I like the idea of fully armored. and I'd say it probably should be something like.. "what seems like a full suit, or close to a full suit of armor. For example, I'd accept a character with "long sleeve shirt and pants" coverage as fully armored. Shoes are a bit more awkward with digitgrade feet. but I'd take it case by case mostly.

Hmm. fully_armored should roughly mean "convincing_armor" in direct contrast to our unconvincing_armor tag. If we're going to scrutinize the effectiveness of a character's protection, I'd want the legs and arms armored too unless the character has a shield to compensate.

helmet optional. helmet should be tagged regardless because helmets are probably the most well-known type of armor.

barefeet vs armored is tricky when dealing with non-humanoid_feet. We don't have centuries of refined paw armor designs for artists to reference, so I can understand artists bypassing the hassle of portraying plausible paw armor. It's a furgonomics conundrum. fully_armored should excuse furgonomics if it's not particularly egregious. How exposed wings fits into that is another paragraph.

abadbird said:
Hmm. fully_armored should roughly mean "convincing_armor" in direct contrast to our unconvincing_armor tag. If we're going to scrutinize the effectiveness of a character's protection, I'd want the legs and arms armored too unless the character has a shield to compensate.

I'd be willing t have some flexibility there.

I mean: ( I don't know how I stand on all of these, just... examples and talking points)

post #150985 <-- this is pretty unconvincing. especially with the snow and all, but she's also wearing armor on each body part. should that count? I mean.. you... could search for fully_armored -unconvincing_armor if you wanted...? On the other hand, plate panties.
post #1358471 <-- this is more reasonable--she's got exposed elbow and some midrift, but the focus is pretty clearly on actually being armored--she's wearing pants and everything!
post #1427638 <-- technically wearing cloth and leather... does this count?
post #1427208 <-- how about ferals?

barefeet vs armored is tricky when dealing with non-humanoid_feet. We don't have centuries of refined paw armor designs for artists to reference, so I can understand artists bypassing the hassle of portraying plausible paw armor. It's a furgonomics conundrum. fully_armored should excuse furgonomics if it's not particularly egregious. How exposed wings fits into that is another paragraph.

paw armor. a part of me dies every time I see someone jsut .. put shoes on paws.

There's also the fact that claws would be formidable weapons in and of themselves and foot protection could be more of a hinderance than a benefit--depending, of course, of terrain and conditions. and feet. A hoofy, for example, probably doesn't care so much about stones--and a goat, for example, would probably be more hindered than helped by something interfering with it's ability to grip the ground. But someone with pawpads probably doens't want to walk on broken glass. But that's a discussion about world building and the concepts of furgonomics. Which is REALLY fun and neat, but doesn't really help us here--paw armor need not apply.

Wings are another kettle of fish, honestly. Any presumable wings are probably capable of adding mobility-- even if it's adding a few extra inches to a jump or helping with momentum, even if not enabling flight. Armoring wings would likely be a hindrance. Bats can, apparently, fly with small tears or cuts in their wings-- "up to about an inch" so a simple wing puncture or tear for a much larger creature would probably not be TOO difficult to deal with--and bat wings heal eventually. Broken bones would probably be more problematic, and armor covering the fingers of the wings would probably not really help anything except prevent structural damage.

I'd argue that wing armor need not apply too--as armored wings pprobably would hinder more than help--excepting, of course, 'full mecha armor' sorts of circumstances.

I am thinking about this too much.

I really hate when I see paw shoes that are human shoes, but with a digigrade shape.

Some very good points there. Maybe it should just be called convincing_armor instead of fully_armored..

Everyone seems to agree that footwear should be optional. That makes sense since even fully_clothed says the same thing. (Fully_clothed was originally intended to be 'footwear optional for characters with non-humanoid feet', but that got simplified for the ease of tagging.)

And not requiring helms sounds like a good idea, considering that in art characters are often posing in full armor while holding their helm.

The questionable_consent tag could be aliased with ambiguous_consent.

