Very detailed and specific but there are a few issues I think... I thought I'd make a thread rather than edit warring over them continuously. Here's what I think of the male article...

VulpesFoxnik said:
Male
For a character to be considered male, certain minimum requirements must be met, however these requirements are automatically waved if the character is known to be from the series as male without altercations, or the artist has specified in the piece’s description, or fursona.

It's great to write very specific documentation, VulpesFoxnik, but honestly these read more like a legal document and are frankly terrifying. I think as a newbie I'd avoid posting if I saw these "REQUIREMENTS" for fear of being banned immediately. It also seems that with the use of terms like "requirements" and "waived" and uh "alterations" (I assume altercations is just a typo) that you're laying down rules and bureaucracy where none ACTUALLY exist.

VulpesFoxnik said:
Genitalia Requirements
Cloaca for some birds, and reptiles.
Phallus in some birds, reptiles, and all mammals.
Scrotum for species where it is appropriate, and for most male anthromorphic characters.

Obviously this whole sections is nonsense... I mean, there are many pictures which feature male characters but do not display any genitalia. Also, genitals TECHNICALLY would fall under sexually dimorphic characteristics anyway, which would solve this problem. Wiki says: "Such undisputed sexual dimorphisms include gonadal differentiation, internal genital differentiation, external genital differentiation, breast differentiation, muscle mass differentiation, and hair differentiation."

Anyway, it should suffice to say that If any set of male SDCs are present and no female SDCs are present, then the character is a male.

VulpesFoxnik said:
Sexually Dimorphic features of mature males
A Masculine body structure for anthromorphic characters.
Appropriate Plumage and coloring for the species, mainly seen in the class Aves .
Enlarged horns in the suborder Ruminantia
Enlarged tusks in the order of Proboscidea .
A mane on species of Panthera leo.

I don't think the taxonomy here is even slightly necessary. This is furry art, not biology, and not to be condescending, but some people aren't smart enough to know what the hell you're on about. And with that level of detail, you ought to at least specify what you mean by "Masculine body structure"... (broad shoulders, straight narrow hips, etc...) Also, I believe the correct terminology is "Sexually Dimorphic" as opposed to "Sexual Dimorphic" but it's quite possible that I'm wrong about that. Anyway, the wikipedia article for "sexual dimorphism" uses sex-dimorphic and sexually dimorphic as its terminology.

VulpesFoxnik said:
Disqualifications for this category
A character who’s artist or creator is identifying the character as female.
Sexual Dimporphic characteristics of the mature female species such as enlarged breasts. Tomboys may be more masculine, however this does not remove the base female species characteristics.
Trans-gendered characters such as crossdressing females.
A pseudo-penis or enlarged clitoris.
Intersexed Characteristics such as hermaphrodites, dickgirls, Futanari, and cuntboys.

I mainly take issue with the "if the creator says they're male or the source says their male." In my original ambiguous_gender, I said that the artist's or source's gender should only be used if no other characteristics are present and this still holds true. Renamon is a female in the series, but what if I draw her as a male? Following this rule, 'he' would still be tagged as male because these are "AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATIONS". The rest of this section I totally agree with.

Personally, I would prefer the male tag to only be applicable for posts devoid of significant female characters.

In it's current usage (if there is a male character in the post, even if accompanied by female characters) it is far too unspecific to be of any use.

Female article has mainly the same set of issues, although less specific and lacks sort of the 'furry' examples from the male article, which (sans taxonomy) I think are useful and good to have. Even just the inverses would be fine (no mane on a lioness, or things like pouch on a kangaroo, etc)

Androgynous article: too vague. I think it would be good to use the same terminology/examples as in the gender articles... Tomboys are distinctly male but dress, behave, and to some degree have aspects of masculinity. Androgyny refers not only to sexual dimorphism but also behavior, dress, and other social aspects. The "Girly" and "Tomboy" tags, to me, mean the exact same thing as this tag. The current pool of posts tagged as "androgynous" seem to usually mean "ambiguous_gender" instead. If you don't mind too much, I'm going to rewrite this article to be more specific... I guess it can be reverted if the changes aren't good.

Neuter article is obsessed with some one guy's fursona. Weird.

