Which is of course is implications that you started and only do. I also find it really redundant and unnecessary when that's done on a furry character. Because, well, no shit.

Kemonomimi usually have furry ears and tail as well. The "furry" part refers to it being covered in fur, not being part of an anthropomorphized animal. In other words, furry adjective, not furry noun. Also, not all furries have furry ears and/or tail.

That's not what I mean. Tagging "fur" and "furry_" on something kemonomimi related I can see. It's when it's an anthro. How many times can you address that a character covered in fur indeed has parts covered in fur?

rule34.xxx/index.php?page...;tags=furry_breasts+furry

Also, other boorus dropped kemonomimi in favor of "animal_ears" So I'm in favor of that. In most cases, that's what it boils down to anyway.

It would be better to use a term that described the entire creature instead of one specific part of it but is there a term that does that? "animal_ears" can potentially confuse creatures that have animal ears with (usually human) characters wearing animal ears.

From what I've seen, E621 uses "animal_humanoid" for this but that tag sounds a bit clunky to me. A single word term would be better.

Also, you're doing the same thing you did with the "human" tag, saying only some instances should be tagged while others shouldn't. That only leads to incomplete search results.

rule34.xxx/index.php?page...amp;tags=fake_animal_ears


Because should tag things of note. Not 100% sure, but most using the site are humans. So might not look up "human" was something to it. That's why there's thing like how e621 has "not_furry" and Danbooru has "no_humans". They're exceptions from the rest.

Not 100% sure, but most using E621 are humans as well. That doesn't affect how they tag things.

E621 is supposed to be a furry-only site. The "non-furry" tag is for content that technically shouldn't be there. Danbooru is a human-centric site which tags those exceptions because they don't have many of them. We are not Danbooru, we are not human-centric, we have about as many human images as we do non-human ones. You need to stop acting like we are Danbooru. We are a porn-centric site, so the exception tag for us would something like be "non-porn" but you rejected such a tag as soon as it came up.

Only tagging something in notable situations will lead to searches that don't contain all instances of the thing you searched for. When I search for something, I expect all known instances of it to appear, not just the ones arbitrarily declared notable. When I exclude something, I expect all known instances of it to disappear, not just the ones arbitrarily declared notable.

The big difference between you and me is I have less double standards than you. I try to ensure all instances of something are tagged so they can be found when searched for while you only tagged notable instances and leave the rest untagged. I try to eliminate the double standards in the tagging system while you preserve and defend those double standards. A system with no double standards will always function better than a system full of them.

At least you agree that adding the "fur" and "furry_*" tags to kemonomimi (something else that only I do) is a good idea.

You are aware the the purpose of the tag system is to allow users to find images containing specific elements and NOT to tell users what elements are present, right?

You are also aware that there are furries that don't have fur on various parts of their body, right? Anthro mice don't have fur on their tail (eg. post #1881245), anthro primates often don't have fur on their ears or chest (eg. post #566287), Rouge the Bat is completely furless from the neck down, etc. Not all furries have furry parts, not all things with furry parts are furries.

i.imgur.com/9Mw8oJZ.gif
Me attempting to read all this.

I don't to make a real apply. It's useless. What I do is always useless.

Does: erect_nipples ---> nipples

only apply when nipples are not under clothing? If yes, then I need to fix some of my edits at and before: /2062243.*\n2062767.*\n2059366/

"erect_nipples" doesn't imply "nipples". I think it's meant to describe nipples that are stiff enough to protrude through clothing. There's no easy way to tell if a fully exposed nipple is stiff or not and we don't tag "nipples" if they're covered.

Too bad "erect_nipples" gets used on a lot of images with fully exposed nipples and it's stupid. I've given up trying to solve that problem seeing as the tag is almost at 60,000 and I'd say at least half those are mistagged on images where there is zero way to tell if the nipple is ACTUALLY erect. Long story short I just use "nipple_bulge" to describe when nipples are poking through clothing.

There's already a tag for that, "covered_nipples."

Simply covering the nipples does not imply they are bulging out of the fabric lol.

There is also the tag "erect_nipples_under_clothes" which implicates the tag "nipple_bulge".

On Danbooru, they changed the examples of erect_nipples to covered_nipples.

Nipples visibly protruding through clothing. Can also apply to clothes that are see-through.

It's doesn't means covered in the sense of you can't see it.