I came across quite a lot of posts that had the ambigous_gender -tag even though the gender of all characters was more than obvious.
Looking around, i noticed that many of them got that tag through the implication of ambigous_pov.
There are some issues with that, which is why i suggest:

1. For Gender-POV tags to apply, part of the viewer has to be visible in the image, or require the characters to physically interact with the viewer.

Unless there is some evidence proving otherwise, the viewer is an abstract concept:

• Is the viewer a character present in the scene?
• What if the viewer is a camera?
• Are (you) the viewer?
• Could the person be talking to/ looking at itself?
• Does the viewer represent the entirety of the users looking at the post?

The tags listed under "Roles and positions" of the first_person_view tag category aren't affected, since these apply regardless of what the viewer might be.

2. ambigous_pov does not imply ambigous_gender.
At least right now; due to the reasons named above. The restriction through #1 would make this hold true again.
This doesn't affect male_pov and female_pov as these fulfill #1 by default.
I also think that the concept of TWYS applies different in respect to the absence of information. Is this a-contrario-territory?

Right now, one could argue that every image that has the talking or looking_at_viewer could at least be tagged with ambigous_gender and thus by extention duo or more as well. This has terrible implications regarding the usability of these tags, which is the reason I'm making this topic.

Some examples: all of these images have received the ambigous_gender -tag by implication. That doesn't seem quite right, does it?
post #3806096 post #1787459 post #3688930 post #3826110 post #1774876 post #3744716 post #3588063 post #15300

qwertay said:
Some examples: all of these images have received the ambigous_gender -tag by implication. That doesn't seem quite right, does it?
post #3806096 post #1787459 post #3688930 post #3826110 post #1774876 post #3744716 post #3588063 post #15300

I'd argue none of those should be tagged ambiguous_pov (or first_person_view). Except maybe the Stitch one. The _pov tags largely imply first_person_view, which requires something of the viewer character to be visible in the image that the viewpoint is from, at which point it's valid to tag that character as ambiguous_gender if you can't tall what sex it is. A character in the image looking at the viewer, or the viewer looking through or around some object, or some aspect of the image directly in front of the viewer, should not on its own be tagged pov/first_person_view, unless something from the character the viewpoint is from is visible (a hand, a nose/snout, a reflection, etc).

qwertay said:
1. For Gender-POV tags to apply, part of the viewer has to be visible in the image, or require the characters to physically interact with the viewer.

This is pretty much how it's already supposed to be.

If we weren't requiring a body part or something otherwise that indicates the presence of a character being there the entire website could be tagged with first-person view. I don't think the majority of the examples you provided should be applicable at all.

Seems like ambiguous_pov would be better named as ambiguous_gender_pov? less confusing

cloudpie said:
Seems like ambiguous_pov would be better named as ambiguous_gender_pov? less confusing

That could extend to a few other tags, or at least ambiguous penetrated