MtBighorn said:
The questionable_consent tag could be aliased with ambiguous_consent.

Vice versa, since at least questionable consent has a page explaining it. It also already has aliases going to it, and is used far more often than ambiguous consent.

Do we have a tag for when the character's face turns blue? I sincerely doubt that it's blush, but the only term I know for when the face turns blue is cyanosis, but that's either literally vague or medically specific.

post #1433908

Well, blue_blush is a tag.

Genjar said:
Some very good points there. Maybe it should just be called convincing_armor instead of fully_armored..

I kinda don't like that, because it sounds like the opposite of 'unconvincing armor'.. like "this is a proper breastplate" versus "this is a chainmail bikini"

Everyone seems to agree that footwear should be optional. That makes sense since even fully_clothed says the same thing. (Fully_clothed was originally intended to be 'footwear optional for characters with non-humanoid feet', but that got simplified for the ease of tagging.)

And not requiring helms sounds like a good idea, considering that in art characters are often posing in full armor while holding their helm.

very good point on the helmet too :D

On a related note: what about tail? (I mean, I don't think it shoudl count, but it's worth mentioning)

...goodness, there are a lot of *armor tags... *pulls out broom*

alright I'm officialy stumped

what do all of you think about a motivational fetish tag being created, and more specifically what should it be about?

so far I found 14 posts that are candidates. 17 if its not going to be a straight up fetish, but some way to "inspire" someone to "get gud" like a cannibalistic hippie professor wearing a diaper

but now i'm stumbling on issues about the subject. for example the comic below has the idea inside it's plot but don't know if it would be taggable in term of e621 rules
post #959503

then there pools were a character likes someone for being a hard worker or something along those lines. alot need to be hammered out now that i think about it.

supermarcopolo said:
alright I'm officialy stumped

what do all of you think about a motivational fetish tag being created, and more specifically what should it be about?

so far I found 14 posts that are candidates. 17 if its not going to be a straight up fetish, but some way to "inspire" someone to "get gud" like a cannibalistic hippie professor wearing a diaper

but now i'm stumbling on issues about the subject. for example the comic below has the idea inside it's plot but don't know if it would be taggable in term of e621 rules
post #959503

then there pools were a character likes someone for being a hard worker or something along those lines. alot need to be hammered out now that i think about it.

Well, now that you mention it, that is totally a reoccuring theme I've seen in some pictures, so that's SOMEONE's fetish-- so I think a tag's a great idea.

As for comics.... wasn't there something about how a title page for a comic could contain appropriate tags like that? Am I crazy? is that a REALLY old rule? was it something discussed one lazy saturday morning 6 years ago that's never come up again?

That said, it it's thematic to a comic, I'd probably tag it on any posts where it could be seen, if even subtly--- like post #1095532 -- there's a clear 'I'm giving you motivation' there.

as for rules, though.. that one I'm not sure about--throw 'em all in a set and let us see--might help with the rules.

(posting to this thread as apparently is for new and/or SMALL tags)

Wandered across small tag
''squirtle''(swampert)

Firstly, think there should be a "_" before the "(".

Secondly, wondering why squirtle surrounded by four single-quotation marks ('' '') instead of a pair of double-quotation marks (" ").

Checked out the uploads with sources and DA pages with Squirtle names are...

1) post #1167857
(source: https://mgx0.deviantart.com/art/Squirtle-x-Yuno-Cicada-Block-607472943 )
has character on left apparently named Squirtle, but looking like a swampert (example: post #55401 )

Three stages of this "Squirtle" character at
https://mgx0.deviantart.com/gallery/57999076/Pokemon
(below links are archive.is because sometimes the individual uploads won't display at DA)

(sorted in order given by swampert, because apparently mudkip turns into marshtomp, which turns into swampert)

a) character sheet of "Squirtle" (mudkip stage)
http://archive.is/https://mgx0.deviantart.com/art/Pokemon-258-Mudkip-593918685

which says "This is my stylized version of my first starter Pokemon in Hoenn.
I named him “Squirtle” :D"

b) character sheet of "Squirtle" (marshtomp stage)
http://archive.is/https://mgx0.deviantart.com/art/Pokemon-259-Marshstomp-593920352

which says ""Squirtle" had a rebellious attitude after his evolution, but still the same Mudkip I knew from before".