Ambiguous Gender article: I like most of the changes you made to it but I think including "Tagme" and "unknown_artist" as related tags is sort of a mistake... ambiguous_gender isn't for "I don't know what gender this is, someone tell me so I can fix it" as much as "the gender of the character isn't information that I can get from this picture, or is unimportant to the picture". It's not MISSING information, it's information that doesn't actually exist.

Also since you seem to be sort of the resident tag guru, maybe you can help me out... what is the difference between the Ambiguous and Ambiguous_Gender tags? I made a request to alias Ambiguous to Ambiguous_Gender but it was turned down, so there must be a difference there.

Kitsu~ said:
Personally, I would prefer the male tag to only be applicable for posts devoid of significant female characters.

In it's current usage (if there is a male character in the post, even if accompanied by female characters) it is far too unspecific to be of any use.

I dunno... by itself it's sort of useless but it cuts down on number of tags needed to describe other situations...
for what you want you could search male solo or male gay (I assume you're also avoiding herm/intersex chars to show ONLY males)

I think it's a fairly important tag. A lot of people have been proposing tag systems like
1_male+1_female
M/F
M/M/F
1_male+2_female

but that stuff clearly will get out of hand very quickly... i mean, 13M/6F/2H/1N or whatever for some of these ridiculous orgy pics, not to mention clean ones.

I think it's better the way it is, is what I'm trying to say, mainly because I don't see any better solutions...

Kitsu~ said:
Personally, I would prefer the male tag to only be applicable for posts devoid of significant female characters.

In it's current usage (if there is a male character in the post, even if accompanied by female characters) it is far too unspecific to be of any use.

If each character is documented individually in such a situation, you could search male -female if you wanted to see ONLY male characters.

I have school work to do at the moment, I have seen your post, and intend responding to it in full.

Honestly I don't feel any of my wiki edits to be complete. I actually want other people to input, rewrite, and correct me when I am wrong. I am not infallible.

Does it have a penis? Male.
Does it have a vagina? Female.
Does it have both? Herm.
Does it have no discernable sex organs? Ambiguous_Gender.
Can you not tell? Androgynous.
Is it neutered? Neuter + original gender tag.

Those wiki entries are fucking retarded and anyone who makes it more complicated than posted above needs a rusty hacksaw taken to their face for being a pendantic asshole.

Anyone who insists 'cuntboys' and 'dickgirls' are their own genders similarly need a hammer to the solar plexus. We have this wonderful if under-utilized 'transgender' tag that sums them up nicely alongside the previously mentioned two terms.

Thank you for your time.

Enoch-Fox said:
Very detailed and specific but there are a few issues I think... I thought I'd make a thread rather than edit warring over them continuously. Here's what I think of the male article...

Discussion is good. I am a large believer in peer review. Before between us was a misunderstanding over my learning of the wiki markup.

Enoch-Fox said:
It's great to write very specific documentation, VulpesFoxnik, but honestly these read more like a legal document and are frankly terrifying. I think as a newbie I'd avoid posting if I saw these "REQUIREMENTS" for fear of being banned immediately. It also seems that with the use of terms like "requirements" and "waived" and uh "alterations" (I assume altercations is just a typo) that you're laying down rules and bureaucracy where none ACTUALLY exist.

In retrospect, I agree with you. My language came off a bit harsh and too scientific at times.

Enoch-Fox said:
Obviously this whole sections is nonsense... I mean, there are many pictures which feature male characters but do not display any genitalia. Also, genitals TECHNICALLY would fall under sexually dimorphic characteristics anyway, which would solve this problem. Wiki says: "Such undisputed sexual dimorphisms include gonadal differentiation, internal genital differentiation, external genital differentiation, breast differentiation, muscle mass differentiation, and hair differentiation."

And in humans there is also neurological dimorphism between the sexes. I never considered sex organs part of sexual dimorphism, but I am not a biologist. We need to somehow convert this into language that is easier to understand without being too simple and overlooking something.

Enoch-Fox said:
Anyway, it should suffice to say that If any set of male SDCs are present and no female SDCs are present, then the character is a male.

