That is pretty much my favorite pic of all of Wolfy's stuff.

Incredibly cute.

Breasts tag? What?

Okay.

We know Mikhaila is female. I am not going to be a douche, but I can't see anything feminine about this picture, other than the character.

Should I start editing tags?

Arcanine09 said:
Okay.

We know Mikhaila is female. I am not going to be a douche, but I can't see anything feminine about this picture, other than the character.

Should I start editing tags?

No. It's tagged female becouse she's a god-damn female. And if You really don't see anything feminine about her then You've seen too many traps budy.

Hmm... I thought originally Mikhaila was a "Cunt Boy", but I have noticed the pictures portraying them more and more feminine. So I don't really know what to say other then I still love Wolfy's work!

Arrakiz said:
if You really don't see anything feminine about her then You've seen too many traps budy.

yeah it has eyelashes duh. so obvious.

Raven_Blakwulf said:
Hmm... I thought originally Mikhaila was a "Cunt Boy", but I have noticed the pictures portraying them more and more feminine. So I don't really know what to say other then I still love Wolfy's work!

She's never been a cuntboy.

Oh lord, here we go again.

I really do like this furry... more so because i watch people argue over the whole thing....

I've apparently been blocked from editing tags or I'd fix this up. Oh well.

...at first, I thought it was a boy. Then I looked at it some more...
The face tells me it's a girl. :L
I like her already! :D

Welp, here we go again.

-Changes tags.-

just make it female + androgynous or something. the gender's already known. :/

That and, no offense, but flat tits =/= male/cuntboy. Jussayin.

Skift said:
just make it female + androgynous or something. the gender's already known. :/

That and, no offense, but flat tits =/= male/cuntboy. Jussayin.

Gender's known, but we should tag what we see, not what we know. >_>

If you can't see any indication of gender, what does it mean? It has none.

Arcanine09 said:
Gender's known, but we should tag what we see, not what we know. >_>

If you can't see any indication of gender, what does it mean? It has none.

Does that mean any male character wearing pants could be declared genderless because it may as well be a flat chested girl? Seeing we have no proof against it and all.

LoveHateHeroine said:
Does that mean any male character wearing pants could be declared genderless because it may as well be a flat chested girl? Seeing we have no proof against it and all.

And does that mean that girly boys and traps are automatically females too? No.

That's what the AMBIGUOUS GENDER is for. If we can't tell a gender from neither male nor female, it's ambiguous.

In this image, THERE IS NO INDICATION THE PERSONA PORTRAYED IN THIS PICTURE THAT IT'S EITHER MALE OR FEMALE.

Unless you can prove it.

Okay, really guys? This character is obviously female. Look at her body shape, and her face. She's just flat chested. This has been gone over a thousand times.

masonrulz said:
Okay, really guys? This character is obviously female. Look at her body shape, and her face. She's just flat chested. This has been gone over a thousand times.

Oh definitely! You can obviously SEE the CURVES! The FEMINISM shapes! The clothes are totally FEMININE! The body lookes very FEMININE, because those are totally gender classified!

What about girly boys and manly girls, they get to be tagged girly and manly right? No, because YOU only tag what YOU know. You have to TAG what you SEE, not what YOU KNOW.

Arcanine09 said:
Oh definitely! You can obviously SEE the CURVES! The FEMINISM shapes! The clothes are totally FEMININE! The body lookes very FEMININE, because those are totally gender classified!

What about girly boys and manly girls, they get to be tagged girly and manly right? No, because YOU only tag what YOU know. You have to TAG what you SEE, not what YOU KNOW.

Jesus, calm down. I didn't change the tags.

I am watching these tags.

Arcanine09 said:
I am watching these tags.

Good for you.

...lol.

Would be nice if I could edit comments...
Anyways, if you take the time to read the "Tagging Projects" sticky thread in the forums you'd see the proper way to tag an image.
It demonstrates quite CLEARLY that you do NOT tag what you simply see because what you see may be wrong! You tag based on RESEARCH and what you KNOW to be a fact about the image based on said research.
A little bit of research will reveal that this character is named MIK and that this character is a FEMALE. So according to the procedure clearly laid out, the FEMALE tag is entirely appropriate, hence me re-adding it. Since it is also obvious the her gender is indeed ambiguous, it is fitting as well.
So please, get your facts straight before you order others about based on your opinion.

cavicatz24 said:
Would be nice if I could edit comments...
Anyways, if you take the time to read the "Tagging Projects" sticky thread in the forums you'd see the proper way to tag an image.
It demonstrates quite CLEARLY that you do NOT tag what you simply see because what you see may be wrong! You tag based on RESEARCH and what you KNOW to be a fact about the image based on said research.
A little bit of research will reveal that this character is named MIK and that this character is a FEMALE. So according to the procedure clearly laid out, the FEMALE tag is entirely appropriate, hence me re-adding it. Since it is also obvious the her gender is indeed ambiguous, it is fitting as well.
So please, get your facts straight before you order others about based on your opinion.

So we're supposed to overlook the Tagging rule of what you see over what you misread?