QUESTION: What should the tags(s) for this character named Squirtle be?
Should all three stages of character be tagged as "squirtle"_(mgx0) ? or just squirtle_(mgx0) ? (I'm fine with the quotes as the character isn't of species squirtle)

EarthFurst2 said:
which says "This is my stylized version of my first starter Pokemon in Hoenn.
I named him “Squirtle” :D"

post #300565

QUESTION: What should the tags(s) for this character named Squirtle be?
Should all three stages of character be tagged as "squirtle"_(mgx0) ? or just squirtle_(mgx0) ? (I'm fine with the quotes as the character isn't of species squirtle)

Uhhhh... Geeze, I'm still reeling from this.

I'd say Squirtle_(mgx0) -- the quotation marks aren't really needed.

That or something like Squirtle_the_swampert_(mgx0) but that'd get confusing for non-swampert images

Hm. Would lumberjack_shirt be worth tagging, or is plaid good enough for these?

post #1402055 post #1387962 post #599304 post #157837 post #1230055 post #1171966 post #366247

Genjar said:
Hm. Would lumberjack_shirt be worth tagging, or is plaid good enough for these?

post #1402055 post #1387962 post #599304 post #157837 post #1230055 post #1171966 post #366247

It's a pretty specific thing, so it's probably worth a tag. Might be better to tag it as flannel_shirt though to avoid confusion on non-lumberjack related images.

regsmutt said:
It's a pretty specific thing, so it's probably worth a tag. Might be better to tag it as flannel_shirt though to avoid confusion on non-lumberjack related images.

I agree! Flannel_shirt would be good.. or plaid_shirt --since we don't know what material a shirt is made out of. It's Traditionally flannel, buuuut.

SnowWolf said:
I agree! Flannel_shirt would be good.. or plaid_shirt --since we don't know what material a shirt is made out of. It's Traditionally flannel, buuuut.

True, though it has become a shorthand for this specific style of shirt, regardless of material. That's speaking from the experience of someone whose seen """flannel""" shirts made out of that crappy gauze material women's shirts are frequently made out of.

regsmutt said:
True, though it has become a shorthand for this specific style of shirt, regardless of material. That's speaking from the experience of someone whose seen """flannel""" shirts made out of that crappy gauze material women's shirts are frequently made out of.

That's true. just like our "jeans" with "pockets", in "sizes" -- the women's clothing industry is pretty bullshit. Anyway!

That's a fair point. :) I'd be pretty happy with either word.--iddealy, both are aliased to one tag, anyway :)

SnowWolf said:
That's true. just like our "jeans" with "pockets", in "sizes" -- the women's clothing industry is pretty bullshit. Anyway!

That's a fair point. :) I'd be pretty happy with either word.--iddealy, both are aliased to one tag, anyway :)

I'd gladly trade the pants pockets for being able to carry a purse without anyone jumping to conclusions. I basically use a backpack right now and it metaphorically turned my spine into a slinky.

regsmutt said:
It's a pretty specific thing, so it's probably worth a tag. Might be better to tag it as flannel_shirt though to avoid confusion on non-lumberjack related images.

i'd go with plaid_shirt. there are people who just don't know materials at all, but we do know how it looks.

kamimatsu said:
I'd gladly trade the pants pockets for being able to carry a purse without anyone jumping to conclusions. I basically use a backpack right now and it metaphorically turned my spine into a slinky.

A lack of pants pockets also means that when it's cold outside, I don't have a place to put my hands. It also means that if I need to just, say, carry a hotelroom card key, I don't have a place to do it. Or a wallet. I would very much like to just be able to carry a wallet around sometimes. A purse is also something that is easily snatched off of your shoulder--pickpocketing's more of a skill.