Ironically, in mammals female is the default sex. I'm not so sure thats so good as a policy, however we should look further into the catch-yas of such a process. Fox example, some characteristics in females of some species are deceivingly male in others. My only current example of this is the pseudo-penis in female jackals.

Enoch-Fox said:
I don't think the taxonomy here is even slightly necessary. This is furry art, not biology, and not to be condescending, but some people aren't smart enough to know what the hell you're on about. And with that level of detail, you ought to at least specify what you mean by "Masculine body structure"... (broad shoulders, straight narrow hips, etc...) Also, I believe the correct terminology is "Sexually Dimorphic" as opposed to "Sexual Dimorphic" but it's quite possible that I'm wrong about that. Anyway, the wikipedia article for "sexual dimorphism" uses sex-dimorphic and sexually dimorphic as its terminology.

We shoud find a simpler word for it then that means the same thing if it's too scientific. If we cannot, we really should use continue to use the scientific one.

Enoch-Fox said:
I mainly take issue with the "if the creator says they're male or the source says their male." In my original ambiguous_gender, I said that the artist's or source's gender should only be used if no other characteristics are present and this still holds true. Renamon is a female in the series, but what if I draw her as a male? Following this rule, 'he' would still be tagged as male because these are "AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATIONS". The rest of this section I totally agree with.

This is an oversight on my part of the consequences of my language. We should fix this. It is fairly murky language as it currently stands.

Kitsu~ said:
Personally, I would prefer the male tag to only be applicable for posts devoid of significant female characters.

In it's current usage (if there is a male character in the post, even if accompanied by female characters) it is far too unspecific to be of any use.

This has more to do with how we use the tags rather than the definition of them. However the revers of that statement should be the same if we decided to go down that path. However this will require a major tag over-hall. My goal on the wiki as it currently stands is to attempt to document how the community currently uses the tags, and how they are applied. We then have to take into the account of people looking for female - intersex pairings, which there is currently no term generally used for such sexual interactions. This really is a whole other can of worms.

Enoch-Fox said:
Female article has mainly the same set of issues, although less specific and lacks sort of the 'furry' examples from the male article, which (sans taxonomy) I think are useful and good to have. Even just the inverses would be fine (no mane on a lioness, or things like pouch on a kangaroo, etc)

Excellent points. I overlooked a pouch on a kangaroo.

Enoch-Fox said:
Androgynous article: too vague. I think it would be good to use the same terminology/examples as in the gender articles...

I tried to keep the wording and tone in the original male and female articles that were there before. The gender articles were mainly written from scratch. I'm glad you liked them.

Enoch-Fox said:
Tomboys are distinctly male but dress, behave, and to some degree have aspects of masculinity.

I think your confusing what tomboy means. Tomboys young girls who participate and dress like the males within thier social norms.

Enoch-Fox said:
Androgyny refers not only to sexual dimorphism but also behavior, dress, and other social aspects.

Somewhat, yes. It is large on gender bending.

Enoch-Fox said:
The "Girly" and "Tomboy" tags, to me, mean the exact same thing as this tag.

Androgyny is just one kind of gender bending. It is closer to girly than it is to tomboy, imho. Slight differentiation are important for umbrella terms.

Enoch-Fox said:
The current pool of posts tagged as "androgynous" seem to usually mean "ambiguous_gender" instead. If you don't mind too much, I'm going to rewrite this article to be more specific... I guess it can be reverted if the changes aren't good.

Well thats peer review for you. However the Wiki should reflect the tags. So if we plan on doing this, the tags will be need to be changed.

Enoch-Fox said:
Neuter article is obsessed with some one guy's fursona. Weird.

I didn't write that section, however it is an example of neuter. I honestly couldn't tell you of another off hand. Clear examples are a good thing, imho.

Enoch-Fox said:
Ambiguous Gender article: I like most of the changes you made to it but I think including "Tagme" and "unknown_artist" as related tags is sort of a mistake... ambiguous_gender isn't for "I don't know what gender this is, someone tell me so I can fix it" as much as "the gender of the character isn't information that I can get from this picture, or is unimportant to the picture". It's not MISSING information, it's information that doesn't actually exist.
Also since you seem to be sort of the resident tag guru, maybe you can help me out... what is the difference between the Ambiguous and Ambiguous_Gender tags? I made a request to alias Ambiguous to Ambiguous_Gender but it was turned down, so there must be a difference there.