Allow me to take some time to point out that SnowWolf's point on tagging is tagging UNKNOWN_SPECIES tag. As in, if you don't know what the fuck something is, you look the source to find out and properly tag it as close to the resemblance of description as possible.

Secondly. There's no gender_tagging in SnowWolf's project, why? Because Char, another Admin, already stated that we should TAG WHAT WE SEE, not WHAT WE KNOW.

Allow me to refresh everyone's mind by reposting his explicit, carefully laid out words, cavicatz24 and everyone else, as they're very important since you and most of you seem to MISINTERPRET and distribute MISINFORMATION about what is it that we should tag.

"Char said:
On proper gender tagging
I fear we may never finally squash this problem of gender not being properly tagged on images, but let's cover this AGAIN since there seem to be a lot of people still who don't understand why it's NEVER EVER APPROPRIATE to tag gender using information that you can not directly infer from the image itself.

Let me present a scenario to you. Suppose I want to find explicit images of herm wolves. So I search for "rating:e herm wolf". The following image pops up in my list of results: post #84822 (this used to be tagged herm, I'm just using it as an example). This is NOT an image that I want to see if I'm looking for herms, because there is nothing in the image that makes me think it's a herm. Therefore, this image is NOT PROPERLY TAGGED because the tags indicate that there is a herm when, in fact, there is no clear indication of such.

Edit from P.C Any character who "is" a hermaphrodite, shall be tagged as such. There shall be no exceptions to this rule. 1. The character has a Cunt, no dick, and No Boobs shall be tagged Cunt Boy. 2; A character with Boobs, a Dick, and no Vag shall be tagged Dick Girl. 3; Any character shown to have a Dick, Boobs {Or no boobs} and a Vag shall be tagged Hermaphrodite. All three clauses will be tagged Intersex, and there will be no tagging of "Male Herm" or "Female Herm" end edit

The above scenario ALSO creates a problem for users who blacklist "herm". Since there is no indication that there is a herm in that image, it would be NEEDLESSLY blacklisted for those who blacklist "herm". It hides content that they would normally be fine seeing.

So why would that post be tagged "herm" anyways? Because the character "Artica Sparkle" is, typically, a herm. This does not matter. I don't care if a character TYPICALLY has 12 dicks, 30 testicles, and 14 vaginas on their body if I CAN'T SEE THEM. It doesn't matter what the artist says, it doesn't matter what the character owner says, it doesn't matter what ANYONE says. If they look like a female, they get tagged female. If they look like a male, they get tagged male. If they look like a herm, they get tagged herm. Period. You should never, EVER tag a picture according to information that has been gathered from an artist/owner/ANYONE's description of the characters in the picture.

To the artists: Please understand that if you draw a picture of a character in such a way that there is no indication that the character is a herm, then it might as well not be one. This is also like saying "these two characters are brother and sister" when there is no similarity between the characters whatsoever, nor any indication in the picture that they identify themselves as brother and sister (such as text like "Oh sis you feel so good!" or "I hope mom doesn't find us!"). We are not disagreeing that the characters in your pictures are herms or relatives, as that is entirely up to you. HOWEVER, e621 tags on a picture-by-picture basis. A character that is a herm in one image you draw may very well be a male in another image you draw, just because you felt like it one day. So we will ALWAYS use only the information that can be derived from the image itself, and not what you say you intended, because it's irrelevant to what the picture actually depicts.

To the character owners: I understand it might seem like e621 is "wrong" for claiming that your character is a male or female in a particular image, when you personally consider your character to always be a herm. Please understand that e621 is NOT disagreeing that your character is a herm. We are not saying "this character in this picture is definitely a female, not a herm." We're saying that ALL INDICATIONS within the picture itself point to NOTHING MORE than "female". If your character actually has dick/pussy/whatever below the belt, it is IRRELEVANT information if it can not be seen in the image. I don't think we have very many people on e621 that want to see "herms that don't actually look like herms in a particular image".

tl;dr: TAG ONLY WHAT YOU SEE, ALWAYS"

It is you who should get your facts straight before you tell others they're wrong and say non-factual things, like... really not reading the entirety of SnowWolf's Tagging Project and guiding yourself to find how to tag gender, or, misreading the fact that SnowWolf's point to tag certain things we don't know about, like a random creature with a thousand species put together to find out the source and tag it as best as possible to the referenced description from the artist.

Having said that, gender =/= species.

TL;DR

Stop bitching and get <i>your</i> facts right. There's a reason we were told to TAG WHAT WE SEE on gender, not on species.

In short, tag based on research when it comes to species but gender can be tagged based off an interpretation(no matter how incorrect)? It's contradictory and makes little sense which is why I ignored it.
Everybody will "see" an image differently depending on what they "know" of the subject. Someone who has never encountered Mik before may think she's a male and tag an image as such simply because to THEM, she may look like a dude. But since I know that Mik is a chick, I will never see her as a guy. Since I see a female not only based on prior knowledge but to me her facial features are enough to say "female", I label her female.
To you, the image is abiguous, to me, it's female. Hence the flaw in tagging what we see versus what we know.