Anyway--you could always wear a messenger bag.

SnowWolf said:
A lack of pants pockets also means that when it's cold outside, I don't have a place to put my hands. It also means that if I need to just, say, carry a hotelroom card key, I don't have a place to do it. Or a wallet. I would very much like to just be able to carry a wallet around sometimes. A purse is also something that is easily snatched off of your shoulder--pickpocketing's more of a skill.

Anyway--you could always wear a messenger bag.

touche

Over the last week while looking though some of the Animaniacs pictures, it appeared the site for a while was having conflicting differences on what the Warner siblings should be when it comes to their species. In the series it self they were ambiguous. They have animal parts such as tails and feet but were never actually animals.
So I went back on close to almost every picture on the site at this point and added the tag "Inkblot" to their species and even created a short wiki for it.
https://e621.net/wiki/show/inkblot

It's also not just the Warners either. The tag can easily fit certain other characters too that are based on the Silent Era between the 1920's and 1930. Bendy the ink machine Demon is one as well and possibly even Cuphead too.

Siral_Exan said:
Do we have a tag for when the character's face turns blue? I sincerely doubt that it's blush, but the only term I know for when the face turns blue is cyanosis, but that's either literally vague or medically specific.

post #1433908

That expression is usually associated with awkwardness or sadness, so a tag for either of those should suffice.

Mysti151 said:
That expression is usually associated with awkwardness or sadness, so a tag for either of those should suffice.

face turning blue is used to amplify character's current expression, but it is not an expression on its own. also sad or awkward tags cannot be used to search or blacklist images where character's face turns blue.

Blue_blush is a tag

Mysti151 said:
That expression is usually associated with awkwardness or sadness, so a tag for either of those should suffice.

It's also commonly used to indicate shock, fear, or trauma in anime and other Japanese art ('turning blue' is Japanese equivalent of 'turning pale').

Those don't fit well under blush, so it probably needs a separate tag.

post #1527935
I'm gonna start up a pinned_by_tail tag because dang, I like this idea.

(copied from a separate forum post because I didn't know we had a thread already dedicated to new tags)

Title:Thought's on a tag for unfixable better_version_at_source posts

For the approximately two and a half months I've been here, replacing posts tagged with better_version_at_source, or bvas for short, I've encountered a few posts here and there, which couldn't be replaced for various reasons such as original image at source being larger than 15000 by 15000 pixels, or 100Mb's (site limit in case some doesn't know).

It has come to the point though, that there's quiet the amount of them now, and I, and probably a few other, will have a hard time keeping up with what and what isn't fixable.

Would just like to know others thoughts of a tag, which can be used on bvas posts that can't be fixed, such as Unfixable_better_version_at_source, or something more compact/smaller.

Nicklo6649 said:
(copied from a separate forum post because I didn't know we had a thread already dedicated to new tags)

Title:Thought's on a tag for unfixable better_version_at_source posts

For the approximately two and a half months I've been here, replacing posts tagged with better_version_at_source, or bvas for short, I've encountered a few posts here and there, which couldn't be replaced for various reasons such as original image at source being larger than 15000 by 15000 pixels, or 100Mb's (site limit in case some doesn't know).

It has come to the point though, that there's quiet the amount of them now, and I, and probably a few other, will have a hard time keeping up with what and what isn't fixable.

Would just like to know others thoughts of a tag, which can be used on bvas posts that can't be fixed, such as Unfixable_better_version_at_source, or something more compact/smaller.

If it's for a project you could put them in a set but I'm not opposed to a tag.

Nicklo6649 said:

snip

(copied from a separate forum post because I didn't know we had a thread already dedicated to new tags)

Title:Thought's on a tag for unfixable better_version_at_source posts

For the approximately two and a half months I've been here, replacing posts tagged with better_version_at_source, or bvas for short, I've encountered a few posts here and there, which couldn't be replaced for various reasons such as original image at source being larger than 15000 by 15000 pixels, or 100Mb's (site limit in case some doesn't know).