I do spend alot of time rumaging through the tags, but I'm not an expert. I mainly work on documenting artists. To me "Ambiguous Gender" and "androgynous" were mainly redundant. I let them be for the most part. If this was my database, I would of deleted ambiguous gender a long time ago. The old documentation made it sound like a 'tagme' style information about the character, so I reflected that in my documentation. If I'm wrong, revert it.

Enoch-Fox said to Kitsu:
I dunno... by itself it's sort of useless but it cuts down on number of tags needed to describe other situations...
for what you want you could search male solo or male gay (I assume you're also avoiding herm/intersex chars to show ONLY males)

I think it's a fairly important tag. A lot of people have been proposing tag systems like
1_male+1_female
M/F
M/M/F
1_male+2_female

but that stuff clearly will get out of hand very quickly... i mean, 13M/6F/2H/1N or whatever for some of these ridiculous orgy pics, not to mention clean ones.

I think it's better the way it is, is what I'm trying to say, mainly because I don't see any better solutions...

And really the Male and female tags aren't meant to tell you what they are doing. They are not interaction tags.

mellis said:
Does it have a penis? Male.
Does it have a vagina? Female.
Does it have both? Herm.
Does it have no discernable sex organs? Ambiguous_Gender.
Can you not tell? Androgynous.
Is it neutered? Neuter + original gender tag.

Neuter has never been used for 'neutered' characters. People also have different tastes in intersex. Knowing what organs they have is important to find what you want. Also using that simple term also doesn't work for character with one sex organ and the opposing non-genital sexual dimorphism.

mellis said:
Those wiki entries are fucking retarded and anyone who makes it more complicated than posted above needs a rusty hacksaw taken to their face for being a pendantic asshole.

Pardon my frankness, but your oversimplification is dangerous. I know your an admin, however I do believe your being short sighted.

mellis said:
Anyone who insists 'cuntboys' and 'dickgirls' are their own genders .... We have this wonderful if under-utilized 'transgender' tag that sums them up nicely alongside the previously mentioned two terms.

No, they are a form of Intersex. Transgender is a term used for those who bend social norms. Dickgirls and Cuntboys are best described as pre-operation transsexuals, which are a form of neurological intersex.

This is why we can't have nice things.

mellis said:
This is why we can't have nice things.

What? A cordial discussion trying to achieve something constructive?

lol awesome

mellis you're so ironically furry
i wish i were you

http://xkcd.com/592/

This should sum things up well.

Stop over complicating it. It's a 3 step process...

1. List all sexes inside the picture.
Male, Female, Intersexed (And Cuntboy, Dickgirl, or Herm as appropriate), Androgynous, Ambiguous_Gender

2. List all interactions in the picture
Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, Straight, Solo, Group

3. List all genitalia visible in the picture
Penis, Vagina, Anus, Breasts, Clitoris, Balls

Goddamn, it isn't that hard.

VulpesFoxnik said:
No, they are a form of Intersex. Transgender is a term used for those who bend social norms. Dickgirls and Cuntboys are best described as pre-operation transsexuals, which are a form of neurological intersex.

Fuck. It's porn for crying out loud.

Intersexed = Catch all term for everything: Herm, Dickgirl, Cuntboy, etc.
Herm = Someone with Breasts, Vagina, and Penis
Dickgirl = Someone with Breasts and Penis only.
Cuntboy = Someone with Vagina and NO BREASTS

Everything tagged herm, dickgirl, or cuntboy should also have the intersexed tag. Everything with the intersexed tag should have either the herm, dickgirl, or cuntboy tag.

It's not really different from how the male tag should always come paired with a gay, solo, straight, clean, group or bisexual tag.

...
...
...

If we wanted to get picky, we could make a Futanari tag for a variant of herms that have a penis instead of a clitoris and no testicles (as is the common Japanese way of drawing Herms), but it would be a new tag for the site, so I see no reason to add it.

^---- this

but no futanari tag.