TL;DR: Stop bitching and playing moderator. Mik is a chick, we all know it, and anybody that knows the character will see her as such. We will never see any ambiguity to her, but for the sake of individuals such as yourself I can see it fitting. But for the rest of us that see a female, female belongs. And unless you're going to go and edit the tags of every Mik image that doesn't show twat, I'd suggest just letting it go. The bottom line is more people will see her as a female than a male or an "ambiguous gender". Fact.
Now I'm done. The whole deal is so flawed and unimportant that I regret even poking my nose in it.
*end argument*

face reminds me of Lilo.
Disney faces I can remember.

Arcanine09 said:
Okay.

We know Mikhaila is female. I am not going to be a douche, but I can't see anything feminine about this picture, other than the character.

Should I start editing tags?

I looked at the tag history. Stop removing the female tag. Otherwise, you'll be sad. It's a really good way to get banned.

Anyone who is familiar with this character already know its a girl but I guess newbies can't help it if they make the *honest* mistake...it just gets annoying after a while, especially with how long Mik has been around and the constant sound of people going 'BUT IT HAS NO TITS! ITS A CUNT-BOI!!' as if they have never come to realize that woman don't have planet sized boobs and that people *gasp!* actually like to draw flat chested women!

Super sexy. Wow!

JoeX said:
I looked at the tag history. Stop removing the female tag. Otherwise, you'll be sad. It's a really good way to get banned.

I'm sorry, was that a threat from a backseat modding asshole?

Changing tags back, thanks for the laugh though.

redweasel said:
yeah it has eyelashes duh. so obvious.

ever heard of "girly"?

Oh god, I fucking love reading this stuff over Mik.
Seriously, I have tried helping to make the rules clear before, got nowhere thought fuck it and this whole system. Still I like how women with flat chests are automatically cunt-bois, because "flat chested women don't exist.. They have to have boobs big enough to shatter a spine." Geez, you people make me sick. I'll take flat chest over Jupiter tits any day.

KurogamiRyuta said:
Oh god, I fucking love reading this stuff over Mik.
Seriously, I have tried helping to make the rules clear before, got nowhere thought fuck it and this whole system. Still I like how women with flat chests are automatically cunt-bois, because "flat chested women don't exist.. They have to have boobs big enough to shatter a spine." Geez, you people make me sick. I'll take flat chest over Jupiter tits any day.

My girlfriend was almost flat chested.

SweetPaw said:
Anyone who is familiar with this character already know its a girl but I guess newbies can't help it if they make the *honest* mistake...it just gets annoying after a while, especially with how long Mik has been around and the constant sound of people going 'BUT IT HAS NO TITS! ITS A CUNT-BOI!!' as if they have never come to realize that woman don't have planet sized boobs and that people *gasp!* actually like to draw flat chested women!

SweetPaw said:
Anyone who is familiar with this character already know its a girl but I guess newbies can't help it if they make the *honest* mistake...it just gets annoying after a while, especially with how long Mik has been around and the constant sound of people going 'BUT IT HAS NO TITS! ITS A CUNT-BOI!!' as if they have never come to realize that woman don't have planet sized boobs and that people *gasp!* actually like to draw flat chested women!

I suddenly remember this one Asian chick who was in one of my classes in high school ... Flattest chest I ever saw, but absolutely gorgeous. Of course, it didn't hurt that she didn't wear a bra (nothing to support) and her perfectly normal feminine nipples were usually visible as two sharp points on her shirt.

Okay, first of all, cuntboys don't usually have eyes that pretty OR generally that much curvyness to their overall physique. Second of all, whether or not you see it here, the original character design PER the character's creator demonstrates a wide hip-to-shoulder ratio that is a massive dead giveaway. There's more to femininity than boobs, people.

If anything, the otter is ambiguous.

The character has been explicitly stated by the author to be a female. Thus a gender tag for female is necessary. Whether or not she displays the common traits associated with being "feminine" is completely beyond the point. The character is a female, whether or not she looks like one doesn't matter. Maybe add a tag that says "Boyish" much akin to the tag for male characters that look effeminate "girly".

ezekieldelsanto said:
The character has been explicitly stated by the author to be a female.

http://e621.net/wiki/show?title=tag_what_you_see

ezekieldelsanto said:
The character has been explicitly stated by the author to be a female. Thus a gender tag for female is necessary. Whether or not she displays the common traits associated with being "feminine" is completely beyond the point. The character is a female, whether or not she looks like one doesn't matter. Maybe add a tag that says "Boyish" much akin to the tag for male characters that look effeminate "girly".

You're right, the character is probably a female according to Wolfy-Nail
However, he/she also looks like a male, due to the lack of curves/feminine figure, as well as the lack of visible genitals

Since they could be mistaken for a male at first glance, but still retain feminine features (i.e it's not 100% clear), they get the ambiguous gender tag to accomodate the possibility of both genders
-
Please see the comments above yours for a further explanation as to why it's currently marked as ambiguous gender

As well as howto:tag genders

so beautiful she is and what lovely feet she has

she looks young.. can someone please tag?