It has come to the point though, that there's quiet the amount of them now, and I, and probably a few other, will have a hard time keeping up with what and what isn't fixable.

Would just like to know others thoughts of a tag, which can be used on bvas posts that can't be fixed, such as Unfixable_better_version_at_source, or something more compact/smaller.

I'm thinking Unobtainable_Version_at_Source that replaces BVAS when the source has an image over 15k in either way, or that otherwise cannot be (fully) posted on the site such as your aforementioned. Then, just alias UVAS and etc. to it.

Siral_Exan said:
I'm thinking Unobtainable_Version_at_Source that replaces BVAS when the source has an image over 15k in either way, or that otherwise cannot be (fully) posted on the site such as your aforementioned. Then, just alias UVAS and etc. to it.

I like that... but I'm afraid that it might be misunderstood by a newbie.. unobtainable *could* sound like... "There's a higher quality version through a paywall" or something.

I dunno!

(do we have a tag for 'there's a higher quality version of this on this guys patreon?')

How about something like best_version_allowed I feel like that kinda gets the point across. This could describe posts that have bigger versions available that are either larger than the max size and posts where the better version can't be posted because the artist dosn't want it posted or it's patreon only.

Blind_Guardian said:
If it's for a project you could put them in a set but I'm not opposed to a tag.

At that point I would say I might as well not do anything about it then. By putting it in set, I still have to either remember, or constantly check the set to see which posts can and cannot be fixed, as opposed to a tag, which can be used to easily filter fixable posts out of the unfixable ones, after of course they’ve all been respectfully tagged.

Thank you for your response

Siral_Exan said:
I'm thinking Unobtainable_Version_at_Source that replaces BVAS when the source has an image over 15k in either way, or that otherwise cannot be (fully) posted on the site such as your aforementioned. Then, just alias UVAS and etc. to it.

That could work, though snowwolf has a point, about newer users.

Thank you for the response.

darryus said:
How about something like best_version_allowed I feel like that kinda gets the point across. This could describe posts that have bigger versions available that are either larger than the max size and posts where the better version can't be posted because the artist dosn't want it posted or it's patreon only.

That could work maybe even better, since as snowwolf said, Unobtainable_version_at_source could be a bit misleading to newer users, which I do agree on. Though I do believe it could be made broader by changing it to best_version_obtaianble or best_obtainable_version maybe, though that’s just my opinion.

Thank you for the response.

Also, seen as some had responded to the previous one, which I made a bit before I unfortunately figured out that we already had a tag suggestion thread, I’ll be linking it now https://e621.net/forum/show/255714?page=1

Added a hanging_by_feet tag, similar to the established hanging_by_tail. Lemme know if we already had some other tag for that.

Noticed a recently added married_couple tag. I'm not sure if that's worth keeping, it seems to be tagged mostly by outside information. I can't see most of the characters wearing rings or anything else that indicates that they're married.

post #1483879 post #1135582 post #1531854

Replace it with romantic_couple where applicable, I'd say. Opinions?

__

As for sheath_outline, I see no problems with tagging that if it's distinct enough.

Never posted before and don't know all the tricks so sorry if this isn't formatted very well. I've been thinking about going through and doing the work to tag something along the lines of (Cum_While_Giving_Fellatio) to help differentiate between the top cumming from fellatio and the bottom cumming. (Name is up for debate) I could probably find 500+ images with this suggestion.

https://e621.net/post/show/1525629
https://e621.net/post/show/1502748
https://e621.net/post/show/1457583
https://e621.net/post/show/1375065
https://e621.net/post/show/1502881

I plan to only tag posts with 2boys (edit: or two individuals with cocks thought thats even harder to search for) where the bottom cums using a anal or penile masturbation as a 3rd actor giving anal would be better served by (Spitroast) tag. I've been using a mix of (fellatio masturbation orgasm male/male) but 80% of it is art of only the top cumming. (Hands_free) doesn't allow any penile/anal masturbation but could be used in conjunction with (Cum_While_Giving_Fellatio) to even further specify, similar with (cum_while_penetrated).

