_on_anthro dominance issue... that's just the way it will have to be. "human/anthro_sex" excludes handjobs/fingering, and "human/anthro" could be confused for human/anthro hybrids.

Why does "human/anthro_sex" exclude handjobs and fingering? Both are sexual activities. As for human/anthro hybrids, I really don't see an issue. By definition, anthros are already human/animal hybrids, and there's already the "animal_ears" tag for things like catgirls, which are essentially humans with minor animal features.

SnowWolf said:

I would still rather, in any regard, find a diffenret tag other then interspecies to use for the cats with dogs and sheep with wolves.. because peopel will keep tagging interspecies on, say, coyotes with wolves, and cheetah with jaguar, etc.

Intergenus, perhaps, for cat/dog, or wolf/sheep, or whatever? Although I think interspecies would still apply.

Dire_Vargr said:
Why does "human/anthro_sex" exclude handjobs and fingering? Both are sexual activities.

They may be sexual activities, but they are not sex.

As for human/anthro hybrids, I really don't see an issue. By definition, anthros are already human/animal hybrids, and there's already the "animal_ears" tag for things like catgirls, which are essentially humans with minor animal features.

Yeah. I guess they can be lumped under human_on_anthro as well, rather than tag catgirl/catboy_on_anthro/feral and all that.

Intergenus, perhaps, for cat/dog, or wolf/sheep, or whatever? Although I think interspecies would still apply.

Nah. Interfamily is closer to what Snow wants. But I can't think of a better name for it...

Riversyde said:
They may be sexual activities, but they are not sex.

I think you're splitting hairs at this point. It's technically true, but handjobs and the like would definitely have the "explicit" rating, and be viewed by people interested in porn. *shrug*

interfamily = incest wut?

breakingit down to intergenus and stuff like that makes it too confusing for the 'average furry' ti know what the hell the tag is meaning.

I'd jsut be happy getting rid of the whole idea, but other peopel disagree. XD

of course... sex -same_species....

With the interspecies tag, I'm just going along with what others are thinking about it.
But still, leopard/cheetah is interspecies, but not the kind of interspecies Snow wants it to mean? Kinda confusing.
We should either find a more specific name, edit the wiki to define it as interfamilian sex or scrap it completely. If we were to scrap it, I would support an interspecies -> sex alias.

I still kind of like something having to do with opposites... for pictures wwhere there's some clear oppositnes involved.. a cat and a mouse, a dog and a cat, a small white critter and a big black one, a red and a blue equally sized critters... town mouse and country mouse... etc.

SnowWolf said:
I still kind of like something having to do with opposites... for pictures wwhere there's some clear oppositnes involved.. a cat and a mouse, a dog and a cat, a small white critter and a big black one, a red and a blue equally sized critters... town mouse and country mouse... etc.

A pool would be better for that, I would imagine.

that's actually a really good point <3

For the debate of whether to use the *_on_* method or / method, don't let the concept of seme/uke taint the concepts we're working on here. It doesn't matter if the human's bottom in human_on_anthro, or if they're top- they're still having relations with an anthro, end of story.

Or, to take a completely different tack, which involves a LOT more effort... Go through everything of a certain type, and then label them *_on_* where the first is the primary top and the second the primary bottom (in which case the human_on_anthro tag is correct anyways, as most pictures involving humans and anthros are human-dominant). This would be the worse option though, imo, for two reasons: One, it muddles meanings within the tag. Two, it would denote a status that is incorrect for a sizable minority of images of its type.

Personally, i feel listing the species/families in the tags alphabetically (so anthro_on_human since a>h) would be best, and strictly impartial with a reasonable usage.

Also, the opposites_attract tag idea sounds interesting.

123easy said:listing the species/families in the tags alphabetically (so anthro_on_human since a>h) would be best, and strictly impartial with a reasonable usage.

for the record, that is what I'd had in mind, personally :3

Human_on_anthro, anthro_on_human, which ever way people decide is how we'll do it... I do think the first sounds better. To me, at least.

And opposites_attract shouldn't be tagged, posts related to it should be put in a pool. We should be using pools for more than just comics imo.

If we're going on a_on_b, b_on_a should be aliased to a_on_b. Think of it as preventative maintenance, because some users are going to assume that a_on_b means that a is the topping partner.

Snowy said:
If we're going on a_on_b, b_on_a should be aliased to a_on_b. Think of it as preventative maintenance, because some users are going to assume that a_on_b means that a is the topping partner.

I already figured we'd have to do that.