---

On another note. +1 for Married_couple being aliased into Romantic_couple. Meta Tagging IRL married couples (assuming no rings in picture) would become a hassle as people naturally get divorced or married. While (Romantic_couple) would always be applicable/descriptive of what is in the picture. As well as married OC's would be covered by romantic couple anyways.

The only problem is if a ring is present, (Wedding_ring) exists and has ~250 images but implying (Romantic_couple) isn't applicable as there may be cheating images.

Just my 2 cents.

Humanity5 said:
On another note. +1 for Married_couple being aliased into Romantic_couple. Meta Tagging IRL married couples (assuming no rings in picture) would become a hassle as people naturally get divorced or married. While (Romantic_couple) would always be applicable/descriptive of what is in the picture. As well as married OC's would be covered by romantic couple anyways.

The only problem is if a ring is present, (Wedding_ring) exists and has ~250 images but implying (Romantic_couple) isn't applicable as there may be cheating images.

Just my 2 cents.

romantic_couple is so vague...romance is something that can happen to people that met 10 minutes ago...it doesn't even imply the existence of an official relationship of any kind. Literally put a fucking candle and a rose in an image of two furries fucking and suddenly you have a romatic_couple...terrible tag.

And what if a couple is married, but they aren't acting in a romantic manner towards one another? If there's a picture of a couple fighting and literally at each other's throats it would be pretty fucking weird to see a romantic_couple tag on that image.

This is seriously one of the absolute worst suggestion I've heard in...maybe ever.

Keep the married_couple tag. If an OC couple gets divorced at some point the tag can just be removed from the images (doesn't happen that often anyways). Meta tagging isn't always a bad thing...tags are meant to cater to what people want to see, and I'm sure certain people probably want to see married couples same way they want to see mother_and_daughter images, despite both tags relying on outside information most of the time.

Dyrone said:
romantic_couple is so vague...romance is something that can happen to people that met 10 minutes ago...it doesn't even imply the existence of an official relationship of any kind. Literally put a fucking candle and a rose in an image of two furries fucking and suddenly you have a romatic_couple...terrible tag.

except if you're searching that, then you don't care. you're looking for the idea of a romantic scene.

And what if a couple is married, but they aren't acting in a romantic manner towards one another? If there's a picture of a couple fighting and literally at each other's throats it would be pretty fucking weird to see a romantic_couple tag on that image.

Well then that would clearly not be a romantic couple. There is no romantic aspects and they are clearly not feeling like a couple at that moment.

SnowWolf said:
except if you're searching that, then you don't care. you're looking for the idea of a romantic scene.

Then the tag would simply be romatic if all you care about is a romantic scene...the "couple" part doesn't need to be in there.

SnowWolf said:
Well then that would clearly not be a romantic couple. There is no romantic aspects and they are clearly not feeling like a couple at that moment.

Doesn't matter what they feel like at the time, a married couple is still married even while they're fighting. So you kinda just proved my point that the word "romantic" is not a good substitute for "married", or any type of couple for that matter.

Dyrone said:
Then the tag would simply be romatic if all you care about is a romantic scene...the "couple" part doesn't need to be in there.

The romantic tag is being phased out as too ambiguous, and should not be used anymore. Use romantic_couple and/or romantic_ambiance instead.

Dyrone said:
Doesn't matter what they feel like at the time, a married couple is still married even while they're fighting. So you kinda just proved my point that the word "romantic" is not a good substitute for "married", or any type of couple for that matter.

That does the exact opposite of prove your point or I guess that it proved that your point was totally invalid. If the tag was a "substitute" for another tag than it'd be a pointless tag, and since it's not the exact same meaning as another tag than it's a good tag.

post #1575983, post #618594, post #636457

Voodoo_sex?

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
post #1575983, post #618594, post #636457

Voodoo_sex?

That is definetly somethign that should be tagged. :D

voodoo_sex?
long_distance_sex?

SnowWolf said:
That is definetly somethign that should be tagged. :D

voodoo_sex?
long_distance_sex?

ranged_penetration.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
ranged_penetration.

hahahahhaha XD

Magic_sex actually isn't a tag.... but that would be a poor tag <3

Hello! I'd like to pitch a new tag called consent themes. Check out its wiki article and then feel free to provide feedback on the tag's concept and whether it fits with the site, as well as the tag's naming.

post #1610646 post #773177 post #380207

I really like the idea of a tag that goes into the idea of enthusiastic and clear consent.

Don't love the name though... Hmm.. will think about options~

Yeah, that name is too vague, and could easily be mistagged for questionable_consent. Plus we already have some tags that overlap with the proposed one.

How about explicitly_stated_consent, to match the existing explicitly_stated_nonconsent?

Genjar said:
Yeah, that name is too vague, and could easily be mistagged for questionable_consent. Plus we already have some tags that overlap with the proposed one.

How about explicitly_stated_consent, to match the existing explicitly_stated_nonconsent?

I like that! Matching is always good :)

Also, for asking for consent, consent_request.

Just started tagging [gender]_penetrated on a couple of post to match [gender]_penetrating and solve a couple of 'how-do-I-search-for-that?'

Re: New consent themes tag

Genjar said:
Yeah, that name is too vague, and could easily be mistagged for questionable_consent. Plus we already have some tags that overlap with the proposed one.

How about explicitly_stated_consent, to match the existing explicitly_stated_nonconsent?

"Consent themes" was purposefully designed to encompass a broad set of positive consent behaviors, not only giving consent but also asking for, denying, or respecting it. If I had to rename the tag to distinct from questionable consent or other negative themes, I'd change the name to positive consent themes.

We can certainly make specific tags like consent request and explicitly stated consent, too! But having a general category tag for these specific behaviors is a good indexing strategy and helps users discover these tags.

Thoughts? Agreements? Arguments? ^_^

How about something like offering_sex_toy? Pretty self explanatory what it would be used for. Could also be specified to vibrator, dildo etc.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
How about something like offering_sex_toy? Pretty self explanatory what it would be used for. Could also be specified to vibrator, dildo etc.

No problems with that, as far as I see. Sex toys are sometimes simply tagged as 'toy', but it seems better to specify it in this case.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
How about something like offering_sex_toy? Pretty self explanatory what it would be used for. Could also be specified to vibrator, dildo etc.

I could see people using a tag like that. :-) And tweaking the name to presenting_sex_toy would fit the existing presenting_* schema.

Any objections to multi_breast_growth, to be tagged when a character grows multiple breasts? Could be useful if someone's looking for 'unusual' transformations, but it might be redundant with transformation multiple_breasts.

I tagged a few, but no wiki yet. So if anyone objects, can just undo it.

Genjar said:
Any objections to multi_breast_growth, to be tagged when a character grows multiple breasts? Could be useful if someone's looking for 'unusual' transformations, but it might be redundant with transformation multiple_breasts.

I tagged a few, but no wiki yet. So if anyone objects, can just undo it.

*sleepy squint* should it be multi_breast_growth or multi-breast_growth?

I guess it should be underscore, since that matches the formatitng of most of our tags.... but I'd argue that all of the multi_tail and multi_penis tags should be hyphenated instead...

for grammar. On the other hand, All of those would need aliases for the typos. :p

so yeah, multi_breast_growth is fine.

...so *growth is for developing an additional part, while *expansion is for the size increase of an existing part?

SnowWolf said:
...so *growth is for developing an additional part, while *expansion is for the size increase of an existing part?

Yep. The names are subject to change if *_growth isn't obvious enough for those, but the important thing is that we have some tag for growing new parts.

Hey is there already a tag for when a female character licks/sucks on their own breast? If not I'd like to suggest something like self_breast_suck or suck_own_breast?

post #1654519

jetchicken said:
Hey is there already a tag for when a female character licks/sucks on their own breast? If not I'd like to suggest something like self_breast_suck or suck_own_breast?

post #1654519

Self_suckle and auto_breast_lick

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Self_suckle and auto_breast_lick

Thanks. Oddly enough I think I had actually tried "suckle_self" earlier, so close.

Another question. Is there a tag for when an appendage is giving attention to the clitoris specifically.

post #1650324 post #1609295

jetchicken said:
Thanks. Oddly enough I think I had actually tried "suckle_self" earlier, so close.

A tip is to use tag search ([tags] tab)
Surprisingly often you'll find what you were looking for by typing in related words with wildcards in between and in the beginning and end. (For example *self*suck* would've found self-suckle, self_suck, and self-suck

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
A tip is to use tag search ([tags] tab)
Surprisingly often you'll find what you were looking for by typing in related words with wildcards in between and in the beginning and end. (For example *self*suck* would've found self-suckle, self_suck, and self-suck

Gotcha, actually found the answer to my clit question, thanks.

jetchicken said:
Gotcha, actually found the answer to my clit question, thanks.

Yeah. It's simply clitoral. Severely untagged, and I would say it hasn't caught on but ought to eventually. People would sooner tag vaginal out of habit, and it's not like clitoral has a *_penetration tag to implicate it like vaginal does.

Anyway, take these questions to this thread instead.

We really ought to have a species tag to describe what bowser, bowser_jr., and the koopalings are. Currently they're usually just tagged with koopa which is a generic tag that applies to all turtle-like species originating from Mario games.

I'm thinking I'm going to go ahead and go through and add tag in the realm of "bowserlike" or "bowser's_species", unless anyone has a better tag name or any objections.

darryus said:
We really ought to have a species tag to describe what bowser, bowser_jr., and the koopalings are. Currently they're usually just tagged with koopa which is a generic tag that applies to all turtle-like species originating from Mario games.

I've been wondering how confusing that must be to our Japanese users.
Bowser is an old mistranslation that never got fixed, his Japanese name is Koopa, and all the Mario turtle-like species are collectively known as kamezoku (lit. translation 'turtle tribe', or turtlefolk).

In any case, they're all of the same species, so I don't see how a separate tag would be warranted.

Genjar said:
I've been wondering how confusing that must be to our Japanese users.
Bowser is an old mistranslation that never got fixed, his Japanese name is Koopa, and all the Mario turtle-like species are collectively known as kamezoku (lit. translation 'turtle tribe', or turtlefolk).

In any case, they're all of the same species, so I don't see how a separate tag would be warranted.

Actually, Japanese users use the "koopa troopa" tag, "Noko noko". If you try to search for kamezoku on Pixiv, you're going to get very few results, but a lot, including friendlies and parakoopas, by searching for nokonoko.

Genjar said:
In any case, they're all of the same species, so I don't see how a separate tag would be warranted.

That's kinda like saying that sharks and goldfish are the same thing and we should just tag all of them with just fish.
Bowserlike koopas are wildly different from all other koopas, they have teeth, their face has canine/dragon muzzle rather than the beaks that most koopas have, their shell only covers their back and they just have belly_scales on their front, they can have hair.

The main reason I want to start this tag is it'd give a reason to finally nix the stupid princess_koopa tag (which is just Peach antrofied as a bowswelike koopa) since after the addition of the tag we won't be losing any information by removing the tag.

darryus said:
The main reason I want to start this tag is it'd give a reason to finally nix the stupid princess_koopa tag (which is just Peach antrofied as a bowswelike koopa) since after the addition of the tag we won't be losing any information by removing the tag.

Isn't that 100x more unique than most oc's? 'Whaaat? that's not bowser, that's bewsor my oc, he has one extra spike and heterochromia!'

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Isn't that 100x more unique than most oc's? 'Whaaat? that's not bowser, that's bewsor my oc, he has one extra spike and heterochromia!'

Yeah, but we generally don't have character tags for things that are literally just antrhofied versions of characters that already exist. Other than rare cases of things that exist in canon, like zora_link.